ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[godrulz]

Yes, it is. A liberal license? No. A justification for God being 'exceedingly/abundantly' beyond our ken? Yes!

Open Theists do not deny that God is infinite and cannot be understood beyond revelation and godly reasoning or exhaustively.

This does not mean we cannot know truth about Him and His ways (theology, study of God from Scripture).

For us to challenge your ideas of sovereignty, immutability, impassibility, omniscience, free will, etc. is not contrary to Scripture, but an attempt to have a biblical understanding (Jn. 4:24).

To default to mystery or antimony when there is a more coherent, biblical view available is laziness and indefensible.

 

[Lon]

Open Theists do not deny that God is infinite and cannot be understood beyond revelation and godly reasoning or exhaustively.

This does not mean we cannot know truth about Him and His ways (theology, study of God from Scripture).

For us to challenge your ideas of sovereignty, immutability, impassibility, omniscience, free will, etc. is not contrary to Scripture, but an attempt to have a biblical understanding (Jn. 4:24).

To default to mystery or antimony when there is a more coherent, biblical view available is laziness and indefensible.

"Lazy and indefensible?"
Thus says the man who rests on his previous laurels, and I don't mean that as indictment, just that I can't believe you typed that. Have I ever shown to be a lazy theologian? Have I not even remotely adequately defended?

Again, you say 'God cannot foreknow trillions upon trillions.'

I say, then how can He keep track of our prayers? Surely you've approached an astronomical # of prayers alone in your life-time?
Again, I say trillions upon trillions is actually what you can think, and again I ask if this scripture is true or not to which you have yet to respond.
http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Eph 3.20

Eph 3:20 Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
Eph 3:21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen.

Is it true?

 

[godrulz]

God knows zillions and zillions. He is omniscient and can keep track of every prayer, every hair on head, every molecule. These are possible objects of certain knowledge, so are known exhaustively.

When I talk about trillions, I am saying that He does not know a nothing trillions of years before it becomes an object of certain knowledge (free will choices, etc.). Are you misrepresenting me?

I do think it is lazy to default to mystery and antimony when there is a stack of evidence that provides a logical and biblical resolution to those so called mysteries or contradictions. It is like a Mormon bearing their testimony when they cannot answer an objection.

Some things are mysteries and not revealed and not knowable (though we can speculate) e.g. what was God doing before creation; why did He create when He did, etc. Issues of time vs timelessness (eternity concepts), the nature of sovereignty (providential vs meticulous), the nature of free will (LFW vs comp.), foreknowledge, etc. are within our grasp to some extent. One of us is wrong and one is right. Their is credible info for us to discuss this for years with many papers debating back and forth with strengths and weaknesses of the various views.

 

[Lon]

God knows zillions and zillions.

There is credible info for us to discuss this for years with many papers debating back and forth with strengths and weaknesses of the various views.

Then recant 'lazy' please. The other (indefensible) I understand, disagree with but understand.

 

[King cobra]

AMR Reminded me of this:



You are caught in a logical loop that doesn't necessarily follow in insistance upon incompatibility. Your supposition is inaccurate, therefore, so is your conclusion.

You know I like vanilla ice cream. When you go to the store, you do not impinge upon my desire by buying me vanilla ice cream, you radify the foreknown choice. It does NOT eliminate the other choice (chocolate) from my will. I've done that all by myself. Again, you are applying His foreknowledge inappropriately to my actions and decisions. On paper, you will be convinced you eliminated my freewill by getting me vanilla ice cream but it is still incorrect and you are the one caught in the logical conundrum, not me.

Using your logic, let’s say God knows with certainty that Lonny is going to buy vanilla ice cream at a given moment. Does He have the power to truthfully tell Lonny of this Divine knowledge?

Of course He can, He’s omnipotent, right?

Now, with this revelation from God, is Lonny capable of now (in rebellion) choosing chocolate instead?

Of course he can, he has free will, right?

Now, let’s say Lonny does rebel and chooses chocolate.

