Common views of God and time.

[godrulz]

I think you need to read this answer to the above, after all it is freely downloadable. When you are prepared to discuss it point by point, let me know.

http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bbb/books_bbb.pdf

We could read and reread books supporting our views and arguing against them. Perhaps Sanders should respond since I do not agree with everything he said or wrote. Perhaps when I retire, this would be a fun project. In the mean time, I would rather take bite size posts and respond to them and leave the heavy homework for our private lives as we seek to strengthen our understanding of the issues.

I generally find the anti-OVT books to be Calvinistic assumptive, attacking straw men (Process/Socinian), misunderstanding or misrepresenting OVT, weak in the arguments, etc.

I can barely make myself want to order these anti-books because they have not been helpful or persuasive. Millard Erickson's had the right tone initially, but still fell short in the end:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Does-Know-When-Foreknowledge/dp/0310273382

I like the 'Four View' books, so do get exposure to these guys (Ware, Helm, etc.) in them. I still find the OVT perspective most compelling and biblical.

I have so many things on the go. I would like to read and dissect your link. Keep bugging me (I still have not read 'The Plot', so don't feel bad).

I think I would find your counter-books like reading 'Charismatic Chaos'. John attacks the lunatic fringe of charismania, but so do I as a classical Pentecostal. His Calvinistic/cessationist assumptions simply are not persuasive. When one has the truth, counterfeit is easy to spot, even if one cannot fully articulate a defence or persuade the opponent.

I think you and I are actually similar in ways. Are you an only child like I am? From a broken home where alcoholism was involved? Physically insecure or fat at one time? Do you self-medicate with reading and studying to cover up hurt in your life?

I fear you are too entrenched and invested in your view to seriously do what JCWR did in your debate. I also suspect you have an iron body, but feet of clay. Based on some of your recent posts, I think there are chinks in your armor.

I am not the one to shed light ultimately. I trust that the Word and Spirit will open your eyes and you will move to a more biblical understanding. I trust that Clete is wrong and that you are saved and not merely religious, that you love Jesus and His people more than Calvinism, being right, etc.

Happy NEW Year or not? The choice is ours (at least in my view):cheers:arty: Not:dunce::deadhorse:

 

[godrulz]

400 pages?! Too much to print. Is it available in print from amazon? Would I be correct to assume the Reformed assumptions would be equally strident against Arminianism (which they might say is Pelagianism...grrrrr/arggh)? I might be able to accept an Arminian critique of OVT better than a Reformed one, since your link assumes any free will theism is wrong in contrast to determinism?

I respect Piper and Packer and Sproul, etc., but disagree with them contra-OVT. I see it is available from amazon. If it has problems with Boyd's neo-Molinism, then perhaps I will also (I reject Molinism...see William Hasker). If Sanders once said something stupid, I will not condone it.

What is the gist of the inerrancy issue? I see no problem with affirming Open Theism and the infallibility/authority of the Bible. If Pinnock had to revise some statements for the ETS, I don't think that it is an issue germane to OVT.

To be honest, I find reading well written OVT books refreshing, enlightening, edifying. I should read the other side, and do, but life is too short to expose myself to Calvinism when I already know it is a dead end.

I also started the Koran and Book of Mormon, but can't keep reading them. Do you think I have ADD?

http://www.amazon.com/Evangelism-Sovereignty-God-J-Packer/dp/083081339X

I have had this book for years. Based on what I now know about his views, and my limited life span, there are much better books about evangelism that I would read. I would also read an Arminian systematic theology over a Calvinistic one, at least for soteriology. Can you blame me?

 

[WandererInFog]

Even closed theists distinguish unconditional and conditional prophecies and covenants.

But from an OV paradigm, how can any prophecy (especially one that contains any sort of specificity) be unconditional?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No. Humans change their minds because they are either fickle and capricious, or they lack sufficient knowledge--they are not omniscient. If one possesses all knowledge, then there is absolutely no reason to change one's mind. To do implies the knowledge they possessed that originally motivated the decision was faulty, hence they were mistaken. You are trying to sugar coat a change of mind to fit a preconception that cannot stand.

That is just plain bizarre.

How can you reach those conclusions? :idunno:

"If one possesses all knowledge, then there is absolutely no reason to change one's mind."

The answer is.... relationship. God has a relationship with us (a real one, not a pretend "for show" one). God may or may not change His mind based on the relationship He has with us.

