|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 17, 2008 18:17:02 GMT -5
The Classic Theists will accuse Open Theists of limiting God by saying, "If God doesn't know the outcome of every future event caused by free will, when in fact all events are eternally settled, then your saying God is ignorant of reality and is therefore not omniscient".
The Open Theists will accuse Classic Theists of limiting God by saying, "If God doesn't know that the future is open, when in fact the future is partly open, then your saying God is ignorant of reality and is therefore not omniscient."
-----------------------------------------------------
Here is a very BALANCED insight into this issue from Professor and Pastor Gregory Boyd. This is a quote from his book, "God of the Possible":
"Aren't you limiting God by saying He can't know something? Aren't you saying God is ignorant about the future?
Suppose you and I both agree that God is omniscient and thus knows all of reality, but we disagree over, say, the number of trees on a certain plot of land. I say there are 1,300 and you say there are 2,300. You wouldn't say that I am limiting God because he knows fewer trees in my view than he knows in your view. For the issue, of course, isn't about God's knowledge at all; it's about how many trees there are on this plot of land.
This illustrates precisely what is going on regarding the openness debate. The issue is not about God's knowledge at all. Everyone agrees he knows reality perfectly. The issue is the content of the reality that God perfectly knows - how many things and what kind of things there are on the 'plot of land' we call the future.
If everything in the land of the future is settled, then we must all grant that God would perfectly know this. But if there are fewer things in the land of the future that are definite and more things that are possible, then we must grant that God would perfectly know this. It would be illegitimate for the former group to accuse the latter group of limiting God on the grounds that they deny some 'definite realities' of the future. So too, it would be illegitimate for the latter group to accuse the former group of limiting God on the grounds that they deny some 'possibilities' in the future. The issue is not about the scope or perfection of God's knowledge at all!
Many evangelicals have accused open theists of limiting God by denying that he foreknows the future as exhaustively settled because they assumed that the future is exhaustively settled. If this assumption is granted, then of course anyone who denied that God foreknew the future as exhaustively settled would be limiting God. But open theists do not share this assumption. The accuracy of the classical assumption that the future is exhaustively settled needs to be examined in light of the Scriptures... Construing this issue as a debate about the perfection of God's knowledge only serves to cloud the issue and instill fear in the minds of the people." - Gregory Boyd (God of the Possible, pg 125-125, published by Baker Books)
-----------------------------------------------------
So since God's perfection means that God is omniscient, and omniscience means God has all knowledge, then it follows that if the future is eternally settled, God must eternally know this. But likewise, if the future is partly open and not yet exhaustively determined, then God being perfect and omniscient must know this.
So both the Open Theists and the Classic Theists affirm the perfection and omniscience of God, but they differ in their opinions of the nature of the future, whether it is exhaustively settled from eternally or whether it is still partly open.
-----------------------------------------------------
Question for classic theists: if the future is partly open, and God is omniscient, then wouldn't God perfectly know that the future is partly open?
Questions for open theists: if the future is entirely settled, and God is omniscient, then wouldn't God perfectly know that all events are settled?
|
|
|
Post by bondslavenchrist on Jan 17, 2008 18:21:41 GMT -5
YES THEY DO LIMIT GOD!
Let us look at what infinite means>>>
Main Entry: 1in•fi•nite Function: adjective Pronunciation: 'in-f&-n&t Etymology: Middle English infinit, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin infinitus, from in- + finitus finite 1 : extending indefinitely : ENDLESS <infinite space> 2 : immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : INEXHAUSTIBLE <infinite patience> 3 : subject to no limitation or external determination 4 a : extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large <infinite number of positive numbers> b : extending to infinity <infinite plane surface> c : characterized by an infinite number of elements or terms <an infinite set> <an infinite series> - in•fi•nite•ly adverb - in•fi•nite•ness noun
Main Entry: 2infinite Function: noun : something that is infinite (as in extent, duration, or number)
Now, this is the very nature of God. NO LIMITS! PERIOD! This means God is without any limit whatsoever, yet You, Jesse, are putting a limit on God and His knowledge.
God knows absolutely everything. If there is ANY KNOWLEDGE that God does not have, then He does not have all knowledge nor is His knowledge INFINITE!
