ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Philetus]

Even a clock is right twice a day.

You should be a clock.

 

[Nang]

That depends on if you can view God's foreknowledge as not being causal. That is the same mistake that the Calvinist make.

When the Calvinist say that God's foreknowledge is causal then he believes that God is the author of sin. We both know that this is not true.

Not all Calvinists believe Godly foreknowledge is causal.

I don't.

(I believe Godly foreknowledge teaches something else altogether, having to do with God's intimate love for men.)

What the Calvinist considers causal, is unconditional election and predestination of the fates of all men.

Nang

 

[elected4ever]

You should be a clock.

You should learn to read.:chuckle:

 

[elected4ever]

Not all Calvinists believe Godly foreknowledge is causal.

I don't.

(I believe Godly foreknowledge teaches something else altogether, having to do with God's intimate love for men.)

What the Calvinist considers causal, is unconditional election and predestination of the fates of all men.

Nang

That is not to be construed as having been prechosen for salvation but that the fate of the saved is predestined and the fate of the lost is predestined. There is a sure end to all things. It is God's will that all should be saved but that does not mean that all men will. The way of salvation predestined but the choosing of the way is not predestined. Man is presented with the choice. it does not follow that all men will choose rightly. This is man's choice of his own free will.

 

[baloney]

God is immutable because, firstly, there is some first being called God; and that this first being is pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be insome way changeable.

Secondly, because everything which is moved, remains as it was in part, and passes away in part thus everything which is moved, there is some kind of composition to be found. But in God there is no composition, for He is altogether simple. Hence it is manifest that God cannot move.

Thirdly, because everything which is moved acquires something by its movement, and attains to what it had not attained previously. But since God is infinite, comprehending in Himself all the plenitude of perfection of all being, he cannot acqire anyting new whreto He was not extended previously. Hence movement in no way belongs to him.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave
If I accept your view can you explain to me the relationship between God's knowledge and God's will. Does God see the future or has God ordained it or both?

That depends on if you can view God's foreknowledge as not being causal. That is the same mistake that the Calvinist make.

When the Calvinist say that God's foreknowledge is causal then he believes that God is the author of sin. We both know that this is not true.

In your particular brand of the Open View and your acceptance of the foreknowledge is causal you say that God must not know everything giving God a way of escape in your own mind. You then assign to God the finiteness of man. A creation of your own imagination that is acceptable to you. You cannot accept a God that caused sin So this is a better alternative to you.

This is not an answer to my question.
I don't want your thoughts on Calvins view, I already know it, and obviously I know my own view, but please, enlighten us as to your own view and answer my question.

 

[DFT_Dave]

God is immutable because, firstly, there is some first being called God; and that this first being is pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be insome way changeable.

Secondly, because everything which is moved, remains as it was in part, and passes away in part thus everything which is moved, there is some kind of composition to be found. But in God there is no composition, for He is altogether simple. Hence it is manifest that God cannot move.

Thirdly, because everything which is moved acquires something by its movement, and attains to what it had not attained previously. But since God is infinite, comprehending in Himself all the plenitude of perfection of all being, he cannot acqire anyting new whreto He was not extended previously. Hence movement in no way belongs to him.

If this is true then God could not have created the world, that would require movement, Christ could not be the incarnate Son of God because that would require movement and change...this is Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" and not the God of the Bible.

 

[baloney]

God could be a mover realizing something'spotentiality, but something outside of God could not move God.

 

[Philetus]

Not all Calvinists believe Godly foreknowledge is causal.

I don't.

(I believe Godly foreknowledge teaches something else altogether, having to do with God's intimate love for men.)

What the Calvinist considers causal, is unconditional election and predestination of the fates of all men.

Nang

Nang.
Same difference. 'Unconditional election and predestination of the fates of all men' on the part of God is causal if it is known to God before men even existed. God would have to cause it to know it.

What we are debating is: 'what did God know and when did He know it?'

How loving is it to predestine men to hell before even creating them? I really want your answer and reasoning on this. I haven't heard a Calvinists make sense of it yet. I'm open.​

 

[DFT_Dave]

God could be a mover realizing something's potentiality, but something outside of God could not move God.

Yes, that would include prayer.

 

[Philetus]

God could be a mover realizing something's potentiality, but something outside of God could not move God.

When would God realize something that God had not previously realized? When/how in the eternal moment ‘now’ could God possibility move anything without moving?

Could you flesh this statement out more. I'm missing something.

Dave's answer (prayer) seemed, well, awkward. Does prayer move God to act?

 

[Philetus]

You first have to explain how what I have said is incoherent or how I have contradicted myself. I can cope with someone who is stubborn but not someone who is stupid. Either you can't see the coherence or you don't want to. I can't blame anyone for being reluctant to accept OV, it's not the orthodoxy of today.

