We basically agree, so you are changing the subject and confusing two different issues.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
We basically agree, so you are changing the subject and confusing two different issues.
Try another translation and read other verses like: Is. 48:3 (acted/ability, not prescience/crystal ball); Is. 46:10-11 (do, ability, not crystal ball).
The way God foreknows the Second Coming and can prophesy about it is not because He has simple foreknowledge (Arminian), middle knowledge (Molinism), but because He has the ability to bring it to pass unilaterally. He predicts it will happen, then makes it happen. It does not mean He sees it happening in reality before it is reality?! So, Calvinists and Open Theists agree that His foreknowledge in this case is based on decree/determinism/power, not crystal ball prescience. The mistake Calvinists make is to make figurative the other motif in Scripture that some aspects of the future are open, unsettled, unknown because of creaturely freedom that He has sovereignly given.
Lon
Well-known member
KJV Isa 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
Same thing.
No, this is a trivialization, God knows this...how many hairs you have on your head. You are bringing the subject down to the level that the Thomists and Sophist did before the reformation like does God know how many angels will fit on a pin head.
God knows whether your hair is white or black
It is quite clear to me that if one second of our lives were left unplanned or unwatched over that would be the second Satan would be waiting for to strike. But then you kind of believe that don't you when you believe you can fall away? I believe my WHOLE life is planned before He caused me to be born, that may seem foolish to you but to me the God that take such infinite care in His creation, just think of the operation of planting a seed and it's growth. This God is all knowing, all wise and all powerful . You are overlooking or seeing with tired eyes even the natural wonders of creation.
You have become stale in your reading of scripture if you skate over such things as Jesus greeting of Nathanael "I saw thee when you were under the fig tree" exactly what Jesus saw we don't know but it was enough for Nathanael to immediately acknowledge Him as Lord.
I am saying two things, that all time past, present and future are in God and that He is actively in the present, now. He is alpha and omega
He says "I am the ressurection and the life" He upholds this world by the word of His power. Your problem is you want to get God down to proportions that you can handle...you see that YOU are limited and suppose that God must be too.
You might consider this, the Jews have a future with God, in the natural way there is simply no way that the Jews could have survived as a people to be able to reform as a nation after 2,000 years among the nations...IMpossible....unless God were in it ensuring it, and I mean actively in it.
I fully agree that God has exhaustive present and past knowledge (your comments about hair on the head, etc.). I can defend this from Scripture using your verses.
What you fail to recognize is that the debate is about the nature of creation, not whether God is omniscient or not (He is in both our views, but we differ on the objects of certain knowledge). Einstein was wrong to blur the distinctions between past, present, future. The future is fundamentally different than the past/present, so God knows reality as it is. You have a wrong view of free will, time vs eternity, sovereignty, past/present/future. The future is anticipatory for God, not actual. It is certain in some areas because of His ability, not because of prescience. It is also uncertain in other areas (unlike past/present) because of God's sovereign choice to create significant others in love.
Exalting a wrong view of power over a right view of love is part of your problem.
You may not understand this, but having EDF of the future is of no providential advantage anyway, because God would not be able to change the fixed future even if He wanted to (undermines prayer, etc.). As well, there is no way to explain how an agent is settling the future to be seen/foreknown if they do not even exist yet. This makes God responsible for evil and omnicausal and totally negates personhood for us (hence we are in an illusory matrix and we live as if OT is true, but cling to a false theoretical view on your part). Give it up. You are fighting a losing cause.
What you fail to recognize is that the debate is about the nature of creation, not whether God is omniscient or not (He is in both our views, but we differ on the objects of certain knowledge). Einstein was wrong to blur the distinctions between past, present, future. The future is fundamentally different than the past/present, so God knows reality as it is. You have a wrong view of free will, time vs eternity, sovereignty, past/present/future. The future is anticipatory for God, not actual. It is certain in some areas because of His ability, not because of prescience. It is also uncertain in other areas (unlike past/present) because of God's sovereign choice to create significant others in love.
Exalting a wrong view of power over a right view of love is part of your problem.
You may not understand this, but having EDF of the future is of no providential advantage anyway, because God would not be able to change the fixed future even if He wanted to (undermines prayer, etc.). As well, there is no way to explain how an agent is settling the future to be seen/foreknown if they do not even exist yet. This makes God responsible for evil and omnicausal and totally negates personhood for us (hence we are in an illusory matrix and we live as if OT is true, but cling to a false theoretical view on your part). Give it up. You are fighting a losing cause.
Hilston said:
This is the same argument atheists like to use, and it basically relegates all knowledge to radical skepticism. The believer knows without the need for exhaustive and universal experience because he can rely on the testimony of the One who has all knowledge and experience, and has, in fact, decreed all things in meticulous detail.
