ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Clete said:

First of all the future does not exist for Him to "see" or be outside of. And secondly, as I have said repeatedly now without response, if God knows the future, BY WHATEVER MEANS, then we are not free and morality is meaningless and God would be unjust to punish immoral behavior because no other behavior would have been possible.

Click to expand...

So if God were to accurately predict(prophecy) the future then that is a logical absurdity? For instance, if God were to know that the rock would fall when you dropped it or you would sin if you lived?

He would be unjust to punish immoral behavior even if the actual(present) choice was only influenced(by the creative act) and not coerced(even if He paid the price for your actions before the judgement)?

Draw the line. Accurate prediction or foresight? The same? Different? Explain please.

Yours,

Rob

Clete said:

I have to disagree with you GIT. If we cannot know that rocks fall when dropped, then we really can't know anything at all and that is not the basis for our logical argument against exhaustive forknowledge. The argument isn't that nothing is knowable, the argument is simply that God does not exhaustively know our future actions because if God does know, by whatever means, what my future action will be, then my ability to do otherwise ends at the moment His knowledge becomes sure, and thereby my freedom is detroyed and with it goes morality as well.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Click to expand...

While it's not the basis, could it not be an argument against it still? Can you explain to me how we could know the rock would fall?

Clete said:

RobE,

I don't understand why you seem content to argue against points that no one has made. No one has suggested that God cannot do what is impossible for us to do or that which is super natural. That is indeed the very definition of a miracle. But what God cannot do is the logically absurd. God cannot go to a place that doesn't exist, or create perfect spheres with 12 edges or any other self contradictory things such as that. He cannot do those sorts of things because to do them is to not do them. It's absurd and God is not absurd nor is it necessary to believe in absurdities in order to be a Christian.

And if you insist otherwise then why bother debating it? Why try to prove the irrational? It litterally makes no sense!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Click to expand...

Even Aquinas (who Rob probably usually agrees with) recognized than omnipotence does not mean doing illogical things. There is a parallel with omniscience. God cannot know unknowable things. The future is not a thing nor is it there yet. Free will choices are possible, not actual until they are made. They are correctly known as such. This is not a limitation on omniscience, but a description of God's self-revelation and divine reality.

RobE said:

So if God were to accurately predict(prophecy) the future then that is a logical absurdity? For instance, if God were to know that the rock would fall when you dropped it or you would sin if you lived?

He would be unjust to punish immoral behavior even if the actual(present) choice was only influenced(by the creative act) and not coerced(even if He paid the price for your actions before the judgement)?

Draw the line. Accurate prediction or foresight? The same? Different? Explain please.

Yours,

Rob

Click to expand...

Is. 46 and 48 shows how God knows some vs all of the future: He purposes things and brings them to pass by His omnicompetent ABILITY (these are not proof texts for simple foreknowledge or exhaustive foreknowledge...it is an exegetical error to extrapolate from these specific examples to a general assumption that is contradicted by other passages).

God_Is_Truth said:

While it's not the basis, could it not be an argument against it still? Can you explain to me how we could know the rock would fall?

Click to expand...

Laws of physics or cause-effect are predictable. This does not preclude supernatural intervention to suspend these laws. Normally it is predictable that the rock would fall. God could make an exception that would be unpredictable to us. God could have determined and known in advance that He would intervene, or it could have been unknowable trillions of years ago if God stopped the rock at the last second (spontaneous vs foreordained).

godrulz said:

Even Aquinas (who Rob probably usually agrees with) recognized than omnipotence does not mean doing illogical things. There is a parallel with omniscience. God cannot know unknowable things. The future is not a thing nor is it there yet. Free will choices are possible, not actual until they are made. They are correctly known as such. This is not a limitation on omniscience, but a description of God's self-revelation and divine reality.

Click to expand...

Name me something unknowable. You can't because it is unknowable at the present time to to humans. We need to stop limiting God by human limitation.

RobE said:

So if God were to accurately predict(prophecy) the future then that is a logical absurdity? For instance, if God were to know that the rock would fall when you dropped it or you would sin if you lived?

He would be unjust to punish immoral behavior even if the actual(present) choice was only influenced(by the creative act) and not coerced(even if He paid the price for your actions before the judgement)?

Draw the line. Accurate prediction or foresight? The same? Different? Explain please.

Yours,

Rob

Click to expand...

