ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[godrulz]

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?

The way God decided to not know aspects of the future as a certainty was to create other free moral agents.

What are some other examples of God chosing to not know something. Forgiveness is not literal forgetting. It is chosing to not bring it up again. If we can bring to our minds our sins, God cannot chose to not know an object of knowledge in the universe (compromises our definition of omniscience= knows all that is knowable; Enyart's definition is not classic Open Theism).

 

[godrulz]

No, He didn't just know, He presdestined it!

He created me, then elected me, then predestined me, then called me, then saved me, and now He's going to resurrect me. All I did was sin.

ROM 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
ROM 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.



Yes all "types" of men"

TIT 2:2 Older men
TIT 2:3 Older women
TIT 2:4 ...young women
TIT 2:6 ....young men
TIT 2:9 ....bondslaves ... masters

In summary, " the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men" TIT 2:11



Yes, but they can't. They are dead in their sins and held as satan's slaves, only God can grant them repentance, and as many as are ordained to eternal life will believe.

2TI 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

2TI 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

ACT 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Classic proof texts that have a better, alternate understanding.

 

[Ninjashadow]

Does anyone happen to know the philosophical name for open view theism? For instance, Determanism and Fatalism are basically the same as Closed View.

 

[godrulz]

Of course He predestined I would be a sinner, but I did the sinning. God predestined Christ would be killed, but the Romans and Jews killed Him. God predestined Judas would betray Christ, but Judas did the betraying.

ACT 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

JOH 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Theological debate: Compatibilism vs incompatibilism...that is the question (is free will compatible with decrees/predestination? No. Incompatibilism has my vote).

 

[godrulz]

Arminian? Open Theism is diametrically opposed to Arminianism. Arminianists beleive that God didn't predestine, but that He knows everything that will ever happen. Open Theists beleive that God can not know that which does not exist.

1. Did God from all eternity decree whatever will come to pass?

Yes= Calvinism (no contingencies/uncertainties).

No= Arminianism
Open Theism (contingencies)

2. Is everything certain in God's mind from all eternity?

Yes= Calvinism= decree
Arminian= simple foreknowledge (whatever that means?)= certainties

No= Open Theism (alternative)= uncertainties.

God is resourceful, creative, providential, omnicompetent vs meticulously controlling.

Open Theism is not diametrically opposed to Arminianism in every sense. They both believe in contingencies and free will. However, simple/exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity or logical contradiction, making Arminianism fall short of a cogent view of God's omniscience.

Rep points for effort?

 

[godrulz]

By just being God:

ISA 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

46:11 tells us how God knows some aspects of the future. He will bring it about by His ability, not His 'foreknowledge'. The proof text fallacy is that just because God predestines some general aspects of the future (settled) does not mean He brings about all things in the future. Omnipotence does not mean He has to do everything that He can possibly do. There is no need to control or predestine when I brush my teeth, have sex, drive a car, etc. Some aspects of the future are open and unsettled, especially from trillions of years ago before we even existed to make knowable choices.

Is. 48:3 is another verse that affirms God's omnicompetence and ability to bring about some things in the future. It is not a proof text for exhaustive or simple foreknowledge, nor predestination of all moral and mundane choices free moral agents would ever make.

" I foretold the former things long ago (context is about things that are fulfilled, such as judgments of pagan nations...it cannot be extrapolated to mean God knows who will go to heaven or hell before they are born, who will win a chess match before it is played, etc.)...then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass."

Again, He foretells some things because of His intent and ability to bring it to pass apart from man's free will. It is not about exhaustive foreknowledge or causative determinism of free choices.

The problem is a failure to recognize the two motifs in Scripture: some of the future is predestined, settled, known (Calvinistic proof texts); some of the future is open, unsettled, unknown (Open Theism texts). The strength of the Open view is that it takes both sets of verses literally. Calvinism must make the second set of verses figurative, without warrant (e.g. God changing His mind).

 

[godrulz]

Oh ok I see, He's just a General Manager, He doesn't get into specifics....like when a sparrow will fall or how many hairs I will have on my head?

God knows the fixed past and the present exhaustively. The sparrow and hairs are objects of knowledge known perfectly as certainties. The future is not yet, so is only known as a possibility vs certainty.

The nature of time and eternity is relevant to this discussion. The Platonic 'eternal now'/timelessness concept is problematic. The Hebraic view is that God exists in an endless duration of time (unidirectional) and experiences the reality of past, present, future. Timelessness is incoherent. The future is not there to know yet, so this is not a limitation on omniscience.

