On the omniscience of God

[JudgeRightly]

This is how specifically your mind and logic figure it.

No, Lon. It is not how "specifically" someone's logic sees it.

That's ACTUALLY the logical conclusion.

It doesn't follow by necessity.

Yes, Lon, it does.

Here's why:

If God not only knew, but "actuated" (to use your term) Adam or anyone else to sin, then God is the primary cause of that person sinning, and thus, that person is therefore exempt from any culpability for any sin that he committed by God's actuation.

This in and of itself is not the issue, because if we're all just robots having been programmed to do things, then they have no moral value (as Clete explained earlier).

The problem is when you introduce the idea that God will punish those very same people for the actions that they had ZERO control over. THAT is unjust, and for God to do so makes HIM unjust.

It's like a man intentionally slipping a woman a roofie, and then blaming her for him raping her, or like making a man drink a potion you know will change his personality to make him go crazy and start murdering people under the influence of that potion, and then blaming the man for being a murderer.

It is, BY DEFINITION, unjust!

Not because Clete thinks so. Not because we say so, but because it IS unjust! It does, in fact, follow, BY NECESSITY.

I'll see if I can find another video where he explains this more in-depth, but this should do for now:

I yet believe your and I knowing a certain poster was going to respond exactly as we thought he would had nothing (not at all other than your response) to do with what he chose. Knowing can be shown to not be a factor for freewill. In fact, it is our pattern of consistent choices that give us our unique personality. It isn't really our choices that make relationship, as it is our uniqueness shared 1 Corinthians 12.

Except we both knew that the guy you were talking to was going to reply a specific way. Having even an inkling that you would do something would suggest you have no freewill, but you and I would agree he did, just predictable on par with EDF.

This is called confirmation bias.

Being predicable does not mean that the future is settled.

God knowing what someone is like and predicting their future actions does not mean that the future is completely settled.

My wife knows me as near as any other human can know another. She doesn't 'ask' when getting me something to eat. She knows. Her near EDF on specifics, never erases it as my actual choice. Your logic would almost accuse her of removing my freewill. It isn't true. I plays out as untrue.

The problem is that your wife is a human being who, according to your position, does NOT have exhaustive divine foreknowledge (she's only human), and thus, your wife's level of knowledge about you is irrelevant to this current discussion.

Similarly, God knowing something is not the impetus at all that has to do with my our your choices.

It is if His knowledge is infallible, which you claim it is, do you not?

Because we are delving into an area we know next to nothing about future travel, EDF, Almanac from the future in any practical sense; it is hard to logically assert 'no choice.' It 'seems' so, but it doesn't play out.

All of those things are based on the idea that the future is exhaustively settled. IOW, they only exist within the confines of your beliefs.

They do not exist within ours, or for that matter, what the Bible says.

Let me repeat what I'm always hearing from OV: Saying it doesn't make it so!

Which is why we don't just say it. We support our claims.

Here is one instance where God was not right about something:

So Joshua said to the children of Israel, “Come here, and hear the words of the Lord your God.” And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites:

Bible Gateway passage: Joshua 3:9-10 - New King James Version

So Joshua said to the children of Israel, “Come here, and hear the words of the Lord your God.” And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites...

www.biblegateway.com

One generation later:

Then the Angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this? Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’ ”

Bible Gateway passage: Judges 2:1-3 - New King James Version

Israel’s Disobedience - Then the Angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this...

www.biblegateway.com

I literally know of no time, ever, God wasn't right.

And now you do know of at least one.

There are PLENTY more, see https://opentheism.org/verses.

Does any definite foreknowledge eliminate my freewill?

It does if it's infallible.

But foreknowledge itself is not an indication of a settled future.

I don't believe so. It may superficially seem so, but when the rubber meets the road, it does not. It simply looks like it 'might.'

The problem is that you're, perhaps unintentionally, conflating prophecies of the future with God's ability to bring certain things to pass.

The former fail.

The latter is not a function of His knowledge, but a result of HIs capability. He is "omnicompetent." He is fully capable of making stuff happen, not because of His knowledge, but because He is powerful and wise enough to do so, able to manipulate His enemies and direct His allies, like an excellent general in a war!

I argue that 'any' knowledge, even 'if' occasionally wrong would be grounds enough under your proffered truth, to say freewill can not exist to any degree that you or I knew the outcome precisely because that is what is on the table: Foreknowledge.

You seem to think that we believe that either everything is settled or nothing is settled.

That's not our position.

Our position is that some things are settled, not because of knowledge, but because of God's omnicompetence, and everything else is God's best guess, which is far better than any human can make.

My wife knows knows I'll go for vanilla. Every time. Knows knows it. Is my preference then for vanilla invalidated? Not at all, it is the opposite: my choice, is validated, rather. If on a cursory glance this is true and with anywise DF in a limited way (it is, in fact definite like an almanac from the future), then certainly it'd fall upon the premise that EDF negates freewill as a false proposition.

The difference is that you still have the potential to go for another flavor.

Again, this is simply a case of confirmation bias.

You could, on one occasion, choose chocolate instead.

You continuing to choose vanilla is not evidence of a settled future. It is evidence that you are a consistent person when it comes to free choices.

When you intimately know another person such as a spouse, your argument would negate about half of my freewill right out of the gates.

Only if that knowledge was A) about their future and B) infallible.

If it is A but not B, then while your predictions might be correct most of the time about what they will do, it will sometimes be wrong (definition of infallible, definition of "will"). The person the knowledge is about still has a will (which again, is by definition "free")

If it is B but not A, then at best, it's present knowledge, and predictions can be made that will be close to the actual outcome, but not guaranteed to be exact, the person still has a will.

If it is both B and A, then there is no other outcome other than what is known, and the person does not have a will, he is just a robot with preprogrammed responses, an automaton.

Neither A nor B falls outside of the scope of this discussion.

It is not true that foreknowledge eradicates freedom.

It does if that foreknowledge is infallible, by definition.

It is a philosopher's speculation at Standford and they are incorrect.

If the foreknowledge is infallible, then man is not free.

This is why:

So, to keep this post from getting entirely too long, I'll conclude it with the following logical argument, which establishes just what it is about EDF that lands the Arminians in the same moral quagmire that their Calvinist cousins created and that they so vehemently reject, namely that we have no free will.

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source

....and continuing on from there....

11. All moral actions are freely chosen actions, [definition of 'moral'].12. Conversely, any action that is not done freely is not an amoral action, [definition of 'amoral'].13. The rewarding or punishment of an amoral action is unjust, [definition of 'just']14. God is just. [presupposition of the Christian faith]15. God rewards and punishes the actions of men. [this statement is based on the presupposition that the bible is true]16. Therefore, the actions of men are moral in nature.17. Therefore, the actions of men are done freely.18. Therefore, God does not have exhaustive, infallible foreknowledge.

It's not just philosophy. It's a rational, logic-based argument, that in order to refute it, would require anyone disputing it to show either that one or more of the premises are incorrect, or to demonstrate that there is an inconsistency in the logic, or to show that the conclusions do not necessarily (logically) follow from those premises.

----

God does.

I think Clete overstated his case with the latter two, but God did not decide that two plus two equals four, as if it's something that can be decided arbitrarily.

But this is misreading my intent: when Open Theists say this, they are meaning interpreting how they read scripture, not how I read it.

Reminder, this is what is being talked about:

Open Theists accept the use of the term "Omniscient" in that we believe that God knows all knowable things. It's just that we have different ideas about what is knowable. Some of us also add an additional caveat in that we acknowledge that God, while capable, is not required to know every knowable fact of existence.

This is not a case of "because we say so."

This is a case of "this is what is consistent, or at least the most consistent with Scripture," and is not something we decided arbitrarily.

It contradicts what we alternatively actually believe is a pedantic passage, teaching that God is all-mighty.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and in fact is quite the opposite.

See the opentheism.org link above.

For consideration on the difference between Open Theism and the rest: There is a difference between actual and implication. We all cast a logical end to another's theology which is the 'why' substance of our resistance to their pov. I try to listen when an Open Theist says "Calvinist" but generally I try to bring the mental swing back into the circle of all Christians because most of the time the implication reaches all of us and even often falls back to Open Theism who, trying to distance, don't get the rock thrown that far away.

Clete mentioned before (probably in the other thread) that Open Theism is based on God being just.

Which it is, but it's not quite the whole story, and not the main premise of Open Theism. Maybe this will put things into perspective:

Open theism is founded on the idea that GOD is the one who is free, not necessarily men, and that because GOD is free, therefore the future is open. If God was and/or is not free, then the future is settled.

Infallible foreknowledge locks God into a settled future.

But because He can think a new thought, write a new song, or even design a new butterfly, God is open, and therefore the future is NOT settled, because God can do something new that was never known before.

 

[Clete]

I'll plead a bit on your former post that we cannot, as you rightly said, grasp all of who God is for one.

So nothing of God can be known. Is that really what you believe?

If so, how did you come to believe that?

If not, by what means can anything be know about God that doesn't fly in the face of what you said here?

Qualifying (2) is different between Open paradigms and the majority of the rest of Christendom. For this, because I and most of Christians believe the Omnis are very much beyond "Adam where are you" it reads "Adam quit trying to hide." It, for us, is the proper ideology coloring what God knows thus we read opposites between Open Theology and the rest of us, which passages we take figuratively and which we take literally.

I do not deny that "Adam, quit trying to hide." may be what is meant in that passage. That isn't the point. As I said, Open Theism simply is not based on such passages. Rather, open theists are simply set free to take such passages to mean what they actually say.

This is how specifically your mind and logic figure it.

No, Lon. You'd like to pretend that sound reason is the equivalent of a personal opinion but it isn't. If you cavalier attitude toward the way reason works was accurate then there'd be no way to falsify anything. Sound reason works, Lon, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

It doesn't follow by necessity.

Then show me were the argument is flawed.

I yet believe your and I knowing a certain poster was going to respond exactly as we thought he would had nothing (not at all other than your response) to do with what he chose.

I've already addresssed this. This sort of "knowing" isn't what is being discussed at all precisely because we can be wrong. It is not mere prediction or educated guessing that we're talking about. It's INFALLIBLE foreknowledge that is the issue.

Knowing can be shown to not be a factor for freewill.

Not the sort of knowing we're talking about can't.

