ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[lee_merrill]

Somehow we stopped discussing how God knows a remnant will be saved, and only a remnant, and then "all Israel"...

 

[godrulz]

Somehow we stopped discussing how God knows a remnant will be saved, and only a remnant, and then "all Israel"...

Get over it. This is not usually presented as a problem for OT. You are misinterpreting a proof text out of the context of all of Scripture.

 

[lee_merrill]

This is not usually presented as a problem for OT. You are misinterpreting a proof text out of the context of all of Scripture.

How, may ask, am I misinterpreting this text? This is a problem for the Open View if it means God knows future free decisions. I think the Open View says such decisions are free, Muz notwithstanding, and clearly God knows about them. Thus and therefore, Q.E.D., as they say.

And a question asked by one person is not a better question just because it's asked by 100 or 1000 people...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Does the text say that Joe will be saved and Sue will not be and that the dog will scratch his head at 1:02 p.m. April 1, 2012?

This is general and predictable based on God's influence as long as it takes and based on the past and present. It also does not mean literally all will be saved, but is talking about a corporate restoration (even in Old T Israel, not all shared in her destiny).

 

[themuzicman]

2)Use real building materials. I know you have some language helps and these are substantive for language, but you appear to be loosely tying them into your theological arguments and not seeing the big pictures on a lot of your reasoning and conclusions.

I guess getting a Master's degree is just fluff, huh?

3)Do your homework. It isn't good to reject all tradition outright. There is a rich history on these doctrines that a superficial glance will not take care of. OV will 'never' be able to convince if all you see are your misconceptions about the traditional stances. You can argue that Greeks built my house, but all I am seeing is a very sturdy house, I don't really care 'who' built my house as it is a proper house of doctrine that stands up quite well and has for centuries.

It's the foundation, rather than the building materials, that I am concerned with.

4) Be gracious. When someone like Nang comes along behind you with a good refutation, it is wise to acknowledge the good argument.

When Nang comes out with a good refutation, I'll try that.

This isn't a game. It isn't 'who wins the debate.' That is too narrow for the existence of TOL. Either we are in this for truth or we are just playing semantic games. Keep the goal in mind always. It is always about Him and His truth or we are missing not only the big picture, but His presence and truth in these discussions. Our driving force is His glory, or nothing significant at all.

For a minute there, i thought you were writing to Rob.

5) Look for the truths. You tend to throw babies out with your bathwater too often. You look for a reason to chuck the whole thing. If I were to do that, TOL would be history. You do not have to agree with the wheat and the tares leading to EDF discussion, but to say the analogy doesn't support the ideas I've presented is disingenuine.

To be honest, I don't know where this comes from. I do consider that many traditions have a nugget of truth in them, and I seek to find what truth draws people there.

Further, when you use a parable, you need to consider how Jesus used that parable. Jesus wasn't describing the world. He was describing the kingdom of Heaven. Clearly that indicates that the Kingdom of Heaven is present, here, today, but we can't take what Jesus puts into a parable for a particular purpose and say that it applies to all settings.

If you want to use this parable and build your own case, I suppose you can do that, but you won't have the force of Jesus speaking it behind you.

The Noahic story is a different plan than the wheat tares analogy of what is presently going on. For this discussion I would bring in covenant and dispensational points. Both see God working differently and so should we.

But the foundational point was about why God allows evil. Certainly that transcends dispensations, does it not?

What is your hang-up with the wheat/tares that I'm not seeing? Honestly, I don't know why you are taking this tack other than just to argue. I'm not seeing your point and this specifically is why the 5 suggestions. I'm trying to decide if you are just arguing to argue, if you have an OV concern, or if it truly is something substantial that I must address.

Jesus is speaking specifically about the Kingdom of Heaven, and describing it to the Jews. He's not speaking about why God allows evil in the world.

I'm endeavoring to be honest, forthright, and transparent here.

And that is always appreciated.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

Does the text say that Joe will be saved and Sue will not be and that the dog will scratch his head at 1:02 p.m. April 1, 2012?

Acts 11:14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.

I think that's specific enough. But the question is not about whether the exact time is specified, the question is whether God knows future free decisions, how can God know this, or that a remnant will be saved, and only a remnant? This is unknowable, according to the Open View. Perhaps not unguessable, as Muz does insist in each response, but that is not the point at issue.

