A problem with open theism (HOF thread)

[godrulz]

Yeah, like "open theism".

Like many other areas we believe and take for granted.

 

[Agape4Robin]

The Bible must be correctly translated and interpreted. Translation is not usually an issue in our debate. The problem is that closed view theists must make some passages figurative (when they should be literal) to retain their preconceived theology. Open theists take God's self-revelation at face value and change wrong tradition without denying the essentials of the faith.


http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=506

(The Open view affirms classic truths, but rightly defines and understands them)

Really?
Example, please.............

 

[drbrumley]

Yeah, like "open theism".

One thing I really want to mention is what Open View Theism is not a denial of God knowing the future! God knows the future as perfectly as He does in any other view. The difference is not a question of God's (fore)knowledge but a question of the nature of the future. In the Open View, God created the future with certain decisions to be ordained or determined by those who made them, and decisions and limits which He has chosen to happen. So future consists of what "will" happen, and of those things that "may or may not" happen. God knows the nature of the future as such.

 

[drbrumley]

So one might ask the question... Did God know that Adam and Eve would sin when He gave them free-will? So let's put the question into the above argument...

A) God Cannot be wrong
B) God knew that Adam and Eve would Sin.
Then Necessarily C...
C) Adam and Eve could do nothing else besides sin because God's knowledge cannot be wrong, they could not choose
between What God knew and something else (not sinning) because God knew it and He can't be wrong.
Then Necessarily D...
D) Adam and Eve did not sin of their own freewill

 

[godrulz]

Really?
Example, please.............

Creationism

Eschatology

Kenosis

Time vs eternity

free will vs predestination

nature of the atonement and sanctification (there are at least 5 major evangelical theories for each)

Eternal security/apostasy

exact nature of the triune God

theodicy (problem of evil; origin of sin/nature of sin)

etc.

 

[godrulz]

One thing I really want to mention is what Open View Theism is not a denial of God knowing the future! God knows the future as perfectly as He does in any other view. The difference is not a question of God's (fore)knowledge but a question of the nature of the future. In the Open View, God created the future with certain decisions to be ordained or determined by those who made them, and decisions and limits which He has chosen to happen. So future consists of what "will" happen, and of those things that "may or may not" happen. God knows the nature of the future as such.

Some of the future is settled; some of the future is unsettled/open. These 2 motifs are found in Scripture.

 

[godrulz]

So one might ask the question... Did God know that Adam and Eve would sin when He gave them free-will? So let's put the question into the above argument...

A) God Cannot be wrong
B) God knew that Adam and Eve would Sin.
Then Necessarily C...
C) Adam and Eve could do nothing else besides sin because God's knowledge cannot be wrong, they could not choose
between What God knew and something else (not sinning) because God knew it and He can't be wrong.
Then Necessarily D...
D) Adam and Eve did not sin of their own freewill

He knew of the possibility of sin inherent in creating free moral agents. It only became a certainty/actuality when they made the choice and actualized the potential.

Logic seems lost on closed theists.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Creationism

Eschatology

Kenosis

Time vs eternity

free will vs predestination

nature of the atonement and sanctification (there are at least 5 major evangelical theories for each)

Eternal security/apostasy

exact nature of the triune God

theodicy (problem of evil; origin of sin/nature of sin)

etc.

I'm sorry..... :doh: I meant examples from scripture.

 

[Jeremiah85]

So one might ask the question... Did God know that Adam and Eve would sin when He gave them free-will? So let's put the question into the above argument...

A) God Cannot be wrong
B) God knew that Adam and Eve would Sin.
Then Necessarily C...
C) Adam and Eve could do nothing else besides sin because God's knowledge cannot be wrong, they could not choose
between What God knew and something else (not sinning) because God knew it and He can't be wrong.
Then Necessarily D...
D) Adam and Eve did not sin of their own freewill

I believe that God could not have known anything else because Adam and Eve made the decision to sin of their own free will, not the reverse as you state.

 

[Jeremiah85]

It is a joke. The book of Hezekiah does not exist. Some of our arguments are extrabiblical, but that does not mean they are always contrabiblical. Many theological concepts we believe to be true cannot be reduced to one proof text.

I do not claim to completely understand God and therefore I believe some things to be true that cannot be completely explained by words. I can see that after 20 pages of debate that we both hold very tightly to our beliefs. I have said everything that needs to be said about my position. From this point forward we will only be rehashing thing that have already been said (probably several times). I have enjoyed this debate and look forward to many more in the future. In the final estimation I cannot accept that a perfect God can be wrong. And furthermore a God that can be wrong cannot be trusted to make absolute promises. I can see that we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. God bless you all.

 

[godrulz]

I'm sorry..... :doh: I meant examples from scripture.

Passages relating to God changing His mind, seeming to not know aspects of the future, etc. Boyd's writings ("God of the Possible") looks at some of these. Try his website link I gave you...

 

[godrulz]

I do not claim to completely understand God and therefore I believe some things to be true that cannot be completely explained by words. I can see that after 20 pages of debate that we both hold very tightly to our beliefs. I have said everything that needs to be said about my position. From this point forward we will only be rehashing thing that have already been said (probably several times). I have enjoyed this debate and look forward to many more in the future. In the final estimation I cannot accept that a perfect God can be wrong. And furthermore a God that can be wrong cannot be trusted to make absolute promises. I can see that we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. God bless you all.

