One on One: Knight and Lonster open up the settled view.

[Nathon Detroit]

You are talking about the immutability, 'that God doesn't change in nature?' Which point specifically are you addressing?

'God does not change in His essential nature.' Are you talking about 'God being able to have a new thought?' Luke2:52 Jesus increased in favor 'change/ no change.'

Or Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8/ Isaiah 43. 'God forgets our sins?'

More like....

Unfulfilled prophecy i.e., Jonah etc.

If one such example exists then an exhaustively settled past/present/future cannot be accurate.

 

[Lon]

More like....

Unfulfilled prophecy i.e., Jonah etc.

If one such example exists then an exhaustively settled past/present/future cannot be accurate.

This position recognizes instances, but as I remember it, the instances are so few as to be inconsequential. I believe, as I said, if not exhaustive, most nearly so. God chooses to forget. The Calvinist position is that God forgets like I forget. I don't really forget, but the incident is forgiven and I move on and don't entertain the thought.

I am okay with a belief that He can literally forget if He desires whether this is the case or not. Again this is why I believe in extensive foreknowledge and not concerned overly of exhaustive foreknowledge. Read Matthew 24. It is so eerily predictive that I cannot fathom anything less than extensive foreknowledge. There are so many points of not only prediction, but 'foresight.' Again, we agree to disagree. I believe God definitely has very clear foreknowledge from scripture. I think there is a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater on greek philosophy. Many of their definitions ring very true if not 100% God is Almighty. God does know all. God is everywhere present. God does not change in perfection. Everything God does is perfect and without error.

I believe there has to be agreement on these, even if they are qualified because we know these things about Him from scripture. We do not believe as some of the greeks that God is impersonal. His is the defining poiint of every pure emotion. Without God, love is self-centered. Without God, justice is vigilantism. Without God, truth is relative. Without Him, anger and jealousy are meaningless and lead to selfish acts. We have to come to an understanding on our differences here. I believe God cannot love me anymore, because He already loves beyond my ability to grasp. What I can do, is allow His love to permeate my life more deeply. I do not believe God is as emotionally stimulated as OV sees Him. He is already perfect in love and the definition of it. He is God, how could He be any more than what He is? He is the ultimate and the supreme. There is no higher love than He. Every expression of love extrudes from Him.

1Co 4:7 For who concedes you any superiority? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as though you did not?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This position recognizes instances, but as I remember it, the instances are so few as to be inconsequential. I believe, as I said, if not exhaustive, most nearly so. God chooses to forget. The Calvinist position is that God forgets like I forget. I don't really forget, but the incident is forgiven and I move on and don't entertain the thought.

Again you are referring to the past, we all agree that the past is settled.

I am okay with a belief that He can literally forget if He desires whether this is the case or not. Again this is why I believe in extensive foreknowledge and not concerned overly of exhaustive foreknowledge.

So...... if I understand you correctly you believe God knows more about the future than He does the past.

That's a new one.

I do not believe God is as emotionally stimulated as OV sees Him. He is already perfect in love and the definition of it. He is God, how could He be any more than what He is?

This is the most tragic part of the settled view. The emotionless God.

Lonster can you grieve God?

 

[Lon]

Lonster can you grieve God?

