ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Hilston]

Well, Hilston, I suppose you need to be educated in the art of discussion and debate.

I welcome your advice.

Anyone who "grasps" such a concept is not thinking very carefully. The reason that God can be trusted to use evil for good (Gen 50:20) is because He knows the exact course of the future exhaustively.

You are doing two things. First, you are expressing the presupposition that the only was God can accomplish this is through exhaustive and definite foreknowledge.

You really don't seem to know what a presupposition is. The thesis I've expressed is not the presupposition. It is the conclusion of a premise. My presuppositions are that logic is unwavering and law-like, and that language has meaning. I assume these to be your presuppositions as well, lest debate itself becomes futile. I further point out that the Open Theist, who believes that God sometimes gets it wrong, cannot justify the claim that God's knowledge of all possible futures means God will get it right in the end. Based on the fundamental presuppositions of logic and language, your view seems untenable. Please show me how I've got this wrong.

However, you are also demanding that we accept your presupposition as true (without any foundation for making such a demand) because you demand that we accept that the statement you have made is true.

I demand nothing, muz. I only ask that you respect the debate and use your head. So far, it seems you have done neither. I could be wrong, and know there are readers who want to see if you can show me that I'm wrong. So please indulge me, and satisfy the curiosity of the readers.

Thus you are attempting to impose this on us, because you demand that we accept your presuppositions in order to have a discussion.

Where are you getting this? I've made no demands. I don't insist that you accept anything. I assume you use logic. I assume we both speak the same language. If this is not the case, I can use my time elsewhere. I spent considerable time answering your last post and asking some very careful and important questions. Your avoidance of them might be viewed as evasive or obfuscatory. I hope that is not the case.

If I do not accept your presupposition (and I do not, as you have not provided a basis for doing so), and you are unwilling to accept that my position does not embrace your presupposition, and you are unwilling to engage in discussion at that level, then discussion and debate is not possible.

What are you talking about? I merely explained my position, attempted to voice my understanding of your position, and asked you a series of questions. I welcome your correction, and look forward to your responses to my questions. As do those who are following this thread.

(No, your declaration that something is somehow irrational isn't sufficient.

I agree. But I've done more than "declare" it. I've demonstrated, through the use of logic, how your view appears to be irrational. I may be wrong, and I welcome your correction.

Again, what you consider rational is still based upon your presuppositions.

Ok, I'll accept that. Please show me how my view does not comport with rationality, and how yours does. I'm eager to see it, as are others.

You either need to provide a scriptural or logical reason to accept your presupposition, or demonstrate from my presuppositions how I am illogical or unscriptural. However, you do none of these.)

What are your presuppositions? Please share so I and the readers may know and evaluate them.

All that will ensue is you will continue to argue from your presuppositions, and I will continue to identify the presuppositions that I have scriptural or logical basis for denying.

We all argue from our presuppositions. It's inescapable. But that doesn't mean we can't have a meaningful dialogue of discovery to better understand each others view. So far, I've demonstrated an earnest attempt to understand your position (evidenced by the concrete examples that you requested, and my attending questions). So far, you've not returned in kind. Instead, you've imposed upon me views that I do not hold, with no apparent attempt to discover what my views actually are, except to categorize me as some sort of Calvinist or Arminian.

So, until you are able to grasp the concepts of dialogue and debate, there is simply no point in having a discussion with you. You demonstrate nothing other than your own presuppositions, and you fail to provide any reason for anyone to accept them.

I sincerely hope you will reconsider, as I do not see anything in my response to you that suggests we cannot have a mutually beneficial exchange.

I like sandwiches,
Hilston

 

[themuzicman]

pposition is. The thesis I've expressed is not the presupposition. It is the conclusion of a premise. My presuppositions are that logic is unwavering and law-like, and that language has meaning. I assume these to be your presuppositions as well, lest debate itself becomes futile.

Those aren't ALL of your presuppositions.

Anyone who "grasps" such a concept is not thinking very carefully. The reason that God can be trusted to use evil for good (Gen 50:20) is because He knows the exact course of the future exhaustively.

Beyond this point, you do nothing to explain why this is the case. You simply assume that EDF is the only explanation for how this is possible, then go on to attack OVT based upon it.

Once I state (as I did) that EDF isn't necessary for Genesis 50:20 to come about, you need to demonstrate why your presupposition that EDF is necessary for Gen 50:20 to be true.

The rest of what you said is based upon this presupposition, and isn't valid until you demonstrate it.

Of course, you tag on the barb about "not thinking very carefully", which isn't helpful.


So, before moving on, maybe you should try addressing those areas where we disagree in a meaningful way, before moving further on down your conclusions, which I see as based on a faulty foundation.

I further point out that the Open Theist, who believes that God sometimes gets it wrong, cannot justify the claim that God's knowledge of all possible futures means God will get it right in the end. Based on the fundamental presuppositions of logic and language, your view seems untenable. Please show me how I've got this wrong.

Since you don't actually explain what is "untenable" about this position, it would be difficult to explain it to you.

In short, God achieves His purposes. Most of God's purposes are achieved through His own actions and working through a myriad of possible means to accomplish it.

This is one major element that you don't understand about the OVT: There are many possible courses of the future that lead to the fulfillment of prophecy, and God knows how His prophecy will be fulfilled from those many courses. Determinists believe that there is only one possible course of the future that could possibly lead to fulfillment of prophecy, but that's simply untrue.

Example: Peter. Jesus says that Peter will deny Christ three times before the rooster does his thing. Does that mean that Peter must go to the courtyard and must be let in by John and must be confronted by the three specific people he is confronted by in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled?

Of course not. Peter could have gone another way and been confronted by three completely different people, and with Peter's denial, the prophecy could have been fulfilled in that way.