Romans 9:28 For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality.

So then this is not an estimate.

This is general and predictable based on God's influence as long as it takes...

I think you are meaning "all Israel" here--but what about "only a remnant"? Is God exercising his influence so that most Jewish people will not repent?

Mark 4:11-12 But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

It also does not mean literally all will be saved, but is talking about a corporate restoration (even in Old T Israel, not all shared in her destiny).

But it means in any case many if not most, correct? After only a few...

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob."

But I would expect "all" does mean all, as here:

Isaiah 60:21-22 "Then will all your people be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendor. The least of you will become a thousand, the smallest a mighty nation. I am the Lord; in its time I will do this swiftly."

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Yorzhik]

"God has decreed your palms will be up because He foreknew your will would determine to turn them up."
If your will is to do the opposite of whatever God says, then your palms would be turned down. Or are you saying that man cannot will to NOT do what God says?

You're implying that God wills you to turn them up or down.

Anyone with modest reading comprehension skills would understand that I'm not implying that God wills one to put their palms up or down in this scenario. The only way one could believe I'm implying that God wills one to put their palms up or down in this scenario is if they are adding a number of assumptions to my statement without telling us. Adding assumptions to a statement without making those assumptions clear appears to a subsequent reader as stupidity.

I'm saying directly that man can will to NOT do what God says. Do you agree, Rob, that man can will to NOT do what God says?

RobE continues:

What you obscure is that God has simply decreed to allow you to act independently of Him in turning them up or down. God hasn't decreed they will be up, God has decreed a creation in which you choose to turn them up.

I'm obscuring? No, Rob, I'm being clear. What you are obscuring is the meaning of "decree". Has God decreed every event from before the foundation of the world? If God has not decreed every event before the foundation of the world, does God know, exhaustively, every event before the foundation of the world?

I'm saying that God has either decreed 1. to allow the event or 2. He will intervene to influence the event to be carried out by you freely.

Does God know, exhaustively, every event that He allows?

The joke per se is that creation is an action of God, so if God has no idea as to the outcomes of His own actions then.........

Then… what?

Lon, what RobE has written here is complete nonsense. Do you agree with it?

 

[Yorzhik]

Circular reasoning. Even in the OV, God knows before we choose at the moment of choosing. You agree that He knows the thoughts of David before he speaks them (as Psalms tell us). Take the logic as your own. What do you mean by this? Does even moments before eliminate David's freewill to speak? I hope this is a warning bell for OVer's. There is a logical clarification needed, but it doesn't exist between OV and tradition. That is an illusion made to make OV look like it has all the answers. It has the exact same problem no matter how you slice it and an illusion of 'solve.' It has solved nothing: Think about it.

God knows before we choose. Whether it be moments before or a longer time before.

The OV doesn't posit that knowing a decision causes the event. But this is what the OV says; if a chain of events is started by someone, and that person knows in exhaustive detail every event in the chain, then the events are caused by the person that started the chain of events. Therefore, if you want to say that God knows every future event in exhaustive detail, and God created the initial events, then God caused all events. The events are not caused because God knows them, the events are caused because God caused creation. Can you please admit now that the OV does not say that events are caused because they are known?

Secondly, have you seen RobE's claim that God doesn't know what He's doing? How do you explain that?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God knows before we choose. Whether it be moments before or a longer time before.

Are you really an openist? :squint:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Are you really an openist? :squint:

Why would you ask? Have you not been listening to what we open viewers say?

God knows everything knowable which includes our intentions. Therefore God can know what we will choose before we choose it. The more determined we are the more God will know about our upcoming choice. God also knows all the other variables that might effect our upcoming decisions and therefore He has a great deal of knowledge regarding our future choices (much more than we have).

Yet the distant future is unknowable (at least as far as free will agents are concerned) because no present knowledge is helpful in determining the choices that non-existent beings will make. In other words.... God doesn't know the choices that my great, great, great, great, grandchildren will make because they don't exist yet.

 

[godrulz]

There is a difference between proximal vs remote foreknowledge, between exhaustive definite foreknowledge, and some foreknowledge based on probability or God's ability to make it happen as predicted.

 

[lee_merrill]

There is a difference between proximal vs remote foreknowledge, between exhaustive definite foreknowledge, and some foreknowledge based on probability or God's ability to make it happen as predicted.

