ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[lee_merrill]

Which verse about remnant are you proof texting?

Romans 9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

Note: "his sentence," not "will see his prediction fulfilled."

Even insurance companies can predict death rates and stats accurately.

I defer to Rob on this, he made some points I hadn't thought of...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Lon]

I think it would be helpful if you would explain how you distinguish between a narrative vs doctrinal passage. Are the narratives there for filler or do they 'teach' as well? What do you do with a verse like 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (KJV translates doctrine for teaching). Do you see all scripture as falling into one of these categorizes or all scripture as useful for all these good works?

The epistles are not narrative. Narrative contains story. Genesis, Exodus: Story.
Leviticus: Directions. Numbers: Story. Deuteronomy: about half and half.
Judges: Story. Ruth: Story. Samuel, Kings, Chronicles: Story. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther: Story. Job: Story but concerning doctrine lived out.
Psalms: Wisdom/songs/prophecy. Proverbs,Ecclesiastes: Wisdom(doctrine). Song of Solomon: Song/marital The Prophets: Prophecy,wisdom, story.

Matthew-acts: Story and recollections of Jesus' doctrine (both).

Romans-Jude: Doctrine

Revelation: Prophecy with doctrinal directives.

Narrative has strong value. It is doctrine lived out: Examples of how doctrine plays out in life. Just as analogy can lead to wrong extrapolations, story has a similar caution. We do see direct doctrinal statements in narrative. The gospels are rive with Jesus' teachings. Moses gave directives from God's law. Those are clear. It is where we go into a storyline and make our own extrapolations that it gets very dangerous. Samuel and Genesis are not great places to substantiate doctrine. Doctrine is on shaky ground where no doctrinal book supports the assertation.

 

[godrulz]

Romans 9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

Note: "his sentence," not "will see his prediction fulfilled."


I defer to Rob on this, he made some points I hadn't thought of...

Blessings,
Lee

There was a primary fulfillment, a generalized statement, based on facts from the OT era, for the Isaiah passage. Paul is quoting the passage to support the idea that God has sovereignly chosen to include a Jewish segment in His plans, though it is a minority due to the predictable rejection of men in general against God (history repeats itself). It is not primarily a predictive prophecy and is open-ended. A remnant does not specify exactly how many are saved, which would have supported exhaustive foreknowledge or Calvinism's determinism. Despite Israel's predictable rebellion, God can know that His drawing and influence will inevitably save some. He is also able in His patience to persist as long as it takes to ensure that a remnant will be saved. These prophecies were fulfilled historically in the Captivity and Exile of Israel/Judah (we would not have this verse in Romans if absolutely no one returned to God as they always have in Israel's history). God will ensure a national end-time deliverance of Israel, no matter how long and much effort it takes. He has centuries of historical data to be able to make this generic statement that does not give a number, time schedule, or name the antichrist or who will win all the Superbowls until the events unfold.

Even today and throughout church history, most Jews reject the Messiah, yet some Jews come to Him. This is not profound nor impossible to predict since God is able to ensure these intentions for Israel based on past variables that consistently unfold without messing with free will.

 

[Lon]

The problem is the consistency between your statement about God not changing, and your statement about God creating. IN order to create, God must change in some way. Thus, your claim that doctrinal statements about God not changing in some way are in conflict with your statements about God creating ex nihilo, and one must be incorrect, unless, of course, you wish to live with logical contradiction.

Muz

If I paint a picture, how have I changed? It was all inside me waiting to come out.

 

[lee_merrill]

There was a primary fulfillment, a generalized statement, based on facts from the OT era, for the Isaiah passage. Paul is quoting the passage to support the idea that God has sovereignly chosen to include a Jewish segment in His plans, though it is a minority due to the predictable rejection of men in general against God (history repeats itself).

But in another place, Paul writes "and so all Israel will be saved," how can that be predicted, if the tendency is certain enough to predict infallibly that most will not repent?

Romans 11:26-27 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

And if "only a remnant will be saved" is a prediction based on man's obstinancy, how then is this prediction God's sentence?

