Theists Discuss the Unmoved Mover.

[Apologiaphoenix]

If Aquinas's argument works, then there is a God out there who is pure actuality and does not change. If so, and Scripture says God changes, then either our interpretation is wrong, or there is some other God out there supposedly greater than the God of Scripture.

[Littlejoe]

If Aquinas's argument works, then there is a God out there who is pure actuality and does not change. If so, and Scripture says God changes, then either our interpretation is wrong, or there is some other God out there supposedly greater than the God of Scripture.

Nope. That is incorrect. When you start with your conclusion, then read it into the text to confirm it, that's eisegesis plain and simple. Just because someone can copy a Greek metaphysical idea and make it rational to Christianity, does not make it necessary. Or necessarily so.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Nope. That is incorrect. When you start with your conclusion, then read it into the text to confirm it, that's eisegesis plain and simple. Just because someone can copy a Greek metaphysical idea and make it rational to Christianity, does not make it necessary. Or necessarily so.

It's entirely correct. Aquinas's argument ends in a being who is pure actuality and does not change. Now if the Bible presents a being who is not that and does change, then Aquinas's argument must have a flaw in it somewhere. Feel free to show where it is. If it does not, then it is the reading of the text that has a flaw, and I think the idea of taking emotions literally and not taking bodily descriptions literally is highly flawed.

Another parallel. We can find indications in the Bible that the heart is often seen as the seat of decision making and thinking. None of us thinks this is a literal truth. Why? Because we know the brain does that and not the heart. Some of us could think the Bible teaches a young Earth, but look at the evidence from science and it seems overwhelming that the universe is old. No one should say "Well the Bible says the Earth is young and science says it's old and both are true." That's the double-theory of truth I pointed at earlier. Very few of us read the Bible as teaching geocentrism and when we come across statements that used to be read that way, we read them differently.

Unless you want to posit the Double-Theory of truth, then there must be a flaw in Aquinas's argument somewhere.

Feel free to show it.

[Littlejoe]

You have to ask what is essential to a stool and what is necessary to a stool. Did any essential attribute of deity change? Not at all. One person (Not one piece at all!) took on a human nature in addition to the divine. How does that change the divine nature? The Athanasian Creed talks about the Trinity not blending the essences together. The nature of deity did not partake of humanity. A person with the nature of deity took on the nature of humanity. Big difference.

Not sure what your point is. If something changed, but not in anything that was essential or necessary, but it still changed in something that is non-essential or non-necessary, then it still in fact changed. that's what the example of nailing an inconsequential "foot" to the side of the stool leg analogy showed. It's appearance changed but not it functionality.

Perhaps so with sociopaths. I just know from who we've talked to. As for empathize, I think that's where Jesus comes in as Jesus empathizes. The Father cares for us, but He is not moved by us. We do not change Him. His love is constant and cannot increase or decrease.

That does not follow. If Jesus who is fully God is empathetic, how detached and separated from each other are the persons of God in your view?

And that shows it's wrong because?....

It doesn't show it wrong, but because it's your opinion, does not make it right either.

No. You were saying a person who does not feel cannot love. I said there are people who do not feel that are capable of loving. I stand by that. In fact, that is I think a higher form of love. Anyone can be loving when they feel like it. It is when they don't feel like it that it's most loving. I'm sitting here at night typing to you. If Allie needs something and interrupts me, I may not feel abundantly loving at that point, but I will do what I can anyway out of love.

Meh. They can show loving actions sure, but it doesn't mean anything to them really.

Let's consider a universe that exists where there is no God. I have free will and I choose to do X.

Now we have a universe where God exists and knows that I will do X and I still freely do it.

How does God knowing what I will freely do cause it? How does God knowing what I will freely do equal to Him causing me to do it?

Because you're skipping an essential step. If you had analyzed this in any detail, you would already know of it's defect.
In fact, let's borrow a page from Aristotle. His famous "Tomorrow's Sea Battle" argument shows the problem well.

Two warring admirals, A and B, are preparing their fleets for a decisive sea battle tomorrow. The battle will be fought until one side is victorious. But the "logical laws (or principles)" of the excluded middle (every proposition is either true or false [[bold]my note:[/b] because God knows the outcome infallibly as one or the other]) and of noncontradiction (no proposition is both true and false), require that one of the propositions, "A wins" and "it is false that A wins," is true and the other is false. Suppose "A wins" is (today) true. Then whatever A does (or fails to do) today will make no difference: A must win; similarly, whatever B does (or fails to do) today will make no difference: the outcome is already settled (that is, A must win). Or again, suppose "A wins" is (today) false. Then no matter what A does today (or fails to do), it will make no difference: A must lose; similarly, no matter what B does (or fails to do), it will make no difference: the outcome is already settled (that is, A must lose). Thus, if every proposition is either true or false (and not both), then planning, or as Aristotle put it 'taking trouble', is futile. The future will be what it will be, irrespective of our planning, intentions, etc.

Now, God knowing infallibly what your future decisions are, makes them set in stone right here, right now. You cannot change the future that God knows infallibly anymore than you can change the past that God knows infallibly. You are "destined" to do it. Simple logic.

