|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 10, 2007 11:45:33 GMT -5
Dan,
Open Theism doesn't deny that God knows part of the future. Prophecies prove that God knows part of the future. Part of the question is HOW does God know the future.
- Does God know part of the future because He is outside of time? There is no reason to believe that.
- Does God know part of the future, because He can exhaustively consider all of the present and past facts and examine all of the elements involved? I believe so.
God can exhaustively look at all of the past and all of the present and can make accurate and precise judgments as to what the future will be.
If a finite weather man can examine past weather patterns, and current weather conditions, and can give accurate predictions as to what the future weather will be, HOW MUCH MORE SO can the Infinite God examine the past and the present and give accurate predictions as to what the future will be!
Open Theism says that God knows a great deal about the future, but that how He knows these things are different then the way Classical Theism has always assumed.
The God described by Open Theism knows more about the future then the opponents of Open Theism try to make you belief.
God no doubt looks upon the past and the present and concludes that Saints in Heaven won't sin in the future.
God is able to make precise and accurate predicts of the future, not because the future has already happened or because God is already in the future (if that was the case, it requires no real skill or genius on God's part to declare the future) but because He can examine the past and the present to determine what the future will be. (That requires much skill and genius on God's part).
I don't believe Saints will sin in Heaven because I trust the Divine Intelligence of God, which has considered the case, and has declared that Saint's wont sin in Heaven.
|
|
|
Post by joem on Oct 10, 2007 12:08:43 GMT -5
Some food for thought. The angels in Heaven had free will, and we are told that we will be like the angels in Heaven. The Bible never says that the angels lost their free will after the initial rebellion in Heaven, so I assume they still possess it. The Bible also says nothing about any further falling away in Heaven after the initial rebellion, which leads me to speculate that because the angels who chose not to rebel witnessed the fate of those who did fall, they would never choose to rebel. I tend to think we will be like the angels, also being witnesses of these things, and through the proper exercising of our free will, will not fall away. Grace and Peace, Joe Upon further reflection, I had this thought; It would only make sense that if God desired a people for Himself, and a people that would honestly choose to love Him, that we would have free will in Heaven. This life is certainly a proving ground for finding such a people. Could it be that this is the reason God has strove with man for so long after the fall to bring about redemption? That He would one day have a people who would choose to love Him and never consider sinning against Him, even though the had the ability to do so? It certainly would seem consistent with the image of the potter and the clay. Again, this is simply a question or thought that came to mind, not dogma. Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 10, 2007 12:14:24 GMT -5
Joe,
I think so too.
I had the same thought:
This life is a proving grounds, a probation period, to find men who will live a voluntary life of love, whom God can trust in Heaven.
God has always wanted to have a people who voluntarily love Him. That is why He gave man a freewill in the first place. God wants men who will have an eternal relationship with Him, and a genuine relationship must be voluntary.
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Oct 10, 2007 13:01:33 GMT -5
Maybe someone has answered this verse already....
