ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
God's grief is genuine. In a deterministic system, we would not even have God's reaction in Gen. 3. Things are not the way God wants them in every detail. This is the risk of creating free creatures in order to have reciprocal, loving relationships. The alternative is to not create or to have a mechanistic universe void of meaningful, loving relationships.
Despite the risk, God actualized this universe and not another. Despite the potential risk, He formulated a contingent plan of redemption that will ultimately deal with evil, but not without loss (hell) and suffering (not always God's will...rape, murder, etc.).
Your view comes at a higher price to God's character and attributes, compromising His love and holiness by making Him responsible for heinous evil (contrary to character and revelation).
I think you are misunderstanding them at times or they are not being precise enough in their language or their ideas have evolved from earlier days in response to criticism (I know Pinnock revised some of his writings in response to concerns...they do not always agree with each other, but I think they are on the right track overall, even without perfect or exhaustive answers to everything...plausible? possible? probable?).
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
all in the scope of things..............
all in the scope of things..............
'I AM' from the Absolute perspective....is an ever Self-Realized state of pure being and consciousness, ever present in all time and eternity. The Infinite remains outside and inside of all dimensionsal space, immanent and transcendent. A philosophical postulate of 'timelessness' is tenable in that space where no relativity or movement exists,...in the Still Light of God. Only in God's involvement within space/time creation(motion)...is time-referentials and relativity cognized. Within the immanent/transcendent model....God can be referenced within time and outside it. The Absolute is wholly revealed in the Ultimacy of the I AM as eternally Being, the One Sole Reality, unconditioned and independent of anything. Any time-quality presumed in this sphere, is imposed(psychological time, etc.).
Time is only beginning as a referential in space/time creation, in the relationships of movement. Key here in my observations is noting the absolute and relative aspects of existence. The Absolute contains all time and is also undefined or unqualified by time. The Relative is involved within time-referentials by its own nature and inter-relationships. We have a lot of good dialogues on this in our older 'God and Time' thread. We also had a lil fun on muzicmans thread - Atemporal God? (most my views are there...at that 'point in time anyways'
)
pj
all in the scope of things..............
'I AM' from the Absolute perspective....is an ever Self-Realized state of pure being and consciousness, ever present in all time and eternity. The Infinite remains outside and inside of all dimensionsal space, immanent and transcendent. A philosophical postulate of 'timelessness' is tenable in that space where no relativity or movement exists,...in the Still Light of God. Only in God's involvement within space/time creation(motion)...is time-referentials and relativity cognized. Within the immanent/transcendent model....God can be referenced within time and outside it. The Absolute is wholly revealed in the Ultimacy of the I AM as eternally Being, the One Sole Reality, unconditioned and independent of anything. Any time-quality presumed in this sphere, is imposed(psychological time, etc.).
Time is only beginning as a referential in space/time creation, in the relationships of movement. Key here in my observations is noting the absolute and relative aspects of existence. The Absolute contains all time and is also undefined or unqualified by time. The Relative is involved within time-referentials by its own nature and inter-relationships. We have a lot of good dialogues on this in our older 'God and Time' thread. We also had a lil fun on muzicmans thread - Atemporal God? (most my views are there...at that 'point in time anyways'
)pj
Lon
Well-known member
My view or a particular 'Calvinist' view, specifically?
Lon
Well-known member
Is it plausible God makes mistakes?
Is it possible God makes mistakes?
Is it probable God makes mistakes?
I have answers to these, but these are the questions you ask that I've applied.
"No, I don't believe it plausible, because scriptures flood to mind that God is perfect and incapable of imperfection, so it is also impossible so cannot be probable."
Diseases mutate.
Certainly beloved57, Hilston, and Zman. If you are a determinist, then your view also. If God is omnicausal, He would be the ultimate or first cause of evil coming into the universe. I believe God did not desire nor intend evil, but mitigates it. I think you believe it is part of His will and serves a higher purpose. I think this is a problematic theodicy and impugns God's character (give me free will over determinism any day in defending God's character from atheistic attacks).
How is it God making mistakes if Satan or man makes mistakes?
Is the universe risk free because God is omnicausal/your version of sovereign or is there risk in creating non-robotic creatures? I will stick with the latter since it resonates with reality and Scripture.
What do some OVTs mean by God making mistakes? I don't recall this in my reading nor is it a concept I would use about the Open View of God.
If the future is unsettled, God can have legit expectations that do not pan out. This is not a mistake on God's part (changing one's mind consistent with character in response to changing contingencies is not a mistake, but a virtue). The biblical portrayal of God's grief and disappointment is not consistent with your view, but that does not mean it has anything to do with mistakes.
Perhaps if I saw how an OVT (apart from TOL amateurs) implies God makes mistakes, I could clarify or join you in challenging them to be more precise in what they are saying.
