ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[dale]

Closed.

I can accept that you are ignorant, but I cannot accept that God pre-planned you that way.

I also accept that I am ignorant--of many things.

You cannot accept that God pre-planned me that way? What do you think... I was supposed to come right out of the womb knowing everything? I honestly don't think that's what you're trying to say, so, what's the real question?

 

[Stripe]

I also accept that I am ignorant--of many things. You cannot accept that God pre-planned me that way? What do you think... I was supposed to come right out of the womb knowing everything? I honestly don't think that's what you're trying to say, so, what's the real question?

I never asked a question. I stated that I cannot believe that God would create someone to be ignorant.

 

[dale]

Yup.

But even that can be contingent upon man's actions.

Jeremiah 18:7 “The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 “if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 “And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 “if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

I think it was Condescension. To teach man. Just like when God asked Adam, "where are you."

I think it matters. (certainly in the contest of this debate it matters)

Maybe. If someone can convince me it matters, I suspect I'll get off the fence.

 

[themuzicman]

OK, go over to Exodus 32. God sends Moses away, so that God may burn in His wrath and destroy Israel. Moses, however, pleads for Israel, and the bible says that God relented about what He said He would do.

Clearly God responds to the actions of men.

Muz

 

[dale]

I never asked a question. I stated that I cannot believe that God would create someone to be ignorant.

Yup, my bad, you certainly did not ask a question. Are you sticking with that statement then, that you "...cannot believe that God would create someone to be ignorant"? If so, then I guess I have to go back to "What do you think... I was supposed to come right out of the womb knowing everything?"

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I think it was Condescension. To teach man. Just like when God asked Adam, "where are you."

If that were true we wouldn't have dozens of real-life examples of God relenting, repenting, changing His mind throughout the entire Bible (Muz just gave one such example).

Therefore, I reject your assertion based on the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore...
Why would God need to "teach man", if God had already settled man's future in advance? Why do you need to "teach" what has already been set in stone? :think:

 

[godrulz]

OK, go over to Exodus 32. God sends Moses away, so that God may burn in His wrath and destroy Israel. Moses, however, pleads for Israel, and the bible says that God relented about what He said He would do.

Clearly God responds to the actions of men.

Muz

Prayer changes things, by God's sovereign choice. It is not just an exercise to change us. Hezekiah is a good example of God not lying, but changing His mind in response to prayer. We should take this at face value and not make it figurative to retain a preconceived theology (hyper-immutability).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I think it's important that we be precise as possible.

God declares the end from the beginning.

And furthermore, let's not stretch verses too far. A verse regarding God's anger toward Israel shouldn't be blown up into meaning far more than what is actually being said.

Isaiah 46:1 Bel bows down, Nebo stoops; Their idols were on the beasts and on the cattle. Your carriages were heavily loaded, A burden to the weary beast. 2 They stoop, they bow down together; They could not deliver the burden, But have themselves gone into captivity. 3 “Listen to Me, O house of Jacob, And all the remnant of the house of Israel, Who have been upheld by Me from birth, Who have been carried from the womb: 4 Even to your old age, I am He, And even to gray hairs I will carry you! I have made, and I will bear; Even I will carry, and will deliver you. 5 “To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal And compare Me, that we should be alike? 6 They lavish gold out of the bag, And weigh silver on the scales; They hire a goldsmith, and he makes it a god; They prostrate themselves, yes, they worship. 7 They bear it on the shoulder, they carry it And set it in its place, and it stands; From its place it shall not move. Though one cries out to it, yet it cannot answer Nor save him out of his trouble. 8 “Remember this, and show yourselves men; Recall to mind, O you transgressors. 9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’ 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it. 12 “Listen to Me, you stubborn-hearted, Who are far from righteousness: 13 I bring My righteousness near, it shall not be far off; My salvation shall not linger.​

Also interesting to note is how God operates His counsel.... He says He will "bring it to pass".

God need not settle the future an eternity ago to bring His counsel to pass, He can bring things to pass because He is capable. He is able.

Yours is an example of reading something into the verses versus taking something from the verses. The verses speak of God being The God, "none like Me" who, unlike the idols being spoke of, does know and make certain the future.

Declaring the end from the beginning,

-makes officially (not qualifiably) known everything
​

And from ancient times things that are not yet done,

-God's knowledge of things to come not yet done-the future
​

Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’

-God not subject to other's for His will - no contingencies on His creatures
​

11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.

-God ordains Cyrus to deliver His people from the Chaldeans; Cyrus has no libertarian free will to do otherwise (see below); Cyrus, living in a land far from Babylon knew nothing of God's people in Babylon, yet God will use Him to fulfill His secret will.
​

Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.

-Words spoken by God through the prophet would indeed certainly occur. He decreed it. He will make it happen. He had a reason for it. He does it. While God has much in His purposes that are not in His prophecies, God has nothing in His prophecies other than His purposes. God does not say, "I will see to it that it happens", God says, "I will do it".
​

 

[dale]

If that were true we wouldn't have dozens of real-life examples of God relenting, repenting, changing His mind throughout the entire Bible (Muz just gave one such example).

We wouldn't have dozens of real-life examples of God teaching man?

Furthermore...
Why would God need to "teach man", if God had already settled man's future in advance? Why do you need to "teach" what has already been set in stone? :think:

Ummm... because it was "set in stone" that man would learn by being taught?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

God ordains Cyrus to deliver His people from the Chaldeans

AMR, you don't believe that God ordains anything! Remember?

You believe that everything simply always was.

God didn't make, create, ordain, elect, or anything else according to you, at least that is what you have claimed in the recent past.

However, if you like.... maybe you could take this time to clarify. Was there a point in time when God (from His perspective) ordained Cyrus to deliver His people from the Chaldeans?

