PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28

Clete
March 15th, 2007, 06:15 AM
Rob,

Are you seriously suggesting that God foresees what we do but not why we do it and that this somehow fixes the conflict between foreknowledge and free will?

How would that fix anything?

If we always do what we want then if the action is known so is the want. How is it possible that you do not see the false dichotomy you are presenting? :bang:

Resting in Him,
Clete

mitchellmckain
March 15th, 2007, 09:05 AM
Paul states that the law came into the world after sin came into the world.



Exactly!

It is only after Adam and Eve sinned that people began making laws about what is to be considered good and evil, first as one united tyrrany over all mankind before the flood and then after the flood making all kinds of different governments and nations of men all over the earth. So then God chose Abraham to make a nation that was different, whose laws came not from men but from God.

Aletheia
March 15th, 2007, 09:12 AM
Oh how wonderful that God is living, relational, personal, good and loving!

patman
March 15th, 2007, 09:23 AM
It has been several weeks since I asked for Bible verses that actually said God knows the future.

Several thus far have admited there aren't any, others tried to post some that as it turned out weren't related. Soo....

S.V.er's, Please present to the court GOOD evidence that the future is settled and not open.

The nature of evidence means we MUST use logic to support it's claims. Because there is no direct verse that says so, your logic is the only way you can prove this. So it must abide by the rules of logic and not use a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#General_list_of_fallacies:).

My favorite 3 fallacies the S.V. constantly makes are:

-God knows particular future events therefore he knows all future events.

-God has correctly predicted one future event, therefore he must know all of them.

-God is powerful, therefore he knows the future.

-God is all knowing, that means the future too.

These arguments are really obvious fallacies. To many they are the sole reason they believe in the S.V. Theology. So if you can, please provide other evidence, otherwise, if you are strong enough to admit that your theology is built on fallacies, you should change it.

Present your scripture, now.

Aletheia
March 15th, 2007, 09:28 AM
It has been several weeks since I asked for Bible verses that actually said God knows the future.

Several thus far have admited there aren't any, others tried to post some that as it turned out weren't related. Soo....

S.V.er's, Please present to the court GOOD evidence that the future is settled and not open.

The nature of evidence means we MUST use logic to support it's claims. Because there is no direct verse that says so, your logic is the only way you can prove this. So it must abide by the rules of logic and not use a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#General_list_of_fallacies:).

My favorite 3 fallacies the S.V. constantly makes are:

-God knows particular future events therefore he knows all future events.

-God has correctly predicted one future event, therefore he must know all of them.

-God is powerful, therefore he knows the future.

-God is all knowing, that means the future too.

These arguments are really obvious fallacies. To many they are the sole reason they believe in the S.V. Theology. So if you can, please provide other evidence, otherwise, if you are strong enough to admit that your theology is built on fallacies, you should change it.

Present your scripture, now.
Hear, hear!

Knight
March 15th, 2007, 10:34 AM
A change of mind doesn't constitute a change in essence.Rob do you know anyone who claims God changes His essence? (whatever that might mean)

Do you know of anyone who claims God changes in His righteous character?

elected4ever
March 15th, 2007, 02:03 PM
Rob do you know anyone who claims God changes His essence? (whatever that might mean)

Do you know of anyone who claims God changes in His righteous character? Sometimes the rhetoric on this board sounds like that. There seems to be a tendency to characterize people in one camp or the other. Never mind that sometimes the opposite camp has it right on an issue. Even a clock is right twice a day. ;)

Lon
March 15th, 2007, 11:59 PM
It has been several weeks since I asked for Bible verses that actually said God knows the future.

Several thus far have admited there aren't any, others tried to post some that as it turned out weren't related. Soo....

S.V.er's, Please present to the court GOOD evidence that the future is settled and not open.

The nature of evidence means we MUST use logic to support it's claims. Because there is no direct verse that says so, your logic is the only way you can prove this. So it must abide by the rules of logic and not use a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#General_list_of_fallacies:).

My favorite 3 fallacies the S.V. constantly makes are:

-God knows particular future events therefore he knows all future events.

-God has correctly predicted one future event, therefore he must know all of them.

-God is powerful, therefore he knows the future.

-God is all knowing, that means the future too.

These arguments are really obvious fallacies. To many they are the sole reason they believe in the S.V. Theology. So if you can, please provide other evidence, otherwise, if you are strong enough to admit that your theology is built on fallacies, you should change it.

Present your scripture, now.

Show the verses that says He does not. Isn't it rather because it troubles the logic that OV denies it? I don't see a lot of support for either of our views concerning God's foreknowledge one way or the other imperically (except the actual word). So there are 3 reasons I support the traditional view: 1) it is traditionally accepted - not that this means it cannot be wrong, but that history supports the position 2) it doesn't not constrain God to any of my own imaginings. I'm very uncomfortable trying to box God into what He can or cannot do, logically or other 3) it interprets what I see clearly in scripture concerning passages of God's foreknowledge. Foreknowledge means "He knows it before it happens" and it IS a biblical term. For that alone, and for this specific definition, there indeed are many scriptures. The translations have it correct it IS 'fore' knowledge.

OV seems to say "He cannot see future in actual knowledge." I'm not in agreement. Foreknowledge means exactly that, and it is a scriptural term. Knowledge does not equate merely with predictability.

patman
March 16th, 2007, 12:11 AM
Show the verses that says He does not. Isn't it rather because it troubles the logic that OV denies it? I don't see a lot of support for either of our views concerning God's foreknowledge one way or the other imperically (except the actual word). So there are 3 reasons I support the traditional view: 1) it is traditionally accepted - not that this means it cannot be wrong, but that history supports the position 2) it doesn't not constrain God to any of my own imaginings. I'm very uncomfortable trying to box God into what He can or cannot do, logically or other 3) it interprets what I see clearly in scripture concerning passages of God's foreknowledge. Foreknowledge means "He knows it before it happens" and it IS a biblical term. For that alone, and for this specific definition, there indeed are many scriptures. The translations have it correct it IS 'fore' knowledge.

OV seems to say "He cannot see future in actual knowledge." I'm not in agreement. Foreknowledge means exactly that, and it is a scriptural term. Knowledge does not equate merely with predictability.

Lonster, the only time prediction does not equate knowledge is when you need some excuse to make up for why predictions are wrong.

How many times does God say perhaps? How many times does he say maybe? How many times does he change his mind about a punishment?

Anyway, note how God the son easily sheds his future knowledge about certain events:

Mark 13:32
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father..."

Yeah I am sure you have some other excuse to explain this away, but my point is that he DID it, he actually put aside knowledge. God can do it too.

When God talks about the past, does the story change? Can we trust what he says about what happened in the past? Is it really what happened? Did it REALLY happen that way? Is there any way it can be wrong?

I am betting you are going to answer no, yes, yes, yes, no.

Wow.

Now how about the future? Sometimes the prediction doesn't happen, if you are honest you can see that. If you aren't you are just fooling yourself. But if you are honest, WHY might it be that some future events are misrepresented, and the past is always correctly presented?

Poly
March 16th, 2007, 12:32 AM
Show the verses that says He does not.


This is really pretty silly, don't you think? By your method of proving what is true, I could make the claim that God knows Casper the friendly Ghost. And if somebody comes along, wanting me to prove it, do you really think it's going to hold water when I attempt to do this by telling him to show me verses that say He does not know Casper?


Foreknowledge means "He knows it before it happens" and it IS a biblical term.

I have foreknowledge that my taxes will be due April 15th but I don't have to look into a supposed future that somehow already exists in order to know this. So if it's possible that I can foreknow something with such certainty without having to somehow see the future, how much more possible is this for a God who is so in tune with His very own creation that He knows it better than we ever could and knows us better than we know ourselves?

Lon
March 16th, 2007, 12:42 AM
Lonster, the only time prediction does not equate knowledge is when you need some excuse to make up for why predictions are wrong.

Knight has accused me of circular reasoning here, but I say unconditional prophecy is 'always' fulfilled. Conditional can be changed because it is posed as 'alternative.'



How many times does God say perhaps? How many times does he say maybe? How many times does he change his mind about a punishment?

The difference between conditional and unconditional. I have no problems where this understanding places the two.



Anyway, note how God the son easily sheds his future knowledge about certain events:

Mark 13:32
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father..."

Yeah I am sure you have some other excuse to explain this away, but my point is that he DID it, he actually put aside knowledge. God can do it too.

Which? Which characteristics would He lay aside? It is important for our discussion, because Jesus only laid those aside temporarily. Does He have this knowledge now? I'd believe He's picked them back up on His ascension.



When God talks about the past, does the story change? Can we trust what he says about what happened in the past? Is it really what happened? Did it REALLY happen that way? Is there any way it can be wrong?

I am betting you are going to answer no, yes, yes, yes, no. No. God is accurate.



Wow.

Now how about the future? Sometimes the prediction doesn't happen, if you are honest you can see that. If you aren't you are just fooling yourself. But if you are honest, WHY might it be that some future events are misrepresented, and the past is always correctly presented?

Conditional, unconditional. It depends which we are talking about. I see all unconditional prophecy as being fulfilled. Conditional means exactly that, there are conditions to be met. I have no innate foreknowing ability. I can guess, extrapolate, predict, or follow patterns, but I cannot say anything for sure about 'tomorrow.' I'm pretty sure the when I sit, the chair or couch will support me, but I've been wrong a few times, have broken a few chairs. Conversely, God has actual foreknowledge. It is real 'knowledge' and it is 'before' the event happens. That's what the word means.

Lon
March 16th, 2007, 12:51 AM
This is really pretty silly, don't you think? By your method of proving what is true, I could make the claim that God knows Casper the friendly Ghost. And if somebody comes along, wanting me to prove it, do you really think it's going to hold water when I attempt to do this by telling him to show me verses that say He does not know Casper?



I have foreknowledge that my taxes will be due April 15th but I don't have to look into a supposed future that somehow already exists in order to know this. So if it's possible that I can foreknow something with such certainty without having to somehow see the future, how much more possible is this for a God who is so in tune with His very own creation that He knows it better than we ever could and knows us better than we know ourselves?

You have predictive knowledge which is imperfect.
Jam 4:13 Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into this or that town and spend a year there and do business and make a profit."
Jam 4:14 You do not know about tomorrow. What is your life like? For you are a puff of smoke that appears for a short time and then vanishes.
Jam 4:15 You ought to say instead, "If the Lord is willing, then we will live and do this or that."
So even paying taxes is "As the Lord is willing."

We have only true foreknowledge about that which God has given us concerning the future
and it is not innate. Only God has the characteristic of foreknowledge, we have predictabilities and patterns that hold true, but one day there will be no taxes.

Casper the friendly ghost is not in the Bible, 'foreknowledge' is.

Poly
March 16th, 2007, 01:12 AM
You have predictive knowledge which is imperfect.


Why don't you try telling the government how imperfect my knowledge of this is.



Casper the friendly ghost is not in the Bible

Show me scripture that says he's not. (Just using your own means of proving that he actually is.)


... 'foreknowledge' is.

True but too bad you attempt to go to the absurd and warp what it really means.

RobE
March 16th, 2007, 03:54 AM
Rob,

Are you seriously suggesting that God foresees what we do but not why we do it and that this somehow fixes the conflict between foreknowledge and free will?

How would that fix anything?

If we always do what we want then if the action is known so is the want. How is it possible that you do not see the false dichotomy you are presenting? :bang:

Resting in Him,
Clete

I'm seriously suggesting that this might resolve the problem. If God simply foresees the actions of mankind(Aquinas) through some supernatural ability.

Consider this, we cannot change the future – by anything we have done, are doing, or will do – from what it is going to be. But we can change the future from what it might have been.

Just as, we cannot change the present from the way it is. We can only change the present from the way it might have been, from the way it would have been were we not doing what we are doing right now. And finally, we cannot change the past from the way it was. In the past, we changed it from what it might have been, from what it would have been had we not done what we did.

An example: We hear that our friend was in a car crash and immediately pray that he is safe and unharmed. Now, God is unable to change the past in any way(this would be a logical contradiction). How would God be able to answer our prayer?

In particular, God would have known at the time of the accident that the we would pray sometime later, and God could have chosen to answer those prayers in advance of their being uttered. On this view, God is not changing the past at all; God is making the past one particular way among the infinite number of different ways it could have been.

He would thus be making the future what it is through intervention out of what it might have been.

Would He indeed be changing the future in any way from what it will be? No.
He is simply establishing the future from the myriad of possibilities into what it will be in cooperation with us excercising our free will.

Just because something is possibly false doesn't mean it is probably false. Possibly false beliefs might turn out to be true, none the less. Possibility vs. actuality.

Rob

RobE
March 16th, 2007, 04:00 AM
Rob do you know anyone who claims God changes His essence? (whatever that might mean)

Do you know of anyone who claims God changes in His righteous character?

God's righteous character is part of His essence.

I maintain that a change in mind does not constitute a change in essence. Read my post to Clete and substitute a change in mind where I speak of change in action. God's reaction might have been, could have been, but wasn't different than what it in fact was. Just as God's actions might be, could be, but won't be different than what they are in the future.

Think it through. :Party: ,

Rob

RobE
March 16th, 2007, 04:05 AM
Anyway, note how God the son easily sheds his future knowledge about certain events:

Mark 13:32
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father..."

Also note how God the Son states specifically that God the Father has exhaustive future knowledge.

Clete
March 16th, 2007, 06:17 AM
Also note how God the Son states specifically that God the Father has exhaustive future knowledge.
No He doesn't. That's you reading your theology into the verse. The verse says nothing more than that the Father HAD a specific time table in mind for the setting up of Israel's Kingdom.

Resting in Him,
Clete

elected4ever
March 16th, 2007, 06:23 AM
No He doesn't. That's you reading your theology into the verse. The verse says nothing more than that the Father HAD a specific time table in mind for the setting up of Israel's Kingdom.

Resting in Him,
CleteAnd the spicific day and time was know to God the Father alone. :dunce:

Clete
March 16th, 2007, 06:51 AM
I'm seriously suggesting that this might resolve the problem.
Then I am seriously suggesting that you are stupid - seriously.


If God simply foresees the actions of mankind(Aquinas) through some supernatural ability.
What in the world was the point of putting Aquinas in there? Was that your way of making an appeal to authority or what?


Consider this, we cannot change the future – by anything we have done, are doing, or will do – from what it is going to be. But we can change the future from what it might have been.
Consider this: YOU ARE STUPID ROB!
If the future cannot be changed then there is no "might of been". :doh::duh:


Just as, we cannot change the present from the way it is. We can only change the present from the way it might have been, from the way it would have been were we not doing what we are doing right now.
There is no might have been about the present you idiot! The present is present, "might have been" is passed. The passed and the present are the same thing Rob. There is no way you will ever convince me that you did not intentionally ignore this mixing of tenses - that makes you stupid and it proves you are desperate to find anything that will allow you to reject the idea of Open Theism.


And finally, we cannot change the past from the way it was. In the past, we changed it from what it might have been, from what it would have been had we not done what we did.
Way to contradict yourself there Rob! :thumb:


An example: We hear that our friend was in a car crash and immediately pray that he is safe and unharmed.
Stupid, unbiblical and unrighteous prayer. We are never to pray contrary to fact. Our prayers are not able to change the past. If a person has been injured or even killed in an accident, our prayers for their safety are a waste of breath and are a form of taking the Lord's name in vain.


Now, God is unable to change the past in any way(this would be a logical contradiction). How would God be able to answer our prayer?
He can't. God is completely and utterly unable to undo the past.


In particular, God would have known at the time of the accident that the we would pray sometime later, and God could have chosen to answer those prayers in advance of their being uttered.
Umm, Rob. I hate to inform you about this but Christians die in car accidents multiple times a day - every day.


On this view, God is not changing the past at all; God is making the past one particular way among the infinite number of different ways it could have been.
Based, in your view, on a prayer that we prayed after the fact, which we could not have not prayed and which God could not have not answered. Or is it your belief that God ever does something other than what He wants to do (unlike us)?


He would thus be making the future what it is through intervention out of what it might have been.
There you go mixing tenses again.


Would He indeed be changing the future in any way from what it will be? No.
He is simply establishing the future from the myriad of possibilities into what it will be in cooperation with us excercising our free will.
You mean the free will that we would never have exercised in any other way, right?


Just because something is possibly false doesn't mean it is probably false. Possibly false beliefs might turn out to be true, none the less. Possibility vs. actuality.
No duh. The point you miss and I believe at this point you do so intentionally, is that in your view, there is no "probably". With you, you WILL do what we WILL do and nothing else is possible - never mind probable.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
March 16th, 2007, 06:52 AM
And the spicific day and time was know to God the Father alone. :dunce:
Yep!

So what?

Aletheia
March 16th, 2007, 07:08 AM
This is really pretty silly, don't you think? By your method of proving what is true, I could make the claim that God knows Casper the friendly Ghost. And if somebody comes along, wanting me to prove it, do you really think it's going to hold water when I attempt to do this by telling him to show me verses that say He does not know Casper?
:chuckle:

godrulz
March 16th, 2007, 07:22 AM
Also note how God the Son states specifically that God the Father has exhaustive future knowledge.


The verse may say the Father knows a specific thing that He has control over (the timing of the Second Coming). Since Father and Son are one (apart from incarnation issues), the Son would share the Father's omniscience (except veiled incarnation issues). One cannot extrapolate a specific piece of knowledge as a proof text for exhaustive forknowledge. Other verses show a partially open future, so a contradiction would result.

themuzicman
March 16th, 2007, 07:53 AM
Show the verses that says He does not. Isn't it rather because it troubles the logic that OV denies it? I don't see a lot of support for either of our views concerning God's foreknowledge one way or the other imperically (except the actual word). So there are 3 reasons I support the traditional view: 1) it is traditionally accepted - not that this means it cannot be wrong, but that history supports the position

SO, you believe in transubstanciation and praying to Mary?


2) it doesn't not constrain God to any of my own imaginings. I'm very uncomfortable trying to box God into what He can or cannot do, logically or other

So, you think that God can set the course of history, and then change it because He feels like it? OR do you constrain God to the history He's ordained?


3) it interprets what I see clearly in scripture concerning passages of God's foreknowledge. Foreknowledge means "He knows it before it happens" and it IS a biblical term. For that alone, and for this specific definition, there indeed are many scriptures. The translations have it correct it IS 'fore' knowledge.

Sure, but there isn't any basis for EXHAUSTIVE and DEFINITE foreknowledge. There is only foreknowledge of certain things that God intends to bring about. OV doesn't deny that.


OV seems to say "He cannot see future in actual knowledge." I'm not in agreement. Foreknowledge means exactly that, and it is a scriptural term. Knowledge does not equate merely with predictability.

God knows all possible course of the future, and knows actually both how He will respond to a given situation, and what He will do in the future at the right time. So, your definition is a bit vague.

Muz

patman
March 16th, 2007, 08:13 AM
Knight has accused me of circular reasoning here, but I say unconditional prophecy is 'always' fulfilled. Conditional can be changed because it is posed as 'alternative.'

Conditional, unconditional. It depends which we are talking about. I see all unconditional prophecy as being fulfilled. Conditional means exactly that, there are conditions to be met. I have no innate foreknowing ability. I can guess, extrapolate, predict, or follow patterns, but I cannot say anything for sure about 'tomorrow.' I'm pretty sure the when I sit, the chair or couch will support me, but I've been wrong a few times, have broken a few chairs. Conversely, God has actual foreknowledge. It is real 'knowledge' and it is 'before' the event happens. That's what the word means.

What about the verses I showed in another thread? God said "I will, without fail, drive these nations out." Then later, God said "Before I said I would drive them out, but now I will leave them there to test you through them."

You will have to say these are conditional. But can you admit to the problem that is still at hand?

If God knew the prophecy wouldn't be fulfilled, why did he say it would happen? I mean besides getting them to repent or whatever reason... Why would God lie so good may come of it?

Can God Lie? Can you at least be honest with yourself and recognize a lie when you see one? (Remember, it is only a lie if someone says something that isn't true, and knows it isn't true when they say it)

elected4ever
March 16th, 2007, 08:49 AM
What about the verses I showed in another thread? God said "I will, without fail, drive these nations out." Then later, God said "Before I said I would drive them out, but now I will leave them there to test you through them."

You will have to say these are conditional. But can you admit to the problem that is still at hand?

If God knew the prophecy wouldn't be fulfilled, why did he say it would happen? I mean besides getting them to repent or whatever reason... Why would God lie so good may come of it?

Can God Lie? Can you at least be honest with yourself and recognize a lie when you see one? (Remember, it is only a lie if someone says something that isn't true, and knows it isn't true when they say it)Come on, The promise to drive out the nations was conditional.. Israel had there part to play and they didn't believe God and were without faith in the ability of God to do it. So because of Israel's unbelief God decided to give Israel a few lessons to teach them that if they were to be successful they had to rely on God's promises. As far as God knowing that Israel would not do what He told them, Of course He knew that Israel would not follow Him but following God was a choice Israel had to make and they have not done so to this day To this day Israel does not know what faith in God is as a nation. I dare say that most of us "christians" don't know ether.

patman
March 16th, 2007, 09:03 AM
As far as God knowing that Israel would not do what He told them, Of course He knew that Israel would not follow Him but following God was a choice Israel had to make and they have not done so to this day To this day Israel does not know what faith in God is as a nation. I dare say that most of us "christians" don't know ether.

Exactly, like I said, you HAVE to say it was conditional, even though God, himself, said, with his mouth that does not know a lie, that he would, without fail, do it.

What a sentence, lot's of commas....

There are only two answers. Either God lied when he said it. Or he actually thought he woud do it!? "God forbid he not know the future, but heavens please, say he just lied..." is that your hope? I would think not, but it just goes to show that you S.V. constantly ignore scripture to hold on to your precious view.

Poly
March 16th, 2007, 02:15 PM
Consider this, we cannot change the future – by anything we have done, are doing, or will do – from what it is going to be. But we can change the future from what it might have been.

Just as, we cannot change the present from the way it is. We can only change the present from the way it might have been, from the way it would have been were we not doing what we are doing right now. And finally, we cannot change the past from the way it was. In the past, we changed it from what it might have been, from what it would have been had we not done what we did.



:chz4brnz:



:Plain:

elected4ever
March 16th, 2007, 02:35 PM
There are only two answers. Either God lied when he said it. Or he actually thought he woud do it!? "God forbid he not know the future, but heavens please, say he just lied..." is that your hope? I would think not, but it just goes to show that you S.V. constantly ignore scripture to hold on to your precious view.I think there is a third option that you are overlooking.God did not lie. If Israel had then God would have. God has not changed His mine and God did not lie. There is nothing there that says that God did not know Israel would not. The truth remains. You guys are such dim wits.

elected4ever
March 16th, 2007, 02:44 PM
Consider this, we cannot change the future – by anything we have done, are doing, or will do – from what it is going to be. But we can change the future from what it might have been.

Just as, we cannot change the present from the way it is. We can only change the present from the way it might have been, from the way it would have been were we not doing what we are doing right now. And finally, we cannot change the past from the way it was. In the past, we changed it from what it might have been, from what it would have been had we not done what we did. You mind puting that in plan english. I keep geting lost in the suffel. :juggle:

Clete
March 16th, 2007, 07:13 PM
I think there is a third option that you are overlooking.God did not lie. If Israel had then God would have. God has not changed His mine and God did not lie. There is nothing there that says that God did not know Israel would not. The truth remains. You guys are such dim wits.
If we are such dim wits then why did you just basically quote OUR position and claim it as your own without even realizing that you did so?

elected4ever
March 16th, 2007, 07:44 PM
If we are such dim wits then why did you just basically quote OUR position and claim it as your own without even realizing that you did so?Don't you get it moron. You say that if there is foreknowledge then God has robed you of you choice. I show you foreknowledge and you accuse me of taking your argument. Your pathetic. You are on my ignore list.

Lon
March 16th, 2007, 07:50 PM
Why don't you try telling the government how imperfect my knowledge of this is.



Show me scripture that says he's not. (Just using your own means of proving that he actually is.)



True but too bad you attempt to go to the absurd and warp what it really means.
On day, there will be no taxes. The government will let you skip taxes if 'they' owe 'you.'

You are arguing against 'James' btw.

Casper was your ridiculousness, not mine. Foreknowledge is a Biblical term. Therefore, my challenge stands. He has it.

Clete
March 16th, 2007, 07:55 PM
Don't you get it moron. You say that if there is foreknowledge then God has robed you of you choice. I show you foreknowledge and you accuse me of taking your argument. Your pathetic. You are on my ignore list.
You showed what you called foreknowledge and then we all almost in unison showed you how it wasn't the sort of foreknowledge claimed by either the Calvinist or the Arminian. It is in fact, the exact sort of foreknowledge that the open theists of the world believe in and so yes, you are using our own argument as though it is some sort of problem for us. Pretty silly.

And I do not say that "if there is foreknowledge then God has robed you of you choice", I say that if God has EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge or if MY actions are known (or are even knowable) in advance then I have no free will. And no, I don't expect for you to acknowledge the difference.

And there is no way I would ever put you on my ignore list. You might be a fool, but your foolishness sounds reasonable enough to need refuting (hence the fact that you have any positive rep at all). The only people I put on my ignore list are those who do a better job of refuting themselves than I ever could.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lon
March 16th, 2007, 07:57 PM
What about the verses I showed in another thread? God said "I will, without fail, drive these nations out." Then later, God said "Before I said I would drive them out, but now I will leave them there to test you through them."

You will have to say these are conditional. But can you admit to the problem that is still at hand?

If God knew the prophecy wouldn't be fulfilled, why did he say it would happen? I mean besides getting them to repent or whatever reason... Why would God lie so good may come of it?

Can God Lie? Can you at least be honest with yourself and recognize a lie when you see one? (Remember, it is only a lie if someone says something that isn't true, and knows it isn't true when they say it)

Conditional. If you take that verse alone, you missed it. You know as well as I do that the Israelites were responsible for driving out the nations.

Why ask questions God answers Himself? "Can God lie?" A 'mistake' is just as bad as a lie in result. It doesn't impinge honesty, but credibility. God does neither.



There are only two answers. Either God lied when he said it. Or he actually thought he woud do it!? "God forbid he not know the future, but heavens please, say he just lied..." is that your hope? I would think not, but it just goes to show that you S.V. constantly ignore scripture to hold on to your precious view.

Conditional

Clete
March 16th, 2007, 08:16 PM
Casper was your ridiculousness, not mine. Foreknowledge is a Biblical term. Therefore, my challenge stands. He has it.
The term foreknowledge and the theological concept of foreknowledge believed and taught by the Calvinist are not at all the same thing. And so you challenge stands as nothing more than equivocation.

No one, including the Open Theist, denies that God knew in advance that many of the events of history would come to pass, nor do they deny that there are yet future events that God knows that He will bring to pass and so yes, there have been and remain many things which God foreknows, but again, this is a far cry from the doctrine of Divine Foreknowledge.




I. God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

II. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. - Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter Five (http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html)


According to Aquinas, God is not dependent for his existence on anything, including his attributes. God is thought of as absolutely simple, not having any real parts distinct from God’s essence. God’s simplicity encompasses every attribute of God including his knowledge. To put it crudely, there is no difference between God, his knowledge, and the objects of God’s knowledge. So the object of God’s knowledge turns out to be God’s own essence. God’s essence contains within it the likeness of everything and God knows everything (including the future) by knowing his own essence. - source (http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/omnisci.htm)

And there are perhaps dozens of other variations on this theme of exhaustive divine foreknowledge that very simply cannot be found anywhere within the pages of Scripture in any sense whatsoever.

Resting in Him,
Clete

patman
March 16th, 2007, 10:24 PM
Conditional. If you take that verse alone, you missed it. You know as well as I do that the Israelites were responsible for driving out the nations.

Why ask questions God answers Himself? "Can God lie?" A 'mistake' is just as bad as a lie in result. It doesn't impinge honesty, but credibility. God does neither.

Conditional

It is conditional, I know, I said it before, but you have to admit he said he would do it without fail. AND you have to make up some reason for why it didn't happen. God clearly and plainly said "without fail."

