Open Theism and Determinism

kenblogton
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:39 pm
Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada

Re: Open Theism and Determinism

Post by kenblogton » Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:03 am

Reply to steve7150
The title "Lucifer" was never used prior to Isaiah 14 and it was never used after Isaiah 14, so there is no confirmation it means Satan. In fact "morning star" which the KJV translates as "Lucifer" is used for Jesus in Rev 22.
In the King James, Revelation 2:28 speaks of the overcomers being given the morning star. From Barnes' Notes on the Bible, the following interpretation is given "And I will give him the morning star - The "morning star" is that bright planet - Venus - which at some seasons of the year appears so beautifully in the east, leading on the morning - the harbinger of the day. It is one of the most beautiful objects in nature, and is susceptible of a great variety of uses for illustration. It appears as the darkness passes away; it is an indication that the morning comes; it is intermingled with the first rays of the light of the sun; it seems to be a herald to announce the coming of that glorious luminary; it is a pledge of the faithfulness of God. In which of these senses, if any, it is referred to here, is not stated; nor is it said what is implied by its being given to him that overcomes. It would seem to be used here to denote a bright and brilliant ornament; something with which he who "overcame" would be adorned, resembling the bright star of the morning."
Revelation 22:16 morning star is interpreted by Bible Study Tools as "God promised that the Messiah should be of the seed of David, and according to his promise he raised up unto Israel of his seed, a Saviour Jesus, the same person here speaking, ( Acts 13:23 ) who adds, and the bright and morning star; Christ is compared to a "star", as in ( Numbers 24:17 ) for its light, the light of nature, and of grace, and of the new Jerusalem state being from him; and for its glory"
For an in-depth study of morning star in the Bible, I would refer you to http://www.kjv-only.com/isa14_12.html
As far as angels having free will, we see in Job that Satan asks God for permission to attack Job. God allows Satan but limits the damage Satan is allowed to inflict. Job is likely the oldest book in the bible and right from the start we see God limiting Satan. So before Genesis we have evidence that God could have kept Satan out of the garden but He didn't because allowing Satan in was part of God's purposes.
So Satan can not go beyond what he is permitted to do by God. God's purpose for Satan with Adam & Eve, as with Job, is to test them, not to lead them to do evil.
kenblogton

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Open Theism and Determinism

Post by Homer » Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:13 am

It still stands that if it is inevitable that you will give $5.00 to a beggar tomorrow, you cannot do otherwise. If you can otherwise, then it was not inevitable.

1. If God knows you will give the beggar $5 tomorrow, then you will give the beggar $5 tomorrow.
2. If you do not give the beggar $5 tomorrow, then God does not know that you will give the beggar $5 tommorow.

According to formal logic, sentences 1 and 2 are logically equivalent. This implies that if the first is true then so is the second.
Your formal logic there is flawless, I just do not agree with your premise. God's knowing does not make me a robot, He just knew what I would freely decide to do.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1921
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Open Theism and Determinism

Post by mattrose » Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:44 pm

Homer wrote: God's knowing does not make me a robot, He just knew what I would freely decide to do.
Hi Homer! I was interested to see if you had any thoughts on my most recent post in this thread.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Open Theism and Determinism

Post by Homer » Tue Jan 21, 2014 5:40 pm

Hi Matt,

You wrote:
The typical way people avoid open theism AND determinism at the same time is by believing:

1. God decided to create time (but not subject Himself to it)
Tentatively I see God as both outside time and working inside time.
2. God decided to make creatures with libertarian free will (but maintained the right to intervene)
I believe this.
3. God let time play out with the combination of free creatures and His divine intervention
And I believe this.
In such a scenario, it is thought, open theism is avoided b/c God knows the future and determinism is avoided b/c God created genuinely free creatures (didn't determine how they would choose).
But God, fully knowing the persons heart, can create a scenario where the person will carry out God's plan without God making free-will void.
I suggest, however, that while this classic Arminian response sounds reasonable at first glance, it doesn't actually avoid either open theism or determinism.

How so?

Well, even if step 3 took less than a nano-second from God's perspective, God was still 'open' toward the future during that process. In other words, you cannot avoid the idea that God did not know what was going to happen in the sequence as the sequence played out. This view only avoids that God doesn't know the finished sequence now. So the view doesn't completely avoid open theism. It just avoids the idea that the future is still open. It once was, but now is not.