 

[godrulz]

Who & what should I pray for tonight before I lay down for bed? :think:

:think:
:think:

Aahh, nevermind, it's useless, since the future is exhaustively settled I'd just be wasting my time, darn, I'm sorry guys, I forgot.

The Open View makes prayer, evangelism, social responsibility, change, etc. real, not illusory. God is not the static, impersonal being of Greek philosophy. He is not absolutely immutable (strong) in every sense. His essential character and attributes do not change. He does change in His experiences, thoughts, actions, emotions, relations, etc. This is not a negation of perfection, but the glory of God as a personal, dynamic, responsive being.

 

[godrulz]

Does anyone happen to know the philosophical name for open view theism? For instance, Determanism and Fatalism are basically the same as Closed View.

Along with Arminianism, it claims to be a type of free will theism (libertarian free will vs Calvinisms strained concept of deterministic so-called 'free will'). It is about the openness of God's creation, more than the openness of God.

 

[Ninjashadow]

Thanks, godrulz. :thumb:

 

[ChristisKing]

Arminians oppose open theists as much as Calvinists

Arminians oppose open theists as much as Calvinists

Perhaps its best-known expositor of Open Theism is Prof. Clark Pinnock of McMaster Divinity College in Ontario. While open theists affirm the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, they reject that claims that God has exhasutive foreknowledge of the future (omniscience), that God is impassible (incapable of suffering), immutable, without emotions, and outside of time. According to open theists, these ideas are the result of the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian theology. While classical theists take Scriptural language concerning God's repenting or changing his mind as anthropomorphisms, open theists take them as literal descriptions of how God's being and his interaction with the world. Not surprisingly, open theists are almost exclusively Arminians (although traditional Arminians oppose open theists as much as Calvinists).

Lets hear from Clark Pinnock:

"...despite Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar did not conquer the city of Tyre; despite the Baptist, Jesus did not cast the wicked into the fire; contrary to Paul, the second coming was not just around the corner (1 Thes. 4:17)" (Pinock, MMM, 51 n.66).

"...despite Jesus, in the destruction of the temple, some stones were left one on the other" (Mt. 24:2)" (Pinnock, MMM, 51 n.66).

"We may not want to admit it but prophecies often go unfulfilled..." (Pinnock, MMM, 51, n.66).

"That leaves us with the question, Does the New Testament, did Jesus, teach the perfect errorlessness of the Scriptures? No, not in plain terms. Once we recall how complex a hypothesis inerrancy is, it is obvious that the Bible teaches no such thing explicitly. Looking at the actual Biblical evidence today, I have to conclude the case for total inerrancy just isn't there." Pinnock; The Scripture Principle (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 57-58

"When Jews and Muslims, for example, praise God as the Creator of the world, it is obvious that they are referring to the same being. There are not two almighty creators of heaven and earth, but only one. We may assume that they are intending to worship the one Creator God that we also serve...People fear God all over the world, and God accepts them, even where the gospel of Jesus has not yet been proclaimed."-Pinnock (Christian Renewal Vol. 20)

 

[Delmar]

Well.... according to Calvinism you didn't even do that did you? After all... if God predestines EVERYTHING... then EVERYTHING must include your sin.

They just don't get that part of it.

 

[ChristisKing]

They just don't get that part of it.

What you are mixing up is God predestined that Christ would be the Savior and all glory in heaven and earth would fall to Him. Of course this means satan was going to sin, man fall, Christ take on flesh etc. What you can not reconcile is how could God predestine Christ and all His glory without predestianting satan and man's fall.

Of course God didn't cause satan and man to sin we did this freely, but to say it wasn't predestinated by God is just unscriptural. Don't you think God could have not created satan or man as the elect angels to never sin?

 

[Carver]

What you are mixing up is God predestined that Christ would be the Savior and all glory in heaven and earth would fall to Him. Of course this means satan was going to sin, man fall, Christ take on flesh etc. What you can not reconcile is how could God predestine Christ and all His glory without predestianting satan and man's fall.

Of course God didn't cause satan and man to sin we did this freely, but to say it wasn't predestinated by God is just unscriptural. Don't you think God could have not created satan or man as the elect angels to never sin?

You just said that both Satan and mankind freely rebeled against God, but that God predestined it. Those two can't coincide. If God predestined it, it wasn't free, because there was no other option.