This is exactly what you are saying, that God has a LIMIT on His knowlege and that contradicts the scriptures and therefore is totally FALSE!
Once more I tell you the truth, you need to back off on your being right, especially in your using man's doctrines as your basis of belief. If you do not, you will end up in a great deal of trouble. I only say this because I care what happens to you. I do not want to see you have to go through much correction and chastisement.
a bondslave in Christ Jesus, Dirk
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 17, 2008 18:26:44 GMT -5
Dirk,
If the future is eternally settled, it would be limiting God by saying that God doesn't know that the future is exhaustively settled.
But if the future is partly open, it is not limiting God at all to say that God knows the future is partly open.
Consider the following
- God is infinite which means God knows all things
- The future is partly open and partly unsettled
- Therefore God knows that the future is partly open and partly unsettled
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 17, 2008 18:29:36 GMT -5
It should be perfectly understood that the REAL debate is over the content of the future and not at all over the perfection or omniscience God.
If the future is exhaustively written already, God must exhaustively know it.
If the future is not exhaustively written yet, God must exhaustively know this. If there are open possibilities to the future, God must perfectly know this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
- If God is infinite, God has no limits
- If God has no limits, God has a free will
- If God has a free will, the future isn't eternally settled
- If the future isn't eternally settled, it is partly open
Likewise:
- God is perfection which means God is omniscient
- Omniscient means God knows all of reality
- In reality God has a free will
- God has a free will therefore His choices are contingent and open
Likewise,
- Man was made in God's image
- God has a free will therefore man has a free will
- Free will is the power of contingent choices (choices that may or may not occur); free will is the power of alternative choices
- God is perfect which means God is omniscient
- Omniscient means God knows all of reality
- Man has a free will so his free will choices may or may not happen
- God (being perfect and omniscient) must know that man's free choices may or may not happen
|
|
|
Post by bondslavenchrist on Jan 17, 2008 20:32:28 GMT -5
Jesse, you are arguing a circular argument with no basis of scriptural support.
The Bible STATES God is INFINITE.
There is NO END to infinity and NO END to God or His knowledge. Anything less is NOT GOD!
a bondslave in Christ Jesus, Dirk
|
|
mattmahar
Full Member
`Lo, thou hast become whole; sin no more, lest something worse may happen to thee.' John 5:14
Posts: 151
|
Post by mattmahar on Jan 17, 2008 23:12:22 GMT -5
Jesse, you are arguing a circular argument with no basis of scriptural support. The Bible STATES God is INFINITE. There is NO END to infinity and NO END to God or His knowledge. Anything less is NOT GOD! a bondslave in Christ Jesus, Dirk The word infinite is only used 3 times in the Bible (AV trans), and I think that you should check out the context. Also when it is used you should also check out its original Hebrew meaning. (Considering this is the way you look at scripture and this is what you expect of us when it comes to the "Word Of God.") In Christ Matt
|
|
|
Post by bondslavenchrist on Jan 18, 2008 6:31:44 GMT -5
Matt,
You could not have checked out the Omniscience of God honestly and said the above. I have researched it. I asked God first and went by what HE said, NOT BY WHAT SOME FEEBLE and IMPERFECT MAN said.
I put no trust in man's doctrine. But I see that you and especially Jesse do all the time. You use these writings from other men to "prove your points" as if this proves anything except that man has many ideas, but they do not agree with scripture.
I do not care what man says. It matters not. Man has shown his faithfulness by coming up with over 30,000 denominations almost all of whcih claim to have "THE TRUTH". Yet they contradict one another.
Here with this doctrine you seek to be able to explain God, who He is, what He can do, etc.
I have already proven that Jesse contradicted Himself by saying God can do anything and turning around and saying God cannot do anything. (not in those exact words, but that is what he said)
Just that should give EVERYONE pause about this doctrine. But you all keep on blindly following it because you can "control" God with it. But the God of the Bible is ALL powerful, all KNOWING, all everything.
Your god is not.
He is not all in all, nor does He have everything, know everything, have power over everything. You God is not infinite, nor all knowing.
