ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[godrulz]

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

I am still waiting even for a speculative answer. Lon is too quick to dismiss the possibility of one apart from determinism or relying on eternal now (which I disagree with his vapid view).

Determinism is a way to have foreknowledge, but at the expense of free will.

The Bible does not support exhaustive definite foreknowledge. Some contexts of foreknowledge of specific things cannot be extrapolated to EDF. e.g. foreknowledge of corporate elect does not extend to which individuals will believe or not before they are born.

 

[godrulz]

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?

Is that like Cornelius Van Til? Is it a perfect view or does it have some problems? He was Reformed, was he not?

 

[godrulz]

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.

Maybe not 'opposite'. Total depravity/bondage of the will is an overstatement. It is not total inability. God does not command what we cannot do. Wesley proposed prevenient grace. I do not believe that we sin because we are sinners (sin is not genetic nor a substance), but that we are sinners because we sin. God initiates and provides salvation, but we are able to receive or reject truth with our will and mind (hence culpable). The image of God is defaced, not erased (hence our value even as unbelievers).

We are universally sinners by choice, not conception (so babies do not go to hell, but they should in total depravity or Augustinian original sin).

 

[assuranceagent]

Maybe not 'opposite'. Total depravity/bondage of the will is an overstatement. It is not total inability. God does not command what we cannot do. Wesley proposed prevenient grace. I do not believe that we sin because we are sinners (sin is not genetic nor a substance), but that we are sinners because we sin. God initiates and provides salvation, but we are able to receive or reject truth with our will and mind (hence culpable). The image of God is defaced, not erased (hence our value even as unbelievers).

We are universally sinners by choice, not conception (so babies do not go to hell, but they should in total depravity or Augustinian original sin).

I agree with most of this. That we are sinners by choice and that we are sinners because we sin, not the other way around. But how can you say that the will is not in bondage to sin when the Word clearly says otherwise?

Rom 7:14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.

God does command what we cannot do in the sense of the law. Even were we to will to keep it, our flesh imprisons us and makes that impossible:

Rom 7:21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.
Rom 7:22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.

As to the idea that babies go to hell under Total Depravity...

The doctrine states no such thing. Total Depravity simply posits that every aspect of our lives has been touched by the fall. It's the idea that once we have sinned, we are not just hard of hearing or slight of sight before God, but that we are dead, deaf, dumb and blind before Him. Yet while this is true, outside of an additional agreement with Augustinian original sin, we are still condemned by our own sin and only by that. Therefore babies, having committed no sin of their own, are not hellbound.

 

[godrulz]

The Fall led to physical depravity and a propensity to sin. There is not a causative, genetic nature from Adam back of the will that makes us sin (or we would not be responsible for something we could not help).

Moral depravity and increasing patterns of bondage are volitional. Apart from His grace (influence, persuasion, conviction vs causation/coercion), no one would come to Him.

 

[Lon]

Further proof of your idiocy.

I'm going to shame you here. My IQ is 150. If I'm a dupe, idiot, moron, whatever and your IQ is lower? "Do the math."
Your insults give me a chuckle and now everyone else too. The idiot comment doesn't bother me respectively.

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 know "I have to go down and see if what I'm hearing is true." THINK for crying out loud. Where would He have 'heard?' You guys are very 2-dimensional thinkers on these things. Learn to really think and contemplate a thing. As I said, this is the one and major flaw of OV imo. You guys just don't think past the objections. You turn your ear deaf and your eyes blind to objections. This is why the majority reject your position. I highly suspect Enyart of miscommunication when he says 'the brightest' on his radio show. You guys can't even read past a paragraph.

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.

This doesn't surprise me in the least, whatsoever. I mean you and Nick can't even read a one minute (or less) post. When 3-5 paragraphs is 'too long' we all know where you stand and your academic prowess.

And?

And what? God can have EDF and you still have moral culpability. There is no more 'and.'

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.

Show me. To say it is circular clearly reveals your one or two dimensional thinking. It is impossible whether I'm the one asserting it, proving it, or not. It is just a fact of impossibility whether you see it or not.
Here, I also proved it.

And?

'And' it is not only probable, but logical, again whether you want to agree or not.

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.

Fine.

Have at it.

Lon

 

[Lon]

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

Wrong

1 I've read Schaeffer.

2 Next, an atom is both dynamic and static. It is in place, yet moving. A car engine can be running yet the car static at a stop light.
Therefore, I assert you are wrong. Something can both be dynamic and static at the same time.

