ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Delmar]

So then why did God send Jonah, and spoil his own plan, since he later (Open Theism does tell us) had to change his mind, when the Ninevites repented? Now God can act in such a way as to spoil his own plan himself...

repenting of evil never spoils God's plan , since he does not wish that any should perish. I am quite sure that God was quite happy when he changed his plan to destroy them!

This Calvinist doesn't believe that God makes every decision, there might be freedom to choose, within God's will, and thus God would remain in complete control, and yet there would be freedom.

That would still leave Him not knowing which choice, within His will, I am going to make.

 

[Delmar]

Getting back to the topic of this thread, Open Theism, or whatever someone may call it, is the view about God that I believe the scriptures support the most. It is about the God of the Bible, and His ability to have feelings, passion, remorse, anger, expectations, sorrow, and even disappointment.

The sad thing is that determinists believe it is more important to God to seem sovereign to them, than to allow freedom. As if the sovereignty of God could ever be diminished!

 

[Clete]

Getting back to the topic of this thread, Open Theism, or whatever someone may call it, is the view about God that I believe the scriptures support the most. It is about the God of the Bible, and His ability to have feelings, passion, remorse, anger, expectations, sorrow, and even disappointment.

Open Theism theology is based strictly on the Bible’s statements about our glorious God. It is the biblical theology that shows that God gave man enough freedom to believe God when God said he may be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as his Savior because He died for him.

We Open Theists also believe God has the ability to change His mind or repent about something He said He would do. He usually does this when man has done something to cause God to either repent from harm that He said He would do, or repent from something good that He said He would for man, but because man sinned, He now changes His mind and says He will not do it.

It is also the answer to the Calvinistic view that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen. We have much material on this subject on my site, biblicalanswers.com.

I learned about this position a little over 45 years ago. At that time, I knew of no one who believed it. That has dramatically changed in the last 25 years.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

Very nicely put Pastor Hill. I'm curious to know more about how you came to believe in open theism. I had never heard of it before Bob Enyart and was very much surprised (and actually a bit relieved) to find it had such a large following. That's been something close to ten years ago now and just in that time I've seen a veritable explosion of books on the subject in mainstream Christian book stores and it's just all over the place on the Internet. Do you suppose that the open view is becoming more mainstream in a permanent sort of way or do you suspect that it is more of a fad? I certainly hope that it is the former and that we are seeing a sort of ‘open view reformation’ taking place, but I'm not sure if you can tell about such things until after the fact. What do you think?

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. This post was directed at Pastor Hill, but of course, if any of you have any thoughts on this, please feel free to respond as though I directed it at you.

 

[godrulz]

The sad thing is that determinists believe it is more important to God to seem sovereign to them, than to allow freedom. As if the sovereignty of God could ever be diminished!

The root problem is a wrong understanding and overemphasis on hyper-sovereignty as meticulous control. Biblical sovereignty is responsive, providential, and creative (vs causative/coercive). This is in keeping with God's personal, loving, holy nature. He does not have to be a cosmic control freak and always get His way to bring His project/plan to fruition. He is omnicompetent, not omnicausal. The warfare model, not blueprint model, of sovereignty is seen in the Gospels through the ministry of God incarnate.

 

[Philetus]

This has nothing to do with the discussion but I found it interesting: On Wednesday, at two minutes and three seconds after 1:00 am in the morning, the time and date will be 01:02:03 04/05/06

Originally Posted by sentientsynth
Wouldn't [God] be infinitely old, no matter at what particular point you determined to determine his age? Not denying that he would "get older." But he would be infinitely old already, wouldn't he?

SS: Exactly. Now look at it in the reverse direction: projected into the past. If we were to travel a billion gozillion years into the past, how much closer would we be to the beginning? Not a moment. We'd never reach the beginning of eternity past, just like we'll never reach the end of eternity future. In fact, having travelled all those years into the past, we'd still be infinitely far away from the beginning. Of course, there is no beginning to eternity past, just as there is no end to eternity future. And that's just the point.

There is no beginning point or ending point to get closer to. But, there are points along the continuum which have been and will be reached and passed. Not only does the fact that God experiences continuum of ‘time’ in succession make Him infinitely old … it makes Him infinitely young as well. This doesn’t in any way make the point that God is outside of time only that God experiences infinitely more of it than we do. That's all Zeno's Paradox seems to illustrate.