Let me ask you this, if your wife said "I will love you without fail," then she cheated on you, would you be so willing to look over it? Her love is conditional.. right?

I do not mean to say she would do that, and I know conditional is an overstatement here, but really... how honest are you with yourself? If GOD is sinless and a million times more holy than your wife, and if he said "without fail," and then didn't go through with it, AND ON TOP of that, he knew they would fail in doing it (because of his extensive future knowledge), then why don't bells go off in your head? There should be alarms going off, there should be some logical thought process that tells you something is up with this future knowledge thing.

patman
March 16th, 2007, 11:28 PM
I think there is a third option that you are overlooking.God did not lie. If Israel had then God would have. God has not changed His mine and God did not lie. There is nothing there that says that God did not know Israel would not. The truth remains. You guys are such dim wits.

E4E,

Honestly, please, consider it. If God knows all the future, then He knew it wouldn't happen. He knew they wouldn't do it. He knew what would inevitably happen. Yet he said "I'll do it without fail." How is that not a lie?

On the flip side, O.V. says he didn't know he wouldn't do it, he didn't know Israel wouldn't do it, He thought he would do it, so he said "without fail," so now it isn't a lie at all... It is justice.

patman
March 16th, 2007, 11:32 PM
Also note how God the Son states specifically that God the Father has exhaustive future knowledge.
Note how RobE reads something that isn't there. :jawdrop:

Lon
March 17th, 2007, 01:31 AM
It is conditional, I know, I said it before, but you have to admit he said he would do it without fail. AND you have to make up some reason for why it didn't happen. God clearly and plainly said "without fail."

Let me ask you this, if your wife said "I will love you without fail," then she cheated on you, would you be so willing to look over it? Her love is conditional.. right?

I do not mean to say she would do that, and I know conditional is an overstatement here, but really... how honest are you with yourself? If GOD is sinless and a million times more holy than your wife, and if he said "without fail," and then didn't go through with it, AND ON TOP of that, he knew they would fail in doing it (because of his extensive future knowledge), then why don't bells go off in your head? There should be alarms going off, there should be some logical thought process that tells you something is up with this future knowledge thing.

I think Clete has understood our position pretty well. Your analogies don't work and some of your presuppositions for questions are wrong.

patman
March 17th, 2007, 01:33 AM
I think Clete has understood our position pretty well. Your analogies don't work and some of your presuppositions for questions are wrong.

960 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36215)

Hmmm.

elected4ever
March 17th, 2007, 07:44 AM
E4E,

Honestly, please, consider it. If God knows all the future, then He knew it wouldn't happen. He knew they wouldn't do it. He knew what would inevitably happen. Yet he said "I'll do it without fail." How is that not a lie?

On the flip side, O.V. says he didn't know he wouldn't do it, he didn't know Israel wouldn't do it, He thought he would do it, so he said "without fail," so now it isn't a lie at all... It is justice.If Israel had done what God had said and then god had not done it, then it would have been a lie. Knowing what Israel was going to do takes nothing from the promise made.

If you tell your kid that you will by pizza if they clean there room and all the time you knew they would not clean the room, was it a lie to give them the incentive to clean the room? No. because you were not obligated to buy the pizza because of the kids nonperformance. What was know by you is irrelevant to the issue at at hand.

Poly
March 17th, 2007, 07:49 AM
If you tell your kid that you will by pizza if they clean there room and all the time you knew they would not clean the room, was it a lie to give them the incentive to clean the room? No. because you were not obligated to buy the pizza because of the kids nonperformance. What was know by you is irrelevant to the issue at at hand.

Why would you even bother telling your kid you'd buy pizza if he cleaned his room when you already knew he wouldn't?

elected4ever
March 17th, 2007, 08:05 AM
Why would you even bother telling your kid you'd buy pizza if he cleaned his room when you already knew he wouldn't?Now you would make me a judge of the motivation of God? Had you rather have God dictate there thoughts and actions? Then there would be no failure as the Calvinist suggest.

Clete
March 17th, 2007, 08:54 AM
Now you would make me a judge of the motivation of God? Had you rather have God dictate there thoughts and actions? Then there would be no failure as the Calvinist suggest.
You see what I mean E4E? You ignore sound reason and cling to your pet theology. You do it every time and I see no reason to think you will ever do otherwise. Your responses are shallow and predictable and obviously contrived our of desperation. You have no idea how to get out of the corner you've found yourself in here and so you pull the same intellectually dishonest crap you pull every time. You are incapable of admitting that you're even the slightest bit wrong or that any point of your theology doesn't make sense. How dare you call me a liar.

mitchellmckain
March 17th, 2007, 12:13 PM
Why would you even bother telling your kid you'd buy pizza if he cleaned his room when you already knew he wouldn't?

Because one can always hope without hope that He might surprise you.

patman
March 17th, 2007, 12:42 PM
994 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1363386)


If Israel had done what God had said and then god had not done it, then it would have been a lie. Knowing what Israel was going to do takes nothing from the promise made.

If you tell your kid that you will by pizza if they clean there room and all the time you knew they would not clean the room, was it a lie to give them the incentive to clean the room? No. because you were not obligated to buy the pizza because of the kids nonperformance. What was know by you is irrelevant to the issue at at hand.

Yeah, it is a lie, really it is.. a small one in this case, but how can you say it isn't?

Man A knows Man B can't do something (Or wont, what have you.) He bets him a million dollars to do it and convinces him he can, when even he knows he can't. Man B looses and is broke. Your pizza analogy is just a smaller version.

Why Do I even have to explain this to you? How old are you again?

elected4ever
March 17th, 2007, 12:53 PM
994 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1363386)



Yeah, it is a lie, really it is.. a small one in this case, but how can you say it isn't?

Man A knows Man B can't do something (Or wont, what have you.) He bets him a million dollars to do it and convinces him he can, when even he knows he can't. Man B looses and is broke. Your pizza analogy is just a smaller version.

Why Do I even have to explain this to you? How old are you again?So, to you, God is a liar. That being said then God's word is not a reliable source of information. Am I understanding you correctly?

patman
March 17th, 2007, 12:58 PM
996 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1363386)


So, to you, God is a liar. That being said then God's word is not a reliable source of information. Am I understanding you correctly?

You are making my last 5 posts interesting.

You sure don't get it tho. No, God isn't a liar... UNLESS HE HAS absolute and total future knowledge as you claim he does.

God isn't lying to Israel when he says "without fail" ONLY because he didn't know when he said it that it wasn't true. His intentions were TRULY conditional because the outcome's conditions were unknown.

Do you understand? Will you please be honest with yourself and us and admit to it? Please? Stop insulting everyone's intelligence?

elected4ever
March 17th, 2007, 04:09 PM
996 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1363386)



You are making my last 5 posts interesting.

You sure don't get it tho. No, God isn't a liar... UNLESS HE HAS absolute and total future knowledge as you claim he does. like i said, God is a liar to you because the word says that he does know. I don't give a dam about your logic. It is clear you do not believe God.

godrulz
March 17th, 2007, 04:41 PM
Contingencies and conditional prophecies do not make God a liar. They simply show that God knows reality as it is (contingent/possible until it becomes actual).

Lon
March 17th, 2007, 05:08 PM
Contingencies and conditional prophecies do not make God a liar. They simply show that God knows reality as it is (contingent/possible until it becomes actual).

The apprehension of the concept of 'time' is the difficulty here. OV has a belief that is 'closed' to any other interpretation. I'm nowhere near being able to make a conclusion about this and it is the hinge upon which one's logic follows to conclusion. As long as the concept of time is in debate (probably until the end) we will probably not be able to agree or come to conclusive middle ground over this topic.

patman
March 17th, 2007, 07:49 PM
like i said, God is a liar to you because the word says that he does know. I don't give a dam about your logic. It is clear you do not believe God.
Like I said, several times, it doesn't say he knows all of the future, it says he knows some of the future. YOU are the one who takes that to the Nth degree and makes it in to something more than it is.

There are too many S.V.er's on this thread who had plenty of chances to submit a verse that says he knows all of the future, and over a year later, no one has. Even after having been asked to several times.

And by doing so, you make God out to be a liar. Your theology does not hold up to scripture.

Your theology is what has driven so many unbelievers away from God because they are able to recognize the nonsense in the S.V.. And you stubbornly and hard heartedly refuse to change it.

elected4ever
March 17th, 2007, 10:24 PM
Does God have control of His knowledge? Or does God's knowledge control Him?

In other words....
If God decided He didn't want to know something could He choose to NOT know it? Or is God a slave to His own knowledge?He has already chosen to do just that. So the answer is yes. He has chosen not to remember some things. "your sins and iniquities I will remember no more.

godrulz
March 17th, 2007, 11:52 PM
He has already chosen to do just that. So the answer is yes. He has chosen not to remember some things. "your sins and iniquities I will remember no more.

God does not have amnesia and cannot chose to not know something that we can readily recall to memory. The phrase is a Hebraism that has the idea of God not bringing our sins up again. He treats us as if we never sinned (justification). The legal issue does not depend on an omniscient God having memory lapses (a contradiction since God logically knows all that is knowable).

RobE
March 18th, 2007, 05:46 AM
Then I am seriously suggesting that you are stupid - seriously.

:eek:


What in the world was the point of putting Aquinas in there? Was that your way of making an appeal to authority or what?

Not really. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't Augustine or especially Molina. If I wanted to appeal to authority around here, I would have to mention names like Clete, Knight, BillyBob, or Philetus(you know the great ones).



Consider this: YOU ARE STUPID ROB!
:eek:


If the future cannot be changed then there is no "might of been". :doh::duh:

Isn't this what we disagree upon? I say there is contingency prior to the event and you say there isn't contingency prior to the event - if foreknowledge is true.


There is no might have been about the present you idiot!
:eek:


The present is present, "might have been" is passed. The passed and the present are the same thing Rob.

You lost me here.


There is no way you will ever convince me that you did not intentionally ignore this mixing of tenses

Maybe you could be more specific about which tenses I mixed. Perhaps from my perspective the tenses are un-mixed. :think:


- that makes you stupid and it proves you are desperate to find anything that will allow you to reject the idea of Open Theism.
:eek:


Based, in your view, on a prayer that we prayed after the fact, which we could not have not prayed and which God could not have not answered. Or is it your belief that God ever does something other than what He wants to do (unlike us)?

It is my belief that God does as He desires just as we do.


You mean the free will that we would never have exercised in any other way, right?

Right! I think you got it!


No duh. The point you miss and I believe at this point you do so intentionally, is that in your view, there is no "probably". With you, you WILL do what we WILL do and nothing else is possible - never mind probable.

Sure we WILL do what we WILL do even though other possibilities are in existence.

That A equals A will be true; even though A=B or A=C might be true?

The fact that in many cases A=B or A=C will not be true doesn't eliminate the possiblity that they might have been true. :juggle:

RobE
March 18th, 2007, 06:50 AM
You mind puting that in plan english. I keep geting lost in the suffel. :juggle:

Basically, I'm showing how the English language causes a Modal Fallacy based upon it's use.

When premises are set up they use the language to convey necessity or actuality or possibility.


Actual Tenses

Past - "I did A."
Present - "I do A (now)." "I am doing A (now)."
Future - "I will do A (in the future)."

Necessary Tenses

Past - ""I had to do A."
Present - "I have to do A (now)." "I must do A (now)." "I cannot do otherwise than A."
Future - "I will have to do A (in the future)."
"I must do A (in the future)."
"I will not be able to do otherwise than A (in the future)."

Possible Tenses

Past - "I could have done A." "It was possible for me to have done A."
Present - "I could do A (now)." "I might do A (now)." "It is possible for me to do A (now)."
Future - "I might do A (in the future)." "I can do A (in the future)." "It will be possible for me to do A."



Now let's take some premises for analysis:



Premise 1a: Free will is defined as having the ability to do or do otherwise purely by an act of that will.

Premise 1a speaks in the possible present tense.


Premise 2a: If a future action is known by whatever means then there is no ability to do other than what is known (or else) it could not be said to have been known.

Premise 2a: Speaks in the necessary present tense.


Conclusion A: If the future is known, by whatever means, then I do not have free will.

The conclusion A speaks in the actual present tense.

The Modal Fallacy occurs in premise 2a where it assigns undue necessity.

Premise 2a basically states that "It must be that if a future action is known by whatever means then it could not be said to have been known."

Possible present tense.

I removed the "there is no ability to do other than what is known" and replaced it with an equivalent antecedent "It must be" because that gives us the ability to actually see what is being said here by putting premise 2a in the proper tense since necessity hasn't been proven anywhere in a prior premise, but is just simply put forward as being true.

One more example:


"If Paul has two sons and a daughter, then he has to have at least two children."

The antecedent of this sentence expresses a true proposition. (Paul is my brother and he does have two sons and a daughter.) Thus according to the valid inference rule (known as "Modus Ponens") which allows us to infer the consequent of any true conditional statement whose antecedent is true, we should be able to infer: "Paul has to have at least two children."

Something is clearly amiss. While it is true that Paul does (in fact) have at least two children (he has three), it is false that he has to have three. He doesn't have to have any. He doesn't have to have one. He doesn't have to have two. He doesn't have to have three. He doesn't have to have four. Etc., etc. Put another way: There is no necessity in Paul's having any children, let alone having three. There is no necessity for Paul (just as there is no necessity for anyone else) to have at least two children.

"If Paul has two sons and a daughter, then he has at least two children."

Replacing the has to have(necessity assigned and deceptive) with has(no necessity and truthful) makes the statement valid.

Assigning necessity is tricky when speaking of two items such as foreknowledge and freewill which have logical connections which aren't obviously seen when people make statements.

I hope this clears it up,
Rob

elected4ever
March 18th, 2007, 08:14 AM
God does not have amnesia and cannot chose to not know something that we can readily recall to memory. The phrase is a Hebraism that has the idea of God not bringing our sins up again. He treats us as if we never sinned (justification). The legal issue does not depend on an omniscient God having memory lapses (a contradiction since God logically knows all that is knowable).But that is not what the word says is it. The word says that God will not remember. A decision of choice on the part of God that is beyond the understanding of mankind and must be accepted as a matter of faith, not logic. Everything cannot be explained in logic.

When God says something is true then it is true and we then we attempt to make logical explanations for it. Our logic may or not be factual but logic is our way of understanding things. It is our nature. Logic says nothing of somethings truthfulness. It says a lot about our understanding of it.

elected4ever
March 18th, 2007, 08:28 AM
Basically, I'm showing how the English language causes a Modal Fallacy based upon it's use.

When premises are set up they use the language to convey necessity or actuality or possibility.


Actual Tenses

Past - "I did A."
Present - "I do A (now)." "I am doing A (now)."
Future - "I will do A (in the future)."

Necessary Tenses

Past - ""I had to do A."
Present - "I have to do A (now)." "I must do A (now)." "I cannot do otherwise than A."
Future - "I will have to do A (in the future)."
"I must do A (in the future)."
"I will not be able to do otherwise than A (in the future)."

Possible Tenses

Past - "I could have done A." "It was possible for me to have done A."
Present - "I could do A (now)." "I might do A (now)." "It is possible for me to do A (now)."
Future - "I might do A (in the future)." "I can do A (in the future)." "It will be possible for me to do A."



Now let's take some premises for analysis:



Premise 1a: Free will is defined as having the ability to do or do otherwise purely by an act of that will.

Premise 1a speaks in the possible present tense.


Premise 2a: If a future action is known by whatever means then there is no ability to do other than what is known (or else) it could not be said to have been known.

Premise 2a: Speaks in the necessary present tense.


Conclusion A: If the future is known, by whatever means, then I do not have free will.

The conclusion A speaks in the actual present tense.

The Modal Fallacy occurs in premise 2a where it assigns undue necessity.

Premise 2a basically states that "It must be that if a future action is known by whatever means then it could not be said to have been known."

Possible present tense.

I removed the "there is no ability to do other than what is known" and replaced it with an equivalent antecedent "It must be" because that gives us the ability to actually see what is being said here by putting premise 2a in the proper tense since necessity hasn't been proven anywhere in a prior premise, but is just simply put forward as being true.

One more example:


"If Paul has two sons and a daughter, then he has to have at least two children."

The antecedent of this sentence expresses a true proposition. (Paul is my brother and he does have two sons and a daughter.) Thus according to the valid inference rule (known as "Modus Ponens") which allows us to infer the consequent of any true conditional statement whose antecedent is true, we should be able to infer: "Paul has to have at least two children."

Something is clearly amiss. While it is true that Paul does (in fact) have at least two children (he has three), it is false that he has to have three. He doesn't have to have any. He doesn't have to have one. He doesn't have to have two. He doesn't have to have three. He doesn't have to have four. Etc., etc. Put another way: There is no necessity in Paul's having any children, let alone having three. There is no necessity for Paul (just as there is no necessity for anyone else) to have at least two children.

"If Paul has two sons and a daughter, then he has at least two children."

Replacing the has to have(necessity assigned and deceptive) with has(no necessity and truthful) makes the statement valid.

Assigning necessity is tricky when speaking of two items such as foreknowledge and freewill which have logical connections which aren't obviously seen when people make statements.

I hope this clears it up,
RobThank you

godrulz
March 18th, 2007, 09:24 AM
But that is not what the word says is it. The word says that God will not remember. A decision of choice on the part of God that is beyond the understanding of mankind and must be accepted as a matter of faith, not logic. Everything cannot be explained in logic.

When God says something is true then it is true and we then we attempt to make logical explanations for it. Our logic may or not be factual but logic is our way of understanding things. It is our nature. Logic says nothing of somethings truthfulness. It says a lot about our understanding of it.


If you knew Hebrew and understood the phrase in other contexts, you would not be defending a 'mystery' that would undermine explicit revelation about the nature of omniscience.

How can God literally have amnesia when I can think about past sins or Satan could run up to him and tattle? God would again remember and have to forget again?

If a believer murders someone, repents, and is forgiven, does God forget or no longer see historical truth? Does that make us smarter than God? Every time the news replays the details, does God leave the room? When the person is killed on death row, does God cover His eyes and ears in order to not remember?

Forgetfulness is not a condition of forgiveness. When you forgive another person, you chose to not bring up or 'remember' the past. It does not mean you cannot recall it or the facts disappear.

Jesus is a door. Does He have a doorknob for a belly button? Does he smell like a loaf of bread?

The more I hang around here, the more I think we need a course in logic, critical thinking, and sound hermeneutics (including finding out what a phrase meant in the original context, rather than a simplistic wooden literalism that is logically and biblically indefensible).

Refute me. I dare you. In my open theism view, I retain omniscience. Ironically, in your anti-open theism view, God cannot know (by choice?) facts that the rest of the world can watch on the evening news?!

elected4ever
March 18th, 2007, 10:35 AM
How can God literally have amnesia when I can think about past sins or Satan could run up to him and tattle? God would again remember and have to forget again?I don't think we are talking about amnesia here. This is a matter of God's choice and is highly selective. I don't purport to understand how God choses not to remember. I do know that it is not due to mental defect or injury. I can only surmise what it may or may not be but my opinion is just that , my opinion. It should not be presented as fact

patman
March 18th, 2007, 01:20 PM
I couldn't help but notice the lack of good responses.

:think:

We are getting plenty of grammar lessons and "evidence from silence" examples. But, realistically, why is it so important that you keep it up?

3 words. No scriptural evidence. Only assumptions. You take God's illustration of some future knowledge (that can be explained apart from seeing the future) and run with it, instead of letting it be what it is.

Some future knowledge does not equal TOTAL future knowledge.

godrulz
March 18th, 2007, 01:27 PM
I don't think we are talking about amnesia here. This is a matter of God's choice and is highly selective. I don't purport to understand how God choses not to remember. I do know that it is not due to mental defect or injury. I can only surmise what it may or may not be but my opinion is just that , my opinion. It should not be presented as fact

There is no coherent way to try to explain how an omniscient being can chose to not remember. Your faulty assumption is leading to a wrong conclusion. You must either rethink how God does not bring up sins or you must compromise traditional understanding of biblical omniscience.

For the thinkers out there:

Hasker's definition of omniscience:

"It is impossible that God should at any time believe what is false, or fail to believe any true proposition such that His knowing that proposition at that time is logically possible."

i.e. God knows all that is knowable.

Clark Pinnock: "Aspects of the future, being unsettled, are not yet wholly known even to God. It does not mean that God is ignorant of something He ought to know, but that many things in the future are only possible and not yet actual. Therefore, He knows them correctly as possible and not actual."

godrulz
March 18th, 2007, 01:35 PM
I couldn't help but notice the lack of good responses.

:think:

We are getting plenty of grammar lessons and evidence from silence examples. But, realistically, why is it so important that you keep it up?

3 words. No scriptural evidence. Only assumptions. You take God's illustration of some future knowledge (that can be explained apart from seeing the future) and run with it, instead of letting it be what it is.

Some future knowledge does not equal TOTAL future knowledge.


B-I-N-G-O

The closed view proof texts settled texts that Open Theism also affirms. The closed view than ignores or makes figurative the other unsettled motif.

One cannot extrapolate from a specific example to a universal principle in all cases, especially when it means ignoring all of the relevant evidence.

Ah, the power of a preconceived theology to make one miss the boat of balanced truth :bang:

Lon
March 18th, 2007, 07:18 PM
B-I-N-G-O

The closed view proof texts settled texts that Open Theism also affirms. The closed view than ignores or makes figurative the other unsettled motif.

One cannot extrapolate from a specific example to a universal principle in all cases, especially when it means ignoring all of the relevant evidence.

Ah, the power of a preconceived theology to make one miss the boat of balanced truth :bang:

OV proposes a limit to time considerations that at is foundation is the precept for your views. Unless you were to agree that this interpretaion could be faulty or flat out wrong, you'd never be able to appreciate SV at all. It has nothing to do with 'proof-texting' but scripture interpretation you disagree with. God's timelessness does create a natural rendering of the text. We are at an impasse.

RobE
March 18th, 2007, 07:33 PM
I couldn't help but notice the lack of good responses.



We are getting plenty of grammar lessons and "evidence from silence" examples. But, realistically, why is it so important that you keep it up?

3 words. No scriptural evidence. Only assumptions. You take God's illustration of some future knowledge (that can be explained apart from seeing the future) and run with it, instead of letting it be what it is.

Some future knowledge does not equal TOTAL future knowledge.

:think:

Allright, I'll take another crack at it. I could talk about Judas, the good Thief, Joseph, Peter, Jesus, the Garden of Eden, or countless other stories that show God has foreknowledge. But, I think I'll use one of the o.v.'s favorites this time.


2 Kings 20:1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."

As we know Hezekiah did recover and God gave him 15 more years of life.


2 Kings 20:4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: 5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life.

I have often asked how God foreknew Hezekiah was going to die if foreknowledge is untrue. I have often asked how did God foreknow that Hezekiah would live 15 more years.

This time I will ask how did God foreknow that the millions of free will agents who were wandering the earth at the time wouldn't disrupt His plans for Hezekiah in one way or another? Couldn't one of Hezekiah's servants decided to kill him one night? Couldn't the cook have served Hezekiah some bad food and accidentally poisoned Him? Or is it the claim of the o.v. that God threw a supernatural shield around Hezekiah to give him fifteen more years of life?

Remember, we're talking about averting the wills of countless unknow free will agents here. To continue the example I'll give you another prophecy which occurs right after the story of Hezekiah's impending death.


2 Kings 20:16 Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the LORD : 17 The time will surely come when everything in your palace, and all that your fathers have stored up until this day, will be carried off to Babylon. Nothing will be left, says the LORD. 18 And some of your descendants, your own flesh and blood, that will be born to you, will be taken away, and they will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon."

God told this to Hezekiah decades before Neb. showed up and did exactly this. Throughout this time, is it the claim of the o.v. that God manipulated events to bring about the captivity of the Jews by Babylon? Did God interfere with free will agents to bring about what Hezekiah was foretold of?

Rob

godrulz
March 18th, 2007, 10:09 PM
OV proposes a limit to time considerations that at is foundation is the precept for your views. Unless you were to agree that this interpretaion could be faulty or flat out wrong, you'd never be able to appreciate SV at all. It has nothing to do with 'proof-texting' but scripture interpretation you disagree with. God's timelessness does create a natural rendering of the text. We are at an impasse.


Proof texts for 'eternal now' timelessness/simultaneity (good luck).

The simple view in Scripture is endless time:

Ps. 90:2 (before...from everlasting to everlasting); 93:2,5 (endless days); 102:23-27 (His years will never end); Rev. 1:4,8 (tensed phrases about God); Rev. 8:1; 6:10; 22:1,2 (time in eternity/heaven), etc.

patman
March 18th, 2007, 10:51 PM
:think:

Allright, I'll take another crack at it. I could talk about Judas, the good Thief, Joseph, Peter, Jesus, the Garden of Eden, or countless other stories that show God has foreknowledge. But, I think I'll use one of the o.v.'s favorites this time.


2 Kings 20:1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."

As we know Hezekiah did recover and God gave him 15 more years of life.


2 Kings 20:4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: 5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life.

I have often asked how God foreknew Hezekiah was going to die if foreknowledge is untrue. I have often asked how did God foreknow that Hezekiah would live 15 more years.

This time I will ask how did God foreknow that the millions of free will agents who were wandering the earth at the time wouldn't disrupt His plans for Hezekiah in one way or another? Couldn't one of Hezekiah's servants decided to kill him one night? Couldn't the cook have served Hezekiah some bad food and accidentally poisoned Him? Or is it the claim of the o.v. that God threw a supernatural shield around Hezekiah to give him fifteen more years of life?

Remember, we're talking about averting the wills of countless unknow free will agents here. To continue the example I'll give you another prophecy which occurs right after the story of Hezekiah's impending death.


2 Kings 20:16 Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the LORD : 17 The time will surely come when everything in your palace, and all that your fathers have stored up until this day, will be carried off to Babylon. Nothing will be left, says the LORD. 18 And some of your descendants, your own flesh and blood, that will be born to you, will be taken away, and they will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon."

God told this to Hezekiah decades before Neb. showed up and did exactly this. Throughout this time, is it the claim of the o.v. that God manipulated events to bring about the captivity of the Jews by Babylon? Did God interfere with free will agents to bring about what Hezekiah was foretold of?

Rob

So? You just presented more problems for the S.V.. God could have dealt with each situation accordingly if he really wanted something to happen, sometimes he does some times he doesn't. There is no issue.

You just proved us right, really.

RobE
March 19th, 2007, 06:56 AM
So? You just presented more problems for the S.V.. God could have dealt with each situation accordingly if he really wanted something to happen, sometimes he does some times he doesn't. There is no issue.

You just proved us right, really.

The problem is that God had to foreknow of the impending outcomes BEFORE they happened. This is a logical absurdity according to open theism since free will agents are involved.

I'm more than confident in stating that absolutely no one from the traditional Christian view is claiming that God is unable to do what He wants. Keep in mind that all of our wants are based upon knowledge.

It is the 'open' theist who states that God is unable to know sometimes while being quite able to know at others.....


Clark Pinnock: "Aspects of the future, being unsettled, are not yet wholly known even to God. It does not mean that God is ignorant of something He ought to know, but that many things in the future are only possible and not yet actual. Therefore, He knows them correctly as possible and not actual."

The 'double speak' of Pinnock shows his attempt to escape the rock and the hard place.

ALL aspects of the future are merely possible whether they are what open theism calls 'settled' or 'unsettled'. The future has not yet occured and does not exist(from our perspective anyway) so ALL things in the future are not yet actual.

Pinnock then turns around and says 'He knows them correctly as possible and not actual.", :doh:

How is it that He is able to 'know' them if they are in the future whether actual(which is impossible) or possible? :bang: Call Clark and tell him to make up his mind. Or is He arguing that God exists 'outside of time' and merely interferes with the course of what He foreknows to bring about alternate outcomes? :juggle:

If so then welcome home to what you call the settled view Mr. Pinnock.

Rob

patman
March 19th, 2007, 07:22 AM
The problem is that God had to foreknow of the impending outcomes BEFORE they happened. This is a logical absurdity according to open theism since free will agents are involved.

......

