Is God constrained?

[Radrook]

Your view;



I disagree, "it would indicate".

Gods word is in the positive. He declares what IS. He is Truth, He can not Lie. -
No need for Him to indicate otherwise.

Men simply have the option to trust and believe Him, or not.

God Bless,
SBC

Sounds rather inconsiderate and rude to say the least. As earthly parents we are expected to treat our children with consideration for their emotional welfare. Not to subject them to unnecessary psychological stress by withholding information that would reduce their anxiety. If we don't and purposefully create a condition of constant uncertainty, then we are considered abusive parents and unfit to raise children.

Ephesians 6:4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger,

 

[Hammster]

Your view;



I disagree, "it would indicate".

Gods word is in the positive. He declares what IS. He is Truth, He can not Lie. -
No need for Him to indicate otherwise.

Men simply have the option to trust and believe Him, or not.

God Bless,
SBC

Well, that wasn’t my view, so...

Maybe you missed the if that were the case part.

 

[Newlyrestoredgospel777]

There is a contradiction here. Adam is described as being in the form of perfection, spiritual and incapable of evil and then he is described as choosing evil. You can't have it both ways.

Eating the fruit was not evil. Nothing Evil exists in Heaven. If Adam H.E did not know good and evil, how then did He know what he wasn't supposed to do? Look at a baby. If the baby is told not to do something, does the baby understand why? No, which is why you must physically restrain the baby from doing that thing. Adam H.E was not a baby. He was made in the image and after the likeness of GOD. Thus, he had knowledge of good and evil. The fruit therefore did not give that knowledge.

The fruit of the tree made them mortals (you shall know a tree by its fruit). It was like a Visa into the earth. There was nothing evil about the choice he made. It was a plan to procreate the body for Adamites, the children of GOD.

The evil is death. Everything speaking death is evil because it is in direct opposition to the nature of Man. No man wants to die, revealing that death is not for Man. Death is the systems of this world which MUST have been possible to enable procreation. Because only that the sperm dies, can the body come. Only that the seed dies, can the tree come forth. Death is your final Enemy. Death is not the route to Heaven.

Look at the Word Evil, then spell it backwards, and you get Live.

Without death, there could be no procreation.

 

[Newlyrestoredgospel777]

I agree.



So you are saying not all things are pre-destined, only people, and not only that, only Christians? Also, how did the perfect nature fall? At what point did the creation become UN-pre-destined? This is where free will answers the question and predestination, in the classical sense, causes problems.

The Plan of Salvation is the entire LOGOS which has been Pre-destined.
HE has also predestined the children of darkness. They are appointed twice to die. Creation has never been un-predestined. Everything that GOD created is pre-destined like a plant or tree that sprouts leaves and fruit according to its time. These things are programmed into the seed, and your Spirit is that seed. It does not mean your programmed to do certain things against your will. Rather, that when you are following the path which you are supposed to follow, When you are eating HIS messages and learning from HIS sent one, you will sprout, the uniqueness of yourself shall come forth, blossom, your Spiritual abilities will be manifested.

GOD knows the end from the beginning. HE does not make mistakes. Therefore those which have certain Spiritual abilities, such as Prophets, have that ability in the Spirit. And GOD knowing the choices the person will make, does not mean that your free will is taken away. HE strategically places HIS children all over the world. Grace is misunderstood. Grace comes by Merit. That is why HE said to paul: My grace is sufficient for you. GOD does not favour people. the place in which we have is earned. (I didn't say salvation is earned, but that your abilities and your standing is).

 

[SBC]

Mankind; is observing that which has ALREADY occurred.

Ecc 3
[15] That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been;

All of mankind has choices. BECAUSE:

Ecc 3

God requireth that which is past.

God already KNOWS what every man of mankind WILL choose.

God is everlasting. God KNOWS what already occurred. God predestines and calls those WHO already chose to submit unto God. God has already prepared a place for those who have chosen to give God Power over their life.

God can not stand against Himself. Nor can a man who chose to give their Life to Gods Power, ever again stand against God.

Is such a man accounted BY GOD, as perfect, called, chosen, ordained, sanctified and whole? Yes.

Is such a man accounted BY OTHER MEN, as perfect and whole? Maybe, Maybe not.