Balder: At what "rate" do you think God processes information? How far down can he narrow his attention? Presumably, he could attend to events at the quantum level if he wanted to; he could observe phenomena at the level of a Planck unit. But I imagine he could also expand his attention significantly as well, such that a human year would be just a blip for him. If he expands his attention enough, do you think he would be able to encompass the whole of human history in a flash? Or is there a limit to how far out God can open the window of his attention and process information?

Neither expansion nor concentration of attention is necessary for an omniscient being. The issue is whether or not God experiences the unfolding of events that are, in part at least, shaped by free will beings other than God. The amount of information to process is not the point … the availability of information is. The part of the future that hasn’t been written yet, that which is shaped by contingencies, is unknowable. God’s decision to grant dominion over part of His creation to creatures leaves the future open to those decisions yet to be made regardless of never getting closer to the end of all things and regardless of the amount of information to be processed. ​

 

[Bob Hill]

Very nicely put Pastor Hill. I'm curious to know more about how you came to believe in open theism. I had never heard of it before Bob Enyart and was very much surprised (and actually a bit relieved) to find it had such a large following. That's been something close to ten years ago now and just in that time I've seen a veritable explosion of books on the subject in mainstream Christian book stores and it's just all over the place on the Internet. Do you suppose that the open view is becoming more mainstream in a permanent sort of way or do you suspect that it is more of a fad? I certainly hope that it is the former and that we are seeing a sort of ‘open view reformation’ taking place, but I'm not sure if you can tell about such things until after the fact. What do you think?

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. This post was directed at Pastor Hill, but of course, if any of you have any thoughts on this, please feel free to respond as though I directed it at you.

Dear Clete,

About 46 or 47 years ago I bought a book by William E. Biederwolf, published in 1906, with the title, “How Can God Answer Prayer? He had 4 answers. The one that was different was, “Why Pray if Everything Is Predetermined by God?”

I read that section and found another book where Biederwolf said we had free will. This book was W. W. Kinsley’s “Science and Prayer.” I lived in California at that time and scoured all of the used books in those bookstores until I found it. It was published in 1893. After reading it, I was convinced. I studied the Bible and things just seemed to fall into place.

Then, I found that there were older books which also showed that man’s free will was true. I have found and read most of the books that are quite old, and it is nice to now see that there is a plethora of books being published for the Open View as well as books arguing against it.

The Open View has been growing rapidly because the Bible shows it to be true. There are those who have written against the Opwn View, like Bruce A. Ware, who wrote “God’s Lesser Glory, The Diminished God of Open Theism, and R.K. Mc Gregor Wright, who wrote “No Place for Sovereignty”, and hold to a strong Calvinistic view.

Quite a few years ago, I was reprimanded by the GGF board for my belief of the Open View, at a time that I also was on the board. It was funny that they made me the director of the next Pastor’s conference after that, and even made me the Chairman of the annual denominational meeting which was held in Colorado the year after that.

Thanks for asking.

In Christ,
Bob

 

[Clete]

I thought Calvinists (at least hyper-Calvinists) affirm God's absolute immutability and impassibility. The passages that open theists take literally to show that God changes in some ways and has feelings are taken anthropomorphically by Calvin and others.

The Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter II
Of God, and of the Holy Trinity

I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.​

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Godrulz: I thought Calvinists (at least hyper-Calvinists) affirm God's absolute immutability and impassibility. The passages that open theists take literally to show that God changes in some ways and has feelings are taken anthropomorphically by Calvin and others.

But see here for information on just this point by Sentient Synth. God does have feelings, and can indeed change his response, his appearance, but not his nature. And hyper-Calvinists hold to limited atonement, that is the distinction there, not in the area of immutability.

Lee: So then why did God send Jonah, and spoil his own plan, since he later (Open Theism does tell us) had to change his mind, when the Ninevites repented? Now God can act in such a way as to spoil his own plan himself...

DD: repenting of evil never spoils God's plan , since he does not wish that any should perish.

But if you plan (however reluctantly) to bring judgment, unconditionally, and then act in such a way so that you must abandon that plan, then your action spoiled (though you may not mind) that plan.

DD: I am quite sure that God was quite happy when he changed his plan to destroy them!

Yes, I agree that God was glad at the outcome! "Should I not be concerned?" I would that that as showing what his plan was, all along, even, and why he sent Jonah (& why Jonah ran)...

Lee: This Calvinist doesn't believe that God makes every decision, there might be freedom to choose, within God's will...

DD: That would still leave Him not knowing which choice, within His will, I am going to make.

