Theology Club: Does Open Theism Question/dispute the Omniscience of God

[Stripe]

Adam sinned before taking the first bite of the fruit offered to him by Eve. Moral actions do not exist independent of volition unless someone has neurological disorders.

AMR

That doesn't equate the concepts of sin that are different pre-fall and post.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

A third option is to understand what the decree of God actually means and entails. Unfortunately, not a few anti-Calvinists hearing the word "ordain" immediately move to odd notions of fatalism because they have not taken the time to understand this important theology proper (being, attributes, works of God) topic.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-Mr-Religion&p=2251901&viewfull=1#post2251901

AMR

If "ordain" doesn't mean something that requires a defense against the charge that God might be the author of evil, then you've defined it as a concept that clearly doesn't mean ordain.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That doesn't equate the concepts of sin that are different pre-fall and post.

If "ordain" doesn't mean something that requires a defense against the charge that God might be the author of evil, then you've defined it as a concept that clearly doesn't mean ordain.

Carry on, and go in peace then Stripe.

I have no patience with the usual sound bite responses. I flesh out my views in my posts, hence they generally comprise more than a sentence and no one need wonder what exactly I am trying to say, versus mere "yeah, buts...", hoping others can read my mind.

One-sided discussions where one person does all the heavy-lifting in answer to questions is, absent substantive rejoinders, is but a cross-examination. I've met my burden in your Dock at every turn. Step up or step down now, brother.

AMR

 

[Stripe]

Carry on, and go in peace then Stripe.

I have no patience with the usual sound bite responses. I flesh out my views in my posts, hence they generally comprise more than a sentence and no one need wonder what exactly I am trying to say, versus mere "yeah, buts...", hoping others can read my mind.

One-sided discussions where one person does all the heavy-lifting in answer to questions is, absent substantive rejoinders, is but a cross-examination. I've met my burden in your Dock at every turn. Step up or step down now, brother.

AMR

Hold on, matey. That is a substantive response.

If you use the word "ordain" and that use requires the caveats of "God is not the author," then why the need to look elsewhere for a definition when the contradiction is raised?

Just because it's a short response, doesn't justify summary dismissal.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Also, your link goes into defining the "decree" of God.

Is that the same thing as what He "ordains"?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Historic Reformed Confession Resources

Historic Reformed Confession Resources

If you use the word "ordain" and that use requires the caveats of "God is not the author," then why the need to look elsewhere for a definition when the contradiction is raised?

No caveat is implied at all in the phrase. It is simply a doctrinal statement, said doctrine so summarized from Scripture in the confession in question, the WCF (see also the WCF's Scripture proof texts). In addition, refer to the previously provided link to expository material related to the particular portion of the WCF in question:

https://reformed.org/documents/shaw/shaw_03.html

Also, your link goes into defining the "decree" of God.

Is that the same thing as what He "ordains"?

Yes. To ordain is to order or decree (something) officially.
As before, see: https://reformed.org/documents/shaw/shaw_03.html

WCF - http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

WCF Expositions:
Shaw - http://www.reformed.org/documents/shaw/
A. A. Hodge - https://www.monergism.com/westminster-confession-commentary-ebook

WSC - http://www.reformed.org/documents/wsc/index.html
WSC Commentary - https://reformed.org/documents/fisher/index_fish.html

WLC - http://www.reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/index.html

If one is stumped in understanding the Westminster Standards (WCF, WSC, WLC), try one of the other historic Reformed confessions/catechisms; they are all in agreement and often are more elaborated:

Second Helvetic - https://reformed.org/documents/Second_Helvetic_Confession.html
Belgic - https://reformed.org/documents/BelgicConfession.html

Heidelberg - https://reformed.org/documents/heidelberg.html
Heidelberg Commentary - https://www.monergism.com/commentary-heidelberg-catechism-ebook

AMR

 

[Stripe]

No caveat is implied at all in the phrase.

That doesn't wash. Why would the objection even come up if to ordain does not imply responsibility? If I decree a list of things to happen in my house, I am ultimately responsible for those things. If God decrees everything, He is responsible for everything.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That doesn't wash.

