Trintarian Warfare theodicy

[rkwright]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=43836"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=43836[/url]

sry to detract...

rev how about my questions regarding Peter's denial of Christ?

[N/A Gone]

how about reading what I wrote about open theism in the big chunks so the question is answered for you?

Open theism says that God knows all the possibilieites completly, thus he is able to "settle" some things. By knowing Peter, and knowing the possibilites and the things that peter would face against God could in a way "settle" it. Because he knows the possibilites he can react to anything and set what he wants. This could be an example of that. In matters of God relating to us the Passion has to have an astrix on it because most of that type of interaction will not happen in this life.

how that works, I dont know if that is what boyd would say, but that is what i know open theism to teach. I even admire and see more of a miracle in this than if it was just set in stone.

How would you reconcil it friend? As I have said before Im not trying to convince anyone of anything other than this is a viable option within catholicism. My conscience doesnt allow me to deny it

[rkwright]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 5 2005, 12:25 AM']how about reading what I wrote about open theism in the big chunks so the question is answered for you?

Open theism says that God knows all the possibilieites completly, thus he is able to "settle" some things. By knowing Peter, and knowing the possibilites and the things that peter would face against God could in a way "settle" it. Because he knows the possibilites he can react to anything and set what he wants. This could be an example of that. In matters of God relating to us the Passion has to have an astrix on it because most of that type of interaction will not happen in this life.

how that works, I dont know if that is what boyd would say, but that is what i know open theism to teach. I even admire and see more of a miracle in this than if it was just set in stone.

How would you reconcil it friend? As I have said before Im not trying to convince anyone of anything other than this is a viable option within catholicism. My conscience doesnt allow me to deny it
[right][snapback]811300[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I did read the big chunks... and I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of God 'settling' Peter's choice. Or judas or anyone who fufilled any prophesy. If Peter's denial was settled why not the rest of the course of history? It kills Peter's free will, and I don't like that.

How would I reconcil it? I'll pull a 'socrates' b\c honestly I don't know? Similar to what myles was saying though, God outside of time can see what will happen including the choices people will make, but again the people make them. I see this part as the 'miracle' not the settling it part.

[The Joey-O]

What is your particular problem with my answer to Peter's denial?

[N/A Gone]

saying the people "will make" is settled the decision anyway. Its making the decision determined before the creature can determine them, thus even less of a free will.

Ive never really thought about the peter thing, accept that Jesus knew Peter. perhaps the socrates issue should be what i take here also? I mean anything I give you will be a guess.

fluff?

[The Joey-O]

A particular action does not necessarily require a precise formula of causes in order to make that action happen. I haven't eaten yet, but I will soon. My choice of what I shall eat isn't necessarily determined by a causal chain going all the way back to the other side of eternity. That's a form of determinism. Free Will has to be free. There are multiple paths to the same action. Some actions, however, only have one path. God didn’t necessarily determine that Peter would deny Christ 3 times. Prophecy could be a set causal chain that was set by the person. Given their own series of actions they forced themselves down a path that leads to a distant specific action. I like to think that's what happened to Peter, but I could be wrong. Remember that God knows all the possibilities. If he looked down the possiblity chain and saw that one of the possibilities was Peter denying Him 3 times, then he could have prevented all the other possibilities from occuring. This, in effect would be God forcing Peter. However, if Peter at some point had put himself on a path that would lead him there, and God looked down the possibility chain and saw that all of them led to Peter deny Christ 3 times, then that's what would happen. Peter would have put himself on a road that led to that very action. God doesn't need to force an action for prophecy to work.

It's possible, but unlikely that something small would cause our whole lives to move differently. In Peter's case, he had to make the choice to be impulsive somewhere down the line and not work on self-control (Scripture doesn't explicitely say that he is, at least not that I know of, but he certainly does seem that way), Peter's also still under the assumption that Christ is a military figure. Remember, he draws the sword at Gethsemone? Since he is still unable to recognize the type of Christ that Jesus is, it is likely that during his trial, he'll deny him for not fighting (doubting, basically). There could be other vices and variables at play that have led up to this moment.

