ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

RobE

New member
Rob said:
Always remember that in this post you admit and substantiate that foreknowledge is possible. I'm willing to concede that God might not want to know something, just as I always have.

patman said:
Then you concede absolute foreknowledge.

God not knowing one event has wide spread implications. Events lead to events that give hints to their outcomes. Not knowing one outcome means not knowing the events around it, both past, present and future.

If you believe God can not know something, how can you say he knows the entire future? Rob, it boggles my mind.

To answer your question: I DIDN"T SAY THAT GOD IS UNABLE TO KNOW SOMETHING within creation. That is simply your interpretation of my statement processed through your desire for God to be fallible....

1 : liable to be erroneous
2 : capable of making a mistake​

I said that God 'might not want to know something' which is far different from being unable to know something.

Rob
 

RobE

New member
Clete said:
Patterns of behavior for one. Even inanimate objects DO NOT always act in a causally determined way. Every heard of quantum mechanics? Every heard of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Even in the strictly physical realm God has created things such that they CANNOT be predicted with absolute precision no matter how much you know about the system. Behavior can definitely be predicted but only to certain degree of probability.

I believe that in the case of quantum mechanics there is still debate going on as to if there are unknown variables involved. God must understand quantum mechanics far better than those who just began investigating the science. Couldn't we say that it is possible that the outcomes produced are predictable, even though we are incapable of predicting them at this time?

That means that the systems in this universe are neither random nor causally determined Rob. It makes no difference how the systems actually work or why they do what they do. The entire point here is that the proposed dichotomy upon which your entire argument rests, would rightly be rejected even by people who have no stake in this debate whatsoever. It is, in fact, a false dichotomy.

I would say that some unproven arguments suggest it to be false, but the overwhelming evidence suggests it is true; especially in the case of responsibility.

1 Corinthians 10:13 (New International Version)

13No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.​

Since God must know what a cause will produce in order to know if you are able to be coerced by it, then a known causality and outcome exists prior to your action. On what basis would God 'provide a way out' if He didn't understand what effects would be produced by the temptation? If you fail to stand up under it then are you able to say that 'God provided a way out'; unless the alternate outcome could be/and was foreseen by God; and His assistance was indeed sufficient to achieve a different result?

It makes no difference whether your intent was for some one to die or not. If you commit a crime (whether you know it is a crime or not) and someone die as a result whether that was your intent or not, you are a murderer and God says you should be executed for it.

Numbers 35:22 " 'But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally 23 or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, 24 the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. 25 The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send him back to the city of refuge to which he fled. He must stay there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil.​

Now, is God unjust or are you wrong Rob; which is it?

God is just and I am often wrong. The premises don't present a false dichotomy. What events are causeless? How is a two year old responsible for his actions when there is no way for him to know outcomes?

Rob
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Most Open Theism books trace the evidence in the Old AND NEW Testaments. The Old T has more historical narrative of God's relations to man and time. His self-revelation in history shows us what He is like and His ways. The NT does not argue against Open Theism nor support closed views. I disagree that most proof texts are Old Testament.

God's revelation is progressive with the OT being foundational. Basic understanding of God and His ways will not be contradicted by the NT (recognizing covenant differences, of course).
 

patman

Active member
RobE said:
To answer your question: I DIDN"T SAY THAT GOD IS UNABLE TO KNOW SOMETHING within creation. That is simply your interpretation of my statement processed through your desire for God to be fallible....

1 : liable to be erroneous
2 : capable of making a mistake​

I said that God 'might not want to know something' which is far different from being unable to know something.

Rob
I apologize that I stretched the meaning of your post, Rob.

As it turns out, when it happens to you, you aren't to happy about it, so it seems. You even called me on it. How much worst is it when you do it to God?

You can differentiate the difference between "God might not want to know something" and "God can not know something."

So can you differentiate between "God knew ___________ would happen before it happened" and "God knows everything that will happen before it happens?"

So you know, you can't fill anything into the blank. Only things out of the Bible. Like, "God knew Israel would be slaves in a foreign land would happen before it happened."

Can you see the difference? If you can, you can see why I, as well as you, require more evidence from scripture.
 

Bob Hill

TOL Subscriber
I'm closing down now, but here is my last post tonight.

What is Open View Theology?

Open View Theology, Open Theism, or whatever it may be called, is the view about God to which I hold.

It is about God and His ability to have feelings, passion, remorse, anger, expectations, sorrow, etc.

It is the biblical theology that shows that man has enough freedom to believe God when God says he may be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as his Savior because He died for him.

