ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[themuzicman]

Foreknowledge drives it further to a theological conclusion.

Yes. Determinism.

God allows and thus foreordains where as in the OV, God allows, and sort of/kind of foreordains, but it is a moment by moment consideration so that foreordination is rather omnicasual and unknown.

Actually, foreordination simply isn't universal. There are items that are foreordained because God brings them about.

We both try to explain the same thing but have different parameters for getting to that theological conclusion. I believe both must necessarily come to a compatible explanation and this shouldn't be the hanging point between us as we all hang on the same problems. I do feel that saying "I don't know exactly" is admitting our finite limitations in a way that glorifies Him. I believe a few OVer's actually grasp their limitations but it seems a great many others cannot see the compatiblist needs and restraints of the OV position that are rival to the [o]rthodox position.

If we take all the theological positions, process theism, OVT, and foreknowledge/determinism, we find that OVT is actually what ought to be the orthodox middle, but many haven't arrived there, yet.

Muz

 

[Nang]

Yes. Determinism.



Actually, foreordination simply isn't universal.

Foreordination is the knowledge and wisdom of God. If His wisdom and knowledge is not universal, He is not God.

Your statement denies the omniscience of your Maker.

If we take all the theological pitions, process theism, OVT, and foreknowledge/determinism, we find that OVT is actually what ought to be the orthodox middle, but many haven't arrived there, yet.

Muz

There is no such thing as an "orthodox middle."

Open View Theism is far removed from historical Christian teachings and will never qualify as being Scripturually orthodox. NEVER.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

You beg the question by assuming that a rejection of your view of God would be the same as rejecting God. e.g. to say that God is absolutely immutable and that He would not be God if He was not the way you imagine him to be is circular reasoning. Open Theism's omniscience view is full omniscience, but we disagree about the nature of the future/creation (you fail to really understand the issues).

 

[Nang]

You beg the question by assuming that a rejection of your view of God would be the same as rejecting God.

You got that much right . . .

Open Theism's omniscience view is full omniscience,

No it isn't. . .

but we disagree about the nature of the future/creation (you fail to really understand the issues).

What are you talking about? The nature of "future/creation?" What the heck does that mean, or what is that all about?

I fail to understand the Open View . . . but God has given me sufficient and saving insight into His gospel truth . . . the two are not close to being the same thing, as far as I am concerned.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

We all agree that God is omniscient, knowing all that is knowable. The fact he does not know how many angels are on the head of a pin does not mean He is not omniscient. We differ as to the possible objects of certain foreknowledge. The issue is more about settled/deterministic creation vs partially unsettled, contingent creation. He knows reality as it is. Which reality did He actualize: a closed or open future? I know what the evidence supports. If the future was settled, EDF would be true (but free will would not be). If the future is only partially settled, then correctly knowing it as such (possible vs actual) is NOT a deficiency in omniscience.:sheep:

 

[penofareadywriter]

What are you talking about? The nature of "future/creation?" What the heck does that mean, or what is that all about?

Nang

The open View's main distinction is its view of the nature of the future/creation. When God created Earth, He by default did NOT create Mars in the same space. When God creates physical matter, there a re physical restraints that come with that creation. Sooo, if God wanted a bride that would love Him, there are RESTRAINTS on THAT kind of reality that even God must hold to.... if that was and is the type of world He in fact wants.

 

[bybee]

a true Rabbi

a true Rabbi

We all agree that God is omniscient, knowing all that is knowable. The fact he does not know how many angels are on the head of a pin does not mean He is not omniscient. We differ as to the possible objects of certain foreknowledge. The issue is more about settled/deterministic creation vs partially unsettled, contingent creation. He knows reality as it is. Which reality did He actualize: a closed or open future? I know what the evidence supports. If the future was settled, EDF would be true (but free will would not be). If the future is only partially settled, then correctly knowing it as such (possible vs actual) is NOT a deficiency in omniscience.:sheep:

Dear godrulz, you put things so well! I tend to wall off surmising too much on some portions of the Attributes of God because it doesn't alter my belief one way or the other. But, it helps so much when the things I do believe are put into plain english! Thankyou so much. peace, bybee

 

[Nang]

He knows reality as it is. Which reality did He actualize: a closed or open future? I know what the evidence supports. If the future was settled, EDF would be true (but free will would not be).

And this indeed is reality . . .