Why does it matter what one man accounts another man as? It doesn't.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

Eating the fruit was not evil. Nothing Evil exists in Heaven. If Adam H.E did not know good and evil, how then did He know what he wasn't supposed to do? Look at a baby. If the baby is told not to do something, does the baby understand why? No, which is why you must physically restrain the baby from doing that thing. Adam H.E was not a baby. He was made in the image and after the likeness of GOD. Thus, he had knowledge of good and evil. The fruit therefore did not give that knowledge.

The fruit of the tree made them mortals (you shall know a tree by its fruit). It was like a Visa into the earth. There was nothing evil about the choice he made. It was a plan to procreate the body for Adamites, the children of GOD.

The evil is death. Everything speaking death is evil because it is in direct opposition to the nature of Man. No man wants to die, revealing that death is not for Man. Death is the systems of this world which MUST have been possible to enable procreation. Because only that the sperm dies, can the body come. Only that the seed dies, can the tree come forth. Death is your final Enemy. Death is not the route to Heaven.

Look at the Word Evil, then spell it backwards, and you get Live.

Without death, there could be no procreation.

 

[SBC]

Sounds rather inconsiderate and rude to say the least.

Sounds inconsiderate and rude to teach the truth? Well, obviously, I disagree.

As earthly parents we are expected to treat our children with consideration for their emotional welfare. Not to subject them to unnecessary psychological stress by withholding information that would reduce their anxiety. If we don't and purposefully create a condition of constant uncertainty, then we are considered abusive parents and unfit to raise children.

Whatever - If you think it is inconsiderate, rude, unnecessary psychological stress, and an abusive and unfit parent, to teach children the truth .... no wonder this society is such a mess.

Ephesians 6:4

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger,

If you are attempting to present a scripture AGAINST teaching children the truth - try finding an appropriated Scripture. Teaching children the truth IS NOT provoking a child!

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

Well, that wasn’t my view, so...

Maybe you missed the if that were the case part.

Okay, thanks for verifying it was a supposed case based on "IF" it applied.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Well, Non-Open Theism doesn't contradict Open Theism in that area since it doesn't teach that God is in full control at present either. That's why it teaches a restoration of al things and a replacement of the present situation by a new one as prophesied.

But I thought you earlier said this:

So the creator you are proposing is not almighty, not all knowing, and both unwilling and incapable of exerting full control over his universe. In other words, it is not the biblically-described God and is only God because he created. Right? Is that what open-theism teaches

What am I missing? Do you believe God has the power to exert full control but chooses not to? I believe this, but I believe the reason is - By exerting full control He thwarts the entire purpose of creating free creatures. What reason would you give?

The Plan of Salvation is the entire LOGOS which has been Pre-destined.
HE has also predestined the children of darkness.

Has He? Or has he predestined a consequence for those who choose darkness and the children then choose if they will enter that predestined place or not? I believe He predestines groups, not individuals, and individuals can choose the group themselves.

And GOD knowing the choices the person will make, does not mean that your free will is taken away.

Did you follow the earlier proof I posted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will )? Here is a different one from an online paper found at Open Theism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Consider the following argument given by William Hasker in The Openness of God:

1. It is now true that Clarence will have a cheese omelet for breakfast tomorrow. (Premise)
2. It is impossible that God should at any time believe what is false, or fail to believe anything that is true. (Premise: divine omniscience)
3. God has always believed that Clarence will have a cheese omelet tomorrow. (From 1, 2)
4. If God has always believed a certain thing, it is not in anyone’s power to bring it about that God has not always believed that thing. (Premise: the unalterability of the past)
5. Therefore, it is not in Clarence’s power to bring it about that God has not always believed that he would have a cheese omelet for breakfast. (From 3, 4)
6. It is not possible for it to be true both that God has always believed that Clarence would have a cheese omelet for breakfast, and that he does not in fact have one. (from 2)
7. Therefore, it is not in Clarence’s power to refrain from having a cheese omelet for breakfast tomorrow. (From 5, 6) So Clarence’s eating the omelet tomorrow is not an act of free choice. (From the definition of free will.)

If premise 4 is true and if we have libertarian freedom, then it is not possible for God to know what we will freely do before we do it.

 

[Radrook]

But I thought you earlier said this:



What am I missing? Do you believe God has the power to exert full control but chooses not to? I believe this, but I believe the reason is - By exerting full control He thwarts the entire purpose of creating free creatures. What reason would you give?

