quote:

---

What is impossible is a situation in which God foreknows X and X fails to happen, for this would be a logical contradiction.

---

quote:

---

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.?

---

• You will need one grape and four toothpicks.



• You will need to know what a "tetrahedron" is: www.cs.berkeley.edu/~j-yen/cs285/images/escher/tetrahedron.jpg



• Simply...Take each of the four toothpicks and insert them into four points on the grape, exactly extending from the center of mass of the grape, and extending outwards in such a way that the outermost point of each toothpick is equidistant from each of the other three toothpicks.

quote:

---

Laika, that is a really ------ question! Man makes the tripod. You trying to say that because man makes something, it means God is not all powerful? Geesh! That is sad. Who makes the man that makes the tripod? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You use human reasoning to defend your view. I cannot imagine living with the belief you have of God not being all powerful. But it is a typical open theist belief so doesn't surprise me. It is sad though.

---

Can God make a square circle? You're evading the question.

Can God make a married batchelor? Yes or No? Easy question.

quote:

---

Many justifications of open theism that I have stumbled across use human examples, such as "If my wife.. yada, yada." They don't work.

---

We're in good company, Fleetwood.
Here's a list of the parables Jesus told, taken from:
www.bcbsr.com/survey/jpbl.html

Lamp Under a Basket
A Wise Man Builds on Rock
and a Fool on Sand
New Cloth on and Old Garment
New Wine in Old Wineskins
The Sower
The Tares (Weeds)
The Mustard Seed
The Leaven
The Hidden Treasure
The Pearl of Great Price
The Dragnet
The Householder
The Lost Sheep
The Unforgiving Servant
The Workers in the Vineyard
The Two Sons
The Wicked Tenants
The Wedding Feast
The Fig Tree
The Ten Virgins
The Talents
The Growing Seed
The Watchful Porter
The Creditor and Two Debtors
The Good Samaritan
A Friend in Need
The Rich Fool
The Faithful and Wise Servant
Faithful and Wicked Steward
The Barren Fig Tree
The Lowest Seat
Building a Tower and Making War
The Lost Coin
The Lost Son
The Shrewd Manager
The Rich Man and Lazarus
Unprofitable Servants
The Persistent Widow
The Pharisee and the Tax Collector
The Minas (Pounds)

Do you see any here that ARE NOT human examples???

How else is God going to talk to us? Using Star Trek examples???
How are we to explain God to others? Using inhuman examples?



Edited by - Laika on 07/20/2003 8:48:39 PM

quote:

---

Of course not - God can't do the illogical. Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? This is merely a silly word game. It's like saying, can God make black white? Can God make up down? When you say things like that - a married bachelor, a square circle- all you're doing is taking the definition of something, then saying, can God make it NOT be that.
Most people agree that the definition of omnipotence means God is all powerful, he can do anything logically possible. The fact that he can't make a square circle doesn't make him not omnipotent.

---

So then why do some people think He can know that which is NOT knowable? If He can't do the un-doable, that doesn't limit His power. If He can't know the unknowable, that doesn't limit His knowlege.



Edited by - Laika on 07/20/2003 8:49:04 PM

quote:

---

You used the phrase, "for-ordaining evil events." However, does God have to "ordain" that there's going to be evil in order for it to happen AND in order for Him to both control and use it? Let's consider exactly what we mean when we say "ordain" and when we use the term "evil." Did God ordain Adam and Eve's fall? No, but He allowed it. But did He ordain Christ's sufferings--the evil that came upon Him? Certainly.

---

quote:

---

Here are what I believe are basic tenets of O.V. applicable to my problem.Correct me if I'm wrong.

1. God is omniscient(all-knowing) but since the future (outside of what God has settled in His mind) does not exist until we actualize it, it exists in God's mind only as possibilities and/or probabilities. Because of God's infinite intelligence, He perfectly anticipates all possible outcomes, therefore He is never caught unawares or offguard by any actuality.

2. God has settled parts of the future and part of it He leaves open for creaturely resolution. As He is omnipotent, He can act unilaterally, if He so chooses, to ensure His goals are achieved. This could involve compatibalistic manipulation and/or direct subversion of creaturely freedom.(though moral responsibility would be precluded if the later implicated the creature involved)

3. Prophecy in O.V. takes one or more of two possible forms.
1) If a creature's character becomes resolved sufficiently, it is possible for God to accurately predict said creature's future choices.(eg. Peter's denial)
2) If the prophecied event is something God has settled before hand, He will do what is necessary to acomplish it. (eg. Christ's birth and affiliated prophecy)

4. As God is omnibenevolent, He is never the author or initiator of evil. Evil is always the result of a will other than God. In fact, O.V. was partially formed as the basis for an exhaustive theodicy.

---

Well said and stated clearly. As for Antiochus, I'm going to look at it and will let you know what I think, it looks very interesting.



Edited by - Laika on 07/21/2003 07:49:58 AM

quote:

---

3. Prophecy in O.V. takes one or more of two possible forms.
1) If a creature's character becomes resolved sufficiently, it is possible for God to accurately predict said creature's future choices.(eg. Peter's denial)
2) If the prophecied event is something God has settled before hand, He will do what is necessary to acomplish it. (eg. Christ's birth and affiliated prophecy)

---

quote:

---

Starkman and Laika:

I wrote:

quote:

---

3. Prophecy in O.V. takes one or more of two possible forms.
1) If a creature's character becomes resolved sufficiently, it is possible for God to accurately predict said creature's future choices.(eg. Peter's denial)
2) If the prophecied event is something God has settled before hand, He will do what is necessary to acomplish it. (eg. Christ's birth and affiliated prophecy)

---

To be fair I think I should add a third category of prophecy to this list.

1b) While indiviual choices remain indeterminate, God can accurately predict populations of individuals through statistical laws and probability. (eg. Israel falling away)

I reread my post and noticed I refered to "conceptual prophecy" and that it didn't fit into the other categories. Sorry about that.

---

You're doing great. A couple of things I'd add, I'm not sure where they'd fit in:

1. God deals with governments/nations differently than with individuals. Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream

37 "You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength and the glory;
38 and wherever the sons of men dwell, or the beasts of the field, or the birds of the sky, He has given them into your hand and has caused you to rule over them all. You are the head of gold."

We see in scripture that God exerts some control over some nations. Not micro-managing type of control but more a limitation of evil. I think part of this is in response to how bad it got before the flood.

So some prophecy is God detailing what He will accomplish with regards to controlling a nation. But it's a coarse grained control.

2. There's a war going on in the background. Eph 6:12
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."
In Daniel 10:12 "Then he said to me, "Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words.
13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia."

I think some prophecies are God telling us what these evil spiritual beings are going to do using people. These spiritual beings are very set in their character and purposes, so solidified it's easy to predict what they are going to do. I think the spiritual beings controllling Antiochus Epiphanes, the anti-Christ and the beast are such.

I don't think there are any superfluous prophecies such as the Mets would win the World Series in 1969. I think people erroneously think that because God makes a few thousand predictions and declarations of His will, they scale that up to mean He determines everything. Those people have yet to prove the logic behind that scaling.

anewbeginning, you have a good grasp of this and have brought good ideas to the table.

quote:

---

It sounds humorous and simplistic, but so do the examples I hear open theists give when they compare humans to God.

---

Every parable of Jesus, He used human examples.

quote:

---

As God is omnibenevolent, He is never the author or initiator of evil. Evil is always the result of a will other than God. In fact, O.V. was partially formed as the basis for an exhaustive theodicy.

---

quote:

---

I personally don't quite understand this assumption. On the one hand, you say that God did not create, desire, or will evil "out of thin air" because if he did, this would mean he is not omnibenevolent. But on the other hand, you say he causes evil and controls it? How would Him causing evil be reconciled with His omnibenevolence? He does not create it but he causes it? How do you differentiate between "create" and "cause"? God causing evil seems no more benevolent than God creating evil.

---

A well known verse: Isaiah 45:7
I am the one who forms light
and creates darkness;
the one who brings about peace
and creates calamity.
I am the Lord, who accomplishes all these things.

