ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[lee_merrill]

You asked how does God know? Because he is smart!

But how can the smartest know what is unknowable? The Open View says free choices are unknowable.

What possible reason would one have to think no one would be saved?

It came down to just Noah once, and without him, all the world would have been destroyed. What if that happened in Adam's day? What if that happened now?

Given enough data, some really amazing projections can be made.

But they're not certain, and here God is certain, it is even his sentence on earth that a remnant will be saved--and only a remnant, until the time of the Gentiles is over, and then all Israel will be saved.

God knows this--it is his sentence, even, and thus his decree, not his observation, nor his calculation, nor his estimate. This I have said before, so "you have been answered" does not mean what you all would have it mean!

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

The context of 1 Cor 15 is resurrection and incorruptible bodies!
Flesh and blood is flesh and blood.

If you think that's all the work you have to do in order to exegete properly, then I'm not surprised that you're MAD.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Simply looking at the context, these are all identical:
3. Therefore, necessarily x will happen.
3. Therefore, x will happen.
3. Therefore, necessarily x must happen.
3. Therefore, x must happen.

Just look at the possibility of adding the concept of "might not happen" to any of these statements... it simply cannot be done and still make sense.

Add anything to a nothing and you still get nothing.

If will not is the same as must not as you contend then must not eat of the tree is the same as will not?

But they did.

P

 

[Philetus]

The innocent blood shed asks when will they have justice.

Nice observation. ... a little while.

 

[patman]

But how can the smartest know what is unknowable? The Open View says free choices are unknowable.


It came down to just Noah once, and without him, all the world would have been destroyed. What if that happened in Adam's day? What if that happened now?


But they're not certain, and here God is certain, it is even his sentence on earth that a remnant will be saved--and only a remnant, until the time of the Gentiles is over, and then all Israel will be saved.

God knows this--it is his sentence, even, and thus his decree, not his observation, nor his calculation, nor his estimate. This I have said before, so "you have been answered" does not mean what you all would have it mean!

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, the future is somewhat knowable. Can't you tell that this is what I believe as an Open Theist? Why wouldn't God be able to figure something out? Just because it isn't settled doesn't mean aspects of the future are unknowable.

Open Theism never said it is impossible to know some the future. Get that idea out of your mind. We don't even agree with that. We say God doesn't know the entire future.

Can't you see the difference? Settled vs knowable are different. But as for what is knowable, there are still some aspects that are not knowable. So even the knowledge of the future is not completely settled.

And believe it or not, I agree. God can decree things as he sees fit. But he did not decree the entire future. We can find examples in scripture where God made something happen. We can also find examples where God changed the future outcome.

It is both, the future is partly settled and partly open. This is open theism, lee.

 

[patman]

Sure I do. It's the same old stuff that's been posted between us for 3 years. I've explained that Jonah knew the Ninevites would repent. Was Jonah smarter than open theism's god? I've explained that God is able to carry out His word, but Hezekiah knew God might save him even though God said, "You will not recover."

Claiming that God is ignorant is not a valid excuse for your position. God is not ignorant, nor is He a man who changes His mind. Now, find a defense for your position which isn't rooted in the idea that God is ignorant; and apply that defense to my position. At that point we'll be done with this subject.

Ignorance implies there is knowledge he is lacking in, Rob. If there is no complete knowledge of the future, there is nothing to be ignorant of.

Now stop messaging me. Find some other sucker to listen to your ignorance.

 

[Philetus]

Ignorance implies there is knowledge he is lacking in, Rob. If there is no complete knowledge of the future, there is nothing to be ignorant of.

Now stop messaging me. Find some other sucker to listen to your ignorance.

Look long and hard........
:crackup:

.............................................


That is the best statement (well said) I have read on 'God being ignorant' of the future! Makes it more clear for me. Thanks.

Ignorance is not stupidity but stupidity is sure ignorant looking. It does provoke some good stuff from the wise once in a while though.

Well said, wise one.

Philetus

 

[patman]

Look long and hard........
:crackup:

.............................................


That is the best statement (well said) I have read on 'God being ignorant' of the future! Makes it more clear for me. Thanks.

Ignorance is not stupidity but stupidity is sure ignorant looking. It does provoke some good stuff from the wise once in a while though.

Well said, wise one.

Philetus

Thank you, kind sir. Glad to see someone can use fellowship week as it should Unlike me...:doh:

 

[Yorzhik]

Yorzhik: Now you can stand on your stump and proclaim, "RobE says God cannot say! Robe says God cannot say! Robe says God cannot say!, Hee Hee!" until the cows come home; but it does not take away from the reality that you set the conditions by proclaiming that the one who hears wills to do the opposite of what is said.

Have a soda!

I don't say "Assume God is OV. In that case is God OV?". I simply give you a prophecy. You are the one that came to the conclusion that God could know but not say. There are other conclusions one could come to.

In the cases of prophecy -

- not every individual who has heard prophecy has determined to do the opposite of what God says.

