Your mischaracterization of the OV is dishonest. We have already flatly stated here that unlike human beings, God is NOT capricious or fickle. If you can't refute our view without lying about us, please find another thread to play in.
Had my post been in direct response to you, then you would have something to be indignant about. It wasn't and you have merely injected yourself into a conversation to bluster a bit. My post stands against the person whose careless use of words warranted the response. Your issue is elsewhere.
Indeed. As has been demonstrated time and again, it is impossible for any part of the future to be known if one is a bona fide open theist.
This simply is not true, and I think pretty much every open theist on this thread has directly responded to this exact same clap-trap from you and from others. Apparently you either ignore our responses, can't comprehend our responses or are simply being a "pooper".
God is righteous and just, and because of that we can trust Him. When God gives us a guarantee and seals us with the Holy Spirit we can trust that God will uphold His word.
Is God so untrustworthy that only His inability to do otherwise your only comfort?
I trust my wife, and my wife trusts me. We trust each other based on our character and commitment to each other. If my wife could only trust me if I had no ability to betray her that would be a tragic commentary on our relationship.
At the very moment upon which He created it on day one: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" is all about God creating the entire universe, time included.
There was a "moment" when God created time???
Hmmm.... possibly poor choice of words?
Well, I appreciate your comments but you are simply making assumptions that support your presuppositions. I would rather stick with what is actually described and outlined in God's word. Not to mention the fact that I prefer to stick with idea's and theologies that are logical and rational.
This simply is not true, and I think pretty much every open theist on this thread has directly responded to this exact same clap-trap from you and from others. Apparently you either ignore our responses, can't comprehend our responses or are simply being a "pooper".
God is righteous and just, and because of that we can trust Him. When God gives us a guarantee and seals us with the Holy Spirit we can trust that God will uphold His word.
Is God so untrustworthy that only His inability to do otherwise your only comfort?
I trust my wife, and my wife trusts me. We trust each other based on our character and commitment to each other. If my wife could only trust me if I had no ability to betray her that would be a tragic commentary on our relationship.
You are talking trust and hope and I am talking about knowledge. God cannot know anything with a certainty about the future so long as His creatures possess libertarian free will.
If God is not wholly sovereign (as normally understood by classical theism), He has no certain plan, for nothing God plans is a knowable factuality. God cannot guarantee any plan with autonomous creatures in the mix, whose acts He cannot know in advance. In fact, God cannot even know when to plan. We’ve talked a great deal about ordaining, but there is one more aspect of this that needs mentioning.
The act of ordaining by itself does not entail that future things will happen. What is needed in order to secure that future things will happen is some further property of God. This is true of any Christian belief system.
For something to be true and knowable there must be something we or God can access that makes the claims in question true. There are two aspects of this claim. First, truth requires a truthmaker. Second, by accessibility, I mean that whatever these truthmakers are, truthmakers must be knowable. Since God is infallible, what He knows He knows infallibly. So if God holds a belief about a certain event that is based upon something else, then the basis itself cannot leave open the possibility of the belief being mistaken, else God would be mistaken, and therefore, not infallible.
For truthmakers to function as knowable truthmakers, and thereby allow the open theist to claim that some parts of the future are known, the features truthmakers possess would have to be something about God or about the world. I would assume that such a claim by open theists would be something about what God ordains about the future. Let’s say that God ordains a certain event in the future will occur and this ordinance itself is a knowable truthmaker for the future truth. There is no problem to propose that God’s possesses the self-knowledge needed for Him to know what He ordains and what He does not ordain. That said, it is not easily defended that such ordinances are in fact truthmakers. Why? For a truthmaker to be a truthmaker, the thing in question must entail the truth in question. For example, if God ordains it will be windy tomorrow, it must logically follow that it will be windy tomorrow. That is, it is impossible for the ordinance of God with respect to a windy tomorrow to presently exist and it not rain tomorrow.
As a classical theist, I have a simple explanation and solid defense why the entailment is indeed present: God’s character is immutable, thus God cannot will one thing to occur at one time and then change His mind to will something else. But open theists see God’s nature changing in response to the indeterministic unfolding of the world He has created. Thus, unlike the classical theist position, the ordinances of God have no such immutable character to the open theist. Consequently, God’s ordinances cannot be functioning as truthmakers, for they do not entail the content of the ordinance. If God’s will is not immutable, God could very well ordain that it will be windy tomorrow and yet tomorrow it does not rain because God changed His mind in the meantime. Restating: the act of ordaining by itself does not entail that future things will happen. What is needed in order to secure that future things will happen is some further property of God. This is true of any Christian belief system. God’s immutability is that further property of God.
From this it should be apparent that from the open theist’s position, no part of the future can be known as true.
