ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

Means "No!".

At least you get positive credit for your own introspective condemnation of your ramblings.

There is no trap here. Your answer is simply the logical conclusion of unsettled theism--a probabilistic God cannot know know the exact date of anything in the future, nor could He infallibly know even when to act.

Whoa...yes He can know the exact date IF He predetermines it to happen on that date. I am suggesting that He may have not settled the date yet, though He could. When I talk about two motifs, I often use the Second Coming as an illustration of something God settles in advance because of His ability to bring it to pass (in contrast to things like who will win Superbowls, because He has chosen to not settle them in advance since players are not toy robots).

Your last statement shows that you continue to reject a straw man caricature of the open view (even as JWs reject a false view of the Trinity), despite your claims to great learning (puffed up as they are).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Whoa...yes He can know the exact date IF He predetermines it to happen on that date.

So do you believe the future is composed of two parts, one part determined and the other part not determined?

 

[lee_merrill]

He has chosen to not settle them in advance since players are not toy robots...

Then if people are not robots, can they sin in heaven?

 

[Evoken]

Then if people are not robots, can they sin in heaven?

The souls in heaven lack the possibility of sinning not because they are enslaved or coerced, but because they have attained to that good which they desire by nature, namely beatitude, with which they are completely satisfied. While on earth, all humans act in accord with what they judge to be good, however, the good exists on earth in degrees and no good completely exhausts the good which humans desire by nature, hence there is the possibility of desiring something that while we judge it to be good, may in fact end up being harmful to ourselves or to others. From this emerges the possibility of sinning. But this is not so in heaven, where the blessed enjoy the Beatific Vision (immediate knowledge of God), which is the good that they desire by nature. They do not see, as St. Paul says, darkly as they did on earth but face to face.

"Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee, O Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions)


Evo

 

[lee_merrill]

The souls in heaven lack the possibility of sinning not because they are enslaved or coerced, but because they have attained to that good which they desire by nature, namely beatitude, with which they are completely satisfied. While on earth, all humans act in accord with what they judge to be good, however, the good exists on earth in degrees and no good completely exhausts the good which humans desire by nature, hence there is the possibility of desiring something that while we judge it to be good, may in fact end up being harmful to ourselves or to others. From this emerges the possibility of sinning. But this is not so in heaven, where the blessed enjoy the Beatific Vision (immediate knowledge of God), which is the good that they desire by nature. They do not see, as St. Paul says, darkly as they did on earth but face to face.

"Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee, O Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions)


Evo

I like the way you put this--makes me feel rather at fault for talking about this as if it was just a point for an argument, and this I hadn't thought of before, that people won't sin because of insight, because goodness will be seen to be good.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

So do you believe the future is composed of two parts, one part determined and the other part not determined?

The future is not yet and does not exist, so it is not composed of anything, per se.

What I am saying is that God is not omnicausal. He determines some vs all things. Some things in the future, He predetermines and brings to pass by His own ability. This includes creation, incarnation, cross, sending of the Spirit, Second Coming, casting creatures into the lake of fire (but not which individuals will end up there), new heaven/earth, future judgments, etc. Other things are not settled in advance. I was engaged to someone, as was my wife. We could have married those people, had kids, etc. and our possible futures would have actualized differently. Once we made the self-determined choice to dis-engage, marry each other, have kids, etc., the future was actualized in that way by us. God did not cause me to marry my wife. I could have married the first engagement and the future would have unfolded differently. The scores to sports events, random lotteries or bingos, who will speed or not speed while driving, what I will eat or wear, etc. were not settled in eternity past before I existed or made choices. God can sovereignly chose to not have a creation that is micromanaged or determined in every detail. The fact that sin and evil exists makes it self-evident that He is not the only agent in the universe, by His sovereign choice. This does not mean we are gods or that He does not have ultimate control. It does mean that not everything that happens until the Consummation is as God desires or intends. He does not want babies to be raped and killed. If you think He does, we have nothing more to talk about. Things contrary to His will are judged in the end, not affirmed as a good thing for a higher purpose or mystery.

The grief of God in Gen. 3 and Jesus weeping over Jerusalem or Lazarus are not anthropomorphisms. They undermine impassibility....too bad, so sad.

 

[godrulz]

PCA

Most of us agree with the essential truths of their beliefs, but not the Calvinistic distinctives. Most of you would agree with Pentecostal essential truths (the same), but not with Pentecostal distinctives.

