ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lon]

Hi Muz, I'm paring this down a bit because I desperately need some clarification before proceeding. I'm hearing two different things on this view of a knowable future and since GR is here and is one that states "God cannot know the future acts of man" and that the future isn't a thing that can be known other that what is determined. It seems you two are in disagreement as you assert that God does 1) know the contingencies, so all the future actions of men (which supports the prescient Arminian view as I understand it) are known with some clarifiers. Would you and GR talk through this a bit so as to give understanding if you happen to agree, or give support and further clarifications if you do not? The positions seem opposed to me at this venture.

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.

This is why I disagree and believe you don't really grasp what we are saying. If God says "This will not happen" it cannot possibly happen. His Decretive will is unthwarted. Nothing will or can stop Christ's return. Nothing can or will stop the Judgement seat.

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.

The difference is only about how much control He has. We see the amount of involvement supported from the texts but I recognize and even had trouble with the same, so understand and appreciate where you are coming from here.

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

No, it isn't arbitrary but within the counsel of God. We can guess as well as you. The Scriptures don't tell us why He put a tree there. For me, regardless of my doctrinal position, I don't want to build major doctrinal stances beyond what is given. I understand why you do, I'm not calling that into question at this venture, I'm just saying why I don't. It isn't arbitrary.

Because God knows how He will bring it about.

We've discussed you being a different kind of Open Theist, I've actually appreciated your Arminian flare and preservation of those truths but, I hope you can sympathize, I sometimes go at you like the rest of the OT community for lack of perception on the differences. Forgive me, as I have to try, but I do recognize you are a different kind of theologian here, and also forgive the Arminian slight.

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.

This is one of those, where I think a discussion with other OVers would give me a bit more of a handle in discussions with you. Again, it seems to be a divergence from what I'm hearing from the majority of OVers. It seems to be more of a Calvinist/Arminian debate position. I'm not one of those Calvinists that see Arminianism as heresy. I've come to a different position, but we are in the same churches.

I don't use the Ninevah example. I don't think it's quite that clear.
I prefer Exodus 32 and Jeremiah 3:6-7

Another one for the discussion

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

Your EIF stance is palatable to me. It does, however, seem to be against other OVer assertions here, which still leads me to believe you are a different theological animal altogether. I've always loved this about you.

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.

If true, this is a huge step in the right direction if I understand it correctly, but I think that you have dissenters here on this.

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.

I think terms are what can confuse here. OV could express this so much clearer and should. The vernacular is cause for much heat in debate AS WELL AS misunderstandings.

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

We are somewhat closer on agreement with this as well but only in connection with your clarification that God knows all the possibilities.
Again, I see this as the time-held Arminian stance.

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

Muz

I just wanted you to enjoy it with me. You could have said it a bit clearer

 

[Delmar]

Wasn't 1980 about 30 years ago?

Yes it was. My point was that by around 1969 I believed that the future was not totally settled in advance. Which, according to that guy, would make me the inventor of open theism!

 

[Lon]

Yes it was. My point was that by around 1969 I believed that the future was not totally settled in advance. Which, according to that guy, would make me the inventor of open theism!

Congratulations?

 

[assuranceagent]

Congratulations?

Indeed! :first:


Tell us the truth, Del...you had a hand in the internet too didn't you?

 

[godrulz]

Lon: God can determine and bring things to pass. These intentions are knowable and include things like the First and Second Coming of Christ, judgments, etc. God IS Sovereign, but this does not mean He is omnicausal or that He determines everything. In His sovereignty, He can and does leave some things unsettled and thus unknowable (known as possible/probable vs certain). The issue is the nature of the future (open, closed, partially open/closed), not whether God is omniscient of not (He is, knowing reality as it is). Just because God settles some things is not warrant to jump to the conclusion that He settles and knows all things.

