 |
| 
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/17/2003 9:17 AM (GMT -6) |   | Dud dude! quote:
I can now move into the reasons for this discussion centered around Daniel and Revelation. The foreknown events, remember from Calvin's perspective, are determined by God! Therefore, the events of Antichrist, 1/3 of the world being annihilated, Antiochus wreaking havoc upon the Jews, Carnivorous animals representing four kingdoms wreaking havoc upon the earth, the Beast destroying millions of people where all determined by God! Is this what I am picking up in OV theology?
Here again, if you mean determined in the Calvinistic context (everything determined--those going to hell, those saved), then no. And if you mean this in the Arminianistic context (all surrounding events known by God), then, again, no. Let's consider Laika's post:
quote:
If God sees Satan currently deceiving many people and then says, "in those [future] days, Satan will deceive many", that is God predicting what Satan will do without God determining it.
In the coming days, ReasonableDoubt will post at CVM. This is a prediction not a determination of anyone's will.
Some prophecy are predictions, some are determination of wills. There's probably some other forms as well.
As we can see, in view of just a few examples Laika has given us, and with a healthy concept of God's omniscience and omipotence, it isn't hard at all to see that HOW God brings the Apocalypse to pass is almost inconsequential. Some things will happen (and are thus known) because it's unavoidable (e.g., many will blaspheme God's name), and other things will happen because God has determined they will (e.g., a new heaven and a new earth). It's much to "beyond us" to get as good of a grip as we would like as to how these things are brought to pass. We have hints and clues, and with those we will be occupied plenty!
For "If we only knew more,"
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 07/17/2003 2:20:51 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 7/17/2003 3:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Here goes the broken record again. Please explain, not by-pass, how specific events down to the person, can be predicted with 100% accuracy hundreds of years in advance. Sorry, I think we can rule out character solidification. I also think compatibalistic manipulation implicates God in evil, when the forknown event is a genocide. The only way a blind God could feel His way that far is to micro-manage human and spiritual society.
If I drop 100,000,000 ping-pong balls in a very large bucket, shake it for -oh- five hundred years and am able to predict which one I'll pick on each draw, something's up. I either rigged it or I know each ball so specifically I can interpolate their interaction that far into the future. People are considerably more complex than ping-pong balls. At least most are. Free-willed people (and angels) are infinitly more complex than ping-pong balls. OVer's, please take this challenge seriously. Somethings up. Your partly settled-partly open mantra explains nothing. Does God willfully violate people's freedom to achieve fullfillment of His predictions or does He micro-manage creation so it won't deviate from His goal. (so much for anyone's freedom who lives before ANY specific prophecy)
Laika
quote:
In the coming days, ReasonableDoubt will post at CVM. This is a prediction not a determination of anyone's will.
Your prediction MUST be a determination of RD's will if you wish to be 100% accurate. Even assuming a determined character, which I feel is impossible, you HAVE to ensure she is at least able!
Unless God can forsee future events involving freely made choices, He has to ensure they occur. Antiochus's and all.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/17/2003 5:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Come on, guys, you can do better than this! You're on the hook to explain the "partly settled, partly open" idea WITHOUT resorting to either Calvinism or Arminianism.
It seems that Laika has already conceded Armianism, by saying that God KNOWS what Satan will do over 2000 years hence from the writing of Revelation, but that God does not determine it. Fine. How is this different than Arminianism?
Then , someone else says "in some instances God has decided that our desires are not quite as important as His. I don't have a problem with that notion. He is God after all."
Arent' you affirming God's sovereignty right here? I don't have a problem with it either! So why do you have a problem with it 100% of the time, but don't have a problem with it as long as it is limited to certain events?
Might be don tried to explain the "partly settled" notion by saying that GOd knows what He himself will do in the future - so that doesn't entail either KNOWING the whole future or determining it. That may be the case if all God predicted 2000+ years ago were the things He Himself would do. But that's not the case at all in these two books. He prophesies through Daniel and John about things that will come to pass- whether they are done by Satan (as Laika is saying) or if God is determining it, the fact of the matter is, it will be people doing those things. Are those people then determined by God to fulfill those roles (Calvinism) or is God merely looking into the future to see what will happen, without necessarily causing it (a la Arminianism)?
To say that God, over 2000 years ago, knew the character development of certain people and so could predict with 100% accuracy what they will do is disingenuous. For one thing, how could he know that long ago who is going to be around during the time of the apocalypse in order to analyze their character? If he truly can't know what is going to happen, for all he knows there would be a nuclear war in the 1950s that would render earth inhabitable, with no life forms whatsoever on it. If that did occur, then there'd be no one around to be doing what is said will happen-
Plus what's so great about being able to predict human behavior based upon character development? A good psychoanalyst could do that very accurately, as could some psychics like John Edward...
To appeal to "God is so omnipotent and great that we don't need to know how he can do it" amounts to nothing better than the "mystery" of Calivinistic determination. It loooks like all the positions are equally at a loss to explain accurately other than ultimately to say, "we don't understand why God does that."
I'm still looking for an OVer to come in here and prove the "partly settled, partly open" idea and differentiate it from God settling some aspects of the future because he will determine it (basically a smaller scale Calvinistic view) - once you've conceded that God must act deterministically in order to utter prophecy, you've conceded that the future to some extent, then, does actually exist out there, b/c God cannot lie, and if God says he's going to do something, or that he's going to cause something to occur (the Apocalypse) - you can bet your life it will happen. If the future does exist out there, then being omniscient requires knowledge of it.
If you're going to go down Laika's route and say that no, God did not determine the Apocalypse, but merely prophesied as to what he knew Satan will do, well then, isn't that future also existing for Him to know? If he didn't cause it, at least he foresees it - and again you're trapped into conceding that the future exists for God to know over 2000 yrs ago.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/18/2003 2:26 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
It seems that Laika has already conceded Armianism, by saying that God KNOWS what Satan will do over 2000 years hence from the writing of Revelation, but that God does not determine it. Fine. How is this different than Arminianism?
Doesn't Arminianism say that He knows it because the future is already done and He's looking at it? He doesn't determine it but He sees the ending, now.
I think you're saying, because it's a done deal in God's mind, that part of the future exists (in God's mind). Fine, but it doesn't actually happen until the time arrives.
quote:
Plus what's so great about being able to predict human behavior based upon character development? A good psychoanalyst could do that very accurately, as could some psychics like John Edward...
Exactly. Only God has much more data than they do and can be more accurate.
quote:
I'm still looking for an OVer to come in here and prove the "partly settled, partly open" idea and differentiate it from God settling some aspects of the future because he will determine it (basically a smaller scale Calvinistic view) - once you've conceded that God must act deterministically in order to utter prophecy, you've conceded that the future to some extent, then, does actually exist out there, b/c God cannot lie, and if God says he's going to do something, or that he's going to cause something to occur (the Apocalypse) - you can bet your life it will happen. If the future does exist out there, then being omniscient requires knowledge of it.