Aquinas thought the solution to the problem was to make God timeless, (using the circle analogy) removing the "today it's true" statement (most likely leaning on the argument posited by Boethius) however, that doesn't change the problem.

The only way you escape determinism is when the future does not exist (as you must claim it does with God above all time in an "eternal now" state) and because the future does not exist yet, therefore absolute true or false statements of the future do not exist either. There can only be contingent possibilities. God being God, knows every possible permutation of those possibilities so, He's not ignorant of them, but knows them all.

How is explaining the different wills a straw man? I would say the same thing to a non-open theist. If someone asked me if I could go against the will of God, I would say it depends on what will and say the same thing. That's not a straw man.

You're right, maybe not a strawman...maybe a red herring? You and I both know that in a discussion between two Christians, that it's silly to submit an argument that says man could have prevented God from sending Jesus to the earth. I don't know any orthodox Christians that would uphold such silliness. That you think I even think to subscribe to that, seems to me to show just how glibly you are taking my arguments.

I would (obviously) agree that mankinds ability to ultimately thwart God's sovereign will is unassaibly false...only that a single person or entity might temporarily thwart it in so far as coming through them as God intentioned. We see plenty of evidence of this in Scripture. Unless you believe God forces people to do his bidding...otherwise known as predestination?

Right, and yet I don't think C.S. Lewis was an open theist. I think risk is not the best word to use, but if we say he denied divine foreknowledge because of that, then we're misrepresenting his view.

You're probably right...and I doubt he would have consider himself one...never-the-less, there are some scholars who think he was...

That does not follow. God gave us emotions to use, but He also gave us physical bodies. Why does it then mean that if we have emotions, then God must as well? That would entail then that God has to have a physical body, which again would get me back to asking if God is a hermaphrodite since men and women are both made in His image.

Please demonstrate why a body is required for emotions to be in play.

Sure. On open theism God does not know the future, yet this was not a case of the future per se. Moses is reminding God of something He should have known right then. He should have known then that if Israel died in the wilderness that Egypt and the other pagan nations would see it this way. Moses could see that. Why couldn't God?
God then is not just ignorant of the future, but of the present. Moses knew something God didn't know.

OK, this IS a strawman. The first mistake you're making is that under OVT, God knows all possible futures, he just does not know the future as a certainty but does know all possible possibilities. And since God knows us better than we know ourself, probably knows fairly certainly what we are going to do...but not necessarily. Second, again, it's not necessary for God to change his mind ONLY due to new information or information he doesn't already know.

We see a similar instance in Ezekiel 22.
Here we see that God looked for someone to stand in the breach and found none. Therefore, he did pour out his rebuke.

Moses was there to stand in the breach and intercede for Israel, allowing his intercessory prayer to be heard by God so that God could then change his mind. I believe John Wesley only slightly exaggerated the truth when he said: "God will do nothing except in response to believing prayer". God changes his mind and relents or acts because of prayer.

It is simple. My position has changed and my relationship to a person has changed. I myself have not, at least not directly in my humanity. I as a human have of course undergone many changes since then, but changing my human nature is not one of them. That's been constant.

Thank you for making my point for me! God can change his mind, based on our prayers...that doesn't change who God is, his nature or essence, no! Furthermore OVT doesn't make the argument that his nature or essence changes. But, the classic definition of immutable is he does not change in any way...therefore, changing his mind is an anthropomorphism....except in the few cases that it's not...

I have also said the only thing God owes us is if He makes a promise. I don't think God lied any more than when He makes any other conditional statement. He allowed Moses to rise up to the conditions. It wouldn't be much of a demonstration of Moses if God had said, "Hey Moses. Here's what you have to say to get this to not happen. Now do it right."

Again, anthropomorphisms should tell us something about God, using it to say it says something about a person (who is already human therefore anthropomorphisms are not necessary) is simply misguided.

Change of mind does result from new information of some sort, whether it be new information about future events becoming present reality or learning of new knowledge.

Alright, I guess you could constitute that as "new information"...and we've already agreed that change can occur without the nature changing (in this case God's nature) as you aptly illustrated in your example. So, God knew at the exact instant that Moses began to pray the he would stand in the breach for Israel, and changed his mind...OVT would posit he already knew that only as one of the possibilities...Otherwise, God would have been lying about his intent on destruction! You can't dismiss that just because it's God...

And I can show you many many verses that describe the body of God.

Do you believe that God has a physical body then and take those literally?

and you're back to strawmen...

Because I think God does stay the same throughout Scripture and He cannot be improved on in any way and that a change to His nature would mean an improvement or a regression in His nature.

I meant no one. It has been said by I think Augustine or Lewis, one of them, that the tragedy of the devil was that he looked out at the glory of heaven and thought only of his own glory. Of course, that was wrong, but notice what he thought of if that is accurate. His own glory. Something he perceived to be good. True pure evil cannot exist. It is a negation of reality. The devil has things about him that are good, such as being, intellect, and will. He misuses them for evil however.