NO NO NO NO! Nobody is saying that God can not make some accurate predictions based on current knowledge. We are not even saying that he can't accurately predict most things we are simply saying that by God allowing us to make future free will decisions and even change our minds that God is not likely to make predictions about what we are going to decide in those cases.

elected4ever said:

Name me something unknowable. You can't because it is unknowable at the present time to to humans. We need to stop limiting God by human limitation.

Click to expand...

The past and present are perfectly knowable by God.

It was not knowable, as a certainty, from trillions of years ago, who will win the 2010 Superbowl. If it is an actual/certain object of knowledge trillions of years ago, then determinism rules (free will theism is self-evident and biblical) or the future has already happened in another dimension (science fiction).

Until you agree that God cannot create cirlces with 12 sides, then you will not see that exhaustive foreknowledge of genuine contingencies is also not possible. Simple foreknowledge is an assumption, but is not coherent.

godrulz said:

The past and present are perfectly knowable by God.

It was not knowable, as a certainty, from trillions of years ago, who will win the 2010 Superbowl. If it is an actual/certain object of knowledge trillions of years ago, then determinism rules (free will theism is self-evident and biblical) or the future has already happened in another dimension (science fiction).

Until you agree that God cannot create cirlces with 12 sides, then you will not see that exhaustive foreknowledge of genuine contingencies is also not possible. Simple foreknowledge is an assumption, but is not coherent.

Click to expand...

All I am saying is that God is not confined to the limitations of man, Thus the saying God knows and you don't. That knowledge does not equal absence of choice. It is not for me to limit God. Anyone that does is presumptuous. God cannot be limited by the presumptions of man. That makes man the superior to God and God is relegated to the imagination. Are you saying that God is a contrivance and is what man says He is, a contrivance of the imagination?

elected4ever said:

All I am saying is that God is not confined to the limitations of man, Thus the saying God knows and you don't. That knowledge does not equal absence of choice. It is not for me to limit God. Anyone that does is presumptuous. God cannot be limited by the presumptions of man. That makes man the superior to God and God is relegated to the imagination. Are you saying that God is a contrivance and is what man says He is, a contrivance of the imagination?

Click to expand...

It is not a limit on God nor omniscience to not know the unknowable. It is not a limitation to correctly know some of the future as possible rather than actual. This is inherent in the type of creation God chose.

It is not reducing God to man's limits by saying that He cannot be incarnated as a frog. We are affirming biblical revelation. Between Scripture, logic, godly philosophy, and inductive reasoning about the evidence in revelation and creation, we can conclude that God has limited the scope of His knowledge by creating a non-deterministic universe. You are brushing off thousands of pages of godly reasoning on this subject to cling to your uncritically accepted assumptions.

God can do anything, but did He necessarily do it? God can know anything knowable, but did He do something voluntarily that put limitations on Himself? Prayer is an example of something God chose to ensure our relationships with Him were significant and reciprocal. It does not honor God to distort His revelation and make Him akin to ungodly Greek philosophical speculation.

The truth is out there. I do not think you have adequately wrestled beyond a superficial level on this subject. How bad do you not want to misrepresent God and His ways? Then look at the evidence on both sides (I read pro and con books relating to Open Theism...I have not been impressed by the caricatures, misunderstanding, and weak arguments against the nature of the future and God's providential vs meticulous control).

The incarnation voluntarily imposed limitations on the God-Man. The flesh veiled some of His attributes. God can limit Himself in any way He wants. He could stamp out evil in a second, but He does not. Yet, He has conquered evil through love and humility.

The incarnation did not limit the God -man but He chose to limit Himself. He chose to give up his power and make Himself subject to the Father's power and make Himself obedient to the Father to fulfill the plan foreseen from the foundation of the world.

God does not not know the unknowable. That is true but the unknowable does not exist. But it is quite another thing to say that God does not know just because man does not know. God does not discover, He creates and all that He creates He knows exhaustively.

Here is something that God knew that man did not know but Satan knew it. God cannot create man in His own image by creation alone. Satan knew that man had to be become as God is by procreation and Satan had to defile the species in order to derail God's plan. It seems to me that even today that many of those who clam to be Christian still do not know this. Christians still limit all knowledge, even God's knowledge, to discovery by the created.

Clete said:

Doc,

I've just read through the first 120 posts of that thread. Unless something dramatic happened in the second half of our discussion, you did not establish your deterministic free will thesis. If you think you did, perhaps you should read through the thread again yourself. I was perfectly consistent throughout the thread and responded to your arguments point for point and you agreed that my responses were on point and that I hadn't misunderstood you. So your comment about my failure to understand not being evidence of my correctness seems not to apply.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay. I was taking a few days off for Thanksgiving.