Pinnock then turns around and says 'He knows them correctly as possible and not actual.", :doh:

How is it that He is able to 'know' them if they are in the future whether actual(which is impossible) or possible? :bang: Call Clark and tell him to make up his mind. Or is He arguing that God exists 'outside of time' and merely interferes with the course of what He foreknows to bring about alternate outcomes? :juggle:

If so then welcome home to what you call the settled view Mr. Pinnock.

Rob

It is truly sad. You seem to not know what possible is. I would submit that it is possible for me to leave my wife and hook up with Jessica Simpson and end up with millions of dollars. But that isn't actual, is it?

I have free will, right? You think God could predict what I would do about the above statement? Do think he is nervous about me sinning in such a way?

I personally think he is knee slapping himself, laughing at the idea. Because he knows the other possibility, me staying faithful and never even meeting Ms. Simpson is far more likely, and better.

So two possibilities, one highly predictable, one not. One actual, one not. So the future appears to be known, but not by crystal ball, Rob.

Don't you see what Pinnock is saying? Knowing a possibility is not truly knowing the actual outcome. He is smart enough to know which possibilities are more likely.

You have been chatting with us O.V.er's for a long time Rob... Your attempts are getting sad. No mean to offend, but it is just the truth.

Why don't you reconsider the S.V.? Have you truly considered it? The O.V. is strictly based upon scripture and logical. The S.V. on the other hand stretches scripture and makes up reasons to ignore or discount many verses.

The choice is yours, but truth is the road I take. Let me take it or leave me alone.

godrulz
March 19th, 2007, 12:47 PM
Just because Rob does not understand Open Theism or the coherence of Pinnock's statements, does not make them untrue.

Philetus
March 20th, 2007, 10:05 AM
Hey, Patman!
Congratulations on the 1000 posts! You make reading this thread a joy! You are a blessing to me. Have some rep! (after I spread it around a little more.)
P

Philetus
March 20th, 2007, 10:12 AM
Just because Rob does not understand Open Theism or the coherence of Pinnock's statements, does not make them untrue.

:rotfl:

Nothing could be more accurate, or hilariously.

One thing though, He has brought out some great responses, even though his posts prove he hasn't learned a thing ... still hasn't got a clue.






BTW, Robe, I told you not to use my name again ... ever.

patman
March 20th, 2007, 07:52 PM
Hey, Patman!
Congratulations on the 1000 posts! You make reading this thread a joy! You are a blessing to me. Have some rep! (after I spread it around a little more.)
P

Wow, thanks Philetus.

Lately I've felt frustrated at the S.V.ers. Check Mate has been called several times on here, and they will not reconsider. So I've taken them MUCH less seriously lately too, in turn.

They won't like that I said that, but I try to look at things objectively, as though I were a third party. And wow, the S.V. just can't stand against scripture. So as of late I am... left pointing out random things.

-sigh-

:dizzy: Patman

Lon
March 27th, 2007, 07:18 PM
Well then- Which is it? Time is a mere perception of contraint to motion and advance?

We are locked in. There is no possible way to appreciate anything outside of this structure but I don't believe you can liken it to chess. This discussion is much too complicated for that. No checkmate move exists.

Granted, from your consideration of impossibilities, it looks absurd to believe in anything else, but the conclusion is hasty.

We are discussing something which is not straightforward or clear at all. We obviously don't even agree on our definitions of time, progression, choice or anything else related. It is more like you are playing chess and we are playing pinochle. We aren't even talking 'to' one another because our perceptions are so different.

How will John see his vision for Revelation in the future? Will it be exactly like his conception in every detail? Was John physically there? When the elder told him not to grieve could John have touched him?

Here is the deal: I have no idea how this was accomplished or what transpired, but it is a real journey into a future event and it is clear. This OV avoids by dismissing it logically. I'm not able to do that from my perspective. It is cloudy at best to suggest such a thing and puts God in a logical box that not only seems to me, to contradict this book, but also seems unlikely. I'd rather be perplexed than wrong: Humbly puzzled than pridefully incorrect.

patman
March 27th, 2007, 08:53 PM
Well then- Which is it? Time is a mere perception of contraint to motion and advance?

We are locked in. There is no possible way to appreciate anything outside of this structure but I don't believe you can liken it to chess. This discussion is much too complicated for that. No checkmate move exists.

Granted, from your consideration of impossibilities, it looks absurd to believe in anything else, but the conclusion is hasty.

We are discussing something which is not straightforward or clear at all. We obviously don't even agree on our definitions of time, progression, choice or anything else related. It is more like you are playing chess and we are playing pinochle. We aren't even talking 'to' one another because our perceptions are so different.

How will John see his vision for Revelation in the future? Will it be exactly like his conception in every detail? Was John physically there? When the elder told him not to grieve could John have touched him?

Here is the deal: I have no idea how this was accomplished or what transpired, but it is a real journey into a future event and it is clear. This OV avoids by dismissing it logically. I'm not able to do that from my perspective. It is cloudy at best to suggest such a thing and puts God in a logical box that not only seems to me, to contradict this book, but also seems unlikely. I'd rather be perplexed than wrong: Humbly puzzled than pridefully incorrect.

Hey Lonster

Glad to see you back, haven't heard from you in a while.

You asked in another thread about my studies, if they took off after my step into the OV, and the answer is no.

I didn't really have a great understanding of scripture until I was 16, but I was heavy in study since the age of 11. I read the bible all the time, I was a nerd in more ways than one.

I was 17 when I read through it at least two times all together. I had a really studied group of people around me, including my parents and their friends. I learned a lot. I also studied time travel. I learned about all the theories and the possibilities.

I saw problems with the S.V., but was under the assumption that is how things are and not to question it. Until I was forced to by the death of someone very close to me. I had to stop being naive. The world isn't a great place, it is full of terrible things, and once I got a taste of that, I couldn't stop thinking about that.

My pain was one thing, but that is just me... this sort of thing happens to everyone. We all go through it and will die. Not all of us will die old, some of us don't even get a chance. Some of us are killed by people who die old and happy.

The world is decaying evil and dying, and it will all go down the drain.

But I didn't change my views. I ignored the problem and went without an answer that no church, no friend, no studied person anywhere could answer. "Why did God create a world knowing it would turn so evil."

Read this thread, people try to answer it by "God has a good purpose" is the typical answer-nonanswer you get. I think it is pretty easy to see why it isn't an answer, because God is supposed to be good, and doesn't even tempt. Yet he'll make creation in such a way that the steering wheel is pointed straight to hell.

Once I was exposed to the OV in my 20's, for the first time it all fell together. But I had a million questions that needed answered too, but the answers were there! For the first time the words I looked over in the Bible were coming together, because before I was forced to ignore them.

So there is the answer to that question you asked.

As to your post, understanding time is something you should be willing to give up when scripture holds the answers for us. Let it guide your understanding about time, not the other way around. We should always believe the truth in scripture over anything.

The O.V. may appear to put God in a box when you have grown in faith thinking God has these powers he doesn't. But I am sure you can see how if you believed God could sin, then someone came along and said "no he can't," that you would also say that person was putting God in a box...?

O.V. wants to see God as the Bible shows him, just like S.V. tries to do. Yet the S.V., as I hope you can see, is really reading more things in to the bible through logical reasoning than O.V. does... more over it is bad logic.

A checkmate is when the king is cornered and cannot move without being taken. How can the S.V. say their belief is scriptural when proof is asked for and no good proof is given? When Scripture shows God changing his mind about prophecy, when God doesn't even claim this power, and when so called problem verses are addressed, what is the next move?

It is cheating. That's the next move. You'll have to stop playing by the Bible and start making your own ideas... and that is where this is headed.

Lon
March 28th, 2007, 10:38 AM
Hey Lonster

As to your post, understanding time is something you should be willing to give up when scripture holds the answers for us. Let it guide your understanding about time, not the other way around. We should always believe the truth in scripture over anything.

The O.V. may appear to put God in a box when you have grown in faith thinking God has these powers he doesn't. But I am sure you can see how if you believed God could sin, then someone came along and said "no he can't," that you would also say that person was putting God in a box...?

O.V. wants to see God as the Bible shows him, just like S.V. tries to do. Yet the S.V., as I hope you can see, is really reading more things in to the bible through logical reasoning than O.V. does... more over it is bad logic.

A checkmate is when the king is cornered and cannot move without being taken. How can the S.V. say their belief is scriptural when proof is asked for and no good proof is given? When Scripture shows God changing his mind about prophecy, when God doesn't even claim this power, and when so called problem verses are addressed, what is the next move?

It is cheating. That's the next move. You'll have to stop playing by the Bible and start making your own ideas... and that is where this is headed.

I understand that driving force behind OV. What I believe it attempts to do is let God off the hook but I'm not of that inclination. I hate sin and its effects on me and the world. I cannot give you any explanation from my perspective but I believe OV is wrong in assessment. God transcends time. It is a truth I believe must be true. Again an impasse is in contention. What I mostly see is bashing on this point, nothing I've heard or read has convinced me otherwise and I don't feel blocked into any logic corner at all. I believe you are constrained in your thinking to a two-dimensional chessboard and are missing not only a third dimension but any possibility of any other dimension. I'm locked into this 3-D world with occassional glimpses into another realm that my mind can sometimes grasp but never apprehend or truly appreciate. What I cannot do is define anything outside of my existence and experience with 3-D constraints. When John transcribed this 3-D existence, it busted any sense OV could possibly make to pieces for me. Every instance of future clarity in scripture busts out of 3 dimensions I know and reel with logical perception problems for me. Eternity past busts out of my logical perception. I cannot fathom the logic. My mind stops working as I contemplate it. What we both agree on is that God is God and all His attributes are perfect. I understand a God who transcends time and yet with all the problematic implications remains both truly good and perfect. The dichotomy is there to be sure. How else could Paul say we see through a dark glass or John that we will one day know even as we are 'fully' known? A dark glass is a dichotomy view. It recognizes that the things of God are beyond us at present and no systematic theology is going to paint that glass any more clearly than "darkly" (Paul's words). If you are seeing theology more clearly through your lense, I'd suggest re-examining it. If your playing board is flat, I'd suggest you look up, there are other dimensions and factors that escape our perception in these considerations and OV, in my perception, has limited response to similar perplexing questions. Is it a better lens? I don't think so, but it is a lens I don't mind at all. It is good to look to God with new appreciations if they focus on the height, depth, and breadth of God's love for us (which is unfathomable!).

Eph 3:18 you may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,
Eph 3:19 and thus to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

These two verses astound me! To apprehend and comprehend that which is beyond apprehension and comprehension! We are to do the impossible here. It makes no sense and yet makes all the sense in the world. It is a glass darkly yet fills us up completely in our finiteness. It is beyond us, yet fills us completely. God is too big for our hearts, reasoning, logic, and apprehensions. God and His relationship to us is outside of our comprehension. How can I limit Him with any constraint of my 3 dimensional appreciation? When I discover the height, depth, and breadth of His love, I find He is yet outside of my understanding: my understanding is my own limited fullness of meaning. Yet God exists even moreso outside of my comprehension. This isn't like palming a basketball, it is like palming the world and my perception doesn't even recognize that I'm palming a globe. Like the two dimensional chessboard, my perception is flat wrong.

themuzicman
March 28th, 2007, 10:48 AM
SO, you claim that OVT is wrong because you think that no one can invalidate your view, due to the fact that it "surpasses understanding"?

How do we know, then, that your view is correct?

What prevents me from making the same claim?

Muz

Clete
March 28th, 2007, 11:22 AM
SO, you claim that OVT is wrong because you think that no one can invalidate your view, due to the fact that it "surpasses understanding"?

How do we know, then, that your view is correct?

What prevents me from making the same claim?

Muz
Excellent questions!

:BRAVO:

Lon
March 28th, 2007, 12:20 PM
SO, you claim that OVT is wrong because you think that no one can invalidate your view, due to the fact that it "surpasses understanding"?

How do we know, then, that your view is correct?

What prevents me from making the same claim?

Muz

I understand that complaint. I appreciate the problematic. All the backpatting and attaboys in the world do not make them go away however. OV does not adequately deal with any prophetic vision. I affirm that it is not only predictive, it is future reality to the exact letter. This flies in the face of any logical perception that speaks to the contrary. How do I explain this? I cannot, but I believe OV falls flat on it's limitation. What is possible is going to remain illogical if you are constrained to your perception which is limited. In the same way we are filled to capacity with God's limitless, incomprehensible love, our logic, rationalizations, and mental capacity to apprehend is constrained.

Glass darkly means 'dark' not clear. How can you know? Scripture says so, it is clear enough to see through. It is dark enough to make us realize that we are very limited. The only truth is God's truth. What prevents you from making the same claim? A glass darkly. It is the same. I've said the OV is appreciated and meant it. I just think it is a trade for one set of theological problems for another set, not a better view. In some considerations, I believe it is a worse trade-off, especially in concern of who God is and the constraints it applies to my considerations of Him and His Word.

We all must have the same considerations for correct theolgy, which is why even though we disagree on these peripherals, that we understand and adhere to basic doctrine for Salvation, the work and nature of God, and holy living. We agree because we have God's Word and His Holy Spirit to guide and watch over our thinking. God is the container of our doctrine, and we rise or fall on this based on Him and what He tells us. If we have disagreements, I'm constrained to believe this is the area of 'higher math' or glass darkly. I do not believe it touches so much of what we do imperically know and adhere to from scripture because our answers on basic doctrine is most nearly the same: God is triune. Salvation is found in Christ. Holy Living is our calling etc. etc.

Clete
March 28th, 2007, 03:52 PM
I don't want to steal Muz's thunder here but I just can't resist responding to Lonster's post. I look forward to seeing what you have to say in response as well Muz so don't let me just take completely over here.


I understand that complaint. I appreciate the problematic. All the backpatting and attaboys in the world do not make them go away however. OV does not adequately deal with any prophetic vision. I affirm that it is not only predictive, it is future reality to the exact letter.
Sounds lovely but it is not biblical. There are several prophecies which did not come to pass as stated.


This flies in the face of any logical perception that speaks to the contrary. How do I explain this? I cannot, but I believe OV falls flat on it's limitation.
How so? The open view takes the Bible to mean what it says, including the times when it shows us prophecies that didn't happen.


What is possible is going to remain illogical if you are constrained to your perception which is limited.
Your theology is therefore unfalsifiable.


In the same way we are filled to capacity with God's limitless, incomprehensible love, our logic, rationalizations, and mental capacity to apprehend is constrained.
God is logic (John 1:1). Your position here is therefore contradictory and must be false. The contradictory is not only false, it is ungodly.


Glass darkly means 'dark' not clear. How can you know? Scripture says so, it is clear enough to see through. It is dark enough to make us realize that we are very limited.
You are presenting a false dichotomy. Just because we don't know every detail doesn't give us reason to accept contradictions as truth. That is not what seeing in a glass darkly means at all. What it means is simply that we don't know the half of what we could know.


The only truth is God's truth. What prevents you from making the same claim? A glass darkly. It is the same. I've said the OV is appreciated and meant it. I just think it is a trade for one set of theological problems for another set, not a better view.
What set it that? People who reject the open view say this sort of thing all the time and never have a clear list of theological problems that they can saddle the open view with. The only one you've mentioned is the prophecy one and that's a non-problem because your position is unbiblical in the first place. What else, do you have?


In some considerations, I believe it is a worse trade-off, especially in concern of who God is and the constraints it applies to my considerations of Him and His Word.
God is who He is Lonster. You don't get to pick and choose theological systems based on which one comes to the conclusions you happen to like better. The open view attempts to maintain pure allegiance to the plain reading of Scripture and sound reason and then lets the chips fall where they may. If we find that the orthodox understanding of what sort of person God is has been wrong for the last several centuries then so be it. Our allegiance should be to the truth, not to doctrine.


We all must have the same considerations for correct theolgy, which is why even though we disagree on these peripherals, that we understand and adhere to basic doctrine for Salvation, the work and nature of God, and holy living. We agree because we have God's Word and His Holy Spirit to guide and watch over our thinking. God is the container of our doctrine, and we rise or fall on this based on Him and what He tells us. If we have disagreements, I'm constrained to believe this is the area of 'higher math' or glass darkly. I do not believe it touches so much of what we do imperically know and adhere to from scripture because our answers on basic doctrine is most nearly the same: God is triune. Salvation is found in Christ. Holy Living is our calling etc. etc.
But this is really the crux of the problem Lonster! I surprised that you don't see it. Muz asked you a more fundamental question than I think you realize because a person's ability to play the "surpasses understanding" trump card doesn't just apply to doctrines such as open theism but to ANY doctrine! Your theological worldview openly accepts the existence of contradiction under the guise of " surpassing understanding". You therefore have forfeited any ground from which to object to any doctrine whatsoever. If some nut case came along and denied that Jesus was God and blew off all the Scripture that taught otherwise in the name of "surpassing understanding" how would you refute his argument without contradicting your own theological worldview? You couldn't! If you throw out sound reason, you throw out the only means by which you can falsify any truth claim whatsoever.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Knight
March 28th, 2007, 03:55 PM
But this is really the crux of the problem Lonster! I surprised that you don't see it. Muz asked you a more fundamental question than I think you realize because a person's ability to play the "surpasses understanding" trump card doesn't just apply to doctrines such as open theism but to ANY doctrine! Your theological worldview openly accepts the existence of contradiction under the guise of " surpassing understanding". You therefore have forfeited any ground from which to object to any doctrine whatsoever. If some nut case came along and denied that Jesus was God and blew off all the Scripture that taught otherwise in the name of "surpassing understanding" how would you refute his argument without contradicting your own theological worldview? You couldn't! If you throw out sound reason, you throw out the only means by which you can falsify any truth claim whatsoever.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Well put! :up:

patman
March 28th, 2007, 05:16 PM
Eph 3:18 you may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,
Eph 3:19 and thus to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

These two verses astound me! To apprehend and comprehend that which is beyond apprehension and comprehension! We are to do the impossible here. It makes no sense and yet makes all the sense in the world. It is a glass darkly yet fills us up completely in our finiteness. It is beyond us, yet fills us completely. God is too big for our hearts, reasoning, logic, and apprehensions.

Lonster, this verse is a beautiful verse. It talks about the LOVE of God for us... a truly amazing thing, it really is.

If the love of God is so beyond comprehension, why did God make creation with the steering wheel pointed right at death and destruction? He knew when he made the "car" that more than %50 of it would get totaled before it even happened. Where is the love here? Why would God "lovingly" create a world like this?

Didn't Jesus show us what love is? Didn't Paul explain it to us? It always hopes... how can God have hope? If he already knows, hope isn't hope at all...

Romans 8:24
For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?

1 Corinthians 13:7
It[love] always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

How can God love the sinner and hope he will change if he already knows?

You can pretend you can't understand what I am telling you, but I know you get it. There are too many aspects of love that we understand that the S.V. gives up on because the S.V. doesn't uphold God's love. It is a huge reason so many turn away from God these days.

Lon
March 29th, 2007, 09:32 PM
I don't want to steal Muz's thunder here but I just can't resist responding to Lonster's post. I look forward to seeing what you have to say in response as well Muz so don't let me just take completely over here.


Sounds lovely but it is not biblical. There are several prophecies which did not come to pass as stated.


How so? The open view takes the Bible to mean what it says, including the times when it shows us prophecies that didn't happen.


Your theology is therefore unfalsifiable.


God is logic (John 1:1). Your position here is therefore contradictory and must be false. The contradictory is not only false, it is ungodly.


You are presenting a false dichotomy. Just because we don't know every detail doesn't give us reason to accept contradictions as truth. That is not what seeing in a glass darkly means at all. What it means is simply that we don't know the half of what we could know.


What set it that? People who reject the open view say this sort of thing all the time and never have a clear list of theological problems that they can saddle the open view with. The only one you've mentioned is the prophecy one and that's a non-problem because your position is unbiblical in the first place. What else, do you have?


God is who He is Lonster. You don't get to pick and choose theological systems based on which one comes to the conclusions you happen to like better. The open view attempts to maintain pure allegiance to the plain reading of Scripture and sound reason and then lets the chips fall where they may. If we find that the orthodox understanding of what sort of person God is has been wrong for the last several centuries then so be it. Our allegiance should be to the truth, not to doctrine.


But this is really the crux of the problem Lonster! I surprised that you don't see it. Muz asked you a more fundamental question than I think you realize because a person's ability to play the "surpasses understanding" trump card doesn't just apply to doctrines such as open theism but to ANY doctrine! Your theological worldview openly accepts the existence of contradiction under the guise of " surpassing understanding". You therefore have forfeited any ground from which to object to any doctrine whatsoever. If some nut case came along and denied that Jesus was God and blew off all the Scripture that taught otherwise in the name of "surpassing understanding" how would you refute his argument without contradicting your own theological worldview? You couldn't! If you throw out sound reason, you throw out the only means by which you can falsify any truth claim whatsoever.

Resting in Him,
Clete

More of the same. Logical or not. OV does not have an acceptable answer to these considerations. Once again, I'd rather be perplexed than wrong, which I believe OV is here. Clete, you are confusing vision and prophecy in this discussion. The vision is transcendant. It is also future. OV continues to fall very very flat on this.

Bob Hill
March 30th, 2007, 12:47 AM
If God foreknew everything that will ever happen at some point in time past, when was that point?

Then, if He foreknew everything that will ever happen in time past, all His responses to all of our prayers were also foreknown by Him. Since all of our thoughts, actions, responses, etc. were foreknown, along with His responses, then, God couldn’t change anything that He had foreknown.

Then, no matter what we do, it was already foreknown and was locked in, with no possibility of any fluctuation of even one electron being different.

Since God predestines what He foreknows, in Rom 8:28-30, we, then, see that we were predestined at the same time we were foreknown: “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

Therefore, according to this thinking, everything in the future is and was determined before God created the universe. However, this can’t be shown from the Bible when we understand what the word repent really signifies – a God who is able to change His mind.

The absolute foreknowledge of God view would contradict God’s ability to respond to anything, now, because our prayers and actions and His responses were already locked in eternity past.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

Lon
March 30th, 2007, 08:41 PM
If God foreknew everything that will ever happen at some point in time past, when was that point?

Granted it is is perplexing but we don't dismiss scripture or truth based on that perplexity. For instance, very similarly we have a similar problem with eternity past. I still cannot fathom something never ever having a beginning because it is not in my experience, but it is true nonetheless. We are like God, He is not like us. There is a big difference and by His very nature He exceeds our capacity to grasp Him intellectually. Our finite brains and logic are never all that God is. He is not definitive by us at all.


Then, if He foreknew everything that will ever happen in time past, all His responses to all of our prayers were also foreknown by Him. Since all of our thoughts, actions, responses, etc. were foreknown, along with His responses, then, God couldn’t change anything that He had foreknown.

Thanks Bob, your gentleness and careful patient posts are very inviting for discussion. It is very difficult to discuss these matters any other way and I appreciate this about you.

What God could or could not do in this scenario is a difficult concept. If God is at all foreknowing (and He is) there is difficulty with this despite how much He does know. Foreknowledge (Seeing future and contingency) is a biblical concept. Some of your prior students do not recognize this and have actually said it is 'anti-biblical' which is absurd and is in fact the opposite of what we actually do see when the term "knowing before it happens" is greek and scriptural. What OV amounts to is "Fore-guessing" or "Fore-planning" and it is the wrong understanding of definitions. Foreknowledge is the biblical term. Future is "known." I love the logic problems proposed here, and the intelligent question, but in the final analysis, I must be perplexed instead of wrong. This is an important component to my biblical understanding "You believe because you have seen, blessed are those who believe and have not seen." Faith is an important step in accepting what God says is true. I'm a long way from explaining the troubling concepts of foreknowledge, but I must accept scripture definition here. God knows the future, He knows beforehand. Again, understood by the very definition.


Then, no matter what we do, it was already foreknown and was locked in, with no possibility of any fluctuation of even one electron being different.

This is the dichotomy, we know experiencially this dichotomy isn't accurately seen, but that's the difficulty of trying to make sense of it. Somehow God knows, yet we have free-will and my brain simply cannot capture the perplexing. I've tried to provide scenarios for plausibility, but I don't really believe this is as necessary as accepting scriptural terms and truths as they are given. Somehow both freedom of choice and God's foreknowledge exist.




Since God predestines what He foreknows, in Rom 8:28-30, we, then, see that we were predestined at the same time we were foreknown: “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

Therefore, according to this thinking, everything in the future is and was determined before God created the universe. However, this can’t be shown from the Bible when we understand what the word repent really signifies – a God who is able to change His mind.

The absolute foreknowledge of God view would contradict God’s ability to respond to anything, now, because our prayers and actions and His responses were already locked in eternity past.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

We are considering the mechanics but it is organic as well. 'Locked in' is mechanical and 'responsive' is organic. Rather than either/or, both/or neither, I try to understand the terms given in scripture. Foreknowledge and freewill coexist.

Also In Him

themuzicman
April 2nd, 2007, 06:54 AM
Granted it is is perplexing but we don't dismiss scripture or truth based on that perplexity. For instance, very similarly we have a similar problem with eternity past. I still cannot fathom something never ever having a beginning because it is not in my experience, but it is true nonetheless. We are like God, He is not like us. There is a big difference and by His very nature He exceeds our capacity to grasp Him intellectually. Our finite brains and logic are never all that God is. He is not definitive by us at all.

What scripture is dismissed by saying that God doesn't have EDF?

Muz

RobE
April 2nd, 2007, 07:33 AM
Genesis 12:3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."

Lon
April 2nd, 2007, 10:34 AM
That is a good example. Also the fact that John had a vision of the future, was transported to that place one way or the other, interacted in that future, and wrote it down. John time-travelled somehow. In mind, in body, doesn't matter: It is a presented fact.

The word 'foreknowledge' is a Biblical word. It does not mean 'fore predictive' or 'fore guess' or fore round-ball-park.' Knowledge: 'knows.' It is a greek term and it translates perfectly: "Knowing ahead of time."

There are tons of these ideas in scripture, God knows beforehand. How much I'm not exactly sure, but He is God and until He tells me, I'll not extrapolate too hard. Tradition says exhaustively. I don't know, I don't know anything exhaustively. I don't even know how many hairs are on my head or what I'm having for dinner. I wouldn't be inclined to say one way or the other. I just don't know and I'm comfortable with that position. It is definitely more than OV allows, possibly less than tradition gives us. I just don't want to be closed to what I actually do see in scripture.

Bob Hill
April 5th, 2007, 09:31 PM
There seems to be a difference between foreknow and predestine.
Here are all the passages with foreknowledge.
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death.

1 Pe 1:1-2 To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ

Here are all the passages with foreknow.
Acts 26:4,5 My manner of life from my youth, which was spent from the beginning among my own nation at Jerusalem, all the Jews know. 5 They knew me from the first, if they were willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 11:2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.
1 Pe 1:20 He indeed was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
2 Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware

Here are the passages with predestine.
Acts 4:25-28 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: Why did the nations rage, and the people plot vain things? 26 The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ. 27 For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
1 Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages for our glory.
Eph 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.
Eph 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will.

God may have known before the foundation of the world that Christ would be the answer to any sin that man brought into the world, but He did not predestine Christ at that time. We find in Acts 2 & 4 that Christ Himself was not predestined, but He was delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God.

It looks to me that Christ was not predestined because He had the freedom to back out of the crucifixion. Instead, He conformed his will to the Father’s will.

In Christ,
Bob

elected4ever
April 6th, 2007, 01:25 PM
T

God may have known before the foundation of the world that Christ would be the answer to any sin that man brought into the world, but He did not predestine Christ at that time. We find in Acts 2 & 4 that Christ Himself was not predestined, but He was delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God.

In Christ,
BobThen sir, You don't believe the Bible, plain and simple. You had rather believe your contrived philosophy than to mold your philosophy to fit the scripture. God does not bend His word to fit your belief but you must adjust your belief to fit the word and your logic be damned in the process.

Lon
April 7th, 2007, 04:59 AM
The Apostle was committed to the future. He talked with those present, experienced the surroundings. He witnessed a future reality as if it were already taking place. There is no other explanation for this despite what sensibilities or logic you might wish to hold. It doesn't hold up at all to this specific account. OV does not understand the straightforward term fore'knowledge.' I've seen this term watered down to nothing but predictability and it is not at all a proper definition of the term.

