Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Original Sin Doctrine and other points

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 1/13/2003 8:58 AM (GMT -6)

What is the open theist view of original sin? i have not been able to find anything about that on this site.
It can be argued that Adam and Eve had free will. The evil which came about by their disobedience was chosen by autonomous beings. The original sin doctrine holds that all other humans did not face a neutral choice but instead were born with a sinful nature. There are numerous Bible verses to this effect I will not go into. The Bible clearly states that no human can avoid committing sin. How is this compatible with free will? Perhaps it is highly probable that all persons would sin even without the inborn sinful nature, but God's decision to create all subsequent humans with a sinful nature undoubtedly increases the amount of sin committed by humans.

My second point is that it is not logically impossible for God to know what choices humans will make in the future. All propositions about the future are either true or false, and an omniscient God must know the truth of any proposition that is in fact true. How is it explained from the Bible that God is limited and knows only parts of the future? By what and whom is he limited, and for what reason?

If God does not know what free choices humans will make, does that mean in Bible times he did not know that by the 20th century we would have airplanes, automobiles, space travel, cloning, etc.? If so, this limitation of knowledge entails serious limitations of power.

The open view places God inside a human time frame as well- I think this has been commented upon. But doesn't god transcend time, which seems to be a human made convention?

At any rate surely God knows what HE will do in the future. Even if he can't predict with full knowledge what humans will do. God must act in accordance with his nature. He can infallibly predict his own actions, since his purposes and intentions are immutable and just.
Any comments?

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 1/13/2003 3:56 PM (GMT -6)

RD: What is the open theist view of original sin? ... It can be argued that Adam and Eve had free will. The evil which came about by their disobedience was chosen by autonomous beings. The original sin doctrine holds that all other humans did not face a neutral choice but instead were born with a sinful nature. ... The Bible clearly states that no human can avoid committing sin. How is this compatible with free will?

Alan: I don't see that the open view (hereafter, OV) requires any particular position on original sin, whether traducianism or what have you. And even if we who are born with original sin cannot not sin (without God's help), that wouldn't eliminate freedom completely. It would mean that we are not free not to sin, but we could still be free with respect to HOW we sin.

RD: It is not logically impossible for God to know what choices humans will make in the future. All propositions about the future are either true or false, and an omniscient God must know the truth of any proposition that is in fact true.

Alan: I grant your claim about omniscience, but your other claims are debatable. The claim that all propositions about the future are either true or false assumes that the principle of bivalence (excluded middle) applies to all such propositions. This is not a given. There are consistent multivalued logics that allow for propositions to have an indeterminate true value. If free will is libertarian in nature, then this gives rise to some degree of indeterminacy. Therefore, it may be possible to deny the principle of bivalence with respect to future free actions. Furthermore, one could argue that all future propositions claiming that so-and-so WILL freely do such-and-such are false, and that what is true is rather that so-and-so MAY do such-and-such. This is Dr. Boyd's approach, which he develops in terms of 'would'-counterfactuals and 'might'-counterfactuals. As to whether it is or is not logically possible for God to know what choices humans will make in the future, this is denied by the OV for reasons that Boyd, Sanders, et al. have outlined in their books. The argument you give against the OV on this point seem to me inconclusive for the reasons I mentioned above. Perhaps you have a rejoined to make?

RD: How is it explained from the Bible that God is limited and knows only parts of the future? By what and whom is he limited, and for what reason?

Alan: This is a misunderstanding of the OV. The OV does not claim that God knows only parts of the future. Rather, the OV claims that God knows the entire future, but that the future is not yet settled in all respects for God's knowledge of it to be determinate. On the OV God knows all that can possibly be known. The future is partly fixed, partly open. God knows the fixed parts as fixed, and the open parts as open.

RD: If God does not know what free choices humans will make, does that mean in Bible times he did not know that by the 20th century we would have airplanes, automobiles, space travel, cloning, etc.? If so, this limitation of knowledge entails serious limitations of power.

