ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Philetus]

Interesting that on the same day I get falsely accused of calling Calvinists unsaved pagans, you come right out and say that open theists are unsaved.




I don't see how any of you can tolerate this ding bat.

Calvinists aren't unsaved pagans?

 

[Philetus]

I am sorry you took it that way. Being unsaved is one thing and being deceived is another. I have no doubt that you believe what you say.

God has no theology. To God it is not theory but we do form theology. and I think that you fail at times to see the implications of what you say. This is a common failing among men of which you and I are not excluded.

My chief complaint is the idea that God is not a God of His word. If we cannot trust God, then who can we trust? Jesus is the word of God made flesh and the implication is that we cannot trust Jesus. This i do not believe was your intent but it is the implication of your statement.

The Open View doesn't need changing as you suggested in your earlier remark. But you are dead on, in my estimation, that the implications of the Open View need to be considered more fully. God is God of His word. And Clete knows that and hasn't said differently.

God is 100% faithful to His Word!

Now, what did God say, and what does God mean? That's what we are dealing with, E4E.

 

[elected4ever]

The Open View doesn't need changing as you suggested in your earlier remark. But you are dead on, in my estimation, that the implications of the Open View need to be considered more fully. God is God of His word. And Clete knows that and hasn't said differently.

God is 100% faithful to His Word!

Now, what did God say, and what does God mean? That's what we are dealing with, E4E.

Clete said, and to which you agreed, "God can do what He wants and is not a slave to His words." That does not sound like the difference between what God said and what God meant. That means that God is untrustworthy according to the application of your theology. Our understanding has nothing to do with God being a God of His word and totally trustworthy. If God says something, He means it and it is our understanding that must receive adjustment not God's word.

 

[godrulz]

Clete said, and to which you agreed, "God can do what He wants and is not a slave to His words." That does not sound like the difference between what God said and what God meant. That means that God is untrustworthy according to the application of your theology. Our understanding has nothing to do with God being a God of His word and totally trustworthy. If God says something, He means it and it is our understanding that must receive adjustment not God's word.

God is faithful to His Word and character. As long as we recognize that some prophecies are conditional, I don't think most of us are suggesting God is fickle or untrustworthy in any sense.

 

[godrulz]

I know and agree with what you are saying.

Loving enough? There is issue that I'm grappling with right now.

First, let me say that I am 100% Open Theist. Pinnock , Boyd, Sanders, godrulz and clete are my heroes. :chuckle:

I’m willing to concede that there just in fact might be a literal 1000 year reign, give or take a few days. And even that the 999 years 11 months and 359 days,11 hours, 43 min, and 16 seconds, (not taking into account leap year, of course) will most likely be preceded by great tribulation (we can expect it). But, if God finds only 143,999, will he coerce one? Now, don’t go getting all bent out of shape on the numbers. The question is just HOW LITERAL?

I do not rank with these giants, especially Clete. I sit at their feet and simply do not have the depth of thought that they do.

A normative literal approach (vs allegorical) to Revelation is more than reasonable. Like all literature, we also recognize figures of speech (vs wooden literalism).

It is common in Scripture and literature to use round numbers, so your observation is valid (vs wooden literalism/exact numbers). If we say 20,000 watched the game, we do not literally mean that number (without being false).

 

[elected4ever]

Calvinists aren't unsaved pagans?

No, just misguided and confused. Like you:rotfl:

 

[patman]

First, let me say that I am 100% Open Theist. Pinnock , Boyd, Sanders, godrulz and clete are my heroes. :chuckle:

The future is not settled!

So, I am wrestling with the portrayal of God in the end times presented by the whole “Left Behind” crowd.

I’m willing to concede that there just in fact might be a literal 1000 year reign, give or take a few days. And even that the 999 years 11 months and 359 days,11 hours, 43 min, and 16 seconds, (not taking into account leap year, of course) will most likely be preceded by great tribulation (we can expect it). But, if God finds only 143,999, will he coerce one? Now, don’t go getting all bent out of shape on the numbers. The question is just HOW LITERAL?

Ahhh. Good, some of your questions were just making me wonder. That's great to hear.

Yah know, fulfilled prophecies are more my "Thing," like most of the book of Daniel. But that book is easy because every other chapter there's an angel commentating.

When you take the numbers in the book of Daniel, such as the years prophesied until Jesus' death, some people will tell you it was dead on target. They count leap years and everything. Bob Hill has something about that on biblicalanswers.com.

So it is not too far fetched to believe God can do that. Even with free will agents.

Another thing is that God seems to use numbers as symbols. Why is everything divisible by 12 half the time, or why does it deal with 7s? Look at all the 3s and 10s. It is hard to ignore, and I have not studied it, but I think there is something going on there.

But with any prophecy, its true goal is to encourage repentance or encourage people to seek God. If God said it would happen, it is because he knows it will. But if they repent, he can change that.

If 3 years into it, 2/3 of the world sees "Hey, didn't the prophet John say Israel would be dooobed? Hmmm, maybe super cool dude is the antichrist after all, lets repent" then God just may stop it. If he doesn't he is probibaly just testing these people using Satan's handy work...