Well, that settles it then. :AMR1:

Why would the objection even come up if to ordain does not imply responsibility? If I decree a list of things to happen in my house, I am ultimately responsible for those things. If God decrees everything, He is responsible for everything.

God is the first cause of everything, for if He was not, nothing would be.

No matter what position you take in the attempt to explain sin and evil, God must always be regarded as the ultimate cause. Even in the radical erroneous view which says that God limited Himself when He created man—giving man absolute freedom outside of His freedom and sovereignty, even this view makes God the ultimate cause of evil, because by giving man this autonomy, God "started the ball rolling" toward sin.

Although God must be said to be the ultimate cause of sin, this is not to say that God is the author (the doer) of sin. If God created the world, and the world fell into sin, then God is the ultimate cause of sin. There is nothing that God is not the ultimate cause of. But this does not mean that God is morally responsible for sin.

Here is a very weak analogy: God is not the author of this post of mine, but He is the ultimate cause. Not merely because I could not have written this post unless God had created me, etc., but in His plan and purpose, God foreordained that I should write this post. But that does not mean that God is morally responsible for its contents. God's foreknowledge that AMR will write this post does not mean AMR cannot refrain from writing this post. Rather God's foreknowledge that AMR will write this post means that AMR does not refrain from writing this post.

In my writing of this post, if I err, it is I who err. If I speak truth, it is I who speak truth. But this could only be—if God was the ultimate ground and cause of my existence—my knowledge, and everything else. And the only way to escape Deism is to say that God is personally involved in every event, sustaining this world moment-by-moment by His providential decree. And the only way to escape fatalism is in Christ.

Why is God not morally responsible for His creatures' actions? Because we have rebelled against Him. We refused to obey Him, we, you and I, spat in His face. Yes, it is a mystery. How could Adam, who was good, and was surrounded by the wonder and beauty of God's good creation, rebel against God? Push it one step back—how could Satan do the same thing? Scripture never answers this question, but it does give the solution: Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Ultimate Cause of all things, God, though not morally responsible for the actions of His creatures, has taken the guilt and sin of the rebellious creature upon Himself. The solution to the problem of evil is Christ. The cross is our guarantee that God is not the author of sin, but of salvation. It is not as though Christ makes up for God's mistake in creating a world where man blows it, rather, Christ takes our place, reconciling us to the God we have rejected. It is here that we encounter one of the most awesome statements of scripture—that the death of Christ was itself predestined by God: "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross" (Acts 2:23; cf. Acts 3:18; Acts 4:28). Surely no one would claim that God is the author of the sins of these men, yet there is no doubt that it was God's set purpose.

In short, when we say that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, we are saying that nothing can happen outside the freedom and sovereignty of God. He is the ultimate cause of all things. Every individual event is foreordained—but not as an individual event. God sees every individual event as a part of one organic whole. We cannot see this as such, because we are finite, and worse, fallen. Yet after saying this, we also know that this doctrine establishes the reality and importance of proximate causes.

In fact, I argue that without the absolute sovereignty and freedom of God, there is no freedom and sovereignty at all—and especially none for man. To say that there is something in this world which has its origin in a source other than God, is to say that there is another God.

AMR

 

[Stripe]

Well, that settles it then. :AMR1:

Cool.

God is the first cause of everything, for if He was not, nothing would be. No matter what position you take in the attempt to explain sin and evil, God must always be regarded as the ultimate cause.

Although God must be said to be the ultimate cause of sin, this is not to say that God is the author (the doer) of sin. If God created the world, and the world fell into sin, then God is the ultimate cause of sin. There is nothing that God is not the ultimate cause of. But this does not mean that God is morally responsible for sin.

Agreed, but we're not talking about ultimate cause, we're talking about responsibility. I know you have different words for those things, but I can never remember what they are.

Even in the radical erroneous view which says that God limited Himself when He created man—giving man absolute freedom outside of His freedom and sovereignty, even this view makes God the ultimate cause of evil, because by giving man this autonomy, God "started the ball rolling" toward sin.

There is another view that separates God from responsibility, ie, He created free men.

