ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

You are ignoring the tense.

Excuse me? The tense is very important. But so is the cultural setting and the meaning of this phrase to the Jews. God identifies Himself as "I am" to Moses, and in that NAME, Israel is born. So, for Jesus to come and say "before Abraham was born, I AM", Jesus is making a claim to deity. And if you read the Jews' response to that statement, you see that this is true.

The Jews' response was to attempt to stone him. I don't recall that it says why.

Go look for offenses that resulted in stoning in the OT. You'll see that the only one appropriate is blasphemy, which would have been the case, were Jesus not God. (Again, culture matters.)

No, he claims that he does exist before Abraham.

But more than that, He claims to be God.

This is absolutely demonstrably false. The context is the crux of my argument. The context is the Jews' question of Jesus' chronology in relation to Abraham.

Yes, but Jesus makes this about much more than chronology, by explaining how He could have existed before Abraham, by making a claim to be God.

I don't assume here that "I am" means "eternal now". I assume that the tense is relevant, and the fact that Jesus combines the past tense (with regard to Abraham) and the present tense (with regard to himself) is the definition of the eternal now doctrine.

You do realize that the tense could also be imperfect, right? If this is solely about tense, you'll have to demonstrate that you KNOW Jesus didn't intend to use the imperfect.

The Jews are asking about his chronology with respect to Abraham. His answer based on their question.

But His answer (and their response to it) clearly demonstrate that Jesus makes a claim larger than they expected, in that He claimed to be God.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

"God 'cannot' know the future. It is illogical" (impossible, absurd, ridiculous, sci-fi).

"God cannot make a rock He cannot pick up or make square circles..."

The logic breakdown is in the question, not the answers.

Which of these things can men do?

Muz

 

[Yorzhik]

Like I said, needs a treatise on your part so I can track with you on the whole. You are quipping glimpses of your theology, not presenting it.

It wasn't a quip, it was a question. here it is again: "Do you think going to hell is abandonment by God? Why do you think that?"

Historically, they go hand in hand. This doesn't mean that it has never diverged but as I believe, God's Sovereignty will not allow it to go unchecked and He is the One who restores His people. The Majority isn't always right on everything, but they are right on most things.

At least you can admit the majority is not always right.

So how do you know when tradition has diverged from the truth?

Many times, ask GR. He's corrected several of these himself.

So you sling mud and ask someone else to justify your actions. Nice.

Hey, GODRULZ! Can you cite where you've corrected an OV'er for saying an SV'er is going to hell for being SV?

No. That is, I've seen name calling and anger but our definitions aren't lining up.
You ask for verses and I give them all the time. "Be angry and sin not" "A gentle answer turns away wrath" "Be wise as serpents but gentle as doves" "not violent, but gentle, not contentious"

Tit 3:1 Remind them to be subject to rulers and1 authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work.
Tit 3:2 They must not slander anyone, but be peaceable, gentle, showing complete courtesy to all people.
Tit 3:3 For we too were once foolish, disobedient, misled, enslaved to various passions and desires, spending our lives in evil and envy, hateful and hating one another.
Tit 3:4 But "when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared

Quote:
Jas 3:8 But no human being can subdue the tongue; it is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.
Jas 3:9 With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse people made in God's image.
Jas 3:10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. These things should not be so, my brothers and sisters.
Jas 3:11 A spring does not pour out fresh water and bitter water from the same opening, does it?
Jas 3:12 Can a fig tree produce olives, my brothers and sisters, or a vine produce figs? Neither can a salt water spring produce fresh water.
Quote:
Jas 3:13 True Wisdom
Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct he should show his works done in the gentleness that wisdom brings.
Jas 3:14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfishness in your hearts, do not boast and tell lies against the truth.
Jas 3:15 Such wisdom does not come from above but is earthly, natural, devilish.
Jas 3:16 For where there is jealousy and selfishness, there is disorder and every evil practice.
Jas 3:17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, accommodating, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial, and not hypocritical.
Jas 3:18 And the fruit that consists of righteousness is planted in peace among those who make peace.

And all these verses say we should call people names and be angry with them. If you don't understand that then you are thinking too linearly. Remember, these are words of God, not man.

