ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

Don't you think that "free will" is redundant and "will" is sufficient by itself.
The spiritual aspect of someone is their will, it is what commands the physical and is itself not physical.. I view a persons will as their spirit or their essence and while someone or something can impose on a persons will, they cannot, ultimately, destroy it.

Libertarian, genuine free will is redundant, but the compatibilistic Calvinists twist and reduce the meaning of free will, so it is helpful to qualify in academic discussions (we mean different things by will, freedom, causation, etc.).

 

[Philetus]

We would not impugn the character and ways of God by blaming Him for heinous evil. The perpetrator, not God, is culpable and will be judged in the end.

We would remind her that God neither intended nor desired evil.

Suffering does not happen in order for men to be free. It is a possibility because we are free to love or hate. It is not a certainty or necessity. Love, freedom, and relationship are higher good for God and man despite the possibility of abuse and negative consequences.

God in his wisdom does not always intervene immediately. The world would be chaos if He did. If He did so all of the time, He basically would have to destroy us in justice and not extend patient mercy. God's delay of justice is not a denial of it. Revoking freedom has implications as much as allowing evil to flourish for a time.

There is vastly more comfort and clarity to recognize that other free moral agents can do things contrary to God's will and that they will be judged and held accountable for these things, than to try to reconcile a holy, good, loving, just God with meticulous control and the problem of evil and suffering (apart from recognizing other agents that can rebel, disobey, resist...for a time).

God, in His love and mercy, is able to provide hope, comfort, ability to forgive, and heal in Christ, in the interim until we see Him and are made whole.

God is grieved and broken-hearted over sin and its consequences. He is not impassive. He came and died to mitigate our self-created disaster. Saving the soul trumps physical or emotional healing (long vs short term). He does not affirm evil as His will, but resists and rejects it as contrary to His will. The gospels present a warfare model of sovereignty, not a blue print model.

Properly understood, there are more credible answers and comfort from a free will theism worldview than a deterministic one.

You know I agree.

Now go back to the original post and take my name off Nang's quote.
OOOOPS! Makes it look like I said what nang said when she was just not replying to what I did almost say.

Thanks

 

[Philetus]

Couldn't agree more.

I think you missed my 'tongue in cheek' way of making my point so let me restate it here:

"FREEDOM!"
QUOTE]

So you are saying the OV answer is: Pain and suffering happens in order for men to be "free?"

"Free" to what? "Free" to sin, and cause more suffering and pain?

Or "free" to somehow to alleviate suffering and pain?

Please, someone tell me, how man supposedly possessing "free" will has achieved the latter in the slightest degree. How have supposed "free" agents improved the plight of all societies? How come men with "free" wills have not willfully stopped wars, willfully prevented disease, or willfully solved the problem of universal death?

What would the OV'ers have said to the young lady whose "world was coming apart" to console and comfort her?

Nang

 

[Philetus]

The quotes on this part of the thread are wacked out!

 

[Philetus]

How does God even know the universe as a possibility when it does not exist and it is not even necessary that it does?

If God is living and growing and learning, how is it that God knows somethings and yet needs to learn other things?

I think that you answered pretty well, I am just having a hard time understanding this.

This universe is actual ... the future of this universe is not yet actual. It must be 'learned' as it unfolds.

The use of the term 'learning' is a little problematic for me as well and I'm an Open Theist. When we apply the term 'learning' to God it isn't that God has to go to school and learn the alphabet or algebra. Those 'things' are knowable and God has an exhaustive grasps of them. But the future history of the universe hasn't been written and still contains contingencies that are yet unknowable. What you will eat for breakfast tomorrow will be 'learned' and known when you in fact eat breakfast TOMORROW, not before. If you have the freedom to make that decision it cannot be known (even by God) before you make it.

God doesn't have to 'figure anything out.' He has complete understanding of actual events as they happen. The part of the future that is settled is the part that God has already determine HE will cause regardless of unfolding consistencies. That may be as everyday as the sun will 'rise' in the AM whether we stay up all night or sleep in. It may be as unique as the second coming whether we are ready or not. God will 'learn' who stayed up all night and slept in and who set their alarm clocks in the AM and will 'learn' who is ready for the second coming as they respond in faith to His grace.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

How is a non-existent universe knowable?