Clete's view, like atheists, reduces knowledge to mere speculation and guesswork, and actually destroys the very possibility of justified, true knowledge.
If Clete thinks he can justify and verify knowledge on his own worldview, I'd love to see it.
This statement only demonstrates how, like most Open Theists, Clete's mind is either damaged by the effects of his theology, or he doesn't read or think very carefully. As I stated above, and repeatedly in the past, the justification of logic relies upon universal knowledge and experience, or the testimony of One who has universal knowledge and experience. One need not have universal knowledge and experience as long as one has reliable testimony of another who has. The believer has the benefit of the God's testimony to affirm the verity of logic and to justify his knowledge of the world.
In Clete's world, neither God nor man has universal knowledge and experience, and thus the entirety of knowledge is rendered irrational and incomprehensible, taking Open View premises to their logical conclusion.
See what I mean? Clete doesn't seem to follow a simple chain of reasoning. This is what I've come to expect from Open Theists.
Based on his espoused claims taken to their logical end, Clete isn't qualified to make that assessment.
Even this ("Resting in Him") cannot be justified on Clete's worldview. How could anyone "rest" in Someone who cannot guarantee that He won't change His mind about everything? There is no rest in that, only a dim and bleak wish that God, who has changed His mind about some major things in the past (according to Open Theism) won't change His mind about some major things in the future (Like salvation, like His promises to saved people, etc.).
Hilston
I think your thread cry for better pr shows whose cause is lost.
Herein we fundamantally disagree I believe the bible shows that the future is just as settled with God as the past and present. The scripture about hair shows the infinite detail of God's knowledge, how minute a thing as the number of hairs on our head...whether one turns white, nothing escapes Him..that will either trouble you or rejoice your heart. It is UNcomprehendible love, God is Love.
The only reason it will trouble men is if they do not trust God. Or they wish to be hidden or some aspect of their lives. But Jesus said nothing is hidden from Him...the very words we speak [or type] are of very great interest to Him, they reveal what we are.
God it may be did create evil, that is not clear in scripture but evil per se is not sin, man partaking of the knowledge of it is what is sin. Man is not created for evil but for good. God uses evil to create, He brings light out of darkness.
That God foresaw man's sin does by no means show that He caused him to sin...He forbade him. Only man is responsible for sin.
God foreknew the possibility of sin, but did not desire nor intend it. He said creation was very good and was then later grieved that He made men. This historical narrative/divine revelation is misleading if your view is true.
Knowing the hairs on our head is present knowledge. Seeing us in the womb is present knowledge. You wrongly extrapolate, without warrant, to EDF, a preconceived view, not one supported by the text. In fact, explicit other verses show God changing His mind and elements of uncertainty about the future. He even changed the future in Hezekiah's mistake. OT reads it at face value, but you must do mental gymnastics and suggest it does not mean what it says to retain your view (you have the weaker hermeneutic).
Knowing the hairs on our head is present knowledge. Seeing us in the womb is present knowledge. You wrongly extrapolate, without warrant, to EDF, a preconceived view, not one supported by the text. In fact, explicit other verses show God changing His mind and elements of uncertainty about the future. He even changed the future in Hezekiah's mistake. OT reads it at face value, but you must do mental gymnastics and suggest it does not mean what it says to retain your view (you have the weaker hermeneutic).
godrulz, are these basically the tenets of Open Theism?
What are the basic tenets of open theism?
by Matt Slick
Following are the basic tenets of Open Theism; it is with these presuppositions that open theists approach the Bible and interpret it:
God's greatest attribute is love.
This attribute of God is often elevated above His other attributes and used to interpret God in such a way as to be a cosmic gentleman who wants all to be saved, mourns over their loss.
Man's free will is truly free in the libertarian sense.
Man's free will is not restricted by his sinful nature but is equally able to make choices between different options.
By contrast, compatibilist free will states that a person is restricted and affected by his nature and that his nature not only affects his free will choices, but also limits his ability to choose equally among different options.
God does not know the future.
This is either because God cannot know the future because it does not exist, or...
It is because God chooses to not know the future even though it can be known.
God takes risks.
Because God does not know the future exhaustively, He must take risks with people whose future free will choices are unknowable.
God learns.
Because God does not know the future exhaustively, He learns as the realities of the future occur.
God makes mistakes.
Because God does not know all things and because He is dealing with free will creatures (whose future choices He does not know), God can make mistakes in dealing with people. Therefore, God would change His plans accordingly.
God changes His mind.
God can change His mind on issues depending on what He learns and what He discovers people do. Usually, God's change of mind is due to Him being surprised by something for which He didn't plan or expect.