This view requires one to eradicate the notion that He decrees everything.

Is that the same as the concept that you consider to be a "radical erroneous view"?

Here is a very weak analogy: God is not the author of this post of mine, but He is the ultimate cause. Not merely because I could not have written this post unless God had created me, etc., but in His plan and purpose, God foreordained that I should write this post. But that does not mean that God is morally responsible for its contents. God's foreknowledge that AMR will write this post does not mean AMR cannot refrain from writing this post. Rather God's foreknowledge that AMR will write this post means that AMR does not refrain from writing this post.

In my writing of this post, if I err, it is I who err. If I speak truth, it is I who speak truth. But this could only be—if God was the ultimate ground and cause of my existence—my knowledge, and everything else. And the only way to escape Deism is to say that God is personally involved in every event, sustaining this world moment-by-moment by His providential decree. And the only way to escape fatalism is in Christ.

AMR, I am convinced that you are committed to God and His glory, and I have a deep appreciation for the concepts you describe, but I find the Calvinist explanations to be too much "just so."

Here's the core issue. You write that "God is not the author of this post of mine, but He is the ultimate cause" and I agree, but you say He "foreordained" that you should write it. That seems to me that every letter, punctuation mark and space had to be the way it is. That sounds like you were fated to write as you wrote.

Logically speaking, you cannot escape fatalism by declaring that the only way to escape fatalism is in Christ. This means of escape might be true, but it logically contradicts the concept of foreordination (such that every letter is as it should be.

When you say things like this:

The Ultimate Cause of all things, God, though not morally responsible for the actions of His creatures, has taken the guilt and sin of the rebellious creature upon Himself. The solution to the problem of evil is Christ. The cross is our guarantee that God is not the author of sin, but of salvation. It is not as though Christ makes up for God's mistake in creating a world where man blows it, rather, Christ takes our place, reconciling us to the God we have rejected. It is here that we encounter one of the most awesome statements of scripture—that the death of Christ was itself predestined by God: "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross" (Acts 2:23; cf. Acts 3:18; Acts 4:28). Surely no one would claim that God is the author of the sins of these men, yet there is no doubt that it was God's set purpose.

I can agree entirely, if there is room to say it was not necessary that those specific men acted in the exact way they did.

Similarly, you could have gotten off an equally fine post with a few words changed and God would have been just as happy with our reasoned dialogue.

So the core of my disagreement with Calvinism is that it seems to simply declare "no contradiction" when the contradiction is inherent. If God has ordained "every word" of your post, how are you not fated to write as you did? Jesus might be the escape from fatalism, but not at the cost of a coherent worldview, surely?

In short, when we say that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, we are saying that nothing can happen outside the freedom and sovereignty of God. He is the ultimate cause of all things. Every individual event is foreordained—but not as an individual event. God sees every individual event as a part of one organic whole. We cannot see this as such, because we are finite, and worse, fallen. Yet after saying this, we also know that this doctrine establishes the reality and importance of proximate causes.

So this means you could have written differently? But you say the men who handed Jesus over couldn't have refrained?

To say that there is something in this world which has its origin in a source other than God, is to say that there is another God.

Why?

What if God created a non-God source?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So the core of my disagreement with Calvinism is that it seems to simply declare "no contradiction" when the contradiction is inherent. If God has ordained "every word" of your post, how are you not fated to write as you did? Jesus might be the escape from fatalism, but not at the cost of a coherent worldview, surely?

Thanks for a detailed response. A breath of fresh air. I have always known you have a sharp mind, and it has vexed me that you are usually miserly in demonstrating the same, denying the opportunity of others to be edified. Again, thank you.

I want to zero in on the above as it seems to underlie most of your concerns.

God's ordaining my post and its content includes my free liberty of spontaneity (able to choose according to my greatest inclinations when so choosing), which God has established as part of His decree. This is explained in my previously linked post on the Decree of God.

Which is to imagine it going something like this:

"I, God, decree (ordain) that AMR will make a post on Date/Time, including all the content therein, as the product of AMR's own free-will and rational mind, which I, God, have established in all my moral creatures."​

God knows (foreknowledge) I will do this, because He has ordained (decreed) I will do this and not refrain from doing this.

