ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[RobE]

A troubling question.

A troubling question.

The fact is that God planed the crucification of Christ before man was even made and open theism cannot account for it. It defies their logic and so they hang there hat on a contingency theory. The only problem with that is that the scripture does not say anything about such a contingency.

I find it interesting that 99 out of a 100 times open theists will attack foreknowledge, but rarely wish to defend the results of 'openess' thinking. Why haven't my questions been answered? At least Godrulz has answered some.

1) What would the world be like if Adam had not sinned?
2) Why didn't God guard the Tree of Life before Adam fell?
3) Why does God allow the rape and murder of children when He could stop it?
4) Why would God's culpability be changed by 'when' He foreknew the outcome?
5) How can a prediction not come true. If it didn't happen then I didn't predict it.
6) Can you be held accountable for an evil act unless you know the difference between good and evil?

 

[elected4ever]

I find it interesting that 99 out of a 100 times open theists will attack foreknowledge, but rarely wish to defend the results of 'openess' thinking. Why haven't my questions been answered? At least Godrulz has answered some.

1) What would the world be like if Adam had not sinned?
2) Why didn't God guard the Tree of Life before Adam fell?
3) Why does God allow the rape and murder of children when He could stop it?
4) Why would God's culpability be changed by 'when' He foreknew the outcome?
5) How can a prediction not come true. If it didn't happen then I didn't predict it.
6) Can you be held accountable for an evil act unless you know the difference between good and evil?

:up:

 

[RobE]

It matters if he knows before hand.
Philetus

Why? And why did you say "it doesn't" to begin with?

Rob

 

[Philetus]

Elected4ever,

You are putting words in my mouth, Philitus. Before we get to far into this you should ask yourself, Is God a God of vengeance as well as a God of love?

If "Are you saying...? is putting words in your mouth the defend your position by restating it.
I don't know where I put words in your mouth, I"m just trying to sort out the differences in our views. All the words in the quote are mine except where I quote scripture.

Before I answer and assume I know what your words mean ... please expand your question so I don't guess at the bait.

Without being drawn and returning to God in Christ ... all we have to look forward to is wrath. Sin pays it's own wage.
Philetus

Philetus

 

[elected4ever]

Elected4ever,

If "Are you saying...? is putting words in your mouth the defend your position by restating it.
I don't know where I put words in your mouth, I"m just trying to sort out the differences in our views. All the words in the quote are mine except where I quote scripture.

Before I answer and assume I know what your words mean ... please expand your question so I don't guess at the bait.

Without being drawn and returning to God in Christ ... all we have to look forward to is wrath. Sin pays it's own wage.
Philetus

Philetus

I am the one that was being baited. I never ask you to answer to me in the first place. I think I ask you to answer that question for yourself which requires no response.

 

[Philetus]

Why? And why did you say "it doesn't" to begin with?

Rob

We all agree that God knows after the fact ... or "finds out" as you put it. So your question has not bearing on the discussion.

The issue is: did he know before the fact?

You guys throw out more red herrings than even a fisherman like Peter could catch with a net. :first:

I’m more than willing to do this because if the real issues won’t stand up to scripture then I’ll be the first to toss the open view. So please, address the concerns I raise and stop resorting to dodge ball tactics.

Tomorrow is another day,
Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Without being drawn and returning to God in Christ ... all we have to look forward to is wrath. Sin pays it's own wage.

My final answer,
P

 

[RobE]

We all agree that God knows after the fact ... or "finds out" as you put it. So your question has not bearing on the discussion.

The issue is: did he know before the fact?

You guys throw out more red herrings than even a fisherman like Peter could catch with a net. :first:

I’m more than willing to do this because if the real issues won’t stand up to scripture then I’ll be the first to toss the open view. So please, address the concerns I raise and stop resorting to dodge ball tactics.

Tomorrow is another day,
Philetus

Let me restate:

Why does it matter WHEN God finds out about wrongdoing if He's going to allow it anyway?​

Why does it matter if God finds out two minutes before an event takes place or two eons before an event takes place; if He's going to allow it anyway?

My point: Foreknowledge of an event in no way creates that event. Open Theism says that if God knew of that event before creation then He's guilty of causation. However, this same logic says, that if He knew at anytime(creation or 2 minutes beforehand) that He has the same culpability. In my opinion that culpability is zero. Open Theism's faulty thinking produces different responses. I wondered how you justified these two positions since it's the core question I was asking Godrulz.

Is it true that you believe a God who knew 'before' creation has responsibility; whereas, a God who knew 2 days in advance is free from responsibility?

Rob

 

[Philetus]

I find it interesting that 99 out of a 100 times open theists will attack foreknowledge, but rarely wish to defend the results of 'openess' thinking. Why haven't my questions been answered? At least Godrulz has answered some.

