ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[RobE]

God is omnicompetent, not omnicausal. If you affirm the latter, then a holy God is responsible for evil.

This is the claim leveled at those who accept scriptural foreknowledge by open theists. It's untrue. God is the First Cause, but second causes are responsible for sin and suffering.

Just because God uses His ability sometimes (He can predict Messianic issues because He directly controls them;

The ots lose big time on this issue. He predicts the betrayal of Judas because He directly controls it. We both agree this is wrong. You say that the Spirit picked prophecies to support the situation of Judas after the fact, but Jesus also was clear on the subject....(watch the timeline)

John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

Long before passover:

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)​

Two days before passover:

Matthew 26:14 Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests 15and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. 16From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.​

At passover:

John 13:26 Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon.

Matthew 26: 20When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. 21And while they were eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me."

22They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, "Surely not I, Lord?"

23Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

25Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."​

I find this to be the most compelling of all. Judas asks and Jesus answers "Yes, it is you.". What else is there to say? Unless open theism wishes to claim that God made Judas betray Christ or that God orchestrated the betrayal; then their theism falls apart. Where's Judas' free will here according to open theism?

Christ says, "24The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

It doesn't sound as if God brought this to pass through His own actions. God couldn't foreknow the actions of a free will agent according to open theism. God could merely guess and that guess might be wrong. But the scriptures John 17:12, and especially.....

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him).​

....which occured before Judas made up his own mind in Matthew 26:14 and asked "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?".

Open theism is left with no room to exist. Maybe you have an alternate explanation for this event other than God foreknew, God predicted, or God orchestrated. I'd love to hear it.

You are proof texting one theme while ignoring the other theme. You think you are disproving OT, but all you are doing is agreeing with part of what it and Calvinism teaches.

That's true. Remember rat poison is still 99% good food.

God providentially works within free will. He is able to ensure creation, Flood, First/Second Coming of Christ, etc. and predict it because He brings these things to pass.

Too bad for Judas and God's righteousness as you define it.

As long as He gives others freedom, He cannot know exhaustively what we will eat, wear, when we will pick our noses, whom we will marry, etc. trillions of years before these were possible objects of certain knowledge. You are affirming one side of the coin, but ignoring the other equally valid side of the coin.

I'm about the only one here looking at both sides of the coin. Are you?

 

[RobE]

You invent your own catch 22 and you can’t escape it. Your dilemma is of your own making and is inherent in your own theology. The objections you raise are at least consistent and endless. But, they say nothing of Open Theism.

If

This is the 'if' of open theism. My theism says 'when' things come to pass, not 'if'.

If God has the ability to make things come to pass, don't you see the relationship between that and the fact that God's power is the force which brought all things into existence? Open theism isn't able to escape its dilemna by saying that God has the ability to make things come to pass.

Then God must foreknow what those things are. Open theism relies on God's exhaustive foreknowledge to prove their theology's claim that God has the ability to make things come to pass.

Risky, unsuredness disappears when it's necessary for the argument and then re-asserts itself when convenient.

 

[Lon]

So, now YOU are saying that "changing" only means what YOU want it to mean? Using the narrative interpretive to make it say what you want? Isn't that a little hypocritical?

OVT doesn't say that God changes in His being. It says that God chooses to change His mind. The perfect Nuclear physicist is able to change his mind, is he not?



No. God already knows all that is knowable. God is already all-wise. God's knowledge only increases as what is knowable increases, because He is omniscient.

Muz

Changing the mind is problematic for two reasons. First, why is there a need? If God decides something isn't it right?
Second, it is reminiscent of recent discussions on lying or making a mistake. I cannot see that happening.
As to the definition and function of change, no, I'm not redressing that. It isn't my point to redefine, but get you away from an immobile rock analogy for changelessness. I would think there would be a bit more of agreement on that point but for the rhetoric most of the time. We see God meeting our needs, but again I see way more change needed in our circumstances, not God's. It is choosing to interact and bring back in tact what He originally created. In relationship, this is what God is doing. He is getting us back to original plan because it was good, perfect and didn't need changing. I think I could say this a bit clearer if it needs clarification, just ask.

 

[patman]

Changing the mind is problematic for two reasons. First, why is there a need? If God decides something isn't it right?

Of course He is right.... within that particular set of circumstances. When circumstances change, what was right before is no longer necessarily right.

Is it right for God to punish a man who committed adultery? Yes. Will God do it? yes. What if he repents? He won't do it. Why? The circumstances changed.

God is always right...

 

[Lon]

Of course He is right.... within that particular set of circumstances. When circumstances change, what was right before is no longer necessarily right.

Is it right for God to punish a man who committed adultery? Yes. Will God do it? yes. What if he repents? He won't do it. Why? The circumstances changed.

God is always right...

That is so close to traditional that it is 'scary.' Must be that time of year (can't find the pumpkin avatar/icon)

 

[lee_merrill]

However, by definition, found in 1 Cor 13 love is never ending.

