What's the problem?

[God_Is_Truth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Originally posted by godrulz

This would negate other moral agency, contingencies, and freedom. This deterministic, fatalistic universe would be closer to Islam or Calvinism than reality.

is that a "no"?

 

[godrulz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

is that a "no"?

It is academic. Yes, God could have made a deterministic universe, but He did not. The higher good and His wisdom chose an open, free universe. You cannot have your cake and eat it to: either the universe is fixed and fully known, or it is at least partially open and partially unknowable as an actuality/certainty.

God is not the only free moral agent in the universe. To foreknow all His future actions leads us back to Calvinism and meticulous vs responsive control of every moral and mundane detail of the universe.

I think it is a qualified 'yes'

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Originally posted by godrulz

It is academic. Yes, God could have made a deterministic universe, but He did not. The higher good and His wisdom chose an open, free universe. You cannot have your cake and eat it to: either the universe is fixed and fully known, or it is at least partially open and partially unknowable as an actuality/certainty.

God is not the only free moral agent in the universe. To foreknow all His future actions leads us back to Calvinism and meticulous vs responsive control of every moral and mundane detail of the universe.

I think it is a qualified 'yes'

i agree with you in what God actually did, but i'd like to know how exactly God could foreknow all of his actions and thoughts from eternity past.

 

[godrulz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

i agree with you in what God actually did, but i'd like to know how exactly God could foreknow all of his actions and thoughts from eternity past.

The triune God fellowshipped, loved, and communicated from all eternity. They had new, creative experiences, so perhaps He could not know all his thoughts and actions. This might imply He is not genuinely free (which He is). It is actually the Openness of creation, not the Openness of God. God is free by definition (vs static, impersonal). His creation could have been settled or open.

The only way for God to foreknow His actions is if He willed every detail of His future and brought it to pass according to His will (with no change or deviation and no other free moral agents to mess things up).

Is this like how many angels are on the head of a pin, or am I missing something? I might not be understanding your point. I appreciate your ideas and think we have a kinship in thought on many subjects. Keep up the good questions. How about your answers?:help:

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Lovejoy

It is threads like these that make me realize that one lifetime is not enough to understand (for my dense cranium, anyways), and I can only thank God that I will have eternity to get it right.

I am in the Poof camp!

 

[Clete]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

i agree with you in what God actually did, but i'd like to know how exactly God could foreknow all of his actions and thoughts from eternity past.

I'm not convinced that He could have created such a reality in the first place. You can't forget that God is a Trinity of persons each of whom have a genuine love relationship with the other two. Such a relationship would not be possible in such a deterministic 'reality'.
Further, reality is not something God created. That which God created became part of reality but reality itself is not a created thing. Before anything was created there was God and God alone; that was reality. To suggest that God creates reality is to suggest that He creates Himself. God does/did not create Himself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

God_Is_Truth
godrulz
Clete
and myself.....

Lets remember this is a thread for SOTK. I don't want to distract too much from his questions and answers etc.

:up:

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Knight

I agree with this as well.

Calvinists take this a step further however in that man cannot even make the choice that He needs and wants God and God Himself picks and choses certain men to receive grace and therefore chooses that all the rest have no hope.

Roger. Knight...could you continue where you left off to lay the foundation for the Open View? You were off to a good start.

 

[godrulz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Originally posted by Knight

The Open View would state that God chose not to map out the entire future. He certainly could have mapped it out had He wanted to, but He sovereignly chose not to.

God is sovereign! Even to the extent that He is sovereign over His own sovereignness! In other words He has complete control over His own power. He chose to give up some of that power in form of our freewill.

Indeed.

And if you know me..... by now you know that I like to take things very slowly and look at them in very small "bite size" chunks.

So... let's start at the beginning shall we?

After God was done creating He looked at His creation and said it was good.

Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Yet then man rejected God (through sin) and not long after that man became exceedingly wicked. So much so that God was sorry that He made man!

Genesis 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

There are two important points here:

1. God was sorry, in fact the Hebrew word here for sorry is "nacham" which means "repent". In other words God changed His mind about the goodness of man.

How can Calvinistic theology explain this? Did God decree sin and then also decree He would change His mind about creations "goodness"? That wouldn't make sense because then that wouldn't be changing His mind at all would it?

2. Man (through his wickedness) moved God to grieve! Calvinists will tell you that man cannot move God - nothing can!!! But that isn't what the Bible says. The Bible says we can move God. We can move Him through our prayers and we can move Him to grieve when we are wicked.

The Calvinist will tell you that "nacham" in Gen 6:6 is a anthropomorphism and therefore it doesn't mean what it says. Yet an anthropomorphism is used to make something more understandable NOT more complicated so when you ask the Calvinist to explain the anthropomorphism since they claim it doesn't mean what it says they are silent.

SOTK do you think we can move God when we pray or move Him to grief when we are wicked?