There is a defense of Calvinism that is unanswerable. I'm waiting for someone to post it. By the way, by unanswerable, I don't mean it proves Calvinism right. I just mean that it makes it impossible to prove Calvinism wrong.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Of course God didn't cause satan and man to sin we did this freely, but to say it wasn't predestinated by God is just unscriptural. Don't you think God could have not created satan or man as the elect angels to never sin?

:dizzy: :hammer:

 

[godrulz]

Perhaps its best-known expositor of Open Theism is Prof. Clark Pinnock of McMaster Divinity College in Ontario. While open theists affirm the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, they reject that claims that God has exhasutive foreknowledge of the future (omniscience), that God is impassible (incapable of suffering), immutable, without emotions, and outside of time. According to open theists, these ideas are the result of the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian theology. While classical theists take Scriptural language concerning God's repenting or changing his mind as anthropomorphisms, open theists take them as literal descriptions of how God's being and his interaction with the world. Not surprisingly, open theists are almost exclusively Arminians (although traditional Arminians oppose open theists as much as Calvinists).

Lets hear from Clark Pinnock:

"...despite Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar did not conquer the city of Tyre; despite the Baptist, Jesus did not cast the wicked into the fire; contrary to Paul, the second coming was not just around the corner (1 Thes. 4:17)" (Pinock, MMM, 51 n.66).

"...despite Jesus, in the destruction of the temple, some stones were left one on the other" (Mt. 24:2)" (Pinnock, MMM, 51 n.66).

"We may not want to admit it but prophecies often go unfulfilled..." (Pinnock, MMM, 51, n.66).

"That leaves us with the question, Does the New Testament, did Jesus, teach the perfect errorlessness of the Scriptures? No, not in plain terms. Once we recall how complex a hypothesis inerrancy is, it is obvious that the Bible teaches no such thing explicitly. Looking at the actual Biblical evidence today, I have to conclude the case for total inerrancy just isn't there." Pinnock; The Scripture Principle (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 57-58

"When Jews and Muslims, for example, praise God as the Creator of the world, it is obvious that they are referring to the same being. There are not two almighty creators of heaven and earth, but only one. We may assume that they are intending to worship the one Creator God that we also serve...People fear God all over the world, and God accepts them, even where the gospel of Jesus has not yet been proclaimed."-Pinnock (Christian Renewal Vol. 20)

Pinnock is an earlier Open Theist. He has not always been clear in his articulations and as changed his thinking to the point of rewriting things or removing them from his books in response to critics. A 1984 quote does not necessarily reflect his thinking decades later. Not all Open Theists agree with some of Pinnock's more fringe ideas. He certainly has been misquoted and misrepresented at times. Even the Evangelical Theological Society did not ban him after they investigated his ideas on innerancy (though they certainly disagreed with his Open Theism...see Christianity Today articles).

Prophecy can be conditional. This fact does not undermine innerancy. It is true that Paul was inspired in his writings and that he did believe in the imminent return of Christ in his own day.

The Christian Renewal quote must also be put in a larger context of the section and his total thinking. He is not a universalist and does affirm that Jesus is the only way to God. The quote does stand as sloppy and should be retracted if it has not already been clarified. This would also not be Open Theist doctrine, but Pinnock's musings. Open Theists are squarely in the evangelical, orthodox tradition. Calvinists oppose Arminians as much as Open Theists and use similar arguments. The Reformed part of the Body of Christ wrongly assumes that its views are the equivalent of Scripture (hence Wesley vs Whitefield, etc.). Most classic Arminians also consider Open Theism and Calvinism heretical. The debate is mostly about the nature of the future, free will, and exhaustive foreknowledge (not about most historical, biblical theology...it has philosophical overtones since Scripture is not systematically explicit on the nature of time vs eternity, etc.).


http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=506

Open Theists affirm biblical truths, but understand them differently than other views. Even classic theists have realized their old views on immutability and impassibility, etc. were problematic and jaded by Greek philosophy through Augustine and others (see "The Untamed God" by Jay Wesley Richards).

 

[godrulz]

What you are mixing up is God predestined that Christ would be the Savior and all glory in heaven and earth would fall to Him. Of course this means satan was going to sin, man fall, Christ take on flesh etc. What you can not reconcile is how could God predestine Christ and all His glory without predestianting satan and man's fall.

Of course God didn't cause satan and man to sin we did this freely, but to say it wasn't predestinated by God is just unscriptural. Don't you think God could have not created satan or man as the elect angels to never sin?

