ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Philetus

New member
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.

Is that because we can't really make free choices or plan ahead or because it is just 'balderdash' to assume foreknowledge?

I have a conference call scheduled for today at 1:00 pm. I plan to answer the phone; take the call and conduct business. It has worked in the past and there is no reason to assume it will not work today in spite of a million things that could go wrong and prevent it from happening. Contingencies are a part of reality. If, for instance, the connection can't be made we will just reschedule. The only way God could 'foreknow' with exactitude what will happen today a 1 pm is if He plans/intendeds to intervene and MAKE it one way or another.

Philetus
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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.
You are mind numbingly stupid Rob! Seriously! What benefit could you possibly be deriving from participating in this discussion?

"You will answer the phone tomorrow at 9.", or any other definition of T is not assumed to be free in any of the syllogisms we have used. The premise is simply that the action of T is foreknown, WHICH IS YOUR OWN POSITION you blithering idiot!

The question which is being debated is the foreknowing of free choices.
No, you idiotic Neanderthal! What is being debated is WHETHER or not a foreknown action is free. How can you substantively participate in a dicussion when you can't even accurately articulate the topic of that discussion?!

Necessity doesn't transfer to future, contingent choices as the proof proves.
One stupid comment from you after another!

If the proof proves it then it proves it! Do you actually believe that just because you proclaim the conclusion of a proof false that is it therefore false? Is that really the way you think this is supposed to work?

If it doesn't prove it then demonstrate the flaw in the argument without begging the question. The length of this thread is itself proof that you are completely incapable of doing that so why don't you just go find a new hobby and stop torturing us with your stupidity.

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.
The necessity is presupposed in premise one you mouth breathing fool!

When is the last time you did other(wise) than what you did?
You are here applying the necessity of the past to the future. I am not free to change what I have already done. Freedom doesn't require that I do otherwise than what I do because that would be a contradiction. I can only act. I cannot act and act differently at the same time. Freedom requires that when it came time to make the decision to act that there was more than one real option from which to choose.

You must always do what you will do and must never do otherwise.
Then God is unjust and therefore does not exist and we are all fools of the highest order for believing in ghosts.

The point here is that, if I am free, what I will do is not yet determined. If, on the other hand, what I will do is foreknown then it is determined and I am not free.

How else could you say you did it or will do it?
You can say I did it because of the necessity of the past but you cannot say I will do it because what you will do is not yet determined (if free will is real). This is why God's foreknowledge would destroy free will.

I'm not talking about fate here. I'm speaking of what will come about in reality.
Of course you're talking about fate. You just don't like the connotation.

Foreknowledge of what you will do doesn't create the condition of never doing otherwise.
We've proven over and over again that it does exactly that. You simply too stupid to realize that your insisting otherwise doesn't do a thing to refute the proofs we presented.

It's inherent in the assumption: Tommorow you will(<====This word inherently excludes doing otherwise) answer the phone at 9.
Precisely! If the statement "Tomorrow you will..." can be stated absolutely, as is the case if God foreknows it, then doing otherwise is excluded and we are not free, by definition.

This one line is the whole reason I decided to waste my time responding to this idiotic post.

You just conceded the entire debate, Rob. You can go find something else to do now.

:wave2:

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Philetus

New member
This one line is the whole reason I decided to waste my time responding to this idiotic post.

You just conceded the entire debate, Rob. You can go find something else to do now.

:wave2:

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete's whole post is right on target!

But I'm willing to bet that Rob can't 'go find something else to do' because that would destroy his whole argument and throw him into such a mental tail-spin that he would never recover. At least we are keeping him off the streets.

I fear we are going to have to get out the whips and chains on this one.

BTW, Clete, do not be weary in well doing ... some still do get it!

Philetus
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
I'd like to turn a corner, here, and talk a bit more about other aspect of OVT that I think are reflected in Scripture quite clearly. Perhaps the most clear is the relationship God wishes to engage in with His creation. Or relationships.

I think we can all agree that God desires to have a people to Himself (Eph 1:4), and that seems to be God's intention in the garden, when He commands Adam and Eve to be fruitful, multiple, and fill the earth, and as He walks with them in the cool of the day.

But God, also knowing that a true relationship requires that rejection be possible, made a way for Adam and Eve to do so, and then commanded them NOT to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, a warning with a severe consequence attached.

