ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

penofareadywriter

New member
But this explanation has already failed because their historical argument has completely collapsed. Page 31 -Beyond the Bounds


Says him! Why don't you post some ACTUAL EVIDENCE of how it COLLAPSED?:thumb:
 

Lon

Well-known member
But this explanation has already failed because their historical argument has completely collapsed. Page 31 -Beyond the Bounds


Says him! Why don't you post some ACTUAL EVIDENCE of how it COLLAPSED?:thumb:

It is there, the author brings up Boyd's and Sander's quotes and shows them as misquoted.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
What do you think about my post #2138?

There are some helpful criticisms in the book, but it basically is an argument for classical theism/Calvinism against free will theisms. It does misunderstand and misrepresent Open Theism. It does not adequately wrestle with the strong arguments of Open Theists, but assumes that Calvinism is the only kid on the block.

Millard Erickson tried to be fairer, but still comes to the wrong conclusion.
 

penofareadywriter

New member
There are some helpful criticisms in the book, but it basically is an argument for classical theism/Calvinism against free will theisms. It does misunderstand and misrepresent Open Theism. It does not adequately wrestle with the strong arguments of Open Theists, but assumes that Calvinism is the only kid on the block.

Millard Erickson tried to be fairer, but still comes to the wrong conclusion.

Thats what I was afraid of.....:doh:
 

Lon

Well-known member
Thats what I was afraid of.....:doh:

He's wrong. Many of them are from arminian backgrounds. It is not just Calvinist but a united front and I also disagree that the OV is mischaracterized. They were more than fair in presentation.

GR admittedly, hasn't even read the whole thing. I'd qualify all of his brief summary with several grains.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If what passes for serious scholasticism is to only uncritically read the arguments of those that agree with your own, then some of you are well on your way. Kind of sad, actually, but not unexpected. Until you mature to the point that you can easily adopt the arguments of those that you disagree with and carefully, substantively, then go about deconstructing them, reasoning your way through them, and occasionally agreeing with them, most of what you will be doing is simply engaging in empty rhetoric, the currency of not a few here and there. :squint:

AMR
 

penofareadywriter

New member
If what passes for serious scholasticism is to only uncritically read the arguments of those that agree with your own, then some of you are well on your way. Kind of sad, actually, but not unexpected. Until you mature to the point that you can easily adopt the arguments of those that you disagree with and carefully, substantively, then go about deconstructing them, reasoning your way through them, and occasionally agreeing with them, most of what you will be doing is simply engaging in empty rhetoric, the currency of not a few here and there. :squint:

AMR

I feel like I have been pretty respectful toward you Mr. R. and this is what you think of me?:cry: But for real, the book has got John Piper in it! He and Boyd have had it out I don't know how many times, and Piper has got not only some serious anger and hostility toward the OV and those that believe in it, but also is notorious in MISREPRESENTING the OV. If I am wrong on this, please prove me wrong. He never TRULY address the OV on its own ground(sure he might do some quoting here and there but nothing that does the OV Justice). I have heard him enough on this subject to know his mind on it.
 

Lon

Well-known member
I feel like I have been pretty respectful toward you Mr. R. and this is what you think of me?:cry: But for real, the book has got John Piper in it! He and Boyd have had it out I don't know how many times, and Piper has got not only some serious anger and hostility toward the OV and those that believe in it, but also is notorious in MISREPRESENTING the OV. If I am wrong on this, please prove me wrong. He never TRULY address the OV on its own ground(sure he might do some quoting here and there but nothing that does the OV Justice). I have heard him enough on this subject to know his mind on it.

You are still jumping to conclusions, Piper writes the 'forward.' Look before you leap?
 

penofareadywriter

New member
You are still jumping to conclusions, Piper writes the 'forward.' Look before you leap?

I not saying I wont, I AM pretty sure of what is will say. I mean the name of the book says it ALL! They think that the OV limits God when in fact it is there view of God that is limited. If He does not has every molecule under His direct control, then the universe is doomed. To me and others, that is a very SMALL view of God. My God is so smart, He can face possibility's just as confidently as He can certainty's.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I feel like I have been pretty respectful toward you Mr. R. and this is what you think of me?:cry: But for real, the book has got John Piper in it! He and Boyd have had it out I don't know how many times, and Piper has got not only some serious anger and hostility toward the OV and those that believe in it, but also is notorious in MISREPRESENTING the OV. If I am wrong on this, please prove me wrong. He never TRULY address the OV on its own ground(sure he might do some quoting here and there but nothing that does the OV Justice). I have heard him enough on this subject to know his mind on it.

He is dogmatically Calvinistic. He would also pick a fight with Arminians (who are closer to Calvinism than OVT).
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Ya, I can tell.:cheers: Hey, are you apart of YWAM? Ever hear of IHOP Kansas City and Mike Bickle?

I did a SOS with YWAM in 1978 L.A. Olympic outreach. I have not done a DTS. I appreciate their ministry, but am disappointed they caved under pressure and moved away from Open Theism and MGT.

I have heard of Mike Bickle, but have had some concerns about Paul Cain, etc. I appreciate prophetic ministry, but we must be discerning and have accountability, especially with character (which supersedes gifts).
 

penofareadywriter

New member
I did a SOS with YWAM in 1978 L.A. Olympic outreach. I have not done a DTS. I appreciate their ministry, but am disappointed they caved under pressure and moved away from Open Theism and MGT.

I have heard of Mike Bickle, but have had some concerns about Paul Cain, etc. I appreciate prophetic ministry, but we must be discerning and have accountability, especially with character (which supersedes gifts).