As for determinism, this standard arminian response avoids determinism as the sequence played out (we were given genuine freedom), but it cannot avoid the fact that the sequence did indeed already play out (from God's perspective). This view avoids the idea that God predetermined all outcomes, but it does not avoid the idea that all outcomes are now determined in the sense that they can not play out other than how God 'saw' them play out. They weren't predetermined, but they are now determined.

Given that the classical arminian view does not exactly avoid either determinism or open theism, I think it makes more sense to pick between those two views... and that is not a difficult choice for me to make.
It seems to me, if I understand your point, you are saying the same thing Paidion says.

Let's consider the example of Judas.

John 6:64-71, New American Standard Bible (NASB)

64. But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65. And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
66. As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67. So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68. Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 6.9 We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” 70. Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” 71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.


It seems clear that Jesus knew, from the very first, that Judas would betray him - Judas and none other. And Peter says the same, naming Judas in particular, and that God knew this centuries, at least, before it occurred:

Acts 1:16 (NASB)

16. “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

And that Judas' betrayal was part of God's plan and knowledge long before the event:

Acts 2:23 (NASB)

23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.


Some think this was David's reference to Judas, as mentioned by Peter:

Psalm 41:9 (NASB)

9. Even my close friend in whom I trusted,
Who ate my bread,
Has lifted up his heel against me.

What seems unavoidable is that God knew ahead of time (long ahead) that Judas would be born into this world and would, according to God's plan, betray Jesus. If Judas did not have free-will in his betrayal he acted as though he was a robot and was no more guilty of sin than a robot.

I know what I believe may seem contradictory but those of the ancient Near East (ANE) were good at it.

So I am stuck at my OP:
It seems to me that if open theism is true, then in every prophetic statement regarding what men will do in the future, the event is determined by God and caused by His action, and men thus have lost their free will to the extent necessary for that which is predicted to come true. Then, just as seems true with Calvinism, God is the author of sin.

If God foretells the destruction of people by other people then God necessarily must act to cause the event, otherwise God is no more than a good guesser.
The whole subject makes my head hurt because I see validity in both sides of the discussion.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Open Theism and Determinism

Post by Paidion » Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:22 pm

Homer wrote:Your formal logic there is flawless, I just do not agree with your premise. God's knowing does not make me a robot, He just knew what I would freely decide to do.
It is not my premise that God's knowing makes you a robot. It is my premise that if statements about your future actions have truth value, this would contradict the supposition that you possess the ability to choose.

For example, suppose the sentence E is true: E= "Homer will eat an apple at time T"? If you choose not to eat an apple at time T, and in fact don't eat one, then this fact contradicts sentence E, and thus sentence E is NOT true.

Similarly, if God knows that Homer will eat an apple at time T, the sentence E is true. If you can choose not to eat the apple, and in fact don't eat it, then sentence E is false and God didn't know that "Home will eat an apple at time T."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1921
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Open Theism and Determinism

Post by mattrose » Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:17 am

What seems unavoidable is that God knew ahead of time (long ahead) that Judas would be born into this world and would, according to God's plan, betray Jesus. If Judas did not have free-will in his betrayal he acted as though he was a robot and was no more guilty of sin than a robot.
Homer, this is the part of your quote that I disagree with. I think you make a jump in your argument here. The Old prophecy does not name Judas. It anticipates a scenario that plays out over and over again throughout history playing itself out again. It is only when the events are closer that God's knowledge of exactly which 'friend' becomes concrete.

I think we have long-misunderstood the nature of prophetic fulfillment. Most prophecies are not fulfilled literally as is often claimed (rather dogmatically). The events in Jesus' life are more like the end of a funnel. Events that occur in cycles found their fulfillment in Him.

Additionally, I left room in my premise for God to pre-determine some things. Even if he predetermined Judas and he WAS a robot, that would not be an argument for or against open theism. It would only be an argument for some uses of determinism.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Open Theism and Determinism

Post by Homer » Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:07 am

Hi Matt,

You wrote:
Homer, this is the part of your quote that I disagree with. I think you make a jump in your argument here. The Old prophecy does not name Judas. It anticipates a scenario that plays out over and over again throughout history playing itself out again. It is only when the events are closer that God's knowledge of exactly which 'friend' becomes concrete.
Agreed that the old prophecy does not name Judas but doesn't Peter nail it down that David spoke of Judas in particular, centuries prior to Judas being born?

