ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[RobE]

Reply to Philetus

Reply to Philetus

Why is meticulous foreknowledge absolutely essential to the divine nature? I have answered that only in the view of predestination is it essential.

Below is post 1587 Page 106 of this thread.

Rob,
You need to stop taking things out of context and shooting from the hip if you want to have a serious discussion.

That's what this thread is becoming. Your honest concerns are welcome. Potshots don't help. Take your position to its lovical end for me. In your view, why is it necessary for God to even have forknowledge ?

Philetus

Why is it necessary fo God to even have foreknowledge?

He's the First Cause, of course.

Your actions are precipitated by other events, which are in turn precipitated by other events, etc, etc, etc......

Cause and Effect.

He(the creator) made you with the abilities to do or to do otherwise. He understands what causes create what effects. He therefore, according to the laws of logic, knows what effects those will have in a constant change from Alpha to Omega. Does He live 'outside of time' or is He just the creator who understands His creation completely? I'm not sure.

However, there are several question that occur to me regarding 'Open Theism'.

I'll take them one at a time.

1) Does open theism in any way make you the 'First Cause' of anything?
_____________________________

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

As you know "sufficient" grace only becomes "saving" grace once our will is aligned with God's will. In which case our will is no longer 'free'-----It is subjected to His; and part of His Divine Nature.
____________________

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.

How does it frustrate the work of evangelism. Are we not called to love our enemies as well. Can God distinguish between the Wheat and the Weeds? Doesn't He give equally to both? Maybe we should do as St. Augustine says and act as if we're the Elect and become the Elect.

In other words, maybe His will is only thwarted if we end up in the lake of fire which is outside of His will.

That’s pretty bold! And if you don’t jump all over that one with both lips I’ll be disappointed.

I never heard this expression before. Does it have something to do with polecats, possums, or the like? Really?

Rob Mauldin

 

[RobE]

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

No I didn't. You accidentally quoted theMuzicMan.

Second, Foreseen decisions by free will agents create Foreseen outcomes. Hense, no open future.

Why is foreknowledge essential?

Why not gather Noah up and start over? Foreknowledge perhaps?
Why not destroy Adam and begin again? Foreknowledge perhaps?
Why not guard the Tree of Life before the fall? Foreknowledge perhaps?

How many sinners would God allow to destroy themselves for your sake?​

Ask Noah and have an Apple,
Rob

 

[RobE]

Reply to Michael part 1

Reply to Michael part 1

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.

LFW is invalid, of course. Invalid because almost all effects have causes.

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.

Which is a good point. Knowledge of and determining aren't the same; even though, Open Theists struggle with this. Or do you believe they are the same?

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

This I would disagree with because both Cause(1)s are knowledge of events. And both Cause(2)s are actual events.

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.

I would add by an unspecified cause. In this case let's assume it is a free will agent.

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.

However, God knew of you and you're a free will agent.

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.

Why? Couldn't the free will agent make that decision himself?

God made that choice truly available once He enacted creation; however, He didn't make the decision. He simply made the decision possible.

Thanks for Listening,
Rob

 

[RobE]

Reply to Michael Part 2

Reply to Michael Part 2

Originally Posted by RobE

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

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.

Originally Posted by RobE

Again from the other thread.....

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): Free will choice causes---------> God to foreknow.
Cause(2): Free will choice causes---------> outcomes.

Does God foreknowing cause outcomes?

_________________________

Do storms form according to what the barometer says?
Do outomes happen according to what God foreknows?

Would God care about Judas over and above Peter?

Is this clearer this way?

Rob

 

[godrulz]

---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---
*

Presentism vs eternalism is true. God knows the past as fixed (he is not there, except in perfect memory, since it is not a place). He is not in the future (it is not a place, and it is not here yet, even for God). He is in the present (same as ours...He experiences reality as it is, not as depicted in 'Back to the Future').

