ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Lon]

Ask Mr. Religion

You did not answer my last two posts. A long repeat of what you have already said before is not an answer to what I stated. I'm beginning to think that you have little or no understanding of the rules of rationality; identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. In your last post is filled with fallacies, references to verses taken out of context, and misrepresentations of both sides of this debate. I will take the time to show this but I already foreknow that you will not be able to comprehend my next critique any more then you have understood the last one.

Fore-guess, predictive, not 'know.' It is important to dilineate our definition here.

We do not use 'foreknowledge' the same way. Just because I will have to do my taxes next year, is NOT foreknowledge in the same sense we are view God's foreknowledge. There is a very distinct difference. We do not really share in God's foreknowledge at all. We have inklings, but that's it. I have an inkling, that 'if' I am still here next year, I'll have to do my taxes. I have an inkling, that as I've never owed, I'll most 'likely' not owe next year. I have an inkling, that I'll use the standard form because I own a house, have children, and two of us are working.

I really don't know which form I will actually use, if the tax forms will be the same, if the rebates and shelters this year are available next year...etc. etc. It is a very vague concept of a tiny piece of future. It is not foreknowledge, because I don't know if a hurricane will come, if the vocanoe will blow, if the quake will drop my section of the world into the sea, if, if, if. I see no 'if's' with God's foreknowledge. It isn't predictive primarily, it isn't changed by variables, it isn't the same as our guesses or inklings. Our 'fore-guesstimation' can be thwarted.

Jam 4:13 You who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into this or that town and spend a year there and do business and make a profit."
Jam 4:14 You do not know about tomorrow. What is your life like? For you are a puff of smoke that appears for a short time and then vanishes.
Jam 4:15 You ought to say instead, "If the Lord is willing, then we will live and do this or that."

 

[patman]

I'm not for or against Open Theism, I'm still gathering facts. Maybe someone who
holds the Open View can help me with this.

I ran across this scripture today in my study: Acts 17:24-27.
Just curious how this is understood by the Open View?

thanks.

Some things are predetermined and foreknown. But note that there is freewill woven into the verse. How can freewill and predetermined be one and the same?

Mans will is not predetermined. It is also not foreknown. What is foreknown is what will happen to a man if he chose good or evil.

 

[baloney]

Mr. Religion, the article agrees with you that a vacuum is not nothing, but maybe it should properly be another topic.

I'm just saying as the article explains that creation ins not causing a change in something which time is; that is change.

 

[Yorzhik]

First of all, I have no problem thinking, but these are threads, so there is a need to ask for brief response. Requiring someone to cogitate might be one reason you get no answers. It becomes a guessing game of 'read my logical mind.'

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you are saying here. If it is in reference to me getting a response on this thread, I understand not everyone has the time or inclination to answer everything. I was saying that this has been mentioned before as in "I've seen this question over the years". Not in this thread necessarily, although it had been mentioned here before, too. I was just commenting that a trend seemed to be forming.

I believe you'd have to be OV to see a contradiction.

No, it's the same for all worldviews if logic is the basis for thought.

So can we cut to the chase and rather should you ask, "What contradiction? I don't see a contradiction."?

The mark of freewill here is that if it is my choice, and God tells me what I'm about to do (like deny Him 3 times).... hmmm...contradiction?

No, the contradiction cannot be seen with so many other variables. The test is if freewill can exist with exhaustive foreknowledge. In other words, we cannot test if Peter's will was to see if he could overcome exhaustive foreknowledge. (At the time, Peter's will was being affected by many factors and the evidence suggests that exhaustive foreknowledge was the furthest thing from Peter's mind.)

Now, you have made two faulty assumptions: 1) God doesn't influence our decisions at all (somehow I'm 'completely' free in my choices),

Huh? Where did I say this? I don't think that is part of the hypothetical at all. Could you show me what you are talking about?

2) Foreknowledge equals no choice (here we are wrestling over exhaustive foreknowledge, but it is important that foreknowledge of any kind does exist, and even in a remote example, it is real knowledge and not just determinism nor predictive.

I don't understand what you mean here. Could you clarify? Maybe break up the ideas and explain more?

This is one point that OV repeatedly make mistakes on.

What is the antecedent to "This"? What's in the previous paragraph? What is the previous paragraph? Another idea? I just don't know what you think I'm making a mistake on so I cannot respond.

No wonder you would be OV with this understanding.