None of this negates what I said..."evil men and evil spirits choose to do evil all the time." That there might possibly be some remnant of good in them doesn't in anyway negate their free will choices to do evil.

Here's a few I could find:
In a search I could not find much on this, but I did find that there's nothing definitive that Calcidus was a Christian. If he was not, I consider that of great importance.

Encyclopaedia Britannica (online) says he's a "...4th century Christian exegete Calcidius..."
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Calcidius
Brillonline also calls him a Christian Philosopher
http://referenceworks.brillonline.co...cidius-e224670
Wikipedia says possibly Christian...

I recommend reading the rest of it.

https://www.sefaria.org/Ibn_Ezra_on_...h=all&lang2=en

The idea is not that God changed His mind but that the commandment changed. Ibn Ezra says that the commandment did not change. God did this so He could give Abraham a way to do this to demonstrate His righteousness. If the passage is ambiguous, we would have to look elsewhere to see what else Ibn Ezra said on this.

I think you need to reread that. First of all, the first two sentences are in direct opposition to one another. Second of all, Ibn Ezra is responding to objections from several different sources and I think you're conflating them. Third, it says that God tested Abraham to truly test Abraham...NOT to demonstrate his righteousness...to reward him for his obedience. Therefore Ibn Ezra concludes it was a true test.

This one looks much more promising, though admittedly the rare exception.

In all honesty, I do not understand what is meant by knowing the future indistantly and as abstracted. I would need clarification on that.

I'm not sure either but dictionary.com says under adjective that abstract means:

1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances:
an abstract idea.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed.
3. theoretical; not applied or practical:

I'm having a hard time finding this quote so I find it wise to reserve comment until I see the context of it.

here's a link to the actual text:

This one also seems to be valid.

Conclusion? Mine is...though never a majority view, it's been a view longer than you originally thought....correct?

First off, this does not refute the argument. Saying one thinks it produces The Force, does not show it to be false. If the argument is true, then it is a problem for open theism and keep in mind once Aquinas shows that God exists, he goes on throughout the Prima Pars right after to talk about the nature of the God who exists.

Just because it hasn't been proven false, does not by necessity make it true either. We both agree that God exists so, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Actually, I think God is the most active being in the universe. He is upholding all things by His will and doing activities eternally. Since He is unmoved, that means all things He does are genuine. I cannot coerce God or manipulate Him.

So, by default, you don't believe in the power of intercessory prayer. God is never moved to act on our behalf.

Ah. So all the passages about God having a body are not literal because He is a spirit, even though some people, including I think Tertullian, hypothesized a spiritual matter and a spiritual body.

It's not a problem for me. I read the texts about Him having emotions the same as Him having a body. You see it as one because you hold that those texts are accurate descriptions of God's nature. I don't. I don't any more than the body texts are descriptions of God's nature.

I do see the body texts as descriptions of God's nature. They just don't describe a physical body. Since emotions are not necessarily phyical entities, they are plausible within God's nature as well.

Yet after I get done reading on Catholicism and Orthodoxy for the Princess, perhaps I will look at open theism and do some blogs on it. The Princess's needs come first though.

Do not blame you there. Take care of the princess!

[Littlejoe]

It's entirely correct. Aquinas's argument ends in a being who is pure actuality and does not change. Now if the Bible presents a being who is not that and does change, then Aquinas's argument must have a flaw in it somewhere. Feel free to show where it is. If it does not, then it is the reading of the text that has a flaw, and I think the idea of taking emotions literally and not taking bodily descriptions literally is highly flawed.

Another parallel. We can find indications in the Bible that the heart is often seen as the seat of decision making and thinking. None of us thinks this is a literal truth. Why? Because we know the brain does that and not the heart. Some of us could think the Bible teaches a young Earth, but look at the evidence from science and it seems overwhelming that the universe is old. No one should say "Well the Bible says the Earth is young and science says it's old and both are true." That's the double-theory of truth I pointed at earlier. Very few of us read the Bible as teaching geocentrism and when we come across statements that used to be read that way, we read them differently.

Unless you want to posit the Double-Theory of truth, then there must be a flaw in Aquinas's argument somewhere.

Feel free to show it.

I've already shown a flaw, it was hand-waved away...I think my time might be better spent buying a fan.

As for Double-Theory of truth...I say if the shoe fits you should wear it. You the one espousing that a pagan philosophy be grafted into Scriptural reading and forced into place but ignoring scriptures that are inconvenient.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Not sure what your point is. If something changed, but not in anything that was essential or necessary, but it still changed in something that is non-essential or non-necessary, then it still in fact changed. that's what the example of nailing an inconsequential "foot" to the side of the stool leg analogy showed. It's appearance changed but not it functionality.

And nothing essential to God changed. Not even the Trinity changed. Jesus did not change in His nature. He just put on a new nature in addition to deity.

That does not follow. If Jesus who is fully God is empathetic, how detached and separated from each other are the persons of God in your view?

Not at all in their deity, but the humanity of Jesus does not change the nature of God at all. Jesus is fully empathetic, but Jesus is also bodily from the incarnation. Does that mean God is bodily?