Isaiah 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 10, 2007 13:18:18 GMT -5
"Eternity" has been defined as the absence of time or the infinite duration of time. "Eternity" can also be defined as the absence of space or the infinite extent of space. I understand God, "inhabiting eternity" as, not as being in a time where there is no time or being in a space where there is no space , but as eternally existing in a linear fashion, inhabiting all of space with no boarders or end. God has an infinite amount of time and dwells in an infinite amount of space. Since God never ceases to exist, time must never cease to end. And since God is omnipresent, and God's being has no boarders or end, space must have no boarder or end. Time and space must be natural attributes of God. "In HIM we move and have our being". Ps 102:27 - But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. See also Job 36:26 and Heb 1:12 for the never failing years of God. Here is an article I recommend on the topic on the Linear Existence of God: openairoutreach.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=articles&action=display&thread=1178422818
|
|
|
Post by joem on Oct 10, 2007 13:37:25 GMT -5
"Eternity" has been defined as the absence of time or the infinite duration of time. "Eternity" can also be defined as the absence of space or the infinite extent of space. I understand God, "inhabiting eternity" as, not as being in a time where there is no time or being in a space where there is no space , but as eternally existing in a linear fashion, inhabiting all of space with no boarders or end. God has an infinite amount of time and dwells in an infinite amount of space. Since God never ceases to exist, time must never cease to end. And since God is omnipresent, and God's being has no boarders or end, space must have no boarder or end. Time and space must be natural attributes of God. "In HIM we move and have our being". Ps 102:27 - But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. See also Job 36:26 and Heb 1:12 for the never failing years of God. Here is an article I recommend on the topic on the Linear Existence of God: openairoutreach.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=articles&action=display&thread=1178422818I would add a few points. Eternity ‘ad 1) perpetuity, for ever, continuing future a) ancient (of past time) b) for ever (of future time) 1) of continuous existence c) for ever (of God's existence) God living in any "time" denies the Eternal Now theory. Eternity as defined in scripture includes past, present and future, as opposed to an eternally present existence that has no past, present or future. It is just another way of saying that God has always been, is today and forever shall be; He has an infinite past and an infinite future. Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by veritas77 on Jan 27, 2011 0:45:50 GMT -5
RE: Open Theism...seems to me that all this is passed over and answered by- individual freewill.
To clarify simply: I KNOW MY own *necessity for Salvation. ---- Since God- is NO respector of persons... that means we can safely assume that:
The cognitive ability that activates my freewill capacity- MUST at some point in time/BEFORE a person dies/meets God that.... THEY TOO << have this same opportunity to become right with Thee Triune God alone.
Simple obtainable conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by veritas77 on Jan 27, 2011 0:58:41 GMT -5
wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_seconds_are_in_100_years 31.5 million approx. x 10 (sins/second..sure...) = 315m. multiply by xyz people/senarios = A Distinct Number. ========= So God knows ALL. Literally. We cannot understand by our human mind- The Trinity. or Eternity. NOTICE something- anything about what THE BIBLE has revealed about God---- would have been IMPOSSIBLE----- by the mind of mortal man, except that God Himself- let us know. Point blank. ------------- Open Theism lacks the same substance required in Gods' system of revelation/doing things. On this side of Eternity we can not fathom a 5% success rate- for those on the Narrow Path in humanity soul trek to Heaven. Nor the lack of time factor or 3n1. 1n3. Etc. FAITH- bears record that God knows ALL. Yes ALL.
|
|
|
Post by providential1611 on Jul 2, 2011 12:00:25 GMT -5
I would like to add that one can believe in Open Theism without boxing himself into a corner like Jesse has. The idea that we will be able to sin after Christ returns and we are in glorified bodies is simply unBiblical and does not bear witness in my spirit.
We will become LIKE GOD. God CANNOT SIN. His NATURE is nothing but love and holiness. He is of purer eyes than to behold sin. When we become like Him, which is our desire, sin will be impossible.
Here is where protecting the truth about Free-will can get into trouble, look foolish and also look like the idol Calvinists falsely accuse us of making it.
My friends, I KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that when I finally see Him and am made like Him, sin will never plague me again. Yes we can have victory over it now and should, but then THE WAR IS OVER. Then will be eternal rest. Glory to God. And the simple fact is in Revelation and other places God promises that the former things will not only pass away, but not come to mind anymore either. Glory!