But I believe in the God of the Bible and He IS; He is all powerful, all knowing, and present everywhere. He is infinite in everything and there is nothing beyond Him nor too great for Him. He can do as He chooses to do and He always operates within His own attributes which He possesses in infinite depth. In fact, God is just as much Love as He is strength, just, gracious and all knowing, plus all the rest.
The 4 living creatures fly around Him constantly in amazement crying out,
". . .Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty (Omnipotent), Who was and Who is and Who is to come." (rev 4:8)
Because He is worthy and so amazing. He is beyond anything you or I can think or even imagine. He is beyond these feeble words I use to describe Him, for they only barely touch on His greatness and magnificense.
And you want us all , with your doctrine of men to think you really understand God?
You have made God far too small. He is understandable to you and that is exactly how you like it. But that God you believe in is one of your own imaginations, He is NOT the God of the Bible; He is NOT the Great King, He is not the Eternal Father, and He is not my Lord and Savior.
Your opinion of God is farr too small for anyone who has met Him.
a bondslave in Christ Jesus, Dirk
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 18, 2008 10:17:19 GMT -5
Jesse,
I think Boyd is right on this. The debate is really over the nature of the future and not over omniscience. As has been illustrated in this thread though few take the time to actually understand where the Open view is coming from. I haven't studied the open view too deeply yet, but I have been reading a little. I think it is only right to take the time to understand a viewpoint from it's best proponents before making a judgment on it. If your above point is correct - that this is not about omniscience but about the nature of the future - then it's absolutely ridiculous to label it as heresy.
Dirk,
Did you even take the time to read Jesse's first post here? It wasn't written as a dogmatic defense of the Open view but as a resonable point for discussion. Instead of digesting what was presented and entering in to dialogue with his post you just repeat worn out responses that are irrelevant to the post. Are you not able to actually dialogue on the point Jesse has made?
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 18, 2008 11:57:15 GMT -5
Steve,
Your absolutely right. I always appreciate your honest and intelligent distribution to the discussion board.
The real discussion is about the nature of the future and not about the perfection or omniscience of God. Like Boyd said, "Construing this issue as a debate about the perfection of God's knowledge only serves to cloud the issue and instill fear in the minds of the people."
The real question is this: is the future entirely written, partly written, or entirely unwritten? The Classic Theists says that the future is already entirely written, the open theists says that the future is only partly written and partly unwritten as of yet. The Open Theists says that we are actively writing history as we make free will choices, that we ourselves determine and settle choices which were not previously determined or settled.
God, being perfect and omniscient must know the future as it is. If the future is entirely written, God must know this. If the future is partly written, God must know this. And if the future is entirely unwritten, God must know this.
So the question is about the nature of reality and not about the omniscience of God. If men truly have a free will in reality then their choices are contingent. A contingent choice is a choice that may or may not happen.
And if the premise is that men have the power of contingent choice, the conclusion is inevitable that the future must be partly open, not yet being entirely settled or being exhaustively determined yet.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 18, 2008 13:55:15 GMT -5
Jesse, I think Boyd is right on this. The debate is really over the nature of the future and not over omniscience. As has been illustrated in this thread though few take the time to actually understand where the Open view is coming from. I haven't studied the open view too deeply yet, but I have been reading a little. I think it is only right to take the time to understand a viewpoint from it's best proponents before making a judgment on it. If your above point is correct - that this is not about omniscience but about the nature of the future - then it's absolutely ridiculous to label it as heresy. Dirk, Did you even take the time to read Jesse's first post here? It wasn't written as a dogmatic defense of the Open view but as a resonable point for discussion. Instead of digesting what was presented and entering in to dialogue with his post you just repeat worn out responses that are irrelevant to the post. Are you not able to actually dialogue on the point Jesse has made? Steve Good post Steve. I wholeheartedly agree. I just recently purchased Boyd's book on open theism and can't wait to read it. I haven't studied this topic thoroughly enough yet to come to a conclusion on it. May we all be full of grace and seasoned with salt as we discuss these issues...
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Jan 18, 2008 21:32:51 GMT -5
Your opinion of God is farr too small for anyone who has met Him.
a bondslave in Christ Jesus, Dirk
Dirk this statement is just a subjective opinion. Shouldn't you judge this righteously? John 7:24 You imply Jesse has not met the Lord, how do you judge this?