 

[godrulz]

John 8:58 KJV
Jesus said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

I'm sure that you have some alternate interpretation of this verse, but Jesus' combination of the present and past tenses in this verse is seems to me to be powerful prima facie evidence that the "eternal now" position is Biblical, and that God is not conditioned by time in the way that humans are. God is before Abraham was.

At most, this verse shows that Jesus preexisted his human birth and is self-existent. It proves eternality, but does not prove whether He is 'eternal now' simultaneity (Platonic) or whether He experiences endless time/duration/sequence/succession (biblical Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:4, etc....tensed expressions, not incoherent philosophical assumptions).

 

[godrulz]

In OV, God cannot do the impossible

Yikes, Mr. Proof text. Your verse is not a generic statement of metaphysics, but one in a very narrow, specific context. It is not saying that God can create square circles, cease to exist, turn himself into Satan, be created despite being inherenly uncreated/eternal, be a female frog and still rule the universe, etc.

Atheists, Open Theists, Classical/traditional theists (including your brand), Christian/secular philosophers, etc. all agree that if there is an infinite God, there are things that are impossible for Him because they are self-contradictory and illogical/absurd. This is not a limitation on God, but the nature of reality that God has created/revealed. God cannot be solitary, triune, triplex, monotheistic, polytheistic, tree, car, goat all at once. This is literally impossible for an omnipotent God.

The verse is talking about salvation, not metaphysics.

This is what I mean by your straw man. You think OT limits God, but it does not, properly understood. Any voluntary self-limitation on God comes from Himself (e.g. by choosing to actualize a non-deterministic universe, there are implications to the nature and extent of His foreknowledge).

 

[Lon]

Which of these things can men do?

Muz

Again, the problem 'isn't' with the answer, it is with the logic of the question.

As a teacher I have to say this: "There are no stupid questions."

This is true, because every question has some kind of answer where we can teach and/or learn something. Also as a teacher, it is difficult to see the school-yard rambles here on TOL. Children have to learn this way but I think if more parents helped out on the playground volunteering, kids would learn to dialogue and problem solve a bit better (skill that would even help them as adults).

So, there is my teacher bias. The question isn't stupid, but it is a teaching opportunity to say once again that the problem is not the answer but the questions themselves.

Example: "Why does 2-2=4?" The answer (simplified): "It doesn't."
OV asks these kinds of questions. If we could just focus on the OV questions for awhile I think we'd make some headway at least in meaningful conversation.

Let's go back and examine these questions:

"Can God make a rock He cannot pick up?" (cannot answer without correcting the question)

"Can I have LWF while God has EDF?" (must examine the question)

"Is God the 'author' of evil?" (this one can be answered, but we have to examine the question and meaning of both it and the answer to get anywhere)

"Is God subject to time?" (same as the previous)

Come let us reason together

 

[Lon]

Yikes, Mr. Proof text. Your verse is not a generic statement of metaphysics, but one in a very narrow, specific context. It is not saying that God can create square circles, cease to exist, turn himself into Satan, be created despite being inherenly uncreated/eternal, be a female frog and still rule the universe, etc.

Atheists, Open Theists, Classical/traditional theists (including your brand), Christian/secular philosophers, etc. all agree that if there is an infinite God, there are things that are impossible for Him because they are self-contradictory and illogical/absurd. This is not a limitation on God, but the nature of reality that God has created/revealed. God cannot be solitary, triune, triplex, monotheistic, polytheistic, tree, car, goat all at once. This is literally impossible for an omnipotent God.

The verse is talking about salvation, not metaphysics.

This is what I mean by your straw man. You think OT limits God, but it does not, properly understood. Any voluntary self-limitation on God comes from Himself (e.g. by choosing to actualize a non-deterministic universe, there are implications to the nature and extent of His foreknowledge).

You should have read the last couple of pages where we've been discussing exactly this.

 

[Lon]

It wasn't a quip, it was a question. here it is again: "Do you think going to hell is abandonment by God? Why do you think that?"


At least you can admit the majority is not always right.

So how do you know when tradition has diverged from the truth?


So you sling mud and ask someone else to justify your actions. Nice.

