ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lon]

What are possible reasons for God to save some, but damn others that He could save if He wanted to?

So far, I have heard about mystery, antimony, etc.

Some have said it is to demonstrate God's attributes of justice and mercy. There is no chance that all would believe, so there would have been unbelievers to damn without a decree. The cross is also sufficient to demonstrate both attributes, regardless what individuals do.

Others say it is for God's glory since no one deserves to be saved (true). Why person x vs y (arbitary...huh? ARBITRARY!) or why more damned than saved?!

Can you think of a good reason that does not impugn God's character and ways as to why x is saved and y is damned? I assume you buy into unconditional election (which necessitates double predestination, as much as it makes you guys squirm to admit it).

Back to Olson...I think his point stands...Satan wants all men to be damned; your view of God has Him wanting some men to be damned...not a real difference in character, just quantity?!

First, we have truths that we hold to therefore, we cannot be impugned as Calvinists with randomness. We believe the scriptures that say God is no respecter of persons. We believe the scriptures that say 'whoever' and 'whosoever.'

I'd like to run the gambit of the parable of the wedding feast. Luke 14:15-24

First, invitations are sent. Who to? To His chosen people.
From a Calvinist perspective, you'd have no problem that these invited ones are predetermined. They have been sent invitations. v16

In the parable, we next have the responses: "Too busy. Wives, cows, full e-mail box must be cleared, my favorite movie just came out." vv18-20

Angered, the Master rejects them from attendance. v24 It is determinism, but it is contingent determinism. Foreknowledge has and will always make the clarity of this difficult. We cannot know at all what it does or doesn't do, will or will not do. We can't think this way and come to any sort of concrete assessment. OVer's wrongly and impertinently assume a wrong answer. I assert again, "You do not and cannot know. There is no way to rationalize a multi-directional take on God's Foreknowledge.

Next, the master is determined to fill His banquet hall ('not willing that any should perish, so loved the world'). Again, foreknowledge and choosing may be based partially on response. Because God is preeminent first cause, He always has predeterminisms as first cause. It is dynamic and static. It necessarily follows that first-cause is also first moving such that there is predeterminism. Example: "You did not choose me, I chose you."
We certainly see choice to follow Christ, He isn't negating that in the disciples, He is saying He is first-cause (He made the first move).

The logic is that nothing happens without God first moving. In this way, we say God is dynamic, foreknowing, predeterminitive, but it is important to see dynamics start with God, not with man. This is impossible with first-cause (we'd be static, not Him).
This is also why we see salvation as God initiated and actively applied (we were static in sin). vv 21-24

 

[Lon]

The quote does not sound like 'eternal now'.

I think being a godly, logical thinker would trump denominational background. I swim against the Arminianism/SFK of my conservative denomination.

Can't remold? Does not hurt to try (you are my pet project:shocked?:think:

No, I agree, God is not just Static. He is also dynamic but it doesn't logically follow that this means a time-line but even multiple time-lines, potentially. He is center of all that exists. In one way we see Him as static for such, but we can't just stop there. God is and always has been relational so that I agree with Shaeffer that God's attributes are intrinsic. What I'm saying is you guys agree with Calvinists more than you'd like to admit on many points. If you are reading Shaeffer, you are reading a Calvinist.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The issue is how God obtained the knowledge. And there are only two ways for that to happen. Either He planned it, and is in complete control [Calvinism Spectrum] or it already happened [Timelessness, Eternal Now, Arminianism Spectrum].

If God is able to see the decision between the two vehicles as if it has already happened, how does that make the actual decision less than free?

 

[Lighthouse]

This is the point of the dude's video.

How can OVT’s on one hand say yes to anthropomorphisms, and then say no anthropopathisms? How is this not arbitrary? Or if you do acknowledge some anthropomorphisms, then how do you distinguish when and when not to?

If I tell a story about going hunting and I say that the deer's eyes looked right at me, is that an anthropomorphism?

If God is able to see the decision between the two vehicles as if it has already happened, how does that make the actual decision less than free?

How was He able to see it?

 

[Lon]

How was He able to see it?

This is and always will be the problem with OV. If it cannot answer a question, it assumes a different answer from the text (that He doesn't).

I wish Boyd, Sanders, and Pinnock would have been better scholars or you would not be in this mess. All they had to do was go back into history and check each and every time this had been addressed. Just because the answer is not apparent does not mean it is illogical or wrong. It just means God has answers, we don't.

The answer: Some believe it is the mechanism of predetermination BUT it doesn't have to follow. We can easily say "I don't know, but scripture seems to indicate that He does."

I'll go back to a few other considerations.

1) God cannot be following a timeline as we are. It is absolutely impossible and here is why: God has no beginning. I see shoddy philosophy behind misunderstanding this one concept. If God has no beginning (and He does), then it NECESSARILY follows logically, scripturally, physically, that time as we know it is not time as God knows it. Why? Because in order to arrive at our 'now' He has to traverse eternity (time) to get to us because His past extends forever. There is no way, if He is constrained to time in any way, shape, or form, He could ever make it to 'now' UNLESS He isn't bound by time as we know it. It is a logical impossibility unless you understand Him separate from time as we do.