I also appreciate their emphasis on evangelism, even if it is not consistent with their beliefs pushed to the logical extreme (Calvinism can breed passivity since God will do what He wants regardless of what we do or do not do for the kingdom...or is he not omnicausal after all?).

 

[godrulz]

Open theism, however, would have God be subject to His own creation through lack of intelligence. They would strip Him of His scriptural attributes in such a way that Zeus or Odin would might be more powerful --- and, even worse, elevate man to equal status with Him. Through His own decrees of course. Even those pagan Greeks didn't think their God's were on equal footing with them.

Calvinists hold God in awe which is appropriate. God is not their buddy or pal who's doing the best with those rascally creations. God is still God within Calvinism. Can the same be said of open theism?

Calvinists have legitimate scriptural proof to support their positions - unlike some others I can think of. Hyper-calvinism, supralapsarianism, and the genre are what we're objecting to here.

How can an open theist even consider thinking judgement will ever occur. Maybe God will change His mind and skip it altogether? God's promises mean nothing when God is like a man changing His mind with the wind.

What some find clever, I find insulting.

This folks is a dismal understanding of OT, a straw man that OT's would also reject. Humbug.

 

[godrulz]

Good post, even with insufficient sleep. I'm curious about one thing, however.

Does delaying the second coming really constitute postponing the Kingdom? If so OCCUPY what exactly until His return?
Is Christ not now reigning in your blueprint motif (even now in the face of resistance and opposition) in the hearts and lives of His followers? Isn't He even now Lord over all things for the church?
If Jesus is Lord, what is He Lord over if His kingdom has been 'postponed' not to exist until His second coming?
Philetus

There is a difference between His reign in hearts of believers now and a literal, physical kingdom on earth ruled from Jerusalem in the millennium after theocratic Israel is restored.

Occupy means to keep busy, work, preach the gospel, etc. (?KJV). It does not have to mean occupy a land like an army does.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The future is not yet and does not exist, so it is not composed of anything, per se.

What I am saying is that God is not omnicausal. He determines some vs all things. Some things in the future, He predetermines and brings to pass by His own ability.

I am not sure I am reading you correctly.

"some things in the future" -- so are there some things God knows -- that the part of the future that is determined by present and past events is secure in truth value and falls within the scope of omniscience?

 

[godrulz]

Then if people are not robots, can they sin in heaven?

This has been speculated upon by OT. There will be no earthly body, Satan, etc. in heaven. We will be in the immediate presence of God. Freedom is finite in scope and duration. Character becomes more fixed over time. Man and angels will not have forever to exert an evil influence on creation.

We will not be robots in heaven, but we also will not be in fallen bodies and a fallen world. There is a probational role before death for our freedom to chose or reject God. If Lucifer could rebel in heaven, perhaps man can, but there must be other factors not explicitly revealed to explain why heaven will remain holy.

Boyd develops issues of freedom that have application to your question over a book length. The possible answers are there, but you will have to do some homework (it is developed in detail in 'Satan and the problem of evil: constructing a trinitarian warfare theodicy' Gregory Boyd IVP).

 

[godrulz]

I am not sure I am reading you correctly.

"some things in the future" -- so are there some things God knows -- that the part of the future that is determined by present and past events is secure in truth value and falls within the scope of omniscience?

God has the unilateral ability to incarnate in the fullness of time. He can prophecy this and bring it to pass by His great ability no matter what human choices are made or not. He can and does intervene as much as He needs to in order to bring these things to pass (Arminians would talk about simple foreknowledge; it seems I am being Calvinistic on this motif...hence your proof texts fit half the OT picture). Exhaustive definite foreknowledge is an unwarranted extrapolation from this. He can know that He will incarnate in space-time history at time x, but that does not mean He has to know irrelevant things like the outcome of every bingo game or chess game for the 2000 years after the incarnation far in advance. He is simply not orchestrating free will games like He is His redemptive project. Even so, whether a grain of sand is here or there does not matter to incarnation, cross, resurrection, Secong Coming. If a dog vomits at time x or y proximal or remote to these great events, it does not make a hill of beans and is not a possible object of certain knowledge unless God causes the dog to puke...but why? Not necessary to be omnicausal if you are omnicompetent. The downside to omnicausality is a loss of love, freedom, and relationship (simple concepts, so don't get stressed that I am redefining them).

