Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, God is very much limited by logic, just as God is limited by his own character.God is limited to human logic?
He foreknew ALL events AND people isn't what Acts 2:23 says. You're attempting to add to Scripture to make your worldview coherent.He foreknew all the events and people.
No, the article in question is purposefully misrepresenting the view. Open theists aren't homogeneous in their views, and so just because one open theist questions God's eternity doesn't mean they all do.Open theism questions these fundamentals of orthodox theology:
See the article, “An examination of open theism“.
- God’s omniscience (all knowledge);
- God’s immutability (unchanging);
- God’s eternity;
- God’s omnipresence;
- God’s unity;
- God’s omnipotence (all-powerful).
Also see, “The doctrine of open theism“.
I disagree.
The answer is, you can freely choose action A, and it was perfectly foreknown you would choose action A. This isn't a contradiction.If the perfect foreknowledge that you will do action A is true, then when the event occurs, you must do A. True?
And if not - and B could happen — how can the foreknowledge be perfect?
Even if we presume your definition, it's not contradictory.Yeah, if we're defining free will as something different than "the freedom to truly choose from a variety of options" - then that's a different discussion. But within the confines of what I'm talking about - that's what I'm assuming we're meaning. "Free will = the ability to truly choose between different options. When presented with options A and B, it legitimately could be A or could be B."
That's what I was always taught "free will" to mean. Man legitimately COULD do the right thing, but he by his own volition chooses the sinful thing in the moment.
Yeah, like the other day I was involved in a discussion on here and was told that my point of view was espousing open theism.
The discussion was about free will, and how that can be reconciled with a God that knows the future with 100% certainty? My position was that you can't have both. If free will is real, you truly can choose between options A or B. If both options are possible, then the future must be indeterminate.
However, if you have an omniscient God that knows with 100% certainty what you will do ahead of time (in fact before you're born) - then you truly do not have choice. If God has foreknowledge that you WILL choose B beforehand, then A was truly never an option. Sure, you may be aware of other choices, but what you will choose is predetermined...and that certainly is not free will.
My position was that those two ideas are conflicting. If one is true, then the other cannot be.
I then said that personally, I believe in the idea of free will. If that means that there is a boundary to God's knowledge, I'm perfectly happy accepting that.
It was that position I was told was "open theism"
Even if we presume your definition, it's not contradictory.
I think we may be getting fuzzy in how we're defining things with that question.So in your view, any time in life where only "action A" is your only available option, freewill ceases to exist?
No, when the time comes you could only choose B, but I fail to see how that means you didn't do so of your own free will.I think we may be getting fuzzy in how we're defining things with that question.
There are plenty of times in life where I may *feel* like I legitimately only have one option. Like say I were to suddenly find myself faced with a head-on collision...I may feel that slamming on the lbrakes and turning is my only available option (option A) - but I could conceivably just go for the gusto and hit the gas and slam straight into it.
Or there are a myriad of other scenarios where I may feel like the number of available options may be limited...and I react accordingly. At least in reading your question - that seems to be where I feel you're going with it.
But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the idea that you are truly presented with options - and freely choose between them of your own accord. Once again, presented with a situation you could do A or you could do B.
If God has perfect foreknowledge that in such a scenario you will do A, when the time eventually comes and the situation presents itself, can you truly choose B? If you did choose B, wouldn't God be then wrong?
Not really.Open theism questions these fundamentals of orthodox theology:
- God’s omniscience (all knowledge);
- God’s immutability (unchanging);
- God’s eternity;
- God’s omnipresence;
- God’s unity;
- God’s omnipotence (all-powerful).
You need to define your terms carefully. What does freedom mean? I believe in common use it speaks of the ability to do anything you decide to do. You're unfree if you're tied up or someone is holding a gun on you. It's not a restriction on your freedom that you're psychologically incapable of murdering someone.If God has perfect foreknowledge that in such a scenario you will do A, when the time eventually comes and the situation presents itself, can you truly choose B? If you did choose B, wouldn't God be then wrong?
Since the lack of options (A or B) doesn't seem to have any bearing in this from your point of view.No, when the time comes you could only choose B, but I fail to see how that means you didn't do so of your own free will.
You need to define your terms carefully. What does freedom mean? I believe in common use it speaks of the ability to do anything you decide to do. You're unfree if you're tied up or someone is holding a gun on you. It's not a restriction on your freedom that you're psychologically incapable of murdering someone.
This is related to the question of what it means to be responsible for a choice. I would say you're responsible if the choice actually reflects your character and goals. If someone made you do it, then it doesn't reflect your actual decision, so it makes no sense to hold you responsible. Does it count for or against responsibility if your choice is so clearly based on your character and goals that it was obvious you were going to make it? I'd say it counts in favor of responsibility. When your reasoning is clouded, we normally say that you are less responsible. E.g. people who are insane are generally not considered responsible for their choices.
If being unpredictable is what you need for freedom and responsibility, a madman would be the most truly free, and God would be completely unfree. I assume that God's reasoning is so clear and transparent that what he does is always the exact best thing given his goals. There was never any other possibility.
13 explains what is meant by 11. After listening and believing, then we were sealed in him and made part of the promise. There's no problem with the definitions of predetermined. What is determined is God's plan in Christ. We become "sharers in the promise of Christ *through the Gospel," not through God's bare predestination.You are stretching the text. He chose us in Him before the foundations of the earth. Us chosen apart from time . The text does not support a generic corporate choosing but individual.
Confirmed later in Ephesians 1:
In Him 11also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. 13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.
Acts 4:28: to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
...
This level of God's plan (1012/boulḗ) demonstrates He is the Lord of history, i.e. always in charge!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?