2) Because God really is outside of time as we know it, there is way less problem with seeing EDF as not only possible, but actual. Because it is impossible to see Him constrained by time succession, the possibility of the 'how' is a given.

3) Regardless of 'how' we make decisions and are accountable for them. We are given time in which to make the right choices. "This is the day, the Lord has made." The logical problem is taken care of whether it is answered or not: We are held accountable for how we live each and every day on this planet.

 

[Lighthouse]

This is and always will be the problem with OV. If it cannot answer a question, it assumes a different answer from the text (that He doesn't).

Further proof of your idiocy.

I asked the question of StP, because I want to know what he thinks the answer is. I already know the possible answers. Like a lawyer I asked a question I already know the answer to, sort of.

But I do know the various answers from theologians, and I have looked at all the possibilities. As I have already shown in this thread.

I get the idea that God does not know the future directly from the text. As I have also shown in this thread.

I wish Boyd, Sanders, and Pinnock would have been better scholars or you would not be in this mess. All they had to do was go back into history and check each and every time this had been addressed. Just because the answer is not apparent does not mean it is illogical or wrong. It just means God has answers, we don't.

I've never actually finished any of their books. So even if I didn't have an answer it wouldn't be because of them.

The answer: Some believe it is the mechanism of predetermination BUT it doesn't have to follow. We can easily say "I don't know, but scripture seems to indicate that He does."

And?

I'll go back to a few other considerations.

1) God cannot be following a timeline as we are. It is absolutely impossible and here is why: God has no beginning. I see shoddy philosophy behind misunderstanding this one concept. If God has no beginning (and He does), then it NECESSARILY follows logically, scripturally, physically, that time as we know it is not time as God knows it. Why? Because in order to arrive at our 'now' He has to traverse eternity (time) to get to us because His past extends forever. There is no way, if He is constrained to time in any way, shape, or form, He could ever make it to 'now' UNLESS He isn't bound by time as we know it. It is a logical impossibility unless you understand Him separate from time as we do.

What makes this logical? I'll answer that for you; nothing. It is not logical, no matter how much you want to say it is. It's nothing but circular reasoning/begging the question.

2) Because God really is outside of time as we know it, there is way less problem with seeing EDF as not only possible, but actual. Because it is impossible to see Him constrained by time succession, the possibility of the 'how' is a given.

And?

3) Regardless of 'how' we make decisions and are accountable for them. We are given time in which to make the right choices. "This is the day, the Lord has made." The logical problem is taken care of whether it is answered or not: We are held accountable for how we live each and every day on this planet.

Our being held accountable is only a problem in the theory that all is predestined. If neither participant in the conversation believes it, then accountability is irrelevant.

Now, leave me alone and let me finish my conversation with StP, who is the person I was talking to anyway.

 

[tetelestai]

If I tell a story about going hunting and I say that the deer's eyes looked right at me, is that an anthropomorphism?

Is this some sort of trick question?

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics to non-human creatures and beings, gods, and objects or abstract concepts.

Since the deer already has eyes, what would be the point of refering to this as an anthropomorphism?

Now if the deer was trying to eat an ear of corn, but kept dropping it, and you said "that deer is all thumbs", that would be an anthropomorphism.

 

[tetelestai]

When a self-proclaimed Christian calls another an idiot or a moron that is a good sign of bad fruit.

Further proof of your idiocy.

:think:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

How was He able to see it?

Not sure how he does it, the Bible just calls it foreknowledge...

 

[Clete]

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.

I don't have any idea what scenario you are talking about but if God knows with absolute certainty what you will choose before you make the decision to choose then the choice was not made freely - period. I don't care if its 10,000 years in advance or 1/10,000th of a second.

Foreknowledge (of the absolute sort) is mutually exclusive of free will - period.

Would you like for me to post the formal argument again?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[assuranceagent]

Would you like for me to post the formal argument again?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Yes.

 

[Clete]

:think: :think: :think:

The problem is that your view of God is too humanly based......

So the fact that we are made in His image means nothing to you then. Is that it?

What do you think it means for God to have made us in His image and likeness?

Be careful! About 90% of the time when people actually answer that question they start to sound like Open Theists! :shocked:

Besides my theology is not humanly based in the first place. There is nothing I believe about God or about the Christian faith in general that I cannot establish with Scripture and sound reason. If, by those means, I end up with a theology proper that is too human like for your taste then I'd say that was your problem, not mine.

Which is the greater king? The king whose subjects obey him completely because they have no other choice, or the king whose subjects obey because of loyalty and love of both king and country?

The Calvinist king is neither! The Calvinists king is no more a king than is that tallest piece on your chess board because unless there is the possibility of disobedience, for a person to obey is meaningless and impossible. They are neither obeying nor disobeying, they are simply doing. A robot does not obey its programmer it simply executes the programming. God is not a computer programmer, He is a King and we are His subjects who choose to either obey Him or not, to either subject ourselves to His will or to rebel.

Resting in Him,
Clete

"Greater" in what way? Because he is "loved"? Scriptures say that we love Him because He first loved us....we do love Him. And it's not robotic. I love Him, but I didn't until He saved me.

