Someone put him out of his misery.:bang:
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Someone put him out of his misery.:bang:
I would say Arminians are incompatibilists (depends how we define it). I thought it related to determinism and was originally a discussion within Calvinism only. Arminians believe in simple foreknowledge, not the compatibility of determinism and free will. So, I would say compatibilism is a Calvinistic thing to justify some sense of free will with determinism (the other groups are free will theists and would reject this). I also thought you were more simple foreknowledge or middle knowledge, not determinism.
Judas was a free, responsible moral agent. If a doctor gives you a cancer diagnosis and a possible range of life expectancy (terminal), his knowledge does not determine your choices (suicide, treatment, etc.) nor does it cause cellular changes within your body. Jesus saw the 'cancer' developing in Judas without tampering with his will.
Lon:
My spider sense is tingling. I followed your post to a point, but lost track at the chocolate issue. I see no reason to assume God even dictates mundane choices like taste preferences. If you have kids, you should know that their tastes for mushrooms, onions, vegetables, etc. can be cultivated. There is a strong environmental influence. A person raised vegan will not likely like meat. A person who eats junk food because of parent's early introduction, will tend to get in that habit. To assume God micromanages these things without some things being open and inherent in a creative, self-determining creation comes to close to B.F. Skinner's genetic behavioralism (vs image of God).
Total depravity is not total inability.
Sovereignty can be providential control and does not have to be meticulous control of every moral and mundane choice.
In God's sovereignty, He chose to give us significant freedom to facilitate non-coerced love relationships. This does not come without risk (hence the world and lives are in a mess). He works to mitigate and redeem things, but He does not always intervene. He macro vs micromanages.
So, hyper-Calvinism, Molinism, compatibilism, etc. are simply based on different assumptions than Open Theism (which I feel is the most biblical, rational position).
The fact I can chose chocolate or vanilla, whether I desire it or not, shows that my mind and will are sufficient causes without having to speculate that God is dictating my desires that make me chose. Being morally neutral, you can chose whatever flavor you want. Yesterday I had to choose between 24 soft ice cream flavors. I am convinced that my unique personality and ability made the final decision and that it was not foreknown from eternity past (nor was my choice a threat to national security or the sovereign rule of God!).
My spider sense is tingling. I followed your post to a point, but lost track at the chocolate issue. I see no reason to assume God even dictates mundane choices like taste preferences. If you have kids, you should know that their tastes for mushrooms, onions, vegetables, etc. can be cultivated. There is a strong environmental influence. A person raised vegan will not likely like meat. A person who eats junk food because of parent's early introduction, will tend to get in that habit. To assume God micromanages these things without some things being open and inherent in a creative, self-determining creation comes to close to B.F. Skinner's genetic behavioralism (vs image of God).
Total depravity is not total inability.
Sovereignty can be providential control and does not have to be meticulous control of every moral and mundane choice.
In God's sovereignty, He chose to give us significant freedom to facilitate non-coerced love relationships. This does not come without risk (hence the world and lives are in a mess). He works to mitigate and redeem things, but He does not always intervene. He macro vs micromanages.
So, hyper-Calvinism, Molinism, compatibilism, etc. are simply based on different assumptions than Open Theism (which I feel is the most biblical, rational position).
The fact I can chose chocolate or vanilla, whether I desire it or not, shows that my mind and will are sufficient causes without having to speculate that God is dictating my desires that make me chose. Being morally neutral, you can chose whatever flavor you want. Yesterday I had to choose between 24 soft ice cream flavors. I am convinced that my unique personality and ability made the final decision and that it was not foreknown from eternity past (nor was my choice a threat to national security or the sovereign rule of God!).
lee_merrill
New member
Well, if you want to adopt Calvinism as your answer, I will of course agree with you! But I was looking for Open Theism's answer--God knows (note - knows) a remnant will be saved, and only a remnant, this is his decision, his sentence, which he will carry out with speed and finality, and then afterwards, "all Israel will be saved."
I don't want to hear that this is an estimate without some reason to think this is indefinite, and no, "the whole context of the Bible refutes you" is not a proper argument.
Blessings,
Lee <- Thinking it may be the other side which is in some misery?
Well, I want to clarify something to avoid straw men opinions. AMR and Lon are probably not truly classical, traditional theists (there are a variety of views within Calvinism, and I think they are not hard-liners on immutability, impassibility, etc. but qualify it compared to early views).