As you can see, Open Theism presents a view of God contrary to classical and historic Christianity which sees God as sovereign, all knowing, and unchanging.
We agree that God did not intend for man to sin, the narrative shows that God's creation was good, but before He created He brooded over the vast chaos of nothingness [most scholars take this chaos to be evil] it was out of this void that God created.
Knowing the number of hairs on our head shows the type and intimate nature of God's knowledge of us and His love and care.
I do not doubt that God fully foreknew that Hezekiah would humble himself...that kings from Persia would come to congratulate him and hear all about this miracle God and spy out the treasures of the temple. The 15 years was the interim before they came and Hezekiah was glad that it would be in his son's day and not his.
God knew all about it.
Tot, in your view, the Hezekiah narrative makes God a liar: he says Hez was a dead duck and going to die. In response to believing prayer, God changed His mind and added 15 years to his life. Either the narrative is misleading as to correct theology or your view is wrong.
Raven, Open Theism is a return to a biblical, coherent view and does differ from a philosophical-Platonic corrupted view that is tradition, classical, but not truth. Slick is Calvinistic and his site has misrepresented/misunderstood the Open view (we usually get banned from his forums when they cannot answer us). It is circular to assume Calvinism is true if it is not. The issue is what does the Bible teach, not whether OVT differs from Calvinism (it does).
Raven, Open Theism is a return to a biblical, coherent view and does differ from a philosophical-Platonic corrupted view that is tradition, classical, but not truth. Slick is Calvinistic and his site has misrepresented/misunderstood the Open view (we usually get banned from his forums when they cannot answer us). It is circular to assume Calvinism is true if it is not. The issue is what does the Bible teach, not whether OVT differs from Calvinism (it does).
It is not misleading to me at least, I think God knew all about it...God knew Hezzy would weep and pray and he knew that He would heal him and prolong his life. Really it is no different a case than any Christ healed who were set to die, they cry to Him, He heals them and their life is prolonged...Christ's healing ministry is fully anticipated in the prophets. Hezzy was just more high profile.
You cannot take the chronology/narrative literally unless you change your view. There was a conditional element. God makes a truthful statement (you are a dead duck), THEN changes His mind and makes another true statement (15 more years). In your view, the first statement is not true or misleading, game-playing by God. It is better to realize that the future was not fixed/settled and that the chronology was changing moment by moment, not foreknown or settled by decree in the past.
Well you are only supposing that Hezzy's case was not foreknown and foreplanned..as in for instance the many times that God decreed He would slay the Jews forthwith in the wilderness and would have if Moses had not interceded...how would that have worked in relation to His fore ordained plan to bring forth the Saviour from out of Israel.
Remember we agreed sin was not God's intention for man thus then death was never His intention and sickness is the process of death, certainly in Hezzy's case. Hezzy would have got sick and died at that time in the natural state of things, if he had he would not have been able to fend off the king of Persia for Judah on God's behalf.
He was no mean pray er ol' Hezzy, perhaps a king who was lesser than he would not have prevailed...it is all planned carefully.
Once again we may ask where does true prayer, prayer that prevails spring from...is it from earth or heaven?
Lon
Well-known member
Whether you recognize it or not, to say God is without beginning, uncreated Creator, you also are saying 'timeless.' Eternal nonbeginning means timeless.
Time is a finite function of creation.
Lon
Well-known member
Really? I assert again that 'changing-one's-mind' is a colloquial term since nobody literally does it. To suggest God didn't anticipate Hezekiah's request is ludicrous. He was not surprised or caught unaware. Clearly the forcaste was conditional upon his ailment else Hezekiah would have died, end of story. God didn't 'change-His-mind.' Hezekiah prayed, not God. That is the focal point of this story. He was going to die, not because God was going to kill him, but because it was the natural result of his disease. God intervened when Hezekiah asked Him to, that's the story.
God: "You are going to die from this disease."
Hezekiah: "Please stop it from happening."
God: "Okay."
Last edited:
Christ prays in heaven and intercedes on our behalf (Heb.). When on earth, He prayed from earth (Gospels). We are on earth and we pray to God from our minds and mouths, from earth, to heaven (Psalms).
We pray. Christ prays. God does not pray for us (when you talk to a friend, is it you talking or your friend talking?).
Rev. 1:4; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:27 Endless duration/succession/sequence is eternal without beginning/end. Timelessness is incoherent. You are begging the question by assuming time is created. Is love eternal in God? The whole Bible presents God in an endless duration of time. Revelation uses time expressions in eternity/heaven (half hour, etc.). Timelessness is a Platonic-Augustinian theory, not a proven fact.