ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Jerry Shugart]

EDF offers no providential advantage since God could not change the foreknown future even if He wants to (would make His FK false).

You remind me of Arius whose theology could be summed up in the following way:

“I will not believe what I cannot understand. What I cannot understand cannot possibly be true.”

You make your finite human reasoning the judge about what can be true about God. That is why your theology is constantly bringing God down to your level. Your ideas are the height of folly and are a display of your arrogance.

In the meantime you prove that you have no answers to the Scriptures which prove that your brand of "open" theology is WRONG!
You just close your eyes to them and say that there must be an answer to them but you do not have the answer.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Here is my bottom-line paradigm: The future is not only what God sees, but what He decides it is going to be.

Yeah, I know you think this makes sense, but it doesn't to me.

Which comes first, God deciding what the future is going to be, or God seeing the future?
If God deciding what the future is going to be comes first, then the future is predetermined and God doesn't actually see the future, He just knows what He determined.
If God seeing the future comes first, then the future is not settled, it is open because God's decisions invalidates the future He saw.

I firmly believe all of our futures are completely/irrevocably in His hands to do as He wills. God can do whatever He wishes, without need of permission.

So what? I believe that, too.

God would not change those future happenings, because it suggest He might have been wrong or mistaken in His original plans (His original plans are the ones carried out, no back-up).

God doesn't seem to have a problem changing His plans, so why do you have a problem with Him doing so?

Absolutely He has a future planned for us according to our prayers but because He already has made those determinations, it isn't a change (same plans, no deviation).

Considering the evil done in this world, that is a horrible thing to say about God.

 

[Lon]

Yeah, I know you think this makes sense, but it doesn't to me.

Which comes first, God deciding what the future is going to be, or God seeing the future?
If God deciding what the future is going to be comes first, then the future is predetermined and God doesn't actually see the future, He just knows what He determined.
If God seeing the future comes first, then the future is not settled, it is open because God's decisions invalidates the future He saw.

EDF offers no providential advantage since God could not change the foreknown future even if He wants to (would make His FK false).

I'm not sure you two will perceive, because you both are demonstrating two-dimensional thinking. The main points of this conversation are understood metaphysically. You rightly point out the conundrum, but seem to be missing the cogent answer. I'll simply say again, the future is completely in God's hands. If that doesn't make sense, I don't have anything else to contribute at this time. We'll be talking past one another.

 

[godrulz]

The future is in God's hand because of His power/ability/wisdom/intelligence, not because of a supposed prescience or crystal ball that offers no providential advantage (not to mention it is incoherent in a non-deterministic worldview).

Jerry: Your assessment about Arius is ad hominem and not fair. The issue is the strength or weakness of the view, not wanting to have a view that stands up to scrutiny/critical thinking/biblical exegesis.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry: Your assessment about Arius is ad hominem and not fair. The issue is the strength or weakness of the view, not wanting to have a view that stands up to scrutiny/critical thinking/biblical exegesis.

The fact is that your view is without strength and the Scriptures prove that it is in error.

And you have no answer to them. And then you have the nerve to speak of "critical thinking" and "Biblical exegesis." Your response is a denial of those two things.

You have the spiritual IQ of a two year old because you refuse to let the Scriptures be your final authority.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Since Abraham was in faith when he offered up Isaac upon the altar we can know that his intention was to sacrifice Isaac and therefore God KNEW by then that his intention was to sacrifice Isaac. Therefore God knew BFORE Abraham lifted the knife that he would pass the test so these words cannot be taken literally:

You are looking at the intention, but missing the moment of truth.

Do you even know what a "moment of truth" is?
It is a moment when a person or thing is put to the test; a critical or decisive time on which much depends.
80 - 85% of the soldiers in World War II faced the moment of truth, and "would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges."

Abraham may have had the intention (a course of action that one has in mind to follow) of killing Isaac since the time God told him to do so, but he had to make the decision for real at the moment he picked up the knife. That was the moment of truth.

Maybe you are the type of person who has never had to face a gut wrenching decision, the type where you have to do something you don't want to do and must muster up the courage and steel your nerves in order to do it.
If so, you will never understand what Abraham went through.
You can sit calmly in your comfy chair and say that Abraham's decision was no more difficult than deciding whether to have scones or biscuits with your tea, but that is not the reality.

