ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[RobE]

I answered this a long time ago. If you ignore the answers, I can't help you.

Perhaps a link to the post where it was answered from the open view would help. I'd love to read it again.

Thanks in advance,
Rob

 

[RobE]

A slave can obey or disobey and even run away, with consequences.

A dog on his chain might still drink from his bowl.

Moral creation is governed by a law of love and freedom (relational), not cause-effect (inanimate) or instinct (animate).

Only with a renewed mind by the grace of God. Without God's grace there is no freedom. Unless, of course, a man might save himself(or the dog might break his own chain).

Love is not coerced. We can chose between alternatives (ultimate choice: God or self) and our subordinate choices can be in line or contrary to this (Christians sometimes sin, contrary to God's will...e.g. adultery).

Not without God dispensing sufficient grace to us to begin with. As a free will theist my claim is that, through foreknowledge, God dispenses this grace to all mankind. Primarily through the conviction of the condemning law. Using death to produce life everlasting. Open theism can make no such claim. The future is unknown and uncertain to their deity. Their idea would leave God handicapped by His own non-understandable creation.

The dog might be free in the presence of His master who is eternally free, but not truly free in the presence of a master who is condemned to imprisonment. In open theism is God free or is He limited by His own creation?

Understand, I'm not asking this to abuse your position. I'm asking because it seems that open theism requires God to be self-limiting on some issues. Is this true? If limited is He ultimately completely free?

My next question would be: If one limits themselves then are we able to substantiate the fact that self-limits don't remove freedom?

If so, might God know our future acts because He knows the ways we limit ourselves thus making foreknowledge and free will compatible?

 

[godrulz]

Rob, are you trying to play the Molinist 'middle knowledge' card? It creates more problems than it solves.

 

[godrulz]

Romans 8:20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. ​

I am not sure this disproves either view. God judged fallen creation, but it is also in His power to redeem it. Hope relates to certain expectation that God can redeem fallen creation into a new creation. This points to our future resurrection/glorification when we will be fully restored. So God condemned the fallen world, but also provided the expectation that individuals will be redeemed when they are raised at His coming.

 

[patman]

John 17:12 'While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction' so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

Genesis 12: 1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."​

Genesis 22:15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

"because you have obeyed me."
"because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son"

That has become one of those settled parts of the bible

I still find the verse interesting that said "...now I know..."

As much as he knows, there are still some unknowable aspects to the future.

 

[patman]

Thus I see Nineveh's prophecy as being preached against as Jesus spoke of the one that was foretold of what he would do. He singled out Judas as te betrayer as it is written. The son of perdition is coming as well as people accepting the mark of the beast, do you believe people will heed that prophecy and turn? I think it will happen regardless because God foreknew that people prefer the darkness rather than come to the Light. Ask yourself this question: can someone with the mark of the beast repent? If judgment stands, one has to wonder if they were the kind of people that never would. Did God make them that way or He just knew that during that time on the earth, they would never want Him and thus decreed by taking the mark, they were forever damned.

Pariah,

Open Theism believes some parts of the future are settled. I want you to always keep that in mind. However, some parts are open. Those parts involve the choices we have not yet made.

This may sound silly, but think about physics. If you have a ball, and throw it in a straight line, it's destination could be easy to predicted.

If you have the same ball, and put a mexican jumping bean inside(a really strong one, just work with me here), then throw it as the bean jumps all over the place, it would become increasingly difficult to predict the course of the ball.

Our physical world is the ball. The jumping bean is our souls/sprits. If all we were was physical machines, working in a physical universe, it would be easy to predict what we would do, because we are just robots. But instead we have souls, driving these machines, making is hard to predict.

Regardless of how you define prophecy, Jonah was told the future of a city. This city's future was only 40 days way. God told Jonah what was going to happen to them, hoping they would turn and hoping he wouldn't have to do it.

We have passages that show that God hates to punish us. And as the KJV said, God repented!

God threw Jonah, the mexican jumping bean, in the ball that is Nineveh. Their destination after 40 days was MUCH different than God said it would be.

Under settled theology, why doesn't it bother you that God said in 40 days X, yet actually in 40 days Y? That tells me their future defiantly wasn't settled. If he proclaimed X, shouldn't that be what happened, period? Even if God said X to get Y, why isn't this a problem for settled theology? He still said X. Y still happened instead. He foresaw Y happening, still he said X. (Sorry, no one seems to answer this for me)

Open Theism says that Nineveh was like that ball I was telling you about. Left alone, God could easily foretell it's course. But in mid-flight, he put Jonah in the ball, hoping that would change the path, and it did. The future then "changed" in such a way that God didn't see.