My stereotype is that Arminians and others tend to adopt the eternal now/timeless understanding of God and eternity. He is able to see and experience past, present, future in one present moment to God. I think this is problematic, but it is one explanation for EDF.
Molinism is mixed up so I will leave it and 'middle knowledge' alone (it seems too deterministic for me).
My stereotype is that many Calvinists believe God knows the future exhaustively because He decrees, ordains, predestines, controls, etc. to ensure it will happen. This would make EDF possible, but I think at the expense of love, freedom, relationship (enter compatibilism to turn it into soft determinism). Why the aversion to letting go of EDF? Some assume God will cease to be God or will be impotent if He does not have EDF? In His sovereignty, He could voluntarily choose to limit the nature of His foreknowledge by limiting how much control (micromanage) He chooses to exercise at any time (unsettled possibilities + some things settled= 2 motifs). Why not retain self-evident freedom (ability to freely choose between alternatives) as part of the image of God and a sovereign choice of God, even if it means tweaking understanding of omniscience (i.e. we both agree God is omniscient, yet disagree as to what are possible objects of certain knowledge in advance i.e. future free will contingencies)?
If you persist with soft determinism (?AMR), how does this practically play out without God being responsible for heinous evil? What is the practical mechanism as to how God causes me to desire chocolate, but not you? How some desire God, while others die godless? Why some work at McDonald's or others go on to become doctors? What is the mechanism and are you sure you want to suggest that God causes desires for me to scratch my head at an exact moment in history, run a red light, have men rape and kill children, have pastors fall into moral sin, etc. (for a higher good?!)....or are you not as extreme as beloved57 and zman? As Knight points out, if the future is totally settled, it must be totally determined by God? This is a nice phrase, but what insight from Scripture do you claim (apart from proof texts that have been answered by OTs) to explain how God controls, gives desires contrary to His holy will, etc. to settle all things in advance. You could say a sinner acts according to his nature, but that does not explain common, mundane, non-moral choices or believers who sin and unbelievers who do not sin in specific ways.
I think these questions are as important as Lee's remnant of Israel itch.
My stereotype is that Arminians and others tend to adopt the eternal now/timeless understanding of God and eternity. He is able to see and experience past, present, future in one present moment to God. I think this is problematic, but it is one explanation for EDF.
Molinism is mixed up so I will leave it and 'middle knowledge' alone (it seems too deterministic for me).
My stereotype is that many Calvinists believe God knows the future exhaustively because He decrees, ordains, predestines, controls, etc. to ensure it will happen. This would make EDF possible, but I think at the expense of love, freedom, relationship (enter compatibilism to turn it into soft determinism). Why the aversion to letting go of EDF? Some assume God will cease to be God or will be impotent if He does not have EDF? In His sovereignty, He could voluntarily choose to limit the nature of His foreknowledge by limiting how much control (micromanage) He chooses to exercise at any time (unsettled possibilities + some things settled= 2 motifs). Why not retain self-evident freedom (ability to freely choose between alternatives) as part of the image of God and a sovereign choice of God, even if it means tweaking understanding of omniscience (i.e. we both agree God is omniscient, yet disagree as to what are possible objects of certain knowledge in advance i.e. future free will contingencies)?
If you persist with soft determinism (?AMR), how does this practically play out without God being responsible for heinous evil? What is the practical mechanism as to how God causes me to desire chocolate, but not you? How some desire God, while others die godless? Why some work at McDonald's or others go on to become doctors? What is the mechanism and are you sure you want to suggest that God causes desires for me to scratch my head at an exact moment in history, run a red light, have men rape and kill children, have pastors fall into moral sin, etc. (for a higher good?!)....or are you not as extreme as beloved57 and zman? As Knight points out, if the future is totally settled, it must be totally determined by God? This is a nice phrase, but what insight from Scripture do you claim (apart from proof texts that have been answered by OTs) to explain how God controls, gives desires contrary to His holy will, etc. to settle all things in advance. You could say a sinner acts according to his nature, but that does not explain common, mundane, non-moral choices or believers who sin and unbelievers who do not sin in specific ways.
I think these questions are as important as Lee's remnant of Israel itch.