Was God wrong in His assessment? Or was He weak in His inability to verbalize the revelation?

A third choice would of course be that your logic is off

 

[godrulz]

Then recant 'lazy' please. The other (indefensible) I understand, disagree with but understand.

You are not lazy, but some who cop out to mystery/antimony are (I did not mean it personally, but generically, since I respect your time and research and sincerity).

 

[Lon]

Using your logic, let’s say God knows with certainty that Lonny is going to buy vanilla ice cream at a given moment. Does He have the power to truthfully tell Lonny of this Divine knowledge?

Of course He can, He’s omnipotent, right?

Now, with this revelation from God, is Lonny capable of now (in rebellion) choosing chocolate instead?

Of course he can, he has free will, right?

Now, let’s say Lonny does rebel and chooses chocolate.

Was God wrong in His assessment? Or was He weak in His inability to verbalize the revelation?

A third choice would of course be that your logic is off

Again, it is a 'what-if' scenario that just doesn't happen. We do, as AMR suggests, choose according to inclinations. To try and get around this is the problematical logic.

 

[godrulz]

If so, why would God determine our desires/inclinations causally? Why would he give some the desire to rape and murder? HE DOES NOT! Determinism is a false view; only free will theism resonates with reality and Scripture.

 

[Lon]

You are not lazy, but some who cop out to mystery/antimony are (I did not mean it personally, but generically, since I respect your time and research and sincerity).

Thank you.

I'm not sure that it is a good generalization for theologians. Perhaps, the laymen, but I've known few lazy theologians. I'm open to your opinion, but it needs qualification. I don't think that we see somethings as a huge stretch for our logical parameters as an act in laziness though.

 

[Lon]

If so, why would God determine our desires/inclinations causally? Why would he give some the desire to rape and murder? HE DOES NOT! Determinism is a false view; only free will theism resonates with reality and Scripture.

Expound on this a bit more. I'm not quite grasping it in a good light either for EDF OR LWF. Do you see my dilemma?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Again, it is a 'what-if' scenario that just doesn't happen. We do, as AMR suggests, choose according to inclinations. To try and get around this is the problematical logic.

Exactly! Whatever God knows is not tentative, but...well...known! Period. He is not acquiring new, heretofore, unknown knowledge based on the actions of His creatures unless God is some lesser god whose creatures know more than he does about a particular transpiring situation.

Reminds me of the oft-used openist passage of God "going down now" to learn what is happening in one of His sinful cities. As if our Sovereign God is clueless about the goings on within His own creation. sigh

AMR

 

[King cobra]

Originally Posted by King cobra:
Using your logic, let’s say God knows with certainty that Lonny is going to buy vanilla ice cream at a given moment. Does He have the power to truthfully tell Lonny of this Divine knowledge? Of course He can, He’s omnipotent, right? Now, with this revelation from God, is Lonny capable of now (in rebellion) choosing chocolate instead?Of course he can, he has free will, right?Now, let’s say Lonny does rebel and chooses chocolate.Was God wrong in His assessment? Or was He weak in His inability to verbalize the revelation? A third choice would of course be that your logic is off

Again, it is a 'what-if' scenario that just doesn't happen. We do, as AMR suggests, choose according to inclinations. To try and get around this is the problematical logic.

Actually, it is a ‘why can’t’ scenario. Why can’t God announce with certainty that which He knows will happen, and then each and every time watch that event happen?
If God tells George (free will agent) he is going to die in an automobile wreck on I-70 at 4:12pm, why can’t God expect George to take that route home?
I agree that God knows and could verbalize inclinations (including the inclination to be contraire). But changes in course for truly free will agents can never be known exhaustively because they can’t be announced with the expectation of certainty.

 

[Lighthouse]

Disengenuine. You know exactly what he said. If not, might I suggest remedial reading as an option?

Reading has always been my best subject.