And please note, I ask this question as if from God's perspective, not from our perspective (closing your favorite loophole).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ummm... because it was "set in stone" that man would learn by being taught?

If all of time is settled in advance man cannot "learn" anything. Only the appearance of learning would take place.

In a settled environment man would simply be acting out all that was already settled.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yup.

But even that can be contingent upon man's actions.

Jeremiah 18:7 “The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 “if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 “And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 “if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

I think it matters. (certainly in the contest of this debate it matters)

You read too much into versus out of the text using the open theist's "relenting/repenting" canard.

These verses contain God’s decree through which all of God's will towards man is executed. These are conditions that operate according to God's predestinated plan for persons. Do this, get that. Do that, get this. Nothing here implies God is somehow "changing His mind", for His will never changes. The relationship between the creature(s) and God changes as they move from one walk of life to another. The person(s) move to God's goodness, they fall under God's love, the person(s) move to their own wills, they fall under God's wrath. God's love and His wrath remain constant towards their objects (His creatures). What changes are the creatures, not God.

 

[godrulz]

Is. 46 and 48 emphasize God's ABILITY to declare and bring things to pass in some cases (specific context of prophecies of judgment, etc...not applicable to who will win the 2010 Superbowl). It does not talk about supposed exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all future moral and mundane choices. It supports one of two motifs that God settles some vs all of the future by His ability (not foreknowledge). It cannot be used as a proof text and extrapolated to mean that God has EDF and settles all the future in advance (determinism that contradicts self-evident free will). The way He knows some things is that He brings them to pass, not just simple foreknowledge (Arminian) or determinism (Calvinism). This is explicit in the text (without a filter of preconceived theology).

 

[godrulz]

You read too much into versus out of the text using the open theist's "relenting/repenting" canard.

The strength of the Open view hermeneutic is that we can take God's self-revelation at face value (two motifs vs one literal and one figurative). We do not have to rationalize away simple statements to retain a preconceived theology. In your view, God could not express the opposite truths other than the way He has (i.e. how could God reveal that He can change His mind in response to changing contingencies other than the way He has? If you cannot take His statements literally, there is not grammatical way to say the opposite truth).

 

[dale]

If all of time is settled in advance man cannot "learn" anything. Only the appearance of learning would take place.

In a settled environment man would simply be acting out all that was already settled.

I realize in a settled environment man would simply be acting out all that was already settled, but I fail to see how that would negate the reality of "learning."

If the future was settled that a particular vase would be broken today at 3 PM, would it be broken at 3:01 or would it just appear to be broken?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If all of time is settled in advance man cannot "learn" anything. Only the appearance of learning would take place.

In a settled environment man would simply be acting out all that was already settled.

You now walk into the realm of the philosphers, for what does knowing (from learning), knowledge, mean? We need to cast our understanding of what knowledge is from pragmatic reality.

You call a tabletop "flat". Is it really flat? I mean absolutely flat? No. But we accept that it is "flat" according to what we understand (know) within ourselves "flatness" to belie. Similarly, the appearance of learning is no more than accepting within ourselves that we have "learned" and now "know". You are being inconsistent here, for you accept "knowing" something even when you don't know something absolutely.

The fact that what we have gained in new "knowledge", internally to ourselves, is irrespective of whether or not that new datum has been orchestrated to achieve some Higher purpose.

 

[themuzicman]

Yours is an example of reading something into the verses versus taking something from the verses. The verses speak of God being The God, "none like Me" who, unlike the idols being spoke of, does know and make certain the future.

Declaring the end from the beginning,

-makes officially (not qualifiably) known everything
​

And from ancient times things that are not yet done,

-God's knowledge of things to come not yet done-the future
​

Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’

-God not subject to other's for His will - no contingencies on His creatures
​

11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.

-God ordains Cyrus to deliver His people from the Chaldeans; Cyrus has no libertarian free will to do otherwise (see below); Cyrus, living in a land far from Babylon knew nothing of God's people in Babylon, yet God will use Him to fulfill His secret will.
​

Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.

-Words spoken by God through the prophet would indeed certainly occur. He decreed it. He will make it happen. He had a reason for it. He does it. While God has much in His purposes that are not in His prophecies, God has nothing in His prophecies other than His purposes. God does not say, "I will see to it that it happens", God says, "I will do it".
​

Sounds like God does what He says He's going to do. Great. OVT has not dispute with this.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

You now walk into the realm of the philosphers, for what does knowing (from learning), knowledge, mean? We need to cast our understanding of what knowledge is from pragmatic reality.

You call a tabletop "flat". Is it really flat? I mean absolutely flat? No. But we accept that it is "flat" according to what we understand (know) within ourselves "flatness" to belie. Similarly, the appearance of learning is no more than accepting within ourselves that we have "learned" and now "know". You are being inconsistent here, for you accept "knowing" something even when you don't know something absolutely.

The fact that what we have gained in new "knowledge", internally to ourselves, is irrespective of whether or not that new datum has been orchestrated to achieve some Higher purpose.

ROFL!

Mr. Religion just told us that he doesn't think he knows anything.

Do you exist, Mr. Religion?

Muz

 

[Poly]

You read too much into versus out of the text using the open theist's "relenting/repenting" canard.

Nothing here implies God is somehow "changing His mind", for His will never changes.

...Open Theists's "relenting/repenting" canard?


Let me get this straight. God says there are conditions which must be met before things happen.

Jeremiah 18:7 “The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 “if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 “And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 “if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.



If you do this, then you'll get this but If you do that then you'll get that.

Knight is taking this literally and interpreting it just as God says.

You're the one interpreting what God actually says as something totally different.

So who's the one reading a canard into it again?

 

[godrulz]

canard: french duck...used about telling deliberate false stories (idiom).

(had to look it up)