ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Bob Hill]

Our God truly responds to us.

This passage in 2 Kings shows what I mean.
2 Kings 20:1-6 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.’” 2 Then he turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord, saying, 3 “Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what was good in Your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly. 4 And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, 5 “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. 6 “And I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for My own sake, and for the sake of My servant David.”’”

Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

I still maintain that some views are more coherent and less problematic than other views. Sometimes 'mystery' is really incoherence and a cogent resolution does exist if we critically think things through. Of course, the finite never comprehends the infinite exhaustively, but He has revealed things that we can know are true.

I think Open Theism builds a reasonable case based on Scripture (primarily) and sound biblical philosophy (thinking through things that are not explicitly revealed in detail).

It is the glory of a king to search out a matter (Proverbs).

 

[Lon]

I still maintain that some views are more coherent and less problematic than other views. Sometimes 'mystery' is really incoherence and a cogent resolution does exist if we critically think things through. Of course, the finite never comprehends the infinite exhaustively, but He has revealed things that we can know are true.

I think Open Theism builds a reasonable case based on Scripture (primarily) and sound biblical philosophy (thinking through things that are not explicitly revealed in detail).

It is the glory of a king to search out a matter (Proverbs).

We agree on the premise, but I think the position from which one argues causes some of this. I'm repeatedly challenged with accusation for coherence here, but the problem as I see it is that OV doesn't escape some of the same and some from the flip side of the discussion. I try not to make claims that OV is loopy or that one holding to OV is missing the forest for the trees, because I think we are in the same boat. We have the same glass and it is darkly. I don't want to purposefully obscure anything but I see a few premises from OV that just don't jive with my understanding of scripture.

I however, do appreciate the questions that arise from discussing our differences. It helps to examine my traditions and views of scripture from a fresh perspective.

No matter which glass I'm using, it is still not a crystal clarity.

 

[Philetus]

Philetus and Clete,

I appreciate you both, I really do, but the congratuatory back-pats, and arguments are all rehashed. I've addressed each and every concern adequately in mind.

Now rather than being prideful or going beyond revelation, I'm going to say this once more in hopes that a light bulb will possibly click on.

I'm telling you that OV doesn't explain things adequately. Alpha and Omega means everything inbetween. No one has seen God at any time but God the Son has made Him known. "Let me see your face." "You cannot see my face and live."

I'm telling you bluntly, what is crystal clear has been made crystal clear by God. What isn't clear remains in obscurity. While I appreciate a 'new' attempt in OV to bring Him to light, you have only a very small glimpse just like me.

I'm not scratching the bottle. Nothing wrong at all with polishing it, but it is still dark. It seems OV is making claim to new revelation (certainly new understanding) but I'm telling you, you have the same exact dark glass, nothing more. Just because light reflects when you turn it sideways doesn't mean you have a new glass. It's the same.

The point is that the SV isn't looking at all the trees.

Maybe if you would be less settled and satisfied "in your mind" and be a little more open, you would realize the light bulb is already lit. How would I know how small your 'glimpse' is? So far all you have said is that you are too humble to buy into the OV. Well, maybe that is true, but it isn't an argument against OV. It's a cop-out.

godrulz: Unfortunately, the SV proponents must ignore or anthropomorphize away the open/unsettled texts. I think the OV has the stronger hermeneutic because it can take all relevant verses at face value (still recognizing blatant figures of speech).

OV hasn't discovered anything new ... just unearthed what the settled view has been burying, i.e. the open/unsettled texts.

We aren't spinning the glass calling it new or relabeling it. We are just removing the falsified labels and allowing the vintage texts to speak for themselves. That isn't going beyond revelation, that's opening your eyes and ears to what the Spirit is saying through scripture.


And thanks Clete! Coming from you, that affirmation is humbling. Sorry I can't be any dumber just to look humbler.

 

[Philetus]

Our God truly responds to us.

This passage in 2 Kings shows what I mean.
2 Kings 20:1-6 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.’” 2 Then he turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord, saying, 3 “Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what was good in Your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly. 4 And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, 5 “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. 6 “And I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for My own sake, and for the sake of My servant David.”’”

Bob Hill

I love that scripture, Pastor Hill. It shows how quickly God can be persuaded to change his mind and how quickly he can respond to the prayers of servants when he is so moved.

