ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[patman]

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Settled Viewers

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Settled Viewers

I couldn't help but notice the lack of good responses.

:think:

We are getting plenty of grammar lessons and "evidence from silence" examples. But, realistically, why is it so important that you keep it up?

3 words. No scriptural evidence. Only assumptions. You take God's illustration of some future knowledge (that can be explained apart from seeing the future) and run with it, instead of letting it be what it is.

Some future knowledge does not equal TOTAL future knowledge.

 

[godrulz]

I don't think we are talking about amnesia here. This is a matter of God's choice and is highly selective. I don't purport to understand how God choses not to remember. I do know that it is not due to mental defect or injury. I can only surmise what it may or may not be but my opinion is just that , my opinion. It should not be presented as fact

There is no coherent way to try to explain how an omniscient being can chose to not remember. Your faulty assumption is leading to a wrong conclusion. You must either rethink how God does not bring up sins or you must compromise traditional understanding of biblical omniscience.

For the thinkers out there:

Hasker's definition of omniscience:

"It is impossible that God should at any time believe what is false, or fail to believe any true proposition such that His knowing that proposition at that time is logically possible."

i.e. God knows all that is knowable.

Clark Pinnock: "Aspects of the future, being unsettled, are not yet wholly known even to God. It does not mean that God is ignorant of something He ought to know, but that many things in the future are only possible and not yet actual. Therefore, He knows them correctly as possible and not actual."

 

[godrulz]

I couldn't help but notice the lack of good responses.

:think:

We are getting plenty of grammar lessons and evidence from silence examples. But, realistically, why is it so important that you keep it up?

3 words. No scriptural evidence. Only assumptions. You take God's illustration of some future knowledge (that can be explained apart from seeing the future) and run with it, instead of letting it be what it is.

Some future knowledge does not equal TOTAL future knowledge.

B-I-N-G-O

The closed view proof texts settled texts that Open Theism also affirms. The closed view than ignores or makes figurative the other unsettled motif.

One cannot extrapolate from a specific example to a universal principle in all cases, especially when it means ignoring all of the relevant evidence.

Ah, the power of a preconceived theology to make one miss the boat of balanced truth :bang:

 

[Lon]

B-I-N-G-O

The closed view proof texts settled texts that Open Theism also affirms. The closed view than ignores or makes figurative the other unsettled motif.

One cannot extrapolate from a specific example to a universal principle in all cases, especially when it means ignoring all of the relevant evidence.

Ah, the power of a preconceived theology to make one miss the boat of balanced truth :bang:

OV proposes a limit to time considerations that at is foundation is the precept for your views. Unless you were to agree that this interpretaion could be faulty or flat out wrong, you'd never be able to appreciate SV at all. It has nothing to do with 'proof-texting' but scripture interpretation you disagree with. God's timelessness does create a natural rendering of the text. We are at an impasse.

 

[RobE]

I couldn't help but notice the lack of good responses.



We are getting plenty of grammar lessons and "evidence from silence" examples. But, realistically, why is it so important that you keep it up?

3 words. No scriptural evidence. Only assumptions. You take God's illustration of some future knowledge (that can be explained apart from seeing the future) and run with it, instead of letting it be what it is.

Some future knowledge does not equal TOTAL future knowledge.

:think:

Allright, I'll take another crack at it. I could talk about Judas, the good Thief, Joseph, Peter, Jesus, the Garden of Eden, or countless other stories that show God has foreknowledge. But, I think I'll use one of the o.v.'s favorites this time.

2 Kings 20:1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."​

As we know Hezekiah did recover and God gave him 15 more years of life.

2 Kings 20:4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: 5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life.​

I have often asked how God foreknew Hezekiah was going to die if foreknowledge is untrue. I have often asked how did God foreknow that Hezekiah would live 15 more years.

This time I will ask how did God foreknow that the millions of free will agents who were wandering the earth at the time wouldn't disrupt His plans for Hezekiah in one way or another? Couldn't one of Hezekiah's servants decided to kill him one night? Couldn't the cook have served Hezekiah some bad food and accidentally poisoned Him? Or is it the claim of the o.v. that God threw a supernatural shield around Hezekiah to give him fifteen more years of life?

Remember, we're talking about averting the wills of countless unknow free will agents here. To continue the example I'll give you another prophecy which occurs right after the story of Hezekiah's impending death.

