A problem with open theism (HOF thread)
- Thread starter docrob57
- Start date
- Status
Agape4Robin
Member
Then if we depend on God to intervene in our lives to bring about what He says will happen, how is this "free will"?godrulz said:
Agape4Robin said:
This Acts example is a specific historical narrative. We cannot extrapolate all general principles from it. Does God tell us everything that will happen in the future? No. If God knew or told us everything, we would be paralyzed. If we knew our child would get hit by a bus or die of cancer, we might not want to have one. God is omnicompetent and responsive to any contingency. Nothing can take Him by surprise that He cannot handle. A good sports team or chess player does not have to know everything or control the future to ultimately win. They can even do a variety of things, including make mistakes, and have a positive outcome. God is vastly superior to His creation. Does He stop every rape and murder, even against believers? No. He does not intervene in every situation. This is evidence that we have genuine choices. The consequences of those choices are not always mitigated immediately. God can and does intervene into our space-time history, but now all the time. He is not an aloof Deist god, nor is He a control freak. He governs providentially, not meticulously.
logos_x
New member
This is perhaps the most common misconception about the Open view. "Open" theists and "Classical" theists disagree about the nature of the future, not about God’s exhaustive foreknowledge of it. While "Classical" theists believe that the future consists entirely of settled realities, Open theists believe that the future is partly settled and partly open to possibilities, and thus that God perfectly foreknows it as such.
Critics who accuse Open theists of denying God’s foreknowledge of the future (or of demeaning God’s sovereignty) are sadly misrepresenting the view rather than acknowledging the common ground both views share. In addition to God’s foreknowledge of the future and God’s absolute sovereignty, the common ground these views share includes the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ; the authority of Scripture; and the doctrine of the Trinity; among many other core Christian beliefs.
from: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=494
Critics who accuse Open theists of denying God’s foreknowledge of the future (or of demeaning God’s sovereignty) are sadly misrepresenting the view rather than acknowledging the common ground both views share. In addition to God’s foreknowledge of the future and God’s absolute sovereignty, the common ground these views share includes the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ; the authority of Scripture; and the doctrine of the Trinity; among many other core Christian beliefs.
from: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=494
Last edited:
justchristian
New member
But these possibilities God foreknows, why would he be able to know OF the possibilities but not what our choice will be in facing them?
justchristian said:
The things He foreknows are things He can bring to pass by His ability, apart from our choices and other contingencies. e.g. the first and second coming of Christ are fully in God's control. He choses to not control (and thus know) when or what I will eat, how I will drive my car, if at all, in 12 hours/3 minutes/2 seconds from now, etc. He knows contingent choices as possibilities/probabilities before the choice since we can chose between alternatives. Once the choice is made, it is correctly known as a certainty/actuality. Just because I normally chose Pepsi does not necessitate me chosing it. I could chose coke or milk at the last second. This choice may be out of character. It is not an object of knowledge to know what I will chose to drink even before I was born! This is not a deterministic, knowable thing.
lee_merrill
New member
Hi everyone,
This thread got into chat mode!
Well, I do hope we can put this interpretation that God planned unconditionally to bring destruction on the Ninevites to rest...
God claims to declare future events in a way essentially different than any other gods, now this is to mean, in the Open View, that God has more information, or is better at his estimates?
Yet Jonah seems to have guessed better than God did! He thought the Ninevites would repent.
Doesn't that imply that we need not always take God's advice, that some other choice really might turn out better, by God's estimation, even?
Blessings,
Lee
This thread got into chat mode!
Well, I do hope we can put this interpretation that God planned unconditionally to bring destruction on the Ninevites to rest...
Not if Mary refuses! Not if people don't preach the gospel in all nations, which must be done, before the end comes.godrulz said:
I agree it's not deterministic! How do we know that it is not knowable, though? Where is a plain statement in Scripture, saying this?
God claims to declare future events in a way essentially different than any other gods, now this is to mean, in the Open View, that God has more information, or is better at his estimates?
