ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[godrulz]

So God always existed and is all powerful BUT He exists in the same bubble of time that we do and therefore cannot infallibly know the future, since He is restricted by time just as we are. Well I suppose in a way that does make God more "managable" to the human mind, makes Him "more like us" , or does it make "us more like Him" ? Maybe some of both ? But in my opinion it is a very limited view of God. I believe He is capable of immeasurably more than we can imagine and it is foolish to limit Him in any way shape or form.

How does it limit God to not know the unknowable (where Alice in Wonderland is)?!

Time is a limitation for man, but not for God. We can do one thing at once, be in once place at once, have a beginning and end to our earthly life, etc.

How does it limit God to incarnate before resurrection? How does it limit God to distinguish 2005 from 2009? How does it limit God to have existed in the past, present, and then will continue to exist in the future (Rev. 1:4)? How does it NOT limit God to exist in an eternal now simultaneity, helpless to interact in time with man or to change the fixed future?! God has endless time. We have limited time. God can do infinite things at once and be everywhere at once to do many things. He knows everything that is knowable. What is knowable increased exponentially by the second. We cannot be everywhere. We cannot know everything. We cannot do everything.

Who is like God? No one. We are not God. He alone is God of gods. We are mere mortals. Our existence is a wisp, a puff of smoke. He is the rock of ages, from everlasting to everlasting, not just 1960-2010. He is perfect, we are not. He is unlimited, we are not (this does not mean He does incoherent things like cease to exist or create married bachelors, a contradiction in terms).

 

[Lon]

Even man can foreknow proximal choices in some cases. To extapolate this to remote, EDF before the choosers exist is a cosmic leap that is not defensible nor parallel.

The limiting of God is by God's voluntary choice to create significant others with a say so. If He had created a deterministic universe, than EDF would be true. Time is unidirectional. To not know the non-existent future is not a limitation on God, but the reality He has chosen to actualize.

Happy New Year, friend.

I still think you caught up on # exponentials. Where does improbable cross the impossible line? I really don't think with an infinite God it can.

Happy New year to you also.

 

[Lon]

I think Americans have spawned more heresies, winds of doctrine, fads, etc. than Canadians, just because of sheer size (most pseudo-Christian cults come from the States). Most prominent OVTs are also from the States. I think it would be hard to find a significant OT element in Canada. We are also supposedly more conservative by nature, so it gets as much flack here as anywhere.

Being less than 1%, I'd say you are pretty much correct.


We Americans are pretty unified against our heretics

 

[CJ37]

How does it limit God to not know the unknowable (where Alice in Wonderland is)?!

Time is a limitation for man, but not for God. We can do one thing at once, be in once place at once, have a beginning and end to our earthly life, etc.

How does it limit God to incarnate before resurrection? How does it limit God to distinguish 2005 from 2009? How does it limit God to have existed in the past, present, and then will continue to exist in the future (Rev. 1:4)? How does it NOT limit God to exist in an eternal now simultaneity, helpless to interact in time with man or to change the fixed future?! God has endless time. We have limited time. God can do infinite things at once and be everywhere at once to do many things. He knows everything that is knowable. What is knowable increased exponentially by the second. We cannot be everywhere. We cannot know everything. We cannot do everything.

Who is like God? No one. We are not God. He alone is God of gods. We are mere mortals. Our existence is a wisp, a puff of smoke. He is the rock of ages, from everlasting to everlasting, not just 1960-2010. He is perfect, we are not. He is unlimited, we are not (this does not mean He does incoherent things like cease to exist or create married bachelors, a contradiction in terms).

I understand your line of reasoning but I still believe you are seriously underestimating the power of God. He is not limited by our finite understanding or imaginations. He can do immeasurably beyond what we can even imagine. Have you ever pondered the meaning of that ? You are measuring God's power using a finite capacity to understand, try not to forget that. You are imagining that you have God's power and limits all figured out ? Keep dreaming

Ephesians 3:20 (New International Version)

"Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine"

 

[godrulz]

I understand your line of reasoning but I still believe you are seriously underestimating the power of God. He is not limited by our finite understanding or imaginations. He can do immeasurably beyond what we can even imagine. Have you ever pondered the meaning of that ? You are measuring God's power using a finite capacity to understand, try not to forget that. You are imagining that you have God's power and limits all figured out ? Keep dreaming

Ephesians 3:20 (New International Version)

"Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine"

Funny, I think those who think God must know the future to remain in control underestimate His ability. Power, not knowledge, is the more significant component. I fear stupid King Kong more than smart S. Hawking in a wheelchair. :shocked:

If the future was knowable, God would absolutely know it. If square circles were possible in divine or human reality without logical absurdity issues, God would wallpaper heaven with them to prove me wrong.