 

[Philetus]

Here is a text I've been looking at for a while. Any thoughts on this one Pastor Hill?

Gen 16: 13 She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: "You are the God who sees me," for she said, "I have now seen the One who sees me."

Seems like claiming to not ‘see’ God’s face is not the same as claiming to not ‘see’ God at all.

2Co 4:6 - For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

I have seen the One who sees me. Dynamic interaction.

The Open View celebrates the fact that God acknowledges our existence. God actually ascribes worth to us. Doesn't live our lives for us but gives us everything we need to live them for him. Amazing. Amazing grace, in fact! And truly humbling.

 

[Clete]

Philetus and Clete,

I appreciate you both, I really do, but the congratuatory back-pats, and arguments are all rehashed. I've addressed each and every concern adequately in mind.

Now rather than being prideful or going beyond revelation, I'm going to say this once more in hopes that a light bulb will possibly click on.

How humble of you.

I'm telling you that OV doesn't explain things adequately.

Yes it does.

Alpha and Omega means everything inbetween.

Not necessarily. I believe that in context this title of God's means that He was the first and He will be the last. "Everything inbetween" could be right depending on what you mean but that definitely goes beyond what the text itself says and what the context can directly support.

No one has seen God at any time but God the Son has made Him known. "Let me see your face." "You cannot see my face and live."

I'm telling you bluntly, what is crystal clear has been made crystal clear by God. What isn't clear remains in obscurity. While I appreciate a 'new' attempt in OV to bring Him to light, you have only a very small glimpse just like me.

I know of no Open Theist who would disagree with this point. I know of no one, Open Theist or otherwise who has ever claimed to fully understand themselves, never mind the God who made them. This objection of yours is overstated in the extreme.

I'm not scratching the bottle. Nothing wrong at all with polishing it, but it is still dark. It seems OV is making claim to new revelation (certainly new understanding) but I'm telling you, you have the same exact dark glass, nothing more.

That dark glass being the Bible and sound reason. Quite right.

Just because light reflects when you turn it sideways doesn't mean you have a new glass. It's the same.

This comment sounds like you are attempting to say that no theological position is superior to any other. If that is what you are saying, you are clearly wrong. I'll quote you the Scripture to prove it if need be but if it is not what you mean, please clarify. Do you reject the idea that there is an objective means by which we can determine whether one theological view is superior to another?


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Bob Hill]

Here is the truth of our open theism.
Eph 1:6,7 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.

We will be accepted because we are in Jesus Christ. We are His body.

Here is a modern example of this. When my younger brother was in the army, he was stationed in Japan.

Many of the Japanese girls wanted to come to America. But they couldn’t. They were Japanese.

My brother met a Japanese girl, and married her.

When he came back to the states, she was able to come too. Why? Wasn’t she still Japanese? Yes, but because she was married to an American, she now had a different identity.

Now when she applied for entry into America, the U S looked at her husband. The wife was accepted, because she was in her beloved.

How does this affect us?

Since I have trusted Christ as my Savior, I am redeemed and accepted by God because I am in Christ.

Because I am now in Christ, I have this predestined inheritance.
Eph 1:11,12 “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works the all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.”

We who believe in Christ as our Savior have two inheritances. One is predestined. We can’t lose it. The other is conditional. We can lose it.

We already have our inheritance in Christ and are secure, because God predestined it.

However, our heavenly inheritance depends on what our actions are here. Col 3:23-25 “And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. 25 But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality.” The reward of the inheritance is not guaranteed or predestined, but our security is.

This is our guarantee: Eph 1:13,14 In whom you also, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession.

Anyone can believe in Christ as his or her Savior. Salvation is open to all!

Bob Hill

 

[Lon]

How humble of you.

Print doesn't lend well here: sarcasm or sincere? I was sincere in my appreciation. The 'lightbulb' analogy might have conveyed poorly, I only meant I don't think anybody ever really understands where I'm coming from.

Yes it does.