Is the antecedent to "this" the same as the previous sentence. If so, I couldn't understand, and if not then please tell me the antecedent.

There is no way you could appreciate another view with this imperializing of Free-will. My observation is that the OV definition of free-will IS the difference between our respective positions. There are other issues, but this point drives a wedge in logic, theology, scripture interpretation, and application.

What is the right view? Could you explain?

God 'knows' future in the definition of foreknowledge. You guys see a logical absurdity, not because you've considered the ramifications of the actual definition of foreknowledge, but because you have a very constrained definition based on free-will. This I continually, repeatedly say is wrong. It is this view on free-will that has you making sense of all the rest of your theology, and I believe it is an incorrect conception. You are equating foreknowledge with 'no free-will.' I say that first, God has foreknowledge, and yes it has limiting overtones to free-will, but free-will is not exhaustive. You are just trading exhaustive here for your definition. It is not Greek philosophy that gives understanding of foreknowledge, it is scripture.

That is what the thought experiment is for. It includes a contradiction. Is the bottom line that you don't see the contradiction?

Psa 139:1
O LORD, you examine me and know.
Psa 139:2 You know when I sit down and when I get up;
even from far away you understand my motives.
Psa 139:3 You carefully observe me when I travel or when I lie down to rest;
you are aware of everything I do.
Psa 139:4 Certainly my tongue does not frame a word
without you, O LORD, being thoroughly aware of it.
Psa 139:5 You squeeze me in from behind and in front;
you place your hand on me.
Psa 139:6 Your knowledge is beyond my comprehension;
it is so far beyond me, I am unable to fathom it.
Psa 139:7 Where can I go to escape your spirit?
Where can I flee to escape your presence?

Mat 26:34 Jesus said to him, "I tell you the truth, on this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."
Mat 26:35 Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will never deny you." And all the disciples said the same thing.

Mat 21:1
Now when they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples,
Mat 21:2 telling them, "Go to the village ahead of you. Right away you will find a donkey tied there, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me.
Mat 21:3 If anyone says anything to you, you are to say, 'The Lord needs them,' and he will send them at once."
Mat 21:4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet:
Mat 21:5 "Tell the people of Zion,
'Look, your king is coming to you,
unassuming and seated on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "

Act 2:23 this man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles.

1Pe 1:1&2
From Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those temporarily residing abroad (in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia) who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father by being set apart by the Spirit for obedience and for sprinkling with Jesus Christ's blood. May grace and peace be yours in full measure.

Joh 13:1 Just before the Passover feast, Jesus knew that his time had come to depart from this world to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now loved them to the very end.

Deu 31:21 Then when many disasters and distresses overcome them this song will testify against them, for their descendants will not forget it. I know the intentions they have in mind today, even before I bring them to the land I have promised."

Rom 8:29 because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

Ecc 6:10 Whatever has happened was foreordained,
and what happens to a person was also foreknown.
It is useless for him to argue with God about his fate
because God is more powerful than he is.
(Ecclesiastes gives a very clear picture here of what this foreknowledge entails)

But none of these passages speak to the problem at hand. Also, don't you think OV'ers have seen your proof texts? Do you know enough about the OV position to know the standard answers to these proof texts?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Calvinism has a doctrine for everything. What it lacks is any relationships.


Given any thought to grace being ... well ... just grace, AMR?

There is no biblical support for "just grace" in the Scriptures. Nor is there any support for universal prevenient (preceding) grace, so, no, I don't give "just grace" much thought.

 

[baloney]

Can you define what exactly you mean by preceding grace because I think I can show biblical support.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Can you define what exactly you mean by preceding grace because I think I can show biblical support.

Prevenient grace is the grace that must precede salvation. As Wesley writes, "Fallen men and women cannot turn to repent without grace preceding them."

I have no dispute with prevenient grace, indeed Calvinism holds to the doctrine. The difference is that Arminians (and most open theists) hold that prevenient grace is universal, restores free will so that the recipient can cooperate with their own salvation, yet this grace can be resisted. Whereas Calvinists believe that there is (1)a universal focus to God's grace, a common grace, that is not a saving grace but restrains evil in the world, and a (2) prevenient grace that precedes salvation that is irresistably given to God's elect and always results in the elect's believing and being saved.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I'm not for or against Open Theism, I'm still gathering facts. Maybe someone who
holds the Open View can help me with this.