Concerning time in God and space answer these questions;

Does God do everything all at once? Yes or no?

Is he creating the world, flooding it with water, and judging it with fire all at the same time? Yes or no?

Did God exist before he created the world? Yes or no?

Is the world in God or separate and distinct from him? Yes or no?
Is that an either/or rather than a yes/no question?

What existed outside of God before he created anything else?

How would you define space?

Still very good questions that still need answers.​

 

[elected4ever]

If this is true then God could not have created the world, that would require movement, Christ could not be the incarnate Son of God because that would require movement and change...this is Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" and not the God of the Bible.

agreed

 

[DFT_Dave]

When would God realize something that God had not previously realized? When/how in the eternal moment ‘now’ could God possibility move anything without moving?

Could you flesh this statement out more. I'm missing something.

Dave's answer (prayer) seemed, well, awkward. Does prayer move God to act?

Originally Posted by baloney
God could be a mover realizing something's potentiality, but something outside of God could not move God.

Yes, that would include prayer.

Prayer moves the Biblical God to act. Prayer will not move the Unmoved Mover to act.

Does that clear things up?

 

[elected4ever]

Nang.
Same difference. 'Unconditional election and predestination of the fates of all men' on the part of God is causal if it is known to God before men even existed. God would have to cause it to know it.

What we are debating is: 'what did God know and when did He know it?'

How loving is it to predestine men to hell before even creating them? I really want your answer and reasoning on this. I haven't heard a Calvinists make sense of it yet. I'm open.​

I told you that you believed that God's foreknowledge was causal. Now do you believe your own words?

 

[elected4ever]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave
If I accept your view can you explain to me the relationship between God's knowledge and God's will. Does God see the future or has God ordained it or both?


This is not an answer to my question.
I don't want your thoughts on Calvins view, I already know it, and obviously I know my own view, but please, enlighten us as to your own view and answer my question.

God is the cause of all His actions. His responses are those responses that relate to the agreement or objection to His actions. These responses are foreknown to God.

God does not design his own opposition thereby creating sin. Sin is the choice of the opposer. In order for a free, self willed creation to oppose God the self will to do according to its own perceived self best interest must exist. The self will of man is part of the design of man and must be free to choose according to its own self best interest.

If I failed to express myself adequetely then I apologize. I find it very difficult to use words that express my thoughts that cannot be misapplied by new or different definitions. Even then I am not sure that my meaning was transmitted properly.

 

[DFT_Dave]

God is the cause of all His actions. His responses are those responses that relate to the agreement or objection to His actions. These responses are foreknown to God.

God does not design his own opposition thereby creating sin. Sin is the choice of the opposer. In order for a free, self willed creation to oppose God the self will to do according to its own perceived self best interest must exist. The self will of man is part of the design of man and must be free to choose according to its own self best interest.

If I failed to express myself adequetely then I apologize. I find it very difficult to use words that express my thoughts that cannot be misapplied by new or different definitions. Even then I am not sure that my meaning was transmitted properly.

You write very well, excellent description of free will. Could you take this a step further, did God foreknow our responses before he created the world? If he did, then, how is it that God can see the future responses of people who did not yet exist?

 

[godrulz]

If your wife knows exactly what you will eat, the number of grams consumed,
and the exact time you will eat, does it take away your freedom?

I have looked at the syllogism, but I still don't comprehend how "exhaustive foreknowledge" removes freedom.

The analogy is imperfect because she could only know these things as a certainty when they become actual and past knowledge. Since I may not eat or change what I eat, exhaustive foreknowledge is still impossible (high probability is not certainty).

 

[godrulz]

Exhaustive foreknowledge is a distinction without a difference. Ether god knows or He doesn't know. The term is just an excuse to explain away foreknowledge so you can ignore the truth and make your flesh responsible for your own supposed self righteousness. How dare God know my every thought and action. What a violation of my privacy. How dare god know the thoughts and intents of my heart. To you it is unjust and to me it is the wisdom of God. To you it is a threat and to me it is comfort and assurance. It just proves that God is a threat to you and your beliefs about Him.

My thoughts and motives are possible objects of past or present knowledge, so God knows them exhaustively. Future issues are not possible objects of knowledge and are known as possible, not certain.

Open Theists do believe that God knows our thoughts and actions (but logically, not before we even existed because those thoughts may or may not have been actualized).

You are misrepresenting our view by implying that we think God is ignorant of something that He can know (the future is different).

 

[godrulz]

I told you that God's foreknowledge is a threat to your brand of OV theology. I am Open View and you are ?????????. Will, whatever god is according to your imagination.

A word/contextual study of what foreknowledge is and is not is the issue. We all affirm foreknowledge, but just understand its scope and nature differently.