ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lighthouse]

No, I'm not trying to persuade you. I just don't understand how God's knowledge had an impact on scenario 2. I still had the ability to choose either vehicle... unless, in scenario 2, a mysterious force overwhelmed my brain and overrode my will.

Would you rather have this explained to you by godrulz or me?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Would you rather have this explained to you by godrulz or me?

rulz.

I know the standard reasoning, that if I will not choose other than what God knows, then the choice isn't free.

The fact is, his knowledge or lack of knowledge didn't influence
the decision in either scenario...both were freely made.

 

[Pam Baldwin]

My point all along has been that God cannot hate becasue God "is" love.

Oh....so you are saying that hate and love are kind of in the same vein- the same thing manifested in different ways? As in your example?
Only hate would be sin or at least wrong and God cannot do that?

I really am trying to understand your point.

Hate is wrong?Sin?

Thanks for your patience!

 

[Sharri]

sorry for barging in I know it's been a while, finally have a pc to use.

Originally Posted by Sharri
When you say outcome in the eternity past, are you talking about what our outcome is in eternity (going to heaven or hell)?

Guess I'm not sure what it means.

The Calvinist is saying that and a lot more. Calvinism (and all other Augustinian theologies) teach that God predestined every event in the history of history. They believe and teach that every single event that happens, every orbit of every electron, the precise position and condition of every speck of dirt, every murder, every rape and every act of loving kindness and all the other events that have happened or will ever happen were all arbitrarily and absolutely determined by God before time began. If there is a booger on your lip its because God predestined that it would be there eons before the first eon began.

And just never mind about how saying "BEFORE time began" is self-contradictory. They don't care about that sort of detail. Just chalk it up as an antinomy and forget about it. After all, turning your brain off is the very definition of faith, isn't it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

okay, so If God predestined every event, where does our free will come into the picture? How does free will and predestination go together? Does it?
I don't see how they can go together if God predestined everything then we don't have free will. right?

Did God determined the fate of all men because we are sinners, therefore we don't have free will to decide on to believe in Christ or not? I don't see how God determines life and death; both physical and spiritual; both temporal and eternal.

 

[Lon]

okay, so If God predestined every event, where does our free will come into the picture? How does free will and predestination go together? Does it?
I don't see how they can go together if God predestined everything then we don't have free will. right?

Did God determined the fate of all men because we are sinners, therefore we don't have free will to decide on to believe in Christ or not? I don't see how God determines life and death; both physical and spiritual; both temporal and eternal.

Hi Sharri. When we say 'predetermined/predestined' it is important to know what we mean. Your quote and whoever wrote it assume it means all of everything in an 'active' manner. Example:

I am going to build a chair. My hand is the only one involved in the whole process, I built it (100% active).

There is also another way: I'm going to hire a guy to build a chair. This is active and passive. I actively hire, I passively determine the outcome of the hiring. My hand never touches the chair. With God, we are created with creativity. The problem with the OV analysis, is that they rightly see EDF in the process but wrongly assume that it denies passive involvement (they see it all as active from the Calvinist position). God is first-cause of everything so that He is active. Even if He knows an outcome, however, knowledge does not negate passivity or somehow make God actively responsible for our choices and decisions.

God is both active and passive and OVer's often make the mistake of not seeing the difference between God's decretive and prescriptive will in assessing Calvinism.

Hope that clears up the dross for meaningful questions and discussion.

In Him

Lon

 

[Lon]

So, rather than assume a traditional position uncritically, one should wrestle with the biblical and philosophical evidence to make sure we are on track. Modal logic, etc. is helpful, but the face value reading of Scripture that shows God experiencing endless duration and not knowing the unsettled future as settled is the strength of OT.

I am still waiting for an explanation of the logic and mechanism of SFK. It is simply assumed, not defended (since you cannot). It starts with an idea of how God should be (Platonic perfectionism) rather than let the revelation speak for itself as to what God is really like.