And now you still have Rob's points to answer!

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

But in another place, Paul writes "and so all Israel will be saved," how can that be predicted, if the tendency is certain enough to predict infallibly that most will not repent?

Romans 11:26-27 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

And if "only a remnant will be saved" is a prediction based on man's obstinancy, how then is this prediction God's sentence?

And now you still have Rob's points to answer!

Blessings,
Lee

This deals with Israel's corporate stumbling which is temporary, not permanent. Paul wanted the Gentiles to understand the choice of corporate Israel (just as He chose corporate Church, the people of God). Individual election is Calvinism, not Bible. God sovereignly put Israel aside for a time to show grace to Gentiles. Which individuals and the exact number who will make up Israel and the Church are not knowable as a certainty before individual responses to God's drawing.

God sovereignly used Israel and now the Church. He calls a people in the OT to be part of Israel and does the same with the Church in this Age. Those who respond are part of the corporate elect. Those who do not respond remain outside of the promises of God. Israel's hardening was partial and temporary. After the fullness of the Gentiles come in, however long it takes in this Church Age, then God will resume His dealings with corporate Israel during the Tribulation. In the OT, 'saved' often means 'delivered'. The Messiah, the Deliverer, will save Israel from the Tribulation and the Antichrist (Daniel). This is fully under His control. The context of Rom. 9-11 is corporate election of Israel for service. You are making an argument assuming individual election, Calvinism, omnicausality, TULIP, etc. is true. If it is not, your arguments do not dent Open Theism. Paul quotes the OT to show that these things are true.

Bible Knowledge Commentary: "The statement 'all Israel will be saved' does NOT mean that every Jew living at Christ's return will be regenerated (this would contradict other passages- rulz). Many of them will not be saved, as seen by the fact that the judgment of Israel, to follow soon after the Lord's return, will include the removal of Jewish rebels (Ezek. 20:34-38). Following this judgment God will then remove godlessness and sins from the nation as He establishes His New Covenant with regenerate Israel (cf. Jer. 31:33-34)."

If we put things in the context of corporate Israel and reject false Calvinistic assumptions about individual election/non-election, these things will come to pass because of God's faithful dealings with free moral agents. These proof texts do not contradict Open Theism assumptions at all, but are consistent with dispensational views whether one is OT or not.

 

[RobE]

The problem is the consistency between your statement about God not changing, and your statement about God creating. IN order to create, God must change in some way. Thus, your claim that doctrinal statements about God not changing in some way are in conflict with your statements about God creating ex nihilo, and one must be incorrect, unless, of course, you wish to live with logical contradiction.

Muz

Originally Posted by Cleke
This Open Theist not only says but downright insists that God changes in His being. God does not change in character nor in personality but His being changes a lot!

God the Son became a human being - and remains one to this day, by the way.

God the Son died and was separated from the Father.

God the Son resurrected from the dead and took on a glorified body.

If these are not changes in God's being, I don't know what you would call them. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by "being". If so, please clarify.

This isn't open theism. This is some other theology. Don't attribute things that aren't OVT to OVT.

God the Son took onto Himself a human body. This didn't require a change in God, per se, but an addendum, if you will.

Also, Christ was forsaken by the father. This is a relational term, not a state of being term.

Finally, Christ was resurrected in the same body in which He died. He was glorified because He came, lived a sinless life, and fulfilled the will of the Father in doing do. If you'll recall, Jesus still had the holes in His hands, feet, and side after He was resurrected.

How would an addendum, not be considered a change anyway?

Think if it like a house. When you add on a room, the house that already exists doesn't change, per se, but the room is added to the house.

Here's the answer to Muz's question. God does not change in His essence even when creating. A change of mind, is not a change in the sense that's being discussed. All of creation came from within His essence, but not all of His essence is seen within creation. So if God were to change His mind, the possible change of mind would already exist within Him; and He wouldn't change by doing so. So it's established that God is able to change His mind, but now it's upon you to state why would God change His mind.