I am the doer, the actor, the one responsible for my actions. Not God, who is responsible to no other, for responsibility assumes accountability to another.

Now while responsibility presupposes accountability, accountability does not presuppose ability or freedom.

Indeed, free will has absolutely nothing to do with responsibility. Instead, accountability simply presupposes one who demands accountability. The sovereign public holds its elected officials accountable for their actions. The ability or freedom of these elected officials is irrelevant to the fact that the public demands accountability. Yes, some of these officials may decry their lack of ability or freedom to act, and the public will judge them accordingly: some will be rewarded, some will be punished—all according to the standards set by the public’s expectations.

Similarly, but perfectly so, since our Sovereign God demands accountability and since God rewards righteousness and punishes wickedness, man is accountable. Moreover, God’s judgments of reward or punishment will be according to the standards He has set for our actions. These standards, the Scriptures, clearly tell us clearly that God is Sovereign, He directs all our actions, we possess no liberty of indifference when we act because we acted exactly the way we willed to act, and we will be required to account for our actions.

Fatalism assumes that our choices do not matter, or that we cannot really make willing choices. A fatalistic worldview is one in which all things are left to fate, chance, and a series of causes and effects that has no intelligent guide or ultimate cause. Calvinism believes that God (not fate) is in control. Fate is this: whatever is, must be.

But there is a difference between that and Providence.

From the WLC Question 18. What are God’s works of providence?

A. God’s works of providence are his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving, and governing all his creatures; ordering them, and all their actions, to his own glory. Ps. 145:17; Ps. 104:24; Isa. 28:29; Heb. 1:3; Ps. 103:19; Matt. 10:29-31; Gen. 45:7; Rom. 11:36; Isa. 63:14.​

Providence says, whatever God ordains, must be; but the wisdom of God never ordains anything without a purpose. Everything in this world is working for some great end. Fate does not say that. There is all the difference between fate and Providence that there is between a man with good eyes and a blind man.

On the other hand, the kind of freedom that is demanded by those who deny God’s providential control of all things, a freedom that would place them outside of God’s sustaining and controlling activity, would be impossible if Christ is indeed continually carrying along things by His “word of power” (Heb. 1:3). If Scripture is true, then to be outside of that providential control would simply be not to exist.

AMR

 

[Derf]

You continue to hang your arguments on the premise that something must actually exist in temporal time. Such is the presupposition of the open theist, who can go on to declare the future does not exist, so God does not know anything about it. I have answered this fallacy previously above. I cannot say more than to remind you to consult Charnock or others so linked earlier.

For God to know the inclinations, they must exist in some form, some "where" or some "when". That may only be in the mind of God, if it's before He created anything else. See your next paragraph for explanation.

But this is an interesting turn of events, that you are basing God's knowledge of something on His ability to see into the future, something the WCF eschews. I wonder at the reach for Arminian doctrines when the Calvinist ones fail you.

Inclinations spring from one's nature, expressed as actions, the fruits of the will, which is attached to nature. God has established the free will of the person. God knows AMR will refrain from this or that, or do this or that. God is not proximally causing me to do or not to do. Certainly God is the first cause. But His antecedent causation is done within the realm of necessary, contingent, and free secondary occurrences.

You say inclinations "spring from one's nature", but if God understands our inclinations before He created us (which He would have to do to preordain actions based on our inclinations), then those "inclinations" sprang from somewhere else besides "one's nature", and certainly not yet expressed as actions, unless you are talking about God's nature, or the intention of God to create our nature in a particular way. It can't "spring from" us, because before we existed, God preordained stuff to happen according to those inclinations, according to you.

Of course, if you are right in your first paragraph, God can just see into time to see what He is going to create and what kind of inclinations His creations are going to have.

This "must exist first" harangue appears to be a stumbling block for you. I advise again that you take up and read other materials on the matter. You could not make this argument time and again if you had actually read, say Charnock, or others. At the least you would interact with these arguments pointedly to make your case. As things stand, you are repeating yourself and I am not obliged to do the heavy lifting for you. That said, I do take the time to provide plenty of external materials and other readings that are contained in the links of my posts for those that want to do some individual research and become more informed.

