ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

If you can't comprehend what God knows, then how can you claim that He knows the definite course of the future?

Muz

My question exactly, if by definite course one means meticulous future details including even mundane choices not yet having been made by creatures that don't yet exist.

bybee: Yes, through scripture and good teachers we can know what God has given us to know. And absolutely, we must seek to know God's will for us. My intention in that remark is that what God know's is all encompassing and quite beyond our ability to comprehend in toto. God, for his own reason's, shares with us and each has his or her own portion. So we gather together to help each other when we stumble or fall as we surely do from time to time. Do you think it matters whether I choose red or blue?

Can a human know anything about God without scripture or good teachers?

For God to know everything about the past and present isn't beyond our comprehension (though our own detailed knowledge isn't that complete). Even if God knows the future exhaustively, we can by faith comprehend that to a degree (even though it seems illogical to most). Our own ignorance of the future may be bliss, but it isn't an argument for exhaustive foreknowledge on God's part.

I don't think future mundane choices matter to God in the least. Yours certainly don't matter to me because we are not in relationship. And while I share your view on relationships in the body of Christ ... they don't happen on the web. Here we (most?) are trying to sort-out just what is the nature of God’s relationship to the world; how does He relate to people making free (and sometimes not altogether mundane) choices. That issue goes to the heart of how we live and relate to others as people of faith. Most if not all live as if God doesn’t know the details of their own futures. They make choices as if they were free to do so. ARE THEY? Are individuals free to change their minds? Is God free to change His mind and to adjust in the details as they help shape the future?

We think so.

Philetus

 

[bybee]

what can I comprehend..

what can I comprehend..

If you can't comprehend what God knows, then how can you claim that He knows the definite course of the future?

Muz

I can comprehend what my God given brain allows me to comprehend. I study, I read, I listen, I go to church, My contention is, simply, that God know's more than I do. God knows more than my brain is constructed to know. It is very hard to make myself understood. I must take a class in communication skills. I forgot to sign up for "Nitpicking 101".

 

[themuzicman]

I can comprehend what my God given brain allows me to comprehend. I study, I read, I listen, I go to church, My contention is, simply, that God know's more than I do. God knows more than my brain is constructed to know. It is very hard to make myself understood. I must take a class in communication skills. I forgot to sign up for "Nitpicking 101".

And I doubt any OVT would disagree with your contention that God knows more than we do. However, that's not all that you're saying. You're saying that you know the contents of God's knowledge, but when we make a similar claim, you go off and say that we really don't know what God knows.

You have to make up your mind.

And don't sell OVT short. OVT is an effort to arrive at a more Scripturally consistent view of God and His relationship to creation. You're not going to just say "I study the bible" and think that's going to phase anybody.

Muz

Muz

 

[Clete]

Yes, through scripture and good teachers we can know what God has given us to know. And absolutely, we must seek to know God's will for us. My intention in that remark is that what God know's is all encompassing and quite beyond our ability to comprehend in toto. God, for his own reason's, shares with us and each has his or her own portion. So we gather together to help each other when we stumble or fall as we surely do from time to time. Do you think it matters whether I choose red or blue?

It is not required that we comprehend in toto, as you put it.

If, as you have said, we can know what God has given us to know then it follows that we can also know that any truth claim that is rationally incompatible with that revelatory knowledge must be false, wouldn't you agree? And so if we are willing to allow sound reason to persuade us, we can examine certain truth claims concerning matters of free will (or any other theological issue) and determine whether those claims are true or not, regardless of whether we can fully comprehend every detail concerning those truth claims.

And as for whether it matters whether you choose red or blue, the answer depends upon whether you believe God holds you responsible for that choice. That is to say, if a choice is a moral choice and not meaninglessly trivial, and you will one day answer to God for the choice you decide to make then, yes, it matters! This discussion about free will and open theism in general has everything to do with justice, righteousness and love. Is God just? Is God righteous? Does He love us and are we capable of loving Him? And what implications are inherent in the answers to those most important of questions? That is what Open Theism is about.

