ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[godrulz]

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."

God could anticipate his prayer, but it was more than natural issues here. There is still chronology.

35x God changes His mind. In I Sam. 15, it says he changed his mind in one case, but in another issue, he refused to change his mind (will not is not cannot). God is personal, not impersonal/static.

The phrase is meaningless unless we take it at face value (what would it mean other than what it says? How could the Bible say a person, including God, changes their mind other than the way it does?). Rather than take the verses as written, you must make them figurative, without warrant, to retain your wrong view. Again, the Open view has the stronger hermeneutic by taking things at face value (normative literal and taking figurative things as such when the context demands it).

 

[Lon]

God could anticipate his prayer, but it was more than natural issues here. There is still chronology.

35x God changes His mind. In I Sam. 15, it says he changed his mind in one case, but in another issue, he refused to change his mind (will not is not cannot). God is personal, not impersonal/static.

Show me even once (realize I'm going to go to the Hebrew for this). It isn't anywhere in there.

The phrase is meaningless unless we take it at face value (what would it mean other than what it says?

"to breathe"

How could the Bible say a person, including God, changes their mind other than the way it does?). Rather than take the verses as written, you must make them figurative, without warrant, to retain your wrong view. Again, the Open view has the stronger hermeneutic by taking things at face value (normative literal and taking figurative things as such when the context demands it).

It doesn't. It's a translator's equation, but those translators weren't open theists. Best translation word? Probably not after Boyd and Sanders got a hold of it, but they should know better. I greatly question the language portion of their degrees. I guess a degree is a degree, even if you barely pass Hebrew and Greek these days (I dunno).

 

[Lon]

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.

Psalm 102:27 But You are the same,
And Your years will have no end (or beginning).

I.E. no years other than how He interacts with us. "No beginning years, no end
years, no beginning hours, no end hours, No beginning minutes, no end
minutes, no beginning seconds, no end seconds" --> no applicable time period
to His greater existence. He is relational to and unconstrained by duration.

Borrowing from Totton:

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM!

Primarily, it is His name but it is also a breach in the time barrier you continue to assert against Him. Ultimately, the OV position is an affront to Him, if what He says is true, that "before Abraham was, I AM." I don't really think your argument is with me as much as it is with Him.

"Lord Jesus Christ, I know you are saying you are God here, but you cannot possibly be saying that way back then, you still are, are you? It doesn't make sense to me, so it cannot possibly be true. I know You said it, but You didn't really want me to believe that about You, did You?"

 

[Totton Linnet]

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?).

We know not how to pray but the Spirit intercedeth in us with mighty groans and travailing. Prayer to be effective must be the work of the Holy Ghost in us. So in my view all true prayer is heavenly in origin.

 

[Clete]

This is the same argument atheists like to use, and it basically relegates all knowledge to radical skepticism.

There is no way for Hilston to know this either without utilizing the very thing he claims can't be processed.

His every argument - oh, excuse me - he hasn't made any arguments just accusations....

His every statement is in contradiction to the only premise he's clearly stated, including the stating of the premise itself. That statement being....

"... the notion of "rational" (i.e., of or pertaining to justified logic) depends upon exhaustive and universal experience, which only an infinite God -- unbounded by space or time -- has."​

So logic and reason depend on the existence of a irrational god. That's brilliant crap, Jim! :chuckle:

Once again, the rest of his post isn't worthy of comment.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Combined reply to DFT_Dave, Lighthouse and Clete

To DFT_Dave]

Your questions demonstrate that you've paid no attention to what I have already said.

No, it's you who are not paying attention. In truth, your response demonstrates that you don't understand the content or significance of the questions that have been put to you. Isn't it true that the God of the Open View needs to wait for the future to happen before He knows it? If that is your assertion, then God doesn't know if His own "intrinsic" logic will continue to apply in the future. He has no way of knowing or investigating. He can only guess at best. He has no way of knowing if the rules of logic will continue to apply in the future. If you think He has some way of knowing, I'd like to hear it. To merely announce that logic is intrinsic to God's nature doesn't address the problem of the extrinsic application.