And while I may have understood what he was trying to say, I'm trying to make a point. He needs to type in proper English, which includes the correct spelling of the words he uses.

I've taught English, maybe I have an edge, I dunno (slang, but decipherable? I hope so)

Really? Then why don't you know that the word is disingenuous?

Soooo....(more slang)...let's take a look:



A bit awkward, but ???

Think a bit, don't make people do all your work for you.

The question is plain enough:

(Implied "No!")

That is, E4 is saying that it is absurd to think that foreknowledge must equate causation (because it doesn't and is a big flaw in OV thinking-OVers are confused. All of Christianity but the OVer understands the difference).

There is no "implied" about it. God does not have to cause all in order to know all.

I don't think foreknowledge equates causation. Only that knowledge cannot exist without the object of said knowledge existing.

I.E. "it isn't, go back to school" (ONLY OVers are confused about this).

You are one of the most oblivious people on this board.

He asked it much nicer, so spelling it out for you ensures that the question becomes more accusatory and implicating. I think, he was trying to be nice and being careful with how he phrased the questions knowing your predeliction* for being trite and volital**. Only the OVer confuses this so you really have to prove that connection because the rest of us aren't buying it at this time.

The connection does not exist.

If God did cause all He would know all, yes. But He does not need to cause all in order to know all. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not the object of said knowledge exists. And if the knowledge exists, then so too does the object.

So, if the object exists, how does it also not exist? For that is what some want us to believe.

If God knows the choices we will make, then it is necessary, not that God causes us to make those decisions, but that those decisions have already been made. So, if they have already been made we are not free to make a different decision. And if we are not free to make a different decision we are not free to make any decision. And if that is the case, then we are not free at all.

Simply said, in easy to understand English: Foreknowledge does not mean 'causes.'

It does in the OV mind, because you guys don't define foreknowledge like we do. You equate it with determinism, such that you are all sporadic Calvinists when it suits your interpretation needs.

I am not who you think I am. I do not think the way you suppose [or presuppose] I think. Therefore your apologetic is false, and should be followed by an apology.

*predilection

**volatile

 

[godrulz]

Exactly! Whatever God knows is not tentative, but...well...known! Period. He is not acquiring new, heretofore, unknown knowledge based on the actions of His creatures unless God is some lesser god whose creatures know more than he does about a particular transpiring situation.

Reminds me of the oft-used openist passage of God "going down now" to learn what is happening in one of His sinful cities. As if our Sovereign God is clueless about the goings on within His own creation. sigh

AMR

Open Theism is not Deism nor Process Thought (similar in a small area is not identical in all areas).

Prominent Open Theists see this going down as anthropomorphic (but do not see God changing His mind as such since it can be taken at face value if we do not cling to tradition). Some TOL Op. Th. have their own personal views, including the idea that God can choose to not know something unknowable (even I find this a compromise of omniscience).

We both agree that God has exhaustive past and present knowledge (your e.g./concern). The real issue of divide is EDF and future free will contingencies (not your post e.g.).

So, you are railing against a straw man not held by most academic O.T.s (TOL amateurs like myself and others are not as credible).

 

[Lighthouse]

Open Theism is not Deism nor Process Thought (similar in a small area is not identical in all areas).

But Deism is an open view.

 

[godrulz]

But Deism is an open view.

In Deism, God is aloof. In Open Theism, God is immanent, intervenes, is relational, while still being transcendent (but not aloof or distant).

 

[Lon]

Well, if we are going to get persnickety

Reading has always been my best subject.

And while I may have understood what he was trying to say, I'm trying to make a point. He neds to type in proper English, which includes the correct spelling of the words he uses.

Really? Then why don't you know that the word is disingenuous?

You mean disengenuine isn't a word? You either have to acquiesce that many people think it is, despite a lack of reference (new word) or that we are all wrong. Flobbertymuck.

knowledge cannot exist without the object of said knowledge existing.

