 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > The Open View In Light Of God's Eternal Purpose | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/1/2004 8:18 AM (GMT -6) |   | | God creates us with a nature that is in his "image." Further, he creates us so that our nature is not determinative of all our actions (like, say, algae is). We were created with the potential of bearing the "likeness" of God. But as persons who are not determined by nature, we have choice. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/1/2004 10:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by SwanLake
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
God creates us with a nature that is in his "image." Further, he creates us so that our nature is not determinative of all our actions (like, say, algae is). We were created with the potential of bearing the "likeness" of God. But as persons who are not determined by nature, we have choice.
I have no idea what that means or how it pertains to our discussion.
It infers that some of the assumptions on the table, while thought necessary, aren't necessary. It rose from something that Sahid said: "If God knows the exact outcome of what he creates, then he is responsible for that outcome. If he creates "free" creatures, knowing exactly what they will do, then their actions are really His actions." THAT just SEEMS to follow; but only because a certain framework is assumed. It is assumed that cerated beings with a certain natue are determined by that nature. And in the case of mankind that is not so.
Glad to answer. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/1/2004 1:52 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If God knows the exact outcome of what he creates, then he is responsible for that outcome. If he creates "free" creatures, knowing exactly what they will do, then their actions are really His actions. Example from real life: If I train my dog to kill anyone wearing orange clothes, I, not my dog, is responsible for killing if I let my dog be "free" in a prison. If we accept 1, 2, and 3, then God not only knows the dog will kill, He has purposefully made the dog that way.If God just knew our future actions, there would be no problem. The problem comes when we realize that is the one who made us this way. . Sahid
Some interesting things you suggest Sahid but I don’t think it can rightly be said that just because God knew our actions they are really his actions. As I suggested God didn’t know our actions first time round, [if you know what I mean] But as revelation came back to him like a boomerang, back through time he did come to know. So it’s a paradox, something which seems to contradict itself but really doesn’t. but you might say well if he received the revelation of what we did as it came back through time, to the point of before the creation of the earth itself and you say because he released it anyway and created creation that still means he did it or made us that way? No I still wouldn’t agree with that. What he created were free will creatures, nothing more nothing less. So the question is did God have the right to create free will creatures, yes or no and I believe the answer to that is yes. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/1/2004 2:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I don't care if someone thinks He is "blasting" it back from the future; right NOW, if He knows it as a fact, He's the creator of it. Because any other possible creator doesn't exist yet. Swanlake
Why should this be SL? Lets put it in very human terms. If you and I built a time machine and went back to the past with knowledge of things which happened in the future would you and I be the creator of it? Most certainly not. How could it ever be said that we were?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/1/2004 8:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Alright Bobber, I'll play.
So let's simplify by saying God, before creation, has narrowed it down to two choices: (1) give others freewill or (2) not. Before he creates things he gets his blast from the future. He knows that (1) will result in sin. He knows. He also knows (2) will result in no sin. He can knowingly and with certainty start the ball rolling on sin or not. If he knowingly sets up the dominoes that will certainly bring about sin, he is to blame. With open theism, he gives humans the choice to get the ball rolling on sin or not, but there is not certainty as to whether His actions will lead to sin. In addition to that, He has provided an answer to sin just in case.
What if it was me? What if I knowingly started a series of events that would certainly lead to a murder? It wouldn't even take certainty to convict me, just probability. Criminal negligence.
If God is blasting back information, he knows the consequences of his actions. Knows. If not, what's the point of blasting stuff back.
As to PoW's comment: quote:
something that Sahid said: "If God knows the exact outcome of what he creates, then he is responsible for that outcome. If he creates "free" creatures, knowing exactly what they will do, then their actions are really His actions." THAT just SEEMS to follow; but only because a certain framework is assumed. It is assumed that cerated beings with a certain natue are determined by that nature. And in the case of mankind that is not so.
I'm assuming you disagree with the statement: "Human beings with a human nature are determined by that nature". So Human beings are not determined by their nature. Ok, I think I agree. Here's the thing. God, I assume, had an infinite (maybe an exageration) set of possibilities for how to create the world. If he knows with certainty the consequences of his actions, he is responsible for those actions. When he sends blessings that he knows will bless us and we end up being blessed, God gets the credit. Not us. We are essentially passive in the exchange. This is not the way I think it is. At least not always. God doesn't take credit for everything; sometimes he (correctly) puts credit or blame on us. God didn't know what we'd do if he created us this way. If he did, all our doing would be his doing. I say: "Human beings are not determined by their nature, because their nature is not entirely determined, its creation is not yet finished, we get a say in how we turn out."