Logical laws are consistent and true within the Trinity as said earlier and need not be tested in the world by God in order to know if they are valid.

I agree, but the Open Theist cannot say this without contradicting his own espoused tenets. How does the God of the Open View know that the laws of logic need not be tested in the world? The God of the Settled View knows because He has decreed all things, past, present and future, in every meticulous detail, all according to His own good pleasure and His freely chosen and predetermined purposes.

God could not "do" what is illogical because he "is" not illogical in nature.

Are you saying that God is not free to be illogical if He wanted to be? Is God free to be evil if He wanted to be? I thought it was an Open View requirement that one must freely choose goodness in order to be truly good.

It's illogical to ask, is God free to do something illogical.

How do you know? On what basis do you determine what is or is not logical? Based on the claims of a God Who doesn't know if induction is going to hold in the future? Does God know whether modus ponens will hold true tomorrow? If so, how does He know? And how do you justify any claim to logic whatsoever?

Freedom has nothing to do with an illogical act.

Sure it does. Humans are illogical all the time. On the Settled View, God cannot be illogical. God is not free to be illogical. Just as God is not free to do evil. But on the Open View, God is free to be evil if He wanted to be. Why isn't God also free to be illogical if He wanted to be?

God is free to create the world or not. There is no such thing as the freedom to create and not create the world at the same time, which would be God doing what is illogical--not possible.

How do you know? Just because your experience doesn't include things being and not being simultaneously, how do you know it's not possible?

There's rational faith and there's irrational faith, mine is the former yours is the latter. I believe the resurrection will come because God has promised that it will come not because it already has happened.

How do you know you can trust God to keep His promise? Isn't God free to change His mind about that?

To Lighthouse:

How many times were prophets actually given visions of the future? And how many times were there prophetic warnings heeded, thus causing an outcome different than the one prophesied?

It doesn't matter if was one time or a thousand; you need to answer the question: Did God really show the prophets visions of the future? Or was it a simulation?

To Clete:

This is the same argument atheists like to use, and it basically relegates all knowledge to radical skepticism.

There is no way for Hilston to know this either without utilizing the very thing he claims can't be processed.

On the contrary, we know because the God of the Settled View can attest to all cases of every law of logic, and affirms to us that logic is reliable. The God of The Open Open cannot make that affirmation because He simply does not know.

His every statement is in contradiction to the only premise he's clearly stated, including the stating of the premise itself. That statement being....

"... the notion of "rational" (i.e., of or pertaining to justified logic) depends upon exhaustive and universal experience, which only an infinite God -- unbounded by space or time -- has."​

How is that a contradiction on any level?

So logic and reason depend on the existence of a irrational god.

Only in the mind of an Open Theist is reliance upon a fickle, ignorant God viewed as more rational than reliance upon an all-knowing, all-present God with exhaustive knowledge of all things, past, present and future.

Once again, the rest of his post isn't worthy of comment.

Once again, Clete has yet to demonstrate the wherewithal to ascertain what is or isn't worthy of comment.

Resting in Him

And once again, Clete's "resting in Him" makes absolutely no sense with a God as fickle and as ignorant as that of the Open View.

Hilston

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, of course not. Why would you even bother to ask? Why is it that when I say He is relational to, but unconstrained by our finiteness, that you wouldn't see I accept both and continue to ask stuff I've repeatedly agreed to? I already said you can measure what is within our finite existence, including God's interactions. All I've said different is that God is more than His interaction with man and the universe. Let's agree with what we both agree on and not go looking for loopholes where there is none.

Yes, it is all stored in gray matter.

So when God communicates to us, He is doing so within our time frame, yep, agreed. Some of His ways and thoughts are graspable and even measurable as He interacts with us but, as I continually state, He is more than just that. To think that what He reveals is all there is to His being, is a mistake. Isaiah 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD."For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.

Think just a little: How can Dave clean his fishtank without being entirely inside of it?