See, God isn't a man that His mind changes with the wind. God makes perfect decisions, based upon perfect knowledge, which yields perfect results. We might look around ourselves and see imperfection, but that imperfection within creation was what our free will created. His perfect plans, took our mistakes into account and used them for His glory; and ultimately, to our benefit. No, God hasn't yet discovered a need to change His mind since all of His decisions were perfect from the beginning. Is He able to do so - Yes, but He won't.

I already know that you'll argue why can't there be more than one decision to yield perfection. Of course there can be, but why change from one perfect decision to the other when the benefit is obviously equal? :juggle:

 

[Lon]

There was a primary fulfillment, a generalized statement, based on facts from the OT era, for the Isaiah passage. Paul is quoting the passage to support the idea that God has sovereignly chosen to include a Jewish segment in His plans, though it is a minority due to the predictable rejection of men in general against God (history repeats itself). It is not primarily a predictive prophecy and is open-ended. A remnant does not specify exactly how many are saved, which would have supported exhaustive foreknowledge or Calvinism's determinism. Despite Israel's predictable rebellion, God can know that His drawing and influence will inevitably save some. He is also able in His patience to persist as long as it takes to ensure that a remnant will be saved. These prophecies were fulfilled historically in the Captivity and Exile of Israel/Judah (we would not have this verse in Romans if absolutely no one returned to God as they always have in Israel's history). God will ensure a national end-time deliverance of Israel, no matter how long and much effort it takes. He has centuries of historical data to be able to make this generic statement that does not give a number, time schedule, or name the antichrist or who will win all the Superbowls until the events unfold.

Even today and throughout church history, most Jews reject the Messiah, yet some Jews come to Him. This is not profound nor impossible to predict since God is able to ensure these intentions for Israel based on past variables that consistently unfold without messing with free will.

Not the definition of foreknowledge however. You are equating it to determinism. This is not the definition of foreknowledge. OV does have some very strong hyper-calvinistic beliefs whether you've worked them out or not. This is more than generalized management but meticulous micromanagement for specific prophecy. This makes less sense to me by far compared to EDF.

If you weigh EDF against what you are purporting, God invasively must control outcomes of a given 'prediction' of future (I don't call it prediction as that is very much in line with determinism and not foreknowledge).

 

[patman]

That is so close to traditional that it is 'scary.' Must be that time of year (can't find the pumpkin avatar/icon)

Hi Lon

Sorry for disappearing for a few days. But I have returned.

I do not understand why you are saying this is traditional...? Open Theism never says God is wrong. It is the Settled viewers who cannot immediately reconcile how God can say one thing yet another happen isn't the same as God being wrong.

Do you see what I am saying? God wasn't wrong about Nineveh when he didn't destroy them, God changed his decision because circumstances changed. Had God went on with his original decision, that may have not been the "best" thing.

What cannot be overlooked by calvinism is that God didn't do what he said he would do. There is no way to reconcile this at all for that theology without the resulting conclusion being "God Lied" or "God didn't mean what he said."

 

[patman]

But that is God's love, not ours. The devil was without fault, we may note, before iniquity was found in him, given that Ezekiel speaks of Lucifer.


Actually, I believe that real freedom is only within the will of God, thus indeed we cannot choose to fall away in heaven, but that possibility is not necessary for true freedom, which is only found within the realm of goodness, and within its boundaries.

"Where the Spirit of the Lord is--freedom!"

The Lord cannot choose evil, and yet he is freedom itself.

Hi Lee

If you recall, Adam was created perfectly, like Lucifer, yet he changed, just like Lucifer. Yet when we change back, God is capable of helping us stay where we want to be.

Our love is nothing compared to God's. But God has made us perfect. Our love in heaven will be strong enough to keep us there. God can see to it, I trust him.

 

[patman]

Explain yourself. I've asked three times what you're talking about. Re-stating your objection isn't clarifying it.



Well, your view of God's foreknowledge is the same as the view which Calvin had. Foreknowledge is caused by your actions, not the other way around. God does know the future and has a purpose to bring good from man's evil to achieve it. Much like the story of Joseph.



