More on "All Things"

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

Is. 46 and 48 are favorite texts of Open Theists. Read the verses in context carefully. The reason His purposes come to pass is due to His omnicompetence and ABILITY, not His supposed 'foreknowledge'.

I agree that foreknowledge is not the primary basis on which God accomplishes his purposes.

There are 2 motifs in Scripture. Some of the future is open and unknowable as a certainty/actuality until it happens. They are correctly known as possibilities before that (most free will mundane and moral choices). Some of the future is predestined and known, because God intends to bring certain things to pass, regardless of what man or Satan does or does not do.

How do we know the difference, though, how can we tell which promises and prophecies are sure, and which are estimates, which may be incorrect?

To only quote the last group of 'proof texts' and to ignore the other motif leads to an imbalanced view of predestination and foreknowledge.

But what are the texts which show that the future is unknowable, from God's point of view?

Foreknowing future contingencies is a logical contradiction/absurdity. Omnipotence is the ability to do all that is logically doable.

Why isn't knowing a past decision absurd too, then? Why doesn't that knowledge make the choice not have been free? If merely knowing a decision makes it somehow not free…

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

"God of the Possible: A biblical introduction to the open view of God" by Dr. Gregory Boyd Baker Books

This will develop the Scriptures about the 2 motifs.

www.gregboyd.org

(click on Open View theism link for biblical support)

Prophecies must be interpreted in each context. Some are unconditional declarations of judgment, while others are contingent on the response of the recipients (open).

The past is fixed and is a certain object of knowledge. God cannot time travel back to change the choices. The past is actual, the present is becoming, and the future is possible. The past is not the future. God knows the past perfectly without having to interfere with it. He observes the present moving into the fixed past. The possible becomes actual. The future is different. The only way He can know it is to determine it. He choses to not determine all free will contingent choices.

Clark Pinnock: "Aspects of the future, being unsettled (unlike the settled past- rulz), are not yet known even to God. It does not mean that God is ignorant of something He ought to know, but that many things in the future are only possible and not yet actual. Therefore, he knows them correctly as possible and not actual." (He knows all that is logically knowable= omniscience)

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

Lee: How do we know the difference, though, how can we tell which promises and prophecies are sure, and which are estimates, which may be incorrect?

Godrulz: Prophecies must be interpreted in each context. Some are unconditional declarations of judgment, while others are contingent on the response of the recipients (open).

But almost all prophecies and promises are contingent on a human response! At least the ones that concern us the most. So we wind up building on the sand, after all, and not on a rock.

Philippians 4:19 And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.

Doesn't this promise almost always involve human decisions? How can we depend on it? Or is this a guess or an estimate?

Lee: But what are the texts which show that the future is unknowable, from God's point of view?

Godrulz: "God of the Possible: A biblical introduction to the open view of God" by Dr. Gregory Boyd Baker Books

I'm not going to do your homework for you, though! That's your job.

Lee: Why isn't knowing a past decision absurd too, then? Why doesn't that knowledge make the choice not have been free? If merely knowing a decision makes it somehow not free…

Godrulz: The past is fixed and is a certain object of knowledge.

So is the future, according to Calvinism! So why doesn't knowledge like that, about the past, make a choice not free? If knowledge like that about the future does this?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Calvinism is wrong, as is exhaustive foreknowledge of future contingent choices. There is scriptural support for this (see the hundreds of books on the subject), but it is also in the realm of godly philosophy (modal logic, etc.).

Phil. 4 is in a context of finances. God is a responsible, providential Creator. He can use humans or He can intervene directly. His creation provides us food. He gives strength to work. These are all related to His creative and omnicompetent ABILITY and are not dependent on His 'foreknowledge' or lack thereof. We are finite and limited, and should be careful we do not unintentionally limit God by comparing him to our limited frame of reference.

God is faithful and creative. His promises are trustworthy and He has plans for every contingency. One way or another, He can and will meet our needs.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

Godrulz: Prophecies must be interpreted in each context. Some are unconditional declarations of judgment, while others are contingent on the response of the recipients (open).

Philippians 4:19 And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.

Lee: Doesn't this promise almost always involve human decisions? How can we depend on it? Or is this a guess or an estimate?

Godrulz: Phil. 4 is in a context of finances. God is a responsible, providential Creator. He can use humans or He can intervene directly. His creation provides us food. He gives strength to work. These are all related to His creative and omnicompetent ABILITY …

But isn't this a promise that is contingent on human responses? Thus it may not turn out.