SO WHAT you person that needs a soda! It doesn't matter if they've heard or not, or if some don't want to thwart God. Certainly there some people out there that don't want to do what God wants them to do. You should know, you're one of them.

RobE continues:

Let's stretch the analysis out to its limits. What, if anything, have you proven here? If this is your dilemna then the waters are shallow. The dilemna is created by your own assumption:

Yorzhik: You will to do the opposite of what God foreknows! Aha, Rob says God cannot say!​

Let's look at the post where you acknowledge that my point is valid: 6557

You state in this post, 6557, that if God were telling you what your will is, then this would be valid.

Guess what, God foretelling how you would willingly place your palms IS God foretelling what your will is.

Right, and that would be a valid answer if God was communicating your will. But that's not what He's doing. He's telling you the state of your palms, not the state of your will.

However, because the original scenario is absurd in nature:

Only RobE's logic that is turned upon itself could come up with saying how someone predicting what they know is absurd. My scenario is the same as any prophecy.

RobE continues:

God would be unable to tell you of His knowledge because it would result in ____________________. Fill in the blank yourself.

Do you see how all of your 'exhibits' rely on your own false assumption and are predicated by your given stipulation that one wills to do the opposite of what one wills(or what God foreknows your will is)?

Why don't you provide your original scenario and disprove my objection?

Here is the scenario: God is sitting across from you at the dinner table. He tells you how your palms will be in 5 seconds. Could one will to have their palms the opposite of whatever God said?

Your objection is that one's palms will be, necessarily, in the state they desire, and God knows ones will/desire from eternity past. But the scenario is set up in such a way that God cannot say what He knows because saying would be irrational in combination with exhaustive foreknowledge. Correct?

 

[Yorzhik]

Simply looking at the context, these are all identical:
3. Therefore, necessarily x will happen.
3. Therefore, x will happen.
3. Therefore, necessarily x must happen.
3. Therefore, x must happen.

Just look at the possibility of adding the concept of "might not happen" to any of these statements... it simply cannot be done and still make sense.

Sorry, I just don't see how I will vs. I must can be the same.

To make it clear to us, and to prove your point; just add the concept of "might not happen" to any of these:
3. Therefore, necessarily x will happen.
3. Therefore, x will happen.
3. Therefore, necessarily x must happen.
3. Therefore, x must happen.

Then take whichever/all that you added "might not happen" to and add it to the end of the syllogism. It should make sense and we'll all see what you see.

 

[Clete]

I was born with a sinful nature, through no choice of my own.

"Original Sin" is a false doctrine and always has been.
Christ's death on the cross takes care of that for every last man woman and child that has or will ever exist (Romans 5). No one will ever be punished for anything other than their own sin.

Further, God Himself says that people are not punished for the sins of their fathers and in fact that He hates the whole idea...

Jeremiah 31:28 And it shall come to pass, that as I have watched over them to pluck up, to break down, to throw down, to destroy, and to afflict, so I will watch over them to build and to plant, says the LORD. 29 In those days they shall say no more:


‘ The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge.’

30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.


Ezekiel 18:1 The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, 2 “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:

‘ The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3 “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.​

If I don't trust Christ, I'll be rightly punished with eternal death because of the sin
that dwells in me.

You will be punished for the sins you have chosen to commit. Those are the only one's that God can justly punish.

I can try until I'm blue in the face, but I cannot act righteously
in my flesh.

This is false. If the Samaritan (an unbeliever) could act rightly, so can you.

That isn't to say you could be righteous enough to deserve heaven. Your nature does prevent that, but once again, that much of the problem was taken care of at the cross. People are not sent to Hell for the sins of their fathers but for their very own sin.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Philosophers have asked this question, David Hume for example. I think we do know reality, but what reality we know is limited to our perceptions.

Not so.

There is such a thing as divine revelation and we can know that such things are true without the luxury of any ability whatsoever to perceive them.

T may have not been done freely, but if one assumes that it is done freely and one believes one could have done something else, then one believes that what one has done was done freely.

You aren't understanding my point. Your beliefs aren't free either! If God's knowledge is exhaustive and therefore we are not free (as you seem to be conceding) then how do you get around the fact that God's exhaustive knowledge includes what we will or will not believe about what we could and could not have chosen?

Do you see my point? If God's foreknowledge is exhaustive then if we believe we are free its only because we could not have believed otherwise. In other words, our beliefs fit just as squarely as a definition of T as anything else does.

You have a point here. It is the same point that is often used to refute Calvinism and predestination.

Right! As free will goes, so goes justice, righteousness and love because those basic Christian concepts are based on free will. If free will is an illusion, Christianity itself is an illusion too.

The actual matter is, are we free if one can look beyond the horizon, see that it may be not what seems real. Some might say, if one 'thinks outside the box' one sees that freedom is not complete. Now, what you have added about the nature of God is your opinion of what is Divine justice.