Couldn't we just leave out the personal attacks on someone's walk with the Lord and objectively deal with these issues? If Jesse is out to lunch theologically shouldn't we be patient and gentle with him as the Lord commands us?
I think you need to be nice and apologize, publically.
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Jan 18, 2008 22:35:48 GMT -5
Your opinion of God is farr too small for anyone who has met Him.
a bondslave in Christ Jesus, Dirk Dirk this statement is just a subjective opinion. Shouldn't you judge this righteously? John 7:24 You imply Jesse has not met the Lord, how do you judge this? Couldn't we just leave out the personal attacks on someone's walk with the Lord and objectively deal with these issues? If Jesse is out to lunch theologically shouldn't we be patient and gentle with him as the Lord commands us? I think you need to be nice and apologize, publically. This is a very sobering exhortation to you, dirk; I do pray you would heed it.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 18, 2008 23:33:54 GMT -5
Your opinion of God is farr too small for anyone who has met Him.
a bondslave in Christ Jesus, Dirk Dirk this statement is just a subjective opinion. Shouldn't you judge this righteously? John 7:24 You imply Jesse has not met the Lord, how do you judge this? Couldn't we just leave out the personal attacks on someone's walk with the Lord and objectively deal with these issues? If Jesse is out to lunch theologically shouldn't we be patient and gentle with him as the Lord commands us? I think you need to be nice and apologize, publically. I agree. Dirk, you have said far too many unkind things to many brothers in Christ on this message board. Most of them have only responded back in kindness as well. What I don't understand is why you act so kind to Jesse in person but treat him like you have on this message board. Love tells me that we should save the harshest words for in person or at least on the phone and tread lightly on message boards...
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 19, 2008 11:11:08 GMT -5
My purpose for the message board it to have a place where the brethren can reasonably discuss and debate over scriptural issues, as well as to encourage each other in open air preaching. But continual harshness ad hominem attacks really degrades the quality of discussion on the boards.
And If a person is not going to answer direct questions in a debate, there is no reason for that person to enter into a debate in the first place.
Dirk, I have seen both of these in your posts. You don't answer direct questions that are asked you but you just continue on in your harsh and critical judgments and bitter ad hominem attacks.
I would ask that you either improve the quality of your posts or that you refrain from posting in debates and discussions.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 19, 2008 11:18:26 GMT -5
My purpose for the message board it to have a place where the brethren can reasonably discuss and debate over scriptural issues, as well as to encourage each other in open air preaching. But continual harshness ad hominem attacks really degrades the quality of discussion on the boards. And If a person is not going to answer direct questions in a debate, there is no reason for that person to enter into a debate in the first place. Dirk, I have seen both of these in your posts. You don't answer direct questions that are asked you but you just continue on in your harsh and critical judgments and bitter ad hominem attacks. I would ask that you either improve the quality of your posts or that you refrain from posting in debates and discussions. Amen Jesse! I couldn't agree more. I love this message board when their are fruitful and loving discussions going on...
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Jan 19, 2008 12:53:03 GMT -5
My purpose for the message board it to have a place where the brethren can reasonably discuss and debate over scriptural issues, as well as to encourage each other in open air preaching. But continual harshness ad hominem attacks really degrades the quality of discussion on the boards. And If a person is not going to answer direct questions in a debate, there is no reason for that person to enter into a debate in the first place. Dirk, I have seen both of these in your posts. You don't answer direct questions that are asked you but you just continue on in your harsh and critical judgments and bitter ad hominem attacks. I would ask that you either improve the quality of your posts or that you refrain from posting in debates and discussions. Jesse, which comes first the natural man or the spiritual. This is a question you have not yet answered directly.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 19, 2008 13:10:35 GMT -5
Alan,
You have to define your terms.
Allow me to define them as I understand them:
The Natural Man: A man who uses his free will to serve his flesh
The Spiritual Man: A man who uses his free will to obey the Spirit and has a relationship with God.
Now for my answer to the question, "which comes first".