As to the whole terrorist thing. My take on it involves pre-trib views that all christians will be saved from wrath. Israel, the nation, will be left and the witnesses will then turn to believers. When war is waged, it is going to be on Israel and her allies. War is dirty and unfair, but it will hardly be like the war on terror. Nations and people of those nations are at war.

The government who wages the war is going to be tentacle such that it kills anyone who opposes it's religion (as is done often in history) and those christians love God more than our lives.

It will be a sad time, but one that is decisive. I believe it will happen because of this... The world will be come saturated with people who have made their final decision. Practically no more wishy-washy "I am for God, I am not". Everyone will have made their choice. Then God will act to change their minds, and some will.

But after this testing it will be clear, those who don't follow REALLY made it clear where they stand. And those who do follow REALLLY REALLY made their stand. At this point, what else is there to do with earth but to start new?

God will establish his kingdom. For 1000 years people will live there, and time has a way of weeding out even more wishy-washy, and that last testing will be the end for this world, and a new one will be in its place.

At this point we all will be where we truly want to be, with God, or away from him.

God seems to be giving us all the best chances to change he can.

 

[elected4ever]

God is faithful to His Word and character. As long as we recognize that some prophecies are conditional, I don't think most of us are suggesting God is fickle or untrustworthy in any sense.

Some prophecies are conditional but we are told at the time of there giving which are and which are not.

 

[godrulz]

Some prophecies are conditional but we are told at the time of there giving which are and which are not.

The issue with Hezekiah and 15 years added appears to be unconditional, but it was actually conditional (God changed His mind in response to believing prayer). This narrative is one of many that support the principles of Open Theism.

 

[elected4ever]

The issue with Hezekiah and 15 years added appears to be unconditional, but it was actually conditional (God changed His mind in response to believing prayer). This narrative is one of many that support the principles of Open Theism.

I know how it appears to us but how do you know that God does not say certain things to individuals and groups to illicit a response and in the end the the will of God is accomplished in the matter. The willingness of man must be voluntary. God does not force compliance but He will give man a reason to comply with His desire. There is no doubt that Hezekiah would have died if He had not repented. Yes, it does prove that man is a free agent to make decisions. Ignore God at your own peril. It is not that God changed His mind but God acts to get man to change his.

 

[patman]

I know how it appears to us but how do you know that God does not say certain things to individuals and groups to illicit a response and in the end the the will of God is accomplished in the matter. The willingness of man must be voluntary. God does not force compliance but He will give man a reason to comply with His desire. There is no doubt that Hezekiah would have died if He had not repented. Yes, it does prove that man is a free agent to make decisions. Ignore God at your own peril. It is not that God changed His mind but God acts to get man to change his.

:think:

So God is fooling us into thinking he changed his mind, it is all pretend mind changing.

 

[Lon]

:think:

So God is fooling us into thinking he changed his mind, it is all pretend mind changing.

So your question is "How can God sigh if He already knows an outcome?" If I am reading you correctly. Your answer then is "Because He didn't know, and is relational." Again if I understand your position correctly.

An alternative is this: 1) God isn't like us. We must be very careful to make sure we understand God for who He is. It is easy to anthropomorphize what we read in scripture. If OV should have a caution, this would be my stressed point over anything else. We often transcribe our own feelings and thought upon others and get it wrong. It is egocentric, and it comes naturally to us. The caution here is to make sure we are empathetic to God's position and transcendence. He is above His creation (us Ecc 8:17. 2) If God is all-knowing (EF) then we need to remember that God isn't like a man nor does He think like one Numbers 23:19 Isaiah 46:9-10 His Words stand forever, which means they are not only accomplished, but are written both before and after the fact (Psalms 119:89 this one is key, some things are 'very settled').
3) Translating all Hebraic thought is a difficult manuever. When we see God repenting of an action, נחם (nâcham) it means He sighed (or breathed)deeply.
God can know all things and yet be relational and He has emotions.

If I'm an automotive engineer who builds wonderful cars, and I custom build one for a demolition derby, I know the car will be ruined, but when I see it, I'd repent even more that I made it. For me, captured in time and space, it is upon the results that I repent, for God, it is a heavy sigh upon seeing man's condition. Because He is relational to us, even if the event is known (like it is past already) He still relates to us in our moment of time. For this, you would agree. It isn't that SV doesn't see God as relational to us in time at all. It is that He is both relational to, and outside of it.

 

[godrulz]

I know how it appears to us but how do you know that God does not say certain things to individuals and groups to illicit a response and in the end the the will of God is accomplished in the matter. The willingness of man must be voluntary. God does not force compliance but He will give man a reason to comply with His desire. There is no doubt that Hezekiah would have died if He had not repented. Yes, it does prove that man is a free agent to make decisions. Ignore God at your own peril. It is not that God changed His mind but God acts to get man to change his.