God can do anything, but not something that is logically impossible. You may think it is logically possible to have EDF and free will. I believe we can use God-given and revelation to show that it is not. There are Open Theism verses that support this premise, but critics choose to make them anthropomorphic to avoid contradicting preconceptions, not because it is exegetically or contextually necessary to make them figurative vs literal. We have a stronger hermeneutic and a theology that does not truly compromise His great attributes and uniqueness. Since simple foreknowledge does not offer providential advantage (cannot change the future even if he wanted to...if he saw you were going to die, he could not change it because it would make his foreknowledge false; in my view, he can see danger unfolding and intervene by his ability, even without EDF), why cling to it (tradition vs truth?) if it has theological, philosophical, logical problems? Just because you do not think there are problems or are happy to assume God must have it without evidence, why cling to it? Dynamic omniscience is just as omniscient as a static version.

If I thought OVT compromised His revelation or attributes, I would join your side (which I once was until I got more light on the subject).

Eph. 3 is about prayer, etc., not God making square circles (atheists and conservative theologians agree that an omnipotent God cannot make self-contradictory things; it is a logical absurdity, not a limitation on God's power; as a theist, if an atheist asks you if God can make a rock too heavy to lift to trap you, tune them in with the right answer...it is a stupid, non-starter question and should not be entertained...so, there are some things God cannot do or know without truly limiting Him).

 

[CJ37]

Funny, I think those who think God must know the future to remain in control underestimate His ability. Power, not knowledge, is the more significant component. I fear stupid King Kong more than smart S. Hawking in a wheelchair. :shocked:

If the future was knowable, God would absolutely know it. If square circles were possible in divine or human reality without logical absurdity issues, God would wallpaper heaven with them to prove me wrong.

God can do anything, but not something that is logically impossible. You may think it is logically possible to have EDF and free will. I believe we can use God-given and revelation to show that it is not. There are Open Theism verses that support this premise, but critics choose to make them anthropomorphic to avoid contradicting preconceptions, not because it is exegetically or contextually necessary to make them figurative vs literal. We have a stronger hermeneutic and a theology that does not truly compromise His great attributes and uniqueness. Since simple foreknowledge does not offer providential advantage (cannot change the future even if he wanted to...if he saw you were going to die, he could not change it because it would make his foreknowledge false; in my view, he can see danger unfolding and intervene by his ability, even without EDF), why cling to it (tradition vs truth?) if it has theological, philosophical, logical problems? Just because you do not think there are problems or are happy to assume God must have it without evidence, why cling to it? Dynamic omniscience is just as omniscient as a static version.

If I thought OVT compromised His revelation or attributes, I would join your side (which I once was until I got more light on the subject).

Eph. 3 is about prayer, etc., not God making square circles (atheists and conservative theologians agree that an omnipotent God cannot make self-contradictory things; it is a logical absurdity, not a limitation on God's power; as a theist, if an atheist asks you if God can make a rock too heavy to lift to trap you, tune them in with the right answer...it is a stupid, non-starter question and should not be entertained...so, there are some things God cannot do or know without truly limiting Him).

What is the origin of logic ? Did God create it, or is He bound by it and subject to its rules ? Who do you think is responsible for your ability to even contemplate such a question ? Yet He is bound by the same rules that govern your finite understanding ? Think outside the box. God is much bigger than you imagine.

Its like Windows Vista telling Bill Gates "you are bound by the same parameters you programmed me with"

 

[godrulz]

What is the origin of logic ? Did God create it, or is He bound by it and subject to its rules ? Who do you think is responsible for your ability to even contemplate such a question ? Yet He is bound by the same rules that govern your finite understanding ? Think outside the box. God is much bigger than you imagine.