Unless God can know our free-will decisions! Like he knows his own, future free decisions...

The Westminster Confession of Faith: There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable...

Certainly, and the above link by Sentient Synth shows what indeed they meant here.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Bob Hill]

Hello y'all,

When we think of immutability and impassibility, we don’t find it in the Bible. Instead, we have to look to The Westminster Confession, made in 1646, which took the ideas of Augustine and Calvin and put them in a doctrinal statement. It’s the ideas in this statement that have influenced all of us in our attitudes and our beliefs.

Here is one part of it: “There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable . . . so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain.

Because of this unbiblical creed, a theologian wrote this about God’s love: “Love, of course, is not bound up with sensitive passion and emotion in God, as it is in us. . . . Passions, since they necessarily entail a sensitive and therefore bodily nature, are per se imperfect and limited, and consequently they cannot be predicated except metaphorically of God. . . . we must deny these accompanying passions when we attribute love and joy to God.” [Benignus, Nature, Knowledge, and God, pp. 551,552.]

Bob Hill

 

[Clete]

Certainly, and the above link by Sentient Synth shows what indeed they meant here.

I think it is perfectly clear what they meant. I think they meant precisely what they wrote! In fact, that was the sole purpose of their having written it down in the first place! Are you not able to read? How is it that SS is smarter than you such that he can somehow read the minds of those who wrote the WCF and you are stuck with just reading the confession itself? If they meant something other than what it seems like they meant, why did they write what they wrote? Was it predestined that they would write it incorrectly, and so even though they meant something quite the opposite of "God is without passions", they were compelled by the immutable decree of God to write it wrong? Is that it?

In case you can't tell, I think SS is full of crap along with the individual he's getting all this from. Calvinists have believed that God has no passions since time and memorial. Leave to the laziest minds on TOL to take one man's word for it over the most famous treatise on the Reformed faith in existence.

How is it difficult to see that an immutable God could not have emotions anyway? Doesn’t it just follow intuitively that if one cannot change that emoting is impossible? You and SS, Jim Hilston, et al. are just trying to have your cake and eat it too. You cannot have it both ways. God either has passions or He does not. If He has them then He is not immutable, if He is immutable then He does not have passions; take your pick and stick with it, this wishy-washy fence sitting is ridiculous. If you’re ashamed of the logical conclusions of your own theology then drop the blasphemous nonsense in favor of something that you can be proud of. I will never understand why you guys react so vehemently against the open view and then bend you butts over backward trying to get Augustine, Calvin and the WCF and every other Calvinistic source you can find to say something that is in agreement with the open view! Why do you do that? Why not just believe the open view and let Calvin and Augustine say what they clearly said and believed?

Hello y'all,

When we think of immutability and impassibility, we don’t find it in the Bible. Instead, we have to look to The Westminster Confession, made in 1646, which took the ideas of Augustine and Calvin and put them in a doctrinal statement. It’s the ideas in this statement that have influenced all of us in our attitudes and our beliefs.

Here is one part of it: “There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable . . . so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain.

Because of this unbiblical creed, a theologian wrote this about God’s love: “Love, of course, is not bound up with sensitive passion and emotion in God, as it is in us. . . . Passions, since they necessarily entail a sensitive and therefore bodily nature, are per se imperfect and limited, and consequently they cannot be predicated except metaphorically of God. . . . we must deny these accompanying passions when we attribute love and joy to God.” [Benignus, Nature, Knowledge, and God, pp. 551,552.]

Bob Hill

:BRAVO:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Bob Hill]

Hello again,

When we consider the passion of God, there is a lot of misinformation out there. It is not biblically based. So, when theologians deny that God has any passion or feeling, this lack of having any passion is called impassibility.

Dr. James Boice wrote in his book, The Sovereign God, pp. 184,185.: “The immutability of God as presented in Scripture, however, is not the same thing as the immutability of “god” talked about by the Greek philosophers. In Greek thought immutability meant not only unchangeability but also the inability to be affected by anything in any way. The Greek word . . . . means a total inability to feel any emotion whatever. . . . That makes good philosophy of course. It is logical. But it is not what God reveals about himself in the Scriptures, and so we must reject it, however logical it may seem.”

Good for Boice. He departed from his Calvinistic heritage because, he said, “it is not what God reveals about himself in the Scriptures”. Unfortunately, however, on the previous page he wrote: “. . . being perfect, he never differs from himself. For a moral being to change, it would be necessary to change in one of two directions. Either the change is from something worse to something better, or else it is from something better to something worse. It should be evident that God can move in neither of these directions. God cannot change for the better, for that would mean that he had been imperfect beforehand. . . If we are talking about knowledge, it would mean that he had not known everything and was therefore ignorant.” This seems to contradict what he wrote in the paragraph just above this statement.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

Many anti-Open Theism books assume Calvinism is true. They defend the Reformed tradition and reject views that depart from it. This is similar to Catholic books assuming they are true (despite unbiblical traditions in some areas) and Protestantism is false. Ware, etc. would also argue in the same way against other free-will theisms like Arminianism. I also find they misrepresent the Open view and wrongly assume it is basically Process theology (not true).

 

[sentientsynth]

Clete,

Typically when people have something to say to me, they make it clear that they are addressing me. At least, that is, respectable people who are honest and possess character.

Clete, you're in denial. Wake up and smell the roses, you angry little man. You equivocate upon specialized terms and you know it. Stop deluding yourself and others.

By the way, last time I checked, being a false witness is sinful.


P.S. ~ Mr. Hill's quotation of Boice does NOT represent a break from either Calvin or Augustine.

 

[sentientsynth]

Clete's Awesome Knowledge of Calvinism

Clete's Awesome Knowledge of Calvinism

In another forum, Clete is/was having a discussion with a group of Calvinists when Clete said this...

I do not believe in a God who is fickle or capricious. He has literally stood the test of time. He has existed for an eternity and has always proved to be one who acts in the best interests of those He is in relationship with, starting with the members of the Trinity and now with His creation. Every piece of available evidence from every word of the Bible down to every speck of dust on the Earth and the rest of all creation testifies to the goodness, steadfastness, patience, wisdom, intelligence, and loving kindness of God which created it all.​

To which a Calvinist replied:

That is a very nice statement of the absolute immutability of God! I have proved my point and Clete has just become a Calvinist!

Source​

:darwinsm:

So Clete, how does it feel to be a Calvinist?

 

[Clete]

In another forum, Clete is/was having a discussion with a group of Calvinists when Clete said this...

I do not believe in a God who is fickle or capricious. He has literally stood the test of time. He has existed for an eternity and has always proved to be one who acts in the best interests of those He is in relationship with, starting with the members of the Trinity and now with His creation. Every piece of available evidence from every word of the Bible down to every speck of dust on the Earth and the rest of all creation testifies to the goodness, steadfastness, patience, wisdom, intelligence, and loving kindness of God which created it all.​

To which a Calvinist replied:

That is a very nice statement of the absolute immutability of God! I have proved my point and Clete has just become a Calvinist!

Source​

:darwinsm:

So Clete, how does it feel to be a Calvinist?

Wow! Thanks for posting a link to that debate SS!

I want everyone to read that entire thing if they are so inclind to do so. I won that debate so handily that I nearly got banned! :chuckle:
I'm as proud of my performance on that thread as I am anything I've done on TOL. The bottom line is that Calvinists must abandon sound reason in order to defend thier blasphemous doctrine. I called them on it and they had no answer except to repeat themselves endlessly and explain how the truth isn't rational.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Clete,

Typically when people have something to say to me, they make it clear that they are addressing me. At least, that is, respectable people who are honest and possess character.

Clete, you're in denial. Wake up and smell the roses, you angry little man. You equivocate upon specialized terms and you know it. Stop deluding yourself and others.

You sir are a liar.
If I had been addressing you I would have made that clear but I wasn't addressing you nor your little wet nurse Jim Hilston. I say precisely what I mean and I mean exactly what I say. If you think I'm equivocating GOOD! I don't want you to understand a word I say! I would rather you forget that I exist.

By the way, last time I checked, being a false witness is sinful.

P.S. ~ Mr. Hill's quotation of Boice does NOT represent a break from either Calvin or Augustine.

Romans 2:1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[sentientsynth]

You sir are a liar.

Prove it. What's that trite little jingle you throw around all the time?

"Saying it doesn't make it so."

If I had been addressing you I would have made that clear but I wasn't addressing you nor your little wet nurse Jim Hilston.

Really? You mean all that trash-talking doesn't address those you're trashing? Oh...you'd rather me just let it slide, huh. Guess what. I'm not.

I say precisely what I mean and I mean exactly what I say. If you think I'm equivocating GOOD! I don't want you to understand a word I say!

:baby:

I would rather you forget that I exist.

Then don't trash my name. Also, it'll be required that you have a lobotomy performed, so that you'll stop spitting your blithering nonsense.


I told Clete that he was being a false-witness: slanderously mischaracterizing certain doctrines within Calvinism, to which he replied with...

Romans 2:1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

How fitting. Paul condemns the judge and the judged in this verse, but does Clete pick up on that? NO!

You're a real work of art, Clete.

Thanks for the chat. I needed the comedic relief.

 

[godrulz]

Things have degenerated to personal issues with little response to issues of content. :yawn:

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Bob Hill: Because of this unbiblical creed, a theologian wrote this about God’s love: “Love, of course, is not bound up with sensitive passion and emotion in God, as it is in us. . . . Passions, since they necessarily entail a sensitive and therefore bodily nature, are per se imperfect and limited, and consequently they cannot be predicated except metaphorically of God. . . . we must deny these accompanying passions when we attribute love and joy to God.” [Benignus, Nature, Knowledge, and God, pp. 551,552.]

However, that is not the creed! You may quote a misunderstanding, but that does not explain the doctrine, which Sentient Synth explained quite well here, and you must needs address that here, not a claim that love and joy are only metaphors. They aren't, and "they aren't" is just what the theologians I hold in high regard have said.

Clete: I think it is perfectly clear what they meant. I think they meant precisely what they wrote!

I agree, and I agree with what they wrote, and they wrote that ...

Well, you read it!

Was it predestined that they would write it incorrectly, and so even though they meant something quite the opposite of "God is without passions", they were compelled by the immutable decree of God to write it wrong?

No, actually, they meant by passions, well, here is a quote from Sentient Synth (since it seems there is reluctance to read the post that explains this):

Sentient Synth: The affections and passions are frequently spoken of as the same; and yet, in the more common use of speech, there is in some respect a difference. Affection is a word that, in its ordinary signification, seems to be something more extensive than passion, being used for all vigorous lively actings of the will or inclination; but passion for those that are more sudden, and whose effects on the animal spirits are more violent, and the mind more overpowered, and less in its own command.[22]

Edwards was suggesting that passions are involuntary and non-rational; whereas affections are volitions and dispositions that are under the control of the rational senses.

Given such a distinction, it seems perfectly appropriate to say that whereas God is "without passions," He is surely not "without affections." In fact, His joy, His wrath, His sorrow, His pity, His compassion, His delight, His love, his hatred—and all the other divine affections—epitomize the very perfection of all the heartfelt affections we know (albeit imperfectly) as humans.

Now that's plain enough...

Doesn’t it just follow intuitively that if one cannot change that emoting is impossible?

Not at all, my nature doesn't change every time I smile or frown.

Either the change is from something worse to something better, or else it is from something better to something worse. It should be evident that God can move in neither of these directions. God cannot change for the better, for that would mean that he had been imperfect beforehand. . . If we are talking about knowledge, it would mean that he had not known everything and was therefore ignorant.” This seems to contradict what he wrote in the paragraph just above this statement.

Why so, though? Surely he was talking about a change in nature, and if God changes his nature, why then we do need to ask if this is not an improvement. Or the opposite. It seems it must be, and this would be a problem for the Open Theists who hold that God can change his nature.

I don't think those who are published authors in this area hold that, though.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Bob Hill]

I never said Boice forsook Calvinism.

Dr. James Boice wrote in his book, The Sovereign God, pp. 184,185.: “The immutability of God as presented in Scripture, however, is not the same thing as the immutability of “god” talked about by the Greek philosophers. In Greek thought immutability meant not only unchangeability but also the inability to be affected by anything in any way. The Greek word . . . . means a total inability to feel any emotion whatever. . . . That makes good philosophy of course. It is logical. But it is not what God reveals about himself in the Scriptures, and so we must reject it, however logical it may seem.”

Good for Boice. He departed from his Calvinistic heritage because, he said, “it is not what God reveals about himself in the Scriptures”.

I showed that he is still a strong Calvinsit by quoting this: :kookoo:
Unfortunately, however, on the previous page he wrote: “. . . being perfect, he never differs from himself. For a moral being to change, it would be necessary to change in one of two directions. Either the change is from something worse to something better, or else it is from something better to something worse. It should be evident that God can move in neither of these directions. God cannot change for the better, for that would mean that he had been imperfect beforehand. . . If we are talking about knowledge, it would mean that he had not known everything and was therefore ignorant.”

This seems to contradict what he wrote in the paragraph just above this statement.

Bob Hill