ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[tetelestai]

Was my name in the Book of Life of the Lamb Slain before I was born? No. Was it written in there before the foundation of the world? Not if it wasn't in there before I was born. Has it been written in since? Yes.

The Book of Life causes a lot of problems for the open theist.

Here is what I am taught.

Every name of every human being born was written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world. When a human being dies his or her name is blotted out if they did not believe. When the very last human being dies, and the very last unbeliever is blotted out, then the “evolving” Book of Life will become the Lamb’s Book of Life.

Every reference to names being written in the Book of Life are before the foundations of the world. In Psalms 69 we have David lamenting for his unbelieving enemies to be blotted out of the Book of Life while his enemies were still alive.

The problem with the open theists view (Lighthouses’) of names being written into the Book of Life upon regeneration is this would mean that every baby that dies would go to hell. The only way a person’s name is blotted out of the evolving Book of Life is for unbelief and unbelief only. Sins have nothing to do with the blotting out. Since babies cannot reach the age of accountability there names are not blotted out when they die, and thus end up in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

Now, the only way God could know the names of every human being ever to be born is by exhaustive foreknowledge. And since God is outside of time, God even knows who is in the Lamb’s Book of Life, and who is not. Thus the people in the Lamb’s Book of Life are the elect, and predestined with blessings and provisions.

The only way the open theist can fit any Book of Life into open theism is to suggest as Lighthouse did, that names are entered at salvation. Again, this not only conflicts with every mention in the Bible of the names being entered before the foundation of the world, but would also send babies to hell.

Remember, from the perspective of time, the Book of Life is an evolving book and salvation is available to all. Since God is outside of time, He not only could enter every name in the evolving Book of Life before Adam, but He also knows who ends up in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

 

[godrulz]

Huh? From the beginning of human history, names are added as people are born. They could be added at birth so that if a baby dies, they are in like flint. If they are added at regeneration, they remain in the Book unless they are blotted out through unbelief/falling away/apostasy. You make too much of a Book and not enough of God's perfect awareness and knowledge. There is no proof for or against EDF on this concept alone. Whether names are added in eternity past through foreknowledge or from the beginning, one by one as people are born or believe, does not matter. The end result is the same with God knowing who are is, Book or no Book, regardless if or when names are added or blotted out. God does not run to His computer or book to see whether a person goes to heaven or hell at death. His knowledge is present and perfect and instantaneous, based on the state of the person, not how and when names are recorded in a Book.

The grammar does allow for the concept of names being added successively from the beginning. It does not necessitate them preexisting the person or being decreed or foreknown from eternity past. You make assumptions and beg the question without considering the plausibility of alternate views.

If you notice, there is some ambiguity with alternate footnotes in translations relating to the verses in question (the sentence order is not obvious and two possible readings exist).

 

[tetelestai]

From the God and time thread:

Tetelestai, it doesn't say ANYONE's name was written in that book before the foundation of the world. For goodness' sake, pay attention.

It says that those people's names were NOT, EVER written in the Book of Life.

The author is making the point that these unsaved people weren't previously saved and then lost their salvation, they didn't fall away from God, but rather, their names have NEVER been written in the Book of Life.

As for Christ being slain before the foundation, it simply doesn't say that. In the Greek grammer, nouns and verbs are tied to each other via grammatical forms. The translators phrased it in such a way as to be extremely ambiguous. In the Greek it is explicitly clear:

It says their names weren't written in the Book of Life of the Lamb Slain... since the foundation of the world.

It absolutely does not say that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

And it absolutely does not say that someone's name WAS written in the Book of Life since the foundation of the world. It says they were not. Please read the verse you're talking about, before coming up with such ridiculous claims that are, in fact, totally opposite of the scripture you're citing.

:doh:

It says: "from the foundation of the world." This strongly infers that no names are written in this Book of Life at any other time but "from the foundation of the world."

I assume then that you believe the names are added to one book (The Lamb's Book of Life) at salvation?

If this is correct then what about the times the Bible mentions “Blotting” out names in the Book of life?

(Exodus 32:33) And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

(Rev 3:5) He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.


If you read Psalms 69, David asks God to blot out his unrighteous enemies from the book. How exactly did unrighteous enemies even get in the Book in the first place if only names are entered at salvation?

(Psalms 69:28) Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.


