ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[SaulToPaul 2]

They weren't his to give.

Luke 4
5: And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
6: And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
7: If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

Jesus didn't disagree with him. God bought back, redeemed,
the universe with the shed blood of Christ. When Jesus Christ returns he will take over the kingdoms of the world, they will become the kingdoms of Christ.

Rev 11
15: And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

 

[themuzicman]

This is the eternal purpose for the church, the Body of Christ. We are seated far above all heavens and will judge angels, the principalities and powers in heavenly places.

But it's more than that. It's not just that we'll be around for all eternity, but that God wants to engage in a loving relationship with us.

1 Cor 6
3: Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

Not incompatible with waht I said.

Adam lost the dominion.

Matthew 4
8: Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9: And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Satan is the god of this world.

LOL... Do you believe everything that Satan says?

Besides, that dominion didn't need to be lost for this to be true. As long as man served God, then God oversaw man, who had dominion. Same goes when man serves Satan.

This is why it's important to accept the truth of the 1,000 year reign of Christ. HE will subdue the earth and heaven and exercise dominion. The last Adam.

More precisely, man will rule over the earth, in the person of Christ.

Adam was never given dominion over the universe, only the earth. God's prophetic scriptures deal with bringing dominion back
to the earth. God's revelations that were kept a mystery in time past deal with bringing dominion back to the heavens. This is what those who refuse to separate Israel and the church miss. Israel is for dominion on the earth, the church is for dominion in the heavens.

That's a completely separate dispenational issue.

Muz

 

[Delmar]

...the majority of OVer's tend to be from Charismatic backgrounds ...

I was not aware of that. Please do confirm this.

 

[themuzicman]

I don't think many would have a hard time with your exegesis. Where we disagree is what you draw from the text.

Great!

1) For instance, no, I disagree that love demands a free response. If we were created to love (and we were) it is a created response.
To choose otherwise is but another thing we 'can' do. It is not necessary for love to exist. No contrast is needed between Father, Son, and Spirit. They are unchanging in love, that is to say, because of God's nature, there is no other choice.

You sure about that? Is it a matter of can't or won't? (Are you saying that God isn't omnipotent?)

EDF is beside the point and no consideration here. By your standard, God should eliminate all evil so that only His desired relationships remain. We can quibble over that, but my point is that EDF is doesn't enter this phase of the considerations.

EDF enters into this phase because of free will. The two are incompatible. That's been logically shown in previous thread.

2) Don't you really mean that EDF and love are incompatible? Before you get to this assessment, we have to revisit your premises on #1 again. EDF doesn't even enter the conversation at this venture.

I mean that 1) Love requires free choice, and that 2) free choice is incompatible with free will. The denial of EDF is a result of these two items.

3) If the fall was not God's will, it wouldn't have happened.

So, you embrace God as evil.

As with the Calvinist, OV also recognizes that God has a will that cannot be resisted (as with the return of Christ, new kingdom, judgement etc.).

Actually, the OVT is intelligent enough to separate God accomplishing His purpose for creation from the individual decisions and events that occur along the way. Yes, those things that God has declared will happen will happen. However, that doesn't mean that each individual decision along the way isn't a decision that resists God's desire for it. Adam and Eve's decision to eat is a classic example. Either sin and evil is God's will, or it is not. IF A&E's decision violated God's will, then, in your terms, God's will was resisted, and it was resisted because God declared that A&E had free choice and domain over the earth.

And it, with us, also recognizes that God allows even though it is against His intentions for us. Your further explication affirms this.

You might not want to put words in my mouth. As I said in my post, because God declared that man has free choice and has dominion, God would be violating His Word in preventing A&E from sinning. This isn't "allowing" in the Calvinist sense. This is God standing by His Word.