Alan: I think the OV does entail that God did not know with infallible certainty that such things would take place in the 20th century, but God could nevertheless have made highly accurate predictions about the future. And, if for some reason He specifically wanted those things to happen in the 20th century, He could have exerted His power to influence (or if necessary coerce) human decisions to steer events in the directions He wants. Does this limitation entail a serious lack of power? I don't see how. On the OV, God has SOVEREIGNLY chosen to create beings with a free will. By so doing, he has willingly created a situation in which He does not control everything. Of course He could at any time rescind our free will and do whatever He wanted. Open theists don't think this is ever likely to happen because God desires a loving relationship with his creatures which possibility would be abrogated along with our free will. The only sense in which the OV would say that God's power is limited is that God cannot create a genuinely free being and completely control what the being does. But this is not a true limitation, for the very idea is self-contradictory. It is no more a limitation on God's power than saying that He can't create square-circles.

RD: The open view places God inside a human time frame as well. ... But doesn't god transcend time, which seems to be a human made convention?

Alan: The OV does place God in time, but it is wrong to think of time as "human". We did not create time. It is not a human convention. Our way of measuring time is conventional, but time itself is not. Furthermore, one must distinguish between the Einsteinian view in which 'space-time' is a kind of dimensional 'container' from the sense in which the OV implies that God is 'in time'. Time is fundamentally a function of change. To say that something is in time is to say that it undergoes some form of change. OV theists do not think that God changes with respect to His essential attributes (goodness, power, etc.), but they affirm that God can and does change with respect to His intentional attributes. That God is omniscient does not and cannot change, but the content of His omniscience changes as reality changes, as things change from a state of openness to a state of being settled. The OV holds that God must be in time in order to stand in genuinely relation with a genuinely changing creation.

RD: At any rate surely God knows what HE will do in the future. Even if he can't predict with full knowledge what humans will do. God must act in accordance with his nature. He can infallibly predict his own actions, since his purposes and intentions are immutable and just.

Alan: I think this is wholly compatible with the OV if we understand God's knowledge of His future actions as partly conditional. If, as Dr. Boyd maintains, God is infinitely intelligent, that is, He knows all possibilities, then He could decide in advance, before anything ever happened in the world, that IF events X, Y, Z transpired, then He would respond in manner A; and that IF events P, Q, R transpired, then He would respond in manner B. On the OV at least some of God's knowledge of His own future must be conditional in this way. In some respects, however, His knowledge of His own future can be categorical--for example, if He sovereignly wills to bring something about one way or another.

Hope that clarifies some things. Appreciate any feedback you may have.

Alan

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 1/13/2003 6:05 PM (GMT -6)

Alan, I deeply appreciate you fielding these questions. Thank you brother. I read these questions (which are fair, legitimate, sound, etc...), but after 5 straight years of dealing with these types of questions... I'z gett'n a bit tired.

I want you and others who are willing to answer these basic sorts of openness questions that I am very thankful for you.

Blessings

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 1/13/2003 7:14 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks Alan, your answers were very helpful. I am just an armchair theologian and I have not exhaustively researched this topic, so I am sorry if I am asking things that are tiresome to answer....

Alan: I don't see that the open view (hereafter, OV) requires any particular position on original sin, whether traducianism or what have you. And even if we who are born with original sin cannot not sin (without God's help), that wouldn't eliminate freedom completely. It would mean that we are not free not to sin, but we could still be free with respect to HOW we sin.

I was just asking what is the official OV position on original sin, since I had not heard what it is. If we are not free NOT to sin, but are still free to decide HOW to sin- what does that matter? We still are not able to freely choose to not sin. We have no choice but to sin. Since "free will" has usually been used not only as a theodicy but also to explain why humans are justly condemned (morally deserving of eternal punishment), I am trying to figure out how we really are deserving of punishment if we are born with the sinful orientation.

Alan: I grant your claim about omniscience, but your other claims are debatable. The claim that all propositions about the future are either true or false assumes that the principle of bivalence (excluded middle) applies to all such propositions. This is not a given. There are consistent multivalued logics that allow for propositions to have an indeterminate true value. If free will is libertarian in nature, then this gives rise to some degree of indeterminacy. Therefore, it may be possible to deny the principle of bivalence with respect to future free actions. Furthermore, one could argue that all future propositions claiming that so-and-so WILL freely do such-and-such are false, and that what is true is rather that so-and-so MAY do such-and-such. This is Dr. Boyd's approach, which he develops in terms of 'would'-counterfactuals and 'might'-counterfactuals. As to whether it is or is not logically possible for God to know what choices humans will make in the future, this is denied by the OV for reasons that Boyd, Sanders, et al. have outlined in their books. The argument you give against the OV on this point seem to me inconclusive for the reasons I mentioned above. Perhaps you have a rejoined to make?