If the 'dynamic, changing, unpredictable choice' exists then how would God know the results of His own actions in His relationships with other free will agents?

What's your reasoning for causality not affecting your free will?

I know open theist's claim they don't have reasons for their actions, but then turn out pages and pages of reasons. They deny causality and then use it to prove their points. How about a little personal honesty? I haven't called Clete a liar because lying requires intent. Ignorance alone isn't sufficient cause.

Rob,

On the cross with Jesus were two men. Both had similar backgrounds. Both were thieves. Yet one repented, and the other mocked. Why?

Why did both men in similar circumstances have totally different endings to their lives stories?

This isn't the only time this has happened in scripture. Remember Joseph?

Jacob had 12 sons, all were raised the same, but Joseph was treated differently. The other 11 were jealous and hated him. 10 wanted to kill him. Yet one out of the ten, Reuben, was willing to spare his life.

Why was Reuben different from the other 10? He was raised the same, had the same ideas, the same attitudes, the same history as the rest. He had more reason to hate him. Yet he spared Joseph's life.

God talks about this in Ezekiel 18. Men do not have to be victims of causality, they can look around them and see how things are going, and change them for the better.

I admit, there are times we are victims of our environment.... but I use the word victim loosely, because with God, we can overcome causality. Even with a strong will, or a strong desire to do good, causality is nothing.

I thank God for that. I thank him that we have it in us to overcome, and even with his help, we can always overcome.

But causality can be used against us. Scam artists use our tendencies and our environments to make us believe things that aren't true. With enough knowledge, someone can predict another's actions. God can predict too... I think he uses causality to do it at times.

But as I said, it is not perfect. Because we have freewill, our actions are not totally predictable.

What makes a man change? His free choice, and that choice is unknowable until it happens. God can foresee events when they involve choices we have already made. But not in great detail because even in the details are decisions that are unknowable.

Adam's decision to leave God was unseeable.

But if you are right, that God "just knows" the future, suddenly causality is key to making things go the way you want. Then, as creator, every little thing you did is a push for things to go a certain way, a way you determine is good. But God again and again shows that he is not pleased with this world.

It is good you think God is good. But you try to reconcile that this world, with evil lurking around every corner, as a necessity to the good God intends. When pressed, you try to come up with excuses.

When I tried to show you why foreknowledge is the same as foreordination for a creator God, you gave an answer that side stepped the problem without facing it. Now we are debating about causality again.... where else are we going to go?

 

[patman]

How close was my attempt compared to yours? Am I understanding you correctly on those points?

I ask because I don't want to put words in your mouth. I think I've worded them in close proximately to the statements of this post. Have I correctly addressed the questions from an OV position?

Did I answer this?

No, I do not believe you understand. There are two attitudes with in Settled Theism that are used to explain foreknowledge. One is predestination, the other is simply "he knows." Yet even in the "he knows" has an element of predestination, because God is also the creator and time is a "thing he created."

I do not know how Settled Theists know which is right, because scripture doesn't talk about total predestination or simple (exhaustive) foreknowledge.

If you believe in simple foreknowledge, your idea is not found in scripture, it is by faith that you take it. If you think that open theism has a problem with this, I still do not understand why. There are other ways to know the future besides "just knowing."

If God created earth, and the stars, and space, and us, and the heavens and hells, and our spirits and what ever other mysteries exist, why is it to hard for him to foreknow some things and to foreordain certain things?

 

[Lon]

Hi Lon

Sorry for disappearing for a few days. But I have returned.

I do not understand why you are saying this is traditional...? Open Theism never says God is wrong. It is the Settled viewers who cannot immediately reconcile how God can say one thing yet another happen isn't the same as God being wrong.

Do you see what I am saying? God wasn't wrong about Nineveh when he didn't destroy them, God changed his decision because circumstances changed. Had God went on with his original decision, that may have not been the "best" thing.