Sure, but I'm a big-picture person and I believe God is moreso. Have you ever looked at the temperments? We all have a bent one way or the other in our temperments as to how we see God. Go do a temperment test online somewhere and see where you are. Then ask yourself "how do I see God?" After that, recognize at least one bit of information: We all make God into an image of our choosing (egocentrism) to a degree. It is when we begin to appreciate another's filter, like I have been doing here, that we get away from our own lenses and begin to appreciate who God is from a different perspective. We need to apply this perspective back into scripture to appreciate another's lens. Sometimes I think God is the Unmoved Mover and other times, especially when I'm in need, He is the most moved. Which is the more accurate? If God is perfect, I think you get too hung up on whether God has a consistent even keel in His emotions. My kids are way more emotional than I am. In a crisis, you'd want to come to me. I think clearly, and while I sympathize, the biggest need is to take care of the situation. Panic helps nothing. I believe God is like this. Is He bothered at all about our crisis? I say yes, but He has a perfect reaction and I do not believe He panics. He is never afraid. This to me is complete control. God is not fearful. I have emotions that God simply does not share. He does not panic. He is not afraid. He is perfectly angry. Love, concern, compassion are behind any angry act. He isn't a mover when it comes to this. Rather we learn from scripture that He is 'slow' to anger. Quite the opposite for us, where anger comes at the drop of a hat. If God is the most moved mover, it is not passionately thoughtless. God never moves before His perfect timing. He moves almost in a cold calculated way as to be labelled 'stone-like.' He moves perfectly. The reason we assess that God is like this, isn't that we believe Him to be emotionless, but that we do not understand a God of perfect emotion because we will never see Him rightly through the eyes of imperfect emotion. God is perfect in nature, perfect in emotion.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight asks.... "Lonster can you grieve God?"

Lonster responds.... "sure"

Yet just a post ago you stated....

I do not believe God is as emotionally stimulated as OV sees Him.

If you have the ability to grieve God then God can be emotionally stimulated.

God is a Living God, not a stone idol.

The Bible is filled end to end with examples of God being emotionally stimulated.

Psalms 78:56 Yet they tested and provoked the Most High God, And did not keep His testimonies, 57 But turned back and acted unfaithfully like their fathers; They were turned aside like a deceitful bow. 58 For they provoked Him to anger with their high places, And moved Him to jealousy with their carved images.​

 

[Lon]

Knight asks.... "Lonster can you grieve God?"

Lonster responds.... "sure"

Yet just a post ago you stated.... If you have the ability to grieve God then God can be emotionally stimulated.

God is a Living God, not a stone idol.

The Bible is filled end to end with examples of God being emotionally stimulated.

Psalms 78:56 Yet they tested and provoked the Most High God, And did not keep His testimonies, 57 But turned back and acted unfaithfully like their fathers; They were turned aside like a deceitful bow. 58 For they provoked Him to anger with their high places, And moved Him to jealousy with their carved images.​

No discrepancy there, just a qualified agreement. I do not believe God becomes jealous at the drop of a hat. He is slow to anger.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No discrepancy there, just a qualified agreement. I do not believe God becomes jealous at the drop of a hat. He is slow to anger.

OK fair enough, I am glad we basically agree. :up:

Lets move on.

How about we talk about one of the most powerful evidences for Open Theism: Prophecy.

We have already discussed unfulfilled prophecy, so lets discus fulfilled prophecy or prophecy in general.

God tells us in the Bible why He gives us prophecies, what does He say is the reason for prophecy?

In other words.... if God wanted to He could just know what He planned to do, or what He knew we were about to do and keep it to Himself. Yet instead He often times interacts with us and tells us about future events that He plans to do or that He sees "coming down the road" for us. Why does He bother to tell us? Why does God prophesy?

 

[Lon]

Why does He bother to tell us? Why does God prophesy?

I was reading from post #5078 in "Open Theism." Prophecy just means " a prediction "

I think we agree on the definition but it takes on new meaning from our respective line of sight.

We'd need to discuss what is probable and plausible from our perspectives to appreciate how we see this.

If we look at unfulfilled prophecy, I think both of us have problems. Even though OV says God can change His mind, the logical conclusion is still the same from the skeptic. We both have a different system for understanding the passages but the skeptic isn't buying either of our responses. I think there is plenty of work here for both our positions to address.

A beginning example:
Ezekiel 26:1-14

The traditional view that God is going to bring several nations against Tyre v.3
and that Nebuchadnezzar plays part in the initial seige on the island of Tyre v.7-11

So considering v7-11

v7 Nebuchadnezzar does indeed lay seige
v8 He does ravish the surrounding lands and cities of Tyre
v9 He does build seige engines and the walls were attacked not just on the island of Tyre, but the surrounding walls and towers as well (The city was both on the mainland and the island).
v10ff Nebuchadnezzar does tear down the buildings to make Tyre island into an Isthmus and so he does toss the building material into the sea to further lay seige to the island as well.