It is not my opinion! I didn't right the Bible! The Bible is very explicit about what justice and righteousness looks like and it couldn't be more clear on the point that God Himself is just and righteous. So much so that it proclaims justice and righteousness to be the very foundation of God's authority. The concepts of justice, righteousness and love have been very clearly defined for us in Scripture and God's character is either consistent with those definitions or He is not. It is not a matter of opinion.

I know you are familiar with the settled view, you know that many Christian theologians believe in predestination and many more hold to some version of the 'settled view. Consider what I am saying is something a little different and perhaps it is a better argument to make to one who holds the settled view.

All I understand you to be doing is redefining T. Instead of T="Joe will mow his lawn on Saturday." you've altered it to T="Joe will believe he is freely choosing to mow his lawn on Saturday."

And my rebuttal is simply that Joe then could not have believed otherwise.

How am I wrong?

For the propose of this debate, I agree with you here. We are judged by our thoughts as well as actions. Yes, one can assert that Jones not think freely before he acted, that Jones is limited by fate. The point here is you are raising good questions. I would rather get to the real matter and debate the issue of free will, rather than debating the open vs. settled view.

I am sorry that I am not the clear thinker I was ten years ago. I was once able to argue my position much better than I can today. However, as the prosecutor said to the witness making this same claim, “the tribunal cannot know how you once were, they have only your word.”

My attempt here is to have a bit of discourse on this idea that if God has foreknowledge, then does His foreknowledge shrinks our freedom. I agree it does.
Kat

Cool! It sounds like we are on basically the same page here.

The thing that confuses me a bit though is the fact that debating the issue of free will and debating the open vs. settled view sounds like pretty much the same debate to me. What exactly about free will do you wish to debate?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Sorry, I just don't see how I will vs. I must can be the same.

Turn it around then and perhaps you'll see it.

Assume for the moment that there is something that you cannot not do. Take growing older, for example.

Will you grow older?

Must you grow older?

See? The same!

You will do that which you must do.

If anything your confusion comes from equating the word "will" with the phrase "will choose". This is the error that RobE makes intentionally. It amounts to question begging because the issue of choosing is precisely what is being debated. You don't get to assume it in order to make your argument.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

... as for what is knowable, there are still some aspects that are not knowable.

Such as free choices?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

Such as free choices?

Blessings,
Lee

Some free choices are totally knowable and or predictable. The choices that are unknowable are the ones that we have not made.

Face it Lee, God can know many aspects about the future, including freewill choices without the future being settled.

 

[godrulz]

Clete, Muz, godrulz are non-traditional (and correct) on 'original sin'.

Exhaustive definite foreknowledge and free will is the issue, not just knowing some things that are predictable or determined and brought about by God's ability.

 

[RobE]

Guess what, God foretelling how you would willingly place your palms IS God foretelling what your will is.

Right, and that would be a valid answer if God was communicating your will. But that's not what He's doing. He's telling you the state of your palms, not the state of your will.

However your will directs the placement of your palms. End of discussion.

 

[RobE]

If anything your confusion comes from equating the word "will" with the phrase "will choose". This is the error that RobE makes intentionally. It amounts to question begging because the issue of choosing is precisely what is being debated. You don't get to assume it in order to make your argument.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Just as it would be invalid to assume foreknowledge of free choices in debating the validity of foreknowing future actions such as, "You will answer the phone tommorrow at 9." Balderdash.

The question which is being debated is the foreknowing of free choices. Necessity doesn't transfer to future, contingent choices as the proof proves. However, the proof makes an error in transferring necessity, based on past necessary conditions, to future unnecessary events to establish that you must not do otherwise.

When is the last time you did other(wise) than what you did?

You must always do what you will do and must never do otherwise. How else could you say you did it or will do it? I'm not talking about fate here. I'm speaking of what will come about in reality.

Foreknowledge of what you will do doesn't create the condition of never doing otherwise. It's inherent in the assumption: Tommorow you will(<====This word inherently excludes doing otherwise) answer the phone at 9.

 

[Philetus]

However your will directs the placement of your palms. End of discussion.

Really?

:jump:

 

[Philetus]

Just as it would be invalid to assume foreknowledge of free choices in debating the validity of foreknowing future actions such as, "You will answer the phone tommorrow at 9." Balderdash.

The question which is being debated is the foreknowing of free choices. Necessity doesn't transfer to future, contingent choices as the proof proves. However, the proof makes an error in transferring necessity, based on past necessary conditions, to future unnecessary events to establish that you must not do otherwise.

When is the last time you did other(wise) than what you did?

You must always do what you will do and must never do otherwise. How else could you say you did it or will do it? I'm not talking about fate here. I'm speaking of what will come about in reality.

Foreknowledge of what you will do doesn't create the condition of never doing otherwise. It's inherent in the assumption: Tommorow you will(<====This word inherently excludes doing otherwise) answer the phone at 9.

When is the last time you said "tomorrow I will ....." and then didn't do it? Either you changed your mind or a force outside your own will made you do other than what you said or intended you would do. Otherwise you are talking about 'fate' and you have only the illusion of freedom to make any choice whatsoever.

If that never happened to you stop talking about reality until you get a handle on it.

Philetus