Featured Open theism and the atonement

Hi Aresman, you sure like to copy and post large sections of verbage.

Complete fiction. Rather than attributing our limitations to God, I simply base by view on what God said, i.e. now I know.... No one said God is limited by time, that is yet another of your misrepresentations of my view, (12 Strings take note!!!!) I said He choses to interact with us in time. And your third point is the complete opposite of what I said, God can know what existent folks will do given a circumstance. (12 Strings are you keeping count!!!!!)

Next you waste several inches of text making the point that God saves us, we do not save ourselves. Well duh!!!!

I hold to scripture alone as the basis of my views about God, not Greek philosophy. As far as my "charge" please read and rebut my presentation. My position is God does not predestine us to sin, then punishes us for His predestined sins that we were compelled to do. That is your position. Your claim that God would punish the son for the sins of the Father is unbiblical and has nothing whatsoever to do with putting God under a transcendent morality. Just another shuck and jive to avoid the absurdity of your view.

No, I take God at His word, and do not nullify the passages that show God sometimes chooses to test the faithfulness of individuals, without knowing beforehand what the person would do. Since that does not fit, you nullify that passage. But in another passage where the narrative fits your doctine, then we can take that passage to the bank.
Absurd.

We have been all through your logic maze, I can choose to leave my Father today, and suffer and then choose to return tomorrow, same individual making an ungodly choice one day and a godly choice the next. Many examples are found in scripture. Again, you must nullify these passages to fit with your man-made doctrines.

Next, you say because all men are not saved, that means God has failed. Twaddle. God saves men according to His purpose and plan, and that includes us autonomously repenting, rather than being compelled.

Next you repeat the charge that Christ did not die for all men, but rather for the supposedly preselected elect. It is not either/or, it is both, Christ became the propitiation for the whole world which includes each and every person God elects and puts spiritually in Christ.

Next, you repeat the claim that we choose not in a vacuum, but somehow avoid the actual issue, do our choices alter the outcome of our lives, do we choose life or death, or are we compelled by the fall to choose death unless altered by irresistible grace. Somehow that little item was described artfully as the absense of a vacuum. Too clever by half.

And lastly, we should understand God by His revelation, not interprete His revelation as necessary to make it fit with our man-made doctrine. To claim all the passages that do not fit with Calvinism do not mean what they say is wrong. God said, now I know.... God says He sets before us life or death, not life only for some and death only for others. Doctrine that requires a wholesale rewrite of scripture is worthless.

 

You are making the judgement that anyone who accepts the Calvinistic view of some difficult texts of scripture is automatically more deceptive and dishonest than those who accept a different interpretation. No, the belief in the Calvinistic view does not require a person to misrepresent an opponents view. But being unable to defend Calvinism straightup leads folks to derail the conversation and suddenly I am answering all sorts of false charges, like the one you made above.

 

Hi JonC, the idea is quite simple and needs no in-depth study. I am a simple guy. Does God predestine things? Yes. So at least some future events are predestined, settled and fixed. However, does the Bible say God predestines all things? No. Such claims are based on taking something said and extrapolating it.

Now if we name the everything is predestined view of Calvinism "Closed Theism" we can call the acceptance of the view that some things are not predestined as open theism.

However, if you read some of the articles published addressing extent or scope of the unfixed future, you find a range of views. So to speak of Open Theism as a defined specific view is to present a misrepresentation. I have not read all the articles, but I profoundly disagree with some of the premises presented. I have posted numerous times where I think some of the views held by some Open Theists are "complete fiction."

If our sins were predestined, either directly or indirectly, then God is the author of sin, and for God to punish us for our predestined by Him sins conflicts with the principle of God not punishing the son for the sins of the Father. Therefore, to this limited degree, I maintain that limited open theism, everything is not predestined, fixed and settled, is the Biblical view. But some things are predestined, and so the future is not completely open, but is only open as far as God allows it to be shaped by our autonomous choices. Hence, limited open theism.

As far as God learning things, I agree that God can learn things, for He said, Now I know....

Now when I read, I have read your scriptural basis but disagree with your conclusions, I say tell me which conclusion you disagree with? Did God not say, now I know? If you do not believe God means what He says, I disagree with your conclusion as well. But I can not rebut your rebuttal, if nothing specific is offered for discussion.

 

Van:

I agree completely....You don't have a clue what I believe, or what most Molinists believe obviously....I have only challenged fundamentally one assumption of yours...and I don't know if you could name what that assertion is.

