ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Bright Raven]

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.

He knows everything that is knowable yet somethings are unknowable. The question is; can you have a totally omniscient God and yet have free will. Isn't the question really, in a sense, that man wants free will to such an extent that in order to have it, God can only know the knowable. Let me ask you a question. Did not Adam have free will in the garden? There was one command that God gave; do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Do you really think that God did not know that Adam would disobey? If not why did God say not to touch or eat of it least Ye die. God has given man free will. Why is it that we think God does not know all things. It's really simple. He knows all things. He will even let us go on our merry way thinking that He doesn't.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It is circular to assume that omniscience includes exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future free will contingencies.

First, for the sake of argument let us assume you are right and God exists in "time." You have never had a "reasonable" answer that the choosing, which is described at Ephesians 1:4 as being "before the foundation of the world," is indeed in regard to free will contingencies, specifically believing the truth.

Here we see a verse that speaks of that same choosing which was before the foundation of the world and God chose those who believe the truth:

"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.

But of course you say that 2 Thessalonians 2:13 means something else but you have not yet said what it does mean.

 

[godrulz]

He knows everything that is knowable yet somethings are unknowable. The question is; can you have a totally omniscient God and yet have free will. Isn't the question really, in a sense, that man wants free will to such an extent that in order to have it, God can only know the knowable. Let me ask you a question. Did not Adam have free will in the garden? There was one command that God gave; do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Do you really think that God did not know that Adam would disobey? If not why did God say not to touch or eat of it least Ye die. God has given man free will. Why is it that we think God does not know all things. It's really simple. He knows all things. He will even let us go on our merry way thinking that He doesn't.

God knows all things knowable. Just as the location of Yoda is not knowable, even to an omniscient being, so the future is also not fixed/not yet/partially unsettled, so an omniscient God correctly knows it as such.

The parallel is that there are things that an omnipotent God cannot do (logical absurdities like making square circles or moral issues like lying), so omnipotence is doing all that is doable, not doing everything period (the rock too heavy to lift nonsense).

It does not limit omniscience to not know inherently impossible things to know. The problem is with the objects of certain knowledge, not the mind of God.

 

[genuineoriginal]

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

You still haven't honestly answered this question:

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?​

Now, assume that Ron Washington not only had the almanac, but was also planning to "fix" the game so the Texas Rangers would not win the 2010 World Series. What is your honest opinion of anyone making that kind of contract with that kind of intention?

 

[Lighthouse]

God is omniscient in that He knows everything knowable, limited only by His sovereign choice to be ignorant of something if He so chooses [He's God, He can do that]. The issue here is what is knowable, not how much God knows of it.

That which does not exist cannot be known.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It does not limit omniscience to not know inherently impossible things to know. The problem is with the objects of certain knowledge, not the mind of God.

You say that it is impossible for God to know free will contingencies that remain in the future because it is impossible that those things can be known.

You bring God down to your level and then make your pronouncements as if the following verses do not even exist:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

For the sake of argument once again I will agree with your "open" view that God exosts in "time" and His choosing is done "before the foundation of the world." With that said we can see exactly how He chooses at that time:

"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 are chosen in Him and it is only "individuals" who believe the truth and it is only "individuals" who are saved when they believe.

That is why we read the following:

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

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the saved are described as "elect" and their election or being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge.

But since all of these verses prove that your ideas are in error you are somehow able to pretend that they do not exist.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That which does not exist cannot be known.

So how do you explain the following words of the Lord Jesus spoken to Peter?:

"Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the c0ck crow, thou shalt deny me thrice" (Mt.26:34).

 

[godrulz]

God is omniscient in that He knows everything knowable, limited only by His sovereign choice to be ignorant of something if He so chooses [He's God, He can do that]. The issue here is what is knowable, not how much God knows of it.

That which does not exist cannot be known.

An omniscient God, even by Open Theism standards, cannot choose to be ignorant of things that other creatures or recording devices can clearly know. You are mostly right, but the last caveat is unique to TOL/Enyart, not academic Open Theism. Don't make our defense of Open Theism harder and less credible.

 

[godrulz]

So how do you explain the following words of the Lord Jesus spoken to Peter?:

"Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the c0ck crow, thou shalt deny me thrice" (Mt.26:34).

http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/open-theism/responses-to-objections/how-do-you-respond-to-matthew-2636/

http://www.cameronversluis.com/articles.php?url=denials_of_peter


This is specific foreknowledge, not exhaustive, proximal, not remote. The above is a plausible explanation to your objection which still does not deal with many other problems in your view (nor can we extrapolate this specific, proximal thing to remote, exhaustive definite FK if it can be shown that this is unbiblical, unnecessary, illogical).