The 'laws' of the excluded middle (every statement is either true or false) and of noncontradiction (no statement is both true and false), require that one of the statements, 'A is elected' and 'B is elected', is true and the other is false regarding, for example, who wins the presidential election of 2004. Suppose 'A wins' is (today) true. Then whatever A does (or fails to do) today will make no difference; similarly, whatever B does (or fails to do) today will make no difference: the outcome is already settled. Or again, suppose 'A wins' is (today) false. Then no matter what A does today (or fails to do), it will make no difference; similarly, no matter what B does (or fails to do), it will make no difference: the outcome is already settled. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it seems apparent to me that this is knowledge that God should know. That he can say today whether A or B will win in 2004. I agree with this view of logical determinism. I have not read everything a bout the OV and principal of bivalence. My point is just that it is logical that these statements are either true or false. Therefore, it is knowledge. God should know it. He doesn't "learn" anything.

Alan: This is a misunderstanding of the OV. The OV does not claim that God knows only parts of the future. Rather, the OV claims that God knows the entire future, but that the future is not yet settled in all respects for God's knowledge of it to be determinate. On the OV God knows all that can possibly be known. The future is partly fixed, partly open. God knows the fixed parts as fixed, and the open parts as open.

I guess I disagree that the future is partially fixed and partially up for grabs. Again I believe that the future consists of statements that are either true or false (today) and that God can say today whether they are true or false. I see numerous problems with the OV theory here- namely, soteriology, eschatology issues. As Bruce Ware says, how can we be sure that Christ shall overcome and that the devil will be defeated? How does one pick and choose which parts of the future God knows? OV grants that prophets foretold events that occurred, and also that God has foretold prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled. How do the OV'ers determine that for purposes of prophecy, God knows the future, but for other purposes, he does not? Perhaps I am really confused....

I think the OV does entail that God did not know with infallible certainty that such things would take place in the 20th century, but God could nevertheless have made highly accurate predictions about the future. And, if for some reason He specifically wanted those things to happen in the 20th century, He could have exerted His power to influence (or if necessary coerce) human decisions to steer events in the directions He wants. Does this limitation entail a serious lack of power? I don't see how. On the OV, God has SOVEREIGNLY chosen to create beings with a free will. By so doing, he has willingly created a situation in which He does not control everything. Of course He could at any time rescind our free will and do whatever He wanted. Open theists don't think this is ever likely to happen because God desires a loving relationship with his creatures which possibility would be abrogated along with our free will. The only sense in which the OV would say that God's power is limited is that God cannot create a genuinely free being and completely control what the being does. But this is not a true limitation, for the very idea is self-contradictory. It is no more a limitation on God's power than saying that He can't create square-circles.

"God cannot create a genuinely free being and completely control what the being does." I would argue that it seems more plausible from both the Bible, tradition, and reason that God didn't create genuinely free beings. It is apparent that God does completely control everything- that is my opinion, and I know you'd disagree, but that is what I think. The God who chose us from before the foundation of the world and who has our names written in the Lambs Book of Life certainly has enough power to not only make SOME accurate predictions about the future such as a good fortuneteller could, but also knows ALL the future and controls it.

Alan: The OV does place God in time, but it is wrong to think of time as "human". We did not create time. It is not a human convention. Our way of measuring time is conventional, but time itself is not. Furthermore, one must distinguish between the Einsteinian view in which 'space-time' is a kind of dimensional 'container' from the sense in which the OV implies that God is 'in time'. Time is fundamentally a function of change. To say that something is in time is to say that it undergoes some form of change. OV theists do not think that God changes with respect to His essential attributes (goodness, power, etc.), but they affirm that God can and does change with respect to His intentional attributes. That God is omniscient does not and cannot change, but the content of His omniscience changes as reality changes, as things change from a state of openness to a state of being settled. The OV holds that God must be in time in order to stand in genuinely relation with a genuinely changing creation.

You're right that humans didn't create time, God did. He existed before the universe, gravity, and the sun, and thus, time, was created.

To me, the OV seems like a version of Deism. Except that instead of God winding up the clock and going on his merry way for all time, he occasionally checks in to see if things are going according to divine plan. Sometimes he decides to see what will happen in the future, sometimes he waits to see what the almighty human is going to decide, and then reacts accordingly....:) I hope I am not sounding too sarcastic....I enjoy the debate-
Thanks for taking the time to engage me and answer my questions, I really do think these discussions are profitable.

