ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[themuzicman]

Adam was perfect in design and good in nature. But God didn't want slave or mindless servants; He wanted to be chosen and loved. Free Will was the tool for this. It was His desire for man to choose Him; even though, God foreknew some would not. Did God make their decision for them? No. He simply allowed it.

Rob

Well, in order for a choice to be known, it must first be made. Now, since God knew before creation that man would sin, who made the decision that man would sin?

Michael

 

[RobE]

The incarnation is a metaphysical change in the being of God since the Word was not always flesh. The Word 'became' flesh and tabernacled among us for awhile. This illustrates change vs strong, absolute immutability. It is not a change in the identity or character of God or the Word. It is a change in the nature of the Word. The Word was God in eternity. At some point in space-time history, the same Word became the God-man, one person with two natures (that He did not have in eternity).

The woman analogy is not parallel to the unique incarnation/kenosis. Phil. 2 also shows the relationship between His preexistent 'form of God' and His new 'form of man' as a suffering servant (without ceasing to be God= continuity, but change). This is not disputed, even by classical theists.

God, unlike us, knows the past and present exhaustively. He knows the future as possible vs actual. In a sense, He does acquire new knowledge as new contingencies become certainties. He is always omniscient since He correctly knows reality as it is and knows all that is possibly knowable (some things are inherently not knowable until they come into existence as possible objects of knowledge).

I planned to to good or not sin, but at times I failed to follow through on the good, or did the bad against better judgment. My intentions and knowledge changed at the point of changed intentions or actual choice. What bearing does this have on the academic question of whether it is logical for God to have exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies. It neither supports or refutes either position. What is your point? (I have tried to answer before, but you do not like my answers I guess).

My point is this: If you pour water into three different vessels, does it cease being water? What changed when God walked with Enoch, Abraham, Meshak, etc, etc, etc.......

On the surface God became man. A change.

Under that God created man and the act of creation requires the creator to put something internal of Himself into the work. The question, I think, needs answering is did God always have the ability to incarnate?

My answer is yes, so when God did incarnate it was within His range of abilities from the beginning. A real change, NO! He was always capable of it whether He did it or not.

With this in mind, do you agree God was always able to incarnate at will? If yes, then why would Him incarnating be a change in Him in any way?

Rob

 

[RobE]

Well, in order for a choice to be known, it must first be made. Now, since God knew before creation that man would sin, who made the decision that man would sin?

Michael

Again from the other thread.....

The man.

Think of two causes and two effects which seem to relate to each other, but actually don't.

Cause(1): Atmospheric pressure causes the barometer to go up.
Cause(2): Atmospheric pressure causes storms to form.

Does the barometer going up cause storms to form?

Cause(1): God has an ability which allows Him to foreknow outcomes.
Cause(2): Free will allows choices which determine outcomes.

Does God's ability to see the future determine outcomes?

Answered?

Rob

 

[Letsargue]

This works for me :wave: : I think Adam needed Christ for the very life he had.

And now for the first question, do I actually think Adam was created perfect or God just saw Adam as a good created creature, there is a difference?

So to cut to the chase, I see God as having set the fall of Adam up . . . which means I do not think Adam was all that perfect in the first place, so uh, where do we go from here . . .

---The whole thing was perfect, Adam had NO KNOWLEDGE. – Knowledge was on the tree of Knowledge. – Remember that truth that started there in the Garden??? –“MY PEOPLE PARISH FOR THE LACK OF “””KNOWLEDGE”””; - Catch 22. -- No knowledge, - then if you gain knowledge??? – Is that it?? – NO !!!! --- Satan gave the knowledge of evil. – Had the eaten of the tree of life, in that whole 70 years, they would have gain the knowledge of good also. – The shadow of the cross, is the tree of life, only good was on the tree of life. GOD. – They chose, - because God said they could eat of it, but they didn’t. They chose death.
*
----------------Paul---
*

 

[RobE]

Absolutely!

Absolutely!

There are parts of Open Theism and Calvinism as I understand it, I think are valid, :sheep:

So since scripture supports tenets of both, the answer must lie between Open Theism and Calvinism.

Rob

 

[Philetus]

Great!

I would like a rejoinder of why you asked me the last question about the logical conclusions of why God must have foreknowledge; and your comments on my answer.

I asked the question above because the open view says Adam's sin wasn't inevitable. My question above was based on the fact that: If Adam had not sinned, then Christ would have been unnecessary for Adam because Adam would have remained perfect in their view.

Now, with this in mind, I'll ask again: Is there any way to the Father except through Christ?

Friends,

Rob

Brother RobE,

If Adam had not sinned he would still have need of God, all of God. Someone earlier posted that even if Adam had not sinned he would still need Christ and I would add still need the Holy Spirit. Since he in fact sinned, and we have all sinned, it became necessary to the plan of God that the preexistent Christ would become flesh and die for our sins. (It is nice to think that if sin had not entered into creation then the Christ would still have become flesh and made God known in such a personal way, but, that is conjecture.) Sin and death reign in the world, and the only remedy is Jesus. There is no way to be reconciled to God except through the death and resurrection of his son Jesus Christ.
If you are trying to build a case against OVT based on what did not happen, you are off track. Man sinned ... Jesus saves. That’s it. All the speculation about what might have happened is not grounds for argument.