It isn't.

What makes you think that I think that it is? :dizzy:

This is similar to the future.

I agree.

and

How does God learn in a different sense?

He learns via experience (i.e., watching the future unfold). He doesn't learn (or need to learn) via being taught how to function or how to act etc.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

1. God has the power to remove our will. A blatantly false statement. God cannot remove our will without violating His on Word. To do so would cause Him not to be God.

2. God does not typically (if ever) remove our will. sense this statement hinges on the validity of the first statement it is false as well. The true statement is that God never removes the will of man.

I agree God doesn't, but I disagree that He couldn't.

This is really weird. Here I am arguing that God COULD remove our will if He wanted to, with a settled viewer who is arguing God CANNOT remove our will, even if He wanted to. :bang:

 

[elected4ever]

I agree God doesn't, but I disagree that He couldn't.

This is really weird. Here I am arguing that God COULD remove our will if He wanted to, with a settled viewer who is arguing God CANNOT remove our will, even if He wanted to. :bang:

Do you believe that God is bound by His word? I believe God could have before He chose to to give man a will, Not after. You cannot unring a bell!

 

[Delmar]

The quotes on this part of the thread are wacked out!

When Nang quoted you the [/ somehow got left off the QUOTE] I went back and fixed her post so it should be OK now.

 

[Town Heretic]

I'd suggest that if we define God as being perfect then His every act is likewise necessarily perfect and as a consequence unalterable.

In fact, God might then be the only sentient being without free will as we understand it, being bound by His nature. And in this light there is nothing redundant about using ‘free will’, since it distinguishes God’s from our own.

 

[Philetus]

I'd suggest that if we define God as being perfect then His every act is likewise necessarily perfect and as a consequence unalterable.

In fact, God might then be the only sentient being without free will as we understand it, being bound by His nature. And in this light there is nothing redundant about using ‘free will’, since it distinguishes God’s from our own.

Interesting thought, as long as it doesn’t prevent God from choosing to do one ‘righteous’ thing over another ‘righteous’ thing. In that God remains ‘perfectly free’. Rather than striping God of His freedom I would say that God is the only sentient being with PERFECT FREE WILL preserving God's personhood and righteousness, not as just ‘bound’ by His nature but rather as faithful, just, loving and consistent in every way and for all time and without exception. One might say ... Holy.

Heretic of the Universe,
Philetus


PS And BTW, welcome to TOL where you will have to compete for title of Heretic with the rest of us.arty:

 

[Town Heretic]

Philetus, I would agree that His will must be perfect and I like that coupling of terms, but still find issue with labeling it perfectly free. He is not free to do evil or act contrary to His nature. He is more limited than man in terms of the range of action and choice by virtue of His perfection.

Thanks for the welcome. This is immensely enjoyable.

Now if I could only figure out how to do the quote thing and properly use the moving bits...the technical term for people with my level of technical expertise is, I believe, 'Neanderthal'.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Assurance of the Eschaton

Assurance of the Eschaton

I believe that God has the power to remove our will (He could zap us into some sort of zombie state of existence) if He wanted to.

Although I see no evidence of that in the Bible. That doesn't seem to be God's M.O. (so to speak)

Therefore... I am not sure if I agree or disagree with your stated examples, it seems like I would be likely to disagree with the first (Bassinger) yet agree with the second (Sanders and Hasker) since their statement merely refers to God having that ability.

Without getting an entire context it's kinda hard to say.

I will however, unequivocally state my own position....

- God has the power to remove our will
- God does not typically (if ever) remove our will

Knight, thank you for the clarity here.

I understand from what you state above why you also believe that there are times that what God thought would happen did not come about. This causes me to question what level of confidence you could have that God's promise to eliminate evil at the eschaton.

If God's anticipation of the future is not completely infallible, given that the free will of His creatures is always maintained, how is this kind of fallible anticipation enabling God to omni-competently respond to whatever free agents decide to do (how could a false anticipation help God deal with the future challenges of human history?).

