ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

Hmmmm....

Without the right to choose evil then morality is meaningless, huh? It's been said before by many who you might not agree with.

Hmmmm….
So what?

Do you allow your children to do anything they wish? How about your neighbor? Are you being unfair?

Wrong question. And what’s worse, is that I'm reasonably certain that you knew it was the wrong question when you asked it. The correct question would have been...

Are your kids capable of choosing to do something that you have not given them permission to do?

If not, then your children's obedience is morally meaningless.


or you could have asked...

Are you capable of allowing your kids to do things that you currently do not allow them to do?

If not, then your proficiency as a parent is morally meaningless.

So True.....even though we both agree your statement should be "we are not completely free".

No, my statement was correct as stated. If God knows the future, by whatever means, we are not free at all and morality is meaningless because we could not have done other than that which God knew in advance that we would do. Having only a single possible course of action is antithetical to morality. Or to put it in more formally logical terms, the genuine ability of an agent to do or to do otherwise is a necessary condition of morality.

Your righteousness is like 'filthy rags'. Hmmm..... I've read this somewhere.

You read it here...

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,​

A completely meaningless passage of Scripture if we do not have the genuine freedom to choose our actions by our own will.

Did you really mean this, Clete? Aren't you saying that if God foreknows the future, by whatever means, that He is culpable; and that this, is unacceptable?

I said that with a misunderstanding of the term culpable. Here's a definition for the sake of clarity...

culpable - deserving blame or censure as being wrong or evil or injurious; "blameworthy if not criminal behavior"; "censurable misconduct"; "culpable negligence"​

By this definition, God would indeed be culpable for evil if your theology is correct. Proof enough for me that your theology is quite wrong and that it is you then who are culpable for propagating it.

That He would be immoral to start a series of events which would end up in some going to Hell. At the same time you say that He couldn't get His desired goal without doing this same thing. For without free will, none would go to Hell. Yet God gave you free will thus causing some to have the ability to go to Hell.

This is faulty logic. This is exactly the same sort of thinking that lays the blame for gun crimes at the feet of gun manufacturers. After all, if they hadn't made the guns, the crimes couldn't have been committed and therefore the crimes are the fault of companies like Smith & Wesson. This is stupidity for reasons too obvious to go into here.

Yet, if He foresaw some going to Hell; it would be immoral; and, at the same time, if He gave man free will some would go to Hell that would be ok.

I wouldn't put it this way but depending on what you mean by "if He foresaw some going to Hell" I would not disagree with this statement.

If God knows the future and I have no ability to do other than what I do then I cannot justly be held responsible for my action any more than a robot can be held responsible for a bad welding job on a Chevy Tahoe. But if by some means that robot were given a genuine ability to choose and it intentionally made bad welds, I, as the owner, would rightly throw the robot in the scrap heap.
So, to once again put this in more formal terms, while the ability to choose is a necessary condition of morality (good or evil), it is not a sufficient condition of either good or evil and so cannot be considered a cause of it.

What was the initial cause, in your mind, that some go to Hell? Was it (1) God created them good or (2)God gave them free will to do good? Who'll eventually send these same people to Hell at the judgment? Does He know, in your opinion, that He'll send some to Hell and some not?

God does not know which individuals will choose to love Him and which will not. And the ability to choose is not a cause of the choice. Having the ability to choose to do otherwise is simply what gives any one choice moral meaning.

Does your argument stand that:

A: If God foresaw before creation that some would go to Hell and continued the creation then God has culpability for evil deeds

NO! Again, the ability to choose is not a cause of the choice, it simply gives that choice moral meaning. If given the ability to choose good or evil and I then choose evil, I cannot blame my ability to choose for my choice of evil because I could have just as legitimately chosen good.

And,

B: If God knows some will go to Hell and He allows them to die then God does not have culpability for evil deeds?
In your system would the condemned never die? By allowing their deaths doesn't He send some to Hell? Couldn't God keep them alive until they 'learned' their lessons?