Ya, the Paul Cain thing was very sad to me. I was in the prayer room when they announced it. Mike was very up front with how he and other had put Paul on a pedestal. Mike wept publicly over this. All that said, just because Paul fell by no mean invalidates his history in God. I remember what Mike said, he said we were to act like Noah's sons when they walked back wards to cover their fathers nakedness. Mike, Rick Joiner and Jack Deer went through a pretty intense "Come to Jesus meeting" with Paul. I hear he is doing much better. I don't know if they said if they think he can minister again? I know Mike say he would not approve of it until he went though AB and C healing process.
I don't know if you heard but IHOP and YWAM pretty much got married last year! John D. himself came a spoke to us. Him and Mike are very close. I love what the Lord is doing. The mission movement is getting the revelation that the great com. cannot be accomplished without the prayer movement, because they are THE SAME MOVEMENT! I love it!
 

Lon

Well-known member
I not saying I wont, I AM pretty sure of what is will say. I mean the name of the book says it ALL! They think that the OV limits God when in fact it is there view of God that is limited. If He does not has every molecule under His direct control, then the universe is doomed. To me and others, that is a very SMALL view of God. My God is so smart, He can face possibility's just as confidently as He can certainty's.

Knowledge and Foreknowledge does not negate intelligence or 'smarts.'

I'm a bit flustered that an OVer wouldn't even read a book that is free, that is from the majority, that is concerned with the OV.

You are already building your response and argument without even having read a single line yet. This was so unlike me when I first came on TOL. I read everything I could find on Open Theism and really wanted to know what it was all about.
 

philosophizer

New member
"Is time a thing?" Yes. Why? Its a noun.
"Then God said, 'Let time be a noun,' and it was a noun. God saw that it was good for time to be a noun." --Genesis, chapter Infinity, verse 2.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.



Is it created?
Sure. Time's a noun... nouns include all things... God created all things... God created time.

So, if your Noun thesis is solid, then there's not a lot I can say.


So, I'm following your premise so far. Let's get to your leap...

If God knows the future with 100% certainty, then He either created it directly (as in being outside of time) or He created it indirectly (as a sure result from His first cause). Those are the only two options because He is the Creator God.
Objection #1: Speculative. We don't know the mechanism by which He foreknows. Your's is but a 'possibility.' Your leap: you are making a possibility the only option.
Actually I stated two options and implied a third. But I grant that you're right about something. They are speculative insofar as any logical statement we as creatures can make is speculative, dependent upon our knowledge of the matter. So for the sake of acknowledging that speculation I will restate the options:

1st -- God knows the future exhaustively because He created the universe (time and all) all at once. He, being the Creator, is "outside" of His creation and has full "view" of it at all times. He directly crafted each event (choice) that happens.

2nd -- God knows the future exhaustively because He is the perfect first cause of the universe. With His initial event of creation He foreknew precisely what chain of events (choices) would result, from that moment forward, through all of time.

3rd -- God allows us to choose freely (create events) and does not exhaustively foreknow the future.

Nth -- God is a mystery. We have no idea how He knows what He knows.



Now, maybe the Nth option is the responsible one to opt for. It is the default option. It's always there. If God had done nothing at all to make Himself known to us, we would have nothing but the Nth option to deal with. But we both agree that He has made Himself known in a variety of ways-- not completely, but significantly.

My attempt at listing off options is based on things that I believe God has made known to us. Most people who debate the issue of God and time also have things that they believe God has made known to us, whether they're Calvinists or OVers. Maybe you do too.

So are you objecting to my options because you hold to the Nth option yourself-- you really don't know? If so, why do you hold the belief in exhaustive foreknowledge without knowing how?



If you don't like those two options then you can alter the conditions of the statement in two ways. First, maybe He's not the Creator. If that's so, then certainly, He could be outside of time and viewing as much of the future as He wants without having a hand in it. But if that's the case then someone else must be the Creator God.
Objection #2: I don't entertain that He isn't Creator, but more to the point, you've stated this awkwardly and are making conclusions without the connections that link them. God is both without and within time parameters. He is unconstained by, yet relational to our existence.
I'm glad you don't entertain that He isn't the Creator. He most certainly is! But the part of your quote that I put in bold is a conclusion. It would be helpful to get at the premises behind this conclusion. Can you help me with that?


Second, maybe he doesn't know the future with 100% certainty. If that's so, then certainly, He must not be the one determining the entire future.
Objection #3: Hasty. This is the OV premise and it assumes both.
Assumes both what? Are you invoking the Nth option here again?


In short, IF He is the Creator AND He knows our choices with 100% certainty THEN He created (caused) those choices by one means or another.
Agreed, but not to the implied end which you'd take it. He made every firing synapse in your brain, He knows how it works implicitly. You cannot make a choice without Him knowing about it. We, as we 'choose' to learn, make the connections. God made the parameters of our choice. That the synapses are connected is 1) knowable 2) our doing.
Let me see if I get what you're saying. God creates everything about the situation in which any choice is made. The choice itself is dependent upon the situation, so God, knowing both the parameters of the situation and the workings of our individual minds, knows the result of our choices. Does that come close?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Somebody missed the last part of that verse, which reads, "that were created."

Full sentence: "God created all things that were created."

So, if something is a thing but it was not created, then God did not create it.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Somebody missed the last part of that verse, which reads, "that were created."

Full sentence: "God created all things that were created."

So, if something is a thing but it was not created, then God did not create it.

God is also uncreated, so excluded from 'all things'. Some things are concepts or principles, not actual created things (love and time are in this category).

Time is the concept of duration, sequence, succession (God experiences endless time, not timelessness). It is not something one tastes, touches, sees, hears, smells. You cannot see it under a microscope.
 
Top