A problem with open theism (HOF thread)
- Thread starter docrob57
- Start date
- Status
Clete said:
No, this isn't really the same thing. The only way God's foreknowledge would restrict the actor's freedom is if God himself restricted it. In my view, God is able to predict with complete accuracy the future event. It happens not because God knows it will happen. It happens as a consequence of the caused free choice.
When God said.... "why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?"docrob57 said:
What did He mean . . . "expected"?
And this figure of speach would mean what?docrob57 said:
And remember . . . figures of speach are used to make concepts easier to understand not to harder to understand.
Knight said:
Figure of speech is probably not the right term. It was written in ways that people at the time could understand. I have to ask again (I have asked others this, that is) did God just think up the plan of salvation after a few thousand years? Did he, at first, never intend that Gentiles would be saved?
Now one of the points you raise I can probably go along with, that God may choose not to know certain things. But the idea that God really changes His mind I have a hard time with.
docrob57 said:
We want to know God in spirit and in truth. We want to accurately represent Him and His ways. Some educated people will reject theism or Christianity if they find the traditional views incoherent (which they are at times...e.g. making God responsible for heinous evil).
Practical implications of Open Theims include (See Ch. 5 by David Basinger in "The Openness of God, IVP): petitionary prayer, divine guidance, human suffering, social responsibility, evangelistic responsibility...the Open model is different and superior biblically to the traditional view).
Also, Ch. 3 Boyd's "God of the Possible, Baker"...What practical difference does the Open View make? Rational minds and transformed hearts; clarity of God's Word; view of God=God of the possible and possibility living; problem/urgency of prayer; problem of evil/theodicy; resolving difficult issues in life; integrating theology and recent scientific advances...e.g quantum vs Newtonian theory.
Having said that, it is not a salvific issue. I find it brings a new dimension to my relationship with God and witness to others. Certainly, one can love God and witness under the classic regime also.
It is the glory of a king to search out a matter. Theology is the Queen of sciences. Let us do it with excellence to glorify God. Truth sets free. Error confuses.
The most important thing is that we get brownie points from the secret world headquarters of Open Theism if we convert you to this view. We must assimilate you. Resistance is futile! :mrt:
Last edited:
God inspired it to be written - correct? It came out the way He wanted it to - correct?docrob57 said:
So I ask again . . .
What did He mean . . . "expected"?
docrob57 said:
One of its strengths is that you will be able to take both sets of 'proof texts' literally, rather than one set as anthropomorphic. The other relevant issue is the nature of the future and time vs eternity (endless duration vs timeless eternal now).
docrob57 said:
Perfect personal beings can and do change their minds in response to changing contingencies. God's original plan was to save the Gentiles, but He raised up Israel to bring forth the Messiah, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the WORLD, not just the Jews or the so-called elect.
It is not a matter of writing so people can understand (accommodation...though this happens at times...like the 'rising of the sun'...not scientific textbook). The issue is one of coherence vs incoherence. Take the revelation at face value as truth content unless there is a clear reason not to. The only reason you have is that it contradicts a preconceived theology. Change your ideas rather than the simple text. We are offering a coherent, alternate explanation to a problematic issue for the traditional view.
docrob57 said:
Well, I would say this is where are sticking point is for sure.
It would seem to me that if you acknoweldge that a known event is definately going to happen and that our actions qualify as known events and at the same time acknowledge that we have to ability to do otherwise then your position is self-contradictory. I mean which is it, is it definately going to happen or can I do otherwise? I do not see how both can be true at the same time.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Yes. I know. That's what I said.julie21 said:
However, let me try to say the same thing in a different way that may make it clearer: could God have made history turn out differently by changing the way He create things?
Was God capable, had He chosen to do so, of creating a world wherein satan and his minions chose not to do evil?
Last edited:
Clete said:
The answer involves undertanding why the event is definitely going to happen. Or, why a certain choice will definitely be made. The simplest way to put it is, there is a reason (or multiple reasons working together) for the choice. Reason and cause are synonymous. Again, to deny that actions or thoughts or whatever have causes is to place all of existence in the realm of a random number generator.
If to say that actions have causes is to deny free will then I guess I would have to say so be it. To substitute "will" for "cause" is nonsensical. Will, per se, explains nothing, because the question remains, why did the will act this way.
To say that human behavior is much more complex than boiling water is certainly true, but not relevant. Any given human act is brought about by a large, perhaps in human terms, unknowable, number of factors. But the fact of the matter is, that human behavior is predictable within certain probability ranges. The reason that our ability to predict is imperfect is that we have imperfect knowledge of causal factors, initial conditions, environmental factors and their impact, etc. If we had this perfect knowledge, we, even as humans, could predict perfectly, though, certainly, we cannot control. Since God does have this knowledge, it is a denial of God's power to argue that He cannot predict perfectly, even though he does not determine the outcome (in all cases).
DocRob, I realize you don't have time to respond to everyone, but taking your idea that everything can be predicted perfectly by following all the causes, the conclusion must be that God was the first cause. Correct? I mean, before anything was, there was first God, and God created everything that was and is caused.
Yorzhik said:
Of course. This is one of the main reasons why recognition of causality is important from an evangelistic perspective. People who speak against evolution, for example, rightly point out how nearly impossible it would be for creation to have resulted from random processes. Then, whether knowlingly or unknowingly, in this case, they are turning around and arguing that no human behavior is really caused. If not caused, it has to be random.
Come on now, I asked you first.docrob57 said:
What did He mean . . . "expected"?
I would still distinguish inanimate cause-effect from free will moral and mundane choices. There is more uncertainty in the latter since we can act in an unpredictable way or be acted on by various contingencies. Given the vast number of possible chess moves that are dependent on what the opponent does, how much more complex is the universe? It is not too complex for God, nor is it totally random. It is just that uncertainty is introduced with genuine, multiple contingencies. They are interdependent and until one or more choices/variables come into being, one cannot fully predict what the next response will be all the time.
- Status