 |
| 
Leila
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 5/13/2003 5:14 AM (GMT -6) |   | As a newcomer to the concept of Open Theism, I am hoping that someone could anwer a couple of questions:
(1) One of the arguments I have read in support of OT states that we cannot be free and morally responsible for what we do if our future has been settled in God’s mind. In my opinion, simply because God knows the choices we will make doesn’t mean we were not free to make the choice; His simply knowing about our decisions and actions in advance does not mean He determines them. I just don’t understand why God’s foreknowledge and individual self-determination are viewed as incompatible.
(2) What is the most convincing argument in support of OT? Is it scriptural (e.g., instances where God appears to change His mind)? Philosophical? What’s the most convincing argument against it?
Thanks!
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 5/13/2003 5:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, Leila. Unfortunately, I don't have time to get into this at the moment, but I just wanted to let you know that your first question above is the main question I had as well. I think it's a good one. I'll try to give you a more involved answer soon, but in short it has something to do with the fact that exhaustive foreknowledge cannot be sufficiently distinguished from predetermination when it is played out. For example, if an omniscient God knows from the beginning of time that I rob a bank today, do I have any choice not to rob a bank today?
Anyway, gotta run. Great question. Others with more time and knowledge will give you a much more helpful answer, I am sure.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/13/2003 9:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Leila,
Try to grab this, because it's critical to understand why God doesn't have Simple Foreknowledge (from an OV perspective).
If God already knows you are going to do x, y and z on Oct 3, 2003, then it's SETTLED! There is no possible change of plans, because God has already forseen all changes before the final conclusion of what you will do on Oct 3. So you are destined by God's own knowledge (not his determination) to do x, y and z.
NOTE: This kind of foreknowledge (Simple Foreknowledge) is comprised of ALL you will ever think, say or do. There is no limited foreknowledge in this scenario; there can't be, or we're back to an open view. Either God knows ALL you will think, say and do, or He has left something of the future open, which the OV contends is the case; otherwise there would truly be no freedom.
Now consider this:
God appears before you and says, "Leila, in 30 seconds you're going to scratch your head; I know, because I know the future exhaustively."
You wait 30 seconds and don't scratch your head.
God says, "Well, I knew you would do that too."
You repsond, "Then why didn't you tell me that I would not scratch my head?"
The point: at what exact time is it finally decided when all change has taken place and God's knowledge of all we will do (Simple Foreknowledge) is settled? I contend that that exact moment doesn't exist . . . in every situation. That leaves the future open for freedom to be expressed. Now, can God work around these issues when He wants to and provoke someone to do something? Well, sure. We see it with Jonah and many others. But to do so, neither the future need be exhaustively settled, nor our freedom found false.
I hope this helps.
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown
Edited by - Starkman on 05/13/2003 2:14:42 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
bellings
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 5/13/2003 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | | I have to agree with Leila. I don't see why God's knowledge and freedom are incompatible. Just because God knows what you are going to do doesn't mean that you didn't choose to do it. The argument against this is just plain abstract, and basically equates God's foreknowledge to him choosing for us. Just because I know that gravity will pull a brick to the ground if I drop it doesn't mean that my knowledge caused gravity to pull the brick. OT is simply trying to sidestep something we have a hard time comprehending. It reminds me of the time they were trying to understand the planets. The Earth was at the center, and everything moved in circles. Then people started realizing the planets appeared to move out of the circles, even backwards. The refused change their belief of the circle, so they expanded their theory to allow the planets to rotate in a circle around it's orbit circle. The theory was getting more complicated and more unlikely, and in the end, it was discovered that the physics determining the orbits were elegantly simply.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/13/2003 11:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Bellings, the problem with this is the following:
Say you were able to speak to God. You ask him, what day will I die? He says, June 13, 2050. Now, it must come about that you die on that date, b/c God can utter no false statement. No matter what you do now, you can't avoid that death. You can't kill yourself earlier either to spite God. It will seem, that you do not have any free will whatsoever, that everything then is fated towards that day of your death.
You CAN say, that God is merely foreseeing what would happen without his interference whatsoever. That he is foreseeing what freely will happen on June 13, 2050. However, since he told you that, you will now feel as though you've been robbed of any decision in the matter, have been robbed of any steps you could take to avoid it.