If Dave's hand is in the fish tank, I guess you could say he isn't 'completely' outside of it, but I didn't mean to make such a quivel over the mention of it, when I say "Dave is completely outside of the fishtank." Of course I agree that part of Dave is in the fishtank, and part of God is in our universe. I gave you verses prior describing God not being able to dwell in the temple Solomon built for Him. Part of Him does indeed exist with us but when Solomon says God can't dwell there, that is the gist of what I was saying, that God is immensely beyond our universe. It seems you might be assurdely nit-picky but I'm trying to address this as if it were a genuine concern so we can get back to pertinent issues. I'll state it again, God is both relational to and unconstrained by His creation. I did make that clear in the quoted post but you took liberty rather than pay attention to the context, much as I accuse the OV of doing with scriptures.

If our thoughts occur only in the grey matter of our brain then were do God's thoughts occur?

I know you believe Jesus is truely God, but one not knowing you would wonder how that would be possible given your view of God as you are expressing it. Your view is an undeniable contradiction.

Isaiah 55:6 “Seek the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; 7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord.​

This passage states that, unlike man, God is very forgiving, it's not about a different way of thinking, not about God not being rational.

--Dave

 

[Lighthouse]

You are a lazy reader of the bible, go read for yourself and don't wait to be spoon fed. Choc a bloc my friend.

:doh:

I'm lazy? You're the one who won't support your argument.

I asked for your evidence because I already know you don't have any, and you can't even admit that. You just accuse me of being too lazy to read the Bible How sad.

So you believe your "I wills" and "I shall" have the same intrinsic value as Gods....you cannot even say "I will rise out of my bed tomorrow."

No, you idiot. I said that God is more free than I am, meaning my statements of will do not have the same intrinsic value as His. Learn to read.

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.

Apart from the highlighted it's a good basis. The problem with the highlight is that God doesn't make mistakes. There is no reason for Him to. Even not knowing that which does not exist/has not happened does not necessitate He make mistakes, for He is God; Almighty. God doesn't change His plans because of what He has done, He changes them because of us. We are the ones who fail, and God changes His plans to work with us, as we are fallen, broken, imperfect and fallible.

God is sovereign, omniscient [knowing all that can be known if He wants to know it] and unchanging.

It doesn't matter if was one time or a thousand; you need to answer the question: Did God really show the prophets visions of the future? Or was it a simulation?

It matters if it's zero.

How many times were there prophecies that stated something would happen no matter what? And how many of those consisted of an actual vision of said events?

Take the prophecy from Nathan regarding the firstborn of David and Bathsheba: there was clearly no stopping that, though David seemed to think there might be, and certainly hoped there was to the point of trying his damnedest. But I do not recall any vision being mentioned.

Peter had a vision in Acts 10, but not of the future.

John had visions that led to the writing of Revelations, but his record is so full of similes and metaphors that I highly doubt there was any vision of the actual events.

Got anything?

 

[Hilston]

John had visions that led to the writing of Revelations, but his record is so full of similes and metaphors that I highly doubt there was any vision of the actual events.

What do you think God was showing him, if not actual events? Do you similarly dismiss the writings of Ezekiel and Daniel, because of their use of "similes and metaphors"?

Hilston

 

[Lighthouse]

What do you think God was showing him, if not actual events? Do you similarly dismiss the writings of Ezekiel and Daniel, because of their use of "similes and metaphors"?

Hilston

I dismiss nothing. They had visions that prophesied the future. But all evidence points to the visions not being of the actual events, but rather symbolism to illustrate that which was to come.

Can you show me otherwise?

 

[DFT_Dave]

To DFT_Dave]

No, it's you who are not paying attention. In truth, your response demonstrates that you don't understand the content or significance of the questions that have been put to you. Isn't it true that the God of the Open View needs to wait for the future to happen before He knows it? If that is your assertion, then God doesn't know if His own "intrinsic" logic will continue to apply in the future. He has no way of knowing or investigating. He can only guess at best. He has no way of knowing if the rules of logic will continue to apply in the future. If you think He has some way of knowing, I'd like to hear it. To merely announce that logic is intrinsic to God's nature doesn't address the problem of the extrinsic application.

