A problem with open theism (HOF thread)

[Nathon Detroit]

You do have the ability to do otherwise. Again, God, having perfect knowledge of the causal processes that exist in His creation, including the processes that drive free choice, is able to predict perfectly what the free will choice will be, based on that knowledge.

This concept is illogical.

You are saying that God can know the future because ultimately everything has a cause. Correct?

Yet you also assert that we can choose to do otherwise.

If we chose to do otherwise then that would have to be caused and therefore no REAL choice took place.

 

[godrulz]

With all due respect, you seem to want to ignore the fact that causality and free will choice are not incompatible in order to cling to a position. I have said this many times and it is actually true. If free will choices are uncaused, then you are essentially saying that all choices are the output of a cosmic random number generator, and any possible choice is equally probable at all times.

No. Nope. Choices involve volition and intelligence. This is what separates us from falling rocks who are under cause-effect. God does not govern free moral agents with cause-effect (though we are physically subject to the effects of these laws at times...car accidents...the decision when and how to drive a car is intelligent/volitional...the motor and brakes working after the volitional act is cause-effect). We 'cause' choices intelligently. All choices are not equally probable. I may make choices that will help me become an astronaut of the President, but it is not probable that this will be fulfilled. Other variables mitigate against the probability of this happening. It does not mean it is absolutely impossible a minute after I am born (although I am Canadian....I could become an astronaut, but cannot be President unless they change the laws for Arnold S.).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I guess it is about time for me to just disengage from this debate as nothing you folks are saying seems to be relevant to what I am saying and the reverse is not doubt true. In the end, in my opinion, it doesn't matter a lot what we think about these things.

I am sorry you feel that way.

 

[docrob57]

I am sorry you feel that way.

Don't be, it is interesting. It just at this point isn't getting anywhere because there are certain things that we consider fundamental on which we disagree, and that isn't likely to change.

 

[godrulz]

Yes



No, I have never agreed to this one. God is able to predict with complete accuracy what our free will choices will be.



You do have the ability to do otherwise. Again, God, having perfect knowledge of the causal processes that exist in His creation, including the processes that drive free choice, is able to predict perfectly what the free will choice will be, based on that knowledge.

When can He supposedly do this? In this life close to the decision or in eternity past before man even existed?

I think you are similar to William Lane Craig's 'middle knowledge' (Molinism) views. This is a sub-class of Open Theism, but not without its problems logically/philosophically. Usually, classic views either believe simple foreknowledge (without explaining how it is possible= circular reasoning/begging the question) or decrees/predestination (at the expense of libertarian free will...is there another kind of pseudo-'free will'?).

 

[godrulz]

This concept is illogical.

You are saying that God can know the future because ultimately everything has a cause. Correct?

Yet you also assert that we can choose to do otherwise.

If we chose to do otherwise then that would have to be caused and therefore no REAL choice took place.

Bingo...hang in there doc...do not give up...the truth will eventually become clear to one of us...
:cow:

 

[docrob57]

This concept is illogical.

You are saying that God can know the future because ultimately everything has a cause. Correct?

Yet you also assert that we can choose to do otherwise.

If we chose to do otherwise then that would have to be caused and therefore no REAL choice took place.

Okay, I will continue, but I will at least have to pause soon because I MUST get some work done.

As to point A, yes.

As to point B, yes

As to point C I need clarification, are only uncaused choices real?

 

[docrob57]

When can He supposedly do this? In this life close to the decision or in eternity past before man even existed?

This is an interesting question, I would say prior ro creation. If not, how would God have known that we would need a Savior?

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

My reply here didn't seem to post, I hope this is not a duplicate...

Knight: God's knowledge of the future is the cause and or source for the future to be actualized in the manner that the future comes to pass therefore removing all notion of a true freewill.

Lee: Well, does this scale down? If I know with 90% certainty that Bob will order apple pie at Friskies, then did I cause 90% of this choice, when he orders his apple pie...

Clete: No, is the answer.

If there is any uncertainty at all, freedom is preserved.

Yes, but isn't freedom less, the more probable an outcome is? Even if it's preserved? And isn't there increasing knowledge of the outcome, and thus shouldn't this increasing knowledge be a cause of the event, in some way?

The higher the probability of an event, the more I cause it, by knowing the probability?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Okay, I will continue, but I will at least have to pause soon because I MUST get some work done.

As to point A, yes.

As to point B, yes

As to point C I need clarification, are only uncaused choices real?

What is an 'uncaused choice'? The will/intellect 'causes' our choices. We are distinguishing free will from causation/coercion, not caused vs uncaused. The only thing 'uncaused' is the Being of God, the First and ultimate cause. After the fact, He is not the only free moral agent anymore. We can originate causes with our God given capacities.

'Uncaused choices' seems incoherent except in the sense that choices are not coerced necessariily.

Charles G. Finney's 'Systematic Theology' is tough to get through, but his sharp legal mind coherently explains the nature of choices, will/volition, emotions, intellect, etc. He is not an Open Theist since he did not follow through logically to this natural conclusion relating to foreknowledge (he died before he fully got there).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Don't be, it is interesting. It just at this point isn't getting anywhere because there are certain things that we consider fundamental on which we disagree, and that isn't likely to change.