Hey, GODRULZ! Can you cite where you've corrected an OV'er for saying an SV'er is going to hell for being SV?


And all these verses say we should call people names and be angry with them. If you don't understand that then you are thinking too linearly. Remember, these are words of God, not man.

Mud sling? Where? Quote please so I can apologize if necessary.

I believe God steps in when the majority need correction.

Finally the question. I'm somewhat purposefully obtuse because I can guess as to what you are trying to get at but the question isn't meaningful for me to give an answer that would be meaningful to you.

I don't know why this is a problem for you. All you have to do is do some work, present a few verses and explain what you are trying to ask.

It wasn't a quip, it was a question. here it is again: "Do you think going to hell is abandonment by God? Why do you think that?"

I'm not sure what you are trying to ask for me to give a meaningful answer.

Do I think hell is abandonment? Yes, in a way I do. As in the example with the rich man, he was in torment and there was a chasm (separation/abandoned) between he and Abraham.

There are way too many questions after this to clarify the point so again I say the question is way too broad as to be meaningful for conversation which is why I assess it as a quip (a small part of a conversation).

 

[Yorzhik]

Yikes, Mr. Proof text. Your verse is not a generic statement of metaphysics, but one in a very narrow, specific context. It is not saying that God can create square circles, cease to exist, turn himself into Satan, be created despite being inherenly uncreated/eternal, be a female frog and still rule the universe, etc.

Atheists, Open Theists, Classical/traditional theists (including your brand), Christian/secular philosophers, etc. all agree that if there is an infinite God, there are things that are impossible for Him because they are self-contradictory and illogical/absurd. This is not a limitation on God, but the nature of reality that God has created/revealed. God cannot be solitary, triune, triplex, monotheistic, polytheistic, tree, car, goat all at once. This is literally impossible for an omnipotent God.

The verse is talking about salvation, not metaphysics.

This is what I mean by your straw man. You think OT limits God, but it does not, properly understood. Any voluntary self-limitation on God comes from Himself (e.g. by choosing to actualize a non-deterministic universe, there are implications to the nature and extent of His foreknowledge).

Sorry for butting in, but Lon wanted you to answer this question for him.

Can you cite where you've corrected an OV'er for saying an SV'er is going to hell for being SV?

 

[godrulz]

Sorry for butting in, but Lon wanted you to answer this question for him.

Can you cite where you've corrected an OV'er for saying an SV'er is going to hell for being SV?

Does not ring a bell. I personally believe SV and OV can go to heaven based on faith in Christ, not faith in a foreknowledge view. It would not be about Clete and Nang/Calvinism/another 'God' (I disagree with Clete here). I doubt any OV would say SV is the reason someone goes to hell. This is as bad as a SV saying OV goes to hell (peripheral vs salvific issue).

 

[Lon]

Sorry for butting in, but Lon wanted you to answer this question for him.

Can you cite where you've corrected an OV'er for saying an SV'er is going to hell for being SV?

OK, just a moment...

Does not ring a bell. I personally believe SV and OV can go to heaven based on faith in Christ, not faith in a foreknowledge view. It would not be about Clete and Nang/Calvinism/another 'God' (I disagree with Clete here). I doubt any OV would say SV is the reason someone goes to hell. This is as bad as a SV saying OV goes to hell (peripheral vs salvific issue).

"Does not ring a bell."

: D

Lighthouse
Pastor Kevin ...and here
Mystery ...and here
Knight ...follow up ...and also here
Clete


There are others as well if I need to dig them up

 

[Eli_Cash]

Excuse me? The tense is very important. But so is the cultural setting and the meaning of this phrase to the Jews. God identifies Himself as "I am" to Moses, and in that NAME, Israel is born. So, for Jesus to come and say "before Abraham was born, I AM", Jesus is making a claim to deity. And if you read the Jews' response to that statement, you see that this is true.

I am not denying that Jesus is making a claim to deity.

Go look for offenses that resulted in stoning in the OT. You'll see that the only one appropriate is blasphemy, which would have been the case, were Jesus not God. (Again, culture matters.)

Maybe, maybe not. You are assuming that they are executing the law of Moses in a valid way. The Jews of that time didn't seem to need much to stone someone.

