ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Pam Baldwin]

If God is immutable, then he is impassible, since passibility implies change.

tetelestai, could you explain how God's being immutable is linked to impassible? Seriously, I don't understand what you are saying.
Thanks!

Pam

 

[Pam Baldwin]

Show me where in the Bible God “self-limited” Himself?

Am I wrong, or isn't this how people explain free will? God chose to limit His power?

 

[tetelestai]

tetelestai, could you explain how God's being immutable is linked to impassible? Seriously, I don't understand what you are saying.
Thanks!

Pam

Impassable 1. Not subject to suffering, pain, or harm. 2. Unfeeling; impassive.

Immutable Not subject or susceptible to change.

Any type of feeling would require someone to change from the current state they are in. If someone is immutable, they cannot change.

 

[tetelestai]

Am I wrong, or isn't this how people explain free will? God chose to limit His power?

The only creatures that we know of that God created were angels and mankind. Both were created with free volition. Lucifer and Adam both exercised their negative volition towards God.

For God to create creatures with free volition means that God cannot coerce such creatures. This would violate God’s perfect righteousness, integrity, justice, love, etc. Free volition means that not every creature created by God is going to exercise positive volition for God. Those creatures who exercise negative volition for God have to go to hell. Anything else would violate God’s perfect justice.

God desires all of His creatures to exercise positive volition to Himself, but again, because God does not, and cannot force His creatures to choose Him, there will be creatures who go to hell. Satan, fallen angels, and every human being who exercised negative volition to God will go to hell.

Throughout human history God has provided a means for salvation. Even angels were provided an opportunity to choose God.

For God to unconditionally elect a creature to eternity, and allow those who did not get chosen to go to hell, would violate every one of God’s perfect attributes. For someone to believe that God could elect a creature to hell (Supra) is simply crazy.

God creating a creature with free will is not God limiting His power, it is a reflection of God's perfect righteousness and perfect love. The only other option would be to create robots.

One of the key points in the Bible that the Calvinists fails to see is that “all” the angles rejoiced when God created the earth. Then we find out later that one third of the angels had fallen. The elect angels acted upon their free volition for God, the fallen angels acted upon their negative volition for God. This destroys the Calvinists view of predestination and election. Election can only happen after positive volition is exercised.

 

[themuzicman]

Somehow you think God’s immutability and impassability deny God’s ability to relate to the world.

Just because God is immutable and impassable, does not mean that God is immobile. An immutable and impassable God created and sustains the creatures He created. An immutable and impassable God sustains creatures that change, and God engages with them.

The fact that God does not change, and that God is not subject to fluctuating passions, mood swings, temper tantrums, etc tells us that His “engagedness” with the world is constant.

And yet, getting away from philosophy and back to Scripture, God repents (relents, regrets) (Gen 6:6). God burns with anger (Exo 32). His passions do fluctuate. No, they aren't irrational, immoral, or impetuous. But Scripture clearly portrays God having emotions.

(Notice, tele is using philosophy, and I'm using Scripture.)

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Am I wrong, or isn't this how people explain free will? God chose to limit His power?

That is one way. However, that's not the only way.

I place free will into the nature of creation, where God creates a world where they future is logically unknowable. Thus, God isn't limiting Himself at all. He knows all that is knowable.

Muz

 

[tetelestai]

And yet, getting away from philosophy and back to Scripture, God repents (relents, regrets) (Gen 6:6). God burns with anger (Exo 32). His passions do fluctuate. No, they aren't irrational, immoral, or impetuous. But Scripture clearly portrays God having emotions.

(Notice, tele is using philosophy, and I'm using Scripture.)

Muz

Here you go again Muz.

I made the following post 9 posts ago (#1256)

You chose to not address the scripture I listed. Now you claim you are using scripture and I am using philosophy.

(Hebrews 6:17-18) Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

(James 1:17) Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

(Malachi 3:6 6) For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

(Numbers 23:19) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

(1 Samuel 15: 29)And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

 

[tetelestai]

God creates a world where the future is logically unknowable.

I never claimed that God "self-limited" Himself.

Uh... yes... you just did.

 

[themuzicman]

Uh... yes... you just did.

Uh... no.. I didn't. There is a difference between God being able to know the future, and limiting himself from seeing it, and creating a world where things are logically unknowable. (As well as actually knowable.)

To use your logic, any creation would include God limiting Himself, since there would be laws of the universe and the like in the way.

Tell me this: Did God create a universe with square circles?

Muz

 

[godrulz]

Here we go again.

It is the open theists who have the Greek influence.

The idea of a finite God is straight from Plato and Aristotle. If you're looking at the idea that a supreme being cannot know the future, that comes directly from Aristotle.

Open theism IS a philosophy, not to mention the influence of Greek philosophers.

P.S. It’s anthropopathisms that we disagree about, not anthropomorphisms.

You can accuse Process Thought of finite godism, but a proper vs straw man understanding of OVT will not allow that accusation. We affirm all of the great truths about God's attributes and character, but understand them more biblically vs tainted by philosophy. Again, if God creates free moral agents and chooses to not have a deterministic universe with a settled future, logically/biblically, an omnscient being would know the reality of the future as possible vs actual (except where He chooses to settle things like the First and Second Coming of the Messiah). If you are wrong about 'eternal now' (and I think you are based on its specious philosophical vs biblical roots), then you have one less leg to stand on.