O.K. obviously this is a passage, that given your point of view, would indeed create a problem text for people who believe in exhaustive foreknowledge...but promise me you don't hang your hat on that one. I freely admit that this passage does, at least at first glance, seem to imply a more "Open Theism" view and it is worth being answered....One question for you....Have you ever freely admitted the same to any who disagree with you?

1.) you don't know my view very well as I will demonstrate
2.) this kind of statement-even if you disagree- says little for you...I disagree vehemently with many points of view expressed on this board, but they are not necessarily nonsense...they are quite often well thought out and coherent. I don't see any evidence that you are personally capable of actually perceiving the strengths of other points of view, and by extension the weaknesses of your own....here's a tip: THEY ALL HAVE THEIR STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES.

No Molinist I am aware of believes this. Neither do I....You are taking (in effect) a non-Calvinist point of view, and turning it into double-predestination. Most Calvinists on this board do not believe in double-predestination...sheesh...

THAT, and only that, has been what I have been attempting to disagree with...this assumption right here...You have yet to engage this, instead you simply keep using this word....

While unloading all of your heavy artillery against beliefs I do not even hold....it does not strengthen your position, nor speak well for Open Theism.

 

Ares, just a quick question. Would you deny that God could create the situation where this could occur? Only asking if you think it is possible. And a second question would be why not, if you deny it.:love2:

 

I agree that "belief in the Calvinistic view does not require a person to misrepresent an opponents view." But you said that ALL Calvinists DO misrepresent their opponents view instead of simply defending their position. The only reason you would say that is if you believe that those who oppose Calvinism DO NOT do the same thing, or at least not to the same degree. Therefore I inferred that you believe Calvinists misrepresent opponents views MORE than those of other persuasions in other debates. Did I miss-interpret your intent?

If I did not, are you not declaring that ALL Calvinists are MORE guilty of miss-representing opponents than non-Calvinists?

And if you are declaring this, is it not a character judgement on Calvinists?

 

Hi 12 Strings, I am not interested in discussion my supposed flaws. If you have something to say, other than character attacks, have at it. You did not address the fact that you made a false charge, just continued to attack. Thus my view is based on direct observation of you and the others that have made one false charge after another against me.

Here is the test, are you attempting to defend your doctrines or point to flaws in my character? The use of such logical fallacies is driven by a lack of a doctrine that stands up to study. And I believe you know it.

 

Hi HOS, if you will not present your position, just say what I say is wrong, we can conclude your views are bankrupt.

I presented Molism as found in published articles. You said they miss mark, which they may, but then did not say where. Too clever by half.

Any empty suit can offer such rebuttal, all sizzle and no steak.

Your view is simply another form of closed theism, but instead of hiding it in a cloud of compatibilism, you hide it behind cloud of circumstance known to God to result in His desired outcome.

 

HoS, for me this is a problem with Molinism.

 

You are very dogmatic, overconfident, and insulting. I didn't present the WHOLE of all that I believe because this is about Open Theism, not Molinism...but the very crux of where I think OT goes wrong, I did mention...I only wanted to point our that I feel that OT and Calvinism...indeed Arminianism as well makes a modal mistake in assuming that the fixity or known outcome of a future event renders it necessary and is therefore incompatible with free will.

Dogmatic statements about "my view?" by someone who assumes I would hold that God double-predestines to damnation. Consider: I merely politely suggested that your one assumption about the necesarry nature of a foreknown event might be off the mark, and somehow it has devolved into "non-sense", "paganism", "empty-suit", "hiding something" and "bankruptcy" Do you even KNOW how to have a somewhat civil conversation with others who have areas of disagreement with you? I am rude and brash myself sometimes, and I recognize that as a failing of mine and I attempt to work on it....I am having a hard time imagining why anyone ever attempts to engage you in debate at all.

 

Aresman, I think these are great questions and the 'tone' and spirit they are asked is much appreciated. I really do think that these questions are put to and very appropriately addressed by classical arminians, so, I would say that their arguements would be mine as well. I don't mind answering the questions but I'm really swamped and I don't think that they are unique to Open Theism... ask Skan!

However, this question may not be appropriate for a classical arminian: "If so, how can God be surprised by what they do if they are not surprised themselves?"

Regarding the idea of "surprise": Events are most surprising when there is no idea of their possibility and are less surprising with the knowledge of their possibility and even less surprising when the odds or degree of probability is known. So, as you might guess, in one sense, God is not surprised when a free creature freely chooses. The creature is freely choosing from options that are known to God and this choice is no surprise to the creature, of course, as you have stated. So, I think it is a misrepresentation to say that Open Theism would teach or would lead to the idea that God would be surprised when man would not.