OV needs to take a hard look at these two examples among others. Your logic should be screaming against the OV position on both of these points. Something isn't right or correct in the position. The term and the Apostle's vision flies against the grain of the OV belief.

patman
April 7th, 2007, 09:03 AM
The Apostle was committed to the future. He talked with those present, experienced the surroundings. He witnessed a future reality as if it were already taking place. There is no other explanation for this despite what sensibilities or logic you might wish to hold. It doesn't hold up at all to this specific account. OV does not understand the straightforward term fore'knowledge.' I've seen this term watered down to nothing but predictability and it is not at all a proper definition of the term.

OV needs to take a hard look at these two examples among others. Your logic should be screaming against the OV position on both of these points. Something isn't right or correct in the position. The term and the Apostle's vision flies against the grain of the OV belief.

It was a vision... that should explain it

Bob Hill
April 7th, 2007, 09:26 AM
elected4ever,

Thank you for your insightful response with all the Scripture you cited to buttress your idea?

Bob

elected4ever
April 7th, 2007, 04:55 PM
elected4ever,

Thank you for your insightful response with all the Scripture you cited to buttress your idea?

BobYour statement is opposed to the scripture that you quoted. Why should I quote any passage? You will just change it to suit your self anyway.

Bob Hill
April 14th, 2007, 09:20 PM
Open View Passages in God's word are very interesting.

Here are two from Genesis.

Genesis 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Genesis 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

Bob Hill

Bob Hill
April 14th, 2007, 09:24 PM
Here are a number of passages on why we see the Open View is true.

Exodus 13:17 Then it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, “Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt.”
Exodus 16:4 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you. And the people shall go out and gather a certain quota every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in My law or not.
Exodus 32:7-14 And the LORD said to Moses, “Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves. 8 “They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!’ ” 9 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 “Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” 11 Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 “Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. 13 “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’ ” 14 So the LORD repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

God changed His mind a number of times. Therefore, He is able to do that - right?

Yes, RIGHT!!!

Bob

Lon
April 16th, 2007, 05:35 PM
Bob, Can God 'change' His mind? Good question but there are other answers to the scenario. Again, the traditional view is that sometimes a conditional situation is implied. We from the SV position tend to believe that God is not a man nor does He think like one. The implication here is that if God changes anything, it is a response to man's change. OV has this part right in our relational God. His hand moves by our prayers. He is responsive to us. Change in God's decisions and feelings is relational to our change. He is God and is perfect. The only change we see in Him is in relation to our change of heart and actions. Of course it is important to individual will and choice for discussion. How much we are able to answer concerning this change of relationship to us and God's perfection is a difficult one to answer in complete clarity. Here I see through a glass not so clearly. How is God able to remain unchanging and yet relational? My best estimate is that He perfectly remains, yet responds to us and our actions, words, and motivations.

Patman, As to the 'vision' explaining everything....no it certainly does not. He talked with persons in that experience. He interacted. Regardless of whether physical or a mental journey, it happened and the key here is understanding it to be accurate, tangible future reality. God gave this vision. I apologize this is so invasive to the OV position but it is a truth of contention that is being too blatantly looked over and illogically dismissed.

Poly
April 16th, 2007, 05:59 PM
How much we are able to answer concerning this change of relationship to us and God's perfection is a difficult one to answer in complete clarity. Here I see through a glass not so clearly. How is God able to remain unchanging and yet relational? My best estimate is that He perfectly remains, yet responds to us and our actions, words, and motivations.

You incorrectly assume that change implies imperfection.

If a man has a good and trusting relationship with his son because that son has been obedient and respectful, earning the trust of his father, if that son lies and decieves the father in some way and the father now changes his feelings to disappointment, not able to be trusting of the son, is that father wrong for changing his attitudefrom the one he had before this unfortunate occurance? Was this change good or bad on the Father's part?

Bob Hill
April 16th, 2007, 08:26 PM
Lonster,

Here is my answer to the antinomy of predestination and free will.

The only thing that really counts in my mind, is biblical theology, God’s word.

That’s why it says in1 Corinthians 1:19-27 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty

Therefore, we must only look at the Bible.

The foundation of the Calvinistic view of predestination is immutability. Is God immutable? Is He impassible – not influenced by our problems? Does God ever change?

The question is not, does God change in His attributes. He doesn’t. He is love. He is merciful. He is omnipotent. He is always holy. God is light. God is omniscient.

He has other attributes that do not change. But, again, that is not the question.

The question can be stated a number of ways.

Does God ever really repent?
Does God ever really change His mind?
Does God ever think something will happen, and then it doesn’t?
Does God show emotion?
Does He change in any way in the state of His being?

I think the biblical answer to all these questions is, yes.

These ideas, instead of degrading God, cause us to appreciate and glorify Him all the more. He is and does do the things asked in these questions, but the most important thing for me concerns His supposed impassability – because He suffers.

In other words, He has passion.
This is the opposite of having no passion – impassability.

God suffers! What comfort that gives me. Our God is touched by our sufferings. God suffers because of us, with us, and for us.

In Hosea 11:1-4,8,9 it says, When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. As they called them, so they went from them. They sacrificed to the Baals, and burned incense to carved images. I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them. I drew them with gentle cords, with bands of love, and I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped and fed them. . . . My people are bent on backsliding from Me. Though they call to the Most High, none at all exalt Him.

How can I give you up, Ephraim?
How can I hand you over, Israel?
How can I make you like Admah? How can I set you like Zeboiim?
My heart churns within Me; My sympathy is stirred.
I will not execute the fierceness of My anger. I will not again destroy Ephraim.

For I am God, and not man, The Holy One in your midst, and I will not come with terror.

That is my God!

Bob Hill

godrulz
April 16th, 2007, 09:05 PM
A clock would be imperfect if it did not change (it would only be correct twice every 24 hours). God does not change in His essential being and character, but He can change in His relations, thinking, feeling, acting, etc. without becoming less perfect. Strong immutability is a Platonic concept and overstates the biblical evidence (i.e. God changes in some ways, but not in other ways).

Bob Hill
April 16th, 2007, 10:06 PM
Lonster,

I agree with most of what you wrote:
Bob, Can God 'change' His mind? Good question but there are other answers to the scenario. Again, the traditional view is that sometimes a conditional situation is implied. We from the SV position tend to believe that God is not a man nor does He think like one. The implication here is that if God changes anything, it is a response to man's change. OV has this part right in our relational God. His hand moves by our prayers. He is responsive to us. Change in God's decisions and feelings is relational to our change. He is God and is perfect. The only change we see in Him is in relation to our change of heart and actions. Of course it is important to individual will and choice for discussion. How much we are able to answer concerning this change of relationship to us and God's perfection is a difficult one to answer in complete clarity. Here I see through a glass not so clearly. How is God able to remain unchanging and yet relational? My best estimate is that He perfectly remains, yet responds to us and our actions, words, and motivations.

How can that be?

Some biblical things are very difficult to understand and explain.

Bob Hill

Clete
April 17th, 2007, 06:10 AM
More of the same. Logical or not. OV does not have an acceptable answer to these considerations. Once again, I'd rather be perplexed than wrong, which I believe OV is here. Clete, you are confusing vision and prophecy in this discussion. The vision is transcendant. It is also future. OV continues to fall very very flat on this.

Falls very very flat?

Are you sure that it doesn't simply "surpass understanding"?

Why is my position wrong and yours simply past understanding?

How do you tell the difference between that which is wrong and that which is right but beyond your ability to understand?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Philetus
April 17th, 2007, 11:11 AM
How can there be a "conditional situation" in the SV?

elected4ever
April 17th, 2007, 11:32 AM
How can there be a "conditional situation" in the SV?Why not. The OVer accepts some absolutes.

Clete
April 17th, 2007, 11:39 AM
Philetus,

You asked a terrific question but I think you might have forgotten that elected4ever is ultra-tolerant of outright irrationality within his theological worldview. He down right advocates it! :kookoo:

elected4ever
April 17th, 2007, 12:36 PM
Philetus,

You asked a terrific question but I think you might have forgotten that elected4ever is ultra-tolerant of outright irrationality within his theological worldview. He down right advocates it! :kookoo:You mean it is an absolute irrational position to accept an absolute?:dizzy:

Clete
April 17th, 2007, 12:45 PM
You mean it is an absolute irrational possession to accept an absolute?:dizzy:

You are truly stupid.

Where in the world did I ever say that? I said just the exact opposite, you idiot!

You are the one who rejects the open view and at the same time accepts the idea of "conditional situations", which is totally consistent with your habit of intentionally ignoring sounds reason.

You are a hypocrite to boot!

You think that I've contradicted myself somehow and use that as an argument against my position but throw out the "human reason" trump card every time anyone accuses you of contradicting yourself which you do seemingly every time you make a post!

Resting in Him,
Clete

elected4ever
April 17th, 2007, 01:25 PM
You are truly stupid.

Where in the world did I ever say that? I said just the exact opposite, you idiot!

You are the one who rejects the open view and at the same time accepts the idea of "conditional situations", which is totally consistent with your habit of intentionally ignoring sounds reason.

You are a hypocrite to boot!

You think that I've contradicted myself somehow and use that as an argument against my position but throw out the "human reason" trump card every time anyone accuses you of contradicting yourself which you do seemingly every time you make a post!

Resting in Him,
CleteNo, Clete, it is not me that is contradictory . It is you. You contradict God and think it is fashionable to do so.

Philetus
April 19th, 2007, 06:13 AM
Originally Posted by Philetus:
How can there be a "conditional situation" in the SV?




Why not. The OVer accepts some absolutes.
:doh: There it is.

What is it you don't understand? conditional vs settled

All your stuff is reactionary. The Open View doesn't hold that there are no absolutes. There are contingencies ... "conditional situations" ... which in a settled view seem quite impossible.

Clete is right. You’re an absolute hoot. Your answer is no answer.

Conditional and settled goes together like the OV and a closed mind.

patman
April 19th, 2007, 07:04 AM
This seems to be the theme from the S.V.. I remember when there was some depth to the discussion from the S.V., looks like the steam is running out... what little steam was, there that is.

elected4ever
April 19th, 2007, 08:46 AM
:doh: There it is.

What is it you don't understand? conditional vs settled

All your stuff is reactionary. The Open View doesn't hold that there are no absolutes. There are contingencies ... "conditional situations" ... which in a settled view seem quite impossible.

Clete is right. You’re an absolute hoot. Your answer is no answer.

Conditional and settled goes together like the OV and a closed mind.Not so, You go back and read the OV responses and you will see that there are no absolutes in the brand of OVism being taught here. When they are challenged on it they sing a different song and accuse the challenger of purposely misleading. That is humanism and not and Openview at all.

Lon
April 19th, 2007, 03:56 PM
Lonster,

Here is my answer to the antinomy of predestination and free will.

The only thing that really counts in my mind, is biblical theology, God’s word.

That’s why it says in1 Corinthians 1:19-27 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty

Therefore, we must only look at the Bible.

The foundation of the Calvinistic view of predestination is immutability. Is God immutable? Is He impassible – not influenced by our problems? Does God ever change?

The question is not, does God change in His attributes. He doesn’t. He is love. He is merciful. He is omnipotent. He is always holy. God is light. God is omniscient.

He has other attributes that do not change. But, again, that is not the question.

The question can be stated a number of ways.

Does God ever really repent?
Does God ever really change His mind?
Does God ever think something will happen, and then it doesn’t?
Does God show emotion?
Does He change in any way in the state of His being?

I think the biblical answer to all these questions is, yes.

These ideas, instead of degrading God, cause us to appreciate and glorify Him all the more. He is and does do the things asked in these questions, but the most important thing for me concerns His supposed impassability – because He suffers.

In other words, He has passion.
This is the opposite of having no passion – impassability.

God suffers! What comfort that gives me. Our God is touched by our sufferings. God suffers because of us, with us, and for us.

In Hosea 11:1-4,8,9 it says, When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. As they called them, so they went from them. They sacrificed to the Baals, and burned incense to carved images. I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them. I drew them with gentle cords, with bands of love, and I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped and fed them. . . . My people are bent on backsliding from Me. Though they call to the Most High, none at all exalt Him.

How can I give you up, Ephraim?
How can I hand you over, Israel?
How can I make you like Admah? How can I set you like Zeboiim?
My heart churns within Me; My sympathy is stirred.
I will not execute the fierceness of My anger. I will not again destroy Ephraim.

For I am God, and not man, The Holy One in your midst, and I will not come with terror.

That is my God!

Bob Hill

Thanks. that is clear and many of the SVers would agree with much here. We see God similarly but it I'd hope the difficult questions aren't easily answered for OV as well. I agree with your assesssment of immutable character but, at least in my mind, His characteristics and attributes and relationship to us cross paths in a way that is often not easily differentiated. This seems to be one of the hot buttons for dialogue between OV/SV so I appreciate your careful work here.

Poly, appreciate your response but I think you misread and the 'canned' OV answer didn't speak to me. Did you read something between the lines that wasn't there?

Lon
April 19th, 2007, 04:12 PM
Falls very very flat?

Are you sure that it doesn't simply "surpass understanding"?

Why is my position wrong and yours simply past understanding?

How do you tell the difference between that which is wrong and that which is right but beyond your ability to understand?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I admit this difficulty but I cannot dismiss the contradiction based on a working and seemingly logical theology system. OV states that God cannot see the future clearly and yet scripture does indicate this position is tenuous. Albeit, SV also has problems.

I suppose what this all really boils down to for me is that no single Theology position has it quite right as far as I can tell. I'd like to think that I'm a Biblical theologian who sees the good in differing perspectives, but using the same lenses for all interpretation simply has difficulties in explaining everything. I'm inclined to take a serious look through OV lenses but I appreciate your dilemmas as much as my own looking through SV lenses as well. We all need to keep examining our lenses and become more Biblical in our approach and understandings and we all should be accepting and not defensive when considering our respective positions. Theology is more of a handle and we have to make sure the attachments fit scripture properly. I appreciate the questions and good thinking OV brings to the table.


How can there be a "conditional situation" in the SV?

Case in point. Good question of course. I'm not sure I'm as settled in my understandings of scripture. There is a dilemma between our perspectives that isn't easily resolved, as Bob said so well. This dialogue is important only insomuch as we pray more, seek to know Him more, and seek to serve Him more fully. It is all academic otherwise. I appreciate these questions and this discussion, if only to know Him more and serve Him more fully.

In our precious Christ

Philetus
April 19th, 2007, 10:48 PM
I admit this difficulty but I cannot dismiss the contradiction based on a working and seemingly logical theology system. OV states that God cannot see the future clearly and yet scripture does indicate this position is tenuous. Albeit, SV also has problems.

I suppose what this all really boils down to for me is that no single Theology position has it quite right as far as I can tell. I'd like to think that I'm a Biblical theologian who sees the good in differing perspectives, but using the same lenses for all interpretation simply has difficulties in explaining everything. I'm inclined to take a serious look through OV lenses but I appreciate your dilemmas as much as my own looking through SV lenses as well. We all need to keep examining our lenses and become more Biblical in our approach and understandings and we all should be accepting and not defensive when considering our respective positions. Theology is more of a handle and we have to make sure the attachments fit scripture properly. I appreciate the questions and good thinking OV brings to the table.



Case in point. Good question of course. I'm not sure I'm as settled in my understandings of scripture. There is a dilemma between our perspectives that isn't easily resolved, as Bob said so well. This dialogue is important only insomuch as we pray more, seek to know Him more, and seek to serve Him more fully. It is all academic otherwise. I appreciate these questions and this discussion, if only to know Him more and serve Him more fully.

In our precious Christ

I’m glad the question didn’t get lost.

Open Theism is a response against ‘tenuous’ theologies. It certainly doesn’t answer all the questions. Yet. But, its open. :) It is a young discipline as theologies go, and the others go way back but post date the scripture and experience of the first century church and are the product of Christendom and Greek Philosophy. Still, the OV resolves on a very basic level concerns about the dynamic, relational and personal expressions found in scripture about God.

The only hope we have is not that God has settled every future detail (or even already knows the outcome of every contingency) but rather that even in giving others a significant say so in their own existence, God remains faithful and will fulfill every promise made in Christ. The future God has planed for those who embrace the truth about God revealed in the Gospel and the future that Christ is even now preparing (“I go to prepare …”) and the future the Spirit of Christ Jesus is preparing us for, is not yet. Our guarantee that it will be is God’s own faithfulness. It is in Him we place our trust, not in a settled future, not even in His ‘immutability’; no, we trust HIM! not because he knows or controls the future in meticulous detail, but because NOTHING can separate us from His love in Christ.

It is more than mere academics; knowing him in the power of his resurrection that happened in time and place informs the future, and from our perspective at least doesn’t settle it. Why else pray, serve and grow into his likeness?

Moreover, the dialog is important because it shapes the church’s witness and the message we send to the world. The tenuous nature of the message of a settled view communicates that the decisions people make have no real bearing on the future, regardless how many ‘alter calls’ or ‘altar calls’ are issued.

Either the future is settled or it is open to a greater or lesser extent. The discussion among the thinking is the degree to which it is open. The future is settled as far as God has determined it. It is open to the degree that God has given his creatures a significant say in their own futures and will not compromise their freedom to choose. The future is as bright as the promises of God in Christ. God knows how he plans to bless us in the future. What he doesn't know is exactly who will and who will not embrace that future.

Also in Him,
(Just not resting as much as Clete. :grave: )

Philetus
April 19th, 2007, 10:58 PM
Not so, You go back and read the OV responses and you will see that there are no absolutes in the brand of OVism being taught here. When they are challenged on it they sing a different song and accuse the challenger of purposely misleading. That is humanism and not and Openview at all.

:dizzy:

I think the German Theologians have a term for your brand of reasoning: 'bullvachita'.
But honestly, E4E, I don't think you could purposely mislead anyone, Jesus called it the 'blind leading the blind'. Or was it 'the bland'?:yawn: :yawn:

Philetus
April 19th, 2007, 11:45 PM
I need your prayers.

My wife has EDF!

Last week, she told our son to be off the phone by 10pm.
He said sure thing mom. (like really)
She said, You will be back on the phone before the alarm clock rings in the morning.
He was.

God, help me! My future is settled.:execute:

lucaspa
April 20th, 2007, 09:36 AM
"Open theists proclaim that God cannot know future contingent events. That is the fancy way of referring to events in the future, which result from human beings making free choices. ... Because, you see, to these open theists, God is completely surprised by any large number of events that happened in the world. But this poor, impotent deity, who is described by the open theists, this finite God of open theism, had no way of knowing at the time that Jesus was dying if even one human being would accept His Son as Savior. This poor, impotent deity faced the possibility that the suffering of His Son on the cross would bring about the salvation of no one. Another open theist, who happens to be a friend of mine, Bill Hasker, teaches at a college in Indiana, says that the very fact that there is a church of God is a matter of God's dumb blind luck because God had no way of controlling whatever outcome might follow the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross. Now I believe all of these consequences are absurd."--Ron Nash

Your criticism has taken the position of "open theism" to make a strawman.

There is a difference between God not knowing, in exact detail, the future, and God not knowing at all. But yes, for God to be truly loving, He must not know the future exactly and must be surprised from time to time by the actions of individual humans. Since God is very wise, God would have a pretty good idea, in general, of the outcomes of large events.

So, yes, God could be very confident that some people would accept Jesus as Savior. BUT, there was the possibility that no one would. I personally think this makes a much more loving, personal God than the all-knowing one you are portraying. This means God made a real sacrifice of His Son. That is, God risked a lot for us. By your reasoning, God risked nothing, because God knew the outcome.

Now, to continue your reasoning, did God know that Christianity would break up into more than 20,000 denominations, with consequent hatred of some for others? If so, why didn't God do something to prevent that? You end up with just as "impotent" a God as the open theists -- you just put the impotence somewhere else: God's inability to act to prevent what He knows is coming.

For our lives to have meaning, our actions have to have real consequences. If all our actions are known -- to the minutest detail -- beforehand, then we become mindless puppets. I don't want God to be a puppetmaster. Too bad you do.


Trustees of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, passed a resolution saying, "Open theism's denial of God's exhaustive definitive foreknowledge constitutes an egregious biblical and theological departure from orthodoxy and poses a serious threat to evangelical integrity."

That's their assertion. Since you didn't post the reasoning behind it, I can't determine whether that reasoning is sound. However, I disagree. Let's take one example: if God knew that He would rescind the dietary laws in the future, then why did God make them at all? If God knew that Moses and David would each reason to get God to change His mind, then why did God not go with the second decision from the beginning?

Or, better yet, taking a literal reading of Genesis 2-3, if God knew beforehand that Adam and Eve were going to disobey, why didn't God make it impossible for them to get to the fruit of the trees? Here God shows less knowledge of human nature than any parent. Parents know that kids are going to go for the cookie jar if you tell them not to. So we put the cookie jar out of their reach.

So, as I look at the Bible, God is very knowing, but not all knowing.


The Evangelical Theological Society approved a resolution rejecting open theism and supporting the position that "God has complete, accurate and infallible knowledge of all events past, present and future, including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents."

God's Creation contradicts this. God created a universe where He can't have exhaustive knowledge of the future. So the Evangelical Theological Society is not listening to God. Not a good idea.

At the heart of quantum mechanics is the Uncertainty Principle. This states that some knowledge is impossible to have. That doesn't mean "impossible to humans", but really impossible. For anyone or anything, including God. For instance, decay of radioactive nuclides is regular in that you know that half of the atoms will decay within a time limit (half-life). BUT, it can't be known which atom will decay in any particular half life. So the future can't be known in "complete, accurate and infallible" detail.

Instead of denying God, the Society would do better to try to figure out why God limited Himself this way.

VanhoozerRocks
April 20th, 2007, 09:49 AM
Hey,
Was wondering in any of you have read Placher's Domestication of Transendence? It has a great segment where he talks about the history of the Calvinist/Arminian debate (Still very applicable to open theism). Using Aquinas' metalinguistic theory of analogical/univocal/equivocal language about God he demonstrates that this debate really didn't take off until people believed it was possible to talk univocally about God. Does anyone here hold to (Tanner's?) the theory of non-competition? Or is it impossible for one to affirm human and divine action simultaneously? Just some quick questions that are maybe a little off topic...but oh well..

godrulz
April 20th, 2007, 01:17 PM
Hey,
Was wondering in any of you have read Placher's Domestication of Transendence? It has a great segment where he talks about the history of the Calvinist/Arminian debate (Still very applicable to open theism). Using Aquinas' metalinguistic theory of analogical/univocal/equivocal language about God he demonstrates that this debate really didn't take off until people believed it was possible to talk univocally about God. Does anyone here hold to (Tanner's?) the theory of non-competition? Or is it impossible for one to affirm human and divine action simultaneously? Just some quick questions that are maybe a little off topic...but oh well..

Yes, I read it right after the morning comics?! Huh? Reading stuff like that could give one brain damage.

I am reasonably well read, but I don't have a clue about your questions. Try talking s-l-o-w-e-r.

VanhoozerRocks
April 21st, 2007, 08:23 AM
Sorry. I will ask one primary question. Let's say we're speaking of an act. This act is my decision to go to college. Is it possible for me to talk of this act simultaneously being an act of God and of myself. This being that the act is able to be 'attributed' to 100% human and 100% God. Or, in comparison, if I hypothetically state that God acted in 51% of this decision, does that necessitate that I only did 49% of it? Let's leave aside how God actually 'acts' in these decisions. I am asking this question in light of Kathryn Tanner's theory of non-competition and Aquinas' metalinguistic categories.

Philetus
April 21st, 2007, 09:45 AM
Sorry. I will ask one primary question. Let's say we're speaking of an act. This act is my decision to go to college. Is it possible for me to talk of this act simultaneously being an act of God and of myself. This being that the act is able to be 'attributed' to 100% human and 100% God. Or, in comparison, if I hypothetically state that God acted in 51% of this decision, does that necessitate that I only did 49% of it? Let's leave aside how God actually 'acts' in these decisions. I am asking this question in light of Kathryn Tanner's theory of non-competition and Aquinas' metalinguistic categories.

Influence! Relationship! God is a loving, dynamic being with personhood. Assigning percentages strikes me as soft idolatry that tries to keep God harmless and on the shelf. Even after He has gone to such extremes at such extravagant personal cost to ‘become flesh and blood and move into the neighborhood’ and stay regardless of how the ‘neighbors’ treat Him. What is it about having God live in the neighborhood that scares the hell out of people? Even 100%/100% seems to be an effort to keep God at a safe distance. Is it really God’s character and attributes we are protecting or our own selfish desire to manipulate and control Him … keep him ‘high and lifted up’ so he isn’t really involved? The cross blows that position to smithereens. God won’t leave. He just won’t go away or settle for a little space in the corner of HIS creation. Nor will He compromise the freedom He has granted to others. God loves His creation. He doesn't idolize it, but wants to relate to it in reciprocal loving relationship. It’s as if God says, ‘go to college if you want, and I’ll go with you.’

Get a picture of the kind of God we serve … living in a college freshman dorm! Is that excessively humanistic for you? To much concern for people: concern with the needs, well-being, and interests of people? Then just picture him naked, kneeling and washing the feet of the Pope. Does that lift him up enough? NO? Then put him on a cross. That should do it.

Philetus

VanhoozerRocks
April 21st, 2007, 03:01 PM
Philetus,
I think you might have misunderstood not only my intention, but my question as well. I was presenting a hypothetical case in order to discuss the relationship that exists between divine and human action. I do not believe that I presented any picture of God as a unmoved monad, and that you have misunderstood what I think I adquetly attempted to say. In addition to this, I was not in any manner stating that one can know in any sort of manner 'what percentage' of an event God caused; or if this is even an adequate way to frame this question. Needless to say, I would agree that we must have a 'dynamic and relational picture' (whatever that really means) of God, and that we must look to the person, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ as our "primary" lens through which to concieve of the triune Redeemer. If I read your post correctly (and I'm sorry if I didn't) you are assuming you know what I believe. Please don't do that. And yes, a theologia crucis is vital for anyone who attempts to do theology in service of the Church.

Bob Hill
April 21st, 2007, 09:29 PM
I am an Open Theist for the reason that God does not know some future things that will happen according to His word.

Here are a few examples:

Deut 8:2 And you shall remember that the LORD your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.

Deut 9:13,14 “Furthermore the LORD spoke to me, saying, ‘I have seen this people, and indeed they are a stiff-necked people. 14 ‘Let Me alone, that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and greater than they.’”

Deut 9:18-20 “And I fell down before the LORD, as at the first, forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all your sin which you committed in doing wickedly in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him to anger. 19 For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure with which the LORD was angry with you, to destroy you. But the LORD listened to me at that time also. 20 And the LORD was very angry with Aaron and would have destroyed him; so I prayed for Aaron also at the same time.”

Deut 13:1-3 “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’ - which you have not known - ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 “you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”

Bob Hill

Bob Hill
April 21st, 2007, 10:12 PM
We see in 1 Cor 2:7, that the mystery was hidden: “The hidden wisdom of God in a mystery was ordained before the ages for our glory.”

Put another way, the “mystery was kept secret in age times”.

Rom 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began.

The mystery was “hidden from ages and from generations” (Col 1:26).

So, what was the character of the mystery?

More than anything else, it was a secret, hidden in God from ages and generations.

It was never written about anywhere in God’s word until it was revealed to the Apostle Paul.

It says in Ephesians 3:8,9, that Paul was given the grace that “I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.”

Anexichneevastos means, something “that cannot be searched out, that cannot be comprehended.”

This word occurs only twice in the New Testament. In Rom 11:33, it shows that God’s ways cannot be searched out.

Since Paul says he was given the grace of preaching this unsearchable grace, it must mean it could not be traced anywhere in the Scripture before it was given to him.

The context of Eph 3:8,9 shows this to be true. “To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which has been hidden from the ages in God who created all things through Jesus Christ.”

That means no prophecy made before Paul’s salvation concerns the mystery.