I would suppose you might be suggesting that without sin God would be incomplete and would have no need of the other two members of the Trinity. NO! NO! NO! Sin does not change the nature of God in anyway. Sin changes our relationship to God, yet God still has a way. And His ways always include all of himself.

2 Peter 1:3 His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

If you are going to challenge OVT you are going to have to find weakness it its position and not invent problems that have no bearing on its position of risk taking in give and take relationships in an open future.

Philetus

 

[mtims540]

Adam was perfect in design and good in nature. But God didn't want slave or mindless servants; He wanted to be chosen and loved. Free Will was the tool for this. It was His desire for man to choose Him; even though, God foreknew some would not. Did God make their decision for them? No. He simply allowed it.

Rob

Adam was perfect in design, yes! . . . and good in nature. The existing system of things were correct or good for God’s intent and purpose.

But God didn't want a slave or mindless servants; I believe God made Adam intelligent enough to be held accountable for his decisions.

He wanted to be chosen and loved. I mean no disrespect toward any admiration of His creation back toward him . . .

Free Will was the tool for this. Some kind of freedom of the will, yes.

It was His desire for man to choose Him; even though, God foreknew some would not. What God fore knows I will not judge . . .

Did God make their decision for them? No. He simply allowed it. AGREED! :wave:

 

[themuzicman]

Again from the other thread.....

The man.

Think of two causes and two effects which seem to relate to each other, but actually don't.

Cause(1): Atmospheric pressure causes the barometer to go up.
Cause(2): Atmospheric pressure causes storms to form.

Does the barometer going up cause storms to form?

Cause(1): God has an ability which allows Him to foreknow outcomes.
Cause(2): Free will allows choices which determine outcomes.

Does God's ability to see the future determine outcomes?

Answered?

Rob

Not really. Two problems:

1) Your first example is one of the laws of nature, which determine the outcome. So, to compare them to LFW is invalid ,since LFW is, by definition, free of determination by law.

2) Example 1 states:

X -> Y
X -> Z

Therefore Y -> Z. That's completely invalid.

However, in the 2nd case, you have

G - > knowledge of O
W - > determines O
Now, from this alone we do not determine that God's ability to know determines outcomes, no. However, this isn't really valid, becaue you don't have any common terms.

Furthemore, as you can see, it's not even close to being analogous to the first example.


Now, I didn't say that God's knowledge determines the outcome of a decision. I'm saying that the certainty of God's knowledge means that the outcome of the decision has already been determined before creation.

Now, I'm willing to entertain candidates as to what free will agent that existed before creation that determined the outcome of each decision, but the only one I know of is God.

Thus, God's knowledge doesn't determine the choice, but it is God's determining of the decision that must inform His knowledge, because He is the only one that could make the choice certain before creation

Michael

 

[mtims540]

So since scripture supports tenets of both, the answer must lie between Open Theism and Calvinism.

Rob

I am comfortable with how I see God through the logic he has given man and ok with how I view Scripture, here a little, etc. and accept some will find it offensive in what I will to say, though no offense intended . . . simply joining the conversation. :bang:

 

[Philetus]

RobE,

Why is meticulous foreknowledge absolutely essential to the divine nature? I have answered that only in the view of predestination is it essential. Once the future is open it is not essential and in no way contributes to the plan of God to save ‘whosoever will’. Further, meticulous foreknowledge only frustrates the work of evangelism, baffles the heart and mind of those struggling to escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires and hinders the work of the Holy Spirit and our participation in the divine nature. That’s pretty bold! And if you don’t jump all over that one with both lips I’ll be disappointed.

What do you make of Peter’s phrase “you may participate in the divine nature”?

Philetus

 

[mtims540]

---The whole thing was perfect, Adam had NO KNOWLEDGE. – Knowledge was on the tree of Knowledge. – Remember that truth that started there in the Garden??? –“MY PEOPLE PARISH FOR THE LACK OF “””KNOWLEDGE”””; - Catch 22. -- No knowledge, - then if you gain knowledge??? – Is that it?? – NO !!!! --- Satan gave the knowledge of evil. – Had the eaten of the tree of life, in that whole 70 years, they would have gain the knowledge of good also. – The shadow of the cross, is the tree of life, only good was on the tree of life. GOD. – They chose, - because God said they could eat of it, but they didn’t. They chose death.
*
----------------Paul---
*

The whole thing was perfect, for God’s intent and purposes, yes.

Adam had NO KNOWLEDGE. – Knowledge was on the tree of Knowledge. The knowledge of Good and Evil was planted by God in the Garden, yes.