When it comes to individuals, we are all given an even chance to let God in our hearts. Judas was one of many people who never did.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is

In the future, when Revelation begins to unfold those people who take the mark were never in the book of life. It would appear that people can be in the book, and then taken out if they sin bad enough. Yet it sounds like these people were never ever in the book.

You may take that same verse to say that they as individuals were left out. Yet I do not see this, I see a group of people who were never saved marveling. And they will fall. He will deceive them, just like millions before them were deceived and fell.

Just like the elect. Settled theist like to read that verse as if each and every individual was chosen, yet the elect is a group. And scripture all around it says we should recruit as many people into this group as we can, implying strongly that we as individuals chose as we hear at that moment.

Again, I am not sure if your dream was prophetic. The human memory is weak, and we fill in old memories with information that isn't true half of the time. It sounds like you had an "after the fact" memory based on a very old dream, which those are hard enough to remember, that was realized a little to late. I hate to say it, I honestly don't know all the ways God works, but...... IF it was, I would say you were weak in a certain area that God could predict how you would likely act.

You were headed in a path and you jelly bean wasn't jumping hard enough to steer you clear on it's own. And you ended up right where you were likely to go.

I do not wish to debate your dreams on here. This thread is about Open Theism. We can look at scripture to see what it says about the matter. I hope you can forgive me for being blunt, but there is too much skepticism around dreams that isn't there when it comes to our confidence in scripture. Know what I mean? We both believe in scripture, so let us use it as our compass.

 

[Lon]

I am not sure this disproves either view. God judged fallen creation, but it is also in His power to redeem it. Hope relates to certain expectation that God can redeem fallen creation into a new creation. This points to our future resurrection/glorification when we will be fully restored. So God condemned the fallen world, but also provided the expectation that individuals will be redeemed when they are raised at His coming.

"Way to play the game 'Entirely Missing the Point.' Oh! We are Soooo sorry GR, CloooOse! Well, Janice Jacobs, do we have a consolation prize for our guest?"

"We sure do Chuck, it's a week supply of rubberbands from Office Depot. And here is Johnny Jacobs to tell us all about it."

"Right you are Chuck and Janice! It's a coupon for a free box of rubber band with a $5 purchase at any participating Office Depot! That's right! Their rubber and they make a complete ring! Thank you for playing "EMtP (double occupancy inelligible. May be further limited restrictions within some states. Offer void where prohibited). Office Depot, we always depot Office Max."

*********************************************************
Come on in and enjoin the real party. The water's fine.

Specifically, we were discussing whether or not God 'hopes' or not. Your reply is vaguely....er....vague and more random than either Rob, I, Philetus, or Patman put together.
Here's the real question: What in the world did this post have to do with the price of tea in Bangladesh? Ooops...er...."China (well, any nation where tea products are sold)?"

 

[Lon]

Pariah,

Open Theism believes some parts of the future are settled. I want you to always keep that in mind. However, some parts are open. Those parts involve the choices we have not yet made.

Cut to the chase. You can be truthful here. OV believes specifically that God foreknows what He has decided to accomplish (He foreknows because He determines it to happen). According to OV, God does not and cannot know any future contigency of any man because man has sovereign free-will choice (again according to OV called "Libertarian Free Will (LFW)."


Play your cards up on the table. It took me 4+ months to get anywhere with near understanding the OV clearly enough to discuss issues. All the rest is hidden behind vagueness. Spell it out and put all the cards on the table. Ours are easily on the table for all to see, do likewise please.

-Please correct me if need be, I'm just trying to help make things clear and upfront for Pariah.

This may sound silly, but think about physics. If you have a ball, and throw it in a straight line, it's destination could be easy to predicted.

See, you are a global thinker too. That's good, but remember not all are as you and I. Most just like the straight forward answer first and the analogy after. Hit the idea in one short sentence, then punch up the analogy.

If you have the same ball, and put a mexican jumping bean inside(a really strong one, just work with me here), then throw it as the bean jumps all over the place, it would become increasingly difficult to predict the course of the ball.

Our physical world is the ball. The jumping bean is our souls/sprits. If all we were was physical machines, working in a physical universe, it would be easy to predict what we would do, because we are just robots. But instead we have souls, driving these machines, making is hard to predict.