I ran across this scripture today in my study: Acts 17:24-27.
Just curious how this is understood by the Open View?

thanks.

Open view is not a view that states that God does not determine anything, nor that God foreknows nothing. God has determined somethings and foreknows somethings. The closed, or settled view states that God determines and knows everything. A timeless deity decrees, knows, creates and determines everything at once. There is no foreknowledge in a timeless deity because nothing comes "before" or "after" in his thinking. He doesn't know anything before it happens, because, for him, it has already happened.

The verses in Acts 17 are a perfect example of OV theology.

26 and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 that they should seek God, if haply (or if indeed) they might feel after him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us:

I'm no geek, but it's time to go Greek

27 ζητεῖν τὸν θεὸν εἰ ἄρα ψηλαφήσειαν αὐτὸν καὶ εὕροιεν

The phrase, should seek, ζητεῖν, is an "infinitive" verb that I think in the syntax of this sentence is properly translated as a subjunctive; feel after, "ψηλαφήσειαν", and find, "εὕροιεν" are verbs in the "optative mode". "The optative is the mode of possibility; the subjunctive is the mode of probability. The two do not differ radically. The optative, like the subjuctive, expresses a doubtful or contingent statement, or the expression of a wish." The greek words, "εἰ ἄρα γε", mean if so, if then, or if indeed.

This passage says God has determined "times" and "boundaries" for "nations of men" with the "hope", "wish", "expectation" etc. that they "might" seek after him, with the possibility that they "might not" seek after him.

This passage makes it clear by the optative and subjunctive mode of the verbs that God has not determined and does not foreknow what the outcome will be.

 

[baloney]

Through natural human reason we can come to know of a first cause although our understanding of such is limited like looking through a glass darkly.

To make the actual leap of faith takes supernatural assistance of grace which Catholics call actual grace. It's mentioned a few times in Scripture like when Christ says to Peter it is only through the Father that you know I am the messiah.

God calls out to everyone and we must respond to this grace. When we are baptised we recieve sacramental grace which adheres to our soul.

Sacramental grace is like a seed. Unless we nourish it with good works it bears no fruit.

Grace is an unmerited gift and the good works have no merit in themselves but it is because God commands us to do good works that we must.

Luther believed grace was extrinsic and did not adhere to our soul. He got this idea from his strict Augustinian order who mistakenly taught him that pelagianism was being preached which it was not.

This idea of total depravity comes from the mistaken idea that before original sin, human nature was immortal. In terms of numbers we were at 0 before orignal sin and -1 after.

Immortality was a special grace of god which we lost after original sin and we returned to our natural state. We were at +1 and went back to 0. So this whole idea that the world was affected by man's sin is incorrect. We are only talking about moral evil which deals with man's moral decisions.

Metaphysical evil, things in nature die to give more life is natural.

Physical evil, things that cause man's death occurs because we lost the supernatural grace of immortality.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The closed, or settled view states that God determines and knows everything. A timeless deity decrees, knows, creates and determines everything at once. There is no foreknowledge in a timeless deity because nothing comes "before" or "after" in his thinking. He doesn't know anything before it happens, because, for him, it has already happened.

This is simplistic and incorrect. God transcends our concepts of time and describing His knowledge of temporal events as “it has already happened” is a gross misunderstanding of the “eternal now” of God.

God is infinite in relation to time. Time does not apply to God. God was before time began. God is not restricted by the dimension of time. That God is not bound by time does not mean that God is not conscious of the succession of points in time. God knows what is now occurring in human experience. God is aware that events occur in a particular order. God is equally aware of all points of that order simultaneously. God is aware of what is happening, has happened, and what will happen at each point in time. Yet at any given point in time God is also conscious of the distinction between what is now occurring, what has been, and what will be.

There is a successive order to the acts of God and there is a logical order to his decisions, yet there is no temporal order to God’s willing. God’s deliberation and willing take no time. God has from eternity determined what He is now doing. Therefore God’s actions are not in any way reactions to developments. God does not get taken by surprise or have to create contingency plans.

 

[themuzicman]

This is simplistic and incorrect. God transcends our concepts of time and describing His knowledge of temporal events as “it has already happened” is a gross misunderstanding of the “eternal now” of God.

