Dialogos
Well-known member
Bob Enyart wrote the following reply to Tambora in this thread.
My reply was the following:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cavinism has developed some biblical answers to your philosophical challenges.
One of those is the notion of compatibilism, which (as you probably already know) claims that the criminal makes his own decision according to the dictates of his own will yet cannot violate God's active or permissive will.
Furthermore, Calvinism can and does tolerate the notion that God actively decrees some things (like the creation of man) and passively permits other things (like the fall).
Your argument here, and arguments you have made on your show and during the White debate about the character of the God (as Calvinism teaches) is really nothing more then the problem of evil rewarmed for Open Theist consumption.
My question is, how does removing God's exhaustive foreknowledge bail God out (so to speak)?
It doesn't.
In Calvinism (at least the kind I hold to), God passively decrees to allow the criminal to commit his evil act. In Arminianism, God knows that the criminal will do so but still allows it. In Open Theism, God doesn't know from before the foundation of the world, but surely knows seconds before it will happen, right?
So how is it that your emotionally charged arguments against the Calvinist don't similarly fall on the Open Theist?
God could have stopped the criminal but chose not to. Isn't it true that in Him we live and move and have our being? Couldn't God have stopped the violent criminal from committing the crime? Couldn't God have given the criminal a massive coronary and stopped him from murdering an innocent person.
If God is, (as you rightly say) Omnicompetent, then God cannot be unable to prevent evil even if God is in time and can only see the current actions of a criminal and know the current state of his heart.
God sees the man taking the gun out of the dresser drawer, He sees the man raising the gun to use it violently, He sees the man aiming the gun. Isn't an omnicompetent God capable of interrupting the process and saving the life of the victim?
So even in Open Theism, if the criminal kills the innocent victim, it is because God decreed in the moment to allow it, isn't it?
Bob, the reality is that everything you criticize about a God Who foreknew and who decreed to permit evil in eternity past is true of a God who is only capable of knowing the current state of affairs and current motives of a criminals heart. Your own argument ends up being a critique on your own theology. The only different is the amount of time God has had to contemplate the actions he decrees to permit.
Surely you won't arguing that God would have made a better decision in the case of a killer if He had more time to think about it, are you?
Bob, The real distinction is that the Calvinist can confidently assert the truth of Romans 8:28 even in the case of violent crime whereas the Open Theist has to claim that God knows no such thing to be true. We know that even in the most heinous of actions, God planned from eternity past to make that work for the good of those who love Him.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am wondering if any Open Theists have an answer or are open Theists, and perhaps Bob Enyart, willing to drop the argument..?
Bob Enyart said:Tambora, I see that a lot. He decrees everything; doesn't decree the really bad stuff. The criminal acts by his own will -- but he could not have done otherwise. God could have decreed any way He wanted to -- but He eternally had foreknowledge of the way He decreed. Etc., etc., etc.
Bob,
My reply was the following:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cavinism has developed some biblical answers to your philosophical challenges.
One of those is the notion of compatibilism, which (as you probably already know) claims that the criminal makes his own decision according to the dictates of his own will yet cannot violate God's active or permissive will.
Furthermore, Calvinism can and does tolerate the notion that God actively decrees some things (like the creation of man) and passively permits other things (like the fall).
Your argument here, and arguments you have made on your show and during the White debate about the character of the God (as Calvinism teaches) is really nothing more then the problem of evil rewarmed for Open Theist consumption.
My question is, how does removing God's exhaustive foreknowledge bail God out (so to speak)?
It doesn't.
In Calvinism (at least the kind I hold to), God passively decrees to allow the criminal to commit his evil act. In Arminianism, God knows that the criminal will do so but still allows it. In Open Theism, God doesn't know from before the foundation of the world, but surely knows seconds before it will happen, right?
So how is it that your emotionally charged arguments against the Calvinist don't similarly fall on the Open Theist?
God could have stopped the criminal but chose not to. Isn't it true that in Him we live and move and have our being? Couldn't God have stopped the violent criminal from committing the crime? Couldn't God have given the criminal a massive coronary and stopped him from murdering an innocent person.
If God is, (as you rightly say) Omnicompetent, then God cannot be unable to prevent evil even if God is in time and can only see the current actions of a criminal and know the current state of his heart.
God sees the man taking the gun out of the dresser drawer, He sees the man raising the gun to use it violently, He sees the man aiming the gun. Isn't an omnicompetent God capable of interrupting the process and saving the life of the victim?
So even in Open Theism, if the criminal kills the innocent victim, it is because God decreed in the moment to allow it, isn't it?
Bob, the reality is that everything you criticize about a God Who foreknew and who decreed to permit evil in eternity past is true of a God who is only capable of knowing the current state of affairs and current motives of a criminals heart. Your own argument ends up being a critique on your own theology. The only different is the amount of time God has had to contemplate the actions he decrees to permit.
Surely you won't arguing that God would have made a better decision in the case of a killer if He had more time to think about it, are you?
Bob, The real distinction is that the Calvinist can confidently assert the truth of Romans 8:28 even in the case of violent crime whereas the Open Theist has to claim that God knows no such thing to be true. We know that even in the most heinous of actions, God planned from eternity past to make that work for the good of those who love Him.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am wondering if any Open Theists have an answer or are open Theists, and perhaps Bob Enyart, willing to drop the argument..?