ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

Ok. Just a couple more questions, please. A DIME FOR EVERYTIME YOU'VE SAID THAT, PLEASE.

My question is: YOU ASK: What makes a qualitative attribute take precedence over a quantitative attribute? What's your scriptural proof? If it's the verses you quoted then consider this: What makes God righteous in your view? AND THEN YOU ANSWER: It's the fact that He rejects evil, isn't it. YOU ASK: So then couldn't it be said that God's knowledge(of good and evil in this case) is foundational to His righteousness; and, according to your thinking, takes precedence over His righteousness? AND THEN YOU ANSWER: I'm sure that you would say that God's knowledge is 'quantitative' since you don't have to be knowledgeable to be a 'good person' as you and I have agreed.

AND THEN YOU ___whatever___: I have been wanting to ask this question, but your sudden victory and my ensuing humiliation caught me off guard.

It's the same thing over and over and over and over ... Same ol question you’ve been asking and answering and re-asking and re-answering for yourself from day one. You ignore everything said to you here. Robe you treat God like a thing to be dissected. God is a person! Talk to Him. Ask Him your questions. Get to know Him. God is responsive. Try your new found humility in conversation with God.

Clete:
Who are you trying to convince?

:idunno:

 

[RobE]

It's the same thing over and over and over and over ... Same ol question you’ve been asking and answering and re-asking and re-answering for yourself from day one. You ignore everything said to you here. Robe you treat God like a thing to be dissected. God is a person! Talk to Him. Ask Him your questions. Get to know Him. God is responsive. Try your new found humility in conversation with God.

:idunno:

Cheerleaders should stay off the field until the game is over.:yawn:

 

[Philetus]

We're probably debating different issues again. I'm debating what proof is there that establishes one attribute takes precedence over the other?

Holiness defines a 'whole' persons use of what ever power he/she may have.

God is a 'whole' person.

 

[Philetus]

Cheerleaders should stay off the field until the game is over.:yawn:

Water boys shouldn't drink all the water.

 

[Nang]

Cheerleaders should stay off the field until the game is over.:yawn:

:crackup:

I think Philetus must be on Clete's payroll . . .

 

[godrulz]

Perhaps, but that wasn't where I was going.

Choice can be very constrained and for our topic moreso. The following of inclination is how AMR puts it. Adam had a choice but it was merely a constraint of two possibilities: God or sin.

The man without Christ may choose to buy the modest shirt, but the value for such isn't meaningful to the context of our discussion by itself. The only value in such a discussion is eternal consequences of that selection. Fundamentally this is the crux of every decision made. "Whether you eat, or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

It is about one choice always with this constraint. When we are standing before the bema seat, only that which was done for Him will remain. The rest is burned dross. If nothing but that choice matters, it is clear such discussions about the meaningless triviality is about the color of the ashes before they are blown away and disappear. Free will is not the focal point of our discussion, but rather constrained will to only this one choice: what survives and what is destroyed. "Therefore lay up your treasures in heaven where thieves and fire cannot destroy."

Lon

Given the continued existence of Satan and evil, there is a sense that freedom is genuine and irrevocable. There is also a finitude of freedom. It is not unlimited and within parameters.

AMR has a compatibilistic freedom that compromises it in my mind. Freedom is libertarian and being able to chose between alternatives (may or may not happen). This creates an element of uncertainty and is more than acting on desires. I desire things, but do not always act on the desires. There is not a causative nature back of the will making us do things. The bondage of the will or total depravity concepts are an overstatement of the problem.

Calvinism is simply too deterministic to square with the principles found in Scripture and real life. Hyper-sovereignty is not the best model of God's providential rule. Man is more than a machine. We are in the image of God, though marred (defaced, not erased). Love and causation are contradictory concepts. God rules by love/freedom in moral creation, not cause-effect like in inanimate creation. Issues of responsibility are tied in with freedom (incompatibilistic kind).

 

[themuzicman]

Ok. I cut and pasted it from this post......Click Here to read your own words.



Do you see any conflict from these statements that you made and the following statement that you made?

Apparently I have to go back and explain to Rob that I made an error using 'A' for the agent AND the action. X should have been the agent. I apologize for my error.


Let's go back and fix it for Rob.



X=LFW Agent, in the example, me.
A=Any possible action or decision, in the example, the decision to go to Wendy's for lunch
Z=Any point in time, in this case, 11am on the 1st of October.