That Calvinists, Arminians, Catholics, and most come to this position of foreknowledge suggests that it is you that assumes rather than seeing clear teaching of scripture. There are definite scriptures that support SFK or EDF. Foreknowledge is a given in scripture and most of us read it that way. So really, you are arguing from the minority position here and assuming to say that it is unbiblical. It is biblical and this is an argument from ignorance imo. I don't believe you have a leg to stand on in pressing it continually. You are incorrect that it is accepted without a critical eye. It is because of the critical eye in exegesis we have this belief, not philosophy, not erroneaus tradition. They support what we naturally see in scripture. Because you are the minority, your asserting over majority barely registers. Your position is egocentric for what you see as strength of arguing against the majority. It isn't a very strong point and is seen as minority asserting.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dr. Francis Schaeffer

"When did history begin? If one is thinking with the modern concept of the space-time continuum, then it is quite obvious that time and history did not exist before 'in the beginning.' But if we are thinking of history in contrast to an eternal, philosophic 'other,' or in contrast to a static eternal, then history [and time--Dave] began before Genesis 1:1."--Genesis In Time and Space, pp. 18-19

"In the beginning' is a technical term stating the fact that at this particular point of sequence [sequence in the activity of God--Dave] there is a creation ex nihilo--a creation out of nothing. All that is, except for God himself who already has been, now comes into existence. Before this there was a personal existence--love and communication. Prior to the material universe, prior to the creation of all else there is love and communication [within the Trinity]. This means that love and communication are intrinsic." p. 24

Love and communication are forms of movement that require sequence which is an aspect of time. The creation requires a "before and after" in the Trinity and a change in activity from "day" to new "day", both of which are aspects of time. We cannot believe in the Trinity nor in the creation, as Dr. Schaeffer explained it, without also believing there is movement, change, and time within God.

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

rulz.

I know the standard reasoning, that if I will not choose other than what God knows, then the choice isn't free.

The fact is, his knowledge or lack of knowledge didn't influence
the decision in either scenario...both were freely made.

LH should kick the can. I only half agree with Clete's logic, but the conclusion sort of fits.

I have not thought it completely through. I hear what you are saying and think you are right about the free choice part, but not that you can retain exhaustive foreknowledge at the same time. So, the issue is more EDF for me, not the free will of your scenario?

 

[godrulz]

Hi Sharri. When we say 'predetermined/predestined' it is important to know what we mean. Your quote and whoever wrote it assume it means all of everything in an 'active' manner. Example:

I am going to build a chair. My hand is the only one involved in the whole process, I built it (100% active).

There is also another way: I'm going to hire a guy to build a chair. This is active and passive. I actively hire, I passively determine the outcome of the hiring. My hand never touches the chair. With God, we are created with creativity. The problem with the OV analysis, is that they rightly see EDF in the process but wrongly assume that it denies passive involvement (they see it all as active from the Calvinist position). God is first-cause of everything so that He is active. Even if He knows an outcome, however, knowledge does not negate passivity or somehow make God actively responsible for our choices and decisions.

God is both active and passive and OVer's often make the mistake of not seeing the difference between God's decretive and prescriptive will in assessing Calvinism.

Hope that clears up the dross for meaningful questions and discussion.

In Him

Lon

Incompatibilism, not compatibilism!

Decretive vs prescriptive wills? More Calvinistic loopholes? Can you give the one sentence definition and e.g. for dummies of each?

 

[godrulz]

That Calvinists, Arminians, Catholics, and most come to this position of foreknowledge suggests that it is you that assumes rather than seeing clear teaching of scripture. There are definite scriptures that support SFK or EDF. Foreknowledge is a given in scripture and most of us read it that way. So really, you are arguing from the minority position here and assuming to say that it is unbiblical. It is biblical and this is an argument from ignorance imo. I don't believe you have a leg to stand on in pressing it continually. You are incorrect that it is accepted without a critical eye. It is because of the critical eye in exegesis we have this belief, not philosophy, not erroneaus tradition. They support what we naturally see in scripture. Because you are the minority, your asserting over majority barely registers. Your position is egocentric for what you see as strength of arguing against the majority. It isn't a very strong point and is seen as minority asserting.