God does not lie. He does not deceive or trick us with lies to get us to change our minds. God made a true statement at the time: Hezekiah, you are a dead duck, period. It was God who changed His mind after Hezekiah prayed. This is not smoke and mirrors in the Open view since we take it at face value. We do not presume that God is just playing games to get his will done. God can and does change in response to changing contingencies, including believing prayer. We see this in the life of Moses and Abraham also where God and man work cooperatively (vs God working unilaterally apart from relationship).

 

[baloney]

I think a view many open theists have is that Christian thinking was eventually mixed up with Greek Philosophy and that is how the idea of an immutable God came about.

But didn't the old Jewish beliefs, the people who wrote the Old Testament, believe in an all knowing God and that is where Christians inherited this belief from?

Also, didn't the Jewish people believe that good works take precedence and faith means little without it?

One more thing, weren't the Jewish people not overly concerned with the afterlife and didn't really believe in hell etc. It seems that open theists mistakenly try to use the Old Testament to back their own beliefs without considering what the true belief of the people who wrote it was.

Check out these sources for the backing of my argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_Christianity

 

[elected4ever]

:think:

So God is fooling us into thinking he changed his mind, it is all pretend mind changing.

If you think God is fooling with you then don't change you mind and we will see if God fools with you are not.Wont to take that chance?

 

[Philetus]

I do not rank with these giants, especially Clete. I sit at their feet and simply do not have the depth of thought that they do.

A normative literal approach (vs allegorical) to Revelation is more than reasonable. Like all literature, we also recognize figures of speech (vs wooden literalism).

It is common in Scripture and literature to use round numbers, so your observation is valid (vs wooden literalism/exact numbers). If we say 20,000 watched the game, we do not literally mean that number (without being false).

Don't sell yourself too short, friend.

I have conceded it is reasonable! And, I'm glad you didn't get sidetracked with my prosaic math.:crackup: On to the attributes of God.

You have often stated that Open Theism is at least primarily concerned with the future of God's creation, not His attributes. But, the thing that rings true for most Open Theists is that God created the universe to interact ... have loving relationship with human beings ... and in fact does so: risk, give and take/receive ... negotiation even. (Abraham over Sodom, Hezekiah and his personal future, and Jonah over Nineveh just to mention a few.) Is that only past and present. Do these attributes not also inform us of God's future dealings with us? Are the yet unfulfilled prophecies in scripture suddenly not informed by them?

Pinnock has stated "Truth and meaning for Christianity lie with the narrative before it is expressed in the doctrinal form. ... Christian theology, then, should not be primarily rational-propositional in form, even thought it usually is, especially among evangelicals. Its primary task ought to be to explore and proclaim the Christian story, which is what gives meaning to doctrines in the first place. ... Theology exists to serve the story and not the other way around." (Tracking the Maze, 182,183.)

The plot of the epic story, according to Pennock, is "eucatastrophe"; the intervention of God in history for human salvation. For Pennock at least, Open Theism drew his attention toward not only the nature of God, but also to the final destiny of non-Christians. He has at least helped us to clarify what is at stake even if his conclusion (which I am not eager to discard and yet willing to explore) that upon Christ's return, non-Christians will simply cease to exist.

from Encarta World English Dictionary: Amillennialism, the predominant view for much of Christian history, is the belief that biblical references to the millennium are strictly figurative and that there will be no earthly millennium. Some amillennialists believe that the millennial rule of Christ occurs in the hearts of believers. Others believe that the description of the millennium in Revelation refers to Christ’s reign in the kingdom of Heaven.

Some may even believe the kingdom is both now and future.

An Amillennialist view of the Kingdom is also rational and more than reasonable. Can we even discuss it as such?

 

[Philetus]

If you think God is fooling with you then don't change you mind and we will see if God fools with you are not.Wont to take that chance?

YES! Since God was willing to take a chance on me by going to the cross! YES, indeed.

God ain't fooling around with us and neither are we, E.

(Well, maybe a little bit sometimes.)

Quit being so dang shallow.

 

[Philetus]

God does not lie. He does not deceive or trick us with lies to get us to change our minds. God made a true statement at the time: Hezekiah, you are a dead duck, period. It was God who changed His mind after Hezekiah prayed. This is not smoke and mirrors in the Open view since we take it at face value. We do not presume that God is just playing games to get his will done. God can and does change in response to changing contingencies, including believing prayer. We see this in the life of Moses and Abraham also where God and man work cooperatively (vs God working unilaterally apart from relationship).

:first: Move over Boyd.:thumb:

 

[elected4ever]

YES! Since God was willing to take a chance on me by going to the cross! YES, indeed.

God ain't fooling around with us and neither are we, E.

(Well, maybe a little bit sometimes.)

Quit being so dang shallow.

God never took a chance on you or anyone else. God is not a God of chance. God is a God of purpose and power.

 

[godrulz]

I think amillennial views rely on an allegorical vs literal approach.

Reciprocal love relationships...I like it (?John Sanders).

I would part ways with Pinnock if he is leaning toward annihilationalism or universalism (I think Sanders also toys with non-traditional views in this area).