There are some who subscribe to MAD who only believe Jews and Kingdom Saints are written in the book(s), and the book(s) is not for believers in the Body of Christ. If this is one’s position, then I ask them to explain Phil 4:3

(Phil 4:3) And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

 

[tetelestai]

The end result is the same with God knowing who are is, Book or no Book, regardless if or when names are added or blotted out. God does not run to His computer or book to see whether a person goes to heaven or hell at death.

I agree, but God tells us about the Books, and the Great White Throne Judgment, and blotting out for a reason.

There is no proof for or against EDF on this concept alone. Whether names are added in eternity past through foreknowledge or from the beginning, one by one as people are born or believe, does not matter.

Why does it not matter?

What if it does prove EDF?

 

[Bright Raven]

God is fully omniscient, now and always. He always knows everything knowable. To not know a nothing is an absurdity.

God's omniscience is dynamic, not static. As new objects of possible knowledge become certain, the objects of God's knowledge change so His knowledge changes. He can experience novelty, new things, etc. because He is personal. He can delight when a new baby is born or a sinner becomes a Christian. He is not stuck in a boring eternal now simultaneity.

God is responsive. He does not need to change, but the nature of the future is objectively anticipatory and contingent. As the the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present, God knows reality as changing from possible to certain/actual. It is not that God changes so much as that the objects of knowledge are changing (if the future was fully settled/determinism, then God would know it as such; since the reality of the future is partially unsettled, God knows it as such). In all this, God is fully omniscient whether He knows things as actual (past/present) or merely possible/probable (future).

The past is inherently different than the future, so an omniscient being's knowledge will reflect this without compromising being all-knowing. If the future was settled, God would know it exhaustively. Since it is not, He distinguishes possible vs actual.

Determinism makes EDF possible, but determinism is false. Free will theism necessitates dynamic omniscience since EDF is incompatible with libertarian free will. Since God experiences endless time, not timelessness, it will have implications on the nature of omniscience, future, free will, predestination, etc.

God rejoices when appropriate. It also says He grieves, regrets, hurts, etc. when appropriate. God does not rejoice no matter what.

Is God omniscient or not? I have always been taught that everyone is free to choose as they wish. I do not have a degree in Theology. God is not omniscient the way you have described omniscience. Your definition does not allow God to know all things. Your definition tells me that God must learn. You have changed the definition to fit your theological construct. I have a problem with putting God in a box and putting Him to the test. The God you describe has limits. My God is limitless.

 

[Lon]

Very good, as usual, Muz.

No, no, no no, no.

This isn't good at all.

What we have here is a God who cannot do everything and is compared to something as menial and trivial as a man doing some job?

How in the world can you both suggest He is omnicompetent even, with such a scenario?

But even "can" isn't necessarily a needed concession. But some distinction in "mistake" needs to be made:

I'm doing a math problem, and I calculate 2*5=7. That is a mistake.

I take a job that has some qualifications the employer didn't make clear during the interview process, and now they're firing me because I can't do those things. This is a mistake, too, but not my own. I'm simply bearing the consequences.

So, can God make mistakes? No.

No way. This is something to steer clear of and will get you cult-status in a hurry. Do NOT defend Boyd/Pinnock/Sanders here! With doctorate degrees, they should have thought this through an awful lot more than they did! It is rife with problems and heterodox offenses.

Can God bear the consequences of others' mistakes? Yes.

So, the better question is this: "Does God make poor decisions?" The answer is "No."

One might ask, "Does God make righteous decisions that others respond badly to?" The answer to that question is "Yes."

Look back at Jeremiah 3:6-7. God acts righteously in trying to draw Israel back to Him, and He thought His actions would do just that, but Israel did not respond.

That's Israel's error, not God's.

So, I think a proper formulation of the question brings a clearer answer.

Muz

No, this is less than a thousand batting average and I'm unwilling to make concession on it. It is like saying, "He strikes out, but His team always wins." This isn't omnicompetent. It is elevating man to the 'team.' This thinking is a dangerous slippery slope. Get your crampons and rope.

 

[elected4ever]

God does not "try" to draw all man to Himself. He draws all men to Himself and that without fail. The failure is man's and not God's. God knows that some will believe and those He preserves and the rest perish. This is not the same as saying that God arbitrarily chooses a man to believe but that God seals those that do believe. Men are not puppets on a string and God is not a puppeteer. It is not God who makes mistakes but it is man who fails God.:mmph:

 

[themuzicman]

What we have here is a God who cannot do everything and is compared to something as menial and trivial as a man doing some job?

Why can't analogies be taken for how they were intended?

How in the world can you both suggest He is omnicompetent even, with such a scenario?

Because God is all-wise and instructs us in the best and righteous path to follow. It is our incompetence that causes trouble, not God's. Were we all to obey God, things would be perfect.

No way. This is something to steer clear of and will get you cult-status in a hurry. Do NOT defend Boyd/Pinnock/Sanders here! With doctorate degrees, they should have thought this through an awful lot more than they did! It is rife with problems and heterodox offenses.

I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply pointing out the potential ways in which "mistake" can be taken wrongly.

No, this is less than a thousand batting average and I'm unwilling to make concession on it. It is like saying, "He strikes out, but His team always wins." This isn't omnicompetent. It is elevating man to the 'team.' This thinking is a dangerous slippery slope. Get your crampons and rope.

Umm... I believe I said above that God doesn't make the mistakes. That would include God "striking out." It's not as though man can throw God a curve ball that He cannot handle.

Muz

 

[elected4ever]

My question for OVers is, Why is it God's fault that man fails? You say that God does not know but why is it that when man does not believe God and then does otherwise it follows that God must not have known that man would choose otherwise?

Is it God's fault that man does not believe? Must God change His plan as if He did not know or was it God"s plan all alone because He did in fact know?

Must God change His mine (repents) because of man's wickedness or is it that God grieves (repents) because of man's wickedness?

 

[tetelestai]

It is not that God changes so much as that the objects of knowledge are changing (if the future was fully settled/determinism, then God would know it as such; since the reality of the future is partially unsettled, God knows it as such

(Isaiah 42:9) Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.
This verse contradicts what you say.

Explain what "before they spring forth I tell you of them" means?

 

[godrulz]

(Isaiah 42:9) Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.
This verse contradicts what you say.

Explain what "before they spring forth I tell you of them" means?

What does the Hebrew say and mean? Other versions? It does not say EDF or that all things are declared before they happen. God does not declare what I will eat or drink or wear for every day of my life. God declares many new things and they come into being. God does cause and direct many things in relation to Israel, the context. It does not mean He is omnicausal or has EDF. He does not declare every possible new thing that comes into being from trillions of years ago. This would be prooftexting and eisegesis. This one verse does not specify the specific things, parameters, limitations, etc. To extrapolate some to all or assume they are not things God has His hand in goes beyond the text or an argument from silence. I see no basis from the text that God knows and sees the outcome of every lottery, chess game, sports event from eternity past, exhaustively. I do see that God does declare and bring things to pass by His ability (Is. 46 and 48) and that it refers to specific things, not pancausality or EDF.

This one verse cannot prove or disprove either view. In light of the other OVT verses, logic, godly philosophy, I am unpersuaded that you have made a fool of OVT.

 

[elected4ever]

What does the Hebrew say and mean? Other versions? It does not say EDF or that all things are declared before they happen. God does not declare what I will eat or drink or wear for every day of my life. God declares many new things and they come into being. God does cause and direct many things in relation to Israel, the context. It does not mean He is omnicausal or has EDF. He does not declare every possible new thing that comes into being from trillions of years ago. This would be prooftexting and eisegesis. This one verse does not specify the specific things, parameters, limitations, etc. To extrapolate some to all or assume they are not things God has His hand in goes beyond the text or an argument from silence. I see no basis from the text that God knows and sees the outcome of every lottery, chess game, sports event from eternity past, exhaustively. I do see that God does declare and bring things to pass by His ability (Is. 46 and 48) and that it refers to specific things, not pancausality or EDF.

This one verse cannot prove or disprove either view. In light of the other OVT verses, logic, godly philosophy, I am unpersuaded that you have made a fool of OVT.

You miss the whole point. The point is that God does know regardless of your or my wish that He did not. I don't suppose you believe in angels ether. Fact is God is involved in all lives that are born of Him and in a general sense all human life as it relates to His plan and purpose.

Being involved and the importation of wisdom and knowledge does not require decision making for the individual. It is the importation of information only. Just because God knows what you will have for dinner does not mean that has chosen dinner for you or that He may approve of it. It does mean that He does direct your path and gives you the will and the wont to do His good service. Tell me again how God has no involvement in your life. If God is not involved in your life you do not have His life.