How does saying "I will do something in the future" mean that the future already exists?
Let's look at one prophecy. His name shall be called Immanuel. Here's two options:
1. God sees the future, hey, they're naming Him Immanuel, I'll tell that to the prophets.
2. When Jesus is born and they go to name Him, I'll slip Immanuel into their brains. That's the name I picked out, that's the name I told the prophets He'd be called.
Note, the prophecy is for the naming of Jesus. No evidence that God knows or even wants to know the names of everyone that will have ever existed before they get their names.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/18/2003 2:40 AM (GMT -6) | | anewbeginning
quote:
Laika
quote:
In the coming days, ReasonableDoubt will post at CVM. This is a prediction not a determination of anyone's will.
Your prediction MUST be a determination of RD's will if you wish to be 100% accurate. Even assuming a determined character, which I feel is impossible, you HAVE to ensure she is at least able!
So those who were 100% accurate in their prediction that New Jersey would win the Stanley Cup were responsible for determining that? Or did they see the future?
God is able to carry His prophecies through to completion.
Edited by - Laika on 07/18/2003 07:45:11 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/18/2003 5:51 AM (GMT -6) | | The Open View, as must any theological view of creation, takes into account two emphatic streams (or domains) within Scripture:
Domain I: The determined future = That which God has said will be definitely this and not that.
Domain II: The open future = That which God has said might be. (using the subjunctive/conditional) "if, then" statements.
As Boyd states in the preface to _God of the Possible_, his journey towards embracing the Open View came one evening while he was reading 2 Kings 20 (an "open" passage if ever there could be one). Boyd realized that this passage simply could not fit with the traditional view of foreknowlege. Thus, the OV, for many of us, including myself, is a conviction brought about from the inspired word of God itself.
Traditionally, theologians have dismissed passages which depict God repenting and having emotions as falling into the category of anthropomorphisms (such as God having wings, eyes, hands, and other physical body parts). However, a metaphor for God changing his decision about something defies explanation in this manner; one is hard-pressed to conceive of how "God's mind/intention" is a metaphor for something else.
All that is necessary in the approach to Scripture that the OV advocates is to take Scriptures in both the above domains as expressing the reality of how God has designed creation. The traditional view has been to explain class II above as figurative expressions and thus not literal. The Open View sees no compelling reason to not take both classes of scriptures as expressing literal truth.
Hence the need to view the future as "partly settled (Domain I), partly open (Domain II)." But please note, the OV does not say that the future is entirely open.
The Open view simply affirms the scriptural theme that there are definitely "ifs" with regard to the future, as expressed by the Bible itself. As in, "if you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed," and "we are made partakers of Christ if we hold fast the profession of our faith until the end," and "if my people...shall humble themselves and pray...then..." These are but a few of the conditional phrases that God expresses in his word. These are what the OV is based upon. When God says something is going to be definitely this way and not that way, you can take it to the bank.
On the other hand, when God says "this is how things MIGHT be if such and such conditions are met," then you can take this as God's truth as well. The Open View, uniquely among theological perspectives, takes the second class of scriptures as expressing actual reality.
"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
Edited by - John Earp on 07/18/2003 11:15:07 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 7/18/2003 6:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika
quote:
So those who were 100% accurate in their prediction that New Jersey would win the Stanley Cup were responsible for determining that? Or did they see the future?
Neither, they were lucky. What of the one's who chose Anaheim or Ottawa? God can't afford to be wrong, His reps on the line.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/18/2003 6:46 AM (GMT -6) | | anewbeginning
quote:
Laika
quote:
So those who were 100% accurate in their prediction that New Jersey would win the Stanley Cup were responsible for determining that? Or did they see the future?
Neither, they were lucky.
They were also 100% accurate. Either they were correct or they were not. Which were they? Who won the Cup?
Being accurate concerning a prediction does not show comprehensive knowlege of the future. I just proved that.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/18/2003 7:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika - so what? Someone can accurately predict the future in some instances. Like your hockey one. But if those who made the correct prediction were asked to stake their life on their prediction, what do you think they'd do?
GOd is the only one, who, when he states the prediction, knows with 100% certainty that it will occur.
God cannot be wrong. So if he says at point x that y will happen at point z, at point z, x will indeed happen or else God has erred. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/18/2003 7:58 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Laika - so what? Someone can accurately predict the future in some instances.
So accuracy in predictions, alone, is not proof of comprehensive knowlege of the future. You're getting that (comprehensive knowlege of the future) from somewhere else.
With billions of people making googles of trillions of choices over history, a thousand predictions in scripture, over the course of 6000 years, is a drop in the bucket. I think the lack of comprehensive predictions shows just how open the future is.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truedud
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 7/18/2003 8:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Everybody please now let us stay "in the circle" of this original question.
So Daniel and Revelation have partly open and partly closed predictions? It this is so which are open and which are closed? Let us use some specifics regarding these books. (I recognize that this is only a portion of these books and that nobody can exhaustively approach this subject [not even God. A little OV humor!] However, let us attempt to delve into the details of these books.
Somebody needs to answer the specifics of Antiochus Epiphanes. What was open and what was closed? Somebody needs to answer the specifics about the Beast. What is open and what is closed?
To be frankly honest with all of you who remain on the philosophical side of this argument we are not gaining any real ground in the specificity of this original question. I can talk about any argument in theory but to take the challenges of these books mentioned and talk about them in detail is another matter. Earp, Starkman, Laika. You must stay "in the circle" of these books if we are ever going to get where we need to go!
It may do everyone some value to pick up your Bible and read these two books again. Especially Daniel 10 and 11 and the whole of Revelation. Now if you are a preterist or an amillinialist in Revelation than just stick to Daniel 10 and 11. Outside of that fact please let us handle the issues of these books in an OV perspective. God knows you have enough other boards to talk philosophically about OV.
I welcome a deeper challenge and think most of you are able to rise to meet it.
Truedude
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truedud
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 7/18/2003 8:48 AM (GMT -6) | | By the way,
I got on this discussion board to talk with Greg Boyd (GB) if possible. Where, O where is GB at? I would love to here from him on these matters. I have read all of his books with great delight and enjoy his erudite ability to challenge my view of theodicy, foreknowledge, predestination, and even to give me some of the best answers of any theologian when it comes to a series of hard issues in apologetics. If you read this GB, please jump on the bandwagon. It was here, in these two books that your argmumenst where most unsatisfactory. It is here in these two books that I have not seen or read anything that deals in a fundamental way with futuristic prophesy.
Looking for Greg Boyd on this Message Board. Please come in GB
Truedude
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/18/2003 12:54 PM (GMT -6) | | One of the weakest things about arguments supporting open theism is the ascribing of God's attributes to humans. You cannot compare man to God. When you use man's predictions as a comparison, it cannot hold water. Man is not God. Man does not have the mind of God and in the same sense, God is not a man. Stop comparing man to God. It doesn't work. When someone asks you to defend your statements about God, use GOD as the example, not man. Don't give us weak arguments.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/18/2003 4:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey all,
anewbeginning said,quote:
If I drop 100,000,000 ping-pong balls in a very large bucket, shake it for -oh- five hundred years and am able to predict which one I'll pick on each draw, something's up. I either rigged it or I know each ball so specifically I can interpolate their interaction that far into the future.
Or, because you're God, you are able to ensure that the ball of your choice will be where it's supposed to be when it's supposed to be.
then anewbeginning said, quote:
People are considerably more complex than ping-pong balls.
This has no bearing on God's omnipotence. Doesn't affect God's ability whatsoever. (We really need a bigger appreciation for the concept of God's omnipotence and wisdom.)
RD, quote:
Come on, guys, you can do better than this! You're on the hook to explain the "partly settled, partly open" idea WITHOUT resorting to either Calvinism or Arminianism.
Calvin and Arminius established their doctrines because there is some truth to what they say. That's why I said the following in a few posts back:
"Scripture reveals God's determinism in regard to the future similar to Calvinism (Calvin had to get his ideas from something along these Scriptural lines), but Scripture does not reveal the CONTEXT of said determinism in Calvinistically. Further, Scripture reveals the open perspective of the future similar to Arminianism, but does not reveal the CONTEXT of it Arminianistically. The Open View, however, satisifies the tension; it acknowledges the determined and the openness of the future without destroying the very real freedom both God and humanity have."
quote:
It seems that Laika has already conceded Armianism, by saying that God KNOWS what Satan will do over 2000 years hence from the writing of Revelation, but that God does not determine it. Fine. How is this different than Arminianism?
I don't know all of what Laika believes, so I'll address this from my perspective. God knows what Satan will do, because God is going to force both Satan (and the world) into the crucible described in the book of Revelation. What is neither said or implied about Satan (or anyone, for that matter) is that God knows exhaustively what Satan will do. The minimal amount of information we have about Satan is hardly enough to justify the dismissal of the Open View since it is only some things that are known about him.
Further, as we've talked about before, there are rules of engagement between God and the forces of evil. Absolutely nothing in Revelation requires that God have an exhaustive knowledge of the future (particularly what Satan will do). That you and I don't know the "rules" may make for more difficulty in knowing HOW or WHY God will bring Satan's actions to pass, but the Open View is, again, not justifiably dismissed because of our lack of knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes.
quote:
Arent' you affirming God's sovereignty right here? I don't have a problem with it either! So why do you have a problem with it 100% of the time, but don't have a problem with it as long as it is limited to certain events?
Why have a problem with 100% soverignty all the time? Because Scripture does not reveal God, us or the future existing 100% of the time in this strictly defined sovereignty.
quote:
Might be don tried to explain the "partly settled" notion by saying that GOd knows what He himself will do in the future - so that doesn't entail either KNOWING the whole future or determining it. That may be the case if all God predicted 2000+ years ago were the things He Himself would do. But that's not the case at all in these two books. He prophesies through Daniel and John about things that will come to pass- whether they are done by Satan (as Laika is saying) or if God is determining it, the fact of the matter is, it will be people doing those things. Are those people then determined by God to fulfill those roles (Calvinism) or is God merely looking into the future to see what will happen, without necessarily causing it (a la Arminianism)?
Our choices to consider:
First, it does neither God nor us any good to believe that God possesses Simple Foreknowledge-- being able to see (and ONLY see, not interact within) the future. If the future is the future, it is fixed. God can't change it, and He's not the one making anything happen. He simply sees how all things will happen. He's already seen how He Himself is in it, but that doesn't do Him any good, as he Himself is just another piece of the future. This simply won't work and doesn't explain the numerous passages that are quite to the contrary: God is involvement with the future. So, toss out the idea of pure Simple Foreknowledge; it isn't how Scripture reveals God or us in action.
We might say that God looks into the future and sees how He Himself will interact with everything and anything that will ever happen on earth; Simple Foreknowledge but with a twist. But this is still a fixed and settled future with absolutely no change possible; for every single possible thing that can ever happen--every breath breathed, every thought thought, every word uttered, every emotion felt ... everything--is not only seen by God ahead of time, but He has already decided how He will interact with the future; for God has seen the action and reacted accordingly. Indeed, He is part of the future, the future that is already settled. It's all planned out. Everyone's merely thinking they are free. but they are not. But please note, if Scritpure reveals only one event in the future that is not settled, then some of the future HAS to be open. And indeed, Scripture does reveal that many events are not determined. Now, if anyone wants to believe this twist of Simple Foreknowledge, fine, but there simply isn't the Scriptural support for it. It isn't true to life for us as humanity, and it isn't true to how God reveals Himself.
Next, many things in the future seem to go as God wants them to go. This MUST be because in some manner or another God is active both in the present and in what is to become the future. But Scripture doesn't reveal God's participation in the future in either a Calvinistic or Arminianistic CONTEXT. Thus, we eliminate pure Calvinism and pure Arminianism as a solution.
As for the Open View as a possible solution, I will simply pose an example I have posed here several times:
If Jesus appeared to me and stated that He knew exactly what I was going to do in one minute, because He knows the future exaustively, and it has already happend in God's eyes, I'd simply do something entirely different in that minute's time. God cannot say, "Well, I knew you'd do that, too," because I'd simply ask Him why, then, did He not tell me that I'd do something different than what He told me I'd do? The reason God could not have told me is because there's no set time when it can finally be said, "There, that's when the future is settled." Thus, that part of the future is open, and this fits perfectly Scritpurally and as to how life is.
Now this analogy is NOT the case and will not stand on all four legs if what God is telling me about what He knows is going to happen is something He has determined will happen or if it is somethng over which I have no control (limited freedom). For instance, if God says that I'm going to die, well, there's not much I can do about that; my freedom is, after all, limited. Or if God says, "You WILL be put in prison," again, I am limited; I cannot stop these kinds of determined events.
quote:
To say that God, over 2000 years ago, knew the character development of certain people and so could predict with 100% accuracy what they will do is disingenuous. For one thing, how could he know that long ago who is going to be around during the time of the apocalypse in order to analyze their character? If he truly can't know what is going to happen, for all he knows there would be a nuclear war in the 1950s that would render earth inhabitable, with no life forms whatsoever on it. If that did occur, then there'd be no one around to be doing what is said will happen-
Putting aside the issue of character development, who do we think gave man the technology with which man has developed nuclear weapons? Do we think that in all of man's known civilizations and time on earth that it is wasn't known and planned by God that only in these times man would discover this technology? Do we think it was purely accidental and God had no control, whatsoever, in the timing? Don't we think that God knew (and knows) all about nuclear physics when He created the universe (and before its creation), which we have only come to understand in these last few years? Do we really think that God has had no control over these things to ensure that we do not destroy ourselves and that God may use this technology, if that is what He's going to use, when He is ready (a la Armagadon)? Don't we think that God has known all along about all possible technologies that can be developed?