The point of the prophecy isn't to whom or where Peter denies Christ, but that the present state of his heart would fail, were he to be confronted with his association with Christ after His arrest.

All that remains is for God to know about (or bring about) Peter's confrontation with three people and a rooster. Piece of cake for an omniscient, omnipotent God.

So, for you to say that God must have EDF in order to being good out of the evil of men is simply untrue, and your presupposition that EDF is necessary has been refuted.

I demand nothing, muz. I only ask that you respect the debate and use your head. So far, it seems you have done neither. I could be wrong, and know there are readers who want to see if you can show me that I'm wrong. So please indulge me, and satisfy the curiosity of the readers.

Sorry, but it is you who cannot debate properly. I've already shown that. If you cannot take seriously the presuppositions of the other side, you'll never engage the topic seriously.

Where are you getting this? I've made no demands. I don't insist that you accept anything. I assume you use logic. I assume we both speak the same language. If this is not the case, I can use my time elsewhere. I spent considerable time answering your last post and asking some very careful and important questions. Your avoidance of them might be viewed as evasive or obfuscatory. I hope that is not the case.

When you said that

Anyone who "grasps" such a concept is not thinking very carefully

You're insisting that your presuppositions are accurate by denigrating anyone who might possibly dare to even think about disagreeing with you. You're demanding that in order to think carefully, one must agree with you. If you can't take the other side seriously, then don't bother, because you just become a characature.

What are you talking about? I merely explained my position, attempted to voice my understanding of your position, and asked you a series of questions. I welcome your correction, and look forward to your responses to my questions. As do those who are following this thread.

Is that what

Anyone who "grasps" such a concept is not thinking very carefully

was about?

I agree. But I've done more than "declare" it. I've demonstrated, through the use of logic, how your view appears to be irrational. I may be wrong, and I welcome your correction.

Oh, so just stating that Gen 50:20 requires EDF is how you use "logic"? That's not very sophisticated.

What are your presuppositions? Please share so I and the readers may know and evaluate them.

Those will come out in discussion. Please feel free to point them out as I use them. I've pointed out several of yours, but you seem unwilling to accept that this is the case.

We all argue from our presuppositions. It's inescapable. But that doesn't mean we can't have a meaningful dialogue of discovery to better understand each others view.

But you have to consider how you might engage my presuppositions, or at least explain how your own are valid before making a declarative truth statement.

So far, I've demonstrated an earnest attempt to understand your position (evidenced by the concrete examples that you requested, and my attending questions). So far, you've not returned in kind. Instead, you've imposed upon me views that I do not hold, with no apparent attempt to discover what my views actually are, except to categorize me as some sort of Calvinist or Arminian.

You've clearly embraced irresistible grace and individual election. That's all I have on that front, so far. That and the assumption of EDF.

I sincerely hope you will reconsider, as I do not see anything in my response to you that suggests we cannot have a mutually beneficial exchange.

You'll have to stop insisting that somehow thinking people can only arrive at your conclusion.

Muz

 

[Hilston]

The thesis I've expressed is not the presupposition. It is the conclusion of a premise. My presuppositions are that logic is unwavering and law-like, and that language has meaning. I assume these to be your presuppositions as well, lest debate itself becomes futile.

Those aren't ALL of your presuppositions.

Perhaps we can start with a definition of a presupposition. I use the following definition:

Presupposition comprise "... the elementary assumptions in one’s reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. ... not just any assumption in an argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Presuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundational perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one’s thinking, being treated as one’s least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision.

Do you agree with this definition, or do you have one that you would prefer over this one?

Anyone who "grasps" such a concept is not thinking very carefully. The reason that God can be trusted to use evil for good (Gen 50:20) is because He knows the exact course of the future exhaustively.

Beyond this point, you do nothing to explain why this is the case.

But I did. I'll do it again. You say that God can use evil for good because He knows all possible futures. But Open Theists also believe that God sometimes gets it wrong, which is to say, the evil He wanted to use for good didn't work out the way He thought it would. The second statement disproves the first. That is why it appears to be untenable. I may be wrong, and would welcome the correction.

You simply assume that EDF is the only explanation for how this is possible, then go on to attack OVT based upon it.

My explanation of my own view is one thing, but my "attack" is quite another. My "attack" on OVT is based on logic. One doesn't have to assume EDF to see the failure in the OVT conception. An atheist could see it, and he assumes there is no God.

Once I state (as I did) that EDF isn't necessary for Genesis 50:20 to come about, you need to demonstrate why your presupposition that EDF is necessary for Gen 50:20 to be true.

I did. Here is what I wrote:

Anyone who has watched time travel movies understands the importance of knowing every single detail before one mucks around with the past. Even the best of intentions can have drastically undesirable results. It's common sense rationality to understand that one must account for every single detail of the future, from the beats of a cholesterol-ridden heart, to the beats of a butterfly's wing, in order to guarantee a particular outcome. While the Open Theist claims to trust that God can take care of the future, it's not a rational position to hold if God doesn't know the future exhaustively. Especially considering the Open-View belief that God could change His mind about the future and decide to pull the plug, chuck the whole mess into the dumpster, and start all over again. Or, according to the Open View, God could decide to stop loving, to stop being good, to stop being just, and to stop relating. On the Open View's assumptions, there are no guarantees. The idea that "a God could prophesy, knowing how His actions would bring about the prophecy, but not knowing the exact course of the future to get there" is completely non sequitur.

I've bolded the parts that don't seem to fit with your claim. I would think that should suffice to show the illogic of the Open View on this matter. But perhaps I'm not being clear. If not, please let me know what part is unclear and I will do my best to further explain. Or perhaps I don't understand your view correctly. Do you agree with Bob Enyart that Jesus could disobey the Father and not go to the cross?

Of course, you tag on the barb about "not thinking very carefully", which isn't helpful.