So, when God did not create yet, He could not have done so because what was going to exist didn't exist yet? Did God know what He was going to create before He created? There is a logical problem with your premise. It is an OV indoctrination point that shouldn't be just 'accepted without qualification.' I don't care how brilliant one might deem these OV pastors, you shouldn't accept such without logical examination. I find OV problematic on many of their assertions.

You are one of the most oblivious people on this board.

Meh, you say it, but I absolutely know you have no basis for it. It is vitriol, nothing more.

There is no "implied" about it. [G]od does not have to cause all in order to know all.
So, if the object exists, how does it also not exist? For that is what some want us to believe.

If God knows the choices we will make, then it is necessary, not that God causes us to make those decisions, but that those decisions have already been made. So, if they have already been made we are not free to make a different decision. And if we are not free to make a different decision we are not free to make any decision. And if that is the case, then we are not free at all.

No, it doesn't follow logically. If God knows I will choose a particular thing, I will choose it, but it in no way can be proved that I had no choice. That is an intellectual leap. I know it looks that way on paper, but it is a wrong answer: Like having my hands one way or the other, it doesn't negate the choice. My wife knows I like certain foods. If she says "we are having bacon and eggs, did she negate my choice? Not at all. It is absolutely true I will eat eggs and bacon. It is not true at all that I had no choice in the matter. My decision is most nearly certain, even to another human, yet my choice is not eradicated.

I am not who you think I am. I do not think the way you suppose [or presuppose] I think. Therefore your apologetic is false, and should be followed by an apology.

*predilection

**volatile

Look 'em up (I linked them for you), you are witchhunting. Other than that, I don't know exactly what you are saying here. First, I need to know what you think my perception of you is. Second, I don't believe you are correct about the apologetics. The two must be connected in your paragraph for the meaning to follow.

 

[Lon]

Originally Posted by King cobra:
Using your logic, let’s say God knows with certainty that Lonny is going to buy vanilla ice cream at a given moment. Does He have the power to truthfully tell Lonny of this Divine knowledge? Of course He can, He’s omnipotent, right? Now, with this revelation from God, is Lonny capable of now (in rebellion) choosing chocolate instead?Of course he can, he has free will, right?Now, let’s say Lonny does rebel and chooses chocolate.Was God wrong in His assessment? Or was He weak in His inability to verbalize the revelation? A third choice would of course be that your logic is off
Actually, it is a ‘why can’t’ scenario. Why can’t God announce with certainty that which He knows will happen, and then each and every time watch that event happen?
If God tells George (free will agent) he is going to die in an automobile wreck on I-70 at 4:12pm, why can’t God expect George to take that route home?
I agree that God knows and could verbalize inclinations (including the inclination to be contraire). But changes in course for truly free will agents can never be known exhaustively because they can’t be announced with the expectation of certainty.

As with Lighthouse, I argue that your conclusion is incorrect. You are making a[n] [il]logical leap from know to eradication of choice. 'If' I chose chocolate (I wouldn't), then God would have known such that He would have said 'chocolate' in the first place. What you are proving is that we created beings have no ability to qualify, quantify, or logically apprehend Foreknowledge. When you change the scenario, you forget one thing: God would know of the change. You are trying to apply human constraints in our logic to God's ability. EDF in no way can be connected to loss of choice. It is like saying, "That actor couldn't have done that another way, it is on film. It's a done deal. He has no other choice."
This is incorrect: The actor acted as he chose. It is true that it cannot now be changed, but it is untrue that he had no other choice.

 

[Lighthouse]

In Deism, God is aloof. In Open Theism, God is immanent, intervenes, is relational, while still being transcendent (but not aloof or distant).

All I said was that by definition Deism is an open view.

Well, if we are going to get persnickety

You mean disengenuine isn't a word? You either have to acquiesce that many people think it is, despite a lack of reference (new word) or that we are all wrong. Flobbertymuck.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Disengenuine

So, when God did not create yet, He could not have done so because what was going to exist didn't exist yet?

No.:squint:

How backwards is your thinking?

