ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

rehcjam said:

That is just my point. He could only know the creation once it exists.

Click to expand...

Car or home designers plan and envision things before they become manifest in reality. God could picture creation in His mind and then experience it when He brought the material universe into existence. I could write a paragraph in my mind, letter perfect. It would be known as possible. When I actually type it out for all to see, it becomes reality, not just an invisible thought, for all to see.

Possible vs actual reality is still knowledge, with a distinction. God did not know you before you existed, but He saw you develop from conception on. So? He could imagine the sun, moon, and stars and then see them after he spoke the Word. So? His imagination and thought had content just as the reality once He spoke it into existence. So? What's your point?

Ask Mr. Religion said:

I am showing you how your own words demonstrate the fallacious nature of your underlying assumptions. In one breath you argue how infinitely knowing God is, and that it is wrong to limit Him, yet in the next breath you do that which you just claimed is never to be done by claiming God cannot know new words until they exist. Wiffenpoofle, fella!

You continue to assert that God cannot know what does not yet exist. You never prove it. You ignore that God's mere spoken words created what we know as temporal existence, yet, again by your own, er, 'logic', nothing should exist. How does God know anything in your estimation? Your view has Him eternally posed in ignorance.

Click to expand...

We are obviously misunderstanding each other. None of the above reflects my thinking. You must be looking at things from a deterministic, eternal now perspective, assuming that is the only viable possibility. I don't follow what you are saying nor does it follow from what I really believe.

Possible is not actual (modal logic).

godrulz said:

Exhaustive, definite foreknowledge is logically incompatible with libertarian free will.

Click to expand...

The idea that future free acts are unable to be known is incompatible with the Bible itself.

Whatever watered down version of foreknowledge or free will you are talking about is not the same as my premise. Neither compatibilism nor 'middle knowledge' extricates one from the problem.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about objective knowledge. Knowledge which is certain, definite, and exhaustive.

Greater minds have debated these things at technical levels. I intuitively grasp it and am reinforced by the technical discussions, but I will not convince you in a few posts, especially when we seem to have a semantical, logical barrier.

Click to expand...

Yes, greater minds have debated this for thousands of years; however, the debate continues because there isn't sufficient proof for a concensus.

I have chosen the scriptures to break the tie. God foreknows future free acts, therefore, knowledge and free will are compatible.(i.e. the future reprobation of a free Judas Iscariot)

Aquinas, Augustine, Kant, and other 'great minds' agree. Do you prefer to listen to the minds of Whitehead, Pinnock, and Sanders instead?

Or might you listen to the Word of God and choose the scriptures over all thinking of mankind?

themuzicman said:

Already addressed. God brings about His prophecies through omnipotence and much as omniscience

Muz

Click to expand...

Poor old Judas.

RobE said:

Poor old Judas.

Click to expand...

Augustine was not right about everything, especially due to undue pagan philosophical influence. Aquinas also requires much philosophical speculation to buy into his ideas. Don't uncritically accept them as infallible nor be quick to dismiss Sanders (who is on the right track and returning us to a more biblical understanding).

The issue is not just Open Theism, it is more about Calvinism vs all free will theisms, including Arminianism. The issue is more about determinism than foreknowledge, etc.

themuzicman said:

Deuteronomy 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously.

Already addressed. God brings about His prophecies through omnipotence and much as omniscience.

Click to expand...

Well, I certainly agree! Now the question arises as to what this verse might mean, when the Open View says God made a prophecy, and then that prophecy did not take place or come true.

Blessings,
Lee

lee_merrill said:

Well, I certainly agree! Now the question arises as to what this verse might mean, when the Open View says God made a prophecy, and then that prophecy did not take place or come true.

Blessings,
Lee

Click to expand...

What happened to Jonah?

Muz

themuzicman said:

What happened to Jonah?

Click to expand...

The Ninevites were overthrown, but by repentance, instead of by destruction. The same word ("haphak") is used of destruction, and of changes in human hearts.

godrulz said:

The issue is not just Open Theism, it is more about Calvinism vs all free will theisms, including Arminianism. The issue is more about determinism than foreknowledge, etc.

Click to expand...

The issue is what things are scripturally sound and how do they fit into our ideology.

When the scripture proves compatibility between foreknowledge and free will then we can't maintain they are incompatible.

If we extract the belief that they are incompatible from open theism then there is nothing to differentiate it from Traditional Christian views.

Now, you maintain that it is indeed incompatible while it is compatible at the same time. Which is it?

Originally Posted by godrulz

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm pointing out that Sander's two-motif idea requires compatibility between foreknowledge and free will. If he maintains that position then he must maintain that compatibility is possible while accepting the fact that God is capable of doing anything which is possible. This yields a proof for God knowing the future in every instance.

We might ask if God might intervene and change the future to some extent. I believe the answer is yes. However, since God foreknew the future(by use of His vast intelligence) God made the decisions to influence, the methods of His interactions, and the plans for the future before the world began.