In other words, all prophecy made before Paul received the mystery is silent about the people and things of the mystery.

That is the character of the mystery.

Believers during the time the dispensation of the mystery is in place are baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ.

They become part of something brand new. Jews and Gentiles who believe become heirs together. They are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ.

We become partakers together in becoming one new man, a new creation (2 Co 5:17; Gal 6:15; Eph 2:14-16; Col 1:18-22).

There was nothing written about these things in the prophetic Scriptures before Paul’s conversion.

God called this new creation, the body of Christ.

It is made up of Jews and Gentiles as joint-heirs and joint-partakers.

According to the content of this mystery, God broke down the discriminatory barriers.

This truth causes us to make a strong distinction between Israel and the church which is His body.
Mid-Acts-Dispensationalists believe the body of Christ started with the Apostle Paul before he wrote his first epistle.

I believe the body of Christ started with the conversion of Paul.

Since Paul says he was given the grace of preaching this unsearchable grace, it must mean it could not be traced anywhere in the Scripture before it was given to him.

After Israel had been shown that they had been set aside, Paul was inspired by God to write Ephesians.

In Eph 4:3-6, Paul wrote about the unity of the Spirit. He was writing about God’s dealings with Christians today. He wrote, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, “one baptism”. Which baptism is it? It must be Spirit baptism since the Holy Spirit is still sealing members into the body of Christ.

Bob Hill

Philetus
April 22nd, 2007, 01:43 PM
Philetus,
I think you might have misunderstood not only my intention, but my question as well. I was presenting a hypothetical case in order to discuss the relationship that exists between divine and human action. I do not believe that I presented any picture of God as a unmoved monad, and that you have misunderstood what I think I adquetly attempted to say. In addition to this, I was not in any manner stating that one can know in any sort of manner 'what percentage' of an event God caused; or if this is even an adequate way to frame this question. Needless to say, I would agree that we must have a 'dynamic and relational picture' (whatever that really means) of God, and that we must look to the person, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ as our "primary" lens through which to concieve of the triune Redeemer. If I read your post correctly (and I'm sorry if I didn't) you are assuming you know what I believe. Please don't do that. And yes, a theologia crucis is vital for anyone who attempts to do theology in service of the Church.

No. Don’t take it personally. Trust me. I didn’t get a clue as to what you think from your post. The you in my post was generic. Not an attack on ‘your’ view. Just my style (or lack of).

So what is behind your question? How does ‘one’ measure the degree of involvement of each party in the divine/human relationship? (I think it’s the wrong way to think about relationships, myself.)

I may be wrong (again) but the very question suggests that one or the other must be inactive to some degree in order to arrive at consensus. But, capitulation is not ‘inactivity’. That’s like saying ‘silence is acceptance’. God is often ‘silent’ and gives us over to our sinfulness. That isn’t compliance. It is more like grace filled judgment. The cross isn’t non-involvement but 100% participation in the human state. So, whether or not God agrees with your decision to go to college, God none the less remains 100% involved. The good news is that God is for us, not against us whether he is for our decisions/actions or not.

I think that gets at a 'dynamic and relational picture' of God. Anything less tends to reduce God to an 'unmoved monad' which is to keep him manageable and at a safe distance; no more than an idol we control to at least some extent, objectifying the other. This is the exact opposite of love, both in divine/human or human/human relationship. God doesn’t objectify (idolize) human beings. To reduce by any degree somebody that is complex and multifaceted, to the status of a simple object is not love.

Philetus

PS. You don't get to ask hypothetical questions you are unwilling to hypothesize about.:D

Philetus
April 22nd, 2007, 02:14 PM
I am an Open Theist for the reason that God does not know some future things that will happen according to His word.


Don't you mean: that according to His word, God doesn't know some things that might or might not happen in the future? :jazz:

I'm an open theist because I don't know what I will have for breakfast in the morning.
That still remains a 'great mystery'. But, God knows, I'm partial to biskits and gravy.
And because God has granted me freedom to decide for myself, I will.
(I wonder if God has to worry about cholesterol.:think: )
Still, it is a sure thing that I won't decide until the cup is filled three times.


Glad to know you are still open, Bob.:first:

elected4ever
April 22nd, 2007, 02:31 PM
Don't you mean: that according to His word, God doesn't know some things that might or might not happen in the future? :jazz:

I'm an open theist because I don't know what I will have for breakfast in the morning.
That still remains a 'great mystery'. But, God knows, I'm partial to biskits and gravy.
And because God has granted me freedom to decide for myself, I will.
(I wonder if God has to worry about cholesterol.:think: )
Still, it is a sure thing that I won't decide until the cup is filled three times.


Glad to know you are still open, Bob.:first:That is a pretty ridiculous assumption on your part.

Philetus
April 22nd, 2007, 02:31 PM
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
1 Corinthians 1:19-27 For it is written: 25 “the foolishness of God"

The above phrase strikes me as an affront to the SV. I guess one could say that in the context Paul is referring to only what appears to be foolishness on God’s part … but I wonder ….
Is it really 'foolish" on God's part to grant real, actual freedom for creatures to make decision that help shape the future, or is there substantial method to His madness?

Any wisdom on this Pastor Hill?

Philetus

Philetus
April 22nd, 2007, 02:31 PM
That is a pretty ridiculous assumption on your part.

Yes, it is.

Philetus
April 22nd, 2007, 02:36 PM
That is a pretty ridiculous assumption on your part.

Here is another one:

E4E is not an open theists.

elected4ever
April 22nd, 2007, 03:15 PM
Here is another one:

E4E is not an open theists.Right, I don't make unsubstantiated assumptions and call it truth.

Clete
April 23rd, 2007, 06:07 AM
Right, I don't make unsubstantiated assumptions and call it truth.

:rotfl: :chuckle:

elected4ever
April 23rd, 2007, 11:44 AM
:rotfl: :chuckle:I admit that my belief is a matter of faith and you admit that yours is a matter of human rational. I will take my faith over your human rational any time.

themuzicman
April 23rd, 2007, 11:48 AM
I admit that my belief is a matter of faith and you admit that yours is a matter of human rational. I will take my faith over your human rational any time.

So, you'll be abandoning your accounts on all theology debate sites, and abandoning your systematic theology, then?

Muz

elected4ever
April 23rd, 2007, 11:51 AM
So, you'll be abandoning your accounts on all theology debate sites, and abandoning your systematic theology, then?

MuzWhat are you talking about?

themuzicman
April 23rd, 2007, 12:21 PM
What are you talking about?

You said that your belief is based upon faith and not human rational thought.

Thus, you should be abandoning anyplace where your faith is expressed through rational thought, and abandoning theologies that are arrived at through rational thought, as well.

Muz

elected4ever
April 23rd, 2007, 01:35 PM
You said that your belief is based upon faith and not human rational thought.

Thus, you should be abandoning anyplace where your faith is expressed through rational thought, and abandoning theologies that are arrived at through rational thought, as well.

MuzBoy, your dumber than a stump.

Philetus
April 23rd, 2007, 01:42 PM
Boy, your dumber than a stump.

A skunk sat on a stump
The stump thunk the skunk stunk
And the skunk thunk the stump stunk

Philetus
April 23rd, 2007, 01:49 PM
You said that your belief is based upon faith and not human rational thought.

Thus, you should be abandoning anyplace where your faith is expressed through rational thought, and abandoning theologies that are arrived at through rational thought, as well.

Muz

Well, He has half of that accomplished.


:first: TOL idol award goes to ......:drum: .... themuzicman ....

elected4ever
April 23rd, 2007, 02:09 PM
Your faith shapes your reality. Your reason is adjusted to fit your reality. That is why it is an impossibility not to believe in something. There is no such thing as an atheist.

Philetus
April 23rd, 2007, 02:14 PM
Having your sins forgiven is not salvation!
Salvation is the receiving of life from the dead!

Salvation is the receiving of life from the LIVING Christ!

Your reality is wacko, your 'reason' follows suit.

themuzicman
April 23rd, 2007, 02:20 PM
Your faith shapes your reality. Your reason is adjusted to fit your reality. That is why it is an impossibility not to believe in something. There is no such thing as an atheist.

Do you suppose that faith and reason aren't mutually exclusive, but that engaging in a rational discussion of one's systematic theology and the examining of what one believes may be a valid course of action?

The problem is that you're claiming that because you believe something in spite of the rational arguments against it, and somehow you're claiming superiority because of it.

Muz

patman
April 23rd, 2007, 05:42 PM
This is a little off topic, but Clete might want to make another post soon

:chuckle:

elected4ever
April 23rd, 2007, 05:54 PM
Salvation is the receiving of life from the LIVING Christ!

Your reality is wacko, your 'reason' follows suit.How would you know. Your still dead.

elected4ever
April 23rd, 2007, 06:00 PM
Do you suppose that faith and reason aren't mutually exclusive, but that engaging in a rational discussion of one's systematic theology and the examining of what one believes may be a valid course of action?

The problem is that you're claiming that because you believe something in spite of the rational arguments against it, and somehow you're claiming superiority because of it.

MuzNo I don;t think they are mutually exclusive. We make decisions basted on the knowledge we bring to the table. I do not trust anyone who bases there belief on human reasoning alone.

VanhoozerRocks
April 23rd, 2007, 06:29 PM
So does anyone think Aquinas' metalinguistic theory of analogical language regarding God apply to Calmanianism debate?

Bob Hill
April 23rd, 2007, 11:58 PM
When God wanted to make a comment about Himself in contrast to us, it said: Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

God said that through Paul.

Obviously, God was not foolish.

God's foolishness is wiser than the smartest man's wisdom on the Earth.

Bob

Bob Hill
April 24th, 2007, 12:04 AM
Here is an interesting passage about God and His emotions.

1 Sam 15:10-35 Now the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11 “I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.” And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the LORD all night. 12 So when Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul, it was told Samuel, saying, “Saul went to Carmel, and indeed, he set up a monument for himself; and he has gone on around, passed by, and gone down to Gilgal.” 13 Then Samuel went to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed are you of the LORD! I have performed the commandment of the LORD.” 14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” 15 And Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and the oxen, to sacrifice to the LORD your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.” 16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Be quiet! And I will tell you what the LORD said to me last night.” And he said to him, “Speak on.” 17 So Samuel said, “When you were little in your own eyes, were you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the LORD anoint you king over Israel? 18 “Now the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the LORD?” 20 And Saul said to Samuel, “But I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 21 “But the people took of the plunder, sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal.” 22 Then Samuel said: “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king.” 24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 25 “Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD.” 26 But Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel.” 27 And as Samuel turned around to go away, Saul seized the edge of his robe, and it tore. 28 So Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent. For He is not a man, that He should repent.” 30 Then he said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now, please, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD your God.” 31 So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul worshiped the LORD. 32 Then Samuel said, “Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me.” So Agag came to him cautiously. And Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” 33 But Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal. 34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house at Gibeah of Saul. 35 And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.

Bob Hill

Bob Hill
April 24th, 2007, 12:14 AM
Notice how God reacted to Israel, and also that He might know all that was in the heart of the princes of Babylon.

1 Chr 21:15 And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it. As he was destroying, the Lord looked and repented of the disaster, and said to the angel who was destroying, “It is enough; now restrain your hand.” And the angel of the Lord stood by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.
2 Chr 32:31 However, regarding the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, whom they sent to him to inquire about the wonder that was done in the land, God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart.

Bob Hill

Philetus
April 24th, 2007, 12:34 AM
How would you know. Your still dead.

Dead man typing.

Philetus
April 24th, 2007, 12:51 AM
When God wanted to make a comment about Himself in contrast to us, it said: Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

God said that through Paul.

Obviously, God was not foolish.

God's foolishness is wiser than the smartest man's wisdom on the Earth.

Bob

So true! But when you read some of the nonsense posted here ... well ... is it any wonder that the world isn't listening. Makes one wonder if somewhere along the line (lately) God hasn't consider revamping the whole thing and giving new brains (supernaturally) to the brain dead.

I wonder how God feels about this:

No I don;t think they are mutually exclusive. We make decisions basted on the knowledge we bring to the table. I do not trust anyone who bases there belief on human reasoning alone.

and this:

Your faith shapes your reality. Your reason is adjusted to fit your reality. That is why it is an impossibility not to believe in something. There is no such thing as an atheist.

in light of this:

So does anyone think Aquinas' metalinguistic theory of analogical language regarding God apply to Calmanianism debate?

Makes ya think, don't it.
:bang: :hammer: :sigh:


So E4E, are you bring knowledge or faith to the table?

Bob Hill
April 24th, 2007, 12:56 AM
I'm really glad that we have a certain amount of free will, otherwise, if everything was already planned by God, we would just be little robots.

Bob

Philetus
April 24th, 2007, 01:12 AM
Isaiah 46
1 Bel bows down, Nebo stoops low; their idols are borne by beasts of burden. The images that are carried about are burdensome, a burden for the weary. 2 They stoop and bow down together; unable to rescue the burden, they themselves go off into captivity. 3 "Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. 4 Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you.

5 "To whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared? 6 Some pour out gold from their bags and weigh out silver on the scales; they hire a goldsmith to make it into a god, and they bow down and worship it. 7 They lift it to their shoulders and carry it; they set it up in its place, and there it stands. From that spot it cannot move. Though one cries out to it, it does not answer; it cannot save him from his troubles. 8 "Remember this, fix it in mind, take it to heart, you rebels. 9 Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. 10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. 11 From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do. 12 Listen to me, you stubborn-hearted, you who are far from righteousness. 13 I am bringing my righteousness near, it is not far away; and my salvation will not be delayed. I will grant salvation to Zion, my splendor to Israel.


It gives me great comfort and builds my faith to know that we serve a God who is faithful, and able to accomplish his purposes regardless of what we bring (or fail to bring) to the table.

Loving God with 'all your mind' is an exhilarating way to live. There is so much to learn.

The alternative is a mind like concrete: thoroughly mixed and firmly set.

Philetus
April 24th, 2007, 01:40 AM
So does anyone think Aquinas' metalinguistic theory of analogical language regarding God apply to Calmanianism debate?

Mankind is endowed with a multitude of languages, but lest we forget, the biblical root for such endowment was babble. Solving problems by creating new languages or vocabulary is both a blessing and a danger. The blessing is that the word of God is not (easily) reduced to an idol (a book to be worshiped, proof-texted, and used thoughtlessly as a weapon to justify a mindless faith and call it reality. The danger presents in the form of our heads out weighing our hearts, and thinking ourselves wise we become fools. There is a limit to how much we can manage the mystery.

Maybe if you gave us a précis of metalinquistic theory and tell us why it interests you, we might bite.

Philetus
April 24th, 2007, 07:19 AM
Calmanianism?

Anyone want to talk about Open Theism?

godrulz
April 24th, 2007, 08:23 AM
Calmanianism?

Anyone want to talk about Open Theism?


I do, I do.

Philetus
April 24th, 2007, 09:05 AM
I do, I do.

:rotfl:

Been missing you!

Hey if you get the chance, read Ray S. Anderson's (Fuller Seminary) newest book, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches. IVP, 2006. Its an easy read. And don't let the buzz words in the title throw you. He deals with the Antioch/Jerusalem tussle in a refreshing way. Even has some OV flavor in a place or two. Basically calls for the emerging church (whatever that is) to do its homework.

zapp
April 24th, 2007, 10:04 AM
Calmanianism?

Anyone want to talk about Open Theism?

Can those who are not elected to have this discussion enter in to the discussion? ;)

I have faith that there will be a discussion..... isn't that enough?

Or perhaps such a discussion is only fit for another dispensation...:chuckle:

Lon
April 24th, 2007, 12:43 PM
I’m glad the question didn’t get lost.

Open Theism is a response against ‘tenuous’ theologies. It certainly doesn’t answer all the questions. Yet. But, its open. :) It is a young discipline as theologies go, and the others go way back but post date the scripture and experience of the first century church and are the product of Christendom and Greek Philosophy. Still, the OV resolves on a very basic level concerns about the dynamic, relational and personal expressions found in scripture about God. )


I appreciate this. It helps open discussion between us and appreciate (at least a tad) one another's difficulties.
Sorry I let this go for a tad. Your discussion with E4E needed no interruption.



The only hope we have is not that God has settled every future detail (or even already knows the outcome of every contingency) but rather that even in giving others a significant say so in their own existence, God remains faithful and will fulfill every promise made in Christ. The future God has planed for those who embrace the truth about God revealed in the Gospel and the future that Christ is even now preparing (“I go to prepare …”) and the future the Spirit of Christ Jesus is preparing us for, is not yet. Our guarantee that it will be is God’s own faithfulness. It is in Him we place our trust, not in a settled future, not even in His ‘immutability’; no, we trust HIM! not because he knows or controls the future in meticulous detail, but because NOTHING can separate us from His love in Christ.

It is more than mere academics; knowing him in the power of his resurrection that happened in time and place informs the future, and from our perspective at least doesn’t settle it. Why else pray, serve and grow into his likeness?

Moreover, the dialog is important because it shapes the church’s witness and the message we send to the world. The tenuous nature of the message of a settled view communicates that the decisions people make have no real bearing on the future, regardless how many ‘alter calls’ or ‘altar calls’ are issued.

There is truth in this. God is relational to us. I've tried in the past to reconcile these ideas here in discussion. I don't think that a settled future necessarily detracts, it just seems to with logical conclusions from the OV. I don't believe the SV closes those doors logically like OV does looking in. It is difficult for both of us I think because we are talking about dichotomy. It appears contradictory, but it isn't. The triune view, and how Judas actually killed himself come to mind for examples. The discussion is good and needed for our dialogue.



Either the future is settled or it is open to a greater or lesser extent. The discussion among the thinking is the degree to which it is open. The future is settled as far as God has determined it. It is open to the degree that God has given his creatures a significant say in their own futures and will not compromise their freedom to choose. The future is as bright as the promises of God in Christ. God knows how he plans to bless us in the future. What he doesn't know is exactly who will and who will not embrace that future.

Also in Him,
(Just not resting as much as Clete. :grave: )

LOL Clete does rest a lot.

Yeah, same here. I'd guess our biggest point of difference is how much God knows of future reality. It seems to be the hingepin for our respective views.

elected4ever
April 24th, 2007, 01:05 PM
I'm really glad that we have a certain amount of free will, otherwise, if everything was already planned by God, we would just be little robots.

Bob You are quite right. What God has given man sovernty over he also gave the ability to make decisions concerning such, I also believe that God is no fool and reserved to Himself jurisdiction. There are boundaries for man and man is limited.

Philetus
April 26th, 2007, 02:49 PM
Can those who are not elected to have this discussion enter in to the discussion? ;)

I have faith that there will be a discussion..... isn't that enough?

Or perhaps such a discussion is only fit for another dispensation...:chuckle:

:cheers:

We are all elected to the discussion.

Whosoever will, let him/her type.

Dispensation? There is no other dispensation ... only this one. :o

Philetus
April 26th, 2007, 02:57 PM
I appreciate this. It helps open discussion between us and appreciate (at least a tad) one another's difficulties.
Sorry I let this go for a tad. Your discussion with E4E needed no interruption.



There is truth in this. God is relational to us. I've tried in the past to reconcile these ideas here in discussion. I don't think that a settled future necessarily detracts, it just seems to with logical conclusions from the OV. I don't believe the SV closes those doors logically like OV does looking in. It is difficult for both of us I think because we are talking about dichotomy. It appears contradictory, but it isn't. The triune view, and how Judas actually killed himself come to mind for examples. The discussion is good and needed for our dialogue.



LOL Clete does rest a lot.

Yeah, same here. I'd guess our biggest point of difference is how much God knows of future reality. It seems to be the hingepin for our respective views.

Oh please, interrupt! :bang:

So, in your view, how much does God know about the future? And when did the future become a reality, in your view?

BTW, Judas hanged HIMSELF. :loser: (Judas, not you.)

Lon
April 26th, 2007, 05:12 PM
Oh please, interrupt! :bang:

LOL, I believe that rowdy interchange is over now.



So, in your view, how much does God know about the future? And when did the future become a reality, in your view?.

Wow, nobody has asked me what "I" specifically believe before. I lean toward SV with scriptures that indicate God knows the future. How much and to what extent I don't know. I have said before that I believe is is more than OV allows, possible less than traditional SV. It is one of those areas where I try to err on the side of God being bigger than my complete comprehension. It is a difficult aspect to grasp.



BTW, Judas hanged HIMSELF. :loser: (Judas, not you.)

Ar,
Mat 27:5 So7 Judas threw the silver coins into the temple and left. Then he went out and hanged himself.

but then we also learn that he spilled his guts.
Act 1:18 "As you know, he took the evil bribe money and bought a small farm. There he came to a bad end, rupturing his belly and spilling his guts. Which was it? (I believe it is a dichotomy merely).

Philetus
April 26th, 2007, 10:54 PM
LOL, I believe that rowdy interchange is over now.



Wow, nobody has asked me what "I" specifically believe before. I lean toward SV with scriptures that indicate God knows the future. How much and to what extent I don't know. I have said before that I believe is is more than OV allows, possible less than traditional SV. It is one of those areas where I try to err on the side of God being bigger than my complete comprehension. It is a difficult aspect to grasp.



Ar,

but then we also learn that he spilled his guts. Which was it? (I believe it is a dichotomy merely).

Its never over with E4E.:D

That's a common response to the Open View of the future. Somehow, somewhere along the line we got the notion that we can bring God down or raise Him up, as if by making God immutable (by philosophical argument) He is 'more' perfect. But, let me ask: Is it 'bigger' of God to be in absolute meticulous control, having exact, exhaustive knowledge of every minute detail of the future, or is it a bigger God who though He could do those things, chose rather to create significant others with freedom to choose for themselves and respect their choices, allowing them to help shape the future? Why do SVers insist that only a God who knows everything including and especially the future is a 'big enough' God to rule His Kingdom?

Let me couch the question a little differently. If God is in full control to the extent that the future is settled, why do we need to pray "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven"? Meaningless mellow drama? I for one think we need to be careful that in making God ‘big’, we don't mar the image in which we were created.



I think it is possible to 'hang yourself' and 'spill your guts'. Cheep rope. :D Or maybe he hung there so long ... well uck ... you get the picture. I mean, who is going to claim that body and loan a guy like that a grave for three days? Son of perdition ... the most alone, forsaken individual on the planet. Compare that to Peter who also 'hung himself by denying Jesus and then 'spilled his guts' to God in remorse. He went out and wept. Denying Jesus after boasting that he would die for Him, he must have felt all alone. I'll bet he wished a million time over that he could have died with Jesus. And in a sense, he did! That's the difference.

But, I think the real question here is: "Did Jesus know, and how did he know Judas would betray him, Peter would deny him 'exactly' three times, and the rooster would crow?" (Roosters have a tendency to do that every morning, ya know. Its in their genes.) I just don't think it requires exhaustive divine foreknowledge to figure that one out. Intimate relationships and narrative latitude solves those so called 'dichotomies' for me.

Still curious as to what you really think. You seem to be somewhat unsettled.:D

Anything less than an absolutely 100% settled future is 'open'. And any open niche in the future precludes exhaustive foreknowledge.

elected4ever
April 27th, 2007, 06:21 AM
Its never over with E4E.:D

That's a common response to the Open View of the future. Somehow, somewhere along the line we got the notion that we can bring God down or raise Him up, as if by making God immutable (by philosophical argument) He is 'more' perfect. But, let me ask: Is it 'bigger' of God to be in absolute meticulous control, having exact, exhaustive knowledge of every minute detail of the future, or is it a bigger God who though He could do those things, chose rather to create significant others with freedom to choose for themselves and respect their choices, allowing them to help shape the future? Why do SVers insist that only a God who knows everything including and especially the future is a 'big enough' God to rule His Kingdom?

Let me couch the question a little differently. If God is in full control to the extent that the future is settled, why do we need to pray "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven"? Meaningless mellow drama? I for one think we need to be careful that in making God ‘big’, we don't mar the image in which we were created.



I think it is possible to 'hang yourself' and 'spill your guts'. Cheep rope. :D Or maybe he hung there so long ... well uck ... you get the picture. I mean, who is going to claim that body and loan a guy like that a grave for three days? Son of perdition ... the most alone, forsaken individual on the planet. Compare that to Peter who also 'hung himself by denying Jesus and then 'spilled his guts' to God in remorse. He went out and wept. Denying Jesus after boasting that he would die for Him, he must have felt all alone. I'll bet he wished a million time over that he could have died with Jesus. And in a sense, he did! That's the difference.

But, I think the real question here is: "Did Jesus know, and how did he know Judas would betray him, Peter would deny him 'exactly' three times, and the rooster would crow?" (Roosters have a tendency to do that every morning, ya know. Its in their genes.) I just don't think it requires exhaustive divine foreknowledge to figure that one out. Intimate relationships and narrative latitude solves those so called 'dichotomies' for me.

Still curious as to what you really think. You seem to be somewhat unsettled.:D

Anything less than an absolutely 100% settled future is 'open'. And any open niche in the future precludes exhaustive foreknowledge.According to you Jesus was a really good guesser never mind that Jesus told them in advance what they would do.

Philetus
April 27th, 2007, 09:33 AM
According to you Jesus was a really good guesser never mind that Jesus told them in advance what they would do.

Your response was totally predictable for anyone on TOL for more than a week. And it didn't require DFK, ESP or LSD.

And yes, Jesus was (and IS) a really good guesser. But, that's not all he is.;)

Philetus
April 27th, 2007, 09:36 AM
It never ends.

elected4ever
April 27th, 2007, 10:02 AM
Jesus was (and IS) a really good guesser. But, that's not all he is.;)What is God other than the soothsayer that you clam him to be?:dunce:

Lon
April 27th, 2007, 11:35 AM
Its never over with E4E.:D

That's a common response to the Open View of the future. Somehow, somewhere along the line we got the notion that we can bring God down or raise Him up, as if by making God immutable (by philosophical argument) He is 'more' perfect. But, let me ask: Is it 'bigger' of God to be in absolute meticulous control, having exact, exhaustive knowledge of every minute detail of the future, or is it a bigger God who though He could do those things, chose rather to create significant others with freedom to choose for themselves and respect their choices, allowing them to help shape the future? Why do SVers insist that only a God who knows everything including and especially the future is a 'big enough' God to rule His Kingdom?

Doesn't matter, God is big no matter what, but I think we are talking about which view is more atune to how big and able God is. For this, I like my mysteries. God is so vast, that my intellect is fragile in comprehension. I glory in the mysteries of God. The bigger the mystery, the more captivated I am in understanding who He is. For this discussion, it is very good to see the weakenesses in our respective views. God is huge (and bigger, words are so constraining).




Let me couch the question a little differently. If God is in full control to the extent that the future is settled, why do we need to pray "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven"? Meaningless mellow drama? I for one think we need to be careful that in making God ‘big’, we don't mar the image in which we were created.
SV also believes God is relational. My thinking is that His decisions are contingent on our responses even as He knows the result. I'm not sure I've effectively discussed this to the OV satisfaction, but what is important is that we know God moves by our prayers from either respective view. I submit that God is relational. As Pastor Hill, has stated, it does not affect His immutable nature.




I think it is possible to 'hang yourself' and 'spill your guts'. Cheep rope. :D Or maybe he hung there so long ... well uck ... you get the picture. I mean, who is going to claim that body and loan a guy like that a grave for three days? Son of perdition ... the most alone, forsaken individual on the planet. Compare that to Peter who also 'hung himself by denying Jesus and then 'spilled his guts' to God in remorse. He went out and wept. Denying Jesus after boasting that he would die for Him, he must have felt all alone. I'll bet he wished a million time over that he could have died with Jesus. And in a sense, he did! That's the difference.

Yep, I'm of that opinion also, uck.




But, I think the real question here is: "Did Jesus know, and how did he know Judas would betray him, Peter would deny him 'exactly' three times, and the rooster would crow?" (Roosters have a tendency to do that every morning, ya know. Its in their genes.) I just don't think it requires exhaustive divine foreknowledge to figure that one out. Intimate relationships and narrative latitude solves those so called 'dichotomies' for me.