OK, maybe we should move on a bit eh?

Assuming all things and choices are in some way "caused" and assuming further that God tracks all these causes and therefore has an accurate vision of what the future holds it would then follow that God would have an accurate expectation as to what the future holds.

In reference to His people (Israel) God stated . . .

Isaiah 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. 2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it;

Then God looked to the future and made a prediction about how Israel would turn out based on God's preparations for them...

So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,

Yet all the "causes" which lead to God's expectation for Israel brought forth a different reality than the one God expected...

But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4

God reiterates the point even more clearly...

What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

Docrob, if all things are caused and God accurately reads all causes why would God expect something other than what actually came to pass?

 

[godrulz]

This is an interesting question, I would say prior ro creation. If not, how would God have known that we would need a Savior?

We are getting warmer...

How long prior to creation?

God would know in eternity past that IF He created free moral agents with the equal possibility of love or selfishness, love or hate, obedience or disobedience, then there would be a POSSIBILITY of needing a Savior IF we fell. It was not predestined or decreed that Lucifer and Adam would fall. An inherent possibility and risk is not the same as a caused/coerced certainty/actuality. The potential plan of redemption was knowable due to the nature of a creation with free moral agents vs deterministic robots. God actualized this type of creation in Gen. 1:1. At that point, the plan of redemption was known as possible, but not implemented as certain. Creation was 'very good'. It was only in Gen. 3 that things changed. God's disposition changed and there were terrible consequences. The plan of redemption now became a necessity (Jesus will bruise the serpent's head) and redemption history was implemented. It still did not become actual (except the shadow of the Old Covenant) until the Messiah came, died, and rose. It was not a foregone conclusion in eternity past. God responded to a contingency with a contingent plan. It became certain when the Fall was certain, not before (unless you are a Mormon who thinks the Fall was necessary to provide probation and bodies for spirit children or a Calvinist who wrongly thinks God decrees evil contrary to His nature).

Is this alternate view at least possible, if not plausible? It does not do injustice to God's perfect knowledge or power.

 

[docrob57]

I will rejoin later guys. Gotta work now. Hold that thought!

 

[docrob57]

A quick question that I will read the answer to later. Why is it apparently important that I agree with you on this? Other than, of course, paving my way to entrance into the Secret Order of the Smack!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

A quick question that I will read the answer to later. Why is it apparently important that I agree with you on this? Other than, of course, paving my way to entrance into the Secret Order of the Smack!

Because freewill, TRUE freewill is at the very heart of the gospel.

It may be one of the single most important theologic issues that there is.

God pleads for men to use their freewill to conform to His will . . .

". . . men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard."

 

[docrob57]

Because freewill, TRUE freewill is at the very heart of the gospel.

It may be one of the single most important theologic issues that there is.

God pleads for men to use their freewill to conform to His will . . .

". . . men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard."

I can see that, though I do not think that Calvinists are damned. I don't think you do either. But one can accept free will without accepting the OV.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I can see that, though I do not think that Calvinists are damned.

I never said that.

But I will say that Calvinistic theology has damned millions. After a brutal rape and murder of a young girl unbelievers hear Calvinists say things like . . . "Well, God's ways are higher than our ways, this must have happened for a reason." :vomit:

The unbeliever rightly thinks to themselves . . . what kind of God orchestrates the rape and murder of a young girl?

P.S. Docrob, Calvinists generally reject freewill outright. What do you think about that? And please, I know your busy but lets not let my post #751 fall through the cracks OK?

 

[Clete]

Why do you guess that?

Because the causal factors would seem to point in that direction.

 

[docrob57]

Assuming all things and choices are in some way "caused" and assuming further that God tracks all these causes and therefore has an accurate vision of what the future holds it would then follow that God would have an accurate expectation as to what the future holds.

In reference to His people (Israel) God stated . . .

Isaiah 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. 2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it;

Then God looked to the future and made a prediction about how Israel would turn out based on God's preparations for them...

So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,

Yet all the "causes" which lead to God's expectation for Israel brought forth a different reality than the one God expected...

But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4

God reiterates the point even more clearly...

What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

Docrob, if all things are caused and God accurately reads all causes why would God expect something other than what actually came to pass?

[/QUOTE]

I don't think God was surprised at any of this. What He is saying is that He gave Israel everything it needed and yet they still rejected Him. I think it HAD to happen this way on accordance with God's plan so that we could know who we are and who God is, and so that we could truly understand God's love for us.

 

[docrob57]

I never said that.

But I will say that Calvinistic theology has damned millions. After a brutal rape and murder of a young girl unbelievers hear Calvinists say things like . . . "Well, God's ways are higher than our ways, this must have happened for a reason." :vomit:

The unbeliever rightly thinks to themselves . . . what kind of God orchestrates the rape and murder of a young girl?

P.S. Docrob, Calvinists generally reject freewill outright. What do you think about that? And please, I know your busy but lets not let my post #751 fall through the cracks OK?

I agree with all of this, and I am definitely in the process of reexamining my overall perspective on free will. I just still contend that open theism doesn't necessarily flow logically from free will. Although, I will admit that if open theism is correct it might clear up some troublesome Biblical passages.