ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Clete]

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

AMR is a liar.

No Openist (I sort of like his term even though he obviously means it as a pejorative) has ever stated that foreknowledge, the Calvinists kind or any other kind, is causative. AMR knows that no Openist has ever said this, he knows that if pressed he could not quote even a single one having ever said anything of the sort and yet he feels perfectly comfortable in making the claim. Its an intentional lie.

AMR, why do you feel justified in telling lies? In what way is being a liar consistent with your stated beliefs as a Christian? Is it that you think your lies are predestined by God and therefore not your fault? That would be a rational position given your blasphemous doctrine but I sort of doubt that you'd be willing to admit that publicly even if you did believe it privately. Did you get away with this sort of thing while debating and lecturing in an academic setting? I really would like to know that answer to that one. My guess is that you were not only able to get away with it but in fact it was the academic setting in which you learned how to do it. They literally taught you how to lie in graduate school, didn't they?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The hue and cry of the openist that exhaustive foreknowledge and free will are incompatible fails to comprehend the accompanying baggage of such statements. If one believes, as do openists, that exhaustive foreknowledge is incompatible with free will, then one necessarily believes that exhaustive foreknowledge is causative--since the person whose actions are foreknown was somehow robbed of their ability to free choose.

Examples of how openists misconstrue foreknowledge with causation:

If exhaustive foreknowledge exists..... NOTHING can ever happen that isn't contained in that knowledge. Therefore no agent is free to do anything other than what is contained within that foreknowledge.

You also believe in exhaustive foreknowledge and that negates freewill. Basically you believe in a contradiction.

Knowledge of an event does not cause the event. Creation plus exhaustive foreknowledge does cause an event.

Enyart, BR X:
“The entire Peter matter comes down to the rooster. How’s that? Because if my debate opponent (like many Calvinists and Settled Viewers) raises the objection that apart from exhaustive foreknowledge God would really have a problem getting a rooster to crow on cue”

Q.E.D.

 

[bybee]

Clete "it is not required..."

Clete "it is not required..."

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

I believe that we have God-given freewill. And I agree with your premises. I believe I have stated similar thoughts somewhere else, only, not as well put as you have done. Thanks, blessings, bybee:thumb:

 

[Clete]

I believe that we have God-given freewill. And I agree with your premises. I believe I have stated similar thoughts somewhere else, only, not as well put as you have done. Thanks, blessings, bybee:thumb:

bybee,

God cannot have Predestined everything nor could He have EDF (Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge) if we have the ability to do or to do otherwise.

I understand that you believe that we have free will, virtually all Christians believe that, even most Calvinists. The problem though is that such a belief is in contradiction to other major portions of doctrine that most Christians, especially Calvinists and Arminians hold to, in particular the doctrines of Predestination and EDF to name just two.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

The hue and cry of the openist that exhaustive foreknowledge and free will are incompatible fails to comprehend the accompanying baggage of such statements. If one believes, as do openists, that exhaustive foreknowledge is incompatible with free will, then one necessarily believes that exhaustive foreknowledge is causative--since the person whose actions are foreknown was somehow robbed of their ability to free choose.

Another INTENTIONAL lie!

AMR MUST know that this is not true! It doesn't follow in any way!

AMR used the word "necessarily". I'd like for him to present the syllogism that proves that claim! He won't do it because he can't! There simply isn't any such rational argument that exists. Foreknowledge is a sufficient condition to falsify free will but not because the foreknowledge it causative in any way but simply because the conditions that allow foreknowledge to exist are mutually exclusive to free will. Its like when you put a piece of litmus paper into a liquid and it gives a PH reading of 4.2. That is sufficient to prove that the liquid is an acid. The litmus paper didn't cause it to be an acid, it just proved that it was.

Foreknowledge in no way causes anything! None of the arguments any of us have ever put forward even mention causation as a premise in the argument! It doesn't matter what causes the action! The action could have been caused by the Tooth Fairy for all we know! The point is that the acting agent's will didn't cause it and yet the acting agent is held responsible for his action anyway. That is unjust, by God's own definition of justice!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[coehling]

Calvin...foreknowledge....predestination.... In my line of thinking, we might look at examples in the Bible. God will have justice and will have vengence. God also allowed a substitute to pay the price. So He predestined an unblemished lamb had to pay for the sins. "Excapt for the shedding of blood....". Then he fathered a human through the Virgin so the lamb would be a human and subject to human choices just as A. He knew the choice would be to obey the Father's will. God also knew The High Priest would choose to keep his place in the Church and the Roman Government by murdering an innocent man if need be, which he did. The High Priest was God's servant (Rom 13:4) and he lead the people awry. The people followed of their own choice, but Peter late accused each individual of murder and they realized their sin because they said: "Men and brethern.........". God knew the results ahead of time but He didn't force the people to act as they did.

 

[coehling]

Shucks! I must have hit the enter with the shift as I was writing "Adam".