1) What would the world be like if Adam had not sinned?
Not even God can answer that.
2) Why didn't God guard the Tree of Life before Adam fell?
He had no reason to before the choice Adam made concerning the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Because he create Adam with a capacity to choose and didn’t then remove all choices that put himself at risk.
3) Why does God allow the rape and murder of children when He could stop it?
The trees are not the only choices in the universe. That’s the question Open Theism is asking you to answer.
4) Why would God's culpability be changed by 'when' He foreknew the outcome?
I have said that is a good question that deserves an answer. I’m not sure the OTV has answered it satisfactorily for either of us. I’m open to your answer. If the answer is simply that it does not, why not.
5) How can a prediction not come true. If it didn't happen then I didn't predict it.
I’m not sure I even grasp the meaning or relevance of this question or comment.
6) Can you be held accountable for an evil act unless you know the difference between good and evil?
Have an apple.

 

[Philetus]

Why does it matter if God finds out two minutes before an event takes place or two eons before an event takes place; if He's going to allow it anyway?

My point: Foreknowledge of an event in no way creates that event. Open Theism says that if God knew of that event before creation then He's guilty of causation. However, this same logic says, that if He knew at anytime(creation or 2 minutes beforehand) that He has the same culpability. In my opinion that culpability is zero. Open Theism's faulty thinking produces different responses. I wondered how you justified these two positions since it's the core question I was asking Godrulz.

Is it true that you believe a God who knew 'before' creation has responsibility; whereas, a God who knew 2 days in advance is free from responsibility?

Rob

Rob,
Thank you for being patient with me. I really am trying to understand both sides of the argument before jumping off the fence. And can’t figure out why my page doesn’t show your post until I post. Techknowledgy I guess.

At the heart of this whole debate is this issue of whether God can be held accountable for knowing before hand that some evil is about to transpire. I think the question of Open Theists is not so much about fore knowing but whether or not God is eternal in time or outside of time. As I have answered before, and you seemed to either miss it or dismiss it as an answer is that if God is outside of time, viewing the events of human history all at once, then I find it hard to explain how he could at the same time be involved in the events. In the Open View of history, (I’m learning) God is actively involved with people and at the same time allows them freedom. So I would have to agree with you that if God is outside of time then foreknowledge in no way makes him responsible. Even those who say that a God outside of time should be held accountable for such knowledge would be wrong because a God outside of time could not involve himself without changing the history he sees. It’s a catch 22 for all of us.

The open view seems to say (I’m still learning) that a God eternal in time cannot know what has not yet happened as a result of the free willed actions of other agents. Though he can most certainly know the future in regard to those things he will make happen. He is sovereign.

Make SINCE?
Philetus

 

[RobE]

1) What would the world be like if Adam had not sinned?
Not even God can answer that.

Answer: Animals do cruel acts without culpability. Why? No knowledge of Good and Evil.

2) Why didn't God guard the Tree of Life before Adam fell?
He had no reason to before the choice Adam made concerning the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Because he create Adam with a capacity to choose and didn’t then remove all choices that put himself at risk.

Answer: God knew Adam wouldn't eat of it.

3) Why does God allow the rape and murder of children when He could stop it?
The trees are not the only choices in the universe. That’s the question Open Theism is asking you to answer.

Answer: God allows men free will. Whether He foresees(c.v.) that outcome or discovers it(o.v.) He has no culpability.

4) Why would God's culpability be changed by 'when' He foreknew the outcome?
I have said that is a good question that deserves an answer. I’m not sure the OTV has answered it satisfactorily for either of us. I’m open to your answer. If the answer is simply that it does not, why not.

Answer: It doesn't because #1 He's God. #2 is intent. His reason to create us to begin with is unknown; however, God so loved the world that He....... Why did He continue even knowing of the fall? You, Me, Peter, The Wheat despite the weeds.

5) How can a prediction not come true. If it didn't happen then I didn't predict it.
I’m not sure I even grasp the meaning or relevance of this question or comment.

Answer: Prediction, foretelling, prophecy, etc....are all forms of foreknowledge and mean essentially the same thing. For Open Theism to say God can accurately predict some things is a logical fallacy. A prediction MUST come true in order to be a prediction; otherwise, it's a guess.

6) Can you be held accountable for an evil act unless you know the difference between good and evil?
Have an apple.

Again, Open Theism's insistence that Adam could not have eaten even though the Tree, Satan, Adam, Serpent were present at just the right moment with Our Lord watching(omnipresence). The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Did God make Adam sin? No. Have an apple.

The Cure is more powerful than the disease,

Rob

 

[Philetus]

Hey Godrulz, these guys are throwing more fish at me than I have tartar dip for.
Hope I haven't misstated the Open View as badly as I did elected4ever's.
Philetus

 

[Philetus]

2) Why didn't God guard the Tree of Life before Adam fell?
He had no reason to before the choice Adam made concerning the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Because he create Adam with a capacity to choose and didn’t then remove all choices that put himself at risk.