I agree, but the Open Theist cannot say this without contradicting his own espoused tenets. How does the God of the Open View know that the laws of logic need not be tested in the world? The God of the Settled View knows because He has decreed all things, past, present and future, in every meticulous detail, all according to His own good pleasure and His freely chosen and predetermined purposes.

Are you saying that God is not free to be illogical if He wanted to be? Is God free to be evil if He wanted to be? I thought it was an Open View requirement that one must freely choose goodness in order to be truly good.

How do you know? On what basis do you determine what is or is not logical? Based on the claims of a God Who doesn't know if induction is going to hold in the future? Does God know whether modus ponens will hold true tomorrow? If so, how does He know? And how do you justify any claim to logic whatsoever?

Sure it does. Humans are illogical all the time. On the Settled View, God cannot be illogical. God is not free to be illogical. Just as God is not free to do evil. But on the Open View, God is free to be evil if He wanted to be. Why isn't God also free to be illogical if He wanted to be?

How do you know? Just because your experience doesn't include things being and not being simultaneously, how do you know it's not possible?

How do you know you can trust God to keep His promise? Isn't God free to change His mind about that?

Hilston

God does not need the existence of man to validate anything that is not already validated by (within/intrinsic) the Trinity. Everything possible in a relationship with another is experienced between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In your words plus mine, all possible extrinsic applications are already applied intrinsically.

God in OV does not have to say to us what Tom Cruise said in his film Jerry Maguire, "You complete me."

Unfortunately the God of SV and panentheism cannot say the same.

When exactly did God decree everything, that would be "before" he created everything, right?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

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.

Time is an aspect of God's freedom.

The world is not eternal. God did not have to create the world. There was God and nothing else, before he created the world. God did not speak it into existence all at once, he did it in sequence, this before that--time.

The world would be eternal if God were timeless and he would not be free is obviously clear to see to the rational mind and those of us in OV.

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

I AM means that God is eternal, uncreated, self-existent, no beginning, no end. It does NOT have to mean timeless, eternal now, simultaneity, etc. This is sheer eisegesis of a traditional view that is not truth. Eternality is expressed, but duration that is endless is the picture in Scripture, not philosophical timelessness that is incoherent if God is personal and if Jesus is not still on the cross.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I AM means that God is eternal, uncreated, self-existent, no beginning, no end. It does NOT have to mean timeless, eternal now, simultaneity, etc. This is sheer eisegesis of a traditional view that is not truth. Eternality is expressed, but duration that is endless is the picture in Scripture, not philosophical timelessness that is incoherent if God is personal and if Jesus is not still on the cross.

Amen, :cheers:

--Dave

 

[Hilston]

God does not need the existence of man to validate anything that is not already validated by (within/intrinsic) the Trinity.

If you recall from my previous post, we've already agreed on this point. Why do you rehash what has already been established? You do it with Lon, too, and it has every appearance of obfuscation.

Everything possible in a relationship with another is experienced between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In your words plus mine, all possible extrinsic applications are already applied intrinsically.

Really? How about hatred for evil? Was that extrinsic application already applied intrinsically?

God in OV does not have to say to us what Tom Cruise said in his film Jerry Maguire, "You complete me."

Unfortunately the God of SV and panentheism cannot say the same.

How so? Please explain how that applies to the Settled View.

When exactly did God decree everything, that would be "before" he created everything, right?

No. there is no "before" that precedes the creation of time. There is only logical order within the counsel of the Godhead.

Hilston

 

[godrulz]

Ps. 90:2; Gen. 1:1 There is a before and after creation. The triune God experienced succession, sequence, duration in the triune relations (time is necessary to think, act, feel for a personal being, including God; it is not a created thing nor a limitation on God). Creation is not co-eternal with God. There was a time before and after the Fall, before and after the cross, etc. Jesus did not cease to be God because He experienced our space-time (which parallels God's time; it is 2011 for God and us).