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jul 4, 2011 21:49:47 GMT -5
Hi providential1611, I would like to add that one can believe in Open Theism without boxing himself into a corner like Jesse has. The idea that we will be able to sin after Christ returns and we are in glorified bodies is simply unBiblical and does not bear witness in my spirit. The ability to sin and the ability to love are the same ability. They are not two separate abilities. The ability to choose evil is a good ability because it is actually the ability to choose good or evil. There is no such thing as an ability to choose good without an ability to choose evil because it would no longer be a choice, but only an event. I don't think Jesse has boxed himself into a corner or said anything untrue here. Like you, I know it is wrong to entertain the idea of God doing wrong. I also agree with Jesse that Christians will always have free will just as God does. I will explain how these two beliefs are compatible. God cannot sin because of His free commitment to be loving. "A good tree cannot grow bad fruit." The type of tree represents the voluntary moral character of the heart or will. The fruit is bound by the type of the tree but the type of tree itself is voluntary - freely chosen. There is a difference between "nature" and "character". Character is voluntary, but nature is involuntary. The moral quality of God's choices are determined by His character. But God's character is not determined by His nature. If someone's character was determined by their nature, then they would not actually have any moral character at all. God's moral character is voluntary by definition - not determined by His nature. God's nature does not rule over Him; instead He rules over His nature. Likewise, we must not allow our natures to rule over us, but we must rule over them. By voluntarily having a good heart like God, we also make ourselves unable to sin in the same way He is unable. As the Bible says, "he cannot sin, because he is born of God" and "every one that loveth is born of God" and "he that is begotten of God keepeth himself". Believing that love presupposes freedom of the will is simply acknowledging the truth. Acknowledging and defending the truth is not idolatry. Jesus said, "the truth will set you free." That's great! We should not allow even a shadow of doubt to cross our minds in this matter. But it is about trust and not about anyone lacking power over their choices. Remember when God said of Abraham, "I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment"? It was about trustworthiness. It did not mean that Abraham had altogether lost his faculty of choice, nor that his descendants would lack freedom. The Bible says that love "believeth all things". It is morally wrong to indulge the idea that someone who has shown themselves trustworthy might choose evil. So it is unthinkable that God would choose evil because of how trustworthy He has shown Himself to be. Likewise, since God is taking so much care to ensure that only trustworthy people will enter His kingdom, we can have confident trust in His wisdom and dedication regarding this. It would not be right for us to expect sin in heaven because we would be imagining that people who lived like Jesus Christ would choose evil. But people who live like Jesus are worthy of our trust. It is not that saints will be metaphysically incapable of sin, but that it is immoral to suspect that they would sin. They have the ability to sin because they have the ability to love, again it is one and the same ability, but we should not think they would misuse this ability. We should trust God that only trustworthy people will enter His kingdom. That is why we should trust there will be no sin in His kingdom. This link is a good teaching about God having free will: gomitch.multiply.com/journal/item/57/Is_God_Good_by_Nature_or_by_Choice_by_George_E._Jed_SmockAnd this is a link to a thread where I defended the same and answered some objections (such as "God defines right and wrong anyway") www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3083&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30#p46173Also Charles Finney's Systematic Theology addresses some of these topics, though he did not have a Biblical view of foreknowledge as far as I can tell. And here are a few quotes from early Christian writers about God's freedom: [God is] "doing as He will; not being subject to any necessary sequence of events" - Cyril
"those who irreverently say that the Son has been generated not by choice or will, thus encompassing God with a necessity which excludes choice and purpose, so that He begat the Son unwillingly, we account as most irreligious and alien to the Church; in that they have dared to define such things concerning God, beside the common notions concerning Him, nay, beside the purport of divinely inspired Scripture. For we, knowing that God is absolute and sovereign over Himself, have a religious judgment that He generated the Son voluntarily and freely" - an early Christian writer
"man was fashioned in imitation of the Divine nature, preserving his resemblance to the Deity as well in other excellences as in possession of freedom of the will" - Gregory of Nyssa