If God is like a Grand Master chess player, yet human freedom is truly libertarian, how can God guarantee He will be able to respond to every move in the cosmic chess game that is made by free creatures? Yes, God's wisdom, skill, and resourcefulness is infinitely greater that the greatest Grand Master chess player, but what guarantee do you have that the novice (human) will not simply stumble by blind chance into the one in a million move that the Grand Master cannot respond to? As long as libertarian free will always exists this must be conceded to be always a possibility, even if the likelihood is small.

Open theists point to the flood as an example where God was grieved of that He had made man on the earth and that creation had miscarried. Open theists will maintain that for this Divine repentance to be real and authentic, the depth and pervasiveness of sin must not have been foreseen, and most certainly not planned by God. Hence, in responsiveness to unforeseen and and freely chosen human decisions, God undertakes a a new and different course of action (judges the world through the flood).

What is to prevent another future degeneration of humanity into sin that is even greater than that which precipitated the flood and thereby have God abandon His plans and destroy humanity completely in His judgment? I recognize that the open theist will point to the Noahic covenant as evidence that God at that time promised to not do so. Some open theists, but not yourself, will also argue that God can unilaterally intervene and override the free will of man to make sure this does not happen. But, can God really know what He will choose to do or not unilaterally in the future? If God is genuinely responsive to humans and to the course of history, and if God cannot infallibly know the future free decisions of man, it is in principle impossible for God to know infallibly what He will do in the future as well. In other words, God's knowledge of His own actions in the future is at best probabilistic. Thus, to my opening point of discussion about the eschaton, given the positions stated here, God's statement that He will ultimately triumph over evil is no absolute guarantee.

It would seem that for open theists to insist on a guaranteed final outcome in history, either God must be able to unilaterally intervene and override libertarian free will, or open theists must assume that God's ultimate plan to eliminate evil is not an absolute certainty. And, if God unilaterally intervenes, the question remains, given the free choices of man, how God can infallibly know when it would be the right time for Him to intervene. In effect God must make His decision based upon incomplete knowledge. Moreover, if God intervenes, such intervention overrules the open theist's free will, for it is seen to be 'coercive', and, the open theist would be forced to conclude that there is no moral responsibility for those that would be held accountable by God who have had their free will overridden by God's intervention.

 

[elected4ever]

Each and every creature of God's creation has a will. That will is limited to what that creation was intended to be. The creature is free to act within the bounds of that creation. There is no such thing as libertarian free will as I understand it. There is no such thing as being free from from all constraint.

 

[godrulz]

I'd suggest that if we define God as being perfect then His every act is likewise necessarily perfect and as a consequence unalterable.

In fact, God might then be the only sentient being without free will as we understand it, being bound by His nature. And in this light there is nothing redundant about using ‘free will’, since it distinguishes God’s from our own.

God is a personal being and the ultimate free moral agent. His metaphysics (ontolology/stuff/substance) should not be confused with His personal and moral attributes (the latter does have a volitional component). Philosphical discussions in this area are complex. Omnipotence, omniscience, eternality, triune, omnipresence are not volitional. Holiness, faithfulness, goodness, mercy, etc. are volitional. We are in the image of God, so our free will is a reflection of God as personal (will, intellect, emotions). We should not blur the distinction between being and volition.

 

[godrulz]

Each and every creature of God's creation has a will. That will is limited to what that creation was intended to be. The creature is free to act within the bounds of that creation. There is no such thing as libertarian free will as I understand it. There is no such thing as being free from from all constraint.

Libertarian free will entails chosing freely between alternatives. It is genuine, not illusory. It does not mean that free will is unlimited (freedom). We cannot chose to overthrow God, create round circles, save ourselves, kill the devil, etc. We can chose between chocolate and vanilla, adultery or purity, etc.

This redundant expression is necessary due to confusion of those who try to blend mutually exclusive positions (determinism and free will) with the strained compatibilism view.

 

[elected4ever]

Libertarian free will entails chosing freely between alternatives. It is genuine, not illusory. It does not mean that free will is unlimited (freedom). We cannot chose to overthrow God, create round circles, save ourselves, kill the devil, etc. We can chose between chocolate and vanilla, adultery or purity, etc.