God knows all, ordains all, sovereignly rules all. The will (and natural instincts) of His creatures are not free to function outside that rule. Therefore, I contend there is no such thing as "free" will.

Nang

 

[penofareadywriter]

And this indeed is reality . . .

God knows all, ordains all, sovereignly rules all. The will (and natural instincts) of His creatures are not free to function outside that rule. Therefore, I contend there is no such thing as "free" will.

Nang

Do you remember the choose-our-own-adventure books? That is great example of how OVs think about reality. he author of one of theses books sets the parameters of the book, but leaves the certain parts of the main character's story in the hands of the reader. The story HAS boundary's, but there-in lies genuine possibility's.
Even if you do not agree...does that make sense?

 

[bybee]

freedom

freedom

And this indeed is reality . . .

God knows all, ordains all, sovereignly rules all. The will (and natural instincts) of His creatures are not free to function outside that rule. Therefore, I contend there is no such thing as "free" will.

Nang

If that be the case, then there is no such thing as freedom at all. I wonder where our concept of freedom comes from? I wonder why it is that most of us would fight to the death rather than have our freedom taken away from us? The only difference then, between a robot and a human being is the beating heart ? Why would God have given laws to humanity if they were not free to choose obedience or not? I simply cannot grasp the notion of predestination. peace, bybee

 

[penofareadywriter]

If that be the case, then there is no such thing as freedom at all. I wonder where our concept of freedom comes from? I wonder why it is that most of us would fight to the death rather than have our freedom taken away from us? The only difference then, between a robot and a human being is the beating heart ? Why would God have given laws to humanity if they were not free to choose obedience or not? I simply cannot grasp the notion of predestination. peace, bybee

Great post!

 

[Nang]

Do you remember the choose-our-own-adventure books? That is great example of how OVs think about reality. he author of one of theses books sets the parameters of the book, but leaves the certain parts of the main character's story in the hands of the reader. The story HAS boundary's, but there-in lies genuine possibility's.
Even if you do not agree...does that make sense?

I know what you are describing, but when an end is established, every single detail leading to that end, contributes to that end.

Each of us can appreciate the truth of this, when we take our own existence as an end in itself, and then do a geneological study of the multitude of lives from the past, whose joining together, led to "me."

Since God determined my identity and existence, He determined everything that happened in the past, from day one, to bring me to birth. I don't see how random or "free" acts of mankind or chance could have possibly produced "me."

This is not to say that all the peoples that God ordained would produce my birth, were not willful people who functioned volitionally. God made men in His image, possessing wills of their own.

I just don't think the will of man was ever given by God, to act contrary to the sovereign will of God. To willfully act in opposition to God is spiritually and instinctually deadly. Just as surely as a herd of swine running and leaping off a cliff against all nature, killed them; so too, a sinner exercising his will in opposition to the will of God, kills himself.

And due to the original sin of Adam, the human will is less free than when Adam was created; in fact, Adam threw humanity into total enslavement and bondage: body, soul, mind, and will . . .to serving satan, sin, and all wickedness. The sinner is not only not free to exercise his will as he wants or to do Godly good; he is only inclined to choose to do evil, and experiences no freedom at all.

But God brings good out of even this tragedy of moral, spiritual, and natural enslavement, still accomplishing and choreographing His purposed end. His will be done, and it cannot be thwarted by the willful actions of men.

"There are many plans in a man's heart, nevertheless, the Lord's counsel . . that wills stand." Proverbs 19:21

"A man's heart plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps." Proverbs 16:9

"O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks, to direct his own steps." Jeremiah 10:23

Nang

 

[themuzicman]

Foreordination is the knowledge and wisdom of God. If His wisdom and knowledge is not universal, He is not God.

Your statement denies the omniscience of your Maker.

Your statements don't reflect Scriptural revelation about God. They do, however, reveal a determinist view.

There is no such thing as an "orthodox middle."

Actually, in the trinitarian debate, the orthodox middle was the resolution between arianism and sabellianism. In the Christology debate, the middle was between Cyril and Nestorius. In fact, this has been the case in many of the orthodox councils.

Open View Theism is far removed from historical Christian teachings and will never qualify as being Scripturually orthodox. NEVER.

LOL.. Before Augustine, theologians were almost universally free will, and emphasized the need for free will over determinism.

So, you're about 1900 years too late.

Muz

 

[Nang]

If that be the case, then there is no such thing as freedom at all.

