ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[SaulToPaul 2]

When God saves us, do we become new creations?

Yes, in Christ, he's the new creature.
His body of flesh and blood became a body of flesh, bone, and Spirit at resurrection.

 

[themuzicman]

So, how can a being that is atemporal take a new nature to itself?

Muz

 

[Nang]

Yet did He EVER create?

Prior to the act of creation itself....

- Was there a time when He designed?
- Was there a time when He planned?
- Was there a time when He was being creative?

Or, has it always simply been (as AMR asserts)?

All that has been created out of nothing, and manifested in time, always existed in the mind and heart of the Godhead.

"Because what may be known of God is manifest in them (creatures), for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead . . ." Romans 1:19&20

 

[Clete]

Are God's thoughts discursive?


Evo

I missed this post Evo. Sorry about that!


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word(Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God.

Logos is where we get our English word logic and it means exactly the same thing. That is to say that in any situation where the Greek word logos is appropriate so is the English word logic. God is Logic in the same sense that God is Love. Both things find there meaning in the very person of God and so yes, I would say that God's thoughts are definitely discursive, assuming that is that you are using the dictionary definition of that term and not some theological or philosophical meaning.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Delmar]

I clearly said that I can live with your making this assumption, not that I accept your assumption. That is why I pointedly asked you if you can live with the assumption.

and you have still shown zero evidence that God must live outside of sequence.

 

[Nang]

yes, I would say that God's thoughts are definitely discursive, assuming that is that you are using the dictionary definition of that term and not some theological or philosophical meaning.


Resting in Him,
Clete

Er, you might want to fix this answer.

The dictionary definition of "discursive" is derogatory. Only the philosophical usage of the term refers to logic.

 

[themuzicman]

All that has been created out of nothing, and manifested in time, always existed in the mind and heart of the Godhead.

"Because what may be known of God is manifest in them (creatures), for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead . . ." Romans 1:19&20

So, there was a time when there was nothing, and then after that, a time when God created out of that nothing.

Muz

 

[Clete]

Er, you might want to fix this answer.

The dictionary definition of "discursive" is derogatory. Only the philosophical usage of the term refers to logic.

Wrong again Moose breath.

Main Entry: dis·cur·sive
Pronunciation: dis-'k&r-siv
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin discursivus, from Latin discursus, past participle of discurrere to run about -- more at DISCOURSE
1 a : moving from topic to topic without order : RAMBLING b : proceeding coherently from topic to topic
2 : marked by analytical reasoning
3 : of or relating to discourse <discursive practices>

source​

The point I made was assuming the normal (i.e. dictionary) meaning of the term and not some convoluted meaning that some people like you and AMR might find it necessary to come up with.

 

[godrulz]

Excellent question.

I think the reason there is so much pointed dialog between Calvinists and open theists is that their doctrines are virtually the polar opposites of one another. A Calvinist who rejects Calvinism would likely end up an open theist. Conversely, an open theist rejecting open theism would likely end up a Calvinist.

I think there would be more movement of a Calvinist or OT to Arminianism, not the polarized positions (hyper-Calvinism and Process Thought would be even more extreme; Arminianism would be the larger, more likely, middle position...an OT to Arm. could retain free will theism while rejecting exhaustive foreknowledge, while a Calvinist could retain exhaustive foreknowledge, but at the expense of determinism or compatibilism).

 

[Evoken]

I missed this post Evo. Sorry about that!


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word(Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God.

Logos is where we get our English word logic and it means exactly the same thing. That is to say that in any situation where the Greek word logos is appropriate so is the English word logic. God is Logic in the same sense that God is Love. Both things find there meaning in the very person of God and so yes, I would say that God's thoughts are definitely discursive, assuming that is that you are using the dictionary definition of that term and not some theological or philosophical meaning.


Resting in Him,
Clete

No problem! It is hard to keep up with the pace of this thread.

The definition of the word "discursive" that I had in mind is very much the same you provided in post #1148, so we can agree on that.

I'll respond directly to your post when I get off from work, buried in it right now.