I'm repeating myself because you haven't responded to my assertions, just dismissed them.

Again, the links I provided treat these issues in painful detail. Moreover just because these links are at an obvious "settled theist" site does not mean they take the usual tactic of what one finds in your posts and that of others and can just be summarily dismissed because of one's own biases.

I would hope you would treat my own assertions with the same care you want me to treat those in your links.

Spoiler

"painful detail"? I couldn't have said it better myself.

As a thought experiment, how does the open theist escape the same complaint? Open theists will affirm that God will ultimately achieve His end for His creation. Apparently at least one thing is actually settled concerning the future, no? If not, what is the Biblical hope we are confident will actually take place?

I'm not sure how you get from "God must predetermine some things" to "God must predetermine everything", or from "God must predetermine" to "God must predetermine all from before the beginning". Allowing the first certainly doesn't require the second in each case, does it? Since I don't think it does, I don't find a thought experiment along those lines too awkward for the open theist. But for your sake, I'll attempt a simple one:

Suppose God plans for Israel to persevere at least until Jesus Christ arrives in the flesh. To do this, His people need to refrain from following after other gods, but they do it anyway, which is not something He would have ever predetermined for them (else God would be guilty of not only tempting them to sin, but ordaining their sin). So he first commands them not to follow those other gods, and emphasizes the command by destroying and displacing the Canaanites, but when they still go a-whoring, God decimates and displaces the Israelites. Note the distinction: decimate vs destroy. Then God gives them protection while they are displaced in Babylon by putting folks named, say, Daniel and Esther and other folks in top spots of influence. These top-spotters are targets of evil forces, so they obviously need to be protected, too, which God accomplishes through miracle and providence. When they are allowed to go back to the land, which God arranges, they still need protection and providence, so He provides it, though not without hardship, in the form of the different phases of Nebuchadnezzar's dream statue. As those phases are being accomplished, God goes silent for 400 years, as His voice in prophecy is not really needed--He had provided the information they needed already, and with the chastisement of 70 years in Babylon, they were equipped to survive. But He could have sent messengers to them if needed. Finally, Jesus arrives, and that particular purpose of the people of Israel is accomplished--the Messiah has come.

I could give you numerous others, but they would all sound eerily familiar to you. But I think I'll give you the scenario from your point of view:

God wants Israel to persevere at least until Jesus arrives in the flesh. To do this, He tells them not to follow after other gods, but He works it, in His mysterious ways, so they DO follow after other gods. This obviously causes them to need to be removed from the land, which He knew about ahead of time (because He planned for them to go a-whoring), otherwise He would never have been able to figure out what to do with them. In fact, if He doesn't plan everything that ever happens, He would just wring His hands, not knowing what to do.

So how exactly does God pull that off given all the myriad of contingencies that are involved? Is God just biding His time awaiting for all these things to fall into place, never inclining the will of others via secondary means because the open theist "will" is the Holiest of Holies? For that matter, what guarantee exists that all these apparently autonomous occurrences will ever come to be? It sounds like the old erroneous nonsense of a million monkeys typing forever will inevitably type out Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Do you really think God is leaving everything to chance if He leaves something to an individual? Why? Is it really all or nothing in your mind?

I don't think the "will" (I almost said "free will", but I caught myself in time before Stripe had a chance to say anything ), is the holiest of holies--it doesn't save us, and it is obviously not our path to God. But it is certainly a hindrance to our finding God.

In the final analysis, your position is one seeking to understand how exactly God pulls it all off, reconciling total sovereignty with human responsibility. Let me say quite clearly that no answer is given us in Scripture.

Not if you don't read what scripture has to say about it, that's for sure. But if God's total sovereignty is displayed in a way that doesn't require Him to preordain every single act of every single man for every single moment of time, then perhaps scripture DOES reconcile total sovereignty with human responsibility, unless the scriptures can

just be summarily dismissed because of one's own biases.