But this cannot be an estimate:

Romans 9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

Nor this:

Acts 11:14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.

And does God act to prevent people from repenting?

Mark 4:11-12 But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

And how can God know "all Israel" will be saved, given that "all Israel" does not mean "some Jewish people." It it meant "some Jewish people," then this statement is true today, if it means "all who will be saved will be saved," this is not necessary to state.

All posts that will be made today will be made!

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

Yet the distant future is unknowable (at least as far as free will agents are concerned) because no present knowledge is helpful in determining the choices that non-existent beings will make. In other words.... God doesn't know the choices that my great, great, great, great, grandchildren will make because they don't exist yet.

The point however, is when God knows a future free decision, and is not estimating, whether near or far. This is impossible, according to the Open View.

Mark 14:30-31 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "today-- yes, tonight-- before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times."

"I tell you the truth" means this is certain. This is impossible, according to the Open View, if Peter's decision here was free. If it was not free, then how can we read Jesus saying "truly, truly you will remain faithful under martyrdom"? How would forcing Peter's hand here bring special glory to God?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Nathon Detroit]

But this cannot be an estimate:

Romans 9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

Uh... that is the VERY definition of an estimate. :doh:

Nor this:

Acts 11:14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.

Wrong, this is exactly the type of thing I referred to in my previous post.

And does God act to prevent people from repenting?

Mark 4:11-12 But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

Wow.. you must think that unless God has a "tape of the future" He is a moron. What makes you think God cannot make an accurate prediction without having to have settled the future in advance?

Even us lowly humans can make these types of accurate predictions and we only have a infinitesimal fraction of the knowledge that God possess.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

"I tell you the truth" means this is certain. This is impossible, according to the Open View, if Peter's decision here was free. If it was not free, then how can we read Jesus saying "truly, truly you will remain faithful under martyrdom"? How would forcing Peter's hand here bring special glory to God?

Blessings,
Lee

Uh... do you mean like this....

Joshua 3:10 And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites

So that must have been a certainty also eh Lee????? Lee we have been down all these roads before. You lose, game over, your theology is a bankrupt mess.

Dump everything that you think you know and start over.

And this time.... start with God's word as your guide not some dead theologian.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God knows everything knowable which includes our intentions. Therefore God can know what we will choose before we choose it. The more determined we are the more God will know about our upcoming choice. God also knows all the other variables that might effect our upcoming decisions and therefore He has a great deal of knowledge regarding our future choices (much more than we have).

Yet the distant future is unknowable (at least as far as free will agents are concerned) because no present knowledge is helpful in determining the choices that non-existent beings will make. In other words.... God doesn't know the choices that my great, great, great, great, grandchildren will make because they don't exist yet.

You imply:

God knows what we will choose before we choose.

God knows all the other variables (thus including what others will choose before they choose).

Hence God must know the outcome (the future) of these choices.

Yet the "distant future" is unknowable.

Thus you imply only the future that comprises presently existing agents is knowable (from the points above).

Persons are born every second, so the "distant future" is changing by the birth of each new agent every second of every day. Hence, to claim God's knows the 'proximate' future is illogical, for this 'future' is perhaps truly 'future' only between each quantum of time between births of new agents who introduce new uncertainties.

Most openists categorically reject God possesses factual knowledge of the future. At best, for the openist, God can only possess some probabilistic assumptions, albeit high probabilities, about the future. To the openist, the factual knowledge of God comprises only past and the present.

The illogic of claiming parts of the future are settled and some are not is easily demonstrated. As discussed here...

The act of ordaining by itself does not entail that future things will happen. What is needed in order to secure that future things will happen is some further property of God. This is true of any Christian belief system.

For something to be true and knowable there must be something we or God can access that makes the claims in question true. There are two aspects of this claim. First, truth requires a truthmaker. Second, by accessibility, I mean that whatever these truthmakers are, truthmakers must be knowable. Since God is infallible, what He knows He knows infallibly. So if God holds a belief about a certain event that is based upon something else, then the basis itself cannot leave open the possibility of the belief being mistaken, else God would be mistaken, and therefore, not infallible.

For truthmakers to function as knowable truthmakers, and thereby allow the unsettled theist to claim that some parts of the future are known, the features truthmakers possess would have to be something about God or about the world. I would assume that such a claim by openists would be something about what God ordains about the future.

