ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[patman]

I have this Weed 'n' Feed that is supposed to starve the weeds and encourage growth in the grass. I'm not sure how that works. It seems odd to me. I'm not even sure if it works because my thumb is pink. I never did inherit the green one.

The same substance that causes one to grow will condemn the other. It is the righteousness for those who will respond, and a condemnation for those who will not. I see His grace as effective for both.

I see grace there too. But if every blade of grace that died from your "de-weeder" was truly important to you, you might think twice about using that wouldn't you? If one blade, whom you loved, was to die, wouldn't you shelter it somehow?



Sorry. I hate analogies. Nevermind.

 

[patman]

The nerve in my shoulder is impinged at the moment.

Calvinism impugns the character of God by attributing evil to His will.

Look it up on the dictionary that comes on your mac...

impinge |im?pinj| verb ( -pinging ) [ intrans. ]
have an effect or impact, esp. a negative one :

Nora was determined that the tragedy would impinge as little as possible on Constance's life. • advance over an area belonging to someone or something else; encroach : the site impinges on a greenbelt area. • ( impinge on/upon) Physics strike : the gases impinge on the surface of the liquid.

 

[godrulz]

All I know is that my shoulder hurts from the impinged nerve.

I am also not impressed with views that impugn the character and ways of God. These views impinge on truth and clarity.

Klingon is my first language, so I could be wrong about some details.

 

[patman]

All I know is that my shoulder hurts from the impinged nerve.

I am also not impressed with views that impugn the character and ways of God. These views impinge on truth and clarity.

Klingon is my first language, so I could be wrong about some details.

I guess different places use words differently. Either way, we get the idea.:thumb:

 

[themuzicman]

Changing context is easy for anyone to see. OV must literally change the wording 'using context.'

Well, you posted the verses without any context and never got the sense of what they author was saying or what the author was talking about. You were arguing from specific to general, and when we look at the specifics, we see that the OT only argues for God's immutability in His character and in His being loyal to His covenants.

Context always matters in determining meaning.

Read Matt 27:5, and then Luke 3:11, and tell me whether you're going to obey their doctrinal instruction, or whether context is important.

I took it a face value. Again, I accuse you of building context on narrative rather than taking the doctrinal statements at face value. The doctrinal statements are quite clear to me.

Unfortunately, they aren't supported by how the author uses them. This isn't "narrative." This is good hermeneutics. When an author applies a principle, we need to see how the author applies it, and then we ought only apply it in areas where we see Scripture doing do.

For instance, if we were to accept your premise, then we would be required to reject "ex nihilo" creation, and embrace a process theism like existence, where creation is eternally co-existent with God. The reason being is that action is change. If God were first alone, and then created, then there is a change in God's relationships to those things around Him. But you've posited by doctrine and principle that God CANNOT change.

Thus, you cannot embrace ex nihilo creation, and must embrace a creation that eternally co-exists with God.

But that's not what Genesis says, so Scripture must be in error.

Do you see the problem with applying things that were intended for specific instances and saying that they must ALWAYS be true?

Muz

 

[Clete]

Lon,

Can you quote even a single Open Theist saying that they believed that God does not know anything about the future; that He has no foreknowledge whatsoever; or that the Biblical concept of foreknowledge is a problem for the Open View?

Can you quote anyone at all?

I know for a fact that you cannot. Foreknowledge is simply not a problem for the Open View at all and never has been. And yes, foreknowledge means to know something in advance. It's not a problem.

You know if you are going to reject something wouldn't it be wiser to reject it based on what it actually teaches rather than based on something you made up on your own?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

Rob,

I agree with you. Man's free choices put us where we are today. What I am truly trying to make you see is that there are no "free choices" where there is complete and total foreknowledge when there is a creator God using it for the sake of his creation.

Perhaps you missed the part where I claimed that man's actions are the source of God's foreknowledge.

If there is foreknowledge, the world you see before you is the ideal world God foresaw when he created us like he did.

You're still thinking it was necessary that God made a choice. The problem is that God doesn't make mistakes because all of His actions are perfect. It wasn't necessary for God to choose one world over another.

And in a more perfect analogy, Person A, B, C, D, all the way to Z could have had multiple outcomes depending on how he made us. With foreknowledge, the people who were saved were chosen over those who were not saved. Just how he created us, our environment, and our attitudes makes a difference, small adjustments here or there results in different future actions.