We just can't throw aside God's omnipotence and wisdom simply because we cannot explain certain events or their timing, or why God would or would not do certain things. If God is really in control, then He is totally in control! His omnipotence, omniscience and wisdom are not feable or weak, and He will do as He pleases. None of this forces God into the Calvinistic or Arminianistic box.
quote:
To appeal to "God is so omnipotent and great that we don't need to know how he can do it" amounts to nothing better than the "mystery" of Calivinistic determination. It loooks like all the positions are equally at a loss to explain accurately other than ultimately to say, "we don't understand why God does that."
Let me repeat (rephrase) back to you, RD, what you've said here so we can see if it holds up: To say that God is omnipotent and that we don't (need to) know how He does what He does amounts to no more than a mystery of Calvinistic determinism.
This doesn't work, because there's no equating Calvinism to God's omnipotence merely because we do not understand, or need to understand, God's manner of working omnipotently.
quote:
I'm still looking for an OVer to come in here and prove the "partly settled, partly open" idea and differentiate it from God settling some aspects of the future because he will determine it (basically a smaller scale Calvinistic view) - once you've conceded that God must act deterministically in order to utter prophecy, you've conceded that the future to some extent, then, does actually exist out there, b/c God cannot lie, and if God says he's going to do something, or that he's going to cause something to occur (the Apocalypse) - you can bet your life it will happen. If the future does exist out there, then being omniscient requires knowledge of it.
And now we come (FINALLY, they all said) to the issue at large. Let's address those particular cases where it surely seems that God has had to know the future exhaustively in order to have predicted those particular prophecies or people's lives yet to come.
First, you are right, RD. When God determines, there is a "mini" Calvinism going on, but not in the context of pure Calvinism. And as to our betting our lives that when God says He will do something, He will do it, well, consider Jonah--no conditions to the prophecy of Nineveh's fall: forty days and that's the end. But what does God do when the people repent (in classic God manner)? He changes His mind and doesn't do what He said He'd do. The point is that God works with humanity, loves humanity, and goes with the flow ... most of the time! (Usually when He can show mercy because someone repents from their sin.)
In the book of Daniel. We find empires predicted. It's no big deal for God to have planned those empires, their cultures, languages, etc? How hard is that one. We can't say that God has imposing on man's free will when God plans like these, because man was never told that his limited free will involved total control of these things (If the Lord wills, we will do this and that).
How about the Antichrist in the book of Daniel. What is said about him? He'll try to rule the world and kill off God's people (Jews and Christians). If God has determined that there will be an individual who will become the Antichrist, God has good reasons for doing so. But there is no need to force this into Calvinistic or Arminianistic determinism; as if God cannot find an individual on planet earth to fulfill this purpose--someone who is a despot and has a hardened heart, like Pharaoh's. If, however, it is the rules of the game that have been agreed upon for a world ruler run by Satan, then God has decided to play out this hand. Either way, it does not require that God must have exhaustive knowledge of the future.
What about Daniel 11? Now HERE is considered some seriously challenging stuff for the Open View. But, is it really? And even if it is challenging to the Open View, does this mean that we automatically write off all the rest of Scripture that clearly teaches the Open View? I don't find it good logic or exegesis to do so. These passages are rare.
Anyway, Daniel 11 has some pretty serious "determinism" in it. So-and-so's supposed to have lunch with the enemy king's daughter. There's war after war between the northern and southern left-over portions of the late-great empire of Alexander. Serious stuff. We ask, how can God know this stuff if He can't look into the future? However, look closely at the accounts, and ask this question: are any of these prophecies so constructed that they 1) completely tromp over man's limited free will, and 2) demand that God have exhaustive foreknowledge to make the prophecies? No. I will repeat what I've oft said: we are not as free as we think we are. None of these prophecies are too hard for God to bring about apart from exhaustive knowledge of the future. Is it too hard for God to orchestrate, for His own purposes (and ours--we benefit by seeing God at work like this), a situation where thoughts are planted in people's heads, meetings are determined, and discourses take place? " FOUL PLAY", we cry! "These people's freedoms are being denied! What if they do not even want to be in this game?" Too darned bad! I say again: we are not as free as we think we are!
If God comes to you in the night and says, "You, you're a chosen vessel; off to so-and-so city with you, and preach to the people to whom I have commanded you to preach," You're limited freedom has just been seen for what it is. And if you squawk and fight with God about it, you might find yourself in a whale's belly, like someone else we know! Further, you may be fulfilling the very thing God wanted out of you by resisting His will. And even further, He has prompted you to say the very things you would say if put in the crucible of the testing of your will in order to expose your heart! (Mind you, neither you nor those folks in Daniel chapter 11 have been forced to say pre-determined words in a pre-determined sentence. Only the effect of the gist of their conversation has been determined. The same is true of Peter; he was not told exactly what he would say, but only that he would deny His Lord. It wasn't too hard for Jesus to know Peter's heart and what he'd do under the pressure Peter was to go under.)
Back to Daniel 11 ...
These people in Daniel are not being denied any freedom they were given; they are being shown that what freedom they've been given is very limited. Some of these people are evil, some of them are not. Makes no difference. As a matter of fact, it is said that the Jews showed Alexander the Great that he himself was predicted in Daniel; they showed him the prophecies, and this caused Alexander, as I understand it, to show favor on the Jews. Could Alex have said, "Well, wait just a darned minute here ... no one talked to me first about my destiny!" Sure, squawk all you want, Alex, but you're going to do what God wants, or it's off to the whale's belly with you!
Nothing in the prophecies of Daniel demand that we interpret these kinds of prophecy possible only by God's foreknowledge being exhaustive. "But, if God talks about these people before they are ever born, isn't it because He can see them by looking into the future?" Go back and re-read what I've posted about Simple Foreknowledge and Simple Foreknowledge with a twist. It simply isn't faithful to Scripture to conclude this as the solution.
What, now, about the Beast in Revelation? I, personally, don't believe the Beast in Revelation 13 is a man; the Beast is a description of kingdoms amalgamated, not a man. If the Beast were a man, it is no problem for God to place the world into a crucible that will produce the Beast. Heavens, there's been a enough beasts in the past (Stalin, Hitler, etc.), and there most likely will be more to come before the big Beast arrives on the scene. But let's not overlook one very important aspect noted about Satan, the Beast and the False Prophet in regard to our discussion: The prophecies clearly state what this false trinity will do. Now, if you are Satan, and you know God has given prophecy like this, are you going to be stupid enough to fulfill it? Wouldn't you try to trick God's people or God Himself--do something else and make God out to be a liar? But if we turn to Calvinism and believe that Satan, the Beast, and the False Prophet will be made into automatons, we are forced again to consider that Scripture does not endorse this. Further, we must ask the question, "If this false trinity is automatoned, what about the rest of us?" If we all are not automatons, then what are we? We are free ... limitedly so, but nevertheless, free. The answer, then, to the issue of those specific kinds of prophecy must lie outside the confines of pure Calvinism and pure Arminianism.
In closing this novel (!), I want to consider one last thing: does God know us--our make up, our hearts, our personalities, our beings before we are born? It would seem that this is a weighty issue when discussing the Open View, because exhaustive foreknowledge (Calvinism or Arminianism) would require that God does know this information about us before we are born. But I think it can be safely said that exhaustive foreknowledge is not requisit for God to know us. I think God could say to all of us, without exhaustive foreknowledge, what He said to Jeremiah: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born, I sanctified (set apart) you. I ordained you a prophet to the Jer 1:5. With such foreknowledge, could Jeremiah still have said, "No way, God. I'm outta here," and killed himself? Sure he could have--he has that option. But he, too, instead might end up in a whale's belly for a while! But God knew Him; knew him before he was born, and knew him after--his heart, personality, mind, feelings, emotions, everything about him.
Now what I'm NOT considering here is who we are at, say, ten-years-old verse who we are at seventy-years-old; we change a lot. And it can be argued to what extent we change--can it ever be that nothing is left of a person's original character and make up after x amount of years of living. What I'm saying is simply that God can know us prior to our birth, and God can predestine our lives very strictly without exhaustive foreknowledge. This would help to understand how God can call Alexander the Great into prophecy or John the Baptist or anyone of us, for that matter. What we will never understand is how God is able to maneuver events to ensure it happens as He wishes. But that's what omnipotence is all about.
Well, I'll shut up now!
For being to darned tired to even think anymore!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
fencesitter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 7/18/2003 4:38 PM (GMT -6) | | St. Arkman wrote:
quote:
Calvin and Arminius established their doctrines because there is some truth to what they say. That's why I said the following in a few posts back:
"Scripture reveals God's determinism in regard to the future similar to Calvinism (Calvin had to get his ideas from something along these Scriptural lines), but Scripture does not reveal the CONTEXT of said determinism in Calvinistically. Further, Scripture reveals the open perspective of the future similar to Arminianism, but does not reveal the CONTEXT of it Arminianistically. The Open View, however, satisifies the tension; it acknowledges the determined and the openness of the future without destroying the very real freedom both God and humanity have."
Sounds interesting. | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 7/19/2003 2:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Starkman:
I haven't been ignoring you, you just seem like to nice a guy to argue with. 
But here goes. When I read Daniel, the way it was written doesn't lend itself to the idea of God determing the events. At least to me. An example:
Daniel 11:5-6
"The king of the South will become strong, but one of His commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. After some years, they will become allies. The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father and the one who supported her."
The nations mentioned are Egypt, led by Ptolemy II Philadelphus(king of the South) and Syria, led by Antiocus II Theos (king of the North).The daughter mentioned was Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II . An alliance was formed between the nations but it didn't last. A conspiracy ensued resulting in the deaths of Berenice and Antiocus. Ptolemy also died at that time.
These events occured some 300 years after Daniel penned them. It is interesting to note that Syria didn't even exist as a nation in Daniel's time.
When I read Daniel's writtings, it doesn't say to me "God will bring this about". It says God knows these things will happen. If Daniel wished to reinforce that God had setted the future in this way, He could easily have spoken in that manner.
Daniel 11 continues to describe the actions, down to motive and intent, of individuals as well as kingdoms for the next hundred years to the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes whose desecration of the temple and brutal suppresion of the Jews resulted in the Maccabean revolt.
So the question remains- "How did God know this would happen?"
OV- God settled these parts of the future and then ensured thay would occur. (Antiochus's brutality included.)
Arminianism- God forsaw man's actual future, including freely made choices for evil.
Calvinism- God determined the future by eternal decree (again Antiochus included). Revealing portions of it to Daniel.
Pretty simple. You can give all the philisophical arguments for why God can't possibly know the furure you want, but the fact is philosophy is man's reasoning. Didn't someone once say "There is nothing so absurd that a philosopher cannot be found to argue for it".
As far as scriptural support for an non-existent future goes, there is none. There is support for a non-determined future but nothing explicitly saying God can't forsee.
What does science say? Einstein's theory's point to a block-universe description of space time. Uncomfortable as it may seem, most physicists hold to this view. There is experimental evidence of it as well. Look up Marlan Scully.
Does this mean things can't be changed? Not to us. We still have to live it out. But to God, this knowledge is accessible. Contradictory? I intuitively don't think so. If you were to ask me which of the above 3 views most closely resembles reality, I would say none is closest. Which is most palatable? You decide.
Edited by - anewbeginning on 07/19/2003 07:31:52 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/19/2003 8:19 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
Everybody please now let us stay "in the circle" of this original question.
So Daniel and Revelation have partly open and partly closed predictions? It this is so which are open and which are closed? Let us use some specifics regarding these books. (I recognize that this is only a portion of these books and that nobody can exhaustively approach this subject [not even God. A little OV humor!] However, let us attempt to delve into the details of these books.
Somebody needs to answer the specifics of Antiochus Epiphanes. What was open and what was closed? Somebody needs to answer the specifics about the Beast. What is open and what is closed?
To be frankly honest with all of you who remain on the philosophical side of this argument we are not gaining any real ground in the specificity of this original question. I can talk about any argument in theory but to take the challenges of these books mentioned and talk about them in detail is another matter. Earp, Starkman, Laika. You must stay "in the circle" of these books if we are ever going to get where we need to go!
It may do everyone some value to pick up your Bible and read these two books again. Especially Daniel 10 and 11 and the whole of Revelation. Now if you are a preterist or an amillinialist in Revelation than just stick to Daniel 10 and 11. Outside of that fact please let us handle the issues of these books in an OV perspective. God knows you have enough other boards to talk philosophically about OV.
I welcome a deeper challenge and think most of you are able to rise to meet it.
Truedude
Hi Trudude,
I am on my way out the door for a long-overdue family reunion of sorts, and will probably not be able to respond for at least two or three days, but...
No, I would not necessarily agree with your assertion that on the OV Daniel and Rev. contain partly open and partly settled aspects, unless the texts themselves plainly state of imply that such is the case.
When a text states something is definitely going to be a certain way, then I take that as within the determined aspect or domain of the future.