God predestined to have a people in Israel and the Church. He will use His resources and influence for as long as it takes to bring this to pass. The project is ongoing and statistical evidence shows that it is succeeding. If plan A is slow, plan B can be implemented. Again, not every individual needs to be restored for some to be saved or Israel corporately to be restored. God can also say that many people in the future will perish without faith in Christ. Based on perfect past and present knowledge, we can even be accurate about this future statement.
What we can know more clearly (your point is obscure and underestimates probability and God's infinite ability) is that free will is genuine, the future is partially unsettled and partially settled, that God is omnicompetent, that there is a warfare, not a blueprint, determinism or meticulous control is a flawed model, etc. Don't miss the forest over your one hobby horse tree. If we answered it with some credibility, it would not make your view less problematic. If we can't answer it to your satisfaction, it will not make the gist of Open Theism less credible.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It is logically impossible for the openist to make this assertion.
themuzicman
Well-known member
It's indefinite because it's corporate. Israel's whole election is corporate, the people and their children and and foreigners who choose to join them corporately participated in the Old Covenant. There was no individual election. Israel were 'God's people' as a corporate community.
And the remnant are the same way. Those who are enlightened and choose to believe are the remnant, corporately. As I showed in my statistical example, if there is a 2% error in a machining operation, every tool made could theoretically be an error, but reality is that 98% will be good. If God knows that 80% of those enlightened will believe, then there's a 20% chance for each that they won't, but, in the end 80% will have believed. This is the nature of group dynamics, and clearly God understands how Jewish culture and history works well enough to know how to draw His own people without coercing them.
So, you can keep tooting your little trumpet, but you're playing a meaningless tune, as there is simply no necessity for individual election and Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge for God to know that He will have a remnant from Israel.
Muz
Without rereading the long version, why are two motifs impossible? Why can't God announce that He will send the Messiah to redeem man? Why cannot He prophesy that there will be a Second Coming? These things are fully under His control to bring to pass by His ability. In our views, nothing can stop the Second Coming (U.S. missle defense?!). This is an e.g. of something settled in advance that is independent of human free will.
The other motif is that God did not settle in advance (eternity past) that I will do thisitgoerj=9e03rjh=0e4ohj=0erjuh=0eru=0e4u=0e4hgu=e4q0hu9 (you can assume that he gave me the desire to do this or that he caused me to do this, but your assumption would be asinine). This is an e.g. of the other motif. Both are true, without conflict, but they do conflict with a false omnicausality view that you cling to (the reason you must reject two motifs).
Here are Boyd's verses and explanations (click on verses) for two motifs. Perhaps you lack understanding or are simply assuming what you are trying to prove to retain your views. It is a stronger hermeneutic to take these verses at face value and change your theology, than to be put in the corner of taking one set as literal while making the other motif figurative to retain your view (without exegetical necessity or warrant to do so from the context).
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/oldsite/gbfront/index5ff9.html?PageID=494
(click open and settled links, then individual verses)
If I thought your explanations of all the relevant verses were more credible, I would join you. Don't underestimate the power of your vested interest in your framework over the years to color your interpretation. You need a paradigm shift, a radical reformation (since you are smart, sincere, but wrong about some fundamental things...that are propped up with a complex edifice of explanations that go beyond the simple reading of Scripture...cf. eternal now vs endless time).
themuzicman
Well-known member
lee_merrill
New member
But I did not mean indefinite as to which individuals, I meant indefinite in regard to whether this will happen or not.
And I must again repeat, that this is not certain. A definite prediction that some tools will be usable is impossible without definite knowledge of the future. You might get a bad batch of source materials.
I don't require individual election, I only require that God knows a remnant will be saved, this is even his sentence on earth, which he will carry out. Clearly, this contradicts the Open View.
And how is it fair if God decides only a remnant will be saved? Does he keep people from repenting?
Mark 4:11-12 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"
Blessings,
Lee
Calvinism is more problematic than OT. Calvinism has had centuries to try to have answers for any objection and still has internal debates. OT has a body of work to answer most objections and it is growing (in a matter of decades). Yours is not a common objection. Where did you get it from? A dream?
I feel safe to reject simple foreknowledge and determinism as the only possible explanations for the remnant. I think the statement is so high a probability that it is a certainty. Do you fret that no one will be saved after Billy Graham dies or do you see that God is able to influence vs cause His project to be brought to fruition based on His ability and predictable human behavior?
