ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[lee_merrill]

By definition, foreknowledge must come BEFORE the object of knowledge, not as a result of it.

But this assumes your conclusion, that God cannot know the future--if God can know the future, then there is no such restriction, and events in the future (prayers, for example) can be accounted for before they occur--this has been a recognized principle of prayer in Christian thought--"Before they call, I will answer them, while they are yet speaking, I will hear."

A verse which speaks of God knowing future free will events.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

If you have a Bible and you believe it, you have no other option but to accept what it teaches.

You mean like when it says that people did things that He never commanded or spoke nor did it even came into His mind that they would do them?

What I am talking about here is the doctrine of election. As if it were you who "chose" God.

Indeed it was!

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;​

Remember now! If you have a Bible and you believe it, you have no other option but to accept what it teaches - right?!

The Word of God presents God as the controller and disposer of all creatures (Dan. 4:35; Is. 45:7; Lam. 3:38),

Daniel 4:34 And at the end of the time I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me; and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever:

For His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
And His kingdom is from generation to generation.
35 All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing;
He does according to His will in the army of heaven
And among the inhabitants of the earth.
No one can restrain His hand
Or say to Him, “What have You done?”


Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me,
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting
That there is none besides Me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other;
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.’
8 “ Rain down, you heavens, from above,
And let the skies pour down righteousness;
Let the earth open, let them bring forth salvation,
And let righteousness spring up together.
I, the LORD, have created it.​

These two passages are talking about God's authority and say nothing at all about His being in meticulous control of everything that happens. Just read the passages and take from them only what can be proven from what these passages actually say. You will not get Calvinist theology from them.

Lamentations 3 is the same way only it speaks concerning God's justice, the gist of which is communicated most clearly in verses 39-40 of that chapter. I didn't post the the passage here because one should read the entire chapter so as to capture the context. Just click on the link and read it for yourself once again taking from it only that which can be proven from what it actually says bearing in mind figures of speech and manners of speaking (couplets for example, which repeat the same idea in two ways so as to more clearly convey an idea) and you won't find a bit of Calvinism in the passage at all. It just isn't there.

the Most High (Psalm 47:2; 83:18),

That God is Most High is not disputed and as such does not support Calvinism over any other doctrinal position and so this reference was a fallacious waste of band width and time.

Be that as it may....

Psalm 47
To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of the sons of Korah.
1 Oh, clap your hands, all you peoples!
Shout to God with the voice of triumph!
2 For the LORD Most High is awesome;
He is a great King over all the earth.
3 He will subdue the peoples under us,
And the nations under our feet.
4 He will choose our inheritance for us,
The excellence of Jacob whom He loves. Selah

Psalms 83:13 O my God, make them like the whirling dust,
Like the chaff before the wind!
14 As the fire burns the woods,
And as the flame sets the mountains on fire,
15 So pursue them with Your tempest,
And frighten them with Your storm.
16 Fill their faces with shame,
That they may seek Your name, O LORD.
17 Let them be confounded and dismayed forever;
Yes, let them be put to shame and perish,
18 That they may know that You, whose name alone is the LORD,
Are the Most High over all the earth.​

Notice the word "may" in verse 16 of Psalms 83. I would just point out that there is no room for such uncertainty in the Calvinist worldview.

the ruler of heaven and earth (Gen. 14:19; Is. 37:16),

Once again the fact that God is the King of Heaven and Earth is not in dispute and thus the fallacious arguments continue. Nothing quoted here argues for Calvinism over any other Christian theological system.

Let's read them anyway, shall we?

Genesis 14:18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. 19 And he blessed him and said:

“ Blessed be Abram of God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;

20 And blessed be God Most High,
Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.”

Isaiah 37:14 And Hezekiah received the letter from the hand of the messengers, and read it; and Hezekiah went up to the house of the LORD, and spread it before the LORD. 15 Then Hezekiah prayed to the LORD, saying: 16 “O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, the One who dwells between the cherubim, You are God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth. 17 Incline Your ear, O LORD, and hear; open Your eyes, O LORD, and see; and hear all the words of Sennacherib, which he has sent to reproach the living God. 18 Truly, LORD, the kings of Assyria have laid waste all the nations and their lands, 19 and have cast their gods into the fire; for they were not gods, but the work of men’s hands—wood and stone. Therefore they destroyed them. 20 Now therefore, O LORD our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that You are the LORD, You alone.”​

Still nothing of Calvinism here at all!

the One against whom none can stand (2 Chron. 20:6; Job 41:10; Is. 43:13).