2 Kings 20:16 Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the LORD : 17 The time will surely come when everything in your palace, and all that your fathers have stored up until this day, will be carried off to Babylon. Nothing will be left, says the LORD. 18 And some of your descendants, your own flesh and blood, that will be born to you, will be taken away, and they will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon."​

God told this to Hezekiah decades before Neb. showed up and did exactly this. Throughout this time, is it the claim of the o.v. that God manipulated events to bring about the captivity of the Jews by Babylon? Did God interfere with free will agents to bring about what Hezekiah was foretold of?

Rob

 

[godrulz]

OV proposes a limit to time considerations that at is foundation is the precept for your views. Unless you were to agree that this interpretaion could be faulty or flat out wrong, you'd never be able to appreciate SV at all. It has nothing to do with 'proof-texting' but scripture interpretation you disagree with. God's timelessness does create a natural rendering of the text. We are at an impasse.

Proof texts for 'eternal now' timelessness/simultaneity (good luck).

The simple view in Scripture is endless time:

Ps. 90:2 (before...from everlasting to everlasting); 93:2,5 (endless days); 102:23-27 (His years will never end); Rev. 1:4,8 (tensed phrases about God); Rev. 8:1; 6:10; 22:1,2 (time in eternity/heaven), etc.

 

[patman]

:think:

Allright, I'll take another crack at it. I could talk about Judas, the good Thief, Joseph, Peter, Jesus, the Garden of Eden, or countless other stories that show God has foreknowledge. But, I think I'll use one of the o.v.'s favorites this time.

2 Kings 20:1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."​

As we know Hezekiah did recover and God gave him 15 more years of life.

2 Kings 20:4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: 5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life.​

I have often asked how God foreknew Hezekiah was going to die if foreknowledge is untrue. I have often asked how did God foreknow that Hezekiah would live 15 more years.

This time I will ask how did God foreknow that the millions of free will agents who were wandering the earth at the time wouldn't disrupt His plans for Hezekiah in one way or another? Couldn't one of Hezekiah's servants decided to kill him one night? Couldn't the cook have served Hezekiah some bad food and accidentally poisoned Him? Or is it the claim of the o.v. that God threw a supernatural shield around Hezekiah to give him fifteen more years of life?

Remember, we're talking about averting the wills of countless unknow free will agents here. To continue the example I'll give you another prophecy which occurs right after the story of Hezekiah's impending death.

2 Kings 20:16 Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the LORD : 17 The time will surely come when everything in your palace, and all that your fathers have stored up until this day, will be carried off to Babylon. Nothing will be left, says the LORD. 18 And some of your descendants, your own flesh and blood, that will be born to you, will be taken away, and they will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon."​

God told this to Hezekiah decades before Neb. showed up and did exactly this. Throughout this time, is it the claim of the o.v. that God manipulated events to bring about the captivity of the Jews by Babylon? Did God interfere with free will agents to bring about what Hezekiah was foretold of?

Rob

So? You just presented more problems for the S.V.. God could have dealt with each situation accordingly if he really wanted something to happen, sometimes he does some times he doesn't. There is no issue.

You just proved us right, really.

 

[RobE]

So? You just presented more problems for the S.V.. God could have dealt with each situation accordingly if he really wanted something to happen, sometimes he does some times he doesn't. There is no issue.

You just proved us right, really.

The problem is that God had to foreknow of the impending outcomes BEFORE they happened. This is a logical absurdity according to open theism since free will agents are involved.

I'm more than confident in stating that absolutely no one from the traditional Christian view is claiming that God is unable to do what He wants. Keep in mind that all of our wants are based upon knowledge.

It is the 'open' theist who states that God is unable to know sometimes while being quite able to know at others.....

Clark Pinnock: "Aspects of the future, being unsettled, are not yet wholly known even to God. It does not mean that God is ignorant of something He ought to know, but that many things in the future are only possible and not yet actual. Therefore, He knows them correctly as possible and not actual."​

The 'double speak' of Pinnock shows his attempt to escape the rock and the hard place.

ALL aspects of the future are merely possible whether they are what open theism calls 'settled' or 'unsettled'. The future has not yet occured and does not exist(from our perspective anyway) so ALL things in the future are not yet actual.

Pinnock then turns around and says 'He knows them correctly as possible and not actual.", :doh:

How is it that He is able to 'know' them if they are in the future whether actual(which is impossible) or possible? :bang: Call Clark and tell him to make up his mind. Or is He arguing that God exists 'outside of time' and merely interferes with the course of what He foreknows to bring about alternate outcomes? :juggle:

If so then welcome home to what you call the settled view Mr. Pinnock.