Finally, isolation passages are at best, presuppositional. As I've said with Genesis 22:12, it is nowhere clear that God didn't know before Abraham's heart or foreknow his actions. I absolutely agree with you that we find answers elsewhere and those suppositions steer our understanding of any given text. My prescient (EDF) view came naturally (although the Liberal church where I grew up also believed in EDF). Because I held suspect all teachings, I also examined this doctrine. Every week, as the humanized sermon progressed, I read and compared scriptures, listening with one ear, investigating my bible with the other. There are many texts that support a prescient view and it was no-ways a determinist perspective in assessing that God knew future actions and decisions of man. The Arminian church didn't hold to it. As I've seen arguments since then, I recognized the arguments against the stance as from OV and have steadily moved toward God's Sovereignty. So my move toward Calvinism was obvious as I was not willing to tread upon His majesty with my limited/fallen human anthropomorphism.

I never referred to Genesis 22:12.

In understanding 1Kings 13:2, if God has no prescience, He has invasive predeterminism that puts hyperCalvinism to shame or is making some obscure (at best) guess, risking a 'mistake.' Neither is a comfort for the theologian nor a lofty view of His attributes. Further, it makes no contextual sense:
that OV would assert hyperCalvinism-then you are a different type of Calvinist altogether.
Or, that God risks and makes all kinds of mistakes as any man. In this view, we are clueless as to why God would venture a predictive guess at all and it also makes no sense to have prophets who tell the future.

You fail to grasp this because you fail to truly grasp that God is omnipotent and active. You say that without fixing the game beforehand, God can't predict. OVT says that God predicts because He knows how He will bring about His propesies without needing to know the exact course of the future because He is omnipotent.

This OV undermines the office of prophet as any tool by God to bring about His future plans. It also holds God less responsible for the same parameters given to the prophets: If their words do not come true, they are to be stoned.

On the contrary. OVT confirms the office of the prophet, as God first prophesies, and then is active in bringing about His prophecy. For those with EDF, the prophet is nothing more than a conduit of fact, one who confirms the fatalism of the future.

You seem to live in fear that if God hasn't fixed the game before hand that He isn't powerful enough to bring it about some other way, so you cannot bring yourself to consider other possibilities.

Odd, since if God cannot know the future acts of men, like a boy 1) named Josiah 2) being made king 3)tearing down altars 4)and killing the wicked priests. The prophet then is giving a testimony of what must come true yet God doesn't know this Himself?

Just because God doesn't know the exact course of the future doesn't mean that God doesn't know how He will bring this about. Again, you're stuck in this mindset that fears God not fixing the whole course of history beforehand. Do you not believe that God is omnipotent? Do you not believe that God would be able to bring about His will without having fixed everything beforehand?

Odd that the prophet is to be killed for a missed prophetic utterance but God can make mistakes? Odd that a prophet is telling of a specific future event, but God is only guessing?

Given the amount of time we've had to discuss this, I'm shocked that you fail to grasp the concepts of: a) God knowing all the possible courses of the future, b) knowing how His actions will limit those possibilities, and c) knowing how He will accomplish what He prophesies through His omnipotence.

Given these, EDF isn't necessary to prophesy. Unless you're afraid that God isn't powerful enough to do this.

OV is a convoluted mess of an attempt to rewrite what it doesn't like about orthodoxy as it has always existed.

And failed to explain some very simple questions.

Odd how the old ideas like this that have been soundly rejected, for the ▲obvious▲reasons, are resurfacing in strange, convoluted, and unpalatable assertions.

Perhaps the only "obvious" reasons are the ones based upon your presuppositions and assumptions, and your inability to grasp the idea of a truly omnipotent God.

If OV forces the logic of compatiblism, it serves us no better but far worse exegesis suppositionalism that is a convolution of irony.

You just said that the exegesis was just fine, that the interpretation was in question. It seems to me that your presuppositions have some problems, too.

No thank you. I'll keep my convolutions as opposed to the can of worms OV opens.

If you're not going to be confused by exegesis, then go argue about something else.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

I was not aware of that. Please do confirm this.

