ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[godrulz]

Lee M.: You hold to some form of universalism like logos x? This is another option to be considered in relation to the big picture (though an unbiblical one).

 

[lee_merrill]

Lee M.: You hold to some form of universalism like logos x? This is another option to be considered in relation to the big picture (though an unbiblical one).

Well, my sort of universalism is not so universal among universalists! But yes, I am willing (with logos x and others) to hope that all may be saved, that is what is called "soft universalism," though I think other universalist's beliefs on this are a little more full-strength than mine, in this area.

Yet I came to believe this by considering Scriptures, actually...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[seekinganswers]

Seekinganswers,

Yes the Body of Christ is real and is found wherever two or three (million) gather in His name.
All the catholicity I need is grounded in the scripture.
The minimal praxis is also found in scripture.
Neither is enough.
I have great respect for the creeds, yet they are a step away from origin.
In fact even searching the scripture is not enough, and I have absolute confidence in the scriptures as God’s Word.
But, we are not made One in practice or by agreement on scripture.
We are one in Christ.
The protesting church claims scripture as sole authority.
The protested church claims the church as authority.
Jesus said “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”
You might say, “Yes, but …”

No if, ands, or buts about it. In Him we live and move and have our being.
Jesus accused the religious of his day of searching the scripture, yet refusing to come to Him for life. The details are important. Yet, we are all guilty of over emphasizing the details and minimizing the big picture.


It is not practical to speak as though the church invisible does not exist. The only time the ‘entire’ church will be gathered is in ‘the hear after’ and even the presence of Jesus will be visible in His resurrected and glorified body. (We shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is.) The reality we live with now is that this whole (all the redeemed in the present) is ‘invisible’ yet evident in its members as they gather in part. In that sense every gathering is whole, lacking nothing, because Christ is present in the members. The church is not Christ. Christ is present in the church.

There is also a reality in the absence of those not yet realizing that God is for them. Open Theism doesn’t directly address this, except in recognizing that God is still actively involved in informing and drawing and that it remains to be seen who will and who will not respond. There remains a tension between the not yet and the already. A balance between and interplay of what may seem to some as opposing elements or tendencies. No doubt, in our diversity, an over emphasis of one or the other is evident here and there and often evident to the point of distortion.

I think we were arguing past each other by prejudging and over reacting to perceived exaggerations or over emphasis. The ‘altar call crowd’ would likely find our approach lacking in the necessary emphasis on ‘Substitionary Atonement’. We don’t have an altar in the alley. Our emphases isn’t on that aspect of reconciliation though it plays a major roll when an individual comes to realize that “Jesus died for their sins and there is nothing they can do about it except accept it and yield..” (I can just see eyes rolling on both sides of the isle.) The question is: does the Gospel inform your living? People must experience the “bigger picture” (the narrative as you call it). And for those who have embraced it, it is very real here and now. Open Theism doesn’t address that issue, except in acknowledging that the conclusion is yet to be realized. But, because God has declared it and demonstrated it in the resurrection of Jesus, it will happen. We have this hope, and this hope doesn’t disappoint us.

The difference is in how we live. But that isn’t the point. We will never be strong enough, smart enough, spiritual enough or holy enough. Grace is in living and loving God with all we have - heart, mind and soul. Neither the baptistery nor the altar is center stage. Both, conversion and baptism; the altar and baptistery; salvation and discipleship; and even the church are secondary to the Christ-centricity of the Gospel. How one ‘gets saved’ is not really important compared to knowing one is saved and expressing it by living it out in the everyday ordinary details of life. Here is where OVT shines brightest. Salvation involves an act of volition, but choice is not what saves. Yielding to the Lordship of Christ involves many acts of volition, whether expressed in baptisms or not, but discipleship is not what validates our witness to the power of His resurrection. Christ in you and Christ in me is the only thing that counts. Living in such a way and loving our neighbor as if our neighbor is Jesus, until our neighbor realizes that it is in fact Jesus loving them (for we are as wretched as they and our measily love for one another will never compare to His love for all) and us loving Jesus who is alread at work in them whether they realize it or not, is the only experiencing and representing that I speak of. In that sense it is the bigger picture that I am following. There is a point in an individual’s life when she realizes and expresses in faith that Christ is living in her. That may be a moment or a journey.

All this experiencing and representing, however expressed, is only a shadow or pale demonstration of what God is really doing in the world. I think I understand your point that sin is no real threat to the definitive Narrative. But, in chapter 12, it plays a very real and potentially destructive part to those living out the struggle of realizing the future God has planned for chapter 46. And it remains to be seen by all, including God, who is the author and finisher of our faith, exactly how the final chapter will be written item by item in meticulous detail. But, the big picture will not change and nothing will escape inclusion.

I hope words don't get in the way as I struggle to express what I mean in a way that is broad and yet faithful to the Gospel.

Philetus​

Thank you Philetus for your eloquent response. I'm glad that my words did not incite debate this time (as they are in the habit of doing), and I am thankful that I can now learn from your response (because I didn't start into the conversation in an attack). It is so easy for me in a conversation (as it is with almost anyone) to find what I don't agree with (on principle) and place myself in opposition to it, never hearing the things which I might not have been thinking about, but things which may serve as an instruction for me to live. My conversations with certain people on this site, and my inability to refrain from those conversations are at fault in this. Debate is never constructive, but always results in a further polarization of the sides, so that either side becomes more than they had ever imagined they would become, and frankly, they become their own worst enemy (because instead of changing minds they just become ranting lunatics before all). I am sorry that you had to witness my own lunacy (and I am sorry to everyone else whom I pulled down with me). This is my confession that will hopefully lead to repentance.

I will no longer attack Open Theism, but I will make clear that I am not an Open Theist and leave it at that. However, I would also like to point out that there are more than two options in this debate, so I will take it as grace that people not label me a Calvinist (or closed theist). My refrain from the categories is based on the objections I raised in the previous post (I don't agree with the foundational question that leads to the two categories). Please note that it does matter which question you ask in how you identify your position, and the open/closed debate presupposes certain questions that I find to be unimportant, because the questions that they try to answer do not bring up anything that is very significant from my point of view; people have volition and make choice and this is nothing new to me; people are also grounded in a greater framework of power struggle, which drives their volitional qualities in certain overarching directions, which means in certain ways humans are not "free" (you, Philetus, probably know this better than anyone; I myself have spent time with drug addicts and alcoholics who lived on the streets of San Diego, and they demonstrate this volitional quality that enslaves them quite well); I just don't think we have to frame the discussion in such a way as to make one side eclipse the other. In otherwords, I think we need to hear both the closed and the open views and see that neither side has satisfactorily addressed the scriptures in a wholistic manner (a wholistic approach, I might add, is a very difficult thing to accomplish in the first place). And when one side or the other simply dismisses the texts that the other side brings to view, they fail to see the issues at hand. Our interpretations of the scriptures are not sacrosaint (as you pointed out to me, Philetus); so let us hear the other side (from a common grounding [maybe the creeds?]) before we dismiss them.