God is faithful and creative. His promises are trustworthy and He has plans for every contingency. One way or another, He can and will meet our needs.

This is not an unconditional declaration of judgment, though! You mention "every contingency" here can be addressed. Then why are the contingent promises not always fulfilled as well? And thus they are all certain, if they are unconditional, or if the condition is fulfilled.

And again, back to the future! Calvinists say the future is fixed and known, and we are told that that makes choices not be free. Then why doesn't the past being fixed and known cause the same effect?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Time is unidirectional moving from the present to the fixed past. I do not understand your last point, and you do not understand my explanations. The past should not be confused with the future (they are different). The past is done, the future is not yet. There are philosophical and logical answers for your comment, but I cannot seem to explain it clearly (I tried by sharing the nature of time). Modal logic and definitions of contingencies, necessities, possibilities, etc. are needed. This is an area with many academic papers and books. It is technical, so justice cannot be done with a simplistic post.

We should not underestimate God's omnicompetence (wisdom, power, ability, knowledge, etc.), nor should we overestimate man's finite abilities that have inherent limitations. This should resolve your concerns about man throwing a wrench into things. A proper understanding of the nature of free will, contingencies, etc. is also needed. Calvinistic assumptions lead to confusion and wrong conclusions.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

The past should not be confused with the future (they are different). The past is done, the future is not yet.

Oh, I agree! I'm not saying they are the same. I am saying that Calvinists believe the future is as fixed as the past, and that God knows the future in every detail, exactly like he knows the past in every detail. Is this not your view of Calvinism? Then we are told that the future being fixed and known makes decisions not be free. So my question is, if this is true, then why doesn't knowing a past decision, that is fixed, also make it not have been free?

In this aspect of being fixed and known, knowledge of the past is just like the future knowledge, that we are told voids free will.

To phrase this question another way, how is God's knowledge about the past different from God's knowledge about the future, according to Calvinism?

We should not underestimate God's omnicompetence (wisdom, power, ability, knowledge, etc.), nor should we overestimate man's finite abilities that have inherent limitations. This should resolve your concerns about man throwing a wrench into things. A proper understanding of the nature of free will, contingencies, etc. is also needed.

I agree that God will not be thwarted, and that he will accomplish all his purposes! Have a tulip! This sounds pretty close to Calvinism to me, if you hold to free will, but free will cannot cross God's plans…

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

I have given this summary before:

1. Did God from all eternity DECREE whatsoever will come to pass?

Yes= Calvinism (no contingencies; no uncertainties).

N0= Arminian; Open Theism (alternative= contingencies).

2. Is everything CERTAIN in God's mind from all eternity?

Yes= Calvinism (based on decree or predestination).

Arminianism (based on simple foreknowledge, not determinism which negates genuine free will).

NO= Alternative= uncertainties


Is God resourceful, creative, personal, providential, omnicompetent? Or is He a meticulously controlling sovereign? I think the alternative view is the only way to reconcile God's sovereignty and man's free will (equally valid truths).

Two problems:

- The assumptions of Calvinism are not biblical (I suppose the past is as certain as the future if all moral and mundane choices are determined by God= compatibilism...how this preserves any sense of free will moral agency is beyond me).

- The philosophical 'eternal now'/timelessness is not biblical, so speculating on past, present, future with this model of God leads to confusion. The Hebraic view of God's experience is unidirectional time...an everlasting duration of sequence or succession.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

Is God resourceful, creative, personal, providential, omnicompetent? Or is He a meticulously controlling sovereign? I think the alternative view is the only way to reconcile God's sovereignty and man's free will (equally valid truths).

There is another option! If really free choices can be made within God's will, if unbelievers can't choose, but believers can, then there is free will, as well as sovereignty.

- The assumptions of Calvinism are not biblical (I suppose the past is as certain as the future if all moral and mundane choices are determined by God= compatibilism...how this preserves any sense of free will moral agency is beyond me).

No, I believe Scripture teaches that believers can make real choices, and that God knows what they will freely choose, just as God knows what he will freely choose. Again, why doesn't knowing a past choice void free will, if knowing a future choice does that?

- The philosophical 'eternal now'/timelessness is not biblical, so speculating on past, present, future with this model of God leads to confusion. The Hebraic view of God's experience is unidirectional time...an everlasting duration of sequence or succession.

We have discussed this before! There are verses that support this concept. And if you become convinced that God knows the future, then "eternal now" is a pretty plain deduction, just as a person can "relive the past," knowing all the details of the future is virtually the same as being there. Especially if God can affect the future, and see the results!

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

The universe is not a completed 'film' that one can watch (past, present, future). Time is unidirectional. The past can be fully known in memory and the 'film' viewed. The future is not yet. Time is unidirectional. It is not a completed line. This would confuse time with space and make duration, sequence, succession a 'thing' or a place. These concepts are why time travel is an absurdity. The future is being created and 'filmed' moment by moment. The acting and play creates new reality turning possibilities into actualities/certainties.

Compatibilism, contrary to logic, tries to make God's control and human freedom in sync. The loophole proposed is that believer's have free will, but sinners do not. This is not biblical, nor logical. It is a Calvinistic assumption (Calvin did not believe in a limited atonement, nor irresistible grace...these were added later by others; total depravity is Augustinian).

Imagine there is no God or distinctions between believers and unbelievers. What differs in our humanity between a religious or pagan person. We are in the marred image of God now, but still have personal qualities like will, intellect, emotion (believer and unbeliever). We are free moral agents, as is Satan and demons. Contingencies are real for believers and unbelievers. We can both brush our teeth when we want, we can drive cars, we can have sex, we can fornicate, love, hate, murder (or not) due to free will. So, on a fundamental level, humans (believers and unbelievers) have free agency (cf. Adam ff.). I understand the bondage and character formation that sinners end up with. Without God, no one is righteous. This does not mean salvation is a physical change of our bodies or wills that makes it impossible for us to sin, or unbelievers to not take steps of repentance and faith in response to the conviction of the Spirit and the Word.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

The universe is not a completed 'film' that one can watch (past, present, future).

Well, we don't know that, actually.

Time is unidirectional. It is not a completed line. This would confuse time with space and make duration, sequence, succession a 'thing' or a place.

There is space-time! Time is actually kind of another dimension. It really is.

The loophole proposed is that believer's have free will, but sinners do not. This is not biblical, nor logical.

I think it's Biblical!

John 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

Implying they weren't free before then. And why is this not logical? Prisoners are not free, when they are released, then they are free.

So, on a fundamental level, humans (believers and unbelievers) have free agency (cf. Adam ff.).

That's the appearance! "I was one of his best little servants" (Tom Papanya, speaking of his days in the mafia, when he thought he was doing what he wanted, not what the devil wanted). Just because a person thinks they are choosing, doesn't mean they are choosing, though.

Isaiah 10:6-7 I send him against a godless nation … but this is not what he intends …

I understand the bondage and character formation that sinners end up with. Without God, no one is righteous. This does not mean salvation is a physical change of our bodies or wills that makes it impossible for us to sin, or unbelievers to not take steps of repentance and faith in response to the conviction of the Spirit and the Word.

I agree that no one is righteous apart from God, but I do believe salvation involves a change in our wills:

Philippians 2:13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

But I agree that believers can sin, and that unbelievers can take steps towards God, though having the life of God within us is the only way not to sin, and in submission to God, that is the only place where we can really choose…

Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

"Wills" are not in the realm of anatomy or physiology. There is not a fundamental change in our wills. It is a change of use of our wills. We change our ultimate intention from living for Self to living for God. We line our wills up with His will and Word, instead of using our wills for the flesh. We need the help of the Spirit in doing this. The Son sets us free from the penalty of death and puts us in the kingdom of light. Whether believer or unbeliever, our self-determination originates in our wills that allow for contingent choices. This is why we are culpable, accountable, responsible for what we do or do not not (believer or unbeliever).

Theoretical physics is very speculative. Stephen Hawkings just recanted a long held view about black holes and information. Einstein's theories are not infallible. Confusing the measure of time with a literal place ('the future') leads to specious conclusions.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

Philippians 2:13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

"Wills" are not in the realm of anatomy or physiology. There is not a fundamental change in our wills. It is a change of use of our wills.

Well, if God works in us "to will" then our will is affected, not just our use of the will, otherwise "to act" is redundant, I think.

Theoretical physics is very speculative. Stephen Hawkings just recanted a long held view about black holes and information. Einstein's theories are not infallible. Confusing the measure of time with a literal place ('the future') leads to specious conclusions.

But space-time is pretty firmly established, though I agree that the theory is not infallible, and thus I would state that as evidence, not proof…

Blessings,
Lee