Sure it is. It is intended to chide the reader into thinking more carefully, especially those who might agree with the Open Theist view. My hope is that my post has accomplished this, if not with you, then with others who are reading.

So, before moving on, maybe you should try addressing those areas where we disagree in a meaningful way, ...

I'm sorry that you didn't find my treatment of those areas to be meaningful. I hope the above is more meaningful to you. Let me know which parts lack meaning and I will try to infuse more meaning where necessary.

... before moving further on down your conclusions, which I see as based on a faulty foundation.

Which foundation would that be?

In short, God achieves His purposes. Most of God's purposes are achieved through His own actions and working through a myriad of possible means to accomplish it.

This is one major element that you don't understand about the OVT: There are many possible courses of the future that lead to the fulfillment of prophecy, and God knows how His prophecy will be fulfilled from those many courses.

I do understand this. My question is, do you believe some of God's prophecies are unfulfilled?

Determinists believe that there is only one possible course of the future that could possibly lead to fulfillment of prophecy, but that's simply untrue.

All that remains is for God to know about (or bring about) Peter's confrontation with three people and a rooster. Piece of cake for an omniscient, omnipotent God.

Do you believe Jesus' prophecy about Peter could have failed?

So, for you to say that God must have EDF in order to being good out of the evil of men is simply untrue, and your presupposition that EDF is necessary has been refuted.

That depends on how you answer my question above.

If you cannot take seriously the presuppositions of the other side, you'll never engage the topic seriously.

Which presuppositions have I not taken seriously? Please tell me which ones they are and I will do my best to take them seriously from now on.

All flavors and push-ups too,
Hilston

 

[themuzicman]

Perhaps we can start with a definition of a presupposition. I use the following definitiono you agree with this definition, or do you have one that you would prefer over this one?

That's acceptable.

But I did. I'll do it again. You say that God can use evil for good because He knows all possible futures. But Open Theists also believe that God sometimes gets it wrong, which is to say, the evil He wanted to use for good didn't work out the way He thought it would. The second statement disproves the first. That is why it appears to be untenable. I may be wrong, and would welcome the correction.

First, this doesn't justify EDF. All you do here is try to attack OVT and say that because you don't think OVT handles this, therefore, EDF must be real. You can't provide foundation for your position by attacking another one.

However, I think you're mischaracterizing OVT by saying "God sometimes gets it wrong." Granted that there are some circumstances where things that happen weren't what God expected (Jer 3:6-7), but that doesn't mean that God didn't already know what He would do in that case to bring about His purposes in spite of those things happening. OVT believes that God is omniscient, omnipotent and all-wise, and knows how to handle every contingency.

Thus, while this may not satisfy your desire for a guarantee from God as you seem to want, it is sufficient to say that we have a firm basis for placing our faith in God to accomplish His purpose.

In this specific story, Joseph didn't have to become the #2 authority in all of Egypt. That's just how God worked things out. It is possible that Joseph's status with Potipher was sufficient to gain access to enough food for his family, or Joseph could have impressed some other Egyptian official such that the grain would be available to him. Since we don't know all the conditions of the story, it is impossible to know how many different ways God could have accomplished His purpose for Joseph. However, what we do know is that God succeeded, and that is sufficient reason to put our faith in Him.

The point is that you can't assume that because a particular story happened a specific way that this is the only way it could have happened, and that this was the only was God could have turned evil into good.

Thus, fundamental to your thinking is the idea that God can't bring about His purposes without having pre-determined the outcome.

My explanation of my own view is one thing, but my "attack" is quite another. My "attack" on OVT is based on logic. One doesn't have to assume EDF to see the failure in the OVT conception. An atheist could see it, and he assumes there is no God.

But an atheist would have to assume your presuppositions in order to arrive at that position. If an atheist assumed my presuppositions, he would see me as correct and you as wrong.

I did. Here is what I wrote:I've bolded the parts that don't seem to fit with your claim. I would think that should suffice to show the illogic of the Open View on this matter.

As I stated in my previous post, we pretty much embrace God's nature the same as you do, in that He doesn't violate it. God's actions are always consistent with the items regarding His nature.

As for whether God could decide to wipe away this universe, that would be consistent with His nature, except for the promises that God has made to us. OVT doesn't claim that God changes His mind like a 3 year old who wants a cookie.

I mean, seriously. Do you really think that this is a logical conclusion of OVT?

But perhaps I'm not being clear. If not, please let me know what part is unclear and I will do my best to further explain. Or perhaps I don't understand your view correctly. Do you agree with Bob Enyart that Jesus could disobey the Father and not go to the cross?

Well, that falls under the question that Chalcedon puts to us: Could Jesus have sinned? If we say no, then the verse that says that Christ was tempted in all the ways that we are seems a bit hollow. OTOH, if we say that Christ could have sinned, then that is impossible to reconcile with Christ being God. So, it's a paradox of sorts.

I think this fits into the same category. I don't think it would be in Christ's nature to disobey the Father, so He wouldn't, yet being a human being with free will, in theory He could, even though He never would. This also addresses the idea that Christ went to the cross freely and not under any compulsion from anyone else, including the Father.

I don't know if that's where Bob stands, I assume that's the issue he's dealing with.

Sure it is. It is intended to chide the reader into thinking more carefully, especially those who might agree with the Open Theist view. My hope is that my post has accomplished this, if not with you, then with others who are reading.

Well, given that you have not thought through possible alternatives to what you propose, it seems a bit out of place.

It's not as though grasping the concept of God having knowledge of all possible futures and knowing how His actions would affect those possible futures isn't sufficient to say that God may both prophesy about specific events, and know what He will do at certain times without having EDF.

Which foundation would that be?

Essentially, determinism.

I do understand this. My question is, do you believe some of God's prophecies are unfulfilled?