Does any of this help at all?

[N/A Gone]

thats what i said!!!

[rkwright]

[quote name='The Joey-O' date='Dec 5 2005, 01:36 AM']A particular action does not necessarily require a precise formula of causes in order to make that action happen. I haven't eaten yet, but I will soon. My choice of what I shall eat isn't necessarily determined by a causal chain going all the way back to the other side of eternity. That's a form of determinism. Free Will has to be free. There are multiple paths to the same action. Some actions, however, only have one path. God didn’t necessarily determine that Peter would deny Christ 3 times. Prophecy could be a set causal chain that was set by the person. Given their own series of actions they forced themselves down a path that leads to a distant specific action. I like to think that's what happened to Peter, but I could be wrong. Remember that God knows all the possibilities. If he looked down the possiblity chain and saw that one of the possibilities was Peter denying Him 3 times, then he could have prevented all the other possibilities from occuring. This, in effect would be God forcing Peter. However, if Peter at some point had put himself on a path that would lead him there, and God looked down the possibility chain and saw that all of them led to Peter deny Christ 3 times, then that's what would happen. Peter would have put himself on a road that led to that very action. God doesn't need to force an action for prophecy to work.

It's possible, but unlikely that something small would cause our whole lives to move differently. In Peter's case, he had to make the choice to be impulsive somewhere down the line and not work on self-control (Scripture doesn't explicitely say that he is, at least not that I know of, but he certainly does seem that way), Peter's also still under the assumption that Christ is a military figure. Remember, he draws the sword at Gethsemone? Since he is still unable to recognize the type of Christ that Jesus is, it is likely that during his trial, he'll deny him for not fighting (doubting, basically). There could be other vices and variables at play that have led up to this moment.

Does any of this help at all?
[right][snapback]811380[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I thought I already replied to all this?
[quote]Well I'm left with the same feeling as I posted above. Under this system, Peter unknowingly made one choice years ago that took away any later choices. He chose unknowningly to pick a 'chain' that led him to deny Christ 3 times. But that seems to deny Peter's free will at the time of the action. He couldn't not deny Christ because he unknowingly had picked this chain many years ago. If this whole theory was supposed to reconcile man's free will, it just took most of it away from Peter. How can I be held responsible for any sin I commit years down the road if I unknowningly already chose my path.[/quote]

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 4 2005, 09:17 PM']give me scripture of clear argument on how open theism is a heresy. Put the ball in your court sir. But answer these questions as well
[/quote]
I will bite for the sake of learning and playing devil’s advocate:

Psalm 139:16[quote] 16 Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
[/quote]

and Jeremiah 1:4-6[quote] 4 Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." 6 Then I said, "Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, I do not know how to speak, for I am only a youth."
[/quote]Now, if God is truly unable to know our actions deriving from our free will, how can these two above be true? For if we understand, as is in line with Catholic doctrine, that being formed in the womb begins with conception, and that is contingent upon my parent’s free will action of the conjugal act, then how could God know me before then according to open theism? It would appear as though God knows free will actions before we experience them. All of our days are written in His book before one of them comes to pass. You asked for Scripture so here it is. I am still looking for more, however. I seem to remember a Psalm talking about God knowing our words before they are on our tongue.

I find the time argument to be the strongest and find it peculiar that here you draw from modern science to base your refutation, yet in another thread you have warned us not to base our theology off of such things.

[quote]1.)What is free will? How can God "know" our choices if we freely choose them.
[/quote]Free will is the ability to freely choose the good, that is, not being determined or coerced into it. God knows our choices before we make them in our temporality because God knows us through and through.

A brief example. I know that my fiancée likes white cake and detests chocolate cake. It would make sense that I would in a way know her choice of a white wedding cake over a chocolate one. This does not mean that she was determined to choose the chocolate, for we would say that she freely chose the white one in accord with her will. I knew her choice beforehand because of how well I knew her. I also know the my mother abhors white cake and loves chocolate.

God in a way could be described like this if you dislike the time argument. It is not that I knew the possibilities of my fiancée choosing white or chocolate, but I knew with a good amount of certainty what her choice would be. God knows us perfectly, not only the possibilities, but who we are. God can know what we will do, and we still do it freely. All analogies limp, but I think this one emphasis the point of knowability vs. determinism.

Free will does not necessitate uknowability as some would make it out to be. It is not a cloud of pure uncertainty, but it is the ability to choose from our freedom of will. If one knows one well enough, perfectly in God's case, one will know what one will choose even though the latter is not determined.

As I said, that is just a different approach since you seem not to like the non-temporal argument.

[quote]2.) WHy does scripture show God changing his mind?
[/quote]One could say that we as composite beings only perceive God as changing His mind, but since God is purely one and simple, there is no change and we cannot percieve it as thus.

Or you can go with the cop-out that the "change" was apart of God's will all along. I dont like that one though for it kinda smacks of deception...

[quote]3.) What do we make of spiritual warfare? DId God want rebellion?
[/quote]Are you referring to the rebellious angels and the fall of man? I am not sure what you are speaking about here.

[quote]4.)WHat is wrong with a God who relates? Cause if our fullfillment of knowing God is seen in christ we see a God that relates?
[/quote]I do not think that anyone would say that God does not relate, but we would say that He is in a constant state of pure relation. God's relation to us is already full and complete, but we must work on our relationship with Him and help it grow. God, as pure actuality, is constantly in a state of real relationship with us. Relating does not mean that God must change or does not know. We must recognize the difference in God's nature and existence from ours.

[quote]5.) How would you intrpret the message of Job?
[/quote]I will need to refresh myself with that book. Patience please.

Well I hope I gave you some material to think on, or sharpen your teeth on whatever the case may be. I do so enjoy such discussions.

[phatcatholic]

have any popes ever condemned open theism? if this has already been mentioned, please refer me to the right post.

thanks,
phatcatholic

[Paphnutius]

I did not mean to condem it as a heresy, but to show that I do not find it plausible and that it leads to conclusions that are not coherent with other areas.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Dec 5 2005, 11:00 AM']I thought I already replied to all this?
[right][snapback]811853[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It's not so much that he ate toast one morning instead of eggs and it sent him down that causal chain. You know the whole "temporal punishment" idea? It's like that. Peter trained himself up in reckless imulsiveness. He also was probably feeling that Jesus wasn't the Messaiah, because even at Gethsemone he didn't understand who Jesus was. I wouldn't say that it was some random unjust causation.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Dec 5 2005, 07:50 PM']have any popes ever condemned open theism? if this has already been mentioned, please refer me to the right post.

thanks,
phatcatholic
[right][snapback]812684[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

nope...

closest thing is "OTT" but I disagree on what they see open theism as.

[rkwright]

[quote name='The Joey-O' date='Dec 6 2005, 01:19 AM']It's not so much that he ate toast one morning instead of eggs and it sent him down that causal chain. You know the whole "temporal punishment" idea? It's like that. Peter trained himself up in reckless imulsiveness. He also was probably feeling that Jesus wasn't the Messaiah, because even at Gethsemone he didn't understand who Jesus was. I wouldn't say that it was some random unjust causation.
[right][snapback]813063[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I feel that we're going in circles here, again I would say that even if it wasn't a one time act, even if it was a training, Peter would still be free at the time of the action. Yet God knew Peter's choice.

I would be interested in hearing the response you get from the Arch-bishop you wrote though! This is a very interesting topic.

[MaxKolbe]

I have had a conversation on this topic that lasted hours.... my perspective on the free will/God's will/time topic is that God gave us free will to do as we "choose" .However, as stated several times in the thread, Time is an earthly dimension and God's time is timeless.... its something that we as humans can't comprehend. This is where (of course) the free will aspect is confusing. Taking Adam and Eve as an example (which i know has also been brought up) it was their free will that they eat the apple. I think that it is impossible to say whether or not God "knew" that they would eat the apple becuase in order to do so, you would have to understand God's time, and its impossible to do that because his time is timeless. It is a phenomeneon based on faith.