ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[godrulz]

No, God does not have to cause these things in a deterministic way. He can cause some things and exceptionally override free will if it does not involve individual salvation matters. He can influence, orchestrate, predict based on the past, etc. Most of these things are generic and are predictable responses (it does not name individuals, exact times and dates, minute by minute detail, etc. of the future), can be influenced to happen, can be fulfilled in various ways, etc.

We also do not have exact historical records of a literal fulfillment, line by line.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

No, God does not have to cause these things in a deterministic way. He can cause some things and exceptionally override free will if it does not involve individual salvation matters. He can influence, orchestrate, predict based on the past, etc. Most of these things are generic and are predictable responses (it does not name individuals, exact times and dates, minute by minute detail, etc. of the future), can be influenced to happen, can be fulfilled in various ways, etc.

You'd be better off just admitting that there really is no open theism answer to Daniel 11. It's doesn't necessarily make open theism wrong, but atleast be honest about it.

 

[Lighthouse]

Now, I know, and I know you know, that the answer is COMPATIBILISM.

Before you go flying off the handle about how the word "compatibilism" is not a real word, and not in your Microsoft Word spell check, it is a word that simply states:

Man has free will, and God knows the future.

Call it irrational, illogical, impossible, etc, but for those of us who are not open theists, or Calvinists, it's how we understand our free will, the future, and God.

You can deny it, and not believe it, but it is a word. See HERE

:rotfl:

P.S.
Firefox spell check doesn't recognize it either...

P.P.S.
Calvinists made the word up because they needed to, in order for their theology to have an excuse.

 

[elected4ever]

:rotfl:

P.S.
Firefox spell check doesn't recognize it either...

P.P.S.
Calvinists made the word up because they needed to, in order for their theology to have an excuse.

So, to you God is cause all if He knows? So, he must not know sense we both know that God does not cause all. Why is this incompatible?

 

[godrulz]

You'd be better off just admitting that there really is no open theism answer to Daniel 11. It's doesn't necessarily make open theism wrong, but atleast be honest about it.

As Muz pointed out, it is not a problem even if you do not like his answer. You are ignoring the evidences for OVT, assuming there is no good response to your proof text, and thinking a theological world view rises or falls on one passage. You ignore many more passages that contradict your view and cling to one that can be responded to by the view you reject.

Even if we did not have a perfect answer, it does not negate the bigger problems with your view and the other strengths and evidences for OVT.

You underestimate God's knowledge and ability from an OVT perspective because you assume your concept is the only way God can do things. Predictive prophecy is one objection, but there are answers if one understands the nature of prophecy (not just one prophecy).

 

[Lighthouse]

So, to you God is cause all if He knows? So, he must not know sense we both know that God does not cause all. Why is this incompatible?

If you restate this in English I might be able to answer you.

 

[Lon]

If you restate this in English I might be able to answer you.

Disengenuine. You know exactly what he said. If not, might I suggest remedial reading as an option?

I've taught English, maybe I have an edge, I dunno (slang, but decipherable? I hope so)

Soooo....(more slang)...let's take a look:

So, to you God is cause [of] all if He [fore]-knows?

A bit awkward, but

I might be able to answer you.

???

Think a bit, don't make people do all your work for you.

The question is plain enough:

"In your opinion, if God foreknows, does this automatically means He causes all things to happen?"

(Implied "No!")

So, He must not know since we both know that God does not cause all.

That is, E4 is saying that it is absurd to think that foreknowledge must equate causation (because it doesn't and is a big flaw in OV thinking-OVers are confused. All of Christianity but the OVer understands the difference).

Why is this incompatible?

I.E. "it isn't, go back to school" (ONLY OVers are confused about this).

He asked it much nicer, so spelling it out for you ensures that the question becomes more accusatory and implicating. I think, he was trying to be nice and being careful with how he phrased the questions knowing your predeliction for being trite and volital. Only the OVer confuses this so you really have to prove that connection because the rest of us aren't buying it at this time.

Simply said, in easy to understand English: Foreknowledge does not mean 'causes.'