When a text states something in the subjunctive (or, as "possibly this and possibly that") I take that as meaning in its plainest form that this expresses what might or might not be.
That all considered, it would seem that the future is predetermined to the extent that scriptures state it is, while it is open (subjunctive/possible) to the extent that the scriptures state it is. Again, (and this is crucial) not ALL of the future is described in Dan. and Rev.
As to Antiochus, and other specific names, as I noted earlier in this thread, his name is nowhere mentioned specifically in the prophecies (which he did in fact later fulfill).
"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
Edited by - John Earp on 07/19/2003 1:25:26 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/19/2003 12:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey newbeginning,
NB: I haven't been ignoring you, you just seem like to nice a guy to argue with.
Starkman: Why ... thank you!  Now sit down and shut up while I post. AND STOP CHEWING WITH YOUR MOUTH OPEN!  (Sorry, it's that evil twin fellow!)
NB: When I read Daniel, the way it was written doesn't lend itself to the idea of God determing the events. At least to me.
When I read Daniel's writtings, it doesn't say to me "God will bring this about". It says God knows these things will happen. If Daniel wished to reinforce that God had setted the future in this way, He could easily have spoken in that manner.
Starkman: Well, if by "determine" we mean that God has to say it like "YOU! You will do this, and you will do that," then I'd agree with you. But if all God is doing is revealing to Daniel things that He (God) will bring to pass and the ramifications those things will have on the world, then there isn't going to be that dynamic "You shall" tone in the language.
Further, these kinds of passages are rare. Very rare. And it is within the context of the rest of Scripture, which clearly portrays our freedom and some of the future as open, that these passages must be kept in mind. Again, not enough evidence to jump whole-heartedly to the other two options.
Let's look at the Daniel 11 text (and by the way, I hold to a very conservative, orthodox view of both the authorship and dating of Daniel, so we're both in sync here):
"The king of the South will become strong, but one of His commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. After some years, they will become allies. The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father and the one who supported her."
In reading this text, there isn't near enough justification to jump whole-heartedly to Calvinism or Arminianism. All God's doing is giving vague generalities (vague compared to how intricate the prophecies could be but aren't.) There isn't anything here that can't also be seen within the context of the Open View. These are simply not that tightely locked in to conclude determinism. Here, let's break the verses down a tad ...
"King of the South will become strong ..." Nothing contrary to Open Theism--God can bring this about without having to read exhaustive foreknowledge into the future.
"... but one of His commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power." Still, nothing too hard for God to bring about without exhaustive foreknowledge.
"After some years, they will become allies." No problem for the Open View.
"The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father and the one who supported her." Ah! "Now I've got you, Starkman," you may say! Not so fast, Mr. A-new-beginning! Mr. Fancy Pants (say, have you ever seen anyone wearing fancy pants? I mean, where do we get these phrases )! All that's said is that the king will have a daughter--is God unable to ensure that the king has a daughter?--and that she won't retain her power, and her father's power takes a dive. She's to be handed over ... well, what part of this IN CONTEXT WITH THE REST OF SCRIPTURE THAT SUPPORTS THE OPEN VIEW is not able to be brought about by God in its due time without insisting that God have exhaustive foreknowledge?
You said this in your post, too: As far as scriptural support for an non-existent future goes, there is none. There is support for a non-determined future but nothing explicitly saying God can't forsee.
Well, we'll just toss out all those open passages (and I just can't take the time to repost them, but they can easily be found on this board and in Open View material) that clearly show God changes His mind, completely acts as if things could have gone one way but went another, and how man himself affects the future; often at which God is astonished. None--yes, none--of the many open passages can be honestly read as you mentioned how you read Daniel 11: that God is telling us what he sees in the future. Quite the contrary; these kinds of passages lead one to read the exact opposit of how we might read Daniel 11--that, indeed, God goes through time with us without the attachments of Arminianism or Calvinism.
Let me say here, anewbeginning, that I definitely respect your view and appreciate the challenge these verses give to the open view. And quite honestly, where it just seems certain in Scripture that God is working from the framework of exhaustive foreknowledge, I myself, have already concluded that those rare passages are not doing this; the rest of Scripture is too loaded with openness to substantiate reading those few isolated challenging verses from the Arminianistic or Calvinistic framework
In other words, I do with those rare passages what others do with all the so-called evidence that seemingly refutes the reliability of, say, Jesus' resurrection, for example. There's not enough time to refute every single objection, and there's no real need to do so: the evidence is sufficient to place our faith in the event as real and historical. But this doesn't mean for one minute that I don't (and won't) tackle these challenging verses. I'm doing so now. I'm just talking about how I personally approach those verses. But that's just me.
NB: So the question remains- "How did God know this would happen?"
OV- God settled these parts of the future and then ensured thay would occur. (Antiochus's brutality included.)
Arminianism- God forsaw man's actual future, including freely made choices for evil.
Calvinism- God determined the future by eternal decree (again Antiochus included). Revealing portions of it to Daniel.
Starkman: Personally, I feel, as I've noted, there are hints of Calvinism in Scripture as much as there are hints of the Open View. It is only the context of Scripture that places great strain between pure Calvinism or Arminianism and the Open View. The Open View acknowledges those times God determines: Calvinism without the pure Calvinistic framework; and that there are hints of what Arminius taught, but Arminianism without the pure Arminianistic framework. The Open View, as I've noted, releases the tension found between Calvinism and Scripture, and Arminianism and Scripture.
NB: You can give all the philisophical arguments for why God can't possibly know the furure you want, but the fact is philosophy is man's reasoning. Didn't someone once say "There is nothing so absurd that a philosopher cannot be found to argue for it".
Starkman: Hmm! You no sooner chastise and whip me, and bereft me of my self-esteem for using using philosophy--you're a mean, nasty anewbeginning, you are!!!--but then you, yourself, resort to ... science, when you say What does science say? Einstein's theory's point to a block-universe description of space time. Uncomfortable as it may seem, most physicists hold to this view. There is experimental evidence of it as well. Look up Marlan Scully. Tsk! Tsk! That's a no-no, you mean, chastising, whipping, berefting A-NEW-BEGINNING! (not as nice as you thought I was, eh!) What's good for the goose is good for the gander! No fair, anewbeginning. Besides, I wasn't even aware I was using philosophy. For pete's sake, I quite reading the Counterfactuals thread because I can't keep up with it. Me? Use philosophy? Eee gads, what next! I'd really loose my self-esteem if I could actually argue philosophically; I'd wonder what the hek happened to me! Regardless, you are aware now, aren't you, that just because someone uses philosophical assistance to argue that that doesn't invalid the argument and, thus, the philosphical portion shouldn't just be discarded as if it's not allowed, unless it can be shown that the philosophy is incorrect? But all you did was just dismiss it as if it were inadmissable evidence. You'll need to do better than that to invalidate my "philosophy," my good man, for I feel that what I said is logically in accordance with what Scripture teaches.