In fact, it is our pattern of consistent choices that give us our unique personality. It isn't really our choices that make relationship, as it is our uniqueness shared 1 Corinthians 12.

This is frankly stupidity. There is no way that you actually believe this.

Except we both knew that the guy you were talking to was going to reply a specific way.

No, we didn't "know" it in the same way that theologians mean it when they say the God knows the future. We fully expected it but that isn't the same thing at all.

Having even an inkling that you would do something would suggest you have no freewill, but you and I would agree he did, just predictable on par with EDF.

It would suggest no such thing. If you actually believe otherwise, I invite you to make the argument, which I "know" you won't even try to do because you know better.

My wife knows me as near as any other human can know another. She doesn't 'ask' when getting me something to eat. She knows. Her near EDF on specifics, never erases it as my actual choice.

That's because she only "nearly" knows, as your own comments just admitted. You could choose to do something out of the ordinary. Her knowledge, being less that infallible, means that your actions are not a logical necessity as they would have to be if her knowledge was, in fact, infallible.

Your logic would almost accuse her of removing my freewill. It isn't true. I plays out as untrue.

Logic never "almost" does anything, Lon. My logic does not accuse her of removing your free will for the reasons I just explained. So far, your whole post has been in response to an argument that I have not made.

Similarly, God knowing something is not the impetus at all that has to do with my our your choices. Because we are delving into an area we know next to nothing about future travel, EDF, Almanac from the future in any practical sense; it is hard to logically assert 'no choice.' It 'seems' so, but it doesn't play out.

It plays out perfectly unless you try to conflate simple expectation with INFALLIBLE foreknowledge.

Let me repeat what I'm always hearing from OV: Saying it doesn't make it so!
I literally know of no time, ever, God wasn't right.

You need to read your bible more then!

Sure, I've seen what Open Theists intimate some scriptures mean, but it is like they plug their ears when I bring up contextual issues with trying to interpret scripture that way.

This was a lie.

Does any definite foreknowledge eliminate my freewill? I don't believe so.

I do not care what you believe. It is not a matter of opinion. I have presented an argument that establishes it as the truth. You, so far, have intentionally conflated a major premise with something else and ignored the entire rest of the argument.

It may superficially seem so, but when the rubber meets the road, it does not. It simply looks like it 'might.'

Saying it doesn't make it so, Lon!

If the argument is fallacious or otherwise illogical then refute it.

You won't even try!

I argue that 'any' knowledge, even 'if' occasionally wrong would be grounds enough under your proffered truth, to say freewill can not exist to any degree that you or I knew the outcome precisely because that is what is on the table: Foreknowledge.

You have made no such argument. Making a claim is not the same thing as making an argument, Lon!

My wife knows knows I'll go for vanilla. Every time. Knows knows it.

If so, it is only because she is aware of your prior choice!

Is my preference then for vanilla invalidated? Not at all, it is the opposite: my choice, is validated, rather.

In such a case, it is you who have removed your own choice but even that isn't quite true because that removal is itself a choice that you have the power to reverse. You decided, you CHOSE, long ago that if vanilla was an option then you'd choose it. Do you see what I'm saying? All the way down the line, it is you who are doing the choosing. You choose vanilla every time because you chose to make it a policy to choose vanilla every time and there is nothing that prevents you from ending that policy and there's no way for your wife to know whether you will ever change that policy. She might not expect you to do so but that isn't the same thing. Indeed, you don't even know with absolute certainty that you will not change the policy. Some tragedy might occur that somehow gets associated with vanilla ice cream in your mind and you might then decide that vanilla ice cream is no longer worth the pain that the memories it invokes creates. Maybe, when you're 90 years old and demented, you'll associate vanilla ice cream with Joe Biden and decide you hate the stuff. That, of course, isn't likely but it is not impossible and there is no way for you know WITH CERTAINTY that it won't happen.

If on a cursory glance this is true and with anywise DF in a limited way (it is, in fact definite like an almanac from the future), then certainly it'd fall upon the premise that EDF negates freewill as a false proposition.

Okay, that was not an English sentence.

Exactly. It is rightly predictable and very near if not knowable, depending how well you know another person. When you intimately know another person such as a spouse, your argument would negate about half of my freewill right out of the gates. It is not true that foreknowledge eradicates freedom. It is a philosopher's speculation at Standford and they are incorrect.

No, Lon! There is no such thing as infallible foreknowledge. Your wife does not have it, you do not have it. Expectation is not the same thing as INFALLIBLE foreknowledge.

God does.

NO HE ABSOLUTE DOES NOT DO ANY SUCH IDIOTIC THING!!!

but this is misreading my intent: when Open Theists say this, they are meaning interpreting how they read scripture, not how I read it.

It is not misreading your intent! You were equating a formally presented logical argument with me making a decision as though logic were the equivalent of a personal opinion!

It contradicts what we alternatively actually believe is a pedantic passage, teaching that God is all-mighty.

It does no such thing. The plain reading of it contradicts your doctrine and it does not contradict mine. That is not proof that mine is correct but it isn't presented as proof. You react to our accepting it to mean what it says as though we are presenting that understanding as proof of our doctrine but that's you over reacting. While I may have my own person preference, I'm actually perfectly fine with either reading in so far as it's impact on my overall doctrine goes because it has no impact on my over all doctrine either way, as it does yours.

I'd say there is more than a dime's worth between Double-preds and Arminians, if some Calvinists are closer to Arminians.

Its a figure of speech, Lon! The point is that Arminians share in common with Calvinists more than they differ - a lot more!

It is why AMR said Double-pred was heresy, of course.

A position he could not rationally maintain without contradicting the very premises upon which he built the doctrines he agreed with! Nang, if she had the brains for it, could have crushed AMR to dust by merely demonstrating the logical connections between the doctrine with which AMR disagreed and the premises upon which they were based and which AMR definitely did believe in.

For consideration on the difference between Open Theism and the rest: There is a difference between actual and implication. We all cast a logical end to another's theology which is the 'why' substance of our resistance to their pov. I try to listen when an Open Theist says "Calvinist" but generally I try to bring the mental swing back into the circle of all Christians because most of the time the implication reaches all of us and even often falls back to Open Theism who, trying to distance, don't get the rock thrown that far away.

Yeah, well it isn't that complicated really. The fact is that the vast majority of Christianity buys into the Greek philosophical notions about God that Augustine imported into the church in the late 5th and early 6th century. If you aren't a Calvinist then you're probably either an Arminian or a Catholic. About 62% of Christianity is either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox and about 60% of protestants are either Calvinist or Arminian (about 30% each). So, that comes to about 75% of the whole Christian population already and you can bet that a large percentage of the remaining 25% believe things that you would call either Calvinistic or Weslian even if they don't want to identify as either of those things.

Not quite making the 'how we can know' connection. A bit more please and ty. Appreciate the dialogue. -Lon

We can know because ideas do not live on islands by themselves. You don't get to simply pick and choose the things you're going to believe in a haphazard manner and still get to claim that you're a rational human being. Ideas have consequences. If one thing is true then that truth implies other truths. If something is established as being a logical necessity then it has been established as NOT being optional.

The simplest example I can think of is the transfer of necessity principle....

If A then B.
If B then C.
Therefore, if A then C.

If A implies B and B implies C then A implies C. That isn't an opinion. That isn't someone's decision. That's fact. Cold, hard, inescable fact. Reality is NOT optional! Therefore, knowledge is possible.

And, as the argument I've presented establishes, INFALLIBLE foreknowledge of a future action means that the action is a logical NECESSSITY, meaning that it cannot NOT happen. The infallible foreknowledge is the A and the action is the B. The action then is not optional, there is no choice being made by the person performing the action, even if he believes otherwise. Indeed, such a belief is itself just a different future event that a god with infallible foreknowledge would have known about in the past.

The punishment (or reward) of actions that were not chosen is unjust by practically everyone's definition of justice (not counting the Calvinists who make the term "just" synonymous with "arbitrary" when applied to God). God is just and He is going to judge both the righteous and the wicked! Even the Calvinists are forced to at least give lip service to those two undeniable facts. Therefore, we do choose our actions, therefore God does not, (cannot possibly), have INFALLIBLE foreknowledge.

 

[Derf]

I do not deny that "Adam, quit to hide." may be what is meant in that passage. That isn't the point. As I said, Open Theism simply is not based on such passages. Rather, open theists are simply set free to take such passages to mean what they actually say.

But never free just to take passages to mean what we want them to say. That's my problem with using that passage in that way...it presumes, likely incorrectly, that God doesn't know the answer to His own question, yet any good attorney will tell you never to ask a question (in court) that you don't already know the answer to (Thanks, Perry Mason). Socratic method, also, asks questions for which the answer is known. So even among less-than-omniscient men, we don't assume ignorance when a question is posed. Why would anyone do so with God in that passage except to bolster a weak position? Yet OT is stronger than Calvinism by half.

 

[Clete]

But never free just to take passages to mean what we want them to say.

No one is ever free to do that, particularly if they have no free will.

That's my problem with using that passage in that way...it presumes, likely incorrectly, that God doesn't know the answer to His own question, yet any good attorney will tell you never to ask a question (in court) that you don't already know the answer to (Thanks, Perry Mason).

I do not believe that you have anything other than your doctrine to lend weight to that side of the interpretation scale. I have the plain reading of the text and there is no implication of that plain reading that in anyway conflicts with any aspect of my doctrine. I have the added advantage of being in a position where your interpretation also presents no conflict with any aspect of my doctrine. Thus, it is only your doctrine that tells you that the passage doesn't mean what it says. Perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps you're right and it is just a rhetorical question that God asks - and maybe you're not right and it means just precisely what it says. It is only your doctrine that establishes the answer in your mind.

Socratic method, also, asks questions for which the answer is known. So even among less-than-omniscient men, we don't assume ignorance when a question is posed.

It would seem that assuming knowledge is an equally possible error.

Why would anyone do so with God in that passage except to bolster a weak position? Yet OT is stronger than Calvinism by half.

We do so because we place a high premium on remaining faithful to the plain reading of scripture unless and until there is good reason to do otherwise. We do not deny that figures of speech exist throughout the bible but we do not default to a figurative stance. We believe it better to error on the side of taking the bible to mean what it says rather than potentially making the opposite error because we trust God's writing of the scripture more than we do our own ability to formulate doctrine.