It does in the OV mind, because you guys don't define foreknowledge like we do. You equate it with determinism, such that you are all sporadic Calvinists when it suits your interpretation needs.

ala:

See, you are assuming this is an issue of knowledge vs an issue of ability. God is confident enogh in His ability inspire Josheph to go to Beth, just as He was confident enogh to tell Moses, it might take one, two or three miracles to convince the people, but they will listen to you, the same go's for inspiring people to write His Holy Word.
This is an issue of Gods ability, not knowlage.

 

[godrulz]

Foreknowledge does not always imply causation. Simple foreknowledge is an indefensible assumption and requires circular reasoning or blind faith to affirm. Being a Calvinist, your view should be deterministic. This would explain foreknowledge better than a SFK view. Middle knowledge is speculative and problematic (Molinism). These issues become complex if we are not just to blindly assume a view without logical or biblical support.

 

[Lon]

Foreknowledge does not always imply causation. Simple foreknowledge is an indefensible assumption and requires circular reasoning or blind faith to affirm. Being a Calvinist, your view should be deterministic. This would explain foreknowledge better than a SFK view. Middle knowledge is speculative and problematic (Molinism). These issues become complex if we are not just to blindly assume a view without logical or biblical support.

AMR Reminded me of this:

Foreordination and causation

Necessity of a hypothetical inference...
If God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter cannot refrain from sinning. (Incorrect)

The interpretation above wrongly interprets God's foreknowledge as impinging upon Peter's moral free agency. The proper understanding is:

The necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical...
Necessarily, if God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning. (Correct)

As discussed here

AMR

You are caught in a logical loop that doesn't necessarily follow in insistance upon incompatibility. Your supposition is inaccurate, therefore, so is your conclusion.

You know I like vanilla ice cream. When you go to the store, you do not impinge upon my desire by buying me vanilla ice cream, you radify the foreknown choice. It does NOT eliminate the other choice (chocolate) from my will. I've done that all by myself. Again, you are applying His foreknowledge inappropriately to my actions and decisions. On paper, you will be convinced you eliminated my freewill by getting me vanilla ice cream but it is still incorrect and you are the one caught in the logical conundrum, not me.

 

[godrulz]

It still begs the question to assume that foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is possible. AMR spins compatibilism (desires caused) at the expense of true freedom, so he is not proving that EDF is compatible with LFW (it is not; he is sacrificing free will to retain EDF, hence his determinism...indefensible in light of the problem of evil and God's character/ways).

 

[Lon]

It still begs the question to assume that foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is possible. AMR spins compatibilism (desires caused) at the expense of true freedom, so he is not proving that EDF is compatible with LFW (it is not; he is sacrificing free will to retain EDF, hence his determinism...indefensible in light of the problem of evil and God's character/ways).

Wrong. You are running a 'what if' scenario that doesn't necessarily have to happen to your LWF:

"What if I don't want vanilla?"

See, it isn't going to happen. I buy vanilla. I will buy other kinds, but NOT FOR ME, the wife and kids like other kinds. The kids are kids and will eat whatever ice cream uncoerced. I do NOT twist their arms to eat up all my vanilla ice cream. They have a predilection for "any kind" of ice cream.

So, even if I choose 'what I like,' the kid's choice is not at all impinged. They would rather eat mine than none at all. Oh, they pour chocolate syrup on it and sprinkle it with other chocolate goodies of course, but that only proves that their choice is not at all impinged. In a very limited sense, I have some kinds of predictive qualities that coincide with foreknowledge, but it does prove that foreknowledge ratifies our choices, not determines them. AMR is not begging the question at all. He addressed it correctly and you are still confused.

If I can guess most nearly perfect what ice cream my family desires, God is certainly more intimate and able than I. I believe EDF in no way can be connected as you attempt here. I believe you are confused and making a logical jump where there is none.

 

[godrulz]

The battle ground is the nature of free will. If libertarian, EDF is not possible; if deterministic in any sense (middle knowledge or compatibilism), then EDF is possible. The problem is that determinism is not the world God actualized.