What cannot be overlooked by calvinism is that God didn't do what he said he would do. There is no way to reconcile this at all for that theology without the resulting conclusion being "God Lied" or "God didn't mean what he said."

I believe the OV answer is still obfuscating though (bear with me please, I'm not maligning OV at all, just trying to show that the subject matter is being obfuscated).

If God 'changed his mind' it is still a lie. Changing one's mind doesn't negate that something else was said. For this discussion I'd like to walk through this a bit further.

I understand what you are saying. If God said He would do something and doesn't do it, you are saying that because He knows ahead of time in the traditional stance, that He is lying. I'll try to spell it out so at least you can see 1) this extrapolation is most confused from OV because Calvinists don't believe God lied 2)how OV doesn't escape the same type (or exact same) of mischaracterization or faulty extrapolation.

So first. When a Traditional Theist sees God telling Jonah to go to Ninevah, here is how it is read:

Jon 1:2 "Go immediately to Nineveh, that large capital city, and announce judgment against its people because their wickedness has come to my attention

We don't hear anything else about the judgement until chapter 3.

Jon 3:4 When Jonah began to enter the city one day's walk, he announced, "At the end of forty days, Nineveh will be overthrown!"

The story is mostly about Jonah, not Nineveh.

Jon 3:9 Who knows? Perhaps God might be willing to change his mind and relent and turn from his fierce anger so that we might not die."
Jon 3:10 When God saw their actions — they turned from their evil way of living!24 — God relented concerning the judgment he had threatened them with and he did not destroy them.

Question: If God was worried about being accused of a lie, why send Jonah?
I think OV would treat this question similarly and it is the question, not just to Calvinists or Traditionalists. The point here is, regardless if He knew ahead of time they would repent, or if OV, that He changed His mind: It is equated to a lie unless we can find some other indication.

Jon 4:1 This displeased Jonah terribly and he became very angry.
Jon 4:2 He prayed to the LORD and said, "Oh, LORD, this is just what I thought would happen when I was in my own country. This is what I tried to prevent by attempting to escape to Tarshish! — because I knew that you are gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in mercy, and one who relents concerning threatened judgment.

We are still talking narrative here, so we have to be careful what truths we take from this but it is easy to see Jonah knew that God could and would spare Nineveh. It is important both for how Jonah understood the proclamation (as conditional) and why he ran. He wasn't afraid for himself (Nineveh was a rough place). But that God had plans to save Nineveh.

Jon 4:11 Should I not be even more concerned about Nineveh, this enormous city? There are more than one hundred twenty thousand people in it who do not know right from wrong

I was thinking about the "End of the Spear." Jim Elliot and several missionaries were killed trying to evangelize warring natives. Jonah wasn't like that. He felt that Nineveh deserved what they'd get. He ran, not because God would judge Nineveh, but because he knew God would use him as an instrument to stay their destruction. We are not told much of Jonah's message. We don't know if he suggested repenting at God's direction so it is difficult to build a solid exegesis of precisely what happened. Again, it is narrative and is meant to teach other things, not specifically that God repents or doesn't, nor if He lied or not. This is a problem with the atheist critics. They don't understand that it isn't supposed to answer each and every question about it they might have. It is meant to address the specific context of the story. In this case, we see that God is merciful and compassionate and how He used His prophet(s) to reach those needing relationship with God.
So here, it isn't that the traditional stance believes God lied, but that the prophecy was conditional. At least that it seemed to be to Jonah clearly, therefore could not be a lie, for it was a condition of the prophecy.

You would say God can change His mind and it not be a lie. The difference isn't that one of us gets off the hook from answering the question, just that we have a different premise for why it isn't a lie.

If you'll notice in your way of thinking, the question often gets obfuscated against OV (mostly unintentional I have to believe) but you have to answer the same question. It is most nearly impossible to say "The God of Calvinism is..." without suffering the same accusation because the question or premise if you will, always points back. Sure the surrounding questions are different for us as we answer differently, but the bottom line is that the main and important question or accusation always goes both ways. If you could point those types of questions back toward OV before expressing them, you'd come away with a better understanding of both of our positions.