I appreciate your difficulty to consider other paradigms, but you underestimate the strength of OT and overestimate the lack of problems with your view or the strength of it.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/open-theism/responses-to-objections/how-do-you-respond-to-matthew-2636/

Here is a part of what Boyd wrote:

Finally, little if any divine intervention would be necessary to ensure that three people would notice and question Peter about his relationship with the Lord. After all, Jesus and his disciples had been public figures for some time.

According to Boyd "little if any divine intervention would be necessary to ensure that three people would notice and question Peter about his relationship with the Lord."

So it took little or no intervention to ensure that Peter would not leave immediately to go where he was alone. Then it took little or no interverntion to ensure that Peter would run into a woman who just happened to know that he was a disciple of the Lord Jesus. Then we must believe that after this the same thing happened two more times, all by coincidence or with just a little intervention on God's part.

THen we are to believe that the Lord Jesus would be so sure that all those things would happen with little or no divine intervention that He would put His entire credibility on the line by predicting that they would happen!

If anyone believes that then they will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous.

Boyd also said:

Third, regarding Peter’s predicted denial, there is no reason to conclude that this was a “crystal ball” view into the future rather than a divine understanding of Peter’s present character. I suspect that anyone who knew Peter’s character perfectly could have predicted with certainty that under certain circumstances he would act cowardly.

If God can know how a person will act based on nothing but knowing a person's character then why didn't He know that Abraham feared Him until he had drawn back a knife to stab his son?:

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:10-12).

I appreciate your difficulty to consider other paradigms, but you underestimate the strength of OT and overestimate the lack of problems with your view or the strength of it.

You refuse to consider other paradigns because you refuse to believe what the Scriptures themselves reveal about the question under discussion:

For the sake of argument once again I will agree with your "open" view that God exists in "time" and His choosing is done "before the foundation of the world." With that said we can see exactly how He chooses at that time:

"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 are chosen in Him and it is only "individuals" who believe the truth and it is only "individuals" who are saved when they believe.

That is why we read the following:

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

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the saved are described as "elect" and their election or being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge.

That completely contradicts the "open" view espoused by Greg Boyd but you refuse to believe those verses. You KNOW that they do not mean what I say they mean but at the same time you are unable to tell us what they do mean!

You speak of my difficulty to consider other paradigms even though my ideas are based on what the Scriptures actually say. You refuse to consider other paradigms because you put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.

 

[godrulz]

The Abrahamic test would not be genuine if it was a foregone conclusion. 'Now I know...' fits the Open view, not the closed one. There is still a difference between high probability and certainty/actuality. It was possible, not probable, that he would fail the test. The test was only settled after the fact, not before. There is always a possibility to obey or disobey, consistent with character or contrary to it (one can act impulsively out of the norm).

One incident does not make or break either view. Like any other view, including trinity, etc., it rises or falls on all the cumulative evidence. Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism, Molinism, etc. all have issues, objections, strengths, weaknesses.

I would suggest the Open view is the least problematic, most biblical, most logical (with objections being able to be handled to a greater or lesser degree). You are in the same boat with your view, unless you are omniscient and infallible.

 

[Lon]

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.

Ya'know...I'm glad it isn't me telling God what He can and cannot do based on my tiny grey matter for the only reason of girding up my doctrine. nuff said.

 

[Lon]

You still haven't honestly answered this question:

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?
​

Now, assume that Ron Washington not only had the almanac, but was also planning to "fix" the game so the Texas Rangers would not win the 2010 World Series. What is your honest opinion of anyone making that kind of contract with that kind of intention?

Really? This is the only conclusion to the way God can interact with us if he has divine foreknowledge? I already answered this question multiple times.

Let's cut to the chase and look at the scriptures:

Exo 33:2 And I will send an Angel before you. And I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite;

The OV, upon an assumption, sees this promise as unfulfilled.
Incorrect, it was fulfilled.

Jos 1:3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, I have given that to you, as I said to Moses.

Foreknowledge does not negate a covenant, regardless of whether or not man fulfills the covenant. If man does not fulfill the covenant, whether or not God knew they would not is irrelevant. It does not point at all to a dubious intent. Man learns something if he does not live up to the covenant. Furthermore, it sets up and points to the Savior. Man learns that He is in desparate need of a Savior and the promises and covenants point directly to this fact.