Rob

 

[patman]

The problem is that God had to foreknow of the impending outcomes BEFORE they happened. This is a logical absurdity according to open theism since free will agents are involved.

......

Pinnock then turns around and says 'He knows them correctly as possible and not actual.", :doh:

How is it that He is able to 'know' them if they are in the future whether actual(which is impossible) or possible? :bang: Call Clark and tell him to make up his mind. Or is He arguing that God exists 'outside of time' and merely interferes with the course of what He foreknows to bring about alternate outcomes? :juggle:

If so then welcome home to what you call the settled view Mr. Pinnock.

Rob

It is truly sad. You seem to not know what possible is. I would submit that it is possible for me to leave my wife and hook up with Jessica Simpson and end up with millions of dollars. But that isn't actual, is it?

I have free will, right? You think God could predict what I would do about the above statement? Do think he is nervous about me sinning in such a way?

I personally think he is knee slapping himself, laughing at the idea. Because he knows the other possibility, me staying faithful and never even meeting Ms. Simpson is far more likely, and better.

So two possibilities, one highly predictable, one not. One actual, one not. So the future appears to be known, but not by crystal ball, Rob.

Don't you see what Pinnock is saying? Knowing a possibility is not truly knowing the actual outcome. He is smart enough to know which possibilities are more likely.

You have been chatting with us O.V.er's for a long time Rob... Your attempts are getting sad. No mean to offend, but it is just the truth.

Why don't you reconsider the S.V.? Have you truly considered it? The O.V. is strictly based upon scripture and logical. The S.V. on the other hand stretches scripture and makes up reasons to ignore or discount many verses.

The choice is yours, but truth is the road I take. Let me take it or leave me alone.

 

[godrulz]

Just because Rob does not understand Open Theism or the coherence of Pinnock's statements, does not make them untrue.

 

[Philetus]

Hey, Patman!
Congratulations on the 1000 posts! You make reading this thread a joy! You are a blessing to me. Have some rep! (after I spread it around a little more.)
P

 

[Philetus]

Just because Rob does not understand Open Theism or the coherence of Pinnock's statements, does not make them untrue.

:rotfl:

Nothing could be more accurate, or hilariously.

One thing though, He has brought out some great responses, even though his posts prove he hasn't learned a thing ... still hasn't got a clue.






BTW, Robe, I told you not to use my name again ... ever.

 

[patman]

Hey, Patman!
Congratulations on the 1000 posts! You make reading this thread a joy! You are a blessing to me. Have some rep! (after I spread it around a little more.)
P

Wow, thanks Philetus.

Lately I've felt frustrated at the S.V.ers. Check Mate has been called several times on here, and they will not reconsider. So I've taken them MUCH less seriously lately too, in turn.

They won't like that I said that, but I try to look at things objectively, as though I were a third party. And wow, the S.V. just can't stand against scripture. So as of late I am... left pointing out random things.

-sigh-

:dizzy: Patman

 

[Lon]

Well then- Which is it? Time is a mere perception of contraint to motion and advance?

We are locked in. There is no possible way to appreciate anything outside of this structure but I don't believe you can liken it to chess. This discussion is much too complicated for that. No checkmate move exists.

Granted, from your consideration of impossibilities, it looks absurd to believe in anything else, but the conclusion is hasty.

We are discussing something which is not straightforward or clear at all. We obviously don't even agree on our definitions of time, progression, choice or anything else related. It is more like you are playing chess and we are playing pinochle. We aren't even talking 'to' one another because our perceptions are so different.

How will John see his vision for Revelation in the future? Will it be exactly like his conception in every detail? Was John physically there? When the elder told him not to grieve could John have touched him?

Here is the deal: I have no idea how this was accomplished or what transpired, but it is a real journey into a future event and it is clear. This OV avoids by dismissing it logically. I'm not able to do that from my perspective. It is cloudy at best to suggest such a thing and puts God in a logical box that not only seems to me, to contradict this book, but also seems unlikely. I'd rather be perplexed than wrong: Humbly puzzled than pridefully incorrect.

 

[patman]

Well then- Which is it? Time is a mere perception of contraint to motion and advance?