Let me be clear--I have no idea how God will pull off what He plans to pull off, nor do I expect to always know. But I DO have some idea of how He has pulled off things in the past--since he tells us some of it. Sometimes He uses sickness or invaders to bring about repentance, or at least to make His people cry out to Him (as with Hezekiah x2, Manasseh, and lots of others). Sometimes He causes and uses other nations' calamities to highlight a point for His people, so they won't take a wrong path (Canaanites, though He is extremely adept at dual purpose, and those calamities also work to punish). Sometimes he hardens people's hearts by presenting them miracles they can fairly easily "duplicate", before bringing on the tougher calamities that tell the world God is watching over His people (Pharaoh and Eqyptians).

But I'm a little curious, if you think you are not required to reconcile these two concepts, why did you ask me to up above in the thought experiment? Double standard, perhaps?

What Scripture should teach us about the matter is that the same God that created all that exists in our temporal universe did so by mere speech act. We should thus be confident that this same God is able to rule as He sees fit to rule, yet justly hold man accountable. Both are affirmed in Holy Writ. We should not strive to dilute one in favor of the other. As Spurgeon once noted, there is no need to reconcile these friends in Scripture.

Ah, good! Then you agree that God created all of our inclinations, so that He would not be hampered by not knowing what we were going to do, and thus not be completely paralyzed by people going against His will. And if He created all our inclinations, and we only do what our inclinations lead us to do, God is the author of sin, which He both wants and doesn't want, we are just robots, and the universe is meaningless to us.

 

[Derf]

What if God created a non-God source?

Quote of the day!

 

[Rosenritter]

The question about "omniscience" usually finds some root in questions about prophecy: How does God manage to say what will happen before it happens? A skeptic might say it was a lucky guess, or perhaps resort to declaring it as a trick, that the prophecy was written after the fact.

But setting aside the answers of skeptics the remaining choices usually include that a) God saw into the future with "omniscience" or that b) God intervened and made it happen with "omnipotence." I would think that the Open Theism position would choose the latter answer of "omnipotence" - that when God says what will happen in the future, it will happen because God will make sure it happens.

I believe that God knows all things that are knowable, and I believe that God can make anything happen that can happen. This does not apply to logical absurdities of course... God cannot "know" how to make a square with only three sides, and God cannot force someone to love him of their own free will.

If someone wants to present a persuasive argument for the "crystal ball" theory of omniscience, I would present this question: why should this be considered? Since such "omniscience" isn't directly stated in scripture, is there any scriptural (or even philosophical) reason of why we should consider such an explanation?

 

[Lon]

Indeed, free will has absolutely nothing to do with responsibility. Instead, accountability simply presupposes one who demands accountability.
AMR

I really like this. The prayer of Jesus from John 17:21 is for a oneness lost at the fall. Romans 12:5 is foreign to our alienated self. A oneness as Jesus our Lord prays, is something missing and not understood, even in the present day church His body. We don't have the same sense of community and need of one another as even our past generations farming and building by necessity together. Such requires planning and intricacies of knowing that we in our technology age spun on a two second dime can barely grasp, thus, it seems to me, we do not understand the oneness of ourselves in God, His Will, His plans, let alone how this ties directly into perfection and perfect foreknowledge.

I may not have described this well in this short space and may need to unpack it, but to me, the concepts of oneness and foreknowledge and sovereignty are dependent thoughts that we must grasp one to grasp the other. In Him -Lon

 

[Rosenritter]

Total omniscience was defined as:

Know all things totally. Does not change his mind.

Jonah 3:9-10 KJV
(9) Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
(10) And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

 

[Rosenritter]

Being an open theist requires rejecting original sin as well as the omniscience (knowing all things past, present, and future) of God. And that is just for starters. The meaning of both terms have to be re-defined by the unsettled theist (open theist) in order to give the appearance of orthodoxy in discussions.

AMR

Assuming that you are using the definition of "original sin" from your post:

[FONT=&quot]Original sin consists in both (and in order):[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1) the guilt of Adam's first sin[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) the want of original righteousness[/FONT]

Open theism might require rejecting paradoxical definitions of omniscience, but I cannot see how it affects the understanding of "original sin." How are you defining "righteousness?" Surely you don't mean that "sinfully inclined, but hasn't had time or opportunity to sin yet" is righteous?