That's something of a false association, as the "charismatic" movement can be found in almost any doctrinal tradition, but tends to fit better into an Arminian or Wesleyan view than a Calvinist one (for obvious reasons.)


It's like saying that most Lutherans have their roots in the nation that Hitler led. Technically true, but completely irrelevant.

Muz

 

[assuranceagent]

That's something of a false association, as the "charismatic" movement can be found in almost any doctrinal tradition, but tends to fit better into an Arminian or Wesleyan view than a Calvinist one (for obvious reasons.)


It's like saying that most Lutherans have their roots in the nation that Hitler led. Technically true, but completely irrelevant.

Muz

If Lon's statement is technically true then it's not completely irrelevant.

Saying that Lutherans have their roots in the nation Hitler led has no consequence because the statement doesn't imply a common thread.

Saying, however, that most OVers tend to be from charismatic backgrounds could potentially be of consequence because it does imply a common thread: faulty doctrinal understanding.

I'm not necessarily saying that what Lon said was true in that regard, just pointing out that your comparison is a long way from apples to apples. An apples to apples statement would be to say that Lutherans have their roots in Naziism.

 

[themuzicman]

If Lon's statement is technically true then it's not completely irrelevant.

Saying that Lutherans have their roots in the nation Hitler led has no consequence because the statement doesn't imply a common thread.

Saying, however, that most OVers tend to be from charismatic backgrounds could potentially be of consequence because it does imply a common thread: faulty doctrinal understanding.

Then let me debunk it right now. Many OVT are mid-acts dispies who are adamantly NOT charismatic.

This is nothing more than an attempt to smear OVT by association.

I'm not necessarily saying that what Lon said was true in that regard, just pointing out that your comparison is a long way from apples to apples. An apples to apples statement would be to say that Lutherans have their roots in Naziism.

Because their theology comes from Germany. And?

Muz

 

[assuranceagent]

Then let me debunk it right now. Many OVT are mid-acts dispies who are adamantly NOT charismatic.

This is nothing more than an attempt to smear OVT by association.

May be right. Which is why I was careful to qualify my remarks by saying that I was not backing the truth of that assertion.

Because their theology comes from Germany. And?
Muz

Saying someone's roots are in the country Hitler led is saying their theology has it's roots in Germany. Saying that that their roots are in Naziism is a wholly different thing altogether. I find it difficult to believe you honestly wouldn't see it that way.

Would having roots in Germany on its own imply a rather questionable basis?

How 'bout having roots in Naziism?

I'd think the difference would be quite evident.

 

[godrulz]

That's something of a false association, as the "charismatic" movement can be found in almost any doctrinal tradition, but tends to fit better into an Arminian or Wesleyan view than a Calvinist one (for obvious reasons.)


It's like saying that most Lutherans have their roots in the nation that Hitler led. Technically true, but completely irrelevant.

Muz

Why would charismatics fit better with Arminianism? I agree that most Pentecostals are in the Arminian camp, but I am not sure what the obvious connection would be? Could not a determinist be graced by God with spiritual gifts? What in their theology would preclude this?

 

[patman]

What does "expect" mean?

Namely here:

Isaiah 5:4
What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

 

[Lon]

Then let me debunk it right now. Many OVT are mid-acts dispies who are adamantly NOT charismatic.

This is nothing more than an attempt to smear OVT by association.

Muz

Why is this a smear? I don't believe I was pointing to the same thing you are and the quote was out of context a tad. That is, it was a requote of another quoting me. He understood what I'd said, but I think you are jumping the gun with assumption. GR and I were having more of a discussion than debate at that point. It was more of a query and curiosity than anything else, especially not a smear. Why would being Charismatic be a smear? Specifically, the context was about a couple of Charasmatics who have turned to the OV. It doesn't surprise me, in that the Charasmatic movement has a lot of diversity. We talked a bit about some being more open to the Open Theist position from their particular arena.

 

[Delmar]

Then let me debunk it right now. Many OVT are mid-acts dispies who are adamantly NOT charismatic.

This is nothing more than an attempt to smear OVT by association.

There was a guy here the other day claiming the Open View was invented in the last 30 years, by a seventh day Adventist. Same kind of smear, I think.

 

[godrulz]

I must have missed the 'inversion' of the Open View 30 years ago. Is that like a solar eclipse?

The SDA was probably Richard Rice who may have coined the phrase "Open Theism" in 1980 in the book about the openness of God.

He did not invent the principles which are rooted in Scripture.

http://www.amazon.com/Openness-God-Challenge-Traditional-Understanding/dp/0830818529

 

[Delmar]

I must have missed the 'inversion' of the Open View 30 years ago. Is that like a solar eclipse?

Thanks for the heads up on my spelling error! I am often a victom of my own spell checker!

The SDA was probably Richard Rice who may have coined the phrase "Open Theism" in 1980 in the book about the openness of God.

He did not invent the principles which are rooted in Scripture.

http://www.amazon.com/Openness-God-Challenge-Traditional-Understanding/dp/0830818529

That is what I told the guy!

I was aware from reading my own Bible, long before 1980, that God is sometimes willing to change future events, in response to the prayers of one faithful man! I suppose you think I "invented" the open view at the age of 11.

 

[Lon]

You sure about that? Is it a matter of can't or won't? (Are you saying that God isn't omnipotent?)

Are you serious? I've answered this in OT 1 & 2, repeatedly.

EDF enters into this phase because of free will. The two are incompatible. That's been logically shown in previous thread.

We were talking about allowing Adam and Eve to sin? If you wanted to talk specifically about EDF and freewill, you didn't mention it in that portion.

I mean that 1) Love requires free choice, and that 2) free choice is incompatible with free will. The denial of EDF is a result of these two items.

I think you meant for this to make sense, but #2 isn't at all clear.
Love can exist without choice. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were created to love and did love Him. Are you asserting that their love wasn't real until after the fall? This logic is mind-boggling to me.

So, you embrace God as evil.

Are you purposefully obtuse here? I've addressed this multiple times. Weren't you here in OT 1 & 2? Where's the camera? I know I'm being Punk't.

Actually, the OVT is intelligent enough to separate God accomplishing His purpose for creation from the individual decisions and events that occur along the way. Yes, those things that God has declared will happen will happen. However, that doesn't mean that each individual decision along the way isn't a decision that resists God's desire for it. Adam and Eve's decision to eat is a classic example. Either sin and evil is God's will, or it is not. IF A&E's decision violated God's will, then, in your terms, God's will was resisted, and it was resisted because God declared that A&E had free choice and domain over the earth.
You might not want to put words in my mouth. As I said in my post, because God declared that man has free choice and has dominion, God would be violating His Word in preventing A&E from sinning. This isn't "allowing" in the Calvinist sense. This is God standing by His Word.

This is near the understanding of God's Decretive and Prescriptive will.
You in one sense are agreeing and at the same time trying not to agree. How have you said anything different here than I already said? Are you saying that God wanted Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit or not to? The Calvinist says He didn't want them to partake and gave them commands to not partake, that He was aware of their temptation, and chose not to intervene. I could guess as to why He did not and your reason here is but one of them, but I don't see where we are disagreeing that God allowed it to happen while not desiring it to happen.

I never referred to Genesis 22:12.

Huh? This wasn't you? Nor this? Nor this? :dunno:

You fail to grasp this because you fail to truly grasp that God is omnipotent and active. You say that without fixing the game beforehand, God can't predict. OVT says that God predicts because He knows how He will bring about His propesies without needing to know the exact course of the future because He is omnipotent.

I fail to grasp this? I'll ask again, why have a prophetic utterance about a future event where men and their LWF are involved if God Himself cannot know the future event?

On the contrary. OVT confirms the office of the prophet, as God first prophesies, and then is active in bringing about His prophecy. For those with EDF, the prophet is nothing more than a conduit of fact, one who confirms the fatalism of the future.

You haven't answered the question: If God does not know the future acts of men, why send a prophet to foretell the future acts of men?

You seem to live in fear that if God hasn't fixed the game before hand that He isn't powerful enough to bring it about some other way, so you cannot bring yourself to consider other possibilities.

Okay, this is your assessment, no problem there but it isn't correct at all. The reason isn't fear at all. It is rather that I don't see any logical sense to it. Why would God demand that His prophets speak infallibly about future events when He expected good grapes and didn't get them? I disagree because it is convoluted. A Sesame Street song plays in my head "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong..."

Just because God doesn't know the exact course of the future doesn't mean that God doesn't know how He will bring this about. Again, you're stuck in this mindset that fears God not fixing the whole course of history beforehand. Do you not believe that God is omnipotent? Do you not believe that God would be able to bring about His will without having fixed everything beforehand?

No, not according to OV anyway, because God expected good grapes and didn't get them. He predicted Nineveh would be destroyed and (according to the OV) He needed to change His mind. OV asserts that God is sometimes wrong so that He needs to change His mind, might not see something as clearly as it actually happens. He says Hezekiah will die, and when he repents, he lives longer. Because God couldn't know, or even plan for that contingency. If He were the Master Chessman Boyd says He is, this move would have been planned in advance. Surely God knew Hezekiah might repent and then put Him in that embarrassing situation of acquiescing more years? If He were as OV says, I'd expect Him to not communicate future events as much as He does, because He is just as in the dark about the future actions of men as man is Himself. He can't add to your knowledge about anything future that man will do, because He doesn't know what does not exist. My question again, then why have prophets foretell anything at all? Why not make them all propositonal at best? "Nineveh may be destroyed unless you repent. Your life will end today unless you repent?

Given the amount of time we've had to discuss this, I'm shocked that you fail to grasp the concepts of: a) God knowing all the possible courses of the future, b) knowing how His actions will limit those possibilities, and c) knowing how He will accomplish what He prophesies through His omnipotence.

Perhaps some of your fellow OVer's are to blame. They've told me that God cannot know any future action of men because the future hasn't happened so is unknowable. Of course they are quoting Boyd and a few others here. Are you sure you are OV?

Given these, EDF isn't necessary to prophesy. Unless you're afraid that God isn't powerful enough to do this.

Of course I believe He is, but this draws so close to the Calvinist determinism position that I'd think it'd be uncomfortably close for you. If He can change His mind, the prophecy is of little value. It may or may not come true and there is no need to communicate such because you already know exactly the same thing: It may or may not happen. There is no need for prophets to foretell anything because the outcome is exactly the same as you already knew: It may or may not happen.

And failed to explain some very simple questions.

Failed is clearly in the eye of the beholder here. Just because I cannot fully explain the triune view to a skeptic does not mean the explanation has failed, but that one does not want to hear that specific answer. Just because you don't like the specific answers is hardly a fail in my mind.

Perhaps the only "obvious" reasons are the ones based upon your presuppositions and assumptions, and your inability to grasp the idea of a truly omnipotent God.

Me and all the rest.

You just said that the exegesis was just fine, that the interpretation was in question. It seems to me that your presuppositions have some problems, too.

Agreed. It is after all, the subject of debate between us and it is in debate that we hope 1) to glorify Him 2) reach one who we deem in error 3) love doctrine enough to challenge and affirm (at times) one another. There is arguably no greater love between us than to know His truth.

If you're not going to be confused by exegesis, then go argue about something else.
Muz

There is a LOT of irony in this last sentence. I can read it a whole bunch of ways. You may even catch some of them if you reread it from my perspective

 

[Lon]

Thanks for the heads up on my spelling error! I am often a victom of my own spell checker!


That is what I told the guy!

Wasn't 1980 about 30 years ago?

 

[themuzicman]

Why would charismatics fit better with Arminianism? I agree that most Pentecostals are in the Arminian camp, but I am not sure what the obvious connection would be? Could not a determinist be graced by God with spiritual gifts? What in their theology would preclude this?

Because Calvinism leans toward determinism and control, something that especially early Charismatics would have bristled against, causing those who found Charimata in these settings to go elsewhere to express it.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Why is this a smear? I don't believe I was pointing to the same thing you are and the quote was out of context a tad. That is, it was a requote of another quoting me. He understood what I'd said, but I think you are jumping the gun with assumption. GR and I were having more of a discussion than debate at that point. It was more of a query and curiosity than anything else, especially not a smear. Why would being Charismatic be a smear? Specifically, the context was about a couple of Charasmatics who have turned to the OV. It doesn't surprise me, in that the Charasmatic movement has a lot of diversity. We talked a bit about some being more open to the Open Theist position from their particular arena.

The charismatic movement is often labeled as theologically simplton, and easily dismissed without any serious consideration.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Are you serious? I've answered this in OT 1 & 2, repeatedly.

Well, then you don't seem to be able to grasp it.

We were talking about allowing Adam and Eve to sin? If you wanted to talk specifically about EDF and freewill, you didn't mention it in that portion.

Because EDF is a result of the need for free choice.

I think you meant for this to make sense, but #2 isn't at all clear.
Love can exist without choice. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were created to love and did love Him. Are you asserting that their love wasn't real until after the fall? This logic is mind-boggling to me.

Are you serious? Do you really not grasp the difference between having a choice and taking it?

Are you purposefully obtuse here? I've addressed this multiple times. Weren't you here in OT 1 & 2? Where's the camera? I know I'm being Punk't.

Addressed, yes. However, not sufficiently answered from your side.

This is near the understanding of God's Decretive and Prescriptive will.
You in one sense are agreeing and at the same time trying not to agree. How have you said anything different here than I already said? Are you saying that God wanted Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit or not to?

No. This is the largest difference between the Calvinist and the OVT.

In Calvinism, there is no difference between God's Decretive and Prescriptive will.

In OVT, God's will was for A&E to choose not to eat from the tree, both decretive and prescriptive.

The Calvinist says He didn't want them to partake and gave them commands to not partake, that He was aware of their temptation, and chose not to intervene.

LOL... and the same Calvinist has to say that their eating was predestined by God, and that God was the first cause of their eating.

Which is a huge logical disconnect, but.. whatever..

I could guess as to why He did not and your reason here is but one of them, but I don't see where we are disagreeing that God allowed it to happen while not desiring it to happen.

But I have a basis for saying why God had to allow it to happen. For the Calvinist, it's arbitrary

Huh? This wasn't you? Nor this? Nor this? :dunno:

Should have been clearer. I was referring to my post laying out the foundations of OVT.

I fail to grasp this? I'll ask again, why have a prophetic utterance about a future event where men and their LWF are involved if God Himself cannot know the future event?

Because God knows how He will bring it about.

You haven't answered the question: If God does not know the future acts of men, why send a prophet to foretell the future acts of men?

Because God knows how He will bring it about.

Okay, this is your assessment, no problem there but it isn't correct at all. The reason isn't fear at all. It is rather that I don't see any logical sense to it. Why would God demand that His prophets speak infallibly about future events when He expected good grapes and didn't get them? I disagree because it is convoluted. A Sesame Street song plays in my head "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong..."

Because God only prophesies about those things that He already knows how He will bring them about. This is the huge disconnect between Calvinism and OVT. In Calvinism, God determines exactly what will happen beforehand. In OVT, God knows what is possible, and knows how His actions will affect the future, and when God prophesies, it is about only those events, not the entire course of the future up to that event.

No, not according to OV anyway, because God expected good grapes and didn't get them. He predicted Nineveh would be destroyed and (according to the OV) He needed to change His mind.