LFW states that Agent X at time Z may do A or ~A.

For our example, from the time perspective of 9am on October 1st, LFW states that *I*, at 11am on October 1st, may decide to go to Wendy's, or may decide NOT to go to Wendy's.

No EDF is required to know that going to Wendy's is a possible decision. No EDF is required to know that NOT going to Wendy's is also a possible decision. As I stated, at 11am on that day, I decided to go to Little Caesars, instead.

There is simply no logical basis for saying that either A or ~A are not possible.

Nor is there a logical basis for saying that I may or may not do "otherwise", since there is no definite action from which to deviate. We may do A, we may do ~A. Nothing more can be said.


This is what separates LFW alone from LFW with EDF. EDF introduces a definite course of action prior to the time of the decision which cannot be "otherwise." "Otherwise", then, represents a course of action other than what is definitely known, because there is a definite action for "otherwise" to reflect from.

However, we also see that if we maintain the definiteness of EDF, that "otherwise" is not possible, as demonstrated by the test.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Let's go back and fix it for Rob.

I'm sure that will clear everything up. He'll go, "Oh! Now I see."

Muz, your wasting your time.

There is simply no logical basis for saying that either A or ~A are not possible.

..... WERE not possible before.

By 11:01 AM they are no longer posible at 11am on that (great and terrible) day.

He gets himself on this one every time.

 

[themuzicman]

Yeah, I remember now why I put him on ignore in the first place.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

Lee: and I agree that God can bring about human choices. This contradicts a principle in the Open View that such choices cannot be known.

Muz: Incorrect. Humans can be influenced to freely make particular choices without definite foreknowledge.

So let’s not have people saying “the future can’t be known because it hasn’t happened yet”? And I think a free choice that will be made is definite knowledge of the future.

Revelation 9:20 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent ...

Muz: Anyone that God does not draw cannot come to Him (John 6:44-45)

I agree, however in this verse, there is a sense of condemnation for not doing what they ought to have done, this would seem to require the Open View state that God was indeed seeking to bring about repentance.

Revelation 11:13 and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.

Muz: Group dynamics. People in groups are far easier to predict than individuals.

And yet these choices, made by people, are known.

Will you obey the God of the universe because He is the God of the universe, and have faith in His to do what is righteous and just? Or do you demand that He guarantee you something first?

Certainly I will obey the Lord, now the reason is that he is good, not simply because he is powerful, and yes, he will do what is just, and I put my hope there.

1 John 3:8 The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.

Muz: John is referring to the sanctification in our lives that should result from our salvation, no longer doing the works of the devil, but works of righteousness as a result of Christ's propitiation.

So “takes away the sin of the world” is “takes away the sin of believers”? But I think Jesus came to do more than simply stop some sinning.

John 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

Colossians 2:15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

John 16:33 "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

Do you believe that God will ultimately judge all mankind and the devil and all his angels, and that they will ultimately be thrown into the lake of fire?

I don't think that's what the Devil's purpose was.

Certainly, the devil will be thwarted there, and in all his works.

Choice 1: Heinous evil is man's will (OV)
Choice 2: Heinous evil is God's will (Calvinism)

I like choice 1 better.

This is not the Calvinist view, choice 1, though the warfare worldview is the Open View. But was the cross man’s will, and also not God’s will? The Open View is simplistic, it involves a denial of plans that God has of even pain and suffering, for a purpose for good.

I note that no comment was made on Paul’s thorn in the flesh—given to him to keep him humble.

Lee: But what of being required to allow evil you would rather not have, in order to bring human happiness? I think the question is still to be pressed, in that case. Should there be any suffering that is regrettable, and a real loss, in order to have a paradise? This is the ends justifying the means…

Muz: No. It doesn't. There is no justice in killing anyone to make everyone else happy

But how is creating a world with real, regrettable evil not having the end justify the means?

 

[Philetus]

So let’s not have people saying “the future can’t be known because it hasn’t happened yet”? And I think a free choice that will be made is definite knowledge of the future.

If it will make you sleep better, OK. Just pretend we are not here. Imagine we are out in the future some place.

I agree, however in this verse, there is a sense of condemnation for not doing what they ought to have done, this would seem to require the Open View state that God was indeed seeking to bring about repentance.

God was indeed seeking to bring about repentance
Oh, lordy! Why didn't we think of that.

And yet these choices, made by people, are known.