Clay is clay. If the potter makes no mistakes and fails to make a functional vessel out of the clay - Is it the potter's fault? I would suggest there is something intrensically flawed with the clay.

You might say that the potter made the clay as well, but I would point out that other free will agents mixed imperfect ingredients into it before the potter began His work.

And choosing one person over another is favoritism.

Not when that choice was not made by God. The choice was made by the persons in question if God offers atonement to all. Man's free actions create God's foreknowledge of outcome.

If there is foreknowledge, there is no freewill, only the illusion.

Again this depends on your definition of free will. What is free will to you and how do you defend it against causality?

 

[RobE]

Foreknowledge is simply not a problem for the Open View at all and never has been. And yes, foreknowledge means to know something in advance. It's not a problem.

This simply isn't true. Ignoring the problem doesn't invalidate it. If foreknowledge of a future free action exists, then we are able to induce that God might know all free actions through the same means. Perhaps it would be wise to know the logical conclusions of our arguments before we present them.

Since most future events spoken of in the Bible involve free will agents, foreknowledge of those events present an insurmountable problem for open theism. Of course, they might just throw those scriptures out, ignore them, or conveniently change the subject.lain:

 

[lee_merrill]

Since most future events spoken of in the Bible involve free will agents, foreknowledge of those events present an insurmountable problem for open theism.

Quite true, now we will no doubt hear that God can bring such choices about, and apparently even in the area of salvation (only a remnant will be saved, and some other firm predictions), at which point we may proclaim them all good Calvinists.

Blessings,
Lee <- Who realizes that Rob is not (yet?) a Calvinist

 

[themuzicman]

Since most future events spoken of in the Bible involve free will agents, foreknowledge of those events present an insurmountable problem for open theism. Of course, they might just throw those scriptures out, ignore them, or conveniently change the subject.lain:

This is patently false. OVTists have consistently worked to understand how prophecy works, and have a variety of viable and even scripturally sound basis for prophecy without foreknowledge.

Muz

 

[Lon]

Context always matters in determining meaning.

Read Matt 27:5, and then Luke 3:11, and tell me whether you're going to obey their doctrinal instruction, or whether context is important.

Narrative. I say again, you cannot build doctrine off of narrative. You interpret narrative based on doctrine, not the other way around. Your examples point to this repeatedly despite how often you say it isn't true that OV builds doctrine off of narrative. I have no problem taking doctrine in narrative, but doctrinal treatments are where we start. Narrative usually is an expression of how doctrine works in example. You are building doctrine off of narrative then looking for proof texts to back up your doctrine. This is the opposite of how I build doctrine.

God speaks ex nihlo, but the spoken word comes from Him.

Col 1:16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

This after all, is a doctrinal passage.

 

[Lon]

I see grace there too. But if every blade of grace that died from your "de-weeder" was truly important to you, you might think twice about using that wouldn't you? If one blade, whom you loved, was to die, wouldn't you shelter it somehow?



Sorry. I hate analogies. Nevermind.

You are right (I don't wish for analogy to go too far, just get one thinking). Weed 'n' feed isn't supposed to hurt grass at all. Of course God would have a perfect plan for caring for His own. Analogy is just to set the mind in proper perspective, we are talking about God's ability to care for His own and apply Grace effectively.

 

[Lon]

Lon,

Can you quote even a single Open Theist saying that they believed that God does not know anything about the future; that He has no foreknowledge whatsoever; or that the Biblical concept of foreknowledge is a problem for the Open View?

Can you quote anyone at all?

I know for a fact that you cannot. Foreknowledge is simply not a problem for the Open View at all and never has been. And yes, foreknowledge means to know something in advance. It's not a problem.

You know if you are going to reject something wouldn't it be wiser to reject it based on what it actually teaches rather than based on something you made up on your own?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Here is one (note the 'might' was bolded and not by me:

You asked I cleared up my definition of foreknowledge (of God). God can foresee what might happen. But he does not foresee what will happen for every instance. A lot of the time, he knows what will happen because he can calculate in his minds the likelihood of events. But the area of the unknown lies with the decisions we have not already made (our freewill).