Once again, this point is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the fact that Calvinism takes the obvious notion that no one can ultimately defeat their own creator to an extreme that says God's will cannot even be resisted. This extreme is not Biblical (Acts 7:51).

I am not going to quote these passages. This post is getting long enough as it is. You can click the links as easily as I can anyway.

He is the Almighty who works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11; cf. Is. 14:27; Rev. 19:6),

This is an example of the same extreme I mentioned in the last section.

Ephesians 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.​

Notice the context here is "In Him". It is Christ who has been predestined for glory. Those of us who are in Him are therefore likewise predestined. The concept has been likened to that of getting onto an airplane. The owner of the plane has determined the planes destination in advance. If you want to share that "destiny" then get on board!

Further, notice verses 13 & 14. Where is the need to be sealed by the Holy Spirit as a guarantee (an earnest payment in the original) of our inheritance? This passage is literally teaching us that if God does not give us an inheritance that He forfeits His own Spirit! How does that make any sense in the preordained, predestined, pre-elected, pre-scripted worldview of the Calvinist?

and the heavenly Potter who shapes men according to His own good pleasure (Rom. 9:18–22).

Romans 9 is Jeremiah 18 being applied to the nation of Israel.


Click here for a full and detailed substantiation of this point.

In short, He is the decider and determiner of every man’s destiny, and the controller of every detail in each individual’s life (Prov. 16:9; 19:21; 21:1; cf. Ex. 3:21–22; 14:8; Ezra 1:1; Dan. 1:9; Jas. 4:15)

In short? You only buried us in irrelevant proof texts, that's all.

Proverbs 16:7 When a man’s ways please the LORD,
He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.
8 Better is a little with righteousness,
Than vast revenues without justice.
9 A man’s heart plans his way,
But the LORD directs his steps.​

Once again, taking the general and applying it to the specific is the Calvinists way of life. It is not a valid Biblical hermeneutic however.

Proverbs 19:21 There are many plans in a man’s heart,
Nevertheless the LORD’s counsel—that will stand.​

Right! So it's best to work with God rather than against Him! No duh!

I really don't understand how people get Calvinism from verses like these. :hammer:

Proverbs 21:1 The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD,
Like the rivers of water;
He turns it wherever He wishes.
2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes,
But the LORD weighs the hearts.
3 To do righteousness and justice
Is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.​

The Bible teaches in many places that God is some direct control over the affairs of nations and this verse is one of those places. What I don't understand is how a Calvinist would use this verse as a proof text without having at least read a couple of verses into the chapter to find out that that righteousness and justice are preferable to God over sacrifice? How would that make any sense in a worldview that says that whether a man practices righteousness and justice OR NOT is predestined by God and that they have no choice in the matter whatsoever?

Okay! That's enough. It goes on and on and on like this with all of the rest of the passage she has cited here. Just click the links to the passages read them for yourselves and remember to take from them only that which can be proven by the text itself and you'll see that none of of work as proof texts for Calvinism. Calvinism just simply isn't in the Bible, its just not there at all. The only way to get it from the Bible is to bring it too the Bible from Greek philosophy.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

But this assumes your conclusion, that God cannot know the future--if God can know the future, then there is no such restriction, and events in the future (prayers, for example) can be accounted for before they occur--this has been a recognized principle of prayer in Christian thought--"Before they call, I will answer them, while they are yet speaking, I will hear."

A verse which speaks of God knowing future free will events.

Blessings,
Lee

God sees our thoughts before we speak. He knows the past and present exhaustively and knows our needs better than we do. He knows us better than we do also.

This proof text cannot be extrapolated as proof of exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future free will contingencies.