I see Calvinists proof texting foreknowledge/determinism verses that I agree with. SFK uses the same verses. The problem is that there is another subset of verses that show the future is partially unsettled and that God knows it as possible, not certain, in advance.

So, I believe there is a biblical case for two motifs (some vs all of future is determined/settled/known). Boyd has the verses on his old site. I also believe that godly philosophy and logic also demonstrate that free will is not compatible with EDF. Hence, you must have a watered down version of free will and some fancy footwork to have a deterministic, EDF God, failing to recognize issues with evil, etc.

Neither majority nor minority is proof of truth. I realize it is a scandalous leap to admit that much of tradition has been tainted and wrong (Islam and Catholicism have the numbers, but not pure truth).

This is my most significant, exciting discovery (Open Theism issues because they are about God)...leads to humility, not arrogance.

 

[godrulz]

Dr. Francis Schaeffer

"When did history begin? If one is thinking with the modern concept of the space-time continuum, then it is quite obvious that time and history did not exist before 'in the beginning.' But if we are thinking of history in contrast to an eternal, philosophic 'other,' or in contrast to a static eternal, then history [and time--Dave] began before Genesis 1:1."--Genesis In Time and Space, pp. 18-19

"In the beginning' is a technical term stating the fact that at this particular point of sequence [sequence in the activity of God--Dave] there is a creation ex nihilo--a creation out of nothing. All that is, except for God himself who already has been, now comes into existence. Before this there was a personal existence--love and communication. Prior to the material universe, prior to the creation of all else there is love and communication [within the Trinity]. This means that love and communication are intrinsic." p. 24

Love and communication are forms of movement that require sequence which is an aspect of time. The creation requires a "before and after" in the Trinity and a change in activity from "day" to new "day", both of which are aspects of time. We cannot believe in the Trinity nor in the creation, as Dr. Schaeffer explained it, without also believing there is movement, change, and time within God.

--Dave

I am reading Schaeffer and remember you met one of his relatives. I don't think he would be that non-traditional, is he? I would assume he accepted eternal now, etc. with no Open Theism leanings (does now because he saw the light in heaven? ). He did have many good insights. Do you know for sure his stance on issues? Would he not be quite Calvinistic?

 

[Lon]

I am reading Schaeffer and remember you met one of his relatives. I don't think he would be that non-traditional, is he? I would assume he accepted eternal now, etc. with no Open Theism leanings (does now because he saw the light in heaven? ). He did have many good insights. Do you know for sure his stance on issues? Would he not be quite Calvinistic?

If we edit out Dave's notes, we come to see what Schaeffer was saying:

"When did history begin? If one is thinking with the modern concept of the space-time continuum, then it is quite obvious that time and history did not exist before 'in the beginning.' But if we are thinking of history in contrast to an eternal, philosophic 'other,' or in contrast to a static eternal, then history began before Genesis 1:1."--Genesis In Time and Space, pp. 18-19

"In the beginning' is a technical term stating the fact that at this particular point of sequence there is a creation ex nihilo--a creation out of nothing. All that is, except for God himself who already has been, now comes into existence. Before this there was a personal existence--love and communication. Prior to the material universe, prior to the creation of all else there is love and communication. This means that love and communication are intrinsic." p. 24

Being Presbyterian? You bet your sweet bippy. You can't remold a Presbyterian into an open theist.

 

[Lon]

Incompatibilism, not compatibilism!

Decretive vs prescriptive wills? More Calvinistic loopholes? Can you give the one sentence definition and e.g. for dummies of each?

From Hilston
Decretive will

Whenever scripture describes circumstances or events in terms of 'the will of God,' (i.e., not as commands) it is referring to God's decretive will

Prescriptive will

All commands from God comprise His prescriptive (or proscriptive) will, i.e. His will as command

The distinction is thus: God's prescriptive will is resisted and thwarted. God's decretive will is not.

Your turn, reveal, according to these that it is incompatible (please show your work).