Open Theism also believes 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 because the man sinned.

It is also the answer to the Calvinistic view that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen.

I have much material on this subject on our site. biblicalanswers.com. Look under the predestination material.

I learned about this position a little over 45 years ago. At that time, I knew of no one who believed it. That has really changed in the last 15 years.

In Christ,
Bob Hill
 

zapp

New member
Baptists trying to NOT divide Calvinism vs. Open

Baptists trying to NOT divide Calvinism vs. Open

The thing I am struck with as I read all these responses [many of which are very well thought-out and documented, and others are a waste of time], is that Calvinism and its baggage seem to only be held rigidly by a few academicians and seminarians. The average person attending one of their churches could no more explain it than they could flap their wings and fly [not a comment on rapture theory!!]. Like Bob, I came to what you guys call "Open View" by just eating the Bible. Its there, and to UNdo it requires an extensive, careful house-o-cards theology, requiring far more words and shouting to try to UNdo scripture than the scripture required to just present the Lord's inspired word. Remember, theologians, papyrologists, researchers of antiquities, all generally hold that if you have two manuscripts that purport to be essentially the same, except one has a lot more words than the other, the shorter one is automatically deemed to be the more authentic, unless it can be conclusively proven otherwise by hard evidence.


Forgive this lengthy paste below, but its a healthy exchange between two prominent Baptist officials on this topic, and shows hearts willing to stick together even though disagreement is sharp.
GREENSBORO, N.C. (BP)--Saying they hope to serve as a model for the rest of the Southern Baptist Convention, seminary presidents R. Albert Mohler Jr. and Paige Patterson June 12 discussed their differences over the doctrine of election, stressing that believers can disagree on the topic while remaining friends and unified in the goal of evangelism and missions.

"I do hope … we will provide at least an example on that point, if on no other," Patterson said.

Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and Patterson, president of Southwestern Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, discussed Calvinism during two one-hour-long breakout sessions of the SBC Pastors' Conference at a convention hotel ballroom. Mohler affirms Calvinism, while Patterson does not. The sessions, titled, “Reaching Today’s World Through Differing Views of Election,” drew standing room only crowds.

"We were expecting eight or 10 of you," Patterson quipped.

Each man spoke for 20 minutes before fielding questions submitted prior to the session. Saying that Patterson is a "friend in the Gospel," Mohler pointed to former great men of faith -- such as John Wesley and George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon and D.L. Moody -- who had disagreements over election but nonetheless considered one another Christian brothers and "cooperated together in evangelism."

"This is a conversation among close friends," Mohler said.

Both Mohler and Patterson disagreed in classifying the session as a "debate." But both men made clear that they had honest disagreements.

"Reading the Scripture we have to face squarely that God is a choosing God in the exercise of His sovereignty,” Mohler said. “He chose Israel. He chose Jacob. And as the Apostle Paul makes clear, He chooses sinners."

But Patterson said, “The calling of God is made to all men, and then men must decide whether they will respond to the calling or not."

PATTERSON: PEOPLE ARE ‘TOTALLY FREE’

Patterson began his segment by saying, to laughter, “The real question we are here to discuss today is whether or not you are here on your own free will."

He listed six areas in which he and Calvinists agree –- areas for which he said he has great appreciation. Calvinists, Patterson said: “usually lead very pious lives”; believe theology is important; generally are “very clear about the dangers involved in the charismatic movement; “understand the purpose of everything is to glorify God”; “never question the inerrancy of Scripture or the substitutionary atonement of Christ”; and “are crystal clear about the fact that salvation is by grace alone.”

But Patterson also said there are several areas of concern he has with “some Calvinists”:

-- the notion that if “you are not a Calvinist then you must be an Arminian.” He said he is neither.

-- the argument that “if you are not a Calvinist then you do not accept the doctrines of grace.” Patterson said, “I believe that salvation is by grace alone, and I'm not a Calvinist.”

-- the assertion that those who are not Calvinists don’t believe in the sovereignty of God. “I just happen to believe that God is sovereign enough that He can make a man totally free if He wishes to do so,” Patterson said.

-- “antinomian tendencies” present “in some Calvinists,” particularly on the subject of drinking alcohol. Antinomianism tends to overemphasize grace in relation to law.

-- a failure of Reformed pastors to be “completely forthright” with pulpit committees during interviews. “This is a concern not only about Calvinists,” Patterson said. “It is a concern about people who happen to be dispensationalists, like me. It's a concern about any position which you hold." There should be “full disclosure of what you believe and what you plan to do once you become the pastor of that church."