To be continued...s'il vous plait?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Originally posted by godrulz

The triune God fellowshipped, loved, and communicated from all eternity. They had new, creative experiences, so perhaps He could not know all his thoughts and actions. This might imply He is not genuinely free (which He is). It is actually the Openness of creation, not the Openness of God. God is free by definition (vs static, impersonal). His creation could have been settled or open.

The only way for God to foreknow His actions is if He willed every detail of His future and brought it to pass according to His will (with no change or deviation and no other free moral agents to mess things up).

Is this like how many angels are on the head of a pin, or am I missing something? I might not be understanding your point. I appreciate your ideas and think we have a kinship in thought on many subjects. Keep up the good questions. How about your answers?:help:

you got what i was looking for :thumb:

Originally Posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I'm not convinced that He could have created such a reality in the first place. You can't forget that God is a Trinity of persons each of whom have a genuine love relationship with the other two. Such a relationship would not be possible in such a deterministic 'reality'.
Further, reality is not something God created. That which God created became part of reality but reality itself is not a created thing. Before anything was created there was God and God alone; that was reality. To suggest that God creates reality is to suggest that He creates Himself. God does/did not create Himself.

i shouldn't have used the word reality, that was an error on my part. but i'm in agreement with you here on the rest as well.

all i was trying to show to Knight in the beginning is that some part of the future will always be open by definition, that is the part of it that pertains to God's choices, actions and decisions. so he could've chosen to know the future of us and created things in that way, but the future would still be open in regards to his own feelings, experiences etc.

 

[godrulz]

Do our choices and free agency also necessitate an open future for us that is unknowable to God? Contingency=freedom= possibility of happening or not...so it is a possibility until the choice is made, then it is an actual certainty.

God's future is open. Unless our future is deterministic, then are you implying God that God is open but still can know our future exhaustively? (clarify your last paragraph...I am not clear on your bottom line).

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by godrulz


God's future is open. Unless our future is deterministic, then are you implying God that God is open but still can know our future exhaustively? (clarify your last paragraph...I am not clear on your bottom line).

God only knows our future exhaustively if he predetermined everything, i agree. as for God's future, it can't have always been closed, it must have been open at some point when he decided what he would be doing for the rest of eternity (assuming that view point, not what i hold). thus, it's logically impossible to say that God has always had exhaustive foreknowledge of the future.

that help? i really am not trying to get off topic here. calvinists say that God foredetermines everything and i am just adding an argument which shows that they can't hold that God has always had complete foreknowledge of the future.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by godrulz

Roger. Knight...could you continue where you left off to lay the foundation for the Open View? You were off to a good start.

Thanks! And.... I am not going to go further until SOTK has a chance to comment.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

God only knows our future exhaustively if he predetermined everything, i agree. as for God's future, it can't have always been closed, it must have been open at some point when he decided what he would be doing for the rest of eternity (assuming that view point, not what i hold). thus, it's logically impossible to say that God has always had exhaustive foreknowledge of the future.

that help? i really am not trying to get off topic here. calvinists say that God foredetermines everything and i am just adding an argument which shows that they can't hold that God has always had complete foreknowledge of the future.

We agree!

Just as it is impossible for an omnipotent God to do the undoable (logically contradictory absurdities like creating a rock too heavy to lift), it is impossible for the omniscient God to know the unknowable (future free will contingencies).

"As omnipotence is limited by the possible, so omniscience is limited by the knowable. We do not limit omnipotence by denying its power to do impossible or self-contradictory things. Neither do we limit omniscience by denying its power to foreknow unknowable things."

God knows everything about the future which is logically possible for Him to know given the type of creation He chose to create (free moral agents vs determinism).

 

[SOTK]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Originally posted by Knight

The Open View would state that God chose not to map out the entire future. He certainly could have mapped it out had He wanted to, but He sovereignly chose not to.

God is sovereign! Even to the extent that He is sovereign over His own sovereignness! In other words He has complete control over His own power. He chose to give up some of that power in form of our freewill.

Indeed.

And if you know me..... by now you know that I like to take things very slowly and look at them in very small "bite size" chunks.

So... let's start at the beginning shall we?

After God was done creating He looked at His creation and said it was good.

Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Yet then man rejected God (through sin) and not long after that man became exceedingly wicked. So much so that God was sorry that He made man!

Genesis 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

There are two important points here:

1. God was sorry, in fact the Hebrew word here for sorry is "nacham" which means "repent". In other words God changed His mind about the goodness of man.

How can Calvinistic theology explain this? Did God decree sin and then also decree He would change His mind about creations "goodness"? That wouldn't make sense because then that wouldn't be changing His mind at all would it?

2. Man (through his wickedness) moved God to grieve! Calvinists will tell you that man cannot move God - nothing can!!! But that isn't what the Bible says. The Bible says we can move God. We can move Him through our prayers and we can move Him to grieve when we are wicked.