3 The traditional view has always been of this persuasion and so for the third time, you are wrong again. We did not adopt this from you, you just never saw it in us and again, because of wrong misconception believe OV preserves something you didn't see in your years in a traditional church.

 

[Lon]

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.

But He still 'initiated' that. We cannot escape first-cause.

 

[Lon]

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

--David

He was an ordained Presbyterian minister and seminary graduate.

How is that "not a theologian per se?"

No commentary on our football game?
.....Some will ask how it is that God can tell us what will happen in the future if he can not see it. The answer is, God is all powerful and therefore can cause any event he wants to take place. Again, one may ask, isn't God also all knowing, which should include knowledge of all future events. The answer is that God made the world finite and the future does not exist as something that can be known as an actuality. In Biblical prophecy, God has told us about the future events he will cause to happen and the effects they will have when he judges the world.

The problem I have with this is the lack of EDF of course. Any definite foreknowledge is not foreknowledge really, but determinism.

Example: Tomorrow I will wear the blue shirt.
My foreknowledge is due to my predetermination and dedication to seeing that come about. This is one way definite foreknowledge can come about and many Calvinists agree. I agree, but it isn't the only way in my understanding and simply will not work for "Exhaustive" unless we go the double-pred route. I don't.

I do not know other ways DF works but again, once we understand the truth that God cannot be seen logically as constrained to our time-line, it is much easier to acquiesce that there are things God may know that we cannot figure out. Time consideration is also a part of our dynamic/static discussion. He is both dynamic and static. He is both relational to and apart from our perception and constraints in time (He cannot logically be seen as constrained, relational, yes, but impossible for Him to be constrained).

More on your second sentence. I missed it here. Apologies.

 

[Lon]

The Fall led to physical depravity and a propensity to sin. There is not a causative, genetic nature from Adam back of the will that makes us sin (or we would not be responsible for something we could not help).

Moral depravity and increasing patterns of bondage are volitional. Apart from His grace (influence, persuasion, conviction vs causation/coercion), no one would come to Him.

I see your point here and agree there is a problem but I believe the cross is the remedy for it. In otherwords, without the cross, I concede the point that we couldn't morally choose to 'not sin.'

As to genetics, I do believe there has to be something genetic. Our bodies were designed to live forever without sickness, old age, and disease. Because we die, I believe there has to be something genetically altered by sin.
Because Romans 1 tells us 'all creation groans,' and we a part of creation, I have to understand that sin carries physical ailments and consequences.

 

[Lon]

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

Oops, sorry Dave, I missed the next sentence.

Presuppositionalism isn't Calvinist?

I think you are finding you actually like what some Calvinists believe. I may be wrong and it isn't intended as a slight. I'm just seeing statements like this and wondering if rather you are against the more entrenched forms of Calvinism. I repeatedly observe you guys actually liking 'soft' forms but for the unexplainable portions. Again, just because I don't know an answer doesn't make it untrue. I believe God has not shared everything with us for the specific reason that He doesn't need or have to answer all our questions. He is God, we are His children/creation.

 

[Lon]

I am still waiting even for a speculative answer. Lon is too quick to dismiss the possibility of one apart from determinism or relying on eternal now (which I disagree with his vapid view).

Determinism is a way to have foreknowledge, but at the expense of free will.

The Bible does not support exhaustive definite foreknowledge. Some contexts of foreknowledge of specific things cannot be extrapolated to EDF. e.g. foreknowledge of corporate elect does not extend to which individuals will believe or not before they are born.

No, I don't dismiss the possibility of foreknowledge apart from determinism, that is you. You say whatever He determines is foreknown so that it is partial don't you? I say that it is absolutely within logic to say He is not constrained by time as we know it. Relational to, but unconstrained.

As to being vapid about an eternal now, maybe it isn't 'lively' enough for you but it is forceful and to be reckoned with and you'd rather ignore it.
Again, it would be impossible for Him to ever get to now if His duration is exactly as ours. "Eternal" non-beginning would never get to this point. He'd still be an eternity in the past with an eternity of time (never) before He'd get to now. This logic blows holes in everything you believe and you know it. Meh, "Vapid." If you'd address it logically, you'd not say such things. It doesn't prove EDF but it makes it's likelihood tangible so that I can agree with STP here that it isn't necessary to know how as to proving it plausible and rejecting a supposed logical disclaimer.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

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.