God is perfect, but He is not Platonic.
Point?
Are you saying Pinnock is a disease? Hopefully we all modify and hone our views to a more truthful position.
Point? Analogy
Pinnock? No actually a Hedge Wren
A view that has to be modified to a "more" truthful postion? If a position is truthful, how can it be made more truthful? :dizzy:
Pinnock said some things that got him in hot water with the ETS. They also are revising their position to avoid confusion. Pinnock reworded things so he would not be misunderstood or tweaked his understanding since he was misunderstood. Some even change their opinions about OSAS, Calvinism, Catholicism, etc. as they get more light or understanding. This is good, not bad. We are not infallible and do not always word things in the best way. Pinnock has a high view of Scripture, but one line or footnote in his book (Most Moved Mover) needed reworking, so he did. This is humility, not error. This is why all authors have editors and proof readers (who may not catch everything)
Oh, look! It's "Open Theism page 101!":chuckle:
Yes it is. Isn't it.
Tell me it isn't so. :noway: :chuckle:
:nightall:
:nightall:
themuzicman
Well-known member
But even "can" isn't necessarily a needed concession. But some distinction in "mistake" needs to be made:
I'm doing a math problem, and I calculate 2*5=7. That is a mistake.
I take a job that has some qualifications the employer didn't make clear during the interview process, and now they're firing me because I can't do those things. This is a mistake, too, but not my own. I'm simply bearing the consequences.
So, can God make mistakes? No.
Can God bear the consequences of others' mistakes? Yes.
So, the better question is this: "Does God make poor decisions?" The answer is "No."
One might ask, "Does God make righteous decisions that others respond badly to?" The answer to that question is "Yes."
Look back at Jeremiah 3:6-7. God acts righteously in trying to draw Israel back to Him, and He thought His actions would do just that, but Israel did not respond.
That's Israel's error, not God's.
So, I think a proper formulation of the question brings a clearer answer.
Muz
Very good, as usual, Muz.
God's intentions can be thwarted or rejected. He can make decisions that are wise at time x, but have them become undesirable at time y when the original contingencies change in a negative way (Saul started good and went bad; same with Judas). The problem is not God's error or mistake, but a changing contingency that necessitates a new response. If God could not change (Calvinism), then He would be making a mistake and failing. He can change and retain His character and wisdom and mitigate responsively, as far as possible.
The problem is a flawed deterministic view. One must consider the merits of Open Theism without trying to retain the mindset of determinism (beg the question to assume Calvinism is true uncritically).
God's intentions can be thwarted or rejected. He can make decisions that are wise at time x, but have them become undesirable at time y when the original contingencies change in a negative way (Saul started good and went bad; same with Judas). The problem is not God's error or mistake, but a changing contingency that necessitates a new response. If God could not change (Calvinism), then He would be making a mistake and failing. He can change and retain His character and wisdom and mitigate responsively, as far as possible.
The problem is a flawed deterministic view. One must consider the merits of Open Theism without trying to retain the mindset of determinism (beg the question to assume Calvinism is true uncritically).
Do you believe God is omniscient right now?
If yes, that means He knows everything right now.
If He were to change tomorrow, that means He did not know everything right now.
If God is omniscient, there is no reason to change. God does not depend on us for anything. He does not change for anything we do or don’t do.
(Deut 28:63) "And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought;..."
God rejoices no matter what you do or don't do.
God is fully omniscient, now and always. He always knows everything knowable. To not know a nothing is an absurdity.
God's omniscience is dynamic, not static. As new objects of possible knowledge become certain, the objects of God's knowledge change so His knowledge changes. He can experience novelty, new things, etc. because He is personal. He can delight when a new baby is born or a sinner becomes a Christian. He is not stuck in a boring eternal now simultaneity.
God is responsive. He does not need to change, but the nature of the future is objectively anticipatory and contingent. As the the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present, God knows reality as changing from possible to certain/actual. It is not that God changes so much as that the objects of knowledge are changing (if the future was fully settled/determinism, then God would know it as such; since the reality of the future is partially unsettled, God knows it as such). In all this, God is fully omniscient whether He knows things as actual (past/present) or merely possible/probable (future).
The past is inherently different than the future, so an omniscient being's knowledge will reflect this without compromising being all-knowing. If the future was settled, God would know it exhaustively. Since it is not, He distinguishes possible vs actual.
Determinism makes EDF possible, but determinism is false. Free will theism necessitates dynamic omniscience since EDF is incompatible with libertarian free will. Since God experiences endless time, not timelessness, it will have implications on the nature of omniscience, future, free will, predestination, etc.
God rejoices when appropriate. It also says He grieves, regrets, hurts, etc. when appropriate. God does not rejoice no matter what.