Answer: God knew Adam wouldn't eat of it.

How do you know he didn't eat it before the fall? Scriptures only says it was off limits after the fall.
Maybe Adam was eating it all along before he ate from the tree of KofGandE. That's no more speculative than your answer.

I have already eaten the apple ... it mad me sin sick.
We all have.
Philetus

 

[RobE]

Rob,
Thank you for being patient with me. I really am trying to understand both sides of the argument before jumping off the fence. And can’t figure out why my page doesn’t show your post until I post. Techknowledgy I guess.

At the heart of this whole debate is this issue of whether God can be held accountable for knowing before hand that some evil is about to transpire. I think the question of Open Theists is not so much about fore knowing but whether or not God is eternal in time or outside of time. As I have answered before, and you seemed to either miss it or dismiss it as an answer is that if God is outside of time, viewing the events of human history all at once, then I find it hard to explain how he could at the same time be involved in the events. In the Open View of history, (I’m learning) God is actively involved with people and at the same time allows them freedom. So I would have to agree with you that if God is outside of time then foreknowledge in no way makes him responsible. Even those who say that a God outside of time should be held accountable for such knowledge would be wrong because a God outside of time could not involve himself without changing the history he sees. It’s a catch 22 for all of us.

The open view seems to say (I’m still learning) that a God eternal in time cannot know what has not yet happened as a result of the free willed actions of other agents. Though he can most certainly know the future in regard to those things he will make happen. He is sovereign.

Make SINCE?
Philetus

Yet Open Theist's must say:

I have no free will if it is known I will do A, even though I have the ability to do A or B. Open Theism must dumb God down to man's level of intelligence or insist that "if it's known I will do A, then I only have the ability to do A; otherwise it couldn't be known."

I say that God is smart enough to know for certain what your natural behaviour is. He made you, your family, and everything else you interact with. Him knowing what you will do doesn't nullify your ability to do otherwise---It only makes the excercise of that same ability a certainty.

If you've followed my other posts; then you know I'm not a Calvinist(in fact I disagree with all 5 points of TULIP) and argue stridently with Calvinists.

Foreknowledge is an ability of our Lord(even if you can't wrap your brain around it),

Rob

 

[RobE]

How do you know he didn't eat it before the fall? Scriptures only says it was off limits after the fall.
Maybe Adam was eating it all along before he ate from the tree of KofGandE. That's no more speculative than your answer.

I know because Adam didn't live forever. Remember, 'lest he eat of it and live forever.'

Rob

 

[godrulz]

The fact is that God planed the crucification of Christ before man was even made and open theism cannot account for it. It defies their logic and so they hang there hat on a contingency theory. The only problem with that is that the scripture does not say anything about such a contingency.

God formulated a plan of redemption before creation. It was a possible plan, not a foregone conclusion. The plan was only implemented after the Fall (before that, creation was 'very good'. After, there was a change and God was grieved and wanted to wipe man out. He did not always feel this way. The Fall was a possibility, not a certainty). The plan was not actualized for centuries later. There is nothing unbiblical about this except your wooden literalism of a proof text.

God set the parameters and conditions of His creation. When man chose to misuse His freedom, there were consequences. God knew the possibilites beforehand. He knew the certainties as they unfolded. God is not culpable for man's rebellion. Giving man freedom vs creating robots made the fall possible, but did not cause it. God gave them ideal circumstances to prevent the fall. He is not responsible for man's extreme deviation. Stopping all evil instantly tampers too much with the type of creation God chose. Despite this, He works redemptively and will bring His project to completion in the end. Not everyone will side with God in His project. If they go their own way, they will perish (as God laid out). God knowing the Fall was about to happen is different than saying possible and actual are identical at the same time.

OpenTheists such as Boyd and Sanders have written extensively about these issues. Determinism is far more problematic (makes God responsible for evil) than Open Theism's strong theodicy (problem of evil solution).

 

[godrulz]

This is exactly why you consider yourself an 'Open' theist. You mis-read my doctrine. 'Satan and man's free will explains sin'. Evil is a condition which exists naturally in the universe.

Just because God foresaw the 'evil' excercise of free will doesn't mean that He caused it. As you are fond of saying; God at some point foreknew the world trade center bombings and allowed it to happen. How does it matter that He foresaw it 2 minutes beforehand vs. 2 eons beforehand?

My doctrine would be: God, foreseeing the fall and outcome of mankind, worked to bring 'good' outcomes from mankind's intentions. The beginning of things came through Jesus Christ and the conclusion of things are in Jesus Christ. God allowed this for His own reasons, just as He allows the rape and murder of children for His own reasons. Allowing something is not doing something. You would imprint culpability for evil onto Our Lord if He foresaw evil acts while admitting that He foreknows evil acts :dizzy: .