If it said that the remnant would be 1,403,252 people with their names listed, their life stories, their addresses, etc. in a book that was written before Genesis, then I would scratch my head (but it does not, so I won't).
I feel safe to reject simple foreknowledge and determinism as the only possible explanations for the remnant. I think the statement is so high a probability that it is a certainty. Do you fret that no one will be saved after Billy Graham dies or do you see that God is able to influence vs cause His project to be brought to fruition based on His ability and predictable human behavior?
If it said that the remnant would be 1,403,252 people with their names listed, their life stories, their addresses, etc. in a book that was written before Genesis, then I would scratch my head (but it does not, so I won't).
lee_merrill
New member
If the other ship is a sinking ship that doesn't mean your boat floats!
I don't fret, because I believe salvation is by God's decree--now if his ability to influence is at work, I must again ask how he knows a remnant will be saved. And if he exercises his influence to keep most of this group from repenting now.
But all that is required is one definite prediction that hinges on free decisions--this we have in several examples. I have a spare head-scratcher if you need one...
Blessings,
Lee
themuzicman
Well-known member
Well, since OVT attirbutes exhaustive PRESENT knowledge to God, this is a non-issue. God knows what source material He has.
"Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" (I believe that's Romans 9) What if God, in his wisdom, prepare some pots for destruction and some for glory?"
If you read John 12, you see that Israel was blinded to their Messiah.
There you go. You have your answer. It's a corporate thing both ways.
Muz
Any judicial hardening is related to man's initial hardening. Israel rejected the Messiah instead of receiving Him. In the future Tribulation, circumstances and the witness of the 144,000 will result in a restoration of Israel. This unique period will bring unique results (not to say that God is not working in Jewish hearts now with some coming to faith in Him...how big is a remnant anyway? If Israel is restored corporately, it does not matter if some individuals are not part of that group).
themuzicman
Well-known member
And if you read Israel's history, and you read Jesus' account of prophets in Israel, you find that people rejected and killed prophets "from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah"... the point being that Israel tended to stone the prophets sent from God.
Thus, we have the vineyard owner parable, where the owner sends his men to the workers, and they kill all of them, and then they send the Son, and they kill him too.
It's not as though what happened to Jesus was the first time Israel had rejected someone sent from God.
Muz
Thus, we have the vineyard owner parable, where the owner sends his men to the workers, and they kill all of them, and then they send the Son, and they kill him too.
It's not as though what happened to Jesus was the first time Israel had rejected someone sent from God.
Muz
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Interrupting, here, excuse me . . .
But the "all Israel" that will be saved in the end, is the spiritual body (church) of Christ, made up of a remnant according to election, called out of all the nations and peoples of the world.
"Israel" is another name for Jesus Christ, who is the Elect One; the Israel of God. (e.g. Isa. 42:1)
God intimately KNEW and loved and predestined every single one of these to be saved in Christ, before the foundation of the world.
RobE
New member
Definition of compatibilism: Free will and foreknowledge co-exist.
Of course not. Thomists(compatible, determinists), Molinists(compatible, indeterminists), and Augustinians(compatible, determinists), etc...... The only Christian sect who stands by incompatibility is the SupraLapsarians as far as I am aware of. Do you know of another?
Maybe that's why you don't understand the point of the argument being made here. If free will co-exists with foreknowledge then they are proven to be compatible with each other. The two motifs.
In other words, free acts CAN NOT be known beforehand unless the two are compatible. If the two are compatible then Whitehead's ideas and process theology fall apart. If the two are compatible then the proofs which claim free will doesn't exist if foreknowledge is present: become invalid.
Ah, but Christ also saw that Judas would not repent in the future and become "doomed". A future free decision(s) known beforehand. Compatibility!
Muz answered the dilemna by stating God intentionally did not call Judas to repent(John 6:44). This, according to Muz, resulted in Judas becoming reprobate. Why does Muz prefer positive reprobation over foreknowledge of a free act? Simply put, Muz would rather adopt that aspect of hyperCalvinism then accept the alternative of open theism being wrong in their assumptions.
How does this argument render open theism wrong? If compatibalism is possible, then God who is able to do all that is logically possible; knows all future free acts.
Now, Godrulz. Is it possible to know future free acts?
Rob
p.s. You answered 'yes' before, but maybe the question has new meaning for you this time.
RobE
New member
Scratching one's head is far from changing one's mind. Would this really only cause you to wonder?
- Status