 

[Philetus]

RobE: 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

Yes, Rob, I think I do. I just don't buy it.
Adam was free to NOT SIN.
The binding part of your statement is that man was bound to sin. I think there was the option and an open future. But dont jump on that just yet, hear me out.
(Oh, and by the way, "Jump on that with both lips" is just an expression that invites good argument. It isn't in any way a slam. But, "Does it have something to do with polecats, possums, or the like? Really?" sounds like a put down. You need to get out of your comfort zone more.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzicman

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philetus

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


RobE: “No I didn't. You accidentally quoted theMuzicMan.”

If the Muzicman wasn’t quoting you in the underlined … I apologize. But the way you post in quips and quotes is very hard for me to follow. I’m sorry. I’ll try to do better.


Have you answered the question, “Why is foreknowledge necessary?” or are you asking me more questions? I honestly can’t tell. The only thing I can tell is that apparently in your view, extensive and total foreknowledge is the only way to preserve the image of a God that cannot sovereignty limit him self in anyway in order to inter into a relationship with a creature to whom he has chosen to give freedom of choice. That for so long you have bought into the concept of a God that cannot change his mind and adjust his immediate plans without compromising his character, that you simply refuse or are unable to even hear the other side. I hope I’m wrong about that.

I have said, in my belief and understanding of scripture (the same scriptures you like to quote as if they are self explanatory according to your position) absolute foreknowledge and meticulous control are counter productive to the plan of salvation and the personal relationships of the saved and their redeemer God.

RobE, In the case of Adam and the Apple, the OV maintains that there was nothing for God to know until Adam actually sinned. He sinned by exercising his freedom to choose to do something that God told him not to do. His sin and every sin there after made it necessary for Jesus to come and die to redeem sinners. Before sinners make their decision in a give and take relationship with God to accept God’s gift of salvation or reject it, there is not a future yet to be known. That does not make God less than God; that does not make man the first cause of his salvation; and apparently it holds no sagacity for anyone who insists on Augustinian immutability, meticulous control, predestination or a one sided view of scripture. We will just have to disagree. I can not make it any simpler that that. Asking the same question over and over again and throwing out texts that we read in very different ways will not bring us any closer to agreement.

Second, Foreseen decisions by free will agents create Foreseen outcomes. Hense, no open future.
Why is foreknowledge essential?

Why not gather Noah up and start over? Foreknowledge perhaps?
Why not destroy Adam and begin again? Foreknowledge perhaps?
Why not guard the Tree of Life before the fall? Foreknowledge perhaps?

How many sinners would God allow to destroy themselves for your sake?

Ask Noah and have an Apple,
Rob

Oh, My!
God never allowed any sinners to destroy themselves for my sake! In sending the only SINLESS ONE to the cross, God gave himself up (at least a very significant part of himself … HIS SON) for my redemption. Even to suggest such a notion (that God would allow others to destroy themselves for my sake) is revolting to me. That God would prove his unchanging, unconditional love for me by giving his son for me is humbling and brings me to my knees before the most powerful God; a God so powerful that rather than risk his unbridled wrath on all the rest of the world, he would inter into a give and take relationship at great risk to himself. Even after risking so much He remains God, untarnished, un-weakened, uncompromised, and all loving.

I now have a much better idea as to how far you are willing to go in order to hold to your position. And I hope you see that I will not be persuaded to return to a view of God that once frustrated everything that I have come to enjoy in my faith and walk with a God who is so much bigger than I knew when in my journey I may have shared your view.

:grave:
Philetus

 

[Lighthouse]

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



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

There was only one rule for Adam, and he was free to choose to obey that rule, or not obey it. But he also had the ability to obey it. And I don't believe that he was bound to disobey it.

 

[godrulz]

There was only one rule for Adam, and he was free to choose to obey that rule, or not obey it. But he also had the ability to obey it. And I don't believe that he was bound to disobey it.

Exactly. This should be self-evident (except to Calvinists who have a micromanaging vs macromanaging concept of God).

 

[Philetus]

Exactly. This should be self-evident (except to Calvinists who have a micromanaging vs macromanaging concept of God).

I'm begining to think that Calvinists are themselves the only evidence they can come up with to support their view. "Self-evident?" :bang:

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

ROBE: As you know "sufficient" grace only becomes "saving" grace once our will is aligned with God's will. In which case our will is no longer 'free'-----It is subjected to His; and part of His Divine Nature.