Do you see why this is problematic to simple foreknowledge? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/13/2003 12:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Reasonable,
Just because God knows what you are going to do doesn't mean that you didn't choose to do it. The argument against this is just plain abstract, and basically equates God's foreknowledge to him choosing for us.
No one said that one isn't choosing just because God may have foreknowledge of that one's choice; it is that the choice is already destined: not by God determining it (as I noted), but by the foreknowledge of the choice--the choice can't be any other way than what God knows it will be.
This, then, would mean I do not have some free will, because I have no say to change my choice; it's already known what I will do. Now watch this: to simply say that I can change my mind about my choices BUT still maintain that God knows all the choices I will make, doesn't solve the issue; for God has already known that I would do X, Y and Z choices. It is futile to petition Him to have it any other way. For God to be able to always say, "Okay, next, you'll pray, then I'll say X, Y and Z in response to your prayer, then you'll say this, then I'll say that, then . . . ," because of His having complete foreknowledge is to have EVERY aspect of my life confined to a known end: on October 3, Keith will do X, Y and Z. It cannot be any other way, for God foreknows it. (If there is any merit to the argument for foreknowledge, I would concede the concept only in regard to the Arminianism perspective of predestination: God already knows who is and is not going to be saved.)
As I noted, when exactly is that final point of "okay, it's settled: no changes can be made"? There is no such time in many instances. Not all, but many.
The argument is not at all abstract, and it certainly does not equate to God choosing for me; it only equates to my choices being already settled.
Just because I know that gravity will pull a brick to the ground if I drop it doesn't mean that my knowledge caused gravity to pull the brick.
This is the way, however, that the brick is made to react to gravity. There's no issue of free will. The brick wasn't made to have a say about it. This is certainly not the same aspect of human beingness. (Yes, humans will fall if dropped, but that's not to say that we have no free will, just partial free will (and not when falling in mid-air).
Say you were able to speak to God. You ask him, what day will I die? He says, June 13, 2050. Now, it must come about that you die on that date, b/c God can utter no false statement. No matter what you do now, you can't avoid that death.
Sure you can avoid dying when God says you will (well, not everyone and not all the time.) Take Hezekiah's situation in Isaiah 38:
In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."
Well, read the rest of the chapter, and you'll find that Hezekiah simply went before the Lord, pleaded his case, and God responded:
"Then the word of the Lord came to Isaiah: "Go and tell Hezekiah
'This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will add fifteen years to your life.'"
How sensless, phony, and unsincere of a relationship it would be if what God was really saying to Hezekiah (and to all of us) was, "Okay, Hez, you're going to die; you won't recover. Well, you won't really die, but I know that if I tell you that you're going to die, you'll weep and pray to me. So, really, you're not going to die, because I'm actually going to add fifteen years to your life--which, by the way, you don't really know if that's what I mean, because you don't know what I know you'll say and do once I tell you that information. Besides, I'm not really adding anyting to your life if I already know that you're not going to die, because I've already known that after you ask me to live, I'll simply do what I already knew I was going to do: let you live."And on and on it goes.
Under this framework, we can come to the conclusion that God is very deceitfully reacting to our already-known actions; His being already known also. This is simply not the way God is reavealed in the Bible as having relationship with us. For that matter, it isn't the way anyone relates to anyone.
There simply is no real relationship between God and man when there is not some amount of freedom given to man.
For the choices we make,
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown
Edited by - Starkman on 05/13/2003 5:49:59 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 5/13/2003 1:49 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
(1) One of the arguments I have read in support of OT states that we cannot be free and morally responsible for what we do if our future has been settled in God’s mind. In my opinion, simply because God knows the choices we will make doesn’t mean we were not free to make the choice; His simply knowing about our decisions and actions in advance does not mean He determines them. I just don’t understand why God’s foreknowledge and individual self-determination are viewed as incompatible.
Hi Leila!
In response to you question we need to consider the possible ways in which God could come by his knowledge of the future. There are basically four possibilities:
(a) Classical theism: God knows what will happen b/c God determines what will happen.
(b) Simple foreknowledge: God knows what will happen b/c God can see the future from an eternal vantage point.
(c) Molinism: God knows what will happen b/c God knows what any free creature would do in any situation and based on that knowledge chooses which possible world to creature.