Too exact, regardless of how many times a rooster crows. They actually crow any number of times. Whoever told you it was 3 was selling you something. It is a wive's tale. Jesus predicted, it would be better for OV to make the claim that it was providential interjection rather than predictive coincidence. 3 crows, 3 denials.





Still curious as to what you really think. You seem to be somewhat unsettled.:D

Anything less than an absolutely 100% settled future is 'open'. And any open niche in the future precludes exhaustive foreknowledge.

Agreed. I'm not sure. More 'exhaustive' than not. It is similar in my mind to omnipotent questions: He doesn't do the ridiculous (like a rock He can't pick up).
Can He know what is unknowable or absurd? These kinds of questions are a little to big for my finiteness.

lucaspa
April 27th, 2007, 12:37 PM
Your faith shapes your reality.

Why can't it be the opposite: reality shapes your faith. That's the way it happens for most people.


Your reason is adjusted to fit your reality.

And that is not always the case, either. Lots of people try to adjust reality to their reason.


That is why it is an impossibility not to believe in something.

No, the reason it is impossible not to believe in something is that 1) any search for truth demands that you start with statements that you may never be able to prove and 2) not all experience is intersubjective. The two foundational statements you must believe are true are 1) I exist and 2) I am sane. There are some experiences that are unique to yourself. In fact, a LOT of them. You believe those experiences are accurate.


There is no such thing as an atheist.

Of course there are. Atheists are people who believe deity does not exist.

lucaspa
April 27th, 2007, 12:41 PM
We make decisions basted on the knowledge we bring to the table. I do not trust anyone who bases there belief on human reasoning alone.

This is somewhat contradictory since human reason is based on our knowledge. No one does "pure" reasoning. Reasoning always involves "knowledge".

Trinity is based on human reasoning. It is a product of the hypothetico-deductive reasoning. Do you trust that belief?

lucaspa
April 27th, 2007, 12:52 PM
Let me couch the question a little differently. If God is in full control to the extent that the future is settled, why do we need to pray "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven"? Meaningless mellow drama? I for one think we need to be careful that in making God ‘big’, we don't mar the image in which we were created.

Let me phrase this differently: if the future is settled, why bother? If all your future actions are known and determined, what meaning has our life or God's?

Also, if you are Biblical literalist and SVer, God should have known the outcome of accepting Abel's gift and reject Cain's. That makes God guilty of murder. God didn't directly kill Abel, but God sets a situation, according to SV, that God knows is going to result in Cain killing Abel. By law, that's murder.


But, I think the real question here is: "Did Jesus know, and how did he know Judas would betray him, Peter would deny him 'exactly' three times, and the rooster would crow?" (Roosters have a tendency to do that every morning, ya know. Its in their genes.) I just don't think it requires exhaustive divine foreknowledge to figure that one out. Intimate relationships and narrative latitude solves those so called 'dichotomies' for me.

I agree. Knowing Judas as a person, his politics, and how Jesus was disappointing Judas' expectations of a Messiah would ensure "knowledge" that Judas would betray him.

I think the "exactly three times" was put in later. Knowledge of Peter and a general knowledge of how the situation would play out would ensure that Jesus would "know" that Peter would deny him.

When reading scripture you must always remember that 1) it was written after the event and 2) people did not have our criteria for strict history. It was very common in that time to put words into people's mouths of "prophecy" of later events. Thucidydes and Herodotus did it all the time.


And any open niche in the future precludes exhaustive foreknowledge.

And here we encounter quantum mechanics! :ha:

lucaspa
April 27th, 2007, 12:57 PM
Agreed. I'm not sure. More 'exhaustive' than not. It is similar in my mind to omnipotent questions: He doesn't do the ridiculous (like a rock He can't pick up).
Can He know what is unknowable or absurd? These kinds of questions are a little to big for my finiteness.

Let me ask a different question: does God have to be omnipotent or omniscient to be God?

Put another way, how powerful or knowing does a being have to be in order to qualify as God?

It is clear that God is VERY knowing and VERY powerful. A lot of people here object to using "human reasoning". Let me suggest that it was human reasoning that extrapolated from very powerful and very knowing to all-powerful and all-knowing.

The easiest way to resolve the dilemma is not to arbitrarily decide that creating a rock He cannot lift is "ridiculous" (human reasoning), but instead simply discard omnipotence.

elected4ever
April 27th, 2007, 02:53 PM
This is somewhat contradictory since human reason is based on our knowledge. No one does "pure" reasoning. Reasoning always involves "knowledge".Would you agree that some knowledge comes by revelation and not by human experience alone. Man would have no knowledge of God if God does not impart that knowledge. Human reasoning of itself has no knowledge of God. Human reasoning cannot define God. It takes more than human reasoning to know God.


Trinity is based on human reasoning. It is a product of the hypothetico-deductive reasoning. Do you trust that belief?No, I do not trust that belief at least not in the sense that i have been taught through the years. It is confusing and God is not the author of confusion. I call it what you call it, hypothetical deductive reasoning.

elected4ever
April 27th, 2007, 03:17 PM
Let me ask a different question: does God have to be omnipotent or omniscient to be God?Yes


Put another way, how powerful or knowing does a being have to be in order to qualify as God? Complete


It is clear that God is VERY knowing and VERY powerful. A lot of people here object to using "human reasoning". Let me suggest that it was human reasoning that extrapolated from very powerful and very knowing to all-powerful and all-knowing. I object to using human reasoning alone. There are some things that we know that are beyond human reasoning and understanding and we accept them by faith. We use those things as part of our knowledge base that the world does not possess.


The easiest way to resolve the dilemma is not to arbitrarily decide that creating a rock He cannot lift is "ridiculous" (human reasoning), but instead simply discard omnipotence. Sense we know that human reasoning apart from reveled knowledge from God is "ridiculous", Why is it then necessary or advisable to through out God's omnipotence?

Lon
April 27th, 2007, 06:00 PM
Let me ask a different question: does God have to be omnipotent or omniscient to be God?

Put another way, how powerful or knowing does a being have to be in order to qualify as God?

As powerful and knowledgeable as He says He is. That's the important point here. All we can really know is what we are told. For this inspection I'd simply say that OV has issues on the other side of the problem spectrum. Both of our perspectives have troubling scriptures. Dichotomy is fine, but we should recognize both our strong suit and weaker hands. I don't condemn OV, I just don't see it as the best fit. Perspective I think. I'm reminded constantly of the 3 blind and elephant parable in these discussions. We're all blind and must lean on our limited perceptions (scripture, the Holy Spirit, traditions, logical ability).



It is clear that God is VERY knowing and VERY powerful. A lot of people here object to using "human reasoning". Let me suggest that it was human reasoning that extrapolated from very powerful and very knowing to all-powerful and all-knowing.

No, "Almighty" is His name. It means "All-powerful." It isn't human reasoning.
Omnipotence is very defendable as a Biblical position.

Omniscience is a bit tougher, but it can be supported. I'm less bothered by questions concerning this aspect of who God is. As I said, our perception and logically ability to grasp is limited. I don't want a God who is constrained only to human capacity for logic. My understanding of Him has plenty of mystery left for my duration here on earth.




The easiest way to resolve the dilemma is not to arbitrarily decide that creating a rock He cannot lift is "ridiculous" (human reasoning), but instead simply discard omnipotence.

It is called "the illogical question" for a reason. The problem isn't the dilemma, it's the faulty concept for the question. It is unanswerable. If you say 'yes' you are wrong, and if you say 'no' you are wrong. Further complicating this, if you say 'yes' or 'no' from a different perspective, you could be right. The problem is that first, the question asks that which is contradictory. And second, it asks that which cannot be answered.

godrulz
April 27th, 2007, 06:08 PM
There is no such thing as a married bachelor or a square circle, even in God's world. It is not a limitation on omnipotence to not be able to do the logically absurd or self-contradictory things. Likewise, it is not a limitation on omniscience to not exhaustively foreknow free will contingencies, another logical contradiction/absurdity.

elected4ever
April 27th, 2007, 06:45 PM
There is no such thing as a married bachelor or a square circle, even in God's world. It is not a limitation on omnipotence to not be able to do the logically absurd or self-contradictory things. Likewise, it is not a limitation on omniscience to not exhaustively foreknow free will contingencies, another logical contradiction/absurdity.That is a purely stupid human bit of reasoning. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Purely :spam:

Lon
April 27th, 2007, 07:11 PM
There is no such thing as a married bachelor or a square circle, even in God's world. It is not a limitation on omnipotence to not be able to do the logically absurd or self-contradictory things. Likewise, it is not a limitation on omniscience to not exhaustively foreknow free will contingencies, another logical contradiction/absurdity.

Yes to the first part (and thanks for support there), but not necessarily on the second.

I know we disagree on this, but I just don't see it as absurd. Difficult, yes, hard to grasp, yes. Absurd? He knows way more than I'll ever be able to grasp. He's God. There is a huge chasm for understanding. I understand the 'absurd' assessment, but it seems to be a logical box to me. It is like saying 'no' or 'yes' to the omnipotence question. I can't anwer it. Can God know the 'unknowable?' It is a bit like that.

Now the question: Is a myriad of contingencies unknowable? Daunting yes, but after that I'm without facility to answer. Too big of a question for me to even comprehend if it could be absurd or not.

godrulz
April 28th, 2007, 01:25 AM
That is a purely stupid human bit of reasoning. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Purely :spam:


Some people think God can create square circles. No He cannot. The issue is a logical absurdity, not a limitation on omnipotence. Secular and Christian scholars do not dispute this self-evident point. Why are you straining at gnats?

godrulz
April 28th, 2007, 01:28 AM
Yes to the first part (and thanks for support there), but not necessarily on the second.

I know we disagree on this, but I just don't see it as absurd. Difficult, yes, hard to grasp, yes. Absurd? He knows way more than I'll ever be able to grasp. He's God. There is a huge chasm for understanding. I understand the 'absurd' assessment, but it seems to be a logical box to me. It is like saying 'no' or 'yes' to the omnipotence question. I can't anwer it. Can God know the 'unknowable?' It is a bit like that.

Now the question: Is a myriad of contingencies unknowable? Daunting yes, but after that I'm without facility to answer. Too big of a question for me to even comprehend if it could be absurd or not.

One can know a myriad of contingencies, but only as possible or probable. By definition, there is an element of unsettledness (may or may not happen; alternatives) until the choice is made and the possible becomes actual/certain. God knows reality as it is, so why go beyond this? The future is not there yet, nor is it settled like the fixed past. God correctly knows it as such because this is the type of non-deterministic creation He sovereignly chose to actualize.

Lon
April 28th, 2007, 02:56 AM
One can know a myriad of contingencies, but only as possible or probable. By definition, there is an element of unsettledness (may or may not happen; alternatives) until the choice is made and the possible becomes actual/certain. God knows reality as it is, so why go beyond this? The future is not there yet, nor is it settled like the fixed past. God correctly knows it as such because this is the type of non-deterministic creation He sovereignly chose to actualize.

I understand where you are coming from but certain scriptures are difficult to appreciate from this perspective.

Some examples:

Josiah's grandfather was named about 300 years before he was born.

Prophecy is often so accurate, that it isn't exactly 'predictive' (messianic, Peter's denial etc.)

Visions and dreams: future predictive, and in John's case interactive as well. That interactive portion really gives me trouble with the OV from a logical perspective.

Philetus
April 28th, 2007, 07:12 AM
Prophecy is always interactive and/or determinative. God will, no if/ands/or buts. God accomplishes what He purposes. Other wise it is conditional. God might or might not do something … IF/then. Sometimes it is even speculative. Given the present situation/this is the (likely) outcome.


God says, His name will be John, and Zach won’t say another word until it is.

Philetus
April 28th, 2007, 07:36 AM
Doesn't matter, God is big no matter what, but I think we are talking about which view is more atune to how big and able God is. For this, I like my mysteries. God is so vast, that my intellect is fragile in comprehension. I glory in the mysteries of God. The bigger the mystery, the more captivated I am in understanding who He is. For this discussion, it is very good to see the weakenesses in our respective views. God is huge (and bigger, words are so constraining).

Then why not just say that God is one big mystery, and leave it at that? That statement almost sounds agnostic. We are wrestling with "what can be know about God" as revealed in creation, scripture and ultimately in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.



SV also believes God is relational. My thinking is that His decisions are contingent on our responses even as He knows the result. I'm not sure I've effectively discussed this to the OV satisfaction, but what is important is that we know God moves by our prayers from either respective view. I submit that God is relational. As Pastor Hill, has stated, it does not affect His immutable nature.

So in the settled view of the future, when did God relate? At what point in history was the future 'contingent'? When and who decided and determined the six winning numbers in next weeks lottery or that there would even be a lottery?



Too exact, regardless of how many times a rooster crows. They actually crow any number of times. Whoever told you it was 3 was selling you something. It is a wive's tale. Jesus predicted, it would be better for OV to make the claim that it was providential interjection rather than predictive coincidence. 3 crows, 3 denials.

I agree! Hence the quotation marks around 'exactly' three times.



Agreed. I'm not sure. More 'exhaustive' than not. It is similar in my mind to omnipotent questions: He doesn't do the ridiculous (like a rock He can't pick up).
Can He know what is unknowable or absurd? These kinds of questions are a little to big for my finiteness.

More or less 'exhaustive'?

If by that you mean that God knows far more than he doesn’t know… well …

Just how much is out there that cannot be know? Infinite details of non-existent stuff. Wow! what a big God to be preoccupied with so much non-stuff. That isn’t a ‘mystery', that absurdity.

It is widely held by the OV that God know all there is to know, or at least all that God chooses to know of what is knowable. That is vast knowledge anyway you measure it.

philosophizer
April 28th, 2007, 08:20 AM
Would you agree that some knowledge comes by revelation and not by human experience alone. Man would have no knowledge of God if God does not impart that knowledge. Human reasoning of itself has no knowledge of God. Human reasoning cannot define God. It takes more than human reasoning to know God.


I don't quite agree. God has offered special revelation in the form of His Word. But there is also a natural revelation that is self-evident in all of creation. We can reason by many facts of nature that there is a God and we can even ascertain many aspects of His character through these means. These are all a part of human experience. Also the moral law that God has written on all our hearts speaks of Him.

So simply by reasoning through the facts that are self-evident we do come across knowledge of God. Not all knowledge, but some, and certainly not no knowledge as you claim.

philosophizer
April 28th, 2007, 08:31 AM
It is widely held by the OV that God know all there is to know, or at least all that God chooses to know of what is knowable. That is vast knowledge anyway you measure it.

Yes. When you take the sum of all that the OV claims God knows and then add all the extra things the SV purports, you are essentially adding nothing but zeros, as they are non-things.

"Look how many numbers I've added to your sum! Surely it's a bigger number now."

"Uhh... you're only adding by zero every time. It's still the same number."

elected4ever
April 28th, 2007, 08:38 PM
philosophizer
So simply by reasoning through the facts that are self-evident we do come across knowledge of God. Not all knowledge, but some, and certainly not no knowledge as you claim.This is true but at some point personal knowledge comes from a revealing of truth by God to the human heart.

Lon
April 28th, 2007, 11:20 PM
It always seems to be the same go around. I always get deja vu reading and responding. Clearly there is a mental or logic block for our discussion. I'm very very often reminded of the 3 blind men and the elephant when chatting terms with OV. All I'm saying from my perspective is that I'm open to the trunk and legs in theological discussion, not just the tail. God is too big. Your corner may be a bit more manipulable but I'm pretty sure it's only part of the big picture of who God is, like mine.

Philetus
April 29th, 2007, 08:04 AM
It always seems to be the same go around. I always get deja vu reading and responding. Clearly there is a mental or logic block for our discussion. I'm very very often reminded of the 3 blind men and the elephant when chatting terms with OV. All I'm saying from my perspective is that I'm open to the trunk and legs in theological discussion, not just the tail. God is too big. Your corner may be a bit more manipulable but I'm pretty sure it's only part of the big picture of who God is, like mine.
Maybe you need to get out of your circle more.
:granite::mario: :luigi:

A Calvinist, an Arr-meanian and a Jehovah Witness were walking down a jungle path one day when they happened upon an elephant. Grabbing the trunk the Calvinist said, “This tree was determined to be here and by god, no path can change that.” Bumping into the side of the elephant, the Arr-meanian said, “I think we’ve hit a wall.” Holding the tail, the Jehovah Witness said, “This isn't even enough rope to hang yourself.” Then a voice came from above. The Open Theists sitting atop the elephant said, “It’s an elephant, boys. It’s just an elephant.” "NO WAY!" Was their unanimous replay.":nono: :nono: :nono:

People who draw circles shouldn’t complain about them, Lonster. And what can be known shouldn't be embellished to make it all puffed up in an attempt to appear humble.

Some things CAN be known.


Originally Posted by philosophizer: God has offered special revelation in the form of His Word. But there is also a natural revelation that is self-evident in all of creation. We can reason by many facts of nature that there is a God and we can even ascertain many aspects of His character through these means. These are all a part of human experience. Also the moral law that God has written on all our hearts speaks of Him.

So simply by reasoning through the facts that are self-evident we do come across knowledge of God. Not all knowledge, but some, and certainly not no knowledge as you claim.

:up: Great post philosophizer.

Knowledge of God isn't something to be manipulated. Take a step back, Lonster, and look at the whole BIG picture. Yes! God is big, really big. But not so big that he can't make Himself known to His creatures. Trying to make Him bigger (unknowable?) is counter to the very reason Jesus came in the first place ... to make HIM KNOWN.

John 17:3 - Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Open is a great corner to be in.
It beats going around in circles, any day.

Philetus
April 29th, 2007, 08:17 AM
philosophizer philosophizer
Over 1000 post club

Slogan/motto:

Posts: 1,014
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: In the middle of a giant cornfield... what's it called... oh yeah, Iowa.
Rep Power: 20113
Reputation: 1848895

Iowa is just a suburb of Indiana. :madmad: :angel: :eek: :dizzy: :chuckle: :rotfl:

Lon
April 29th, 2007, 06:11 PM
Maybe you need to get out of your circle more.
:granite::mario: :luigi:

A Calvinist, an Arr-meanian and a Jehovah Witness were walking down a jungle path one day when they happened upon an elephant. Grabbing the trunk the Calvinist said, “This tree was determined to be here and by god, no path can change that.” Bumping into the side of the elephant, the Arr-meanian said, “I think we’ve hit a wall.” Holding the tail, the Jehovah Witness said, “This isn't even enough rope to hang yourself.” Then a voice came from above. The Open Theists sitting atop the elephant said, “It’s an elephant, boys. It’s just an elephant.” "NO WAY!" Was their unanimous replay.":nono: :nono: :nono:

People who draw circles shouldn’t complain about them, Lonster. And what can be known shouldn't be embellished to make it all puffed up in an attempt to appear humble.

Some things CAN be known.



:up: Great post philosophizer.

Knowledge of God isn't something to be manipulated. Take a step back, Lonster, and look at the whole BIG picture. Yes! God is big, really big. But not so big that he can't make Himself known to His creatures. Trying to make Him bigger (unknowable?) is counter to the very reason Jesus came in the first place ... to make HIM KNOWN.

John 17:3 - Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Open is a great corner to be in.
It beats going around in circles, any day.

Yes, the arrogance screams to me loud and clear. False humility? Not at all. I'm honest at least to state that all I know about God is what He chooses to reveal to me. I don't go 'beyond' that. Logic from OV is very self-elevating to the intellect.

I'm reminded of many parables and assessments of humility and seeing through a glass darkly. You'll forgive me, it isn't arrogance, but your glass is a little 'too' clear for me. While you'd say this is as it should be, I'd say that it is very reminiscent of past theological stances I've seen.

OV has the 'whole' elephant which frankly gives me much much room for pause.

You sometimes come across genuinely Philetus, but on other occassions you come across very demeaning and arrogant in your posts (as many OVers).

This ALWAYS gives me great great pause. I pray it would do the same for you.

OV is much too proud of a sect for me. Not right, just arrogant.

godrulz
April 29th, 2007, 06:37 PM
Lonster: Resistance is futile, so assimilate with the Borg.:alien:

Lon
April 29th, 2007, 06:57 PM
Lonster: Resistance is futile, so assimilate with the Borg.:alien:

When you get aboard my enterprise, I'll probably smash my little ship with a lazer gun too.

How ya doing brother? You tend to bring me back to a sane view with OV that I try to hold onto (most of the time).

godrulz
April 29th, 2007, 07:34 PM
When you get aboard my enterprise, I'll probably smash my little ship with a lazer gun too.

How ya doing brother? You tend to bring me back to a sane view with OV that I try to hold onto (most of the time).


Let's not forget that diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive views cannot both be right. Let us strive to discern more and more truth and repel more and more error.

Can I also remind you that the two motif theme of Open Theism (some vs all of the future is settled) allows us to incorporate the settled proof texts and theme. Unfortunately, the SV proponents must ignore or anthropomorphize away the open/unsettled texts. I think the OV has the stronger hermeneutic because it can take all relevant verses at face value (still recognizing blatant figures of speech).

elected4ever
April 29th, 2007, 08:48 PM
Lonster: Resistance is futile, so assimilate with the Borg.:alien:If the borg be you then forget it.:shocked:

godrulz
April 29th, 2007, 09:17 PM
If the borg be you then forget it.:shocked:


Ditto. I am not the Borg. I am born again, part of His forever family (God).

Lon
April 30th, 2007, 12:15 PM
Let's not forget that diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive views cannot both be right. Let us strive to discern more and more truth and repel more and more error.

Can I also remind you that the two motif theme of Open Theism (some vs all of the future is settled) allows us to incorporate the settled proof texts and theme. Unfortunately, the SV proponents must ignore or anthropomorphize away the open/unsettled texts. I think the OV has the stronger hermeneutic because it can take all relevant verses at face value (still recognizing blatant figures of speech).

Despite Philetus' claim to be sitting on the entirety of who God is (I believe it is an incredible claim) we all see through a glass dimly.
Because I think OV examines different aspects, I'm in appreciation, but I really don't think there is a corner on the market.

Philetus
April 30th, 2007, 01:59 PM
Despite Philetus' claim to be sitting on the entirety of who God is (I believe it is an incredible claim) we all see through a glass dimly.
Because I think OV examines different aspects, I'm in appreciation, but I really don't think there is a corner on the market.

Philetus was sitting on an elephant. That's all. That's the point.

So according to you the darker we can keep or make the glass the more humble the view.

That's just non-sense.

Is it arrogant to claim to know anything at all about God? And humble to disclaim what scripture says in light of other verses that have been exaggerated in importance as the exhaustive view of God. (Yes, two motifs!)

godrulz: Let's not forget that diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive views cannot both be right. Let us strive to discern more and more truth and repel more and more error.
Can I also remind you that the two motif theme of Open Theism (some vs all of the future is settled) allows us to incorporate the settled proof texts and theme. Unfortunately, the SV proponents must ignore or anthropomorphize away the open/unsettled texts. I think the OV has the stronger hermeneutic because it can take all relevant verses at face value (still recognizing blatant figures of speech).
Who's really elevating themselves by claiming to exalt God and charging arrogance?

Your charge of is self condemning however you couch it. Your identification with one of the three blind mice encountering the elephant isn't humility; it is refusal to see or refusing to deal with what CAN be know because God has revealed it. Together, both motifs make the glass a little clearer and a little fuller.

Clete
April 30th, 2007, 02:55 PM
Philetus was sitting on an elephant. That's all. That's the point.

So according to you the darker we can keep or make the glass the more humble the view.

That's just non-sense.

Is it arrogant to claim to know anything at all about God? And humble to disclaim what scripture says in light of other verses that have been exaggerated in importance as the exhaustive view of God. (Yes, two motifs!)

Who's really elevating themselves by claiming to exalt God and charging arrogance?

Your charge of is self condemning however you couch it. Your identification with one of the three blind mice encountering the elephant isn't humility; it is refusal to see or refusing to deal with what CAN be know because God has revealed it. Together, both motifs make the glass a little clearer and a little fuller.
Excellent point Philetus!

We should not polish the mirror with sand paper in order to make the image even dimmer than it already is. We can know what we can know and are not responsible for that which we cannot know. We are however responsible for what we chosen not to know.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lon
April 30th, 2007, 04:07 PM
Philetus was sitting on an elephant. That's all. That's the point.

So according to you the darker we can keep or make the glass the more humble the view.

That's just non-sense.

Is it arrogant to claim to know anything at all about God? And humble to disclaim what scripture says in light of other verses that have been exaggerated in importance as the exhaustive view of God. (Yes, two motifs!)

Who's really elevating themselves by claiming to exalt God and charging arrogance?

Your charge of is self condemning however you couch it. Your identification with one of the three blind mice encountering the elephant isn't humility; it is refusal to see or refusing to deal with what CAN be know because God has revealed it. Together, both motifs make the glass a little clearer and a little fuller.

Philetus and Clete,

I appreciate you both, I really do, but the congratuatory back-pats, and arguments are all rehashed. I've addressed each and every concern adequately in mind.

Now rather than being prideful or going beyond revelation, I'm going to say this once more in hopes that a light bulb will possibly click on.

I'm telling you that OV doesn't explain things adequately. Alpha and Omega means everything inbetween. No one has seen God at any time but God the Son has made Him known. "Let me see your face." "You cannot see my face and live."

I'm telling you bluntly, what is crystal clear has been made crystal clear by God. What isn't clear remains in obscurity. While I appreciate a 'new' attempt in OV to bring Him to light, you have only a very small glimpse just like me.

I'm not scratching the bottle. Nothing wrong at all with polishing it, but it is still dark. It seems OV is making claim to new revelation (certainly new understanding) but I'm telling you, you have the same exact dark glass, nothing more. Just because light reflects when you turn it sideways doesn't mean you have a new glass. It's the same.

Bob Hill
April 30th, 2007, 04:17 PM
Our God truly responds to us.

This passage in 2 Kings shows what I mean.
2 Kings 20:1-6 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.’” 2 Then he turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord, saying, 3 “Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what was good in Your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly. 4 And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, 5 “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. 6 “And I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for My own sake, and for the sake of My servant David.”’”

Bob Hill

godrulz
April 30th, 2007, 04:21 PM
I still maintain that some views are more coherent and less problematic than other views. Sometimes 'mystery' is really incoherence and a cogent resolution does exist if we critically think things through. Of course, the finite never comprehends the infinite exhaustively, but He has revealed things that we can know are true.

I think Open Theism builds a reasonable case based on Scripture (primarily) and sound biblical philosophy (thinking through things that are not explicitly revealed in detail).

It is the glory of a king to search out a matter (Proverbs).

Lon
April 30th, 2007, 04:46 PM
I still maintain that some views are more coherent and less problematic than other views. Sometimes 'mystery' is really incoherence and a cogent resolution does exist if we critically think things through. Of course, the finite never comprehends the infinite exhaustively, but He has revealed things that we can know are true.

I think Open Theism builds a reasonable case based on Scripture (primarily) and sound biblical philosophy (thinking through things that are not explicitly revealed in detail).

It is the glory of a king to search out a matter (Proverbs).

We agree on the premise, but I think the position from which one argues causes some of this. I'm repeatedly challenged with accusation for coherence here, but the problem as I see it is that OV doesn't escape some of the same and some from the flip side of the discussion. I try not to make claims that OV is loopy or that one holding to OV is missing the forest for the trees, because I think we are in the same boat. We have the same glass and it is darkly. I don't want to purposefully obscure anything but I see a few premises from OV that just don't jive with my understanding of scripture.

I however, do appreciate the questions that arise from discussing our differences. It helps to examine my traditions and views of scripture from a fresh perspective.

No matter which glass I'm using, it is still not a crystal clarity.

Philetus
April 30th, 2007, 05:41 PM
Philetus and Clete,

I appreciate you both, I really do, but the congratuatory back-pats, and arguments are all rehashed. I've addressed each and every concern adequately in mind.

Now rather than being prideful or going beyond revelation, I'm going to say this once more in hopes that a light bulb will possibly click on.

I'm telling you that OV doesn't explain things adequately. Alpha and Omega means everything inbetween. No one has seen God at any time but God the Son has made Him known. "Let me see your face." "You cannot see my face and live."