That’s a brilliant solution Rob! Give evil people eternal life! :BRAVO:

If they didn't die then the Earth would become Hell Rob, only worse. At least in Hell, no one will be able to hurt others any longer.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

We never agreed on the equation. The first time you presented it I objected to it and continued to do so for the remainder of the discussion. People are not mathematical equations, nor do we operate like them. If we do, we do not have free will and morality is meaningless. This is the bit of basic logic that you are ignoring quite well.


Regardless? It's a package deal Doc. If the future is known, by whatever means, it is settled, period. And you are quite correct. If our actions are the result of simply causal chains of events then God does indeed know the future and we are not free and morality (i.e. love) is meaningless.


I understand that perfectly and that is why I categorically reject it.


I question the logic of this whole comment but I'll leave that aside for now and simply point out that you agreed at the outset what having a free will means....



Then after 2 or 3 iterations of your asking the same question over and over I asked the following question...



to which you responded...



To which I immediately responded...



And the discussion went on from there with you adding more and more variables to the basic equation as though it made a difference and I never wavered in the slightest in my rejection of it. Your equations do not accurately depict free will choices and I never agreed that they did.


As I said at the beginning of this post, it is you who are ignoring basic logic. I am doing no such thing. You are trying to get me to accept the idea that apples are the same as oranges and that rejecting such is amounts to ignoring basic logic. You on the other hand have not, that I recall, even one time attempted to deal with the logic that says very simply that morality requires choice and that without genuine freedom of choice love is meaningless and the whole point of the Bible and Christianity itself is lost.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Whatever you say Clete, have a nice day. By the way, nothing I said suggests that we don't have freedom to choose.

 

[Delmar]

By the way, nothing I said suggests that we don't have freedom to choose.

I will grant that however Illogical it seems to me, you have remained consistent on that point!

 

[RobE]

Freedom of Choice is not absolute in any way, anywhere.

Do you allow your children to do anything they wish? How about your neighbor? Are you being unfair?

Wrong question. And what’s worse, is that I'm reasonably certain that you knew it was the wrong question when you asked it. The correct question would have been...

Are your kids capable of choosing to do something that you have not given them permission to do?

Right question: Because we're talking about culpability in parenting. You wouldn't allow your children to do many things that God allows men to do, would you?

In answer to your restated question-------

Of course, and I know they will. So did God in advance. I think we're beginning to communicate.

No, my statement was correct as stated. If God knows the future, by whatever means, we are not free at all and morality is meaningless because we could not have done other than that which God knew in advance that we would do. Having only a single possible course of action is antithetical to morality. Or to put it in more formally logical terms, the genuine ability of an agent to do or to do otherwise is a necessary condition of morality.

Foreordination = to pre-arrange.
Foresight = to see in advance.

Open Theism's claim that foresight=foreordination is a misunderstanding of terms. You say that to see is to arrange. It's just like if God knows they're going to perform abortions today at planned parenthood and He doesn't stop it. There's no difference if He knew the abortions were going to take place yesterday or last month. He's still not forcing anyone to get the abortion. He just accurately predicts that it will happen.

That He would be immoral to start a series of events which would end up in some going to Hell. At the same time you say that He couldn't get His desired goal without doing this same thing. For without free will, none would go to Hell. Yet God gave you free will thus causing some to have the ability to go to Hell.

This is faulty logic. This is exactly the same sort of thinking that lays the blame for gun crimes at the feet of gun manufacturers. After all, if they hadn't made the guns, the crimes couldn't have been committed and therefore the crimes are the fault of companies like Smith & Wesson. This is stupidity for reasons too obvious to go into here.

It's the same logic you use to disprove foresight. If God 'foresaw' child molestations, and He created Adam anyway; then He's responsible for the child molestations. If Colt, Inc. manufactured guns knowing that someone is going to get shot eventually then they are responsible? What if they are present when someone gets shot with a Colt revolver like God is present when a child gets molested? Would they be more culpable? Why or Why Not in your opinion?