Other than those yet to be fulfilled, no.

Do you believe Jesus' prophecy about Peter could have failed?

No. I believe God's knowledge of the present circumstance, including Peter's heart means that all possible courses of the future include Peter denying Christ three times, regardless of where to to whom.

Which presuppositions have I not taken seriously? Please tell me which ones they are and I will do my best to take them seriously from now on.

That God know all present knowledge and all the possible courses of the future, including knowing how His actions would affect those possibilities, for one.

Muz

 

[Clete]

Clete still doesn't know what he is talking about (Part I)

Oh! For crying out loud! Part 1? Really?

Jim, your obsession with being exhaustive in your responses is bordering on obsessive compulsive!

Just forget parts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, okay? Nobody cares!

The irony, people! The IRONY!!! (see below)

Only in the neologistic world of Open Theism could the words "just" and "arbitrary" have opposite meanings. Since it seems to be a prevailing theme in Clete's posts, let's first consider the word "arbitrary." Go ahead, look it up. It comes from the word "arbiter," which means "judge." Next, let's have a look at the word "justice." Look that one up, too. Notice that the noun form refers to a "magistrate" or "judge."

Not only are the words NOT opposites, but they are clearly very closely related in meaning and application. Yet the delusion-addled mind of the Open Theist (i.e. Clete) wants us all to believe that the concepts are "mutually exclusive," and "polar opposites," and that "justice is not arbitrary, by definition" (as stated elsewhere by Clete).

When Clete goes on like this about "arbitrary" and "justice" being mutually exclusive, note how he pounds his pulpit and raises the decibel level, but dogmatism and volume do not make his inanities any more true. By now, it should be abundantly clear to everyone that Clete, despite his vociferous attempts at appearing knowledgeable on this subject, truly does not know what he is talking about.

As Clete has repeatedly demonstrated, the Open Theist believes that God is subject to some overarching standard of righteousness that governs His behavior. They believe that God is regarded as existentially righteous because finite man humanistically judges Him to be, not because God is immutably righteous in His essence. Consider very carefully the following, as it demonstrate the arbitrariness of God and the inability of the Open View to account for it:

The Open Theist is hard-pressed to understand how God could order the execution of a man who merely picked up sticks and not be arbitrary. If God is not arbitrary, as the Open Theist claims, then are we to assume that there exists some grand standard of righteousness to which God refers that tells Him it is unrighteous to pick up sticks on Saturday? And if that's true, then why does God instruct Paul to prohibit the observance of Sabbaths altogether in Colossians 2:16? This is the failure of the existentialist humanistic concept of God that Open Theists promulgate.

No, the words arbitrary and justice are not opposites. They are family, and well-nigh synonymous.

Turkish domestic blend since 1913,
Hilston

This post reminded me of a ridiculous t.v. show that used to air (and maybe still does for all I know) on the weekends on TBN. This idiot "so called black man" who calls himself "Yahweh Ben Yahweh" uses similar deception to propagate his cult.

Since Jim seems to have wanted us all to look up these words, (as though we don't know what they mean), I thought I'd just go ahead and post the definitions...

Main Entry: just
Pronunciation: \ˈjəst\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French juste, from Latin justus, from jus right, law; akin to Sanskrit yos welfare
Date: 14th century
1a: having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason : reasonable <a just but not a generous decision> b archaic : faithful to an original c: conforming to a standard of correctness : proper <just proportions>
2a (1): acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good : righteous <a just war> (2): being what is merited : deserved <a just punishment> b: legally correct : lawful <just title to an estate>


Main Entry: ar·bi·trary
Pronunciation: \ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē, -ˌtre-rē\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>
2a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority <an arbitrary government> b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee> b: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary — Nehemiah Jordan>​

Those are both quoted verbatim from the Marriam-Webster Dictionary Website and so forgive their someone cumbersome format.

I don't really feel the need to say anything else. You can read the definitions for yourself and see that even the dictionary agrees with me but I would like to just comment about Jim's tactic...

Does anyone here really believe that Jim believes the words "arbitrary" and "arbiter" are synonyms? That's what his post expects you to accept. His logic follows something like this...

Arbitrary comes from Arbiter. Arbiter=Judge. Judge=Justice. Therefore Justice=Arbitrary!

Oh my! That really does read almost exactly like something you'd expect to hear from Yahweh Ben Yahweh! :noway:


Of course the words are related to one another but that doesn't mean they share the same meaning. It isn't a word's etymology that determines its meaning but rather the context in which it is used. This is why words very often have spheres of meaning, some of which are wider than others. It is important to make sure that when debating such matters that we are using common terms with common definitions, (which is why I've spent so much time on that exact issue), but Jim KNOWS that what he is doing is B.S.! He's lying, plain and simple. There is nothing in this world that could convince me that he actually doesn't understand that the terms arbitrary and justice are opposite one another when used in the context of this discussion. He's equivocating - pure and simple.

One might ask, and indeed one should ask why Jim feels it necessary to employ such a tactic. Why not simply debate using the concepts that everyone involved knows very clearly. I can think of only one answer but I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself. Just as you are intelligent enough to understand the difference between being arbitrary and being just, I trust that you can figure out for yourself why a man might feel the need to make intentionally deceptive equivocations on such simple concepts rather than substantively engaging the issue on its actual merits.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

All you do here is try to attack OVT and say that because you don't think OVT handles this, therefore, EDF must be real.

No, they're separate issues. The Settled View functions quite well without an Open View to compare it to.

You can't provide foundation for your position by attacking another one.

I agree. That wasn’t my intention. However, from what you've written, your OVT is not the typical TOL OVT.

However, I think you're mischaracterizing OVT by saying "God sometimes gets it wrong." Granted that there are some circumstances where things that happen weren't what God expected (Jer 3:6-7), but that doesn't mean that God didn't already know what He would do in that case to bring about His purposes in spite of those things happening.

It's an untenable proposition. If you posit that God knows all possible futures, and that He reacts perfectly to every contingency in order to bring about His plans, as well as knowing human nature and behavior down to the most minute detail (do you affirm these things?), then nothing should surprise Him. There should be no unexpected circumstances. The notion that such a God would ever be surprised suggests an incompetence of colossal magnitude.

OVT believes that God is omniscient, omnipotent and all-wise, and knows how to handle every contingency.

Do you agree with the Open Theists on TOL who, citing Jer 19:5; 32:35, believe there are things that happened that never entered the mind of God?

Thus, while this may not satisfy your desire for a guarantee from God as you seem to want, it is sufficient to say that we have a firm basis for placing our faith in God to accomplish His purpose.

Again, God Himself makes the guarantee. Not only does logic tell us that a guaranteed outcome requires the guaranteed means to get there, but the Scriptures affirm this as well. From one moment to the next, there must be guaranteed events that lead to the desired outcome.

In this specific story, Joseph didn't have to become the #2 authority in all of Egypt. That's just how God worked things out.

Did God "just work it out" that the evil of Joseph's brothers would turn out for good? Or did God plan it that way, i.e. was it God's intention? Joseph's words to his brothers were: "You though evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring it to pass, as it is this day, to save many people alive." (Gen 50:20). If God just happened to "just work it out," then the text is overstating the case. Whereas, if God actually planned and intended for the details to work out the way they did, including the evil thoughts that Joseph's brothers had against him, then the text is saying exactly what we'd expect it to say.

It is possible that Joseph's status with Potipher was sufficient to gain access to enough food for his family, or Joseph could have impressed some other Egyptian official such that the grain would be available to him.

Except you're leaving out the fact that God intended Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery.

Since we don't know all the conditions of the story, it is impossible to know how many different ways God could have accomplished His purpose for Joseph.

Of course there are any number of ways God could have accomplished His purpose. But the one in the Bible is the way that God planned and intended, including the evil thoughts of Joseph's brothers against him.

However, what we do know is that God succeeded, and that is sufficient reason to put our faith in Him.

We know more than that. We know that God planned the evil thoughts that Joseph's brothers had against him. We also know that God Himself planned the famine that would drive Joseph's brothers to seek his help in Egypt (Ps 105:16-24). The Settled View makes sense in light of these scriptures. The Open View must do violence to language and logic to fit these passages to their theology.

The point is that you can't assume that because a particular story happened a specific way that this is the only way it could have happened, and that this was the only was God could have turned evil into good.

No one is making that claim. The way it happened is the way God planned in advance, every meticulous detail, and that those events would inexorably occur, exactly as God intended.

Thus, fundamental to your thinking is the idea that God can't bring about His purposes without having pre-determined the outcome.

Not at all. Fundamental to my thinking is that God is God-like, and that when God says He has planned everything out in advance He really means it.

My explanation of my own view is one thing, but my "attack" is quite another. My "attack" on OVT is based on logic. One doesn't have to assume EDF to see the failure in the OVT conception. An atheist could see it, and he assumes there is no God.

But an atheist would have to assume your presuppositions in order to arrive at that position.

Which presuppositions would those be?

If an atheist assumed my presuppositions, he would see me as correct and you as wrong.

Which presuppositions would those be?

As I stated in my previous post, we pretty much embrace God's nature the same as you do, in that He doesn't violate it. God's actions are always consistent with the items regarding His nature.

Do you disagree with TOL's Open Theists who believe could God lie if He wanted to?

As for whether God could decide to wipe away this universe, that would be consistent with His nature, except for the promises that God has made to us.

Here is a major point where we differ. God is not, according to scripture, able to oppose His own deliberative counsel. It would be a denial of His own nature, which He is not able to do.

Do you agree with Bob Enyart that Jesus could disobey the Father and not go to the cross?

Well, that falls under the question that Chalcedon puts to us: Could Jesus have sinned? If we say no, then the verse that says that Christ was tempted in all the ways that we are seems a bit hollow. OTOH, if we say that Christ could have sinned, then that is impossible to reconcile with Christ being God. So, it's a paradox of sorts.

I think this fits into the same category. I don't think it would be in Christ's nature to disobey the Father, so He wouldn't, yet being a human being with free will, in theory He could, even though He never would. This also addresses the idea that Christ went to the cross freely and not under any compulsion from anyone else, including the Father.

I don't know if that's where Bob stands, I assume that's the issue he's dealing with.

So, is that "yes"?

My question is, do you believe some of God's prophecies are unfulfilled?

Other than those yet to be fulfilled, no.

Do you disagree with the Open theists on this site who claim that Jonah's prophecy to Nineveh was unfulfilled?

I need stamps,
Hilston

 

[themuzicman]

No, they're separate issues. The Settled View functions quite well without an Open View to compare it to.

That may be so, but you're not treating them that way.

I agree. That wasn’t my intention. However, from what you've written, your OVT is not the typical TOL OVT.

That's true.

It's an untenable proposition. If you posit that God knows all possible futures, and that He reacts perfectly to every contingency in order to bring about His plans, as well as knowing human nature and behavior down to the most minute detail (do you affirm these things?), then nothing should surprise Him. There should be no unexpected circumstances. The notion that such a God would ever be surprised suggests an incompetence of colossal magnitude.

My guess it that we would disagree as to what is entailed in "human nature." Given a truly free will, even knowing the human nature in full detail wouldn't give one absolute knowledge of what one would do in a given situation.

Do you agree with the Open Theists on TOL who, citing Jer 19:5; 32:35, believe there are things that happened that never entered the mind of God?

Nope.

Again, God Himself makes the guarantee. Not only does logic tell us that a guaranteed outcome requires the guaranteed means to get there, but the Scriptures affirm this as well. From one moment to the next, there must be guaranteed events that lead to the desired outcome.

Well, this is your presupposition. You're stating here that there is only one possible path to what God wishes to accomplish. This is simply not the case, as I've already shown.

Did God "just work it out" that the evil of Joseph's brothers would turn out for good? Or did God plan it that way, i.e. was it God's intention? Joseph's words to his brothers were: "You though evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring it to pass, as it is this day, to save many people alive." (Gen 50:20). If God just happened to "just work it out," then the text is overstating the case. Whereas, if God actually planned and intended for the details to work out the way they did, including the evil thoughts that Joseph's brothers had against him, then the text is saying exactly what we'd expect it to say.

Well, if we ditch the presupposition of determinism, this passage comes down to the idea that God knew the evil intent of Joseph's brothers, and brought about circumstances to respond to their evil by making good out of it.

Except you're leaving out the fact that God intended Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery.

Only after Joseph's brothers had determined to do harm to him.

Of course there are any number of ways God could have accomplished His purpose. But the one in the Bible is the way that God planned and intended, including the evil thoughts of Joseph's brothers against him.

That's only the case in your presupposition view.

We know more than that. We know that God planned the evil thoughts that Joseph's brothers had against him. We also know that God Himself planned the famine that would drive Joseph's brothers to seek his help in Egypt (Ps 105:16-24). The Settled View makes sense in light of these scriptures. The Open View must do violence to language and logic to fit these passages to their theology.

Give me a break. Again, this is simply your presuppositional view. You're assuming that the order of events is determinist in nature.

From an OVT perspective, God sees the evil intent of Joseph's brothers first. So, there are dreams, and then at the opportune moment (after Judah prevents the brothers from killing him), gets him sent to Egypt, and a famine is put into motion.

Notice the verb tenses:

When he summoned a famine on the land
and broke all supply of bread,
17he had sent a man ahead of them,
Joseph, who was sold as a slave.​

God had already sent Joseph when he summoned the famine. In your determinist view, the famine comes first. Looks like you need a better exegesis.

No one is making that claim. The way it happened is the way God planned in advance, every meticulous detail, and that those events would inexorably occur, exactly as God intended.

That's your presuppositional view. That's not borne out in Scripture.

Not at all. Fundamental to my thinking is that God is God-like, and that when God says He has planned everything out in advance He really means it.

Which is fine. That doesn't imply a determinist view or even that God's plan has only one possible course to get there. That's just you imposing your presupposition on it.

Which presuppositions would those be?

Determinism, that God can only accomplish His plans and His purposes in one way.

Do you disagree with TOL's Open Theists who believe could God lie if He wanted to?

No, God said that He doesn't lie.

Here is a major point where we differ. God is not, according to scripture, able to oppose His own deliberative counsel. It would be a denial of His own nature, which He is not able to do.

But, again, you're assuming that God has predetermined everything that would happen. If God expected that Adam and Eve would live without eating from the tree, and told them that they would surely die if they ate from the tree, and they ate, then at that moment, God would be justified in annihilating the Universe. That could have been His deliberative counsel, given this possibility. But it wasn't.

Now that God has promised redemption and has brought salvation, He would be violating His own Word in doing so, thus He will not. But short of God's promises, God would be justified in doing so.

So, is that "yes"?

No.

Do you disagree with the Open theists on this site who claim that Jonah's prophecy to Nineveh was unfulfilled?

If by unfulfilled you mean that the proclaimed judgment never came, that's what the text clearly states. If by unfulfilled you mean that the prophecy was unconditional, and God undercut Jonah by changing His mind, then no. The prophecy to Ninevah was clearly conditional, based upon the giving of 40 days. The city repented, and God responded by relenting.

Muz

 

[Hilston]

Clete still doesn't know what he is talking about (Part II)

Preface: As a result of my dialogue with themuzicman, I must now qualify which type of Open Theist I am describing or debating. In the following post, my comments apply to the Bob Enyart/typical TheologyOnline sort of Open Theist, and do not necessarily apply to the Open Theists of themuzicman variety.

… when you are talking about whether or not God is just and in that context you declare Him arbitrary, you are stating something that is clearly contradictory, not to mention unbiblical.

Here is another example of how the Open Theist projects the proclivities of fallible humans upon the infallible God. The Open Theist believes God is righteous and just so far, that is, God hasn't {yet} given them a reason to question His righteousness or justice. It is an existential theology. Since they do not affirm God as being essentially righteous and just (i.e. perfectly righteous and just in His essence), there is that real possibility that God could choose to be unrighteous and unjust. Therefore, the Open Theist cannot trust that a just judge can be completely arbitrary and completely trustworthy simultaneously. Watch ...

God cannot be both just and arbitrary at the same time and in the same way.

See what I mean? Open Theists, despite their lipservice to the contrary, really don't trust God.

Can God be arbitrary in some way that doesn't have anything to do with His justice? Yeah! Sure He can! He can choose from two morally equal choices in a completely arbitrary way if He wants to.

In typical Open Theist fashion, on the "man-is-the-measure-of-all-things" principle, Clete presumes to make the rules. The finite human raises himself up and tells God when He can and cannot be arbitrary. And of course, this comes as no surprise because the Open Theist views God as merely a bigger, stronger human, subject to the same corruptions of fallible, finite men.

But what He cannot do, for example, would be to punish someone for a sin they didn't commit or reward someone for evil and still be just.

Note the qualifier: "… and still be just." In the Open Theist's mind, God could choose to do these things, and the Open Theist would then rise in judgment to declare God unjust. Whereas the Biblical teaching is that God is essentially just and is unable to be unjust. The Open Theist's "trust" in God is existential and tentative, as long as God remains just (in the Open Theist's judgment). The Biblical view is that God is to be trusted because of Who He is in His essence, that is, in His essential immutable nature, not because He has (so far) avoided falling into corruption.