But that is God's love, not ours. The devil was without fault, we may note, before iniquity was found in him, given that Ezekiel speaks of Lucifer.

The Bible does not reveal details of why we will not fall away, but the problem applies to your view also.

Actually, I believe that real freedom is only within the will of God, thus indeed we cannot choose to fall away in heaven, but that possibility is not necessary for true freedom, which is only found within the realm of goodness, and within its boundaries.

"Where the Spirit of the Lord is--freedom!"

The Lord cannot choose evil, and yet he is freedom itself.

 

[lee_merrill]

No it does not since we recognize two motifs in Scripture: knows and settles some things; leaves somethings unsettled and thus known as possible vs actual.

Some free choices are known, though, and this is the essential point here.

 

[lee_merrill]

Risky, unsuredness disappears when it's necessary for the argument and then re-asserts itself when convenient.

Sad indeed, the Open Chameleon View--thus the telling change from "omnipotent" to "omnicompetent," this latter term being, well, rather more flexible.

 

[Philetus]

RobE:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philetus View Post
You invent your own catch 22 and you can’t escape it. Your dilemma is of your own making and is inherent in your own theology. The objections you raise are at least consistent and endless. But, they say nothing of Open Theism.

If

This is the 'if' of open theism. My theism says 'when' things come to pass, not 'if'.

Quote: Originally Posted by RobE
If God has the ability to make things come to pass, don't you see the relationship between that and the fact that God's power is the force which brought all things into existence? Open theism isn't able to escape its dilemna by saying that God has the ability to make things come to pass.
Then God must foreknow what those things are. Open theism relies on God's exhaustive foreknowledge to prove their theology's claim that God has the ability to make things come to pass.

Risky, unsuredness disappears when it's necessary for the argument and then re-asserts itself when convenient.

It isn't the "IF" of Open Theism it is the "IF" of scripture (like: "IF my people who are called by my name will ... then will I ...") and nobody cares (or can figure out) what your theism says.


BTW: I would appreciate it IF you would go back and edit your post (#4702) to reflect the fact that you are arguing with yourself. In your post you made it look as if the second quote above was mine. It wasn't atrol: If it wasn't yours, I'll edit it here.

Thanks,
Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Then God must foreknow what those things are. Open theism relies on God's exhaustive foreknowledge to prove their theology's claim that God has the ability to make things come to pass.

If is when and Open Theism is really based on exhaustive foreknowledge. Man-o-man, that clears everything up. Why didn't we think of that guys? How did that one slip past us? I guess we are just going to have to rethink the whole darn thing. Thanks eversomuch, RobE. Gee golly, what were we thinking?

 

[themuzicman]

Changing the mind is problematic for two reasons. First, why is there a need? If God decides something isn't it right?

Or the circumstances change.

Second, it is reminiscent of recent discussions on lying or making a mistake. I cannot see that happening.

Of course, you ignore all the valid reasons why God might change His mind and focus on the emotionally charged (and false) argument.

As to the definition and function of change, no, I'm not redressing that. It isn't my point to redefine, but get you away from an immobile rock analogy for changelessness.

But you've already said that doctrinally no change is possible, and yet you go about qualifying it in your last post!

I would think there would be a bit more of agreement on that point but for the rhetoric most of the time. We see God meeting our needs, but again I see way more change needed in our circumstances, not God's.

And yet God decides not to act, and then God decides to act.

It is choosing to interact and bring back in tact what He originally created. In relationship, this is what God is doing. He is getting us back to original plan because it was good, perfect and didn't need changing. I think I could say this a bit clearer if it needs clarification, just ask.

I agree that the original plan is what God is working towards. No question there. God has purposes which He WILL accomplish. There's just more than one path to get there, and may require a different path based upon the decisions of men.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

That is so close to traditional that it is 'scary.' Must be that time of year (can't find the pumpkin avatar/icon)

Yes, OVT is very orthodox, in and of itself.

Muz

 

[RobE]

If is when and Open Theism is really based on exhaustive foreknowledge. Man-o-man, that clears everything up. Why didn't we think of that guys? How did that one slip past us?

Open theism claims that it was foreknown that God would destroy Nineveh, and then He didn't.

Open theism claims that it was foreknown that Hezekiah would die, and then he didn't.

Open theism claims that it was foreknown that Tyre would be destroyed, and then it wasn't.

Every if-then statement assumes foreknowledge. - If foreknown A then foreknown B.

You can't have it both ways.... Open theism must say If maybe A then maybe B. This is true because all these events involve free will agents.

In one possible world this becomes if A then ~A, breaking the law of non-contradiction. The only escape for the logic is to say if A then foreknown never ~A.

The thinking requires exhausitve foreknowledge for validity.

I guess we are just going to have to rethink the whole darn thing. Thanks eversomuch, RobE.

Open theism might argue that it was never foreknown in any of the 3 instances above, but then what happens to the idea that God changes His mind? In order for God to change His mind, He had to have an intention(foreknowledge of action). Foreknowledge is quite simply assumed in open theism's defense of itself.