This double motif fits the evidence (knows some vs all of the future).
Middle Knowledge is a confusing attempt to have cake and eat it too. Simple foreknowledge sounds nice, but is difficult to fathom (begs the question to just assume it is true based on tradition) and offers no providential advantage to God (would not be able to change the future even if He wanted to). Determinism would allow for EDF, but at the expense of love, freedom, relationship, the problem of evil (would make God responsible). The TOL Enyart idea of God choosing to not know the knowable future deviates from sounder Open Theism (it would make Him ignorant of things that man and Satan would know).

I cannot follow Muz's nuances nor would I be an expert on your exact views (which are probably more moderate than hyper-Calvinism).

 

[Lon]

Lon: God can determine and bring things to pass. These intentions are knowable and include things like the First and Second Coming of Christ, judgments, etc. God IS Sovereign, but this does not mean He is omnicausal or that He determines everything. In His sovereignty, He can and does leave some things unsettled and thus unknowable (known as possible/probable vs certain). The issue is the nature of the future (open, closed, partially open/closed), not whether God is omniscient of not (He is, knowing reality as it is). Just because God settles some things is not warrant to jump to the conclusion that He settles and knows all things.

This double motif fits the evidence (knows some vs all of the future).
Middle Knowledge is a confusing attempt to have cake and eat it too. Simple foreknowledge sounds nice, but is difficult to fathom (begs the question to just assume it is true based on tradition) and offers no providential advantage to God (would not be able to change the future even if He wanted to). Determinism would allow for EDF, but at the expense of love, freedom, relationship, the problem of evil (would make God responsible). The TOL Enyart idea of God chosing to not know the knowable future deviates from sounder Open Theism (it would make Him ignorant of things that man and Satan would know).

I cannot follow Muz's nuances nor would I be an expert on your exact views (which are probably more moderate than hyper-Calvinism).

You are still quite correct about my view (even if you can't remember ). I think I'd be the Calvinist heretic at this point as a pretty new initiate. As I've said in the past, my movements into theology tend to be slow and purposeful. If I have learned anything, it is to not make any hasty judgment or decisions, especially the more important they are and as related to theology.

More importantly, and thank for responding, I think your answer here opens up meaningful dialogue for me between you and Muz. He posts about once a day so I'd expect him to answer and address this concern sometime tomorrow.

In Him

Lon

 

[Delmar]

Indeed! :first:


Tell us the truth, Del...you had a hand in the internet too didn't you?

No, and I didn't invent the open view either, that is the point! I simply discerned it to be Biblical truth!

 

[assuranceagent]

No, and I didn't invent the open view either, that is the point! I simply discerned it to be Biblical truth!

It was just a joke, bud, just a joke. lain:

I understood your point completely and never once actually thought to attribute Open Theism to you as originator. It'd be called 'Delmarism' if you did invent it, wouldn't it?

You know, like Calvinism and Arminianism? :idunno:

 

[themuzicman]

Hi Muz, I'm paring this down a bit because I desperately need some clarification before proceeding. I'm hearing two different things on this view of a knowable future and since GR is here and is one that states "God cannot know the future acts of man" and that the future isn't a thing that can be known other that what is determined. It seems you two are in disagreement as you assert that God does 1) know the contingencies, so all the future actions of men (which supports the prescient Arminian view as I understand it) are known with some clarifiers. Would you and GR talk through this a bit so as to give understanding if you happen to agree, or give support and further clarifications if you do not? The positions seem opposed to me at this venture.

Well, let me separate myself from the Arminian, and we'll see if that helps you.

For the Arminian, God created the world, and then discovered what the course of history would be. It is still settled, as God looks through time and sees the one course of history that will occur, and thus knows who the elect are.

In my view, God created the world, knowing all the possible courses of the future (Molinist natural knowledge), but not knowing what the free choices of men would be (denial of middle knowledge.)

Does that separate things a bit?

I think GR wants to guard against sliding into an EDF, which is why he expresses things as he does. I don't think he necessarily disagrees with me.