As a minority on this site (since I have effectively removed myself from the debate) I hope that I might at least be able to ask some interesting questions; my goal is no longer to convert the Open or Closed Theists to my own position (partially because I now realize that my position is not as grounded as I would like it to be). I can't ask anyone else to stand on anything that I am not certain of myself (though that does not mean I will not work hard to strengthen my own position). So we can agree with Christ as our foundation, and I think if we can agree on the terms outlined in the Apostle's Creed concerning a very basic interpretation of the scriptures by the early church, we have at least a common ground (where we will not be excommunicating one another in our appeal to our own authority). You, Philetus, are my brother, and I have no right to question you on that or to frame my posts in such a way as to put you at odds with me.

(WARNING: WORD COUNT ERROR - this is my engagement with Open Theism in a prolonged manner; read on if you dare!!!)
Now I want to address an issue within the previous post, and I will simply try to communicate to you where I am having frustrations. You see, Christ does not come to us as a universal principle uniting all people to himself. In fact, Christ causes more divisions than does he form unity. His words are not pleasing to the ear, nor do they set people on equal grounds to receive his message. Christ, if anything, reverses the disparities that were once favoring the other side. So the rich, in Christ, are at a disadvantage in receiving status in the Kingdom (of even entering the Kingdom) because previously their riches had served to give them status in this world and now they accomplish the very opposite in the Kingdom. But the poor can receive his message with ease, for they were the ones, who because of their lack of wealth, did not have a place in this world (and they even faced death because of their poverty); now they have access by means of their poverty. In Christ their poverty makes them good candidates of the kingdom (just as a rich person in this age has an easy time rubbing shoulders with the leaders of nations). Thus, Christ does not bridge the gap between the disparities in his first coming; he turns them on their head ("It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God"). I will add that the rich were not without hope, but it is left up to God ("What is impossible for men is possible with God"; a statement not very different from one like, "It would take a miracle for that homeless, drunkard of a man to ever look face to face with the President of the United States," though there is much more power backing Jesus' statement than their is in the synical one of our time).

The current turmoil of our world for me is located in this reversal of disparity (as opposed to an ending of it) that leads to the current uneasiness of the time between the times. The reason why our world continues to be in turmoil is because the disparity has not been removed in Christ, but has, in fact, been agitated to its breaking point. When Christ says, "The meek will inherit the earth," this does not bring a conversion of the world, but rather incites the world to kill him, to put him on the cross so that his words can no longer be heard, and the former disparities are encouraged all the more. Christ does not bring peace, but a sword, cutting down even the closest of ties in this world. And our hope for an end to this disparity must be pushed off into the future, when Christ will come again. There is a real disparity in this world, and in this much we cannot be ignorant. Though our place in this disparity is always with the disadvantaged (for we do not want to be on the side of advantage in this world when the Lord comes!).

So the struggle is a very cosmic one, and yet there is assurance (hope) that it will be brought to an end. Our hope in the second coming of our Lord assures us that peace will (assured but still future) reign on the earth as it is in heaven. So our patience is with the conversion of the world because we should not pretend that we can act in such a way as to convert the whole world. That will only happen with the coming of our Lord. This is the mistake of Chrisendom and of the eutopias (which I might add both had forgot to wait for the Lord to come). Our Catholic brothers and sisters or even our Pilgrim descendants who continue to pretend that there are no divisions in the political realms that we envision as humanity, and that they are a restored earth of sorts are living in the clouds, and have forgotten the people who are submitted to their order of things. That is not to say that we cannot learn from our Catholic bretheren (as I said before we cannot deny that we are here as a direct result of their actions; their history is our history, and we cannot pretend that we are not affected by it; in fact, ignorance concerning this history only leads to an inevitable repetition of it; we need to stop listening to the biased retelling of history by protestants and Catholics and honestly listen to our past, or at least in as much honesty that we can muster, and receive it as our own, for better or for worse). Needless to say, I am not enamoured by some eutopic vision of peace on earth at least not in the way presented by Catholics or even by the eutopian societies. The disparity is still here, and we have to deal with it.

So I guess your qualms with me are concerning the church, because when I speak of the church I speak with almost this eutopic vision (or as you put it, too much emphasis on the "already" aspect of the Kingdom). To address this, first I would like to point you to the scriptures. Have you ever read what Paul has to say about the ekklesia? There is not an ounce of reserve in his voice. When Paul talks about the church (the ekklesia), Paul is clear that the apocolyptic action of God in Christ continues in the church. The fact that Paul equates the church to Christ's "Body" ought to be very striking to us. And Paul's depiction of the church as a Body is very literal (with "ligaments" and "sinews"). He doesn't wax symbolic (in fact his language is much more metaphorical), but rather paints a very vivid picture of the church as a Body and calls the church as a Body to witness to the world. Individuals are not primary in this witness; it is rather a testimony held within the gathering, as the members of the Body build it up.

I have found a very practical illustration of the importance of the church. My mom has taught my sister and me to engage in personal evangelism. There have been a few occasions on which she demonstrated it in her own life. One of these examples took place with neighbors from down the street (a couple of kids with whom my sister and I played often in our childhood). As we developed a very close friendship with them (and as they began to know both me and my sister and also my mom) they were told about Christ. In fact, it led to their desire to receive Christ, at which time my mom led them in the sinner's prayer. You would think this would be wonderful news, and, in fact, that is exactly how we received it. And over the following months, we continued to be closer in this much. But a few months later, they moved. Their mom had to go to Utah for a job of some kind. And they were left on their own to develop their "faith." A number of years later they returned and visited us, and it was a surprise, because we really didn't keep in contact with them very well (and their move had been a bit of a surprise). It turns out that when they moved to Utah they became involved with a Mormon gathering. Because their "faith" was emphasized over their participation in a life demonstrated by a body, they were drawn into a bodily life that was not grounded in Christ, even as they continued to "confess him as Lord." Another example comes with my mom's former boss, who had witnessed my mom's life (because my mom is very open about her faith). My mom's open life and friendliness was crucial in her boss' asking her one day about this "Christianity stuff." And later my mom invited her to our local gathering (I guess she had learned over the years the imporance of this). Her boss later received Christ (in personal faith) and received the same formation that is taught in a large majority of Awakening churches throughout America. Yet, it remained for her a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" and eventually this began to bring about tensions for her and my mom. As her personal relationship with Christ didn't lead her to live within the body, she began to feel tensions about her relationship with my mom, and began to use her position as my mom's boss to make things very difficult for my mom, when she began to stray away from the gathering. My mom wasn't trying to make her feel guilty, but she somehow felt guilty, and this tension was lived out at work. Because she only saw "personal faith" as being central to her "salvation" she failed to live out her life of salvation as a member of the body (and made my mom's life a living hell).