 

[Lon]

The battle ground is the nature of free will. If libertarian, EDF is not possible; if deterministic in any sense (middle knowledge or compatibilism), then EDF is possible. The problem is that determinism is not the world God actualized.

You are looking for that serendipitous none-existent thing. If I have a choice between two peppers, as one of your previous analogies proposes, there are constraints for why I'd choose one over the other. There is a very appreciable and apprehendable heirarchy to your choice. I'm sorry this de-mystifies and de-glorifies your L in FW, but I can't build a solid theological doctrine upon such a whim. You will choose the one pepper over the other 1) because one is fresher 2) your stomach isn't up to the hotter one 3) you actually do prefer one over the other 4) you just had the other the night before. Your choice is determined easily by a God who knows all these things. Your God is incapable of Trillions of things to juggle, expand your universe.

Eph 3:20 Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
Eph 3:21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen.

Pay attention: "Exceedingly abundantly (double emphasis) more than you 'think.'" If you can 'think' it, He is exceedingly/abundantly more able than trillions and trillions or this scripture is a lie. Be a dullard for once and admit your own limitations, not His. Your imaginings of God are in a delusional box, meditate frequently on this verse and post it on your screensaver, notecards, fridge, plastic for the shower, bookmark, highlighter. My desire is that you memorize it and that it plagues and dogs you all your life.

 

[godrulz]

Huh?

If there are two identical objects, what desires dictate which one I take off the shelf? One can also act contrary to desire or out of character.

Why complicate free will with philosophical ideas just to retain a wrong view?

 

[Lon]

Huh?

If there are two identical objects, what desires dictate which one I take off the shelf? One can also act contrary to desire or out of character.

Why complicate free will with philosophical ideas just to retain a wrong view?

Why speculate into a mysterious 'choice' where there is obvious reason for choosing?

Even 'eenie meenie' is a choice indicator. We make no choices without 'tells.' If there are tells, then it is obviously knowable. Are you suggesting we make choices mysteriously unknowable? This of course is the OV position, but it remains not just unconvincing, but highly scrutinized. I don't think I ever make the choice you believe exists. If it is never made, how can it exist? Is this wishful thinking? Is it a fabrication? It seems to me, you've traded the mysteries of God for favoring the mysteries of man. I really don't think we have that kind of depth. I, at least, am fairly predictable. If you knew me, you'd have no problem at all figuring out my rhyme and reasons. I'm just not that mysterious. Are you afraid this makes us boring or something?

Supposing I'm correct, if you really knew me, you'd be able to accurately predict every choice I make. Does this remove my will? Does this remove 'my' choice? Your quagmire is perplexing to me.

 

[Lon]

P.S.

P.S.

Eph 3:20 Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
Eph 3:21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen.

 

[godrulz]

Eph 3:20 Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
Eph 3:21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen.

Calvinists, Arminians, Molinists, and Open Theists rightly agree with the context and truths of this verse (atheists, Process theists, Hindus, etc. do not).

 

[Lon]

Calvinists, Arminians, Molinists, and Open Theists rightly agree with the context and truths of this verse (atheists, Process theists, Hindus, etc. do not).

Yes, but I'm addressing this verse to you! You limit Him to what you can 'think' with your trillions upon trillions all the time. I don't think you really have delved into this verse on your personal understanding.

Eph 3:20 Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
Eph 3:21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen.

You ask and think 'trillions upon trillions' and you deem God incapable of it. Is this verse true or not?

 

[godrulz]

This verse is not meant to justify incoherent ideas or make nothing knowable about God and doctrine. I don't get your point. We are not putting God in a box to affirm truths that He has revealed.:deadhorse:

 

[Lon]

This verse is not meant to justify incoherent ideas or make nothing knowable about God and doctrine. I don't get your point. We are not putting God in a box to affirm truths that He has revealed.:deadhorse:

Yes, it is. A liberal license? No. A justification for God being 'exceedingly/abundantly' beyond our ken? Yes!