God is infinite in relation to time. Time does not apply to God. God was before time began. God is not restricted by the dimension of time. That God is not bound by time does not mean that God is not conscious of the succession of points in time. God knows what is now occurring in human experience. God is aware that events occur in a particular order. God is equally aware of all points of that order simultaneously. God is aware of what is happening, has happened, and what will happen at each point in time. Yet at any given point in time God is also conscious of the distinction between what is now occurring, what has been, and what will be.

There is a successive order to the acts of God and there is a logical order to his decisions, yet there is no temporal order to God’s willing. God’s deliberation and willing take no time. God has from eternity determined what He is now doing. Therefore God’s actions are not in any way reactions to developments. God does not get taken by surprise or have to create contingency plans.

Funny how you say that God is atemporal, and still say "God was before time began." Notice that the word "before" is a temporal term that you applied to God. That's called a contradiction.

The fact is that an atemporal God means a co-eternal universe that could not have been created, since creating would require that there was a "time" before God created, and you can't use "time" and "before" with respect to an atemporal being.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

'Eternal now' is a philosophical concept, not a biblical one, and should not be uncritically accepted because of tradition. Endless time, not timelessness, is God's self-revelation in Scripture.

 

[Lighthouse]

Again, I ask, can an immutable God really be omnipotent?

 

[Nang]

Prevenient grace is the grace that must precede salvation. As Wesley writes, "Fallen men and women cannot turn to repent without grace preceding them."

I have no dispute with prevenient grace, indeed Calvinism holds to the doctrine. The difference is that Arminians (and most open theists) hold that prevenient grace is universal, restores free will so that the recipient can cooperate with their own salvation, yet this grace can be resisted. Whereas Calvinists believe that there is (1)a universal focus to God's grace, a common grace, that is not a saving grace but restrains evil in the world, and a (2) prevenient grace that precedes salvation that is irresistably given to God's elect and always results in the elect's believing and being saved.

AMR,

I thank you for this explanation, for the term "prevenient" grace has been so misused and abused, that God's grace has lost all significance in the minds of men.

"Grace" is now-a-days defined as the Father "drawing" men to Christ, and nothing much more. And of course, this "draw", or "calling" is promised in a universalist sense. And since most men never hear a call or come to faith in Christ, it is then said that God's "grace is resistible. Which is all bad teaching without any Scriptural basis.


The bestowal of the grace of God upon a particular soul is much more than a general or opportunistic "drawing" to the Son that can be "accepted" or rejected.

(Not all Calvinists hold to your definition #1)

Those who receive favor (grace) in the eyes of God, are irresistibly marked to become, without fail, nothing less than the very "sons of God," accepted, "in the Beloved." This is a comprehensive transformation of the entire being of the elect sinner; he is changed in body, mind, heart, and will. Grace manifests in the sons of God all the following: The love of God, the mercy of God, the sovereign predestination of God, the forgiveness of God, the drawing to God, the regeneration by God, the sanctification unto God, the preservation of God . . .all fulfillment of the promises of everlasting life and glory given by God.

Lost sinners are adopted into the royal family of God; are given His name; His wealth; His riches; His image; His protection, rights, and very life.

This is grace and it is always efficacious and permanent.

If I may say, I believe common, earthly blessings enjoyed by all God's creatures alike (your definition #1), is Godly providence, not Godly grace.

The concept of God's grace is eternal in scope; His providence is merely temporal.

Nang

 

[themuzicman]

I'm not entirely sure why "previent grace" is applicable to OVT. It's not necessary. Perhaps this is off topic?

Muz

 

[Nang]

I'm not entirely sure why "previent grace" is applicable to OVT. It's not necessary. Perhaps this is off topic?

Muz

Perhaps it is OT if OVT'ers do not believe in the necessity of God's grace for salvation.

Is that the case?

 

[themuzicman]

Perhaps it is OT if OVT'ers do not believe in the necessity of God's grace for salvation.

Is that the case?

If course God's grace is required. But this discussion isn't specific to OVT>

Muz

 

[Nang]

If course God's grace is required. But this discussion isn't specific to OVT>

Muz

If God's grace is particular and eternal in essence, then there is no OVT.

 

[Lighthouse]

If God's grace is particular and eternal in essence, then there is no OVT.

How is that? Just because one thing's settled, all things are? That's not even a logical conclusion.

 

[Nang]

How is that? Just because one thing's settled, all things are? That's not even a logical conclusion.

Well, I happen to believe that all things are settled, in order that God might work all things together for good for those who love God.