The great part of this is we need not guess that what I have just typed is true. Thankfully God made it abundantly clear in His word that this is the case.

Jeremiah 18:7-10 “The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, “if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. “And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, “if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

God is capable of relating to His creation in a real and just fashion. He isn't stuck punishing the repentant or rewarding the unrepentant merely because He is incapable of changing based on the actions of His creation. Said in short.... God is capable.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That is just plain bizarre.

How can you reach those conclusions? :idunno:

"If one possesses all knowledge, then there is absolutely no reason to change one's mind."

The answer is.... relationship. God has a relationship with us (a real one, not a pretend "for show" one). God may or may not change His mind based on the relationship He has with us.

The great part of this is we need not guess that what I have just typed is true. Thankfully God made it abundantly clear in His word that this is the case.

Jeremiah 18:7-10 “The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, “if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. “And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, “if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

God is capable of relating to His creation in a real and just fashion. He isn't stuck punishing the repentant or rewarding the unrepentant merely because He is incapable of changing based on the actions of His creation. Said in short.... God is capable.

<style> p.std { margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0; border: 0 0 0 0; } </style><script language="JavaScript" src="c:%5CProgram%20Files%5CdtSearch%5Cbin%5CdocScript.js"></script>What is the context here?

God instructed Jeremiah to go to the potter’s house. There the Lord would give His prophet a very special message for the people of Judah. The Lord included Jeremiah’s experience in His Holy Word because He intended that the message be shared with the nations and people of every generation.

When Jeremiah arrived at the potter’s house, he saw him working at the wheel, attempting to mold the clay into a jar. Turning the bottom wheel with his feet, the potter worked the clay on the top wheel as it turned. All of a sudden the potter noticed a defect, a flaw in the jar. It had not turned out as he had hoped. So the potter squashed the jar into a lump of clay and started again. Patiently, he worked and reworked the clay time and again until he had formed the jar he wanted.

When the jar was finished, the Lord explained that the potter and clay illustrated His relationship with His people (vv.5-10). As the potter held the clay in his hands, so the Lord held His people in the palm of His hand. This is a descriptive way of saying that the Lord can do with His people as He wills. Holding them in His hands means that He possesses all rights and power over them. He can set up the laws that decide people’s fate (v.6). In other words, God is sovereign--supreme in power, rank, or authority.

You are arguing that the pairs relent-intend/planned and think better/promised, imply that God is “open” to changing His mind. These verses contain God’s decree by which the whole of God’s conduct towards man is regulated.

God is saying that He will relent of the punishment He was going to bring upon a people if that people turns from its sin. In fact, God often tells them that He will punish them, which causes them to repent, whereby God then proclaims that He will not punish them. God knew they would repent, and knew this from eternity. God used His spoken threat to bring them to that place of repentance. If He did not tell them what would happen to them if they were to continue in sin, they wouldn't have repented. In other words, God ordained the means of that repentance. Nothing in these verses suggests God is changing His mind.

The changes spoken of in these verses are not in God, but in the circumstances which regulate God’s dealings: just as we say the land recedes from us when we sail forth, yet it is we who recede from the land (Eze. 18:21; Eze. 33:11). This is applied practically to the Jews’ case.

Open theists cannot use narrative verses in the scriptures to circumvent proper grammatical-historical exegesis. See Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, 2d ed. (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I should read the other side, and do, but life is too short to expose myself to Calvinism when I already know it is a dead end.

Then why bother stating how much you long for dialog from which to learn from? You are probably only looking for dialog that gives you a chance to claim what dead ends the other side represents, and not really to learn anything, since after all, you already know it is a dead end. Correct?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

God used His spoken threat to bring them to that place of repentance. If He did not tell them what would happen to them if they were to continue in sin, they wouldn't have repented.

AMR, that statement is utterly meaningless in a settled view. You don't have the luxury of using words such as "if", for there is no such thing as an "if" in a settled view. The people would either repent or they wouldn't regardless because their future has already been determined (according to you). Any warnings by God to get a "reaction" out of the people would be nothing more than a exercise i.e., "for show".

Which is the actual cause of people's repentance?

A. God's spoken threat

or....

B. God's predetermining their repentance for all eternity

It can't be both. You cannot play both sides of the fence.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I agree that God's attributes and character are related, but His metaphysics/being does not negate His personal, moral, volitional nature.

Explain what you mean by this. Draw distinctions between metaphysics and nature if you can. As written, it is incomprehensible.