So when God tests someone, for example, the test is for us and him together. God wanted to know if Abraham would give his son to Him. So he tested him. As you have heard from the O.V. perspective, God said "now I know" (again another 'God in time' reference.) God wanted that answer because he could not foresee it. It was not a decision Abraham was ever faced with, the answer was unknowable until the situation was created.

There are several of these types of statements both here and in part one.

 

[patman]

Here is one (note the 'might' was bolded and not by me:



There are several of these types of statements both here and in part one.

Hey Lon, where did I say he has no future knowledge what so ever?:down:

 

[patman]

You must have missed the sentence that said "for every instance."

Apparently my wording of things is not sinking in for you, you missed this key element of the sentence. That means there are instances where he knows exactly what will happen, and some where he doesn't!

 

[themuzicman]

Narrative. I say again, you cannot build doctrine off of narrative. You interpret narrative based on doctrine, not the other way around. Your examples point to this repeatedly despite how often you say it isn't true that OV builds doctrine off of narrative. I have no problem taking doctrine in narrative, but doctrinal treatments are where we start. Narrative usually is an expression of how doctrine works in example. You are building doctrine off of narrative then looking for proof texts to back up your doctrine. This is the opposite of how I build doctrine.

You are correct that narrative demonstrates doctrine. However, the doctrine is expressed in terms of the narrative, as well, in that it demonstrates the scope of the doctrine as applied. When God says, "I am unchanging" in the middle of a context speaking of His covenant loyalty, then the doctrine expressed is speaking of God's covenant loyalty and not His temporality or His knowledge.

Your error is trying to expand doctrine beyond its intended expression.

God speaks ex nihlo, but the spoken word comes from Him.

Col 1:16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

This after all, is a doctrinal passage.

Yes, and this passage along with Genesis stands in opposition to what you claim about God.

Muz

 

[patman]

Perhaps you missed the part where I claimed that man's actions are the source of God's foreknowledge.



You're still thinking it was necessary that God made a choice. The problem is that God doesn't make mistakes because all of His actions are perfect. It wasn't necessary for God to choose one world over another.



Clay is clay. If the potter makes no mistakes and fails to make a functional vessel out of the clay - Is it the potter's fault? I would suggest there is something intrensically flawed with the clay.

You might say that the potter made the clay as well, but I would point out that other free will agents mixed imperfect ingredients into it before the potter began His work.



Not when that choice was not made by God. The choice was made by the persons in question if God offers atonement to all. Man's free actions create God's foreknowledge of outcome.



Again this depends on your definition of free will. What is free will to you and how do you defend it against causality?

Rob, are you listening to yourself?

You are taking the power of God's creation away from him and putting it in the hands of us. With every point I make you are answering with reasons God couldn't do any better with us, even with this super awesome ability to perfectly foresee the future.

You are making excuses for your theology. I do not mean to insult you, I am truly trying to say this that you might think about where this line of thinking is taking you. It just isn't adding up.

When scripture uses the clay analogy, the potter has plans for good things for the pot he is making. When the clay becomes marred, the potter changes his mind and makes something else with the clay. Where is future knowledge ever an element in the analogy? Instead, it is an al-powerful God who is in control, even though the clay is difficult to work with, doing as he sees fit with it as it happens.

 

[Lon]

No, I wasn't missing your point. That was part two to the question left unanswered though.

You may not know, but I'd like to know according to OV, when does and does He not know?

It seems that it is rather a definition of 'predictability' rather than a proper definition of foreknowledge to me.

Can you differentiate enough that the lines are not blurred in our discussion.

Knight does this too. It would seem it is clear to you guys but I've not heard it cleared up for me.

I'll give a few specific questions that answers would help with understanding.


1) How is foreknowledge of God different than predictability?

2) How is foreknowledge possible if, as the OV says, the future hasn't happened yet? Does this answer negate the definition of foreknowledge?

3) Is there a way to determine in OV theology when God knows and does not know future?

4) How does God's knowledge of what we will do and what we are doing differ?

5) What does knowing our intimate thoughts, motives, and desires mean to God? How is it different than how we think about this? (I'm trying to show a gap here. God is different than we are and knows what we do not nor cannot).

6) Do we share in this attribute at all? Do we have any real kind of foreknowledge?