Yes. That is the logical conclusion, which is correct.

I wonder where our concept of freedom comes from?

I believe it came from Satan, who lied to A&E, telling them they could do what they wanted. They could eat of what God forbade under command:

"Then the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die.'" Genesis 3:4

I wonder why it is that most of us would fight to the death rather than have our freedom taken away from us?

Such is evidence one is still enslaved to serving the devil, rather than freed in their will to obediently submit their will to God and serve His righteousness.

Attempts to retain a supposed "free" will is clinging to the original sin of Adam.

The only difference then, between a robot and a human being is the beating heart ?

God did not create robots. God created willful creatures. Even my dogs possess willfulness, and instinctually they exercise that will properly (most of the time).

What "free" willers are objecting to, is submitting their wills to God. Most men, even many who profess to be Christians, still do not want to be subject to the will of God.

A person who is truly indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, is freed in his heart, mind, and will to love God and to desire to obey God's word; submitting his human will to the sovereign will of God . . .exactly as Jesus Christ submitted His will to the Father to give example.

Why would God have given laws to humanity if they were not free to choose obedience or not?

Laws do not give options. When a stop sign is put up, a driver does not have the option to stop or not stop.

Adam was created a willful, moral agent, and given commands from God. Adam was not free to disregard or rebel those commands.

It was only from the mouth of the serpent that Adam was told he was supposedly free to act in opposition to God's will and law. Satan, in effect, told Adam to ignore the stop sign and just keep going as he pleased. It caused Adam's death.

I simply cannot grasp the notion of predestination. peace, bybee

Actually, predestination is a different subject.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

Dear godrulz, you put things so well! I tend to wall off surmising too much on some portions of the Attributes of God because it doesn't alter my belief one way or the other. But, it helps so much when the things I do believe are put into plain english! Thankyou so much. peace, bybee

You are too kind. Do you consider yourself in the Open Theism camp? (I trust this is the biblical view)

 

[penofareadywriter]

And due to the original sin of Adam, the human will is less free than when Adam was created; in fact, Adam threw humanity into total enslavement and bondage: body, soul, mind, and will . . .to serving satan, sin, and all wickedness. The sinner is not only not free to exercise his will as he wants or to do Godly good; he is only inclined to choose to do evil, and experiences no freedom at all.

Nang

This is where I would make a distinction. Adam was free to OBEY God OR to DISOBEY God. Now that humanity in enslaved to sin, we are still free...to do evil! Those of us that are being saved, are free to do GOOD. But even AFTER we come to the knowledge of the truth, we are still free to sin and grieve the Holy Spirit!
If we did not have a free will, why would God wast His time by saying;Deuteronomy 30:19
"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live".

 

[godrulz]

Do you remember the choose-our-own-adventure books? That is great example of how OVs think about reality. he author of one of theses books sets the parameters of the book, but leaves the certain parts of the main character's story in the hands of the reader. The story HAS boundary's, but there-in lies genuine possibility's.
Even if you do not agree...does that make sense?

God values love, relationship, freedom more than being a control-freak. This is not a problem for an omnicompetent God (vs omnicausal, insecure god), despite the risk and grief.

The parenting model is more appropriate than the computer-programmer model of sovereignty. Cause-effect is the way to rule rocks, not moral creation in the image of God.

What part of the Fall do Calvinists not understand? Things went from very good to God being grieved to the core. God is not the author of misery or His own broken heart.

 

[Nang]

What part of the Fall do Calvinists not understand? Things went from very good to God being grieved to the core. God is not the author of misery or His own broken heart.

God has a "broken heart?"

Bah . . .

You just make things up.

God is full of wrath over the sins of mankind. He is angry, not broken.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

God has a "broken heart?"

Bah . . .

You just make things up.

God is full of wrath over the sins of mankind. He is angry, not broken.

Nang

God has a tender heart. He is personal. Study the Hebrew for 'grieved' and other verses.

Calvinism is too Platonic and makes God mechanistic, not Living and relational. Would you like a lesson on love?

 

[penofareadywriter]

God has a "broken heart?"

Bah . . .

You just make things up.

God is full of wrath over the sins of mankind. He is angry, not broken.

Nang

This just shows how disconected you really are from the heart of God. The intire Bible story is about the broken heart of God!

"And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes" (Luke 19, 41-42).
Luke 13:34
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
Jesus is a person!