The things that He sovereignly choses to not settle or bring to pass can be left to other agents (like Adam naming the animals or me eating too much and getting fatter). If He does not settle these mundane things in advance, then He voluntarily has self-limited the nature of possible objects for omniscience.

If I thought OT compromised the glory of God or things like omniscience, I would jettison it. The issue is the nature of creation He chose to actualize, not whether He has these great attributes or not (He does).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God has the unilateral ability to incarnate in the fullness of time.

So, is there a part of the future that is determined by present and past events that is secure in truth value and falls within the scope of God's omniscience?

Your last reply skirted all around this one question. Am looking for a yes or no here. Boyd, Sanders, etc. have stated that there are parts of the future that are fixed by God. Do you agree or not?

 

[themuzicman]

Once again, cornered, Lee turns to twisting the words of others. What a shock.

Well, Muz did:

Lee: 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.

Muz: Except that it isn't free.

Give me a break, Lee. Where did I said that the specific course of the future had to result in one specific time and place where Peter would make this decision? Is it not possible for this prophecy about Peter to be fulfilled in an infinite number of ways??

Twisting #1.

Because all this happened against his intent ("Even if I have to die with you...") and thus requires he be oblivious to what he is doing.

LOL... Like no one has ever failed to live up to their own claims?

This is the point about Peter. At this point, his mouth was ahead of his heart.

Yet if a prediction involves a free choice, there is always a possibility that that choice will be made another way, so then it cannot be "truly, truly."

Or, golly gee, maybe all the possible choices from that moment until fulfillment involve fulfilling the prophecy? Again, you fail to consider that all prophecy may be fulfilled in innumerable ways.

Unless God says "this is sure" knowing it's not, then God is deceiving us about the truth, this I would be concerned about.

Yes, well, you Calvinists are always trying to make sure that God is sure about what He is doing, so you take His character away from Him.

I don't think God needs you to be concerned, nor does God have to act in the way you want Him to, so you can feel all warm and snuggly.

Is it not possible that God is sure that His prophecy will be fulfilled, even if there are a host of ways that it could happen?

How is it that group decisions can be predicted with certainty?

Take a course in sociology.

This is in fact impossible, if individuals choose freely, there is always some possibility that all or most will choose another way, and will repent when God said they wouldn't, or will give glory to God when he said this would not happen, or will refuse when it was said they would glorify him.

Again, we humans understand group dynamics to some extent. Unlike what you suppose, here, human will isn't random. It's intentional. Further, we humans have instincts, things that drive us. Not that they can't be resisted, but they are there. Given a particular situation, it's fairly easy to predict that a certain number of people in a given group (without knowing exactly which ones) are going to choose a particular way.

I agree, and yet Jesus did not come to seek to save the lost in general? Just those who are to be drawn?

Jesus came to seek and save the lost and to fulfill God's purpose. God desires for all to be saved, but has also chosen to spread His teaching through His church. Thus, those who hear the gospel hear the teaching of God. When that happens, then the onus is on the individual to learn and experience it.

I agree, there is freedom within the will of God, and within the boundaries of all righteous choices, and only there, "where the Spirit of the Lord is--freedom!"

Twisting #2. This time God's word.

This freedom is speaking of freedom from wrath, from the condemnation that comes from being under the law and sin.

To be honest, you're headed off the deep end, Lee. We're getting to the point where you want me to assume your presuppositions, and if that's the case, then we're done. The waves have broken against your shore, eroding your position back to your assumptions.

Muz

 

[RobE]

God's promises mean nothing when God is like a man changing His mind with the wind.

This folks is a dismal understanding of OT, a straw man that OT's would also reject. Humbug.

The 'ots' say that God changes His mind. How do you determine when this will happen if the future is unknown? In fact, how do you even know it happened without assuming foreknowledge?

Originally Posted by lee_merrill
Quite so, so this is not a place where we see God changed his mind, and thus we do not have an OVT proof text.

That's fine. OVT doesn't stand or fall on these kinds of proof texts anyway.

What kind of proof texts provide proof then? Why don't you give us a couple and we'll see. (I'll challenge you to find a proof text which illustrates God changing His mind which doesn't assume foreknowledge to validate its authenticity). If your unable then we'll assume foreknowledge is a necessary condition of your arguments.

Or are you saying that the 'ots' have no substantial grounds for claiming God changes His mind and/or promises.