- When we are born: we are morally neutral since we have not made any choices yet
- At the age of accountability: we choose to be fleshly or to continue the law of habit of serving the flesh
- At conversion: we choose to obey the Spirit and enter into a relationship with God
|
|
mattmahar
Full Member
`Lo, thou hast become whole; sin no more, lest something worse may happen to thee.' John 5:14
Posts: 151
|
Post by mattmahar on Jan 19, 2008 14:39:50 GMT -5
YES THEY DO LIMIT GOD! Let us look at what infinite means>>> Main Entry: 1in•fi•nite Function: adjective Pronunciation: 'in-f&-n&t Etymology: Middle English infinit, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin infinitus, from in- + finitus finite 1 : extending indefinitely : ENDLESS <infinite space> 2 : immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : INEXHAUSTIBLE <infinite patience> 3 : subject to no limitation or external determination 4 a : extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large <infinite number of positive numbers> b : extending to infinity <infinite plane surface> c : characterized by an infinite number of elements or terms <an infinite set> <an infinite series> - in•fi•nite•ly adverb - in•fi•nite•ness noun Main Entry: 2infinite Function: noun : something that is infinite (as in extent, duration, or number) Now, this is the very nature of God. NO LIMITS! PERIOD! This means God is without any limit whatsoever, yet You, Jesse, are putting a limit on God and His knowledge. God knows absolutely everything. If there is ANY KNOWLEDGE that God does not have, then He does not have all knowledge nor is His knowledge INFINITE! This is exactly what you are saying, that God has a LIMIT on His knowlege and that contradicts the scriptures and therefore is totally FALSE! Once more I tell you the truth, you need to back off on your being right, especially in your using man's doctrines as your basis of belief. If you do not, you will end up in a great deal of trouble. I only say this because I care what happens to you. I do not want to see you have to go through much correction and chastisement. a bondslave in Christ Jesus, Dirk I just have a question for you in regards to the above. If say for example I see someone eat a bag of chips have I gained NEW knowledge or have I only observed a situation. As in I already know how to eat a bag of chips so there is no NEW knowledge of which I have received. But the question is have I gained "NEW KNOWLEDGE"? (I'm not sure if you will understand what I'm getting at and if not feel free to say.) In Christ Matt
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 19, 2008 15:50:00 GMT -5
This whole statement assumes that the future is an object of exhaustive knowledge. This statement assumes that the outcome of all free will choices is knowable.
Your assumption begs the questions which the open theists asks:
- Is the future already entirely written?
- Does free will determine the future?
- Is the future an object of exhaustive knowledge before the future is exhaustively determined?
- Can the future be entirely knowable if the future is not entirely settled?
The open theists says God has all knowledge. But the outcome of our free will choices are not "knowledge", they are not objects of knowledge because until free will determines and settles them, they are open and unsettled.
So God knows all that there is to know. God is omniscient, that is, God has all knowledge. But if free will is the power to originate choices, free will is then the power to originate knowledge that did not previously exist.
Supposed the future is like a book. And suppose this book has 99 pages. God has read all the pages of the future. God had read 99 pages. But suppose free will is the power to determine the future. Suppose free will is the power to write a new page to the book of the future that did not previously exist. So now there are 100 pages and God immediately reads this new page. At no point in time was God ever ignorant of the future. God had always read all the pages of the future that existed.
Or imagine knowledge is like a library. Suppose there is a library that has every book (knowledge) that exists. Suppose it is 1 Billion books in this library. And there is a person (God) who has read all these books (knowledge). He has read all the books that have been written. But suppose someone writes a new book that did not previously exist. Now there are 1 Billion and 1 books. The person (God) immediately and instantly reads this new book which did not previously exist. At all points in time did this person (God) read all the books that existed, that is, God always had all the knowledge that was available and in existence.
And so it is with God's knowledge. God always has all the knowledge that exists. And as soon as free will originates new knowledge that did not previously exist, God immediately knows it. God always, at all times, has all knowledge. God always is omniscient. God always knows all that there is to know, even in an open system where free will exists and new knowledge can be created or originated by it.