 

[Lon]

I believe that God knows all things that are knowable, and I believe that God can make anything happen that can happen. This does not apply to logical absurdities of course... God cannot "know" how to make a square with only three sides, and God cannot force someone to love him of their own free will.

Open Theist?

If someone wants to present a persuasive argument for the "crystal ball" theory of omniscience, I would present this question: why should this be considered? Since such "omniscience" isn't directly stated in scripture, is there any scriptural (or even philosophical) reason of why we should consider such an explanation?

Very simply, 'if' there is anything that God doesn't know, then He isn't God, but a product of something greater than Himself. In this respect, as much as I love the Open Theists, they have the God of the universe bowing to some other god that is usually "time." Time cannot be god nor His constraint ELSE God is then ruled by it. God is the Ruler and Maker of all things ELSE those things 'could' constrain Him. I'm not sure if such is logically followed, but such logically follows.

In a nutshell, the difference between the Calvinist and others is who actually has the free independent will. I don't mean it to be a slam, but an end to each logical conclusion. Even 'if' I were a robot, preprogrammed, it doesn't matter as long as God is God. Because of His very nature, there is no trouble to the one trusting. Job said "even if He slay me, yet will I trust Him." The point in my thinking is "what would God have to be for you to either start or stop serving Him?" Imho, it is nothing but "just God, the way He is and my position as creation."

I have been forever at the mercy of Romans 9:21-22 It has forever unmade me and has ruined me trying to apprehend God in my own image. The God of Romans 9 may not be what "I" envisioned God to be, but I've learned to reckon with God as He is. He welcomes reason, Isaiah 1:18 but He will always win the argument. In Him -Lon

"

 

[Lon]

There is another view that separates God from responsibility, ie, He created free men.

I believe you adequately pinpoint the difference here. You are correct, that such assumes 'free' men. EVERYTHING of Christianity and body life screams to me: both 'slave' and taking up one's cross as well as a reminder: No our own 1 Corinthians 6:19,20 and not our own Romans 12:9

This view requires one to eradicate the notion that He decrees everything.

I agree. It virtually requires it. This is, indeed the stark difference. Without, again, purposefully being confrontational, it seems to me, the difference between whether we or God, should be god, imho. Why I say this? My struggle ever is to be in His image, not mine and to take up my cross and follow Him. Luke 9:23 My observation: "If" God didn't know my next choice, it would then be because of my own sovereignty (god). All of the scripture reminds me ever that I'm the creation, He the Creator, I the clay, He the Potter, I the servant, He the Owner, I the finite and insignificant, He the Infinite and the Significant. There is no good feeling for me, that the Maker would bow to me. Ultimately, such seems the focus and goal of freewill and independence and, as honestly and sincerely as I know how to say: the opposite of Christian to me. Mark 10:22

I pray this spring boards to meaningful conversation, with these scriptures I have and must wrestle and contend. John 12:25

To me, logically, prayerfully, meditatively, these all lead to functional and intentional Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge as well as complete sovereignty specifically because there is nothing perfect in me, or you, or the kid who was killed in a drive-by. Romans 7:18 then 2 Corinthians 5:17 demands I conform to all things good and unchanging. It amounts, logically, to a standard, relationship, and being, who is God, who cannot change in nature or character. Because of that, logically, omniscience entails all things else God could learn something (which is okay to an Open Theist), but no, that's a bad thing because then something God sees now as good, He 'could' see as bad, "If" indeed God can learn something. It can't be true.

Hold on, matey. That is a substantive response.

If you use the word "ordain" and that use requires the caveats of "God is not the author," then why the need to look elsewhere for a definition when the contradiction is raised?

Just because it's a short response, doesn't justify summary dismissal.