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 7/2/2004 1:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
quote:
I don't care if someone thinks He is "blasting" it back from the future; right NOW, if He knows it as a fact, He's the creator of it. Because any other possible creator doesn't exist yet. Swanlake
Why should this be SL? Lets put it in very human terms. If you and I built a time machine and went back to the past with knowledge of things which happened in the future would you and I be the creator of it? Most certainly not. How could it ever be said that we were?
Here's what's needed. Every micro-second, a complete state of everything in the universe has to be present at each micro-second that preceded it. But time runs to infinity, so each micro-second since God started things, the complete state of the universe at each succeeding micro-second is needed and it's an infinite set of complete states. Yet you're advocating that this "information", a infinite set of states, is being "transmitted" via a finite universe backwards. You've got some problems:
1. You can't "blast back", concurrently, an infinite set of states via a finite medium.
2. "blasting back" implies duration, something you don't have. All future information has to be present simultaneously at each preceding point in time.
3. Before God created creation, all that information would have been present to Him. So even before He started anything, it existed as fact, making Him the author. First one cognizant of anything is the author of it.
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/2/2004 4:24 AM (GMT -6) | | [quote] Modern physics has proven conclusively that time TRAVEL is an utter impossibility, given the nature of the universe. Time DILATION and COMPRESSION is possible (slowing it down and speeding it up), but it is simply not the case that there is anything "in the past" or "in the future" to go TO. All that truly exists is the present. John[quote]
Well John when you say physics has proven time travel is impossible from what standpoint are you stating this? Upon reaching the speed of light physical things pile on mass the faster they go keeping things sub-light. Correct the best that a physical being could do is slow time down or speed it up but keep in mind God is not physical but rather of the Spirit. That which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is of spirit is spirit and God is a Spirit, or a spiritual being. The past can be accessed if one goes one step above the speed of light and I agree there is not future to go to from the standpoint of right now as we speak. Once the future does unfold you can in theory go to the past….
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/2/2004 4:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
So let's simplify by saying God, before creation, has narrowed it down to two choices: (1) give others freewill or (2) not. Before he creates things he gets his blast from the future. He knows that (1) will result in sin. He knows. He also knows (2) will result in no sin. He can knowingly and with certainty start the ball rolling on sin or not. If he knowingly sets up the dominoes that will certainly bring about sin, he is to blame. With open theism, he gives humans the choice to get the ball rolling on sin or not, but there is not certainty as to whether His actions will lead to sin. In addition to that, He has provided an answer to sin just in case.What if it was me? What if I knowingly started a series of events that would certainly lead to a murder? It wouldn't even take certainty to convict me, just probability. Criminal negligence. Sahid
Well Sahid if we concluded you were right in your last statement it could still be considered that even open theism would do the same. For example if we look out at the human race we can know that there might be a possibility that one of our children might do some evil act….so why bother having any kids? Because God knew the future [in the way that I suggested] and created it forth anyway does not make him an unjust God, IMO. It still only makes him as one who wanted to have a family [outside of the Trinity] and all he did was create free will beings.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/2/2004 7:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"One step" above the speed of light would still require a duration to reach the distant past from the infinite future. But that would not be sufficient because you're talking about simultaneous presence of information in the most infinite future being available in the most distant past. SwanLake
Im not sure why it must be thought to have simultaneous information of all information from the future back at the past in a sense right now as we speak. Why couldn’t it be a thing that is continually filling in on Gods canvass of the past [if I might put it that way] He allows the future to keep on unfolding and unfolding, out until the point where he’s decided the end of physical reality. Once it reaches that point the revelation of it is blasted back to the past so any way you look at it you still have a complete picture from A to Z [Alpa/Omega] I would say the retrograde time method would be the thing which best fits the scriptures from what I see.
For example consider the following, Jesus Christ said to Peter that he would deny him three times. How did he know this? 1] he knew this because God was going to cause this to happen, in other words put in Peter to deny him. That I don’t accept. 2] that Jesus being all wise [being divinity] knew by all wise probability that Peter would deny him three times. Well I don’t think you could know this by assessing probabilities, and I guess this is what open theism suggests. I could know lets say [considering sports] that one baseball team was prone to failure but could I tell you the exact score by which they would loose the game?
Then there is the prophecy lets say of the children being killed in Bethlehem which was foretold of the prophets hundreds of years prior to the event. If open theism was true [and maybe im not understanding open theism totally right] but if it were true how could God know what some ruler [Herod] would do before he was even born? So I guess I believe open theism to a point, that being that God doesn’t know the future, or it could be said there was a time he didn’t but then with revelation going continually back in time he did. This answers I would suggest all the scriptures open theism put forth about God not knowing this or that. I agree that he didn’t but there is I would say another dimension to the whole affair. Revelation going back through time travel....a true and real life paradox….it seems to contradict itself but really doesn’t.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/2/2004 8:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Because one micro-second into creation God has ALL the information from then to infinity available. That infinite amount of information had to come back to Him simultaneously one micro-second into creation.