[God created us] "not in view of any necessity, but from superabounding love, that there might exist a being who should participate in the Divine perfections. If man was to be receptive of these, it was necessary that his nature should contain an element akin to God; and, in particular, that he should be immortal. Thus, then, man was created in the image of God. He could not therefore be without the gifts of freedom, independence, self-determination" - Gregory
"He who made man for the participation of His own peculiar good, and incorporated in him the instincts for all that was excellent, in order that his desire might be carried forward by a corresponding movement in each case to its like, would never have deprived him of that most excellent and precious of all goods; I mean the gift implied in being his own master, and having a free will. For if necessity in any way was the master of the life of man, the “image” would have been falsified in that particular part, by being estranged owing to this unlikeness to its archetype. How can that nature which is under a yoke and bondage to any kind of necessity be called an image of a Master Being? Was it not, then, most right that that which is in every detail made like the Divine should possess in its nature a self-ruling and independent principle, such as to enable the participation of good to be the reward of its virtue?" - Gregory
|
|
|
Post by providential1611 on Jul 4, 2011 23:28:20 GMT -5
Thanks for your response, and I will look at those articles. Let me add though, that there are somethings we cannot answer in this life, and the Bible says not to go beyond what is written. The Bible says God cannot lie, that it is impossible for Him to lie, that He is of purer eyes than to behold sin is not simply governed by His choices in such a way that we can trust He wouldn't sin--sin is utterly a human issue, God is completely above it, He cannot be tempted with it, it is CONTRARY TO HIS VERY NATURE AND BEING. He doesn't choose to be holy HE IS HOLY. He doesn't choose to exist, HE EXISTS. He doesn't choose to be love HE IS LOVE. There are things He does choose to do, but He does have a nature, attributes that are spelled out in Scripture for us.
This free-will talk in relation to God and the saints after this age ends seems to me like groundless speculation and on the part of the Lord, we need to tread softly and carefully. He has revealed much about Himself, he doesn't need these kinds of arguments put forward. I have heard them before and they are unwarranted.
God IS HOLY. He cannot sin, lie, cheat, and the like. He is incapable of it. He is by nature good. The word God is an old AngloSaxon word that comes from good--THE GOOD ONE--GOD.
We will be like Him. Sin will never cross our minds again. The earthly things will be swallowed up in victory. We have ETERNAL LIFE. There is no possibility of ETERNAL LIFE PROMISED US to be cut off by some future decision in the next world. If we pass the test here, if we endure to the end, WE SHALL BE SAVED. And we are saved TO THE UTTERMOST-Heb 7:25
Sometimes, in seeking to protect the truth of God, His character and nature against the BLASPHEMOUS LIES of Calvinsim, we can go off the reservation ourselves. We do not need to intrude into God's nature or the future state to defend the OBVIOUS TRUTH of freewill. Keep our arguments on man and in this dispensation.
Anyway, let me go read those links, and God bless
|
|
|
Post by providential1611 on Jul 4, 2011 23:58:10 GMT -5
I read brother Smock's article. He says many true and good things, but his thinking is fundamentally flawed as well. He said:
First this is NOT what James said. James said God CANNOT be tempted with evil. And later he calls Him the Father of lights from whom every GOOD AND PERFECT GIFT COMES.
Second, Jed's assertion I find to be utterly PREPOSTEROUS. There are many things we know about God according to Rom 1:18-32, and I have ALWAYS KNOWN prior to salvation, and after 27 years as a believer studying God's Word, that God IS good, that He CANNOT SIN or be tempted with sin, that he is SO ABOVE IT in nature and character that to think otherwise is blasphemous. This is GOD we are talking about, who is so far above us, so unlike us in so many respects, that this kind of speculation is like I said unnecessary to protect the truth of freewill and unwarranted as well.
God is BY NATURE holy, love, pure, truth, sinless and incapable of sin
Smock also said:
First, YES IT DOES MEAN God is naturally unable to lie. Jed is asserting nonsense contrary to what the Scripture means. And then his example is another misuse of Scripture to buttress his point. God "sent a lying spirit" does not diminish what James said nor does it support what Smock claims. What that DOES MEAN if we read the Scriptures is that when GOD JUDGES WICKED, STUBBORN MEN WHO HAVE HAD MANY CHANCES TO DO RIGHT AND HAVE MERCY, he lets the Devil have at them, and the deceptions they accept will destroy them. That destruction is God's judgment upon them. He lets the enemy do his work on them. They reap what they sow.