-- the “compassionlessness” for a lost world seen in “some Calvinists.” Patterson said what he “appreciate so much about Dr. Mohler and many of my other Calvinist friends is that that emphatically is not true of them."

Patterson said he views the doctrine of election through the "foreknowledge of God." He also said he sees no biblical evidence for “irresistible grace” –- one of the tenets of Calvinism.

“If, in fact, men cannot resist the will of the Holy Spirit … then in fact salvation is coercive and a person does not have a choice about what he is going to do,” he said. "… I believe it is God's will that every human being be saved. I don't believe all of them will be saved -- narrow is the way, and straight is the gate.”

Patterson read two quotes he attributed to Presbyterian pastor R.C. Sproul: "God desired man to fall into sin. God created sin"; and "It is [God's] desire to make His wrath known. He needed, then, something on which to be wrathful. He needed to have sinful creatures."

“It is impossible to find justice in that by any biblical definition of justice," Patterson said. “… This makes God, in some sense, the author of sin.”

He listed several scriptural passages -- 1 Timothy 2:3-6, 2 Peter 3:9, Hebrews 2:9, 1 John 2:2 -- that he said support general atonement instead of the Calvinist tenant of limited (or particular) atonement.

"To me, the references to the universality of the atonement are absolutely overwhelming in the New Testament," Patterson said. “… The Calvinist must fall back on the idea of two wills of God –- a revealed will and a secret will. The problem with the secret will, of course, is that it is secret and we cannot know about [it] at all. Not only that, [but] it pits the secret will in juxtaposition and over against His revealed will.”

Patterson challenged those in attendance, "My fervent prayer is that whatever your beliefs are about the sovereignty of God … you will join me in taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth.”

MOHLER: SOUTHERN BAPTISTS AFFIRM GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY

During his segment Mohler, who affirms the five points of Calvinism, said it was "good and healthy" for Southern Baptists to discuss theology.

"It's a sign of a mature denomination," said Mohler, who was speaking one day after undergoing eye cornea surgery, and obviously was bothered by the bright lights. “… We may be the last people alive who can have an honest disagreement."

"Were it not for the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention," he added, the discussion over election might instead be over the ordination of homosexuals.

"By God's grace we are not there," he said to applause.

Southern Baptists, Mohler said, affirm God’s sovereignty in salvation even if they don’t call themselves Calvinists.

"In your local church, when you send out an evangelism team, you don't say, 'Good luck,'" he said. "You pray that God will open hearts and open minds. When we listen to ourselves pray, we really do hear a strong confidence in the sovereignty of God.

" … The doctrine of election explains why we go with confidence to share the Gospel -- because God does call sinners to Himself, through the blood of Jesus Christ.

"As the parable of the sower of the soil makes clear, we cannot read the human heart. We do not know who is the fertile heart and who is the resistant heart. … We just know there are sinners who need to hear the Gospel, and thus we preach the Gospel to all persons, knowing that God does save."

All Christians, Mohler said, are called to spread the Gospel.

“Why do we go?” he asked. “We go because we honestly believe that whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. … God always blesses the preaching of the Gospel. And He does so because He is not a spectator, but He is the God who saves through the means of the Gospel.”

Answering a point posed by Patterson -- that if Calvinism is true then a person could be drawn against his will, Mohler said, "I do not believe that such a person exists.

"Rather, I believe the doctrine of effectual calling, that Scripture says once that work is begun, and that person is drawn unto Christ, then that person will come to faith in Christ and will be authentically saved," he said. "I do not believe in the fictitious person who is drawn to faith in Christ against his will. I do not believe that that is possible.

Human will, Mohler said, is not “contravened by God.”

“The Lord’s will –- as the initiating will -– wills the human will to will what the Father wills,” he said. "… When Dr. Patterson shares the Gospel and when I share the Gospel, we do so honestly and urgently believing that if that person to whom we shared the Gospel of Christ responds in faith, she or he will be saved.”

Mohler further said that all Southern Baptist believe in a form of limited atonement -- otherwise, he said, they would be universalists.

"The question is, how is the atonement limited and by whom?" he said. "… I would prefer to speak of particular redemption. I do believe before the creation of the world God determined to save sinners -- and not just in a general sense, but in an actual sense, persons who would come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

Mohler listed five areas in which all Southern Baptists are “one form of Calvinists or another”:

-- a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. "It is not by accident that there are no great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture," Mohler said. "… We really do believe that God can work in such a way that the human will wills to do what God wills that will to do. And that is exactly why we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. We do not believe that the Apostle Paul was irresistibly against his will drawn to write the Book of Romans.”