(d) Open theism: The future is partly settled (by God's choices) and partly unsettled (contingent on the choices of free creatures). God knows the settled parts as settled and the unsettled parts as unsettled.
Option (a) affirms determinism and is thus incompatible w/ libertarian free will.
Option (b) is consistent with free will (as far as I can see) but offers Gods zero providential control subsequent to creation. On this view his knowing what happens is logically subsequent to its happening, by which time it's too late for God to do anything about it. This option also presupposes divine timelessness, which is highly debatable (see William Lane Craig's book "Time and Eternity").
Option (c) offers God significant providential control but is, I would argue, internally inconsistent. Molinism collapses into either option (a) or option (d). For details, see my Refutation of Molinism thread (www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1830).
Option (d) is consistent with libertarian freedom and offers God as much providential control as he desires.
From a strictly philosophical perspective, therefore, I would argue that open theism is the best position. From an exegetical perspective I think matters are more ambiguous, but it seems to me that Boyd and Sanders have laid out a respectable exegetical case in their books.
quote:
2) What is the most convincing argument in support of OT? Is it scriptural (e.g., instances where God appears to change His mind)? Philosophical? What’s the most convincing argument against it?
I find the philosophical arguments to be the most compelling. The scripture evidence, it seems to me, is not as conclusive. I think the strongest argument contra open theism appeals to examples of specific fulfilled prophecies in scripture (e.g., Peter's denial, Judas' betrayal, etc.). Open theists can handle these cases, but sometimes the necessary exegesis seems a bit strained, at least to me.
Hope that helps,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/13/2003 3:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey there Leila,
"In my opinion, simply because God knows the choices we will make doesn’t mean we were not free to make the choice; His simply knowing about our decisions and actions in advance does not mean He determines them. I just don’t understand why God’s foreknowledge and individual self-determination are viewed as incompatible."
I would agree with what you have said, Leila.
However, if my future has been settled in God’s mind, how would it be any different, that is, no difference could exist between what has been settled in God’s mind and what enters into my mind. Which means, there is no individual self-determination, the future has been settled, settled by God’s mind, not in His mind.
I believe that to truly have a good understanding of the open view, which I am just beginning to understand myself after a year or so, I need to not forget all of God’s attributes, than to just dwell on His foreknowledge.
Consider this, I enjoy John Calvin’s writing and disagree with him in only one respect, as I understand him, but what people who call themselves Calvinist have to say about his writings, I mostly disagree with, because it becomes obvious to me that they have never read him. So I suggest, that you view the OT from what these people have to say, and not from what others have to say about them, you might agree, as does John Calvin agree with much of what they have to say.
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Seesaw
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 70
| Posted 5/13/2003 3:58 PM (GMT -6) | | RD- I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at? but boy am I glad God doesn't tell us what day we die! 
I echo some of the same sentiments as Billings in that I see God's knowledge and freedom as being compatible. I have also found arguments against this to be abstract and sidestepping. I don't know much about the time they were trying to understand the earth though!
Good questions Leila.
It seems that most OV arguments are mostly philosophical in nature.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/13/2003 5:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Leila,
I find that the biblical evidence in support of Open View Theism is quite irrefutable. (This I think is what really drives the Calvinists nuts about OVT). In fact, I for one have been quite amazed at how scant the scriptural evidence is for traditional foreknowledge. The commonly used proof-texts used by opponents of the OV are for the most part quite satisfactorily explained by OVT. The problem passages generally have to do with Jesus predicting Judas' betrayal, and God's predestination of Jesus. But just because some things are predetermined does not mean that ALL things are.
The dozens of passages which clearly describe God as changing his mind (repenting/relenting--Hb. 'naham'), really make no sense at all from the classical theistic perspective, and I submit can only make sense with the Open view. I was an Open Theist before I even heard the term, "Open Theism." Several years before I had even heard of Greg Boyd or the Open view, I preached a sermon based on 2 Kings 20 in which the primary point was, "Through Prayer You Have the Power to Change God's Mind!" (of course, sometimes, not all the time).
Since studying the Open view in more detail in the last four years or so, the Bible has literally seemed to come alive to me. God no longer appears as an arbitrary tyrant as He sometimes did to me when I vainly tried to hold on to traditional foreknowledge while also trying to affirm human moral responsibility.
