ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lon]

Properly understood, Open Theism does not deny omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, but understands the concepts biblically vs with Platonic philosophical influence.

"As omnipotence is limited by the possible, so omniscience is limited by the knowable...we do not limit omnipotence by denying its power to do impossible or self-contradictory things. Neither do we limit omniscience by denying its power to foreknow unknowable things."

"If an act be free, it must be contingent. If contingent, it may or may not happen, or it may be one of many possibles (issue of creation, not attributes). And if it may be one of many possibles, it must be uncertain; and if uncertain, it must be unknowable."

"A certain event will inevitably come to pass, a necessary event must come to pass, but a contingent event may or may not come to pass. Contingency is an equal possibility of being and of not being."

Logically and biblically, EDF and libertarian free will are incompatible. In a deterministic view (denies true free will), EDF would be possible (but then God becomes responsible for evil, contrary to His character). An omnicausal view gives EDF, but compromises love and holiness, more explicit revelation.

Pinnock: Aspects of the future, being unsettled, are not yet wholly known, even to God. It does not mean that God is ignorant of something He ought to know, but that many things in the future are only possible and not yet actual. Therefore, he knows them correctly as possible and not actual.

EDF and Libertarian free will are not incompatible if we understand LFW differently than your description, such that freewill and EDF can work compatibly. It is only if one is constrained to agreement with the OV definition and consequences that there is a real problem.

So of course, we deny LFW as you describe it. The contention lies in your 'must' for contingency that cannot be foreknown. If you are a chocoholic, you still have a choice at choosing but this does not stop me really from foreknowing your choice in limitation and imperfection. If your wife knows you even better as to know without asking what you'd prefer for dinner, she is actually catering to your choice and this is a 'before' scenario that doesn't eliminate your choice for dinner at all. Indeed, a loving action must anticipate the desire of the other individual, thus to relagate a loving action to canceling your LFW is not even entertained with any seriousness.

It would be absurd to say my wife negates my LFW when she buys me a cocunut cream pie on my birthday instead of the chocolate one. She is catering to my LFW. In effect, her foreknowledge this birthday is not cancellation of my LFW but accentuates and ratifies it.

God knowing your choices before they are made is 1) more than predictive with a God who knows us exponentially 2) Loving 3) In no way can logically be seen as cancelling our desire (LFW) unless one has wrong preconceptions in the first place, which I believe OV does here.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

S2P, it's a simple question:

Where is the evidence that all of Jesus' bones were put out of joint, and that he was emaciated? Yes, there are things in Psalm 22 that are paralleled in Jesus' life. Yes, Psalm 22 is a messianic Psalm. But that's all we can say.

Muz

Not sure I follow what you're saying. Do you think it's a coincidence that the folks in Matthew 27 freely said exactly what the prophet David wrote that they would say, in Psalms 22?

Psalms 22
7: All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head saying,
8: He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.


Matthew 27
41: Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
42: He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
43: He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

 

[Lon]

S2P, it's a simple question:

Where is the evidence that all of Jesus' bones were put out of joint, and that he was emaciated? Yes, there are things in Psalm 22 that are paralleled in Jesus' life. Yes, Psalm 22 is a messianic Psalm. But that's all we can say.

Muz

Even typologies are prophetic. A Hebrew mindset sees all scripture as potentials for prophetic Messiah such that they have expectations for how He will appear and what He will do and can tell you.

 

[themuzicman]

Not sure I follow what you're saying. Do you think it's a coincidence that the folks in Matthew 27 freely said exactly what the prophet David wrote that they would say, in Psalms 22?

Psalms 22
7: All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head saying,
8: He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.


Matthew 27
41: Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
42: He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
43: He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

It is not coincidence, but neither is Matthew saying that Psalm 22 is prophecy. Matthew is saying that the present situation is similar to the what is described in Matthew 22 in a significant way.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

You guys have been brainwashed by "PBS" (Pinnock, Boyd, and Sanders)

Can you find fault with the quote instead of argumentum ad hominem?:box:

 

[godrulz]

It's called mumbo jumbo. Only the indoctrinated understand.