Yes, but Jesus makes this about much more than chronology, by explaining how He could have existed before Abraham, by making a claim to be God.

Except that he doesn't claim to have existed before Abraham, but to exist before Abraham. And the fact that he is God follows from this "eternal now" existence.

You do realize that the tense could also be imperfect, right? If this is solely about tense, you'll have to demonstrate that you KNOW Jesus didn't intend to use the imperfect.

Burden of proof. I don't have to prove a negative. I don't have to prove that he didn't intend to say something different, you have to prove that he did. My interpretation takes his statement and use of tense at face value.

 

[Eli_Cash]

At most, this verse shows that Jesus preexisted his human birth and is self-existent.

No it shows that he preexists (present tense). This is, at face value, the "eternal now" position. A different time for us is present for God.

It proves eternality, but does not prove whether He is 'eternal now' simultaneity (Platonic) or whether He experiences endless time/duration/sequence/succession

Those two views are not necessarily incompatible.

(biblical Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:4, etc....tensed expressions, not incoherent philosophical assumptions).

1. I have yet to see a demonstration that the "eternal now" position is incoherent.
2. The use of tense for God in scripture does not demonstrate that God is temporal, but only that he reveals himself in time.

 

[themuzicman]

Again, the problem 'isn't' with the answer, it is with the logic of the question.

As a teacher I have to say this: "There are no stupid questions."

This is true, because every question has some kind of answer where we can teach and/or learn something. Also as a teacher, it is difficult to see the school-yard rambles here on TOL. Children have to learn this way but I think if more parents helped out on the playground volunteering, kids would learn to dialogue and problem solve a bit better (skill that would even help them as adults).

That's fine, but when a question has been answered repeatedly, it's time to say that the questioner already has been given the answer.

So, there is my teacher bias. The question isn't stupid, but it is a teaching opportunity to say once again that the problem is not the answer but the questions themselves.

Example: "Why does 2-2=4?" The answer (simplified): "It doesn't."
OV asks these kinds of questions. If we could just focus on the OV questions for awhile I think we'd make some headway at least in meaningful conversation.

Um.. These are the kinds of statements that Calvinist make.

Let's go back and examine these questions:

"Can God make a rock He cannot pick up?" (cannot answer without correcting the question)

Sure you can. The answer is "NO." The fact that you cannot answer the question simply belies the fact that you live with incorrect beliefs.

"Can I have LWF while God has EDF?" (must examine the question)

Again, the answer is "NO." It's been logically examined, and found to be logically impossible.

"Is God the 'author' of evil?" (this one can be answered, but we have to examine the question and meaning of both it and the answer to get anywhere)

No parsing of words necessary. One only need look at the decisions God has made to decide. Is evil God's will in any sense? If yes, then yes. If no, then no.

"Is God subject to time?" (same as the previous)

But it's not a hard question to answer. Scripture gives us more than enough evidence.

Come let us reason together

Great, but let's do it in a logical fashion.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

I am not denying that Jesus is making a claim to deity.

Good.

Maybe, maybe not. You are assuming that they are executing the law of Moses in a valid way. The Jews of that time didn't seem to need much to stone someone.

Were Jesus to make a claim to be "eternally now" or "atemporal", and His audience understanding it that way, they'd just look at Him funny, laugh, and walk away.

Except that he doesn't claim to have existed before Abraham, but to exist before Abraham. And the fact that he is God follows from this "eternal now" existence.

Congratulations, you've just assumed the conclusion! Welcome to logical incoherentness!

Your argument now consists of:

1) God is "eternally now"
2) Jesus is God.
3) Jesus said, "I am"
4) Therefore God is "eternally now."

It's silly.

Burden of proof. I don't have to prove a negative. I don't have to prove that he didn't intend to say something different, you have to prove that he did. My interpretation takes his statement and use of tense at face value.

However,

1) your interpretation completely ignores the context of the conversation and the text around "I am."
2) your interpretation assumes that God is eternally now in order to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is "eternally now.'

And, if you think about it for just a moment, Jesus was a human being, which means that He is temporal, as humans tend to be. For Jesus to be claiming to be "eternally now", when He was presently and demonstrably temporal, would be a LIE.

I don't think Jesus does that.