I know these are only two examples, but they are very instrumental in how I approach the idea of "evangelism" that we find to be so important in our mainstream "evangelical" churches today (and in how we understand God to be working for salvation in this world). And I'm not the only one who has experienced this tension in evangelism. Billy Graham's "Crusades" have undergone major structural changes as he has learned that this evangelism must be tied to a body if it is going to be successful. In this time Billy Graham works closely with local congregations in a way he had never done when I was a kid. Billy Graham of course is not engaged in "personal" evangelism, but we can at least see the tension between personal ties leading to conversion and the need for those relationships to be grounded in a larger gathering. But even in the case of the conversion of my friends down the street, though it was very personal (I assure you), it did not last.

This evangelistic tension is what leads me to say that both the Open and Closed views need to be heard (because they both imply a certain structure for the church). You see, God's salvation is particular in such a way that God is "closed." God is going to save the world not by a "personal relationship" with everyone on the planet. No, God is going to save the world through a particular people, namely Israel, and in a particular way (certain practices and a particular life). And God is going to be faithful to this plan of salvation whether Israel is faithful or not. Israel will be his "elect" people. And you will find this language in both the Old and the New Testaments. When God elects, God is not acting in an open manner. So "salvation is of the Jews" as Jesus tells the Samaritan woman. It is not merely in a personal relationship with him. It is about being a part of a visible people in this world (a people with certain practices and a certain bodily life). Now the liberals detest such an understanding of salvation (because they want to believe that everyone has a "spiritual grounding" and they also want to categorize Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism and Budahism and Islam under the same category of "religion" or "faiths."). But people do not have a "spiritual grounding" that makes them predisposed for a "religious life". Christ isn't just appealing to a common spiritual grounding. People in the world have exchanged the Spirit for a humanistic life. And in this way humanity has utterly rejected the Spirit of God. Now as one who is influenced by Wesley, I know that God's grace preceeds our salvation, and that God's grace preserves even those who are unrighteous so that they might be saved. God comes before us in grace (I don't much care for "prevenient grace" because I can't think of any grace that doesn't come before, meaning prevenient is just a redundancy), a preventing grace. But to say that we have any capacity for relationship with God in ourselves is utterly foreign to me. We are like the wayward son who in his despisement of his Father, treats his Father as though he were dead, and then leaves to go on his own way. We have turned to our own way, and we are without hope. But God does not allow us to break the relationship. The Father sits waiting for the son (waiting in such a way as to expect his return). And it is not until the son remembers the grace of the Father that he is willing to return. "Even the hired hands were taken care of in my Father's household, I could at least have that place." The son had to see the Father as who he really was (a loving and caring Father) before he could come to the Father again. You must understand, the Father never changed in the entire story of the prodigal son. The son just needed to realize who the Father really was. The Father didn't go out and pull the son out of the slops of the pigs, but he did act graciously before his son always, and it was this grace which brought the son back to him.

We cannot leave it at a closed view, however. Clearly God's acting in a closed manner does not mean that all things are closed. God does not foreordain all things throughout the Creation; God elects in a way that grounds God as the actant in the story of Creation (God is the one who drives the narrative, not humanity). But a God who longs for all to come to him is the image of a Father who waits for the return of a wayward son (and in this waiting, in this patience, God is very open). This is clearly not the image of a closed God. It is reflected much more closely in a very personal engagement with the world. Yet it is not the God who has left the future open either, for God will send Christ once again, and "every knee will bow," and "every tongue will confess." Clearly the patience of God has a limit (the Father does not go to the son in the slops). But God's closed nature does not occlude an openness within, an openness which allows for uncertainty, even as it is enclosed within certainty.

So, if I were to talk about God being "open" I would have to say that God is open in the present. With regards to the future, openness is absurd. Clearly God is not going to let things as they are continue into eternity. There will be an end. Those who practice evil will not be sustained to act out their evil forever. God will bring their evil to an end. In this much, "their days are numbered" and God knows the number of their days. In fact, God will micro-manage at that point, everything that was once held "in darkness will be brought into the light."

Not only is God closed with regards to the future, but God is also closed in the beginning of Creation. There is a moment in which God enters into the void and creates. We cannot say that we have always known God. We can only say that once God has revealed Godself to us, then we knew him. Israel could not say, "We were always the people of God." Israel had to say, "Because God is our deliverer, we have become his people." In the beginning God created (and that is defining for us, and sets a very clear limit on us).

The only point of openness is the now. "I set before you life and blessing, death and a curse, choose life that you might live." As I said before, God is the "Alpha and the Omega" enclosing time within himself. It is the trinity (and in many ways the incarnation) which is presented to us at the beginning (God enters the scene). And it is the trinity and incarnation that will bring us to the telos (the culmination). It is in these closed actions of God that openess is possible (for God wraps us up in himself). God enters the void (which has no will) and God moves it toward the telos (which is grounded in God's own will), so that we who are in middle of this might also share freely in it (a will in harmony with God's own or it becomes no will at all).

Pure Calvinism envisions the God who has his doll house; Pure Open theism is the God who cannot control the Creation. The very fact that we can put a close on the beginning and on the end shows that you cannot possibly support an entirely Open God.

The Open Theists cannot deny God's election, an election that demonstrates a God who is faithful even when the ones whom he elects are faithless; even YHWH can use Pharoah for YHWH's own glory, as he does. What is amazing about it is that whether Pharoah is stubborn, or whether Pharoah relents, he is still bringing glory to God; yet the scriptures tell us that he is hardened for the sake of God's elect, just as Israel is hardened in Paul's time for the sake of God's mercy to the Gentiles as Paul tells us in his letter to the Romans.