Originally Posted by SaulToPaul
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?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Lon,

Francis Schaeffer books, He is There and He is Not Silent, Escape from Reason, The God who is There, which are his major Works, are not theological in way that Calvin's Institutes are. His books are apologetic and deal with man as being capable of being reasoned with. Calvin would have maintained that it is useless to argue, attempt to persuade, or reason with sinners who are totally depraved. Sometimes I think reasoning with Calvinists is useless because, as a Calvinist you have dismissed the rules of rationality as in your example:

"An atom is both dynamic and static. It is in place, yet moving. A car engine can be running yet the car static at a stop light. Therefore, I assert you are wrong. Something can both be dynamic and static at the same time."

First of all we are talking about God's nature not the nature of an atom. Atoms internally and intrinsically are always in movement. A car engine is not the same thing as the car it is sitting in. A car engine cannot be running and not running at the same time.

You have broken the rule of identity, that is how we define something. In your argument you identified a car as the same thing as the engine.

A timeless God is "intrinsically" timeless or he is not timeless in his relationship to the world. Timelessness means no-time, no sequence of activity, no before and after, no past and no future, which is the opposite of what time means. No argument can be made for or against God's nature, one way or the other, unless this understanding of the identity or definition of the words time and timelessness are accepted by both parties in this debate.

Biblically speaking, that there was a time in God's eternal past when he existed before he created the world. There was a time in God's eternity that the creation of the world was in his future.

But if God is active and timeless, that is dynamic and static, then he does everything all at once and eternally, and then the world he interacts with would also be eternal. God did not start nor has ever stopped creating the world or anything else he does. It seems differently to us who are finite and bound by time, but not the way it is for God who is infinite and timeless, is the way Calvin put it.

A timeless God; one who does, thinks, and feels, everything all at once and eternally, is not free, neither are we, and all is machine.

--Dave

 

[tetelestai]

A timeless God; one who does, thinks, and feels, everything all at once and eternally, is not free, neither are we, and all is machine.

Hi Dave:

I have always been taught that time is a concept that God created just for planet earth and for human history.

Therefore, time does not exist in eternity, which is where God is, but time exists on planet earth, which is where we are. This concept would give God the ability to have exhaustive foreknowledge, and give us the ability to have free will.

I’m sure you have probably heard this argument before, but if you could be so kind to share with us your thoughts on this, I would be grateful.

Thanks

 

[DFT_Dave]

Hi Dave:

I have always been taught that time is a concept that God created just for planet earth and for human history.

Therefore, time does not exist in eternity, which is where God is, but time exists on planet earth, which is where we are. This concept would give God the ability to have exhaustive foreknowledge, and give us the ability to have free will.

I’m sure you have probably heard this argument before, but if you could be so kind to share with us your thoughts on this, I would be grateful.

Thanks

The word time can have three meanings; the first is sequence as in before and after, past and future. Time is actually nothing in itself, it is an aspect of what does exist and is capable of activity, is dynamic, which God is. This is the essence of the meaning of the word time.

Next, the creation of the world is not the beginning of time but merely a new way for measuring time. We don't know how God measures time but the creation produces a new way of measuring it, a day.

Time in God is not a limit, he is all powerful, but he does not do everything all at once, he is free to do whatever he wants whenever he wants.

Time is also an aspect of history, but it is not the same thing as an event in history. If time and historical events are the same thing then it could be said that God created all of history when he created time.

Exhaustive foreknowledge would be possible only if God created time in the sense of history, which he did not. And if he did create history, as in the events that take place on planet earth, then we would not be free.

--Dave

 

[bybee]

"all is machine....."

"all is machine....."

Lon,

Francis Schaeffer books, He is There and He is Not Silent, Escape from Reason, The God who is There, which are his major Works, are not theological in way that Calvin's Institutes are. His books are apologetic and deal with man as being capable of being reasoned with. Calvin would have maintained that it is useless to argue, attempt to persuade, or reason with sinners who are totally depraved. Sometimes I think reasoning with Calvinists is useless because, as a Calvinist you have dismissed the rules of rationality as in your example:

"An atom is both dynamic and static. It is in place, yet moving. A car engine can be running yet the car static at a stop light. Therefore, I assert you are wrong. Something can both be dynamic and static at the same time."

First of all we are talking about God's nature not the nature of an atom. Atoms internally and intrinsically are always in movement. A car engine is not the same thing as the car it is sitting in. A car engine cannot be running and not running at the same time.

You have broken the rule of identity, that is how we define something. In your argument you identified a car as the same thing as the engine.