Blessings,

Lon

 

[patman]

I believe the OV answer is still obfuscating though (bear with me please, I'm not maligning OV at all, just trying to show that the subject matter is being obfuscated).

If God 'changed his mind' it is still a lie. Changing one's mind doesn't negate that something else was said. For this discussion I'd like to walk through this a bit further.

I understand what you are saying. If God said He would do something and doesn't do it, you are saying that because He knows ahead of time in the traditional stance, that He is lying. I'll try to spell it out so at least you can see 1) this extrapolation is most confused from OV because Calvinists don't believe God lied 2)how OV doesn't escape the same type (or exact same) of mischaracterization or faulty extrapolation.

So first. When a Traditional Theist sees God telling Jonah to go to Ninevah, here is how it is read:
We don't hear anything else about the judgement until chapter 3.


The story is mostly about Jonah, not Nineveh.



Question: If God was worried about being accused of a lie, why send Jonah?
I think OV would treat this question similarly and it is the question, not just to Calvinists or Traditionalists. The point here is, regardless if He knew ahead of time they would repent, or if OV, that He changed His mind: It is equated to a lie unless we can find some other indication.



We are still talking narrative here, so we have to be careful what truths we take from this but it is easy to see Jonah knew that God could and would spare Nineveh. It is important both for how Jonah understood the proclamation (as conditional) and why he ran. He wasn't afraid for himself (Nineveh was a rough place). But that God had plans to save Nineveh.



I was thinking about the "End of the Spear." Jim Elliot and several missionaries were killed trying to evangelize warring natives. Jonah wasn't like that. He felt that Nineveh deserved what they'd get. He ran, not because God would judge Nineveh, but because he knew God would use him as an instrument to stay their destruction. We are not told much of Jonah's message. We don't know if he suggested repenting at God's direction so it is difficult to build a solid exegesis of precisely what happened. Again, it is narrative and is meant to teach other things, not specifically that God repents or doesn't, nor if He lied or not. This is a problem with the atheist critics. They don't understand that it isn't supposed to answer each and every question about it they might have. It is meant to address the specific context of the story. In this case, we see that God is merciful and compassionate and how He used His prophet(s) to reach those needing relationship with God.
So here, it isn't that the traditional stance believes God lied, but that the prophecy was conditional. At least that it seemed to be to Jonah clearly, therefore could not be a lie, for it was a condition of the prophecy.

You would say God can change His mind and it not be a lie. The difference isn't that one of us gets off the hook from answering the question, just that we have a different premise for why it isn't a lie.

If you'll notice in your way of thinking, the question often gets obfuscated against OV (mostly unintentional I have to believe) but you have to answer the same question. It is most nearly impossible to say "The God of Calvinism is..." without suffering the same accusation because the question or premise if you will, always points back. Sure the surrounding questions are different for us as we answer differently, but the bottom line is that the main and important question or accusation always goes both ways. If you could point those types of questions back toward OV before expressing them, you'd come away with a better understanding of both of our positions.

Blessings,

Lon

You are thinking ahead. Which is fine, but it makes this discussion with me confusing because I am still on page 3, and you are off on page 6.

Notice how we have gotten off topic from our original conversation every other post?

I would be confused too

I hope you recognize that it is a lie to say x will happen, knowing x will not happen, and then y happens.

Without a doubt it is a lie. Right? You seem to agree... or you are agreeing for the sake of argument, I cannot tell.

It is not a lie, however, to say X will happen, thinking x will happen because of w, but then Y happens because of z.

Wow, I hope that makes since.

A lie is only a lie when you say something is true knowing it is not true.

If I am bad at math, and I turn in a homework assignment and get the answers wrong, I didn't turn in a lie, right? I am not saying this is like God at all, but I am trying to show you how a "wrong answer" is not a lie.

I hope you can see what a lie is. A false statement is not a lie, but a lie is a false statement. A lie is a certain kind of false statement... an intentional one.