Did you follow the earlier proof I posted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will )? Here is a different one from an online paper found at Open Theism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

These are things which I am trying to determine. Yes, I understand the open theism position.
The problem is the in view of al the victimization that goes on where the innocent suffer horrible, it isn't a easy one to accept without feeling resentment for total neutrality from such a powerful being. For example, just recently a chimpanzee ripped off a woman's face. That includes her eyes, nose, lips, ears, and fingers. The woman looked like something from a horror movie-had to have a cadaver face transplant to replace her originally beautiful face.

If I had been standing by and had the power to intervene I would. If I had the power and did not intervene-then what kind of a person would I be considered to be? The answer seems obvious. If indeed it is evil for me to stand by calmly while this is going on then why is it suddenly not evil simply because the one standing by calmly calls himself God?

 

[Newlyrestoredgospel777]

But I thought you earlier said this:



What am I missing? Do you believe God has the power to exert full control but chooses not to? I believe this, but I believe the reason is - By exerting full control He thwarts the entire purpose of creating free creatures. What reason would you give?



Has He? Or has he predestined a consequence for those who choose darkness and the children then choose if they will enter that predestined place or not? I believe He predestines groups, not individuals, and individuals can choose the group themselves.



Did you follow the earlier proof I posted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will )? Here is a different one from an online paper found at Open Theism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Consider the following argument given by William Hasker in The Openness of God:

1. It is now true that Clarence will have a cheese omelet for breakfast tomorrow. (Premise)
2. It is impossible that God should at any time believe what is false, or fail to believe anything that is true. (Premise: divine omniscience)
3. God has always believed that Clarence will have a cheese omelet tomorrow. (From 1, 2)
4. If God has always believed a certain thing, it is not in anyone’s power to bring it about that God has not always believed that thing. (Premise: the unalterability of the past)
5. Therefore, it is not in Clarence’s power to bring it about that God has not always believed that he would have a cheese omelet for breakfast. (From 3, 4)
6. It is not possible for it to be true both that God has always believed that Clarence would have a cheese omelet for breakfast, and that he does not in fact have one. (from 2)
7. Therefore, it is not in Clarence’s power to refrain from having a cheese omelet for breakfast tomorrow. (From 5, 6) So Clarence’s eating the omelet tomorrow is not an act of free choice. (From the definition of free will.)

If premise 4 is true and if we have libertarian freedom, then it is not possible for God to know what we will freely do before we do it.

Your premise is incorrect, not true. It is not the case that GOD believes anything. HE Is all knowing.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

These are things which I am trying to determine.

Same

Yes, I understand the open theism position.

There are some nuances that I'm still trying to get my head around. Leading proponents differ on some small points.

The problem is the in view of al the victimization that goes on where the innocent suffer horrible, it isn't a easy one to accept without feeling resentment for total neutrality from such a powerful being.
For example, just recently a chimpanzee ripped off a woman's face. That includes her eyes, nose, lips, ears, and fingers. The woman looked like something from a horror movie-had to have a cadaver face transplant to replace her originally beautiful face.

If I had been standing by and had the power to intervene I would. If I had the power and did not intervene-then what kind of a person would I be considered to be? The answer seems obvious. If indeed it is evil for me to stand by calmly while this is going on then why is it suddenly not evil simply because the one standing by calmly calls himself God?

Indeed. I hear you. This is what led me TO open theism. If God could, but doesn't, He is culpable. But what if He can't? What if He is constrained? This is the whole point. If God created everything without the knowledge of where it would end up then He is not culpable - the free creatures are - especially if they are the ones with the authority and responsibility over themselves and this universe (Genesis 1:28). And especially if within the creation are rules to protect the freedom of the creatures. These rules, or laws, may have been put in place to ensure a free outcome. But now that evil has entered, these same rules restrict Him access. Daniel 10:12-13 helps to give some insight into the spiritual battles taking place behind the scenes:

12Then he said to me, "Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words. 13"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia. 14"Now I have come to give you an understanding of what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision pertains to the days yet future."

I also think your wording of "total neutrality" is a bit strong. He sent Himself in Jesus into the battle for our sake, so I would say He is completely and 100% on humanities side. I believe as we learn to hear His voice and work with Him we see earth become more and more like it was meant to be before evil attacked it.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Your premise is incorrect, not true. It is not the case that GOD believes anything. HE Is all knowing.