The duplicity occurs when you say that it's evil for God to create mankind knowing Adam would fall. As if all the things that have occured on the Earth are evil. Is there no 'good' in an open theist's world?

If God had 'aborted' creation after seeing the fall of mankind, wouldn't all the 'good' which has happened not occured either. Should God have thrown the 'good' out with the 'bad'? Didn't Peter deserve His life despite Judas?

In order for Open Theism's hands to remain clean, using Open Theism's own logic , God would have had to destroy Adam when Adam fell. Why? Because God at that moment knew(beforehand) the kind of destruction sin would cause in mankind and pre-determined to continue with Adam. So is Adam responsible for sin in the world since God allowed Adam to live and procreate? Using OV's logic this is a fair question. Another one would be: Is it better for 2 to be thrown into the lake of fire or 2 billion? 2 billion is closer to reality because of God's decision. In this sense, your logic to attack foreknowledge becomes a terrible thing since it can be asked of 'open' theism with equal force.

Why didn't God destroy Adam and continue His plan for mankind with a different creation? By not doing this didn't He condemn untold millions to eternal suffering. Why not make one man at a time. If the man turns out OK; then move that man to a different location. Do you see? Am I wasting my thoughts?

My answer: Jesus Christ was that plan.
Your answer: I doubt if you've considered this.

Clarity,
Rob

Jesus was God's response to the Fall. God created with certain parameters. He would not be just to His intentions if He stamped out Satan, Adam, or every sinner at the moment of sin. We would never get a world going. His plan of redemption was implemented when it became necessary. I have considered your thinking, but it does not seem to be a necessary conclusion from the evidence.

 

[godrulz]

Philetus,

Why does it matter WHEN God finds out about wrongdoing if He's going to allow it anyway?

Rob

God never intended sin or evil. He did everything reasonable to prevent it. God finds out about it immediately. He knows of the possibility before, but the certainty only when it comes into existence.

 

[godrulz]

You are putting words in my mouth, Philitus. Before we get to far into this you should ask yourself, Is God a God of vengeance as well as a God of love?

He is both. Wrath flows from His holiness/love. He does not need to chose some for damnation to show He is just. There are more than enough people freely chosing to reject God for His love and justice to be exhibited. Some say He has to damn some to show that He is just. How many are enough? Why billions? Sanders shows the questionable philosophical roots of this concept and refutes it.

 

[Philetus]

RobE,
Would Adam have lived forever if he had not sinned? I was under the impression that had he not eaten the forbiden fruit he would not have died.

Yet Open Theist's must say:

I have no free will if it is known I will do A, even though I have the ability to do A or B. Open Theism must dumb God down to man's level of intelligence or insist that "if it's known I will do A, then I only have the ability to do A; otherwise it couldn't be known."

I say that God is smart enough to know for certain what your natural behaviour is. He made you, your family, and everything else you interact with. Him knowing what you will do doesn't nullify your ability to do otherwise---It only makes the excercise of that same ability a certainty.

If you've followed my other posts; then you know I'm not a Calvinist(in fact I disagree with all 5 points of TULIP) and argue stridently with Calvinists.

Foreknowledge is an ability of our Lord(even if you can't wrap your brain around it),

Rob

I have been reading a lot of work by open theist and I haven't found that in their view. It is only within the total framework of a closed view that the above logic must be worked out. What I am finding is that the Open View of the future requires God to be much smarter and far more competent than either a hyper or even a moderate view of a closed future.

I can get my mind around both views and see how their logic requires them to conclude on matters such as foreknowledge in very different ways. I'm still looking for evidence from either side that strengthens or weakens either argument.

I am aware of your position on the TULIP. And I say, go for it! You have a lot to share. But, so far in this thread you have failed to do any more than just dismiss OVT on the basis of what appears to be a lack of understanding on your part of the Open View. To suggest that the OV is just ‘dumbing’ God down and that Open Theists aren’t thinking is ... well ... not nice and not accurate. The roots of dumbing God down go back to the Greeks who thought themselves to be wise and convinced other they had it all figured out. It is Open View Theism that is paveing the way for reconsideration of what God has said about himself in Scripture, all of what he said. They are doing some of the most honest thinking we are likely to encounter in a while; whether time proves them to be right or not.

Am I wasting my time trying to fully grasp the Open View?
I think not. However, for a while at least, I need to confine my inquiry to those who understand it better than either of us do. So I bid you farewell for now, and I sincerely thank you for the lively exchange. I'll be out of the country for a while, but I'll be back.

Most people practice what the open view really holds out as an accurate position on the nature of God. I think we all may need to preach more of what we practice.

Not your enemy,
Philetus

:wave: