themuzicman
Well-known member
Lonster said:
No, you said that the angels might uproot a weedy looking wheat stalk, which is very different than affecting the wheat by pulling a tare.
Muz
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
No, you said that the angels might uproot a weedy looking wheat stalk, which is very different than affecting the wheat by pulling a tare.
Muz
Lon
Well-known member
patman said:
It is long, which I'm not opposed to, but I think you could edit and cut about half of the words and length.
It does convey the OV and the OV stance as I understand it and have had it presented. I believe you answer the problem of sin as I do from an SV perspective. I don't believe God's foreknowledge is much of a factor here as to the dilemma of His involvement. "If He is good, why doesn't He do something?" It is a question that our respective stances has to answer and I'm not sure the differences we carry of God's knowledge comes into play strongly for the discussion.
patman
Active member
Lonster said:
Yeah, I am against the length too, but you just never know who is reading out there on the net and what they know as they read....
The second question is answered with freedom of choice is why he doesn't stop the evil, and that is a component of love. The first question I never have heard a good answer to from the S.V. because the same issue always exists - he knew where this creation was going and did it anyway. He literally had to create it to fall.
Lon
Well-known member
patman said:
Well, try to look at from an another angle because many SVers actually agree with much of your assessment. Foreknowledge is a conundrum to freewill, but even if you cannot get through the convolutions, foreknowledge doesn't negate choice and is about as deterministic as OV constrains and allows. It might help to think of a person with exhaustive foreknowledge for grasping this. If one person in the world was gifted with a certain extensive foreknowledge, you'd still have freewill, he couldn't do a thing about your choices at all being on the other side of the nation or in China. He also could determine nothing. Foreknowledge doesn't equate either of these influences.
patman
Active member
Lonster said:
Yeah, just because I predict something will happen doesn't mean I made it happen... but you must realize we are talking about the creator God. Lets say he had creation plans. Creation plan A results in X, Creation plan B results in Y, and Creation plan C results in Z.
If God really knew the future X could have been a future with NO sinners, Y could have been a future with some sinners, and Z could have been a future with all sinners. According to the S.V. God created the world we live in today (perhaps it would be considered Y, some sinners/some saved). This means he OK'd every single action to accomplish the desired result, according to his will, does it not? And he would also have rejected the plan A result X (perfection)?
Lon
Well-known member
patman said:
I can usually follow symbolic logic, but it is not my preference in posts because there are only a few of us who can follow. So let me try to put this in common terms:
Foreknowledge would preclude contingency except as God chooses to interact and the entailing change, therefore the ABC XYZ's aren't necessary to understand From God's perspective, it would read like a script. I'm not sure what I think about God knowing all contingencies. Could He? Yeah, He's God. Does He? I dunno. This is one of those areas where He is a little too big for me to extrapolate or exercise a capricious system for understanding. I think in OV He actually has to have a fair ammount of contingency knowlege, so in some ways, there is an equal demand on His knowledge (maybe moreso when you extrapolate interacting contingency). I'm not on that page, but again, I appreciate how big it makes Him in OV and indeed, I constantly have to remind myself that He is INDEED bigger than any of our doctrines and positions. So even in OV I'm humbled before an incredibly big God.
patman
Active member
Lonster said:
The OV doesn't, nor can it, taint Gods great power
Even without ability to see all possible he can see the one "real" outcome and make his present actions according to the outcome different if he wishes to advert that outcome. See what I mean, with the S.V. God's decision to go ahead with the creation of man would have locked man into the outcome God foresaw.
Freewill is all but an illusion. I am glad you believe in it, don't get me wrong, but you are taking that belief on more faith than you might know?
Lon
Well-known member
patman said:The OV doesn't, nor can it, taint Gods great power
Even without ability to see all possible he can see the one "real" outcome and make his present actions according to the outcome different if he wishes to advert that outcome. See what I mean, with the S.V. God's decision to go ahead with the creation of man would have locked man into the outcome God foresaw.
Freewill is all but an illusion. I am glad you believe in it, don't get me wrong, but you are taking that belief on more faith than you might know?
I don't think it does, but let's say even if that narrowing were true, it isn't knowledge based on His determinism, but ours. We alway ever do have but only one choice and because we are deterministic, there are few surprises on my own. I think relationships are where surprises have meaning. We don't know what another thinks or does, but I'm pretty systematic in my routines by choice. I believe we are the reason why we are 'locked in.'
I'm not sure if you followed any of my examples for the 'deterministic factor.' I'll gloss over a few if not, but the gist is that "knowledge" is a mind thing, not a control thing. If I act on my knowledge, that is fine, and it has power for those actions, but they do not necessarily go hand in hand. Freewill has God placing the power in our hands for a great many things. Stewardship (freewill expression and power) was given to man in Genesis.
