ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

It's not certain, if free choices are unknowable, and if repentance is a free choice.


So then what on earth is he doing predicting a remnant will be saved?!

Blessings,
Lee

Now God is 'predicting a remnant'?

Honestly Lee, do you trust God to do the right, holy, just thing in the future?

Philetus

Self destruction seems to be contagious among the settled. :hammer:

 

[Philetus]

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 do otherwise that it is a must.

Have you been playing in the medicine cabinet again?

Rob assumes that anything said about the future (especially if God is being quoted, correctly or not) is a foregone conclusion as a certainty.

I would love to predict his future right now but all these little stars keep replacing my words. I knew that was going to happen. Dang.

Anyway,

RobE: the issue of choosing is decided by the given which precludes choosing to do otherwise whether foreknown or not.

RobE just stated a classic argument for total determinism/predestination (Hilston would have been proud at one time but I hear he changed his mind) so we are back to square one where RobE was trying to have his cake and eat it too: free will and EDF.

Blow out your candles, RobE, and eat your cake. There's a good chance you will get another one next year. I just know it.

Philetus

 

[lee_merrill]

Now God is 'predicting a remnant'?

What I meant is if you have a remnant, why say "there will be a remnant"? But no, he is not predicting, he knows, this is even "his sentence on earth."

But how can this be known, if free choices are unknowable?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

Did God imply that He didn't know? Or was there another purpose for asking the question?

Right, so why not apply the same principle to verses you mention? Given that "know" has several meanings.

Cite?

Deuteronomy 1:33 ... who went ahead of you on your journey, in fire by night and in a cloud by day, to search out places for you to camp and to show you the way you should go.

So then we should expect God to say "now I found a place for a camp"?

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.

Here's some context:

Genesis 15:8-9 But Abram said, "O Sovereign Lord, how can I know that I will gain possession of it?" So the Lord said to him, "Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon."

So God's favor depends on God alone, and his blessing is dependent on him alone, so God knew here that he would bless Abraham, and also when he tested him.

No, it indicates an increase in relationship.

So then if God knows all about us right now, then that's more relationship that if God doesn't know as much?

 

[Philetus]

What I meant is if you have a remnant, why say "there will be a remnant"? But no, he is not predicting, he knows, this is even "his sentence on earth."

But how can this be known, if free choices are unknowable?

Blessings,
Lee

I have a rock.
I will have a rock.
I know I will have a rock because I'm the God of Rock!
No one can take my rock from me.
That rocks your world, I know.
You are faced with a choice:
Between a rock and a hard place

:guitar:

 

[Philetus]

And God added to His rock daily ........

 

[godrulz]

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.

Even in the OT, Israel was the people of God, but that does not mean every single born Jew was in covenant relationship with God. Some individuals went after false gods and were no longer part of the corporate elect. National Israel can be restored/saved without every single Jew being saved unto eternal life (hence a remnant, not every person alive).

 

[Philetus]

Even in the OT, Israel was the people of God, but that does not mean every single born Jew was in covenant relationship with God. Some individuals went after false gods and were no longer part of the corporate elect. National Israel can be restored/saved without every single Jew being saved unto eternal life (hence a remnant, not every person alive).

Well, yeah, duh.

Now state it so Lee can grasp it.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Even in the OT, Israel was the people of God, but that does not mean every single born Jew was in covenant relationship with God. Some individuals went after false gods and were no longer part of the corporate elect. National Israel can be restored/saved without every single Jew being saved unto eternal life (hence a remnant, not every person alive).

So much for once a Jew always a Jew.
:chuckle:

 

[godrulz]

Well, yeah, duh.

Now state it so Lee can grasp it.

Philetus

Some covenants were conditional and some were unconditional.

 

[Philetus]

Some covenants were conditional and some were unconditional.

Somehow I don't think that will make Lee's day.

Nobody has addressed the question of remnant to Lee's satisfaction.

Do you see mutable 'remnants' referred to in scripture as there are several covenants?

 

[lee_merrill]

National Israel can be restored/saved without every single Jew being saved unto eternal life (hence a remnant, not every person alive).

Yes, but they can all refuse, as in Noah's day. Or maybe not:

Romans 11:5 And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal."

So this is God reserving them, note, not observing them.

Rom. 11:5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

Not chosen by discovery! or a fortunate few who decided to repent.

And if God wants to save all Israel ... who's to stop Him?

They would have no choice, eh what?

Some covenants were conditional and some were unconditional.

And this is unconditional:

Romans 9:28 "For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

The population is now greater than it was in the days of Noah, so there is more likely that a remnant would believe vs not a single person would come to faith. God's love and power is greater than you think?

I doubt Philetus means that they have no choice or that every single Jew will be saved in the future.

 

[patman]

WHAT IF The future IS settled?

Just work with me here.... what if it is?

WHAT IF conditions ARE possible even though the future is SETTLED?

If that is true, and all prophecy is conditional, how can you settled future/settled future knowledge believers be so sure God WILL save you from hell?

You might say "As a christian I already meet my end of the agreement," but I would ask you:

What IF God didn't feel the need to tell the whole story?

What would that mean?

Even with a SETTLED future, there are no guarantees.