The problem is, that there isn't any way to avoid using one's doctrine to make such decisions. The key then is to acknowledge that it is our doctrine that is causing us to make such a decision (when such is the case) and to think through that process and make decisions in advance that permit such decisions to be as dispassionate and objective as possible. This requires - and I do mean requires - one to make decisions about which attributes of God one is going to place over others. The Calvinists pretend like they do not do this but they do, they just aren't being honest about it. It actually turns out that one is forced to decide which is more important, God's power, His size, His authority, the extent of knowledge (i.e. God's quantitative attributes) or God's righteousness, His justice, His mercy, His personality and His ability to relate to the pinnacle of His creation and His ability and desire to love us (i.e. God's qualitative attributes). Choosing the later as the more important in a rationally consistent manner yields open theism and even that choice is not done in an arbitrary manner. The bible itself teaches precisely that exact principle, for twice the Psalmist declares....

​

Psalm 89:14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; Mercy and truth go before Your face.​

​

Psalm 97:2 Clouds and darkness surround Him; Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.​

As the author of Hebrew echos...

Hebrews 1:8 But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.​

Indeed, the only possible foundation for any properly Christian soteriology is God's quality of character. It isn't God's strength or His size nor how much God knows that allows for salvation. Rather it is His justice and His mercy along with the wisdom that determined a way to preserve the one while making way for the other.

 

[Lon]

So nothing of God can be known. Is that really what you believe?

All of the following is a discussion about EDF: What it does, and what it doesn't do with logical proofs and propositions:

I was referencing a statement you'd made earlier. You'd said God is often above our paygrade as limited, created humans (my take). I was simply in agreement with you. I was appealing to it here: we can figure stuff out. We have good minds, but 'until' we figure it out, some things can and do remain a bit beyond us. Further, I think it is okay. It is part of what has made me empathetic to Open Theism. I think it 'trying to comprehend' and that's a noble thing.

If so, how did you come to believe that?

We are told

Isaiah 55:8-9 ​

If not, by what means can anything be know about God that doesn't fly in the face of what you said here?

Same: Romans 1:20-21 John 1:18 2 Timothy 3:16-17 If you are willing, how do you answer the same and perhaps where you are on the same page and where you differ? Thanks.

I do not deny that "Adam, quit trying to hide." may be what is meant in that passage. That isn't the point. As I said, Open Theism simply is not based on such passages. Rather, open theists are simply set free to take such passages to mean what they actually say.

When I've seen it from other Open Theists, they use it specifically to 'show' God doesn't know everything.
A bit of help/perspective (perhaps), my observation: Open Theism is in infancy, I think it necessitates a bit of frustration as talking to one Open Theist isn't like talking to another Open Theist. While there are differences, for instance, among Calvinists, or Charismatics, there is plenty documentation on the difference that we can draw from. Open Theism is developing that, but I'd suspect it is frustrating to have to keep repeating oneself ad nauseam?

No, Lon. You'd like to pretend that sound reason is the equivalent of a personal opinion but it isn't. If you cavalier attitude toward the way reason works was accurate then there'd be no way to falsify anything. Sound reason works, Lon, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Except where we assert that 'we/me' are being the logical one. It faces a challenging crossroad. <appreciate this part of the conversation, we don't get into our premises and paradigms behind our statements often, this open it up a bit> You've crossed deluded people before with me. They 'think' they are being logical. We have enough who deny Jesus is God, for instance. While they base their ideas on scripture, they are missing pieces. I'd liken this to a puzzle with a lion on one side, while putting it together, and an eagle on the other. Some would say "It is a griffin" and another will say "It is a lion and an eagle, two separate animals." Both think they are being logical. If the puzzle name was 'The Animal,' even without having the middle completed, it'd strongly suggest the 'two animal' theory is logically incorrect. Crude, but this is similar to debate between Trinitarians and Unitarians. Are both being logical? Yes, but one is paying more attention to details when they come up with their proposition (Trinitarians). Your thoughts?

Then show me were the argument is flawed.

I've tried. You and I knew a guy was going to respond a certain way. While our prescience wasn't actuated, it nevertheless did not have anything at all to do with his choice. He chose it. If he came to us and said 'then I didn't have a choice, did I?" We'd tell him he was being silly. Of course He had a choice even though both you and I knew, pretty sure, what he was going to say. It doesn't matter if God knows what you and I are going to choose. The problem is that people (Stanford and other College Philosophy) are trying to assert a time consideration as absolute, when it is not. IOW, they have faulty ideas that point to 'no choice' that doesn't exist. There is no connection to EDF and loss of choice. It is a question/assertion from faulty precepts (same as God making a rock He cannot pick up). The question/posit, is upon a faulty concept.

I've already addresssed this. This sort of "knowing" isn't what is being discussed at all precisely because we can be wrong. It is not mere prediction or educated guessing that we're talking about. It's INFALLIBLE foreknowledge that is the issue.

Both are actually the same: If I can guess, the accusation would be the same: "I had no choice then!" It is demonstrably untrue in one case, harder to show 'in the future' because we aren't actually able to assert anything about it, because we know next to nothing about EDF but I believe the fact that any DF never cancels choice, shows reality in considering EDF as well.

There is no way that you actually believe this.

No, it is my relationship to you actually! It helps me form my thoughts to you. I don't communicate with you the same way I do with other people because of your patterns. It isn't your choice 'to do otherwise' but your predictable choices 'to do' that give you your personality, as I know it (like 'stupid' above). It is uniquely Open Theology that uses the lower forms of dialogue on such a consistent basis. There is a lot of group-think in all of our circles and I'd intimate you'd have to think beyond the influence to gain advantage of 'choice.' Both you and JR have said "Liar" oddly, after following each other's posts in this short breadth of time. I actually believe this. I literally attempt to craft my posts to this predictable phenomena and it is absolutely one basis of my relationship to you.

No, we didn't "know" it in the same way that theologians mean it when they say the God knows the future. We fully expected it but that isn't the same thing at all.

Not exactly, but the same components. They don't change other than the aspect of 'future' as if it were 'past.' I believe it a faulty premise, upon a rejection that future is static. If I could get an almanac from the future, my limitations as a human would negate any ability to assert that any particular 'had no choice.' It is only a premise that 'future means done' that allows the assertion.

"You cannot change the past." I disagree with this. You can go heal a broken relationship, showing that 'past' doesn't matter, as far as it depends on you. What we have then is the condition of things 'now.' Future is built on 'now' such that we always, regardless of past or future, have choice. No past or future consideration negate that (can't).

You won't even try!

Cut quite a bit of repetition or stuff that doesn't matter. I left this bit because ▲Supra▲

If so, it is only because she is aware of your prior choice!

In this sense, I believe you are supporting my arguments and proposition above. Knowledge (of any kind) doesn't negate.

I'm not sure I'm capable of 'proving' but I can give you enough to at least question the Stanford premise. I'm not at all alone on this, you can find a lot of discussion and philosophy posts on this (may not be helpful but if I don't come across cogently, you aren't without help if interested).

Scenario: My wife brings me a bowl of Vanilla ice cream. It may be argued I now have 'no choice.' The 'choice' is past now by premise of the argument. But it isn't true. I can easily say "no thank you" and/or "Give it to so and so, I'm going to have strawberry tonight." IOW, future never is a concrete.

Upon this scenario, going further, God has EDF about strawberry. It never means I didn't have choice, but actuates that I did.

We show the most love, by catering to another's consistent desires. We can, if we see something 'different' try to see if the person will feel love and appreciate something else (exceptions to the rule) but it seems predictability is important to relationship.

In such a case, it is you who have removed your own choice but even that isn't quite true because that removal is itself a choice that you have the power to reverse. You decided, you CHOSE, long ago that if vanilla was an option then you'd choose it. Do you see what I'm saying? All the way down the line, it is you who are doing the choosing. You choose vanilla every time because you chose to make it a policy to choose vanilla every time and there is nothing that prevents you from ending that policy and there's no way for your wife to know whether you will ever change that policy. She might not expect you to do so but that isn't the same thing. Indeed, you don't even know with absolute certainty that you will not change the policy. Some tragedy might occur that somehow gets associated with vanilla ice cream in your mind and you might then decide that vanilla ice cream is no longer worth the pain that the memories it invokes creates. Maybe, when you're 90 years old and demented, you'll associate vanilla ice cream with Joe Biden and decide you hate the stuff. That, of course, isn't likely but it is not impossible and there is no way for you know WITH CERTAINTY that it won't happen.

I agree with you. Do you follow that another knowing that choice never removes it? You've greatly supported what I believe, that it just doesn't logically follow that knowledge of any kind negates our choice. It 'actuates' it, and that it did occur, not erases it.

No, Lon! There is no such thing as infallible foreknowledge. Your wife does not have it, you do not have it. Expectation is not the same thing as INFALLIBLE foreknowledge.

I don't agree, but it isn't necessary for our conversation or the consideration. Foreknowledge is close enough to consider whether it 'can' negate choice. It takes more than just knowledge, you'd have to interact to change that choice.

If my wife brought me vanilla, and I wanted strawberry, clearly she didn't have foreknowledge. The point was that it didn't matter. If she came back "I knew you were going to turn to strawberry today" we'd never logically try and prove I had no choice. Why? Several reasons but one is that we intuitively know she has no power over my ability to change my choice again. It is only because we add all the other omnis, that we'd even think God, with EDF, would remove choice. It is a conflation rather than a logical conclusion (assertion, again there are papers and other conversations on this if I'm not carrying this well).

If A then B.
If B then C.
Therefore, if A then C.

Sometimes the leap is down the alphabet 'E,F' that the person thought was C. The formula is correct, but many times people mistake E,F for C.
I believe Foreknowledgee of any kind has nothing to do with choice (C).

If A implies B and B implies C then A implies C. That isn't an opinion. That isn't someone's decision. That's fact. Cold, hard, inescable fact. Reality is NOT optional! Therefore, knowledge is possible.

Agree, if it is proven, but often people make these upon faulty premise, thus we don't always see the breaks in our own patterns, when we've actually skipped C. This is my issue with the Stanford premise of EDF affecting choice. They think they've posited and air-tight observation.

And, as the argument I've presented establishes, INFALLIBLE foreknowledge of a future action means that the action is a logical NECESSSITY,

E, maybe F. 'Future-definite' (or whatever we'd call it) erases choice, isn't true.

meaning that it cannot NOT happen. The infallible foreknowledge is the A and the action is the B. The action then is not optional, there is no choice being made by the person performing the action, even if he believes otherwise. Indeed, such a belief is itself just a different future event that a god with infallible foreknowledge would have known about in the past.