If we are unable to choose of our own free will then everything is relegated to the dominion of the meaninglessly trivial. We would be rendered incapable of loving anyone, including God because love must be freely given, and God Himself would be unjust to hold anyone responsible for anything, whether thought, word or deed. If God is unjust then He is unrighteous by His own definition of righteousness and He does not love us. If God does not love us then many passages in the Bible, like John 3:16 for example, are false as would be the rest of the Scripture. In short, without free will, Christianity crumbles to pieces and is shown to be a false religion.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

I can comprehend what my God given brain allows me to comprehend. I study, I read, I listen, I go to church, My contention is, simply, that God know's more than I do. God knows more than my brain is constructed to know. It is very hard to make myself understood. I must take a class in communication skills. I forgot to sign up for "Nitpicking 101".

How did Christianity survive before the printing press? Before the Enlightenment? Before the academy? Before Sunday School? Before bible dictionaries and commentaries? Modernism has done more to convince Christians (especially in the West) of what they can't possibly know to the point that they have forgotten WHO they CAN know. Our knowledge of God is possible because we have the Holy Spirit to 'remind us' of all that 'Jesus taught and did' and to lead us into all truth. The scriptures and the academy are secondary to the presence of the risen Master of our discipleship. That is neither to minimize nor exaggerate the importance of scripture and teaching and the role the ecclesia might play in discipleship.

As important as it is not to say to little, we must also be careful not to say to much. Before bibles were readily available, the church of necessity held the prominent place of authority. As scripture circulated more widely it became clear to the 'laity' and honest clergy that the church was abusing its authority and the bible became the authority; 'scripture alone' served as the litmus test for checks and balances in knowing the truth. Through 'scientific' methods Modern theologies have done everything they can to strip the scriptures of what is 'unknowable' leaving us with little more than an ancient Palestinian Jew with the big head and a biblical account that is exaggerated by myth. Surely the One who changed water to wine can change our thinking as He disciples us with the help of scripture and the Spirit and the fellowship of believers.

God help us! The remedy is not some knee-jerk reaction that exaggerates the 'Omnis' through proof texting, but an honest faith that humbly seeks understanding in a triune God. 'Faith alone!' Faith in a risen savior who is Lord over all things for the church; Faith that as we open the bible we do so with full expectation that God will speak to us and give us understanding, not merely lead us to a proof text to reinforce our preconceived theologies; Faith that when we gather in His name He is present not as referee, but as Servant of God and servant to man. It is only under the Lordship of Jesus as the final authority in heaven and on earth that scripture and fellowship smooth out and we begin to understand our role as servants of Christ Jesus - being disciples and making disciples.

Nit-picking comes naturally; you were born with it: specks in the eye that become logs with enough mishandled scripture and divided fellowships. The only cure is to be 'born again' - born from above - born of the Spirit and that comes only and entirely by grace through faith.

Philetus

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Our knowledge of God is possible because we have the Holy Spirit to 'remind us' of all that 'Jesus taught and did' and to lead us into all truth. The scriptures and the academy are secondary to the presence of the risen Master of our discipleship. Philetus

All? or just all that is written down for us?

 

[bybee]

"and I doubt..."

"and I doubt..."

And I doubt any OVT would disagree with your contention that God knows more than we do. However, that's not all that you're saying. You're saying that you know the contents of God's knowledge, but when we make a similar claim, you go off and say that we really don't know what God knows.

You have to make up your mind.

And don't sell OVT short. OVT is an effort to arrive at a more Scripturally consistent view of God and His relationship to creation. You're not going to just say "I study the bible" and think that's going to phase anybody.

Muz

Muz

I am responding to your responses as objectively as I can. There is no intention to have the last word., nor is there any intention to "phase" anyone. "I study the Bible" is simply a statement of fact - not meant to impress anyone. This I believe:We have Scripture, we have Tradition and we have reason. These are our tools as we seek to know God's will for ourselves. Or better put, these are my tools and I do employ them.

 

[themuzicman]

I am responding to your responses as objectively as I can. There is no intention to have the last word., nor is there any intention to "phase" anyone. "I study the Bible" is simply a statement of fact - not meant to impress anyone. This I believe:We have Scripture, we have Tradition and we have reason. These are our tools as we seek to know God's will for ourselves. Or better put, these are my tools and I do employ them.