Jed TOTALLY MISAPPLIES that statement.
I have spoken with Jed a few times over the years via phone. When speaking to him about not believing men are born into sin IN ANY SENSE, I asked "well then, the logical outcome of your position is that that might be people that don't need Jesus to save them. All they have to do is obey and they won't need the Cross" And he said YES THAT IS TRUE.
Now my friends, something is SERIOUSLY WRONG HERE! This is where people BOX THEMSELVES IN because they have departed from Biblical truth and now have to affirm unbiblical nonsense, if they are honest, like Jed was, I give him credit for that. But he is wrong.
Something is wrong with man. I believe the answer is that all people are born SPIRITUALLY DEAD--they are separated from God, and therefore don't have the life of God in them, so they can only live and move in the realms of sin and death. When a man is born again, he is not simply obeying God, he receives the LIFE AND NATURE OF GOD into his heart. He receives a new spirit. Children are not born filled with the Holy Ghost, possessing eternal life and the nature of God within. They are born DEAD. They are not guilty of anything, but they are not alive to God. They are like their father Adam.
I do not affirm Total Depravity or even Original Sin the way Calvinists and most Arminians teach, but I do see that all are born spiritually dead and need the life of God to enter their hearts. They need to become alive to God. Children are clearly "covered" by the ationment until the Age of Accountability, whenever it is, but all men are SEPARATED FROM GOD spiritually, and this did not happen when they committ their first sin. No one is born already BORN AGAIN. All of you know how powerful it was when God saved you and how He opened all our eyes. All need Christ to save them AND to illuminate them. People are lost without the new birth, whether adults or children, they have no clue. How things change when one is born again! How they see and KNOW THINGS that the rest of the world doesn't! We are to become LIKE little children in humility and teachableness, but we don't become LIKE WE WERE AS KIDS when we get born again. ALL OF US KNOW we entered into a state of existence and relationship to God we NEVER HAD BEFORE. That is proof we were BORN SPIRITUALLY DEAD. That is the consequence of Adam's sin upon humanity and why humanity is so naturally wicked and abominable. They are not under the influence of God.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jul 8, 2011 21:49:52 GMT -5
Thank you for your reply. I was hoping to respond sooner.
I admired that you gave Jed the benefit of the doubt about his being honest in his beliefs.
These are the main topics that stick out to me from your replies:
- Does God have power over His own will? - Do men have power over their own wills? - Does being "born again" presuppose sinfulness?
1) Does God, who gives freedom to angels and men, not have power over His own will? Do the creatures have a power that their Creator lacks?
When the Bible says someone cannot do something how do you know what the reason they cannot do it is?
We both claim to know the reason the Bible says God cannot sin. You were claiming it is because He lacks power over His own will. I have claimed that it is because He is loving. I think you had not realized that you were claiming to know the reason because you were assuming that it had to be the reason you gave. It seems like you were assuming that "cannot" must imply a lack of power rather than a result of a commitment. I think you were assuming that "cannot" couldn't be the effect of an underlying cause.
The Bible also clearly says that Christians "cannot" sin. We have no problem understanding that the "cannot" is the result of an underlying cause - having a loving heart. There is no reason to reject this idea when the Bible says the same thing of God that it says of His children.
Same thing when George Washington said "I cannot tell a lie". It is not warranted to demand that "cannot" must imply an absolute lack of power to do something. It is completely reasonable to try to understand what the underlying cause of "cannot" is. In this case it was good moral character, the same as for Christians. If Washington really had just swallowed truth serum or something then no one would care about that story. Everyone understands that "cannot" might have an unspoken underlying cause. To say that there must not be an underlying cause in God's case would just be begging the question or making an unjustified assumption.
We can admire the fact that God is always acts righteously because it is the inevitable result of His dedicated loving heart and not just a lack of power.
2) Do men have free will? Do you have power over your own will? Does the conscience accuse or excuse us or does it point the finger at Adam? Is the conscience a reliable and approved witness? Will the testimony of conscience be accepted on judgment day?
