ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[themuzicman]

Misdirection is no address. Stay on topic?

It's a valid point. Just because the church has believed X for Y years doesn't make it accurate.

"Micro-management!"
"eisegete" whew! At least you didn't say Greek!
1) How does changing outcomes not interfere with freewill?
(remember you also (OV) do not believe in absolute freewill.
He obviously does interfere. Does that 'violate' freewill? If not, why do you assume EDF would?

Changing options and outcomes are possible without violating free will.

I've never said that EDF violates free will. I've said that EDF is incompatible with free will.

2)Silly claim? It is a question. If man's freewill is unknowable, how does God even know if we will make a virus like we made killerbees that will destroy the planet? How does He know if a nuclear war will wipe us all out so that the rest of prophecy goes unfulfilled? You are playing with a double-standard here that implicates OV logic. No, this isn't a silly claim, it is a perplexing question.

This is a silly claim. DO you really think that God is unable do act to prevent the destruction of the planet by a virus? Again, you seem to embrace this deist view of God, where He sets things in motion, and then sits back and does nothing.

Maybe it is just us traditional theists then but OV certainly doesn't look simple to me.

The idea is fairly simple to understand. When discussing things with a CVer who wants EDF to be the answer to how God prophesies anything, that's more complex.

Because He is micro-managing exacting outcomes, just as in the Calvinist view.

Except that in the Calvinist view, God micro-manages every outcome.

And since when is acting to bring a certain outcome without violating free will a problem?

Yes, but if you cannot see these as requiring meticulous interaction I'm not sure how to get you to acquiesce.

There's a difference between meticulous control and meticulous action. Surely you can see this.

Think about this: In order for the general terms of this long prophecy to come about, God has to literally ensure that nations survive, has to influence kings, has to ensure they survive wars, has to ensure that no sickness or disease or a bad day occur for the said wars to take place. He has to ensure their economy for war paraphernalia, etc. etc.

And you think this is a problem? For the most part God wouldn't have to do anything. You make it sounds as though any little thing would be a catastrophe.

Because then you are asserting a Calvinist perspective.

No, a Calvinist perspective would required that God meticulously control everything.

Except that specifics are required even for a general prophecy?

Specifics aren't a big deal.

War isn't any of these?

War isn't all things.

A coach making the calls is still wringing his hands. What is His position in this example? My answer is "All players, coaches, vendors and fans." He is first-cause of them all, including the game. He can do whatever He wishes and influence freewill any way He wishes.

Except that a coach isn't on the field.

Too overstated. Prophecy differs and not all are given to convey a desired action. Prophecies of Messiah, require no immediate action. Some are given for information about the future as primary. So I disagree with you here.

Even prophecies about the Messiah have an immediate response: Preparation.

Yes, exactly. You also see that prophecies are given for different reasons.

That's why I didn't speak in absolute terms.

I accept your challenge:
Hence, what to do to ensure a future victory.
Hence, what will happen in the immediate future (prophecy without indication of what Saul is to do). It will come to pass. It is therefore one of those in which it is just future informative.

1Sa 23:6-14 supports God's EDF.

ROFL!

God only reveals present knowledge:

1) Saul intends to come down. Nothing will inhibit that intention.
2) The people will give David over to him.

You don't even need to be God to get that information.

Muz

 

[tetelestai]

Did you actually read the story of the witch of Endor?

Saul disobeyed God, and was cut off. Samuel left Saul because Samuel knew Saul was lying to him. Samuel no longer could prophesize , and then Samuel dies. Saul in disguise goes to a witch to have the witch raise Samuel from the dead for a seance to find out what he should do about the Philistines. The witch has contact with a “familiar spirit” (really a demon). The first thing the demon does is expose Saul, which scares the witch because Saul had withes deported. The person Saul thinks is Samuel is really a demon pretending to be Samuel. The demon tells Saul he and his sons will die and Israel will be delivered into the hands of the Philistines.