This is why I disagree and believe you don't really grasp what we are saying. If God says "This will not happen" it cannot possibly happen. His Decretive will is unthwarted. Nothing will or can stop Christ's return. Nothing can or will stop the Judgement seat.

Which is fine. God's decretive will is that man has free choice. Nothing can stop man from making free choices. Is that clearer?

The difference is only about how much control He has. We see the amount of involvement supported from the texts but I recognize and even had trouble with the same, so understand and appreciate where you are coming from here.

That's certainly part of the debate. I would include the question of how much control God chose to retain in creating.

No, it isn't arbitrary but within the counsel of God. We can guess as well as you. The Scriptures don't tell us why He put a tree there. For me, regardless of my doctrinal position, I don't want to build major doctrinal stances beyond what is given. I understand why you do, I'm not calling that into question at this venture, I'm just saying why I don't. It isn't arbitrary.

I can live with that.

We've discussed you being a different kind of Open Theist, I've actually appreciated your Arminian flare and preservation of those truths but, I hope you can sympathize, I sometimes go at you like the rest of the OT community for lack of perception on the differences. Forgive me, as I have to try, but I do recognize you are a different kind of theologian here, and also forgive the Arminian slight.

Not a problem.

This is one of those, where I think a discussion with other OVers would give me a bit more of a handle in discussions with you. Again, it seems to be a divergence from what I'm hearing from the majority of OVers. It seems to be more of a Calvinist/Arminian debate position. I'm not one of those Calvinists that see Arminianism as heresy. I've come to a different position, but we are in the same churches.

I would hope that all who adhere to the fundamentals of Christianity could live in unity despite doctrinal diversity.

Your EIF stance is palatable to me. It does, however, seem to be against other OVer assertions here, which still leads me to believe you are a different theological animal altogether. I've always loved this about you.

That may be the case. I know a lot of OVTers want to avoid even the appearance of definite foreknowledge, but I think that fear sometimes pushes people away from the truth.

I see the same thing happening in the reformation as I study it. Luther wanted for all the world to get away from ANY works in his soteriology, and I think that fear drove him right over the truth to the opposite extreme. Same with Calvin. (and Zwingli)

If true, this is a huge step in the right direction if I understand it correctly, but I think that you have dissenters here on this.

That may be. (Ask me if I care

I think terms are what can confuse here. OV could express this so much clearer and should. The vernacular is cause for much heat in debate AS WELL AS misunderstandings.

Agreed.

We are somewhat closer on agreement with this as well but only in connection with your clarification that God knows all the possibilities.
Again, I see this as the time-held Arminian stance.

Again, the difference is that God knows the exact course of the future for the Arminian, making His simple foreknowledge EDF.

I just wanted you to enjoy it with me. You could have said it a bit clearer

Yes, I could.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

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).

That's reality. I was speaking of perception.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

That's reality. I was speaking of perception.

Muz

I think God can practically have some definite foreknowledge (two motifs) since He can declare and bring things to pass (Isaiah 46 and 48). This is about ability, not foreknowledge. I object to exhaustive more than definite foreknowledge. Even man can have a measure of prescience, but very limited. Perfect past and present knowledge (exhaustive) makes some things virtually certain in advance. This also increases with proximal issues (Peter/Judas) vs remote ones (from trillions of years ago).

 

[themuzicman]

I think God can practically have some definite foreknowledge (two motifs) since He can declare and bring things to pass (Isaiah 46 and 48). This is about ability, not foreknowledge. I object to exhaustive more than definite foreknowledge. Even man can have a measure of prescience, but very limited. Perfect past and present knowledge (exhaustive) makes some things virtually certain in advance. This also increases with proximal issues (Peter/Judas) vs remote ones (from trillions of years ago).

I agree entirely.

Muz

 

[Delmar]

It was just a joke, bud, just a joke. lain:

I understood your point completely and never once actually thought to attribute Open Theism to you as originator. It'd be called 'Delmarism' if you did invent it, wouldn't it?

You know, like Calvinism and Arminianism? :idunno:

'Delmarism' is something different entirely, but you don't get to find out all of the details until you turn over your bank accounts and move into the compound!

 

[Lon]

I agree entirely.

Muz

Okay, here is where further explication can clear things up.

God's EIF: He does or does not know the possibilities of (all) men's actions?

I think this central point will greatly clarify your EIF stance and also disclose one more tenet that you may diverge on with the Arminian position: Can God know the future actions (various possiblities) of man? For instance: Could He know if Peter would or would not infact deny Him (other than determinism). Could God know 300 years in advance that a boy king named Josiah would take the throne (and again, is this determinism and controlling this outcome)?

It seems your denial of middle knowledge would actually mean you're obscuring some of what God can know as potentials. If He has no knowledge of man's actions, it is just diversion from what I've been arguing against here in thread. Though I was hopeful, I think I'm back to attacking the position.

 

[themuzicman]

Okay, here is where further explication can clear things up.

God's EIF: He does or does not know the possibilities of (all) men's actions?

I think this central point will greatly clarify your EIF stance and also disclose one more tenet that you may diverge on with the Arminian position: Can God know the future actions (various possiblities) of man? For instance: Could He know if Peter would or would not infact deny Him (other than determinism). Could God know 300 years in advance that a boy king named Josiah would take the throne (and again, is this determinism and controlling this outcome)?

The short answer to both is 'yes', but for different reasons.

One thing to keep in mind is that almost any prophecy can be fulfilled in a variety of ways.

In Peter's case, Peter didn't have to be in the courtyard where Jesus was for Jesus' statement to be true. All God has to know is that whatever direction Peter takes, he's going to encounter people who confront him about being with Jesus, and know that Peter's heart is not ready to stand and die with Christ. While Peter's options in terms of response isn't certain, the choice to associate himself with Christ is not (in his heart) available to him. Quite easily done.

In Josiah's case, God just has to convince a couple of parents in the right political situation to name their kid "Josiah", and then arrange the right conditions in which he becomes king. Again, no EDF, no determinism necessary.

It seems your denial of middle knowledge would actually mean you're obscuring some of what God can know as potentials. If He has no knowledge of man's actions, it is just diversion from what I've been arguing against here in thread. Though I was hopeful, I think I'm back to attacking the position.

You lost me. Middle knowledge isn't about potential. It's about what any free will agent will do in any given circumstance. That's a violation of free choice, since, from that agent's perspective in that circumstance, he now must do it.

Thus, middle knowledge has nothing to do with what is possible, and everything to do with sliding determinism into Molinism while trying to hold on to "free will."

Muz

 

[Lon]

The short answer to both is 'yes', but for different reasons.

One thing to keep in mind is that almost any prophecy can be fulfilled in a variety of ways.

In Peter's case, Peter didn't have to be in the courtyard where Jesus was for Jesus' statement to be true. All God has to know is that whatever direction Peter takes, he's going to encounter people who confront him about being with Jesus, and know that Peter's heart is not ready to stand and die with Christ. While Peter's options in terms of response isn't certain, the choice to associate himself with Christ is not (in his heart) available to him. Quite easily done.

In Josiah's case, God just has to convince a couple of parents in the right political situation to name their kid "Josiah", and then arrange the right conditions in which he becomes king. Again, no EDF, no determinism necessary.



You lost me. Middle knowledge isn't about potential. It's about what any free will agent will do in any given circumstance. That's a violation of free choice, since, from that agent's perspective in that circumstance, he now must do it.

Thus, middle knowledge has nothing to do with what is possible, and everything to do with sliding determinism into Molinism while trying to hold on to "free will."

Muz

The logic conundrum I'm having is this: 1) over the mechanism for knowing, such as you bring up that God knows the heart and can virtually know with EIF all future happenstance. Further complicating this, would be He would also be fairly certain which choices would be made which leads to something pretty near EDF if you can follow that. 2) Middle knowledge is but one way of coping with the apparent logical conundrum. It does assert that God knows which, based on the extrapolations on #1. *I posted a paragraph below to walk through this from a different consideration.
3) How could EDF eliminate choice? We've been through this before and I've shown that it doesn't necessarily follow the logical derivative. I could theoretically know it will rain tomorrow, but it in no way determines the weather. Foreknowledge, as we've discussed this, at least carries a strong objection if you don't concede it. It is a strong argument none-the-less. Again, a time-consider logician stance must see all angles of the paradox to assess correctly. It just doesn't stand that if God knows, we have no choice any more than if I know, it hasn't any effect on the weather whatsoever. Man effects the weather and it is still plausible to foreknow what is going to happen with the weather without me personally affecting it. If we can have a certain kind of appearance of foreknowledge that borders Definite, there is no reason to think God cannot have it nor that it affects our culpability in choice.

*We are created to love, there is no need for contrast to actually love. It really doesn't matter if we assert some self-sufficient response, it doesn't make sense to me that it is 'more' loving. God knows better how to love, so whatever He created in us, despite having choice in the matter, is the more perfect expression. I'd say we were created with a cool dynamic toward ever increasing expressions of Love before the Fall, but we are still creations (robots as OV grossly exaggerates). It is an odd Christianity that would try to elevate us beyond being creatures (created beings). Our every action, thought, and response is created. Like it or not, we are created organic machines. Is there really any objection to this fact? In my estimation, what makes love love, isn't our choice, but that God created it. We've shown by our choice, that we actually greatly limit and malign love, not elevate it to anything grand. We lost it and wrecked it. We'd like to elevate ourselves to almost a self-sufficient autonomous self-willed entity, but how can we ever escape the logic and fact that we are created responses? I do have an inbuilt sense of purpose and meaning put there by my Creator, but my point is still that it was built and put there. I can't improve on His creation. He's the master builder. I'm not a god meeting another God, I'm a creature meeting my Maker.

 

[godrulz]

Molinism is confusing and problematic. It is an attempt to reconcile EDF and free will, but still fails to do so.

 

[themuzicman]

The logic conundrum I'm having is this: 1) over the mechanism for knowing, such as you bring up that God knows the heart and can virtually know with EIF all future happenstance.

Your statement saying "all future happenstance" is incorrect. The knowledge only includes the present state of Peter's heart, and all the possible paths Peter might take, when Christ is betrayed.

Further complicating this, would be He would also be fairly certain which choices would be made which leads to something pretty near EDF if you can follow that.

EDF would required that Peter follow one and only one specific, predetermined path.

All I'm saying is that dying with Christ was not something Peter was prepared to do at that time.

2) Middle knowledge is but one way of coping with the apparent logical conundrum. It does assert that God knows which, based on the extrapolations on #1.

The difference is that Molinism posits knowledge of the hearts of all who do not yet exist (including those who will never exist). I've only posited present knowledge of one existing person.

*I posted a paragraph below to walk through this from a different consideration.

3) How could EDF eliminate choice? We've been through this before and I've shown that it doesn't necessarily follow the logical derivative. I could theoretically know it will rain tomorrow, but it in no way determines the weather.

And apparently you've forgotten what was said.

Foreknowledge doesn't determine. Foreknowledge requires prior determination. In the case of rain, the laws of physics have already determined the course of the air and water vapor, such that we can foreknow rain.

Foreknowledge, as we've discussed this, at least carries a strong objection if you don't concede it. It is a strong argument none-the-less. Again, a time-consider logician stance must see all angles of the paradox to assess correctly. It just doesn't stand that if God knows, we have no choice any more than if I know, it hasn't any effect on the weather whatsoever. Man effects the weather and it is still plausible to foreknow what is going to happen with the weather without me personally affecting it. If we can have a certain kind of appearance of foreknowledge that borders Definite, there is no reason to think God cannot have it nor that it affects our culpability in choice.

I'm still entertaining candidates for existent individuals who determined these future "free will" decisions for those who do not exist and may never exist. Haven't found any other candidates, yet.

*We are created to love, there is no need for contrast to actually love.

So, you could take someone at gunpoint, force them to live without exposure to any other person, and demand that they love you, and then call it love?

It really doesn't matter if we assert some self-sufficient response, it doesn't make sense to me that it is 'more' loving.

Try telling that to your wife: Honey, I don't have to respond to you in order to love you. See how that goes over.

God knows better how to love, so whatever He created in us, despite having choice in the matter, is the more perfect expression. I'd say we were created with a cool dynamic toward ever increasing expressions of Love before the Fall, but we are still creations (robots as OV grossly exaggerates).

Again, tell your wife that your indiscretions are pre-programmed, but that you still love her. See how she reacts to that.

It is an odd Christianity that would try to elevate us beyond being creatures (created beings).

strawman.

Our every action, thought, and response is created. Like it or not, we are created organic machines. Is there really any objection to this fact?

Yes. We are also spiritual beings created in the image of God.

In my estimation, what makes love love, isn't our choice, but that God created it. We've shown by our choice, that we actually greatly limit and malign love, not elevate it to anything grand. We lost it and wrecked it. We'd like to elevate ourselves to almost a self-sufficient autonomous self-willed entity, but how can we ever escape the logic and fact that we are created responses? I do have an inbuilt sense of purpose and meaning put there by my Creator, but my point is still that it was built and put there. I can't improve on His creation. He's the master builder. I'm not a god meeting another God, I'm a creature meeting my Maker.

Actually, were this true, you'd be a robot acting exactly as your maker intended. So is Hitler. That's not the God of the Bible that I know.

The God of the Bible is just. He doesn't create billions of people, declare to want to love them all, demand justification from them, only to program them such that the vast majority will be eternally damned, without any opportunity to be redeemed.

No, that's not how the bible reads.

Muz

 

[Lon]

Your statement saying "all future happenstance" is incorrect. The knowledge only includes the present state of Peter's heart, and all the possible paths Peter might take, when Christ is betrayed.

Definite or Speculative? Part of the confusion, I believe is your attempt to preserve EDF types of texts and prophetic meaning but ultimately, you'll have to be very clear here. I believe you have made it clear that you reject God's actual foreknowledge of any man. You guys are weird. You jump to the simpleton answer: "He could convince parent to name their child 'Josiah'" to the neglect of him becoming king and his godly actions specifically laid out. It denies your position and this type of answer along with "God can make a rooster crow" are anti-intellectual non-answers that seem purposefully to skirt the issue. I suppose compatiblism is such a bad Open Theist word that such must be avoided no matter how mundane the answer must appear. I don't know, I'm making an educated guess but you shouldn't wonder at the scrutiny of the OV.

EDF would required that Peter follow one and only one specific, predetermined path.

All I'm saying is that dying with Christ was not something Peter was prepared to do at that time.

Again, there are many more concerns about this in the text, like Jesus not losing one of them but for the betrayer. Much more is going on behind all this than a rooster crowing or knowing Peter's mind and heart.

The difference is that Molinism posits knowledge of the hearts of all who do not yet exist (including those who will never exist). I've only posited present knowledge of one existing person.

I see it more of trying to understand things which remain in His counsel alone and throwing a human answer that anthropomorphs other texts the rest of us take literally.

Foreknowledge doesn't determine. Foreknowledge requires prior determination. In the case of rain, the laws of physics have already determined the course of the air and water vapor, such that we can foreknow rain.