RobE
New member
patman said:
Let's remember that creation plan A,B, and C would require different components. Let's say creation plan A(no sinners) doesn't include Pat, Lonstar, or Rob. Creation plan B(free will) is what God first foresaw and initiated for the sake of Pat, Lonester, and Rob(and, of course, to achieve His own purpose). And, finally, creation plan C(all reprobates) wouldn't achieve God's purpose, no matter who was in it.
An underlying assumption in your premise is that God makes mistakes. He is not a man that there is flaw within His thinking or doubt within His mind. Even if you remove foreknowledge, couldn't God, according to this thinking, create plan A with His power. The o.v. asserts this, but something went terribly wrong for God's plans from the perspective of the 'open' view. Ultimately, the o.v. relies on the humanity of God and the supernatural power of man to overcome the dilemna. I'm pointing this out to highlight the fact that these types of ponderings have a flaw within them and are ultimately debilitating to the believer.
And no free will or love.
And justice balanced with mercy within perfection.
Just as it means he OK's every single action to accomplish the desired result as He stands by and allows sin to occur, does it not?
Is perfection able to exist without love produced through free will?
Rob
patman
Active member
Lonster said:
I understood the example... as when I tried to explain the problem with this to Rob, with you apparently I am failing to show you how with the Creator of it all, foreknowledge is a factor making actions happen the way you want them to.
Essentially, and surely you could see this, his choice was to let our 'choice' be sin when he created it us if he foresaw that outcome. Whatever God set into motion was still his responsibility if he set it into motion.
The concept of God looking into the future, and seeing sinners burning eternally in hell, suffering because he created them just so, which unavoidably would lead to sin, is not very loving towards those sinners. It would have been better had they not been born (ring a bell?).
patman
Active member
RobE said:
It all comes back to the same ol' disagreement, doesn't it? You think a creator with foreknowledge knowing the outcome of his actions involved in creation has no connection to the outcome....
It is a skewed view of justice to me, and a willingness to let good judgement bend for a theology.
RobE
New member
patman said:
I certainly see a connection to the outcome. Why shouldn't we focus on the good and not the evil though? The world is a wonderful place full of joy, happiness, etc....
The connection is the same whether there is foreknowledge or not. God has decided to allow love through free will and that requires the choice of evil for us. If God had chosen otherwise then the Saints would never have been created. What are those who reject God compared to His sons and daughters?
Rob
patman
Active member
RobE said:
That is what we call blind justice, just look at this side and not that. You admit to a connection, I find that odd. I do not think you really believe it is there, either that or your convictions are not strong enough to compel you to consider the meaning of that connection.
What you still do not see tho is the connection is only there with future knowledge. Freewill and love go hand and hand, God allowing freewill is loving, had he denied it, those who he denied it to wouldn't be loved.
SO if you follow me so far, you should see no connection at all as long as freewill is around.
Now... the problem is that future knowledge eliminates freewill when it comes to the Creator having the future knowledge. Thus, the conclusion is he doesn't really love his creation... This is why people everywhere say (who weren't brainwashed by church teachings) that God isn't loving if he knew what would happen to the world he created.
Try telling someone in hell to focus on the good of creation, Rob.
RobE
New member
to Pat......
to Pat......
Patrick,
I would first like to express my gratitude towards you. We've been conversing for over a year about this subject and I have found no deception or fraud within you. You are a blessing to those who know you and I appreciate your candor and honesty everytime I listen to you. It has been a blessing to know you and share your thoughts. I am your friend no matter your feeling toward me.
Onward.....
You are right here. It is justice. The connection only carries responsibility if you buy into the lie that says foreknowledge eliminates free will. I know this is the case so I won't bother trying to convince you otherwise. I'll try to explain my position while disregarding foreknowledge for your benefit.
God is just as well as loving and those who choose to reject Him will be judged. We both agree with this no matter if foreknowledge exists or not. God stands by and watches while evil occurs and will administer justice for those acts later. Why does God do this? Isn't it to accomplish a purpose greater than the evil acts themselves?
I tend to think that God loves all of creation. Even those parts which don't have free will. He loves the earth, trees, dirt, chemicals, etc.... Destruction awaits all of these things though. Free will allows the natural to become the supernatural. The temporal to become eternal. It is what makes us as He is with the knowledge of good and evil. The choice. God provided this ability to obtain His objective which are His sheep and those which would choose Him. This probably sounds boastful to you, but it is not! But for the grace of God, there go I!!!