Did God know what He was going to create before He created?

Yes.

There is a logical problem with your premise. It is an OV indoctrination point that shouldn't be just 'accepted without qualification.' I don't care how brilliant one might deem these OV pastors, you shouldn't accept such without logical examination. I find OV problematic on many of their assertions.

You're an idiot, Lon.

God knowing what He is going to do is not a problem. His plans exist. Therefore His knowledge of those plans is able to exist as well.

However, if God has not yet thought to do something, then there is no plan; i.e. the plan does not exist. And if the plan does not exist then God does not know of the plan. He doesn't know that He will plan to do it in the future, because He has not yet thought of it.

Meh, you say it, but I absolutely know you have no basis for it. It is vitriol, nothing more.

:rotfl:

No, it doesn't follow logically. If God knows I will choose a particular thing, I will choose it, but it in no way can be proved that I had no choice. That is an intellectual leap. I know it looks that way on paper, but it is a wrong answer: Like having my hands one way or the other, it doesn't negate the choice. My wife knows I like certain foods. If she says "we are having bacon and eggs, did she negate my choice? Not at all. It is absolutely true I will eat eggs and bacon. It is not true at all that I had no choice in the matter. My decision is most nearly certain, even to another human, yet my choice is not eradicated.

Talk about circular reasoning, and faulty logic.

Just because your wife decided to cook bacon and eggs does not mean you have to eat them. You still must choose whether or not to eat them.

What if she burns the bacon because she is distracted by one of your children? Will you then eat the bacon?

If God knows you will choose something, yes you will choose it. But could you choose otherwise? Yes or no?

Look 'em up (I linked them for you), you are witchhunting. Other than that, I don't know exactly what you are saying here.

I was correcting your spelling, moron. You shouldn't have boasted about teaching English.

First, I need to know what you think my perception of you is. Second, I don't believe you are correct about the apologetics. The two must be connected in your paragraph for the meaning to follow.

You've made your perception clear.

You believe that I am just like whichever open view proponent you read to support your argument against it. And you're wrong. We do not all think alike, or even agree on what makes the future open, or what the root of causality would be if it were true.

 

[Lon]

All I said was that by definition Deism is an open view.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Disengenuine


No.:squint:

How backwards is your thinking?


Yes.


You're an idiot, Lon.

God knowing what He is going to do is not a problem. His plans exist. Therefore His knowledge of those plans is able to exist as well.

However, if God has not yet thought to do something, then there is no plan; i.e. the plan does not exist. And if the plan does not exist then God does not know of the plan. He doesn't know that He will plan to do it in the future, because He has not yet thought of it.


:rotfl:


Talk about circular reasoning, and faulty logic.

Just because your wife decided to cook bacon and eggs does not mean you have to eat them. You still must choose whether or not to eat them.

What if she burns the bacon because she is distracted by one of your children? Will you then eat the bacon?

If God knows you will choose something, yes you will choose it. But could you choose otherwise? Yes or no?


I was correcting your spelling, moron. You shouldn't have boasted about teaching English.


You've made your perception clear.

You believe that I am just like whichever open view proponent you read to support your argument against it. And you're wrong. We do not all think alike, or even agree on what makes the future open, or what the root of causality would be if it were true.

I always pray before engaging you. I pray that I may be gracious, yet assertive with what I believe is true. I pray as I address your attacks on others that you will understand. I pray that I might not return evil for evil (I struggle). I don't actually 'like' to engage you because I find you caustic and trite, without exception. So you corrected my spelling and grammar and I your's. I suppose all your English teachers were perfect (not really, I think you have rose colored glasses - I'm certainly not perfect, you proved that).

So, on we go, you batting at my character, aptitude, intelligence. When you say I'm oblivious, I acquiesce that I ignore you a bunch but I will continue to come to other's defense as I believe is fitting for a believer. It does entrench us against one another, but I will not back down from it. When you attack others and I see it, I'm compelled to address it.