A problem with open theism (HOF thread)

[godrulz]

That is right. But if God "does otherwise" He does that for a reason too. In this sense, the words "reason" and "cause" are synonymous. To say that human behaviors are "caused" does not deny free will. Causal mechanisms need not be (and clearly are not) the same from person to person, and, even at the level of the individual, are likely to be very complex, at least at times. This is why from a human perspective, behavior is very difficult, at times impossible, to predict.

Let me give an example to clarify. I voted for Bush (sorry, I wish I didn't, but I did). I voted for him because I supported the "war on terror," he claimed to be pro-life and I thought he would appoint pro-life judges (I know, shoot me). If you knew both my assumptions and my causal drivers (issue positions), you could have predicted my vote 2 years before the election. My choice was a free will choice, but it was caused.

Are you confusing cause/reason with influence? God influences, draws, persuades. His will is not coercive or causative. This is contrary to His chosen expression of love and gift of free will.

 

[godrulz]

Unconvinced that such an act could occur. I like chaos theory. As I said at the outset, one of the implications is that there really may be no such thing as random processes. It can be a fairly powerful evangelistic tool. If everything is subject to causal processes, it follows that a) evolution as conventionally taught is false, and b) there has to be an Ultimate Cause.

God is the First Cause of the universe. He is the uncaused cause. This does not mean that other free moral agents do not have a creative will. We are not gods, but we are in His image.

Chaos theory would fit Open Theism as well. Quantum mechanics vs Newtonian also seems relevant.

 

[godrulz]

Let me stipulate 2 things. I do believe supernatural forces are involved, I am a Christian and am not trying to argue otherwise. Also, prediction in the natural sciences is clearly simpler than in the behavioral science. I have been a behavioral scientist for many years and can attest to the fact that by human means, human behavior is predictable only in very imprecise terms.

Okay, let me give you what I believe to be a reasonable model of human behavior and get your reaction. For any given action, thought, attitude, etc. there are numerous causal antecedents. These would include religious beliefs, of course. These all act in concert to bring about a given outcome under a given set of conditions. Let's assume that 2 people at 2 different points in time have the exact same causal processes working and face the exact same decision under the exact same circumstances. They are both Christians at the exact same level of spiritual maturity, the Holy Spirit guides them in the exact same way and both are identical in the extent to which they recognize the guidance of the Spirit and are surrendered to it. Is there any possible to reason to believe that they will act differently with regard to the decision at hand?

The same act may be vice or virtue depending on the motive. Does motive fit behavior theory? Sin is volitional leading to accountability/responsibility. I would not substitute a secular model for a biblical one.

 

[docrob57]

The same act may be vice or virtue depending on the motive. Does motive fit behavior theory?

It is beyond the scope of what I am talking about. My only point was to suggest that it is unlikely that God cannot know the future, even though it does not yet exist.

 

[godrulz]

This is not a good arguement. You are right, he could have done the opposite, but the fact is he didn't. This proves nothing.

If he did chose otherwise, we would not have the book of Acts in its final form nor Pauline letters. We would probably be reading about Joe's journeys or whoever God raised up instead of defiant Saul-Paul. We are looking at history in the rear view mirror.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It is beyond the scope of what I am talking about. My only point was to suggest that it is unlikely that God cannot know the future, even though it does not yet exist.

I have not read any of this thread.

Yet it seems like something right up my alley. How can I get in on this thread without reading the whole thing?

 

[godrulz]

It is beyond the scope of what I am talking about. My only point was to suggest that it is unlikely that God cannot know the future, even though it does not yet exist.

Do you know anything about modal logic? What little I know, seems to be a clue that future free will contingencies are not logically exhaustively knowable. There are some very technical philosophical/logical discussions around this subject. I follow them to a small degree, but I believe it is common sense that the future is not knowable unless determined (negating free moral agency).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

but I believe it is common sense that the future is not knowable unless determined (negating free moral agency).

Logically there is no alternative.

 

[Clete]

I am sure that we can't quantify all that is going on, but I do believe that God can, and based on that, if nothing else, I believe He does know the future.

At best this is an assumption on your part and in fact there is Biblical evidence to the contrary.
Your assumption removes free will by logical necessity and in so doing removes all meaning from such concepts as morality, justice, mercy, forgiveness, love, etc. Such logical consequences can be avoided if we simply concede that we don't know exactly what it is that is going on, and that whatever it is about the way God has made us that gives us free will, it has made such absolute knowledge of the future on God's part (or anyone else's) fundamentally unknowable. It does no injury to the character or reputation of God to say that He cannot do the undoable, which includes knowing the unknowable. But it does grave harm not only to God but to the whole Christian faith to suggest that we do not have the freedom to do or to do otherwise.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I have not read any of this thread.

Yet it seems like something right up my alley. How can I get in on this thread without reading the whole thing?

Just read my posts and you'll be up to spead on it. I'd be interested in your input myself. :up:

 

[docrob57]

At best this is an assumption on your part and in fact there is Biblical evidence to the contrary.
Your assumption removes free will by logical necessity and in so doing removes all meaning from such concepts as morality, justice, mercy, forgiveness, love, etc. Such logical consequences can be avoided if we simply concede that we don't know exactly what it is that is going on, and that whatever it is about the way God has made us that gives us free will, it has made such absolute knowledge of the future on God's part (or anyone else's) fundamentally unknowable. It does no injury to the character or reputation of God to say that He cannot do the undoable, which includes knowing the unknowable. But it does grave harm not only to God but to the whole Christian faith to suggest that we do not have the freedom to do or to do otherwise.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Nothing I have said removes free will. You do not want to accept that human behaviors have causes, which is fine, but everything keeps going back to the idea that causality and free will are opposing concepts, and I have given examples to demonstrate that this is not the case. I have no idea why you think that causality implies lack of morality, etc. So it seems we have reached an impass here.

 

[Clete]

Nothing I have said removes free will. You do not want to accept that human behaviors have causes, which is fine, but everything keeps going back to the idea that causality and free will are opposing concepts, and I have given examples to demonstrate that this is not the case. I have no idea why you think that causality implies lack of morality, etc. So it seems we have reached an impass here.

Let me explain.

Love, by definition, must be volitional. For us to exercise volition we must be able to do or to do otherwise. If our actions are determined by whatever means or if they are known (i.e. absolutely known not predicted) then we have no ability to do otherwise than that which is known. Thus love is impossible and so it every other thing which is contingent on the exercise of volition, including morality, mercy, etc.

Does that help?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

Let me explain.

Love, by definition, must be volitional. For us to exercise volition we must be able to do or to do otherwise. If our actions are determined by whatever means or if they are known (i.e. absolutely known not predicted) then we have no ability to do otherwise than that which is known. Thus love is impossible and so it every other thing which is contingent on the excercise of volition, including morality, mercy, etc.

Does that help?

Resting in Him,
Clete

So, in your view love "just happens?"

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Nothing I have said removes free will.

Don't you believe that God has exhaustive foreknowledge?

 

[justchristian]

OV arguments always make the same jump - (emphasis mine)

If our actions are determined by whatever means orif they are known (i.e. absolutely known not predicted) then we have no ability to do otherwise than that which is known

this just isnt the case. we've argued this in circles though - but if you'd care to try and explain again I'll listen. My arguement has been a choice if made by our will, whether known or not, is still made by our will and is still our choice. The ultimate choice of love is ours, it doesnt matter if its known. The point is it was our choice.

 

[docrob57]

Don't you believe that God has exhaustive foreknowledge?

Yes, for reasons I stated in my initial post, which, I at least, don't see how denies free will.

 

[Agape4Robin]

If he did chose otherwise, we would not have the book of Acts in its final form nor Pauline letters. We would probably be reading about Joe's journeys or whoever God raised up instead of defiant Saul-Paul. We are looking at history in the rear view mirror.

Irrelevant! Totally void arguement.....woulda, coulda.....schmouda!

 

[docrob57]

OV arguments always make the same jump - (emphasis mine)
this just isnt the case. we've argued this in circles though - but if you'd care to try and explain again I'll listen.

I agree that we have reached complete impass here. Fortunately, at least from my perspective, the fate of our souls does not depend on it. I am interested to hear what Knight has to say though.

 

[Agape4Robin]

I agree that we have reached complete impass here. Fortunately, at least from my perspective, the fate of our souls does not depend on it. I am interested to hear what Knight has to say though.

:thumb: Agreed!

 

[docrob57]

I have to run boys and girls, thank you for the discussion. I will try to rejoin soon. Keep in mind, I am just trying to discuss, I have great respect for you guys.

God Bless You!