And do you think you're the only one who uses these tools?

Muz

 

[Philetus]

All? or just all that is written down for us?

Did the Apostle Paul get only what was written down for him prior to his road-side-conversion? Saul encountered the Living Christ. We can too! What is written is the litmus test for the on going leading of the Spirit. Even correctly reading the scripture requires illumination by the Spirit. The 'more' we encounter/receive never contradicts scripture (the faithful testimonies of others) but is often contrary to our own preconceived notions of it. It is in living our faith that we discover the truth; Jesus said "I am the Truth" not I was the truth. If the narrative of scripture doesn't become our own story, or better, if our story of life in Christ isn't in line with scripture as well as dynamic, living and lively, then our witness is no more than dead history like much of Modern (and Classical) theology.

Philetus

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Did the Apostle Paul get only what was written down for him prior to his road-side-conversion? Saul encountered the Living Christ. We can too! What is written is the litmus test for the on going leading of the Spirit. Even correctly reading the scripture requires illumination by the Spirit. The 'more' we encounter/receive never contradicts scripture (the faithful testimonies of others) but is often contrary to our own preconceived notions of it. It is in living our faith that we discover the truth; Jesus said "I am the Truth" not I was the truth. If the narrative of scripture doesn't become our own story, or better, if our story of life in Christ isn't in line with scripture as well as dynamic, living and lively, then our witness is no more than dead history like much of Modern (and Classical) theology.

Philetus

I was just wondering if you could list a few things that Jesus taught and did during his earthly ministry (other than what we have written down)?

Like you said here: "Originally Posted by Philetus
Our knowledge of God is possible because we have the Holy Spirit to 'remind us' of all that 'Jesus taught and did' and to lead us into all truth."

 

[Philetus]

I was just wondering if you could list a few things that Jesus taught and did during his earthly ministry (other than what we have written down)?

Like you said here: "Originally Posted by Philetus
Our knowledge of God is possible because we have the Holy Spirit to 'remind us' of all that 'Jesus taught and did' and to lead us into all truth."

Are you sitting on a razor blade? :sigh:

Is the risen Lord still teaching? Does the Holy Spirit still lead and guide into all truth?

He taught his disciples to put worms on hooks.

Philetus

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The OVer and the Calvinist believe that foreknowledge is causal. Which is also a false belief.

No, the Calvinist does not believe foreknowledge is causal. Openists erroneously believe the Calvinist view of foreknowledge means that it is causal.

By God's foreordination I mean that God foreordains all that is to come to pass according to His eternal plan. God's ultimate plan is that His will shall be glorified. But note that I have just defined foreordination using the word "foreordains". That is not quite helpful is it? So let's be more precise and define foreordination without using the word itself. By foreordination, I mean that God predisposes all that is to come to pass and the conditions in such a manner that all shall come to pass according to God's eternal plan. These events may come to pass via the free actions of moral agents (both saved and lost) or via God's causative acts.

By God's foreknowledge, I mean God knows always and at all times everything which is to come to pass. Why does God know this? God foreknows what is to come to pass because, as stated above, God has prearranged the happening of what is to come to pass. Thus we say that God foreknows because He has foreordained. This last statement makes sense when we observe that when we say, “I know what I am going to do,” it is evident that we have already determined to do so, and that our knowledge does not precede our determination, but follows the determining and is based upon the determining. To admit foreknowledge carries foreordination with it.