A timeless God is "intrinsically" timeless or he is not timeless in his relationship to the world. Timelessness means no-time, no sequence of activity, no before and after, no past and no future, which is the opposite of what time means. No argument can be made for or against God's nature, one way or the other, unless this understanding of the identity or definition of the words time and timelessness are accepted by both parties in this debate.

Biblically speaking, that there was a time in God's eternal past when he existed before he created the world. There was a time in God's eternity that the creation of the world was in his future.

But if God is active and timeless, that is dynamic and static, then he does everything all at once and eternally, and then the world he interacts with would also be eternal. God did not start nor has ever stopped creating the world or anything else he does. It seems differently to us who are finite and bound by time, but not the way it is for God who is infinite and timeless, is the way Calvin put it.

A timeless God; one who does, thinks, and feels, everything all at once and eternally, is not free, neither are we, and all is machine.

--Dave

My dear Dave, can a machine feel, grieve, empathize, engage in acts of altruism? Can a machine lash out in anger or despair? Can a machine lay down it's life for another? I have seen no evidence for such behavior. Have you? bybee:think:

 

[DFT_Dave]

My dear Dave, can a machine feel, grieve, empathize, engage in acts of altruism? Can a machine lash out in anger or despair? Can a machine lay down it's life for another? I have seen no evidence for such behavior. Have you? bybee:think:

I think you are missing my point. A timeless God is a machine and cannot do any of the things you speak of. A God who experiences time is not a machine and can do what you suggest. Christ did not enter "time", he entered a human body and came to earth. God the Father cannot be "intrinsically" different then God the Son.

--Dave

 

[tetelestai]

Exhaustive foreknowledge would be possible only if God created time in the sense of history, which he did not. And if he did create history, as in the events that take place on planet earth, then we would not be free.

I have to disagree.

As lon said, there is no answer that makes sense, but that does not mean something is not true.

If I ask you: "Who made God?" "Where did God come from?" How can you give an answer that makes sense? These are questions atheists ask. Yet if you ask an atheist who supports the big bang theory where did the material, gases, etc come from that caused the big bang, they cannot give an answer that makes sense.

God says “I am”, this is what we have to answer where God came from, or who made God.

Why is “I am” an acceptable answer, but “compatabilism” not acceptable?

From Wikipedia:
Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent (people who hold this belief are known as compatibilists).

I understand that open theists believe compatibilism is “logically inconsistent”, but so is “I am” logically inconsistent if I ask you: "where did God come from?"

 

[DFT_Dave]

I have to disagree.

As lon said, there is no answer that makes sense, but that does not mean something is not true.

If I ask you: "Who made God?" "Where did God come from?" How can you give an answer that makes sense? These are questions atheists ask. Yet if you ask an atheist who supports the big bang theory where did the material, gases, etc come from that caused the big bang, they cannot give an answer that makes sense.

God says “I am”, this is what we have to answer where God came from, or who made God.

Why is “I am” an acceptable answer, but “compatabilism” not acceptable?

From Wikipedia:
Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent (people who hold this belief are known as compatibilists).

I understand that open theists believe compatibilism is “logically inconsistent”, but so is “I am” logically inconsistent if I ask you: "where did God come from?"

Let me answer for last point first. How do we answer the question; "where did God come from", by proving the eternity of something.

1. Something is eternal and has no beginning. Something has always existed because it’s impossible for anything to come into existence from absolutely nothing.

2. Whatever is eternal is the cause for the existence of what is not eternal and has a beginning.

It does not matter if you say God or nature, one of the two or both are eternal. Super string theory and quantum gravity are already being offered as describing what is eternal and responsible for the big bang, please catch up.

A propositional statement is neither true nor false, logical or illogical in itself. Nature/atoms are eternal, God is eternal, are statements of faith which may or may not be true. God is timeless and existed before he created the world is illogical and cannot be true by definition. The universe exploded out of nothing that had previously existed is an irrational and untrue proposition as well.

To say that one does not know what is the cause or nature of what is eternal or before the big bang is not a rational or irrational statement until it is stated what that eternal thing is.

To continue my proof for the existence of God:

3. An eternal and purely physical universe is “mechanical” in nature and could not be changed into something new because that would require a cause that was also new and had never existed before. A cause cannot originate itself.

4. In order for anything new to exist, what is eternal must be “non mechanical” in nature, dynamic and free.

I'm still working on this, but I'm sure you get the idea.

As to determinism, "compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent".

If I say that God has determined or ordained everything for us from a timeless eternity it would be irrational and untrue to say that we determined anything for ourselves. Do you honestly want me to believe that free will and determinism are logically consistent? This would be an irrational faith.

--Dave