I believe you do not understand the intricacies and issues of this debate, but uncritically uphold tradition. If you did understand, you would not accuse OVT of finite godism (rookie mistake to think it is like Process Thought; cf. Calvinists who wrongly accuse Arminians of Pelagianism). I also think you would embrace it as enhancing God's attributes in Scripture, not diminishing them, if you really grasped it.

The anti-OVT books are essentially anti-free will theism (various views) and pro-Calvinism. You syncretistic view probably falls more to one side than another or is inconsistent. It is not possible to have a hybrid Calvinisitic-Arminian view since they are polar opposites on fundamental issues. The anti books typically make me cringe because of their lack of understanding or straw man caricatures of what we really believe. There are some OVT theories that are held by an author or two that we could attack, but that does not mean the majority of OVT accept it (so careful of prooftexting/stereotyping...). I like Gregory Boyd, but disagree with his view of hell and creationism/evolution. No one author is correct and the Bible is the ultimate standard (though equally capable, godly believers interpret the same verses differently-TM- so we cannot underestimate our preconceived doctrinal bias we bring to the text...what is the weight of evidence, even if we do not have answers yet for every objection?).

 

[godrulz]

Umm... the Greek philosophical (Aristotle/Plato) view of God is that he is immutable and impassible in every respect. This is clearly the Augustinian view, which he inherited from his Greek philosophy background.

The OVT view is that God is only immutable in His character, and not impassible at all.

Now, Reformed theologians have, under the pressure of their own invalid position, begun to give up the idea that God is impassible, and thus giving up utter immutability, as well, but that's increasingly a result of the fact that, at least on this point, OVT is correct.



That's just silly. Go read most moved mover by Pinnock. While he isn't always on the mark with theology, the identification of the source of the Augustinian description of God is right on.



Either way, OVTs are the ones who make every effort to be biblical about them.

Muz

Augustine clearly wanted to embrace Scripture and Greek philosophy. This is no secret. To pull it off, he had to lead to an allegorical vs literal/grammatical/contextual/historical approach to Scripture (bad hermeneutic leads to bad theology).

Since the Bible does not explicitly resolve all issues in this debate (nature of time/eternity, etc.), we can use godly philosophy and logic to attempt to ascertain biblical principles.

 

[themuzicman]

Augustine clearly wanted to embrace Scripture and Greek philosophy. This is no secret. To pull it off, he had to lead to an allegorical vs literal/grammatical/contextual/historical approach to Scripture (bad hermeneutic leads to bad theology).

Since the Bible does not explicitly resolve all issues in this debate (nature of time/eternity, etc.), we can use godly philosophy and logic to attempt to ascertain biblical principles.

However, any philosophical argument should be consistent with Scripture.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

The guys name was Robert Scott Wadsworth. The seminar was free; there were no books, dvd’s, etc. for sale. There was a basket at the table in the rear of the room. The person who gave the introduction said that anyone wishing to give a “tithe” to help pay for the costs of the seminar was welcome to do so. Mr. Wadsworth did mention that his books were for sale on amazon. His website is HERE

I admit that Biblical astronomy is something new to me, so therefore I don’t know much about it. However the following verses, and what I learned at the seminar do convince me that God did prophesize with the stars.

(Gen 1:14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

(Psalms 19: 1-3)
1The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

Nice proof texting and reading ideas into the text. The heavenly bodies do mark off times and seasons like a clock (Genesis). One should not read support for biblical astronomy or prophecy into this context.

The Psalmist is in agreement with Paul in Rom. 1: creation is general revelation about the Creator. Again, nothing to support a 'Christian astrology' that we would be warned against. We get wisdom from the Creator, not creation that points to the Creator. The general revelation in stars could be used to support other belief systems (we could say a constellation is about Islam and Mohammed, etc.). This is why we need special revelation in Christ (Jn. 1; Heb. 1:1-3) and the Word of God. Stars are too subjective and would be supportive and very limited at best.

The astrological signs are not obvious by just looking at the sky. This is like drawing pictures of extinct dinosaurs and 'evolving' man from a bone or two.

Like the Bible Code theories, I think your man could be refuted fairly easily and is merely reading ideas back into the stars, etc.

If the stars do tell us something (possible, but too subjective to be 'gospel' and conversion producing), it could relate to the most important thing, the Messiah. Certainly there are specific signs at His first coming and during the future Tribulation, but one should not jump to the conclusion that there are secret messages about all stripes of prophecy (too prone to Nostradamus errors).

JWs and Armstrong read their organizations back into verses in Revelation. It would be even a bigger stretch to try to correlate prophecy with objects in heaven. It would become a subjective mess. God communicates clearly in His Word. Exegete the objective word, not creation that we are not to worship nor be guided by (Christian astrology?).

 

[godrulz]

Am I wrong, or isn't this how people explain free will? God chose to limit His power?