The Open Theist understanding of the proof texts (face value?) in Is. 46 and 48 comes right from the text.

These texts have been answered, yet the only responses are essentially, "rubbish". You also have a link to a book that provides an even more thorough response to these narrative passages the openist likes to treat as didactic.

Without presuming SKF, EDF, or determinism, the context shows that God does determine some vs all things (specific judgments in view, for e.g., not what I will eat or drink tomorrow...beyond the text and beyond a legit application of the text...false extrapolation).

I have posted in this very forum a proper argument why any part of the future cannot be known by God, if one assumes an open theist view. You just keep repeating yourself while ignoring the clear fact that for God to determine some things (any thing!) He must not only possess the power but also be immutable and override the openist' libertarian free will. As long as God can change His mind (your view), there is no way what God says is a certainty, for while He is certain for now, a few minutes from now God may just change His mind once again.

God can declare this in Genesis because He has the ability...

I will try again: What is the source of God's abilities?

We do not see God declaring all of the scores of every hockey game from trillions of years ago because this is not a possible object of certain knowledge, assuming we freely play the game and God does not cause/coerce/micromanage the players to ensure outcomes

I am not disputing the openist view that God does not know the future. Indeed, I am claiming that this is the only possible view for the openist, you are the one who is trying to claim God can know some things and not others, using some loose rationale that there are distinctions in what knowledge comprises to God. As if the roll of dice or a ball game score is not knowledge, but the atonement is. Don't you see how weasel-wordy your view is becoming by making these distinctions. It smacks of desperation. Why not simply agree with so many other open theists that God cannot possibly know anything in the future--since the openist claims the future is open!

The passages talk about some vs all things, ability vs prescience, omnicausality, simple foreknowlege, middle knowledge.

We must look at the wording and all relevant verses to flesh out a theology of providence, foreknowledge, predestination, nature of the future, etc.

GR, I think you are rambling a bit here (and in some other posts made at the same time today).

Your assumptions about timelessness, TULIP, aseity, immutability, etc. shade or jade your conclusions.

Not true. I read the passage, consider the grammar, the history, the context. I consult related passages, I consult the masters that have come before us. After all of this if I find myself outside the norm, I do it all over again to understand my error or the error of others. Too many are very quick to eschew these methods and claim all the past masters were oh so wrong, basing these claims on a very limited cadre of authors. Being able to claim to have discovered a "new" "fresh" view is seductive. It breeds vanity and arrogance when left unchecked or challenged. Kind of reminds me of the vegetarian who loves to hold themselves up over the meat-eater as if they have somehow discovered the truth, despite the historical evidence to the contrary. Taken to extremes, we end up with the open theist, theological vegans!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR, that statement is utterly meaningless in a settled view. You don't have the luxury of using words such as "if", for there is no such thing as an "if" in a settled view. The people would either repent or they wouldn't regardless because their future has already been determined (according to you). Any warnings by God to get a "reaction" out of the people would be nothing more than a exercise i.e., "for show".

Which is the actual cause of people's repentance?

A. God's spoken threat

or....

B. God's predetermining the repentance for all eternity

It can't be both. You cannot play both sides of the fence.

I take the time to post carefully and in detail, yet the only response is one that demonstrates you are ignoring what I clearly stated.

The answer is both. They are all parts of the causal chain of events pre-ordained by God. What do you think prayer is? You think you are informing God of something He has clearly stated He already knows? No, you are fulfilling your part in the chain of events He has ordained. God says to pray, and He will answer you. You pray. You get answers. God knows whether or not you will pray from eternity. He sets up the environment and conditions around you to make it such that you cannot refrain from praying or not praying, for you will do what you are most inclined to do. Your inclinations are arranged by God using others' contingent actions, the environment you are in, etc. Nevertheless, when you choose, you are choosing freely, for you feel no compulsions forcing you do choose as you have chosen.

Now you will howl and whine that well, I may think I am choosing freely, but according to what AMR just said, it is really God that is setting it all in motion and I could not do otherwise. To which I respond, exactly and so what? The fact that you cannot wrap your mind around it, is not a valid reason for dismissing it. You are going to have to show from Scripture how you are wholly autonomous from God to prove otherwise and that simply cannot be done.