If you were to foreknow that you would have twins, one would be raised up to eternal bliss and the other condemned to eternal punishment, would you abort the idea of having children to lessen the suffering of the sinner? Or would you continue creating for the sake of the saint? Which is more loving and just in your opinion? Would it be accordingly just to remove eternal bliss from one of your children in preference to the child who would reject, spurn, and loathe you?
My point is this --- God loves those things which are His more than those which are not!
This is what athiests and agnostics say. Those who reject God say this. They see only doom and gloom within the world. Famine, sickness, and evil in all its forms dominate their thinking. How many times I've heard those who reject Him say, "If there was a God then why is there evil in the world? Doesn't He have the power to stop it?".
I read within your posts the pain and suffering that the world has provided to you. I have a portion of those things myself. My own hope, faith, and love in Him is what sustains me. I know there is a place of no suffering, pain, or evil as He has promised me. In the meantime, I marvel at God's wonderful creation and the good which God has worked through creating it.
I often tell those who are headed for hell to focus on the good of creation in a hope that they will repent and return to Him. Their bitterness often won't allow them to hear what I'm saying. Pain does that to people. It closes doors to their understanding.
Your Friend,
Rob Mauldin
to Pat......
Patrick,
I would first like to express my gratitude towards you. We've been conversing for over a year about this subject and I have found no deception or fraud within you. You are a blessing to those who know you and I appreciate your candor and honesty everytime I listen to you. It has been a blessing to know you and share your thoughts. I am your friend no matter your feeling toward me.
Onward.....
patman said:
You are right here. It is justice. The connection only carries responsibility if you buy into the lie that says foreknowledge eliminates free will. I know this is the case so I won't bother trying to convince you otherwise. I'll try to explain my position while disregarding foreknowledge for your benefit.
God is just as well as loving and those who choose to reject Him will be judged. We both agree with this no matter if foreknowledge exists or not. God stands by and watches while evil occurs and will administer justice for those acts later. Why does God do this? Isn't it to accomplish a purpose greater than the evil acts themselves?
I tend to think that God loves all of creation. Even those parts which don't have free will. He loves the earth, trees, dirt, chemicals, etc.... Destruction awaits all of these things though. Free will allows the natural to become the supernatural. The temporal to become eternal. It is what makes us as He is with the knowledge of good and evil. The choice. God provided this ability to obtain His objective which are His sheep and those which would choose Him. This probably sounds boastful to you, but it is not! But for the grace of God, there go I!!!
If you were to foreknow that you would have twins, one would be raised up to eternal bliss and the other condemned to eternal punishment, would you abort the idea of having children to lessen the suffering of the sinner? Or would you continue creating for the sake of the saint? Which is more loving and just in your opinion? Would it be accordingly just to remove eternal bliss from one of your children in preference to the child who would reject, spurn, and loathe you?
My point is this --- God loves those things which are His more than those which are not!
This is what athiests and agnostics say. Those who reject God say this. They see only doom and gloom within the world. Famine, sickness, and evil in all its forms dominate their thinking. How many times I've heard those who reject Him say, "If there was a God then why is there evil in the world? Doesn't He have the power to stop it?".
I read within your posts the pain and suffering that the world has provided to you. I have a portion of those things myself. My own hope, faith, and love in Him is what sustains me. I know there is a place of no suffering, pain, or evil as He has promised me. In the meantime, I marvel at God's wonderful creation and the good which God has worked through creating it.
I often tell those who are headed for hell to focus on the good of creation in a hope that they will repent and return to Him. Their bitterness often won't allow them to hear what I'm saying. Pain does that to people. It closes doors to their understanding.
Your Friend,
Rob Mauldin
themuzicman
Well-known member
Wow... RobE calls the philosophy department at Stanford liars?
Muz
Muz
RobE
New member
themuzicman said:
Here's an article that might interest you........Click Here
Pay close attention to section 4 :wave2:
I should mention that I don't have much faith in Stanford. For several years they abandoned any type of grading system and graduated all who attended whether they attended classes or not. You on the otherhand disagree with Augustine, Aquinas, and other great minds within Christianity.
ORIGINAL Version of the Argument for Epistemic Determinism
Premise 1: If x knows that you are going to do [some action] A, then you must do A.
Premise 2: But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter (i.e. you will not be able to do otherwise than A).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus: If x knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you have no free choice (i.e. you will not be able to do otherwise than A).
Or, put another way:
Foreknowledge is incompatible with free will.
Premise 2: But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter (i.e. you will not be able to do otherwise than A).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus: If x knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you have no free choice (i.e. you will not be able to do otherwise than A).