Name one of those people. Give the date and place of birth. Be specific.

Certainly I will obey the Lord, now the reason is that he is good, not simply because he is powerful, and yes, he will do what is just, and I put my hope there.

Good statement. But, it doesn't square with your theological position. Why hope in what is already known and settled? Are you just hoping you are right?

So “takes away the sin of the world” is “takes away the sin of believers”? But I think Jesus came to do more than simply stop some sinning.

:guitar: Man, that's deep. You are on a roll now, Lee. I would really like to hear you flesh that one out. You may wade out of the muck your stuck in up to your eyeballs.

This is not the Calvinist view, choice 1, though the warfare worldview is the Open View. But was the cross man’s will, and also not God’s will? The Open View is simplistic, it involves a denial of plans that God has of even pain and suffering, for a purpose for good.

Explain it to us again, Lee.
Let's say that you go to a place to preach the Gospel that you know is very dangerous. People have been kidnapped and even killed there just for being 'outsiders'. You know there is a really good chance that you may die. You go anyway. How is going anyway and placing yourself in harms way supporting, willing or even sanctioning the evil even if the enemies of your faith do in fact murder you? ​

I note that no comment was made on Paul’s thorn in the flesh—given to him to keep him humble.

God gave us you, didn't He? (It's been addressed. You just ignored it. Short term memory loss can be a real pain. No?)

But how is creating a world with real, regrettable evil not having the end justify the means?

God created a world with THE POSSIBILITY of real, regrettable evil!
EVIL ISN'T THE MEANS THAT GOD USES TO ACCOMPLISH HIS PURPOSES!
Evil is diametrically opposed to the purposes of God.
God doesn't even repay evil with evil. Sin pays it's own wage.

God the Father did not murder God the Son. He GAVE His life … over into the hands of sinful men who crucified Him. God did NO evil in the cross. The evil was done TO HIM as it always is.​

Philetus




PS:

Nang:
I think Philetus must be on Clete's payroll . . .

Clete, send my check! :noway:

 

[RobE]

X=LFW Agent, in the example, me.
A=Any possible action or decision, in the example, the decision to go to Wendy's for lunch
Z=Any point in time, in this case, 11am on the 1st of October.

LFW states that Agent X at time Z may do A or ~A.

For our example, from the time perspective of 9am on October 1st, LFW states that *I*, at 11am on October 1st, may decide to go to Wendy's, or may decide NOT to go to Wendy's.

No EDF is required to know that going to Wendy's is a possible decision. No EDF is required to know that NOT going to Wendy's is also a possible decision. As I stated, at 11am on that day, I decided to go to Little Caesars, instead.

There is simply no logical basis for saying that either A or ~A are not possible.

Nor is there a logical basis for saying that I may or may not do "otherwise", since there is no definite action from which to deviate. We may do A, we may do ~A. Nothing more can be said.

This is what separates LFW alone from LFW with EDF. EDF introduces a definite course of action prior to the time of the decision which cannot be "otherwise." "Otherwise", then, represents a course of action other than what is definitely known, because there is a definite action for "otherwise" to reflect from.

However, we also see that if we maintain the definiteness of EDF, that "otherwise" is not possible, as demonstrated by the test.

Muz

______________________________________________________

For our example, from the time perspective of 9am on October 1st, LFW states that *I*, at 11am on October 1st, may decide to go to Wendy's, or may decide NOT to go to Wendy's.

I objected that if you truly meant that you 'might go to Wendys' that it invalidated the proof based upon your own reasoning.....

Originally Posted by Muz
The problem is that "A" is undefined in his test. It shifts based upon my future unknown choice. That's why the test is invalid: There's no standard to say whether I did otherwise or not

Muz(post 4006)"What you will do" is undefined, and thus saying that I will do the undefined is both meaningless, as it doesn't point to anything, and false, since whatever I do, it will be defined.​

_____________________________________________________

No EDF is required to know that going to Wendy's is a possible decision. No EDF is required to know that NOT going to Wendy's is also a possible decision. As I stated, at 11am on that day, I decided to go to Little Caesars, instead.

There is simply no logical basis for saying that either A or ~A are not possible.

Remember - You can't conclude truth or falsity based upon a lack of evidence. That's arguing from silence. - Muz

_____________________________________________________

Ok. Do so. Give me an example of 'doing otherwise' without assuming foreknowledge of what you would do. A logical argument, not scientific since you admit it is scientifically untestable.