Everything happened exactly as the demon pretending to be Samuel (through the witch) said it would.

How?

Because satan is very intelligent. Satan does not have foreknowledge or omniscience, but is smart enough to make a very good prediction of what will happen. God condemns this type of practice in Deut.

Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

Unfortunately OV’ers are diminishing God to the intelligence of satan. OVT puts God on the same level as satan for knowing future events.

 

[Lon]

It's a valid point. Just because the church has believed X for Y years doesn't make it accurate.

No it is misdirection. Doesn't matter what you assert here. It is peripheral to my question and clearly obfuscating because again misdirection is no answer. Proof? You have yet to answer my question and will probably have to go back to remember what it was. Why? --> Misdirection

Changing options and outcomes are possible without violating free will.

Okay, let's do some definition work here. What do you mean by violate?
Is it an innocuous term like 'limit' 'influence' 'adjust'? I certainly see great impact on freewill with God's interaction. What do I mean? That freewill will always have different parameters in relationships and God is omnipotent.

I've never said that EDF violates free will. I've said that EDF is incompatible with free will.

This gives you a much improved standing with your traditional brothers, but I'm not sure most of OV is of the same mind. Many insist on the chasm of pressing EDF against freewill.

This is a silly claim. DO you really think that God is unable do act to prevent the destruction of the planet by a virus? Again, you seem to embrace this deist view of God, where He sets things in motion, and then sits back and does nothing.

You can say it, but I already said I disagree with you. Saying it is silly has already been said. I disagreed. You say He cannot micromanage and then in the next breath say that God is able to act. Which is it? OV is unclear here and thus confusing regardless of whether my question is silly to you or not.

The idea is fairly simple to understand. When discussing things with a CVer who wants EDF to be the answer to how God prophesies anything, that's more complex.

How is this different than this?

I realize that saying "EDF" makes understanding prophecy simple. But simple isn't always accurate.

Except that in the Calvinist view, God micro-manages every outcome.

Good, this is an admission of micromanaging from the OV camp.

No, a Calvinist perspective would required that God meticulously control everything.

What does it matter if He does it sporadically or all the time, then?

And since when is acting to bring a certain outcome without violating free will a problem?

Er, because this is also the Calvinist position? Are you and GR really closet Calvinists?

There's a difference between meticulous control and meticulous action. Surely you can see this.

Yes, but it again is the difference between infra and supralapsarian (Calvinism).

And you think this is a problem? For the most part God wouldn't have to do anything. You make it sounds as though any little thing would be a catastrophe.

It would, this is your chess player analogy. "He doesn't know what man will do (multiply by # of people involved)." Who is to say what any one of them might do that will affect all the rest? If God were to prophesy about the Twin Towers the terrorists would have made the prophecy null because God couldn't have foreseen their actions (according to OV). It is a convoluted mess. Back to this:

I realize that saying "EDF" makes understanding prophecy simple. But simple isn't always accurate.

Specifics aren't a big deal.

It is to the OV.

War isn't all things.

Wasn't my question.

Except that a coach isn't on the field.

Maybe you use misdirection unconsciously?

Even prophecies about the Messiah have an immediate response: Preparation.

Hmm, I'll think about this, but you already agreed there are different purposes for prophecy.

That's why I didn't speak in absolute terms.

:thumb:

ROFL!

God only reveals present knowledge:

1) Saul intends to come down. Nothing will inhibit that intention.
2) The people will give David over to him.

You don't even need to be God to get that information.

Muz

Disagree. Of course.

 

[themuzicman]

No it is misdirection. Doesn't matter what you assert here. It is peripheral to my question and clearly obfuscating because again misdirection is no answer. Proof? You have yet to answer my question and will probably have to go back to remember what it was. Why? --> Misdirection

No, the "why" is to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument. I suppose I could just identified this as a fallacy of irrelevance, but I thought a good counter example would suffiice.