Clearly God does NOT create evil in the sense that He is the author or manufacture--as in a machine shop--of evil; God does not "make" evil. When I (or Scripture, as in the case if Isaiah 45:7) speak of God "causing" evil, I'm saying that he "initiates" it, but I'm also saying that in order to initiate He must cause the agency of evil to do as He wishes; initiation is the action itself of the agency of evil. For instance, if God is going to plague a nation, He first, then, must cause (not to be confused with create) the agency of plague, and then He must initiate its action upon the nation. Kind of a somewhat blurred division of what someone might say is one and the same act (cause/initiate), but the difference, though subtle is vital; for God has not just used or initiated a plague, for instance, He has come up with the idea that this (form of) evil is, indeed, to be the agency. First the conception of the agency--the cause--then the initiation--the use.

This then is God in action. He not only uses evil (remember, that we've talked about a few different concepts of what (and how) we define evil), but He first must cause it to be the agency of choice. This is NOT creating evil--as if God created Satan as Satan is today, or as if God creates pure, ontological evil--an evil in and of itself. Were God to do those kinds of things, He would then be in contradiction to His omnibenevolence.

quote:

---

I find this statement disturbing "Evil is a tool we have given Him in which to work his purposes." I would not call evil a "tool". You also said that God "works with what he has." Do you not believe that God could certainly rid the world of evil without destroying the world?" This is my limited human perspective, but could he not bring plagues, or cause muteness, or bring other circumstances that could stop evildoers? [emphasis Starkman's] I believe he can. I agree with you that he allows evil. That is a definite. But when you say he works with what he has, it sounds as if he has limited power and can do no other than to take what he has and "make the best of it." This is precisely why I often observe open theism as creating a weakened God.

---

First, in God's use of evil ...
Look very closely at what I put in bold of your quote, and you will see exactly (and hopefully no more than) what I am saying. Here's that part of the quote again with emphasis used accordingly to make the point: This is my limited human perspective, but could he [God] not bring plagues [evil!], or cause [ahem! Cause? That's what I've been saying!] muteness [evil!] ....

See you you yourself are using the very language and context that I am? The difference: I'm articulating it so that we stop and think about what we are saying. Otherwise, we go go to quickly with our words and thoughts and don't see what we are really saying--God "causes," evil, God "uses" evil. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with what you said at all. But when we kind of stop and think about the very words we use, it makes us think!

Second, about the tool of evil we have given God ...

Here again, Fleetwood, I can see how you are interpreting this, and I'm really trying hard to be as clear as I can so as to not cause confusion. What I'm saying here is that the context this world exists in is sin. Sin is evil! Who sinned? "All have sinned." So, it is this evil wickedness that we "offer" to God, from which He redeems us. BUT before total redemption comes, evil, then, is the context in which God must work. Oh, surely that's not to say that we humans are not noble also, or that there isn't good that we can do, but we are talking about the context of this world. It is not "good," it is evil.

Now, here again, we must remember what I've said about evil: Satanic and non-Satanic. (Doc and others might disagree with me, but they have the right to be wrong! I'm kiddin' them!) So, with a world full of wicked people--wicked because they are sinners and outside of relationship with God--and with a world full of sickness, famine, death, disease, violence--on and on--this is what we have made of it, and this, therefore, is all we really have to give God to work with in order to save us. "There is no one who seeks God." Evil, in this context, then, is the tool we have given Him to work with. This is what I meant about the Noahatic event: God agrees to work WITHIN a context of sin, but it will mean hell to pay for everyone; God and us. The "good" here on earth is darkened by the evil that accompanies it. This is our "best," if you will, to offer Him; a broken world full of evil that has corrupted what would have otherwise been solidly good.

So in this context, God works with what He has. This isn't ALL He has to work with, but it is what the human race has contributed. So, God may do good--which He would prefer to always do--but He must also cause/do/initiate evil (keeping in context what I mean by this).
These are the tools He has to work with. (Again, not the Handy-Man tools found at Ace Hardware, but "tools" used in the metaphorical sense! )

Rats! Time's up. Got to run,

For the Tool-Time God!

Starkman