 

[Lon]

The Abrahamic test would not be genuine if it was a foregone conclusion. 'Now I know...' fits the Open view, not the closed one. There is still a difference between high probability and certainty/actuality. It was possible, not probable, that he would fail the test. The test was only settled after the fact, not before. There is always a possibility to obey or disobey, consistent with character or contrary to it (one can act impulsively out of the norm).

One incident does not make or break either view. Like any other view, including trinity, etc., it rises or falls on all the cumulative evidence. Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism, Molinism, etc. all have issues, objections, strengths, weaknesses.

I would suggest the Open view is the least problematic, most biblical, most logical (with objections being able to be handled to a greater or lesser degree). You are in the same boat with your view, unless you are omniscient and infallible.

We covered this at the beginning of the thread.

 

[genuineoriginal]

whether or not God knew they would not is irrelevant. It does not point at all to a dubious intent.

I did not mention dubious intent.

I asked you to give your honest opinion on the scenario I provided.
You have consistently refused to give an opinion, but instead you have worked hard to avoid saying whether you would have a problem with a man using "divine foreknowledge" of the outcomes of the conditions he sets into a contract.

What is dubious about the intents in the scenario?

 

[Lon]

I did not mention dubious intent.

I asked you to give your honest opinion on the scenario I provided.
You have consistently refused to give an opinion, but instead you have worked hard to avoid saying whether you would have a problem with a man using "divine foreknowledge" of the outcomes of the conditions he sets into a contract.

What is dubious about the intents in the scenario?

Okay, I was trying to get beyond the scenario and cut to the chase that I perceived you were pointing to but I'll play along and see where it takes us instead of jumping to conclusions.

You still haven't honestly answered this question:

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?
​

Now, assume that Ron Washington not only had the almanac, but was also planning to "fix" the game so the Texas Rangers would not win the 2010 World Series. What is your honest opinion of anyone making that kind of contract with that kind of intention?

I don't know. I'm having trouble following your analogy for our discussion. Please tell me outright so we can get to the meat of this: Is Ron acting dubiously or not? Does he need an almanac to do this? I'm not seeing it as an important part of the scenario. It seems to me he is doing something illegal regarding professional league rules.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I would suggest the Open view is the least problematic, most biblical, most logical (with objections being able to be handled to a greater or lesser degree). You are in the same boat with your view, unless you are omniscient and infallible.

My view is based on what the Scriptures say while your view can only be arrived at by closing your eyes to those verses.

For the sake of argument once again I will agree with your "open" view that God exists in "time" and His choosing is done "before the foundation of the world." With that said we can see exactly how He chooses at that time:

"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 are chosen in Him and it is only "individuals" who believe the truth and it is only "individuals" who are saved when they believe.

That is why we read the following:

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

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the saved are described as "elect" and their election or being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge.

That completely contradicts the "open" view espoused by Greg Boyd but you refuse to believe those verses. You KNOW that they do not mean what I say they mean but at the same time you are unable to tell us what they do mean!

Your ideas in this matter are based on what some men say about the Scriptures and a denial of what the Scriptures actually say.

 

[Lighthouse]

An omniscient God, even by Open Theism standards, cannot choose to be ignorant of things that other creatures or recording devices can clearly know. You are mostly right, but the last caveat is unique to TOL/Enyart, not academic Open Theism. Don't make our defense of Open Theism harder and less credible.

Why not? Why do you say God is limited by something outside of Himself so that He cannot limit Himself?

 

[godrulz]

Ya'know...I'm glad it isn't me telling God what He can and cannot do based on my tiny grey matter for the only reason of girding up my doctrine. nuff said.

Using this logic, we should just simplistically accept and promote any nonsensical error. We are to love Him with our minds and it is the glory of a king to search out a matter. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are worth the effort. The Spirit leads into truth rather than coddle us in things that diminish God (worship in spirit and truth, not just what feels good even if wrong).

 

[godrulz]

Why not? Why do you say God is limited by something outside of Himself so that He cannot limit Himself?

There are self-limitations by God. The limitation you are ascribing to Him is not defensible. He does limit His power as the Word incarnate, yet God is still omnipotent. The way His omniscience is limited is inherent to creating a non-deterministic universe, not making a choice to be ignorant of things finite creation is fully aware of. Using your logic, we should start arguing for square circles?