God however does not lie. God speaks truth as it applies to the given circumstances.

Nineveh was evil, and given that the circumstances of evil continuing, God would destroy them. But they changed. God changed his decision to destroy Nineveh to apply to the new set of circumstances. It is not a lie. It is sticking to his statutes.

I posted this to Rob, I hope you read it. If you didn't I would like to just take out a small portion of the chapter...

Ezekiel 18
21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?
24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?
30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord GOD. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!”

I know most calvinist do not try to make God out to be a liar. But when you test the theology against scripture, it does not fit because going by it makes God look like a liar.

 

[Lon]

Did I answer this?

Yes, here

No, I do not believe you understand. There are two attitudes with in Settled Theism that are used to explain foreknowledge. One is predestination, the other is simply "he knows." Yet even in the "he knows" has an element of predestination, because God is also the creator and time is a "thing he created."

I don't understand because I'm not OV? That is, I don't understand because I hold to the traditional view? What about the way I understand answers the OV? I'm not sure what you are saying. I don't understand.

I do not know how Settled Theists know which is right, because scripture doesn't talk about total predestination or simple (exhaustive) foreknowledge.

Well, it does talk about predestination and Foreknowledge. Predestined: Rom 8:29, 30; Eph 1:11; Foreknowledge: Act 2:23 1Pe 1:2 Specifically, those scriptures say He foreknows events and man's actions.

If you believe in simple foreknowledge, your idea is not found in scripture, it is by faith that you take it. If you think that open theism has a problem with this, I still do not understand why. There are other ways to know the future besides "just knowing."

Because they are given in scripture. Furthermore, it was clear back there when Clete jumped in that he also expressed God has foreknowledge. RobE has been hitting this point quite a bit lately, mostly with GodRulz. GR seems to define foreknowledge of only what God decides (determinism) and therefore God has no significantly different ability than man to see into the future other than He is infinitely aware. But the way He sees future is as restricted or most nearly as restricted as it is for us and futhermore, is not a very good definition of the scripturally given term (He couldn't really foreknow, only predict fairly accurately, but with room for mistakes and adjustments). The problem I keep coming back to is that a proper definition of foreknowledge is not predictive at all. It is 'known' by its very definition. God doesn't predict accurately, He knows. We see examples of Him knowing future actions of man all the time. The only two things you could build theology upon to explain this is EDF or extreme micromanaging and control which RobE brought up. If there is another way of explanation, I've not seen it. I agree with Rob. It is an either/or scenario.

If God created earth, and the stars, and space, and us, and the heavens and hells, and our spirits and what ever other mysteries exist, why is it to hard for him to foreknow some things and to foreordain certain things?

Er...I'm getting lost again.

If you believe in simple foreknowledge, your idea is not found in scripture, it is by faith that you take it.

I'm not sure where the confusion plays here so I'll ask two simple question I hope will help.

1) Is foreknowledge in scripture?
2)Do you believe God has foreknowledge?

I'm guessing your definition of 'simple' foreknowledge is where I may be getting confused. As we've been discussing, I believe the dilineation is between what God does and what man does. "God can foreknow what He is going to do, He cannot foreknow what man will do." -OV "God knows all future acts of men."-traditional stance. If God knows any act of man future at all, you have to recognize that the argument "the future is unknowable" is false. If God knows that Josiah was to be born to Manasseh's family to proclaim it 300 years ahead of time, He either must micromanage that Mannaseh's lineage is pure, able to produce, has a man named Mannaseh, and a grandson Josiah, etc. etc. etc. or He foreknows it.

God either has to know Peter will deny him 3 times or He causes it. There cannot be a third option. So either God know beforehand, man's future decisions or He molds and makes it happen very invasively and meticulously. In other words, if God meticulously controls outcomes, He is much closer to controlling the actions of men than the traditional view and it might be said that He is also more impinging upon the choices of men as a subsequent extrapolation off of that information.

This is OV's logical fallacy. It isn't that you have to necessarily extrapolate to that end, but it does leave you in a similar position with traditional compatiblism.