-- a belief in the substitutionary atonement. The logic of this doctrine fits only within “the umbrella of a Calvinist scheme.” "The entire worldview in which substitution makes sense is a worldview in which the sovereignty of God and the righteousness of God and the saving purpose of God are vindicated in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ."

-- affirming the "omniscience of God." "At the very least … God created this world knowing exactly who would come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ," Mohler said. "Some of us believe more than that, but certainly none of us here believes less than that.... If that be so then … the precise identity of all the persons who would come to faith in Christ was known by the Father before the world was created.”

-- a belief in the eternal security of the believer. "Once this work of salvation is accomplished in the life of a sinner, and that sinner is transformed by the grace and mercy of God, He can never fall away," he said.

Mohler said he preaches "without hesitation the 'whosoevers' and the 'alls'" found in the Bible.

"Whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved -- I believe that emphatically," he said.

But Mohler said some preachers intentionally ignore certain passages of the Bible.

"I do believe there is irresistible preaching, because a lot of preachers manage to resist Romans chapter 9," he said to laughter.

Mohler said he wants “to be known” for his commitment “to the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ” and not for his belief on the doctrine of election.

"I feel no accountability to John Calvin. I feel an indebtedness to him, but I'm not accountable to him nor would I wish to wear his name, nor, I believe, would he wish anyone to wear his name,” Mohler said. “[Calvinism] is a categorization which I don't deny if you're talking about a strain of theology. But I am accountable to the Word of God and the Gospel of Christ.

"… I'm not here in the name of John Calvin. I'm here in name of -- same initials, different name -- Jesus Christ.

TWO STREAMS INTO ONE RIVER

Both Mohler and Patterson said too many people, when debating Calvinism, have a judgmental attitude toward one another. Mohler quipped that some people frame it thusly, "Are you or have you ever been a Calvinist?"

"I would caution my non-Calvinist brethren against the conclusion that the doctrine of Calvin automatically means that a person will not and cannot be evangelistic," Patterson said. "… One of the commands that the Lord gives is to take the Gospel to the ends of earth. No Calvinist worthy of his stripe would thereby disobey a command of God.”

Mohler agreed that there are "hyper-Calvinists" -- those who reject the need to spread the Gospel -- within the SBC. But he said it is by nature a small group.

"If you ever find a vital hyper-Calvinist movement, you will have a living oxymoron," he said.

Five-point Calvinism, Mohler said, "is not hyper-Calvinism."

"However, if one takes an additional logical jump from that point and says, 'Therefore, we should not present the Gospel to all persons,' they are in direct conflict with the Scripture and direct disobedience to the call of God and in direct contradiction to the model of the apostles,” he said.

Said Patterson, "It's very unfair to a Calvinist to refer to him as a hyper-Calvinist. It prejudges him. … I think instead you ought to ask him, 'What do you believe?' If he's wrong about it -- if he goes too far in one direction -- you can correct that. I don’t like name-calling."

Mohler cautioned Calvinists toward not having "a debating personality."

"It is not healthy to have a person who will drive across the state to debate Calvinism but won't even drive across the street to share the Gospel," he said.

The two men said Southern Baptists can learn much from studying the history of the debate over election -- both within the history of Christianity and within the SBC.

"This is an old discussion," Patterson said. "It's a discussion that predates Calvin. It is a discussion that predates Augustine. … God's people have always struggled to try to figure out what is it that God has done on one hand and what is it for which we are responsible on the other.

"It's a good discussion, it’s a healthy discussion, as long as we don't begin to anathematize one another for our various perspectives and as long as the discussion of this theology or any other theology does not become an impediment to the most important thing, which is getting the Gospel of Christ to 6.5 billion people."

Within SBC history, Patterson said, "both sides of this discussion are well-represented." He said there are two "streams" of belief flowing into the same river. One stream was the Charleston, S.C., stream, which was "more Calvinistic," the other was the Sandy Creek, N.C., stream which was “more revivalistic,” Patterson said. Yet the Sandy Creek statement of faith also had a "very Calvinistic strain", he added.

The majority of the founders of the SBC, Mohler said, held to Calvinist beliefs.

"They were themselves representative of a great Baptist movement that itself was a part of the great evangelical movement," he said. "… It is no accident that [British missionary] William Carey held these very beliefs, and thus he went to India to begin the modern missionary movement. It is no accident that those who founded this denomination likewise held those beliefs, and those very beliefs compelled them into world missions."

Calvinism, Mohler said, is "part of the stream that has brought us to this place."

“Dr. Patterson and I have discussed this far more extensively than a one-hour presentation here would allow,” Mohler said. “It’s a part of the vibrancy of our friendship in the Gospel. … We owe it to each other as brothers in Christ, who share an affection for the Gospel … to, as iron sharpens iron, talk about these issues so that we can be evermore faithful in preaching and teaching the Gospel.”

Patterson urged Southern Baptists not to follow the example of the English Baptists who divided over the issue. After the split, those who held to limited atonement (the particular Baptists) became "anti-missionary and anti-evangelistic," while those who held to general atonement (the General Baptists) emphasized doctrine so little that they "became universalists," Patterson said
 

RobE

New member
patman said:
I apologize that I stretched the meaning of your post, Rob.

As it turns out, when it happens to you, you aren't to happy about it, so it seems. You even called me on it. How much worst is it when you do it to God?

You can differentiate the difference between "God might not want to know something" and "God can not know something."

So can you differentiate between "God knew ___________ would happen before it happened" and "God knows everything that will happen before it happens?"

So you know, you can't fill anything into the blank. Only things out of the Bible. Like, "God knew Israel would be slaves in a foreign land would happen before it happened."

Can you see the difference? If you can, you can see why I, as well as you, require more evidence from scripture.

I see and accept the difference in the statements, but you refuse to see the damage that the first statement does to your argument about free will. You would require me to prove God knows all events. The requirement for this evidence is all-encompassing and it ensnares your thinking. I prefer to address the problem in a different way; specifically, looking at your own logic and showing where it breaks down. Obviously, proving every event was foreknown by God is a task which I am unable to achieve through a direct quote from the Bible; or you would have heard it a thousand times over by now. Your problem is that your position isn't scriptural since the scripture shows God doing exactly what you say is impossible - knowing the future actions of free will agents.

Can you see that if I use your own logic and say that God is unable to know what free will agents will do then the scripture becomes unsound? God's promises become hopes and wishes. Open Theism states that God is unable to know the actions of humans or those same actions are not free by definition. Is this true or not? The scripture points to God foreknowing the actions of individuals and foreknowing the actions of entire nations of individuals. By your definition then these individuals were not free. I need only produce one instance where your logic doesn't hold up in order to prove that it is unsound. Either He is able to know the future actions of free will agents or He is not.

Which is it? If you are going to claim that He is sometimes able to know then you must tell me why this is true. The story of Abraham, Joseph, and Jesus Christ are sufficient to prove that God is able to know far in advance the actions of free will agents. The story of Joseph is with such complexity that God had to know the actions of several free will agents and the future actions of the nation of Amorites(I have no idea how many free will agents existed in Canaan at that time.).

Genesis 12: 1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."

Genesis 15:12 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. 13 Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."

Gen. 22:18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

Gen. 26:4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed,

Is. 49:6 he says:
"It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."​

Zech. 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!
Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!
See, your king comes to you,
righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from days of eternity. "

Gen. 49:8 "Judah, your brothers will praise you;
your hand will be on the neck of your enemies;
your father's sons will bow down to you.

9 You are a lion's cub, O Judah;
you return from the prey, my son.
Like a lion he crouches and lies down,
like a lioness—who dares to rouse him?

10 The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until Shiloh comes;
and the obedience of the nations is His.

2 Samuel 7:12,13" 'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me ; your throne will be established forever.' "

Psalms 23:31 They will proclaim his righteousness
to a people yet unborn—
for he has done it.

Psalm 22
A psalm of David.
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.
3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel. [a]
4 In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
8 "He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him."
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.
10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced [c] my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.
19 But you, O LORD, be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save [d] me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.
23 You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you [e] will I fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the LORD will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the LORD
and he rules over the nations.
29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness
to a people yet unborn—
for he has done it.

Rob
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Thx Zapp for the article. It is important to dialogue with the right heart and motive.

Contrary to the article, Arminians strongly affirm the inerrancy of Scripture also.

In discussions of Calvinism vs Arminianism, the alternate view of Open Theism must also be wrestled with. It is the most biblical and coherent in my mind.
 

zapp

New member
godrulz said:
Thx Zapp for the article. It is important to dialogue with the right heart and motive.

Contrary to the article, Arminians strongly affirm the inerrancy of Scripture also.

In discussions of Calvinism vs Arminianism, the alternate view of Open Theism must also be wrestled with. It is the most biblical and coherent in my mind.

I'm with you on that point G .. Maybe you can help me though with my squeamishness about the Term Open T or rather the "webster-standard" definition. You'll have to forgive... I am a longtime marketeer by trade and things that are misnamed in such a way as to frustrate any attempt to quickly grasp really bug me. Like "war on Terror" as though one can kill a concept with a nuke... lunacy. its a war on Jihadists [people]... but I digress.

The definitions of Opennism or Openness or Open Theology.... whatever, that I have seen, in an effort to be concise and impactful, seem to resort to rather hazy subjective things like "... emphasizes the Love and Devotion qualities of God, his relational nature.... ". That kind of thing is like triangulating what the thing is rather than just stating it plainly. Understand that the pitched battles in the church over the last thirty years, with liberal theologians wanting to "feel good about inclusiveness and acceptance and...." all that, have made honest seekers of the Lord and His Word very wary of anything that seems in sympathy with the destructionist liberal bent. You see what I'm getting at? And now we have McClaren and the syrupy "emergent missional inclusive non-judging free-thought artistic evolutionary caring reconciliatory and nice church" movement. So, with the good concept that Open T addresses, you're stuck having to use 10,000 words to UNdo the misconception and false linkages caused by not having a concise handle on the important theological concept.

Help me!
z
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Non-open theists live as if it is true even if their ideas on paper are different (determinism, etc.). They live as if the future is at least partially open even if they believe it to be settled. It takes great mental gymnastics to try to squeeze reality into a closed future. e.g. If God knows that I will be killed in a car crash if I go a cerrtain way, why does he not warn me to take another route to avoid the foreseen car crash? If he does warn me and I do avert the accident, then how did he see me dead to begin with? This would make his certain future knowledge false. It would also limit His free ability to respond and make it dependent on knowing the future like a crystal ball, even though it can change, though it is fixed?!

It is more coherent to understand that the future is contingent/possible rather than actual/certain. The future is partially open and partially settled.

Which brings us to your semantical concern. Any one term will be limited and subject to pejorative abuse. As Open Theists rightly affirm, (cf. similar problem with fundamental Christian labels...we are fundamentalists, but do not like the secular, negative concepts associated with the term= return to basics vs freaky terrorist) the issue is more about the openness of God's creation, not of God Himself. It is a form of relational and free will theism (vs impersonal/deterministic). It emphasizes both God's transcendence and immanence, not either/or. The future is open, hence openness views. This contrasts with a closed or deterministic future.

What terms would you prefer? We may be stuck with qualifying and explaining what we mean: e.g. we do not deny sovereignty nor omniscience. The issue is how is God sovereign (providential vs meticulous) and how does He know all of the future (some possible vs all exhaustive/certain)?


How does 'biblical- theism-free-from-philosophical-trappings' grab you?

Perhaps we could have an acronym contest? S.W.A.T. view (sovereign with alternate truths or whatever). :doh:
 

Bob Hill

TOL Subscriber
God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
Eze 33:11 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?”

Our God is touched by our afflictions as well as Israel’s.

What does the Bible really say about God’s immutability.

The first time God changes is in Gen 6:4-7 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

Not only did God change His mind in Gen 6, but, because He is compassionate and gracious, God wants to repent.

Jer 26:3,13,19 Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may repent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings. 13 Now therefore, amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; then the LORD will repent concerning the doom that He has pronounced against you. 19 Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah ever put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and seek the LORD’s favor? And the Lord repented concerning the doom which He had pronounced against them. But we are doing great evil against ourselves.

God repents because of His compassion.
Psa 106:43-45 Many times He delivered them; But they rebelled in their counsel, And were brought low for their iniquity. 44 Nevertheless He regarded their affliction, When He heard their cry; 45 And for their sake He remembered His covenant, and repented according to the multitude of His mercies.

Joel 2:12-14 Now, therefore, says the LORD, Turn to Me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning. 13 So rend your heart, and not your garments; Return to the LORD your God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness; And He repents from doing harm. 14 Who knows if He will turn and repent, and leave a blessing behind Him – A grain offering and a drink offering For the LORD your God?

Further, He lays down the ground rules for repentance in Jer 18:1-11 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words. 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make. 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter? says the LORD. Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. 11 Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus says the LORD: Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

God also responds to prayer. Ex 32:9-14 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 “Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” 11 Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 “Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. 13 “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14 So the LORD repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Amos 7:1-6 Thus the Lord GOD showed me: Behold, He formed locust swarms at the beginning of the late crop; indeed it was the late crop after the king’s mowings. 2 And so it was, when they had finished eating the grass of the land, that I said: “O Lord GOD, forgive, I pray! Oh, that Jacob may stand, For he is small!” 3 So the LORD repented concerning this. It shall not be, said the LORD. 4 Thus the Lord GOD showed me: Behold, the Lord GOD called for conflict by fire, and it consumed the great deep and devoured the territory. 5 Then I said: O Lord GOD, cease, I pray! Oh, that Jacob may stand, For he is small! 6 So the LORD repented concerning this. This also shall not be, said the Lord GOD.

Finally, God doesn’t want us to be like robots or serve him against our will. God wants us to serve Him willingly.
Psa 32:8-11 I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will guide you with My eye. 9 Do not be like the horse or like the mule, Which have no understanding, Which must be harnessed with bit and bridle, Else they will not come near you. 10 Many sorrows shall be to the wicked; But he who trusts in the LORD, mercy shall surround him. 11 Be glad in the LORD and rejoice, you righteous; And shout for joy, all you upright in heart!

In Christ,
Bob Hill
 

zapp

New member
Knight said:
Does God have control of His knowledge? Or does God's knowledge control Him?

In other words....
If God decided He didn't want to know something could He choose to NOT know it? Or is God a slave to His own knowledge?

This is why I wrote my "perfect machine" analog. It must be depressing to have nothing to do, at all. God sees all, knows all, is finished with all, has sat down permanently, is not moved by anything, has prewired the universe and all of its peeps, and the machine is just running.... the perfect machine.... going and going and going and going. There's really no need for an intelligence to intervene, because the machine needs no intervention... all thought out ahead of time. no maintenance required.
 

zapp

New member
godrulz said:
What terms would you prefer? We may be stuck with qualifying and explaining what we mean: e.g. we do not deny sovereignty nor omniscience. The issue is how is God sovereign (providential vs meticulous) and how does He know all of the future (some possible vs all exhaustive/certain)?


How does 'biblical- theism-free-from-philosophical-trappings' grab you?

Perhaps we could have an acronym contest? S.W.A.T. view (sovereign with alternate truths or whatever). :doh:

I like it! swat.

"Sovereign" is another one that, in theological circles, has taken on a complex meaning that is NOTHING like the actual meaning of the English word. And I say this with a bit of caution, but in my study, the idea of "Sovereignty" that is employed by Calvinists is not to be found in the Old Testament view.
I don't see why we cannot leave the word with its main and plain definition. God is sovereign, which simply means that there is no King, no Ruler that has a higher position than He. That's it. It does not mean [and I'm sure at least a couple of you would agree] "Fatalism". "Allah be praised... whatever happened must have been Allah's will.... He never tells us nothin' ". Fatalism. ... its the scapegoat for all of life's issues. "he must have had a good reason for that little child to grow up in an abusive home". "he killed your mother because he needed her in heaven...... God is Sovereign..... he's obviously in control".
but wait a minute.... i thought the world lies in the power of the Evil one??????
talk about confused.

how about "Not Exactly Sovereign Delegated Authority To Free Will Peeps" NESDATFWP.......
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
zapp said:
This is why I wrote my "perfect machine" analog. It must be depressing to have nothing to do, at all. God sees all, knows all, is finished with all, has sat down permanently, is not moved by anything, has prewired the universe and all of its peeps, and the machine is just running.... the perfect machine.... going and going and going and going. There's really no need for an intelligence to intervene, because the machine needs no intervention... all thought out ahead of time. no maintenance required.


Sounds like Deism.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
zapp said:
I like it! swat.

"Sovereign" is another one that, in theological circles, has taken on a complex meaning that is NOTHING like the actual meaning of the English word. And I say this with a bit of caution, but in my study, the idea of "Sovereignty" that is employed by Calvinists is not to be found in the Old Testament view.
I don't see why we cannot leave the word with its main and plain definition. God is sovereign, which simply means that there is no King, no Ruler that has a higher position than He. That's it. It does not mean [and I'm sure at least a couple of you would agree] "Fatalism". "Allah be praised... whatever happened must have been Allah's will.... He never tells us nothin' ". Fatalism. ... its the scapegoat for all of life's issues. "he must have had a good reason for that little child to grow up in an abusive home". "he killed your mother because he needed her in heaven...... God is Sovereign..... he's obviously in control".
but wait a minute.... i thought the world lies in the power of the Evil one??????
talk about confused.

how about "Not Exactly Sovereign Delegated Authority To Free Will Peeps" NESDATFWP.......


It is interesting that Islam and Calvinism are deterministic/fatalistic when push comes to shove.
 

patman

Active member
RobE said:
Can you see that if I use your own logic and say that God is unable to know what free will agents will do then the scripture becomes unsound? God's promises become hopes and wishes. Open Theism states that God is unable to know the actions of humans or those same actions are not free by definition. Is this true or not? The scripture points to God foreknowing the actions of individuals and foreknowing the actions of entire nations of individuals. By your definition then these individuals were not free. I need only produce one instance where your logic doesn't hold up in order to prove that it is unsound. Either He is able to know the future actions of free will agents or He is not.

Rob, I feel as though you have forgotten everything I have said to you. I keep reflecting on the year that we have been discussing this and do not understand why you would think I believe God can't know any future action of freewill agents..

God has ways of knowing future actions and events where freewill actions are involved. But that doesn't mean he knows all of them, yet he can know some, not all, some.. not all, some.

Let me ask you this:

Is there any other explanation to God's knowing Israel's enslavement to Egypt besides a supernatural and total undying knowledge of all future events?

(hint, the answer is yes)
 

Bob Hill

TOL Subscriber
The thrust of open Theism is this: man has the freedom to deny God or believe in the redemption that He has provided.

We do not believe that God knows all who will become Christians in the future since He wants all to be saved.

Bob Hill
 

RobE

New member
zapp said:
This is why I wrote my "perfect machine" analog. It must be depressing to have nothing to do, at all. God sees all, knows all, is finished with all, has sat down permanently, is not moved by anything, has prewired the universe and all of its peeps, and the machine is just running.... the perfect machine.... going and going and going and going. There's really no need for an intelligence to intervene, because the machine needs no intervention... all thought out ahead of time. no maintenance required.

Even traditional views on this recognize that God is not a 'machine' and is personal. To cast Open Theism as the only religion to believe God is relational would be in direct opposition to 2000 years of Christian history.

Rob
 

RobE

New member
patman said:
Rob, I feel as though you have forgotten everything I have said to you. I keep reflecting on the year that we have been discussing this and do not understand why you would think I believe God can't know any future action of freewill agents..

God has ways of knowing future actions and events where freewill actions are involved. But that doesn't mean he knows all of them, yet he can know some, not all, some.. not all, some.

Let me ask you this:

Is there any other explanation to God's knowing Israel's enslavement to Egypt besides a supernatural and total undying knowledge of all future events?

(hint, the answer is yes)

All right, I'll play.

Genesis 15:12 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. 13 Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."​

1)How did God know of Israel's enslavement in advance?
2)How did God know that Abraham would have a son?
3)How did God know that Isaac would have a son?
4)How did God know that Jacob would have a son?
5)How did God know that Joseph would be sent to Egypt?
6)How did God know that Jospeh would rise to power?
7)How did God know that a famine was coming?
8)How did God know Jacob would send his sons to Egypt?
9)How did God know that Joseph wouldn't kill his brothers?
10)How did God know the Jews would be freed?
11)How did God know where the Jews would go?
12)How did God know when the sin of the Amorites would reach its full measure?
13)How did God know any of this before Isaac was born?

Genesis 12: 1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."​

14)How did God know through the thousands of free will agents and thousands of years that Jesus Christ would come from the house of Abraham to save mankind before Abraham even had a son?

Since man is free God was unable to make these events happen through power, so how is it that He knew of them hundreds, or even thousands, of years in advance without foresight?

Rob
 

RobE

New member
Bob Hill said:
The thrust of open Theism is this: man has the freedom to deny God or believe in the redemption that He has provided.

As is the thrust of traditional Christianity. In fact, I would say that all of Christianity believes this.

We do not believe that God knows all who will become Christians in the future since He wants all to be saved.

Knowledge is different than ordination. Would it be fair to say that God knows not all will be saved even though His desire is otherwise? Does this mean that His knowledge keeps them from being saved in any way whatsoever or that they never had an opportunity for salvation? God need not be ignorant of the outcome for the opportunity to exist. Open Theism is different in the fact that its conclusion on foreknowledge requires God to be ignorant or less knowledgeable; and basically 'imperfect'. Process, process, and more process. Thank Whitehead for an evolving truth, knowledge, and perfection which pervades the thinking on modernism.

Rob Mauldin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top