And as long as they chose to refrain from doing so, they freely chose to be God's people.

Of course, we all know that they did eat, and have borne the consequences, not only for themselves, but for all the generations that would follow them: death. And death awaits us all.

But God still desires relationship with those He has created, and throughout Scripture, we see God's relationship to individuals, to nations, to kings and prophets and priests, and how the free choices they make impact that relationship.

And this is the natural reading of Scripture. If we set aside for a moment the presupposition of predestination and exhaustive and definite foreknowledge, there is nothing in the narrative of the OT to suggest that these things exist. If anything, God is alternately frustrated and pleased with choices that individuals make, causing him to repent from doing things, and to engage in covenant with those who believe in Him.

Perhaps the clearest example is the story where Abraham is told to take Isaac to a mountain to sacrifice him. Abraham takes his son and his servants to the foot of the mountain, and then takes only his son with the necessary provisions onto the mountain. And just as Abraham is about to strike, God stays his hand through an angel.

And then God says an amazing thing: "for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

God makes it clear that He has gained knowledge about Abraham, specifically that he truly fears God.

And this is the nature of relationship. Engaging each other to learn about each other even as we engage in new things.

I've been married for 23 years. I know my wife pretty well. But there are times when she encounters new situations that I still learn new things about her because she's learning those same things about herself. That's what makes relationship interesting.

And God desires the same things. He wants to be delighted as we discover things about ourselves, develop new thoughts and engage new situations so that we can discover and renew our hearts and minds.

And all of this requires a truly free will without exhaustive, definite foreknowledge. IF EDF were fact, then God could not say, "Now I know...", because He would have always known. The statement would have no meaning in its context.

There are countless other narratives where we have similar relational engagements where OVT is preferred over EDF, and I'll continue to post these from time to time.

Muz
 

lee_merrill

New member
And then God says an amazing thing: "for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

God makes it clear that He has gained knowledge about Abraham, specifically that he truly fears God.
Then when God said "Where are you?" he didn't know where Adam was? or Abel?

When he went to look for places for Israel to camp, he didn't know of one before he went to look then?

This is alas, typical of Open Theist exegesis, and bringing the animals to Adam to see what he would name them, and God saying "now I know" to Abraham need not imply lack of factual knowledge, any more than these others need imply that. There are other senses of the word "know" in Hebrew, and then with the sense of intimate knowledge (isn't that relationship?) these passages fit with general declarations--invariably ignored by the Open View--that God knows the heart, and is not finding out about it.

And this is the nature of relationship.
It's part of human relationships, but not a necessary part, "then I will know even as I am known," this indicates a great increase in knowledge, thus a great decrease in relationship?

Blessings,
Lee
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Then when God said "Where are you?" he didn't know where Adam was? or Abel?

Did God imply that He didn't know? Or was there another purpose for asking the question? I often ask my children questions that I already know the answers to in order to instruct them. And I believe this is the case with God, here.

When he went to look for places for Israel to camp, he didn't know of one before he went to look then?

Cite?

This is alas, typical of Open Theist exegesis, and bringing the animals to Adam to see what he would name them, and God saying "now I know" to Abraham need not imply lack of factual knowledge, any more than these others need imply that.

Well, I'm certainly open to a proper exegesis of this text which explains God's statement. I certainly don't see any.

However, it is typical of OVT exegesis to believe the text as it reads in context ,rather than having to explain things away as settled viewers are wont to do.


It's part of human relationships, but not a necessary part, "then I will know even as I am known," this indicates a great increase in knowledge, thus a great decrease in relationship?

No, it indicates an increase in relationship. That was my point: As we "get to know" one another, relationship grows. And gaining knowledge IS a necessary part of relationship.

Muz
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
However your will directs the placement of your palms. End of discussion.

Until the will acts and the palm turns, it is not an object of certain, remote, exhaustive foreknowledge as to what you will do. You might or might not turn your hands. There is no causation to allow a mechanism for foreknowledge. It is possible, not certain, before the choice is made and known as such.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Such as repentance, for people not born yet? Then how can God know a remnant will be saved?

Blessings,
Lee

What are the odds, based, on history, that no one will ever follow God and all will reject Him? What are the odds that God cannot draw, convince, and convict a generic (not exact #) remnant over time (that no one will believe in a trillion years despite God's influence and self-evident track record of always having a people for Himself)?