I do not see Clete's point about God being wrong either. God believes and knows truth/reality perfectly. The question is if some future reality is open and unsettled or is it all a foregone conclusion?

 

[drbrumley]

We see here an anthropomorphic expression from God about Israel. God speaks to Israel as a husband speaks to his wife. John Frame sums it up beautifully:

"In Jeremiah 3, God interacts with Israel as a husband with his unfaithful wife....this passage deals with God's relation to Israel in history, not his eternal decrees and eternal foreknowledge. The thrust of the passage is that recent history should have motivated the repentance of Israel and Judah, but in fact they continued their spiritual adultery. As their husband, God had hoped (this hope being an expression of his preceptive will) for something better." - John Frame (Christian apologist)

For clarification, the term Mr. Frame used "preceptive will" is a theological term denoting the will of God that is contrasted with His decretive will. In God's decretive will, God ordains certain things to occur and they will occur. In God's preceptive will, God allows certain things to occur (like the fall, sin, rebellion, sickness, etc.) that are not in His decretive will. Another way to look at it is to say that it is God's "permissive" will; that is, He permits sinful things to occur even though sin is contrary to God's perfect will.
Nevertheless, this passage demonstrates the manner in which God relates to His people in human terms. Therefore, we should expect human type statements.






Here is a perfect example of anthropomorphism, of where God speaks in human terms. God expects one thing and gets another. Is this an example of God being surprised and learning? No it is not. :nono:
First of all, it is a parable in the form of a song. A parable is meant to illustrate a point not expound doctrine and a song takes much liberty with its words and phrases. Therefore, the poetic license taken in this song need not be construed as God actually being surprised, especially when we realize that God speaks to us in reference to our time frame and uses human emotions and conditions.
We know that from all eternity, God has known all things (1 John 3:20). He is not surprised by anything. So, what we have here is a song, using poetic license, to convey meaning.


You go argue with Him.....I know how to study the bible and use the principles of hermeneutics as it applies to scripture.

First of all, there is nothing in these passages which imply or indicate that they are anthropomorphic. Secondly, even anthropomorphic passages that do exist convey some truth about God; so what truth would these passages convey if they didn't really mean that God changed His mind? Finally, you could use such an argument for any doctrine you make up.

Borrowed from unknown but correct nonetheless.

 

[Agape4Robin]

First of all, there is nothing in these passages which imply or indicate that they are anthropomorphic. Secondly, even anthropomorphic passages that do exist convey some truth about God; so what truth would these passages convey if they didn't really mean that God changed His mind? Finally, you could use such an argument for any doctrine you make up.

Borrowed from unknown but correct nonetheless.

Remember, God works with us in our time frame. He has endured not only eternity, but also human history as He moves through it and with people to bring about His sovereign will and purpose. Should we then assume that God would not relate to us in terms familiar to our own actions? And should we not also assume that in so doing God will present aspects of Himself to us that would be paradoxical?

 

[drbrumley]

Remember, God works with us in our time frame. He has endured not only eternity, but also human history as He moves through it and with people to bring about His sovereign will and purpose. Should we then assume that God would not relate to us in terms familiar to our own actions? And should we not also assume that in so doing God will present aspects of Himself to us that would be paradoxical?

Um, God created time so it is His time we are in.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Um, God created time so it is His time we are in.

He did? When?

 

[drbrumley]

He did? When?

Now this is bizarre.Your saying He didnt? Then where did time come from?

 

[Agape4Robin]

Now this is bizarre.Your saying He didnt? Then where did time come from?

I had this same conversation with :Brandon: .......he said that time was not created....hang on, let me see if I can find it.............

 

[Freak]

Yes. He can orchestrate things with His omnicompetence to bring these things to pass. General judgments of the nations does not specify every moral and mundane choice leading up to these broad events. .

godrulz, think this through, please...God's Word is clear!

O Lord, you have searched me and you know me, You know when I sit and when I rise…You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways (see Psalm 139).

The assertion is that God, knows everything we do. In verse one, David speaks to the Lord and acknowledges that God has looked deep into his heart, and discovered the truth of all that is there. When the Psalmist moves from place to place, and even when he takes his seat or rises from it, God is not caught unaware. He knows everything we do.

godrulz, there is a very good example of this in the New Covenant. Was not the Lord most surely aware of every circumstance in the life of the apostle Paul when he sent an holy angel to tell his apostle that not one person's life on board the ship would be lost? (Acts 27:21-25). How could God have his messenger say such a thing if he did not know all that would take place?

Did he not also know that Paul would do the responsible thing and tell the soldiers that if the sailors did not stay with the ship, they could not be saved? Surely, the Lord knew that the soldiers would make the right decision. The Lord was not waiting to find out what they would do. Though there are passages that indicate that the Lord tests us, and "awaits" our obedience, these are certainly anthropomorphic. There are far too many affirmations in Scripture that God knows all things, from the beginning, to think otherwise.

 

[Freak]

I do not see Clete's point about God being wrong either. God believes and knows truth/reality perfectly. The question is if some future reality is open and unsettled or is it all a foregone conclusion?

Paul told the Ephesians that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world (see Ephesians 1:3-4). The Lord could not have done this if he was under the constraint of waiting and watching to see who would decide to choose him.