The Scriptures speak of God’s perfect knowledge: Job 37:16, that He looks into man’s hearts, 1 Samuel 2:3; 1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Chronicles 28:9; 1 Chronicles 28:17; Ps. 139:1-4; Jeremiah 17:10, that God observes our ways, Deuteronomy 2:7; Job 23:10, Job 24:23, Job 31:4; Psalms 1:6; Psalms 94:9-11; Psalms 104:24; Psalms 119:168, Psalms 139:1-4; Psalms 139:15-16, that God knows the place of their habitation, Psalms 33:13, and the days of our lives, Psalms 37:18, Proverbs 8:22-23; Proverbs 8:27-30; Proverbs 15:3; Isaiah 40:13-14; Isaiah 40:27-28; Isaiah 41:22-23; Isaiah 41:25-27; Isaiah 42:8-9; Isaiah 43:11-12; Isaiah 44:7-8; Isaiah 44:24-28; Isaiah 45:18-21; Isaiah 46:10-11; Isaiah 48:3-7; Romans 11:33-36; Romans 16:27; Hebrews 4:13; 1 John 3:20.

The above is important because I have witnessed how many confuse the terms and concepts behind them. Foreknowledge presupposes foreordination, but foreknowledge is not itself foreordination. Misunderstandings of these terms have led the uninformed to claim that the related Reformed doctrines are fatalistic.

From these misunderstandings, we see incorrect statements such as the following:

Necessity of a hypothetical inference...
If God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter cannot refrain from sinning. (Incorrect)

The interpretation above wrongly interprets God's foreknowledge as impinging upon Peter's moral free agency. The proper understanding is:

The necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical...
Necessarily, if God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning. (Correct)

In other words, the actions of moral free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Are you sitting on a razor blade? :sigh:

Is the risen Lord still teaching? Does the Holy Spirit still lead and guide into all truth?

He taught his disciples to put worms on hooks.

Philetus

So, you can't list a few things that Jesus taught and did other than what's written down?

ok...

 

[Yorzhik]

No, the Calvinist does not believe foreknowledge is causal. Openists believe this sort of thing, not Calvinists.

As we've said before, if God were to give exhaustive foreknowledge to one of His creatures, we certainly wouldn't say that created creature caused anything at all. Even with exhaustive foreknowledge.

Thus, knowledge is not causal. And we don't say it is. Do you know what the OV'ers do say about knowledge and causation?

 

[Clete]

Isn't it interesting that those who don't like the open view feel like they have to lie about it in order to convince others that it's wrong?

Or, perhaps its themselves they are trying to convince with their own deceit. :think:

 

[Yorzhik]

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

 

[bybee]

and do you think you are the only one who uses these tools?

and do you think you are the only one who uses these tools?

And do you think you're the only one who uses these tools?

Muz

It appears to me that you continually jump to a judgmental idea. How do you leap to the conclusion that I could possibly think that I am the only one who uses these tools. I did thin k that we were exchanging thoughts about how we go about enriching our faith. It appears to me that your pleasure is in jousting at windmills since you persist in missing or ignoring the point of our discussion. Please understand, I am not claiming any special knowledge or method of studying scripture. I am an average person who loves God and I try my best to stay in the light of God's love and follow the path which God has alloted for me. I do not find fault with your way of following God. I do not wish to challenge or argue with you. I do enjoy a fruitful exchange of ideas on how perfectly blessed we are to be christians.

 

[godrulz]

AMR: Do you agree that some aspects of Calvin's Institutes differed from original edition to later editions (he changed his thinking or was contradicting previous ideas)?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

As we've said before, if God were to give exhaustive foreknowledge to one of His creatures, we certainly wouldn't say that created creature caused anything at all. Even with exhaustive foreknowledge.

Thus, knowledge is not causal. And we don't say it is. Do you know what the OV'ers do say about knowledge and causation?

Yes, I could have been clearer as to what I meant. Made corrections to the post.

 

[Clete]

It appears to me that you continually jump to a judgmental idea. How do you leap to the conclusion that I could possibly think that I am the only one who uses these tools. I did thin k that we were exchanging thoughts about how we go about enriching our faith. It appears to me that your pleasure is in jousting at windmills since you persist in missing or ignoring the point of our discussion. Please understand, I am not claiming any special knowledge or method of studying scripture. I am an average person who loves God and I try my best to stay in the light of God's love and follow the path which God has alloted for me. I do not find fault with your way of following God. I do not wish to challenge or argue with you. I do enjoy a fruitful exchange of ideas on how perfectly blessed we are to be christians.

bybee,

Did you see post 7544?