"The Open View of God" or "Open Theis

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:47 am

My own opinion is that God, through the Spirit, informed Jesus of Peter"s future and God saw that Peter lived until He allowed wicked men to take Peter's life of their own free will.

If that's true Homer then Peter no longer had true free will because in this case God chose him to be a martyr. Just like Jesus said to his first disciples "You did not choose me but i chose you" which confirms what God said through Isaiah.

"The former I DECLARED long ago, they went out FROM MY MOUTH ,and i made them known ,then suddenly I DID THEM , & and they came to pass"
Isa 48.3
"My purposes shall stand & I WILL FULFILL MY INTENTIONS." Isa 46.10

Post by **_Homer** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:27 am

Steve7150,

You Said:

If that's true Homer then Peter no longer had true free will because in this case God chose him to be a martyr.

You apparently have an unusual definition of free will. Free will equals freedom to choose, does it not? I may choose to live but that gives me no power to make it so if someone is determined to kill me.

Post by **_TK** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:54 pm

hi all-- Homer-- i think i am closest to your position on this, despite convincing arguments/observations from steve and paidon.

steve's position (i believe) is that if God knows the future, then a person is "locked in" to that future. he may feel "free" as he lives his life but in reality he is not. what homer and i have tried to bring out is that while this may seem tobe the logical conclusion to us, it may not be when applied to God.

we may be deadlocked-- i am willing to accept that i cant explain logically how God works in all cases which would explain apparent discrepancies. steve and paidon seem to believe that God doesn't know the future (at least in regard to our specific actions) and i am not sure how the two can be reconciled. can they be?

TK

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:19 pm

You apparently have an unusual definition of free will. Free will equals freedom to choose, does it not? I may choose to live but that gives me no power to make it so if someone is determined to kill me.

Hi Homer, We have free will to the extent God allows it but if it is God's will that Peter would be a martyr then nothing in the universe could change that.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:23 pm

Hi TK, I'm not decided yet although i'm leaning toward "open theism" but the other views have been discussed a lot so i felt that this view should have it's scriptural support presented since it's often dismissed outright with little thought.

Post by **_TK** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:13 am

steve-- do you have a definition of "open theism" handy?

thx, TK

Post by **_Paidion** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:27 pm

Homer:

There may be no "hole in your argument", it just may not apply to an infinite being who operates outside the limits of time and dimension that constrain us. I believe scripture informs us that God knows the future and we have free will. The apparent paradox troubles me not at all.

If it were an apparent paradox, it wouldn’t trouble me either. But it’s not a paradox in any sense. Paradoxes are puzzling remarks that go against our normal way of thinking. The thing we are dealing with here is an antinomy, a logical contradiction ---- not just an apparent contradiction, but an actual one. To affirm a statement as well as its negation, is meaningless nonsense. For example, to state that a liquid is totally red in colour, and also that is completely colorless, has no meaning. To assert that an all-powerful being can create a stone so large that He cannot lift it, is meaningless nonsense. To assert that futuristic statements about the decisions of a free will agent have truth value now, is meaningless nonsense.

Homer, I think the fact that you have called it merely an “apparent paradox” shows that you really haven’t accepted it as a logical contradiction. If it is merely a paradox, then you should be able to find a flaw in my argument.

Here is an example of a paradox. A barber claimed that he shaves all men in his town and only those men in his town who do not shave themselves.

The barber’s statement is illogical. Consider the question, “Does the barber shave himself?”

If the answer is “yes”, then the barber doesn't shave himself. For he shaves only those men in his town who do not shave themselves.

If the answer is “no” then the barber shaves himself. For he shaves all of those men in his town who do not shave themselves.

Thus the barber’s statement is meaningless unless he himself is excluded from the shaving rule which he stated.

It just may not apply to an infinite being who operates outside the limits of time and dimension that constrain us.

What is the meaning of “operates out side the limits of time and dimension”. What scripture indicates that God operates “outside the limits of time and dimension”? What evidence of any nature indicates that there anything exists “outside of time.” Nevertheless, let us suppose that God does operate “outside time and space” whatever that means. Logical contradictions still remain just as meaningless.

I believe scripture informs us that God knows the future and we have free will.

I have stated that God indeed knows the future where it concerns what He has decided to do. Nothing can stop Him. He also knows the future where a chain of causes determines that future. However, scripture does not “inform us” that God knows what free will agents will choose. Indeed, I have cited scripture which indicates the contrary.

TK

we may be deadlocked-- i am willing to accept that i cant explain logically how God works in all cases which would explain apparent discrepancies.

Neither can I. No one can “explain logically how God works in all cases”. It is unnecessary to explain how God works in order to positively affirm that logical contradictions are meaningless.

steve and paidon seem to believe that God doesn't know the future (at least in regard to our specific actions) and i am not sure how the two can be reconciled. can they be?

It’s not “specific actions” in question here, it’s any decisions which free will agents choose. Statements about freely chosen actions are neither true nor false NOW! If anyone knows any freely chosen action in advance, then a statement about the action IS now true, and thus the agent of the action does not have the free will to refrain from the action. Calvinism’s answer is logical, although false. Calvinism’s answer is that people have only apparent free will but not actual free will. If people have actual free will, then it is a logical contradiction to affirm that his freely chose actions can be known in advance.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:17 pm

steve-- do you have a definition of "open theism" handy?

Hi TK, From the book "God of the Possible" by Gregory A. Boyd
Open theists hold that the future consists partly of settled realities and partly of unsettled realities. Some things about the future are possibly this way and possibly that way. Hence ,precisely because they also hold that God knows all of reality perfectly , open theists believe that God knows the future as consisting of both unsettled possibilities and settled certainties. In this sense ,open theists affirm that God knows the future perfectly.
If God does not foreknow future free actions, it is not because his knowledge of the future is in any sense incomplete. It's because there is, in this view ,nothing definite there for God to know!

Post by **_Les Wright** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:28 pm

Hi Paidion,

What if the barber was female? Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Like I said in another thread, I think I'm in Paidion's court here, although I'n not 100% decided.

Paidion, what do you do with Is 45:1 re: Cyrus prediction. I agree that God can make things happen or enforce His will and He seems to be able to motivate humans to take actions He wants them to take as well (i.e. Pharaoh in Exodus), but I'm not sure how to explain a prophetic prophecy that names a future man doing something. That is a tough one for me. Do you have an answer/speculation for it?

Les

Post by **_TK** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:03 am

Paidon said: What is the meaning of “operates out side the limits of time and dimension”. What scripture indicates that God operates “outside the limits of time and dimension”? What evidence of any nature indicates that there anything exists “outside of time.” Nevertheless, let us suppose that God does operate “outside time and space” whatever that means. Logical contradictions still remain just as meaningless.

I think stephen hawking's position along with other physicists, is that time did not always exist. this is beyond my comprehension so obviously i cannot explain it here. But several posts back, i quoted CS Lewis on how he deals with this issue. his position, greatly summarized, is that God is not in our "time stream," so that the problem of foreknowledge, as viewed from our persective, does not apply to him. in other words, since God is outside of time, He simply sees things as they occur, even things that are future to us. Per Lewis, from God's perspective, its 1642, 2006 and 3012 all at the same time. He doesnt have to "wait" for the future-- it's already there, for Him. this would eradicate the "antimony" (what a great word!) mentioned by Paidon.

can i establish this from scripture (i.e. that God is outside time)? nope. however, God's eternality may require this conclusion. i'm not sure. but if Lewis' view is correct, it provides an alternative explanation to Open Theism.

TK