For me: The very act of sin is the author of 1) freewill and 2) of things that are ordained but not desired. The very act of the Fall, imh but studied opinion, is where these dynamics began. Not a gift, but a lie: A false concept of independence that cannot be sustained because all things are sustained by Him Colossians 1:17 There is nothing, I believe scripturally, but the illusion and temporal grace of freewill independence. As far as my understanding, such simply cannot be true. It is the opposite of being owned by God, opposite of belonging to one another Romans 12:5

Prayerfully submitted -Lon

 

[Derf]

If someone wants to present a persuasive argument for the "crystal ball" theory of omniscience, I would present this question: why should this be considered? Since such "omniscience" isn't directly stated in scripture, is there any scriptural (or even philosophical) reason of why we should consider such an explanation?

Even if it were presented, it only confirms the flexibility of the future, or it straps God into itself. If God can see into a future He can alter, then He's not looking at a settled future. If the future He sees is settled, He's a slave to it, and the only way it works out right is if God planned everything from the beginning (Calvinism). But then you have God planning people's sin for them.

 

[Stripe]

Thanks for a detailed response. A breath of fresh air. I have always known you have a sharp mind, and it has vexed me that you are usually miserly in demonstrating the same, denying the opportunity of others to be edified. Again, thank you.

"I'm trying, real hard."

I want to zero in on the above as it seems to underlie most of your concerns.

God's ordaining my post and its content includes my free liberty of spontaneity (able to choose according to my greatest inclinations when so choosing), which God has established as part of His decree. This is explained in my previously linked post on the Decree of God.

Which is to imagine it going something like this:

"I, God, decree (ordain) that AMR will make a post on Date/Time, including all the content therein, as the product of AMR's own free-will and rational mind, which I, God, have established in all my moral creatures."​

God knows (foreknowledge) I will do this, because He has ordained (decreed) I will do this and not refrain from doing this.

I am the doer, the actor, the one responsible for my actions. Not God, who is responsible to no other, for responsibility assumes accountability to another.

Now while responsibility presupposes accountability, accountability does not presuppose ability or freedom.

Indeed, free will has absolutely nothing to do with responsibility. Instead, accountability simply presupposes one who demands accountability. The sovereign public holds its elected officials accountable for their actions. The ability or freedom of these elected officials is irrelevant to the fact that the public demands accountability. Yes, some of these officials may decry their lack of ability or freedom to act, and the public will judge them accordingly: some will be rewarded, some will be punished—all according to the standards set by the public’s expectations.

Similarly, but perfectly so, since our Sovereign God demands accountability and since God rewards righteousness and punishes wickedness, man is accountable. Moreover, God’s judgments of reward or punishment will be according to the standards He has set for our actions. These standards, the Scriptures, clearly tell us clearly that God is Sovereign, He directs all our actions, we possess no liberty of indifference when we act because we acted exactly the way we willed to act, and we will be required to account for our actions.

Fatalism assumes that our choices do not matter, or that we cannot really make willing choices. A fatalistic worldview is one in which all things are left to fate, chance, and a series of causes and effects that has no intelligent guide or ultimate cause. Calvinism believes that God (not fate) is in control. Fate is this: whatever is, must be.

But there is a difference between that and Providence.

From the WLC Question 18. What are God’s works of providence?

A. God’s works of providence are his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving, and governing all his creatures; ordering them, and all their actions, to his own glory. Ps. 145:17; Ps. 104:24; Isa. 28:29; Heb. 1:3; Ps. 103:19; Matt. 10:29-31; Gen. 45:7; Rom. 11:36; Isa. 63:14.​

Providence says, whatever God ordains, must be; but the wisdom of God never ordains anything without a purpose. Everything in this world is working for some great end. Fate does not say that. There is all the difference between fate and Providence that there is between a man with good eyes and a blind man.

On the other hand, the kind of freedom that is demanded by those who deny God’s providential control of all things, a freedom that would place them outside of God’s sustaining and controlling activity, would be impossible if Christ is indeed continually carrying along things by His “word of power” (Heb. 1:3). If Scripture is true, then to be outside of that providential control would simply be not to exist.

AMR

Well, as you might guess, I go from "ordination" straight to "fatalism." I don't see any coherent way to say that 1. God knows everything that I will do, and 2. I have a will, are both true.

And I don't know any way to stretch that out, so it's short and sweet this time, I'm afraid. :noid: