ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[genuineoriginal]

Are you not aware that the Greek word translated "saved" can mean to be delivered? By the context we can see that the reference to "salvation" is in regard "deliverance" from persecution:

"Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake...But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved" (Mt.24:9,13).

We will be delivered from persecution by being killed.
:rotfl:

By the "context" the word "end" can only be understood as referring to the end of the great tribulation and the following verse describes the deliverance that will happen at the end of that tribulation:

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zech.12:8-9).

I gave you the context of the verse, and you ignored it because it didn't fit what you wanted to believe.
:rotfl:

Let us look at the following verse:

"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life" (Jn.3:15).

The meaning of the Greek word translated "perish" in this verse means "to incur the loss of true or eternal life: to be delivered up to eternal misery: Jn. iii. 15" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the words at John 3:15 are saying that those who are believing will not be delivered up to eternal misery.

You say that they can.

You have taught me something on this verse. Perish means "destroyed", not "die".
But, you don't believe that those that don't believe will be destroyed but that they will live forever in eternal misery?
:rotfl:

But you said earlier that until the Lord Jesus returns no one "gains more than a promise of salvation":

Is not being saved more than just the promise of salvation? Of course it is. It is actually receiving the promise. And now you admit that the lady was saved prior to the Lord Jesus' return even though earlier you said that no one could be saved until His return.

As long as our name remains written in the book of rememberance (Revelation 21:27), we can be considered "saved" since Jesus will be an advocate for us (1 John 2:1) when we stand before the father at the Great White Throne (Revelation 20:12). However, that "salvation" is only good while our name remains written in the book (Revelation 20:15) and hasn't been blotted out (Exodus 32:33;Revelation 22:19). We are saved by faith (Ephesians 2:8), meaning that faith is required in order for our names to be written in the book (Malachi 3:16), but we can depart from the faith and have our names blotted out (Psalm 69:28).

So believing is not enough to be saved even though the Lord Jesus said that those who "believe" have been given eternal life and will not be judged?:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

We will not be judged if our name is found in the book of life (Revelation 20:12)

Again, I will ask you:

Which Greek expert can you cite who says that the Greek word translated "foreknowledge" means "prediction"?

Hippocrates

 

[Jerry Shugart]

We will be delivered from persecution by being killed.

I quoted verses which show exactly how those who endure to the end will be delivered from persecution but you just ignored that evidence:

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zech.12:8-9).

I gave you the context of the verse, and you ignored it because it didn't fit what you wanted to believe.

I did not ignore it because I quoted the immediate context and also gave the meaning of those verses::

"Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake...But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved" (Mt.24:9,13).

Are you not aware that the Greek word translated "saved" can mean to be delivered? By the context we can see that the reference to "salvation" is in regard "deliverance" from persecution:

You have taught me something on this verse. Perish means "destroyed", not "die".

John 3:15 is saying that those who are believing will NOT incur the loss of true or eternal life and will NOT be delivered up to eternal misery but you continue to insist that they can:

We are saved by faith (Ephesians 2:8), meaning that faith is required in order for our names to be written in the book (Malachi 3:16), but we can depart from the faith and have our names blotted out (Psalm 69:28).

Why do you refuse to believe that once a person receives eternal life they shall NEVER PERISH?

At 1 John 5:11 Christians are told that they have already been given eternal life:

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 Jn.5:11).

And here is what the Lord Jesus says about those to whom He has given eternal life:

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish" (Jn.10:28).

The Lord Jesus says that those who have received eternal life "shall never perish" but you say that they can!

Earlier I said the following to you:

So believing is not enough to be saved even though the Lord Jesus said that those who "believe" have been given eternal life and will not be judged?:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

To this you said:

We will not be judged if our name is found in the book of life (Revelation 20:12)

Since those who "believe" are given eternal life and the Lord Jesus says that they "shall never perish" then common sense dictates that the names of those who "believe" will be found in the book of life.

Do you agree?

Hippocrates

Then quote the evidence that you have where he says that the Greek word translated "foreknowledge" means "prediction."

 

[genuineoriginal]

I quoted verses which show exactly how those who endure to the end will be delivered from persecution but you just ignored that evidence

No, you said that being killed is the same as being saved. Go back and look!

Why do you refuse to believe that once a person receives eternal life they shall NEVER PERISH?

I don't refuse to believe it. Once a person receives eternal life, they shall NEVER PERISH!

I also know WHEN that happens.
We don't have eternal life until we put on immortality.

Corinthians 15 51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.​

 

[DFT_Dave]

I meant to say "reasonable" answer so excuse me. In my honest opinion you never provided any "reasonable" answers.

For instance your answer to 2 Thessalonians 2:13 was that the "you" in the verse is plural. But you never answered me when I said that of course it is plural because the epistle is addressed to more than one person:

"Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess.1:1).

You never had a "reasonable" answer that the choosing, which is described at Ephesians 1:4 as being "before the foundation of the world," was in regard to individuals:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

it is only "individuals" who believe the truth and it is "individuals" who are saved when they believe:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).

So before foundation of the world God chose individuals for salvation and that directly contradicts the brand of "open" theology promoted by people like Greg Boyd.

God's choosing is not the one's saved, it is the means by which the salvation occurs, "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth".

The proof is the "middle" voice of the verb chose, "God chose for himself", not "God chose you"--active voice. God chose that everyone, whosoever will, to be saved this way, not some other way.

You're going to object to this. I foreknow this not because I see the future, but because I know you're emotionally bound to a fatalistic irrational belief. The logic of grammar would convince a reasonable mind.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The proof is the "middle" voice of the verb chose, "God chose for himself", not "God chose you"--active voice. God chose that everyone, whosoever will, to be saved this way, not some other way.

You pervert what Paul wrote because you know that the way 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is written destroys the "open" theology promoted by people like Greg Boyd.

The verse doers not say that "God chose THAT." Instead it says that God chose YOU:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

There is a huge difference between God chosing THAT and God choosing YOU. But since you know that the way that the verse is written sinks your little ship you just pervert what Paul wrote.

The logic of grammar would convince a reasonable mind.

Anyone who understands English grammar will immediately recognize that the prepositional phrases "through sanctification of the Spirit" and "[through] belief of the truth" are adverbial and modify the verb "chosen."

You turn logic on its head in regard to English grammar and then you get out your editing pencil and change "God chose YOU" to "God chose THAT."

 

[genuineoriginal]

You pervert what Paul wrote because you know that the way 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is written destroys the "open" theology promoted by people like Greg Boyd.

The verse doers not say that "God chose THAT." Instead it says that God chose YOU:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

There is a huge difference between God chosing THAT and God choosing YOU. But since you know that the way that the verse is written sinks your little ship you just pervert what Paul wrote.

Anyone who understands English grammar will immediately recognize that the prepositional phrases "through sanctification of the Spirit" and "[through] belief of the truth" are adverbial and modify the verb "chosen."

You turn logic on its head in regard to English grammar and then you get out your editing pencil and change "God chose YOU" to "God chose THAT."

Paul did not write in ENGLISH, so any argument about ENGLISH GRAMMAR shows that the person with the argument is not qualified to teach because he doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Once a person receives eternal life, they shall NEVER PERISH!

I also know WHEN that happens.
We don't have eternal life until we put on immortality.

You really have a very limited knowledge of the Scriptures if you believe that "we don't have eternal life until we put on immortality."

You obviously either do not know of the following verse or you just flat out refuse to believe it:

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 Jn.5:11).

Not only does the Apostle John tell us that we already possess eternal life he says that we should "know" that we have eternal life:

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life" (1 Jn.5:13).

Perhaps you have never read John's first epistle or else I cannot understand why you are not aware that Christians possess eternal life before they put on immortality.

 

[Lon]

I do not question the actions of God as written in the Bible because I trust God to do the right thing.
I do question what "classical theism" claim are the actions of God, such as their claim that He makes conditional covenants after having already seen whether the conditions of the covenant will be met or not.

Really interesting. For almost 2000 years this is the only kind of theism there was.

You never said that the example implied anything, and you avoided giving an honest answer to the question.
What is the implication you are talking about? Please state it clearly so there is no mistake.

The example implies nothing! Your story gives me nothing to understand any reason why he'd do it.

Ron Washington became manager for the Texas Rangers in the 2007 season. Assuming he had an "almanac from the future" which shows the results of the 2010 schedule, he makes the following "contract" (covenant) with the Texas Rangers:
"If the Texas Rangers win the 2010 World Series, then every member of the team in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 will receive a bonus equal to the salary they received for those years."

The "almanac from the future" gave Ron Washington the "divine foreknowledge" that the San Francisco Giants win the 2010 World Series 4-1 against the Texas Rangers, and Ron Washington knew that before making the contract with them in 2007.

Putting aside any attempt to defend a theological position, what is your honest opinion about anyone making that kind of contract with that kind of foreknowledge?

So, that was my very honest answer. I will not judge the heart of man here and he may or may not have the best of intentions. My jury is still out on this man's guilt. I hope he gets me for a jury member and not you where he is already tried, given a verdict, and convicted.

I have a few more questions: Ron, what were you trying to do? Did you feel the future unalterable?

Furthermore, and No, I don't think it blasphemy. You are judging God from my perspective, but I realize completely you are attacking a position about Him rather than Him. It is not tantamount to blaspheming God but it would be incredibly presumptuous for me, holding to traditional theology: It is man trying to judge God's actions. If I would not judge Ron's actions here, you can bet I'm not about to do anything near it for God.
The traditional view doesn't need to because God only has our best interests in mind such that even if it 'looks' like something else, we know implicitly that we can trust Him. Sanders believes God makes mistakes, and as such, there may be a precedent in the OV to judge those mistakes. I'm not comfortable with it because of prior commitments to His character and actions that are always perfect, no matter what it looks like.

Rom 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens.
Rom 9:19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?
Rom 9:20 No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me this way?
Rom 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor?

 

[genuineoriginal]

You really have a very limited knowledge of the Scriptures if you believe that "we don't have eternal life until we put on immortality."

You obviously either do not know of the following verse or you just flat out refuse to believe it:

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 Jn.5:11).

Not only does the Apostle John tell us that we already possess eternal life he says that we should "know" that we have eternal life:

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life" (1 Jn.5:13).

Perhaps you have never read John's first epistle or else I cannot understand why you are not aware that Christians possess eternal life before they put on immortality.

You seem to have a reading comprehension caused by the people that taught you how to read the Bible.
Immortality is a condition of not being able to die.
Eternal life is a condition of not dying.

If you can die (mortal), then you do not have immortality.
If you die (as we all do before His return) then you do not have eternal life.

I studied salvation by putting together all the verses that talked about being saved and salvation. I compared the verses, looked at the context of them, and examined them closely. I also looked at the other verses in the Bible that contained allegories that taught on salvation.

I found that some verses talked about eternal life, salvation, and being saved as if it had already happened, other verses talked about the exact same things as if they were something we were to wait for and prepare ourselves for in order to receive them.

Now, you need to study these things for yourself and not rely on the words of the men that came before you who misled you into thinking you know more than you do.


Here is one of the allegorical passages:

Matthew 25 1Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. 2And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. 3They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: 4But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. 6And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. 7Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. 8And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. 9But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. 10And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. 11Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. 12But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. 13Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.​

You have a lamp, so you have eternal life now.
When Jesus returns, He will know if you have prepared for His return.
If you have prepared for His return, you will be transformed from mortal to immortal.
If you have not prepared for His return, you will not.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

First you said:

Once a person receives eternal life, they shall NEVER PERISH!

I also know WHEN that happens.
We don't have eternal life until we put on immortality.

But then I showed you a verse which directly contradicts your mistaken beliefs:

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 Jn.5:11).

So now you say:

You have a lamp, so you have eternal life now.

If you have prepared for His return, you will be transformed from mortal to immortal.
If you have not prepared for His return, you will not.

So now you say that we can have eternal life before we receive an immortal body but we can lose our salvation and perish. But you have not answered the words of the Lord Jesus here:

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish" (Jn.10:28).

earlier you made the following statement that betrays your ignorance of the Scriptures:

No one gains more than a promise of salvation prior to the return of Jesus.

We can see that the lady to whom the Lord Jesus addressed the following words was saved so she gained more than just a promise of salvation prior to His return:

"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk.7:48-50).

Your ignorance of the Scriptures is appalling.

Now let us go to the discussion of a verse which applies to the subject of this thread:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied" (1 Pet.1:2).

Earlier you gave the following interpretation of the verse:

"Elect according to the [prediction based on observation and reasoning] of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied" (1 Pet.1:2).

I asked you to name one Greek expert who says that the Greek word translated "foreknowledge" means "prediction." This is your answer:

Hippocrates

Now I will ask you the following question again and perhaps this time you will actually answer it:

Then quote the evidence that you have where he says that the Greek word translated "foreknowledge" means "prediction."

 

[genuineoriginal]

First you said:

But then I showed you a verse which directly contradicts your mistaken beliefs:

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 Jn.5:11).

So now you say:

So now you say that we can have eternal life before we receive an immortal body but we can lose our salvation and perish. But you have not answered the words of the Lord Jesus here:

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish" (Jn.10:28).

earlier you made the following statement that betrays your ignorance of the Scriptures:

We can see that the lady to whom the Lord Jesus addressed the following words was saved so she gained more than just a promise of salvation prior to His return:

"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk.7:48-50).

Your ignorance of the Scriptures is appalling.

Now let us go to the discussion of a verse which applies to the subject of this thread:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied" (1 Pet.1:2).

Earlier you gave the following interpretation of the verse:

I asked you to name one Greek expert who says that the Greek word translated "foreknowledge" means "prediction." This is your answer:

Now I will ask you the following question again and perhaps this time you will actually answer it:

Then quote the evidence that you have where he says that the Greek word translated "foreknowledge" means "prediction."

I already gave you the answers, so stop asking the same thing over and over in an attempt to justify your ignorance.
Come back after you study the issue for yourself.

 

[Lon]

Paul did not write in ENGLISH, so any argument about ENGLISH GRAMMAR shows that the person with the argument is not qualified to teach because he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Side note: The English conveys right here: "You" and/or "Ya'll"

 

[oatmeal]

This thread will be a continuation of the thread ARCHIVE: Open Theism pt. 2

Which at the time of this posting had 8,094 replies and almost 154,954 views! yet because of the size of the thread it had grown sluggish therefore we shut it down and opened part 3 here!

Enjoy and lets get back to the discussion!

The future.... is it completely settled in advance or open to an extent?

God has foreknowledge.

Foreknowledge of the future is not the same thing as God absolutely and completely forcing the future.

Reading the scriptures, one cannot help but notice, (when paying attention to this subject) how many times God uses the word "if" in communicating to people.

If some one will do this, God will do this.

Or the word, "whosoever" implying choice in the matter.

Sometimes the word "if " is implied..

See, for instance, Proverbs 3:5-6... The word if is not there, but if we trust in the Lord.... THEN, HE will direct our paths.

If we do not choose to "Trust in the Lord with all our hearts,......, he will not, or more accurately, cannot direct our paths.

Note it says direct, not force upon us. Even He directs, that still does not imply the we will pay attention to His direction.

No, the future is not predetermined, but it is foreknown by God.

oatmeal

 

[Lighthouse]

God has foreknowledge.

Foreknowledge of the future is not the same thing as God absolutely and completely forcing the future.

Reading the scriptures, one cannot help but notice, (when paying attention to this subject) how many times God uses the word "if" in communicating to people.

If some one will do this, God will do this.

Or the word, "whosoever" implying choice in the matter.

Sometimes the word "if " is implied..

See, for instance, Proverbs 3:5-6... The word if is not there, but if we trust in the Lord.... THEN, HE will direct our paths.

If we do not choose to "Trust in the Lord with all our hearts,......, he will not, or more accurately, cannot direct our paths.

Note it says direct, not force upon us. Even He directs, that still does not imply the we will pay attention to His direction.

No, the future is not predetermined, but it is foreknown by God.

oatmeal

If God foreknows it can it be different than He foreknows? Of course not! Meaning that it is then, as Knight put it in his opening post, completely settled in advance; so even if God is not forcing it it is forced. And in your view it is forced on God, because if He's not forcing it and it's settled then He is not in control. Do you really believe God is not in control?

How can God foreknow if it is not predetermined? Yes, God knows all that is established, insofar as He desires to know [He is still sovereign over His own knowledge], but how can He know something that is not established; it doesn't exist in the realm of even being possible knowledge.

So, if God knows the future then the future is established, i.e. settled, i.e. predetermined.

So either the future is not predetermined or it is foreknown by God.

Which is it?

 

[Lon]

Hi Lighthouse,
It looks like the ball got dropped with o.m. but your questions should be addressed and I'll pick 'em up if that works for you.

If God foreknows it can it be different than He foreknows? Of course not!

If the question was restated as 'will it be different,' that'd be correct, i.e. "Of course not." Because we make choices, it certainly 'can' be different but won't because our choices are known. The question 'can' with the implied "can't" eliminates the actuality of choice so that I can't answer the question concerning a differnt future (regardless of my theological camp).

Example: I 'can' choose chocolate but prefer vanilla.
In other words, if you ask me if I can choose chocolate, I'd say yes.
If you ask me if I will choose chocolate the answer is no.

Continuing this line of thought below....

Meaning that it is then, as Knight put it in his opening post, completely settled in advance; so even if God is not forcing it it is forced. And in your view it is forced on God, because if He's not forcing it and it's settled then He is not in control. Do you really believe God is not in control?

Again, the problem is that the question forces the conclusion.
Is our future unalterable? No. God altered our future through His Son's redemptive work but He planned it before man was ever created.

How can God foreknow if it is not predetermined? Yes, God knows all that is established, insofar as He desires to know [He is still sovereign over His own knowledge], but how can He know something that is not established; it doesn't exist in the realm of even being possible knowledge.

Hilston often chimes in here that if God cannot know, How would He be able to guarantee our salvation? His return? etc. The OV believes God knows what is future to the extent He has dedicated His plans. That is to say, He knows His own future actions implicitly. What the open view is driving at here is that God has created us as somewhat unpredictable freewill agents. It is my estimation that the scriptures are replete against such a notion, as, for instance, God tells us of Josiah, who his grandfather would be and what he'd accomplish 300+ years before he was born. This suggest that the realm of future knowledge is more than possible for God.

So, if God knows the future then the future is established, i.e. settled, i.e. predetermined.

So either the future is not predetermined or it is foreknown by God.

Which is it?

Josiah's future was certainly foreknown. Could (can) Josiah's future have been different? Yes. Would (was, will) it be different? No.

In other words, the future presents possibilities but will only allow unidirectional progress. Can we choose in our future? Yes. Can we choose differently? No. That is relegated to the past. Once we choose the prior options are no longer viable.

When it comes to choices, I prefer vanilla ice cream and will choose it everytime. Whether or not I am 'free' in my ice cream choice is a matter of opinion. My choice for vanilla is not negated simply because it is a foregone conclusion, nor does it diminish my enjoyment of it remotely. If you gave me pistachio or banana instead, I'd not resent my lack of freewill in the choice and would be just as happy, without ever really exercising my right to freewill. If chocolate is all you have, I'll go without.

Therefore, it is my conclusion, that, beyond doubt you have a limited but clear prescience about my future activity with ice cream. You now know to an almost certainty that I will choose vanilla. Does that knowledge eliminate my choice or pleasure? Nope, not a bit.

God's foreknowledge of our certain future doesn't eliminate anything from our choices. This post doesn't delve much into the certainty of God's foreknowledge, it just addresses that divine foreknowledge doesn't eliminate or diminish our choices.

 

[genuineoriginal]

God's foreknowledge of our certain future doesn't eliminate anything from our choices. This post doesn't delve much into the certainty of God's foreknowledge, it just addresses that divine foreknowledge doesn't eliminate or diminish our choices.

Absolute foreknowledge of a settled future just moves the problem of choice to a higher level, it does nothing to resolve the problem.

But this view has the disadvantage (in comparison to the open view) of reducing God to the level of the fabled Cassandra, the prophetess who was cursed to know the future without being able to do anything about it. Yet God is in this view even more unfortunate than Cassandra, for his foreknowledge is supposedly eternal. Foreknowledge, in this scenario, is hardly an advantageous attribute for God to have. It doesn't help him rule the world, but only ensures that there will never be any novelty or adventure in his experience of the world. So concludes H. H. Framer (The World and God: A Study of Prayer, Providence and Miracle [London: Nisbet & Co., 1935], p.35): "All that is left is the unspeakably sterile and depressing spectacle of omniscience playing an everlasting game of patience with itself, all possible combination of the cards being already known by heart." (p.305)
God at war: the Bible & spiritual conflict By Gregory A. Boyd​

 

[Lon]

Absolute foreknowledge of a settled future just moves the problem of choice to a higher level, it does nothing to resolve the problem.

But this view has the disadvantage (in comparison to the open view) of reducing God to the level of the fabled Cassandra, the prophetess who was cursed to know the future without being able to do anything about it. Yet God is in this view even more unfortunate than Cassandra, for his foreknowledge is supposedly eternal. Foreknowledge, in this scenario, is hardly an advantageous attribute for God to have. It doesn't help him rule the world, but only ensures that there will never be any novelty or adventure in his experience of the world. So concludes H. H. Framer (The World and God: A Study of Prayer, Providence and Miracle [London: Nisbet & Co., 1935], p.35): "All that is left is the unspeakably sterile and depressing spectacle of omniscience playing an everlasting game of patience with itself, all possible combination of the cards being already known by heart." (p.305)
God at war: the Bible & spiritual conflict By Gregory A. Boyd
​

Boyd is building off of a strawman, for His foreknowledge includes His actions and intentions. He is wrong.

 

[godrulz]

Boyd is building off of a strawman, for His foreknowledge includes His actions and intentions. He is wrong.

God's foreknowledge is still not exhaustive since much of what He does is in response to changing free will contingencies. God's foreknowledge around Israel, First/Second Coming of Christ, future judgments, etc. is based on His will and intellect, not a crystal ball (i.e. ability vs prescience in Is. 46 and 48).

Exhaustive foreknowledge of what He intends to do is not the same as claiming exhaustive foreknowledge of indeterminate realities that are unsettled and could develop in a number of ways. If truly contingent, they are not exhaustively foreknown. If not contingent, then determinism must be true leading to far greater problems than dynamic vs static omniscience.

 

[Bright Raven]

God's foreknowledge is still not exhaustive since much of what He does is in response to changing free will contingencies. God's foreknowledge around Israel, First/Second Coming of Christ, future judgments, etc. is based on His will and intellect, not a crystal ball (i.e. ability vs prescience in Is. 46 and 48).

Exhaustive foreknowledge of what He intends to do is not the same as claiming exhaustive foreknowledge of indeterminate realities that are unsettled and could develop in a number of ways. If truly contingent, they are not exhaustively foreknown. If not contingent, then determinism must be true leading to far greater problems than dynamic vs static omniscience.

Is He omniscient or is He not?

 

[godrulz]

Is He omniscient or is He not?

God is omniscient in most Christian views, including Open Theism. It is circular to assume that omniscience includes exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future free will contingencies. This cannot be demonstrated biblically or logically unless determinism is true (it can be shown to be false).

We differ as to the objects of certain/actual knowledge, not whether He knows everything knowable (He does). Some things are inherently unknowable or known as possible until they become actual. So, the issue is the nature of creation (free will/contingent vs deterministic/settled), not whether God knows reality as it is (He does). God is not ignorant of anything knowable, so the issue is what and how are things known/foreknown.