The punishment (or reward) of actions that were not chosen is unjust by practically everyone's definition of justice (not counting the Calvinists who make the term "just" synonymous with "arbitrary" when applied to God). God is just and He is going to judge both the righteous and the wicked! Even the Calvinists are forced to at least give lip service to those two undeniable facts. Therefore, we do choose our actions, therefore God does not, (cannot possibly), have INFALLIBLE foreknowledge.

We can follow consequences, and this only looks choice-negating by specifically conflating future as past. there has to be at least one other proposition (I believe more) to even gain ground. I am the usurper among many others on this old philosophical posit, but we've shown the ancient rock/pick up philosophical proposition is wrong today as well (the question posit is wrong in proposition).

 

[Lon]

Right! God can't be both wrong in prophecy and also give it contingently. Contingent prophecy--intended to help someone repent and avoid the punishment in many cases--cannot be wrong,

On the same page on this. See the post just above #725 for discussion

 

[Lon]

No, Lon. It is not how "specifically" someone's logic sees it.

Disagreement notwithstanding? I disagree any way.

That's ACTUALLY the logical conclusion.

Did you mean the logical conclusion (just thinking that accentuating the has the greater weight of what you are aiming for)?
I'll leave response here and also tie back into my conversation with Clete on two premises:
1) That most are jumping to a false conclusion
and
2) that they are doing so by conflating 'future' and 'past' as the same entity.
That is specifically the logical problem. The future isn't like the past, but in the philosophical argument from Standford, this is the problem. They make a logical jump specifically by looking that the future and 'then' the past (which hasn't happened yet). They are actually, in both cases, looking at 'now' and assuming that past and future are stagnant.

One example against 'now' is that I cannot go back and save President Lincoln from being shot. They say that is what it means that the past is unchangeable but that isn't correct. The reason you cannot go back and save Lincoln is the same as stopping the war in Palestine: we don't have the power over circumstances and other people's choices, just our own. You 'can' go back and fix a relationship that has been broken. 'Past' as a concept has no bearing on anything as far as it concerns you and your current choices any more than future does.

Please see my conversation with Clete so I'm not repeating the same 'ol on #725 -Lon

 

[Derf]

Disagreement notwithstanding? I disagree any way.

Did you mean the logical conclusion (just thinking that accentuating the has the greater weight of what you are aiming for)?
I'll leave response here and also tie back into my conversation with Clete on two premises:
1) That most are jumping to a false conclusion
and
2) that they are doing so by conflating 'future' and 'past' as the same entity.
That is specifically the logical problem. The future isn't like the past, but in the philosophical argument from Standford, this is the problem. They make a logical jump specifically by looking that the future and 'then' the past (which hasn't happened yet). They are actually, in both cases, looking at 'now' and assuming that past and future are stagnant.

One example against 'now' is that I cannot go back and save President Lincoln from being shot. They say that is what it means that the past is unchangeable but that isn't correct. The reason you cannot go back and save Lincoln is the same as stopping the war in Palestine: we don't have the power over circumstances and other people's choices, just our own. You 'can' go back and fix a relationship that has been broken. 'Past' as a concept has no bearing on anything as far as it concerns you and your current choices any more than future does.

Please see my conversation with Clete so I'm not repeating the same 'ol on #725 -Lon

I'm a bit disappointed that you say changing the future of a relationship changes the past.

 

[Lon]

I'm a bit disappointed that you say changing the future of a relationship changes the past.

Not the assertion. Let's take your disappointment and saying so. I have it on record that you said it 'now' as in 'the future' of when you said it. Does my definite knowledge do anything to your choice? No, we both agree. People 'think' that the future makes a difference and your choice is gone. Knowledge, even definite exhaustive, does nothing in and of itself to your decision. It is rather if I use some kind of power to force it and even that isn't a problem, just a problem with one time you didn't have a choice.

 

[Clete]

All of the following is a discussion about EDF: What it does, and what it doesn't do with logical proofs and propositions:

I was referencing a statement you'd made earlier. You'd said God is often above our paygrade as limited, created humans (my take). I was simply in agreement with you. I was appealing to it here: we can figure stuff out. We have good minds, but 'until' we figure it out, some things can and do remain a bit beyond us. Further, I think it is okay. It is part of what has made me empathetic to Open Theism. I think it 'trying to comprehend' and that's a noble thing.

We are told

Isaiah 55:8-9​

Same: Romans 1:20-21 John 1:18 2 Timothy 3:16-17 If you are willing, how do you answer the same and perhaps where you are on the same page and where you differ? Thanks.

I do not understand how one can live with such double mindedness.

Acknowledging that there are things about God that we have no means to know or understand cannot be applied to whatever cherry picked doctrine that we decide we want to leave as irrational and self-contradictory. It is not intended to be used as a theological trump card that allows us to believe any doctrine we wish without having to concern ourselves about whether this or that doctrine makes any sense. There simply is no such thing as an irrational truth - period! If we have found some idea, whether it be doctrinal or otherwise, that can be determined to be self-contradictory or in some other way irrational then our default very much aught to be to assume that it is false, not the other way around. The truths of God DOES NOT TRUMP SOUND REASON! God IS sound reason! (John 1:1-14). Or put another way, God's ways are HIGHER than our ways, NOT LOWER! The irrational is beneath us, not above!

When I've seen it from other Open Theists, they use it specifically to 'show' God doesn't know everything.

He doesn't! That verse can legitimately be used as evidence of that fact but not as proof of it.

A bit of help/perspective (perhaps), my observation: Open Theism is in infancy, I think it necessitates a bit of frustration as talking to one Open Theist isn't like talking to another Open Theist.

God's people have believed that the future is not settled for much more of human history than not. In that sense, Open Theism is as old as mankind. It is true, however, that the modern movement known as "Open Theism" is relatively new but I've never encountered anyone who had as difficult a time of understanding its basic precepts as you. You take that cake by a mile. Everyone else who has such convoluted issues with it have all been people who are trying their hardest to misrepresent, to exaggerate and to caricaturize what Open Theism teaches, much of which you are guilty of yourself although I do sense some sincerity on your part in regards to wanting to understand it.

The fact is, that all of the Open Theists I've read are mostly consistent on the major points. I find very little that I disagree with in their various writings. Some of them make arguments that would be mostly meaningless to regular folks and that belong in ivory tower lecture halls and pipe and cigar smoke filled university faculty rooms. Arguments that I find not only unappealing but unpersuasive and rather silly, actually. All they really seem to accomplish is to lend unearned credence to their overly intellectual opponents. Aside from such esoteric arguments, the rest of Open Theism and the arguments that are made by it's proponents are pretty straight forward, easy to understand and quite consistently made by all of the major writers on the subject.

In short, it isn't listening to Open Theists that is confusing you, it is listening to the opponent's mischaracterizations, along with some mischaracterizations of your own, that is doing that.

While there are differences, for instance, among Calvinists, or Charismatics, there is plenty documentation on the difference that we can draw from. Open Theism is developing that, but I'd suspect it is frustrating to have to keep repeating oneself ad nauseam?

The differences that exist are very ancillary and trivial. There is wide, practically universal, agreement about the broader and most important issues like the issue of what does it mean to say that God is just and what implications does God's righteous character have in regards to our theology proper, soteriology, eschatology, etc.

Except where we assert that 'we/me' are being the logical one. It faces a challenging crossroad. <appreciate this part of the conversation, we don't get into our premises and paradigms behind our statements often, this open it up a bit> You've crossed deluded people before with me. They 'think' they are being logical. We have enough who deny Jesus is God, for instance. While they base their ideas on scripture, they are missing pieces. I'd liken this to a puzzle with a lion on one side, while putting it together, and an eagle on the other. Some would say "It is a griffin" and another will say "It is a lion and an eagle, two separate animals." Both think they are being logical. If the puzzle name was 'The Animal,' even without having the middle completed, it'd strongly suggest the 'two animal' theory is logically incorrect. Crude, but this is similar to debate between Trinitarians and Unitarians. Are both being logical? Yes, but one is paying more attention to details when they come up with their proposition (Trinitarians). Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that your thoughts need to be more precise and carefully crafted.

Both are wrong if they're being dogmatic with such scant information. Build the puzzle! Then be dogmatic!

Your attitude about logic would imply that it is impossible to even work the puzzle and even if it were worked then by your reasoning, as soon as someone asserted that "we/me" (NOT A CORRECT ENGLISH CONSTRUCT, by the way!!!) are correct then they'd somehow would have left the realm of logic and reason. It makes no sense! It is perfectly logical to acknowledge a lack of information and it also perfectly logical to work the puzzle in anticipation of the answer and it is perfectly logical to declare the truth once the puzzle has been solved!

I've tried. You and I knew a guy was going to respond a certain way.

You "tried" by redefining the terms of the argument! How many times did I write the word "INFALLIBLE" in capital letters in the very post that this sentence was in response to?

While our prescience wasn't actuated, it nevertheless did not have anything at all to do with his choice. He chose it. If he came to us and said 'then I didn't have a choice, did I?" We'd tell him he was being silly. Of course He had a choice even though both you and I knew, pretty sure, what he was going to say.

I've addressed this precise point more than once already.

It doesn't matter if God knows what you and I are going to choose.

It does if that knowledge is INFALLIBLE!

That's the last time I'll make that point until you respond to it directly and specifically. Your ignoring what I've said on this and showing up here to repeat the refuted point will, from this point forward, be ignored by me. If you persist then you will be ignore by me altogether.

The problem is that people (Stanford and other College Philosophy) are trying to assert a time consideration as absolute, when it is not.

They are making no such assertion. It is a formal syllogistic argument. There is no assertion that is not explicitly stated in the argument.

There is no connection to EDF and loss of choice.

I have demonstrated that there is.

It is a question/assertion from faulty precepts (same as God making a rock He cannot pick up). The question/posit, is upon a faulty concept.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Both are actually the same: If I can guess, the accusation would be the same: "I had no choice then!" It is demonstrably untrue in one case, harder to show 'in the future' because we aren't actually able to assert anything about it, because we know next to nothing about EDF but I believe the fact that any DF never cancels choice, shows reality in considering EDF as well.