It is also proximal knowledge (near) based on knowable things, not remote knowledge from trillions of years ago before realities exist (free will necessitates an element of uncertainty/unsettledness until possible becomes actual in the present). It is not a deficiency in omniscience to not know a nothing. Much of the future is simply not an object of certain knowledge (who will win the 2010 Superbowl was not an object of certain knowledge before creation, even for God, unless He will actively determine it, negating free will).

Time is unidirectional. The future is not here yet to know. So-called divine timelessness is a philosophical theory, not biblical fact. It is incoherent and one of the wrong assumptions in the traditional view leading to wrong conclusions. God experiences endless time (sequence, succession, duration), not 'eternal now' simultaneity.

 

[RobE]

Your position is absurd for several reasons, the most prominent being that a cause cannot come after its own effect. Our actions cannot be the cause of God's knowledge or else it cannot be rightly called FOREknowledge. By definition, foreknowledge must come BEFORE the object of knowledge, not as a result of it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

We aren't talking about where the knowledge was acquired. Just that it exists before the object of knowledge itself is in existence. Knowledge of a non-existent thing is possible, just as we know of the past, passenger pigeons; or, just as we once knew of airflight, spaceflight, etc......

 

[Clete]

Can you guys not keep track of your own statements or what?

Rob said....

This is not our claim in any way. Our claim is that you are able to do or do otherwise, despite what you will do in the future(which will inevitably cause God's foreknowledge of the act).

This claim is irrational. What I do in the future CANNOT cause something that exists in the past. An effect cannot precede its own cause.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

This claim is irrational. What I do in the future CANNOT cause something that exists in the past. An effect cannot precede its own cause.

If we want to speak of time being alinear in the supernatural it could - Thomist

Another way is through deduction of known factors. In other words, we might deduce the future outcome through present knowledge. In this case, the source for foreknowledge would be knowledge itself and wouldn't be caused by the future act directly. - Molinism

 

[Lighthouse]

I thought A4R was an Arminian.

 

[Clete]

If we want to speak of time being alinear in the supernatural it could - Thomist

The whole point is that you cannot do so without contradicting yourself Rob!

Another way is through deduction of known factors. In other words, we might deduce the future outcome through present knowledge. In this case, the source for foreknowledge would be knowledge itself and wouldn't be caused by the future act directly. - Molinism

In which case there is no ability to do otherwise.

No matter how you slice it Rob, your position falls apart on rational grounds.

 

[themuzicman]

Well, I think I asked you through demonstration to do other than what you will do. That would prove that you were able to do so. If not, than doing otherwise is an illusion. If doing otherwise is an illusion then your definition of free will is invalid or you are not truly free.

Remember, you asked us through demonstration to do other than what we would do assuming that God knew we would use the word "superfluous".

I'm simply asking you through demonstration to do other than what you will do with no assumptions whatsoever.

I already did, and I already explained it.

Why would I do that?:chuckle:

Because otherwise you're being nonsensical.

Now:

If we put my intentionality into this statement, I've already taken and passed the test. When I made my first post, I expressed an intention to use "superfluous" in my next post. Thus, "What I will do" = use "superfluous."

However, between typing that statement and actually making the post "What I will do" changed, because I am free to choose otherwise. Thus, "What I will do" became ~ use "superfluous." And thus I did otherwise.


This exposes the equivocation in your argument, because you go back and forth between "will" meaning future, and "will" meaning what I intend. When we nail this down, either it's totally meaningless, or demonstrates that what I intend can change, unlike exhaustive and definite foreknowledge.


answer that?

 

[Agape4Robin]

My 2 cents

My 2 cents

Saved or unsaved. Slave or free. If you believe in God then you agree that we were all created by Him. You were created by God. Your/ our parents actions produced (also known as sowing and reaping...er, call it what you will) what we know as you and me. If you created something then you know who it belongs to. You. You created it. You created it to do something. There is a predetermined purpose for it. We are talking here about an inanimate object. So we can produce children, but not create them. Big difference when you are talking about creating something, just to put it into perspective. So God most certainly can know from the perspective of eternity (foreign concept to a finite understanding, thus requiring faith, to grasp) the events of humanity as a whole even down to an individual. From birth to death, are most assuredly known by God. If that is at odds with your perception "free will" then perhaps you should reconsider what you believe. :think: It is not about the interpretation of biblical passages, but what the passages say. Period.

