ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nathon Detroit]

I would maintain that there was not a single meaningless act of evil recorded in the Scriptures. Given this assertion it would appear clear that there are no meaningless acts of evil. The passage above does not speak to randomness. Instead, the point made by Christ in Luke 13:1-5 was that these deaths are not to be interpreted as a special judgment for wickedness. The catastrophe should be seen as a warning to Israel that unless they repented (v. 5), a similar doom would befall them. Indeed, this doom came to fruition in a.d. 70 when Titus invaded Jerusalem.

One could view it that way I suppose.

I appreciate your opinion.

Any other pressing interests or questions?

One thing I might note.... as you may have noticed I don't really follow "theology" that much, it kinda bores me. :yawn: I don't read much commentary or very many books on the subject I just don't have the time, maybe when I am older and my kids leave the house it will give me more time to read various authors and opinions.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I would maintain that there was not a single meaningless act of evil recorded in the Scriptures. Given this assertion it would appear clear that there are no meaningless acts of evil.

In a way I agree with that. That's why I questioned the word "meaningless". After all... at very least, every act of evil represents another stripe! Another perpetrator, and another victim, and the consequences of the act etc.

 

[themuzicman]

Philetus,

I highlight what caught my interest in this reply.

Is it your belief that God would have been satisfied with an earthly relationship with His creatures, forever? Was the garden of Eden the "fullest" experience planned in the mind of God? Do OV'ers believe God has planned a heavenly Kingdom, in which He will have fellowship with His creatures?

What exactly do OV'ers believe was the purpose of Christ's resurrection?

Do OV'ers believe in a future bodily resurrection of all souls?

What exactly do you believe is the "future?"

Nang

The future is the restoration of the perfection that God created, with sin and evil have been banished from it. New heaven, new earth, and we're going to live where we were designed to live: on Earth.

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

One could view it that way I suppose.
I appreciate your opinion.

And I appreciate your willingness to answer these questions. I do have more and hope you will indulge me.

One thing I might note.... as you may have noticed I don't really follow "theology" that much, it kinda bores me. I don't read much commentary or very many books on the subject I just don't have the time, maybe when I am older and my kids leave the house it will give me more time to read various authors and opinions.

Fair enough. I will try to avoid the outer barriers of theology for both our sakes.

I would like to shift gears a bit and discuss aspects of the eschaton. I have a few questions about God's ultimate purposes. So I would like to start with the underlying assumptions of the open theist with respect to the eschaton.

Open theists express confidence that God's purposes will ultimately be fulfilled primarily for two reasons:

1. God is "omni-competent"- that is God has the ability to anticipate what free agents will do and respond appropriately. God's omni-competent response to each and every situation, the open theist holds, will guarantee that God will accomplish His ultimate purposes. (the Grand Chess Master analogy)

2. Since God is sovereign, God reserved the right to intervene in human history and even sometimes overrule human freedom to ensure that His purposes will be accomplished.

Among the published open theists, the confidence expressed above ranges from a "certainty" (Boyd, Rice) to a "confident hope" (Sanders), although both camps believe that God will ultimately win in the end.

Do you believe that God has the ability to perfectly anticipate the actions of His free agents and then respond appropriately? Or, do you believe that sometimes God may be mistaken in what He believes about the future, such as the verses in Jer. 3:6-7, 19-20, that open theists will point to as evidence God is sometimes surprised?

 

[Nang]

The future is the restoration of the perfection that God created,

God's creation was not "perfect." It was very good, but not perfect; therefore I believe the future holds a glory and perfection worked only in Christ Jesus, that has not yet been experienced by mankind.

with sin and evil have been banished from it. New heaven, new earth, and we're going to live where we were designed to live: on Earth.

Muz

The same as the garden of Eden? Is that how the "New Jerusalem" is described?

Do you not think a spiritual, glorified body will be superior to the body of dust inhabited by Adam?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Do you believe that God has the ability to perfectly anticipate the actions of His free agents and then respond appropriately? Or, do you believe that sometimes God may be mistaken in what He believes about the future, such as the verses in Jer. 3:6-7, 19-20, that open theists will point to as evidence God is sometimes surprised?

It's all a matter of when.

God knows everything knowable, therefore He knows our intentions, our desires, our determination and all the other variables that come into play as our lives progress and therefore God can predict our future actions with great accuracy.