The traditional perspective is that the prophecy was fulfilled even if the island did not not succumb at that time. because v3 said other nations would be involved and that the island is eventually seiged successfully as well by Alexander the Great.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I was reading from post #5078 in "Open Theism." Prophecy just means " a prediction "

I think we agree on the definition but it takes on new meaning from our respective line of sight.

We'd need to discuss what is probable and plausible from our perspectives to appreciate how we see this.

If we look at unfulfilled prophecy, I think both of us have problems. Even though OV says God can change His mind, the logical conclusion is still the same from the skeptic. We both have a different system for understanding the passages but the skeptic isn't buying either of our responses. I think there is plenty of work here for both our positions to address.

A beginning example:
Ezekiel 26:1-14

The traditional view that God is going to bring several nations against Tyre v.3
and that Nebuchadnezzar plays part in the initial seige on the island of Tyre v.7-11

So considering v7-11

v7 Nebuchadnezzar does indeed lay seige
v8 He does ravish the surrounding lands and cities of Tyre
v9 He does build seige engines and the walls were attacked not just on the island of Tyre, but the surrounding walls and towers as well (The city was both on the mainland and the island).
v10ff Nebuchadnezzar does tear down the buildings to make Tyre island into an Isthmus and so he does toss the building material into the sea to further lay seige to the island as well.

The traditional perspective is that the prophecy was fulfilled even if the island did not not succumb at that time. because v3 said other nations would be involved and that the island is eventually seiged successfully as well by Alexander the Great.

OK, but you didn't answer my question. I am no longer talking about unfulfilled prophecy. I am now talking about prophecy in general.

Why does God tell us His predictions?

Why does God say He uses prophecy?

What is the purpose of prophecy?

 

[Lon]

OK, but you didn't answer my question. I am no longer talking about unfulfilled prophecy. I am now talking about prophecy in general.

Why does God tell us His predictions?

Why does God say He uses prophecy?

What is the purpose of prophecy?

To show that what God says is true. To glorify Himself. To intervene on our behalf. To give us peace. To build our faith. All of these are scriptural and the list goes on.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

To show that what God says is true. To glorify Himself. To intervene on our behalf. To give us peace. To build our faith. All of these are scriptural and the list goes on.

Yes, thats very good!

I agree.

God says...
“Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He." - John 13:19

In other words.... God uses prophecy as a mechanism, a lever to effect our will, to change a possible outcome to a more desirable outcome (in this case to make us believe). Prophecy is another example of why we can be sure the future is not settled. God interacts with us via prophecy in an attempt to influence possible outcomes.

 

[Lon]

Yes, thats very good!

I agree.

God says...
“Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He." - John 13:19

In other words.... God uses prophecy as a mechanism, a lever to effect our will, to change a possible outcome to a more desirable outcome (in this case to make us believe). Prophecy is another example of why we can be sure the future is not settled. God interacts with us via prophecy in an attempt to influence possible outcomes.

That's certainly one way to look at it. I'm guessing you are saying that God influences the future here and is taking into account contingency. I'd really need a logical thought through position that defeats foreknowledge to buy into this perception. I'm still unconvinced that knowing all (much, or most) future and contingency equates determinism.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That's certainly one way to look at it.

Do you see another way? :idunno:

I'm still unconvinced that knowing all (much, or most) future and contingency equates determinism.

Exhaustive foreknowledge necessitates a settled future and therefore determinism.

Lets look at ONE event as an example.

Lets assume right this instant God knows that in 100 years from now there will be a man name Joe, that man will wake up in the middle of the night and go to the fridge for a snack. The man open the freezer compartment and he sees three flavors of ice cream, Chocolate, Vanilla and Strawberry. God (at this moment) knows all this (because He has seen the future) and God sees that the man chooses chocolate ice cream.

Assuming all of the above, can Joe pick Strawberry or Vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate? YES or NO?

 

[Lon]

Do you see another way? :idunno:

Exhaustive foreknowledge necessitates a settled future and therefore determinism.

Lets look at ONE event as an example.

Lets assume right this instant God knows that in 100 years from now there will be a man name Joe, that man will wake up in the middle of the night and go to the fridge for a snack. The man open the freezer compartment and he sees three flavors of ice cream, Chocolate, Vanilla and Strawberry. God (at this moment) knows all this (because He has seen the future) and God sees that the man chooses chocolate ice cream.

Assuming all of the above, can Joe pick Strawberry or Vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate? YES or NO?

Yes.

"Then God didn't know" (just trying to carry the discussion along)

God knows all contingencies.

If I create a program that can throw dice randomly (Yahtzee) and I know all the randomizer components, doesn't the computer still get to choose because of the randomizer component? What if when I made the randomizer I knew it'd possibly crash the program?
As a programmer I would work on correcting it. I know everything about the program and know how it all plays out. After fixing the bug, I still enjoy playing the game, and the randomizer works great. The program still gets to make free choices every time I tumble the dice. I get to choose where I put the points. There is no relationship in this and it is very simplistic but being the all-knowing programmer of Yahtzee-ness doesn't diminish the game at all.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

God knows all contingencies.

In the example I gave there are no contingencies. God has already seen in advance that Joe picks chocolate.

So, I ask again....

Can Joe pick Strawberry or Vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate? YES or NO?

If I create a program that can throw dice randomly (Yahtzee) and I know all the randomizer components, doesn't the computer still get to choose because of the randomizer component? What if when I made the randomizer I knew it'd possibly crash the program?
As a programmer I would work on correcting it. I know everything about the program and know how it all plays out. After fixing the bug, I still enjoy playing the game, and the randomizer works great. The program still gets to make free choices every time I tumble the dice. I get to choose where I put the points. There is no relationship in this and it is very simplistic but being the all-knowing programmer of Yahtzee-ness doesn't diminish the game at all.

Your analogy doesn't fit.

When we are discussing exhaustive foreknowledge we are discussing the notion that God has already seen all of the future in advance. With exhaustive foreknowledge God isn't waiting to see the outcome of a dice roll, (even a semi programmed dice roll), instead He has already seen the outcome of the dice roll. He knows in advance which numbers will actually come up. There can be no contingencies in exhaustive foreknowledge. Exhaustive foreknowledge is like when we see a movie from beginning to end, the movie will always play the same way there are no alternate endings, no contingencies.

Will you at least admit the obvious....?

Will you admit that if God has exhaustive foreknowledge there can be no contingencies/possibilities?

 

[Lon]

No, I don't admit to this. Go look at these two posts of mine for my view on foreknowledge:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1345514#post1345514
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19592&page=344&pp=15

 

[Nathon Detroit]

OK, sadly we are now at the point in the conversation where we must start questioning your ability to think.

I asked...
"Will you at least admit the obvious....?

Will you admit that if God has exhaustive foreknowledge there can be no contingencies/possibilities?"

And you answered....

No, I don't admit to this. Go look at these two posts of mine for my view on foreknowledge:

And as evidence you provide a link to a post where you stated.....

"But how can I freely choose if what I say is already known?"

Because you perceive free-choice. It makes no difference whatsoever if I know what you are going to say or what you are going to wear. You get to choose. Why are you so bothered that someone could know you so intimately as to finish your sentence or help you pick out the rest of your attire from the closet? I love it when my wife 'seemingly' reads my mind. It shows that she is interested and that she cares. I'm not crying about my free-will being obliterated. I don't believe knowledge obliterates my choices at all. Who cares if I could have worn the black sweater instead of the red one? It isn't even a question I need to get worked up over and answer. I'm wearing a red sweater and I chose to wear a red sweater. Knowing the future is 1) not an ability I or anyone else has except as it is given by God. We know that Satan is going to be thown into the lake of fire. No choice, determinism. We don't know the details and they have not been given. 2) Not deterministic always. Does God know them? I believe He does. Did God know what I was going to type here? Yes He did. Does this mean that I couldn't go back and correct a mistake? Nope. I have choice. Right now I can go back over this whole post and obliterate the whole thing. God knew I would not. Did He make me do it just because He knew? Nope, not any more than what I'm wearing. Could I have chosen any other way? Yes Can I even now delete this?

Lonster, two points....

1. It is now CRYSTAL clear that you do not understand the difference between foreknowledge and EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge as you keep using examples of basic foreknowledge as examples of EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge. The difference between EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge and regular foreknowledge makes all the difference in the debate. Lonster your wife doesn't have EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge therefore using her as an example of EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge is bizarre and silly.

2. (and more importantly) When you answered "no" to my question above why did you point me to a post where you are essentially answering "yes"?

Keep in mind I asked you....

"Will you admit that if God has exhaustive foreknowledge there can be no contingencies/possibilities?"

You answered "no" yet pointed me to a post of your where you basically answered "yes" by stating....

"Because you perceive free-choice."

"I'm not crying about my free-will being obliterated. "

In other words you are saying that we do not have freewill (contingencies) but it's OK because we perceive freewill so we should be happy. :dizzy:

Lonster, it's been a fun conversation with you but I think it's time we wrap it up now. I can't discuss this topic any further with you since you can't seem to grasp the consequences of your own statements and fade in and out of different views.

I appreciate your time and if you have anything to add please do so and then I will close up the One on One. :up:

 

[Lon]

OK, sadly we are now at the point in the conversation where we must start questioning your ability to think.

I asked...
"Will you at least admit the obvious....?

Will you admit that if God has exhaustive foreknowledge there can be no contingencies/possibilities?"

And you answered....And as evidence you provide a link to a post where you stated.....Lonster, two points....

1. It is now CRYSTAL clear that you do not understand the difference between foreknowledge and EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge as you keep using examples of basic foreknowledge as examples of EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge. The difference between EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge and regular foreknowledge makes all the difference in the debate. Lonster your wife doesn't have EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge therefore using her as an example of EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge is bizarre and silly.

2. (and more importantly) When you answered "no" to my question above why did you point me to a post where you are essentially answering "yes"?

Keep in mind I asked you....

"Will you admit that if God has exhaustive foreknowledge there can be no contingencies/possibilities?"

You answered "no" yet pointed me to a post of your where you basically answered "yes" by stating.... In other words you are saying that we do not have freewill (contingencies) but it's OK because we perceive freewill so we should be happy. :dizzy:

Lonster, it's been a fun conversation with you but I think it's time we wrap it up now. I can't discuss this topic any further with you since you can't seem to grasp the consequences of your own statements and fade in and out of different views.

I appreciate your time and if you have anything to add please do so and then I will close up the One on One. :up:

Yeah, the crazy icon pretty much shuts me down as well.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, I'm really new to discussion with OV so of course you are correct, I'm still jumping through hoops like the obedient poodle or I'm not trying to get painted into a corner of logical fallacy by my answers. In other words, I'm always seeing OV as trying to trap with questions rather than opening up a real dialogue where someone can make mistakes. Because I've never had to answer OV questions before, nor have had to look at them from your perspective, you'll have to forgive me for not being able to give complete coherence.

Another good reason for closing this off would be that I'm already plenty engaged on these same ideas on the rest of the forum so there is redundancy.

Finally, when I said 'no' it is because you ask questions in such a way as that I have no idea how to answer you so I gave a very unqualified no. I believe this is typical OV questioning that seems pretty superficial to me. In other words, you ask: "Do you agree?" when I'm not even certain you (or I/ or both) understand the question in the first place.
What I mean by this, is that OV tends (in my perception, which could be incorrect at this point) to oversimplify everything and leaves a ton of pieces missing from the puzzle so that the question isn't accurate enough.

For our foreknowledge discussion, you ask if there can be future contigency. Alright, here is the problem: Does it make a difference whose perspective we are talking about? God's or man's? Does it make a difference who is really making the determinism? If I choose anything, I've eliminated choice immediately, it is consigned to the past immediately. In other words, I by my very nature and choice negate freechoice all the time. The way I am made determines that I have very limited choice and am going through motions. I refuse to watch R rated movies. You can bet that I will watch very few R-rated movies in my future. My choices are constrained by my own volition. If God knows I will wear the longsleeve grey shirt today, it is not He who constrained my will, it is me. I constrained my own freewill. God just knows, not determines.

If I'm crazy and that's your exasperation, no problem. Just call me crazy and I'll probably post less and less on this forum as that assessment continues to take form. I've seen other Reformed thinkers constrained the same way.

It is kind of a sad note to the purpose of this thread, wouldn't you think?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

My choices are constrained by my own volition.

Your volition is what is in question. Volition, will and free-choice are essentially synonymous in regard to this discussion.

Basically you just sated.... "My choices is constrained by my own choices." or... "My volition is constrained by my own volition." or... "My will is constrained by my own will." These are meaningless statements that don't advance the discussion in any way whatsoever.

If God knows I will wear the longsleeve grey shirt today, it is not He who constrained my will, it is me. I constrained my own freewill. God just knows, not determines.

If God has known exhaustively a millennia ago that you would choose a grey shirt then you had NO choice BUT to choose a grey shirt, unless of course you believe you can thwart God's exhaustively perfect foreknowledge, but of course it wouldn't be exhaustive or perfect if you could do that would it?

If I'm crazy and that's your exasperation, no problem. Just call me crazy and I'll probably post less and less on this forum as that assessment continues to take form. I've seen other Reformed thinkers constrained the same way.

It is kind of a sad note to the purpose of this thread, wouldn't you think?

I apologize, but I don't have the patience for illogical, obfuscation and theological smoke and mirrors. I like to drill down to the obvious truths and go from there.

Some things either ARE, or they ARE NOT. Truth is truth, logic is logic and God is real and rational not surreal and irrational. There cannot exist a perfect exhaustive foreknowledge in God and also real contingencies/possibilities in God's foreknowledge. Those two concepts are mutually exclusive and there is no sense in wasting valuable thought that they MIGHT be compatible. That would be akin to wasting valuable thought that we might be able to produce a four sided triangle.

 

[Lon]

Your volition is what is in question. Volition, will and free-choice are essentially synonymous in regard to this discussion.

Basically you just sated.... "My choices is constrained by my own choices." or... "My volition is constrained by my own volition." or... "My will is constrained by my own will." These are meaningless statements that don't advance the discussion in any way whatsoever.

If God has known exhaustively a millennia ago that you would choose a grey shirt then you had NO choice BUT to choose a grey shirt, unless of course you believe you can thwart God's exhaustively perfect foreknowledge, but of course it wouldn't be exhaustive or perfect if you could do that would it?

I apologize, but I don't have the patience for illogical, obfuscation and theological smoke and mirrors. I like to drill down to the obvious truths and go from there.

Some things either ARE, or they ARE NOT. Truth is truth, logic is logic and God is real and rational not surreal and irrational. There cannot exist a perfect exhaustive foreknowledge in God and also real contingencies/possibilities in God's foreknowledge. Those two concepts are mutually exclusive and there is no sense in wasting valuable thought that they MIGHT be compatible. That would be akin to wasting valuable thought that we might be able to produce a four sided triangle.

Right, and I'm okay with you closing the thread. I know what I said, I know it confuses,but we'd have to start on illogical problems. All of your discussion with SV points to confusion. I'd be confused if I didn't spend time here on the OV and I still see logic problems with your view as well. They have the same extrapolated problems (not by you, by anyone looking at your theological stance). Piper, Cook, Lamerson do basically the same thing to you that you do to us: carry a logical conclusion to it's absurdity.

I see a 'championing' tenure here on TOL rather than an understanding tenure for the most part. I appreciate a championing tenure and tone for what it is, but is this all TOL is or ever will be?

Either way brother. Like I said, you can as easily engage me in the forum and there is probably some good in that. It allows us all to pool our knowledge and come to the table in a better light I think. I see value in that. We tried, I'd like to try again at a future date.
I put some of Boyd's books on back order so that should help.

I also put some of the reformed doctrines on the same list so I'll work over these again from a different perspective and possibly we'll have a better groundwork (I'll have a better groundwork) for discussion.

I've appreciated the time and I'll continue to appreciate discussion with you in forum.

In Our Precious Christ

Lon