Of course David Koresh quoted the bible but his "interpretation" was grossly askew. That is why only the Holy Spirit can reveal scripture to you. No one else. No man. No-thing. Anyone who "followed" him clearly never studied scripture or even read it. And of course we know that scripture itself is only illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

Dan.4:16: "This dream I, King Nebuchadnezzar, have seen. Now you, Belteshazzar, declare its interpretation, since all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known to me the interpretation; but you are able, for the Spirit of the Holy God is in you."
1 Corinthians Chapter 2 -
2:9 - but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND {which} HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."
2:10 -For to us God revealed {them} through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
2:13 - which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual {thoughts} with spiritual {words.} But I digress. My point is that God is in a position to see down through eternity. He is bigger than any person can fathom. But He is the Master Creator which makes Him Master and Creator.

oly: I stand on His Word alone. It says what it means and means what it says. If that makes me a "Calvinist", then so be it.:idunno:

 

[Clete]

It is not about the interpretation of biblical passages, but what the passages say. Period.

Of course David Koresh quoted the bible but his "interpretation" was grossly askew.

:think:

That is why only the Holy Spirit can reveal scripture to you.

I thought you just said that it was about what the passages say "period"?

You don't even notice when you've contradicted yourself do you?

No one else. No man. No-thing. Anyone who "followed" him clearly never studied scripture or even read it. And of course we know that scripture itself is only illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

This is just flat wrong. Many of his followers would, to this very day, crush you in a Biblical debate any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Of course that doesn't mean they are right but I guarantee you that they could bury you so deep in proof texts it be months before you surfaced again.

NEVER underestimate your enemies E4R. Some very smart people have been deceived before and they will be again.

Dan.4:16: "This dream I, King Nebuchadnezzar, have seen. Now you, Belteshazzar, declare its interpretation, since all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known to me the interpretation; but you are able, for the Spirit of the Holy God is in you."

Exactly so we see that the correct interpretation is the only thing that matters. Proof texting proves NOTHING as you now seem to be arguing yourself.

Please figure out which side of this fence you are on!

1 Corinthians 2:9 - but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND {which} HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."

2:10 -For to us God revealed {them} through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
2:13 - which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual {thoughts} with spiritual {words.}

None of these verses argue against a word I've said. I agree with everything that is quoted here.

But I digress. My point is that God is in a position to see down through eternity. He is bigger than any person can fathom.

You've not made this point Biblically. You throw a lot of Scriptures around (usually only the reference) and then state something like this like you've made an argument for it. You haven't, as I have now clearly demonstrated.

But He is the Master Creator which makes Him Master and Creator.

No kidding. No one denies this. It is YOUR interpretation of what this means that is in dispute.

oly: I stand on His Word alone. It says what it means and means what it says. If that makes me a "Calvinist", then so be it.:idunno:

I think I've shown quite clearly that you do not stand on Scripture alone but rather bring your doctrine to the Scripture. You read the Bible through the lens of your doctrine and thereby see things that aren't there and are blinded to other things which are. Instead of letting the text actually say ONLY what it actually says and forming your theology around that, you do the opposite. You interpret the Bible so as to make it agree with your a-priori ideas about what sort of God, God should be. Your belief that God exists outside of time is an easy to see example of this. There is no passage that teaches this at all and yet whole sections of Scripture are interpreted by you with this timeless existence of God assumption in place.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Agape4Robin]

:think:


I thought you just said that it was about what the passages say "period"?

You don't even notice when you've contradicted yourself do you?


This is just flat wrong. Many of his followers would, to this very day, crush you in a Biblical debate any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Of course that doesn't mean they are right but I guarantee you that they could bury you so deep in proof texts it be months before you surfaced again.

NEVER underestimate your enemies E4R. Some very smart people have been deceived before and they will be again.


Exactly so we see that the correct interpretation is the only thing that matters. Proof texting proves NOTHING as you now seem to be arguing yourself.

Please figure out which side of this fence you are on!


None of these verses argue against a word I've said. I agree with everything that is quoted here.