Take a course in sociology.

Take a course in psychology.

Give me a break, Lee. Where did I said that the specific course of the future had to result in one specific time and place where Peter would make this decision? Is it not possible for this prophecy about Peter to be fulfilled in an infinite number of ways??

Twisting #1.

No. The conditions of fulfillment were specific and personal. There was a point to it which would have been nullified if God coerced the outcome. Peter had to deny freely and at the same time uncertain rooster sqeezin'(o.t.) had to occur. Rooster's(and Peters) aren't inanimate objects whos behaviors are consistent(an ot claim). There could be more than one possible reaction from the rooster or Peter from the 'ots' point of view. Wouldn't this make the events very uncertain in opposition to Jesus' words, scripture, and reality?

 

[lee_merrill]

The conditions of fulfillment were specific and personal. There was a point to it which would have been nullified if God coerced the outcome.

Yes, for Jesus made another prediction that Peter would remain faithful afterwards, was this also forced? "Truly, truly" Jesus said of both predictions, and the one was clearly intended to be like the other. But if it was forced, how would Peter's faithfulness under martyrdom bring special glory to God?

There could be more than one possible reaction from the rooster or Peter from the 'ots' point of view. Wouldn't this make the events very uncertain in opposition to Jesus' words, scripture, and reality?

Quite so, and then saying "this is sure" is saying what is known to not be true.

 

[lee_merrill]

If Lucifer could rebel in heaven, perhaps man can, but there must be other factors not explicitly revealed to explain why heaven will remain holy.

But where does it say no one will rebel in heaven?

Boyd develops issues of freedom that have application to your question over a book length. The possible answers are there, but you will have to do some homework (it is developed in detail in 'Satan and the problem of evil: constructing a trinitarian warfare theodicy' Gregory Boyd IVP).

But you have presumably done this homework? I don't know why I should be the one required to seek a defense of the Open View--and love must be free, correct? So if people cannot choose otherwise in loving God, then they are robots?

 

[lee_merrill]

Where did I said that the specific course of the future had to result in one specific time and place where Peter would make this decision?

But I don't say you said that.

Or ... maybe all the possible choices from that moment until fulfillment involve fulfilling the prophecy?

So if God brings this about so Peter will deny him, what does that prove? "I can make you deny me"? But that is not what is at issue here, it is whether Peter really loves Jesus, and whether his commitment is real, and forcing a denial would not examine either of these.

And if instead, God only observes what will happen, then this is definite knowledge of a future free choice.

I don't think God needs you to be concerned...

No need to be concerned if God lies to us, well now, what kind of God do we serve, then?

Given a particular situation, it's fairly easy to predict that a certain number of people in a given group (without knowing exactly which ones) are going to choose a particular way.

But insurance companies estimate, they do not say "this much is sure," for it isn't.

Jesus came to seek and save the lost and to fulfill God's purpose. God desires for all to be saved, but has also chosen to spread His teaching through His church. Thus, those who hear the gospel hear the teaching of God. When that happens, then the onus is on the individual to learn and experience it.

But this does not address the question as to how God could know only a remnant would be saved, what if they all refuse, the prospective remnant? It came down to just Noah once, remember.

This freedom is speaking of freedom from wrath, from the condemnation that comes from being under the law and sin.

Freedom is all negative here? But when Paul asks the Corinthians in another place, "Am I not free?" (1 Cor. 1:9) he is talking about choices, options that he has, and true freedom is only within the will of God, and within his presence.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

My opinion is that you both are believers with polarized views on theological issues.

Experiences are not the test for truth but rather every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Pentecostals are heretics who, with this same sort of anti-intellectual and irrational garbage, do more harm to the Christian faith than any 5000 atheists combined.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I guess you have more optimism than others. :chew:

 

[Yorzhik]

You seem to have found what you think is a hammer and like using it over and over, when in reality all you have is a tinker toy.

Actually it's just a question that hasn't been answered after having asked it a number of times over the years.

By what warrant from the Scriptures should you claim any perspective as a valid filter for truth, e.g., where your 'trust' should lie, other than God's perspective?

Of course, God's perspective is the only true view in either of our worldviews. I don't see how this question is relevant. Could you explain?

Moreover, please feel free to cite any references you run across having God breaking His promises.

From the Settled View perspective I can. God promised that He hated evil. Would you disagree you claim that God decrees evil according to the Settled View?