This was a lie! I do not understand this kind of dishonesty. I've gotten where I'm simply not willing to put up with it. It makes meaningful conversation impossible and I'm done wasting my time on fools.

That was literally the lasts straw. You've pushed and pushed and pushed some more. Congratulations! You've found the point at which I am no longer willing to put up with your nonsense.

Go ahead and believe whatever stupidity you want to believe. I no longer care. If you cannot be honest with yourself then I sure as hell will not make an attempt to make you be honest with me.

Good bye!!

 

[Lon]

I do not understand how one can live with such double mindedness.

:sigh:

Acknowledging that there are things about God that we have no means to know or understand cannot be applied to whatever cherry picked doctrine that we decide we want to leave as irrational and self-contradictory.

You said it, I accessed it. You don't have to jump to an appeal to mystery every time. Clete, I sincerely believe you've emoted in these last few conversations. Something going on in your life you are blaming me for? I believe you were irritated before you got here, some of this is really not that huge. A disagreement is fine among people of God. That said, Paul left Barnabas and Mark. There is room in some of this for a lot of disagreement and I don't see this at all as a fellowship breaker.

It is not intended to be used as a theological trump card that allows us to believe any doctrine we wish without having to concern ourselves about whether this or that doctrine makes any sense.

If you let it. The Catholic Church is the original appealer to mysteries. "Mystery" means 1) that I don't know but can perhaps figure it out at a later date or 2) God hasn't given us enough apparent information. We can be mistaken when we assert this, there may very well be information and one who reads his/her Bible often will likely figure it out.

In and of itself? No reason or room really for this kind of angst. It may be a conflation and exacerbation from previous conversations.
Some hot potatoes, so to speak, you treat as if they are bombs. They are just hot potatoes and you'll not likely get burned (means you are over reacting).

There simply is no such thing as an irrational truth - period!

Pretty sure I agree with you, not what we are talking about. Stanford and other philosophy colleges are attempting to assert that EDF removes choice. They are conflating future and past as well as setting them in concrete by the assumption. None of it is true. I provided links, not the only guy that believes this.

If we have found some idea, whether it be doctrinal or otherwise, that can be determined to be self-contradictory or in some other way irrational then our default very much aught to be to assume that it is false, not the other way around. The truths of God DOES NOT TRUMP SOUND REASON! God IS sound reason! (John 1:1-14). Or put another way, God's ways are HIGHER than our ways, NOT LOWER! The irrational is beneath us, not above!

At times, I suspect your irrational is rather that you don't get it and a facade of 'irrational/illogical' protects that tower. You have a hard time seeing when your own thinking isn't as iron-clad as you'd like to think it is.

He doesn't! That verse can legitimately be used as evidence of that fact but not as proof of it.

Evidence is good enough for the conversation.

God's people have believed that the future is not settled for much more of human history than not. In that sense, Open Theism is as old as mankind. It is true, however, that the modern movement known as "Open Theism" is relatively new but I've never encountered anyone who had as difficult a time of understanding its basic precepts as you.

Open Theism 1,2, and 3 are wrought with people just like me that argued their points cogently. Many theologians on my side of the table are writing a number of books on the problems of Open Theism. I've never put $ down to buy The Plot but I think I rather have been astute at seeing the inconsistencies between you all. You do not all agree. Most theologians move along after a few months, sometimes a year or two on TOL. The vast majority are gone. The best I can do is discuss issues of disagreement. We all want TOL to be something specific to our need. Our goals are different.

You take that cake by a mile. Everyone else who has such convoluted issues with it have all been people who are trying their hardest to misrepresent, to exaggerate and to caricaturize what Open Theism teaches, much of which you are guilty of yourself although I do sense some sincerity on your part in regards to wanting to understand it.

I believe that is accurate. My goal on any theology forum is to dig into scripture over difference, and be challenged. The debate nature makes me look and dig. It doesn't take place of my devotional time with the Lord, but it does sharpen and inform that time.

The fact is, that all of the Open Theists I've read are mostly consistent on the major points. I find very little that I disagree with in their various writings. Some of them make arguments that would be mostly meaningless to regular folks and that belong in ivory tower lecture halls and pipe and cigar smoke filled university faculty rooms. Arguments that I find not only unappealing but unpersuasive and rather silly, actually. All they really seem to accomplish is to lend unearned credence to their overly intellectual opponents. Aside from such esoteric arguments, the rest of Open Theism and the arguments that are made by it's proponents are pretty straight forward, easy to understand and quite consistently made by all of the major writers on the subject.

This doesn't ring true for me. I've seen a lot of Open disagreements on TOL. You and JR had one concerning Jesus' dual nature. The disagreement itself may not be major but Christology is a major, very important topic.

In short, it isn't listening to Open Theists that is confusing you, it is listening to the opponent's mischaracterizations, along with some mischaracterizations of your own, that is doing that.

Some, yes. Not all.

The differences that exist are very ancillary and trivial. There is wide, practically universal, agreement about the broader and most important issues like the issue of what does it mean to say that God is just and what implications does God's righteous character have in regards to our theology proper, soteriology, eschatology, etc.


My thoughts are that your thoughts need to be more precise and carefully crafted.

Both are wrong if they're being dogmatic with such scant information. Build the puzzle! Then be dogmatic!

Your attitude about logic would imply that it is impossible to even work the puzzle and even if it were worked then by your reasoning, as soon as someone asserted that "we/me" (NOT A CORRECT ENGLISH CONSTRUCT, by the way!!!) are correct then they'd somehow would have left the realm of logic and reason. It makes no sense! It is perfectly logical to acknowledge a lack of information and it also perfectly logical to work the puzzle in anticipation of the answer and it is perfectly logical to declare the truth once the puzzle has been solved!

By the analogy, it is only when those missing puzzle pieces aren't put in place yet. At that point, it is best to simply assert: I see the hind end of a lion here, and I see the head of an eagle over here. It would be logically presumptuous of me to insist a connection until I see all the pieces. Essentially, such is the Triune/Trinitarian position. Jesus is God because scripture says He is. Jesus 'has' a God, Scripture says so. There is only one God. Scripture says so. How? I can conjecture based on good reasoning and logic, but it is important for me specifically to say "parts of this puzzle aren't together on the table yet." Theology Proper is much the same way. Some people will claim their puzzle is finished, but when I ask about one thing or another, it is clear they are still working on their own puzzle and may have used their fist to cram a couple pieces together.

"INFALLIBLE" It does if that knowledge is INFALLIBLE!

You are making the same conflation Standford teacher and students did: That knowledge (of ANY kind) negates free will choices. An almanac from the future IS infallible, yet I have no ability to actuate what happens in the future. The rain will have been recorded as accurate. Men will have invented and so on. I 'may' be able to influence one or two things, but highly unlikely. Therefore, even "INFALLIBLE" means nothing. An almanac would be just that. It takes assumptions to get to 'no choice' and I believe those are wrong and so do a lot of other philosophers and theologians (not that I'm hedging by numbers, you just aren't left with only me if you seek out further discussions on point, especially if I'm going on ignore :idunno: ).

That's the last time I'll make that point until you respond to it directly and specifically. Your ignoring what I've said on this and showing up here to repeat the refuted point will, from this point forward, be ignored by me. If you persist then you will be ignore by me altogether.


They are making no such assertion. It is a formal syllogistic argument. There is no assertion that is not explicitly stated in the argument.


I have demonstrated that there is.


Saying it doesn't make it so.


This was a lie! I do not understand this kind of dishonesty. I've gotten where I'm simply not willing to put up with it. It makes meaningful conversation impossible and I'm done wasting my time on fools.

I can provide links. Why does 'lie' often come from especially TOL OV lips? It makes very little rational sense. You guys shouldn't use it in debate conversation this often. It becomes ignorable and gimmicky.

That was literally the lasts straw. You've pushed and pushed and pushed some more. Congratulations! You've found the point at which I am no longer willing to put up with your nonsense.

Go ahead and believe whatever stupidity you want to believe. I now longer care. If you cannot be honest with yourself then I sure as hell will not make an attempt to make you be honest with me.

Good bye!!

Probably wise and I actually applaud it. Prior, it'd have gotten to where I'd put you on ignore and so I'm proud of you. For posterity, you did something for me that caused me to have an enormous amount of care and patience with you: You challenged me on a specific doctrinal point of 'protecting the fatherless, widow, and helpless.' It was brutal but coming over to the other side, I'm very grateful you took the time and I've seen a lot of heart and growth in you. Keep walking sir! In Jesus. -Lon

 

[Derf]

To focus in better, I'm just going to answer this:

I have the plain reading of the text and there is no implication of that plain reading that in anyway conflicts with any aspect of my doctrine.

The plain reading of the text is:
"Adam, where are you?" As a question, it gives no doctrinal clarity as to whether God knew or did not know Adam's whereabouts, so you are correct that it doesn't conflict with any aspect of your doctrine. But it doesn't support any aspect of your doctrine. Any aspect. It is merely a question.

When you add the similar phraseology of Gen 4:9 to the mix, where the question by itself still doesn't conflict or support any aspect of your doctrine, the context of the passage must be used to determine conflict or support of any aspects. And the context explains that God knew before He asked. Therefore, with direct evidence a mere chapter away that God asking a question at least sometimes means that He knows the answer, covering your eyes and claiming it always means He doesn't know the answer is foolish...with a capital F.

So if it neither conflicts with nor supports any aspect of your doctrine, but similar passages shows that similar wording conflicts with some aspect of your doctrine, you shouldn't use it to try to support your doctrine. It makes you look like your doctrine is weak and needs life support from unsupporting sources. If you use it, it reflects poorly on other Open Theists who are trying to use GOOD arguments instead of poor ones. You, Clete, are able to make good arguments. So don't resort to poor, unsupported ones. For my sake, if not for your own.

Thanks for hearing me out.
Derf

 

[Clete]

To focus in better, I'm just going to answer this:

The plain reading of the text is:
"Adam, where are you?" As a question, it gives no doctrinal clarity as to whether God knew or did not know Adam's whereabouts, so you are correct that it doesn't conflict with any aspect of your doctrine. But it doesn't support any aspect of your doctrine. Any aspect. It is merely a question.

When you're reading the passage, it reads as though God is actually asking the question. There is no indication, either contextually or grammatically, that He is asking it rhetorically.

When you add the similar phraseology of Gen 4:9 to the mix, where the question by itself still doesn't conflict or support any aspect of your doctrine, the context of the passage must be used to determine conflict or support of any aspects. And the context explains that God knew before He asked.

It does not explain any such thing. It's almost sneaky how one's a priori doctrines get read into a passage.

Therefore, with direct evidence a mere chapter away that God asking a question at least sometimes means that He knows the answer, covering your eyes and claiming it always means He doesn't know the answer is foolish...with a capital F.

It isn't direct evidence and even if it were IT DOES NOT MATTER!

It doesn't matter whether God knew or not! It does no harm to my doctrine either way!

So if it neither conflicts with nor supports any aspect of your doctrine, but similar passages shows that similar wording conflicts with some aspect of your doctrine, you shouldn't use it to try to support your doctrine.

Either reading of either passage has no deleterious effect whatsoever on my doctrine. Why would God asking a rhetorical question be a problem for me?

It isn't!

And that's just the entire point.

Of the two of us, it is only you who have a potential problem with either of these questions that God asks. If God was only asking the question in a rhetorical manner then you and I are both perfectly fine with that. If, on the other hand, the question(s) were not rhetorical, I'm still hunky-dory while you've got a serious issue. Indeed, your position needs for the questions to be rhetorical.

Also, note that you've overstated my contention here. I didn't say that neither reading conflicts with NOR SUPPORTS any aspect of my doctrine. Reading it as an actual question would certainly support my position. I have not said that either reading is neutral to my position but only that neither reading creates any problem for my position. As I said, the passage can legitimately be used as evidence for, but not proof of my position.

It makes you look like your doctrine is weak and needs life support from unsupporting sources.

Only to those who are reading their doctrine into the text or who understand me to be saying more than I am. An issue I have no control over except to clarify or restate my position if the opportunity presents itself, as in the case of this post.

If you use it, it reflects poorly on other Open Theists who are trying to use GOOD arguments instead of poor ones. You, Clete, are able to make good arguments. So don't resort to poor, unsupported ones. For my sake, if not for your own.

I do not recall having ever made this specific argument myself. I'm pretty sure you brought it up, not me.

Thanks for hearing me out.
Derf

That's what we're here for, right? All I require is a modicum of intellectual honesty, which you seem to have in good supply.

 

[Lon]

As I said, the passage can legitimately be used as evidence for, but not proof of my position.

I know you have me on ignore, but if I make a cogent point, someone can pick up on it.
On this one, Clete says he has no major disagreement with other Open Theists. A debate on Omniscience is a consequential doctrinal difference.

 

[Clete]

I know you have me on ignore, but if I make a cogent point, someone can pick up on it.
On this one, Clete says he has no major disagreement with other Open Theists. A debate on Omniscience is a consequential doctrinal difference.

You are on ignore and will remain there (i.e. meaning that I will not read most of your posts). However....

Once again, I feel as though I'm having a discussion with a lawyer. I did not say that I have no major disagreements with other Open Theists. That's you drawing yet another caricature of my positions. So long as you want to figure out a way to disagree with practically every syllable I write, you will be successful in finding some convoluted way of doing so.

Whether I agree with other Open Theists on every point of their theology proper (or soteriology or eschatology or whatever else) or not, the fact remains that I agree with virtually everything they say in regards to their arguments about the fact the the future is not settled and what they means in regards to our relationship with our Creator, which is the core difference between Open Theism and pretty much every other kind of Christianity. To the degree to which a particular author disagrees with me about foreknowledge is only the degree to which they are logically inconsistent with the idea that the future is open. The future cannot be both rationally necessary (i.e. settled) and freely chosen (i.e. open).

Further, I frankly do not give a damn about what other Open Theists believe. I'm here to defend what I believe not what someone else believes. You, however, seem utterly incapable of confining yourself to arguing against what I've said but desire to poke holes in whatever it is you want to believe that I meant and make wild assumptions based on what other people that I neither know nor care anything about have said. That, along with the fact that you intentionally lie both to me and yourself about super plain and obvious arguments that any 8th grade child could understand makes it completely impossible to make any progress whatsoever in a discussion with you.

Okay, so now its your turn to basically ignore what I've said here and make something up that is somehow loosely based on what I've said and point out some idiotic disagreement with it.

 

[Lon]

You are on ignore and will remain there (i.e. meaning that I will not read most of your posts). However....

Once again, I feel as though I'm having a discussion with a lawyer. I did not say that I have no major disagreements with other Open Theists. That's you drawing yet another caricature of my positions. So long as you want to figure out a way to disagree with practically every syllable I write, you will be successful in finding some convoluted way of doing so.

Whether I agree with other Open Theists on every point of their theology proper (or soteriology or eschatology or whatever else) or not, the fact remains that I agree with virtually everything they say in regards to their arguments about the fact the the future is not settled and what they means in regards to our relationship with our Creator, which is the core difference between Open Theism and pretty much every other kind of Christianity. To the degree to which a particular author disagrees with me about foreknowledge is only the degree to which they are logically inconsistent with the idea that the future is open. The future cannot be both rationally necessary (i.e. settled) and freely chosen (i.e. open).

Further, I frankly do not give a damn about what other Open Theists believe.

I'm here to defend what I believe not what someone else believes. You, however, seem utterly incapable of confining yourself to arguing against what I've said but desire to poke holes in whatever it is you want to believe that I meant and make wild assumptions based on what other people that I neither know nor care anything about have said. That, along with the fact that you intentionally lie both to me and yourself about super plain and obvious arguments that any 8th grade child could understand makes it completely impossible to make any progress whatsoever in a discussion with you.

Like that EDF must somehow erase the fact that choice is made? Time Doesn't Exist so 'future' doesn't, if JR's argument is accurate. I believe it is. EDF is but knowledge like any other knowledge. Any 'if' doesn't eradicate the difference. It is this 8th grade easy, I agree! I know how and why the assertion is made. If you are EVER desirous to delve into the proposition, prove it or rip it apart, let me know. I'm in on that discussion BUT I wholly agree with your decision to do ignore.

Okay, so now its your turn to basically ignore what I've said here and make something up that is somehow loosely based on what I've said and point out some idiotic disagreement with it.

Thank you.

The fact is, that all of the Open Theists I've read are mostly consistent on the major points... Aside from such esoteric arguments, the rest of Open Theism and the arguments that are made by it's proponents are pretty straight forward, easy to understand and quite consistently made by all of the major writers on the subject.

In short, it isn't listening to Open Theists that is confusing you, it is listening to the opponent's mischaracterizations, along with some mischaracterizations of your own, that is doing that.

The differences that exist are very ancillary and trivial.

still thinking. Forgive me for baiting, I thought you had me on ignore already. 1) I am proud of you and 2) agree with the decision to do ignore.
Take the last response/rebuttal in thread, please. I'll let it sit as not to bait you but I have all good will and support and honestly, have genuinely appreciated your interactions this year. I've taken sabbaticals from people and from posting. Generally, if I am building people up, I'm fulfilling my desire to bless and not curse. If I do terrible, I try to take a break, pray, and hope I come back better. Regardless of stark contrast in theology, I believe Open Theists are fellow Christians. Because of the exasperation level of a few of you lately, I'm thinking of taking another sabbatical, as obviously I need to work and pray on it some more. In Him.

 

[Lon]

No, Lon. It is not how "specifically" someone's logic sees it.

That's ACTUALLY the logical conclusion.

'A' conclusion. We all assert we are the logical ones. When we aren't actually logical, there is no appeal to 'logic' that will suffice. "If" any Christians find a problem (and we do), then it is wise to look to your own. If not, it has every earmark you are plugging your ears or so caught up in a small circle that you are missing the greater Christian discussions and beliefs. Granted Open Theism often thinks it is being logical in rejections, but they don't appreciate that something is in debate, like whether EDF removes choice. It is and always has been a philosophical theory.

Yes, Lon, it does.

Here's why:

If God not only knew, but "actuated" (to use your term) Adam or anyone else to sin, then God is the primary cause of that person sinning, and thus, that person is therefore exempt from any culpability for any sin that he committed by God's actuation.

"How?" is the obvious question: It can be guessed, but can it be proven?

This in and of itself is not the issue, because if we're all just robots having been programmed to do things, then they have no moral value (as Clete explained earlier).

Realize with me the 'if' for only the objection that even if I agree, (I do to an extent), it is still a postulation. It looks good, but I don't want to build upon an idea later with you that 'looks right.'

The problem is when you introduce the idea that God will punish those very same people for the actions that they had ZERO control over. THAT is unjust, and for God to do so makes HIM unjust.

Remember it is an 'if' and importantly, zero control is a sudden jump without a proposition to inspect. It means I cannot (nor another) logically follow because something isn't proven.

It's like a man intentionally slipping a woman a roofie, and then blaming her for him raping her, or like making a man drink a potion you know will change his personality to make him go crazy and start murdering people under the influence of that potion, and then blaming the man for being a murderer.

I'm not sure if you caught my almanac suggestion. If I were able, without doubt, to have known what you just said above, then knowledge doesn't necessitate that you do what I knew you'd do, but that you 'did' (past tense) what I thought you'd do. Think of it in those terms: Clete and I knew a guy was going to respond a certain way. He did exactly as we both foresaw him doing. Some, Clete will argue that it isn't 'perfect' but it doesn't matter: It is future and known to ANY degree and has absolutely no bearing, demonstrably, upon the guy saying what he said. Neither of us even said 'I know what you are going to say!' There was no prompting, we just knew. In among these discussions are other omni attributes that would 'suggest' it is different when God knows, including the perfect knowledge and I appreciate that, but in a logically demonstrable scenario (I think you can follow along the proposition just fine), choice still existed. It at least posts an objection to be over-ruled. Foreknowlege, of any kind, does nothing to affect choice in and of itself, logically. Clete called this 8th grade with a few pejoratives (disapproving comments). I'm okay with that and am glad so I don't want this response to bait him back in. If you and I can do it justice without causing anyone anger?

It is, BY DEFINITION, unjust!

Not because Clete thinks so. Not because we say so, but because it IS unjust! It does, in fact, follow, BY NECESSITY.

Does ANY of my objection above make any kind of sense?

I'll see if I can find another video where he explains this more in-depth, but this should do for now:

This is called confirmation bias.

Rather, I'm unconvinced the argument holds water. The better I know you (or anybody) the more foreknowledge I have about them and how they will respond in the future. Knowing has nothing much at all to do with choice other than every relationship on the planet and off it are affected by another's interaction. For instance, you may fully change my mind here. My choice of belief will have changed. If you know tomorrow that I will come in with a view that isn't Open, you will not be surprised a wit. You virtually know how I'm going to respond to any given Open discussion (you knew I was going to disagree, I know you did). Here is the proposition again: your knowledge has nothing at all, not even an iota, to do with my choosing it. Moreover, as I said, your knowledge 'actuates/supports/applauds or laments' my choices, not removes them. Every time we talk, we make our respective decisions deeper. Relationship is actually what changes/removes choice and between believers, in a great way. So it isn't knowledge, but relationship that affects and narrows choice (among other things).

Being predicable does not mean that the future is settled.

I wouldn't call it 'settled' (hope that doesn't ruin an Open observation of the rest of us). It is kind of like thinking the past is 'settled.' To any degree we aren't able to affect past choices, we are not able to affect future ones either, but rather our own, both from the past and the future. We have a limited zone affect of our power. It is why many say there is only now, because it is the only choice/decision we are capable of making. Future is conflated when people mix ideas of future and past together.

God knowing what someone is like and predicting their future actions does not mean that the future is completely settled.

Hard sentence: both the proposition and conclusion are from two Open ideas: That God doesn't know, but guesses and that knowledge cancels choice. It'd take quite a bit of dialogue to get on page.

The problem is that your wife is a human being who, according to your position, does NOT have exhaustive divine foreknowledge (she's only human), and thus, your wife's level of knowledge about you is irrelevant to this current discussion.

My proposition is that all knowledge about another is just and only knowledge. The only way knowledge comes into play in another's choice, is 'how that knowledge' causes the holder's interaction with that choice. That is why I specifically believe knowledge itself has nothing but a connection by potentiality only.

It is if His knowledge is infallible, which you claim it is, do you not?

Yes. Does it 'make' a thing happen? Some Calvinists would say 'yep' agreeing that knowledge AND all other Omnis working together demands it. Open Theists have challenged me to think for 20+ years about knowledge and choice (good thing). Philosophy generally sets up fairly solid logical statements, but I yet think the whole field has missed a few cogs on this 'EDF/choice' assertions. If it doesn't frustrate you, perhaps we could delve into the details a bit.

All of those things are based on the idea that the future is exhaustively settled. IOW, they only exist within the confines of your beliefs.

Some, not my belief.

They do not exist within ours, or for that matter, what the Bible says.

I see a good amount of biblical data but have taken second looks and acquiesce some may not mean EDF. Some seem to point to exactly that, at least to me. However, in either scriptural support, there isn't a strong tie-in between EDF and choice or lack-there-of.

Which is why we don't just say it. We support our claims.

In camp, we often skip 'how we got here.' I'm guilty all the time of it, especially when I'm tired. "Saying it doesn't make it so!" is a fine statement/request for mor information. How do you support Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge demands a lack of choice? I've seen the statement: "If God (or anybody) knows what I'm going to say, I didn't have a choice." If I can show any foreknowledge has no bearing on choice, it can logically be extrapolated that any 'further' details, i.e. completely, have little to do with choice if even what can be shown doesn't. It can logically follow that 'if not a little, then likely and on initial, not at all then.'

Here is one instance where God was not right about something:

So Joshua said to the children of Israel, “Come here, and hear the words of the Lord your God.” And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites:

Bible Gateway passage: Joshua 3:9-10 - New King James Version

So Joshua said to the children of Israel, “Come here, and hear the words of the Lord your God.” And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites...

www.biblegateway.com

One generation later:

Then the Angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this? Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’ ”

Bible Gateway passage: Judges 2:1-3 - New King James Version

Israel’s Disobedience - Then the Angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this...

www.biblegateway.com

Are you familiar with Deuteronomy 7:12-24? Joshua 23:12-13?
Do either of this put a qualification on 'without fail' means? If it can give you even pause, how would you as an Open Theist try to redress this? There is another where someone thinks God 'expected' bad grapes. The problem: In the text itself, Isaiah says he'll sing a song as if it were from God. It means it is analogy and we have to be very careful about pulling from texts that intimate rather than teach very clearly. In both of these cases, the rest of Christianity, so of course me, believe these must be understood in context, especially when there is already given more information on how we 'should' interpret further immediate texts. Another is that God 'changes His mind.' Often, problems in Open Theism are caused by English translations. There is literally no Hebrew or Greek that says 'changed mind.' It is a colloquialism as well, so even inaccurate in English let alone trying to apply such an idea to scripture where it doesn't even appear but in a good attempt/but poor translation. I'm not sure I'll 'change your mind' but I hope it is at least appreciative and worth reflection.

And now you do know of at least one.

There are PLENTY more, see https://opentheism.org/verses.

I am and have been aware of what Open Theists have offered, but hopefully you see I have even biblical objections. I can make a post on all of these and how they don't measure up, and not just because I'm from a differing theology perspective (certainly that too), but because of assumptions. The scripture themselves offer little help to the Open paradigm. It is yet my view God is never and has never been wrong.

It does if it's infallible.

But foreknowledge itself is not an indication of a settled future.

We agree to a point or extent then. If it is true in some occasion that it has nothing to do with choice, is there an inkling that no amount of knowledge ever affects choices of another? Here is an article exactly on our topic.

The problem is that you're, perhaps unintentionally, conflating prophecies of the future with God's ability to bring certain things to pass.

The former fail.

The latter is not a function of His knowledge, but a result of HIs capability. He is "omnicompetent." He is fully capable of making stuff happen, not because of His knowledge, but because He is powerful and wise enough to do so, able to manipulate His enemies and direct His allies, like an excellent general in a war!



You seem to think that we believe that either everything is settled or nothing is settled.

That's not our position.

Right! It is why I argue this way. I think think there is often agreement and these have to be the foundations of discussion for disagreements.

Our position is that some things are settled, not because of knowledge, but because of God's omnicompetence, and everything else is God's best guess, which is far better than any human can make.

Often, almost if not at times, upholding other Omnis. I always hope I can show that agreement on somethings, can equal agreement where we disagree. Omni-anything is often argued omni-everything by extension, logically. For example, for God to know He knows everything, nothing can exist but what He has caused to exist. If God is omnicompetent, then it is more than anticipation. There are only so many combinations on a chess-board, and so many ways the board can play out because there is a definite number. Because in creation there are not 'infinite' but 'finite' numbers, God would know them all already. In a sense, we are arguing that Open Theism is conceiving 'what is knowable' way too short. I'm convinced scripture says God is all knowing but even if I were Arminian in my EDF, it'd mean way more than Open Theism envisions and Omnicompetent would automatically open up all the other omnis with few qualifications.

The difference is that you still have the potential to go for another flavor.

:Z I don't. You might, but I'm predictable on this one!

Again, this is simply a case of confirmation bias.

Realize the accusation is about the same. I know where I'm biased but have a long history and even current papers informing my bias, if it is. Open Theists have a much smaller pool to pull from. Because of that, we'd probably need to discuss the suppositions. The article linked may be of value.

You could, on one occasion, choose chocolate instead.

:nono: !!!

You continuing to choose vanilla is not evidence of a settled future.

It is, but rather we are talking about really if I'm 'stuck' in vanilla. I'm not, I just like it! As I said, and entertain for half a block, you knowing it, near as EDF as you can know anything, I 'can' still choose but it is of no consequence whatsoever that you have EDF concerning my flavors. It has no bearing on what I choose. Does it at least 'look right on paper?' Again, the article linked may do a better job.

It is evidence that you are a consistent person when it comes to free choices.



Only if that knowledge was A) about their future and B) infallible.

I think, at this time, you know my dessert choice, that I will never choose chocolate over vanilla. That is ironclad. Even 'if' I were to go against that one day, you know for sure, tomorrow, I will eat vanilla. It has nothing to do with my choice. If we never talk about it, I can about prove it too. "Interaction" affects my choice. You on the other side of the States knowing? Nothing over here! It cannot be that you aren't thinking hard enough. Tomorrow you know, beyond doubt, I will go vanilla if I get a choice. Its a choice. You know it. No problem (again, see the link).

If it is A but not B, then while your predictions might be correct most of the time about what they will do, it will sometimes be wrong (definition of infallible, definition of "will"). The person the knowledge is about still has a will (which again, is by definition "free")

Not on vanilla. Besides, let us assume you are correct, that at some future date, it becomes unthinkable: I want chocolate. Such doesn't not remove your EDF about a particular portion of time. You have/had it! You don't even have to guess! Moreover, if I change, you'll have a limited scope of EDF about me and ice cream again.

If it is B but not A, then at best, it's present knowledge, and predictions can be made that will be close to the actual outcome, but not guaranteed to be exact, the person still has a will.

Even 'if' this was true, could be shown true, such doesn't affect the choosing of it.

If it is both B and A, then there is no other outcome other than what is known, and the person does not have a will, he is just a robot with preprogrammed responses, an automaton.

Think of it this way: I 'negate' choice every day. I can but make one choice (often with connected choices). Because I can't go back, you could say from a conflated premise, "I had no choice" because I only can take one. That said, you 'knowing' I only chose one option doesn't negate that day. Knowledge, in any form, is simply an acknowledgment of what did happen. I think Open Theism can agree with that statement: knows what is knowable comes with an idea that knowledge itself doesn't affect choice. There are philosophers that suggest that EDF is itself deterministic. I intimate it does not. William Lane Craig attempts to prove it in the link. I believe he gives a scripture proof that stands up well. Let me know your thoughts.

Neither A nor B falls outside of the scope of this discussion.



It does if that foreknowledge is infallible, by definition.



If the foreknowledge is infallible, then man is not free.

This is why:



It's not just philosophy. It's a rational, logic-based argument, that in order to refute it, would require anyone disputing it to show either that one or more of the premises are incorrect, or to demonstrate that there is an inconsistency in the logic, or to show that the conclusions do not necessarily (logically) follow from those premises.

----



I think Clete overstated his case with the latter two, but God did not decide that two plus two equals four, as if it's something that can be decided arbitrarily.



Reminder, this is what is being talked about:



This is not a case of "because we say so."

This is a case of "this is what is consistent, or at least the most consistent with Scripture," and is not something we decided arbitrarily.



Saying it doesn't make it so, and in fact is quite the opposite.

See the opentheism.org link above.



Clete mentioned before (probably in the other thread) that Open Theism is based on God being just.

Which it is, but it's not quite the whole story, and not the main premise of Open Theism. Maybe this will put things into perspective:

Open theism is founded on the idea that GOD is the one who is free, not necessarily men, and that because GOD is free, therefore the future is open. If God was and/or is not free, then the future is settled.

Do you have a link to this argued out further? Right now it is a proposition that God would not be free. It seems to me, it is changing the person free, but attempting the same argument that perfect foreknowledge negates. To me, an argument for omnicompetence is an argument for perfect foreknowledge, especially as I've heard Open Theists argue it.

Infallible foreknowledge locks God into a settled future.

If it doesn't affect decisions, in and of itself, then this premise would be incorrect. We have a whole boat-load of prioris that inform our respective theologies.

But because He can think a new thought, write a new song, or even design a new butterfly, God is open, and therefore the future is NOT settled, because God can do something new that was never known before.

I think this fills Open Theists with wonder and is a beauty to them. Thank you for sharing what I think comes from your heart. The idea isn't shared, but I can at least, I think, walk a half-a-block for it. I've got a friend who walks through a graveyard and enjoys it. I'm not comparing, just saying that it isn't for everybody. I think your statement is most appreciated in Open circles and the rest of us have a hard time getting those shoes on. Thank you for your post!

 

[Lon]

Coffee spilled on my keyboard... letters missing, a few grammatical errors as well. If both tax, please forgive and overlook. I've seen them :Z

 

[Derf]

We agree to a point or extent then. If it is true in some occasion that it has nothing to do with choice, is there an inkling that no amount of knowledge ever affects choices of another? Here is an article exactly on our topic.

I read the Soteriology 101 article, and I have a problem or two with it. First, Flowers (whom I enjoy listening to, by the way) says, correctly, that just because God knows something will happen doesn't mean that He causes it to happen. I agree. But what it does mean is that SOMEONE causes it to happen when there are causative agents involved.

Now, if the causative agents involved are God and you (to simplify things), and you are not around when the knowledge was first available to God, such as before the foundation of the world, then there is only one option--God is the causative agent who determined the event to happen. Flowers' example, as pointed out by one of the commenters, presents a scenario where God uses information available from the scenario, but NOT from the foundation of the world, as far as the narrative explains, anyway. So the only thing that can be gleaned from the example he gives is that, given the condition of the causative agents involved at the time God is asked about the future, God is able to tell David the outcome. Because the text doesn't say this outcome was determined before the foundation of the world, to apply it to things supposedly known before the foundation of the world is overstepping the usefulness of the text, which is eisegesis, if I understand the term correctly.

I've made this point before in some of these discussions, and I think it still applies. If God knows everything you are going to do before you are created, then those things you are going to do are predetermined, at least "pre" your existence, and therefore YOU are not the determiner of those things in any way.

There are two possibilities, then, for how those things could be predetermined.
1. God predetermined them. This is the position of Calvinism in all its simplicity.
2. Someone else predetermined them. This "someone else" would have to exist before God created the world, and because this someone else is NOT God, and because God merely knows about the events without causing them, this someone else is more powerful than God. Since we define God as the most powerful being, another being who is more powerful then makes God not God. Which is something we all reject. (Unfortunately, this is really a rejection of Arminianism, but most Arminians, including Flowers, don't realize it.)

The only tenable choice between the two above is that God predetermines all things that He knows about, so if He knows about all things from before the foundation of the world, He must of necessity predetermine all things. There is no real problem with God predetermining all things...until He decides to punish His creatures for actions He predetermined them to do. Such tells that God is NOT just, despite numerous biblical passages that say that He is. Thus, the God of Calvinism is unjust, but He's the only option for a settled future, or one that allows for EDF.

 

[Lon]

I read the Soteriology 101 article, and I have a problem or two with it. First, Flowers (whom I enjoy listening to, by the way) says, correctly, that just because God knows something will happen doesn't mean that He causes it to happen. I agree. But what it does mean is that SOMEONE causes it to happen when there are causative agents involved.

Absolutely. We'd not be very good parents without ability to change behavior.

Now, if the causative agents involved are God and you (to simplify things), and you are not around when the knowledge was first available to God, such as before the foundation of the world, then there is only one option--God is the causative agent who determined the event to happen.

▲This is the problematic conflation. It doesn't matter today, for the rest of my life, if I am going to choose vanilla, that you know it infallibly. Knowledge itself doesn't do anything. If you never tell me you know, I'll go on blissfully unaware that I apparently have no choice because it looks like I do. Rather, the objection that you'd have no choice is an estimation. Today, you know I will forever after today choose vanilla over chocolate or strawberry before I 'choose' because time doesn't matter to the decision. It makes no difference 'when' and is somewhat contingent upon my actual choice in the first place. Knowledge nor foreknowledge do anything regarding choice in and of themselves. They merely 'record' (before or after) them.

Flowers' example, as pointed out by one of the commenters, presents a scenario where God uses information available from the scenario, but NOT from the foundation of the world, as far as the narrative explains, anyway.

Doesn't matter when, just moves the goal post. All past and future considerations are merely man's inability to apprehend God can not only anticipate, but know all that is going to play out. Such knowledge is just what is going to happen. It is rather causation you are arguing for, not the knowledge thereof.

So the only thing that can be gleaned from the example he gives is that, given the condition of the causative agents involved at the time God is asked about the future, God is able to tell David the outcome. Because the text doesn't say this outcome was determined before the foundation of the world, to apply it to things supposedly known before the foundation of the world is overstepping the usefulness of the text, which is eisegesis,

Because you are assuming it 'must be true.' Nor is it eisegesis (reading something into the text) when you are agreeing it is yet foreknowledge (just the amount). If you claim eisegesis, you, yourself are agreeing with it! :doh:

if I understand the term correctly.

Yep. Anytime we read what is not there, but in this case, it is there else you couldn't admit to even proximal knowledge 'beforehand.'

I've made this point before in some of these discussions, and I think it still applies. If God knows everything you are going to do before you are created, then those things you are going to do are predetermined, at least "pre" your existence, and therefore YOU are not the determiner of those things in any way.

Proof? I see this all the time. Standford tries to establish this as a truth in one of its arguments but they conflate, as you do, the idea that past and future are entities in and of themselves that do not intersect in our present. The reason you cannot go back and change President Lincoln's address is the same reason you wouldn't have been able to do it then: You are one individual that likely would never have met him in the first place, thus have no ability to change events, by simply 'knowing' when he was going to give a speech and the content. We can but make minutia of choices and having them known is of no consequence. It doesn't matter if you knew I'd come to TOL today before I got here. I still 'chose/choose' to do so. Your knowledge, foreknowledge has not bearing on my ability to choose. We can interact and affect any one particular choosing, but such is the nature of relationships and choice (also a matter how exhaustive one means 'determinism,' whether it has to be Calvinistic).

There are two possibilities, then, for how those things could be predetermined.
1. God predetermined them. This is the position of Calvinism in all its simplicity.

Yep.

2. Someone else predetermined them. This "someone else" would have to exist before God created the world,

1) 'Why?' 2) this is yet predestination and Calvinist. You didn't move the ball.

and because this someone else is NOT God, and because God merely knows about the events without causing them, this someone else is more powerful than God.

Again, still predestination, whether it is from God or any other power. This isn't the second option, just a bit of the first from a different perspective. Rather second should be: God knows, but doesn't make all your choices. In that circles is all the rest of Christianity, including Open Theism. What we are arguing is that 'knowledge' of any kind can or does remove your 'ability to choose.' That is it. That is what is on the table. If Derf knew I'd be here today, and that I'd object, then "Did I have a choice to be here and object?" Yes. Your knowledge literally had nothing and can have nothing to do with me being able to choose. Knowledge in and of itself does nothing to choice. Your and my choice are 'simply known.' How? If you think or say "determinism" THAT is what causes foreknowledge to be involved with your loss of decisions. That isn't on the table and I don't believe can be shown to be on the table.

Since we define God as the most powerful being, another being who is more powerful then makes God not God. Which is something we all reject. (Unfortunately, this is really a rejection of Arminianism, but most Arminians, including Flowers, don't realize it.)

I don't believe most know they are conflating future/past with present in proofs, nor that determinism is much different than just knowledge (of any kind).

The only tenable choice between the two above is that God predetermines all things that He knows about, so if He knows about all things from before the foundation of the world, He must of necessity predetermine all things.

Prove it. Standford and Open Theists have tried in the past. They never get far and their argument for determinism breaks down quickly.

There is no real problem with God predetermining all things...until He decides to punish His creatures for actions He predetermined them to do.

Even prederminism isn't the smoking gun. Between you and I, you as an Open Theist are telling me God 'predetermined' that you'd be able to sin by your freewill, as a choice. It means, as far away as Open Theism tries to get, it is merely a scapegoating proximity of a distance. Open Theism never escapes what it is trying to distance from.

Such tells that God is NOT just, despite numerous biblical passages that say that He is.

Jumping the gun waaaaay ahead of proofs. Rather "It looks like to me 1) that foreknowledge equals determinism (for whatever reason) and 2) because it looks like that to me, even though it doesn't to you, your position is wrong!" In a nutshell, that is how this accusation plays out. "I don't care if you don't believe it, I believe it about your position, so you are stuck with what I think, rather than what you believe!"
It may 'seem' the only logical conclusion, but what 'seems' to be true isn't always a fact. I don't believe knowledge of any kind determines anything, in and of itself.

We need to revisit 1) what is logical and 2) what I actually believe.

Thus, the God of Calvinism is unjust, but He's the only option for a settled future, or one that allows for EDF.

All Christians but OV and a few others, believe EDF is a Biblical given. Most are not Double-pred Calvinists (most Calvinists are not either). None of them, nor I, believe EDF removes choice. "Settled" by the way, isn't quite right. The word is an Open Theist moniker against their 'perceived' difference among the rest of us. While I use the word "actuate" which may be used as 'settled,' all records can be seen as 'settling' choices. An almanac 'settles' choices that have happened. The problem: can you think of even one way you could use a past verb to accurately describe a future event? We know that Satan is 'thrown' into the Lake of Fire, but we understand implicitly that 'thrown' is a past verb being applied to an observation that is actually 'will throw.'