If God created man or angels to never sin, they would be robotic machines, not free moral agents. To have love, relationship, and freedom necessitates the equal possibility of hate, selfishness, rebellion, bondage. Choice is part of being in the image of God, but introduces an element of risk and uncertainty. Despite this, God is able to bring His ultimate purposes to pass. Hell was never intended in the mind of God for man. It is a consequence of man's possible Fall that was actualized, but not necessitated nor predestined.

God did formulate a plan of redemption from the beginning. You are wrongly assuming that it was a foregone conclusion. He said that His creation was very good (Gen. 1;2). Only after the actual Fall was He grieved and regretted making man. The Fall was a possibility, not a certainty until it actually happened. Once it happened, then, and only then, was the potential plan implemented in reality. It now was certain (Gen. 3), but was not actual until thousands of years later (Gospels).

The plan of redemption was in the mind of God as a contingent possibility from the beginning. It was not implemented until the certainty of the Fall. God did not create man intending or knowing that he would fall. He knew the potential of this and felt the risk was of a higher good and love than not creating or creating deterministic automatons. We, not God, are responsible for the mess. It did not have to be this way. Things are not the way He intended. In His love and wisdom, He will restore things and truth and justice will prevail. The Gospels and ministry of Jesus affirm a warfare model that includes casualties, God's will and purposes being resisted, etc. The Calvinistic blueprint model is deductive reasoning and problematic. It is contrary to revelation.

So, God could predestine that Christ would come and die IF man fell. The potential plan was implemented WHEN man fell. If we did not Fall, the plan would not have been implemented. Our Bible (that was written years later) would not read as it does. The Bible was not sitting in a box in heaven trillions of years ago with history already pre-recorded. His Story unfolds as the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present (the only reality).

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If God knew that Lucifer/Adam would fall as a certainty, then He would have caused it and there is no genuine freedom. Libertarian freedom is coherent (alternative choices are possible and real). Calvinistic 'freedom'/determinism/predestination is not compatible with genuine free moral agency. Calvinists are coherent to think God knows the future because He decrees or predestines it. The problem is that it negates love, freedom, and responsibility (worse, it makes God responsible for heinous evil, contrary to His character). Arminians simple foreknowledge is no better. It says that God 'sees' the future (try explaining a possible mechanism to see something that is not there), and thus does not cause it. He is above an imaginary timeline looking down at past, present, future all at once. It is also problematic because logically it also removes genuine freedom and contingencies.

 

[godrulz]

You just said that both Satan and mankind freely rebeled against God, but that God predestined it. Those two can't coincide. If God predestined it, it wasn't free, because there was no other option.

There is a defense of Calvinism that is unanswerable. I'm waiting for someone to post it. By the way, by unanswerable, I don't mean it proves Calvinism right. I just mean that it makes it impossible to prove Calvinism wrong.

Go for it...

 

[Rimi]

What you are mixing up is God predestined that Christ would be the Savior and all glory in heaven and earth would fall to Him. Of course this means satan was going to sin, man fall, Christ take on flesh etc. What you can not reconcile is how could God predestine Christ and all His glory without predestianting satan and man's fall.

Of course God didn't cause satan and man to sin we did this freely, but to say it wasn't predestinated by God is just unscriptural. Don't you think God could have not created satan or man as the elect angels to never sin?

Maybe this will be too simplistic or childish to consider, but can you explain to me Genesis 2:19 . . . "So the Lord God formed out of the ground each wild animal and each bird of the sky, and brought each to the man to see what he would call it. And whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name." Why would God need or want to see what man would call them, since He would already know or it would be predestined??

Consider Genesis 18:17 . . . "Then the Lord said, 'Should I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?'" Why would God even give this a thought? Especially if He already knew what He Himself is going to do?

Also, what's your take on Genesis 22:12 . . . "Then He said, 'Do not lay a hand on the boy or do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God, since ou have not withheld your only son from Me.'" God was speaking to Abraham who'd just been stopped from sacrificing Isaac. So didn't God always know that Abraham feared God? Wasn't it predetermined?

Thanks for your time.

 

[Lighthouse]

What you are mixing up is God predestined that Christ would be the Savior and all glory in heaven and earth would fall to Him. Of course this means satan was going to sin, man fall, Christ take on flesh etc. What you can not reconcile is how could God predestine Christ and all His glory without predestianting satan and man's fall.

Of course God didn't cause satan and man to sin we did this freely, but to say it wasn't predestinated by God is just unscriptural. Don't you think God could have not created satan or man as the elect angels to never sin?

God did not predestine Christ to come to Earth, and die for our sins [be the Savior], until after The Fall. And saying it wasn't predestined is not unscriptural. But saying that everything was predestined before creation even bagan is.