In that thread, I was able to demonstrate to you that the decision of when to go to bed, which, as I described it, you agreed was a free will decision, could, as described, be translated into a simple causal equation. Though the equation said the same thing as the words, you maintained that, once translated to an equation, we were no longer talking about a free will decision. That was failure to understand number 1.

However, the ability to express decisions and behaviors as being the product of causal mechanisms is, in itself, fatal to the idea that God does not have. . . whatever the phrase is, perfect exhaustive foreknowledge, regardless of whether or not the future is settled. God, the Creator, MUST know the causal mechanisms involved, and MUST know the status of causal variables at the relevant times, times which have already occured, even if only durting a short period of time, therefore, He MUST be able to know the future. You don't seem to understand that, so I would classify that as failure to understand number 2.

The final major failure to understand relates to what free will actually is. In these discussions, over and over I have been told that choices are made "because of free will." This is ludicrous. Free will is a condition under which decisions are made, it is not a causal factor. To demonstrate this, I would point out that free will is a constant. That is, it either exists or it doesn't. By your definition, a free will choice involves entails being able to select from more than one course of behavior. It is, therefore, a variable. Logically, a constant CANNOT be a causal factor is predicting a variable action. It simply is not possible.

In order to accept the open view, one has to throw out a lot of basic logic and force oneself to accept the nonsensical. The adherents of this view have done this very nicely.

elected4ever said:

The incarnation did not limit the God -man but He chose to limit Himself. He chose to give up his power and make Himself subject to the Father's power and make Himself obedient to the Father to fulfill the plan foreseen from the foundation of the world.

God does not know the unknowable. That is true but the unknowable does not exist.

Click to expand...

You keep saying that.

But it is quite another thing to say that God does not know just because man does not know.

Click to expand...

No open theist, that I am aware of, ever said that!

God does not discover, He creates and all that He creates He knows exhaustively.

Click to expand...

You sucked that out of your thumb.

Here is something that God knew that man did not know but Satan knew it. God cannot create man in His own image by creation alone. Satan knew that man had to be become as God is by procreation and Satan had to defile the species in order to derail God's plan. It seems to me that even today that many of those who clam to be Christian still do not know this. Christians still limit all knowledge, even God's knowledge, to discovery by the created.

Click to expand...

God, I'm sure, knows quite a lot that man (even OVers) does not know and if you suggest that we think otherwise you are not just wrong about what we teach, you are flat out lying!

docrob57 said:

Sorry for the delay. I was taking a few days off for Thanksgiving.

In that thread, I was able to demonstrate to you that the decision of when to go to bed, which, as I described it, you agreed was a free will decision, could, as described, be translated into a simple causal equation. Though the equation said the same thing as the words, you maintained that, once translated to an equation, we were no longer talking about a free will decision. That was failure to understand number 1.

Click to expand...

It was a failure to agree with number 1

However, the ability to express decisions and behaviors as being the product of causal mechanisms is, in itself, fatal to the idea that God does not have. . . whatever the phrase is, perfect exhaustive foreknowledge, regardless of whether or not the future is settled. God, the Creator, MUST know the causal mechanisms involved, and MUST know the status of causal variables at the relevant times, times which have already occurred, even if only durting a short period of time, therefore, He MUST be able to know the future. You don't seem to understand that, so I would classify that as failure to understand number 2.

Click to expand...

Classify all you want!

The final major failure to understand relates to what free will actually is. In these discussions, over and over I have been told that choices are made "because of free will." This is ludicrous. Free will is a condition under which decisions are made, it is not a causal factor. To demonstrate this, I would point out that free will is a constant. That is, it either exists or it doesn't. By your definition, a free will choice involves entails being able to select from more than one course of behavior. It is, therefore, a variable. Logically, a constant CANNOT be a causal factor is predicting a variable action. It simply is not possible.

Click to expand...

You are right. It is grammatically incorrect to say that " choices are made because of free will." People are able to make choices because God allows free will. You are declaring victory because of a grammatical error, and your claim is just silly!

In order to accept the open view, one has to throw out a lot of basic logic and force oneself to accept the nonsensical. The adherents of this view have done this very nicely.

Click to expand...