However you do touch on an idea that would speak to man's lack of appreciation or awareness for the options that we have, yet, a lack of appreciation from man would be a non-sequitur to God's appreciation of the free choice event. As I understand OT, the way that God would 'appreciate' such an event is in knowing that He gave man this option and made it such that man can choose, and these available choices, that are known to God, are known to him in levels of probability. So, God would never respond in a way that would indicate a lack of knowledge but would respond in a way that would affirm his knowledge of the potential choice but also show appreciation reflective of the level of probability for the choice made.

I recently celebrated a milestone in the way of birthdays... the big 4-0, or thirtyten as I prefer to say... My wife completely surprised me with lots of friends at a cajun restaurant. I must say I was completely oblivious to her plans and my sense and expression of surprise was genuine! She organized it all on Facebook and I am surpised how successful the 'surprise' was. I hadn't even considered the odds of a surprise party.

We humans use the word 'surprise' to describe a response of unawareness in both scenarios: when the 'impossible' occurs and when the 'possible', yet unexpected occurs. If God believes something to be 'impossible' then it is, since He can only hold true beliefs. With humans, if something is unexpected then it is usually the case that we are unprepared as well. God, being omniresourceful, is never unprepared for possibilities and therefore is ready and prepared for whatever free-will event occurs. It seems to me that IF an Open Theist attributes the idea of 'surprise' as an emotion of God, that he is meaning to attribute an appreciation of a free will excercise that was unlikely, rather than God being unaware.

While you may disagree with the Open Theist regarding their view of what is knowable, do you not find the above reasonable? It seems that Calvinists and Arminians (and all of us) often get tangled in an unfortunate form of arguement. The better form of arguement is to argue what kind of world he has created and what kind of God he is based on scriptural revalation rather than argueing what kind of world he had to have created and what kind of God he has to be, ie. the 'ideal' creation and 'ideal' concept of a maximal being.

 

many knock me for bring this point up, but isn't open theism process theology inthe sense that God limited himself to experiencing/knowing the future as we do? that he chose to "stick himself" in time restrictions?

That they hold that God willed that He experiences growth and knowledge for the "human perspective?" Almost like idenifing with us through/in the Incarnation of Christ was not enough for Him to "experience" the human condition!

 

I think (via previous conversation) that I know what you mean.....but defined this way...so dysphemistically....I am not sure I know how to respond.....I am aware of the "grounding objection" which is the only signifigant objection to the "Middle Knowledge" point of view that I am aware of....OT's and Calvinists alike are perfectly well suited to level that objection to the Molinist view....and it is a legit objection....but I don't know what a "cloud of circumstance" is....If one is suggesting that it is hard to imagine something like "truth value" to seemingly loose-ended ideas like how any given creature will respond in any given circumstance....well o.k. I decidedly see how that is not an easy assertion to agree with.....another thread against the "grounding objection" may be worthwhile.....but your partner...Mr. Van....well.....quite frankly...I no longer have any desire to attempt meaningful conversation with him, as he appears to be incapable of it.....

If you are interested in discussing something like that....(the grounding objection) I would be delighted.....but this thread was about Open Theism....I did not want to derail the focus of the thread so, the effervescent VAN has hurled his wrath upon me for, in his words... "not present (ing) your position" what do I do?? I would enjoy a conversation with you about it in another thread.\

For the interested... I present this:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/grounding.html

and....I suppose...I will paste this statement from Plantinga to bolster... "It seems to me much clearer that some counterfactuals of freedom are at least possibly true than that the truth of propositions must, in general, be grounded in this way." [Emphasis mine]

 

To me, there biggest error is failure, or unwillingness, to understand that there are things that ONLY we can know about person and nature of God in his revelation called the Bible, and jesus the Incarnation of God!

they try to fill in with reasoning and philosophy what they refuse to acknowledge what the Bible states about God, as that does not fit their definition of how he should be!

 

HoS, would you say that there is any degree of probability greater than 0 and less than 1 regarding God's knowledge of a free choice of a human? (This maybe a bad question in the sense that probability is inherantly between 0 and 1, but, I think you know what I mean.) It seems to me that Molinism would remove any probability related to the free choice of man. Is this what your are referring to as the OT's modal mistake? In the explanation I gave, is the Open Theist inaccurate regarding their criticism of Molinism and classical arminianism regarding foreknowledge? Maybe this deserves a separate thread since we are off topic. I've got several threads in my mind... and just not enough time!

I'm not sure about others, but I'm desiring less debate and more understanding. Some people have it all figured out though... Some people really enjoy the comfort of a settled opinion.