JET
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397

Posted 1/13/2003 8:21 PM (GMT -6)

RD: To me, the OV seems like a version of Deism. Except that instead of God winding up the clock and going on his merry way for all time, he occasionally checks in to see if things are going according to divine plan. Sometimes he decides to see what will happen in the future, sometimes he waits to see what the almighty human is going to decide, and then reacts accordingly.

JET: Of course, OV'ers argue in the opposite direction . . .

1. Under Calvinism, everything is pre-ordained by God. There is nothing for God to react to.

2. Under traditional Armenianism, God cannot react even if he wanted to. Everything about the future is already settled in God's mind.

3. Only the OV allows room for a responsive God.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/14/2003 12:15 AM (GMT -6)

ReasonableDoubt-

As others will tell you around here, I’m a nut for what we call God’s “infinite intelligence.” It explains a LOT, particularly how it is that God can know the future as consisting partly of “possibilities” without sacrificing any providential advantage. If you do a search on “infinite intelligence” it should show up. Doc made the argument popular by presenting a paper on it a couple years ago.

Plus, I think I pasted in a bit about this on a post SIM started called something like “What makes prayer work” or “How does prayer work.”

On time, like Alan said, humans didn’t create time. It was around before they were created. But your point is still important. Doesn’t God transcend time? We have talked about this a LOT too; a way lot! I think God does transcend time in the sense that he doesn’t suffer the ravages of time as finite beings. We grow older. God doesn’t. Our memories fail us. God’s doesn’t. God is greater than time and transcends it in this sense. Personally I don’t think we need to believe God is “timeless” in order to justify the belief that he transcends time.

God certainly CAN know as certain how he intends to act in the future. But this doesn’t need to include ALL God’s future actions. Consider, if God responds to us, and if some action of ours is known as “possibly this,” then God’s response must also be knows as a “possible response.” But don’t let this lead you to think God is caught off-guard by what happens because he only knows a particular event (and his response) as a possibility (as opposed to what would certainly happen). The infinite intelligence argument will help. When what was only possible actually happens, God eternally knew THIS would possibly happen and so is JUST as prepared for it when it does happen as if it was the only thing that could have happened. Being infinitely intelligent, God can keep track of a billion-zillion possibilities as if there was only one.

Tom

Love never ends

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/14/2003 2:35 AM (GMT -6)

ReasonableDoubt (RD): Perhaps I am really confused....

Tom: Let’s hope so!

RD: I would argue that it seems more plausible from both the Bible, tradition, and reason that God didn't create genuinely free beings. It is apparent that God does completely control everything….

and

…To me, the OV seems like a version of Deism…

Tom: I can understand how somebody who believes a form of determinism which openly denies we are “genuinely” free might think so. But there is a huge difference. Not only OVers affirm this, but others as well. Terrance Tiessen (far from being an open theist) has a good chapter on deism and another on the open view in his book, Providence and Prayer. He points out the differences nicely.

RD: …instead of God winding up the clock and going on his merry way for all time, he occasionally checks in to see if things are going according to divine plan. Sometimes he decides to see what will happen in the future, sometimes he waits to see what the almighty human is going to decide, and then reacts accordingly....:) I hope I am not sounding too sarcastic.

Tom: Well, a little sarcastic.

But it’s a complex issue and we all need to vent.

Seems to me, RD, that though deism and determinism head in opposite directions they circle the globe and eventually meet up again. One could equally argue, sarcastically of course

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/14/2003 3:35 AM (GMT -6)

Tom: ...One could equally argue, sarcastically of course , that since God eternally determined the minutia of history and we are not, as you say, genuinely free, God can then go on his merry way.

Seems to be a kind of DUALISM (of subject-object). Did Augustine have such a dualism too, from his pagan days?

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 1/14/2003 4:42 AM (GMT -6)

I think the Open view requires us at least to discard the traditional Augustinian view of Original Sin. It seems quite nonsensical to affirm "libertarian free will" and at the same time try to affirm the traditional doctrine of Original Sin.

I should hasten to add, before someone starts looking for kindling, that I do believe all humans when they reach the age of moral acountability, will in fact sin. But to speak of sin as some kind of substance that is passed down from generation to generation through copulation is so ridiculous as to defy all logic.