Come on! You can do better than that! Now you're saying that you are able to do other than what you might do? Where's the logical proof? It's meaningless as you pointed out before. Prove that you did other than any possibility(might do). Your proof above doesn't achieve this.

 

[Lon]

Given the continued existence of Satan and evil, there is a sense that freedom is genuine and irrevocable. There is also a finitude of freedom. It is not unlimited and within parameters.

AMR has a compatibilistic freedom that compromises it in my mind. Freedom is libertarian and being able to chose between alternatives (may or may not happen). This creates an element of uncertainty and is more than acting on desires. I desire things, but do not always act on the desires. There is not a causative nature back of the will making us do things. The bondage of the will or total depravity concepts are an overstatement of the problem.

Calvinism is simply too deterministic to square with the principles found in Scripture and real life. Hyper-sovereignty is not the best model of God's providential rule. Man is more than a machine. We are in the image of God, though marred (defaced, not erased). Love and causation are contradictory concepts. God rules by love/freedom in moral creation, not cause-effect like in inanimate creation. Issues of responsibility are tied in with freedom (incompatibilistic kind).

Given the basic flowchart of choice, down the scale there are many, BUT it starts and ends with a very basic premise in which there is but one choice depending on who we are. The downline multilevel peramid isn't as important to our conversation as the upline (no I'm not into Amway). The point being that only the top point is needed for discussion. The rest all proceeds from the top premise. If we are believers, we have but one choice, the ability is rather the propensity and decline to do otherwise (sin). Our desire is but one choice, to follow after Him and have what was lost be restored. I really don't care to argue about any other decision or choice. In my mind the rest is nickels and dimes and pennies. Those choices don't make any difference at all. It doesn't matter what I eat or drink or wear, that is all in His hands. After the top of the flow chart is dealt with the rest is gravy.

Blessings

Lon

 

[Philetus]

If exaggeration doesn't work ... minimize and diminish?

 

[themuzicman]

So let’s not have people saying “the future can’t be known because it hasn’t happened yet”? And I think a free choice that will be made is definite knowledge of the future.

Except that it isn't free.

I agree, however in this verse, there is a sense of condemnation for not doing what they ought to have done, this would seem to require the Open View state that God was indeed seeking to bring about repentance.

I don't know why.

And yet these choices, made by people, are known.

Not each individual.

Certainly I will obey the Lord, now the reason is that he is good, not simply because he is powerful, and yes, he will do what is just, and I put my hope there.

So, if God changes His mind, is He still righteous in your eyes?

So “takes away the sin of the world” is “takes away the sin of believers”? But I think Jesus came to do more than simply stop some sinning.

He came to take away the consequences of our sin with respect to being under the judgment and wrath of God. That's what it means.

John 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

Colossians 2:15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

John 16:33 "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."


Certainly, the devil will be thwarted there, and in all his works.

Yes, all the Devil's works will fail to achieve the Devil's purposes.

This is not the Calvinist view, choice 1, though the warfare worldview is the Open View. But was the cross man’s will, and also not God’s will? The Open View is simplistic, it involves a denial of plans that God has of even pain and suffering, for a purpose for good.

Calvinism says that the rape of a 9 year old girl is God's will and He makes it good. I don't find that either biblical or acceptable.

I note that no comment was made on Paul’s thorn in the flesh—given to him to keep him humble.

First, we don't know exactly what it was.
Second, God probably wasn't the direct cause of the thorn. God simply refused to remove it.

Which demonstrates the difference between Calvinism and OVT. Calvinism says that God causes evil so that He can do good from it. OVT says that man commits evil, and God, in his goodness, grace, and mercy, brings good to those who seek His face through it.

But how is creating a world with real, regrettable evil not having the end justify the means?

That's the Calvinist problem. OVT says that God created a world without evil.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

______________________________________________________


I objected that if you truly meant that you 'might go to Wendys' that it invalidated the proof based upon your own reasoning.....

Muz(post 4006)"What you will do" is undefined, and thus saying that I will do the undefined is both meaningless, as it doesn't point to anything, and false, since whatever I do, it will be defined.​

_____________________________________________________



_____________________________________________________


Come on! You can do better than that! Now you're saying that you are able to do other than what you might do? Where's the logical proof? It's meaningless as you pointed out before. Prove that you did other than any possibility(might do). Your proof above doesn't achieve this.