Muz

 

[Lon]

That's fine, but when a question has been answered repeatedly, it's time to say that the questioner already has been given the answer.

I see your point, but I never get tired of it. I'm a teacher so I repeat myself every year. I like the lightbulb response no matter how many times I see it. If OV is true, you should hope for the same. If its not happening, the message is flawed or it hasn't been explained very well (teacher's assessment for what it's worth).

Um.. These are the kinds of statements that Calvinist make.

If they keep saying it, you have to assume they see it this way. *Hopefully as I take on the next questions some of this will be apparent.

Sure you can. The answer is "NO." The fact that you cannot answer the question simply belies the fact that you live with incorrect beliefs.

"Then He isn't all-powerful."

I know OV rejects omnipotence but it shouldn't because it is the same word as "Almighty" (all-might) and it is Biblical.

The problem isn't in the answer of 'yes' or 'no.' You can say "Yes" and it brings the same logical objection: This isn't logical.

But the problem isn't in the answer one way or other but the question. It assumes (incorrectly) what omnipotence means (that no matter how silly or contradictory God can do it).

This isn't at all a good definition of omnipotence. To "not" be able to do something is also the mark of omnipotence.
For example, here is a question that leads to proper assessment: "Can God resist sin?" Answer: "Of course."

So 'not' being able to do something is also a good definer for omnipotent understanding.

If we change it around: "Can God sin?" We are again missing the point and definition of omnipotence. He doesn't have to sin to be omnipotent. That is again a contradictory assessment of omnipotence. The guy who holds the erroneaus version of omnipotence will never understand this until his definition is challenged and clarified.

Again, the answer is "NO." It's been logically examined, and found to be logically impossible.

Thanks, I was nowhere near able to address Knight way back when in our one on one and I appreciate being able to revisit these questions.
This will not stop you from making a pot shot at my 'more learned response' but it is nice to have second chances

I don't know how we can logically qualify something that is transcendant. God possesses qualities that we don't. For the most part, OV denies most or many of these (EDF, timelessness, immutability) upon the basis that they are Greek taintings.
However, if we are correct: there is no way we could qualify or rationalize what is outside of our recognition.

Let's look at one example where we agree: "God has never had a beginning."
This is a transcendant quality we do not possess nor are we equipped to explain it.
In trying to explain this, we will use temporal language to express the truth but our temporal explanation will not ever be able to express this idea clearly nor can we qualify it. It is a truth outside of ourselves and ability that we accept but cannot fully explain. Scientists are still trying to come up with a way of explaining the concept of nonbeginning and because of our temporal language, they will never be able to do it. They'll at best give us some hooks in which to be able to get a better grasp of the 'concept' but it'll never be expressable with our current language. Because of this, we'll continue to express the truth of nonbeginning in imperfect temporal terms.

EDF, similarly, cannot be expressed in temporal terms adequately and it is equally difficult to explain why there can be EDF and choice accountability at the same time. It doesn't negate them both existing unless one doesn't understand the same logical problems that exist with nonbeginning, also exist with future considerations.

No parsing of words necessary. One only need look at the decisions God has made to decide. Is evil God's will in any sense? If yes, then yes. If no, then no.

"Does evil exist?"
"Does evil 'continue' to exist?"
"Is evil God's desire or will?"
"Why, does evil continue to exist?"

I believe it isn't as simple as a yes/no answer. It must be discussed.
Yes/No does not clarify or answer the question meaningfully without the context of explanation. I'd like OVer's to get beyond 'yes/no' dialogue into *'meaningful.'

But it's not a hard question to answer. Scripture gives us more than enough evidence.

You mean like Revelation where John is taken to a future event?
Or like a boy named Josiah tearing down altars to Baal expressed 300 years before the event?
Or where before they were born, God chooses Jacob over Esau?

I do get where you are coming from but I don't see these scripture expressions as tainted by Greek thought. I believe the real objection to be a premise of logic but if understood properly, isn't a huge problem for OVer's whether we agree or not.
I don't think this issue a huge deal but coupled with other logical perceptions can be.