Well, I could have said that less ambiguously. I'm still thinking of John's revelation specifically. I don't believe OV is correct about God not knowing future or being able to see it exactly as it will be. In some ways, OV actually has God invading upon freewill moreso than in SV. A night watchman who knows nothing is going to get into everything while learning how to do his job. The old guy who has been there for awhile, is going to have a better handle on things. I think OV has God in a 'preparedness stage, but it still doesn't account for what at least I see in scripture. It isn't merely predictive in my mind. It reads as if when future events are told, God has already been there. I appreciate the logic dilemma, but I think OV is not correct in dismissing it. The term "foreknowledge" isn't fore'prepared.' It means 'knows.'

Not necessarily. I believe that in context this title of God's means that He was the first and He will be the last. "Everything inbetween" could be right depending on what you mean but that definitely goes beyond what the text itself says and what the context can directly support.

Agreed

I know of no Open Theist who would disagree with this point. I know of no one, Open Theist or otherwise who has ever claimed to fully understand themselves, never mind the God who made them. This objection of yours is overstated in the extreme.

It is possible, but when I see rolling eyes, awards, and back-pats passed around it does convey as self-congratulatory. While the words "poor blind fool" aren't said exactly, the conveyance is there. I honestly believe what I believe with sincerity and my concerns with OV are real. I'm not here to stir up wrath, but to first, understand why some of these things appear so clear to you. I'm perplexed when some of the ideas I've brought up aren't also brought up amongst yourselves. I mean, in the SV camp, we bring up a lot of your questions naturally amongst ourselves. I guess I'd like to see more of that introspection. It seems to me there is none. This always troubles my logic here.

That dark glass being the Bible and sound reason. Quite right.

This comment sounds like you are attempting to say that no theological position is superior to any other. If that is what you are saying, you are clearly wrong. I'll quote you the Scripture to prove it if need be but if it is not what you mean, please clarify. Do you reject the idea that there is an objective means by which we can determine whether one theological view is superior to another?


Resting in Him,
Clete

No, you are correct. Just for our discussion here, I'm saying that those in the faith have a dark view. What I'm really getting at is that man's theology systems are all in the same boat. It isn't that one isn't better than another, it's just that I was trying to just get to the point that between us, our theology perspectives are limited. As 1 John 3 says, one day we'll be like Him because we'll see Him as He is. I'm just trying to say that this side of heaven, I've only got a grasp on the truths that are clear. God loves us. I agree with Bob, He fellowships with us. Jesus died for us. Salvation is in Him. I appreciate the OV. It doesn't mean that I don't see the flaws with it. If anything, I'm reminded that God is intimate with us. He watches over us. He answers our prayers. I've always believed this.

 

[Philetus]

If one reads the Revelation of John as a blueprint for the future, then of course ‘this and that’ must happen before the kingdom of God can come. But, such a view of the last book in the New Testament renders it virtually meaningless for any generation other than the ‘last’. If on the other hand, the Revelation is read as a manual of what it means to remain faithful in times of great trouble, then the book takes on much meaning and holds great encouragement for any generation of Christians in any and all cultures.

I’m convinced John was not providing a blueprint of the future but rather writing in code (encrypted apocalyptic terms) what would if stated overtly have brought down the wrath of the Roman empire not only on himself but also on his readers.

In such a context one doesn’t say the emperor is an ‘evil antichrist’ but rather one speaks of ‘the beast’ and ‘dragons’. To make the leap to ‘the end of the world’ from speaking about the destruction of the temple (and the Jewish way of life and the Roman empire for that matter) because of the cataclysmic language used, is like saying that 1000 years from now when historians read our newspapers they will deduce that the people of the 20th century thought that a presidential election could influence the natural order of the cosmos because of such statements as “The election of SoandSo caused earth shattering changes in the world”.

In spite of the insistence of the Zealots that the kingdom could only come through violent revolt, and the Pharisee's assertions that the sinful were to blame for its delay, and the escapism of the Essenes, and the capitulation to Rome on the part of the Herodians, Jesus came announcing that the Kingdom was at hand; that there was no reason not to enter it, experience it, and allow it to shape our living in the world. John was only reiterating that nothing the empire (or any lessor kingdom) could throw at the community of faithful could prevent the kingdoms of this world from becoming the Kingdom of our God. Not even death.

The future remains open as to who will and who won’t experience that Kingdom before they taste death. The future is closed to speculation as to whether or not God’s Kingdom will in fact fully come. God is faithful! Thus we pray, ‘Even so, Thy kingdom come!’