Rightly so, since foreknowledge of events is the basis of cause and effect. Foreknowledge must exist for open theists arguments to be valid.

Gee golly, what were we thinking?

About things on their surface without considering substance; all the while, ignoring their argument's logical outcomes.

 

[godrulz]

OT does not claim these things are foreknown as a certainty. Like non-OT, we recognize the difference between conditional and unconditional prophecy. This is not an issue exclusive to OT.

 

[themuzicman]

Rob obviously can't grasp anything beyond what he's been programmed to believe.

Muz

 

[RobE]

OT does not claim these things are foreknown as a certainty. Like non-OT, we recognize the difference between conditional and unconditional prophecy. This is not an issue exclusive to OT.

Then how are you able to use conditional prophecies as proof of your position? Your position is only true if A is foreknown and B happens. B happening doesn't disprove Traditional Christianity's view of exhaustive foreknowledge in this case.

I would still like an answer to the problem Judas presents since I took the time to elaborate in my earlier post. I know you've answered it a thousand time, but you seem to ignore the fact of Jesus foretelling that one apostle will be the betrayer, before that same apostle made up his own mind. This is impossible for your position.

 

[RobE]

Rob obviously can't grasp anything beyond what he's been programmed to believe.

Muz

We're all guilty of ignoring certain points which damage our positions. Sometimes it's conscious, other times its not. You consistently ignore Lee's valid points, but rest assuredly, I read and attempt to comprehend your substantive points. I believe you do the same, but it appears we may both have blinders on in some areas of dispute.

 

[themuzicman]

We're all guilty of ignoring certain points which damage our positions. Sometimes it's conscious, other times its not. You consistently ignore Lee's valid points, but rest assuredly, I read and attempt to comprehend your substantive points. I believe you do the same, but it appears we may both have blinders on in some areas of dispute.

No. Anyone comprehending anything about Open Theism would know that the claim "Open theism claims that it was foreknown that God would destroy Nineveh, and then He didn't" is simply untrue.

IT is so patently false, it's hard to fathom one could think it. Either you're making things up in a desperate attempt to discredit OVT, or you just don't get it.

Muz

 

[Yorzhik]

Open theism claims that it was foreknown that God would destroy Nineveh, and then He didn't.

Open theism claims that it was foreknown that Hezekiah would die, and then he didn't.

Open theism claims that it was foreknown that Tyre would be destroyed, and then it wasn't.

Every if-then statement assumes foreknowledge. - If foreknown A then foreknown B.

You can't have it both ways.... Open theism must say If maybe A then maybe B. This is true because all these events involve free will agents.

In one possible world this becomes if A then ~A, breaking the law of non-contradiction. The only escape for the logic is to say if A then foreknown never ~A.

The thinking requires exhausitve foreknowledge for validity.



Open theism might argue that it was never foreknown in any of the 3 instances above, but then what happens to the idea that God changes His mind? In order for God to change His mind, He had to have an intention(foreknowledge of action). Foreknowledge is quite simply assumed in open theism's defense of itself.

Rightly so, since foreknowledge of events is the basis of cause and effect. Foreknowledge must exist for open theists arguments to be valid.



About things on their surface without considering substance; all the while, ignoring their argument's logical outcomes.

WOW!

Rob, I'm so embarrassed that you are a Christian and can say something this stupid. I know saying this won't help you recognize how incredibly stupid what you are saying is. In fact it might entrench your stupidity more likely than not. I just had to say something so I wouldn't explode.

Or, you could say, "okay, so, yeah, what I said was pretty stupid" and all would be forgiven. It would really make me feel better if you said that.

Lon, AMR... would y'all show some wisdom and at least agree, "yeah, what Rob said was pretty stupid."?

 

[RobE]

No. Anyone comprehending anything about Open Theism would know that the claim "Open theism claims that it was foreknown that God would destroy Nineveh, and then He didn't" is simply untrue.

IT is so patently false, it's hard to fathom one could think it. Either you're making things up in a desperate attempt to discredit OVT, or you just don't get it.

Muz

Well you must have missed the optional response:

Open theism might argue that it was never foreknown in any of the 3 instances above, but then what happens to the idea that God changes His mind? In order for God to change His mind, He had to have an intention(foreknowledge of action). Foreknowledge is quite simply assumed in open theism's defense of itself.

I do read and understand the position.

If open theism claims this to be false: "Open theism claims that it was foreknown that God would destroy Nineveh"; then by what logic does open theism claim God changed His mind and the outcome?

If open theism claims that God had no intention whatsoever; then why did God send Jonah?

If open theism claims that God's intention was for Nineveh to repent and this was accomplished; then how is open theism's claim different from mine?

To summarize:

1) Mind changing or outcome changing requires foreknowledge to accomplish.

2) Without assuming foreknowledge there is no proof that God's intention was always for Nineveh to repent.

3) Open Theism relies on foreknowledge to support its positions.