The Calvinist will tell you that "nacham" in Gen 6:6 is a anthropomorphism and therefore it doesn't mean what it says. Yet an anthropomorphism is used to make something more understandable NOT more complicated so when you ask the Calvinist to explain the anthropomorphism since they claim it doesn't mean what it says they are silent.

SOTK do you think we can move God when we pray or move Him to grief when we are wicked?

Knight,

Sorry about the delay in responding. I've been thinking and have also been busy!

Yes, I think we can move God when we pray and/or move Him to grief when we are wicked, however, I am not sure if God is "moved" in the way I am moved or you are moved. We were made in God's image but aren't even close to being God, or more to the point, like God. Like, in this case, in the way He feels or is moved. After all, He's God. In other words, I am not sure if the language using to describe God's 'reactions' or 'feelings' in the Bible are accurate. I'm still thinking on this, and, of course, researching it.

As you know, I am considering and thinking about both OV and Calvinism. There are aspects of both that appeal to me. I have always believed in the ultimate and unfathomable power of God. Since I believe this, it's not hard for me to picture God having the 'power' to have already decreed that which I have prayed for or about. The same going for his 'reaction' to something wicked I have done. Eventhough I can picture all of this and am beginning to understand it, I still can't completely reconcile the fact that I have free will. Why allow human beings to have free will if God already has decreed everything anyways? I don't know. Maybe it has to do with the process of exerting free will. In other words, my practicing free will helps me to understand the righteousness of God and the importance of striving for it. Again, I don't know. This is a hard issue for me, at this point in time, to be able to side with one stance or another. That's why I think that it is good for me to consider and know both.

Keep it coming, Knight. This is good stuff!

In CHrist,

SOTK

 

[godrulz]

God is personal. He has will, intellect, and emotions (act, think, feel). These personal attributes are not totally different than our personal attributes (image of God). There is also similarity with moral attributes involving choice. What is different are God's absolutes of wonder (metaphysics, stuff, substance). He alone is infinite, perfect, eternal, uncreated Creator, triune, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, sovereign, etc.

We are similar to Him in moral and personal attributes. We are not like Him in His unique, uncreated perfections.

God is God and we are not.

Open Theism emphasizes God's personal, responsive, relational qualities. I believe Augustine/Calvinism is unduly influenced by Greek philosophical concepts of perfection that detract from His great personal and responsive nature (e.g. God is impassible= without feelings; strongly immutable= absolutely unchanging in every sense vs unchanging in essential attributes/character, but changing in relations, experiences, etc.).

Either view can exalt God's greatness, uniqueness, and goodness. The question is which view is more faithful to the biblical revelation.

The Open View attempts to take all relevant passages at face value and literally (while recognizing figurative language).

The closed view takes sovereignty passages literally, but the open passages figuratively (anthropomorphisms/popathisms...e.g. God changing His mind or having strong emotions).

 

[SOTK]

Bump

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the problem?

Originally posted by SOTK

Knight,

Sorry about the delay in responding. I've been thinking and have also been busy!

Yes, I think we can move God when we pray and/or move Him to grief when we are wicked, however, I am not sure if God is "moved" in the way I am moved or you are moved. We were made in God's image but aren't even close to being God, or more to the point, like God. Like, in this case, in the way He feels or is moved. After all, He's God. In other words, I am not sure if the language using to describe God's 'reactions' or 'feelings' in the Bible are accurate. I'm still thinking on this, and, of course, researching it.

As you know, I am considering and thinking about both OV and Calvinism. There are aspects of both that appeal to me. I have always believed in the ultimate and unfathomable power of God. Since I believe this, it's not hard for me to picture God having the 'power' to have already decreed that which I have prayed for or about. The same going for his 'reaction' to something wicked I have done. Eventhough I can picture all of this and am beginning to understand it, I still can't completely reconcile the fact that I have free will. Why allow human beings to have free will if God already has decreed everything anyways? I don't know. Maybe it has to do with the process of exerting free will. In other words, my practicing free will helps me to understand the righteousness of God and the importance of striving for it. Again, I don't know. This is a hard issue for me, at this point in time, to be able to side with one stance or another. That's why I think that it is good for me to consider and know both.

Keep it coming, Knight. This is good stuff!

In CHrist,

SOTK

OK good...

Let me ask you a question...

Suppose I was writing a book about the fall of man in the garden. The book was about how Adam sinned by eating from the tree.

Suppose I was going to call this book... "The Fall"

And suppose further I was going to ask you to choose my subtitle for the book from the following two options... which would be the most appropriate?

The Fall
The story of mans disobedience to God.

Or......

The Fall
The story of mans obedience to God.

 

[SOTK]

The Fall- The story of man's disobedience to God.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by SOTK

The Fall- The story of man's disobedience to God.

Of course!

It's so obvious isn't it?

Yet Calvinism teaches just the opposite. Calvinism teaches that everything that happens to the smallest detail is decreed by God and therefore obedient to His will.