Which premise?

 

[Newlyrestoredgospel777]

Which premise?

1. If God has always believed a certain thing, it is not in anyone’s power to bring it about that God has not always believed that thing. (Premise: the unalterability of the past)

Here you have claimed that GOD believed, which is also indirectly saying that HE doesn't know. With this Premise, you have claimed that GOD can make errors, that HE is not infallible, for belief is not founded on knowledge, which is why it is merely belief.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

1. If God has always believed a certain thing, it is not in anyone’s power to bring it about that God has not always believed that thing. (Premise: the unalterability of the past)

Here you have claimed that GOD believed, which is also indirectly saying that HE doesn't know. With this Premise, you have claimed that GOD can make errors, that HE is not infallible, for belief is not founded on knowledge, which is why it is merely belief.

I think you misunderstand the premise. The point is not about God "believing", it could also be written this way:

If God has always [known] a certain thing, it is not in anyone’s power to bring it about that God has
not always [known] that thing. (Premise: the unalterability of the past)​

The premise remains true, yes? There is no claim here that God makes errors, only that if God already knows something, then that thing is unchangeable.

 

[Newlyrestoredgospel777]

I think you misunderstand the premise. The point is not about God "believing", it could also be written this way:

If God has always [known] a certain thing, it is not in anyone’s power to bring it about that God has
not always [known] that thing. (Premise: the unalterability of the past)​

The premise remains true, yes? There is no claim here that God makes errors, only that if God already knows something, then that thing is unchangeable.

No if GOD has pre-destined something, that can never be changed, nor is it in error. GOD is the All KNOWING GOD.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

No if GOD has pre-destined something, that can never be changed, nor is it in error. GOD is the All KNOWING GOD.

Fair enough, then if God has predestined something, that thing can never be changed. So it is not in Clarence's power to refrain from doing that which is predestined. Therefore when Clarence eats the omelette, He does not do so by free choice (based on the definition of free will). Again, which premise do you disagree with? Here you have changed the wording of premise 4 but agree with its meaning.

 

[Newlyrestoredgospel777]

Fair enough, then if God has predestined something, that thing can never be changed. So it is not in Clarence's power to refrain from doing that which is predestined. Therefore when Clarence eats the omelette, He does not do so by free choice (based on the definition of free will). Again, which premise do you disagree with? Here you have changed the wording of premise 4 but agree with its meaning.

If one is being guided by divine destiny, they will walk the path that has been prepared for them. So, if it is in GOD's Divine destiny for Clarence to eat the omelete, it only shows you that Clarence is following the path prepared for him of his own free will.

We are free moral agents, and it is only when we choose to be guided, can we reap the benefits of pre-destination. Therefore GOD knowing what we choose does not take anything away from us being free moral agents. So HE spells out (reveals) the benefits of guidance and the consequences for choosing our own "lot" in life (Deut 28). Or how lot chose what was good in his sight, but Abraham received divine inheritance to show that those who walk with GOD are predestined.

GOD is all knowing, HE knows the choices we will make. The child is predestined because GOD knows that the child will walk the path expected. GOD does not cast lots - HE does not guess, HE does not predict, HE is the Spirit of Prophecy. HE does according to HIS WILL and HIS TIME because HE cannot be moved to act.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

If one is being guided by divine destiny, they will walk the path that has been prepared for them. So, if it is in GOD's Divine destiny for Clarence to eat the omelete, it only shows you that Clarence is following the path prepared for him of his own free will.

You haven't addressed the contradiction in what you are attempting to teach. Again, find the premise you disagree with in the proof above, otherwise we will go around in circles. Actually, just in case you can't find it:

1. It is now true that Clarence will have a cheese omelet for breakfast tomorrow. (Premise)
2. It is impossible that God should at any time believe [know] what is false, or fail to believe [know] anything that is true. (Premise: divine omniscience)
3. God has always believed [known] that Clarence will have a cheese omelet tomorrow. (From 1, 2)
4. If God has always believed [known] a certain thing, it is not in anyone’s power to bring it about that God has not always believed [known] that thing. (Premise: the unalterability of the past)
5. Therefore, it is not in Clarence’s power to bring it about that God has not always believed [known] that he would have a cheese omelet for breakfast. (From 3, 4)
6. It is not possible for it to be true both that God has always believed [known] that Clarence would have a cheese omelet for breakfast, and that he does not in fact have one. (from 2)
7. Therefore, it is not in Clarence’s power to refrain from having a cheese omelet for breakfast tomorrow. (From 5, 6) So Clarence’s eating the omelet tomorrow is not an act of free choice. (From the definition of free will.)