 

[Clete]

On the contrary, we know because the God of the Settled View can attest to all cases of every law of logic,

The settled view god is irrational, as has been endlessly demonstrated on this thread and five dozen others on this website over the last decade or longer.

and affirms to us that logic is reliable.

No, you affirm it and you do so by means of the very thing that you're affirming as reliable.

The God of The Open Open cannot make that affirmation because He simply does not know.

Doesn't know what, the unknowable?

You're right, Jim the God of reality only knows things that are knowable. It's only your pretend Greek fantasy god that exists in places that don't exist, knows things that are unknowable and otherwise does the undoable and violates the law of identity whenever he wishes (except that he doesn't ever "wish" he just sits there, unmoving and unmovable). It is only with the fantasy super hero god of Calvin that A is anything he wants A to be other than A.

How is that a contradiction on any level?

Its contradictory on every level. The mere fact that you can ask the question contradicts the notion that rational thought can proceed from the irrational Zeus of Aristotle and Augustine.

Only in the mind of an Open Theist is reliance upon a fickle, ignorant God viewed as more rational than reliance upon an all-knowing, all-present God with exhaustive knowledge of all things, past, present and future.

Amen!

Even if God were fickle (which He's not) and arrogant (which He's not but which Jimmy believes He has the right to be), such a God would still be vastly more rational that anything Jimbo is talking about.

Once again, Clete has yet to demonstrate the wherewithal to ascertain what is or isn't worthy of comment.

Nothing you say is worthy of comment, Jimmy!

I'm stringing you along until I get bored or too pissed off to continue. It's amusing, at the moment to watch you make a fool of yourself again. But it won't last long, trust me.

And once again, Clete's "resting in Him" makes absolutely no sense with a God as fickle and as ignorant as that of the Open View.

Spoken by a man who could not possibly know whether he's even saved or not. HA! What a joke.

Resting in the only true and just God, whose very life has been imputed to my account,
Clete

 

[Clete]

No. there is no "before" that precedes the creation of time. There is only logical order within the counsel of the Godhead.

Jim wants for you not to notice that when he uses the phrase "logical order" that it means the same thing as "sequence" where a cause comes BEFORE its effect. He wants to you think that there can be such a thing as a rational God that gets to ignore the law of identity and its corollary, the law of causality, or any other law of reason for that matter.

Every one of his posts are full of such contradictions and obfuscations. All he does is redefine terms so that he can use the terms to sound reasonable while clinging to Koo Koo bird, nut-job theology. Logical order doesn't imply "before and after", Love doesn't imply volition, volition doesn't imply choice, justice and arbitrary are somehow synonymous, etc, etc, etc. Utterly complete insanity.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Calvinists resort to mental gymnastic philosophical confusion, antimony, mystery. It is much easier to jettison the error and embrace a more coherent view.

 

[Lon]

If our thoughts occur only in the grey matter of our brain then w[h]ere do God's thoughts occur?

Doesn't matter, we are talking about us.

I know you believe Jesus is truely God, but one not knowing you would wonder how that would be possible given your view of God as you are expressing it. Your view is an undeniable contradiction.

"He is relational to yet unconstrained by His creation. Show me the contradiction.

Isaiah 55:6 “Seek the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; 7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
​

This passage states that, unlike man, God is very forgiving, it's not about a different way of thinking, not about God not being rational.

--Dave

I fail to see how your post is addressing anything we were discussing. As I understand it, here are the points we were arguing 1) That God is indeed involved with His creation, yet is apart from it, as is Dave with his goldfish.
2) That God is indeed apart from His creation including time because He has no beginning place to measure from and no end place to measure from in His existence. Time is already meaningless to His existence (cannot comprehend it at all) similar to Dave's fish constrained by the movements and parameters of their environment, Dave has no such restrictions.
3) How much do we know about God? How much do Dave's fish, arrogantly intelligent though they may be, know about Dave? Me: "Not a lot."