Clete will set you straight. God is rational and is creation is rational. He does not deceive and mislead us (I assume my view has biblical and logical support, not just humanistic thinking). Our minds are part of the image of God. There are noetic effects of sin (our understanding is not what it could be until we see Him face to face). Using our logic, we cannot accept anything Scripture says because it is inadequate to describe God. We cannot be sure that God is like He says because He has a different logic than us? God can and does communicate through language. He can reveal truth about Himself and His ways, even if we do not fully understand it.

The issue comes down to what is literal and what is figurative (John Sanders deals with the problems with your view and the anthropomorphism loophole you are trying to use i.e. a face value reading of Scripture supports Open Theism which opponents admit, but they choose to make it figurative in order to retain what they think God should be like rather than what he plainly says about himself).

e.g. It states that God changes His mind (?37x). Open Theism adjusts our thinking to this rather than rationalizing away the statements to fit a traditional view that thinks change makes one less than perfect or temporal (hence eternal now, immutability, impassiblity, etc are related, but not necessarily right). The truth is that this is a Platonic/philosophical vs biblically necessary argument. A personal being can be dynamic vs static without being imperfect. If it is a figurative statement, then what is it representing? If God did want to say He can change His mind, how else would he say it other than the way he did?!

I trust this will get you thinking. I do not want to talk you into something that others will talk you out of. I also do not want any of us to uncritically accept tradition that impugns the character and ways of God if there are better paradigms that are more biblical and coherent.

Are you a determinist/Calvinist, Molinist, or Arminian free will theist? There are not many more options.

 

[CJ37]

Clete will set you straight. God is rational and is creation is rational. He does not deceive and mislead us (I assume my view has biblical and logical support, not just humanistic thinking). Our minds are part of the image of God. There are noetic effects of sin (our understanding is not what it could be until we see Him face to face). Using our logic, we cannot accept anything Scripture says because it is inadequate to describe God. We cannot be sure that God is like He says because He has a different logic than us? God can and does communicate through language. He can reveal truth about Himself and His ways, even if we do not fully understand it.

The issue comes down to what is literal and what is figurative (John Sanders deals with the problems with your view and the anthropomorphism loophole you are trying to use i.e. a face value reading of Scripture supports Open Theism which opponents admit, but they choose to make it figurative in order to retain what they think God should be like rather than what he plainly says about himself).

e.g. It states that God changes His mind (?37x). Open Theism adjusts our thinking to this rather than rationalizing away the statements to fit a traditional view that thinks change makes one less than perfect or temporal (hence eternal now, immutability, impassiblity, etc are related, but not necessarily right). The truth is that this is a Platonic/philosophical vs biblically necessary argument. A personal being can be dynamic vs static without being imperfect. If it is a figurative statement, then what is it representing? If God did want to say He can change His mind, how else would he say it other than the way he did?!

I trust this will get you thinking. I do not want to talk you into something that others will talk you out of. I also do not want any of us to uncritically accept tradition that impugns the character and ways of God if there are better paradigms that are more biblical and coherent.

Are you a determinist/Calvinist, Molinist, or Arminian free will theist? There are not many more options.

I am just a simple Bible-believer that does not try to limit God's power.... I am a created being and I am subject to the rules,laws, and boundaries set in my reality by my Creator. Is God limited by the same rules,laws, and boundaries He has set for us ? The reality of time travel may be impossible for us to comprehend. But our ability to understand has set limits......you do realize this ? Just because we cant understand how time travel could be possible doesnt mean that God is limited by the same restrictions. We need to be careful about trying to deify man and/or humanize God.

 

[godrulz]

Mormons deify man and humanize God. Open Theism, properly understood does not do this.

Time travel is science fiction. What evidence do you have to assume that it is possible for God? Does it matter if He cannot time travel? Most people would agree that the past is fixed and cannot be changed, even by God. This can be demonstrated, so don't assume everything speculative has to be possible for God. Just because God cannot become a frog, does not mean He is not God.

Nothing wrong with simplicity in our faith, but simplistic can become stupid.

 

[CJ37]

. Just because God cannot become a frog, does not mean He is not God.