Great, but let's do it in a logical fashion.
Muz

I haven't given it the full treatment and could have probably expressed some of this a bit more clearly but I also didn't want to go too long winded and am hopeful that you'll just focus on the portions that need further discussion where I can clarify as needed in ensuing posts.

In Him

 

[Lon]

In your last post to Eli

And, if you think about it for just a moment, Jesus was a human being, which means that He is temporal, as humans tend to be. For Jesus to be claiming to be "eternally now", when He was presently and demonstrably temporal, would be a LIE.

I don't think Jesus does that.

Muz

Think about this a little, I'm pretty sure we are on the same page in our understanding and agreement on this particular but this doesn't express our shared doctrine if my assumptions are correct.

 

[themuzicman]

I see your point, but I never get tired of it. I'm a teacher so I repeat myself every year. I like the lightbulb response no matter how many times I see it. If OV is true, you should hope for the same. If its not happening, the message is flawed or it hasn't been explained very well (teacher's assessment for what it's worth).

Actually, it does happen in other settings. But there are some so set in their ways, that they cannot hear. (Nang, for example.)

If they keep saying it, you have to assume they see it this way. *Hopefully as I take on the next questions some of this will be apparent.

ok

"Then He isn't all-powerful."

But this would be followed by a discussion of what "all-powerful" means. The 'No' answer is correct, but the conclusion that is drawn is not. This is where the discussion begins.

I know OV rejects omnipotence but it shouldn't because it is the same word as "Almighty" (all-might) and it is Biblical.

I don't reject omnipotence. But we do need to have a discussion about what it means.

The problem isn't in the answer of 'yes' or 'no.' You can say "Yes" and it brings the same logical objection: This isn't logical.

But the problem isn't in the answer one way or other but the question. It assumes (incorrectly) what omnipotence means (that no matter how silly or contradictory God can do it). This isn't at all a good definition of omnipotence. To "not" be able to do something is also the mark of omnipotence. For example, here is a question that leads to proper assessment: "Can God resist sin?" Answer: "Of course."

So 'not' being able to do something is also a good definer for omnipotent understanding.

If we change it around: "Can God sin?" We are again missing the point and definition of omnipotence. He doesn't have to sin to be omnipotent. That is again a contradictory assessment of omnipotence. The guy who holds the erroneaus version of omnipotence will never understand this until his definition is challenged and clarified.

Well, you haven't really addressed the question. You claim that the question is invalid because of a wrong understanding of omnipotence, but the question never addresses omnipotence directly. We only address omnipotence when the response come.

The question, in and of itself, is answerable. The answer is 'no.' In the same way, when OVT is asked "does God know the future", the answer is 'no.'

The retort. in both cases, is "then God isn't Omni-(x)." However, that is the beginning of the discussion because both answerers haven't thought through the meaning of omnipotence/omniscience completely.

Thanks, I was nowhere near able to address Knight way back when in our one on one and I appreciate being able to revisit these questions.
This will not stop you from making a pot shot at my 'more learned response' but it is nice to have second chances

:banana:

I don't know how we can logically qualify something that is transcendant. God possesses qualities that we don't. For the most part, OV denies most or many of these (EDF, timelessness, immutability) upon the basis that they are Greek taintings.

It's not just that. In fact, I would say that these are ways that OVT explains how Reformed/Augustinian theologians arrive where they do. OVT arrives at these conclusions out of an attempt to understand the biblical concepts of love and justce and what these mean for God.

However, if we are correct: there is no way we could qualify or rationalize what is outside of our recognition.

If we assume that there is nothing revealed about God, that might be true. But, as Christians, we DO have something that God has revealed about Himself, both in His word and His creation.

Let's look at one example where we agree: "God has never had a beginning."
This is a transcendant quality we do not possess nor are we equipped to explain it.
In trying to explain this, we will use temporal language to express the truth but our temporal explanation will not ever be able to express this idea clearly nor can we qualify it. It is a truth outside of ourselves and ability that we accept but cannot fully explain. Scientists are still trying to come up with a way of explaining the concept of nonbeginning and because of our temporal language, they will never be able to do it. They'll at best give us some hooks in which to be able to get a better grasp of the 'concept' but it'll never be expressable with our current language. Because of this, we'll continue to express the truth of nonbeginning in imperfect temporal terms.