If premise 4 is true and if we have libertarian freedom, then it is not possible for God to know what we will freely do before we do it.

 

[Newlyrestoredgospel777]

You haven't addressed the contradiction in what you are attempting to teach. Again, find the premise you disagree with in the proof above, otherwise we will go around in circles. Actually, just in case you can't find it:

1. It is now true that Clarence will have a cheese omelet for breakfast tomorrow. (Premise)
2. It is impossible that God should at any time believe [know] what is false, or fail to believe [know] anything that is true. (Premise: divine omniscience)
3. God has always believed [known] that Clarence will have a cheese omelet tomorrow. (From 1, 2)
4. If God has always believed [known] a certain thing, it is not in anyone’s power to bring it about that God has not always believed [known] that thing. (Premise: the unalterability of the past)
5. Therefore, it is not in Clarence’s power to bring it about that God has not always believed [known] that he would have a cheese omelet for breakfast. (From 3, 4)
6. It is not possible for it to be true both that God has always believed [known] that Clarence would have a cheese omelet for breakfast, and that he does not in fact have one. (from 2)
7. Therefore, it is not in Clarence’s power to refrain from having a cheese omelet for breakfast tomorrow. (From 5, 6) So Clarence’s eating the omelet tomorrow is not an act of free choice. (From the definition of free will.)

If premise 4 is true and if we have libertarian freedom, then it is not possible for God to know what we will freely do before we do it.

I see you are using reductio to explain your point. Premise 4 is being stated on the assumption that there was another path that Clarence would have chosen except that GOD had known this one. And because GOD cannot know anything that is false, then Clarence had to eat the omelete regardless of the will of Clarence. Therefore Clarence was forced to comply. This is not true.

Allow me to try again. You stating "known" is not the same as predestined. Knowing and predestination are not the same things. However, GOD must be all knowing in order to pre-destine. In not one of your premises have you stated that Clarence had been pre-destined to eat the Omelete. So how can you deny that GOD knew that Clarence would choose to eat it?

1. Do you think that you can do anything without GOD knowing what you will do?
If you think that you can do anything without GOD knowing what you will do, then you claim HE is not all knowing. If you claim that HE is not all knowing, then you are saying HE is not GOD.
Therefore,
If you think that you can do anything without GOD knowing what you will do, then you are saying HE is not GOD.

GOD is all knowing. HE knows all that a person will do, that a person will ask, that a person will speak. Man has free will to do as he pleases according to his will. GOD knowing what the man will do does not affect the Mans ability to exercise his free will. GOD knowing what the person will choose can make the persons path straight - make all things work for good, which is predestination. Thus HE can and does predestine HIS Children. Like a Father in the earth that watches out for his children, but does not impede on the childs choices. Rather attempts (because he is not GOD) to help the child along the path s/he has chosen. How much more does GOD pre-destine HIS children? The GOD that is all knowing, and knows exactly where the path will lead, the GOD that knows exactly what the consequences are, chastises HIS children, guides them, pre-destines them to walk the path which GOD HIMSELF has prepared for them.

In all instances, the child operates his/her free will. When the child is walking the path which s/he should follow, the child can see that which has been pre-destined for them.

Examples:

Abraham was told to get thee up from thy kindred and go to a place which has been prepared for him - pre-destination. Abraham then made the choice to do as he was told.

Abraham gave lot the choice of which way he will go, GOD predestined for him and his seed all that he could see.

Moses heard from GOD through a burning bush and GOD told him to go back to Egypt and face Pharaoh, Moses chose to do as he was told. GOD does not gamble on losers. Do you think that GOD would just approach anyone for this task? Therefore GOD knew already what Moses would do, as HE knew what Abraham would do and all the Prophets. But in all cases, the Prophets exercised their free will to follow the path which was pre-destined for them.

Therefore, Predestination does not cancel out free will. No one can walk the path of Pre-destination, without having the free will to walk it. It is a submission in acknowledgement of the ALL knowing GOD to guide you, rather than relying on yourself. For you are not all knowing, and thus cannot see what is coming.