You've not made this point Biblically. You throw a lot of Scriptures around (usually only the reference) and then state something like this like you've made an argument for it. You haven't, as I have now clearly demonstrated.


No kidding. No one denies this. It is YOUR interpretation of what this means that is in dispute.


I think I've shown quite clearly that you do not stand on Scripture alone but rather bring your doctrine to the Scripture. You read the Bible through the lens of your doctrine and thereby see things that aren't there and are blinded to other things which are. Instead of letting the text actually say ONLY what it actually says and forming your theology around that, you do the opposite. You interpret the Bible so as to make it agree with your a-priori ideas about what sort of God, God should be. Your belief that God exists outside of time is an easy to see example of this. There is no passage that teaches this at all and yet whole sections of Scripture are interpreted by you with this timeless existence of God assumption in place.

Resting in Him,
Clete

While I may not be as comprehensive in my understanding of the whole God in time thing. I do not make God out to be anything but what He is. I do not believe that this understanding or misunderstanding of doctrine has any bearing on salvation. It does divide believers. That is a shame.

Are we splitting hairs here?

 

[RobE]

I already did, and I already explained it.

I remember you changing the test and answering your re-written test, but I don't remember you answering my question.

 

[RobE]

The whole point is that you cannot do so without contradicting yourself Rob!

In which case there is no ability to do otherwise.

No matter how you slice it Rob, your position falls apart on rational grounds.

As always, I'm sure your right. I've made somewhere around 1500 posts on the subject of open theism versus foreknowledge. From the ludicrous to the sensible, from insane to rational, etc.....

You know what's funny, I've found that open theists have agreed with me from one end of the spectrum to the other(and of course disagreed with me). One thing they've all had in common - they stuck with what they said no matter what(even when their compatriots didn't agree with them and reason abandoned them). Theological pit bulls.

I do respect that.

Have a nice day,
Rob Mauldin

 

[Agape4Robin]

As always, I'm sure your right. I've made somewhere around 1500 posts on the subject of open theism versus foreknowledge. From the ludicrous to the sensible, from insane to rational, etc.....

You know what's funny, I've found that open theists have agreed with me from one end of the spectrum to the other(and of course disagreed with me). One thing they've all had in common - they stuck with what they said no matter what(even when their compatriots didn't agree with them and reason abandoned them). Theological pit bulls.

I do respect that.

Have a nice day,
Rob Mauldin

I know. It's like this........:bang:

 

[Lon]

Can you guys not keep track of your own statements or what?

Rob said....


This claim is irrational. What I do in the future CANNOT cause something that exists in the past. An effect cannot precede its own cause.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I appreciate the problematic BUT foreknowledge is a given in scripture. If you accept a dictionary definition not to mention the clear greek translation, it is already (in existence without nonOV interference or discussion) a problem for your theology. It requires no intervention, discussion, or argumentation on our part. It is therefore a question OVers can discuss amongst yourselves and get back to us on. It doesn't require our interaction until you guys come up with a clear explanation. Our involvement will only clutter up your needed discussion. I'll be waiting for a cogent explanation and stay out of this discussion.

Thanks Clete

Lon

 

[lee_merrill]

... foreknowledge is a given in scripture.

It certainly is, proginosko is a perfectly good word, applied to God knowing ahead of time (Acts 2:23, Rom. 8:29, Rom. 11:2, 1 Pt. 1:2) speaking of the cross, of salvation, of foreknowing his people Israel, and not just knowing a group, but the people themselves, as similarly here:

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Recall also Cyrus:

Isaiah 44:28 ... who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say [note a free choice here] of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."'

Isaiah 45:1 "This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut..."

How could God foreknow these choices too?

How could God know there would even be someone named Cyrus who would be king? What if all the kings and queens chose freely to name their boys Nabinidius or Orvacius?

"Before they call, I will answer"...

God sees our thoughts before we speak.

This is rather sad. This verse is certainly not saying God is quick and nimble. An answer also implies an answer to the prayer, not like an answering of the phone (I say this lest this tack be taken).This verse implies God knows the request, and has planned the answer, and it is both done and ready.

And this verse only means spoken prayers? Then God has time to construct an answer? Surely not...