My 2c
"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 05/14/2003 9:48:20 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/14/2003 4:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Leila-
I think you’ll find that different open theists find different arguments for the open view more convincing than others. Allan, for example, finds the philosophical arguments more powerful than, say, the biblical/exegetical ones. Being a philosophical dunce myself, I found the biblical evidence more convincing because that’s were I live. Take a slow and studied approach to all the evidence and see what grabs you, if anything. It’s like Cary Grant said to Doris Day, “You can’t rush up to the Greek islands. You have to approach them slowly, like beautiful paintings. Each one is a work of art.” Take you time and wade through the different arguments for and against.
Leila: (1) One of the arguments I have read in support of OT states that we cannot be free and morally responsible for what we do if our future has been settled in God’s mind. In my opinion, simply because God knows the choices we will make doesn’t mean we were not free to make the choice; His simply knowing about our decisions and actions in advance does not mean He determines them.
Tom: You’re absolutely right. God’s foreknowing our choices doesn’t mean GOD determined those choices. Open theists have never argued that it does. We’ve never argued that it’s God’s foreknowledge that determines. What we argue is only that God’s foreknowing our decisions shows or proves that WE are not the ones determining our choices. If it’s not God, fine. But for sure it’s not us. And this is all that’s needed to show incompatibility.
Let it be granted that our choices DO exist eternally in God’s mind, and let it also be granted that God did NOT determine them. It still follows that WE did not determine them since we are not eternal. Who or what determined our choices? We don’t have to know the answer to know that we DIDN’T determine them. So, if they’re eternally settled in God’s mind, it wasn’t us that put them there, and if we didn’t put them there, we didn’t determine them, in which case we cannot be morally responsible for them.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bellings
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 5/14/2003 6:27 AM (GMT -6) | | No one said that one isn't choosing just because God may have foreknowledge of that one's choice; it is that the choice is already destined: not by God determining it (as I noted), but by the foreknowledge of the choice--the choice can't be any other way than what God knows it will be.
Let's assume for a minute that God does have simple foreknowledge. You say that we don't have free choice, but that God isn't determining the choice for us. I think that it is fair to say that either human of God is making the choice. Which one is it?
"Then the word of the Lord came to Isaiah: "Go and tell Hezekiah
'This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will add fifteen years to your life.'"
Okay, I hate to invoke pop culture, but the best thing I can think of the the Matrix. The Oracle told Neo that he wasn't the chosen one, but he was. Neo was told exactly what he needed to hear in order for the desired outcome to occur. I see nothing wrong with this interpretation of the Hezekiah story.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/14/2003 6:40 AM (GMT -6) | | bellings: Let's assume for a minute that God does have simple foreknowledge. You say that we don't have free choice, but that God isn't determining the choice for us. I think that it is fair to say that either human of God is making the choice. Which one is it?
Tom: We'd certainly like to know wouldn't we? But the argument for EDF based on simple foreknowledge doesn't at all require that we know who renders our choices determinate in God's mind. It just begins with an exhaustively definite foreknown future. And this is the problem. Those who argue FOR this are right in pointing out that such foreknowledge does not logically implicate God or God's knowledge as the determiner. So they mistakingly think that becasue God is off the hook (so to speak) that WE must by default be the ones who are determining our choices. But unfortunately this isn't the case. Just showing that simple foreknowledge doesn't prove that God determined our choices doesn't go very far in showing that EDF and libertarian freedom are compatible. What one must show is that simple foreknowledge can bear the weight of OUR being the ones who determine our choices. And this it cannot do. On the contrary, if shows that WE are NOT the ones determining our choices. If God eternally foreknows our choices, they are not libertarian choices WE made. Who make them? Simple foreknowledge can't say. It can only say:
a) God cannot be believed on the basis of simple foreknowledge to have determined our choices, and
b) People cannot be believed on the basis of simple foreknowledge to have determined their own choices.
Advocates of the view cheer over (a). They remind us, "Remember now, merely foreKNOWING a choice doesn't mean DETERMINING that choice." But they ignore (b), the face that if our choices are foreknown they remain determinED, though by what or whom we cannot say, except to say that it was certainly not by US.