 

[Philetus]

Print doesn't lend well here: sarcasm or sincere? I was sincere in my appreciation. The 'lightbulb' analogy might have conveyed poorly, I only meant I don't think anybody ever really understands where I'm coming from.


Well, I could have said that less ambiguously. I'm still thinking of John's revelation specifically. I don't believe OV is correct about God not knowing future or being able to see it exactly as it will be. In some ways, OV actually has God invading upon freewill moreso than in SV. A night watchman who knows nothing is going to get into everything while learning how to do his job. The old guy who has been there for awhile, is going to have a better handle on things. I think OV has God in a 'preparedness stage, but it still doesn't account for what at least I see in scripture. It isn't merely predictive in my mind. It reads as if when future events are told, God has already been there. I appreciate the logic dilemma, but I think OV is not correct in dismissing it. The term "foreknowledge" isn't fore'prepared.' It means 'knows.'


Agreed




It is possible, but when I see rolling eyes, awards, and back-pats passed around it does convey as self-congratulatory. While the words "poor blind fool" aren't said exactly, the conveyance is there. I honestly believe what I believe with sincerity and my concerns with OV are real. I'm not here to stir up wrath, but to first, understand why some of these things appear so clear to you. I'm perplexed when some of the ideas I've brought up aren't also brought up amongst yourselves. I mean, in the SV camp, we bring up a lot of your questions naturally amongst ourselves. I guess I'd like to see more of that introspection. It seems to me there is none. This always troubles my logic here.







No, you are correct. Just for our discussion here, I'm saying that those in the faith have a dark view. What I'm really getting at is that man's theology systems are all in the same boat. It isn't that one isn't better than another, it's just that I was trying to just get to the point that between us, our theology perspectives are limited. As 1 John 3 says, one day we'll be like Him because we'll see Him as He is. I'm just trying to say that this side of heaven, I've only got a grasp on the truths that are clear. God loves us. I agree with Bob, He fellowships with us. Jesus died for us. Salvation is in Him. I appreciate the OV. It doesn't mean that I don't see the flaws with it. If anything, I'm reminded that God is intimate with us. He watches over us. He answers our prayers. I've always believed this.

I do appreciate this explanation. In the give and take of debate/discussion about our particular views, it is a given that none of us have all the answers or perfect understanding. We all, (well most) see the dilemma! What I appreciate most is your sincere humility. I share it. But, that doesn’t translate into surrender or admission of defeat in searching out what we can know or think we can know about God. Theology is God-talk. And when views about God are expressed in a forum such as this they sound ‘arrogant’; period! Especially to anyone holding a differing view regardless how they are expressed or disguised.

I never heard the term “Open View Theism” before arriving at TOL. However, it rang true with what I had read in the Word and experienced for years. You better believe I’m going to high-five-it with anyone who helps me understand and express it better. I’m indebted to guys like Godrulz, Clete, Knight and others for being both rough and instructional. And no, I don’t share some of their wacky views. (And they let me know in no uncertain terms when they are wrong.:chuckle: ) Don’t let the rep-system detour you from the interaction here, whether that changes your fundamental view or increases your resolve to keep it. Play the game. We all have much to learn.

I’m only asking that the whole pointless discussion about humility be dumped in favor of all of us showing our backsides as arrogant fools and getting on with the war. Ask the hard questions, put your boots on and wade into the fray. Your limited view will survive. So will mine. :dizzy: :crackup:

 

[Clete]

Lonster,

Judging by what you said in your last post it seems clear that you are as intellectually honest as anyone here on TOL and so I suggest we get away from the generalities and talk about more specific issues.

Can you more clearly explain just what it is that you think the open view doesn't "adequately explain" as you put it? The more specific you can be the better. Perhaps between the two of us (Philetus and I) we can either cause you to see why we've accepted the open view or else we might come to understand why you reject it. My expectation is that the problem has to do with issues on the paradigm level because I am no longer able to read the Bible and not see the open view everywhere, including Revelation.

Incidentally, I agree with you about foreknowledge. Foreknowledge is not mere prediction, it is knowledge. The questions then become, (1) What is it that God foreknows? and (2)Does prophecy always fall into the category of foreknowledge?

The open view would answer those question as follows...

(1) God knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable. He foreknows that which He has decided to bring to pass by His own power.