Odds= zip
 

patman

Active member
Such as repentance, for people not born yet? Then how can God know a remnant will be saved?

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, once again, because he is really really smart. It isn't hard to know what our tendencies are after thousands of years in existence. Plus it isn't hard for God to understand the extent of his interaction....:doh:

Why don't you get that?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
God predicted/predestined that He would have a people for Himself (Israel/Church/remnant of Israel in the future). Given enough time and influence, it is certain that some will eventually respond despite many rejecting His persuasion (not coercion). We have 1000s of years of history to support the certainty of this eventually happening. It is unimaginable to think no one will ever respond to Him in light of the masses that have done so over the centuries.
 

Philetus

New member
God already has a remnant. He knew He had one when He said He would save them. And if God wants to save all Israel ... who's to stop Him?

Move on, Lee.
 

RobE

New member
Precisely! If the statement "Tomorrow you will..." can be stated absolutely, as is the case if God foreknows it, then doing otherwise is excluded and we are not free, by definition.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The proof does state it as absolute because it is the given. Foreknowledge is superfluous to the argument. It's just put in there as window dressing.

Do you see how this doesn't prove anything about foreknowledge?

In other words, the proof......

.....amounts to nonsense because the issue of choosing is decided by the given which precludes choosing to do otherwise whether foreknown or not.

We could skip the entire scenario altogether:

Given: You will answer the phone tommorrow at 9.

(1) You must answer the phone tommorrow at 9 otherwise it could not be said that you will.
(2) Therefore, you must not do otherwise than answer the phone at 9.
(3) If you must not(which is the same as cannot to some of you) do otherwise, then you don't do it freely(definition of free)

Conclusion: If you must answer the phone tommorrow at 9, you don't do it freely.

The given establishes the end result. It still requires a disjointing of correct thinking in #1. There is no proof that if you will answer the phone at 9, it is a must.
 
Last edited:

RobE

New member
Perhaps the clearest example is the story where Abraham is told to take Isaac to a mountain to sacrifice him. Abraham takes his son and his servants to the foot of the mountain, and then takes only his son with the necessary provisions onto the mountain. And just as Abraham is about to strike, God stays his hand through an angel.

And then God says an amazing thing: "for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

God makes it clear that He has gained knowledge about Abraham, specifically that he truly fears God.

And this is the nature of relationship. Engaging each other to learn about each other even as we engage in new things.

We see that the prophecy of this event came even before Isaac was born.

Genesis 12:1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you
;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you
."​

God blessed Abraham for apparently no reason. Was Abraham better than all those around him? Why did God call Abraham away from his home into a foreign land?

Genesis 22:15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."​

In my opinion it's because God knew Abraham would be willing to obey Him in all things--- "16.....because you have done this and have not witheld your son......"

Until that time God had not revealed the "why" of Abraham's choosing.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
We see that the prophecy of this event came even before Isaac was born.

Genesis 12:1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you
;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you
."​

God blessed Abraham for apparently no reason. Was Abraham better than all those around him? Why did God call Abraham away from his home into a foreign land?

Genesis 22:15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."​

In my opinion it's because God knew Abraham would be willing to obey Him in all things--- "16.....because you have done this and have not witheld your son......"

Until that time God had not revealed the "why" of Abraham's choosing.

Notice that in the first one, there is an implicit conditional, which is given as a command. Had Abraham not left his country, his people, and gone to a land where God showed him, then Abraham would not have received what God promised. I think probably inherent in that statement is leaving the gods of those people, as well, and Genesis 22 is the final test, where God discovers whether Abraham fully fears and trusts God or not.

Thus, we have "Now I know", and the change from "Leave your country" to "I swear by myself." The final is the fulfillment of the promise based upon the precondition of leaving given in chapter 12.

Muz
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Exactly! Now do you get it?

What I get is that you're clueless! Your proof, which you intended to support your point, absolutely destroys it!

What's even funnier is that you don't get it!

You just don't understand modal logic.

Muz
 

lee_merrill

New member
Given enough time and influence, it is certain that some will eventually respond despite many rejecting His persuasion (not coercion).
It's not certain, if free choices are unknowable, and if repentance is a free choice.

Philetus said:
God already has a remnant.
So then what on earth is he doing predicting a remnant will be saved?!

Blessings,
Lee
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top