Sin is a word, thought, or deed, and as such, can only be individually accounted for. The biblical depictions of Judgment Day nowhere state that we will be accountable for Adam's sins. Ezek. 18 directly contradicts the Augustinian idea of original sin. While I do not agree with all they teach, the Eastern Orthodox Church never subscribed to Augustine's innovations in this regard.

I should also add that even Pelagius believed that spiritual bondage as a result of habitual sin was very real, and those thus enslaved needed the power of God's grace in order to be free. In my opinion the biggest problem with Pelagius's Commentary on Romans is his view of "merit." Curiously, he also very strongly affirmed justification by faith. (In any case, I did not find his basic philosophy to be more confusing than Augustine's). From what I can tell, I think I'm a Caelestian.

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 1/14/2003 5:07 AM (GMT -6)

The way I understand it, Deists have been opposed to the idea of philosophical determinism (destiny). Determinism rejects the idea of free will as real and certainly not anything seen in nature. Many Deists have advocated a sort of materialistic (non religious) determinism, because of their idea that God created the universe, wound it up, and left it alone to be governed by natural laws. But Deists have disassociated human nature from that and insisted on human free will- that human choice and reason governs personal behavior and human interaction.
This may be because Deism opposed organized religion (which included the Calvinists and other Reformers, and the Calvinist doctrine of predestination). I agree that philosophically, determinism is not completely antithetical to the other general tenets of Deism: that God created the universe and wound it up; that God does not (or very rarely does he) intervene through miracles ; and that God is the source of universal laws, but that such laws are merely derived from nature. However, b/c of the Deist belief in human free will, I made the correlation to the OV of human free will, which is why I brought up the similarity.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/14/2003 5:11 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
While I do not agree with all they teach, the Eastern Orthodox Church never subscribed to Augustine's innovations in this regard.

SOME ORTHDOX ANSWERS ON "ORIGINAL SIN":

www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A_OLD/Original-Sin.html

www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A_OLD/St-Augustine-and-Original-Sin.html

www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A_OLD/St-Augustine-and-Original-Sin-2.html

AN INTERESTING ARTICLE ON PELAGIUS:

www.brojed.org/pelagius.html

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 1/15/2003 1:50 AM (GMT -6)

Doc: Reasonabledoubt, your questions are good. I just wanted to thank others for picking up the mantel to debate because I was fatigued.

Reasonabledoubt: The 'laws' of the excluded middle (every statement is either true or false) and of noncontradiction (no statement is both true and false), require that one of the statements, 'A is elected' and 'B is elected', is true and the other is false regarding, for example, who wins the presidential election of 2004.

Doc: Seems to me that you just repeated what you originally said without responding to Alan’s counter. The statement "A is elected in 2004" may be NEITHER true or false. Or one may say that it IS true or false indexed to some possible future world, but that this possible future world is yet undecided (viz. the proposition, X possible future world shall be actualized is neither true nor false). Or one may say, as I have argued, that the statement "A is elected in 2004", when spoken in 2003, is FALSE, for it means "A WILL BE elected in 2004" whereas in reality (let us suppose) it is only true that "A MAY BE elected in 2004." The future reality is subjunctive, not factual. I’d like to hear you interact with these possibilities.

Reasonabledoubt: As Bruce Ware says, how can we be sure that Christ shall overcome and that the devil will be defeated? How does one pick and choose which parts of the future God knows?

Doc: The Bible tells us. God assures us that the devil will be defeated, and we trust him. But I wouldn’t think this is a function of God’s FOREKNOWLEDGE (like God looked ahead and said, "Thank God [myself], I win"). It’s a function of God’s power: he knows he is able.

Reasonabledoubt: I would argue that it seems more plausible from both the Bible, tradition, and reason that God didn't create genuinely free beings.

Doc: And its plausible and reasonable to believe that God nevertheless holds us morally responsible while being unfree???

Blessings

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/15/2003 11:43 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Doc: The Bible tells us. God assures us that the devil will be defeated, and we trust him. But I wouldn’t think this is a function of God’s FOREKNOWLEDGE (like God looked ahead and said, "Thank God [myself], I win"). It’s a function of God’s power: he knows he is able.

I really do LIKE that post, Greg. It is a good example of stepping out beyond the bonds of nominalistic limits. (OK. That's too polysyllabic, and it sounds pretenteous.