Why? It seems accepted among the S.V.'ers here that God doesn't reveal everything, so you can't even trust that your salvation doesn't have a hidden aspect that is required.

:noway:

 

[Philetus]

The population is now greater than it was in the days of Noah, so there is more likely that a remnant would believe vs not a single person would come to faith. God's love and power is greater than you think?

I doubt Philetus means that they have no choice or that every single Jew will be saved in the future.

He doesn't!

The point is that God is free to shape His future anyway He chooses and can include or exclude anyone He wants to include or exclude on what ever grounds He chooses. What we have in scripture is the witness that God is faithful and has made a provision for inclusion which requires response and relationship. That is why we trust God and not a settled future. If the future is settled in meticulous detail, what's to trust? It might as well have already happened and we play no significant roll.

God could save everybody, so we have difficulty even questioning 'a remnant' especially in Open Theism. What we have is a whole crowd of past witnesses and the present witness of the church in the World. It is being added to as individuals are saved. The question "Will the Son of Man find faith on the earth" at the time of His return does not preclude the already existent 'remnant'.

A remnant does exist and will exist. It isn't a matter of odds. It's a matter of trust in the past examples and the present witness of the church and the hope and confidence we have in God.

Philetus

 

[RobE]

Have you been playing in the medicine cabinet again?

Rob assumes that anything said about the future (especially if God is being quoted, correctly or not) is a foregone conclusion as a certainty.

I assume every given in a logical proof is a certainty. Given A, not ~A. The law of the excluded middle requires it to be so. Look it up.

RobE just stated a classic argument for total determinism/predestination (Hilston would have been proud at one time but I hear he changed his mind) so we are back to square one where RobE was trying to have his cake and eat it too: free will and EDF.

It's Standford's argument I'm discussing here, not mine. It's the proof you love which naturally proclaims this. My position says that the future is contingent and not necessary.

I'm sure the obvious fact, that the given in the Stanford argument combined with the acceptance of its proofs(which yields determinism in all possible worlds) eludes you. Foreknowledge or no.

See, the idea that you 'will do' A carries with it that you 'won't do' otherwise. According to your ideas this means that you can't do otherwise(the error of your thinking) and never act freely.

Open Theisms reliance on determinism is absolute and its kindred to supralapsarianism is once again established through its own arguments.

 

[RobE]

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

How so?

 

[RobE]

Notice that in the first one, there is an implicit conditional, which is given as a command.

Isn't it fair to say there are implicit conditionals every time God speaks?

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.

This doesn't explain God's choice of Abraham, though. Out of the millions of individuals on Earth why was Abraham chosen?

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

We still have "all nations will be blessed". Is this a conditional as well or has God certain knowledge of His own intentions?

 

[Philetus]

I assume every given in a logical proof is a certainty. Given A, not ~A. The law of the excluded middle requires it to be so. Look it up.



It's Standford's argument I'm discussing here, not mine. It's the proof you love which naturally proclaims this. My position says that the future is contingent and not necessary.

I'm sure the obvious fact, that the given in the Stanford argument combined with the acceptance of its proofs(which yields determinism in all possible worlds) eludes you. Foreknowledge or no.

See, the idea that you 'will do' A carries with it that you 'won't do' otherwise. According to your ideas this means that you can't do otherwise(the error of your thinking) and never act freely.

Open Theisms reliance on determinism is absolute and its kindred to supralapsarianism is once again established through its own arguments.

I don't live in 'all possible worlds' like some. Just this one.

BTW, the conference call went off without a hitch. But, my later appointment with Jim didn't happen. I'll find out why he didn't show and reschedule. Foreknowledge or no ...I did otherwise. I didn't meet with Jim as I had planned and told my wife I knew I would; I had coffee and read a book instead.

There is no middle ground. Open or shut. Known or not known. See our postings in part one of this thread 2005-2006.

The given isn't a given until it's a past. You don't know the difference between the past, the present and the future. You want to make ‘the will’ absolute. You must to preserve your view. But ‘the will’ is not absolute as long as there is more than one will at work in any situation. The will of one can be in conflict with another. And even if two agree circumstances may change due to contingencies beyond their control. They may have to do otherwise.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Isn't it fair to say there are implicit conditionals every time God speaks?

NO. For example: The second coming isn't conditional. If God can be trusted (I believe He can) the second coming will happen irregardless of any condition.

This doesn't explain God's choice of Abraham, though. Out of the millions of individuals on Earth why was Abraham chosen?

It's a tough job but somebody has to do it.
Why Bethlehem? Why Mary? Why me, oh Lord?
God is free to choose. Bethlehem had no choice. Mary gave consent. As for me and this discussion ... I'm still not trusting you.
If Abraham had not been obedient God would have chosen another and we might have been talking about Joe Shmoe as the father of the Jews.
God could have done otherwise had Abe not responded. More than one will was involved in the covenant agreement.

We still have "all nations will be blessed". Is this a conditional as well or has God certain knowledge of His own intentions?

God has absolute knowledge of His own intentions! And contingencies may mess with the particulars but not the ultimate outcome. All the nations will be blessed through Abraham, not Joe Shmoe.