And finally ...
NB: Does this mean things can't be changed? Not to us. We still have to live it out. But to God, this knowledge is accessible. Contradictory? I intuitively don't think so. If you were to ask me which of the above 3 views most closely resembles reality, I would say none is closest. Which is most palatable? You decide.
Starkman: You say, "Contradictory? I intuitively don't think so."??? You ...intuitively don't think so? Well, I do intuitively think so, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion. Scripture is our authority here! (BAD anewbeginning! Now go write on the chalkboard one million times, "I will not let my intuitiveness come into the picture when I debate Starkman. Otherwise I shall be chastised, whipped and berefted by Starkman, just as he has been chastised, whipped and berefted when he has interjected intuitiveness." Go on now, off with ya! (You know I'm hasslin' ya, don't ya!)
If, anew, we resort to the Arminianistic frame work--God sees it all but we don't, and we live it out as if it's never happened--then you must satisifactorily address the dilemmas this kind of theology presents. As an example, I'll post a portion of what I posted earlier:
We might say that God looks into the future and sees how He Himself will interact with everything and anything that will ever happen on earth; Simple Foreknowledge but with a twist. But this is still a fixed and settled future with absolutely no change possible; for every single possible thing that can ever happen--every breath breathed, every thought thought, every word uttered, every emotion felt ... everything--is not only seen by God ahead of time, but He has already decided how He will interact with the future; for God has seen the action and reacted accordingly. Indeed, He is part of the future, the future that is already settled. It's all planned out. Everyone's merely thinking they are free. but they are not. But please note, if Scritpure reveals only one event in the future that is not settled, then some of the future HAS to be open. And indeed, Scripture does reveal that many events are not determined. Now, if anyone wants to believe this twist of Simple Foreknowledge, fine, but there simply isn't the Scriptural support for it. It isn't true to life for us as humanity, and it isn't true to how God reveals Himself.
You see, there's no sense in praying in an Arminian framework, because from eternity past God has already interacted with everything--EVERTYHING: breath, movement, thought, emotion--that will ever be. So, not only would it be lie that we are free--which would completely contradict how Scipture (particularly the opening chapters of Genesis) reveal man's existence--we would not even able to make any difference of any kind; it's already both been seen by God and is, in fact, not change, but a closed, DETERMINED future. One simply can't have their Arminian cake and eat of its free will too. Free will means exactly that: free. It does't mean seemingly free--free to us, and God will just act like we're free to go along with it--it means real freedom. And the only way that can be is if SOME, not all, of the future has not been determined. (And you can't accuse me of using philosophy here, because it's plan ol' logic, and we all use logic every day.)
Further, you will have to satisfactorily address my analogy of God appearing to me and telling me what I'm going to do in one minute's time (I won't repost it here).
Well, the wife's got pizza (home-made, mind you) baking, and if you think I'm going to stick around here any longer debating you--you mean, old anewbeginning ... well, you've just got another thing coming, you do!
Hey, blessings, brother.
We'll yak again!
For ... home-made pizza!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 7/19/2003 1:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Starky:
Hope thats alright with you, John prefers to be more formal.
quote:
But if all God is doing is revealing to Daniel things that He (God) will bring to pass and the ramifications those things will have on the world, then there isn't going to be that dynamic "You shall" tone in the language.
O.K. let's get to the nitty gritty. The biggest problem for the open view in these predictions is not God's ability to bring them to pass. I'll concede that He is able. This takes us as far as Calvinism. I'll even concede He can do it without settling all of the future. There's the O.V., but in your above quote you say "God is...revealing to Daniel things that He (God) will bring to pass...". Enter a problem.
I've seen many a compatibalist berated on this board for holding that God can be omnibenevolent and at the same time for-ordaining evil events. Enter Antiochus IV. Well, here we have God, the O.V. God no less, committing the same offence. On a much smaller scale than the Calvinist God, of course. So, my question to you is- "Whence the O.V. advantage?" .Is God just not quite so morally neutral in O.V.?
Antiochus is well remembered for sacrificing a pig on the temple altar. As well as having women and children thrown from rooftops in his attempt to Completely stamp out the Jewish religion and race. Why would the O.V. God for-ordain this? I haven't recieved an answer to this as yet.
quote:
We might say that God looks into the future and sees how He Himself will interact with everything and anything that will ever happen on earth; Simple Foreknowledge but with a twist. But this is still a fixed and settled future with absolutely no change possible; for every single possible thing that can ever happen--every breath breathed, every thought thought, every word uttered, every emotion felt ... everything--is not only seen by God ahead of time, but He has already decided how He will interact with the future; for God has seen the action and reacted accordingly. Indeed, He is part of the future, the future that is already settled. It's all planned out. Everyone's merely thinking they are free. but they are not.
I don't understand your objection to God's forknowing His interation with our future. For Him, yes it's acomplished. For us, no it's not. Our choices are still ours to make. If I watch a vidoetape of a football game, Does this invalidate th choices made?
Oh Oh, gotta go. Wifes calling. Talk at you later.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2003 6:01 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/19/2003 6:21 PM (GMT -6) | | "light-finger"Fleetwood
quote:
One of the weakest things about arguments supporting open theism is the ascribing of God's attributes to humans. You cannot compare man to God. When you use man's predictions as a comparison, it cannot hold water. Man is not God. Man does not have the mind of God and in the same sense, God is not a man. Stop comparing man to God. It doesn't work. When someone asks you to defend your statements about God, use GOD as the example, not man. Don't give us weak arguments.
Genesis 1:
26 "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
four times in two verses
We're made in God's image. Not physical image, but mental, emotional, personal, soul, spirit. He wants to have a personal relationship with us, He made us in a way He could communicate with us. He made us in a way we could understand Him. When Jesus talks of God as a father, Jesus is using a human example we can understand. "Our father, who art in heaven"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/20/2003 10:31 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm sure you all have read the arguments about how simple foreknowledge does not equal determination. (I don't buy them, but as an alternative....)
God cannot lie, but God can see the future. You think then that God has it all mapped out. But not necessarily. If God can see what free future choices will be made, free will is still retained.
Starkman said"...because He knows the future exaustively, and it has already happend in God's eyes, I'd simply do something entirely different in that minute's time."
Ah, BUT YOU WOULDN'T, b/c if God has said he saw what you would do freely, you freely would do that. You wouldn't do otherwise - but NOT because you couldn't, but b/c you didn't. If you had done otherwise, then God's prediction would have been THAT action. Do you see? The way you feel it is determined is simply b/c God told you ahead of time what you would freely do. So then you have it in your mind that you are being forced to do that action. If God had NOT told you, you would have freely done that action and never thought twice about it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/20/2003 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Ooooh, I love it! 
RD said quote:
Starkman said"...because He knows the future exaustively, and it has already happend in God's eyes, I'd simply do something entirely different in that minute's time."
Ah, BUT YOU WOULDN'T, b/c if God has said he saw what you would do freely, you freely would do that. You wouldn't do otherwise - but NOT because you couldn't, but b/c you didn't. If you had done otherwise, then God's prediction would have been THAT action. Do you see? The way you feel it is determined is simply b/c God told you ahead of time what you would freely do. So then you have it in your mind that you are being forced to do that action. If God had NOT told you, you would have freely done that action and never thought twice about it.
Ah, but I would, RD! I would do something different! Let's watch your line of argument and see why.
First, RD said, "if God has said he saw what you would do freely, you freely would do that. You wouldn't do otherwise - but NOT because you couldn't, but b/c you didn't. If you had done otherwise, then God's prediction would have been THAT action. Do you see?"
Obviously not! For if God appeared to me face to face and told me what I was going to do in, say, one minute's time, I'd simply do otherwise. (Now, all you reading this know what I mean here, don't you? I'm not saying that I'd be rebellious, I'm simply saying, in order to make my point about some of the future being open that within the freedom I have I'd do something different.) A simple experiment can be done with two people--one playing God, the other the OVer--to see that there is clearly no set time AFTER God has uttered His predictions for it to be finally locked in. In other words, no matter what God says I'm going to do, in that one minute's time, I can change it.
Well, RD resorts to her coup'-le-whatever-that-phrase-is--the final blow ... she thinks! She says, "If God had NOT told you, you would have freely done that action and never thought twice about it."
Now just think this through logically. The first mistake here is that the sovereignty of God, and thus the seemingly defeat of the Open View, are possible ONLY if God shuts up! God has to maintain silence in order to ensure His exhaustive knowledge of the future.
So, if God DOES tell me what I'm going to do in one minute's time ... what, the future doesn't stay settled? Can't have your cake and eat it too, RD!!! If ALL the future is settled, God cannot be bound to anything in order for the future to remain settled, vis., God must be silent about the future. No go! It's either settled, period,--regardless of what God says or doesn't say about it--or it is not. One or the other.
The second mistake here is to have contrasted my freely doing whatever I would have done had God NOT told me what I was going to do with ... well, with what? With what I'd do if God DID tell me what I was going to do?? Here, look at her final words again: "If God had NOT told you, you would have freely done that action and never thought twice about it." In other words, if God doesn't tell me what I'm going to do, I'd do it, and I'd do it freely, not knowing any difference. Well, that's fine, because it's true. BUT it cannot be logically infered from this that if God DOES tell me what I'm going to do that I am somehow NOT able to do freely what I, instead, want to do; as if I must now do what God has said I will do, but I'm doing it freely (or not) because I am aware of it, because God told me. That simply makes no sense.
As I've said, unless God has DETERMINED that I am going to do something, or has informed me of something that I will do of which I have no control over (like die), then RD's logic simply doesn't hold. One cannot logically say, "If God doesn't tell me what I'm going to do, I'll do what I do freely; and, conversely, if God does tell me what I will do, I will not do it freely, because I am aware of it." The fact remains that apart from determined events and events outside my free choice, I can choose otherwise.
Man, have I got time to post any more? I've still got to get back to Scott and some others about Evolution! Yikes!
For changing events,
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 07/20/2003 4:32:06 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/20/2003 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, this isn't MY argument - I'm getting it from Plantinga, Craig, et al. I , in fact, as is well known here, am a determinist and so I don't believe in the simple foreknowledge argument - but to refute what you've said, Starkman, is Wm Craig in "thhe Only Wise GOd"- I'm quoting:
"...in effect, the fatalist argues: Necessarily, if God foreknows X, then X will happen. God foreknows X. Therefore, X will necessarily happen. But such reasoning is universally recognized to be logically fallacious. It is like reasoning: Necessarily, if Jones is a bachelor, Jones is unmarried. Jones is a bachelor. Therefore, Jones is necessarily unmarried. But Jones is not NECESSARILY unmarried. He just IS unmarried. He is perfectly free to be married; no necesity compels him to be unmarried. The valid form of the argument would thus read: Necessarily, if Jones is a bachelor, Jones is unmarried. Jones is a bachelor. Therefore, Jones is unmarried. This form of the argument does not preclude that jones has it in his power to be married. If he were married, then he would not be a bachelor. From the fact that he is a bachelor, we know with absolute certainty that he is unmarried. But he is not necessarily unmarried; that is, it is not impossible for him to be married....The same situation holds in the case of the argument concerning God's foreknowledge. The valid form of the argument is: Necessarily, if God foreknows X, then X will happen. God foreknows X. Therefore, X will happen. It is fallacious to infer that X will NECESSARILY happen. Of course, if it were to fail to happen, God would not have foreknown X. From God's forewknowledge of X we can be absolutely sure that X will occur. But it does not have to occur; it is possible for it to fail to happen.
What is impossible is a situation in which God foreknows X and X fails to happen, for this would be a logical contradiction. It is impossible for both God to foreknow that Jones will mow the law and Jones to refrain from Mowing the lawn. BUt by no stretch of the imagination can we construe as a limitation on Jones' freedom his inability to bring about a situation in which both God foreknows that he will mow the lawn and he refrains from mowing it! What is meant by freedom is that Jones is free either to mow or to refrain, and whatever he does God will foreknow."
pages 72-73
I'm not going to keep going, but you get the gist. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2003 12:49 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Laika
quote:
Genesis 1:
26 "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
...
We're made in God's image. Not physical image, but mental, emotional, personal, soul, spirit. He wants to have a personal relationship with us, He made us in a way He could communicate with us. He made us in a way we could understand Him. When Jesus talks of God as a father, Jesus is using a human example we can understand. "Our father, who art in heaven"
Laika, I don't want to do damage to the PART of what you say that is half right. A true part about "image" is -- and you are right -- that "image" does relate to the domain of our thoughts, etc. But one limitation is that we are fallen, and another limitation is that even in the garden WE were not yet mature.
So, it seems that Fleetwood is untouched here. Translate his "Man is not God. Man does not have the mind of God and in the same sense, God is not a man." into "We know as in a glass darkly."
As we used to say back in the 60's: "Same difference."
But don't you agree with the implications further, too, laika. Will you ever know God to the degree that he knows you? And since God is creator won't you be known fully; whereas your knowledge of him will always be revealed in your relationship with Him. You will never be an inner part of the Trinity, but God will always be in and through all of His Creation. THOSE differences between God and man will never change.
A bit more: Laika, where you say "We're made in God's image. . .mental, emotional, personal, soul, spirit" I'm not sure what you are saying.
Would you like to think about that, and say more?
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
| 97 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:48 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 |
|
|