(2) No, it does not. Jeremiah 18 is sufficient to prove that prophecy cannot always fall into the category of foreknowledge.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

I love fresh starts.

 

[themuzicman]

I love fresh farts.

 

[Philetus]

Do I smell bacon?

 

[themuzicman]

And sharp cheddar cheese!

 

[godrulz]

I’m indebted to guys like Godrulz, Clete, Knight and others for being both rough and instructional. And no, I don’t share some of their wacky views. (And they let me know in no uncertain terms when they are wrong.:chuckle: ) :

Which views might those be? Are you trying to get cut out of my will?

 

[Lon]

Lonster,

Judging by what you said in your last post it seems clear that you are as intellectually honest as anyone here on TOL and so I suggest we get away from the generalities and talk about more specific issues.

Can you more clearly explain just what it is that you think the open view doesn't "adequately explain" as you put it? The more specific you can be the better. Perhaps between the two of us (Philetus and I) we can either cause you to see why we've accepted the open view or else we might come to understand why you reject it. My expectation is that the problem has to do with issues on the paradigm level because I am no longer able to read the Bible and not see the open view everywhere, including Revelation.

Incidentally, I agree with you about foreknowledge. Foreknowledge is not mere prediction, it is knowledge. The questions then become, (1) What is it that God foreknows? and (2)Does prophecy always fall into the category of foreknowledge?

The open view would answer those question as follows...

(1) God knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable. He foreknows that which He has decided to bring to pass by His own power.

(2) No, it does not. Jeremiah 18 is sufficient to prove that prophecy cannot always fall into the category of foreknowledge.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I'm a bit confused. I thought the discussion on time and some of the logic problems we've been iin dialogue on were about God not being able to know the future. I'm clearly missing something between this post and those. And 'yes' please help and enlighten.

Philetus, in John's vision, which I understand (I think) your premise, the problem logically for me is that John was interacting in that vision. It completely boggles my mind. Those space-time continuum problems are perplexing to me.
It is a bit 'sci-fi' but I still cannot see that revelation as anything else but an experience of future.

This seems to be one of those issues where if God knows 'some' future, 1) how is it possible with your understanding of inability and 2) why, if God does know future, isn't this just an example of one such situation?

 

[Lon]

Do I smell bacon?

I do appreciate humor that 'sizzles' and is 'sharp' but the premise 'stunk.'

 

[Clete]

I'm a bit confused. I thought the discussion on time and some of the logic problems we've been iin dialogue on were about God not being able to know the future. I'm clearly missing something between this post and those. And 'yes' please help and enlighten.

I'm afraid I don't recall the details of that previous discussion. I lose track of this thread often because many of the people on it are a complete waste of gray matter and I just can't stand to read their posts. Unless I am actively engaged in a specific discussion, like this one for example, I only rarely read the occasional post and so if this discussion was with Philetus then I totally missed it.

Perhaps you could ask me a specific question. If it requires going over already covered ground then perhaps that's for the best.

I will say, for the sake of clarity, that if an open theist says that God cannot know the future, he only means that in the common sense of the phrase. In other words, when people generally speak about the future, they speak of it as though it actually exists but this is only a figure of speech, albeit an unconscious one. The future will exist but it does not yet exist and thus it is not a object of God's knowledge as such. What God knows of the future are those events which He has decided by His own will to bring to pass by the working of His own power, which is invincible. God, for example, has predestined that the Body of Christ will be glorified and so it will be just that. No one has any ability whatsoever to keep that from happening, nor is it contingent on anyone's action or inaction in relation to God's commands or wishes thus God foreknows that the Body of Christ will be glorified, as do we because of His revelation to us through Scripture.

Another example of what is yet future and that is foreknown by God is the fact that there will be a Day of Judgment when the enemies of God will be utterly and finally vanquished; the Earth will be purged with fire and will burn with a fervent heat and that God will create a new Earth and a new Heaven; and to him who overcomes God will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.

And there are many more such things that God has said He will do which are in no way contingent on anything or anyone other than God's own word. All such things are both predestined and foreknown. But it is important to point out that God does not know these things because He went to the future and took a sneak peak at it. He knows it because He is the ultimate power of all that exists and no one can keep Him from doing that which He has decided that He will do.

Resting in Him,
Clete