The reality is that Abraham had to make the hardest decision of his life after Isaac was bound and lying on the altar. That was the moment of truth, and it was not clear to anyone before that moment, not even God, whether Abraham would choose to obey God or choose to spare his only son and heir.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'm not sure you two will perceive, because you both are demonstrating two-dimensional thinking. The main points of this conversation are understood metaphysically. You rightly point out the conundrum, but seem to be missing the cogent answer. I'll simply say again, the future is completely in God's hands. If that doesn't make sense, I don't have anything else to contribute at this time. We'll be talking past one another.

Are you changing your argument?
I thought you were arguing that God is able to prophesy because He has seen the future, but you appear to be abandoning that argument in light of its weaknesses.

Now it seems like you are changing your argument to God is able to prophesy because He has meticulously pre-determined every event that will ever take place during eternity in minute detail before He said, "Let there be light." If you go with anything less than everything, then you end up supporting an Open view. That means you need to have God pre-determining every prayer made to Him and every answer He makes to each prayer, kind of like playing with a bunch of "Chatty Cathy" dolls.

Please let me know which erroneous argument from the settled view you plan to defend.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Abraham may have had the intention (a course of action that one has in mind to follow) of killing Isaac since the time God told him to do so, but he had to make the decision for real at the moment he picked up the knife. That was the moment of truth.

Of course Abraham had the "intention" to slay Isaac before Abraham took up the knife. I have already demonstrated that he was in "faith" when he offered up Isaac on the altar.

And God knew what his intention was. And we can see that at least from the time he offered up Isaac at the altar his intention was to slay Isaac. And God knew this BEFORE Abraham took up the knife.

You have said nothing that demonstrates that what I said is not true.

Are you now going to argue that God did not know Abraham's intentions at the very moment when, in faith, he offered up Isaac at the altar?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Of course Abraham had the "intention" to slay Isaac before Abraham took up the knife. I have already demonstrated that he was in "faith" when he offered up Isaac on the altar.

And God knew what his intention was. And we can see that at least from the time he offered up Isaac at the altar his intention was to slay Isaac. And God knew this BEFORE Abraham took up the knife.

You have said nothing that demonstrates that what I said is not true.

Are you now going to argue that God did not know Abraham's intentions at the very moment when, in faith, he offered up Isaac at the altar?

My argument is still that God only knew what Abraham would do when Abraham reached the moment of truth and chose his next actions because Abraham's choice was not certain until that moment.

You seem to have moved away from defending your position that God knew what Abraham would do before telling Abraham to kill Isaac and are now arguing that Abraham's decision at the moment of truth was made sometime between the time he built the altar and the time he picked up the knife. The exact time when Abraham faced the moment of truth is a spurious argument on your part to deflect from the argument at hand.

For you, there is no difference between ordering biscuits with your tea and biting the biscuit you ordered. I recently had to learn how to give my wife injections. I love my wife and she needed the injections to stay healthy. I prepared the site of the injection and the syringe and had everything ready. No amount of intention prepared me for what I felt when I held the syringe in my hand and it was time for me to jab it two inches into her flesh. Because of that experience, I know there was a difference in how Abraham felt when he was binding Isaac and laying him on the altar and how Abraham felt when he picked up the knife and it was time to complete the task.

Now, to get back to the argument:
When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, God was able to look into Abraham's heart and see his character, but could not determine at that time whether Abraham would complete the task or would fail at the moment of truth.

 

[godrulz]

The fact is that your view is without strength and the Scriptures prove that it is in error.

And you have no answer to them. And then you have the nerve to speak of "critical thinking" and "Biblical exegesis." Your response is a denial of those two things.

You have the spiritual IQ of a two year old because you refuse to let the Scriptures be your final authority.

Scripture absolutely is the final authority, but it does not deal with every detail of knowledge, including theological, philosophical issues. Most Christian thinkers would admit this. Differing views of providence, free will, sovereignty all claim biblical support and even use the same texts, yet we still have Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism, Molinism, etc.