And the closed theists cannot deny a present openness of God (a divine patience, for I don't think I could be that patient; whenever I built cities in SimCity as a kid, I had to find all the cheats so that I could do it quickly; it is good that I am not God, but we can see where such impatient "gods" have a real distortive power in our world as the city planners and the ones who govern those cities). God can desire that no one perish, and yet there are those who do. So Christ does not elect those who follow him; he calls them by name, and invites them to his cross (and to his table). It is not irresistable grace (for grace is not a coersive move; it is like a ruler who gives up a portion of his land in a way to force another to relinquish theirs; it is only an act done by one who is not master of the Kingdom over which he reigns; if God must coerce, than God is powerless).

So there are my ramblings. Take them or leave them (I warned you before you set off on the journey, so if you ended up reading them, it was by your choice). But I would appreciate it if at least a few read the words I wrote.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Hilston]

Hi Philetus,

Hilston wrote: Philetus, you're not getting this for some reason. I believe God answers prayers. I believe God does things for people who ask. It makes sense in my view. I don't see how it makes sense in yours. So please indulge me, and everyone else reading this who would really like to know: How does the Open Theist conception of God make sense of prayer. Can you pray for someone's salvation? No, because that would involve God mucking around with someone's free will. Do you believe God is doing everything He can to save as many people as possible? Yes? If so, then what are you praying for? What are you asking Him to do, and how does the Open View conception of God make sense of it?

There you go, putting words in where they don’t belong. God does not muck around with anything. God is involved not in meticulous control.

Where is the disconnect here? Do you pray for people's salvation? If so, what are you asking God to do?

God’s Holy Spirit influences free will.

How? What does He do exactly to influence it?

If everything is predetermined ... what do you pray for Jim?

Please see the following link: Praying After Paul.

Hilston wrote: The determinist view requires God's involvement precisely because God decreed His own involvement. God is NOT restricted to a small niche of the universe precisely because He holds the entire thing together, down to the subatomic level. God is immanent; God is transcendent. In the Open View, God is neither, when taking that Luciferian theology to its logical conclusion.

In the Open View God is personally involved.

You keep saying this, so I keep asking: How is He involved? Give me examples. What does He actually DO?

He invites us to make or requests know to God (Phil 4:6, 1Jn 5:14-15) ...

Like what, Philetus? Give some examples of Open Theist requests.

... and to ask what we will in the name of Jesus (Jn 14:13-14).

Give me a sample of what one might ask, even a hypothetical will do.

The relationship is one of participation and cooperation in which we become colaborers with God (1Cor 3:9).

You're not a co-labourer if God isn't doing anything. I would like to know what God is actually doing according to the Open View.

Exhaustive foreknowledge and meticulous control denies God free involvement with His free creatures. It seems to me that Determinism leaves God little or nothing to do in the present. What’s there to do?

You've got it backward. In the Open View, God is not really allowed to do anything, when taken to its logical conclusion. On the Determinist view, there's plenty to do, to wit, working out His predetermined plan with meticulous control; working in the wills of men to bring about His good pleasure and purposes (Php 2:13).

Why pray at all? God isn’t going to respond. All prayer in the Determinist view can do is align the individual’s will with what already is.

On the contrary, God does respond, and that in perfect accordance with His predetermined plan. God predestined the prayers, the means, the circumstances, His involvement, His answer, etc., working all things together for the good of those who love Him and are the called according to His purpose.

In the Open View there is so much more to pray about because God has determined that God will take an interest in people, not determine the actions of people.

False dichotomy. God's interest in people is not precluded by His control. On the contrary, it is in fact all the more poignant, pervasive, and downright imminent, going even to the subatomic level.

While I’m on Google, you should read John Sanders, The God Who Risks, chapter 8, ‘Applications to the Christian Life’. That should save us both some time. If you are going to argue against OT you should try to understand it.

I've gone through Sander's book several times. I've also read Boyd's books multiple times. These books are dog-eared, post-it-noted, underlined, and marginalia-riddled. I can be accused of a lot of things, and those accusations would stick. But one thing I cannot be accused of is being a slacker when it comes to Open Theism. I've been debating Unsettled Theists for more than a decade (and, by the way, I've been debating Calvinists longer than that). I also have my own copy of The Plot, which is also dog-eared, underlined, etc. throughout.

Please note that I re-read the chapter you suggested, all 42 pages. In the process, I even added more notes to the margins. Here's the sum of the matter. Please pay close attention:

Despite everything Sanders has to say about the fact that God "liberates us from bondage" (p. 238), that God can "enable us to enter the relationship [with Him]" and "provide demonstrations of his love for us" (page 245), that "God is genuinely responsive to us" (page 271), that God may get us "to change our minds and pursue a [different] course of action" (page 273), about the "Spirit's work in our lives" (ibid.), about prayer being "significant for the lives of other people" (page 274) and that it "helps to shape the future of the community" (ibid.), and that God "might sometimes refrain from acting beneficially in one person's life because others failed to pray" (ibid.), that "God may want to do something for us ... but may not do it because we fail to ask" (ibid.), that God "genuinely responds to our petitions and sometimes act because of our impetratory prayers" (ibid.), that "God resourcefully works with us in any and every situation" (page 277), Sanders fails to really explain what God actually does. Even in his own life, Sanders claims, "Suppose God is guiding me to spend more time with my children. I may or may not get God's leading straight ..." What's that? What this "leading"? What does God actually DO in order to communicate this leading? He goes on to say that God works in various ways to achieve the fulfillment of the divine project" (page 278).​

How does God "liberate us from bondage"? What does He actually DO, according to the OV, to bring that about? How does God "enable us to enter the relationship [with Him]?" What does He actually DO, according to the OV, to "enable us?" Sanders says God "provide demonstrations of his love for us", but what does He actually DO, according to the OV, to demonstrate it? Sanders says that "God is genuinely responsive to us", but what does that mean? What does God actually DO, according to the OV, in response to something we might ask or need? Sanders says that God may get us "to change our minds and pursue a [different] course of action." What does that mean? What does God actually DO, according to the OV, to persuade us? Sanders writes about the "Spirit's work in our lives" (ibid.). What exactly does the Spirit DO, according to the OV,, according to the OV, in our lives? He doesn't give a single example in all 42 pages of the chapter. Sanders talks about prayer being "significant for the lives of other people". How exactly is it significant? What does God actually DO, according to the OV, in answer to prayer? Sanders says that prayer "helps to shape the future of the community". How? What does He actually DO, according to the OV, to affect the community? Sanders claims that God "might sometimes refrain from acting beneficially in one person's life because others failed to pray." Refrain from what, exactly, according to the OV? What is God actually DOING, according to the OV, that He would refrain from? Sanders says that "God may want to do something for us ... but may not do it because we fail to ask." Like what exactly would God want to DO for us, according to the OV? He says that God "genuinely responds to our petitions and sometimes act because of our impetratory prayers." Exactly how does does God respond? What would he DO, , according to the OV, in response to prayer? Sanders says that "God resourcefully works with us in any and every situation." How exactly does God work "with us"? What really does God actually DO, according to the OV, in working "with us"? Sanders fails to really explain what God actually DOES, according to the OV. 42 pages of talking about God's goals and desires, but not one word about what God might actually DO in this so-called "genuine reciprocal relationship." For all the bald statements about relationship, it appears to me that the Open Theist conception of God results in the exact opposite: A God who is not involved because He can't actually DO anything.

So now I'm asking you, Philetus. Please state in positive terms an example of something specific God would actually DO in answer to a prayer. As a determinist, there is not enough ink or bits of data to exhaust what I could write in response. Coming from an Open Theist, I would be interested in seeing just one.

 

[Philetus]

Greetings Hilston,

God gives wisdom to those who ask in faith. He gives bread to the hungry. He moves molehills and an occasional mountain. He raises the dead, but more often heals the sick. He occasionally gives sight to the blind and is forever opening blind eyes. He sets captives free, lifts the lowly, removes obstacles, and makes a way where there was none; makes the crooked straight and levels uneven playing fields. Often, God does all these things without being asked; sometimes, God does so because He is asked.

What, about God doing something because we ask him to, is so hard to understand? I said understand not accept.) I know … in your view God is already doing everything, so I have to ask, Jim, Why do you pray at all? It sounds like Paul has it all covered in your view. Just say ‘amen’ and take it as it comes. If God is already in control of all the flour, yeast and bakeries in the universe … why ask God for daily bread or anything if God is already doing or has done everything God can? I pray in agreement with Paul everyday. But, there is so much more than just praying ourselves into understanding and agreement with the fullness of God in Christ so we can live above the cares of the world. Seeking the mind of Christ is also for the purpose of knowing what to ask for and developing the proper motivation and faith to come before the throne of almighty God in order to make our requests and petitions know with confidence that God not only hears, but that he will also answer.

Jim, I have great respect for your scholarship. You probably have a better grasp of the content on both sides than I do. So, we could continue to restate each other’s comments from our respective and opposing views, accusing the other of making God too big or too small, like it matters. I can reject your view because I understand it. Not because I don’t. You can reject the OV if you understand it and from your first post I read, I have believed you understand, but refuse to accept the OV. You’re smarter than that and we all expect more. Just admit it. . It is OK.

But, in my opinion, what is missing from your view is simplicity: a child like faith in a loving Father who would not give a snake to His children if they asked, but would not withhold any good thing from them if they ask. I am convinced that in North America at least, there are far more unbelievers than believers who are wrongly convinced that your view of a non-relational, distant and unresponsive God is the way God really is, saving those who He will, but denying grace to them in particular. Why else would it be so important to you for me to say “I pray for the lost to be saved” so you can make lite of it and continue to dismiss this role and responsibility to give an accurate and complete witness to the full counsel of God? Until you admit that you understand OVT as well as you understand your favorite philosopher, your debate is not with me but with yourself.

You see, we have a fundamental difference in our understandings of how God’s plan of salvation is fulfilled. I am convinced that you do not really want an answer to the question you asked in twenty versions, each stating it in a way that precludes an answer that dismisses the OV. In your stated opinion, you’re just taunting a jackass. I’m combating a warped interpretation of scripture that distorts the true Image of God and has many lost people convinced that God won't hear them when they pray. This fundamental difference is what separates us. I can not answer your question within the framework of your view and you have already dismissed the OV as Luciferian theology. You can not or will not accept the answer. You don’t want an answer. You want fodder for your fire for burning heretics. You have too much already invested in your position. You have too much to give up. I know, because I have already given it up and I miss the pay check. But, all that I once thought was gain is dog doo-doo compared to knowing Christ in the dynamic power of His resurrection.

So, OK. Burn this. I feel the heat already.
God desires to save everyone, but God doesn’t, unless they ask (repent and believe the Gospel). Could He? Of course: God can do anything. What God has done to make salvation available is everything He could do without compromising the ultimate free-will of individuals. Not ‘could do’ in the sense that God is unable, but ‘could do’ without compromising His own divine nature or the freedom to accept or reject His offer and provision.

Is God doing everything God can do to ensure the salvation of everyone? Yes and no. Everything God can do has been done to ensure that nobody is saved apart from His pre-described, preordained, foreknown and made-known plan for redemption through Jesus Christ. What God is not doing (though He can if He chooses) is meticulously controlling and micro-managing His universe in such a way as to eliminate the ‘whosoever will’ aspect of our existence and salvation. Is God doing everything God could do to ensure the salvation of everyone? Maybe not, in that there are apparently those who do not care enough about their lost neighbors to at least pray for their salvation and an opportunity to share the Gospel with them. Perhaps, God has done all He intends to do without our participation in going and giving evidence of the Hope we have in us. Can God do more? Yes. It remains to be seen if He will in every situation.

God can do anything. God chooses to do only those things which he wants to do; things consistent in everyway with His attributes, all of His divine attributes. No open theist denies that God is able. God is omnipotent. God can. That is why one must say that God is not doing every thing that God in his unlimited and unrestrained power could do.

In the open view, God has given Himself to creation without compromising Himself or His creation. Creation is compromised in that creatures have rejected God as God and have chosen to act in rebellion toward God within the boundaries and limitations of license that God has set. God is not compromised by this negative response to Himself nor does the rejection exaggerate or minimize the risk involved. In giving Himself to creation God has entered into a ‘give and receive’ relationship with humanity in general and persons in particular. (I prefer the term ‘receive’ to ‘take’ as used by other Open Theist.) Some giving is without asking, and some is in response to faith. All receiving is response to freely given. Love does not coerce or force.