 

[Lon]

You are thinking ahead. Which is fine, but it makes this discussion with me confusing because I am still on page 3, and you are off on page 6.

Notice how we have gotten off topic from our original conversation every other post?

I would be confused too

I hope you recognize that it is a lie to say x will happen, knowing x will not happen, and then y happens.

Without a doubt it is a lie. Right? You seem to agree... or you are agreeing for the sake of argument, I cannot tell.

It is not a lie, however, to say X will happen, thinking x will happen because of w, but then Y happens because of z.

Wow, I hope that makes since.

A lie is only a lie when you say something is true knowing it is not true.

If I am bad at math, and I turn in a homework assignment and get the answers wrong, I didn't turn in a lie, right? I am not saying this is like God at all, but I am trying to show you how a "wrong answer" is not a lie.

I hope you can see what a lie is. A false statement is not a lie, but a lie is a false statement. A lie is a certain kind of false statement... an intentional one.

God however does not lie. God speaks truth as it applies to the given circumstances.

Nineveh was evil, and given that the circumstances of evil continuing, God would destroy them. But they changed. God changed his decision to destroy Nineveh to apply to the new set of circumstances. It is not a lie. It is sticking to his statutes.

I posted this to Rob, I hope you read it. If you didn't I would like to just take out a small portion of the chapter...

Ezekiel 18
21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?
24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?
30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord GOD. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!”

I know most calvinist do not try to make God out to be a liar. But when you test the theology against scripture, it does not fit because going by it makes God look like a liar.

Great passage of doctrine. Yes, this is why we say judgement is conditional. It is already known that the repentent will receive mercy. That holds up the long-standing theology very well.
In this case, I think we answer nearly the same. It was not a lie, it is understood that the repentent will receive mercy. Of course this is why Jonah was angry as well and I'd bet even money this passage in Ezekiel might have played in his mind.

The king of Nineveh responds almost exactly as Ezekiel spelled it out.

I follow your lie analogy well but you've just brought up the reason why it wasn't a lie. This doesn't touch foreknowledge but what was already purported for the way judgement was carried out. The promise is there. If they repent, God will be merciful. Fairly clear. We have the same answer with a little varience to how we see God's foreknowledge behind the storyline.

 

[patman]

Lon,

I do not know where the confusion is. So give me the chance to back up and start completely over with the O.V. with you.

Open Theism believes God does not know all of the future. There are aspects of the future he does know because of predestination and extensive present knowledge.

Open Theism believes God knows everything that is knowable. All present actions, and intentions of man are known to him. God knows what limitations are present with man. So he can use this to see the future in certain cases.

God leaves the future open because he has given us the ability to choose our own eternity. By making the future closed, the choice is not truly ours, it is Gods.

 

[Lon]

Lon,

I do not know where the confusion is. So give me the chance to back up and start completely over with the O.V. with you.

Open Theism believes God does not know all of the future. There are aspects of the future he does know because of predestination and extensive present knowledge.

Open Theism believes God knows everything that is knowable. All present actions, and intentions of man are known to him. God knows what limitations are present with man. So he can use this to see the future in certain cases.

God leaves the future open because he has given us the ability to choose our own eternity. By making the future closed, the choice is not truly ours, it is Gods.

Can and does God know the future action of any man?

 

[patman]

Can and does God know the future action of any man?

By "any," do you mean "every?"

It is a yes and no answer. There are times he can know, and times he doesn't know (yet.)

God knows everything that is going on. He knows the hairs on everyone's head. And he knows what they are all thinking. How can he not have some idea of what is going to happen? But at times, people change, or their minds are not made up on what they will do. For those times, the outcome can not be known with absolute certainty.

Contrast this to S.V. where God always knows the decisions in every instance.

 

[themuzicman]

If I paint a picture, how have I changed? It was all inside me waiting to come out.

Well, there was a moment before you painted, in which the painting did not exist. Then, you painted, and now you have a relationship with that painting. Engaging in that relationship is change for you.

Muz