This proof text cannot be extrapolated as proof of exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future free will contingencies.

Then where are your interpretations in the commentaries? This has all the air of an expedient.

It is also proximal knowledge (near) based on knowable things, not remote knowledge from trillions of years ago ...

Then how about those in Revelation, some of whom will repent, some of whom will not? How can this be proximal knowledge? And saying it's groups--doesn't solve the knot.

Revelation 9:20 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent ...

Revelation 11:13 and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.

Revelation 16:9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

Time is unidirectional. The future is not here yet to know.

This (alas) is not a verse--why do Open Theists inveigh against philosophy as doctrine, and then give us ... their philosophy?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

One thing they've all had in common - they stuck with what they said no matter what...

I've been in discussions like that, where what a certain poster says is spoken ex cathedra.

Daniel 6:8 ... in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.

Strange it is, that this is the theology that says God can change his mind, and take back his words, "curiouser and curiouser".

 

[Clete]

I appreciate the problematic BUT foreknowledge is a given in scripture. If you accept a dictionary definition not to mention the clear greek translation, it is already (in existence without nonOV interference or discussion) a problem for your theology. It requires no intervention, discussion, or argumentation on our part. It is therefore a question OVers can discuss amongst yourselves and get back to us on. It doesn't require our interaction until you guys come up with a clear explanation. Our involvement will only clutter up your needed discussion. I'll be waiting for a cogent explanation and stay out of this discussion.

Thanks Clete

Lon

The sort of foreknowledge you are talking about is not a given in Scripture. God can predict with a great deal of accuracy and confidence but does not and cannot know the action of men who have a free will. There are things that God foreknows but they are all things which He has both the authority and the power to perform Himself regardless of what anyone else does or does not do. God knows, for example, that judgment day will happen and that this Earth will be destroyed by fire and many other such events. God is also fully able to work with His allies and totally justified in the manipulation of His enemies in order to accomplish some specific goal that He might have. The Exodus is a good example of both. But even Pharaoh could have repented and curtailed the destruction of both himself and his nation but he chose to do otherwise and suffered the consequences of defying the living God.

I say it again, the sort of foreknowledge you and Rob believe in, generally referred to as Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge is not only unbiblical it is irrational and as such there is no such "problem for [my] theology" as you put it. In fact it seems every so called problem you guys seem to think exists for the Open View only does so in your own minds. It's rather ridiculous really. One would think that if every single problem evaporates once it is presented in the presence of an actually Open Theist that someone would start to get the message that perhaps the Open View makes a bit more sense than they had thought. I mean I can understand why someone might buy into such arguments in a vacuum where they are completely surrounded by those who are like minded in their denouncement of a theology they do not hold nor understand but you guys have no such excuse.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

The sort of foreknowledge you are talking about is not a given in Scripture. God can predict with a great deal of accuracy and confidence but does not and cannot know the action of men who have a free will. There are things that God foreknows but they are all things which He has both the authority and the power to perform Himself regardless of what anyone else does or does not do. God knows, for example, that judgment day will happen and that this Earth will be destroyed by fire and many other such events. God is also fully able to work with His allies and totally justified in the manipulation of His enemies in order to accomplish some specific goal that He might have. The Exodus is a good example of both. But even Pharaoh could have repented and curtailed the destruction of both himself and his nation but he chose to do otherwise and suffered the consequences of defying the living God.

I say it again, the sort of foreknowledge you and Rob believe in, generally referred to as Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge is not only unbiblical it is irrational and as such there is no such "problem for [my] theology" as you put it. In fact it seems every so called problem you guys seem to think exists for the Open View only does so in your own minds. It's rather ridiculous really. One would think that if every single problem evaporates once it is presented in the presence of an actually Open Theist that someone would start to get the message that perhaps the Open View makes a bit more sense than they had thought. I mean I can understand why someone might buy into such arguments in a vacuum where they are completely surrounded by those who are like minded in their denouncement of a theology they do not hold nor understand but you guys have no such excuse.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Can you tackle a couple of those 'foreknowledge' passages and the definition for me here?

Oops, forgot, Lee's passages and some which are attributed specifically to humans with a will.