.

Do you honestly believe the God who designed and created the frog could not turn Himself into a frog if He wanted ? :think: :jump::think:

Can God make a donkey speak if He wanted ?

 

[godrulz]

Do you honestly believe the God who designed and created the frog could not turn Himself into a frog if He wanted ?

Can God make a donkey speak if He wanted ?

God can make a donkey speak. God is ontologically/metaphysically (stuff, being, nature, substance) eternal, uncreated, triune spirit. He cannot make Himself cease to exist, He can become a man in Christ, one person with two natures, but He cannot become a frog and cease to be Almighty God. This is ontologically impossible. He can supernaturally intervene in creation, but this is not parallel since it would not cause God to cease like becoming a frog would.

Atheists, classical, and open theists do not think God can become a frog. You are out on a limb with this one. I am trying to make a point. If you cannot see it, you will never see Open Theism. God is God; man is man; frogs are frogs; rocks are rocks. What would happen if God ceased to be God (the one who holds all things together) in order to become an earthworm? The universe would also cease to exist and God would die, contrary to His immutable nature which you likely defend.

Saying that God cannot do the logically, biblically absurd is not denying His greatness nor abilities/power/knowledge.

 

[CJ37]

God can make a donkey speak. God is ontologically/metaphysically (stuff, being, nature, substance) eternal, uncreated, triune spirit. He cannot make Himself cease to exist, He can become a man in Christ, one person with two natures, but He cannot become a frog and cease to be Almighty God. This is ontologically impossible. He can supernaturally intervene in creation, but this is not parallel since it would not cause God to cease like becoming a frog would.

Atheists, classical, and open theists do not think God can become a frog. You are out on a limb with this one. I am trying to make a point. If you cannot see it, you will never see Open Theism. God is God; man is man; frogs are frogs; rocks are rocks. What would happen if God ceased to be God (the one who holds all things together) in order to become an earthworm? The universe would also cease to exist and God would die, contrary to His immutable nature which you likely defend.

Saying that God cannot do the logically, biblically absurd is not denying His greatness nor abilities/power/knowledge.

So God can take angelic or human form when He wants, but not animal ? :juggle:

 

[godrulz]

So God can take angelic or human form when He wants, but not animal ? :juggle:

God can incarnate, but it was only the Word, not the Father/Holy Spirit that did so. The triune God did not and cannot incarnate, but the Word can.

God cannot become an angel (created being) and cease to be God. A theophany is an appearance, not a metamorphosis. The Holy Spirit is God and appeared as a dove. This does not mean He ceased to be spirit and literally became a dove forever. God can appear on the throne with the Son, but God in His essential nature is invisible and beyond human sight.

Appearing in a form is not the same as ceasing to be God and becoming that form forever (my point).

 

[CJ37]

God can incarnate, but it was only the Word, not the Father/Holy Spirit that did so. The triune God did not and cannot incarnate, but the Word can.

God cannot become an angel (created being) and cease to be God. A theophany is an appearance, not a metamorphosis. The Holy Spirit is God and appeared as a dove. This does not mean He ceased to be spirit and literally became a dove forever. God can appear on the throne with the Son, but God in His essential nature is invisible and beyond human sight.

Appearing in a form is not the same as ceasing to be God and becoming that form forever (my point).

It seems you have God all figured out :thumb: :drum: :thumb:

I still believe He could become an incarnate frog....if He wanted :think:

 

[godrulz]

It seems you have God all figured out :thumb: :drum: :thumb:

I still believe He could become an incarnate frog....if He wanted :think:

An incarnate frog, maybe. But I was arguing that He could not cease to be infinite God in order to become a finite frog forever (showing there are some things God cannot do).

We can know truthful things about God based on revelation and reason. We cannot know or understand Him exhaustively. You are not suggesting that we cannot know about Him or know Him just because we know so little?

I Jn. 3:2 we will see who is right in the eschaton (future) unless you see the light sooner and have a eureka moment. Given your curiosity, I think there is hope for you. Regardless, the important thing is to worship Him as God of gods, His Majesty, in spirit and truth to the best of our biblical ability with the illumination of the Spirit in the name of Jesus.