This redundant expression is necessary due to confusion of those who try to blend mutually exclusive positions (determinism and free will) with the strained compatibilism view.

Like I said libertarian free will does not exist. No person born of man is free to chose accept in a limited fashion. Total freedom does not exist so libertarian free will does not exist.

 

[Mystery]

We cannot chose to... create round circles

Wow, you really are limiting free will just a bit too much, aren't you?

:chuckle:

 

[dale]

...Moreover, if God intervenes, such intervention overrules the open theist's free will, for it is seen to be 'coercive', and, the open theist would be forced to conclude that there is no moral responsibility for those that would be held accountable by God who have had their free will overridden by God's intervention.

Indeed! :thumb:

A little intervention, although not as coercive as much intervention, is still coercive.

 

[Philetus]

Knight, thank you for the clarity here.

I understand from what you state above why you also believe that there are times that what God thought would happen did not come about. This causes me to question what level of confidence you could have that God's promise to eliminate evil at the eschaton.

If God's anticipation of the future is not completely infallible, given that the free will of His creatures is always maintained, how is this kind of fallible anticipation enabling God to omni-competently respond to whatever free agents decide to do (how could a false anticipation help God deal with the future challenges of human history?).

If God is like a Grand Master chess player, yet human freedom is truly libertarian, how can God guarantee He will be able to respond to every move in the cosmic chess game that is made by free creatures? Yes, God's wisdom, skill, and resourcefulness is infinitely greater that the greatest Grand Master chess player, but what guarantee do you have that the novice (human) will not simply stumble by blind chance into the one in a million move that the Grand Master cannot respond to? As long as libertarian free will always exists this must be conceded to be always a possibility, even if the likelihood is small.

Open theists point to the flood as an example where God was grieved of that He had made man on the earth and that creation had miscarried. Open theists will maintain that for this Divine repentance to be real and authentic, the depth and pervasiveness of sin must not have been foreseen, and most certainly not planned by God. Hence, in responsiveness to unforeseen and and freely chosen human decisions, God undertakes a a new and different course of action (judges the world through the flood).

What is to prevent another future degeneration of humanity into sin that is even greater than that which precipitated the flood and thereby have God abandon His plans and destroy humanity completely in His judgment? I recognize that the open theist will point to the Noahic covenant as evidence that God at that time promised to not do so. Some open theists, but not yourself, will also argue that God can unilaterally intervene and override the free will of man to make sure this does not happen. But, can God really know what He will choose to do or not unilaterally in the future? If God is genuinely responsive to humans and to the course of history, and if God cannot infallibly know the future free decisions of man, it is in principle impossible for God to know infallibly what He will do in the future as well. In other words, God's knowledge of His own actions in the future is at best probabilistic. Thus, to my opening point of discussion about the eschaton, given the positions stated here, God's statement that He will ultimately triumph over evil is no absolute guarantee.

It would seem that for open theists to insist on a guaranteed final outcome in history, either God must be able to unilaterally intervene and override libertarian free will, or open theists must assume that God's ultimate plan to eliminate evil is not an absolute certainty. And, if God unilaterally intervenes, the question remains, given the free choices of man, how God can infallibly know when it would be the right time for Him to intervene. In effect God must make His decision based upon incomplete knowledge. Moreover, if God intervenes, such intervention overrules the open theist's free will, for it is seen to be 'coercive', and, the open theist would be forced to conclude that there is no moral responsibility for those that would be held accountable by God who have had their free will overridden by God's intervention.

God acted unilaterally in the flood. Why not again?

There is something very final (even coercive) about the second coming. That's then this is NOW. The issue isn't whether or not God will one day act decisively without regard to our free will. The issue is whether or not we have any say so in the way we live our lives NOW which in some ways helps determine the particulars of the future.

What is it that is so difficult in understanding that PART of the future is settled; the part that God has declared HE and HE alone will settle?



God thought I would have bananas on my cereal this morning ... so did I. :jazz: Then I saw the peaches ... changed my mind. Boy oh boy! Was God ever surprised. He is now reconsidering the whole thing about the second coming.