Calvinists never answer this question! Why is that? :think:

Which is greater, Pam? Based on everything that Christianity is supposedly based upon even in the most Calvinistic circles, which king would be better? The king whose subjects obey him because they are forced to do so or the king whose subjects love him and therefore obey?

Just answer the question!!!!

The answer is so obvious that my five year old knows the answer without even having to think about it. Seriously, she really would blurt out the answer instantly.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[assuranceagent]

Calvinists never answer this question! Why is that? :think:

My guess'd be because it's a question built on a faulty premise and designed to be entrapping.

You make the assumption that loyalty in others is an idication of the greatness of the object of their loyalty. If you expect to posit that, I'd ask you to put forth a better argument in support of it.

The loyalty or lack thereof in the subjects has no bearing whatsoever on the greatness of the king. The King is great or he is not. In failing loyalty and fealty to a great king, it is the subjects that are shown to be lesser, not the king. And likewise should a great king have the power and inclination to bring about said loyalty in the hearts of his subjects, it in no way diminishes his greatness as they are two separate issues.

Which is greater, Pam? Based on everything that Christianity is supposedly based upon even in the most Calvinistic circles, which king would be better? The king whose subjects obey him because they are forced to do so or the king whose subjects love him and therefore obey?

Are we now preaching a gospel of obedience? Or are we still on grace? I'm confused.

The answer is so obvious that my five year old knows the answer without even having to think about it. Seriously, she really would blurt out the answer instantly.

Which serves to prove only that the thought processes that lead to that conclusion are, at best, simple and unrefined.


Now a question or two for you, Clete:

Someone is about to commit a murder. Who is the greater man:

a. the man who forces a stop to that action?

or

b. the man who yells at the murderer and tells him that it is wrong and asks him to recognize that fact and obey the law?



And further: Someone is going to commit suicide. Who is the greater man?

a. the man who forcibly stops him and thus saves his life?

or

b. the man who stands idly by and proclaims, "I wouldn't do that if I were you"?



Might I suggest that if you are unsure how to answer, you could consult your five year old daughter. lain:

 

[bybee]

God knows......

God knows......

Except for that little "Now I know..." part, you might have a point. The temporal reference is there specifically to contrast a previous condition opposite the present one. Ergo, God came to know at that moment whether Abraham would give up his promised son, if God asked.

Muz

If God knows, He need not ask. How odd of God to ask such a thing.....bybee

 

[DFT_Dave]

I believe your interpolation suppositional (Calvinists believe in a relational God). Schaeffer was a Calvinist Infra/compatible.. You do agree with that don't you?

Francis Schaeffer was an apologist and evangelist, he was not a theologian, per se. He championed presuppositionalism, which is certainly not Calvinism.

--David

No commentary on our football game?

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, I agree, God is not just Static. He is also dynamic but it doesn't logically follow that this means a time-line but even multiple time-lines, potentially. He is center of all that exists. In one way we see Him as static for such, but we can't just stop there. God is and always has been relational so that I agree with Shaeffer that God's attributes are intrinsic. What I'm saying is you guys agree with Calvinists more than you'd like to admit on many points. If you are reading Shaeffer, you are reading a Calvinist.

When you say he is "dynamic" it is you agreeing with us. God cannot be intrinsically both active and static. He freely actualizes his own unlimited creative potential in an eternity of unlimited time. In other words he does what he wants, when he wants, if he wants.

I can see you've never read Schaeffer.

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

I know, which is why I say you often have anti-blinders on. You would agree more than disagree with much of Calvinism if you removed the blinders.

You must be a quasi-Calvinist. Determinism and free will theism are polar opposites. I am also the opposite on all 5 petals of TULIP.

We have the essentials of the faith in common, the most important thing (but Calvinism and Arminianism/Open Theism are not compatible, though Arminius was more Reformed than I realized).

 

[assuranceagent]

I am also the opposite on all 5 petals of TULIP.

I can see four of the five points based on previous conversations, but you are 'opposite' Total Depravity?

Explain you position with regard to that doctrine, please.

 

[godrulz]

No, I agree, God is not just Static. He is also dynamic but it doesn't logically follow that this means a time-line but even multiple time-lines, potentially. He is center of all that exists. In one way we see Him as static for such, but we can't just stop there. God is and always has been relational so that I agree with Shaeffer that God's attributes are intrinsic. What I'm saying is you guys agree with Calvinists more than you'd like to admit on many points. If you are reading Shaeffer, you are reading a Calvinist.

I am reading and appreciate Schaeffer, despite their Calvinism.

Is God really the first cause of everything? He is the Uncaused Causer (when I pondered God always existing, it blew my mind again and led me to worship, despite lack of understanding....wonder and wonderful!).

Are we not the originators of our choices. The will and mind can make choices apart from God giving the desire that we supposedly freely act on.

 

[godrulz]

If God is able to see the decision between the two vehicles as if it has already happened, how does that make the actual decision less than free?

The problem is that He cannot see something that is not there. Until a contingent choice is made, it is merely possible, not an object of certain knowledge.

You beg the question by assuming prescience without being able to prove it biblically or logically.