Do you have an opinion about speaking in tongues/Pentecostals? I am an Open Theist Pentecostal. Does that make matters worse?

 

[CJ37]

An incarnate frog, maybe. But I was arguing that He could not cease to be infinite God in order to become a finite frog forever (showing there are some things God cannot do).

We can know truthful things about God based on revelation and reason. We cannot know or understand Him exhaustively. You are not suggesting that we cannot know about Him or know Him just because we know so little?

I Jn. 3:2 we will see who is right in the eschaton (future) unless you see the light sooner and have a eureka moment. Given your curiosity, I think there is hope for you. Regardless, the important thing is to worship Him as God of gods, His Majesty, in spirit and truth to the best of our biblical ability with the illumination of the Spirit in the name of Jesus.

Do you have an opinion about speaking in tongues/Pentecostals? I am an Open Theist Pentecostal. Does that make matters worse?

Depends on your defintion of "tongues"

Do I believe tongues have ceased ? No, I believe it is still possible but I also believe Biblical tongues were known,spoken languages of the world. Not the unintelligable "angel language" that people claim are authentic tongues of the Bible. If you and I travelled to Russia together, and all of the sudden you were able to tell someone the Gospel in Russian, and having never studied the Russian language, then that I believe would be a case of authentic Biblical tongues.

 

[Delmar]

What is the origin of logic ? Did God create it, or is He bound by it and subject to its rules ? Who do you think is responsible for your ability to even contemplate such a question ? Yet He is bound by the same rules that govern your finite understanding ? Think outside the box. God is much bigger than you imagine.

Its like Windows Vista telling Bill Gates "you are bound by the same parameters you programmed me with"

I think I asked you this before and I didn't see an answer, but I might have missed it. Is God real? Is God bound by reality or can God also rightly be described as fictional?
To say that God is logical is simply to describe Him. It is to say that God is not absurd! Are you are willing to agree with me that God is real and not fictional, and that God is logical and not absurd?
When I say that God is logical, do you see this statement as saying that God is "bound by logic"?

 

[CJ37]

I think I asked you this before and I didn't see an answer, but I might have missed it. Is God real? Is God bound by reality or can God also rightly be described as fictional?
To say that God is logical is simply to describe Him. It is to say that God is not absurd! Are you are willing to agree with me that God is real and not fictional, and that God is logical and not absurd?
When I say that God is logical, do you see this statement as saying that God is "bound by logic"?

So because someone cannot fathom in their finite,limited mind how time travel is possible ....that makes it impossible for the Creator of the Universe ?

"I find the idea of time travel to be absurd and illogical. I know God is logical, therefore God cannot time travel" :think:

Is that more or less how your mind is working ?

 

[Delmar]

So because someone cannot fathom in their finite,limited mind how time travel is possible ....that makes it impossible for the Creator of the Universe ?
"I find the idea of time travel to be absurd and illogical. God is logical, therefore God cannot time travel" :think:

I simply don't find time travel to be alluded to, as a possibility, in the Bible.

Is that more or less how your mind is working ?

edit:
No not really.
When I asked these questions, I did not have time travel in mind. I was simply trying to get to the root of the question "is God bound by logic". My answer to that question is, God is not absurd.
Can you please just answer the simple questions I asked, before jumping two steps ahead to what my conclusions might be?

 

[Lon]

I think I asked you this before and I didn't see an answer, but I might have missed it. Is God real? Is God bound by reality or can God also rightly be described as fictional?

Is a leading question, are those really my only two options? I think you are tipping the OV hand here with limitations it cannot see past.

"I'll call."

To say that God is logical is simply to describe Him.

And if you cannot, He isn't? You are tipping your hand here as well. I think I saw all your cards.

"I'll raise."

It is to say that God is not absurd!

Absurd to the OV is pretty limited to what it can fathom and often only that.

"I'll re-raise."

Are you are willing to agree with me that God is real and not fictional, and that God is logical and not absurd?

So, if we cannot fathom a thing, it becomes 'fictional.'

"I call your bluff."

When I say that God is logical, do you see this statement as saying that God is "bound by logic"?

No, but in the OV, bound by man (and his limited, short-sighted, insignificant, and faulty thinking (logic).

"I'm all in."