Yet Jonah seems to have guessed better than God did! He thought the Ninevites would repent.
Doesn't that imply that we need not always take God's advice, that some other choice really might turn out better, by God's estimation, even?
Blessings,
Lee
Wow! Okay you have two problems here. First of all if God knows absolutely that I will, then it is not possible that I will not. Secondly if my acts are only the result of a causal chain of events then I had not choice to begin with. So from two different directions you've logically removed my ability to choose while at the same time maintianing the position that I do in fact have free will. I don't think you can rationally have it both ways.docrob57 said:
Have you ever attempted to work out this belief in the form of a syllogism? I suggest you give it a try. You seem more than intellectually honest enough to work it out for real and see if it adds up from a logic standpoint. I think you'll find that it doesn't.
I agree. Friday nights exchange was ugly and personally embarassing. Not because I was shown to be wrong but because I allowed myself to be sucked into the juvenile nonsense. My appologies to you, your thread and this issue deserves much better than that.
Resting in Him,
Clete.
This is your final warning Freak (not that you'll care about any warning from me). If you make a comment of this sort toward me again, I will simply not discuss things with you anymore. Sarcasm is one thing, even a snide remark here and there is tolerable but this is ridiculous and I simply will not tolerate it any longer, from you or anyone else.Freak said:
God is limited to reality Freak. Can God make right triangles with fours sides? Can God go somewhere that doesn't exist? In short can God do the absurd?
Yes or no, please.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Let's look at Clete's question from a slightly different angle.
If God tells Clete that in 20 minutes he will be involved in a car accident where he runs into a light pole and as a result break both his legs, does he have the option of staying out of his car for the next two hours?
If God tells Clete that in 20 minutes he will be involved in a car accident where he runs into a light pole and as a result break both his legs, does he have the option of staying out of his car for the next two hours?
lee_merrill said:
Is. 46 and 48 show how God is able to know some aspects of the future as opposed to false idols. It is based on His ABILITY to bring things to pass, not His supposed simple foreknowledge (read the words in the text carefully).
If Mary refused (how do you refuse a supernatural impregnation that does not involve your will), God could have used someone else. God chose her partially because He saw her pure, godly heart.
lee_merrill
New member
Hi everyone,
And the time of the coming of the Messiah was specified by Daniel, so this had to occur within a year or so...
Blessings,
Lee
Well then, God cannot fail in his predictions, and this is definite knowledge of future, and I do agree with such conclusions.godrulz said:
He was asking her too, though, wasn't he? What if she refused? Was this impossible (according to the OV)? And all others too, was this impossible for them all to refuse?
And the time of the coming of the Messiah was specified by Daniel, so this had to occur within a year or so...
Blessings,
Lee
lee_merrill said:Hi everyone,
Well then, God cannot fail in his predictions, and this is definite knowledge of future, and I do agree with such conclusions.
He was asking her too, though, wasn't he? What if she refused? Was this impossible (according to the OV)? And all others too, was this impossible for them all to refuse?
And the time of the coming of the Messiah was specified by Daniel, so this had to occur within a year or so...
Blessings,
Lee
There are two motifs in Scripture: some of the future is settled and knowable (Is. 46/48 proof texts) and some of the future is open and only knowable as possible (see Open Theism proof texts).
logos_x
New member
Turbo said:
I would say that he does have the option of staying out of his car for the next 2 hours. In this example...God telling him would change the outcome, not telling him wouldn't. Knowledge changes things.
Another curious effect of this that staying out of his car for 2 hours only moves the future into the unknown again...while avoiding being in an accident and breaking his legs, he wouldn't know what will happen.
logos_x said:
You're saying that God could tell me something very specific that was going to happen (prophecy) and that thing, because God said it, may not happen? This is even more radical than anything I've ever heard an Open Theist say. The fulfillment of prophecy is put in jeopardy by the fact that God uttered it. Wow! Are you sure this is what you believe?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status