EDF, similarly, cannot be expressed in temporal terms adequately and it is equally difficult to explain why there can be EDF and choice accountability at the same time. It doesn't negate them both existing unless one doesn't understand the same logical problems that exist with nonbeginning, also exist with future considerations.

The difference is that EDF and our free will are characteristics of the imminent world. Yes, God has the knowledge of EDF, but the knowledge is about this world. Likewise, the free wills in question are those that are part of this imminent world. Thus, the content of God's knowledge and the nature of our free will is going to conform to the logical existence of this world.

Nonbeginning is wholly other than this world, and is simply a paradox. It doesn't involve a logical contradiction.

"Does evil exist?"
"Does evil 'continue' to exist?"
"Is evil God's desire or will?"
"Why, does evil continue to exist?"
I believe it isn't as simple as a yes/no answer. It must be discussed.
Yes/No does not clarify or answer the question meaningfully without the context of explanation. I'd like OVer's to get beyond 'yes/no' dialogue into *'meaningful.'

But the answers (with the exception of the last) are 'yes' and 'no'. If they are not 'yes' and 'no', then we ought to have some suspicion. The last question obviously raises the need for discussion, since it isn't a 'yes' or 'no' answer, but the answers to the previous three are direct single worded, and obvious from Scripture, from and OVT POV.

You mean like Revelation where John is taken to a future event?
Or like a boy named Josiah tearing down altars to Baal expressed 300 years before the event?
Or where before they were born, God chooses Jacob over Esau?

None of these are really problems. The issue is usually getting past the traditional explanations for these, and seeing what Scripture says for itself.

I do get where you are coming from but I don't see these scripture expressions as tainted by Greek thought. I believe the real objection to be a premise of logic but if understood properly, isn't a huge problem for OVer's whether we agree or not.

The Scripture expressions are not. However, your interpretation of them may well be.

I don't think this issue a huge deal but coupled with other logical perceptions can be.


I haven't given it the full treatment and could have probably expressed some of this a bit more clearly but I also didn't want to go too long winded and am hopeful that you'll just focus on the portions that need further discussion where I can clarify as needed in ensuing posts.

Then let's continue to do so.

Muz

 

[Lon]

Actually, it does happen in other settings. But there are some so set in their ways, that they cannot hear. (Nang, for example.)

While there are students I have that will not attain, the majority can and so there is expectations that come with the teacher's contract. In some schools and areas, this is more difficult because of language barriers etc.

But this would be followed by a discussion of what "all-powerful" means. The 'No' answer is correct, but the conclusion that is drawn is not. This is where the discussion begins.

I somewhat disagree. "No" has the more meaning but it isn't a good answer either imo. You are answering a question that isn't properly understood by the querrier so the answer cannot be properly understood either until the question is corrected. The assumption is that "omnipotence" means "anything" including a querried contradiction. This assumption must be corrected first.

I don't reject omnipotence. But we do need to have a discussion about what it means.

Yes, I've seen Lamerson and Enyart's battle royale but I'm not sure why Bob put this particular omni on the list. I really don't know what OV objects to on this particular Omni. I cannot fathom or guess what the hang up on this particular one is when we understand that being able 'not' to do something is also the mark of omnipotence (not sinning for example-that's 'why' He's omnipotent). I agree with OV that He doesn't do the logically absurd but we disagree somewhat on what is absurd such as foreknowing (also a Biblical concept). It isn't enough of a disagreement for the term to be rejected however. I believe you are correct and Enyart incorrect on this particular: it shouldn't be listed as one of the omni's in that list.

Well, you haven't really addressed the question. You claim that the question is invalid because of a wrong understanding of omnipotence, but the question never addresses omnipotence directly. We only address omnipotence when the response come.

I answer the question by correcting it. It isn't a good logical question to ask. That is my answer. Rather I correct the question so that it has proper meaning: "What does omnipotence mean and not mean?"
When the question is corrected, the answer is obvious and the querrier will correct his misconception. That's where real learning takes place. Now we don't have to waste pages with him trying to explain why we'd say 'no.'

The question, in and of itself, is answerable. The answer is 'no.' In the same way, when OVT is asked "does God know the future", the answer is 'no.'