Evo

 

[Clete]

No problem! It is hard to keep up with the pace of this thread.

The definition of the word "discursive" that I had in mind is very much the same you provided in post #1148, so we can agree on that.

I'll respond directly to your post when I get off from work, buried in it right now.


Evo

:up:

 

[Delmar]

Excellent question.

I think the reason there is so much pointed dialog between Calvinists and open theists is that their doctrines are virtually the polar opposites of one another. A Calvinist who rejects Calvinism would likely end up an open theist. Conversely, an open theist rejecting open theism would likely end up a Calvinist.

That depends what point the the individual finds compelling. A Calvinist who comes to reject determinism might well gravitate toward Arminianism because he could hold on to God being outside of time. A Calvinist who came to rejct the Outside of time doctrine would obviously be an open theist. I do perhaps think that you are right in saying that an open theist would be most likely to reject the view by embacing determinism.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Responding to Nang, Clete writes

Wrong again Moose breath.

In another thread in response to a question about attitude Clete cites

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

Need to work on that meekness aspect, no?

Seriously, by what standard in the scriptures do you find a warrant for this kind of behavior? I mean, at a minimum you do realize that you are communicating with a woman, and one that is older than us both? To save some time before you respond, don't go throwing around "Christ said this or that to the Pharisees" as your justification until you can lay claim to being Christ or at least one of the prophets.

And you seriously write about my needing to "chill out"?:bang:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That depends what point the the individual finds compelling. A Calvinist who comes to reject determinism might well gravitate toward Arminianism because he could hold on to God being outside of time. A Calvinist who came to rejct the Outside of time doctrine would obviously be an open theist. I do perhaps think that you are right in saying that an open theist would be most likely to reject the view by embacing determinism.

It may very well be as you have observed.

In my experience, a person makes a change in their faith is usually going to make radical changes. Yes, I know of some that made the changes gradually, say from Catholic, to Episcopal, to Baptist or Lutheran, then to Presbyterian (or the reverse). But most I have encountered made big jumps.

I just think that a Calvinist, who had obviously embraced a very tight view of God's sovereignty would cast a very wide net when leaving and land in open theism instead of just "half way" into true Arminianism. Conversely, an open theist that had embraced such a wide view of sovereignty would, when leaving, run head long into the welcoming, and very tight, arms of Calvinism.

I once took a transpersonal psychology course, wherein the personalities of persons who believe in some form of deity is studied. There was quite a bit of discussion about what types of personalities gravitate towards certain denominations. No one was convinced that the correlations were actual causations, but there was an element of truth in some of the discussions. For example, the reason most of the well-known biblical scholars from history were Reformed, and the same is true in most seminaries today, might just be partially because the academic types appreciate the tight coherence and consequent complexities of the Reformed doctrines. It is intriguing, something that I can spend my retirement pondering some day.

 

[dale]

Did you read the earlier reference I pointed you too or not, sir?

The earlier reference? Which one would that be?
Here?
or, how about
Here?
maybe
Here?

Yes I did, sir!

Your "free" will and my "free" will are not the same. I suspect your "free" will is the libertarian notion of free will, which is given no warrant in the Scriptures.

Was libertarian free will supposed to be in one of those 3 links? I did a word search and it didn't show up. For the record, I don't believe we have a "free" will. I suspect thats NOT what libertarian free will is.

Free will, to me, is the ability to choose the thing you are most inclined to choose at the moment.

Drop the word "Free" and that works for me.

Moreover, as a regenerated Christian, my free will includes my ability to choose to do spiritual good things or to not choose to do spiritually good things and to therefore sin, again depending upon my greatest inclinations. The unregenerate are not at liberty to ever choose to do spiritually good things, for they are always inclined to not seek God’s favor. Hence, by my definition, previously cited in a link I pointed you towards for review, Adam possessed the free will as I have defined such and God is always exercising His providential control over His creation.

Are you saying Adam had the same kind of free will that you have? The kind where you, and he, can choose to sin or not, depending upon your greatest inclinations? Where God is also exercising His providential control?