It has become apparent to me that either you lack the intellectual capital to grasp these concepts, or you're being deliberately obtuse to avoid the obvious conclusion that you're wrong. Either way, I think all that needs to be said has been said.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

It has become apparent to me that either you lack the intellectual capital to grasp these concepts, or you're being deliberately obtuse to avoid the obvious conclusion that you're wrong. Either way, I think all that needs to be said has been said.

Muz

"Excuse me sir, I don't mean to disturb your repose, but I must flip this little lever.":execute:

It really is baffling. I think all that needs to be said has been said ... at least a dozen times. Stars in your crown, Muz. :king:

 

[godrulz]

Packer and AMR believe in antimony, which is a fancy name for contradictory, illogical assumptions. Sovereignty and free will are held, but as a bit of a mystery. It is bridged with the fancy foot work of compatibilism.

The better resolution is to affirm self-evident free will (libertarian...though finite) and tweak the sovereignty part of the equation. Sovereignty is simply not omnicausality/meticulous control/determinism (soft or hard)/micromanaging/blueprint. It is revealed as creative, responsive, macromanaging, providential, warfare. Given God's omnicompetence, He can be assured of bringing His purposes to pass despite given irrevocable freedom to others, a voluntary self-limitation of His power or omnicausality.

Practically, Scripture teaches God works to bring good out of evil (Rom. 8), but it does not teach all evil is desired, intended, ordained by God for a specific higher good (rape and murder of a child?!).

Our views in this area impact our theodicy (problem of evil), moral responsibility, relationship with God, counsel to others, etc.

For an alternative to the problematic Calvinistic views on evil and suffering:

http://www.amazon.com/Satan-Problem-Evil-Constructing-Trinitarian/dp/0830815503

(search inside for contents; academic, meaty)

For a simpler introduction:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Blame-Moving-Answers-Problem/dp/0830823948

 

[Nang]

Packer and AMR believe in antimony, which is a fancy name for contradictory, illogical assumptions. Sovereignty and free will are held, but as a bit of a mystery. It is bridged with the fancy foot work of compatibilism.

The better resolution is to affirm self-evident free will (libertarian...though finite) and tweak the sovereignty part of the equation.

I disagree. No attribute of Almighty God should ever be "tweaked!" Better to toss the LFW factor.

Sovereignty is simply not omnicausality/meticulous control/determinism (soft or hard)/micromanaging/blueprint. It is revealed as creative, responsive, macromanaging, providential, warfare. Given God's omnicompetence, He can be assured of bringing His purposes to pass despite given irrevocable freedom to others, a voluntary self-limitation of His power or omnicausality.

This paragraph is a blasphemous mess.

Practically, Scripture teaches God works to bring good out of evil (Rom. 8), but it does not teach all evil is desired, intended, ordained by God for a specific higher good (rape and murder of a child?!).

Our views in this area impact our theodicy (problem of evil), moral responsibility, relationship with God, counsel to others, etc.

Evil is the consequence of sin and is controlled by sovereign God as a matter of holy justice. Unrepentant sinners produce evil (rape, murders, wars) as judgment from God against their souls. Their deeds produce evil, because God is judging their sinfulness.

Spiritual principle: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7



The only exception to the cycle of sin - - > producing evil - - > producing judgment, is God's grace that saves sinners from this viscious and helpless enslavement.

Due to the sin-bearing work of Christ on the cross, and all the evil produced by those sins being judged by the just wrath of God in His body, the sons of God are forgiven and forever rescued from sin, and its evil fruits.

Because of the indwelling Holy Spirit, there is no more condemnation for the elect sinner. (Romans 8:1) The Spirit-filled believer is given freedom to choose to walk according to the Spirit and the will of God; producing good works of the Spirit. No more evil consequences or judgments from God, for the Christian.

This is the earnest work of the Holy Spirit while in process of forever eliminating sin, evil, and death.

The future life will be free of all evil consequences (judgement) because of the cross work of Jesus Christ, and the final punishment of the lake of fire, where all wickedness, evil, and death will be finally and eternally eliminated.

All of this worked by Sovereign God through creation and history, in order to provide a heavenly Kingdom for His Son.

 

[godrulz]

We agree that God has a plan of redemption to mitigate sin and evil. He opposes it; He does not affirm it as His will. God did not desire nor intend evil to disrupt the tranquility of the Godhead and universe. He responded to it when it became a reality; He did not decree it for a higher good.