ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Clete · Mar 15, 2007

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 · Mar 15, 2007

RobE said:
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 · Mar 15, 2007

Oh how wonderful that God is living, relational, personal, good and loving!

patman · Mar 15, 2007

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Settled Viewers

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Settled Viewers

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.

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 · Mar 15, 2007

patman said:
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.

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!

Nathon Detroit · Mar 15, 2007

RobE said:
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 · Mar 15, 2007

Knight said:
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 · Mar 16, 2007

patman said:
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.

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 · Mar 16, 2007

Lonster said:
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 · Mar 16, 2007

Lonster said:
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?

Lonster said:
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 · Mar 16, 2007

patman said:
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.'

patman said:
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.

patman said:
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.

patman said:
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.

patman said:
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 · Mar 16, 2007

Poly said:
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 · Mar 16, 2007

Lonster said:
You have predictive knowledge which is imperfect.

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

Lonster said:
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.)

Lonester said:
... 'foreknowledge' is.

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

RobE · Mar 16, 2007

Clete said:
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 · Mar 16, 2007

Knight said:
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.

arty: ,

Rob

RobE · Mar 16, 2007

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 · Mar 16, 2007

RobE said:
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 · Mar 16, 2007

Clete said:
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

And the spicific day and time was know to God the Father alone. :dunce:

Clete · Mar 16, 2007

RobE said:
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 · Mar 16, 2007

elected4ever said:
And the spicific day and time was know to God the Father alone. :dunce:

Yep!

So what?

ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Truth Smacker

New member

New member

Active member

New member

LIFETIME MEMBER

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Blessed beyond measure

Well-known member

Well-known member

Blessed beyond measure

New member

New member

New member

Truth Smacker

New member

Truth Smacker

Truth Smacker