I got news for ya. Where God is exercising His providential control, His will is the ONLY free will. Those greatest inclinations you get--are there because God, through His providential control, either caused or allowed them to become a part of your thoughts.

God desires (wants) all men to repent (His perceptive will), yet God only elects some through His sovereign (decretive) will. What God wants He often does not get, what God decrees He always will achieve.

If what God wants He often does not get, then He either didn't really want it or He isn't Almighty. I believe He always get what He wants. It may not look like He's going to get it but He will--if He wants it.

Why not? None deserve God’s grace or mercy, for all men are spiritually and completely dead in their sin. God quickens those whom He has chosen through the counsel of His own sovereign and perfect will without any consideration of their actions before He so chose them (the elect). Grace is getting what you don't deserve; Mercy is not getting what you do deserve.

Why not? A better question is Why? He went through all the trouble to have His Son suffer to pay for the sins of the world. Why do all the work then not even reap what, 5% maybe 10% of the reward? God, who says He IS Love, and shows it by giving His only Son to pay the price for our sin, is now purposely not going to do the easy thing and draw someone so as to apply that sacrifice to their account?

God simply withheld that undeserved constraining grace with which Adam would infallibly not have fallen, which grace He was under no obligation to bestow. In respect to himself, Adam might have stood had he so chosen; but in respect to God it was certain that he would fall. He acted as freely as if there had been no decree, and yet as infallibly as if there had been no liberty.

Yup, it was simple. God was under no obligation. He simply allowed man to fall of his own accord so God would have every right to torment whomever He wanted and they would have no right to argue because He didn't actually cause man to fall, He simply allowed him to fall (never mind God is in control of all things). Why even bother to have His Son pay the price for sin? After all, He is God and He can do whatever He wants without having to answer to anybody anyway. If He planned on tormenting forever 90-95% of all humanity, why even bother with all this? Does He think He has to justify what He does? I-don't-think-so!

God loves His elect and passes by others who are left in their own sins.

To torment forever? His Son paid the price for redemption but He just passes by and leaves them in their sin... forever?

...such freedom as you presuppose was the very first sin.

Then I sure am glad I don't believe in the freedom you presuppose I presuppose.

 

[Lon]

Lonster,

Your entire position is based on the premise that God exists outside of time.

Do you have any Biblical argument at all that would support that premise?

I think we've covered this before, but "Thousand years as a day" passages point to transcendence. I also pointed out that it takes almost 6 minutes to get a message just to Mars and another 6 to get a response from the rover. God hears our prayers instantly so already transcends our time limitations. That God transcends our time frame is already obvious. Omnipresence already transcends the contraints of time as we know it. I concede logic problems but not the truth of His trancendence of time. Trancendence here being by definition outside of time.

 

[Lon]

Yet did He EVER create?

Prior to the act of creation itself....

- Was there a time when He designed?
- Was there a time when He planned?
- Was there a time when He was being creative?

Or, has it always simply been (as AMR asserts)?

"Time" is the keyword of understanding. We are constrained by our temporal existence in even the question for understanding.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Drop the word "Free" and that works for me.

Then we are on the same page on one point. We will, and we think or are aware of no constraints, hence we are as "free" as we need to be. But I do not agree with libertarian free will, the ability to do the contrary, despite our greatest inclinations.

I got news for ya. Where God is exercising His providential control, His will is the ONLY free will. Those greatest inclinations you get--are there because God, through His providential control, either caused or allowed them to become a part of your thoughts.

Yet another point that we agree upon.

If what God wants He often does not get, then He either didn't really want it or He isn't Almighty. I believe He always get what He wants. It may not look like He's going to get it but He will--if He wants it.

God wants all to repent, love one another, minister to the sick, etc. They do not. I don't think that God really, really does not want this, only that He wants something more--that His Holy will be glorified.

Why not? A better question is Why? He went through all the trouble to have His Son suffer to pay for the sins of the world. Why do all the work then not even reap what, 5% maybe 10% of the reward? God, who says He IS Love, and shows it by giving His only Son to pay the price for our sin, is now purposely not going to do the easy thing and draw someone so as to apply that sacrifice to their account?