I don't know what your sufficient vs saving grace means. I don't have all those neat little subdivisions of grace. Grace is whole and complete or it isn't at all sufficient. Grace is just grace or it is something less and totally other. I don't need to divided it up to experience it. Grace isn't as complicated as Calvinists make it.

Holistic Grace (grace sufficient for anything) may just be the key to understanding omnicompetence and sharing in the Divine Nature.

Any thoughts, Godrulz?

Philetus

 

[godrulz]

I don't know what your sufficient vs saving grace means. I don't have all those neat little subdivisions of grace. Grace is whole and complete or it isn't at all sufficient. Grace is just grace or it is something less and totally other. I don't need to divided it up to experience it. Grace isn't as complicated as Calvinists make it.

Holistic Grace (grace sufficient for anything) may just be the key to understanding omnicompetence and sharing in the Divine Nature.

Any thoughts, Godrulz?

Philetus

What's for supper?

Decretal theology does become complicated and it must redefine simple concepts of free will, grace, etc. to remain somewhat internally consistent though contrary to Scripture. TULIP tries to hold together, but ultimately falls apart as each aspect is shown to be unbiblical (in my mind).

Wesley talked about prevenient grace, etc. What I do think is that irresistible grace is an oxymoron or contradiction in terms.

This ditty is not totally precise, but it is a start:

grace: God's riches at Christ's expense...getting what we do not deserve (grace is not cheap).

mercy: not getting what we do deserve.

 

[themuzicman]

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?

If God does not experiece some kind of temporal existance (a sequence of events), then creation must be co-eternal with God, because there can be no before or after with regards to God, and if creation isn't co-eternal with God, then there must be before creation and after creation for God.

Michael

 

[themuzicman]

LFW is invalid, of course. Invalid because almost all effects have causes.

However, are all causes a result of effects other than the first cause, or are we morally free to make decisions? I see the will as the ability to prioritize what is important for a given decision, and then choose based upon what I deem important at that moment. Thus, there is a cause, but it is my choice of what to make most important right now.

Which is a good point. Knowledge of and determining aren't the same; even though, Open Theists struggle with this. Or do you believe they are the same?

No. However, i do believe that certain knowledge only comes after (or a the same time as) determination, not before.

This I would disagree with because both Cause(1)s are knowledge of events. And both Cause(2)s are actual events.

But in the 2nd example, the statements are unrealted. (In fact, when you say that two effect are realted because of a common cause you have a problem, too.)

I would add by an unspecified cause. In this case let's assume it is a free will agent.

ok

However, God knew of you and you're a free will agent.

He did?

Why? Couldn't the free will agent make that decision himself?

Not before they exist. A non-existant agent is unable to make decision.

God made that choice truly available once He enacted creation; however, He didn't make the decision. He simply made the decision possible.

So, then, God doesn't know the outcome, only the possible outcomes? And from that, God doesn't have EDF? I'd agree.

Michael

 

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by RobE

Again from the other thread.....

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): Free will choice causes---------> God to foreknow.
Cause(2): Free will choice causes---------> outcomes.

Does God foreknowing cause outcomes?

_________________________

Do storms form according to what the barometer says?
Do outomes happen according to what God foreknows?

Would God care about Judas over and above Peter?

Is this clearer this way?

Rob

I've not said that foreknowledge determines outcomes. I've said that foreknowledge requires a determined outcome. Some agent must exist and determine the outcome of a decision before it can be known.

Michael

 

[Philetus]

What's for supper?

Decretal theology does become complicated and it must redefine simple concepts of free will, grace, etc. to remain somewhat internally consistent though contrary to Scripture. TULIP tries to hold together, but ultimately falls apart as each aspect is shown to be unbiblical (in my mind).

Wesley talked about prevenient grace, etc. What I do think is that irresistible grace is an oxymoron or contradiction in terms.

This ditty is not totally precise, but it is a start:

grace: God's riches at Christ's expense...getting what we do not deserve (grace is not cheap).

mercy: not getting what we do deserve.