It doesn't show it wrong, but because it's your opinion, does not make it right either.

Which I never said it did.

Meh. They can show loving actions sure, but it doesn't mean anything to them really.

Nonsense. I do loving actions many time when I don't feel like it and even at times feel the opposite for whatever reason and yet, it certainly means something. The love of God is not any less love because He does not feel it.

Because you're skipping an essential step. If you had analyzed this in any detail, you would already know of it's defect.
In fact, let's borrow a page from Aristotle. His famous "Tomorrow's Sea Battle" argument shows the problem well.

Two warring admirals, A and B, are preparing their fleets for a decisive sea battle tomorrow. The battle will be fought until one side is victorious. But the "logical laws (or principles)" of the excluded middle (every proposition is either true or false [[bold]my note:[/b] because God knows the outcome infallibly as one or the other]) and of noncontradiction (no proposition is both true and false), require that one of the propositions, "A wins" and "it is false that A wins," is true and the other is false. Suppose "A wins" is (today) true. Then whatever A does (or fails to do) today will make no difference: A must win; similarly, whatever B does (or fails to do) today will make no difference: the outcome is already settled (that is, A must win). Or again, suppose "A wins" is (today) false. Then no matter what A does today (or fails to do), it will make no difference: A must lose; similarly, no matter what B does (or fails to do), it will make no difference: the outcome is already settled (that is, A must lose). Thus, if every proposition is either true or false (and not both), then planning, or as Aristotle put it 'taking trouble', is futile. The future will be what it will be, irrespective of our planning, intentions, etc.

Now, God knowing infallibly what your future decisions are, makes them set in stone right here, right now. You cannot change the future that God knows infallibly anymore than you can change the past that God knows infallibly. You are "destined" to do it. Simple logic.

Aquinas thought the solution to the problem was to make God timeless, (using the circle analogy) removing the "today it's true" statement (most likely leaning on the argument posited by Boethius) however, that doesn't change the problem.

I really don't see how this changes things. If A is true, that is true because of all that it is already true that A will do or B won't or what have you. How does that equate to the idea that they had no free-will in it?

The only way you escape determinism is when the future does not exist (as you must claim it does with God above all time in an "eternal now" state) and because the future does not exist yet, therefore absolute true or false statements of the future do not exist either. There can only be contingent possibilities. God being God, knows every possible permutation of those possibilities so, He's not ignorant of them, but knows them all.

Or you could just say man has free-will and what He will do is already know but He is not forced to do it.

You're right, maybe not a strawman...maybe a red herring? You and I both know that in a discussion between two Christians, that it's silly to submit an argument that says man could have prevented God from sending Jesus to the earth. I don't know any orthodox Christians that would uphold such silliness. That you think I even think to subscribe to that, seems to me to show just how glibly you are taking my arguments.

No. Not at all a red herring. I wanted to go with something obvious that I could definitely say is not a conditional prophecy since I understand Open Theists have a different stance. If you want to impugn bad motives to me, go ahead.

I would (obviously) agree that mankinds ability to ultimately thwart God's sovereign will is unassaibly false...only that a single person or entity might temporarily thwart it in so far as coming through them as God intentioned. We see plenty of evidence of this in Scripture. Unless you believe God forces people to do his bidding...otherwise known as predestination?

When God answers prayers, God answers prayers knowing always what we will pray. Suppose a tragedy happens for someone at Noon. I don't know about it until the evening and I pray then. God acted already at Noon knowing what I would pray in the evening. He knows all my prayers before I ask them and has already taken them and everyone else's into account.

You're probably right...and I doubt he would have consider himself one...never-the-less, there are some scholars who think he was...

When Allie and I talked to an Orthodox priest, he said some scholars think He was EO as well.

Please demonstrate why a body is required for emotions to be in play.

That wasn't the claim. The idea was that you said we are emotional and in the image of God which would imply that God is emotional. I say we're physical beings then as well. That does not necessitate that God is physical.

OK, this IS a strawman. The first mistake you're making is that under OVT, God knows all possible futures, he just does not know the future as a certainty but does know all possible possibilities. And since God knows us better than we know ourself, probably knows fairly certainly what we are going to do...but not necessarily. Second, again, it's not necessary for God to change his mind ONLY due to new information or information he doesn't already know.

But this doesn't remove the problem. God knew about his covenant with the tribes of Israel and with Judah especially. Moses is a Levite. Destroy all Israel and God has broken His covenant promise to Judah. Did God forget about that promise? If God had not been stopped by Moses then, would God have violated His promise? If God can forget about His covenant like that, that undermines His reliability.

We see a similar instance in Ezekiel 22.
Here we see that God looked for someone to stand in the breach and found none. Therefore, he did pour out his rebuke.

So again I have to ask, before God began His search, did He not know there would be no man like that?

Moses was there to stand in the breach and intercede for Israel, allowing his intercessory prayer to be heard by God so that God could then change his mind. I believe John Wesley only slightly exaggerated the truth when he said: "God will do nothing except in response to believing prayer". God changes his mind and relents or acts because of prayer.