 

[john w]

Scripture absolutely is the final authority, but it does not deal with every detail of knowledge, including theological, philosophical issues. Most Christian thinkers would admit this. Differing views of providence, free will, sovereignty all claim biblical support and even use the same texts, yet we still have Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism, Molinism, etc.

You are out of step with mainline, orhodox prooftexting, in the context of sound, Biblical hermeneutics. You are muddying the waters, and your exegesis/eisegesis is based on faulty constructs, and your cult is a modern sect, not accepted by most credible biblical scolars, and has been rejected by most credible biblical commentaries. Zeal without knowledge is not good. Sincerity does not create truth. Are you sure you are not a closet Calvinist? Your traditions of men has blinded you to balanced truth, as you cannot see the baby through the trees. You should not throw out the trees with the bath water.Within the evangelical, biblical tradition are a variety of non-essential views that can cause division, but few are as presumptious as you to attack our exegesis over controversial issues or nuances of articulation/understanding. Not uncritically accepting your personal, subjective views of some proof texts is indefensible, and does not shed light on your proof texts, as you filter it through your preconceived Penty presuppositions, which is inconsistent with orthodox Christianity, and is problematic. I will continue to clarify my beliefs in the face of Ad Hominem attacks, misrepresentation , and sweeping/hasty/broad generalizations(even as Paul and the Jesus Christ did), in the broader context of other relevant passages. Rejecting your proof texting out of context is not the same thing as rejecting the truth of the Lord Jesus' words in light of the rest of the word of God, as that is substantial, not presumption.A wrong assumption leads to wrong conclusions. It is a challenge to not retain preconceived ideas that cloud our understanding of all the relevant verses, not just proof texts.Doctrinal truths are often couched in historical settings. We need to find out what the passage means to the original audience, in light of church history, and mainline, orhodox theology. In sum, we should not allow cultural biases, preconceived notions,and figures of speech/wooden theological literalisms,subjective opinions, etc., blind us to diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive views, and morsels of balanced Bible truth, as the challenge is to not let our preconceived eisegeses distort our exegesis.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You seem to have moved away from defending your position that God knew what Abraham would do before telling Abraham to kill Isaac and are now arguing that Abraham's decision at the moment of truth was made sometime between the time he built the altar and the time he picked up the knife. The exact time when Abraham faced the moment of truth is a spurious argument on your part to deflect from the argument at hand.

No, my argument has not changed because I have always said that God knew what Abraham would do because of His foreknowledge. However, since you fail to understand that Genesis 22:12 cannot be interpreted literally so therefore I gave the other evidence because a literal reading of that evidence demonstrates that God would know that Abraham feared God BEFORE he lifted up the knife.

Now, to get back to the argument:
When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, God was able to look into Abraham's heart and see his character, but could not determine at that time whether Abraham would complete the task or would fail at the moment of truth.

God knew that Abraham had a fear of God before he raised the knife. And I have given you the evidence that proves that but you refuse to believe that evidence. Here we can see that Abraham was acting in faith BEFORE he lifted the knife:

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead" (Heb.11:17-19).

Before Abraham lifted the knife he was in faith and therefore he certainly had a fear of God. But according to you God did not even know if Abraham had a fear or reverence of Him until he raised the knife to slay Isaac:

"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" (Gen22:12).

Now answer this. Is it possible that even though Abraham was in "faith" before he lifted the knife he did not have a fear or reverence of God at that time?

The Hebrew word translated "fear" means "fearing, reverencing" (Gesenius's Lexicon).

Your entire argument is dependent on the ludicrous idea that even though Abraham was acting in "faith" toward God before he raised the knife that he was not reverencing Him then.

Now please answer my question.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Scripture absolutely is the final authority, but it does not deal with every detail of knowledge, including theological, philosophical issues.

It does deal with your false ideas but you want no part of that proof. 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. But can that idea stand up to the light of Scriptire? Let us first look at the following verse that says that Christians were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world:

"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).

Next we see a verse that speaks of that same choosing which was before the foundation of the world and by what is said we can know that God chooses 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).

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.

So before foundation of the world God chose individuals for salvation and that directly contradicts the brand of "open" theology promoted by you and Greg Boyd who say that it is impossible that God has a foreknowledge of free will contingencies.