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 05/14/2003 11:53:46 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom - that's not my interpretation of simple foreknowledge at all. Isn't it that there is no determinism? In that case, neither God nor nature is determining anything. Rather, each person exercises their radical free will. So there's no problem saying God simply knows what will happen but does not determine it. Radical freedom (ultimate responsibility) is exercised by each individual who then is morally responsible for their actions.
Mind you, I don't believe this - but I don't see that there's any necessary problem with it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/14/2003 7:19 AM (GMT -6) | | RD: Tom - that's not my interpretation of simple foreknowledge at all. Isn't it that there is no determinism? In that case, neither God nor nature is determining anything. Rather, each person exercises their radical free will. So there's no problem saying God simply knows what will happen but does not determine it. Radical freedom (ultimate responsibility) is exercised by each individual who then is morally responsible for their actions.
Mind you, I don't believe this - but I don't see that there's any necessary problem with it.
Tom: There's no problem in simple foreknowledge with saying God knows what will happen but does not determine it. There's nothign logically incoherent here. The problem is that this view cannot (as is claimed) maintain human libertarian free will. The advocates of the view ASSUME that since the view doesn't directly implicate God in determining our choices that WE must therefore be the ones determining those choices. But this is only an assumption, and an illfounded one at that. What simple foreknowledge actually proves (assuming God possesses such foreknowledge) is that we cannot be the ones determining our choices. Granted, God might not (only MIGHT not) be the one determinging them, but we CERTAINLY are not the ones determining them.
In other words, simple foreknowledge cannot prove that God does not determine our choices. Regarding God, the best simple foreknowledge can do is say "There's nothing here that proves God determined our choices." (Of course, there's nothing in it that proves he DIDN'T determine our choices.) It's an argument from silence.
Regarding us, however, rather than proving that we determine our choices, simple foreknowledge ends up proving we cannot be the ones determining our choics.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/14/2003 10:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Bellings said, Okay, I hate to invoke pop culture, but the best thing I can think of the the Matrix. The Oracle told Neo that he wasn't the chosen one, but he was. Neo was told exactly what he needed to hear in order for the desired outcome to occur. I see nothing wrong with this interpretation of the Hezekiah story.
First, this was a single event, and only a single event in the movie. It wasn't the way ALL relationships were between the Oracle and others. We would be making one hek of an unwarranted assumption to suggest that God's manner of relating to us is to always say what we "need to hear" or that He interacts with us (assuming Simple Foreknowledge) with the reality being, "I'll say such-and-such to Bellings, and then he'll say sucn-and-such in response, which is what I want, and then I'll continue with my conversation with him as if it's really happening at the time it's taking place, but it really hasn't, because I've already foreknown every conversation--and everything else, for that matter--that will happen in his life . . . ." This simply is not a warranted interpreation of how God interacts in the Bible. Are there exceptions? Well, sure. But they prove the point.
Second, it is assumption that Hezekiah needed to hear that he was going to die (viz., God uttered the sentence to cause Hezekiah to pray and weep before God.) It may have been, but we don't know. What I believe is infered from the context is that God appreciated Hezekiah's heart and granted him more time to live. Beyond that we are assuming.
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
Leila
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 5/15/2003 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | | It’s taken me a while to digest all of this, but I understand now why foreknowledge is incompatible with free will. I think that I had been approaching this issue with two incorrect assumptions:
(1) I incorrectly assumed that free will is acting according to one’s own beliefs and desires with a sense of option and freedom. I had been ignoring the fact that free will requires the ability to do other than what is pre-known.
(2) I also incorrectly assumed that OT equated foreknowledge with the knower doing the action; that if God foreknew something, we didn't have free will, and that therefore God caused our action.
Thanks for helping me to clarify my thinking on this.
I found an interesting essay addressing this topic: http://www.tyler.net/triddorus/omniscience.html
I’d appreciate hearing more about what everyone thinks are the strongest/weakest arguments for/against Open Theism.
Thanks.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/15/2003 12:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Leila,
Ultimately, if you ask me, the strongest argument for the Open View is our own lives. We simply live, act and operate as if this is the way it is. And God seems to agree.