Okay, let's do some definition work here. What do you mean by violate?
Is it an innocuous term like 'limit' 'influence' 'adjust'? I certainly see great impact on freewill with God's interaction. What do I mean? That freewill will always have different parameters in relationships and God is omnipotent.

Violate means that the individual is limited to one option when choosing, and they must choose that option. They cannot do otherwise.

This gives you a much improved standing with your traditional brothers, but I'm not sure most of OV is of the same mind. Many insist on the chasm of pressing EDF against freewill.

I doubt many of my OV brethren would disagree. This is only how most CV folks take what we say.

It still eliminates the possibility that both EDF and free will co-exist.

You can say it, but I already said I disagree with you. Saying it is silly has already been said. I disagreed. You say He cannot micromanage and then in the next breath say that God is able to act. Which is it? OV is unclear here and thus confusing regardless of whether my question is silly to you or not.

By definition, micro-managing means that you're involved in every little detail that's going on. That's clearly not the case in Daniel 11. These events take place over a period of years (I forget the number, but it's a lot.) God isn't micro-managing every moment, every decision that occurs, even by the main players, in those years. So, to say that God is micro-managing here is simply false.

How is this different than this?

It's not. But I'm not claiming that OVT is accurate because it is simple.

Good, this is an admission of micromanaging from the OV camp.

ROFL.. I think you've expanded the definition of "micro-managing" just a bit.

What does it matter if He does it sporadically or all the time, then?

Because acting every now and then isn't micro-management, and doesn't violate free will.

Er, because this is also the Calvinist position? Are you and GR really closet Calvinists?

This is the Calvinist claim. However, the Calvinist position is also illogical (not to mention unbiblical.)

Yes, but it again is the difference between infra and supralapsarian (Calvinism).

The only difference between infra- and supralapsarianism is when God elects, logically. For the supralapsarian, God chooses who He will save, and who He will condemn, and then creates a world that brings this about. For the infra-, God creates, and then decides who will be elect, (and for doubles, who to condemn).

Of course, all this happens before creation, and either way, God meticulously controls creation, and none can have free will.

It would, this is your chess player analogy. "He doesn't know what man will do (multiply by # of people involved)." Who is to say what any one of them might do that will affect all the rest? If God were to prophesy about the Twin Towers the terrorists would have made the prophecy null because God couldn't have foreseen their actions (according to OV). It is a convoluted mess.

Unless, of course, God is wise enough to only prophesy about those things He is able to bring about. (Do you think God is dumb?)

Back to this:



It is to the OV.

No, what I meant was that the specifics of this passage don't require EDF.

Wasn't my question.

The difference, here, is agency. For the Calvinist, God causes everything. Yeah, you try to put some of it on man by calling on secondary causes and all that, but the plan from the beginning was for war and suffering and all that to happen. It is God's declared will.

For the OVT, God's plan and desire was for man to never have fallen. For God and man to live in harmony and dominion over the earth, with man giving glory to God for all eternity.

However, now that we are fallen, God has to work in a fallen world to bring about His will.

Which He will do.

Maybe you use misdirection unconsciously?

Maybe you missed the point?

Hmm, I'll think about this, but you already agreed there are different purposes for prophecy.

I was speaking of the primary purpose, which is still true.

Muz

 

[Pam Baldwin]

Election is corporate and in Christ, not individual by eternal decree apart from response.

Determinism, bah!

I realize that I've been away and can't really catch up now with this fast-moving thread. :zoomin:

But I wanted to ask:
If there is election corporately; and then no one , individually, responds; then didn't Christ die in vain? You have to admit, there is a chance that could have happened.....

 

[godrulz]

I realize that I've been away and can't really catch up now with this fast-moving thread. :zoomin:

But I wanted to ask:
If there is election corporately; and then no one , individually, responds; then didn't Christ die in vain? You have to admit, there is a chance that could have happened.....

Given God's ability to persevere influencing, drawing, wooing, persuading, convincing, convicting man, even for centuries, it is inevitable that God will have a people. The exact number who will believe or not is settled in real time, not by decree from before creation. Even before the cross, many in Israel followed the true God. He already had a core of believers looking ahead to the Messiah, so there is no chance no one would respond and that He would die in vain. You are maybe assuming only people after His actual death are the focus of redemption (not true based on OT Israel).

If no man would have never sinned, then He would not die since man would not be fallen. God will persevere through the centuries and circumstances until He has a people for Himself. He does not have to coerce salvation (decree; monergism) to ensure that there would be a people for His name (unconditional election/reprobation and limited atonement only become necessary if one denies biblical free will).

His death was provision for all men, but only subjectively appropriated by some. To believe is not a work nor do we get glory, because God alone initiates, provides, and actually saves people, but not unconditionally (due to the nature of reciprocal love relationships and justice).

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

If no man would have never sinned, then He would not die since man would not be fallen.

How could the temple in heaven have been purified from Satan's
uncleanness without the blood of Christ?

 

[godrulz]

How could the temple in heaven have been purified from Satan's
uncleanness without the blood of Christ?

Jesus died as the Lamb of God, the God-Man, to redeem fallen humanity, not fallen angels. The Seventh Day Adventists have a 'sanctuary' teaching that is in error. I do not know of any biblical principles that would require a cleansing in the temple because of Satan. Jesus' blood is not in a bowl in heaven. His blood represents His death and is not a magical talisman (it soaked in the ground and remained in his body; it was not literally taken to heaven).

Satan perishes in the lake of fire. This is sufficient justice and 'cleansing'.

I suspect Jesus would have come as a man, even if there was not a Fall (but sooner or later it seems the Fall was inevitable, even though God did not desire nor intend it).

 

[Pam Baldwin]

If no man would have never sinned, then He would not die since man would not be fallen. God will persevere through the centuries and circumstances until He has a people for Himself. He does not have to coerce salvation (decree; monergism) to ensure that there would be a people for His name (unconditional election/reprobation and limited atonement only become necessary if one denies biblical free will).

In the church where I grew up, one of the elders used to say that for every one that goes to hell, Jesus Christ was a failure......do you agree? After all, He perservered and tried and tried and still was not able to convince everyone to be saved.....and then, on top of that, some people died young and didn't have all the chances someone who lived long did.....unfair, I'd say.....and then, some peole were born in countries where the gospel wasn't proclaimed...again, I say, unfair!!!.....or did God "know" that no matter how many chances and no matter how hard God tried, they weren't going to "accept" Him anyway......

 

[Lighthouse]

It's not Christ's fault when people don't accept Him. He is not the one who failed. People are the failures.

 

[Skeptical Inquirer]

Given God's ability to persevere influencing, drawing, wooing, persuading, convincing, convicting man, even for centuries, it is inevitable that God will have a people. The exact number who will believe or not is settled in real time, not by decree from before creation. Even before the cross, many in Israel followed the true God. He already had a core of believers looking ahead to the Messiah, so there is no chance no one would respond and that He would die in vain. You are maybe assuming only people after His actual death are the focus of redemption (not true based on OT Israel).

If no man would have never sinned, then He would not die since man would not be fallen. God will persevere through the centuries and circumstances until He has a people for Himself. He does not have to coerce salvation (decree; monergism) to ensure that there would be a people for His name (unconditional election/reprobation and limited atonement only become necessary if one denies biblical free will).

His death was provision for all men, but only subjectively appropriated by some. To believe is not a work nor do we get glory, because God alone initiates, provides, and actually saves people, but not unconditionally (due to the nature of reciprocal love relationships and justice).

Bravo! very well put.

 

[godrulz]

In the church where I grew up, one of the elders used to say that for every one that goes to hell, Jesus Christ was a failure......do you agree? After all, He perservered and tried and tried and still was not able to convince everyone to be saved.....and then, on top of that, some people died young and didn't have all the chances someone who lived long did.....unfair, I'd say.....and then, some peole were born in countries where the gospel wasn't proclaimed...again, I say, unfair!!!.....or did God "know" that no matter how many chances and no matter how hard God tried, they weren't going to "accept" Him anyway......

Rev. Moon (Moonies) said that Christ failed His mission, so Moon succeeded as the new Messiah.

God's provision is perfect and efficacious, but not unconditional since love, relationship, and freedom is involved. If a doctor discovered the cure for cancer that worked on those who received it, is he considered a failure because many refuse to trust him enough to take the cure?! (hint: NO!)....non sequitur...logic does not follow.

Relationships are reciprocal and not coerced. Universalism is not true in light of justice issues and the nature of moral creation (we are not cause-effect rocks).

What is unfair is God unconditionally saving some, but damning others that He could save (Calvinism).

Simple foreknowledge is another concept to be logically and biblically rejected. At some point, it was apparent that Hitler and Judas were not going to repent. This was not settled nor foreknow even before they existed.

God's persuasion/mercy is to the utmost unless someone defiantly rejects great light to the bitter end. Some are snatched from the fire, even on death beds.

A warfare vs blueprint model is the biblical one.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I do not know of any biblical principles that would require a cleansing in the temple because of Satan. Jesus' blood is not in a bowl in heaven. His blood represents His death and is not a magical talisman (it soaked in the ground and remained in his body; it was not literally taken to heaven).

Hebrews 9:22-23 (KJV)...I suggest reading the whole chapter.

 

[Lighthouse]

His blood represents His death and is not a magical talisman (it soaked in the ground and remained in his body; it was not literally taken to heaven).

If any of it remained in His body when He ascended, then yes it was literally taken to Heaven.:dunce::duh:

 

[Lon]

No, the "why" is to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument. I suppose I could just identified this as a fallacy of irrelevance, but I thought a good counter example would suffiice.

And my question remains unanswered. -obfuscating oblivion
Let's just forget about it and remember you had no direct address.

Violate means that the individual is limited to one option when choosing, and they must choose that option. They cannot do otherwise.

Yep, and I hit on this a bit further on here.

It still eliminates the possibility that both EDF and free will co-exist.

Well, in the OV mindset I imagine. Not for me, and again I'll hit on it (next line, now).

By definition, micro-managing means that you're involved in every little detail that's going on. That's clearly not the case in Daniel 11. These events take place over a period of years (I forget the number, but it's a lot.) God isn't micro-managing every moment, every decision that occurs, even by the main players, in those years. So, to say that God is micro-managing here is simply false.

Forget the word "micromanangement" (it is GR's term and I thought I'd use it). If a king will make war, there is no other choice. Freewill is violated OR EDF is true. I actually have no problem with either as they can amount to the same thing, that freewill is not a huge concern to me. His-will is of utmost concern to me (I'll continue lower).

It's not. But I'm not claiming that OVT is accurate because it is simple.

Its a convoluted mess!

Because acting every now and then isn't micro-management, and doesn't violate free will.

"God intervenes and directs an action, God doesn't direct actions. God knows what He will do (some future-just like you or I in purpose), God doesn't know the future actions of men. Man will freely choose to go to war because God will ensure it, yet man does not lose freewill even though he has no choice in the matter. God is a masterchess-player. God cannot know the future."

This is the Calvinist claim. However, the Calvinist position is also illogical (not to mention unbiblical.)

You are asserting virtually the same thing. Go figure.

It violates freewill. If He makes it so that an event comes about, the people have no choice but to do that thing. It doesn't bother me, I agree with this, but it is against your own philosophy and reasoning.

Unless, of course, God is wise enough to only prophesy about those things He is able to bring about. (Do you think God is dumb?)

Meh. No! I think He has EDF!

No, what I meant was that the specifics of this passage don't require EDF.

I know, 'micro/macro management.'

The difference, here, is agency. For the Calvinist, God causes everything. Yeah, you try to put some of it on man by calling on secondary causes and all that, but the plan from the beginning was for war and suffering and all that to happen. It is God's declared will.