God responds to prayer, but not in a temporal sense. Again, I see a problem in that God would have made an earlier promise to Judah and yet it would be broken.

Thank you for making my point for me! God can change his mind, based on our prayers...that doesn't change who God is, his nature or essence, no! Furthermore OVT doesn't make the argument that his nature or essence changes. But, the classic definition of immutable is he does not change in any way...therefore, changing his mind is an anthropomorphism....except in the few cases that it's not...

No. It always is. God never changes His mind. He knows the end from the beginning.

Again, anthropomorphisms should tell us something about God, using it to say it says something about a person (who is already human therefore anthropomorphisms are not necessary) is simply misguided.

They do. They tell us how God sees sin and righteousness. The only way we can understand it is in using terminology familiar to us, much like talk about God's body tells us something about Him.

Alright, I guess you could constitute that as "new information"...and we've already agreed that change can occur without the nature changing (in this case God's nature) as you aptly illustrated in your example. So, God knew at the exact instant that Moses began to pray the he would stand in the breach for Israel, and changed his mind...OVT would posit he already knew that only as one of the possibilities...Otherwise, God would have been lying about his intent on destruction! You can't dismiss that just because it's God...

I'm not dismissing it. This would be like saying God really intended Abraham to sacrifice his son. Never did. It's a way of God testing.

and you're back to strawmen...

No I'm not. You read about God having emotions and take it literally. You read about Him having a body and take it non-literally. You read it as an anthropomorphism.

Why do that with one and not the other?

None of this negates what I said..."evil men and evil spirits choose to do evil all the time." That there might possibly be some remnant of good in them doesn't in anyway negate their free will choices to do evil.

But when they do so, they do not do so for the sake of evil per se. They really are convinced they are pursuing something good. In a sense, they are, but they are putting a lesser good over a greater good.

Encyclopaedia Britannica (online) says he's a "...4th century Christian exegete Calcidius..."
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Calcidius
Brillonline also calls him a Christian Philosopher
http://referenceworks.brillonline.co...cidius-e224670
Wikipedia says possibly Christian...

Perhaps he was. I am open to it either way.

I think you need to reread that. First of all, the first two sentences are in direct opposition to one another. Second of all, Ibn Ezra is responding to objections from several different sources and I think you're conflating them. Third, it says that God tested Abraham to truly test Abraham...NOT to demonstrate his righteousness...to reward him for his obedience. Therefore Ibn Ezra concludes it was a true test.

Ibn Ezra never says it was a true test that way, but he does say nothing changed.

I'm not sure either but dictionary.com says under adjective that abstract means:

1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances:
an abstract idea.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed.
3. theoretical; not applied or practical:

here's a link to the actual text:

I think RJ posted a goodd definition.

Conclusion? Mine is...though never a majority view, it's been a view longer than you originally thought....correct?

Sure, but an extreme minority. I could compare it in that sense some to mythicism that had a few people who held to it, but today has more than ever. I really wish I could come up with another idea like that, but I cannot think of another one and I have tried.

Just because it hasn't been proven false, does not by necessity make it true either. We both agree that God exists so, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Sure it doesn't prove it to be true. Now you said you gave an argument against it but I hand-waived it away. I do not remember what the argument was.

So, by default, you don't believe in the power of intercessory prayer. God is never moved to act on our behalf.

See above. I cannot coerce or manipulate God in the sense that I can blackmail Him in some sense to do my will or twist His emotions and pull on His heartstrings to do what I want. In turn, when He intercedes, it is real and genuine.

I do see the body texts as descriptions of God's nature. They just don't describe a physical body. Since emotions are not necessarily phyical entities, they are plausible within God's nature as well.

Why not see them as a literal body?

Do not blame you there. Take care of the princess!

Yes. She's the first priority. It's either read a lot for something my wife is dealing with or read something for someone on the internet.

Someone on the internet always loses.

[37818]

And nothing essential to God changed. Not even the Trinity changed. Jesus did not change in His nature. He just put on a new nature in addition to deity.

Adding to deity which was only deity to be no longer only deity is in fact a change to the deity. To argue otherwise is a special pleading.

[Littlejoe]

And nothing essential to God changed. Not even the Trinity changed. Jesus did not change in His nature. He just put on a new nature in addition to deity.
Not at all in their deity, but the humanity of Jesus does not change the nature of God at all. Jesus is fully empathetic, but Jesus is also bodily from the incarnation.

I agree with 37818, you're engaged in special pleading here.

Nonsense. I do loving actions many time when I don't feel like it and even at times feel the opposite for whatever reason and yet, it certainly means something. The love of God is not any less love because He does not feel it.

Sure...it means you get someone to feeling good about you regardless of how you feel about them. Some people call this subversive manipulation. Is God a God of subversive manipulation in your view?

I really don't see how this changes things. If A is true, that is true because of all that it is already true that A will do or B won't or what have you. How does that equate to the idea that they had no free-will in it?
Or you could just say man has free-will and what He will do is already know but He is not forced to do it.

No. Not at all a red herring. I wanted to go with something obvious that I could definitely say is not a conditional prophecy since I understand Open Theists have a different stance. If you want to impugn bad motives to me, go ahead.

Yeah, it was a red herring because you used this answer to avoid actually answering the question. (Whether you did so purposefully or not, only you know).

Do we have Biblical examples of God's will (sovereign or otherwise) being defeated or unfulfilled? Yes or no? If yes, then, (unfortunately for us) God doesn't always get what he wants. Free Will agents actively or passively prevent it from happening.

You said in a previous post that you "...saw two things in Scripture, God's Sovereignty and man's free will."
What is your definition of God's Sovereignty?
Where do you see it spelled out that man has free will?

You also said in a previous post:

"...Snip* "... Jesus was always fully God and fully man...." snip*

Can you show biblically where it says that Jesus was "always" fully man?

When God answers prayers, God answers prayers knowing always what we will pray. Suppose a tragedy happens for someone at Noon. I don't know about it until the evening and I pray then. God acted already at Noon knowing what I would pray in the evening. He knows all my prayers before I ask them and has already taken them and everyone else's into account.

Do you have Scripture to back up this assertion that God answers prayer ahead of time...or is it again, just your opinion? I submit to you that God has always operated temporily with man.

That wasn't the claim. The idea was that you said we are emotional and in the image of God which would imply that God is emotional. I say we're physical beings then as well. That does not necessitate that God is physical.

Repeating over and over an objection I've already covered doesn't constitute an answer to said question.

Once more: I believe the Bible to be true. The Bible clearly says God is a Spirit, therefore, he does not have a phyical body and they are anthropomorphisms....it doesn't clearly say that God does not have emotions...in fact, it clearly says that he does, so I believe both are true. This isn't rocket science...

But this doesn't remove the problem. God knew about his covenant with the tribes of Israel and with Judah especially. Moses is a Levite. Destroy all Israel and God has broken His covenant promise to Judah. Did God forget about that promise? If God had not been stopped by Moses then, would God have violated His promise? If God can forget about His covenant like that, that undermines His reliability.

You're assuming your conclusion again. Assuming the future was already there for God to know. And you haven't removed the problem of if God knew in advance of his promise to Judah, that he would not break, then he was indeed lying when he threatened to destroy Israel. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

So again I have to ask, before God began His search, did He not know there would be no man like that?

Apparently he did not, else why search for one? Was God lying about doing a search? Was God lying about not wanting to destroy the people? If God didn't really search, then why make the conditional statement? Why does God not simply tell Ezekial that he going to repay the people of the land, without all the "extraneous" explanation?

No. It always is. God never changes His mind. He [b]knows[/i] the end from the beginning.

Umm...that's not how that verse goes...the word there is "declares" and I think if you use the whole verse you get to a theology that you have already rejected...

They do. They tell us how God sees sin and righteousness. The only way we can understand it is in using terminology familiar to us, much like talk about God's body tells us something about Him.

Explain please how "changing his mind" equates to how God see's sin and righteousness.

[/quote]I'm not dismissing it. This would be like saying God really intended Abraham to sacrifice his son. Never did. It's a way of God testing.[/quote]Sure...but the reason for the test is?

No I'm not. You read about God having emotions and take it literally. You read about Him having a body and take it non-literally. You read it as an anthropomorphism.
Why do that with one and not the other?

Again, asked, answered, explained. Therefore, strawman.

But when they do so, they do not do so for the sake of evil per se. They really are convinced they are pursuing something good. In a sense, they are, but they are putting a lesser good over a greater good.

Wow, just WOW! I'm reminded of Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" You are pretty naive there AP. You might can make a case for some instances...but you cannot with any certainty claim this is true for all evil acts. Have you ever done any extensive counselling with hardened criminal? As an Ordained Chaplain volunteering in a State Maximum security prison, I have. I've heard more than one tale of evil acts done just because....I've heard tales of evil done knowing it was evil, just to cause pain and destruction. They didn't think it was good or that they were trying for something they thought was good. Yes, there are people and spirits (demons) who choose evil knowing it's evil and do it anyway.

Sure it doesn't prove it to be true. Now you said you gave an argument against it but I hand-waived it away. I do not remember what the argument was.

Yes, you seem to have trouble keeping up with the conversation and remembering what I've already said in more than one instance. If you need to discontinue, let me know.

Here it is again:

The argument doesn't work IMO. The basis of the theory dictates that all things that move...have to have a mover. I can move myself without help or even compunction. God doesn't have to move me necessarily. Furthermore, Unmoved mover has (philosophical) dualistic theology as a function of it. Are you a (philosophical) dualist?
I don't think you've convinced me that I hold that. I find theologically and philosophically, Open Theism makes the most sense of Scripture. I submit, you are using the backdrop of Greek philosophy to underpin your theology. Greek thought was a long way from Hebrew thought. Greek thought that any change in God would result in a less than perfect being. Greek thought entailed the idea that flesh was bad and spirit was good (hence the dualism)...since emotions originated in the flesh, they were necessarily bad...therefore, impassibility became the standard for God. Therefore, I find classical theism to be Scripturally very weak, and philosophically corrupted.

In addition to the above, I would like to posit that if there is free will, there must therefore be contingency built into the world...and if the Unmoved Mover as posited by Aquinas is true, and if his theory that therefore, God is wholly necessary to creation is true, then, a wholly necessary God is logically imcompatible to a free creation. IOW, if God was free in order to create, and to continue to forgive, reconcile and redeem his creation, then the conclusion of this seems obvious and apparent. Conclusion is: If God is wholly and completely necessary to creation, than all acts that God undertakes must by default be considered absolutely necessary. Therefore, creation can in no way be described as free or contingent as everything that happens, happens necessarily. Does not something that is truly contingent require a contingent cause? Aristotle's solution was to make all the contingency a property of the pre-existent prime matter from which the world was formed...Aquinas as a Christian would have subscribed to creation ex nihilo wouldn't he?

[Cerebrum123]

snip
Wow, just WOW! I'm reminded of Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" You are pretty naive there AP. You might can make a case for some instances...but you cannot with any certainty claim this is true for all evil acts. Have you ever done any extensive counselling with hardened criminal? As an Ordained Chaplain volunteering in a State Maximum security prison, I have. I've heard more than one tale of evil acts done just because....I've heard tales of evil done knowing it was evil, just to cause pain and destruction. They didn't think it was good or that they were trying for something they thought was good. Yes, there are people and spirits (demons) who choose evil knowing it's evil and do it anyway.

snip

[b]

[Apologiaphoenix]

I agree with 37818, you're engaged in special pleading here.

Not at all. The nature of the Godhead never once changed. This has been what the Christian church has said from the beginning.

Sure...it means you get someone to feeling good about you regardless of how you feel about them. Some people call this subversive manipulation. Is God a God of subversive manipulation in your view?

Not at all. All God does, He does out of love. You cannot pull on emotional heartstrings with Him. You can't make Him feel better or more loving or make Him feel sad.

I think the error is in 8. God's knowledge of my doing it is not the cause of my doing it. God knew from eternity past what I would freely choose to do.

Yeah, it was a red herring because you used this answer to avoid actually answering the question. (Whether you did so purposefully or not, only you know).

Do we have Biblical examples of God's will (sovereign or otherwise) being defeated or unfulfilled? Yes or no? If yes, then, (unfortunately for us) God doesn't always get what he wants. Free Will agents actively or passively prevent it from happening.

You said in a previous post that you "...saw two things in Scripture, God's Sovereignty and man's free will."
What is your definition of God's Sovereignty?
Where do you see it spelled out that man has free will?

Not at all a red herring. WIth my idea of how open theism sees prophecy I had to go with the most absolute certain thing.

King Ahab had Ben-Hadad in his hands and let him live. God said Ahab set free a man that God said should die.

As for sovereignty, it means that nothing happens without God allowing it to happen. All things pass through His hand. As for free-will, I don't see it spelled out just like I don't see God causing all things being taught.

You also said in a previous post: Can you show biblically where it says that Jesus was "always" fully man?

I would mean from the incarnation on. If I said otherwise, that was a slip on my part. Jesus did take on humanity at one point.

Do you have Scripture to back up this assertion that God answers prayer ahead of time...or is it again, just your opinion? I submit to you that God has always operated temporily with man.

Psalm 139 has it that all our days are written in His book before we come to be. Isaiah challenges the false gods of his day by saying God alone knows the future.

Repeating over and over an objection I've already covered doesn't constitute an answer to said question.

Once more: I believe the Bible to be true. The Bible clearly says God is a Spirit, therefore, he does not have a phyical body and they are anthropomorphisms....it doesn't clearly say that God does not have emotions...in fact, it clearly says that he does, so I believe both are true. This isn't rocket science...

And I say the same thing again. Tertullian believed in spiritual matter for instance. Most of the Greeks could at the time to some extent. There are far more references to God having a body than to God being spirit.

You're assuming your conclusion again. Assuming the future was already there for God to know. And you haven't removed the problem of if God knew in advance of his promise to Judah, that he would not break, then he was indeed lying when he threatened to destroy Israel. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Not at all. God is allowing Moses to rise up to be the intercessor. Again, I have the same problem. Moses obviously knew something God didn't then. Am I to say also that when the text says "God remembered Noah" that God had a memory slip and forgot about the flood going on?

Apparently he did not, else why search for one? Was God lying about doing a search? Was God lying about not wanting to destroy the people? If God didn't really search, then why make the conditional statement? Why does God not simply tell Ezekial that he going to repay the people of the land, without all the "extraneous" explanation?

So God didn't know about the present? He didn't know about the conditions of the people of Israel? He had to do a search to gain knowledge? Again, what all else doe the open theist God not know about? It looks like He doesn't just not know the future, but He doesn't know the past either.

Umm...that's not how that verse goes...the word there is "declares" and I think if you use the whole verse you get to a theology that you have already rejected...

Which verse do you have in mind?

Explain please how "changing his mind" equates to how God see's sin and righteousness.

It shows that God does offer conditional promises and when we meet the conditions, that's what happens. It's like the idea of how God tells the people that offering their children in the fire didn't even enter His mind. God really hadn't conceived of that? He didn't know despite pagans doing that?