I'm telling you bluntly, what is crystal clear has been made crystal clear by God. What isn't clear remains in obscurity. While I appreciate a 'new' attempt in OV to bring Him to light, you have only a very small glimpse just like me.

I'm not scratching the bottle. Nothing wrong at all with polishing it, but it is still dark. It seems OV is making claim to new revelation (certainly new understanding) but I'm telling you, you have the same exact dark glass, nothing more. Just because light reflects when you turn it sideways doesn't mean you have a new glass. It's the same.


The point is that the SV isn't looking at all the trees.

Maybe if you would be less settled and satisfied "in your mind" and be a little more open, you would realize the light bulb is already lit. How would I know how small your 'glimpse' is? So far all you have said is that you are too humble to buy into the OV. Well, maybe that is true, but it isn't an argument against OV. It's a cop-out.


godrulz: Unfortunately, the SV proponents must ignore or anthropomorphize away the open/unsettled texts. I think the OV has the stronger hermeneutic because it can take all relevant verses at face value (still recognizing blatant figures of speech).

OV hasn't discovered anything new ... just unearthed what the settled view has been burying, i.e. the open/unsettled texts.

We aren't spinning the glass calling it new or relabeling it. We are just removing the falsified labels and allowing the vintage texts to speak for themselves. That isn't going beyond revelation, that's opening your eyes and ears to what the Spirit is saying through scripture.


And thanks Clete! Coming from you, that affirmation is humbling. Sorry I can't be any dumber just to look humbler.

Philetus
April 30th, 2007, 05:45 PM
Our God truly responds to us.

This passage in 2 Kings shows what I mean.
2 Kings 20:1-6 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.’” 2 Then he turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord, saying, 3 “Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what was good in Your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly. 4 And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, 5 “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. 6 “And I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for My own sake, and for the sake of My servant David.”’”

Bob Hill

I love that scripture, Pastor Hill. It shows how quickly God can be persuaded to change his mind and how quickly he can respond to the prayers of servants when he is so moved.

Philetus
April 30th, 2007, 06:07 PM
Here is a text I've been looking at for a while. Any thoughts on this one Pastor Hill?

Gen 16: 13 She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: "You are the God who sees me," for she said, "I have now seen the One who sees me."

Seems like claiming to not ‘see’ God’s face is not the same as claiming to not ‘see’ God at all.

2Co 4:6 - For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

I have seen the One who sees me. Dynamic interaction.

The Open View celebrates the fact that God acknowledges our existence. God actually ascribes worth to us. Doesn't live our lives for us but gives us everything we need to live them for him. Amazing. Amazing grace, in fact! And truly humbling.

Clete
April 30th, 2007, 07:27 PM
Philetus and Clete,

I appreciate you both, I really do, but the congratuatory back-pats, and arguments are all rehashed. I've addressed each and every concern adequately in mind.

Now rather than being prideful or going beyond revelation, I'm going to say this once more in hopes that a light bulb will possibly click on.
How humble of you.


I'm telling you that OV doesn't explain things adequately.
Yes it does.


Alpha and Omega means everything inbetween.
Not necessarily. I believe that in context this title of God's means that He was the first and He will be the last. "Everything inbetween" could be right depending on what you mean but that definitely goes beyond what the text itself says and what the context can directly support.


No one has seen God at any time but God the Son has made Him known. "Let me see your face." "You cannot see my face and live."

I'm telling you bluntly, what is crystal clear has been made crystal clear by God. What isn't clear remains in obscurity. While I appreciate a 'new' attempt in OV to bring Him to light, you have only a very small glimpse just like me.
I know of no Open Theist who would disagree with this point. I know of no one, Open Theist or otherwise who has ever claimed to fully understand themselves, never mind the God who made them. This objection of yours is overstated in the extreme.


I'm not scratching the bottle. Nothing wrong at all with polishing it, but it is still dark. It seems OV is making claim to new revelation (certainly new understanding) but I'm telling you, you have the same exact dark glass, nothing more.
That dark glass being the Bible and sound reason. Quite right.


Just because light reflects when you turn it sideways doesn't mean you have a new glass. It's the same.
This comment sounds like you are attempting to say that no theological position is superior to any other. If that is what you are saying, you are clearly wrong. I'll quote you the Scripture to prove it if need be but if it is not what you mean, please clarify. Do you reject the idea that there is an objective means by which we can determine whether one theological view is superior to another?


Resting in Him,
Clete

Bob Hill
April 30th, 2007, 09:12 PM
Here is the truth of our open theism.
Eph 1:6,7 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.

We will be accepted because we are in Jesus Christ. We are His body.

Here is a modern example of this. When my younger brother was in the army, he was stationed in Japan.

Many of the Japanese girls wanted to come to America. But they couldn’t. They were Japanese.

My brother met a Japanese girl, and married her.

When he came back to the states, she was able to come too. Why? Wasn’t she still Japanese? Yes, but because she was married to an American, she now had a different identity.

Now when she applied for entry into America, the U S looked at her husband. The wife was accepted, because she was in her beloved.

How does this affect us?

Since I have trusted Christ as my Savior, I am redeemed and accepted by God because I am in Christ.

Because I am now in Christ, I have this predestined inheritance.
Eph 1:11,12 “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works the all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.”

We who believe in Christ as our Savior have two inheritances. One is predestined. We can’t lose it. The other is conditional. We can lose it.

We already have our inheritance in Christ and are secure, because God predestined it.

However, our heavenly inheritance depends on what our actions are here. Col 3:23-25 “And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. 25 But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality.” The reward of the inheritance is not guaranteed or predestined, but our security is.

This is our guarantee: Eph 1:13,14 In whom you also, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession.

Anyone can believe in Christ as his or her Savior. Salvation is open to all!

Bob Hill

Lon
April 30th, 2007, 11:58 PM
How humble of you.

Print doesn't lend well here: sarcasm or sincere? I was sincere in my appreciation. The 'lightbulb' analogy might have conveyed poorly, I only meant I don't think anybody ever really understands where I'm coming from.



Yes it does.
Well, I could have said that less ambiguously. I'm still thinking of John's revelation specifically. I don't believe OV is correct about God not knowing future or being able to see it exactly as it will be. In some ways, OV actually has God invading upon freewill moreso than in SV. A night watchman who knows nothing is going to get into everything while learning how to do his job. The old guy who has been there for awhile, is going to have a better handle on things. I think OV has God in a 'preparedness stage, but it still doesn't account for what at least I see in scripture. It isn't merely predictive in my mind. It reads as if when future events are told, God has already been there. I appreciate the logic dilemma, but I think OV is not correct in dismissing it. The term "foreknowledge" isn't fore'prepared.' It means 'knows.'




Not necessarily. I believe that in context this title of God's means that He was the first and He will be the last. "Everything inbetween" could be right depending on what you mean but that definitely goes beyond what the text itself says and what the context can directly support.
Agreed





I know of no Open Theist who would disagree with this point. I know of no one, Open Theist or otherwise who has ever claimed to fully understand themselves, never mind the God who made them. This objection of yours is overstated in the extreme.

It is possible, but when I see rolling eyes, awards, and back-pats passed around it does convey as self-congratulatory. While the words "poor blind fool" aren't said exactly, the conveyance is there. I honestly believe what I believe with sincerity and my concerns with OV are real. I'm not here to stir up wrath, but to first, understand why some of these things appear so clear to you. I'm perplexed when some of the ideas I've brought up aren't also brought up amongst yourselves. I mean, in the SV camp, we bring up a lot of your questions naturally amongst ourselves. I guess I'd like to see more of that introspection. It seems to me there is none. This always troubles my logic here.





That dark glass being the Bible and sound reason. Quite right.





This comment sounds like you are attempting to say that no theological position is superior to any other. If that is what you are saying, you are clearly wrong. I'll quote you the Scripture to prove it if need be but if it is not what you mean, please clarify. Do you reject the idea that there is an objective means by which we can determine whether one theological view is superior to another?


Resting in Him,
Clete

No, you are correct. Just for our discussion here, I'm saying that those in the faith have a dark view. What I'm really getting at is that man's theology systems are all in the same boat. It isn't that one isn't better than another, it's just that I was trying to just get to the point that between us, our theology perspectives are limited. As 1 John 3 says, one day we'll be like Him because we'll see Him as He is. I'm just trying to say that this side of heaven, I've only got a grasp on the truths that are clear. God loves us. I agree with Bob, He fellowships with us. Jesus died for us. Salvation is in Him. I appreciate the OV. It doesn't mean that I don't see the flaws with it. If anything, I'm reminded that God is intimate with us. He watches over us. He answers our prayers. I've always believed this.

Philetus
May 1st, 2007, 10:59 AM
If one reads the Revelation of John as a blueprint for the future, then of course ‘this and that’ must happen before the kingdom of God can come. But, such a view of the last book in the New Testament renders it virtually meaningless for any generation other than the ‘last’. If on the other hand, the Revelation is read as a manual of what it means to remain faithful in times of great trouble, then the book takes on much meaning and holds great encouragement for any generation of Christians in any and all cultures.

I’m convinced John was not providing a blueprint of the future but rather writing in code (encrypted apocalyptic terms) what would if stated overtly have brought down the wrath of the Roman empire not only on himself but also on his readers.

In such a context one doesn’t say the emperor is an ‘evil antichrist’ but rather one speaks of ‘the beast’ and ‘dragons’. To make the leap to ‘the end of the world’ from speaking about the destruction of the temple (and the Jewish way of life and the Roman empire for that matter) because of the cataclysmic language used, is like saying that 1000 years from now when historians read our newspapers they will deduce that the people of the 20th century thought that a presidential election could influence the natural order of the cosmos because of such statements as “The election of SoandSo caused earth shattering changes in the world”.

In spite of the insistence of the Zealots that the kingdom could only come through violent revolt, and the Pharisee's assertions that the sinful were to blame for its delay, and the escapism of the Essenes, and the capitulation to Rome on the part of the Herodians, Jesus came announcing that the Kingdom was at hand; that there was no reason not to enter it, experience it, and allow it to shape our living in the world. John was only reiterating that nothing the empire (or any lessor kingdom) could throw at the community of faithful could prevent the kingdoms of this world from becoming the Kingdom of our God. Not even death.

The future remains open as to who will and who won’t experience that Kingdom before they taste death. The future is closed to speculation as to whether or not God’s Kingdom will in fact fully come. God is faithful! Thus we pray, ‘Even so, Thy kingdom come!’

Philetus
May 1st, 2007, 11:38 AM
Print doesn't lend well here: sarcasm or sincere? I was sincere in my appreciation. The 'lightbulb' analogy might have conveyed poorly, I only meant I don't think anybody ever really understands where I'm coming from.


Well, I could have said that less ambiguously. I'm still thinking of John's revelation specifically. I don't believe OV is correct about God not knowing future or being able to see it exactly as it will be. In some ways, OV actually has God invading upon freewill moreso than in SV. A night watchman who knows nothing is going to get into everything while learning how to do his job. The old guy who has been there for awhile, is going to have a better handle on things. I think OV has God in a 'preparedness stage, but it still doesn't account for what at least I see in scripture. It isn't merely predictive in my mind. It reads as if when future events are told, God has already been there. I appreciate the logic dilemma, but I think OV is not correct in dismissing it. The term "foreknowledge" isn't fore'prepared.' It means 'knows.'


Agreed




It is possible, but when I see rolling eyes, awards, and back-pats passed around it does convey as self-congratulatory. While the words "poor blind fool" aren't said exactly, the conveyance is there. I honestly believe what I believe with sincerity and my concerns with OV are real. I'm not here to stir up wrath, but to first, understand why some of these things appear so clear to you. I'm perplexed when some of the ideas I've brought up aren't also brought up amongst yourselves. I mean, in the SV camp, we bring up a lot of your questions naturally amongst ourselves. I guess I'd like to see more of that introspection. It seems to me there is none. This always troubles my logic here.







No, you are correct. Just for our discussion here, I'm saying that those in the faith have a dark view. What I'm really getting at is that man's theology systems are all in the same boat. It isn't that one isn't better than another, it's just that I was trying to just get to the point that between us, our theology perspectives are limited. As 1 John 3 says, one day we'll be like Him because we'll see Him as He is. I'm just trying to say that this side of heaven, I've only got a grasp on the truths that are clear. God loves us. I agree with Bob, He fellowships with us. Jesus died for us. Salvation is in Him. I appreciate the OV. It doesn't mean that I don't see the flaws with it. If anything, I'm reminded that God is intimate with us. He watches over us. He answers our prayers. I've always believed this.

I do appreciate this explanation. In the give and take of debate/discussion about our particular views, it is a given that none of us have all the answers or perfect understanding. We all, (well most) see the dilemma! What I appreciate most is your sincere humility. I share it. But, that doesn’t translate into surrender or admission of defeat in searching out what we can know or think we can know about God. Theology is God-talk. And when views about God are expressed in a forum such as this they sound ‘arrogant’; period! Especially to anyone holding a differing view regardless how they are expressed or disguised.

I never heard the term “Open View Theism” before arriving at TOL. However, it rang true with what I had read in the Word and experienced for years. You better believe I’m going to high-five-it with anyone who helps me understand and express it better. I’m indebted to guys like Godrulz, Clete, Knight and others for being both rough and instructional. And no, I don’t share some of their wacky views. (And they let me know in no uncertain terms when they are wrong.:chuckle: ) Don’t let the rep-system detour you from the interaction here, whether that changes your fundamental view or increases your resolve to keep it. Play the game. We all have much to learn.

I’m only asking that the whole pointless discussion about humility be dumped in favor of all of us showing our backsides as arrogant fools and getting on with the war. Ask the hard questions, put your boots on and wade into the fray. Your limited view will survive. So will mine. :dizzy: :crackup:

Clete
May 1st, 2007, 12:43 PM
Lonster,

Judging by what you said in your last post it seems clear that you are as intellectually honest as anyone here on TOL and so I suggest we get away from the generalities and talk about more specific issues.

Can you more clearly explain just what it is that you think the open view doesn't "adequately explain" as you put it? The more specific you can be the better. Perhaps between the two of us (Philetus and I) we can either cause you to see why we've accepted the open view or else we might come to understand why you reject it. My expectation is that the problem has to do with issues on the paradigm level because I am no longer able to read the Bible and not see the open view everywhere, including Revelation.

Incidentally, I agree with you about foreknowledge. Foreknowledge is not mere prediction, it is knowledge. The questions then become, (1) What is it that God foreknows? and (2)Does prophecy always fall into the category of foreknowledge?

The open view would answer those question as follows...

(1) God knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable. He foreknows that which He has decided to bring to pass by His own power.

(2) No, it does not. Jeremiah 18 is sufficient to prove that prophecy cannot always fall into the category of foreknowledge.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Philetus
May 1st, 2007, 12:57 PM
I love fresh starts.

themuzicman
May 1st, 2007, 01:04 PM
I love fresh farts.

Philetus
May 1st, 2007, 01:09 PM
Do I smell bacon?

themuzicman
May 1st, 2007, 01:12 PM
And sharp cheddar cheese!

godrulz
May 1st, 2007, 05:57 PM
I’m indebted to guys like Godrulz, Clete, Knight and others for being both rough and instructional. And no, I don’t share some of their wacky views. (And they let me know in no uncertain terms when they are wrong.:chuckle: ) :


Which views might those be? Are you trying to get cut out of my will?

Lon
May 1st, 2007, 06:17 PM
Lonster,

Judging by what you said in your last post it seems clear that you are as intellectually honest as anyone here on TOL and so I suggest we get away from the generalities and talk about more specific issues.

Can you more clearly explain just what it is that you think the open view doesn't "adequately explain" as you put it? The more specific you can be the better. Perhaps between the two of us (Philetus and I) we can either cause you to see why we've accepted the open view or else we might come to understand why you reject it. My expectation is that the problem has to do with issues on the paradigm level because I am no longer able to read the Bible and not see the open view everywhere, including Revelation.

Incidentally, I agree with you about foreknowledge. Foreknowledge is not mere prediction, it is knowledge. The questions then become, (1) What is it that God foreknows? and (2)Does prophecy always fall into the category of foreknowledge?

The open view would answer those question as follows...

(1) God knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable. He foreknows that which He has decided to bring to pass by His own power.

(2) No, it does not. Jeremiah 18 is sufficient to prove that prophecy cannot always fall into the category of foreknowledge.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I'm a bit confused. I thought the discussion on time and some of the logic problems we've been iin dialogue on were about God not being able to know the future. I'm clearly missing something between this post and those. And 'yes' please help and enlighten.

Philetus, in John's vision, which I understand (I think) your premise, the problem logically for me is that John was interacting in that vision. It completely boggles my mind. Those space-time continuum problems are perplexing to me.
It is a bit 'sci-fi' but I still cannot see that revelation as anything else but an experience of future.

This seems to be one of those issues where if God knows 'some' future, 1) how is it possible with your understanding of inability and 2) why, if God does know future, isn't this just an example of one such situation?

Lon
May 1st, 2007, 06:20 PM
Do I smell bacon?

I do appreciate humor that 'sizzles' and is 'sharp' but the premise 'stunk.'

Clete
May 1st, 2007, 06:48 PM
I'm a bit confused. I thought the discussion on time and some of the logic problems we've been iin dialogue on were about God not being able to know the future. I'm clearly missing something between this post and those. And 'yes' please help and enlighten.
I'm afraid I don't recall the details of that previous discussion. I lose track of this thread often because many of the people on it are a complete waste of gray matter and I just can't stand to read their posts. Unless I am actively engaged in a specific discussion, like this one for example, I only rarely read the occasional post and so if this discussion was with Philetus then I totally missed it.

Perhaps you could ask me a specific question. If it requires going over already covered ground then perhaps that's for the best.

I will say, for the sake of clarity, that if an open theist says that God cannot know the future, he only means that in the common sense of the phrase. In other words, when people generally speak about the future, they speak of it as though it actually exists but this is only a figure of speech, albeit an unconscious one. The future will exist but it does not yet exist and thus it is not a object of God's knowledge as such. What God knows of the future are those events which He has decided by His own will to bring to pass by the working of His own power, which is invincible. God, for example, has predestined that the Body of Christ will be glorified and so it will be just that. No one has any ability whatsoever to keep that from happening, nor is it contingent on anyone's action or inaction in relation to God's commands or wishes thus God foreknows that the Body of Christ will be glorified, as do we because of His revelation to us through Scripture.

Another example of what is yet future and that is foreknown by God is the fact that there will be a Day of Judgment when the enemies of God will be utterly and finally vanquished; the Earth will be purged with fire and will burn with a fervent heat and that God will create a new Earth and a new Heaven; and to him who overcomes God will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.

And there are many more such things that God has said He will do which are in no way contingent on anything or anyone other than God's own word. All such things are both predestined and foreknown. But it is important to point out that God does not know these things because He went to the future and took a sneak peak at it. He knows it because He is the ultimate power of all that exists and no one can keep Him from doing that which He has decided that He will do.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lon
May 1st, 2007, 11:50 PM
I'm afraid I don't recall the details of that previous discussion. I lose track of this thread often because many of the people on it are a complete waste of gray matter and I just can't stand to read their posts. Unless I am actively engaged in a specific discussion, like this one for example, I only rarely read the occasional post and so if this discussion was with Philetus then I totally missed it.

Perhaps you could ask me a specific question. If it requires going over already covered ground then perhaps that's for the best.

I will say, for the sake of clarity, that if an open theist says that God cannot know the future, he only means that in the common sense of the phrase. In other words, when people generally speak about the future, they speak of it as though it actually exists but this is only a figure of speech, albeit an unconscious one. The future will exist but it does not yet exist and thus it is not a object of God's knowledge as such. What God knows of the future are those events which He has decided by His own will to bring to pass by the working of His own power, which is invincible. God, for example, has predestined that the Body of Christ will be glorified and so it will be just that. No one has any ability whatsoever to keep that from happening, nor is it contingent on anyone's action or inaction in relation to God's commands or wishes thus God foreknows that the Body of Christ will be glorified, as do we because of His revelation to us through Scripture.

Another example of what is yet future and that is foreknown by God is the fact that there will be a Day of Judgment when the enemies of God will be utterly and finally vanquished; the Earth will be purged with fire and will burn with a fervent heat and that God will create a new Earth and a new Heaven; and to him who overcomes God will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.

And there are many more such things that God has said He will do which are in no way contingent on anything or anyone other than God's own word. All such things are both predestined and foreknown. But it is important to point out that God does not know these things because He went to the future and took a sneak peak at it. He knows it because He is the ultimate power of all that exists and no one can keep Him from doing that which He has decided that He will do.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Thanks for the address of this. I think you answered fairly specifically something I can latch onto.

Here is the question after that which is still perplexing to me. I've understood it was a vision and some of the discussion concerning John's revelation, but what still troubles my perception from OV is that he interacted with individuals in that future time frame. It is troubling because whether in mind or physically, he was transported and interacted in a future time. While God certainly has the power as you say, to make future reality, it is troubling in the sense that it seems to me, that God is able to traipse through time ahead of us, and bring John their. John was in the throne room one way or the other and He saw God, Jesus, elders, events, happenings etc. While I get a tiny grasp of Philetus and some of the other ideas concerning this vision in trying to explain it as something else than how I see it, the problem is still perplexing. I haven't comprehended a cogent view if one was purported. The explanations I've heard so far, don't make sense. You might remember in a previous post, I said the explanation fell flat. One accused me of "Star Trek" nerdology, but it is a perception from the text, not a television show. While it was a bit of a retort to some good 'ol SV bashing, it was sincere. I still cannot fathom the OV's answer to such a dilemma. Perhaps it can be explained in a different way.


In Christ
Lon

Clete
May 2nd, 2007, 12:49 PM
Thanks for the address of this. I think you answered fairly specifically something I can latch onto.

Here is the question after that which is still perplexing to me. I've understood it was a vision and some of the discussion concerning John's revelation, but what still troubles my perception from OV is that he interacted with individuals in that future time frame. It is troubling because whether in mind or physically, he was transported and interacted in a future time. While God certainly has the power as you say, to make future reality, it is troubling in the sense that it seems to me, that God is able to traipse through time ahead of us, and bring John their. John was in the throne room one way or the other and He saw God, Jesus, elders, events, happenings etc. While I get a tiny grasp of Philetus and some of the other ideas concerning this vision in trying to explain it as something else than how I see it, the problem is still perplexing. I haven't comprehended a cogent view if one was purported. The explanations I've heard so far, don't make sense. You might remember in a previous post, I said the explanation fell flat. One accused me of "Star Trek" nerdology, but it is a perception from the text, not a television show. While it was a bit of a retort to some good 'ol SV bashing, it was sincere. I still cannot fathom the OV's answer to such a dilemma. Perhaps it can be explained in a different way.


In Christ
Lon
It was a vision Lonster, not a time warp teleportation to the future.

Would you at least concede that there is nothing in the text that demands that we accept the idea that John was literally translated to a future time where he witnessed that actual event? Isn't just as easy to read the book of Revelation and understand that the things spoken of in the book are visions of the future? You objection about the fact that John interacted with people in the vision doesn't really hold a lot of water. I have had dreams that we in no way miraculous and yet I've had whole conversations with people in my dream and interacted in all sorts of ways with individuals who never actually existed at all except in my dream. Why doesn't it make sense to say that the same sort of thing was happening with John and that his interactions with the people in the vision was nothing more than part of the vision itself?

And, as I suspected, this really does come down to a paradigm issue because if we were debating the meaning of some specific text in the book of Revelation you could object to what I've said and ask me to support that assertion that it was all just a vision with the text itself, which I believe could be done but I don't think it is necessary to do it. We can know that John did not actually go to the future because you cannot go to a place that does not exist and there is a whole line of reasoning that touches on a whole series of underlying issues that leads us to that conclusion among others. In other words, we know intuitively that Revelation is simply a vision and not time travel because the reverse would have ramifications in nearly every area of the Christian faith, including things like free will, justice, atonement, grace, antinomy, and even our theology proper (theology of God).

Indeed, most theological disputes come down to ones theology proper. Just what sort of God is it that the Bible teaches us about and what are the logical ramifications of the answer to that question. That's really what we are talking about here.

I have a lot more to say but I have no more time. This will have to be enough for now.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lon
May 2nd, 2007, 01:19 PM
It was a vision Lonster, not a time warp teleportation to the future.

Would you at least concede that there is nothing in the text that demands that we accept the idea that John was literally translated to a future time where he witnessed that actual event? Isn't just as easy to read the book of Revelation and understand that the things spoken of in the book are visions of the future? You objection about the fact that John interacted with people in the vision doesn't really hold a lot of water.

I have had dreams that we in no way miraculous and yet I've had whole conversations with people in my dream and interacted in all sorts of ways with individuals who never actually existed at all except in my dream. Why doesn't it make sense to say that the same sort of thing was happening with John and that his interactions with the people in the vision was nothing more than part of the vision itself?

And, as I suspected, this really does come down to a paradigm issue because if we were debating the meaning of some specific text in the book of Revelation you could object to what I've said and ask me to support that assertion that it was all just a vision with the text itself, which I believe could be done but I don't think it is necessary to do it. We can know that John did not actually go to the future because you cannot go to a place that does not exist and there is a whole line of reasoning that touches on a whole series of underlying issues that leads us to that conclusion among others. In other words, we know intuitively that Revelation is simply a vision and not time travel because the reverse would have ramifications in nearly every area of the Christian faith, including things like free will, justice, atonement, grace, antinomy, and even our theology proper (theology of God).

Indeed, most theological disputes come down to ones theology proper. Just what sort of God is it that the Bible teaches us about and what are the logical ramifications of the answer to that question. That's really what we are talking about here.

I have a lot more to say but I have no more time. This will have to be enough for now.

Resting in Him,
Clete

My concern is that John's vision is not like a dream. It is given by God so is not equivalent to dreams. It is future, God is present, and John interacts. It would be difficult to concede another interpretation of this. John was there somehow and it was divinely inspired so that he'd write it down for us.

I totally agree that the ramifications are far reaching.

Lighthouse
May 2nd, 2007, 01:27 PM
God can make a decision.

Clete
May 2nd, 2007, 03:38 PM
My concern is that John's vision is not like a dream. It is given by God so is not equivalent to dreams. It is future, God is present, and John interacts. It would be difficult to concede another interpretation of this. John was there somehow and it was divinely inspired so that he'd write it down for us.

I totally agree that the ramifications are far reaching.

What in the text demands that we take John's Revelation as anything other than a vision?

I understand that it was not a dream in the same sense that one has dreams each night while we sleep. That was only an analogy. It is no more difficult to imagine how John could interact with the people in his miraculous vision than it is difficult to understand the concept of interacting with the people in one's own dreams. In other words, just because John interacted with the people in the vision doesn't mean it wasn't a vision. The interaction itself was part of the vision.

Again, is there anything in the text the demands that we must presume that John traveled through time rather than that he simply was given a vision of the future?

I say that the answer to that question is a resounding, "NO! There isn't!". If you think otherwise, I would say that the burden of proof is on you because such a reason doesn't seem to be apparent by a simple reading of the text itself and because there is a whole pile of both theological and rational problems which come along with saying otherwise. I don't know how valid Occam's Razor is as a hermanutical tool, but if it is valid it seems to be cutting deeply into your theological neck at the moment.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lon
May 2nd, 2007, 08:11 PM
What in the text demands that we take John's Revelation as anything other than a vision?

I understand that it was not a dream in the same sense that one has dreams each night while we sleep. That was only an analogy. It is no more difficult to imagine how John could interact with the people in his miraculous vision than it is difficult to understand the concept of interacting with the people in one's own dreams. In other words, just because John interacted with the people in the vision doesn't mean it wasn't a vision. The interaction itself was part of the vision.

Again, is there anything in the text the demands that we must presume that John traveled through time rather than that he simply was given a vision of the future?

I say that the answer to that question is a resounding, "NO! There isn't!". If you think otherwise, I would say that the burden of proof is on you because such a reason doesn't seem to be apparent by a simple reading of the text itself and because there is a whole pile of both theological and rational problems which come along with saying otherwise. I don't know how valid Occam's Razor is as a hermanutical tool, but if it is valid it seems to be cutting deeply into your theological neck at the moment.

Resting in Him,
Clete


What are you saying exactly? Was the vision elder a fabrication by God or John's imagination? I'm not quite catching your meaning. Even in a dream state, I've travelled to the future, but there are two problems with it. One is is an imaginative fabrication, not a reality given by God, and it also doesn't contain real people in it from a real future. I'm still not quite catching the point. This was a reality God wanted communicated to man. How do you see this differently?

Philetus
May 2nd, 2007, 09:29 PM
Sanctified imaginations are a gift from God. The reality they communicate is a present reality in light of all that God PLANS/PROMISES to do in the future. In John's case the reality WAS that of the saints suffering for their faith and the HOPE guaranteed the faithful. The language was encrypted. The book is a discipleship manual for Christians who like John were going through a 'great' time of tribulation. The only application it has to any future generation is to encourage faithfulness and patience.

NIV 1:9 I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

RSV 1:9 I John, your brother, who share with you in Jesus the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

KJV 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Prophecy is not always future telling. It is promise and warning.

Clete
May 2nd, 2007, 09:35 PM
What are you saying exactly? Was the vision elder a fabrication by God or John's imagination? I'm not quite catching your meaning. Even in a dream state, I've travelled to the future, but there are two problems with it. One is is an imaginative fabrication, not a reality given by God, and it also doesn't contain real people in it from a real future. I'm still not quite catching the point. This was a reality God wanted communicated to man. How do you see this differently?

It had nothing to do with John's imagination; John saw and heard and said precisely what God wanted him to see, hear and say but that doesn't mean it was real.

Right now, I am watching a show called "Dirty Jobs" on the Discovery Channel. I am watching Mike (the host) toss lobster traps into the water - but I'm not really watching him throw those traps in the water, am I? I'm watching an image of him doing so, right? Now, we humans create such images in various ways which are by no means miraculous, but if we were somehow able to accurately predict the future, we could create a "vision" of that future and present it on a T.V. screen. And no matter how accurate that vision of the future happened to be, the vision would not be the real thing, it would be a vision.

God is able to cause us to experience whatever He wants for us to experience to whatever degree of realism He deems necessary and best but however accurate and however real it seems to the person receiving the vision, its still just a vision. John never physically left the Island of Patmos, what he saw, he saw in a vision, not live and in person.

Does that clarify what I mean?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lon
May 3rd, 2007, 10:13 AM
It had nothing to do with John's imagination; John saw and heard and said precisely what God wanted him to see, hear and say but that doesn't mean it was real.

Right now, I am watching a show called "Dirty Jobs" on the Discovery Channel. I am watching Mike (the host) toss lobster traps into the water - but I'm not really watching him throw those traps in the water, am I? I'm watching an image of him doing so, right? Now, we humans create such images in various ways which are by no means miraculous, but if we were somehow able to accurately predict the future, we could create a "vision" of that future and present it on a T.V. screen. And no matter how accurate that vision of the future happened to be, the vision would not be the real thing, it would be a vision.

God is able to cause us to experience whatever He wants for us to experience to whatever degree of realism He deems necessary and best but however accurate and however real it seems to the person receiving the vision, its still just a vision. John never physically left the Island of Patmos, what he saw, he saw in a vision, not live and in person.

Does that clarify what I mean?

Resting in Him,
Clete

"Dirty Jobs" = Past Reality

"Revelation" = Future Reality

All of these equivalence presentations aren't making any connection for me. It is future and if you don't agree it is exactly as it will be, then I'm perplexed. If it is 'exact' then you have a future time, accurately given and experienced.

Lon
May 3rd, 2007, 10:16 AM
Sanctified imaginations are a gift from God. The reality they communicate is a present reality in light of all that God PLANS/PROMISES to do in the future. In John's case the reality WAS that of the saints suffering for their faith and the HOPE guaranteed the faithful. The language was encrypted. The book is a discipleship manual for Christians who like John were going through a 'great' time of tribulation. The only application it has to any future generation is to encourage faithfulness and patience.

NIV 1:9 I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

RSV 1:9 I John, your brother, who share with you in Jesus the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

KJV 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Prophecy is not always future telling. It is promise and warning.

It seems like a 'grasping' explanation to me. I'm sorry I can't seem to express the perplexity of this (that my brain has latched onto in logic) clearly. If it is 'God-given' it is accurate and it is future. John, in my best understanding of this text, experienced the real future.

godrulz
May 3rd, 2007, 10:36 AM
The future is not there yet. 2008 has not happened.

Given the general sweep of Revelation (vs minute details), it seems consistent with OT visions that John had a vision, not an actual experiencing of the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming. The Second Coming is yet future, even to God (though He could give a vision of Christ and the horse).

Lon
May 3rd, 2007, 10:37 AM
I did a little pecking around to try and get a handle on our discussion.

First is the OV belief concerning time:

"The statement 'God exists outside of time.' commits the stolen concept because it engages the concept of existence while denying the concept of duration (i.e. time). Thus God cannot exist outside of time because to do so would mean He doesn't exist at all. The statement exhibits an internal contradiction and therefore must be false."
This then would be the same objection concerning God's existence:

"The statement 'God exists outside of space' commits the stolen concept because it engages the concept of existence while denying the concept of location. Thus God cannot exist outside of space because to do so would mean He doesn't exist at all. The statement exhibits an internal contradiction and therefore must be false."

Where would God live?

Philetus
May 3rd, 2007, 11:23 AM
It seems like a 'grasping' explanation to me. I'm sorry I can't seem to express the perplexity of this (that my brain has latched onto in logic) clearly. If it is 'God-given' it is accurate and it is future. John, in my best understanding of this text, experienced the real future.
The future according to Philetus (being worked out with fear and trembling:noid: :chuckle: )

I understand. I've been there. And I don't claim to be the most articulate proponent of the OV. Godrulz has it right … the future doesn’t exist. The only things that can be considered absolutely settled about the future are the things God has determined HE WILL do without condition. The day of the Lord is an example. It will happen because God will make it happen.

Since God has given a significant ‘say so’ to creatures in determining their own futures (i.e. what we will eat and what we shall put on, and whether we will stop at that next stop sign or not) there are lots of things that haven’t been yet determined … not yet. The future doesn’t exist.

And Clete is right … God reveals HIS PLANNED future not because, but rather only 'as if' it already exists by illustration: visions/dreams, promises/warnings. That doesn’t make God’s future any less ‘real’ because God is both faithful and able. That is how 'the future' continues to inform the present and gives us hope. The promised future informs how we are to be living now, as if the Kingdom were here among us and also as if it were coming.

That God reveals to us HIS plans and preparation for our futures is the difference between being (among other things) treated as servants (without any say-so about our present or future) and friends (included/with a 'say so' in the shaping of things to come).

Clete
May 3rd, 2007, 12:01 PM
"Dirty Jobs" = Past Reality

"Revelation" = Future Reality
I tried really hard to make clear that I was making an analogy because I knew that you would make this sort of connection. Why did you just ignore the fact that I said "if we were somehow able to predict the future..."?

The whole point of my post was to reiterate that a vision is not reality - its a vision. And no, Dirty Jobs is not past reality, it is an edited presentation (i.e. "vision" if you will) of past reality but it is not the reality itself. Can you understand the difference? The past does not exist any more than the future does. All that exists, exists now and only now. The past is no more and the future is not yet.


All of these equivalence presentations aren't making any connection for me. It is future and if you don't agree it is exactly as it will be, then I'm perplexed. If it is 'exact' then you have a future time, accurately given and experienced.
Why are you perplexed?


Jeremiah 18 1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the LORD. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
11 “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.”’”

The only reason you could be perplexed is because you have a faulty (i.e. unbiblical and/or irrational) understanding of Biblical prophecy.

How do you deal with all the other prophecies in the Bible that didn't come to pass as stated? Why don't they perplex you?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
May 3rd, 2007, 12:09 PM
I did a little pecking around to try and get a handle on our discussion.

First is the OV belief concerning time:

This then would be the same objection concerning God's existence:


Where would God live?

Space, as in three dimensional space a.k.a. the heavens is a physical consideration and was created by God. Time on the other hand is an idea, as is location. God does have a location but is not bound by three dimensional physical space.

In other words, the concept of location does not presuppose three dimensional physical space and so there is no concept fallacy involved here at all. Now if you supposed that something existed within three dimensional space while denying location then you would be committing the concept fallacy because space does presuppose location but not the other way around.

Get it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lon
May 3rd, 2007, 04:25 PM
I tried really hard to make clear that I was making an analogy because I knew that you would make this sort of connection. Why did you just ignore the fact that I said "if we were somehow able to predict the future..."?

The whole point of my post was to reiterate that a vision is not reality - its a vision. And no, Dirty Jobs is not past reality, it is an edited presentation (i.e. "vision" if you will) of past reality but it is not the reality itself. Can you understand the difference? The past does not exist any more than the future does. All that exists, exists now and only now. The past is no more and the future is not yet.

No, I don't think I confused it as analogy, I was just trying to make sure I was following and wanted to point to the main comparison needed.

I understand the logic behind the past not existing, but I'm not sure I follow its premise. I know things from the past and carry my past with me into my current demeaner and decisions.



Why are you perplexed?


Jeremiah 18 1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the LORD. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
11 “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.”’”

The only reason you could be perplexed is because you have a faulty (i.e. unbiblical and/or irrational) understanding of Biblical prophecy.
It is traditional, but as I read Revelation and John's interaction, it is unusual. While I understand the premise that it is a vision and predictive, it doesn't seem to render that way naturally to me. I read it as John interacting in a future which hadn't happened in the 'time' he was in. You say faulty, but I see it as a reality of the text. At face value, it is, an experience into a future event with interaction.


How do you deal with all the other prophecies in the Bible that didn't come to pass as stated? Why don't they perplex you?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I've been pretty upfront on my views of prophecy unfullfilled. I think theological gymnastics is the assessment of my views as I've read them. My understanding of those is that they are either nonprophetic or conditional and at other times both.

Lon
May 3rd, 2007, 04:30 PM
The future according to Philetus (being worked out with fear and trembling:noid: :chuckle: )

I understand. I've been there. And I don't claim to be the most articulate proponent of the OV. Godrulz has it right … the future doesn’t exist. The only things that can be considered absolutely settled about the future are the things God has determined HE WILL do without condition. The day of the Lord is an example. It will happen because God will make it happen.

Since God has given a significant ‘say so’ to creatures in determining their own futures (i.e. what we will eat and what we shall put on, and whether we will stop at that next stop sign or not) there are lots of things that haven’t been yet determined … not yet. The future doesn’t exist.

And Clete is right … God reveals HIS PLANNED future not because, but rather only 'as if' it already exists by illustration: visions/dreams, promises/warnings. That doesn’t make God’s future any less ‘real’ because God is both faithful and able. That is how 'the future' continues to inform the present and gives us hope. The promised future informs how we are to be living now, as if the Kingdom were here among us and also as if it were coming.

That God reveals to us HIS plans and preparation for our futures is the difference between being (among other things) treated as servants (without any say-so about our present or future) and friends (included/with a 'say so' in the shaping of things to come).

I think this is actually close to the SV/traditional view concerning "All-powerful" and omniscience. The way the two concepts concerning power and knowing all is closely tied together because one supports the other. The problematic discussion concerning this is always about free-will and determinism. It does however show some connectedness of our views on certain perspectives.

Clete
May 3rd, 2007, 06:32 PM
No, I don't think I confused it as analogy, I was just trying to make sure I was following and wanted to point to the main comparison needed.
I take it then that you followed my line of reasoning. Is there anything specific about it that you find irrational or in some other way problematic?


I understand the logic behind the past not existing, but I'm not sure I follow its premise. I know things from the past and carry my past with me into my current demeaner and decisions.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you remember the past and carry that memory with you into the future?

Your memories exist in your mind right now. If you think it through carefully you will never find anything that actually exists that doesn't exist right now. Sound pedantic but it is a crucial point.


It is traditional, but as I read Revelation and John's interaction, it is unusual. While I understand the premise that it is a vision and predictive, it doesn't seem to render that way naturally to me. I read it as John interacting in a future which hadn't happened in the 'time' he was in. You say faulty, but I see it as a reality of the text. At face value, it is, an experience into a future event with interaction.
I have to tell you that when I read this it sounds to me like you are effectively saying the following...

"I don't read Revelation that way because I don't like the sound of it."

The reason I say that is because as I have already pointed out, I can't read anything in the Bible without seeing the Open View everywhere, including the book of Revelation. I think it is clear that our disagreement has to do with a difference is paradigms and so discussing what eachother sees as the "face value" reading of the text is somewhat useless at this point. The question needs to be, which of our respective theological paradigms is the most Biblically and rationally sound? When that question is answered, we will know who's surface reading is the correct one.


I've been pretty upfront on my views of prophecy unfullfilled. I think theological gymnastics is the assessment of my views as I've read them. My understanding of those is that they are either nonprophetic or conditional and at other times both.
Okay, so what's the problem? Revelation is very obviously prophecies about several nations and Jeremiah explicitly states that all such prophecies are conditional prophecies. Why then is it so difficult for you, aside from some emotional consideration, to accept the idea that since these prophecies are conditional that they, in accordance with Jeremiah 18, may not come to pass precisely as stated just as several other similar prophecies have not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lon
May 3rd, 2007, 09:26 PM
I take it then that you followed my line of reasoning. Is there anything specific about it that you find irrational or in some other way problematic?

I believe you stated it correctly a bit further on, it is a paradigm difference.




Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you remember the past and carry that memory with you into the future?

Your memories exist in your mind right now. If you think it through carefully you will never find anything that actually exists that doesn't exist right now. Sound pedantic but it is a crucial point.
This has some truth to it, but who I am today is a product of past experience and influence. The past exists inside of me if you will.



I have to tell you that when I read this it sounds to me like you are effectively saying the following...

"I don't read Revelation that way because I don't like the sound of it."

The reason I say that is because as I have already pointed out, I can't read anything in the Bible without seeing the Open View everywhere, including the book of Revelation. I think it is clear that our disagreement has to do with a difference is paradigms and so discussing what eachother sees as the "face value" reading of the text is somewhat useless at this point. The question needs to be, which of our respective theological paradigms is the most Biblically and rationally sound? When that question is answered, we will know who's surface reading is the correct one.
No, not the 'feel' but the interpretation. I believe you called it correctly with the paradigm difference.




Okay, so what's the problem? Revelation is very obviously prophecies about several nations and Jeremiah explicitly states that all such prophecies are conditional prophecies. Why then is it so difficult for you, aside from some emotional consideration, to accept the idea that since these prophecies are conditional that they, in accordance with Jeremiah 18, may not come to pass precisely as stated just as several other similar prophecies have not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

No, not emotional: Logic. I see something in this passage that doesn't fall to my reasoning for acceptance. It is a problem similar to a math problem that doesn't add up. While I may not be able to know exactly where the equation went South, I can discern that it isn't the same answer I came up with. I've re-worked my theology to understand this passage and what I come up with is: A divine revelation from God, a future time seen clearly, interacted in, and recorded as truth for us to read. John witnessed this, he tells us, and he wrote it down as he was commanded to do. Will it happen exactly as he saw it or not?

elected4ever
May 4th, 2007, 07:54 AM
Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;


Write the things which thou hast seen,-------These are things that are past.

Write the things which are, -------------------These are things that are present.

Write the things which shall be hereafter;-----These are things that will absolutely come to pass in the future.

[ I might add this is not the revelation of John but the revelation of Jesus Christ. This tells me that the information that was given John to be reveled was absolute knowledge of past, present and future events. Regardless of my understanding or what i believe concerning these events, they have happened, are happening and will happen in the future. I cannot dismiss what will happen without also dismissing the past and the present. Ether it is all true or none of it is. Even in the revelation itself it is reveled that there is man making choices that effect man's future. Those choices that man makes does not effect the future that God has decreed. Man's choices only affect man's relationship with that future.

Bodger
May 4th, 2007, 12:17 PM
Forgive my intrusion you have been at this discussion for a long time and I have not read all your of previous posts. I have recently been exposed to Open View Theism from a new friend of mine.

I see that your most recent arguments deal with whether God is outside of time or not. I believe he is outside of time and in support of that follow my logic.

If God created the Heavens and the Earth as per Genesis. That would mean to me that He also created all matter that is in existence, also all the energy in the universe as well since from modern physics we know that matter and energy are the same but in different states (E=MC^2). Along with matter, comes all the subatomic particles with incredible complexities. If God is capable of creating the complexity of the minutest of this physics how could He be limited by time? Time is part of His creation and is intricately woven into the physics that He has created.

Now granted this is not a biblical argument, but I feel it is still valid.

Bodger

Clete
May 4th, 2007, 12:47 PM
Forgive my intrusion you have been at this discussion for a long time and I have not read all your of previous posts. I have recently been exposed to Open View Theism from a new friend of mine.

I see that your most recent arguments deal with whether God is outside of time or not. I believe he is outside of time and in support of that follow my logic.

If God created the Heavens and the Earth as per Genesis. That would mean to me that He also created all matter that is in existence, also all the energy in the universe as well since from modern physics we know that matter and energy are the same but in different states (E=MC^2). Along with matter, comes all the subatomic particles with incredible complexities. If God is capable of creating the complexity of the minutest of this physics how could He be limited by time? Time is part of His creation and is intricately woven into the physics that He has created.

Now granted this is not a biblical argument, but I feel it is still valid.

Bodger
Do I understand the form of your argument to be that if God wasn't outside of time there's no way He would had the time to build all the complexity into the physical universe?

If that is accurate there is no way that argument is valid.

If however your argument has more to do with Relativity and how motion seems to have an effect on the flow of time then that is a different matter, which has been discussed at length on many threads here on TOL, the best of which by far (if you ask me) is this one...

The Summit Clock Experiment (Ver. 2.0) (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34363)

If you want to respond on that thread, don't feel obligated to read the whole thread; just read the opening post and respond to it.

Now, since you are interested in making a rational argument (my favorite kind by the way), let me just repost something I've posted many times before on this subject of God existing outside of time and I'll be interested in your response to it....

You can prove God exists within time by eliminating the rational alternatives (there is only one). Here are ALL of the rational possibilities...

1. God exists in time.
2. God exists outside of time.

You can logically eliminate the latter by realizing that it contains an inherent internal contradiction. The idea that something, including God, could exist outside of time commits a stolen concept fallacy. Let me explain...

Stolen concept fallacies have to do with the fact that most ideas and concepts are not isolated islands unto themselves but are built upon other more foundational concepts without which they would have no meaning. This is what makes dictionaries possible. You can define a concept by using the concepts upon which it is founded. The Stolen Concept Fallacy happens when you make use of a concept while at the same time denying another concept upon which the first concept is built. It's like trying to build a house in mid air. You have no ground upon which to even place a foundation and the house therefore doesn't get built but you insist on trying to move in anyway. It just doesn't work.

In this case the concept that kills option two is that of existence. The concept of existence implies duration and/or sequence (a.k.a. time), and so to say something exists outside of time is a contradiction and therefore cannot be true. By saying that God exists outside of time you've "stolen the concept" of existence because you are denying the concept of time. It's like trying to talk about yellow darkness; it's irrational. Thus we can know for a fact that God experiences time because the alternative is rationally impossible.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Bodger
May 4th, 2007, 01:02 PM
Do I understand the form of your argument to be that if God wasn't outside of time there's no way He would had the time to build all the complexity into the physical universe?

If that is accurate there is no way that argument is valid.


Not that he did not have the "time" to do it, because that would not make sense as you have pointed out. But that "time" is part of his creation.



If however your argument has more to do with Relativity and how motion seems to have an effect on the flow of time then that is a different matter, which has been discussed at length on many threads here on TOL, the best of which by far (if you ask me) is this one...


I will review that.



Now, since you are interested in making a rational argument (my favorite kind by the way), let me just repost something I've posted many times before on this subject of God existing outside of time and I'll be interested in your response to it....

You can prove God exists within time by eliminating the rational alternatives (there is only one). Here are ALL of the rational possibilities...

1. God exists in time.
2. God exists outside of time.

You can logically eliminate the latter by realizing that it contains an inherent internal contradiction. The idea that something, including God, could exist outside of time commits a stolen concept fallacy. Let me explain...

Stolen concept fallacies have to do with the fact that most ideas and concepts are not isolated islands unto themselves but are built upon other more foundational concepts without which they would have no meaning. This is what makes dictionaries possible. You can define a concept by using the concepts upon which it is founded. The Stolen Concept Fallacy happens when you make use of a concept while at the same time denying another concept upon which the first concept is built. It's like trying to build a house in mid air. You have no ground upon which to even place a foundation and the house therefore doesn't get built but you insist on trying to move in anyway. It just doesn't work.

In this case the concept that kills option two is that of existence. The concept of existence implies duration and/or sequence (a.k.a. time), and so to say something exists outside of time is a contradiction and therefore cannot be true. By saying that God exists outside of time you've "stolen the concept" of existence because you are denying the concept of time. It's like trying to talk about yellow darkness; it's irrational. Thus we can know for a fact that God experiences time because the alternative is rationally impossible.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I take issue with your proof. I do appreciate you defining what a stolen concept fallacy was, I have been wondering what that meant. Anyway back to your proof.

This is what I take issue with:



The concept of existence implies duration and/or sequence (a.k.a. time)


Existence does not necessarily imply duration and/or sequence. Let me explain. Certainly existence as we would understand it implies time because we cannot imagine anything other then time and sequence. My grandfather was born, he married my grandmother and they begat my father who married my mother who begat me (pardon the KJ speak). God referred to Himself as "I am" that is I exist. Does that imply a beginning and/or an end, possibly, but I do not think it requires it. If you truly existed outside of time that is you could view or interact with any being or object at any point in time, would you not also describe yourself as existing?

Bodger

Clete
May 4th, 2007, 02:39 PM
Not that he did not have the "time" to do it, because that would not make sense as you have pointed out. But that "time" is part of his creation.
An idea that is both completely without Biblical support and that happens to be irrational.

I'm sort of surprised you didn't catch the stolen concept fallacy in the statement "..."time" is a part of his creation." even directly after agreeing that it wouldn't make sense to say that God didn't have time to create time.

How did you not just say, "It makes no sense to say that God didn't have time to create time but He did create time."?

Do you see the contradiction?

How do you do anything without time? Actions require sequence and duration which is all that time is. Time is a concept by which we linguistically reference duration and/or sequence. Just as existence presupposes time, so does any action, including the act of creating things. To say God created time is to contradict yourself. It simply cannot be true.


Existence does not necessarily imply duration and/or sequence. Let me explain. Certainly existence as we would understand it implies time because we cannot imagine anything other then time and sequence.
You cannot imagine it because that's what the word 'time' means. Trying to imagine time without duration would be exactly like attempting to imagine yellow darkness. It cannot be done because its is contradictory.


My grandfather was born, he married my grandmother and they begat my father who married my mother who begat me (pardon the KJ speak). God referred to Himself as "I am" that is I exist. Does that imply a beginning and/or an end, possibly, but I do not think it requires it. If you truly existed outside of time that is you could view or interact with any being or object at any point in time, would you not also describe yourself as existing?I don't think I understand your argument or how it refutes the definition of time or the fact that existence implies duration. If you haven't existed for any length of time, you haven't existed at all. God on the other hand has always existed and thus rather than being timeless, His duration is infinite.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Bodger
May 4th, 2007, 03:23 PM
How did you not just say, "It makes no sense to say that God didn't have time to create time but He did create time."?


What does not make sense is that if He is outside of time how would He be short for time?



Do you see the contradiction?


Not when couched the way I just answered it.



I don't think I understand your argument or how it refutes the definition of time or the fact that existence implies duration. If you haven't existed for any length of time, you haven't existed at all. God on the other hand has always existed and thus rather than being timeless, His duration is infinite.


My point is if God were timeless, i.e. outside of time, yet able to interact at any point in the time line God would still "exist". The time aspects of existence would have no meaning, you are only able to define existence in the form of time because of your (and mine as well, no insult is intended) limited capabilities.

Bodger

patman
May 4th, 2007, 11:45 PM
Space, as in three dimensional space a.k.a. the heavens is a physical consideration and was created by God. Time on the other hand is an idea, as is location. God does have a location but is not bound by three dimensional physical space.

I always tried to stay away from physics when it comes to refuting their theories that seem to contradict the O.V.. It is pointless for me because I am no physicist.

But I realized something today. God, heaven, hell, the angels, the demons, the other heavenly creatures, and even us humans are ALL spirits/beings with spirits. We live in a vast physical universe, but really, it is only a fraction of God's creation that is natural/based on the laws of physics. The rest is supernatural. Physics cannot apply.

So why would anyone say God knows the future based on some half baked physics theory? Physics is irrelevant to heaven.

To try and say so would imply God didn't know the future until he created time-space... hmmm. The supernatural world was a mystery to him until day 1 of earth.

God didn't say to Satan "According to E=mc², I foresee you will fall from heaven." It doesn't even apply. If time were truly embedded and pliable with physics, it would seem any spirit could know the future of earth.

Philetus
May 5th, 2007, 08:05 AM
Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;


Write the things which thou hast seen,-------These are things that are past.

Write the things which are, -------------------These are things that are present.

Write the things which shall be hereafter;-----These are things that will absolutely come to pass in the future.

[ I might add this is not the revelation of John but the revelation of Jesus Christ. This tells me that the information that was given John to be reveled was absolute knowledge of past, present and future events. Regardless of my understanding or what i believe concerning these events, they have happened, are happening and will happen in the future. I cannot dismiss what will happen without also dismissing the past and the present. Ether it is all true or none of it is. Even in the revelation itself it is reveled that there is man making choices that effect man's future. Those choices that man makes does not effect the future that God has decreed. Man's choices only affect man's relationship with that future.


(Ohmygod, the voices, the voices ... blue light special:Patrol: )
You said: "Write the things which shall be hereafter;-----These are things that will absolutely come to pass in the future."

Welladuh! Dat esplaines everting.

So when did these things that SHALL BE HEREAFTER, that will absolutely come to pass IN THE FUTURE, become reality for John to experience on the isle of Patmos 2000 years ago?

Give it up E, while the future is still open. Your relationship with the future needs an adjustment. And after you repent, change your thinking, the future will no longer be what it once was. This is something that God showed me MUST COME TO PASS. (And God knows, it hasn't yet.)





RERENT REPAINT RETHINK
The end is not here!

Philetus
May 5th, 2007, 08:14 AM
:thumb:
So why would anyone say God knows the future based on some half baked physics theory?:idea:

half baked physics theory:

Crusty on the outside ... googie on the inside.

Too much heat, too little time. The end gets here ahead of itself.

We will sail no future before its time.

elected4ever
May 5th, 2007, 08:30 AM
(Ohmygod, the voices, the voices ... blue light special:Patrol: )
You said: "Write the things which shall be hereafter;-----These are things that will absolutely come to pass in the future."

Welladuh! Dat esplaines everting.

So when did these things that SHALL BE HEREAFTER, that will absolutely come to pass IN THE FUTURE, become reality for John to experience on the isle of Patmos 2000 years ago?

Give it up E, while the future is still open. Your relationship with the future needs an adjustment. And after you repent, change your thinking, the future will no longer be what it once was. This is something that God showed me MUST COME TO PASS. (And God knows, it hasn't yet.)





RERENT REPAINT RETHINK
The end is not here!John said, " I was in the spirit on the lord's day." What ever John was describing was a spiritual setting and not in the created setting that we are in. It was a totally different reality. I do not believe that the same rules apply for the spirit world that exist in our world. I think that the spirit world is incomprehensible to us yet it is real and more indurring than ours. I think that the spiritual world existed long before the creation of the physical. What is it like, I don't know. I have a hard time trying to to understand how Angles pass through walls. I only know that they can and do.

rehcjam
May 5th, 2007, 03:03 PM
Does the Trinity disprove the logic behind a perfect being not being able to change?

If a perfect being cannot change because to change would make that being different from perfect, then how can three distinct beings within the Trinity be individually perfect?