This explains why God will test men in order to "know" how they will respond: Gen. 22:12, Ex. 16:4, Deut. 8:2, Deut. 13:3, Jdg. 2:20-22, Ex. 33:2, Ex. 34:24, Jdg. 3:4, 1 Sam. 2:30, 2 Chron. 12:6-7, 2 Chron. 16:9, 2 Chron. 32:31, Ps. 81:13-14.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 29, 2008 0:32:04 GMT -5
I've read (most of) Boyd's book to this point. From the start, he sets up a faulty view of classical theism. Boyd claims that classical theists selectively view the Scriptures that speak of God's exhaustive foreknowlegde as literal, while viewing all passages that speak of God changing His mind as metaphorical. He goes on to claim that open theism gives equal regard to both sets of Scripture and clarifies God's nature under the idea of a "partially open" future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- "...His understanding is unsearchable." -Isaiah 40:28
I think we will all agree that God's ways are beyond ours. If we start from this simple premise, we realize that God is not simply a super-man. He is God. We, as finite creatures, are incapable of understanding God in and of Himself. That is to say... We only know God by what He has told us in the Scriptures and by what He has made known to us through His Son.
God loves us (his creation) so much, that He continually condescends to engage us, even sending His Son in flesh to die for our sins. If such an eternal being (God) is to communicate with finite creatures who exist in space and time (humans), then He must do so in ways that they will understand Him.
A classical theist does not pick-and-choose which Scriptures to take literally and which to take metaphorically (as Boyd suggests). Rather, a classical theist starts from the simple idea that we - His creation - are incapable of searching the mind of God. We can not know God as He knows Himself. When God speaks to us or reveals a piece of His character to us, He must do so in a way that will make sense to a finite mind. In humility, a classical theist recognizes that any time God is spoken of in-and-of Himself and in human terms, the language is necessarily metaphorical.
Are we really to believe that God is a literal fire (Deuteronomy 4:24)? Or should we understand this to mean something about God's character?
Should we really believe that God is a literal sun and a literal shield (Psalm 84:11)? Or should we understand these to be descriptive in a metaphorical sense?
This is not to say that some metaphors are not more directly understandable than others. But it would be a HUGE mistake to recognize only the most outlandish metaphors as such (such as those above), while blindly accepting language that speaks of God "repenting" in a literal human sense of the word.
I've included a quotation from John Calvin below. I understand that he's not the most respected Christian thinker on these boards, but I think he speaks quite eloquently to this matter:
"What therefore, does the word 'repentance' mean? Surely its meaning is like that of all other modes of speaking that describe God to us in human terms. For because our weakness does not attain to his exalted state, the description of him that is given to us must be accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it. Now the mode of accommodation is for him to represent himself to us not as he is in himself, but as he seems to us. Although he is beyond all disturbance of mind, yet he testifies that he is angry toward sinners. Therefore whenever we hear that God is angered, we ought not to imagine any emotion in him, but rather to consider that the expression has been taken from our own human experience; because God, whenever he is exercising judgement exhibits the appearance of one kindled and angered. So we ought not to understand anything else under the word 'repentance' than change of action, because men are wont by changing their action to testify that they are displeased with themselves. Therefore, since every change among men is a correction of what displeases them, but that correction arises out of repentance, then by the word 'repentance' is meant the fact that neither God's plan nor his will is reversed, nor his volition altered; but what he had from eternity foreseen, approved decreed, he pursues in uninterrupted tenor, however sudden the variation may appear in men's eyes."
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 29, 2008 1:01:29 GMT -5
The following argument was put forward on the The Expectation & Disappointment of God thread:
"We can calculate possibilities and probabilities on a finite scale, God can calculate possibilities and probabilities on an infinite scale."
This statement does not make any sense given the inherent nature of "probability." Probability is the mathematical treatment of random systems... necessarily developed by we humans because we are not omniscient. Supercomputers are capable of modelling extremely complex random systems and calculating "probabilities." I understand the imperfect nature of analogy, but we can NOT reduce God to the equivalent of a really really awesome supercomputer.
Gamblers and card-counters use "probabilities" to guess what the next card dealt will be. But God knows what the next card is. And if you shuffle the deck a billion times over, He is STILL going to know what the next card is. Probability's got nothin' to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 29, 2008 9:52:21 GMT -5
Good to see you on the board Frank. Your expressing yourself much better on this topic that I can.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 29, 2008 13:34:17 GMT -5
Frank,
So when the bible says God repents, God didn't literally repent?