Yours,

RobE
.

 

[godrulz]

Open Theist's do not confuse foreordination and foreknowledge. You are missing the logic of his argument.

Free will is not illusory. It is genuine, but that does not mean that there are not restraints or limitations on it.

 

[RobE]

Open Theist's do not confuse foreordination and foreknowledge. You are missing the logic of his argument.

What's the logic of his argument then?

No, my statement was correct as stated. If God knows the future, by whatever means, we are not free at all and morality is meaningless because we could not have done other than that which God knew in advance that we would do. Having only a single possible course of action is antithetical to morality. Or to put it in more formally logical terms, the genuine ability of an agent to do or to do otherwise is a necessary condition of morality.

It's right here. Clete's saying that if God knows in advance what you'll do then you didn't have a real choice. Do you see the argument that whether God knows in advance or not that your choice still exists? I know that women are going to have abortions tommorrow(in advance); yet, their REAL choice remains today. Let's say the lady next door tells me that she's going to have an abortion tommorrow. Tommorrow when she's had the abortion then the choice is exercised. In both cases I'm not responsible. Yet Clete holds God responsible if God knows exactly which women will have the abortion tommorrow. Do you see the logical fallacy here?

Free will is not illusory. It is genuine, but that does not mean that there are not restraints or limitations on it.

With those restraints or limitations would the future choices of individuals be restricted?

Thanks,

Rob

 

[godrulz]

What's the logic of his argument then?



It's right here. Clete's saying that if God knows in advance what you'll do then you didn't have a real choice. Do you see the argument that whether God knows in advance or not that your choice still exists? I know that women are going to have abortions tommorrow(in advance); yet, their REAL choice remains today. Let's say the lady next door tells me that she's going to have an abortion tommorrow. Tommorrow when she's had the abortion then the choice is exercised. In both cases I'm not responsible. Yet Clete holds God responsible if God knows exactly which women will have the abortion tommorrow. Do you see the logical fallacy here?



With those restraints or limitations would the future choices of individuals be restricted?

Thanks,

Rob

There is a difference between a human knowing the intentions of a person for the next day (that still may or may not happen...the person could get run over on the way to the abortion clinic, then could get murdered, they could change their mind at the last minute, etc.). It seems knowable because the potential future became the fixed past. If she would have changed her mind, the seemingly knowable future would have panned out differently. God knows the hearts and minds of men. He would have an even better idea of the likelyhood of the intention coming to pass. This still does not preclude a myriad of things happening before the ultimate choice to change the expected future. Your example is prediction, not certain. It also does not prove that there is exhaustive foreknowledge or that there is not a difference between possibility, probability, and certainty. It also is not parallel to explaining how God could exhaustively know all human choices trillions of years before the free agents existed. This is an over-extrapolation from a specific example to a general principle.

Our choices are restricted at times. If I marry Sue, I cannot marry Kathy at the same time. If I have a vasectomy and my wife a hysterectomy, we will not have any more children. Our potential choices are limited. If I jump off a bridge, I close the door to thousands of other choices. If someone shoots me and I am paralyzed, my career choices change. If God intervenes supernaturally at times, He may save me from an accident that should have happened. He alters my future by intervening with His ability.

The straightforward reading of Scripture and our normative experience is that the future is not yet, the past is fixed, and the present is now. The A theory of time is more coherent than the B theory of time (which you must assume to close the future...this is technical philosophy that you can read about in academic papers relating to time, eternity, free will, predestination, etc.).

 

[Lighthouse]

I was just wondering if ...... (1)I dropped a rock and (2)it fell to the ground and (3)I knew it would fall............would Open Theism accuse me of making it fall; OR, would they give me the courtesy of recognizing I only allowed it to fall and let nature take its course?