We are locked in. There is no possible way to appreciate anything outside of this structure but I don't believe you can liken it to chess. This discussion is much too complicated for that. No checkmate move exists.

Granted, from your consideration of impossibilities, it looks absurd to believe in anything else, but the conclusion is hasty.

We are discussing something which is not straightforward or clear at all. We obviously don't even agree on our definitions of time, progression, choice or anything else related. It is more like you are playing chess and we are playing pinochle. We aren't even talking 'to' one another because our perceptions are so different.

How will John see his vision for Revelation in the future? Will it be exactly like his conception in every detail? Was John physically there? When the elder told him not to grieve could John have touched him?

Here is the deal: I have no idea how this was accomplished or what transpired, but it is a real journey into a future event and it is clear. This OV avoids by dismissing it logically. I'm not able to do that from my perspective. It is cloudy at best to suggest such a thing and puts God in a logical box that not only seems to me, to contradict this book, but also seems unlikely. I'd rather be perplexed than wrong: Humbly puzzled than pridefully incorrect.

Hey Lonster

Glad to see you back, haven't heard from you in a while.

You asked in another thread about my studies, if they took off after my step into the OV, and the answer is no.

I didn't really have a great understanding of scripture until I was 16, but I was heavy in study since the age of 11. I read the bible all the time, I was a nerd in more ways than one.

I was 17 when I read through it at least two times all together. I had a really studied group of people around me, including my parents and their friends. I learned a lot. I also studied time travel. I learned about all the theories and the possibilities.

I saw problems with the S.V., but was under the assumption that is how things are and not to question it. Until I was forced to by the death of someone very close to me. I had to stop being naive. The world isn't a great place, it is full of terrible things, and once I got a taste of that, I couldn't stop thinking about that.

My pain was one thing, but that is just me... this sort of thing happens to everyone. We all go through it and will die. Not all of us will die old, some of us don't even get a chance. Some of us are killed by people who die old and happy.

The world is decaying evil and dying, and it will all go down the drain.

But I didn't change my views. I ignored the problem and went without an answer that no church, no friend, no studied person anywhere could answer. "Why did God create a world knowing it would turn so evil."

Read this thread, people try to answer it by "God has a good purpose" is the typical answer-nonanswer you get. I think it is pretty easy to see why it isn't an answer, because God is supposed to be good, and doesn't even tempt. Yet he'll make creation in such a way that the steering wheel is pointed straight to hell.

Once I was exposed to the OV in my 20's, for the first time it all fell together. But I had a million questions that needed answered too, but the answers were there! For the first time the words I looked over in the Bible were coming together, because before I was forced to ignore them.

So there is the answer to that question you asked.

As to your post, understanding time is something you should be willing to give up when scripture holds the answers for us. Let it guide your understanding about time, not the other way around. We should always believe the truth in scripture over anything.

The O.V. may appear to put God in a box when you have grown in faith thinking God has these powers he doesn't. But I am sure you can see how if you believed God could sin, then someone came along and said "no he can't," that you would also say that person was putting God in a box...?

O.V. wants to see God as the Bible shows him, just like S.V. tries to do. Yet the S.V., as I hope you can see, is really reading more things in to the bible through logical reasoning than O.V. does... more over it is bad logic.

A checkmate is when the king is cornered and cannot move without being taken. How can the S.V. say their belief is scriptural when proof is asked for and no good proof is given? When Scripture shows God changing his mind about prophecy, when God doesn't even claim this power, and when so called problem verses are addressed, what is the next move?

It is cheating. That's the next move. You'll have to stop playing by the Bible and start making your own ideas... and that is where this is headed.

 

[Lon]

Hey Lonster

As to your post, understanding time is something you should be willing to give up when scripture holds the answers for us. Let it guide your understanding about time, not the other way around. We should always believe the truth in scripture over anything.

The O.V. may appear to put God in a box when you have grown in faith thinking God has these powers he doesn't. But I am sure you can see how if you believed God could sin, then someone came along and said "no he can't," that you would also say that person was putting God in a box...?

O.V. wants to see God as the Bible shows him, just like S.V. tries to do. Yet the S.V., as I hope you can see, is really reading more things in to the bible through logical reasoning than O.V. does... more over it is bad logic.

A checkmate is when the king is cornered and cannot move without being taken. How can the S.V. say their belief is scriptural when proof is asked for and no good proof is given? When Scripture shows God changing his mind about prophecy, when God doesn't even claim this power, and when so called problem verses are addressed, what is the next move?

It is cheating. That's the next move. You'll have to stop playing by the Bible and start making your own ideas... and that is where this is headed.

I understand that driving force behind OV. What I believe it attempts to do is let God off the hook but I'm not of that inclination. I hate sin and its effects on me and the world. I cannot give you any explanation from my perspective but I believe OV is wrong in assessment. God transcends time. It is a truth I believe must be true. Again an impasse is in contention. What I mostly see is bashing on this point, nothing I've heard or read has convinced me otherwise and I don't feel blocked into any logic corner at all. I believe you are constrained in your thinking to a two-dimensional chessboard and are missing not only a third dimension but any possibility of any other dimension. I'm locked into this 3-D world with occassional glimpses into another realm that my mind can sometimes grasp but never apprehend or truly appreciate. What I cannot do is define anything outside of my existence and experience with 3-D constraints. When John transcribed this 3-D existence, it busted any sense OV could possibly make to pieces for me. Every instance of future clarity in scripture busts out of 3 dimensions I know and reel with logical perception problems for me. Eternity past busts out of my logical perception. I cannot fathom the logic. My mind stops working as I contemplate it. What we both agree on is that God is God and all His attributes are perfect. I understand a God who transcends time and yet with all the problematic implications remains both truly good and perfect. The dichotomy is there to be sure. How else could Paul say we see through a dark glass or John that we will one day know even as we are 'fully' known? A dark glass is a dichotomy view. It recognizes that the things of God are beyond us at present and no systematic theology is going to paint that glass any more clearly than "darkly" (Paul's words). If you are seeing theology more clearly through your lense, I'd suggest re-examining it. If your playing board is flat, I'd suggest you look up, there are other dimensions and factors that escape our perception in these considerations and OV, in my perception, has limited response to similar perplexing questions. Is it a better lens? I don't think so, but it is a lens I don't mind at all. It is good to look to God with new appreciations if they focus on the height, depth, and breadth of God's love for us (which is unfathomable!).

Eph 3:18 you may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,
Eph 3:19 and thus to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

These two verses astound me! To apprehend and comprehend that which is beyond apprehension and comprehension! We are to do the impossible here. It makes no sense and yet makes all the sense in the world. It is a glass darkly yet fills us up completely in our finiteness. It is beyond us, yet fills us completely. God is too big for our hearts, reasoning, logic, and apprehensions. God and His relationship to us is outside of our comprehension. How can I limit Him with any constraint of my 3 dimensional appreciation? When I discover the height, depth, and breadth of His love, I find He is yet outside of my understanding: my understanding is my own limited fullness of meaning. Yet God exists even moreso outside of my comprehension. This isn't like palming a basketball, it is like palming the world and my perception doesn't even recognize that I'm palming a globe. Like the two dimensional chessboard, my perception is flat wrong.

 

[themuzicman]

SO, you claim that OVT is wrong because you think that no one can invalidate your view, due to the fact that it "surpasses understanding"?

How do we know, then, that your view is correct?

What prevents me from making the same claim?

Muz

 

[Clete]

SO, you claim that OVT is wrong because you think that no one can invalidate your view, due to the fact that it "surpasses understanding"?

How do we know, then, that your view is correct?

What prevents me from making the same claim?

Muz

Excellent questions!

:BRAVO:

 

[Lon]

SO, you claim that OVT is wrong because you think that no one can invalidate your view, due to the fact that it "surpasses understanding"?

How do we know, then, that your view is correct?

What prevents me from making the same claim?

Muz

I understand that complaint. I appreciate the problematic. All the backpatting and attaboys in the world do not make them go away however. OV does not adequately deal with any prophetic vision. I affirm that it is not only predictive, it is future reality to the exact letter. This flies in the face of any logical perception that speaks to the contrary. How do I explain this? I cannot, but I believe OV falls flat on it's limitation. What is possible is going to remain illogical if you are constrained to your perception which is limited. In the same way we are filled to capacity with God's limitless, incomprehensible love, our logic, rationalizations, and mental capacity to apprehend is constrained.

Glass darkly means 'dark' not clear. How can you know? Scripture says so, it is clear enough to see through. It is dark enough to make us realize that we are very limited. The only truth is God's truth. What prevents you from making the same claim? A glass darkly. It is the same. I've said the OV is appreciated and meant it. I just think it is a trade for one set of theological problems for another set, not a better view. In some considerations, I believe it is a worse trade-off, especially in concern of who God is and the constraints it applies to my considerations of Him and His Word.

We all must have the same considerations for correct theolgy, which is why even though we disagree on these peripherals, that we understand and adhere to basic doctrine for Salvation, the work and nature of God, and holy living. We agree because we have God's Word and His Holy Spirit to guide and watch over our thinking. God is the container of our doctrine, and we rise or fall on this based on Him and what He tells us. If we have disagreements, I'm constrained to believe this is the area of 'higher math' or glass darkly. I do not believe it touches so much of what we do imperically know and adhere to from scripture because our answers on basic doctrine is most nearly the same: God is triune. Salvation is found in Christ. Holy Living is our calling etc. etc.

 

[Clete]

I don't want to steal Muz's thunder here but I just can't resist responding to Lonster's post. I look forward to seeing what you have to say in response as well Muz so don't let me just take completely over here.

I understand that complaint. I appreciate the problematic. All the backpatting and attaboys in the world do not make them go away however. OV does not adequately deal with any prophetic vision. I affirm that it is not only predictive, it is future reality to the exact letter.

Sounds lovely but it is not biblical. There are several prophecies which did not come to pass as stated.

This flies in the face of any logical perception that speaks to the contrary. How do I explain this? I cannot, but I believe OV falls flat on it's limitation.

How so? The open view takes the Bible to mean what it says, including the times when it shows us prophecies that didn't happen.

What is possible is going to remain illogical if you are constrained to your perception which is limited.

Your theology is therefore unfalsifiable.

In the same way we are filled to capacity with God's limitless, incomprehensible love, our logic, rationalizations, and mental capacity to apprehend is constrained.

God is logic (John 1:1). Your position here is therefore contradictory and must be false. The contradictory is not only false, it is ungodly.

Glass darkly means 'dark' not clear. How can you know? Scripture says so, it is clear enough to see through. It is dark enough to make us realize that we are very limited.

You are presenting a false dichotomy. Just because we don't know every detail doesn't give us reason to accept contradictions as truth. That is not what seeing in a glass darkly means at all. What it means is simply that we don't know the half of what we could know.

The only truth is God's truth. What prevents you from making the same claim? A glass darkly. It is the same. I've said the OV is appreciated and meant it. I just think it is a trade for one set of theological problems for another set, not a better view.

What set it that? People who reject the open view say this sort of thing all the time and never have a clear list of theological problems that they can saddle the open view with. The only one you've mentioned is the prophecy one and that's a non-problem because your position is unbiblical in the first place. What else, do you have?

In some considerations, I believe it is a worse trade-off, especially in concern of who God is and the constraints it applies to my considerations of Him and His Word.

God is who He is Lonster. You don't get to pick and choose theological systems based on which one comes to the conclusions you happen to like better. The open view attempts to maintain pure allegiance to the plain reading of Scripture and sound reason and then lets the chips fall where they may. If we find that the orthodox understanding of what sort of person God is has been wrong for the last several centuries then so be it. Our allegiance should be to the truth, not to doctrine.

We all must have the same considerations for correct theolgy, which is why even though we disagree on these peripherals, that we understand and adhere to basic doctrine for Salvation, the work and nature of God, and holy living. We agree because we have God's Word and His Holy Spirit to guide and watch over our thinking. God is the container of our doctrine, and we rise or fall on this based on Him and what He tells us. If we have disagreements, I'm constrained to believe this is the area of 'higher math' or glass darkly. I do not believe it touches so much of what we do imperically know and adhere to from scripture because our answers on basic doctrine is most nearly the same: God is triune. Salvation is found in Christ. Holy Living is our calling etc. etc.

But this is really the crux of the problem Lonster! I surprised that you don't see it. Muz asked you a more fundamental question than I think you realize because a person's ability to play the "surpasses understanding" trump card doesn't just apply to doctrines such as open theism but to ANY doctrine! Your theological worldview openly accepts the existence of contradiction under the guise of " surpassing understanding". You therefore have forfeited any ground from which to object to any doctrine whatsoever. If some nut case came along and denied that Jesus was God and blew off all the Scripture that taught otherwise in the name of "surpassing understanding" how would you refute his argument without contradicting your own theological worldview? You couldn't! If you throw out sound reason, you throw out the only means by which you can falsify any truth claim whatsoever.

Resting in Him,
Clete