Let’s say that God ordains a certain event in the future will occur and this ordinance itself is a knowable truthmaker for the future truth. There is no problem to propose that God’s possesses the self-knowledge needed for Him to know what He ordains and what He does not ordain. That said, it is not easily defended that such ordinances are in fact truthmakers. Why? For a truthmaker to be a truthmaker, the thing in question must entail the truth in question. For example, if God ordains it will be windy tomorrow, it must logically follow that it will be windy tomorrow. That is, it is impossible for the ordinance of God with respect to a windy tomorrow to presently exist and it not rain tomorrow.

As a classical theist, I have a simple explanation and solid defense why the entailment is indeed present: God’s character is immutable, thus God cannot will one thing to occur at one time and then change His mind to will something else. But openists see God’s nature changing in response to the indeterministic unfolding of the world He has created. Thus, unlike the classical theist position, the ordinances of God have no such immutable character to the openist. Consequently, God’s ordinances cannot be functioning as truthmakers, for they do not entail the content of the ordinance. If God’s will is not immutable, God could very well ordain that it will be windy tomorrow and yet tomorrow it does not rain because God changed His mind in the meantime. Restating: the act of ordaining by itself does not entail that future things will happen. What is needed in order to secure that future things will happen is some further property of God. This is true of any Christian belief system. God’s immutability is that further property of God.

From this it should be apparent that from the unsettled theist’s position, no part of the future can be known as true. To claim that any part of the future (proximate or remote) is known is not logically possible for the openist.

 

[RobE]

Anyone with modest reading comprehension skills would understand that I'm not implying that God wills one to put their palms up or down in this scenario. The only way one could believe I'm implying that God wills one to put their palms up or down in this scenario is if they are adding a number of assumptions to my statement without telling us. Adding assumptions to a statement without making those assumptions clear appears to a subsequent reader as stupidity.

You are assuming it within the question......

Let's analyze the question:

"God has decreed your palms will be up because He foreknew your will would determine to turn them up."

You state God's decree is based upon your will.

If your will is to do the opposite of whatever God says, then your palms would be turned down. Or are you saying that man cannot will to NOT do what God says?

You then ask that if your will were different then would it remain the same. Please look closely.....

A: God's decree = your will
B: God's decree <> your will

Question from A and B: "are you saying that man cannot will to NOT do what God says?". What God decreed was based upon your will and not His so the answer is: 'yes' a man cannot will to do other than his own will. It would be logically contradictory.

Originally Posted by RobE
You're implying that God wills you to turn them up or down.

Your question implies that God's will is for your will to do other than it wills; which is impossible according to its definition of being your will. In other words your implying that God has a specific will in regards to you turning your hands up or down; and not merely that God has a will to allow you to act. Your question: 'man cannot will to NOT do what God says'. The result of 'do what God says' implies that God has an independent will in the hand turning which He does not according to the first part of your statement.

Does God know, exhaustively, every event that He allows?

Does He? Must He know the events which He allows? I would say that in order to allow the event, it must be known. Otherwise, it occurs outside of the authority of the one which allows it.

I'm saying directly that man can will to NOT do what God says. Do you agree, Rob, that man can will to NOT do what God says?

No. I don't agree since God's decree(per your earlier statement) is based upon your will. How is your will to be other than what it is?

I'm obscuring? No, Rob, I'm being clear.

Clearly contradictory. It's the contradiction which is obscuring the argument and thinking.

What you are obscuring is the meaning of "decree". Has God decreed every event from before the foundation of the world?

Yes. God has decreed every event from before the foundation of the world. He has decreed to enact those events through His own power; OR, He has decreed to allow those events by not interfering with them. In both instances it was His decree.

If God has not decreed every event before the foundation of the world, does God know, exhaustively, every event before the foundation of the world?

Yes. God knew of every event before the foundation of the world. He decided to create the world for the sake of those who would be His despite those who would reject Him.

Does God know, exhaustively, every event that He allows?

Of course. How else could He decide to allow them? Does God know evil will occur on the earth tommorrow unless He intervenes? If so, is He responsible for the evil which occurs tommorrow while He has the power and authority to prevent it? How is this any different than making the decision before the creative act?

Lon, what RobE has written here is complete nonsense. Do you agree with it?

What nonsense? Be specific. Perhaps the intent is different than what you are receiving.