God CANNOT do that!

Of course God could, if the Open View is taken to its logical conclusions. So to be consistent, Clete would need to add here, "and remain just."

... Not because of some weakness on His part but simply because it cannot be done.

Again, remember Clete's qualifier: "it cannot be done [and God remain just]." To be consistent, the Open Theist must indeed believe it can be done, because God is only righteous and trustworthy so far.

It's contradictory, irrational and in all other ways impossible.

Yet again, remember the qualifier. What the Open Theist really means is "it's contradictory, irrational and in all other ways impossible" for God to be arbitrary and remain just.

Just as a three dimensional object cannot be spherically sharp cornered, a judge cannot be arbitrarily just.

This is because according to the Open View, no judge--not even God Himself--is essentially righteous and just.

Everybody wang-chung,
Hilston

 

[godrulz]

Hilston, queen of straw men.

 

[Hilston]

Clete still doesn't know what he is talking about (Part III)

Preface: As a result of my dialogue with themuzicman, I must now qualify which type of Open Theist I am describing or debating. In the following post, my comments apply to the Bob Enyart/typical TheologyOnline sort of Open Theist, and do not necessarily apply to the Open Theists of themuzicman variety.

Jim, on the other hand, would have you believe that God could have decided to send people to Hell for any reason whatsoever or for no reason at all! Jim believes that God is allowed to punish whomever He wants for whatever reason no matter whether that reason has anything to do with reality or not.

Only in the diseased mind of the Open Theist would Settled Theism be characterized this way. Settled Theists do not believe God could deicde to send people to Hell for any reason, no more than God could create a rock too big to lift.

According to Jim, God could, for example, decide to punish you for my sin, or to send you to Heaven because of the sin of your neighbor.

My understanding of Open Theism is clear and precise, and I could no doubt present a very clear and precise picture of Clete's beliefs to the satisfaction of Clete and those who know him. And while I choose to focus more on the logical conclusions of Clete's view in order to demonstrate how ridiculous his theology is, it should be noted here that Clete does not have an adequate understanding of, nor is he capable of presenting a clear picture of the Settled View, to say nothing of the logical conclusions thereof, as Clete has sufficiently demonstrated in his recent posts.

When I go out of my way to ridicule the Open View, I at least say things that I can show to be logical, based on a sufficient grasp of the Open Theist's stated beliefs. Clete, however, can't even get out of the box when it comes to expanding upon the beliefs of the Settled View. And it's no wonder, since he claims to have learned Calvinism in "Calvinistic churches" in Tulsa, churches I personally called on the telephone, only to discover that they were actually Arminian Churches. Watch and you'll see what I mean:

Whatever! God is God, He can do whatever He wants for whatever reason no matter how ridiculous or inconsistent it is with everything anyone understands to be justice or righteousness. In short, Jim believes that God could be completely inconsistent with His previous behavior and He would still be just.

Notice how the existentialism poison that saturates Clete's thinking even affects his attempt to ridicule the Settled View. He can't seem to figure out how to make fun of a view that describes God as God-like. The Open Theist sees God as not essentially anything. Rather, God is defined, in Clete's mind, by what God does. This is existentialism in a nutshell.

The truth is, God is essentially good, essentially righteous, and essentially just and therefore He cannot be otherwise. For this reason, God cannot "do whatever He wants for whatever reason." God cannot deny Himself, God cannot lie. These are things that are impossible for God because of what God is in His essence. For the Open Theist, God can indeed deny Himself and lie, but so far He hasn't. The fact is, God cannot "be completely inconsistent with His previous behavior and … still be just." No Settled View proponent worth his theological salt would agree to Clete's nonsensical characterizations.

In Jim's mind, righteousness is simply whatever God happens to do and that it just as easily could have been something altogether different than it is right now.

See what I mean? To the Open Theist, God is as God does. To the Settled Theist, God is exactly Who He says He is. The Open Theist judges God by God's actions. The Settled Theist believes what God says about Himself in His Word.

Ziplock fresh™
Hilston

 

[Clete]

When I go out of my way to ridicule the Open View, I at least say things that I can show to be logical,...

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


The rest of his post is simply too ridiculous to respond too directly.

Existentialist! Really? :chuckle:

I really don't understand why Jim is afraid of debating the topic on its merits, instead preferring to make attempts to frighten people with the use of sophisticated sounding words that most people are completely unfamiliar with, hoping that they will assume it to be something terribly unbibilical and therefore evil and false, employing the 'guilt by association' fallacy less than two sentences after having claimed to be logical.

Jim has turned himself into his own best refutation. I love it!

Exodus 3:14

 

[Lon]

Observation and bump

Observation and bump

A book you can download and read (not skim) that will prove helpful to you is available here. (The words and pix in my sig are hyperlinked for a reason.) :squint:

AMR

If what passes for serious scholasticism is to only uncritically read the arguments of those that agree with your own, then some of you are well on your way. Kind of sad, actually, but not unexpected. Until you mature to the point that you can easily adopt the arguments of those that you disagree with and carefully, substantively, then go about deconstructing them, reasoning your way through them, and occasionally agreeing with them, most of what you will be doing is simply engaging in empty rhetoric, the currency of not a few here and there. :squint:

AMR

Kind of sad this was never met or discussed by thinking Open Theists.

 

[themuzicman]

Well, let's answer some of the major question from this missive.

This concession, however, is potentially embarrassing—have
virtually all Jews and virtually all Christians throughout history misread
the Old Testament?p 31

This assumes that virtually all Jews and all Christians engaged the topic of the foreknowledge of God with respect to the Old Testament. Since it has never been a major issue in the church, (with Socinius being possibly the major player, although he was excommunicated for Arianism, not his view of foreknowledge), there simply hasn't been a lot of critical thought prior to the reformation.