 

[Lon]

I see Calvinists proof texting foreknowledge/determinism verses that I agree with. SFK uses the same verses. The problem is that there is another subset of verses that show the future is partially unsettled and that God knows it as possible, not certain, in advance.

So, I believe there is a biblical case for two motifs (some vs all of future is determined/settled/known). Boyd has the verses on his old site. I also believe that godly philosophy and logic also demonstrate that free will is not compatible with EDF. Hence, you must have a watered down version of free will and some fancy footwork to have a deterministic, EDF God, failing to recognize issues with evil, etc.

Neither majority nor minority is proof of truth. I realize it is a scandalous leap to admit that much of tradition has been tainted and wrong (Islam and Catholicism have the numbers, but not pure truth).

This is my most significant, exciting discovery (Open Theism issues because they are about God)...leads to humility, not arrogance.

Link please? (the best I can tell is that his listed scriptures fall flat).

Scandalous? Can be, especially as you assert. It must be provable like any good scientist has done for us in the past in correcting. Proof IS in the pudding. These ideas have been soundly refuted several times in history now.

 

[Lon]

I Cor. 15 is a context about bodily, physical resurrection, not spiritual regeneration.


It limits God's love and cross to save the elite elect while arbitrarily damning many more that He could save if He wanted to. To say that God must demonstrate wrath and mercy by playing eenie-meanie-minie-moe is resolved in the cross. To say it is for God's glory and our good to save some, but savage others is also foreign to the gospel.

Irresistible grace is an oxymoron.

Who said it was arbitrary? Just because you or I wouldn't know is no indication of arbitrary. Where do you get these ideas? If you persist stubbornly-obtusely, it is no wonder you are anti-Calvinist. I believe you reject a fabrication in your own mind's eye.

And WHAT???

I Cor. 15 is a context about bodily, physical resurrection, not spiritual regeneration.

Read these verses again!

1 Corinthians 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
1 Corinthians 15:48 as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
1 Corinthians 15:52 For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

How can you possibly say this is not about spiritual regeneration when it is 'Spiritual' and 'changed' right there in the text?

Sometimes your Calvinist inoculation can make you so thick.

How could you possibly say this to Nang?

Do you like Jethro Tull, Miss 'Thick as a brick'?

It drips honey-coated irony.

Irresistible grace is an oxymoron.

Joh 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that remains, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you.

1Jo 4:19 We love Him because He first loved us.

Rom 5:8 But God commends His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

Luk 14:23 And the lord said to the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled.

Rom 8:30 But whom He predestinated, these He also called; and whom He called, those He also justified. And whom He justified, these He also glorified.

John 10:16 And I have other sheep who are not of this fold. I must also lead those, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one flock, one Shepherd.

If we were able to resist it, we'd all be lost. God crafts toward us a grace that I believe is truly irresistible. Whatever reason, power, love, glory, this grace is irresistible. I find the oxymoron statement not only offensive, but incredibly obtuse with anti-calvinist cataracts.

 

[Pam Baldwin]

Who said it was arbitrary? Just because you or I wouldn't know is no indication of arbitrary. Where do you get these ideas? If you persist stubbornly-obtusely, it is no wonder you are anti-Calvinist. I believe you reject a fabrication in your own mind's eye.

And WHAT???


Read these verses again!

How can you possibly say this is not about spiritual regeneration when it is 'Spiritual' and 'changed' right there in the text?

Sometimes your Calvinist inoculation can make you so thick.

How could you possibly say this to Nang?



It drips honey-coated irony.


If we were able to resist it, we'd all be lost. God crafts toward us a grace that I believe is truly irresistible. Whatever reason, power, love, glory, this grace is irresistible. I find the oxymoron statement not only offensive, but incredibly obtuse with anti-calvinist cataracts.

Wow. Great post....I totally agree.

 

[tetelestai]

Your turn, reveal, according to these that it is incompatible (please show your work).

I know this is for Godrulz, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in.

The story of Balaam reveals three types of Divine will and how God's will interacts with human will and neutralizes satanic will.