Rob

You knowing it would fall would be based on your pre-existing knowledge of nature [i.e. gravity]. You did force it to fall, to a certain degree because you dropped it. However, your knowledge that it would fall is not what made it fall. If I pick up a rock with the intention of dropping God knows my intention, and therefore expects the rock to fall. If I drop it, then He knows it will fall. However, if I change my mind, then His previous expectation is not met. However, He is not surprised, because He knew it was possible I would change my mind.

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse let me begin again.....






My answer.....

Because He loved them whether they rejected Him or not.

So what? That still doesn't answer why He wasted His time. For Him to die for them would have been futile, and God is not futile.


______________________________________

Except your choices.

Wrong. God knows every possible choice I might make, so none of them could ever surprise Him. However, they might surprise me.

What Scripture and who's reason.

The Scripture found in God's word. Do you want specifics?

And as for reason, I have my reasoning, which is based on God's reasoning, because I lean not on my own understanding.

Maybe, someone who was just, would give an equal opportunity to all.

A just man would not give the opportunity to those whom he knew would not accept it. That's asinine. And God's not asinine.

I would not offer chocolate to everyone in the room if I knew certain people either did not like chocolate, were allergic to it, or were diabetic. Only those who liked chocolate, and could safely eat it would have it offered to them. Now, if I did not know that some of the people in the room did not like it, or could eat it safely, then I would offer it to all. Only to have some reject my offer. Of course, they would have valid reasons. those who reject Christ don't.

I agree He could accurately predict the future.

How accurately? Would He be able to predict it exactly, or would He be able to predict the possibilities?

 

[Lighthouse]

So if God were to accurately predict(prophecy) the future then that is a logical absurdity? For instance, if God were to know that the rock would fall when you dropped it or you would sin if you lived?

God is not stupid. Even we know that rocks fall if we drop them. Why wouldn;t God know this? Same goes for us sinning. We know we will, how could God not know we will?

He would be unjust to punish immoral behavior even if the actual(present) choice was only influenced(by the creative act) and not coerced(even if He paid the price for your actions before the judgement)?

Do what?

Christ paid the price for all sin when He died on the cross. Those who reject Him still go to Hell. God is still just. Figure it out.

 

[Lighthouse]

Name me something unknowable. You can't because it is unknowable at the present time to to humans. We need to stop limiting God by human limitation.

How can God know something that does not exist?

Where does the future exist for God to see it? How can He know something that is simply unknowable? What shirt I will wear tomorrow is not necessarily unknowable, because there are only a limited amount of shirts in my wardrobe. However, which specific one I will choose is unknowable, because I haven't chosen to wear it yet.

 

[Lighthouse]

What is unknowable does not exist. The future does not exist.:think:

 

[Clete]

Whatever you say Clete, have a nice day. By the way, nothing I said suggests that we don't have freedom to choose.

Nice responsive post there doc. :thumb:

What I understand to be your position is the equivalent of causal determinism and that is certainly not compatible with free will. And even if I've misunderstood that much of your position (which I do not believe I have) you certainly do believe that God knows the future exhaustively by some means, whether causal or otherwise, and that is also incompatible with free will.

If the future is settled, we are not free (an open future is a necessary condition for freedom).
If God knows the future, by whatever means, the future is settled, by definition (i.e. Divine foreknowledge is a sufficient condition of a settled future).

Therefore if God knows the future we are, by logical necessity, not free.

If we are not free, morality is meaningless because love and all other forms of morality must, by definition, be a freely chosen act of the will. (Volition is a necessary condition for morality.)

If morality is meaningless then all of Christianity is meaningless because it is at its core about good and evil (Christianity=Morality).

Christianity is not meaningless, therefore morality is not meaningless; therefore we must necessarily have volition; therefore the future must necessarily be open; therefore God must necessarily not know the future.