When the bible says that God tests men in order to know how they will act, God doesn't literally test them in order to know how they will act?
When the bible says God faces a partly open future with possibilities, God doesn't literally face a partly open future with possibilities?
No doubt there is anthropomorphism and metaphoric language in the bible. But it is entirely begging the question to simply say that God doesn't literally repent, God doesn't literally test men to know how they will act, God doesn't literally face open possibilities.
-------------------
The open view is very simple:
- God's free will partly determines the future
- Man's free will partly determines the future
- The future is open until it is determined
- If God foreknew all events from all eternity God couldn't determine anything
- If man's free will choices aren't made yet, and these free will choices contribute to the course of the future, then the future is partly open until these free will choices are made
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Jan 29, 2008 13:37:24 GMT -5
Frank, So when the bible says God repents, God didn't literally repent? When the bible says that God tests men in order to know how they will act, God doesn't literally test them in order to know how they will act? When the bible says God faces a partly open future with possibilities, God doesn't literally face a partly open future with possibilities? No doubt there is anthropomorphism and metaphoric language in the bible. But it is entirely begging the question to simply say that God doesn't literally repent, God doesn't literally test men to know how they will act, God doesn't literally face open possibilities. ------------------- The open view is very simple: - God's free will partly determines the future - Man's free will partly determines the future - The future is open until it is determined - If God foreknew all events from all eternity God couldn't determine anything - If man's free will choices aren't made yet, and these free will choices contribute to the course of the future, then the future is partly open until these free will choices are made I have discussed this issue with my Pastor and he has heard of the Open Theism view and stated that God in fact does change His Plans and that Prayer does play a role in this and while not saying, "I'm an Open Theist" he certainly agreed with some fo the the basic tenents of Open Theism.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 29, 2008 13:44:06 GMT -5
Open theism is a pretty large movement today. I know of a lot of pastors and teachers who see the truths of open theism. In a large variety of theological circles, from what would be considered conservative to liberal, there seems to be a reformation with these truths being more clearly understood.
The bible quite literally (not metaphorically or anthropomorphically) teaches that:
- Prayer changes the future
- God has the power to make plans
- God has the power to change plans
But if all events were eternally and exhaustively settled (if God always intuitively knew all events by a natural necessity of his nature):
- prayer couldn't change the future
- God couldn't make plans
- God couldn't change plans
Consider this one example:
- God told King Hezekiah through the prophet Isaiah "you will die and not live" (God made a plan)
- King Hezekiah prayed to God for God to change His mind (prayer changes things)
- God told King Hezekiah through the prophet Isaiah "you will live and not die" (God changed his plans)
- God said that he will "add" fifteen years to Hezekiah life (God changed the future because of prayer)
So here we clearly see how God is capable of making plans, prayer can actually altar the course of the future, and God is capable of changing plans.
But if God eternally foreknew all events from all eternity, then all events were eternally settled. In which case, God could not make plans, prayer could not change the future, and God could not change plans.
But here is my questions for classic theists:
- Did God literally "add" fifteen years to Hezekiah's life?
- Doesn't this mean Hezekiah was literally initially going to die?
- Doesn't this mean God literally changed the future?
- Was this anthropomorphic or metaphoric?
- Did God lie to Hezekiah when he told him he would die, when God knew from all eternity that he wouldn't?
- Did God lie to Hezekiah when he told him he "add" years, which from all of eternity were certain that Hezekiah would experience?
- If God, from all of eternity simply knew all events, how could God make plans (determine the future) or change plans (change the future)? Wouldn't the future be COMPLETELY out of God's control and determination if God eternally foreknew how the future was going to be?
|
|
|
Post by joem on Jan 29, 2008 13:47:35 GMT -5
Gamblers and card-counters use "probabilities" to guess what the next card dealt will be. But God knows what the next card is. And if you shuffle the deck a billion times over, He is STILL going to know what the next card is. Probability's got nothin' to do with it.
God would obviously know with all certainty which card would be dealt next, as the cards presently exist in actual order. God knows everything that exist perfectly. The future does not yet exist, yet God knows all the cards that presently exist, and every combination in which they could be dealt. As the cards are shuffled, God knows there order with utter certainty. As possibilities are realized, they automatically become certainties in the mind of God. If all is already certain, nothing is ever under the realm of possibility, and we are all subject to blind fate.
Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Jan 29, 2008 17:40:49 GMT -5
Gamblers and card-counters use "probabilities" to guess what the next card dealt will be. But God knows what the next card is. And if you shuffle the deck a billion times over, He is STILL going to know what the next card is. Probability's got nothin' to do with it. God would obviously know with all certainty which card would be dealt next, as the cards presently exist in actual order. God knows everything that exist perfectly. The future does not yet exist, yet God knows all the cards that presently exist, and every combination in which they could be dealt. As the cards are shuffled, God knows there order with utter certainty. As possibilities are realized, they automatically become certainties in the mind of God. If all is already certain, nothing is ever under the realm of possibility, and we are all subject to blind fate. Grace and Peace, Joe Careful! If an ultra conservative saw the word "card" in your post, you'd be labelled a card playing heretic
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 29, 2008 17:47:26 GMT -5
Gamblers and card-counters use "probabilities" to guess what the next card dealt will be. But God knows what the next card is. And if you shuffle the deck a billion times over, He is STILL going to know what the next card is. Probability's got nothin' to do with it. God would obviously know with all certainty which card would be dealt next, as the cards presently exist in actual order. God knows everything that exist perfectly. The future does not yet exist, yet God knows all the cards that presently exist, and every combination in which they could be dealt. As the cards are shuffled, God knows there order with utter certainty. As possibilities are realized, they automatically become certainties in the mind of God. If all is already certain, nothing is ever under the realm of possibility, and we are all subject to blind fate. Grace and Peace, Joe Admittedly, it is a very imperfect analogy. I only meant for the cards that had not yet been dealt to be representative of "possibilities" and their relative probabilities. I only mean to convey that.... To God, the very idea of "probability" is perposterous. If a perfectly balanced six-sided die existed, a human being could know with perfect knowledge that if it were rolled, the probability of a '4' would be exactly 1/6th. That is the true nature of probability. With a perfect die, humans are capable of calculating probability on an "infinite scale." Does this suggest that we are capable of knowledge on par of that of God's divine knowledge in the instant before the die is cast? Or does God know something more than we know? I would argue for the latter. But this is a silly example. I don't actually mean for it to cause debate. I will be back with comments to the other posts later. Right now I have to catch a bus.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Jan 29, 2008 20:01:52 GMT -5
So when the bible says God repents, God didn't literally repent? This is correct. God does not realize that He made a mistake and feel bad about it. He does not resolve to do better in the future, rectify the mistake, and go about His business with the ever-present possibility of 'repenting' of another of His decisions in a future that is to-be-determined. As the quotation from Calvin which I cited above illustrates: we ought not to percieve anthropomorphic language as being true of God in-and-of Himself. We must view it in relation to ourselves. To us, it appears that God has 'repented.' Why does this appear to be true? Because what was once happening, all of the sudden is no longer happening. To us (finite creatures of space and time) the change appears sudden, and thus it appears that God has 'repented.' But who are we to say that such a "sudden change" was not divinely decreed from eternity? (I'm not a Calvinist, but I think think his thoughts from the quote I cited above are accurate) If I may offer a very imperfect analogy... (please don't use this against me. I'm merely thinking of a way to illustrate my point.): You are standing off at a distance from me. You know nothing about me- my nature, my disposition, nothing. I am having a conversation with another man. You can not hear the conversation, but continue to watch from a distance. Suddenly, I wind up and begin to throw a punch at the man. The man puts his hands up meekly and shouts "I'm sorry!!" I stop my punch just before hitting the man's face. Do you assume I changed my mind based upon the fact that he put his hands up and said he was sorry? Or did I never intend to hit the man in the first place. (^not a perfect analogy, but I hope it conveys some of what I am trying to say) I will address the other questions a little later (hopefully tonight if I can finish my work)
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Jan 29, 2008 20:41:28 GMT -5
This is correct. God does not realize that He made a mistake and feel bad about it. He does not resolve to do better in the future, rectify the mistake, and go about His business with the ever-present possibility of 'repenting' of another of His decisions in a future that is to-be-determined. That's a pretty good point and something that makes me stop to ponder on this thought.
|
|