I do not hold to the belief that the numbers of the elect are small. See here. Yes, God is love, but He also possesses other perfections and we must be cautious in trying to elevate one above the other.

Yup, it was simple. God was under no obligation. He simply allowed man to fall of his own accord so God would have every right to torment whomever He wanted and they would have no right to argue because He didn't actually cause man to fall, He simply allowed him to fall (never mind God is in control of all things). Why even bother to have His Son pay the price for sin? After all, He is God and He can do whatever He wants without having to answer to anybody anyway. If He planned on tormenting forever 90-95% of all humanity, why even bother with all this? Does He think He has to justify what He does? I-don't-think-so!

Other than sophistry, what is your point?

To torment forever? His Son paid the price for redemption but He just passes by and leaves them in their sin... forever?

Are you a universalist? Do you believe that some will spend eternity in Hell? Are you an annihilationist? Aha! You are a universal restorationalist. We are done now.

 

[Evoken]

I would say that God's thoughts are definitely discursive, assuming that is that you are using the dictionary definition of that term and not some theological or philosophical meaning.

The meaning of the word "discursive" that I had in mind when I asked the question is the same as the one found in the dictionary definition you provided:

1 a : moving from topic to topic without order : RAMBLING b : proceeding coherently from topic to topic source​

Basically, what this means is that since God's knowledge is discursive, the way he understands, thinks and knows things is by "proceeding coherently from topic to topic". That is, God thinks or conceives one thing first, then another, he thinks of some thing at one moment and then proceeds to think of another at another moment. This is similar to what we do, we think of going to some place, and then go, once we get there, we think of going some other place, and then we go. God's thinking and doing is as time-bound and as successive (definition) as ours. He is lead from one thought to another by mode of succession.

God being bound by time is something open theists seem to have no problem with, so, saying that shouldn't be controversial. However, open theists also believe that God is eternal, that is, he has existed forever and if Clete's admission that God's knowledge is discursive is reflective of the consensus among open theists (and I can't see how it could be any other way given their admission that God is bound by time), then they also believe that God thinks proceeding from one thought to the other over time. From this, we are lead to the following:

God's thoughts are caused by his previous thoughts:

A self-evident fact of the universe is that everything that begins to exist is brought into existence by something that existed prior to it. Nothing emerges on it's own out of nothing. Applying this same reasoning to a time bound God with discursive knowledge, we are lead to the conclusion that no thought in God emerged out of nothing but was brought into existence by some previous thought in God. That is, as God thinks of something, he is lead to think about something else, building up a chain of thoughts that is identical to a chain of cause and effect.

But God is eternal:

The problem here is that for God to be eternal we would need to posit an infinite series of thoughts in God, which means that his thoughts extend backwards into infinity and which also means that an infinite series of thoughts would have to happen in order for God to reach any particular thought. But infinity is unbounded an limitless, so, passing an infinite series of thoughts or of causes is impossible by definition. God would be having thought after thought infinitely and would never get to the thought of creating the universe or doing any thing in particular.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Anti-OV Version):

The above being said, I believe that the first two premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (Anti-OV Version) are valid:

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2. God's thoughts begin to exist.​

Therefore the conclusion is justified and follows neatly from the premises:

C1. Therefore, God's thoughts have a cause.​

From the explanation above we are also lead to:

P3. An infinite series of thoughts cannot be passed to arrive at any particular thought.
P4. The God of open theism entails an infinite series of thoughts.
C3. Therefore, the God of open theism cannot arrive at any particular thought.

P5. The creation of the universe implies a thought.
P6. An infinite series of thoughts would have to pass for God to arrive at the thought of creating the universe.
C4. Therefore, God cannot arrive at the thought of creating the universe (Per C3).
C5. Therefore, the God of open theism could not have created the universe (Per C4).​

From this we conclude that the God of open theism cannot possibly be the first mover and also that like the eternal universe he is a logical impossibility.


Evo

 

[themuzicman]

ON what basis do you claim that OVT says that God has had an infinite series of thoughts?

Muz