Theology Club: Does Open Theism Question/dispute the Omniscience of God

[Rosenritter]

Which, imho, proves my point 1) that your mind doesn't need to be free in order for you to enjoy God's creation. For some strange reason, 'we' want to be in control. Okay, I've heard enough of the 'automaton' and 'puppet' remarks to know there is a STRONG aversion to following HISwill rather than one's own, but in the end, that one leads to death. It is ONLY when we 'deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow HIM that we have life. Why this strong attachment to your will, desires, wants and whims? Is there something bad about being subsumed in Christ???

How do any of those words relate to the question of whether a computer program has free will or is merely an automaton?

I've programmed. I've had programs do what I did NOT intend for them to do. We don't have A-I but it is, imho, close enough for discussion and example.

That just means that you weren't a perfect programmer and you gave instructions contrary to your will. The machine obeyed your instructions perfectly. Since you are applying this analogy here, you've just said that God is a failed programmer that commands people to disobey his will because of a failure of the power of his intellect.

God made us to go one way. As you say, UNLESS you messed up, that program cannot fail. Because of this, you are almost insisting that God made programs to be able to fail. That isn't how I see the Garden. Very specifically Genesis 3:1 without Genesis 3:1? No Fall. To me, this is a biblical indicator that our will was NOT free to sin.

I've no idea what "Genesis 3:1 without Genesis 3:1" was meant to say. Surely a typo?

But a "biblical indicator that our will was not free to sin?" That's nonsensical: God gave a commandment not to take of one tree already (Genesis 2:16) which indicates that sin was a possibility. He did not say "you shall not spread your wings and fly out of the garden" because they don't have wings. He did say "you shall not eat of that one tree" because they had access to the tree and could eat of it.

 

[Rosenritter]

Most psychologists believe men are products of their environment and I believe scripture teaches the same: Romans 5:12 etc.

Most psychologists seem to be humanists or atheists.

 

[Lon]

That isn't a plausible justification Lon. Let's pretend that there is a law requiring you to present a driver's license to a police officer upon request. If you were unaware of the law you are still held responsible for that failure to comply. The problem with your scenario is that the police officer seizes all your documents and then demands that you personally present them on demand.... and of course you cannot, because they were already stolen from you. There is no ability to comply and your "justice" holds you guilty for someone that was removed from your control.

In this case it is not a mere matter of "insanity" when the officer seizes your documents and then demands that you produce them. It's a matter of cruelty and emphasizing that their power allows them to flaunt the law. Would you argue that the crooked cop and the corrupt judge are justified because "they are the law" and "they are sovereign?" They certainly have the power and can do whatever they want... It is written "ye are gods" but this is the behavior that a Righteous God who is described as Just and Merciful and Love despises.

And besides, how would issuing a nonsensical warning to people to "change their behavior" (who cannot change because God will not allow it) have any sort of useful effect on others? In your scenario God has the same curse upon all people where he won't allow anyone to heed warnings that he hasn't specifically allowed. He might as well deliver the warnings to the people he has allowed to be able to change.



"He may be a corrupt judge and a crooked cop, but you are taken care of because he only does that to others?"

Sorry, the pleading 'ignorance' claim doesn't always work. Breaking the law is breaking the law. It is WHOLLY dependent upon the one put-upon's grace. Try again?

 

[Lon]

Most psychologists seem to be humanists or atheists.

A platitude, Rosen. Let's not be making up quippy retorts and meaningless response. Many of these were Christians and/or interacting with Christian concerns.

 

[Rosenritter]

Sorry, the pleading 'ignorance' claim doesn't always work. Breaking the law is breaking the law. It is WHOLLY dependent upon the one put-upon's grace. Try again?

Did you stop reading before completing sentence 3?

Sentence 3:

If you were unaware of the law you are still held responsible for that failure to comply.

The problem with your scenario is that the police officer seizes all your documents and then demands that you personally present them on demand.... and of course you cannot, because they were already stolen from you. There is no ability to comply and your "justice" holds you guilty for someone that was removed from your control.

Spoiler

In this case it is not a mere matter of "insanity" when the officer seizes your documents and then demands that you produce them. It's a matter of cruelty and emphasizing that their power allows them to flaunt the law. Would you argue that the crooked cop and the corrupt judge are justified because "they are the law" and "they are sovereign?" They certainly have the power and can do whatever they want... It is written "ye are gods" but this is the behavior that a Righteous God who is described as Just and Merciful and Love despises.


And besides, how would issuing a nonsensical warning to people to "change their behavior" (who cannot change because God will not allow it) have any sort of useful effect on others? In your scenario God has the same curse upon all people where he won't allow anyone to heed warnings that he hasn't specifically allowed. He might as well deliver the warnings to the people he has allowed to be able to change.

"He may be a corrupt judge and a crooked cop, but you are taken care of because he only does that to others?"

Creating things that can only obey your instructions and then punishing them for their inability to obey contrary instructions would be insanity. If "a double minded man is unstable in all his ways" what would that imply about a "double minded god?"

 

[Rosenritter]

A platitude, Rosen. Let's not be making up quippy retorts and meaningless response. Many of these were Christians and/or interacting with Christian concerns.

It's not a meaningless response. Psychology is one of the popular fields that is furthest away from Christianity. It is the popular "philosophy" of our time.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/05/psychologists-are-least-religious-of.html

Fifty percent of professors of psychology at US universities and colleges do not believe in any god, and another 11% are agnostic.

With other factors controlled, biologists and psychologists—relative to professors outside the top 20 fields—are less likely to believe in God and less likely to hold traditional views of the Bible;

Psychology as a whole is more humanist and atheistic than not. Perhaps many within this field might reduce man to a machine that is merely a product of his environment, because the will is something that ultimately requires spirit. Otherwise you would have a complex machine that merely produces results from a set of inputs... which sounds somewhat relevant to the path the conversation has taken recently.

http://www.hellboundthemovie.com/if-your-theology-of-hell-depends-on-free-will-watch-this/

(It's a link to a video of Sam Harris, a psychologist person who argues that we have no free will.)

Maybe if you have a few minutes take some time and listen to this guy... because this is the result of what happens when you take that philosophy that people are merely products of their environment without free will to its logical conclusion. The "no free will" argument is also applied by Universalists because they (correctly) argue that if man has no free will he cannot be justly held responsible for his actions (as his actions would be merely the results of the irresistible programming from the Programmer.)

 

[Derf]

Chocolate or vanilla? :think: Know what this means? Your presumption, and mine substantiated by research in DNA, right?


Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/the-genetics-of-taste-88797110/#oBKMdTAAgRyr3F4U.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter"

And here's the final thought in your article: "Though our food preferences have a lot to do with genetics, or nature (as much as nearly half, according to Kings College London research on identical twins), nurture is just as important. Over our lifetimes we build many complex associations with flavors and scents that can override our DNA."
Can't argue with you there.

Right, and in your conception, God is stuck in the dark on quite a bit :think: Jeremiah 1:5

Why do you say that? I don't think God is in the dark about anything that exists. That's a fear tactic, just like you accuse me of using here:

"Puppet" is a fear word. "I don't want to be a puppet like a Calvinist!" Or "I'm afraid I'm a nobody if God gets to always have His say." There really is no reason for the slanted term and expression other than someone worried about it. In psychology, a similar debate goes on between B.F. Skinner/Pavlov and John Stuart Mill etc. regarding whether man is condition or is 'free' from influence, genetics, society, and other sources.

Most psychologists believe men are products of their environment and I believe scripture teaches the same: Romans 5:12 etc.


Imho? A platitude asserted. It needs scriptural and rational foundation. It needs a biblical reason for its statement.

I can't help but think Open Theists mean something different and preferential by this. I cringe every time I hear it. We've stolen enough and wrecked the car enough: Genesis 6:5-8 Why is this always held up as if it is something 1) desirable or 2) glorious? :idunno:

I'm astounded that you put these two thoughts in the same thread, much more so in the same post, and especially so one right after another. You give me biblical foundation for the "platitude" in your wrecks and stolen cars. Are you seriously saying God made us puppets, and then made His puppets steal His cars and wreck them???


Btw, I don't mean to use "puppet" as a fear word. I use it as an illogical representation of our life here. Illogical because, as you pointed out so well, if we are puppets, we're terribly bad ones. And God wouldn't make bad puppets, would He? Ones that sin by His intention? Again, this makes God the author of sin, or possibly makes God a liar, because there is no sin if the puppets are just doing what He wants.

Btw #2, I DO use "makes God a liar" and "makes God the author of sin" as fear phrases. We should fear besmirching His character such.

1 John 3:2 I'm not sure exactly how heavenly projection comes into this

Following along with your analogy and my logical addition to it. If God is teaching us to drive, then He must want us to be able to do something with that skill. If we don't learn the whole skill before we die in this life, then the skill must be useful in the next life.

Can we honestly say we can fully apply the "skill" of sanctification in this life? Therefore, imo, it must apply mostly to the next life (not trying to take away from its need and use in this, just that perfection eludes us).

 

[Lon]

Did you stop reading before completing sentence 3?

Sentence 3:

Creating things that can only obey your instructions and then punishing them for their inability to obey contrary instructions would be insanity. If "a double minded man is unstable in all his ways" what would that imply about a "double minded god?"

Sorry, no. That is just made up stuff that you think is just and justified. It is every bit like the creator arguing with the Creator Romans 9:19, 20

Paul says this: Romans 4:15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

That said, Paul goes on to say CHRIST met the requirement you are worried about. The end of the story is not that you are RIGHTLY declared guilty (knowledge of such or not) but that Christ has come to redeem His own. You seem to be so worried about being guilty and not able to do anything about that guilt (thieves steal, liars lie), that I think you miss 1) That you have no choice and 2) that Christ instead, had a true choice, one to save you beyond your ability. Imho, freewill can, often does, damage to the work of Christ on the Cross. "I was dead in trespasses and sin, BUT CHRIST..." Ephesians 2:1-10 It cannot ever be "...but 'I'..."
Freewill discussion too often leads back to 'but me' thinking instead of "but Christ" thinking, in my experience.

 

[Lon]

And here's final thought in your article: "Though our food preferences have a lot to do with genetics, or nature (as much as nearly half, according to Kings College London research on identical twins), nurture is just as important. Over our lifetimes we build many complex associations with flavors and scents that can override our DNA."
Can't argue with you there.

It is arguing with me there, however. Nurture is 'other' will oriented. Don't miss that. It is 'others' influence upon you which further is against your notion of 'personal choice.' If I can get you guys to think beyond these 'ah ha!' veneers, I'll be truly of 'nurturing' service to you. It is why 'our wills' Romans 12:4,5 are more important than 'your will.' 2 Corinthians 5:15 1 Corinthians 6:20

Why do you say that? I don't think God is in the dark about anything that exists. That's a fear tactic, just like you accuse me of using here:

1 John 1:5 No, 'in the dark' means He doesn't (and cannot, according to Open Theism) know what 'is unknowable.' It means, literally, according to Open Theists, that God is, indeed, 'in the dark' concerning what 'might/can' happen with truly "free" human agents. God's Omni's are traded, quite literally, by Open Theism, for God's darkness of ability. It is, btw, why Open Theists will not talk about God "Almighty." If "Almighty" is taken literally as Omnipotent, the whole house of Open Theism cards topples. I think Open Theism tries to do a VERY noble thing by painting God, and from the scriptures as loving and relational but it is very important to me, that the God of scriptures not be emasculated of His rightful characteristics less I am worshipping a God of my own imagining rather than the God Who exists. I'm ever only concerned with that. I'd love to be 'more comfortable' in my perceptions of God, but 'comfortable' is not 'godliness.' Many OT prophets and saints were grilled wrestling with God. He wasn't (and isn't) unloving for such. A "God in my image" is NO comfort to me (or should be to any believer) at all Hebrews 6:18 Isaiah 40:8

I'm astounded that you put these two thoughts in the same thread, much more so in the same post, and especially so one right after another. You give me biblical foundation for the "platitude" in your wrecks and stolen cars. Are you seriously saying God made us puppets, and then made His puppets steal His cars and wreck them???

Nope, but by the same token, are you suggesting that your will 'can' produce godliness? :think: We really need to be thinking outside of the first thought that crosses our minds. As with above, these little 'ah ha!' moments are immature incomplete thoughts that need to be pushed a lot further to be in the ballpark as to be 'right with God.' Isaiah 1:18 Proverbs 27:17

I do know that we 'sinned' on our own (without God's bidding) and that we are saved ONLY by His interjection. Where does a 'will' come into play concerning life? :nono: I don't believe that at all, you can do nothing to gain Him. Romans 11:6 Ephesians 2:8,9

Btw, I don't mean to use "puppet" as a fear word. I use it as an illogical representation of our life here. Illogical because, as you pointed out so well, if we are puppets, we're terribly bad ones. And God wouldn't make bad puppets, would He? Ones that sin by His intention? Again, this makes God the author of sin, or possibly makes God a liar, because there is no sin if the puppets are just doing what He wants.

Good point, but we are often accused of being 'drones' or 'the mindless masses.' Why? Because it takes work to think on our own, AND I think it takes work to be truly 'freewill' men and women. We have to think to be God's (carefully said ala Ephesians 2:10). That is: Romans 12:2 There is always a dichotomy between we being His recreation/new-creation and our need to be conformed to His image. Romans 8:29;12:2

Somewhere in there, is a 'desire' and a 'will' to be like Him. Philippians 2:1-11, but remembering Romans 11:6 as it relates to 'our will.'

Btw #2, I DO use "makes God a liar" and "makes God the author of sin" as fear phrases. We should fear besmirching His character such.

NOT if you never (ever) hear a Calvinist agreeing with the sentiment. Then it is the one doing it, that is 'besmirching' unless you can show/prove such is the ONLY inevitable outcome of another's theology. I don't believe you can, therefore believe we should entertain 'besmirching.' :think: We Calvinists get a LOT of this, so don't feel too bad, I 'think' we can have some of the blame for lack of clarity in describing our beliefs. I try really hard to undo some of that damage and potential further damage and want to thank you again for the opportunity to do so here. I pray I'm found a profitable servant to you, for Him. -Lon

Following along with your analogy and my logical addition to it. If God is teaching us to drive, then He must want us to be able to do something with that skill. If we don't learn the whole skill before we die in this life, then the skill must be useful in the next life.

It is, for me, a consideration of closing the barn door after the horse is out. We were never supposed to 'drive our own lives.' John 15:5 It is clear we need more than just a 'co'-pilot in this case. Something of sin HAS caused us to have to 'cooperate' whereas we were already His and belonged to Him and His will. Think of this for a moment: There was literally no 'free' will because our will was only after Him doing what He desired and what pleased Him prior to the Fall. "Free" becomes a very difficult proposition at that point: Was Adam 'free' if he only did God's will? I think he was, but Adam was 'programmed' that way and so what man so desperately wants to cling to and call 'free' isn't exactly what man needs or was created with, imho. Rather, man was 'created and constrained (or 'freed') in God's image. Sin created an 'apart' and 'free' is associated with 'apart' as well. The ideas are intricately tied and so we really really really have to talk about what one really means AND wants when advocating 'free.' To me, it horribly confuses where better description and more words are needed. For example: Was Adam 'free' before OR after the Fall? He was definitely NOT free from one thing AND that changed after the Fall such that the very thing men advocate as free, is suggested as left 'intact' after the Fall by many Open Theists (and Charismatics). I don't believe THAT freewill could have remained intact and thus, because of the HUGE change in man's will, is really not a great theology starter ("freewill"). To me, it confuses issues and important theology.

Can we honestly say we can fully apply the "skill" of sanctification in this life? Therefore, imo, it must apply mostly to the next life (not trying to take away from its need and use in this, just that perfection eludes us).

We are His workmanship Ephesians 2:10 INCLUDING things 'He has prepared in advance for us to do' AND including things we are to do to 'follow Christ' in this life 1 Corinthians 11:1

For my part, I try and 'fret' about what I can do today as well as trying to prepare some avenues of godly living in my immediate future, BUT try to remember I'm His creation (Ephesians 2:10) and remember constantly that He is doing a better job, ALWAYS, than me. There is comfort in that when I don't 'feel' any particular day that I'm measuring up. I do want to be like Him. 2 Timothy 2:21 Romans 12:18 etc.

Thank you again for discussion. In Our Christ -Lon

 

[Rosenritter]

Sorry, no. That is just made up stuff that you think is just and justified. It is every bit like the creator arguing with the Creator Romans 9:19, 20

You are essentially saying that the word "just" has the meaning of "unjust" when applied to God.

That said, Paul goes on to say CHRIST met the requirement you are worried about. The end of the story is not that you are RIGHTLY declared guilty (knowledge of such or not) but that Christ has come to redeem His own. You seem to be so worried about being guilty and not able to do anything about that guilt ...

This isn't about me. Insanity and injustice is sickening enough in itself and it is grievous to see people apply that to God. Cease from the patronizing "God provided you a way out" and think of the scope and meaning of "God so loved the world."

 

[Rosenritter]

It is arguing with me there, however. Nurture is 'other' will oriented. Don't miss that. It is 'others' influence upon you which further is against your notion of 'personal choice.' If I can get you guys to think beyond these 'ah ha!' veneers, I'll be truly of 'nurturing' service to you.

But weren't you indicating that the "others" in this nurture consideration didn't have wills either and their wills were just the products of further "others" (illusion of) wills? And this is still in the context of chocolate vs. vanilla?

 

[Derf]

It is arguing with me there, however. Nurture is 'other' will oriented. Don't miss that. It is 'others' influence upon you which further is against your notion of 'personal choice.'

And all of that influence comes down to just that, influence. But not coercion. Even if we are influenced by DNA, and influenced by others sometimes in an opposite way from our DNA, we also influence ourselves. We have to take what God gives us, and what others give us and do something with it. We actually have to take the bite of ice cream, or broccoli or whatever. Some things are easier, and some are harder, but if we don't actually do something about it, we are called sluggards (Prov 26:15).

If I can get you guys to think beyond these 'ah ha!' veneers, I'll be truly of 'nurturing' service to you. It is why 'our wills' Romans 12:4,5 are more important than 'your will.' 2 Corinthians 5:15 1 Corinthians 6:20

I guess I'm still kind of hoping you will have your own "aha" moment. Maybe that you will see that you are agreeing with me when you say we have to submit our will to something else, like in your references. There are two categories: those we need to submit our will to (God) and for (our neighbor). Loving either of these is putting our own will aside, but to do so requires an action on our part--an act of will. This speaks of two different uses for the word "will", where one is what we want, and one is what we decide, and the second is often (as believers) in contrast to the first (Rom 7:15-20). If you are using the first only in this conversation, then your responses won't make sense to us when we think we're referring to the second. I don't say you are alone in the confusion, I've probably added to it sometimes.

Rom 7:15-20 illustrates a flaw in our character--that we have two wills that conflict. Does God ever have two wills that conflict?

1 John 1:5 No, 'in the dark' means He doesn't (and cannot, according to Open Theism) know what 'is unknowable.' It means, literally, according to Open Theists, that God is, indeed, 'in the dark' concerning what 'might/can' happen with truly "free" human agents.

Why would you say this? It is a mischaracterization, certainly of my own thoughts and posts, and I believe of even the most well-known open theists (of the little I've read from them). I think both I and they would say that God is very aware of what "might/can" happen, even with truly free human agents. What I (and, I believe, they) would say God is in the dark about is what actually will happen in those cases where truly free human agents are involved. If such is not yet a real thing, then God is in the dark about what isn't, not about what is. This would allow for multiple outcomes and an outcome that can change based on the events--like Hezekiah's life extension.

God's Omni's are traded, quite literally, by Open Theism, for God's darkness of ability. It is, btw, why Open Theists will not talk about God "Almighty." If "Almighty" is taken literally as Omnipotent, the whole house of Open Theism cards topples.

Again, why would you say this? I don't see God as less than omnipotent, less than almighty. Why do you think they don't apply in Open Theism? The only way I could see that you are correct here about open theism is if you define "Almighty" as including knowing everything about the future. But I thought we were already discussing "Omniscience" which you seem to maintain includes knowing everything about the future. Why then do we need 2 omnis to deal with the same concept?

I propose that "Almighty" means that God can do anything He sets His mind to do, which would not include logical contradictions. Thus, if decides he wants a people that loves Him, He might need to allow some people NOT to love Him. People that don't love God would not follow His commandments. If any one person does not follow God's commandments, then that person has been granted power to sin (to do what God does not want), and God has allowed this. "Almighty" has to include this concept of someone doing what God does not want, at least temporarily. "Sovereignty" must include this concept as well. (The familiar reason is that if people only ever do what God wants them to do, and they sin, then God is author of sin.)

I think Open Theism tries to do a VERY noble thing by painting God, and from the scriptures as loving and relational but it is very important to me, that the God of scriptures not be emasculated of His rightful characteristics less I am worshipping a God of my own imagining rather than the God Who exists. I'm ever only concerned with that. I'd love to be 'more comfortable' in my perceptions of God, but 'comfortable' is not 'godliness.' Many OT prophets and saints were grilled wrestling with God. He wasn't (and isn't) unloving for such. A "God in my image" is NO comfort to me (or should be to any believer) at all Hebrews 6:18 Isaiah 40:8

Then, once more, you agree with open theism. Open theism is trying to figure out what God is like from the scriptures rather than from our own imaginations, or other men's imaginations (read: traditions). If we need to wrestle with God in this way, let's do it from the basis of scripture. That's why I brought up the Hezekiah passage. You have to read your own (or traditional) interpretation into that passage to see it as anything other than God changing the future right before Hezekiah's eyes.

Nope, but by the same token, are you suggesting that your will 'can' produce godliness? :think: We really need to be thinking outside of the first thought that crosses our minds. As with above, these little 'ah ha!' moments are immature incomplete thoughts that need to be pushed a lot further to be in the ballpark as to be 'right with God.' Isaiah 1:18 Proverbs 27:17

The reformation was an "ah ha!" moment. Are you saying Luther shouldn't have nailed those 95 theses to the door?

I do know that we 'sinned' on our own (without God's bidding) and that we are saved ONLY by His interjection. Where does a 'will' come into play concerning life? :nono: I don't believe that at all, you can do nothing to gain Him. Romans 11:6 Ephesians 2:8,9

I disagree. We CAN do something to gain Him! It is repeated over and over again in the New Testament. We need to believe in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:30-31). Are you saying that belief is ineffective, of no use? Was Paul being deceptive? Is there a different gospel you are offering?

And what does "belief in Jesus Christ" entail? Isn't it believing what the bible says about Him? And about His Father? So why would we want to say that God didn't really tell Hezekiah his future, but just something that would help him to achieve his future?

Now, I don't think we can do anything to deserve Him.

Good point, but we are often accused of being 'drones' or 'the mindless masses.' Why? Because it takes work to think on our own, AND I think it takes work to be truly 'freewill' men and women. We have to think to be God's (carefully said ala Ephesians 2:10). That is: Romans 12:2 There is always a dichotomy between we being His recreation/new-creation and our need to be conformed to His image. Romans 8:29;12:2

I think you miss the accusation. The accusation is that Calvinism equates us to drones, and you have as much as said you are ok with it. So you shouldn't get offended over what you accuse yourself of, unless you are offended at yourself.

Somewhere in there, is a 'desire' and a 'will' to be like Him. Philippians 2:1-11, but remembering Romans 11:6 as it relates to 'our will.'

Agreed! This tension, if that is what it is, keeps us from relying on our good works, hopefully, while it keeps us doing them, hopefully.

NOT if you never (ever) hear a Calvinist agreeing with the sentiment. Then it is the one doing it, that is 'besmirching' unless you can show/prove such is the ONLY inevitable outcome of another's theology. I don't believe you can, therefore believe we should entertain 'besmirching.' :think: We Calvinists get a LOT of this, so don't feel too bad, I 'think' we can have some of the blame for lack of clarity in describing our beliefs. I try really hard to undo some of that damage and potential further damage and want to thank you again for the opportunity to do so here. I pray I'm found a profitable servant to you, for Him. -Lon

Of course the Calvinist does not agree with the sentiment. This is to the Calvinist's credit--that he doesn't want to malign God. What is to his discredit is that he continues to do it in the face of scriptures pointing it out. In other words, just because the Calvinist disagrees with the sentiment doesn't mean that the sentiment is not accurate.

Open theists get as much, it seems, in return--and also not all undeserved. I pray that both sides will take humbly what they deserve and move toward a mutual perfection in doctrine and life.

It is, for me, a consideration of closing the barn door after the horse is out. We were never supposed to 'drive our own lives.' John 15:5 It is clear we need more than just a 'co'-pilot in this case. Something of sin HAS caused us to have to 'cooperate' whereas we were already His and belonged to Him and His will. Think of this for a moment: There was literally no 'free' will because our will was only after Him doing what He desired and what pleased Him prior to the Fall. "Free" becomes a very difficult proposition at that point: Was Adam 'free' if he only did God's will? I think he was, but Adam was 'programmed' that way and so what man so desperately wants to cling to and call 'free' isn't exactly what man needs or was created with, imho. Rather, man was 'created and constrained (or 'freed') in God's image. Sin created an 'apart' and 'free' is associated with 'apart' as well. The ideas are intricately tied and so we really really really have to talk about what one really means AND wants when advocating 'free.' To me, it horribly confuses where better description and more words are needed. For example: Was Adam 'free' before OR after the Fall? He was definitely NOT free from one thing AND that changed after the Fall such that the very thing men advocate as free, is suggested as left 'intact' after the Fall by many Open Theists (and Charismatics). I don't believe THAT freewill could have remained intact and thus, because of the HUGE change in man's will, is really not a great theology starter ("freewill"). To me, it confuses issues and important theology.

I can see that (the confusion), since this topic was started as a question about God's omniscience. Can those topics be handled separately? I would suggest that we try.

I'll start with Hezekiah. If God says Hezekiah will die of his illness, and then Hezekiah prays for a longer life, and God responds by granting longer life, does that mean Hezekiah once had a shorter lifespan and it changed?

We are His workmanship Ephesians 2:10 INCLUDING things 'He has prepared in advance for us to do' AND including things we are to do to 'follow Christ' in this life 1 Corinthians 11:1

Are these not the same things that everybody should be doing? Acts 17:30. And if "repenting" in Acts 17 means that all men everywhere get back to doing what God wanted them to do in the first place, isn't that a good definition of "good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in"?

For my part, I try and 'fret' about what I can do today as well as trying to prepare some avenues of godly living in my immediate future, BUT try to remember I'm His creation (Ephesians 2:10) and remember constantly that He is doing a better job, ALWAYS, than me. There is comfort in that when I don't 'feel' any particular day that I'm measuring up. I do want to be like Him. 2 Timothy 2:21 Romans 12:18 etc.

Thank you again for discussion. In Our Christ -Lon

Much agreement here! And I appreciate the exhortation.

Derf

 

[Lon]

And all of that influence comes down to just that, influence. But not coercion. Even if we are influenced by DNA, and influenced by others sometimes in an opposite way from our DNA, we also influence ourselves. We have to take what God gives us, and what others give us and do something with it. We actually have to take the bite of ice cream, or broccoli or whatever. Some things are easier, and some are harder, but if we don't actually do something about it, we are called sluggards (Prov 26:15).

Yes, but please pay attention: "My" will (supposedly) is either going to follow Christ OR the evil one. No in-betweens. Do you grasp that? That 'my' will is actually not mine at all, it is EITHER the Lord Jesus Christ's OR that of the evil one. Interesting you want to call such 'your' will as if it is something novel or actually neither Christ's nor Satan's.... :think:

I guess I'm still kind of hoping you will have your own "aha" moment.

I still wait for your 'aha' beyond what I view as thin veneers of actual and deep thought. They really don't seem to be well-thought-out to me. For me at least, they seem to fall shortsighted and a bit too simplistic. Yes we are called to take up 'our' cross and follow Him, which requires an act of the will, but free? ONLY (to me) in the sense that you have been set free from sin and death. Christ set us free for exactly this BUT it is to do His will as we once were created to be and walk in prior the Fall. Therefore, 'free' or 'me' or anything of the sort 'seems' pretty shallow compared to the scriptural directive to 'follow.' Sorry, to me 'my will' is subsumed into His will as the only thing worthy of biblical/spiritual mention. No other 'freewill' concern is of much concern where theology and Christ's will is of greater concern.

Maybe that you will see that you are agreeing with me when you say we have to submit our will to something else, like in your references. There are two categories: those we need to submit our will to (God) and for (our neighbor). Loving either of these is putting our own will aside, but to do so requires an action on our part--an act of will. This speaks of two different uses for the word "will", where one is what we want, and one is what we decide, and the second is often (as believers) in contrast to the first (Rom 7:15-20). If you are using the first only in this conversation, then your responses won't make sense to us when we think we're referring to the second. I don't say you are alone in the confusion, I've probably added to it sometimes.

Yes, BUT would you call a 'will to disobey Christ' "free" or "gift?" What's the draw? Of what possible 'good' consequence can such discussion or good effect land on a believer wanting to be like HIS Savior? :idunno:

Rom 7:15-20 illustrates a flaw in our character--that we have two wills that conflict.

Agree. Does a 'conflict' ever denote 'free' in any good, practical, or positive sense for any kind of discussion about God, us, and our need to follow the Savior?

Does God ever have two wills that conflict?

No, but not sure the context for this question....

Why would you say this? It is a mischaracterization, certainly of my own thoughts and posts, and I believe of even the most well-known open theists (of the little I've read from them). I think both I and they would say that God is very aware of what "might/can" happen, even with truly free human agents. What I (and, I believe, they) would say God is in the dark about is what actually will happen in those cases where truly free human agents are involved. If such is not yet a real thing, then God is in the dark about what isn't, not about what is. This would allow for multiple outcomes and an outcome that can change based on the events--like Hezekiah's life extension.

It may be a mischaracterization of you, but not at all, Boyd, Sanders, or other outspoken Open Theists. As far as I've encountered, it is spot-on for most Open Theists. You as an exception? Good news :up:

Again, why would you say this? I don't see God as less than omnipotent, less than almighty. Why do you think they don't apply in Open Theism? The only way I could see that you are correct here about open theism is if you define "Almighty" as including knowing everything about the future. But I thought we were already discussing "Omniscience" which you seem to maintain includes knowing everything about the future. Why then do we need 2 omnis to deal with the same concept?

Enyart is on record here on TOL as denying Omnipotence, for example. That is why I have to say it. You distancing from them? I think a good thing.

I propose that "Almighty" means that God can do anything He sets His mind to do, which would not include logical contradictions. Thus, if decides he wants a people that loves Him, He might need to allow some people NOT to love Him. People that don't love God would not follow His commandments. If any one person does not follow God's commandments, then that person has been granted power to sin (to do what God does not want), and God has allowed this. "Almighty" has to include this concept of someone doing what God does not want, at least temporarily. "Sovereignty" must include this concept as well. (The familiar reason is that if people only ever do what God wants them to do, and they sin, then God is author of sin.)

Sorry, your logic carries logically limited constraints. There is NO necessity of an 'ability to choose' to quantify nor qualify Love. Love is simply this: Unselfishly committed to another's highest good. You CAN (and originally were) be created this way AND it is incredibly better love. Why? Because, as you confirmed earlier, a compromise/conflict destroys your ability do so without compromising its purity. Love is an action, not just a feeling (such is only self-interested BECAUSE it is wholly within the individual).

Then, once more, you agree with open theism. Open theism is trying to figure out what God is like from the scriptures rather than from our own imaginations, or other men's imaginations (read: traditions). If we need to wrestle with God in this way, let's do it from the basis of scripture. That's why I brought up the Hezekiah passage. You have to read your own (or traditional) interpretation into that passage to see it as anything other than God changing the future right before Hezekiah's eyes.

:nono: RATHER I read what God says prior and bring that to the passage to understand it: "I am God, I change not." "Jesus Christ the same, yesterday, today, and forever."

The reformation was an "ah ha!" moment. Are you saying Luther shouldn't have nailed those 95 theses to the door?

Nope. "He" was right. That IS the litmus test. Anybody can have an 'ah ha' moment but unless it is accurate, its not beneficial. My whole point is to say 'think this thought through a bit longer and further.'

I disagree. We CAN do something to gain Him! It is repeated over and over again in the New Testament. We need to believe in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:30-31). Are you saying that belief is ineffective, of no use? Was Paul being deceptive? Is there a different gospel you are offering?

Belief isn't doing anything to earn salvation. It conversely is believing Christ did.

And what does "belief in Jesus Christ" entail? Isn't it believing what the bible says about Him? And about His Father? So why would we want to say that God didn't really tell Hezekiah his future, but just something that would help him to achieve his future?

This is one of those I mean: Ask yourself the same question: Why did God do it this way? Why didn't He just set it all out with options and consequences for those options? If as you Open Theists say, why even bother communicating at all? To just be wrong? Why? Why say anything to Hezekiah at all? See? The NEED isn't there UNLESS it is known/assumed Hezekiah needed to change. There is no point otherwise. It makes better sense that God was 1) Not lying 2) trying to effect a change JUST LIKE 'the pot is boiling over.' I was not lying. Anybody accusing that is being simplistic and not really thinking well. I never, at any time, lied to my wife AND the accusation is a poor reflection on another's ability to think. It has nothing to do at all with a lie between me OR my wife. It has to do with a pot that needs attention. Simply saying 'then why did you lie?' is really beneath me AND I'm pretty sure you agree with that. I'm not omniscient but I DO know what happens to unattended pots. Imho, to even 'suggest' a lie is anywhere in that equation actually casts bad light on the poor perception and character of the accuser. It is just that bad.

Now, I don't think we can do anything to deserve Him.

:up: Not even 'belief' saves you. Belief is just trusting in One who can.

I think you miss the accusation. The accusation is that Calvinism equates us to drones, and you have as much as said you are ok with it. So you shouldn't get offended over what you accuse yourself of, unless you are offended at yourself.

:nono: I could give a care less what others think of me. Rather it is the damage this does to one's own theology in rejection. Imho, it does damage to one's own wrestling with God because it dismisses the revelation, instead of an idea to wrestle with God over, as something that is 'ludicrous' like a puppet to be dismissed out of mind. To me, the premature dismissal causes simplistic rather than deep and wrestled, theology. God can bring it back to one's attention, but if it is repeatedly done, then it becomes ignorance. THAT is the danger of strawmen.

Agreed! This tension, if that is what it is, keeps us from relying on our good works, hopefully, while it keeps us doing them, hopefully.

Of course the Calvinist does not agree with the sentiment. This is to the Calvinist's credit--that he doesn't want to malign God. What is to his discredit is that he continues to do it in the face of scriptures pointing it out. In other words, just because the Calvinist disagrees with the sentiment doesn't mean that the sentiment is not accurate.

Open theists get as much, it seems, in return--and also not all undeserved. I pray that both sides will take humbly what they deserve and move toward a mutual perfection in doctrine and life.

I believe this kind of discussion goes a long way toward clarifying. I these two posts we've both said what we believe and don't believe about our respective positions. This has to be profitable, I must believe.

I can see that (the confusion), since this topic was started as a question about God's omniscience. Can those topics be handled separately? I would suggest that we try.

I'll start with Hezekiah. If God says Hezekiah will die of his illness, and then Hezekiah prays for a longer life, and God responds by granting longer life, does that mean Hezekiah once had a shorter lifespan and it changed?

Every time we come to scriptures, we ask questions. There are manward questions and Godward questions. For me, the first I attempt to answer is 'what does God teach here?" That is a Godward question, though it is certainly pointed to this manward direction in the next "what does God want 'me' to get from this passage?" I am assuming, right up front that 1) God is not lying and 2) that something OTHER than what is being said is going to take place (such is the nature of story). God 'can' have said, "Hezekiah, your unfaithfulness has you dying early. Change or face the consequences." We are not privy to all information, but I do try and be careful about what I am taking at face-value in a passage.

Are these not the same things that everybody should be doing? Acts 17:30. And if "repenting" in Acts 17 means that all men everywhere get back to doing what God wanted them to do in the first place, isn't that a good definition of "good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in"?

You might be doing better than me. I definitely was in your shoes one time in my life thinking I was 'walking in them' and fairly smug about it (not that you are, not my intimation here). Now, rather, I've realized God does a LOT more in me and through me, than I can do on my own. Ephesians 2:10 is a realization that try as I might, I have always had a great need to remember my humble place.

Much agreement here! And I appreciate the exhortation.

Derf

In Him

 

[Lon]

But weren't you indicating that the "others" in this nurture consideration didn't have wills either and their wills were just the products of further "others" (illusion of) wills? And this is still in the context of chocolate vs. vanilla?

Yep, but go back to Romans 12:5 to me, 'our will' and "His will" is WAAAAAY more important and part of biblical theology discussion than 'my' will. The point is 'less me' (and 'you') mucking up our theology proper. :e4e:

 

[Lon]

You are essentially saying that the word "just" has the meaning of "unjust" when applied to God.

:nono: I'm saying God is the ONLY definer of what 'just' is. You 'may' have a partial grasp of 'just' at times, but such does not, imho, allow you to position that tiny bit of understanding up against the God of the universe to try and measure Him. Our measures are mostly good for measuring 'us.' I can use a tape measure to see how tall I am. Using one against God will only show you that you have an inadequate tape measure. The same is ABSOLUTELY TRUE of you trying to raise a 'just bar' up against God.

This isn't about me. Insanity and injustice is sickening enough in itself and it is grievous to see people apply that to God. Cease from the patronizing "God provided you a way out" and think of the scope and meaning of "God so loved the world."

Same here. I believe you are using an inadequate and inappropriate measuring tape that is made for man and trying to hold it up against God. Christ met the requirement to save you. You cannot do anything to see injustice, be seeing anything 'grievous' or anything 'patronizing' about it. God is NOT "insane" or 'doubleminded.' Your standard is and was faulty for YOU to come up with such. You really NEED to be looking to your own mind on this one. The patronizing or what-have-you is coming all from your side.

Me? I'm seeing this coming from you and noting darn well that you are expressing frustrations with Calvinists past and present but it is not, in fact, helping conversation. Show me a Calvinist that believes God is 'insane' or 'doubleminded' or else contemplate your own thoughts further and longer so they aren't emoting out frustration. It just isn't doing anything much for direct conversation. Think more about what you want to say AND how to bring out the point meaningfully rather than one-hits that are designed to shut-down or malign the other position. I don't mind a little, but I am going to try to help you get out of that sand-trap. It just doesn't go anywhere nor is it meaningful or really worth your or my time at that point. You know and I know, bluntly, that neither of us believe God is insane or doubleminded and so the proposition is a non-starter. Of course you are going to feel patronized by ANY response I give you regarding such. :think:

Let me try again: When I was a child, Mom told me not to overfeed the horses. I thought, as a child, "there is no way one handful of oats can possibly be enough for those horses. They are going to starve to death." I promptly almost killed my horses.

Point: I was guilty. Simple fact. The next thing I said, simple fact, was that it was and is WHOLLY upon the offended party to forgive regardless of your or my 'righteous (or unrighteous actually) indignation' over our guilt.

Your retort: Insane. Double-minded. :nono: Nope. I said 'try again' and I meant it. I may not be helping as best as I perhaps should be, and for that, I do apologize. Ironically? Guilty whether I feel righteous or indignant about the accusation. It just doesn't matter. What DOES matter, is YOUR response (and God's by virtue of the argument against us). I pray I helped a tiny bit, even if I'm guilty for this venture in our conversation. I think it does serve, albeit, to make the thread point and I think it does refute your idea that we have to 'feel guilty' or whatnot to 'be guilty. This just isn't the case and I believe I can build a 'sane' and single-minded defense. :e4e: In Him -Lon

 

[Stripe]

Yes, but please pay attention: "My" will (supposedly) is either going to follow Christ OR the evil one. No in-betweens. Do you grasp that? That 'my' will is actually not mine at all, it is EITHER the Lord Jesus Christ's OR that of the evil one. Interesting you want to call such 'your' will as if it is something novel or actually neither Christ's nor Satan's.

:shocked:

So is it the Calvinist position that men do not have wills?

 

[Rosenritter]

:nono: I'm saying God is the ONLY definer of what 'just' is. You 'may' have a partial grasp of 'just' at times, but such does not, imho, allow you to position that tiny bit of understanding up against the God of the universe to try and measure Him. Our measures are mostly good for measuring 'us.' I can use a tape measure to see how tall I am. Using one against God will only show you that you have an inadequate tape measure. The same is ABSOLUTELY TRUE of you trying to raise a 'just bar' up against God.

Same here. I believe you are using an inadequate and inappropriate measuring tape that is made for man and trying to hold it up against God. Christ met the requirement to save you. You cannot do anything to see injustice, be seeing anything 'grievous' or anything 'patronizing' about it. God is NOT "insane" or 'doubleminded.' Your standard is and was faulty for YOU to come up with such. You really NEED to be looking to your own mind on this one. The patronizing or what-have-you is coming all from your side.

Me? I'm seeing this coming from you and noting darn well that you are expressing frustrations with Calvinists past and present but it is not, in fact, helping conversation. Show me a Calvinist that believes God is 'insane' or 'doubleminded' or else contemplate your own thoughts further and longer so they aren't emoting out frustration. It just isn't doing anything much for direct conversation. Think more about what you want to say AND how to bring out the point meaningfully rather than one-hits that are designed to shut-down or malign the other position. I don't mind a little, but I am going to try to help you get out of that sand-trap. It just doesn't go anywhere nor is it meaningful or really worth your or my time at that point. You know and I know, bluntly, that neither of us believe God is insane or doubleminded and so the proposition is a non-starter. Of course you are going to feel patronized by ANY response I give you regarding such. :think:

Let me try again: When I was a child, Mom told me not to overfeed the horses. I thought, as a child, "there is no way one handful of oats can possibly be enough for those horses. They are going to starve to death." I promptly almost killed my horses.

Point: I was guilty. Simple fact. The next thing I said, simple fact, was that it was and is WHOLLY upon the offended party to forgive regardless of your or my 'righteous (or unrighteous actually) indignation' over our guilt.

Your retort: Insane. Double-minded. :nono: Nope. I said 'try again' and I meant it. I may not be helping as best as I perhaps should be, and for that, I do apologize. Ironically? Guilty whether I feel righteous or indignant about the accusation. It just doesn't matter. What DOES matter, is YOUR response (and God's by virtue of the argument against us). I pray I helped a tiny bit, even if I'm guilty for this venture in our conversation. I think it does serve, albeit, to make the thread point and I think it does refute your idea that we have to 'feel guilty' or whatnot to 'be guilty. This just isn't the case and I believe I can build a 'sane' and single-minded defense. :e4e: In Him -Lon

If you have more than one standard of "just" and more than one standard of "love" then that is using unequal weights and measures. Let's use an example:

Case 1: Zachary grabs Joe and ties him up and places him in the back of his truck. He drives into his driveway and then calls the police to arrest Joe for trespassing. The case goes to trial and the Calvinist Judge Smith rules that Joe cannot be responsible for "trespass" onto Zachary's land because it was forced upon him against his will and he had no other option.

Case 2: Calvinist Judge Smith is also the preacher in town. He stands before the pulpit and declares that Joe (or those like him) are held captive in sin and that God did not wish to give Joe the ability to obey his commands or to be able to choose good instead of evil. Preacher Smith then declares that it is good and just for Joe the Sinner to be punished for trespass when no other options were possible for him.

I would point to the above as an illustration of double-mindedness, where God does not have to be just by his own defined standards of justice, where it is the doctrine Calvinism that declares the injustice, not any required reading of scripture or revelation. If Justice is a changeable label that is merely "slapped onto God" then it becomes meaningless.

 

[Derf]

Yes, but please pay attention: "My" will (supposedly) is either going to follow Christ OR the evil one. No in-betweens. Do you grasp that? That 'my' will is actually not mine at all, it is EITHER the Lord Jesus Christ's OR that of the evil one. Interesting you want to call such 'your' will as if it is something novel or actually neither Christ's nor Satan's.... :think:

So...Christians never sin? Or are you saying that when they sin it is really what Christ wanted them to do???

I still wait for your 'aha' beyond what I view as thin veneers of actual and deep thought. They really don't seem to be well-thought-out to me. For me at least, they seem to fall shortsighted and a bit too simplistic.

Do we throw out truth if it's too simplistic? Bye bye gospel! My position, after immersing myself in Calvinism for 15 years, and being brought up in something akin to Arminianism for the 30 years prior to that, is that an open view of the future fits the bible better. I'm sorry if it is too simple for you; I can't help that.

Yes we are called to take up 'our' cross and follow Him, which requires an act of the will, but free? ONLY (to me) in the sense that you have been set free from sin and death. Christ set us free for exactly this BUT it is to do His will as we once were created to be and walk in prior the Fall. Therefore, 'free' or 'me' or anything of the sort 'seems' pretty shallow compared to the scriptural directive to 'follow.' Sorry, to me 'my will' is subsumed into His will as the only thing worthy of biblical/spiritual mention. No other 'freewill' concern is of much concern where theology and Christ's will is of greater concern.

Drop the "free" if it makes the conversation better for you. You are free to do so.

Yes, BUT would you call a 'will to disobey Christ' "free" or "gift?" What's the draw? Of what possible 'good' consequence can such discussion or good effect land on a believer wanting to be like HIS Savior? :idunno:

A will to disobey Christ is sinful. Is that one that is controlled by Christ or by Satan? If by Christ, then His is a divided kingdom. If by Satan, then there's not much I can do about it--I'm not in control of "my" will. But this is a bait-and-switch. It doesn't matter if there's a "draw", only if it's the truth. We don't get to choose truth, no matter how much freewill we have or don't have.

Agree. Does a 'conflict' ever denote 'free' in any good, practical, or positive sense for any kind of discussion about God, us, and our need to follow the Savior? No, but not sure the context for this question....

Is God's decretal will in conflict with His permissive will? Of course you'll say "no", but it has to be, if His will is both that all men repent and that some men don't repent and are cast into hell forever, or that both all the Israelites were to follow the commands of God, and some were to disobey, as ordained before time began. If a conflict is never good, can God's dual will be good?

It may be a mischaracterization of you, but not at all, Boyd, Sanders, or other outspoken Open Theists. As far as I've encountered, it is spot-on for most Open Theists. You as an exception? Good news :up:

Enyart is on record here on TOL as denying Omnipotence, for example. That is why I have to say it. You distancing from them? I think a good thing.

If you're fighting against the "institution" of Open Theism, then I don't qualify as a valid representative. If you're ok discussing the idea of open theism, I'm ready and waiting.

But I think I'm correct on the general position in the first instance. I haven't read much of Enyart's stuff here. If you can point that particular thing out to me, I'll look it over. I've seen where Enyart puts the omnis and ims as less important than other qualities of God, and that may be appropriate, depending on how it is worded.

Sorry, your logic carries logically limited constraints. There is NO necessity of an 'ability to choose' to quantify nor qualify Love. Love is simply this: Unselfishly committed to another's highest good. You CAN (and originally were) be created this way AND it is incredibly better love. Why? Because, as you confirmed earlier, a compromise/conflict destroys your ability do so without compromising its purity. Love is an action, not just a feeling (such is only self-interested BECAUSE it is wholly within the individual).

It's nice to know that my house loves me. It unselfishly keeps me warm and dry, without which i might die of exposure.



I said:

You have to read your own (or traditional) interpretation into that passage to see it as anything other than God changing the future right before Hezekiah's eyes.

You replied:

:nono: RATHER I read what God says prior and bring that to the passage to understand it: "I am God, I change not." "Jesus Christ the same, yesterday, today, and forever."

I think you just called the future "God". Would you like to rephrase? I've made that assertion a few times here, that God is subservient to the future in the settled future view, but this is the first time anyone has said it from that viewpoint.

Nope. "He" was right. That IS the litmus test. Anybody can have an 'ah ha' moment but unless it is accurate, its not beneficial. My whole point is to say 'think this thought through a bit longer and further.'

Isn't that what we're doing here?

Belief isn't doing anything to earn salvation. It conversely is believing Christ did.

Ah, then it's not a work. You sly Arminian, you. Yet we are commanded to do it.

This is one of those I mean: Ask yourself the same question: Why did God do it this way? Why didn't He just set it all out with options and consequences for those options? If as you Open Theists say, why even bother communicating at all? To just be wrong? Why? Why say anything to Hezekiah at all? See? The NEED isn't there UNLESS it is known/assumed Hezekiah needed to change. There is no point otherwise. It makes better sense that God was 1) Not lying 2) trying to effect a change JUST LIKE 'the pot is boiling over.' I was not lying. Anybody accusing that is being simplistic and not really thinking well. I never, at any time, lied to my wife AND the accusation is a poor reflection on another's ability to think. It has nothing to do at all with a lie between me OR my wife. It has to do with a pot that needs attention. Simply saying 'then why did you lie?' is really beneath me AND I'm pretty sure you agree with that. I'm not omniscient but I DO know what happens to unattended pots. Imho, to even 'suggest' a lie is anywhere in that equation actually casts bad light on the poor perception and character of the accuser. It is just that bad.
:up: Not even 'belief' saves you. Belief is just trusting in One who can.

So you admit that what you said in your example was caveated by something implied. God can do that, too, can't He? And if you have to caveat your prediction/prophecy, how valid is it?

Now, I said before I didn't think it was a lie, nor did/do I think He was wrong, but it was contingent. The contingency was implied--the caveat. Is God allowed to do that? Can He make a prophecy that doesn't have to come true, based on some contingency? Remember this is the same God that ordained everything that was ever going to happen. What part of it did He not know which case would happen?

And going back to what I said before, if God knows the truth about something about the future and tells you different, even in a contingent fashion, He has still said something that was not the truth, in the one case, at least (the case where the contingency is not fulfilled).

Listen, I understand God was getting Hezekiah to change. That's obvious. But if Hezekiah changed, AND the future changed, is it ok? Is God the equivalent of the future? Is God bound to a particular sequence of events? I think you are saying "yes." I say "no", except where he has determined those particular events ahead of time. And if that's every event, then God told an untruth.

:nono: I could give a care less what others think of me. Rather it is the damage this does to one's own theology in rejection. Imho, it does damage to one's own wrestling with God because it dismisses the revelation, instead of an idea to wrestle with God over, as something that is 'ludicrous' like a puppet to be dismissed out of mind. To me, the premature dismissal causes simplistic rather than deep and wrestled, theology. God can bring it back to one's attention, but if it is repeatedly done, then it becomes ignorance. THAT is the danger of strawmen.

Something has to give, if we're ever going to be unified in our theology. Our theology can't be sacrosanct, except where it aligns with the truth, and until we all agree on every aspect of theology, we have to be careful not to put our interpretation above the truth. Which leads to this:

I believe this kind of discussion goes a long way toward clarifying. I these two posts we've both said what we believe and don't believe about our respective positions. This has to be profitable, I must believe.

Every time we come to scriptures, we ask questions. There are manward questions and Godward questions. For me, the first I attempt to answer is 'what does God teach here?" That is a Godward question, though it is certainly pointed to this manward direction in the next "what does God want 'me' to get from this passage?" I am assuming, right up front that 1) God is not lying and 2) that something OTHER than what is being said is going to take place (such is the nature of story). God 'can' have said, "Hezekiah, your unfaithfulness has you dying early. Change or face the consequences." We are not privy to all information, but I do try and be careful about what I am taking at face-value in a passage.

God couldn't have said that if the future was set in stone. there is no "or face the consequences." There is no contingency with a God that knows exactly what choice you will make in every circumstance. Your assumptions are good ones, but they don't fit with the settled future concept. Re-read them and see if you understand why I say that. And if you can't talk through this without explaining it in open-future language, why do you then go back and say the future is not open.

Open theism may be wrong. But it is the logical understanding of the story of Hezekiah and numerous other passages in the bible. If we throw out the idea that the bible, God's word, is logical and understandable, what do we have left. "Where else can we go. You have the words of eternal life."

 

[Lon]

:shocked:

So is it the Calvinist position that men do not have wills?

"Theirs" vs. none? We 'have' a will. Is it 'ours?' Let me ask, if we can ONLY exercise after one of two masters (meaning our will is always in bondage to something/someone thus not ever 'ours' alone), can you call that "free?" Tell me, at least, you see my dilemma? Thank you. -Lon

 

[Lon]

If you have more than one standard of "just" and more than one standard of "love" then that is using unequal weights and measures. Let's use an example:

Case 1: Zachary grabs Joe and ties him up and places him in the back of his truck. He drives into his driveway and then calls the police to arrest Joe for trespassing. The case goes to trial and the Calvinist Judge Smith rules that Joe cannot be responsible for "trespass" onto Zachary's land because it was forced upon him against his will and he had no other option.

Imho, you are confused for good or ill of the misunderstood. It also seems to presume you are entitled to a 'free' will explanation in such a court case, as if you are on par with God and somehow 'deserving' as an owned creation, some kind of explanation or listening ear from the God of the universe. To me? It looks audacious and self-important, certainly not a show of humility nor understanding its fruit in the Christian life. It is pretty 'American' in sentiment, but I'm not sure if it is entirely 'Christian' in interest and theological concern at that point. If so, show me some scriptures that drive this 'fair demands before God' kind of theology. Sorry that it looks this way to me but it does look about this audacious and self-interested, self-willed, and self-important to me.

Case 2: Calvinist Judge Smith is also the preacher in town. He stands before the pulpit and declares that Joe (or those like him) are held captive in sin and that God did not wish to give Joe the ability to obey his commands or to be able to choose good instead of evil. Preacher Smith then declares that it is good and just for Joe the Sinner to be punished for trespass when no other options were possible for him.

Aw, poor Joe. It is a little like feeling bad for poor Ted Bundy who "couldn't help himself" isn't it? I don't know if Ted had a choice. He was certainly addicted to atrocious murder. Point? He "deserved" the death penalty for the crime REGARDLESS if he could stop or not. If you disagree, that disagreement is stark. Question: Is it based on your thinking that "Ted had a choice" that causes you to rightly condemn the evil behavior? My counter argument is that evil has consequences REGARDLESS if you are capable of stopping from doing that behavior or not. If NOT, somebody else HAS to stop you/them/him/her. It doesn't matter, further, who stops the behavior, just that it stops. You, here, are more worried about 'feelings' and 'guilt' than that atrocity stops and that whatever it takes to stop the atrocious is 'just' by definition. You are calling such 'double-minded' and 'insane' and I'm saying your point of view and reference of love and justice is incomplete imho. It 'looks' immature in understanding to me. :think:

I would point to the above as an illustration of double-mindedness, where God does not have to be just by his own defined standards of justice, where it is the doctrine Calvinism that declares the injustice, not any required reading of scripture or revelation. If Justice is a changeable label that is merely "slapped onto God" then it becomes meaningless.

And I would point out that no, in fact it points to an immature and NOT well-developed understanding of love and justice and the legitimate needs of consequences. It 'seems' to me, a lot of expression here is from the point of view "all about me" rather than really trying to seek and understand what is genuinely just for everyone involved. I've used this, for instance, as (imho) a 'better' example: a village contracts a fatal disease. The rest of the world is in danger of contracting and dying. Is wiping out that village evil? Did any of them want the disease? They may all be culpable for it, but it really isn't a 'simple' matter of justice at that point. It is a matter of what the Owner of all creation deems best WITHOUT your singular sense of right and wrong, love, or justice. You frankly aren't God and 'seem' to me, to be putting yourself in His place here and judging the Calvinists of the world. So be it, but you are going to have to answer for such. It seems, to me, a bit graceless and a bit immature/premature/ and near-sighted to me *(if that's fair for me to say and I'm not out of line). Looking for your rebuttal. -Lon