Godrulz
Grace is not cheep. To put any price on it cheapens it. I’m well aware of Wesley’s views and wonder at times if they aren’t in part reactions to the TULIP. I know the ‘ditty’ is not all that, but the seed thought that as free agents in a give and take relationship with God, Grace on God’s part must be the cornerstone at every juncture.

Baked potato soup.
Philetus

 

[Clete]

I've not said that foreknowledge determines outcomes. I've said that foreknowledge requires a determined outcome. Some agent must exist and determine the outcome of a decision before it can be known.

Michael

Nicely put! :thumb:

I've said this exact thing to Rob like a thousand times already. I find it impossible to believe that he doesn't see the point. It seems he is intentionally ignoring it. My prediction is that he will not address this point directly but simply reiterate his point over and over again pretending like you didn't make this post until you throw your hands up in frustration and give up like I did.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

Specific Answers for Philetus

Specific Answers for Philetus

Yes, Rob, I think I do. I just don't buy it.
Adam was free to NOT SIN.
The binding part of your statement is that man was bound to sin. I think there was the option and an open future. But dont jump on that just yet, hear me out.

Adam was also free to sin, which He did. My statement just asks for an honest answer to this question:

In an eternity what are the odds, of a creature who isn't God, of not sinning?​

My answer is infinity to 1 against.

Have you answered the question, “Why is foreknowledge necessary?” or are you asking me more questions? I honestly can’t tell. The only thing I can tell is that apparently in your view, extensive and total foreknowledge is the only way to preserve the image of a God that cannot sovereignty limit him self in anyway in order to inter into a relationship with a creature to whom he has chosen to give freedom of choice. That for so long you have bought into the concept of a God that cannot change his mind and adjust his immediate plans without compromising his character, that you simply refuse or are unable to even hear the other side. I hope I’m wrong about that.

Actually, you are quite wrong.

First, here's my answer to the question of "Why is foreknowledge necessary?":

I assumed you want to know why I believe God has foreknowledge and hence my response:

Why is it necessary fo God to even have foreknowledge?

He's the First Cause, of course.

Your actions are precipitated by other events, which are in turn precipitated by other events, etc, etc, etc......

Cause and Effect.

He(the creator) made you with the abilities to do or to do otherwise. He understands what causes create what effects. He therefore, according to the laws of logic, knows what effects those will have in a constant change from Alpha to Omega. Does He live 'outside of time' or is He just the creator who understands His creation completely? I'm not sure.

However, there are several question that occur to me regarding 'Open Theism'.

I'll take them one at a time.

1) Does open theism in any way make you the 'First Cause' of anything?

*as far as I can tell, I only asked one question of you in my answer.

Second, if you're actually asking me if it's possible that foreknowledge is untrue:

My answer is that if foreknowledge is untrue then scripture is untrue.

____________

In response to this.....

That for so long you have bought into the concept of a God that cannot change his mind and adjust his immediate plans without compromising his character, that you simply refuse or are unable to even hear the other side. I hope I’m wrong about that.

You are wrong again. I believe that God can change His mind, His plans, or do anything else He wishes to do. I argued the change in God's character vs. a change in God's mind in the thread called a 'Discussion between Clete and Hilston'. I'll re-state my bottom line for you here:

God can change His mind, but doesn't need to. Open Theism, on the other hand, requires God to 'increase' through evolving/learning(a trait of process thinking/philosophy, new thought theology, etc...). I should also note that a change of mind isn't a change of character; and, therefore, not a significant change at all.

Peace,
Rob

 

[godrulz]

If God does not experiece some kind of temporal existance (a sequence of events), then creation must be co-eternal with God, because there can be no before or after with regards to God, and if creation isn't co-eternal with God, then there must be before creation and after creation for God.

Michael

The same principle applies to the incarnation and Second Coming. Duration/sequence/succession (time) is self-evident and an inherent experience of a personal being who must think, feel, act in duration (vs incoherent simultaneity/eternal now).

 

[RobE]

RobE, In the case of Adam and the Apple, the OV maintains that there was nothing for God to know until Adam actually sinned.

Which is what we're debating. WHEN did God know it? Before, during, or after?