Acts 1:16 (NASB)

16. “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.
Additionally, I left room in my premise for God to pre-determine some things. Even if he predetermined Judas and he WAS a robot, that would not be an argument for or against open theism. It would only be an argument for some uses of determinism.
But wouldn't it also be an argument that a just God would not hold Judas responsible for his betrayal?

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1921
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Open Theism and Determinism

Post by mattrose » Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:47 am

Homer wrote:but doesn't Peter nail it down that David spoke of Judas in particular, centuries prior to Judas being born?

Acts 1:16 (NASB)

16. “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.
I think Peter is saying that Judas is the one the lived himself into the prophecy, not the the prophecy specifically envisioned Judas. I especially think this b/c the prophecy did not specifically name Judas. It was a general prophecy open to a variety of specific fulfillments.
But wouldn't it also be an argument that a just God would not hold Judas responsible for his betrayal?
If Judas was merely a puppet then I would agree that a just God would not hold him accountable. I don't think Judas was a robot. I was just throwing another interpretive option out there.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Open Theism and Determinism

Post by steve7150 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:04 pm

So Satan can not go beyond what he is permitted to do by God. God's purpose for Satan with Adam & Eve, as with Job, is to test them, not to lead them to do evil.





OK so Adam and Eve were tested. Do you think if you are deceived that you can make a free will choice? Satan deceived Eve as Paul said. "But i fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety." 2 Cor 11.3

Did God blame Eve? "And the Lord God said to the serpent, because YOU HAVE DONE THIS, you are cursed above all cattle." Gen 3.14

Regarding Adam God said, "And unto Adam He said, because you have hearkened to the voice of your wife and eaten of the tree" 3.17

So because Adam listened to the voice of his wife he made the choice he did. Why did he listen to his wife's voice, apparently he wanted to be with her.

God made Adam's DNA, do you think God knew what Adam would do?


If we go back to Rom 8.20 i think it sums this up, "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly but by reason of Him who has subjected the same in hope."

I think this refers back to Adam and Eve and they were made "subject to vanity." If you are made "subject to" something then the something is the cause of your choice. Yes they made choices but they were "subject to" choices, meaning as Rom 8.20 says "not willingly."

kenblogton
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:39 pm
Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada

Re: Open Theism and Determinism

Post by kenblogton » Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:54 pm

Reply to steve7150
OK so Adam and Eve were tested. Do you think if you are deceived that you can make a free will choice? Satan deceived Eve as Paul said. "But i fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety." 2 Cor 11.3
People are deceived - lied to, conned, misled, etc. all the time. If you follow God and not your own desires or Satan, you can withstand any deception; make the choice for good, as 1 Corinthians 10:13 promises.
Did God blame Eve? "And the Lord God said to the serpent, because YOU HAVE DONE THIS, you are cursed above all cattle." Gen 3.14
God said to Eve 3:16 "To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."" Clearly God held Eve accountable for her choice.
Regarding Adam God said, "And unto Adam He said, because you have hearkened to the voice of your wife and eaten of the tree" 3.17
So because Adam listened to the voice of his wife he made the choice he did. Why did he listen to his wife's voice, apparently he wanted to be with her.
God made Adam's DNA, do you think God knew what Adam would do?

God knew his options - his possible choices - not his actual choice, just as He knows your possible choices and mine.
If we go back to Rom 8.20 i think it sums this up, "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly but by reason of Him who has subjected the same in hope."
I think this refers back to Adam and Eve and they were made "subject to vanity." If you are made "subject to" something then the something is the cause of your choice. Yes they made choices but they were "subject to" choices, meaning as Rom 8.20 says "not willingly."

I agree this refers back to Adam & Eve. Vanity in the NIV is translated frustration. They would not have chosen to be tempted by Satan, just as Job would not have chosen to be tested by Satan. But they were tested, and Adam & Eve failed the test. Romans 8:20-21 states "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." The consequence of their bad choice, the good that resulted from it, was Christ.
kenblogton

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”