OV: "God can predict with great accuracy, but He cannot know man's free-will actions. He does not know any future certainty but what He, Himself has determined. The OV believes God has determined to place some determinism in man's hands."

Regardless of how you define prophecy, Jonah was told the future of a city. This city's future was only 40 days way. God told Jonah what was going to happen to them, hoping they would turn and hoping he wouldn't have to do it.

"The God of OT (Open Theism) hopes because He does not know for certain."
Again, correct or clarify as needed Pman.

We have passages that show that God hates to punish us. And as the KJV said, God repented!


God threw Jonah, the mexican jumping bean, in the ball that is Nineveh. Their destination after 40 days was MUCH different than God said it would be.

Under settled theology, why doesn't it bother you that God said in 40 days X, yet actually in 40 days Y? That tells me their future defiantly wasn't settled. If he proclaimed X, shouldn't that be what happened, period? Even if God said X to get Y, why isn't this a problem for settled theology? He still said X. Y still happened instead. He foresaw Y happening, still he said X.

Your passage from Ezekiel addressed this rather well from both our perspectives.

(Sorry, no one seems to answer this for me).

Not true. See here, here, [URL="http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35394&page=8"]here[/URL], here, and here (limited to five because I kinda like the cadence).

You and I discussed this very recently.

Open Theism says that Nineveh was like that ball I was telling you about. Left alone, God could easily foretell it's course. But in mid-flight, he put Jonah in the ball, hoping that would change the path, and it did. The future then "changed" in such a way that God didn't see.

In Jonah 4, Jonah certainly foresaw. How is it that Jonah could and God could not?

When it comes to individuals, we are all given an even chance to let God in our hearts. Judas was one of many people who never did.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is

In the future, when Revelation begins to unfold those people who take the mark were never in the book of life. It would appear that people can be in the book, and then taken out if they sin bad enough. Yet it sounds like these people were never ever in the book.

You may take that same verse to say that they as individuals were left out. Yet I do not see this, I see a group of people who were never saved marveling. And they will fall. He will deceive them, just like millions before them were deceived and fell.

Just like the elect. Settled theist like to read that verse as if each and every individual was chosen, yet the elect is a group. And scripture all around it says we should recruit as many people into this group as we can, implying strongly that we as individuals chose as we hear at that moment.

Again, I am not sure if your dream was prophetic. The human memory is weak, and we fill in old memories with information that isn't true half of the time. It sounds like you had an "after the fact" memory based on a very old dream, which those are hard enough to remember, that was realized a little to late. I hate to say it, I honestly don't know all the ways God works, but...... IF it was, I would say you were weak in a certain area that God could predict how you would likely act.

You were headed in a path and you[r] jelly bean wasn't jumping hard enough to steer you clear on it's own. And you ended up right where you were likely to go.

I do not wish to debate your dreams on here. This thread is about Open Theism. We can look at scripture to see what it says about the matter. I hope you can forgive me for being blunt, but there is too much skepticism around dreams that isn't there when it comes to our confidence in scripture. Know what I mean? We both believe in scripture, so let us use it as our compass.

On this last point we are in agreement. The mark of a Godly dream or vision
1) Will produce godly character and trust within the individual 2) Will be clearly from God 3) may or may not be a vision 'to share with others' 4) Will be validated and in full agreement with scriptural truths

Some see dreaming of dreams as extent (over with) today as His Revelation is complete. Pray about it and what to do with it. Many with dreams and visions were met with ridicule, anger, and/or doubt. Because this is usually how such is met, I caution to ensure that this is what God intends. Some are meant only for the hearer (i.e. Samuel). Others bring trouble even when we follow God's command (Joseph and Jeremiah). Make sure, pray much, weigh the cost verses doing what God is telling you. Because God's revelation to us is complete, it should coincide strongly with scriptures.

 

[themuzicman]

Why, thank you for your attentions, Muz.

I know how much you love me . . . :kiss:

Nang

if I didn't love you, you'd have been put on ignore long ago, Nang.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

I am not sure this disproves either view. God judged fallen creation, but it is also in His power to redeem it. Hope relates to certain expectation that God can redeem fallen creation into a new creation. This points to our future resurrection/glorification when we will be fully restored. So God condemned the fallen world, but also provided the expectation that individuals will be redeemed when they are raised at His coming.

Which individuals? Calvinists say God already knows. (individual vs. corporate election)
When you, an Open Theist, witness to a lost individual is it not with desire and reasonable confidence that they will respond favorably?

And that is precisely the point. God knows what God will do to redeem fallen humanity and it is in His power to do it. Does God know in particular just who will and who will not eventually be redeemed? By faith, we hope in God's remedy. Does God 'know' or 'hope' individuals will be saved? Some not all; (a remnant, Lee?), and which ones in particular? Are Open Theists going to fudge on that point?

Lon's definition:

especially

- -to look forward to with desire and reasonable confidence
​

actually supports the Open View (Free Will Theism) and I believe supports that God hopes that particular individuals will be saved. It is God's desire (even reasonable expectation?) that all be saved. If whether they will or not is a matter of future decisions, not knowledge or coercion then God must wait and see. Of course it is in God's power to redeem all creation and every human being in it. Will He? God makes the offer and must wait and see how each responds in their God given freedom. In hope God looks forward with desire and reasonable (absolute in God's case) confidence to doing what He says He will do. What God has not said is that He will save anyone against their will. In that particular instance, God can only hope (look forward to with desire and reasonable confidence) that individuals will repent and respond. I see it as a fundamental difference between Openness and Calvinism.

Philetus


PS, Like Patman said once: it is evidence not proof.

 

[Philetus]

God does not need to hope. God knows.

You are just making this up . . .
by inserting commas, yet!

:ha:

Nang

Of the versions I posted:

"NIV not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope"
RSV "for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;"
ASB "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope"
KJV "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,"

... two have commas before "in hope" and two don't. My point was that it didn't matter. What's your point?

Philetus

 

[RobE]

Rob, are you trying to play the Molinist 'middle knowledge' card? It creates more problems than it solves.

To be fair, you should recognize 'middle' knowledge as the second 'motif' that you are always talking about. The 'motif' where contingency exists. What problems does Molinism have that open theism escapes?

 

[RobE]

That has become one of those settled parts of the bible

I still find the verse interesting that said "...now I know..."

As much as he knows, there are still some unknowable aspects to the future.

I think what you're missing is Genesis 22 is the actual blessing, whereas, Genesis 12 is the promise of the future blessing. God foreknew Abraham's free actions before He brought Abraham out of his homeland.

 

[Philetus]

It isn't just a disagreement over our doctrine. It is part of the structure of the sentence, the creation is the subject of hoping. As you perused those versions, I 'hope' it didn't escape your notice that they all used a comma to set the idea apart clearly. However, even if you disagree with that point, it would also be important to show God hoping in other passages and we don't see it. Further is a logical problem with God hoping even in OV thinking.

Look again.

So to the 2nd and 3rd objections: We do not see God hoping elsewhere (nor, as I contend here).
Let me then procede to the logical problem. If you look up 'hope' in the dictionary, there are all kinds of problems with the various definitions:

-to feel that something desired may happen
-to look forward to with desire and reasonable confidence
-to believe, desire, or trust

Hope in this sense is not secure, 'may,' 'desire,' have 'reasonable confidence' and 'trust' are problematic qualifiers.

Here is why: Will creation be made right? Your answer as well as ours is "absolutely yes." There is nothing God must depend on to make this come about. If God hopes it comes out alright, He is no longer omnicompetent (or confident). I do not 'hope' I can make a pizza. I've done it about 100 times. I simply make a pizza. God doesn't hope He'll be able to fix creation's groaning. He is able and hope doesn't enter the equation (again, if as OV says, He is omnicompetent).

Creation? Yes, absolutely! Individuals in particular? Wait and see along with God. Can God make pizzas? The best! Can God MAKE a man repent? Yes. Does God make men repent? Now there is the rub. Do we actually choose between two masters? Free Will says we actually do make that choice.

I say "God knows." He knows because He knows me. He knows exactly how my mind works and whether I'd pick up on your point. God knows, He doesn't hope.

I disagree with GR here. We do not have an assundry of choices. We have one. If I eat eggs, I eat them following one of two masters and nothing else. We are in bondage always. There is never a time when I am my own master, never.

Openness says God doesn't know every detail about the future. And well, maybe God knows you so well that when you are deciding what to put on your pizzas, no doubt God knows your habits, likes and dislikes. Does that mean you can never experiment?
The water shed issue is whether or not you have the freedom to choose between the two masters.

God is love but don't equate God and hope.
God --> Love
Love--> hopes.
I am human
Me--> human
Women are humans
Woman-->human

It isn't a bad thing. It is different. I'm very capable of carrying on a concrete sequential discussion but it doesn't come naturally. Read the strengths and weaknesses of both thinking processes(among others). Many of our brilliant artists, scientists, etc. were global thinkers.

Honestly, I wonder when you see commas that aren't there. :chuckle:

Even global thinkers disagree. And I'm not saying God IS hope. I said God Is love and that love hopes.

Philetus

 

[Lon]

I answered this a long time ago. If you ignore the answers, I can't help you.

Uhm, Where exactly? It would be very hard to find as there is no reply to Lee with your name on it since the initial post (and ensuing posts):

Here (initial) here here here here here here here and here (sorry if I missed any Lee)

 

[Lon]

Mornin' ! This is the Day the Lord has made!

Mornin' ! This is the Day the Lord has made!

Look again.

(mine all had commas, what unauthorized versions are you using? :doh

Creation? Yes, absolutely! Individuals in particular? Wait and see along with God. Can God MAKE a man repent? Yes. Does God make men repent? Now there is the rub. Do we actually choose between two masters? Free Will says we actually do make that choice.

Yup

Openness says God doesn't know every detail about the future. And well, maybe God knows you so well that when you are deciding what to put on your pizzas, no doubt God knows your habits, likes and dislikes. Does that mean you can never experiment?
The water shed issue is whether or not you have the freedom to choose between the two masters.

Yup

Honestly, I wonder when you see commas that aren't there. :chuckle:

They are in mine! (second rub and now the skin is on the carpet). Thanks I'll remember this strawberry for a long time (I'm sure I can find versions somewhere online with the commas included-I just decided to let you glory in the moment -->too much work). Itsa gimme

Even global thinkers disagree. And I'm not saying God IS hope. I said God Is love and that love hopes.

Philetus

I wouldn't precisely put you in the global category (I'll have to go back and peg you). You have your moments.

Clearly you have amnesia. You'd make a good follow up pres reminiscent of the Regan years "I don't recall" (go with that).

I do recognize you said (both times) "God hopes" but you knew where I was going with that, Mr. President. :sam:

Have a glorious morn, Mr. President

 

[Philetus]

8:20
The Revised Standard Version
for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;
The King James Version (Authorized)
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

The point is it doesn't matter to the discussion.

 

[Philetus]

(mine all had commas, what unauthorized versions are you using? :doh

Yup


Yup



They are in mine! (second rub and now the skin is on the carpet). Thanks I'll remember this strawberry for a long time (I'm sure I can find versions somewhere online with the commas included-I just decided to let you glory in the moment -->too much work). Itsa gimme

The 'rub' only referred to the difference between our positions.
‘Yup, yup, yup.’ Thanks for your generosity.

I wouldn't precisely put you in the global category (I'll have to go back and peg you). You have your moments.

Clearly you have amnesia. You'd make a good follow up pres reminiscent of the Regan years "I don't recall" (go with that).

Actually I didn't say I was a 'global thinker', I said even global stinkers disagree.
I would rather be labeled as a ‘glocal’ thinker.

I do recognize you said (both times) "God hopes" but you knew where I was going with that, Mr. President. :sam:

Have a glorious morn, Mr. President

I'll take that as humor and sarcasm. This nation is in enough trouble. "I'll neither seek nor accept ....." LBJ

God does hope. And no, I'm not sure where you were going with that, I simply recognized where you were staying ... 'God is hopeless.'

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

I do suffer from short term memory loss ... memories of the future to be exact.

 

[Yorzhik]

Uhm, Where exactly? It would be very hard to find as there is no reply to Lee with your name on it since the initial post (and ensuing posts):

Here (initial) here here here here here here here and here (sorry if I missed any Lee)

Hmmmm... okay. Just so you know, I do appreciate the leg work you put into that.

Here's the answer: God is very smart.

Here's a more complete answer: God knows this prophecy as much as any other. And He has had prophecies that didn't come to pass. The alternatives would be that everyone would be saved and it wouldn't be a remant but the whole group, or, that none would be saved not even a remanent. The chances are so slim amoung the alternatives that you don't even have to be God to bet on that one. But God is much smarter than we are so He can be more sure of what a possible outcome would be.

BTW, God is working to undo His own prophecy! He'd much rather the whole group be saved and that's what He would be working for.