Now a question which relates to my last post addressed to genuinearticle:

Can a person act in faith toward God but at the same time not have a fear of Him or a reverence toward Him?

 

[genuineoriginal]

No, my argument has not changed because I have always said that God knew what Abraham would do because of His foreknowledge. However, since you fail to understand that Genesis 22:12 cannot be interpreted literally so therefore I gave the other evidence because a literal reading of that evidence demonstrates that God would know that Abraham feared God BEFORE he lifted up the knife.

You have presented no evidence that God had foreknowledge that Abraham would choose to obey God instead of sparing his son at the moment of truth.

Now answer this. Is it possible that even though Abraham was in "faith" before he lifted the knife he did not have a fear or reverance of God at that time?

The Hebrew word translated "fear" means "reverent, religious, pious" (Gesenius's Lexicon).

Your entire argument is dependent on the ludicrous idea that even though Abraham was acting in "faith" toward God before he raised the knife that he was not acting in a reverant manner toward Him.

Now please answer my question.

:doh:
Your question, "Is it possible that even though Abraham was in "faith" before he lifted the knife he did not have a fear or reverance of God at that time?" shows that you do not understand.

It is not possible for Abraham to be in "faith". Faith is not a container a person can be in.

Abraham underwent a trial of his faith, but you seem unable to understand what that means.

Hebrews 11:17-19 17By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.​

πειράζω
peirazō

1. to try whether a thing can be done
   • to attempt, endeavour
2. to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself
   • in a good sense
   • in a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments
   • to try or test one's faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin
     1. to solicit to sin, to tempt
        • of the temptations of the devil
   • after the OT usage
     1. of God: to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith
     2. men are said to tempt God by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted
     3. by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Your question, "Is it possible that even though Abraham was in "faith" before he lifted the knife he did not have a fear or reverance of God at that time?" shows that you do not understand.

It is not possible for Abraham to be in "faith". Faith is not a container a person can be in.

Is this the best that you can do to aviod answering my question? Of course the Scriptures speak of people being "in faith":

"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth" (Heb.11_13).

Now perhaps you will actually answer my question instead of looking for an excuse to avoid answering it:

Is it possible that even though Abraham was in "faith" before he lifted the knife he did not have a fear or reverance of God at that time?

 

[Lon]

Are you changing your argument?
I thought you were arguing that God is able to prophesy because He has seen the future, but you appear to be abandoning that argument in light of its weaknesses.

Now it seems like you are changing your argument to God is able to prophesy because He has meticulously pre-determined every event that will ever take place during eternity in minute detail before He said, "Let there be light." If you go with anything less than everything, then you end up supporting an Open view. That means you need to have God pre-determining every prayer made to Him and every answer He makes to each prayer, kind of like playing with a bunch of "Chatty Cathy" dolls.

Please let me know which erroneous argument from the settled view you plan to defend.

Okay, this specific OP is about the Open theist's view that the future is completely free and open. I do not have a problem theologically with the Arminian view of God's foreknowledge. I believe that God has our complete future known, not by a magic eight-ball, but by the power of it existing. Nothing can happen apart from God. Forget the evil and sin strawman with God as author nonesense for a moment: Every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of Lights (James 1:17). All things work toward good for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:28). See further scriptures

 

[genuineoriginal]

Is this the best that you can do to aviod answering my question? Of course the Scriptures speak of people being "in faith":

"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth" (Heb.11_13).

Now perhaps you will actually answer my question instead of looking for an excuse to avoid answering it:

Is it possible that even though Abraham was in "faith" before he lifted the knife he did not have a fear or reverance of God at that time?

You have a single verse from the KJV that you want to use as a proof-text?

Hebrews 11:13 NIV 13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth.​

Hebrews 11:13 AMP 13These people all died controlled and sustained by their faith, but not having received the tangible fulfillment of [God's] promises, only having seen it and greeted it from a great distance by faith, and all the while acknowledging and confessing that they were strangers and temporary residents and exiles upon the earth.​

Hebrews 11:13 WYC 13 By faith all these be dead, when the promises were not taken, but they beheld them afar [but they beholding them afar], and greeting them well, and acknowledged that they were pilgrims, and harboured men on the earth.​

Hebrews 11:13 DRA 13All these died according to faith, not having received the promises, but beholding them afar off, and saluting them, and confessing that they are pilgrims and strangers on the earth.​

I answered your question. Your question proves you don't know what you are talking about, and it doesn't even address the moment of truth when Abraham passed the trial of his faith.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Okay, this specific OP is about the Open theist's view that the future is completely free and open.