An infinite, simultaneous knowlege dump, via a finite medium; impossible.
Well let me ask you Swan what your position is on these matters. Are you Calvanistic or are you Open Theism? How do you explain what we'll call 'the Peter Factor' that Jesus knew he would deny him three times? | | Back to Top | | |
|
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 7/2/2004 8:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
quote:
Because one micro-second into creation God has ALL the information from then to infinity available. That infinite amount of information had to come back to Him simultaneously one micro-second into creation.
An infinite, simultaneous knowlege dump, via a finite medium; impossible.
Well let me ask you Swan what your position is on these matters. Are you Calvanistic or are you Open Theism? How do you explain what we'll call 'the Peter Factor' that Jesus knew he would deny him three times?
OT
Jesus knew Peter pretty well and given the current climate (they all ran away after He was arrested), accurately guessed Peter would deny Him.
Enough people had seen Jesus and Peter accompanying Him, for you to have a number of them question him about that (or have God prompt them by suggestion). Then God can poke a rooster (no free-will violated there) to crow at the right time.
Look at what prophecy is:
Isaiah 48:3
"I declared the former things long ago
And they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them.
Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass."
1. God declares it
2. At the proper time, God orchestrates it
Also Isaiah 46:10
"Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, 'My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'"
Prophecy isn't about God's knowlege of a future that doesn't exist yet, it's about His ability to bring about what He says He'll accomplish.
Look at the times in the New Testament where it says, "this was done in order that the prophecy might be fulfilled". What's up with that? Isaiah 48:3
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/2/2004 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Well John when you say physics has proven time travel is impossible from what standpoint are you stating this?
There is nothing "there" or "then" in the future or the past to go TO. It is a simple fact of the physical universe. The fact that God is a Spirit does not remove the fact that the past is completely settled, and cannot in any wise be undone.
quote:
Upon reaching the speed of light physical things pile on mass the faster they go keeping things sub-light.
From what I recall from college physics a few years back, the only things that can go the speed of light are light waves and radio waves. Anything else physical disintegrates long before the speed of light can be reached.
quote:
The past can be accessed if one goes one step above the speed of light
No, actually what would happen in that case (theoretically) would be that time would stand still for you. But this would not give one "access" into the past, as the future would still be happening in the universe, though your state of observation (if you somehow were able to avoid physical disintegration) would be quite different, no doubt.
quote:
and I agree there is not future to go to from the standpoint of right now as we speak. Once the future does unfold you can in theory go to the past….
Again, there is simply nothing "there" or "then" to go to in the past. It only exists in memory (even God's). Scripture often reveals God regretting and even lamenting how things turned out (e.g., Gen. 6:4-6). If He could go back in time and change the past, don't you think He would?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/3/2004 12:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Jesus knew Peter pretty well and given the current climate (they all ran away after He was arrested), accurately guessed Peter would deny Him.
Enough people had seen Jesus and Peter accompanying Him, for you to have a number of them question him about that (or have God prompt them by suggestion). Then God can poke a rooster (no free-will violated there) to crow at the right time. Swan
I guess I have a lot of trouble with the idea stated above. Yes Jesus knew Peter pretty well which im sure he did but to say that he merely accurately guessed Peter would deny him…well I think I would reconsider that position. Consider the implications. I would suggest they are quite serious. Jesus said three times Peter would deny him. Why not two time, four times, or five? It could have been those numbers just as easily could it not? If not why not? Now the implications are this, what if Jesus was wrong?
What would happen to all his credibility? If he only denied him once or twice Peter and the disciples could look back and state that Jesus made an absolute declaration and statement which proved to be wrong! Im sorry but I would have to say the implications would be too serious a thing in being wrong to wager just a guess at it. Can we really see Jesus playing such a wild poker game of chance without actually knowing for an absolute fact what would occur? I just can’t see it but neither can I see God controlling Peter to deny him like a Calvanist might suggest. Therefore im left with one conclusion that being of revelation going back in time.
I would suggest that’s the only thing that would demonstrate mankind had free will, and not placing Jesus in an extremely dangerous position of making wild guesses which would if wrong cause him to loose all his credibility towards all who knew him. That Jesus would come down from above, live the thirty or so years on this planet, and then go to the cross, to loose all the value of that [if wrong] by making a guess? I don’t believe you believe Jesus would really do that Swan. I would say you would have to know that Christ knew exactly what he was talking about when he said Peter would deny him, and not only deny him but knowing how many times he would.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 121 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:00 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|