Yes, God could be (and is) far more competent, powerful, able, and effective than any human being who does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge. But, if the underlying assumption of your response is to then argue that God could accomplish His purposes by respecting the liberty of indifference (libertarian free will) of His creatures, and thus not being able to know the future, I contend that such an position gives no guarantee of the eschaton to God’s children in Christ.
If God is genuinely responsive to humans and to the course of history, and if God cannot infallibly know the future free decisions of man, it is in principle impossible for God to know infallibly what He will do in the future as well.
In other words, God's knowledge of His own actions in the future is at best probabilistic. Thus, God's statements that He will ultimately triumph over evil is no absolute guarantee. But, you and I agree that God is not a liar, so the assumptions by open theists about God's knowledge must therefore be incorrect. The problem then, lies with open theism’s assumptions of what God knows and God's sovereignty.
Because we are fickle and capricious, finite in our knowledge. Your rationale that if it is what man would do, therefore God should do, too, is very telling.
Mensa man, read my lips. When I deal with the Malachi immutability proof text (one of a couple), I point out that God does not change His mind in a fickle, capricious way (you stole my words?), but consistent with His character in response to changing contingencies. As a personal being (vs impersonal blob), God will not change His mind in some cases, but this does not mean He cannot in other cases. I am not saying God is like sinful, finite, fallible man, but I am saying He is personal, as are we. God does not sin, but we do sin. God thinks and we think. This does not mean God is only as intelligent as we are or thinks like we do exactly. I Sam. 15 has God changing His mind in one case, but not in another case. I take both verses at face value, but you must make one figurative to fit your preconceptions (without warrant from the context or grammar). When Saul went bad, God responded appropriately. If Saul remained on track, God would not have changed His mind about him (the future is open, not settled, and thus known as such). God responds in real time and does not determine and cause everything in the universe (hyper-sovereignty has to go, buddy).
What is telling is your simplistic straw men attacks.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Is. 46 and 48. God can declare these things and unilaterally bring them to pass by His ability (vs foreknowledge). This cannot be extrapolated to prove omnicausality/determinism nor EDF. God's faithful character and Word and sovereign ability is a Rock. Your straw man view of the Open View concept of God is too small and underestimates Him (thinking He must be immutable, impassible, omnicasual, etc. and cannot have free moral agents acting contrary to His will underestimates Him also; it is more difficult to rule responsively despite rebellion and risk than to tie up the opponent and move their chess pieces in a bad way so you can win).
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
There are lots of things that we can do that God can't - most of them are sins or signs of sins. Changing our minds means that we made a mistake before that we now intend to correct, or out of a fickle heart we want a new choice. So we have error or caprice causing us to change our mind. When does God err? When is He capricious? Maybe I missed a reason for a change of mind... I'm sure you'll let me know if I did.
Changing one's mind may be wisdom and righteousness if the contingencies change. God would not be merciful if He could not change His mind about pronounced judgments. If the people change, God can change. If they do not, God can stand firm (Jonah).
Hezekiah is a clear e.g. of a change of mind as is Gen. 3 after the FALL. If He could not change His mind, He would be a liar and impersonal. Parents wisely change their mind without being wrong or fickle as their children obey or disobey. Some parents do change in a fickle way, but that does not mean all changes are in this category.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Indeed. As has been demonstrated time and again, it is impossible for any part of the future to be known if one is a bona fide open theist.
If God purposes to rain down plagues, who can stop them?! His knowledge of the future is anticipatory, but certain to become actual, if He unilaterally and unconditionally brings it about. Who can stop the Second Coming of Christ? This does not mean God is omnicausal (your view...problematic for evil). God's will can be rejected on a personal level (hence, hell...Lk. 7:30; Matthew 23:37). This does not thwart the eschaton, but it does short circuit God's best for you if you reject His love and grace. The alternative is determinism at the expense of love, freedom, relationships, responsibility, etc., a higher price than limited risk at an individual vs cosmic level.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Slogan/motto:
"A day is as a thousand years" is about perspective. Two hours on the highway, to a five year old, seems like an eternity! To a 50 year old trucker, it's just the start of a good morning
Had my post been in direct response to you, then you would have something to be indignant about. It wasn't and you have merely injected yourself into a conversation to bluster a bit. My post stands against the person whose careless use of words warranted the response. Your issue is elsewhere.
Lighten up Frances!
You are not currently in the one on on section, or in your college classroom where people are expected to remain silent until spoken to. The open forum is by design, a bit of a free for all. Carry on.
♠
"So if I stand, let me stand on the promise that You will see me
through
And if i can't let me fall on the Grace that first brought me to you"
Linear Mode