Some very bright minds have come to understand this after years of devotion to the traditional Calvinistic or Arminian views. OVT is a more biblical, coherent free will theism (free will theism is a significant viewpoint in Christianity; determinism is also held by many, but is highly problematic).

Choices involve contingencies. You are saying God knows something before the free choice is made (which may or may not obtain or become actual). There is a square circle issue here.

 

[godrulz]

EDF and Libertarian free will are not incompatible if we understand LFW differently than your description, such that freewill and EDF can work compatibly. It is only if one is constrained to agreement with the OV definition and consequences that there is a real problem.

So of course, we deny LFW as you describe it. The contention lies in your 'must' for contingency that cannot be foreknown. If you are a chocoholic, you still have a choice at choosing but this does not stop me really from foreknowing your choice in limitation and imperfection. If your wife knows you even better as to know without asking what you'd prefer for dinner, she is actually catering to your choice and this is a 'before' scenario that doesn't eliminate your choice for dinner at all. Indeed, a loving action must anticipate the desire of the other individual, thus to relagate a loving action to canceling your LFW is not even entertained with any seriousness.

It would be absurd to say my wife negates my LFW when she buys me a cocunut cream pie on my birthday instead of the chocolate one. She is catering to my LFW. In effect, her foreknowledge this birthday is not cancellation of my LFW but accentuates and ratifies it.

God knowing your choices before they are made is 1) more than predictive with a God who knows us exponentially 2) Loving 3) In no way can logically be seen as cancelling our desire (LFW) unless one has wrong preconceptions in the first place, which I believe OV does here.

Your illustrations are based on present knowledge once we exist and have predictable choices. It says nothing about your contention that God sees and knows zillions of moral and mundane free choices even before we exist to be known?!

 

[elected4ever]

Your illustrations are based on present knowledge once we exist and have predictable choices. It says nothing about your contention that God sees and knows zillions of moral and mundane free choices even before we exist to be known?!

As I have stated before, the LFW expounded here for the most part says that God's foreknowledge is causative. I do not believe that God's foreknowledge is causative. Our freewill does not limit God's foreknowledge. Just because we do not know future events is not a limitation on God.

 

[Lon]

Your illustrations are based on present knowledge once we exist and have predictable choices. It says nothing about your contention that God sees and knows zillions of moral and mundane free choices even before we exist to be known?!

Mere exponentials, you are limiting God. My illustrations validate foreknown choices and is but one way to work through logistics of the objection. As e4e mentions, there are other ways to logistically meet the objection such that it has several possible answers other than incompatibility. It is demonstrable that it is not an unassailable objection.

 

[godrulz]

As I have stated before, the LFW expounded here for the most part says that God's foreknowledge is causative. I do not believe that God's foreknowledge is causative. Our freewill does not limit God's foreknowledge. Just because we do not know future events is not a limitation on God.

Simple foreknowledge and libertarian free will (Arminianism) does not say foreknowledge is causative. If some on TOL say this, they are incorrect. What they are trying to say is that if the future is foreknown, it is fixed, and God could not change it even if He wanted to (so there is no providential advantage with the view because God's FK cannot be made to be wrong). In this sense, we do not have the ability to choose other than what God sees before we even exist. The problem is that the view is illogical/incoherent, so it is hard to defend or describe it.

Alternatively, if free will is genuine, then there is an element of unsettledness, so it is known as possible vs actual in advance (except in those things God purposes to unilaterally settle by His ability). EDF is not compatible with LFW (hence the proposals of determinism/compatibilism or middle knowledge to try to make it more coherent...but they also fall short in this attempt).

 

[elected4ever]

Simple foreknowledge and libertarian free will (Arminianism) does not say foreknowledge is causative.