Yet that type of prediction is only valuable when there is an intention to know.

In other words.... God wouldn't be able to know the actions (exhaustively) of humans that don't exist yet, because the future doesn't exist yet, therefore that is unknowable.

Lets look at an example of that:

Jeremiah 32:35 ‘And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’ (also note Jeremiah 19:5)​

God is saying that there was a time when such a thought didn't even come to mind. Yet as time passed and when these events began to come to pass God knew the intentions of these people and knew they intended to burn their sons and daughters so to that extent He knew it would happen before it did happen. But yet He didn't imagine this vile wickedness at some point in the distant past - far before it occurred, far enough before it occurred to where such an intention couldn't be known.

At what point do you think God knew that Abraham feared Him?

I believe that God wasn't sure about Abraham until the moment Abraham "stretched out his hand". Apparently Abraham wasn't so sure himself.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It's all a matter of when.

God knows everything knowable, therefore He knows our intentions, our desires, our determination and all the other variables that come into play as our lives progress and therefore God can predict our future actions with great accuracy.

Do you believe that God is sometimes mistaken in His predictions, that God is surprised? Again, see Jer. 3:6-7, 19-20, that open theists will point to as evidence God is sometimes surprised.

Yet that type of prediction is only valuable when there is an intention to know.

In other words.... God wouldn't be able to know the actions (exhaustively) of humans that don't exist yet, because the future doesn't exist yet, therefore that is unknowable.

Given this, would you say that God is anticipating based on contingencies? That is, God plans ahead assuming free agents will do this or that and has a response in the ready once the free agent actually chooses?

Jeremiah 32:35 ‘And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’ (also note Jeremiah 19:5)

God is saying that there was a time when such a thought didn't even come to mind. Yet as time passed and when these events began to come to pass God knew the intentions of these people and knew they intended to burn their sons and daughters so to that extent He knew it would happen before it did happen. But yet He didn't imagine this vile wickedness at some point in the distant past - far before it occurred, far enough before it occurred to where such an intention couldn't be known.

Instead of assuming that God is acquiring new knowledge, would you consider that the "nor did it come into my mind" phrase is actually an assertion by God that whatever is not commanded by God's word concerning service to Him is against His word?

At what point do you think God knew that Abraham feared Him?

I maintain that God previously declared Abraham righteous because of his faith and established an unconditional covenant (Genesis 15; Romans 4). Hebrew scholars note that the term translated in Genesis 22:12 as "know" denotes a confirmation of knowledge. Is it not possible that God is saying that "though I spoke to Abraham to slay his son, it was never the intention of my mind that Abraham should actually slay him, but instead to make known his righteousness"?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Given this, would you say that God is anticipating based on contingencies? That is, God plans ahead assuming free agents will do this or that and has a response in the ready once the free agent actually chooses?

Not only do I believe that, but we can all objectively know that based on God's word.

Jeremiah 18:7 “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 relent 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 relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. ​

It doesn't get anymore clear than that.

Instead of assuming that God is acquiring new knowledge, would you consider that the "nor did it come into my mind" phrase is actually an assertion by God that whatever is not commanded by God's word concerning service to Him is against His word?

Would it really matter?

After all.... if men were doing things He didn't command, that in and of itself, would prove man has a will apart from God's.

But no, to answer your question, I think God meant exactly what He said in Jeremiah.

I maintain that God previously declared Abraham righteous because of his faith and established an unconditional covenant (Genesis 15; Romans 4). Hebrew scholars note that the term translated in Genesis 22:12 as "know" denotes a confirmation of knowledge. Is it not possible that God is saying that "though I spoke to Abraham to slay his son, it was never the intention of my mind that Abraham should actually slay him, but instead to make known his righteousness"?

I agree God was not going to let Abraham slay his son, yet God was testing Abraham to make sure this was the right candidate for building His nation through. And God was also showing Abraham that He would supply the sacrifice via the ram wearing the thorn of crowns.

And I also agree that the word "know" denotes a confirmation of knowledge (what else would it mean? :idunno, so how would all of this help your point? It sounds to me as if you are agreeing with me on all counts except for the "when" part.

So I ask again WHEN did God know Abraham feared Him?

Possible answers.....

A. When Abraham stretched out his hand.
B. Sometime prior (but near the time) Abraham stretched out his hand.
C. At some point much earlier, possibly even prior to creation.
D. God always knew.... for an eternity past.

 

[Philetus]

Clete's point was more on illogical irreconcialables.
He's of the opinion that we can easily find mistruth by inconsistency.
My point is that OV isn't without those inconsistencies either. So in effect, logic is NOT the answer to this situation. I definitely plays, but I again contend that truth is God's expression and apprehending truth is also God's work. I see a lot of appeals to logic without appeals to the Holy Spirit. In my thinking, these cannot be divorced. The mark of truth is godliness. I believe the more godly one lives, the more correct their doctrine. This is not to downplay revelation, tradition, logic, etc. It is to say what Christ has always said "By their fruit you'll know."
The test of heresy is Godliness. My logic is also subject to the fall. My Calvinist doctrines are showing, but God must be sovereign or I am lost. The cross is the enactment of God's Sovereignty to save me in spite of myself. Nope, I can't 'think' 'feel' or 'move' myself out of sin. It is wholly the work of God.
I view my doctrine as the same. As I am His workmanship I come to the grace and knowledge of Him as I allow His fruit to bear in me and remain faithful to His applications in my life. As goes, my fruit, such goes my logical capacities.

Why would you think that an Open Theist would take issue with the above? God IS sovereign or we are all lost! Without the work of the Holy Spirit nobody can 'get' themselves out of sin. Without the cross and the shedding of Christ's blood there is no salvation; period. Without faith it is imposable to please God. Without grace there is nothing to believe in except death, the final word. But, in God's mercy and grace death isn't the final word!

As stated, I was appealing to both your head and your heart; both logic and the work of Holy Spirit to lead/guide into all truth.

I think Clete is right ... we can find untruth by identifying inconsistencies. Isn't that what you are saying when you talk about consistencies between the head and the heart; between logic and the work of Holy Spirit - God's truthfulness? If there are glaring inconsistencies isn't there bound to be error in one's logic and/or at least perceived error in the other?

WE agree the Holy Spirit is never in error. Right? Then either what we perceive about the Spirit's work or our logical assumptions about reality are wrong. Therefor isn't it fair to say that we need to reexamine our view of reality and/or our understanding of the Work of God in the world in light of ALL God's word has to say about either/both.

I am convinced that God's Word is in every way consistent with what logic and common sense tell us about reality and the world we live in. It doesn't take a bible scholar to see that David Koresh (and Jim Jones just to name another) was way out in left field. Even the world could see that. We who read the bible knew it too. But nobody could convince them they were wacko in Waco.

More often than not the difficulty arises when we try to reconcile preconceived half truths about either scripture and/or reality without willingness to question either. I think Jesus was addressing such when he answered the question about a particular disaster being the result of a particular sin (this man's or his parents, the sin of the victims under the fallen tower).

Thanks for your reply,
Philetus

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Do you believe that God is sometimes mistaken in His predictions, that God is surprised? Again, see Jer. 3:6-7, 19-20, that open theists will point to as evidence God is sometimes surprised.

I want to address this point separately.

When a sports analyst makes a prediction about an upcoming game and that prediction does not come to pass (for whatever reason) do you believe he made a mistake?

I don't believe so.

A mistake (to me) indicates doing something wrong, or acting wrong, or being careless, etc. I don't think the sports analyst did anything wrong by making a prediction that didn't come to pass.

The future doesn't exist therefore it isn't a mistake to predict something that doesn't come to pass.

What prediction did God make concerning Israel's obedience to Him?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

After all.... if men were doing things He didn't command, that in and of itself, would prove man has a will apart from God's.

I was unaware this was the point of the discussion. If anything, the verse in question demonstrates that the lost have a will to only sin more or sin less. That they have been given over to their own sinful natures.

I agree God was not going to let Abraham slay his son, yet God was testing Abraham to make sure this was the right candidate for building His nation through. And God was also showing Abraham that He would supply the sacrifice via the ram wearing the thorn of crowns.

And I also agree that the word "know" denotes a confirmation of knowledge (what else would it mean?), so how would all of this help your point? It sounds to me as if you are agreeing with me on all counts except for the "when" part.

I am not asking to make a point. Would probably be best to not read too far ahead in the discourse. I am only seeking to better understand the rationale used by open theists. But since you ask, I do not see this as a test, for as I have stated previously with citations, God had already previously imputed righteousness to Abraham, hence there is no need for testing by God. What purpose would another test serve once declared righteous...by God? Abraham could not be more righteous. Lastly, God has known from eternity that Abraham would be His instrument.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I want to address this point separately.

When a sports analyst makes a prediction about an upcoming game and that prediction does not come to pass (for whatever reason) do you believe he made a mistake?

I don't believe so.

A mistake (to me) indicates doing something wrong, or acting wrong, or being careless, etc. I don't think the sports analyst did anything wrong by making a prediction that didn't come to pass.

The future doesn't exist therefore it isn't a mistake to predict something that doesn't come to pass.

What prediction did God make concerning Israel's obedience to Him?

This sounds equivocal. You are imputing too much to the word mistake, when I am using it in the sense of a misunderstanding of meaning or intent.

Let me ask another way. Do you believe that there are times that what God thought would happen did not come about?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

What purpose would another test serve once declared righteous...by God? Abraham could not be more righteous.

Ok, so if God wasn't testing Abraham why did He say.... "for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."?

...for now I know....
...since you...

Why did God have Abraham go through all of that? What was the point?

Lastly, God has known from eternity that Abraham would be His instrument.

It's funny, you seem to respond to questions I dont ask. Maybe you are having another conversation with someone else and you are getting confused?

I didn't ask.... when did God know Abraham would be His instrument?

I did ask.... when did God know Abraham feared Him?

I even gave you a pool of possible answers so you would be sure to answer the correct question and yet you still missed it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Let me ask another way. Do you believe that there are times that what God thought would happen did not come about?

Yes.

Of course!

By all means.

Do you want me to give you MORE examples? (I already gave you a great one a couple of posts ago)

 

[Delmar]

I want to address this point separately.

When a sports analyst makes a prediction about an upcoming game and that prediction does not come to pass (for whatever reason) do you believe he made a mistake?

I don't believe so.

A mistake (to me) indicates doing something wrong, or acting wrong, or being careless, etc. I don't think the sports analyst did anything wrong by making a prediction that didn't come to pass.

The future doesn't exist therefore it isn't a mistake to predict something that doesn't come to pass.

What prediction did God make concerning Israel's obedience to Him?

Let's apply this sports analogy to God. The settled view would assert that God knows today who will win the game tomorrow (in fact He knew from eternity past) The Open view would assert that God knows exactly how likely it is that the Yankees will defeat the White Soxs. If,for example, God knows that there is a 93% chance that the Yankees will win would that mean He was wrong if the White Sox won? Not at all, because God knew there was a 7% chance that the White Sox would win!

 

[Nang]

Let's apply this sports analogy to God.

I suggest we do not.

(Not as children of Almighty God!)

For that would be tacky. . . .

. . .let alone improper, and humanistic, and unScriptural . . .besides, disrespectul of His Holiness.

Nang

 

[elected4ever]

Ok, so if God wasn't testing Abraham why did He say.... "for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."?

...for now I know....
...since you...

Why did God have Abraham go through all of that? What was the point?

It's funny, you seem to respond to questions I dont ask. Maybe you are having another conversation with someone else and you are getting confused?

I didn't ask.... when did God know Abraham would be His instrument?

I did ask.... when did God know Abraham feared Him?

I even gave you a pool of possible answers so you would be sure to answer the correct question and yet you still missed it.

How many times have I got to prove you wrong on this post Knight? You got to be a gluten for punishment. God never said, "for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." Looks like you would get tired of dredging up that tired argument.

 

[drbrumley]

How many times have I got to prove you wrong on this post Knight? You got to be a gluten for punishment. God never said, "for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." Looks like you would get tired of dredging up that tired argument.

Where did you answer that question? Cause you are saying God really didn't say that, then what did He say? Who said what Knight brought up?

 

[drbrumley]

"for now I (who) know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me (who)."?

 

[patman]

Locking a child in a room would not prevent the child from being a sinner. You see, the child has already been born into death and it is that death that must be ultimately fulfilled regardless of the actions of the child.

Oh, good to know he is guilty of sin before he ever gets a chance to actually sin E4E. Since you said so we will go ahead and tell all the mothers their still born children are in hell.

Interesting response. Just ignore everything I said and make an opposing argument to something completely unrelated.

That was a good way to show me that you don't care.