Try again!

deardelmar said:

It was a failure to agree with number 1 Classify all you want! You are right. It is grammatically incorrect to say that " choices are made because of free will." People are able to make choices because God allows free will. You are declaring victory because of a grammatical error, and your claim is just silly! Try again!

Click to expand...

Declaring victory is you folks thing not mine. I understand that none of you will ever agree. This is because you either are not quite capable of understanding or that for whatever reason it is so important for you to hold on to the open view that you simply will never accept its obvious flaws. My argument was logical, not semantic.

Anyway, I will never understand why this stuff is so important to you guys. That is my failure to understand.

docrob57 said:

Sorry for the delay. I was taking a few days off for Thanksgiving.

In that thread, I was able to demonstrate to you that the decision of when to go to bed, which, as I described it, you agreed was a free will decision, could, as described, be translated into a simple causal equation. Though the equation said the same thing as the words, you maintained that, once translated to an equation, we were no longer talking about a free will decision. That was failure to understand number 1.

Click to expand...

We never agreed on the equation. The first time you presented it I objected to it and continued to do so for the remainder of the discussion. People are not mathematical equations, nor do we operate like them. If we do, we do not have free will and morality is meaningless. This is the bit of basic logic that you are ignoring quite well.

However, the ability to express decisions and behaviors as being the product of causal mechanisms is, in itself, fatal to the idea that God does not have. . . whatever the phrase is, perfect exhaustive foreknowledge, regardless of whether or not the future is settled.

Click to expand...

Regardless? It's a package deal Doc. If the future is known, by whatever means, it is settled, period. And you are quite correct. If our actions are the result of simply causal chains of events then God does indeed know the future and we are not free and morality (i.e. love) is meaningless.

God, the Creator, MUST know the causal mechanisms involved, and MUST know the status of causal variables at the relevant times, times which have already occurred, even if only during a short period of time, therefore, He MUST be able to know the future. You don't seem to understand that, so I would classify that as failure to understand number 2.

Click to expand...

I understand that perfectly and that is why I categorically reject it.

The final major failure to understand relates to what free will actually is. In these discussions, over and over I have been told that choices are made "because of free will." This is ludicrous. Free will is a condition under which decisions are made, it is not a causal factor. To demonstrate this, I would point out that free will is a constant. That is, it either exists or it doesn't. By your definition, a free will choice involves entails being able to select from more than one course of behavior. It is, therefore, a variable. Logically, a constant CANNOT be a causal factor is predicting a variable action. It simply is not possible.

Click to expand...

I question the logic of this whole comment but I'll leave that aside for now and simply point out that you agreed at the outset what having a free will means....

Clete: Post 4 said:

Thomas P. Flint defines libertarianism (free will):

"Necessarily, for any human agent S, action A and time t, if S performs A freely at t, then the history of the world prior to t, the laws of nature, and the actions of any other agent (including God) prior to and at t are jointly compatible with S's refraining from performing A freely."​

Thomas P. Flint, "Two Accounts of Providence," in Divine and Human Action, ed. T. V. Morris [Ithaca, N.Y. Cornel University Press, 1988], p. 175

So in English this is saying that whether caused or uncaused, influenced by nature or by other agents or neither, any performed action is not free if all of the factors that lead up to the action are not fully compatible with your having not done the action.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Click to expand...

Then after 2 or 3 iterations of your asking the same question over and over I asked the following question...

Clete: Post #12 said:

...Predictability doesn't speak to freedom. As long as we are genuinely ABLE to do or to do otherwise we are free.

Are we in agreement here or what?

Click to expand...

to which you responded...

docrob57: Post 13 said:

Yes, just wanted to make sure. OK, I like to translate sentences into equations. It is a sickness. The sentence is, "I went to bed because I was tired." This implies 2 variables, whether or not I go to bed (call it "Y") and how tired I am (call it X).

For simplicity sake, say both variables can take on 2 values:

Y = 1 if the choice is go to bed and = 0 if the choice is not to go to bed.
X= 1 if I am tired and = 0 if I am not tired.

So, the expression Y = X is equivalent to the sentence, and we agree the sentence describes a free will choice. Can I get an amen?

Click to expand...

To which I immediately responded...

Clete said:

Nope sorry. No amens from me on this one. I don't think it incorporates enough information. From this equation one would be able to draw the conclusion that you MUST go to bed at 10:00 if you are tired. If that is the case then it Y is not free.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Click to expand...

And the discussion went on from there with you adding more and more variables to the basic equation as though it made a difference and I never wavered in the slightest in my rejection of it. Your equations do not accurately depict free will choices and I never agreed that they did.