There is no other explanation for your position but foreknowledge = causation. You have said so and then denied it a hundred times or more just like Clete. You can't get to where you are without believing foreknowledge is causative.

 

[godrulz]

Mere exponentials, you are limiting God. My illustrations validate foreknown choices and is but one way to work through logistics of the objection. As e4e mentions, there are other ways to logistically meet the objection such that it has several possible answers other than incompatibility. It is demonstrable that it is not an unassailable objection.

Even man can foreknow proximal choices in some cases. To extapolate this to remote, EDF before the choosers exist is a cosmic leap that is not defensible nor parallel.

The limiting of God is by God's voluntary choice to create significant others with a say so. If He had created a deterministic universe, than EDF would be true. Time is unidirectional. To not know the non-existent future is not a limitation on God, but the reality He has chosen to actualize.

Happy New Year, friend.

 

[tetelestai]

Can you find fault with the quote instead of argumentum ad hominem?:box:

Here is my favorite Pinnock quote: "Canadian evangelicals are more open. I guess they're more Canadian."

That kind of makes you living proof that he is correct, huh?

Pinnock (he's a Canadian) also says we evangelicals from the USA are "closed minded"

Source

Well, call me a closed minded American then.:FrankiE:

 

[elected4ever]

Even man can foreknow proximal choices in some cases. To extrapolate this to remote, EDF before the choosers exist is a cosmic leap that is not defensible nor parallel.

The limiting of God is by God's voluntary choice to create significant others with a say so. If He had created a deterministic universe, than EDF would be true. Time is unidirectional. To not know the non-existent future is not a limitation on God, but the reality He has chosen to actualize.

Happy New Year, friend.

Nothing God does is proximal. God is not man that He should be thought of as a man.

 

[godrulz]

Here is my favorite Pinnock quote: "Canadian evangelicals are more open. I guess they're more Canadian."

That kind of makes you living proof that he is correct, huh?

Pinnock (he's a Canadian) also says we evangelicals from the USA are "closed minded"

Source

Well, call me a closed minded American then.:FrankiE:

I think Americans have spawned more heresies, winds of doctrine, fads, etc. than Canadians, just because of sheer size (most pseudo-Christian cults come from the States). Most prominent OVTs are also from the States. I think it would be hard to find a significant OT element in Canada. We are also supposedly more conservative by nature, so it gets as much flack here as anywhere.

 

[elected4ever]

PS HAPPY NEW YEAR to you also God bless!

 

[godrulz]

Nothing God does is proximal. God is not man that He should be thought of as a man.

When Jesus was on earth, He predicted Peter's denial proximal to the event. God did not predicate it remotely trillions of years ago. 2009 for God is proximal, whereas initial creation is now remote. A denial of any temporality or duration in God's experiences is a denial of divine and human history (you can't just uncritically assume eternal now simultaneity when there is no evidence for it). The remote past is 'fresh' in God's memory, but that does not mean the reality of trillions of years ago is actually seconds away from the reality of the future trillions of years from now. We are not in a Matrix, nor is God.

 

[elected4ever]

When Jesus was on earth, He predicted Peter's denial proximal to the event. God did not predicate it remotely trillions of years ago. 2009 for God is proximal, whereas initial creation is now remote. A denial of any temporality or duration in God's experiences is a denial of divine and human history (you can't just uncritically assume eternal now simultaneity when there is no evidence for it). The remote past is 'fresh' in God's memory, but that does not mean the reality of trillions of years ago is actually seconds away from the reality of the future trillions of years from now. We are not in a Matrix, nor is God.

It all sounds pretty specific to me.

 

[godrulz]

It all sounds pretty specific to me.

It is specific, but when is it actually known (in eternity past or as reality unfolds in the present). God knows the past/present exhaustively, but the future as it becomes the past through the present.

 

[tetelestai]

God knows the past/present exhaustively, but the future as it becomes the past through the present.

This is a fancy way of saying God is too dumb to know the future.