Here I disagree because 'foreknowledge' literally means 'knows+future (prognosei).

The retort. in both cases, is "then God isn't Omni-(x)." However, that is the beginning of the discussion because both answerers haven't thought through the meaning of omnipotence/omniscience completely.

I understand, but it seems a bit backwards to me and the long way around. I appreciate that because I'm a global thinker and actually think like that but most people are linear thinkers where the correction to the question comes first.

I don't think either approach is wrong, but one is more expedient and move the conversation along more swiftly with the querrier satisfied with a direct answer (the question is corrected).

It's not just that. In fact, I would say that these are ways that OVT explains how Reformed/Augustinian theologians arrive where they do. OVT arrives at these conclusions out of an attempt to understand the biblical concepts of love and justice and what these mean for God.

I do understand and appreciate that. But the scripture term foreknowledge and instances that support the idea are also biblical. I too reject any thought of unqualified immutability. I believe it was Clete and I who went around on this particular a bit using a digital clock analogy. In one sense, the clock doesn't change. It is moving, but it will never display anything other than the sequence it is programmed to create over and over again. But as Clete rightly said, the succession of numbers is change. I believe OV and traditional theology agree on these points of immutability but we apply this differently to be sure because foreknowledge acquiesced or denied colors our understandings respectively.

If we assume that there is nothing revealed about God, that might be true. But, as Christians, we DO have something that God has revealed about Himself, both in His word and His creation.

And I agree here as well, but again our suppositions (from scripture) have us disagreeing what that entails. We believe that God has transcendant qualities as God. Because OV does accept some of these, it isn't as difficult to understand the dilemma of foreknowledge and logical constraints (one example where we digress).

The difference is that EDF and our free will are characteristics of the imminent world. Yes, God has the knowledge of EDF, but the knowledge is about this world. Likewise, the free wills in question are those that are part of this imminent world. Thus, the content of God's knowledge and the nature of our free will is going to conform to the logical existence of this world.

Nonbeginning is wholly other than this world, and is simply a paradox. It doesn't involve a logical contradiction.

This was said very well but we disagree on the interpretations. Foreknowledge, again is a biblical term and must be wrestled with. I gave Godrulz this scripture that distinguishes and clarifies that the OV definition needs reworking

Act 2:23 this One given to you by the before-determined counsel and foreknowledge of God (ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει).

I don't think he actually took the time to think through the scriptual definitions but dismisses them quickly from OV presupposition. This will never do when the OV goal is to enlighten and/or convert those of opposing position. It is a real hurdle that needs proper attention or we both go away completely convinced the other is wrong, as GR has done (I'll address him on this and let ya know if it continues to be dropped or properly engaged).

But the answers (with the exception of the last) are 'yes' and 'no'. If they are not 'yes' and 'no', then we ought to have some suspicion. The last question obviously raises the need for discussion, since it isn't a 'yes' or 'no' answer, but the answers to the previous three are direct single worded, and obvious from Scripture, from and OVT POV.

I agree, but the last question is really where we begin to discuss the issue. The others are all steering questions that lead us to the meaningful. The last question is the better question because it leads directly to the area of learning. All these extemporaneous questions aren't beneficial and tend to have us spinning off on rabbit trails without ever engaging the most pertinent questions when they 'should' be bringing us to the pertinent ones.
We need to ask good questions between OV and traditional theology.

None of these are really problems. The issue is usually getting past the traditional explanations for these, and seeing what Scripture says for itself.

The Scripture expressions are not. However, your interpretation of them may well be.

Then let's continue to do so.

Muz

Okay, let's start with that verse from acts. Have you and I discussed the term 'foreknowledge' before (I don't want to retread old ground uneccesarily)?

 

[Yorzhik]

OK, just a moment...



"Does not ring a bell."

: D

Lighthouse
Pastor Kevin ...and here
Mystery ...and here
Knight ...follow up ...and also here
Clete


There are others as well if I need to dig them up

None of the examples you gave directly stated that an OV'er said someone was not saved because they were an SV'er (and only a couple could indirectly be considered saying someone would go to hell at all). You've overstated your case. Are you a good enough person to admit you've overstated your case?