Then you will howl and whine, well if what AMR has said is true, then why should I be held accountable for my actions? To which I respond, because God is a higher authority and can hold anyone accountable. You are confusing responsibility and accountability. Anyone who is someone's boss can hold their subordinate accountable, whether they like it or not. God cannot be held accountable, for no one exists above Him. Yet, the open theist insists on doing exactly that when they try to insist that God give an account of Himself because He has the "audacity" to hold His creatures accountable despite having orchestrated means that will inevitably cause His creatures to choose according to their own greatest desires. These folks have never grasped the lesson from Job, preferring to act like Job's friends giving all manner of ill-formed reasons why God would be doing this or that. Only when God appears, does Job get and answer, not the answer he wanted, but the right answer from an Almighty God to those who would presume to call Him to account: "Shut up, and color!"

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The answer is both.

And I knew that would be your answer.

And it's silly! It's a silly answer! What you are saying is...

God ordains an eternity ago that He warns the people and they repent. (that covers your "both" answer)

Yet any 3rd grader could tell you that really isn't "both". In actuality it's...
B. God's predetermining their repentance for all eternity

In this case... A and B are mutually exclusive.

After all God could have just as easily predetermined they repent without the warning. If "B" is true the warning represents nothing more than "for show" a exercise in fulfilling the predetermined script. The warning wasn't the cause of their repentance, it was the script that was the cause for their repentance.

And thus is the reason I will never be a Calvinist or a settled theist, because I cannot intellectually accept such an obvious illogical theology, philosophy or world view.

AMR, I love you, you are probably a great guy and I hope we can sit down and have a beer together someday real soon but I just don't see how you can buy your own theology. :idunno:

 

[godrulz]

But from an OV paradigm, how can any prophecy (especially one that contains any sort of specificity) be unconditional?

God is more patient, creative, competent than you can imagine. Do you have a specific e.g.?

Some think the Psalms prophecy Judas by name and person. In fact, the verses are applied by way of illustration after the fact. They are not predictive prophecies (Judas was not picked to betray by decree in eternity past; he became a betrayer and did not have to do so).

Some prophecies are more general than specific. They could be fulfilled in a number of ways through God's influence without causation.

 

[godrulz]

Then why bother stating how much you long for dialog from which to learn from? You are probably only looking for dialog that gives you a chance to claim what dead ends the other side represents, and not really to learn anything, since after all, you already know it is a dead end. Correct?

After 30 years, I know Calvinism/determinism is not the best theological worldview to explain Scripture and reality. I see the proof texts out of context, flawed logic, etc. I do not have to keep studying it to try to make it true if it is not.

I am also able to determine that Mormonism, Catholicism, JWs, etc. are not biblical on every point. If I dialogue or study, it is not in the hopes they are right, but to be better informed to help others move towards truth. It also is good to test our own views and modify as necessary. It is not a waste of time.

I want to learn what you believe for the sake of TOL dialogue. If you test my view and find it wanting, I want to modify it towards truth. If I challenge your view and expose it as wrong, I would be pleased if you modified your view and understood God better.

I have a problem when God's character and ways are impugned, as you do. Some unbelievers are rejecting a straw man caricature of God because of unreasonable Calvinistic views. The issue is not who are we to question God and His sovereignty, but to make sure we know who God is and accurately represent and proclaim him.

Beliefs affect practice. Truth sets free. Beliefs matter. Lies are divisive and have negative consequences.

You and I both have teacher bents. We love truth and hate error. We like the academic challenge and do not live in the superficial realm of TV/media. We want to do theology with excellence. This is our heart and calling. Interacting with others has the effect of iron sharpening iron if done right.

I think you want to win an argument and do not trust that you are not arrogant, insecure, or both. I like to stand with you on the Deity of Christ, incarnation truth vs heresies, etc. I am happy to agree when we can. If you are a brother, love and unity is important in addition to doctrinal truth.

We should be slower to judge each other's motives. I am sure you make good points, but I also merit some respect sometimes.

Mature dialogue in the right spirit is a challenge. I could not do it with Door-Sozo. I find it difficult with you, impossible with beloved57 or a few others.

The process is imperfect, but beneficial. If nothing else, a hobby and diversion about something worth being passionate about. Not many people love God or love the study of God, theology.

I can learn from you, but that will never make many of your views true, no matter how many times you repeat them. In areas I know little about (MAD), I especially need to lean on others to understand, adapt, reject.

Baby steps, but it will be worth it...I just can't always play the same game you want at any given moment (refute a 400 page book line by line for e.g....but I would tackle a paragraph to start).