Or, put another way:
Foreknowledge is incompatible with free will.
As should now be clear, the first premise – because of the way we ordinarily state necessary conditions – appears to be true. But if taken literally, at face value, as is being done in this argument, the first premise is false.
If, however, we take some care to express the first premise in a non-misleading way, so that it expresses correctly the underlying logic, then the conclusion above does not follow from the (corrected) premises.
CORRECTED Version of the Argument for Epistemic Determinism
Premise 1: It must be that (if x knows that you are going to do [some action] A, then you will do A).
Premise 2: But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus: If x knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A.
Premise 2: But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus: If x knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A.
The supposed problem – that foreknowledge is incompatible with free will – disappears once the logic of the fallacious argument is corrected.
In what way is it false, Rob?RobE said:
You can't just state something is false and think that we are all going to take your word for it. How is it false? Can you give an example of a situation where someone's action was known in advance and then that person did something else? If the person did something else, wouldn't that falsify the claim that his action had been known in advance? If not, why not?
Resting in Him,
Clete
themuzicman
Well-known member
I've seen that particular argument before. Unfortunately, in this setting, it's a strawman, because you revise the 10 step argument into two (inaccurate) premises and a conclusion, and then revise the invalid premise.
While the argument you make is accurate, it's irrelevant, because it fails to deal with the logical proof as presented.
(Yes, I am familiar with modal logic.)
(No, your appeal to authority isn't convincing, either.)
Muz
While the argument you make is accurate, it's irrelevant, because it fails to deal with the logical proof as presented.
(Yes, I am familiar with modal logic.)
(No, your appeal to authority isn't convincing, either.)
Muz
Lon
Well-known member
patman said:
Still disagree. I know OV gets hung up on this and I appreciate that. It isn't that it doesn't make sense but it is difficult to walk into another's perspective and because there are characteristics that are God's alone, we cannot reason them completely to the endth degree. I do see most OVers (if not all, have not met one yet) as 'unable' to see to 'appreciate.' Not a slam, I think it is just similar with the other side. You've said it yourself, "You have to see it from my perspective." In that, I'm here and discussing and so I think we appreciate one another if not our views.
On to the subject: "Setting in motion." See, even some Calvinists see this dilemma, but in my mind it is solvable without implication or accusation. I think this is exactly the conclusion that "The God of Calvinism/Arminianism is a Vile Rapist Child Molester."
It is a wrong conception for liability. Implication happens when I loan my car to a bank robber for bank robbery. I am an accessory to the crime (Conclusion about Calvinists from the OV). However, if I loaned my car to a bank robber without knowing he'd rob a bank, but knew he sometimes robbed banks, I still might be implicated, but would be found innocent of the crime (loaning cars, even to a felon is not a crime). Finally, if I loaned a car to a friend and had not idea if he was a bank robber or not, I might still be implicated, but I'd be found innocent (OV).
But there is another scenario at work and it is God's sovereignty that makes the difference. Prior to the fall, there is no law except "Don't eat of the tree." Did God know His creation would disobey? It doesn't matter (but I say 'yes'). Is God then ordaining sin? "NO!" God is ordaining freewill, nothing more. "Didn't God know His creation would fall?" Yes/No (respectively).
Does THAT matter? No (SV). Why? Because God decided to do it regardless. Even in OV, the possibility of sin is understood. So OV has the same question: "Why did God do it then? Is He powerless? Did He create sin if even indirectly?" Why (in just a second) "no" and "no."
I have children by God's grace, and they were planned. "Why? That doesn't make sense. Didn't you know they would have the sin nature?"
Yeah, I did, and believe me, if God provided no hope for redemption I'd have had series doubts whether I would have had children at all.
"Couldn't something bad happen to your kids? Why in the world would you have kids in this day and age?"
To me, this is the same exact question of why God would create children with sin choice. No difference in the question, just a difference in who I am and who God is (which is a huge difference so my 'fatherhood' cannot be completely analogous but there is a truth here). I had kids to love and have a relationship with them. I had kids in hopes that they'd find redemption also in Christ and have a wonderful loving relationship with Him.
I've been through my own 'hell' in this life so I understand hurt, pain, misery and disappointment all too well. This is not where I want to go with this, it is merely anecdotal, CHRIST is worthy of new births. I would wish that all Christians would have children just for this, for Him. Relationship with Christ and God's expression of love is the reason to make a people even if they fail. God didn't create vile child abusers and molesters, sin created vile child abusers and molesters. God didn't create sin, because sin is first not a thing, it is an absence. An absence of God. God cannot create 'no god.' Second, God did not create sin, He created beings.
- Status