Where is the flaw in my logic?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

Born again Christians do not sin and cannot sin. If you are a sinner you are not of God!

 

[godrulz]

You knowing it would fall would be based on your pre-existing knowledge of nature [i.e. gravity]. You did force it to fall, to a certain degree because you dropped it. However, your knowledge that it would fall is not what made it fall. If I pick up a rock with the intention of dropping God knows my intention, and therefore expects the rock to fall. If I drop it, then He knows it will fall. However, if I change my mind, then His previous expectation is not met. However, He is not surprised, because He knew it was possible I would change my mind.

The law of cause-effect is different than human choices. :thumb: Well said, LH.

 

[godrulz]

Born again Christians do not sin and cannot sin. If you are a sinner you are not of God!

Nice harsh view. You would make a lousy pastor. You would end up telling your sheep that they are devils because they have temptations and struggles. Sinless perfection is possible in one sense, but heretical in another sense. Are you suggesting that godly pastors who commit adultery are not saved? Or is it that adultery is not a sin? I would not die on either mountain. King David sinned by commiting adultery and murder. He is in the kingdom of God (forget the lame loop hole that he was not born again...there are many modern Davids who have experienced the love and grace of God as He forgives the fallen).

Your statement must come from a proof text in I John...sloppy exegesis of grammar and context, if it does.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Nice harsh view. You would make a lousy pastor. You would end up telling your sheep that they are devils because they have temptations and struggles. Sinless perfection is possible in one sense, but heretical in another sense. Are you suggesting that godly pastors who commit adultery are not saved? Or is it that adultery is not a sin? I would not die on either mountain. King David sinned by commiting adultery and murder. He is in the kingdom of God (forget the lame loop hole that he was not born again...there are many modern Davids who have experienced the love and grace of God as He forgives the fallen).

That's an easy one! David is in the kingdom of God because throughout his entire life David did not turn away from the face of God. When David did wrong, he repented and accepted his punishment from God. He did not resort to escape and evasion; he never blamed his failings on someone else. He did not seek out scriptural loopholes in order to avoid responsibility. When David did right, God blessed him. Simple as that.

 

[Clete]

Born again Christians do not sin and cannot sin. If you are a sinner you are not of God!

Where there is no law, sin is not imputed and for the Christian the law has been done away with and thus a Christian cannot sin.

Is this what you are getting at when you say Christians cannot sin, or are you saying that if a so called Christian ever does anything to hurt someone else that they are not really a Christian?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

Where there is no law, sin is not imputed and for the Christian the law has been done away with and thus a Christian cannot sin.

Is this what you are getting at when you say Christians cannot sin, or are you saying that if a so called Christian ever does anything to hurt someone else that they are not really a Christian?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Romans 7:4 *Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 *For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 *But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

When we first sinned we, as Paul, were executed by the law. and became dead to God. (separated from God) and are no longer subject to the law of God.We were then held by the captivity of our execution by the law until final judgment which is to come. All unsaved persons are prisoners and are effectively dead to God and cannot please God. That is reason # 1

Reason # 2 is that we have been born in the spirit by the seed of God and given life from God by his seed.

John 3:3 *Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:5 *Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 *That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 *Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
1 John 3:9 *Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 *In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil:
1 John 4:17 *¶Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18 *There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
19 *We love him, because he first loved us.

Let me assure you of something Clete. Even with all our disagreements I prefer you over any regenerated person. I prefer the company of the brethren.

 

[godrulz]

That's an easy one! David is in the kingdom of God because throughout his entire life David did not turn away from the face of God. When David did wrong, he repented and accepted his punishment from God. He did not resort to escape and evasion; he never blamed his failings on someone else. He did not seek out scriptural loopholes in order to avoid responsibility. When David did right, God blessed him. Simple as that.

This is exactly true of a credible NT believer. Other men in the Bible did not have this heart after God. They started out good, but then became rebels (e.g. Saul, Judas, Demas, etc.).