Calvinism would say(I believe) that God decreed action according to His desire and then foreknew the resulting outcomes. I would say that God decreed action guided by His foreknowledge of events to produce a specific outcome according to His desire.

It seems a splitting of hairs and the Calvinist might justly argue that free will was eliminated through my interpretation of events. Furthermore, Calvinists could validly point out that God foreordained the actions of all mankind if my ideas are correct. However, their position doesn't escape the same dilemna.

Open Theism fairs no better against the scriptures:

I believe the scriptures support compatibalism as does open theism.
The SupraLapsarian believes the scriptures support incompatibalism as does open theism.

Question: If the scriptures demonstrate compatibalism and I am unable to deduce how this is possible, which should I believe?

The issue is not intelligence, but possible objects of certain knowledge. A smart person still cannot know if I will type A or B in advance if free. God knows reality as it is. The reality is that not all of the future is definite.

godrulz said:

The issue is not intelligence, but possible objects of certain knowledge. A smart person still cannot know if I will type A or B in advance if free. God knows reality as it is. The reality is that not all of the future is definite.

Click to expand...

Now you're saying it's impossible to know free acts. Before you said it was possible. Why the change of heart?

RobE said:

Now you're saying it's impossible to know free acts. Before you said it was possible. Why the change of heart?

Click to expand...

Hop! Hop! :sheep:

Left foot, right foot. God knows but doesn't knows.

RobE said:

Now you're saying it's impossible to know free acts. Before you said it was possible. Why the change of heart?

Click to expand...

Exhaustive, definite, not just knowing some free acts to a high degree of probability and then in retrospect, go ah ah, He knew it.

EDF of future free will contingencies is impossible; be right about some free acts is not the same thing. The proximal vs remote issue has a bearing on probability.

Evoken said:

Hop! Hop! :sheep:

Left foot, right foot. God knows but doesn't knows.

Click to expand...

God knows some things as definite and other things as indefinite. This accounts for all the biblical texts without contradiction. You guys are forced to proof text one motif while rationalizing away the other motif. It is not a matter of wanting cake and eating it too, but the nature of the reality God actualized (partially settled; partially unsettled; free will contingencies are unsettled; what He determines to unconditionally bring to pass by His ability is settled, but He does not chose to settle everything allowing genuine creaturely freedom/say so; i.e. God sovereignly chose to not tightly control everything...the downside is that EDF was sacrificed; this is not a problem for an omnicompent God who can respond to any contingency or intervene as much or little as necessary to bring about His purposes).

You are mocking a straw man since you do not grasp the intricacies of the issues.

godrulz said:

You are mocking a straw man since you do not grasp the intricacies of the issues.

Click to expand...

Nah, I am just playing around We have gone over this issues already.


Evo

godrulz said:

..He does not chose to settle...

Click to expand...

The proper grammar is 'choose' as I have pointed out to previously. Why do you persist in copying and pasting the same robo-error?

godrulz said:

Exhaustive, definite, not just knowing some free acts to a high degree of probability and then in retrospect, go ah ah, He knew it.

Click to expand...

Knowledge doesn't involve probability. Guessing and speculating do.

EDF of future free will contingencies is impossible; be right about some free acts is not the same thing. The proximal vs remote issue has a bearing on probability.

Click to expand...

Sure, we agree on proximal guessing being more accurate than remote guessing, but neither have anything to do with knowledge. How accurate is proximal guessing?

Maybe a change in subject is appropriate:

Question: How does our God, who has enough intelligence to create the universe and everything within it(from nothing), become unsure of Himself; when trying to figure out whether you will eat Capt'n Crunch or Fruit Loops for breakfast?

godrulz said:

You are mocking a straw man since you do not grasp the intricacies of the issues.

Click to expand...

I do understand the issue. Did God know Judas' outcome or was it simply a lucky guess?

RobE said:

Knowledge doesn't involve probability. Guessing and speculating do.



Sure, we agree on proximal guessing being more accurate than remote guessing, but neither have anything to do with knowledge. How accurate is proximal guessing?

Maybe a change in subject is appropriate:

Question: How does our God, who has enough intelligence to create the universe and everything within it(from nothing), become unsure of Himself; when trying to figure out whether you will eat Capt'n Crunch or Fruit Loops for breakfast?

Click to expand...

Answer: God knows all that is known, all that will ever be known and all that is knowable and true. Honour the Lord!

BTW: He knows I will eat neither:rotfl:

Ask Mr. Religion said:

The proper grammar is 'choose' as I have pointed out to previously. Why do you persist in copying and pasting the same robo-error?

Click to expand...

Mental habit when I type fast...training scar...I sometimes miss to vs too, but it does not mean I do not know better and edit it if I catch it...keep on me until I retrain my brain...so sorry.

I used to struggle with being a perfectionist. I could send you a placebo to help you if you want (I actually do value good spelling and grammar, but not as much as good thinking).