The same charge could (and probably still can) be aimed at Reformed theologians regarding whether one must be a part of the Church in order to receive sacraments. For 1500 years, this was simply true. Suddenly the Reformers come up with some new formula that eliminates all but two of the sacraments, and claims that one not be part of the RCC to receive them validly.

So, there is historical precedent, not necessarily for this particular view of foreknowledge, but rather for a particular area of theology to come under new criticism for valid examination.

(While I understand the criticisms of the influences of Greek Philosophy on Christianity, I don't think the fact that this influence exists is necessarily a bad thing. However, I do think that an examination of those influences is in order.)

The openness advocates reject physical depictions of God, understanding them anthropomorphically, but they accept mental and emotional depictions of God (anthropopathisms), understanding them literally. p36

I would think this to be untrue. In fact, it appears to be a straw man. OVTs don't deny that there are anthropopathisms, bur rather insist on something more that "God doesnt' change" as a basis for calling something anthropopathism. There must be an exegetical, a contextual or genre based reason for making this statement. Many of the examples of God changing His mind in the OT have no such exegetical basis.

Casual observers have noted similarities between open
theism and process theology.p43

Just pointing out that this is going to be a "guilt by association."

The claim against traditionalism is, of course, nothing new. In the nineteenth
century various theologians in the liberal/revisionist tradition
complained that orthodoxy constituted the victory of Athens over
Jerusalem. p45

More of the same.

The Greek tradition, then, has done the Christian heritage
a great disservice.p45

The sarcastic tone only belies the straw man argument. I don't think that OVTs generally say that Greek tradition has been bad on the whole, but rather certain adoptions don't fit the biblical model.

But the authors of this piece seem content to stick to generalizations.


Having gotten through page 60, I find nothing new or compelling to write about, really. It's just a bunch of reformed theologians trying to throw dirt on OVT.

Perhaps, as I have time, I will read further, but there just isn't much to respond to, as it seems to be an attempt to push specific applications to broad strokes, majoring in minors, and building straw men.

 

[Lon]

Well, let's answer some of the major question from this missive.


I would think this to be untrue. In fact, it appears to be a straw man. OVTs don't deny that there are anthropopathisms, bur rather insist on something more that "God doesnt' change" as a basis for calling something anthropopathism. There must be an exegetical, a contextual or genre based reason for making this statement. Many of the examples of God changing His mind in the OT have no such exegetical basis.





The sarcastic tone only belies the straw man argument. I don't think that OVTs generally say that Greek tradition has been bad on the whole, but rather certain adoptions don't fit the biblical model.

But the authors of this piece seem content to stick to generalizations.


Perhaps, as I have time, I will read further, but there just isn't much to respond to, as it seems to be an attempt to push specific applications to broad strokes, majoring in minors, and building straw men.

I understand you must take this view to champion open theism, but I've heard these same things here on TOL so they cannot be perceived merely as strawmen any more than denying Sanders saying God makes mistakes and changes His mind.

Along with that, I think it also important in your particular assessment to recognize that you an open theist of a different color and will hone in on different things. One of them will be those strawmen observations I think. Specifically, I think you are correct, they tend to be strawmen where you are concerned but I think they reflect a more accurate picture of the general OV position.

 

[Hilston]

Along with that, I think it also important in your particular assessment to recognize that you [are] an open theist of a different color and will hone in on different things. One of them will be those strawmen observations I think. Specifically, I think you are correct, they tend to be strawmen where you are concerned but I think they reflect a more accurate picture of the general OV position.

This is why I gave up on my discussion with themuzicman. He doesn't represent Open Theism in its most widely held permutation, as it is generally casted by TOLers and the Boyd/Sanders/Hasker types. I'd rather choose my battles and oppose those who stand to effect the most damage with their insidious quasi-theological poison, instead of wasting my time on the occasional rogue Open Theist such as themuzicman.

 

[godrulz]

Kind of sad this was never met or discussed by thinking Open Theists.

Some think that 'thinking Open Theist' is an oxymoron.

 

[godrulz]

This is why I gave up on my discussion with themuzicman. He doesn't represent Open Theism in its most widely held permutation, as it is generally casted by TOLers and the Boyd/Sanders/Hasker types. I'd rather choose my battles and oppose those who stand to effect the most damage with their insidious quasi-theological poison, instead of wasting my time on the occasional rogue Open Theist such as themuzicman.

I find him refreshing, well spoken, representative, but do not agree with every detail, just like Calvinists and MAD-types are in the same boat. In contrast, Hilston has a thinly veiled arrogance, sound intelligent, but is not always so (not always correct).

As to myself? I am perfect, Renaissance Man:surf: proud to be humble.:grave:

I will wear the rogue label if that is what it takes to be right vs wrong. Boo Calvinism and MAD. Bravo, Open Theism and the Bible.

 

[Lon]

This is why I gave up on my discussion with themuzicman. He doesn't represent Open Theism in its most widely held permutation, as it is generally casted by TOLers and the Boyd/Sanders/Hasker types. I'd rather choose my battles and oppose those who stand to effect the most damage with their insidious quasi-theological poison, instead of wasting my time on the occasional rogue Open Theist such as themuzicman.

For me, he thinks a bit like I do so I actually appreciate conversation with him because it connects some of those missing reasoning links in discussion. It is hard to make some of the great leaps in discussion between a Calvinist and Open Theist.

 

[salumiere]

Can I be a dummy and ask what MAD is?

 

[Nick M]

MAD is an acronym for the Mid Acts Dispensation of grace.

Paul was called mid acts and given the dispensation of grace. The ministry that Jesus died for the sins of the world. It was brought out with the fall of national Israel.