– Remember that truth that started there in the Garden??? –“MY PEOPLE PARISH FOR THE LACK OF “””KNOWLEDGE”””; - Catch 22. -- No knowledge, - then if you gain knowledge??? – Is that it?? – NO !!!! ---

Satan gave the knowledge of evil. I believe Satan deceived Eve into partaking of the tree of knowledge, that the Tree that God planted gave her this knowledge, not Satan

– Had the eaten of the tree of life, in that whole 70 years, they would have gain the knowledge of good also.

– The shadow of the cross, is the tree of life, only good was on the tree of life. GOD. – They chose, - because God said they could eat of it, but they didn’t. They chose death.

Gen 3:22-24 :drum:
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

 

[Philetus]

ROBE: Now, I didn't say that God's knowledge determines the outcome of a decision. I'm saying that the certainty of God's knowledge means that the outcome of the decision has already been determined before creation.

In effect you did. If the decision has already been made and determined the future before creation, who made the decision that determined it?

Otherwise, dicisions made since creation determine the outcome, hense Open Future.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Well, in order for a choice to be known, it must first be made. Now, since God knew before creation that man would sin, who made the decision that man would sin?

Michael

:up: yep!

Philetus

 

[mtims540]

:up: yep!

Philetus

themuzicman: Well, in order for a choice to be known, it must first be made. Now, since God knew before creation that man would sin, who made the decision that man would sin?

mtims540:I believe the sin of Adam was a privilege conferred by a superior power and that adam had a certain amount of freedom;

Adam was granted the possession of permission to go freely within certain limits by God;

The place or limits within which such freedom was exercised were the liberties within a Garden named Eden;

A deceiver was granted to enter the garden by God, whom God knew would cast the spell.

God stacked the deck . . . and is now playing 52 card pickup. :noway:

 

[mtims540]

"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies" (Mat. 15:19).

"And when the woman saw [in her heart] that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eye [in her heart], and a tree to be desired [in her heart] to make one wise [an idol of the heart], she took [’For out of the heart proceed ... thefts...’] of the fruit thereof, and did eat" (Gen. 3:6).

Then I notice that last phrase "...and did eat"! I think it was not the "eating" of the fruit that made her a sinner -- I believe she had ALREADY sinned by looking, lusting, and fantasizing about her potential wisdom. It was AFTER she sinned that she "did eat." :chew:

 

[Lighthouse]

Man, this thread is hot!

 

[godrulz]

Alright, I've skimmed through this thread, but at 1600 posts, I can't say I've read every post, but this doesn't seem to have been addressed:

When we speak of God posessing foreknowledge, are we making the mistake of thinking of God in overly humanistic terms?

What I mean is this: We accept that God is transcendent and omnipresent, but does this mean God only exists everywhere at once? But does he also exist everywhen at once? When we speak of God having knowledge of the future, we seem to imply that he is bound in linear time just as we are, but much as Christ death and resureection, though seemingly occuring at a fixed point in time, was as effective for the salvation of Adam and it is for any of us, could God's very existence span not just all places but all times, rendering in reference to Him such concepts as past and future without real relevance?

The problem with this is that time is not space nor a place. It is not a thing. It is simply duration/sequence/succession. The past, present, and future are fundamentally different, even for God. God is not in a timeless 'eternal now'. This is incoherent for a personal being.

 

[Letsargue]

The problem with this is that time is not space nor a place. It is not a thing. It is simply duration/sequence/succession. The past, present, and future are fundamentally different, even for God. God is not in a timeless 'eternal now'. This is incoherent for a personal being.

---God has always been in the NOW, He is the NOW and always was to us. -- Dream, God didn't experience all time in the carnal. We have to understand it a his dream. -- that is where the dreams and visions come from. they or of God's nature.
*
-----------------Paul---
*

 

[Philetus]

Letsargue: :cloud9:

---God has always been in the NOW, He is the NOW and always was to us. -- Dream, God didn't experience all time in the carnal. We have to understand it a his dream. -- that is where the dreams and visions come from. they or of God's nature.
*
-----------------Paul---
*

You need to take another run at that.
Philetus

 

[RobE]

Reply to Philetus

Reply to Philetus

Sin and death reign in the world, and the only remedy is Jesus. There is no way to be reconciled to God except through the death and resurrection of his son Jesus Christ.
If you are trying to build a case against OVT based on what did not happen, you are off track. Man sinned ... Jesus saves. That’s it. All the speculation about what might have happened is not grounds for argument.

I'm trying to address the position that the O.V. take regarding Adam and the fall of man. If it wasn't foreknown then.......what?

I would suppose you might be suggesting that without sin God would be incomplete and would have no need of the other two members of the Trinity. NO! NO! NO! Sin does not change the nature of God in anyway. Sin changes our relationship to God, yet God still has a way. And His ways always include all of himself.

I guess my question is: Is it possible for a man to not sin on his own?

If you are going to challenge OVT you are going to have to find weakness it its position and not invent problems that have no bearing on its position of risk taking in give and take relationships in an open future.

I think that this is a weakness in the O.V. position. If man was bound to sin then Jesus was the solution. If man would sin eventually because of man's free will; then why does the O.V. hold to the position that Adam needn't sin. With this in mind, what was Adam free to do? Do you see the correlation now?

Thanks,
Rob