Thank you for mentioning the Arminian view of God's foreknowledge. I was not aware of the debate between the Arminian View and the Calvinist View. In my ignorance of these two views, I assumed you were talking about prescience and not causation when you mentioned foreknowledge. The good thing about ignorance is that it has a cure. :dunce:

The problem I have with the Arminian view of God's foreknowledge (simple prescience) is that it is not needed and makes God appear to have a dubious intent when He makes conditional covenants.
The problem I have with the Calvinist View (total foreordination) is it makes God into a liar.

Okay, this specific OP is about the Open theist's view that the future is completely free and open.

Are you sure about that? The OP says otherwise:

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

My belief is that the future is open to an extent that puts it on the far side of Calvinism in the spectrum of completely settled to completely open.

The openness of the future is to accomodate synergism.

The Century Dictionary defines synergism as
"...the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives."​

Here is a verse that supports synergism but causes problems with monergism:

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You have a single verse from the KJV that you want to use as a proof-text?

Is not the single text enough? Since you have no answer for that "single" verse then you will have no answer for these which are speaking of Abraham being "in faith:

"And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God" (Ro.4:19-20).

You continue to look for an excuse to avoid answering my question and it is a fact that you have not answered it despite your words that you did answer it:

I answered your question. Your question proves you don't know what you are talking about, and it doesn't even address the moment of truth when Abraham passed the trial of his faith.

The central issue in the verse we are discussing is when did God know that Abraham feared or reverenced God:

"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" (Gen22:12).

You continue to avoid even addressing exactly WHEN God knew that Abraham feared or reverenced Him. And that is why you refuse to answer my question:

Is it possible that even though Abraham was in "faith" before he lifted the knife he did not have a fear or reverance of God at that time?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Is not the single text enough? Since you have no answer for that "single" verse then you will have no answer for these which are speaking of Abraham being "in faith:

"And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God" (Ro.4:19-20).

If you can't tell that the verse is speaking about whether Abraham's faith was weak or strong, then you should bow out gracefully from this discussion.

You continue to look for an excuse to avoid answering my question and it is a fact that you have not answered it despite your words that you did answer it:

The central issue in the verse we are discussing is when did God know that Abraham feared or reverenced God:

"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" (Gen22:12).

You continue to avoid even addressing exactly WHEN God knew that Abraham feared or reverenced Him. And that is why you refuse to answer my question:

Is it possible that even though Abraham was in "faith" before he lifted the knife he did not have a fear or reverance of God at that time?

Okay, I will treat you as if you are a complete idiot, since that is how you want it.
Abraham was in "faith" No, he wasn't. Abraham had faith and he obeyed God by faith.
Is it possible that even though Abraham was in "faith" No, it is not possible because Abraham was never in "faith". Abraham had faith and he obeyed God by faith.
Is it possible that even though Abraham was in "faith" before he lifted the knife No, Abraham was not in "faith" before he lifted the knife. Abraham had faith and he obeyed God by faith.
Is it possible that Abraham did not have a fear or reverance of God before he lifted the knife? Is this the question you are trying to ask? It sure is not the question you actually asked. Look at how much rewording I had to do in order to get it into a question that can actually be answered.
Is it possible that Abraham did not have a fear or reverance of God before he lifted the knife? No, Abraham had a fear or reverance of God before he lifted the knife. This is proved by his three day journey to the mountain with Isaac and his binding Isaac on the altar. The problem with this question is that it is not asking the extent of Abraham's fear and reverance of God, proving that you are asking the wrong question.

Abraham had faith before he lifted the knife. He proved that by leaving the land of Ur. He proved that by fathering Isaac. But, the amount of faith Abraham showed was not enough for God, who wanted more. That is why God put Abraham through a trial of his faith.

At the moment of truth during the trial of his faith, Abraham held fast to the profession of his faith, and passed the trial. When God saw Abraham pass the moment of truth, He said, "NOW I know."