He sinned by exercising his freedom to choose to do something that God told him not to do. His sin and every sin there after made it necessary for Jesus to come and die to redeem sinners. Before sinners make their decision in a give and take relationship with God to accept God’s gift of salvation or reject it........

No objection by me or St. Augustine:

Listen to him speaking to the Manichæans: "All can be saved if they wish"; and in his "Retractations" (I, x), far from correcting this assertion, he confirms it emphatically: "It is true, entirely true, that all men can, if they wish." But he always goes back to the providential preparation. In his sermons he says to all: "It depends on you to be elect" (In Ps. cxx, n. 11, etc.); "Who are the elect? You, if you wish it" (In Ps. Lxxiii, n. 5). But, you will say, according to Augustine, the lists of the elect and reprobate are closed. Now if the non-elect can gain heaven, if all the elect can be lost, why should not some pass from one list to the other?

......there is not a future yet to be known.

I'm not sure about this why don't you ask me tommorrow. There is a future because God is eternal.

That does not make God less than God; that does not make man the first cause of his salvation; and apparently it holds no sagacity for anyone who insists on Augustinian immutability, meticulous control, predestination or a one sided view of scripture. We will just have to disagree. I can not make it any simpler that that. Asking the same question over and over again and throwing out texts that we read in very different ways will not bring us any closer to agreement.

If Adam had not sinned wouldn't Adam have in effect saved himself?

God never allowed any sinners to destroy themselves for my sake! In sending the only SINLESS ONE to the cross, God gave himself up (at least a very significant part of himself … HIS SON) for my redemption. Even to suggest such a notion (that God would allow others to destroy themselves for my sake) is revolting to me. That God would prove his unchanging, unconditional love for me by giving his son for me is humbling and brings me to my knees before the most powerful God; a God so powerful that rather than risk his unbridled wrath on all the rest of the world, he would inter into a give and take relationship at great risk to himself. Even after risking so much He remains God, untarnished, un-weakened, uncompromised, and all loving.

I agree. However, if God has foreknowledge(which I believe), then you have to ask why did God continue with creation knowing some would go to eternal punishment. My answer is You and those who would go on to eternal reward.

Should your reward be taken away for their sins?

I now have a much better idea as to how far you are willing to go in order to hold to your position. And I hope you see that I will not be persuaded to return to a view of God that once frustrated everything that I have come to enjoy in my faith and walk with a God who is so much bigger than I knew when in my journey I may have shared your view.

I'm not sure as to what you mean by 'how far' I'm willing to go. My position is that scripture points to times when God foreknows the future and to times when God has mercy on people. This means that Open Theism, as well as, Calvinism are invalid. Is that the position that you're talking about? My position is exactly in line with scripture that shows both foreknowledge and freewill exist.

I can't find any scripture that shows man changing the future, can you?

Friends,

Rob

A note on Augustinian immutability:

From Augustine's Confessions, pp 78,79:
For who is Lord but the Lord? or who is God save our God? ... Thou lovest, and burnest not; art jealous, yet free from care; repentest, and hast no sorrow; art angry, yet serene; changest Thy ways, leaving unchanged Thy plans; recoverest what Thou findest, having yet never lost; art never in want, whilst Thou rejoicest in gain; never covetous, though requiring usury ... [Emphases added]

From the Letters of Augustine, pp. 949, 950
... this Word of God, I say, took to Himself, in a manner entirely different from that in which He is present to other creatures, the soul and body of a man, and made, by the union of Himself therewith, the one person Jesus Christ, Mediator between God and men, His Deity equal with the Father, in His flesh, i.e. in His human nature, inferior to the Father, unchangeably immortal in respect of the divine nature, in which He is equal with the Father, and yet changeable and mortal in respect of the infirmity which was His through participation with our nature. [Emphases added]

 

[RobE]

Reply to Lighthouse

Reply to Lighthouse

There was only one rule for Adam, and he was free to choose to obey that rule, or not obey it. But he also had the ability to obey it. And I don't believe that he was bound to disobey it.

I agree. Adam had the ability to do otherwise, God just foreknew Adam wouldn't. My point is this:

Could a man, other than Jesus, live an eternity without sinning?

Rob