Perhaps God choosing to restrain the use of His power is better than 'limiting' it. God obviously allows us significant freedom (except in compatibilism) and does not always exercise His power (if He did, Satan would be destroyed centuries ago, the Holocaust would not have happened, etc.).

God is omnicompetent, not omnicausal (believe the Bible, not Jim Hilston).

 

[godrulz]

Impassable 1. Not subject to suffering, pain, or harm. 2. Unfeeling; impassive.

Immutable Not subject or susceptible to change.

Any type of feeling would require someone to change from the current state they are in. If someone is immutable, they cannot change.

So the idea of God changing His mind or grieving as circumstances change or expecting things that do not happen or conditional statements are poor metaphors that do not tell us anything about God or are patently false?!

They can be taken at face value, but we have to jettison strong immutability in favor of weak immutability (God changes in some ways, but not others) and reject impassibility (not just feelings, but whether man can influence God in any way, such as through prayer or repentance).

God is dynamic and personal, not static like the Platonic ideals.

 

[godrulz]

That is one way. However, that's not the only way.

I place free will into the nature of creation, where God creates a world where they future is logically unknowable. Thus, God isn't limiting Himself at all. He knows all that is knowable.

Muz

God chooses to limit the possibility of knowing the future exhaustively by creating free moral agents. If He wanted EDF, He would have to create a deterministic universe. In this sense, Calvinism is more consistent with EDF than Arminian simple foreknowledge (that offers no providential advantage and is an assumption one cannot even explain the possible mechanism of).

Tete: nice OVT/Arminian statement against Calvinism in your recent post.

 

[godrulz]

However, any philosophical argument should be consistent with Scripture.

Muz

Which is why I call it 'godly' philosophy vs some stupid secular philosophy (though there are common aspects between Christian and secular philosophy, but conclusions differ).

 

[godrulz]

Here you go again Muz.

I made the following post 9 posts ago (#1256)

You chose to not address the scripture I listed. Now you claim you are using scripture and I am using philosophy.

Your verses show that in some things God will not change His mind, not that He metaphysically cannot change His mind. It also cannot be extrapolated, for a personal being, that He never changes His mind or cannot change it. To not change His mind in some cases would leave Him less righteous and more like a man.

God does not change His mind in a fickle, capricious way. In some texts, He does not change His mind. In other texts, He does change His mind. OVT takes both motifs at face value. Settled view must take one motif as figurative to retain a preconceived idea, a weaker hermeneutic. So, change a flawed understanding of immutability/impassibility, rather than changing the Bible.

Even strident critics of OVT like Bruce Ware and other classical theists are modifying their views in this area. They are starting to be inconsistent with their other views and need to go further towards the OVT camp (something not likely to happen given their investment and bias).

I would not recommend this book due to its difficulty (essentialism), but it does show how a classical theologian is able to modify some of these areas without becoming OVT:

http://www.amazon.com/Untamed-God-Philosophical-Exploration-Immutability/dp/083082734X

(click look inside for contents)

 

[Lon]

We know that God is uncreated. He has no beginning and end. We cannot comprehend a self-existent being like this with our finite minds, so we stand in awe, wonder, and worship Him without exhaustive understanding.

J.R. Lucas in 'A Treatise on Time and Space' gives detailed philosophical, logical, and scientific explanations about time and space. He rightly concludes that timelessness is incoherent for a personal being, including God.

The discussions around this are very technical and difficult. I could not understand Lucas' complicated formulas, but I could understand the basic defense and principles of endless time vs timelessness.

I've addressed this twice (3 times now). His proof and that of others deals within the confines of time for the proof. You actually rightly said it in the paragraph above. Lucas, though brilliant, is wrong because he is using durative language to express a non-beginning. It doesn't matter what he asserts, he's using temporal proofs for an atemporal being.

Stated a few more ways:

He's using finite language to try and express the infinite.
He's using time to try and express what time cannot.
He's trying to apply a tape measure to a line as if it were a segment.
He's trying to take, rules that apply to our physical world, and apply them to God who is Spirit.
As your first paragraph suggests, he's trying to explain that which "we cannot comprehend (in a self-existent being)."
If we cannot comprehend, it is unexplainable and vise-versa.

 

[Lon]

Uh... no.. I didn't. There is a difference between God being able to know the future, and limiting himself from seeing it, and creating a world where things are logically unknowable. (As well as actually knowable.)

To use your logic, any creation would include God limiting Himself, since there would be laws of the universe and the like in the way.

Tell me this: Did God create a universe with square circles?

Muz

Yes.

At least the concept or we couldn't talk about it. In other words, because we know what both are, we have context for addressing the question.
Is it possible? Yes, if you call a square with corners rounded a square-circle, I know what you are talking about. Or if you cut four arcs of a circle in direct proportion to one another, I know what you are talking about.

The point? If something looks contradictory, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is. The point has to be proved. Saying God has no EDF is not a proof of any kind. I just 'looks' contradictory. We've been over and over that it isn't and I don't acquiesce that it is, in fact, any kind of contradiction that I'm aware of. "Looks" can be deceiving and often are.