Answer which ones you know answers to. I'm simply looking for clarification here in one fell swoop. I want to know exactly where we might agree, how we define differently and where the difference in our understanding lies.

 

[Lon]

I'll give a few specific questions that answers would help with understanding.

Here is how I see your answers at this venture:

1) How is foreknowledge of God different than predictability?

"It is virtually the same. God cannot know future as it does not exist. The Bible speaks of foreknowledge much like our own predictable ability. God knows all there is to know, but He does not know future except as He determines something much like we."

2) How is foreknowledge possible if, as the OV says, the future hasn't happened yet? Does this answer negate the definition of foreknowledge?

"The nonOV definition isn't the same as ours. We see foreknowledge as limited for God much the same way it is for man. The future has not happened so we understand foreknowledge more as 'determinism.' That is to say, what God determines to happen will happen. This is what we mean by foreknowledge."

3) Is there a way to determine in OV theology when God knows and does not know future?

"Only what God determines to do in the future. Our definition of foreknowledge is determinism."

4) How does God's knowledge of what we will do and what we are doing differ?

"He knows our minds and hearts. He can predict what we will do based on those thoughts and plans, but He does not ultimately know if we will change our mind about them. He knows us intimately but not that intimately."

5) What does knowing our intimate thoughts, motives, and desires mean to God? How is it different than how we think about this? (I'm trying to show a gap here. God is different than we are and knows what we do not nor cannot).

"We are not able to predict as well as God. His knowledge of all things including the hearts and minds of man gives Him a distinct advantage in predictability, but He cannot foreknow what man does or will do until it happens."

6) Do we share in this attribute at all? Do we have any real kind of foreknowledge?

"Yes, we have a reliable predictability that gives us certain knowledge of future. We know that we will have to do our taxes every year. We know that the sun will rise tomorrow."

Answer which ones you know answers to. I'm simply looking for clarification here in one fell swoop. I want to know exactly where we might agree, how we define differently and where the difference in our understanding lies.

I may be mistaken or overstated, but I'm trying to help move this conversation along. What is correct and what needs clarifying?

 

[patman]

Lon, I will answer these, but you must promise to answer my last post.

I think you simply misunderstand O.T.. You make will make a pretty lousy calvinist.

1) How is foreknowledge of God different than predictability?

There is no black and white answer. Sometimes God predicts, sometimes he plans, sometimes knows, sometimes he sees. Let me start with a comparison. The S.V. usually think God is outside of time, and that is how he can see the future. Or they think he created the future, so he knows everything because he made it happen (ordained it).

The Open view says that God does ordain some things, but not everything. Whatever he ordains he foreknows. The open view shows verses that place God in time.

God can also predict, and when the decisions of the freewill agents are already made, he will know exactly what will happen. So prediction becomes knowledge. Remember, God has perfect present knowledge. So a prediction for him isn't like a prediction for us.

God can also plan. But he allows his plans to change because of his mercy for us. If he plans to destroy Nineveh, and they repent, he can change that plan. Not however, if God had perfect future knowledge and knew he wasn't truly going to destroy Nineveh, he could never say he would do it and at the same time not lie (even if he lied to bring about good, it is still a lie).

2) How is foreknowledge possible if, as the OV says, the future hasn't happened yet? Does this answer negate the definition of foreknowledge?

I answered this above. But in brief, he ordains some things to happen. Even though free will agents are involved, he ordains things. God uses our obedience or our disobedience to his advantage to bring things about.

3) Is there a way to determine in OV theology when God knows and does not know future?

Yes. Take Job for example. God did not know if his dedication was because of his blessings, or because of his righteousness. So he allowed Satan (who accused Job in the first place and was willing to test him) to test him.

Anytime there is an aspect of a persons life that a decision on how to act has not been made, God doesn't know it either.

4) How does God's knowledge of what we will do and what we are doing differ?

Huh?

5) What does knowing our intimate thoughts, motives, and desires mean to God? How is it different than how we think about this? (I'm trying to show a gap here. God is different than we are and knows what we do not nor cannot).

God knows everything in the present and past. He even knows our tendencies that are presently defined. He does not know things about us that are not defined by us yet. EG, he knows how many hairs are on our head.

6) Do we share in this attribute at all? Do we have any real kind of foreknowledge?

Sometimes we do. But our plans are second to Gods ultimate will.