 

[godrulz]

Huh? No one denied God's involvement in your lives. The issue is whether God is pancausal/deterministic/meticulously controlling or providential, creative, loving, responsive, influential, etc.

We are not sock puppets, but in His image. We have a say so because God wants it that way. Love must be freely chosen and reciprocal. Force is unilateral and causative.

I believe in angels. What is your problem?

 

[tetelestai]

I do see that God does declare and bring things to pass by His ability (Is. 46 and 48) and that it refers to specific things, not pancausality or EDF.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t on one hand say God declares something then brings it to pass, and then on the other hand say you have libertarian free will.

If, as you believe, God declares things then brings them to pass, then God would have to coerce human beings in order for whatever He declared to come true.

 

[godrulz]

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t on one hand say God declares something then brings it to pass, and then on the other hand say you have libertarian free will.

If, as you believe, God declares things then brings them to pass, then God would have to coerce human beings in order for whatever He declared to come true.

How does God have to coerce human beings to rain down judgments from heaven?! Free will is not an issue when God's power is in view.

There would be a denial of free will if God caused every moral and mundane choice by His creatures. This is hyper-Calvinism, not biblical Christianity.

The things that God declares and knows are predictable or do not depend on free will. God sending the Messiah the first and second time/coming is not dependent on man, but on God who has the ability to incarnate and rise from the dead regardless of what man would do.

Do you have specific e.g.? I do not see the Bible predicting the winner of any given Superbowl. I do see things under God's control (e.g. judgments) being declared and brought to pass by His ability.

Are you sure you have read Isaiah 46 and 48? These ideas are clear and cannot be extrapolated to EDF or determinism (some is not all; ability is not simple foreknowledge).

 

[tetelestai]

The issue is whether God is pancausal/deterministic/meticulously controlling or providential, creative, loving, responsive, influential, etc.

(Rev 20:12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Everything in this verse is past tense, yet the event takes place in the future.

How did John "see" these events if they didn't happen yet?

 

[elected4ever]

Huh? No one denied God's involvement in your lives. The issue is whether God is pancausal/deterministic/meticulously controlling or providential, creative, loving, responsive, influential, etc.

We are not sock puppets, but in His image. We have a say so because God wants it that way. Love must be freely chosen and reciprocal. Force is unilateral and causative.

I believe in angels. What is your problem?

God is all of that at times and our refusal to acknowledge such does not change that fact. God is in charge whether you and I like it or not. Even our ability to chose is decreed by God and that does not change who or what God is.

 

[godrulz]

(Rev 20:12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Everything in this verse is past tense, yet the event takes place in the future.

How did John "see" these events if they didn't happen yet?

He was describing a vision. Are you saying that the actual events already happened in reality?! If so, there is no chronology in Scripture, we missed the second coming, time is not unidirectional, future generations that do not exist have already existed (contradiction) and been judged, Christ rose from the dead before He incarnated, creation is co-eternal with God, etc.).

It is a vision anticipatory of the future, not the actual future being viewed as if it was recorded on film like the past and present. Even closed theists/Calvinists do not try to claim that we die before we are born?!

God laid out a vision, not an actual movie of the non-existent future (your odd assumption based on sci-fi, not Scripture).

Another grammatical nuance is that the past tense (aorist?) can be used to indicate certainty, not actuality (Rom. 8 STP argues that we are already glorified, but it is a grammatical issue to indicate certainty, not actual completion in reality in the past).

 

[themuzicman]

(Isaiah 42:9) Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.
This verse contradicts what you say.

Explain what "before they spring forth I tell you of them" means?

Apparently God doesn't declare everything that will happen, but only those things He will bring about.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

God is all of that at times and our refusal to acknowledge such does not change that fact. God is in charge whether you and I like it or not. Even our ability to chose is decreed by God and that does not change who or what God is.

Determinism makes God responsible for evil and us mere machines. It can be rejected as unbiblical.

We choose, God does not choose for us. This is why there is a hell and we are responsible.

God is in charge/control, but He macro vs micromanages. He brings His project to pass despite pockets of rebellion, man grieving and quenching the Spirit, man resisting God's will for them (Lk. 7:30, etc.).

God does not decree in eternity past what I will do every minute. If so, God is responsible for the rape and murder of kids.

Please don't be a hyper-Calvinist just because you reject OVT.

Why are you even concerned about this? Your bigger problem is that you are not even a true Christian if you still deny the Deity of Christ, God Almighty in the flesh, not a creature.