In order to accept the open view, one has to throw out a lot of basic logic and force oneself to accept the nonsensical. The adherents of this view have done this very nicely.

Click to expand...

As I said at the beginning of this post, it is you who are ignoring basic logic. I am doing no such thing. You are trying to get me to accept the idea that apples are the same as oranges and that rejecting such is amounts to ignoring basic logic. You on the other hand have not, that I recall, even one time attempted to deal with the logic that says very simply that morality requires choice and that without genuine freedom of choice love is meaningless and the whole point of the Bible and Christianity itself is lost.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Without genuine freedom of choice morality is meaningless ! I don't know that I have ever heard it expressed exactly that way!

docrob57 said:

Declaring victory is you folks thing not mine. I understand that none of you will ever agree. This is because you either are not quite capable of understanding or that for whatever reason it is so important for you to hold on to the open view that you simply will never accept its obvious flaws. My argument was logical, not semantic.

Anyway, I will never understand why this stuff is so important to you guys. That is my failure to understand.

Click to expand...

Yet you did, in different words, declare victory and you argue against "this stuff" as passionately as anyone I have ever seen! Then you repeatedly claim it is not that important!

docrob57 said:

Declaring victory is you folks thing not mine. I understand that none of you will ever agree. This is because you either are not quite capable of understanding or that for whatever reason it is so important for you to hold on to the open view that you simply will never accept its obvious flaws. My argument was logical, not semantic.

Anyway, I will never understand why this stuff is so important to you guys. That is my failure to understand.

Click to expand...

We want to worship God in spirit and in truth. We want to know Him as He is and not misrepresent or caricature Him. It impacts our views on prayer, evangelism, evil, social responsibility, etc. It is a stumbling block for thinking unbelievers who see the incoherence of some of our pet doctrines. If we love God and truth, we will want to know Him and His ways as He has revealed. Wrong thinking will lead to wrong attitudes and practice. Theology is the Queen of sciences. It is the glory of a king to search out a matter. If pagan philosophical influences have robbed Christianity of clear thinking about God, we need to expose this and find a more biblical understanding.

deardelmar said:

Without genuine freedom of choice morality is meaningless ! I don't know that I have ever heard it expressed exactly that way!

Click to expand...

Hmmmm....

Without the right to choose evil then morality is meaningless, huh? It's been said before by many who you might not agree with.

Do you allow your children to do anything they wish? How about your neighbor? Are you being unfair?

Clete said:

Regardless? It's a package deal Doc. If the future is known, by whatever means, it is settled, period. And you are quite correct. If our actions are the result of simply causal chains of events then God does indeed know the future and we are not free.....

Click to expand...

So True.....even though we both agree your statement should be "we are not completely free".

Clete said:

...... and morality (i.e. love) is meaningless.

Click to expand...

Your righteousness is like 'filthy rags'. Hmmm..... I've read this somewhere.

Battletalk rounds 8-10 said:

Originally Posted by Clete post #383

Whose culpability, God's? God is not culpable for anything. Who is there that will judge God? You? Me? I don't think so. How could God be culpable for anything? God could theoretically do something against the current description of His nature and that would render Him unrighteous by definition but no one has the authority nor the ability to hold Him accountable for such an act aside from Himself and the other members of the Trinity.

Click to expand...

Did you really mean this, Clete? Aren't you saying that if God foreknows the future, by whatever means, that He is culpable; and that this, is unacceptable? That He would be immoral to start a series of events which would end up in some going to Hell. At the same time you say that He couldn't get His desired goal without doing this same thing. For without free will, none would go to Hell. Yet God gave you free will thus causing some to have the ability to go to Hell. Yet, if He foresaw some going to Hell; it would be immoral; and, at the same time, if He gave man free will some would go to Hell that would be ok. What was the initial cause, in your mind, that some go to Hell? Was it (1) God created them good or (2)God gave them free will to do good? Who'll eventually send these same people to Hell at the judgement? Does He know, in your opinion, that He'll send some to Hell and some not?

Does your argument stand that:

A: If God foresaw before creation that some would go to Hell and continued the creation then God has culpability for evil deeds

And,

B: If God knows some will go to Hell and He allows them to die then God does not have culpability for evil deeds

In your system would the condemned never die? By allowing their deaths doesn't He send some to Hell? Couldn't God keep them alive until they 'learned' their lessons?

Yours,

RobE