Our conscience clearly blames us for our sins and not Adam. If our conscience is deceiving us in this matter then we could not trust any of God's revelations in creation or the Bible. Our conscience, of all the means of revelation, must be among the most important because men will be judged by it, apart from the law, apart from the Bible, and sentenced to eternal hell based upon it's reliable testimony.
You said that free will is true, but then you say that sin is inevitable. But what is sin other than a misuse of the free will God gave us? Is the will free? Or is it bound by inevitability? These two are mutually exclusive. Would the Lord somehow be ashamed of someone who never sinned? Would He be offended that he didn't have to be spit upon and mocked in order to make their forgiveness possible? Or the shepherd with the hundred sheep - are the 99 good sheep an embarrassment to him? Was the time he spent searching for the lost sheep somehow wasted simply because the other 99 were not lost? Wasn't it worth it for even the one sheep? Sinning is the problem. Not sinning would not be a problem. Obeying God would not be a problem. There is nothing wrong with the ability to live a life without sin. The only problem in the entire history of the universe is that men have NOT lived perfect lives without sin. The universe would have zero problems if men lived their lives they way they are supposed to live them - completely without sin. It is not a sin to live a life without sin.
The very fact of the Lord's atonement presupposes the fact that it could have been avoided. If sin could not be avoided, then the Lord would not have had to suffer and die for something that was simply bound to happen in the first place.
3) Does being "born again" require sinning first? Wasn't the Lord Himself baptized with the Holy Spirit immediately after His baptism? I don't see why being born again would require sinning first. It could just mean "again" because we have to mature to a point first. When we are children I figure we are too young for our actions to have a lot of moral weight. But when we are mature enough then we can be born a second time in our spirits. I don't think it has to require sinning first. It cannot require sinning first if it is universally necessary, because that would make sin universally necessary. But sin that is necessary is not even a choice.
If being born again does imply repentance, then the Lord's statement that all men must be born again would be a generalization about how many people choose to sin. I think either interpretation is worth considering. But I think the first and second topics above are really the most important, the interpretation of "born again" might hinge on whether we actually have real free will or not.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jul 20, 2011 12:49:36 GMT -5
Here is a good quote from Charles Finney that I thought was relevant: "If benevolence became a habit so strong that it were utterly impossible to will in an opposite direction, or not to will benevolently, benevolence would cease to be virtuous."
|
|
soren
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by soren on Mar 8, 2014 11:49:18 GMT -5
There may be some special cases in which the Lord grants mercy to genuine seekers in certain situations, but I doubt it. Jesus is absolutely needed.
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Aug 15, 2014 23:11:08 GMT -5
I find this line of reasoning fascinating. I think the argument for open theism is compelling. I'm still not sure. It's an interesting intellectual exercise but in the end (IMO) it's not relevant in winning souls. Most people are never exposed to these types of arguments, and few, very few, come to Christ based on these type of arguments. What is compelling about the open Theism argument is the concept of time. Most of the uber Christian apologists today believe in the "timeless God. Frank Turek and Norman Geisler make this argument based on the evidence we have. ALL time, space and Matter appeared (was created,) in an instant, otherwise known as the "Big Bang." They then infer that since Time Matter and space was created at this moment, there must have been a massively powerful creator who was Timeless, matterless, and spaceless. I thought this was a pretty sound argument, but after reading some arguments for open theism, I am not so convinced anymore. The timeless aspect of their argument seems to have a dent in it based on the open theism arguments. Now that I think about it, just because All time matter and space occurred at an instant in compromising this Universe, in no way makes it certain that These elements, and especially time weren't present wherever God dwells. I like to hear how one of these caliber professional Philosophers would respond to the open Theism argument. So far I am leaning toward open Theism. It's quite a departure for me, since I was raised as a Catholic, and later as a Christian have been exposed to the timeless argument as the only way to perceive God. Interesting stuff!
|
|