DIRECTIVE WILL OF GOD

The directive will of God is the same as the desire of God. His directives are commands and prohibitions: "Do this! Don’t do this!", or as Hilston put it “prescriptive” and “proscriptive”

"And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people: for they are blessed." (Num 22:12)

Balak, King of Moab, wanted to hire Balaam to curse the Jews so the Moabites could defeat them. God’s will for Balaam was to refuse to go with the messengers from Balak: "Do not go with them, you shall not curse the people." Hence, God’s directive will prohibited Balaam from accompanying them.

PERMISSIVE WILL OF GOD

The permissive will of God means that God allows man to make decisions and allows certain things to happen even though they are not His desire. God does not coerce human volition.

Balaam had decided to go contrary to God’s directive will. Balaam was operating on materialism lust from his old sin nature; since Balaam was determined to become rich, he desperately wanted the fee from Balak for cursing the Jews. Wealth was more important to Balaam than submitting to the will of God. Therefore, he used his negative volition to disobey the will of God.

"And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do" (Num 22:20)

The fact that God permitted Balaam to go indicates Divine recognition of free will. If God had violated the free will of Balaam, then God would not be glorified by such forcing. In grace, God sought to discourage Balaam’s obstinance. But once Balaam went on negative signals, God stood aside and permitted him to go. However, God will be glorified and His plan for human history is always accomplished in spite of the hostile decisions of man.

God disciplines for disobedience, but He does not force obedience. While the righteousness of God did not violate Balaam’s human volition, the justice of God disciplined Balaam. God’s discipline was a demonstration of His love for Balaam to motivate him to get back into God’s will

OVERRULING WILL OF GOD

The overruling will of God means that Jesus Christ controls history.

But God was angry because he [Balaam] was going, and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the way as an adversary against him. Then the Lord put a word in Balaam’s mouth and said, "Return to Balak, and you shall speak thus." Then Balak said to Balaam, "What have you done to me? I took you to curse my enemies, but behold, you have actually blessed them!" And he [Balaam] answered and said, "Must I not be careful to speak what the Lord puts in my mouth?" Then Balak said to Balaam, "Do not curse them at all nor bless them at all” But Balaam answered and said to Balak, “Did I not tell you, ‘Whatever the Lord speaks, that I must do"?"

Balaam was not permitted to curse the Jews for several reasons. First of all, the discipline and judgment of Israel is always a Divine prerogative. Second, Balaam’s curse would have been tantamount to anti-Semitism, which involves Satan as well as negative human volition. Under God’s overruling will, in keeping with His promise of, (Gen 12:2) He exercises His Divine sovereignty to protect His people from satanic action. Consequently, Balaam was hindered from cursing the Jews.

The directive will of God is the exercise of His sovereignty, which would not allow Israel to be cursed.

The permissive will of God involves the negative volition of a human being, in this case, Balaam.

The overruling will of God involves Divine intervention of satanic will. Satan desired to curse Israel, but God would not permit it.

However, Balaam will pay the highest price that a believer can pay for his disobedience; by returning for the money, and showing Balak how to stop Israel.

P.S. I believe in compatabilism

 

[Lighthouse]

rulz.

I know the standard reasoning, that if I will not choose other than what God knows, then the choice isn't free.

The fact is, his knowledge or lack of knowledge didn't influence
the decision in either scenario...both were freely made.

His knowledge isn't the issue. But if you'd rather read Willie's blathering, have at it.

 

[Pam Baldwin]

. However, Balaam will pay the highest price that a believer can pay for his disobedience; by returning for the money, and showing Balak how to stop Israel.

P.S. I believe in compatabilism

Do you think that Balaam is saved?

What do you think the Scriptures mean when they say that man is deperately wicked and can do no good? My contention is that man's will is not free, in that we cannot choose righteousness out of our totally sinful self. There are numerous Scriptures that affirm this sinfulness, saying we are in bodage to it....I find no verses that mention such a thing as "free" will....or even alude to that.

 

[tetelestai]

Do you think that Balaam is saved?

"And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people......" (Num 22:12)

Would God talk to an unbeliever?