 

[lee_merrill]

Uh... that is the VERY definition of an estimate. :doh:

"Will carry out his sentence"? "With finality"? Surely this has the essence of a sure prediction.

Wrong, this is exactly the type of thing I referred to in my previous post.

"Will be saved" must be read some surprising way then, can you show me where some commentary takes this as an estimate?

Wow.. you must think that unless God has a "tape of the future" He is a moron. What makes you think God cannot make an accurate prediction without having to have settled the future in advance?

But my question was whether God ever prevents people from repenting.

Even us lowly humans can make these types of accurate predictions and we only have a infinitesimal fraction of the knowledge that God possess.

Yet "truly, truly" means "this is true," and sure, and only definite knowledge will allow someone to say "this will happen."

Uh... do you mean like this....

Joshua 3:10 And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites

So that must have been a certainty also eh Lee?????

Yup, God drove them out. No Canaanites etc. in Canaan now.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[RobE]

God knows before we choose. Whether it be moments before or a longer time before.

If true then God knows with precision the next instance. If the next instance is known with a certainty then the following one will be as well. We might follow this into the future with one event shaping and establishing the next; even by your own logic.

The OV doesn't posit that knowing a decision causes the event.

The OV does posit that an action accompanied by complete knowledge causes events. As do we all. The problem comes in with Theodicy which the OV claims to escape, and rails against Traditional Christianity's view for the same reason.

But this is what the OV says; if a chain of events is started by someone, and that person knows in exhaustive detail every event in the chain, then the events are caused by the person that started the chain of events. Therefore, if you want to say that God knows every future event in exhaustive detail, and God created the initial events, then God caused all events. The events are not caused because God knows them, the events are caused because God caused creation.

Yes, God caused all events within the creation which He made. By this thinking, it doesn't matter if God foreknew of the events or not. Are you responsible if you leave a loaded gun lying around and a 2 year old shoots himself in the head? Bullets and free will are too dangerous to allow immature beings access to them. If we consider responsibility in this fashion, then we might assign responsibility to Our Lord. Who are we to do so?

God doesn't personally do evil does He? If the ones who do evil are mature enough to know better, then doesn't the responsibility transfer to them? How is God responsible because He caused them to be, make free decisions, and created an environment in which they might grow?

Is God responsible for the acts of His creatures? I would say that Jesus Christ took responsibility upon Himself at the cross; making the fall of man void and meaningless.

Can you please admit now that the OV does not say that events are caused because they are known?

The accusation here is that the OV claims God is responsible if He knows evil will occur in the world tommorrow and decides to allow it. The accusation here is that the OV claims God is responsible if He knew, before the creative act, that evil would occur and decided to allow it.

Secondly, have you seen RobE's claim that God doesn't know what He's doing? How do you explain that?

I've claimed no such thing.

 

[RobE]

Why would you ask? Have you not been listening to what we open viewers say?

God knows everything knowable which includes our intentions. Therefore God can know what we will choose before we choose it. The more determined we are the more God will know about our upcoming choice. God also knows all the other variables that might effect our upcoming decisions and therefore He has a great deal of knowledge regarding our future choices (much more than we have).

"Let them have cake...."

Yet the distant future is unknowable (at least as far as free will agents are concerned) because no present knowledge is helpful in determining the choices that non-existent beings will make. In other words.... God doesn't know the choices that my great, great, great, great, grandchildren will make because they don't exist yet.

"....and eat it too!", Hilston 2006

Why would the distant future be unknowable if God knows the next instance with a certainty? Might God be able to figure out what will happen five minutes from now if He truly knows the next instance?

The more determined we are the more God will know about our upcoming choice.

Knowledge is or isn't. Either God knows or He doesn't know(believes, expects, hopes) within these discussions. Using the term know in the venacular isn't good here. According to the first statement where is God's 'knowledge' incomplete?

If all the variables are defined then knowledge is certain. God must not know what we will choose before we choose it in order for the OV to be correct. If we do other than what He knows then it wasn't 'known' at all according to definition of the word 'know'. God could not be mistaken if He 'knows'. This is completely unacceptable to the OV.

God must, at times, be mistaken for free will to exist(according to open theism's theological foundation). The scriptures which point to His mistakes are the specific defense of that theology. Without those scriptures the theology has no biblical foundation.