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 5/15/2003 5:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Leila, continue your search. You ask good questions. Foreknowledge and free will are compatible yet difficult to grasp. The OV contains many flaws. Ultimately, it leads to a sense of emptiness since the person's will, in finality, usurps the power of God. Starkman's comment reflects this emptiness of a life lived where the human will is greater than God's sovereignty and knowledge. "We simply live, act and operate as if this is the way it is" is a rather futile state of living. It is a description of life in which God is merely a spectator. The OV fights to defend what OV perceives to be God's inabilities rather than to submit to his undeniable greatness and authority.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/15/2003 5:25 PM (GMT -6) | | | Christian : Where have you been, man? You hit the nail on the head here!! :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/15/2003 7:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Leila: I had been ignoring the fact that free will requires the ability to do other than what is pre-known.
Tom: Actually, it's the power to do other "than we do," not other than what is foreknown (since there's nothing foreknown).
Christian: Foreknowledge and free will are compatible yet difficult to grasp.
Tom: Only difficult?
Christian: The OV contains many flaws. Ultimately, it leads to a sense of emptiness since the person's will, in finality, usurps the power of God.
Tom: Now look at this: Open theism leads to a "sense of emptiness" BECAUSE the person's will "usurps the power of God."
What could you possible know, Christian, about what open theism leads to existentially for open theists? Have you observed great numbers of open theists and noticed that they're always depressed, hopeless, and empty? I think what you mean is YOU believe it would make YOUR life empty to be an open theist. OK, so don't be one. But don't tell open theists that their beliefs must do to them what you think it would do to you to hold to their beliefs.
Leila, if you want to know if open theism leads to a sense of emptiness in life, get to know open theists and ask THEM.
Christian: Starkman's comment reflects this emptiness of a life lived where the human will is greater than God's sovereignty and knowledge.
Tom: Leila, now you can say that YOU understand the open view better than someone else! Human will greater than God? Amazing.
Christian: "We simply live, act and operate as if this is the way it is" is a rather futile state of living.
Tom: It's not even a "state of living." It's an observation about the way people already live their lives. We do live as if the future were open to possibilities. We do deliberate between options while believing the options all hold out to us genuinely possible courses of action.
Christian: It is a description of life in which God is merely a spectator.
Tom: This is simply not true.
Christian: The OV fights to defend what OV perceives to be God's inabilities rather than to submit to his undeniable greatness and authority.
Tom: God's greatness and authority are indeed undeniable and indescribably wonderful. The point, Christian, is that we can choose to NOT submit to God's authority. YOU'VE JUST ADMITTED THIS. You've just recognized that in embracing the open view we open theists are NOT submitting to God's authority. Hmmm?
By all means, Leila, think for yourself.
Tom
PS Thanks for the nice article link Leila.
Edited by - TGB on 05/16/2003 12:07:42 AM
Edited by - TGB on 05/16/2003 12:08:58 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Seesaw
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 70
| Posted 5/15/2003 7:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, you said nothing is foreknown? How do you explain Biblical prophecy? This is one problem I have found with open theism. Wouldn't it be good for Leila to get to know open theists as you suggest as well as those who have opposing views of open theism? We need to encourage Leila to not exclude any problems with open theism. There has been a rather heated debate regarding open theism since it became a movement a few years ago and for good reason.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/15/2003 7:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Seesaw
There has been a rather heated debate regarding open theism since it became a movement a few years ago and for good reason.
Iconoclast
The church I grew up in (Church of Christ) presupposed the open view and embraced the spiritual warfare worldview. I believe it has been this way for many decades. I was frankly quite shocked when I heard about the tenets of Calvinism (the TULIP business) and its ideas regarding predestination and determinism. I still have a hard time understanding why Doc's book "The God of the Possible" is even slightly controversial.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Seesaw
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 70
| Posted 5/15/2003 8:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Icon-
Regardless of the acceptance of open theism by the Church of Christ, most denominations do not espouse it nor have they in the past. This is why Doc's book is controversial. It is not a debate between Calvinism and open theism. It is a debate between mainline denominational evangelicism and open theism. Open theism faces critics from various denominations many of whom are not Calvinists. Open theists make the error of limiting the debate to Calvinists. Open theism contradicts not only Calvinism.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/15/2003 8:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Seesaw-
By "nothing is foreknown" I meant to refer only to the free choices of people. Sorry I was less than clear. The future is settled to a good degree, and God would foreknow this perfectly. Even all the possible free choices are foreknown (as possibilities). I was just focusing on foreknowing free choices as definite/determinate rathar than contingent.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
| 66 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:44 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 |
|
|