All you are saying is "God lets us choose on things that don't matter, but on the big things, we can only do what God ordained." And this is why I say OV is really Calvinism incognito, even to the OVer.

For the OVT, God's plan and desire was for man to never have fallen. For God and man to live in harmony and dominion over the earth, with man giving glory to God for all eternity.
Muz

That's about everybody's take. Did you really not know this when you were in a SV church?

 

[tetelestai]

It's not Christ's fault when people don't accept Him. He is not the one who failed. People are the failures.

:up:

If LH and I agree in something, then it has to be true.

 

[godrulz]

If any of it remained in His body when He ascended, then yes it was literally taken to Heaven.:dunce::duh:

Flesh and blood (mortal bodies) could not breath in heaven. Jesus ascended in a glorified body, not one identical to his earthly body.

I suppose you were joking?

 

[godrulz]

Hebrews 9:22-23 (KJV)...I suggest reading the whole chapter.

Heb. 9 is about a superior covenant and sacrifice compared to OT animal sacrifices. The writer shifts to the concept of a will (covenant) with the testator securing things and the beneficiaries only needing to accept its terms. This takes affect with the death of the one who made it (Christ), with us (Church) the ones who benefit by it through faith (not works).

The Old Covenant was also blood based with sprinkling ceremonies/traditions. 'Nearly everything' leaves room for flour offerings of the poor. The Day of Atonement rituals were in view (you would not be making a wooden literalism proof text to support a bet idea, would you?). The nation's sins were in view and blood was necessary, a principle also true in the New Covenant under Christ (putting aside your debate about the N.C. being for Israel only and the future).

The writer states that the death of Christ was necessary as a substitute for the penalty of sin (death is represented by shedding of blood, so don't make the blood thing a literal temple cleansing of Satan or whatever). The new priestly arrangements have heaven as their focus in contrast to the OT priestly aspects of earthly animal sacrifices, etc. The death of Christ deals with people's sins, the object of redemption (issues with Satan are not in view, nor is his redemption possible or provided for due to his fall from great light and privilege without external temptation).

Christ was the High Priest of the N.C. and represents PEOPLE in heaven itself before the Father. His sacrifice was thus greater than animal sacrifices that only allowed entrance into an earthly sanctuary (copy/type vs reality). Christ died once, not repeatedly (like animal sacrifices). His sacrifice was superior, but you are off track to read Satan or MAD ideas into this KJV proof text. He then goes on to talk about eschatological realities in addition to OT-NT history. This is not proof the book is for Tribulation saints (cmon).

 

[Lighthouse]

Flesh and blood (mortal bodies) could not breath in heaven. Jesus ascended in a glorified body, not one identical to his earthly body.

I suppose you were joking?

And you think there was no blood in that body?

And what makes you so sure we could not breathe in Heaven? Do you really think that's why we must have glorified bodies to enter?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave
God knows that those who believe in Christ will be given eternal life but God does not know who those believers will be until they believe.

God wants us to be in Christ and to be holy, but it's up to us if we will accept his offer.

Originally Posted by Lon
I'm having real trouble with both of these lines. Even if an Arminian said them, they are misquotable and inaccurate, each.

The first, an Arminian wouldn't say but you are totally asserting here. OV cannot possibly say what is so speculative. You guys should rather say: "We think God doesn't know."

The second can be construed to say we are responsible for our own salvation.

Quote:
Luke 14:23 And the lord said to the servant...compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled.

Quote:
John 15:16 You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you ...

From his many disciples Jesus chose some to be apostles.
Luke 6:12 In these days he went out to the mountain to pray; and all night he continued in prayer to God. 13 And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles; 14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, 15 and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, 16 and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

Even apostleship did not guarantee salvation
John 6:66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

This verse is about apostleship not salvation.
John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. 17 This I command you, to love one another.

We chose to be disciples or not. God chooses who among his disciples will become apostles, prophets, etc.

--Dave