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Clete,

Rom 10:
17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

If God foreknew I would believe the gospel, does this mean that when I heard the word of truth of the gospel, and was convicted of my need of the Saviour, and in my mind and heart decided to trust Jesus Christ, it was just an illusion? Did my faith not come from hearing the word of God, but from the tooth fairy or some mystery force?

 

[bybee]

Calvin...foreknowledge....predestination.... In my line of thinking, we might look at examples in the Bible. God will have justice and will have vengence. God also allowed a substitute to pay the price. So He predestined an unblemished lamb had to pay for the sins. "Excapt for the shedding of blood....". Then he fathered a human through the Virgin so the lamb would be a human and subject to human choices just as A. He knew the choice would be to obey the Father's will. God also knew The High Priest would choose to keep his place in the Church and the Roman Government by murdering an innocent man if need be, which he did. The High Priest was God's servant (Rom 13:4) and he lead the people awry. The people followed of their own choice, but Peter late accused each individual of murder and they realized their sin because they said: "Men and brethern.........". God knew the results ahead of time but He didn't force the people to act as they did.

Perhaps what was said was," men, brethern and cistern...?

 

[bybee]

bybee, did you see...

bybee, did you see...

bybee,

Did you see post 7544?

I hadn't seen it. So, thanks for the notice. I miss a lot because I'm learning my way around these digs. blessings,bybee

 

[Yorzhik]

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

The corrected statement in that post: "No, the Calvinist does not believe foreknowledge is causal. Openists erroneously believe the Calvinist view of foreknowledge means that it is causal."

My corrected response:
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, whether it be exhaustive or labeled "calvinist" is not causal.

AMR went on in a subsequent post to quote what I've said about knowledge and causation:

Knowledge of an event does not cause the event. Creation plus exhaustive foreknowledge does cause an event.

Creation plus foreknowledge is the definition of a computer program. And by necessity a computer program cannot have will.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Creation plus foreknowledge is the definition of a computer program. And by necessity a computer program cannot have will.

A program executes based on the instructions provided by the programmer.
If God foreknows the future, but he didn't execute the program, nor did I execute the program (since I have no will), then who brought about the foreknown events?
The tooth fairy, as Clete suggested?

 

[coehling]

Perhaps what was said was," men, brethern and cistern...?

I don't think so, even with a pun. The Jews who knew the bible read the story of Naboth's vineyard. In it Jessabel did all the dirty work. Jehu didn't accuse her. He went straight to Ahab and accused him of the sin. I believe God will judge each man for the murder of his child which may happen during an abortion of the mother, as an example of sins of today. No, he won't spare the woman, but the man is His primary sinnner. I fear for the Judge who said it is only a woman's choice.

 

[Yorzhik]

A program executes based on the instructions provided by the programmer.
If God foreknows the future, but he didn't execute the program, nor did I execute the program (since I have no will), then who brought about the foreknown events?
The tooth fairy, as Clete suggested?

Right, if God has exhaustive foreknowledge but didn't execute the program, then there has to be a different creator somewhere. The tooth fairy is as good a guess as any. Who would you suggest?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Right, if God has exhaustive foreknowledge but didn't execute the program, then there has to be a different creator somewhere. The tooth fairy is as good a guess as any. Who would you suggest?

Let's just call it "the mystery force" that made me believe the gospel back in the day and eat a salad for lunch today. :chuckle:

 

[coehling]

Yorzhik.
Perhaps God doesn't make the choices or cause the actions of the people directly. He just foreknows the choices all individuals will make. He knew the evil Chief Priest and had Jesus born and live so they would interact appropriately to have an unblemished lamb shed His blood to pay for your sins.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yorzhik.
Perhaps God doesn't make the choices or cause the actions of the people directly. He just foreknows the choices all individuals will make. He knew the evil Chief Priest and had Jesus born and live so they would interact appropriately to have an unblemished lamb shed His blood to pay for your sins.

How about you come over for dinner and we'll chat?

 

[godrulz]

Clete,

Rom 10:
17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

If God foreknew I would believe the gospel, does this mean that when I heard the word of truth of the gospel, and was convicted of my need of the Saviour, and in my mind and heart decided to trust Jesus Christ, it was just an illusion? Did my faith not come from hearing the word of God, but from the tooth fairy or some mystery force?

Foreknowledge relates to the corporate group. Your question is hypothetical and begs the question if God does not foreknow who will believe or not before they exist (most defensible view if free will is true).

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Foreknowledge relates to the corporate group.

Of course it does, and every corporation is made up of specific individuals.

 

[Clete]

Clete,

Rom 10:
17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

If God foreknew I would believe the gospel, does this mean that when I heard the word of truth of the gospel, and was convicted of my need of the Saviour, and in my mind and heart decided to trust Jesus Christ, it was just an illusion? Did my faith not come from hearing the word of God, but from the tooth fairy or some mystery force?

Huh?

You do understand that I do not hold to the doctrine of Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge, right?

If you knew that then I'm afraid I've missed the point you are trying to make.

Resting in Him,
Clete