This is another example of under-thinking the problem and giving a hasty answer that doesn't address anything and certainly convinces no one worth their weight. First of all, I still believe we guess and have no EDF even with the weather, or even the sun rising. We know nothing until a thing is done because that is our created limitation. We can mentally acquiesce the sun rising, but the experience of it is the actual and 'how' it rose today compared to yesterday is different for us. I agree that determinations were made for the pattern of the sun and determinations for how we are made and set in motion is no different. We are created beings. I don't see it as an insult but a truth.

I'm still entertaining candidates for existent individuals who determined these future "free will" decisions for those who do not exist and may never exist. Haven't found any other candidates, yet.

It does not escape the truth of the matter, that we are created beings. As such, we have an assembly date. Your LWF has an assembly date. It is a created conception, it is not autonomous.

So, you could take someone at gunpoint, force them to live without exposure to any other person, and demand that they love you, and then call it love?

No you didn't. Please don't go there, I don't want to do this to you.

Try telling that to your wife: Honey, I don't have to respond to you in order to love you. See how that goes over.

Uhhhggg, another chance to redeem yourself from this. Please do, I don't want to do this to you.

Again, tell your wife that your indiscretions are pre-programmed, but that you still love her. See how she reacts to that.

Please think this through a bit. You cannot get around that our love is created. Think about it logically without your feelings involved. It is the truth and you know it. You'll be fine when you get to the other side and understand the truth of this. You absolutely know it is the 100% truth. Your mind is telling you it is so. Follow it to the end.

strawman.

It is not! You are balking at this with some desire to see our love and virtues as somehow elevated above being 'created' things. It is a lie! Face up to it, I want you to see it exactly as it is.

Yes. We are also spiritual beings created in the image of God.

Two truthes, in His image: Created.

Actually, were this true, you'd be a robot acting exactly as your maker intended. So is Hitler. That's not the God of the Bible that I know.

This is the second part of the truth. 1) We are created, 2) we are awfully broken.

The God of the Bible is just. He doesn't create billions of people, declare to want to love them all, demand justification from them, only to program them such that the vast majority will be eternally damned, without any opportunity to be redeemed.

No, that's not how the bible reads.

Muz

It IS true!

In my estimation, what makes love love, isn't our choice, but that God created it. We've shown by our choice, that we actually greatly limit and malign love, not elevate it to anything grand. We lost it and wrecked it. We'd like to elevate ourselves to almost a self-sufficient autonomous self-willed entity, but how can we ever escape the logic and fact that we are created responses? I do have an inbuilt sense of purpose and meaning put there by my Creator, but my point is still that it was built and put there. I can't improve on His creation. He's the master builder. I'm not a god meeting another God, I'm a creature meeting my Maker.

Your objections are not about the truth of these. You can but acknowledge it is all true. I rather think, where these ideas are heading is the objection but I haven't gone there yet. All I've done is given you what is undeniably true: We are created beings. Our love is a created response (thing, expression, etc.). The most perfect love in us is that which was created and existed before the Fall and it's been broken and ill since. Contrast actually is nothing but a broken response (post-Fall). Love was perfect in its created state.

 

[assuranceagent]

I object to exhaustive more than definite foreknowledge. Even man can have a measure of prescience, but very limited. Perfect past and present knowledge (exhaustive) makes some things virtually certain in advance. This also increases with proximal issues (Peter/Judas) vs remote ones (from trillions of years ago).

Sorry if the conversation has moved on from here, but this post caught my eye because it illustrates a statement I made earlier: namely that the further one digs into Open Theism, the more one sees God being recreated in the image of man.

Doesn't it bother you even a little bit to compare God's prescience to man's? Even if you assert that God's goes beyond that of man (and I know that you do) it still paints such a small and finite picture of God that a valid comparison could even be drawn in the first place.

I mean what you're really saying here is that God does pretty much the same things as man...He just does a little better job of it.

If ever there was a perception of God that bears similarity to Greek philosophy (as OVers often claim of settled theists) that's it! That's exactly how the Greeks saw their pantheon -- flawed, limited, but with greater power than man.

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate, already in progress.