Heart and head?:guitar:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR, I love you, you are probably a great guy and I hope we can sit down and have a beer together someday real soon but I just don't see how you can buy your own theology. :idunno:

I appreciate this and have the same love for those that seek to know God more fully.

I only wish you had addressed my specific points rather than revert to the usual "I don't buy it" response.

AMR

 

[WandererInFog]

Yet any 3rd grader could tell you that really isn't "both". In actuality it's...
B. God's predetermining their repentance for all eternity

In this case... A and B are mutually exclusive.

After all God could have just as easily predetermined they repent without the warning. If "B" is true the warning represents nothing more than "for show" a exercise in fulfilling the predetermined script. The warning wasn't the cause of their repentance, it was the script that was the cause for their repentance.

How exactly is it illogical? For any affect, there is not just a single cause, but rather a chain of causation. God's presdestination being the ultimate cause of an event doesn't invalidate the chain of cause and affect whereby the event actually happens.

 

[godrulz]

Why is dialoguing with a Calvinist so frustrating? Was this predetermined to build patience:argue::sigh:

 

[godrulz]

How exactly is it illogical? For any affect, there is not just a single cause, but rather a chain of causation. God's presdestination being the ultimate cause of an event doesn't invalidate the chain of cause and affect whereby the event actually happens.

Open Theism is a relational theism. Physics deals with cause-effect. Determinism is contrary to love, relationship, and freedom. Moral creation is not mechanistic, but moral.

AMR:

Attributes/metaphysics/ontology/being: God is unique, uncreated, spirit, triune, Creator. He is eternal (which does not have to mean timeless), omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (we differ as to what are possible objects of certain knowledge, but agree that God knows all that is logically knowable). We are not like God in these ways. We are ontologically distinct (Creator vs creature; infinite vs finite).

God is also personal. He has will, intellect, and emotions. He is not impersonal. He is dynamic, responsive, not static, Deist. We are similar to God in this way in the image of God (we are not robots, but personal).

He is moral. This is volitional, not 'being'. God has character by choice, not by substance. He is loving, holy, faithful, just, merciful, patient, etc. We can also have character, the image of Christ by His Spirit. We are spiritual, God-conscious, etc. We are the pinnacle of creation, but we are not God/deity.

Anselm, Aquinas, Plato, etc. can get complicated about these issues. There are great philosophical debates about being, morals, truth, etc. I think you have adopted some bad ideas rather than the simplicity of Scripture.

This book on essentialism retains classical ideas and is not pro-Open Theism. Like others, he recognizes some negative philosphical influences on traditional views and reworks them without as much compromise as OVT (your opinion). I would not recommend the book to anyone except AMR since it is difficult and does not go far enough to my view.


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

Things are not always easy when we start wading through these issues. Do we just need the Bible or should we interact with Barth and others?

I want to be biblical more than philosophical or tradition. I want truth, not fancy explanations that are speculative.

 

[Evoken]

Which is the actual cause of people's repentance?

A. God's spoken threat

or....

B. God's predetermining their repentance for all eternity

It can't be both. You cannot play both sides of the fence.

The dichotomy you are making involves a confusion between ends and means. Here God predetermining their repentance is the end and his spoken threat is the means by which their repentance would be brought about. It is not illogical to embrace both.


Evo

 

[WandererInFog]

Open Theism is a relational theism. Physics deals with cause-effect. Determinism is contrary to love, relationship, and freedom. Moral creation is not mechanistic, but moral.

Everything is cause and affect. Or do you have an example of something, other than God Himself, that occurs without any prior cause?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I only wish you had addressed my specific points rather than revert to the usual "I don't buy it" response.

I know, I realize that but I tend to think that me and you are at that point when that is really the only thing left to be said. :idunno: If there was something you could say that was going to convince me otherwise, I am pretty sure you would have said it by now.

And in fairness to me I didn't merely say "I don't buy it". I showed clearly how your view is inconsistent and then said... "therefore, I don't buy it."

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The dichotomy you are making involves a confusion between ends and means. Here God predetermining their repentance is the end and his spoken threat is the means by which their repentance would be brought about. It is not illogical to embrace both.

Evo

YES or NO, could God have predetermined that they repent without the express warning from God?

Asked another way.... did God need to predestine the warning to get the desired result? Or is God powerful enough to merely pre-program them to repent at a given time without the warning? (hypothetically if course)