Sure...but the reason for the test is?

To allow Abraham to demonstrate His faithfulness. He is taking the child of the promise believing that the promise will somehow come true. Abraham could be said to be the first believer in resurrection.

Wow, just WOW! I'm reminded of Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" You are pretty naive there AP. You might can make a case for some instances...but you cannot with any certainty claim this is true for all evil acts. Have you ever done any extensive counselling with hardened criminal? As an Ordained Chaplain volunteering in a State Maximum security prison, I have. I've heard more than one tale of evil acts done just because....I've heard tales of evil done knowing it was evil, just to cause pain and destruction. They didn't think it was good or that they were trying for something they thought was good. Yes, there are people and spirits (demons) who choose evil knowing it's evil and do it anyway.

Why cause pain and destruction? Because there is some good that they want. The only reason peopel do anything is because they want some good. They can know their actions are wrong, but they do them to get something they think is good. We do this all the time. Consider a young man who struggles with porn. He knows it's evil, but he wants to look and does so because he wants something he does perceive as a good. He wants to see the beauty of woman. Wanting to see a woman's beauty is not bad. How one goes about it is bad.

Yes, you seem to have trouble keeping up with the conversation and remembering what I've already said in more than one instance. If you need to discontinue, let me know.

Meh. Maybe. The look at OV is not a priority and I have been focusing more on EO stuff and Catholicism stuff.

Here it is again:

In addition to the above, I would like to posit that if there is free will, there must therefore be contingency built into the world...and if the Unmoved Mover as posited by Aquinas is true, and if his theory that therefore, God is wholly necessary to creation is true, then, a wholly necessary God is logically imcompatible to a free creation. IOW, if God was free in order to create, and to continue to forgive, reconcile and redeem his creation, then the conclusion of this seems obvious and apparent. Conclusion is: If God is wholly and completely necessary to creation, than all acts that God undertakes must by default be considered absolutely necessary. Therefore, creation can in no way be described as free or contingent as everything that happens, happens necessarily. Does not something that is truly contingent require a contingent cause? Aristotle's solution was to make all the contingency a property of the pre-existent prime matter from which the world was formed...Aquinas as a Christian would have subscribed to creation ex nihilo wouldn't he?

What causes us to move is the good as a final cause. We all seek the good and thus we all move in seeking the good. As for contingency, Aquinas's third way is from contingency. The medievals did debate if God created the world freely or not. I have no firm opinion on the matter. Aquinas held to ex nihilo creation, but he did say that has to be known from Scripture. If we had just reason alone, we could not know that.

[Apologiaphoenix]

[b]

Yes. That's the passage.

Brum. It thought harming you was something good for it and its cause. I'm not saying demons do things for real good. They do things for things they think are good for them.

[37818]

Not at all. The nature of the Godhead never once changed. This has been what the Christian church has said from the beginning.

. . . the Word was God. . . .
. . .the Word became flesh . . . .

Or

. . . the Word was with God . . .
. . .the Word was God. . . .
. . . was with God. . . .
. . . the Word became flesh . . .

[Cerebrum123]

Yes. That's the passage.

That's Jacob blessing his sons, not an unconditional promise of God.

Brum. It thought harming you was something good for it and its cause. I'm not saying demons do things for real good. They do things for things they think are good for them.

When their cause is to cause as much evil and harm as possible merely for the sake of evil, then it's not something that's "good" in any meaningful sense. Causing evil doesn't gain the demons anything, and they know it. They have nothing to lose, and nothing to gain. There are people out there who do evil for the sake of it too.

[Apologiaphoenix]

. . . the Word was God. . . .
. . .the Word became flesh . . . .

Or

. . . the Word was with God . . .
. . .the Word was God. . . .
. . . was with God. . . .
. . . the Word became flesh . . .

Brum. Simple question. Do you think that the nature of the Godhead changed in the incarnation?

As for Jacob, yes. Jacob is blessing his sons, but the ancients would also take this as prophetic and from God.

And with demons, yes. They do gain something from it. They gain that the people that God loves suffers and they at least get to see that. Your suffering is something they see as a good in their eyes. They do it because they want to see you suffer because that in some way is good to them. It's definitely not good, but they perceive it that way.

[37818]

Brum. Simple question. Do you think that the nature of the Godhead changed in the incarnation?

No.

As for Jacob, yes. Jacob is blessing his sons, but the ancients would also take this as prophetic and from God.

And with demons, yes. They do gain something from it. They gain that the people that God loves suffers and they at least get to see that. Your suffering is something they see as a good in their eyes. They do it because they want to see you suffer because that in some way is good to them. It's definitely not good, but they perceive it that way.

Your arguments here do not make sense. Or at least, I am not following them.

Did you or did you not understand the argument being made with the omission of always being "with God?" And the fact that the Word who "was God" did in fact Himself change in "becoming flesh?" And my answer being the Godhead did not change. The Word did not cease being God in changing to become man. Note, how He was "with God" did change, not that He "was God," not that He was "with God."