God has furthermore given Himself to creation in His Son; the ultimate gift, so that whosoever believes and receives (asks for forgiveness) receives life in the Son. I don’t have to speculate as to whether or not God saves those who never hear the Gospel. I’m not responsible for those. God is competent and can do as it pleases God in their case. I’m responsible for the person in my pathway. So I pray for all those things listed in the link you provided, that catalogue Paul’s prayers. (Thanks; it’s good.) But, I also pray that God will open hearts and minds to hear and grasp the Gospel. I pray for God to remove limitations, open doors, provide resources and direct my path. I pray for the lost.

I pray that God will do the miraculous in the lives of people who are wrongly convinced that God doesn’t care about them (perhaps due to a misunderstanding of the nature of God as unmovable or that He has already predetermined that they will not have food for breakfast in the morning or even that their poverty is the result of ‘God’s will’.) I ask God to reveal Himself to them in such a way that they will know that it is a ‘God-thing’ if and when He does it. And you know what, Jim? God does a lot of those things and more, and you will never convince me that it is not in some small way, because I ask. When, an unbeliever is aware of our request and God responds, people know that God is among them seeing to their every need and God gets all the glory. That is the greatest evidence on the planet that your view of God is just plain wrong and that those who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.

One more thing God may do: Lately, I have asked God to speak through a jackass to a ‘prophet’ who is full of himself. Let’s see if He does.
Philetus
​

 

[Philetus]

Michael,
I am well acquainted with lunacy and have seldom been without her. She has been a constant friend. :jump: :jump:

I don’t know what ‘Pure Open Theism’ is. In my view some of the future is open and some of it is closed because God has determined to do some things that totally eliminate the possibilities of others. There is a lot of wisdom in your post. I’m going to be away for a few days and I’ll be taking your post with me. I will have a reply when I return. Thank you for your honesty and transparency. It is refreshing. I’m glad I have a few days to think about it. God is good. And life is a hoot. Pray for me and the people I will be visiting. Theirs is a tough and dangerous situation.

Your brother,
Philetus
​

 

[Philetus]

Notice:
Short posts, while not absolutely necessary, are still welcome! :chuckle:

Warning:
Posts that exceed a single numbered page on this TOL thread will have their part in the lake of fire!​

 

[Clete]

POTD!

POTD!

Greetings Hilston,

God gives wisdom to those who ask in faith. He gives bread to the hungry. He moves molehills and an occasional mountain. He raises the dead, but more often heals the sick. He occasionally gives sight to the blind and is forever opening blind eyes. He sets captives free, lifts the lowly, removes obstacles, and makes a way where there was none; makes the crooked straight and levels uneven playing fields. Often, God does all these things without being asked; sometimes, God does so because He is asked.

What, about God doing something because we ask him to, is so hard to understand? I said understand not accept.) I know … in your view God is already doing everything, so I have to ask, Jim, Why do you pray at all? It sounds like Paul has it all covered in your view. Just say ‘amen’ and take it as it comes. If God is already in control of all the flour, yeast and bakeries in the universe … why ask God for daily bread or anything if God is already doing or has done everything God can? I pray in agreement with Paul everyday. But, there is so much more than just praying ourselves into understanding and agreement with the fullness of God in Christ so we can live above the cares of the world. Seeking the mind of Christ is also for the purpose of knowing what to ask for and developing the proper motivation and faith to come before the throne of almighty God in order to make our requests and petitions know with confidence that God not only hears, but that he will also answer.

Jim, I have great respect for your scholarship. You probably have a better grasp of the content on both sides than I do. So, we could continue to restate each other’s comments from our respective and opposing views, accusing the other of making God too big or too small, like it matters. I can reject your view because I understand it. Not because I don’t. You can reject the OV if you understand it and from your first post I read, I have believed you understand, but refuse to accept the OV. You’re smarter than that and we all expect more. Just admit it. . It is OK.

But, in my opinion, what is missing from your view is simplicity: a child like faith in a loving Father who would not give a snake to His children if they asked, but would not withhold any good thing from them if they ask. I am convinced that in North America at least, there are far more unbelievers than believers who are wrongly convinced that your view of a non-relational, distant and unresponsive God is the way God really is, saving those who He will, but denying grace to them in particular. Why else would it be so important to you for me to say “I pray for the lost to be saved” so you can make lite of it and continue to dismiss this role and responsibility to give an accurate and complete witness to the full counsel of God? Until you admit that you understand OVT as well as you understand your favorite philosopher, your debate is not with me but with yourself.

You see, we have a fundamental difference in our understandings of how God’s plan of salvation is fulfilled. I am convinced that you do not really want an answer to the question you asked in twenty versions, each stating it in a way that precludes an answer that dismisses the OV. In your stated opinion, you’re just taunting a jackass. I’m combating a warped interpretation of scripture that distorts the true Image of God and has many lost people convinced that God won't hear them when they pray. This fundamental difference is what separates us. I can not answer your question within the framework of your view and you have already dismissed the OV as Luciferian theology. You can not or will not accept the answer. You don’t want an answer. You want fodder for your fire for burning heretics. You have too much already invested in your position. You have too much to give up. I know, because I have already given it up and I miss the pay check. But, all that I once thought was gain is dog doo-doo compared to knowing Christ in the dynamic power of His resurrection.

So, OK. Burn this. I feel the heat already.
God desires to save everyone, but God doesn’t, unless they ask (repent and believe the Gospel). Could He? Of course: God can do anything. What God has done to make salvation available is everything He could do without compromising the ultimate free-will of individuals. Not ‘could do’ in the sense that God is unable, but ‘could do’ without compromising His own divine nature or the freedom to accept or reject His offer and provision.

Is God doing everything God can do to ensure the salvation of everyone? Yes and no. Everything God can do has been done to ensure that nobody is saved apart from His pre-described, preordained, foreknown and made-known plan for redemption through Jesus Christ. What God is not doing (though He can if He chooses) is meticulously controlling and micro-managing His universe in such a way as to eliminate the ‘whosoever will’ aspect of our existence and salvation. Is God doing everything God could do to ensure the salvation of everyone? Maybe not, in that there are apparently those who do not care enough about their lost neighbors to at least pray for their salvation and an opportunity to share the Gospel with them. Perhaps, God has done all He intends to do without our participation in going and giving evidence of the Hope we have in us. Can God do more? Yes. It remains to be seen if He will in every situation.

God can do anything. God chooses to do only those things which he wants to do; things consistent in everyway with His attributes, all of His divine attributes. No open theist denies that God is able. God is omnipotent. God can. That is why one must say that God is not doing every thing that God in his unlimited and unrestrained power could do.

In the open view, God has given Himself to creation without compromising Himself or His creation. Creation is compromised in that creatures have rejected God as God and have chosen to act in rebellion toward God within the boundaries and limitations of license that God has set. God is not compromised by this negative response to Himself nor does the rejection exaggerate or minimize the risk involved. In giving Himself to creation God has entered into a ‘give and receive’ relationship with humanity in general and persons in particular. (I prefer the term ‘receive’ to ‘take’ as used by other Open Theist.) Some giving is without asking, and some is in response to faith. All receiving is response to freely given. Love does not coerce or force.

God has furthermore given Himself to creation in His Son; the ultimate gift, so that whosoever believes and receives (asks for forgiveness) receives life in the Son. I don’t have to speculate as to whether or not God saves those who never hear the Gospel. I’m not responsible for those. God is competent and can do as it pleases God in their case. I’m responsible for the person in my pathway. So I pray for all those things listed in the link you provided, that catalogue Paul’s prayers. (Thanks; it’s good.) But, I also pray that God will open hearts and minds to hear and grasp the Gospel. I pray for God to remove limitations, open doors, provide resources and direct my path. I pray for the lost.

I pray that God will do the miraculous in the lives of people who are wrongly convinced that God doesn’t care about them (perhaps due to a misunderstanding of the nature of God as unmovable or that He has already predetermined that they will not have food for breakfast in the morning or even that their poverty is the result of ‘God’s will’.) I ask God to reveal Himself to them in such a way that they will know that it is a ‘God-thing’ if and when He does it. And you know what, Jim? God does a lot of those things and more, and you will never convince me that it is not in some small way, because I ask. When, an unbeliever is aware of our request and God responds, people know that God is among them seeing to their every need and God gets all the glory. That is the greatest evidence on the planet that your view of God is just plain wrong and that those who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.

One more thing God may do: Lately, I have asked God to speak through a jackass to a ‘prophet’ who is full of himself. Let’s see if He does.
Philetus
​

:first: POTD! :first:

 

[Hilston]

Hi Philetus and Clete

God gives wisdom to those who ask in faith.

According to the determinist view, this makes sense because God is in complete and meticulous control of everything without exception. According to the Open View, God is not in meticulous control. So please, please, please answer this question: How does God actively give wisdom to those who ask in faith?

He gives bread to the hungry ... moves molehills ... raises the dead ... heals the sick ... sets captives free ... lifts the lowly ... removes obstacles ... etc.

Has this happened to you? Has God actively done any of those things in the life of either of you?

What, about God doing something because we ask him to, is so hard to understand?

Nothing about God doing something is hard to understand according to the determinist view. I'm having a hard time seeing how God actively does anything according to the Open View.

I know … in your view God is already doing everything, so I have to ask, Jim, Why do you pray at all?

Because prayer causes things to happen, all in accordance with God's decrees.

Seeking the mind of Christ is also for the purpose of knowing what to ask for and developing the proper motivation and faith to come before the throne of almighty God in order to make our requests and petitions know with confidence that God not only hears, but that he will also answer.

Please, please, please give me one real actual bonafide example of this in your life.

But, in my opinion, what is missing from your view is simplicity: a child like faith in a loving Father who would not give a snake to His children if they asked, but would not withhold any good thing from them if they ask.

What is an example of this in your life?

Why else would it be so important to you for me to say “I pray for the lost to be saved” so you can make lite of it and continue to dismiss this role and responsibility to give an accurate and complete witness to the full counsel of God?

I am sincere in my desire to know what you believe God actually and actively does in answer to prayers for the lost.

Until you admit that you understand OVT as well as you understand your favorite philosopher, your debate is not with me but with yourself.

Can you recommend a book or two? How much more do I have to read to get the answers to my questions? Neither Boyd nor Sanders, in thousands of pages of text, have explained what the OVT God actually and actively does in their lives.

I can not answer your question within the framework of your view and you have already dismissed the OV as Luciferian theology.

This is a copout. My theology has been called worse, and I continue to explain it to people.

God desires to save everyone, but God doesn’t, unless they ask (repent and believe the Gospel). Could He? Of course: God can do anything.

Not according to the Open View. If God did anything differently, He would no longer be good, living, relational, personal and loving.

What God has done to make salvation available is everything He could do without compromising the ultimate free-will of individuals.

Give me an example of something He actively does that does not compromise the ultimate free-will of individuals. Just one thing. Please.

Is God doing everything God can do to ensure the salvation of everyone? Yes and no. Everything God can do has been done to ensure that nobody is saved apart from His pre-described, preordained, foreknown and made-known plan for redemption through Jesus Christ. What God is not doing (though He can if He chooses) is meticulously controlling and micro-managing His universe in such a way as to eliminate the ‘whosoever will’ aspect of our existence and salvation.

OK, you've just said what God has already done. And you've just stated what God will not do. BUT WHAT IS GOD RIGHT NOW ACTIVELY DOING IN ANSWER TO PRAYER FOR THE LOST? Please answer this.

Can God do more? Yes. It remains to be seen if He will in every situation.

Every situation? I'd be happy to hear what the Open View thinks God has actively done in their lives in ANY situation. Please give me one clear example.

God can do anything. God chooses to do only those things which he wants to do; things consistent in everyway with His attributes, all of His divine attributes. ...

I assume that you've experienced the active work of God in your life. Please give me one example. If God is good and living and personal and loving and relational as Open Theists claim, then God must have actively done something in your life to show it to you. Please give an example.

No open theist denies that God is able. God is omnipotent. God can. That is why one must say that God is not doing every thing that God in his unlimited and unrestrained power could do.

The Open View seems to have a problem with God doing ANYTHING in the lives of people.

In the open view, God has given Himself to creation without compromising Himself or His creation.

Yes, but what is He ACTIVELY doing NOW in the lives of His children?

All receiving is response to freely given.

What have you received from God that was actively given to you by Him?

God is competent and can do as it pleases God in their case.

For example? What could God actively DO in their case?

But, I also pray that God will open hearts and minds to hear and grasp the Gospel.

How does He open hearts and minds? What does He actively DO to cause this to happen?

I pray for God to remove limitations, open doors, provide resources and direct my path.

How does He actively remove limitations, open doors, provide resources and direct your path?

I pray that God will do the miraculous in the lives of people who are wrongly convinced that God doesn’t care about them

For example?

I ask God to reveal Himself to them in such a way that they will know that it is a ‘God-thing’ if and when He does it.

Have you personally had such revelations? And how did you know it was God and not just lucky coincidence?

 

[themuzicman]

You know, Hilston, if you'd renounce deism, and embrace theism, you'd find OVT much easier to comprehend.

Muz

 

[Clete]

Jim,

Are you ever going to make a point with all of this or will it be just one question after another?

 

[Hilston]

Jim,

Are you ever going to make a point with all of this or will it be just one question after another?

I can't make a point if I don't have any information to make it with. Without information, the only point I can make is that Open Theists claim that to believe in a living, relational, good, loving, and personal God, but they cannot show me any actual examples of God actively relating to or loving them in their everyday lives. There are crazy people with imaginary friends that do as much for them in their daily lives as the God described by Open Theists.

So show me that my information-less "point" is wrong, Clete. What has God actively done for you TODAY? In the past week? In the past year?

 

[Hilston]

You know, Hilston, if you'd renounce deism, and embrace theism, you'd find OVT much easier to comprehend.

I love Open Theists. You couldn't make this stuff up, because no one would find it believable. Only in the Open Theist mind would one mistake God's meticulous control and exhaustive knowledge as "deism." It only goes to show how severely and pervasively the Open Theist poison works on the mind and short-circuits the brain. Have a look at the One-On-One between Knight and me. It is amazing the lengths to which these people will go to avoid, obfuscate, divert or clutter even the most basic, rudimentary discussion about fundamental matters of faith, the nature of God, logic etc. It's like they are utterly incapable of following a simple chain of discursive reasoning without throwing nails in the road along the way.

It's nothing if not entertaining. Thankfully, the benefits far outweight the annoyances, as I continue to receive messages from people who learn a lot from these "exchanges."

 

[themuzicman]

I love Open Theists. You couldn't make this stuff up, because no one would find it believable. Only in the Open Theist mind would one mistake God's meticulous control and exhaustive knowledge as "deism." It only goes to show how severely and pervasively the Open Theist poison works on the mind and short-circuits the brain. Have a look at the One-On-One between Knight and me. It is amazing the lengths to which these people will go to avoid, obfuscate, divert or clutter even the most basic, rudimentary discussion about fundamental matters of faith, the nature of God, logic etc. It's like they are utterly incapable of following a simple chain of discursive reasoning without throwing nails in the road along the way.

It's nothing if not entertaining. Thankfully, the benefits far outweight the annoyances, as I continue to receive messages from people who learn a lot from these "exchanges."

That has nothing to do with your determinism. It has to do with your inability to comprehend God acting when the future is open, as though God is paralyzed in thought and deed.

The problem is that as soon as you allow God to act and think and respond to creation and His creatures, your objections to OVT vanish. So, you keep up this strawman mantra that God, without knowledge of the future, can't do anything.

Muz

 

[Clete]

I can't make a point if I don't have any information to make it with. Without information, the only point I can make is that Open Theists claim that to believe in a living, relational, good, loving, and personal God, but they cannot show me any actual examples of God actively relating to or loving them in their everyday lives. There are crazy people with imaginary friends that do as much for them in their daily lives as the God described by Open Theists.

So show me that my information-less "point" is wrong, Clete. What has God actively done for you TODAY? In the past week? In the past year?

It is my belief that your "point" is unfalsifiable. No example I give will be sufficient for you short of it being something overtly miraculous which neither of us believe God is currently doing today. I believe Philetus got it right, you are on a hunt for fodder, not answers.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

That has nothing to do with your determinism. It has to do with your inability to comprehend God acting when the future is open, as though God is paralyzed in thought and deed.

I don't think the OV conception is that God is paralyzed, but inactive. What is He really doing, actively doing, in people's lives?

The problem is that as soon as you allow God to act and think and respond to creation and His creatures, your objections to OVT vanish.

I do believe God acts and thinks and responds to creation and His creatures. I am not objecting to the OVT case because no one has been able to show me actual examples of God acting and responding in his or her life. Surely, Muz, if God is as active and responsive and loving and good and relational and personal and living as Open Thiests claim, you must have one example of this is your life today.

So, you keep up this strawman mantra that God, without knowledge of the future, can't do anything.

I never made that claim. I don't know the future, and I can still do stuff. So show me God is at least as active as I am and tell me what He has actively and actually done in your life today.

It is my belief that your "point" is unfalsifiable.

I saw this coming. Really. You play the "unfalsifiable" trump card every time you get stuck (a search of the word by username yields 37 hits).

No example I give will be sufficient for you short of it being something overtly miraculous which neither of us believe God is currently doing today.

I agree that God is doing nothing overtly miraculous today, but I believe God is active and responsive in my life. I can tell you what He is doing. What is He actively doing in your life today?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It is amazing the lengths to which these people will go to avoid, obfuscate, divert or clutter even the most basic, rudimentary discussion about fundamental matters of faith, the nature of God, logic etc.

:rotfl: Oh... the irony!!!

 

[themuzicman]

I don't think the OV conception is that God is paralyzed, but inactive. What is He really doing, actively doing, in people's lives?

In people's lives? How about accomplishing His purposes? You know, fulfilling prophecy, establishing a people for Himself? God isn't a giant slot machine where we can insert our prayers and pull the arm and hope. He's not obligated to react to anything we do. He acts when it pleases Him.

I do believe God acts and thinks and responds to creation and His creatures. I am not objecting to the OVT case because no one has been able to show me actual examples of God acting and responding in his or her life. Surely, Muz, if God is as active and responsive and loving and good and relational and personal and living as Open Thiests claim, you must have one example of this is your life today.

I don't think God necessarily responds to everything I do, since what I do is pretty insignificant (as are the actions of most people) most of the time.

Has God worked in various small ways? Sure. Wisdom, healing, etc. All the things that He promised. See the book of James.

I never made that claim. I don't know the future, and I can still do stuff. So show me God is at least as active as I am and tell me what He has actively and actually done in your life today.

But that's your position regarding God as viewed by OVT.

 

[Hilston]

All these Open Theists, and not one of them can answer this simple question: What has God actually actively done in your life today?

According to Muzicman, God doesn't respond to him unless it's something significant. That doesn't sound very loving and personal and relational to me. Even when He does respond, what does He actually DO?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

All these Open Theists, and not one of them can answer this simple question

God decreed that I not answer.

Am I wrong?