I don't use the Ninevah example. I don't think it's quite that clear.

I prever Exodus 32 and Jeremiah 3:6-7

OV asserts that God is sometimes wrong so that He needs to change His mind, might not see something as clearly as it actually happens.

Not quite. God sees something as a likely course of the future, and then something happens to change that. In Exodus 32, Moses refuses to accept God's covenant with him.

He says Hezekiah will die, and when he repents, he lives longer. Because God couldn't know, or even plan for that contingency.

What? Hezekiah lived longer because he pleaded with God, and God changes his mind. The contingency was already planned for.

If He were the Master Chessman Boyd says He is, this move would have been planned in advance. Surely God knew Hezekiah might repent and then put Him in that embarrassing situation of acquiescing more years? If He were as OV says, I'd expect Him to not communicate future events as much as He does, because He is just as in the dark about the future actions of men as man is Himself.
He can't add to your knowledge about anything future that man will do, because He doesn't know what does not exist. My question again, then why have prophets foretell anything at all? Why not make them all propositonal at best? "Nineveh may be destroyed unless you repent. Your life will end today unless you repent?

Ah, I see your disconnect. OVT says that God knows all the possible courses of the future, and, if He chooses may determine what He will do, if a given circumstance arises. Thus, God knew that Hezekiah might repent, and knew what He would do in that instance. God knew that Ninevah might repent, and knew what He would do in that instance.

EDF isn't required for this. (Remember that the 'D' in EDF means definite. That means that only one course of the future is possible.)

If I could coin a new term, it might be "EIF".. Exhaustive, but indefinite foreknowledge, meaning that all the possibilities are known to God, but not the exact course of the future.

Perhaps some of your fellow OVer's are to blame. They've told me that God cannot know any future action of men because the future hasn't happened so is unknowable. Of course they are quoting Boyd and a few others here. Are you sure you are OV?

Absolutely. What you're missing is that they're speaking of the definite occurrence of a particular decision isn't knowable. That isn't to say that God can't know that it is possible.

Of course I believe He is, but this draws so close to the Calvinist determinism position that I'd think it'd be uncomfortably close for you. If He can change His mind, the prophecy is of little value.

Which is the point of saying that God doesn't change His mind when He declares something.

It may or may not come true and there is no need to communicate such because you already know exactly the same thing: It may or may not happen. There is no need for prophets to foretell anything because the outcome is exactly the same as you already knew: It may or may not happen.

Again, you stumble into a denial of omnipotence. Do you honestly believe that God cannot accomplish prophecy without fixing the game beforehand?

Failed is clearly in the eye of the beholder here. Just because I cannot fully explain the triune view to a skeptic does not mean the explanation has failed, but that one does not want to hear that specific answer. Just because you don't like the specific answers is hardly a fail in my mind.

LOL.. I guess I prefer my answers to be logically consistent.

The trinity may be a mystery, but it isn't a logical contradiction.

Me and all the rest.

Do I need to ask about your confirmation?

Agreed. It is after all, the subject of debate between us and it is in debate that we hope 1) to glorify Him 2) reach one who we deem in error 3) love doctrine enough to challenge and affirm (at times) one another. There is arguably no greater love between us than to know His truth.

I'll keep working on these, then.

There is a LOT of irony in this last sentence. I can read it a whole bunch of ways. You may even catch some of them if you reread it from my perspective

However, when read in the context of the statement you made, only the correct one fits.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

The charismatic movement is often labeled as theologically simplton, and easily dismissed without any serious consideration.

Muz

http://www.sps-usa.org/ (Pneuma is a theological journal)

Pentecostal scholarship (e.g. Gordon Fee) has become more sophisticated as it has matured. Our theology is catching up to the initial experience. Now we have truth on fire, not just fire (yes, there is a lunatic fringe to the movement and some theological immaturity or error in some circles).