)

I notice that consideration of God's power trumps dependence on the necessity of foreknowledge-media. I think that says it right. The statement about God's power could be restricted nominally, as if God had a power source within Creation that he used (like the dietys on the old Star Trek). But I'll intuit that your concept of God's power extends beyond creation. Moreso, beyond what is in our power to know. I'm going to intuit that in this you resemble our Orthodox bretheren.

I think this is an example of a theological issue that resembles Godel's theorem.

InterestedInquirer
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 15

Posted 1/27/2003 5:03 PM (GMT -6)

I'm new to the forum and have a question to toss out to anyone who is interested in replying. Is libertarian freedom essential to our humanness (is it part of our being created in the image of God?)

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/28/2003 5:07 AM (GMT -6)

Hello InterestedInquirer, and welcome to the board!

You asked, I'm new to the forum and have a question to toss out to anyone who is interested in replying. Is libertarian freedom essential to our humanness (is it part of our being created in the image of God?)

Libertarian freedom is essential to our . . . being free to live out and express the humaness that we have. Without freedom, true (but not exhaustive) freedom, we are restricted from expressing that which is essential to humaness: love.

Hope that helps,

Starkman

JET
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397

Posted 1/28/2003 5:28 AM (GMT -6)

Obviously, one aspect of being human is that we are "not God". Freedom is part of what makes us autonomous from God. Without freedom, the creature would in some sense merely be an extension of the Creator.

This also goes to the original question posed by RD on this thread. To say we are born with a sinful nature (i.e., original sin) is simply to say we were born human. In other words:

1. God is the only self-determining free agent who is without sin. It is not possible that any self-determining free agent who is not God can be without sin.
2. Humans are self-determining free agents.
3. Humans are not God.
4. Therefore, humans are necessarily sinful.

We do not inherit this quality from Adam the first human. We inherit this quality from "Adam" (mankind), i.e., from being human.

GODesteem
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 34

Posted 2/3/2003 7:20 AM (GMT -6)

JET writes: "Of course, OV'ers argue in the opposite direction . . .

1. Under Calvinism, everything is pre-ordained by God. There is nothing for God to react to.

2. Under traditional Armenianism, God cannot react even if he wanted to. Everything about the future is already settled in God's mind.

3. Only the OV allows room for a responsive God."

Ben "responds": Has anyone considered that "reacting" is quite a bit different than "responding"? Under Calvinism, everything is pre-ordained by God. There is nothing for God to react to. However, God is perfectly able, and does, respond to His creation. He may not respond in a fully "human" way, but He does relate. After all, God is not a man, that He should repent....

God loves Himself more than anything... He is our greatest treasure!

GODesteem
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 34

Posted 2/3/2003 7:39 AM (GMT -6)

Tom writes:

Seems to me, RD, that though deism and determinism head in opposite directions they circle the globe and eventually meet up again. One could equally argue, sarcastically of course

, that since God eternally determined the minutia of history and we are not, as you say, genuinely free, God can then go on his merry way. Since God determines the movement of every part of the clock, after designing it and winding it up, he is free to take a vacation and not worry about things not running according to plan. So, while the God of deism can create and walk away because he doesn’t care if things don’t turn out perfectly, the God of determinism can create and walk away also because he’s designed the machinery to perfectly execute his commands. Neither God “needs” to hang around, though for different reasons."

Ben: This is some kind of a joke, right? Come now Tom - "The God of determinism" (whoever that is - by the look of your caricature, I am concerned!) "needs" to hang around, because that same God holds the universe together! The "machinery" as you call it, is rather complex, but all of creation owes its continued existence to the upholding of Jesus Christ!

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Heb 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power....

Acts 17:24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
Acts 17:25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
Acts 17:26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
Acts 17:27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
Acts 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'

Far from the libertarian freedom you wish to grant to yourself and others, God is in complete control of every molecule in your body, and will decide when you (and I) will breathe your last breath. It is just this human quality of complete dependence on Jesus (the Son) for one's existence that leads to reverence and humility. Makes me wonder about joining the "Open Theism and Idolatry" thread....

God loves Himself more than anything... He is our greatest treasure!

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 2/3/2003 9:11 AM (GMT -6)

Godesteem-

Nice to hear from you again! Where ya been dude?

Tom

Love never ends

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:16 AM (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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual