ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Evoken]

Interesting.

Thanks for the "heads up".

No problem

 

[Daniel50]

God and the Future: A Brief Outline of the Open View

by Dr. Gregory A. Boyd

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this essay I shall briefly state the Open view of God's relationship to the future with the scriptural grounds on which it is based. I shall then briefly address the most common objections raised against it.

The Open View

It goes without saying that there are many passages of Scripture, which depict God as foreknowing and/or predestining certain things about the future. What is not so often recognized is that there are also many passages of Scripture which suggest that some of the future is open (not settled) and is known by God as such. For example,

The Lord frequently changes his mind in the light of changing circumstances or in the light of prayer (Exod. 32:14; Num. 14:12-20; Deut. 9:13-14, 18-20, 25; 1 Sam. 2:27-36; 2 Kings 20:1-7; 1 Chron. 21:15; Jer. 26:19; Ezek. 20:5-22; Amos 7:1-6; Jon. 1:2; 3:2, 4-10).

Other times he explicitly tells us he will change his mind if circumstances change (Jer. 1 8:7-1 1; 26:2-3; Ezek. 3 3:13 -15). This willingness to change is portrayed as one of God's attributes of greatness (Joel 2:13-14; Jon. 4:2).

A number of times he expresses regret and disappointment over how things have turned out - even over previous decisions he has made which went array because of human free will (Gen. 6:5-6; 1 Sam 15:10, 3 5; Ezek. 22:29-3 1).

Other times he tells us he's surprised at how things turned out, for he expected a different outcome (Isa. 5:3-7; Jer. 3:6-7; 19-20).

In several passages the Lord explicitly tells us that he did not know that humans would behave the way they did (Jer. 7:3 1; 19:5; 3 2:3 5).

The Lord frequently tests his people to find out whether or not they'll remain faithful to him (Gen. 22:12; Exod. 16:4; Deut. 8:2; 13:1-3; Judg. 2:20-3:5; 2 Chron. 32:3 1).

The Lord sometimes asks non-rhetorical questions about the future (Num. 14:1 1; Hos. 8:5) and speaks to people in terms of what may or may not happen (Exod. 3:18-4:9 - 13:17; Jer. 38:17-18, 20-21, 23; Ezek. 12:1-3).

Traditionally, theologians have taken all the passages that demonstrate that the future is settled in either in God's mind (foreknowledge) or in God's will (predestination) as revealing the whole truth about God's relationship to the future. They therefore interpret all passages (such as the above) which suggest that God faces a partly open future as being figurative. On exegetical and theological grounds I do not see this approach as warranted. I am therefore compelled to take both sets of passages as literal and thus to draw the conclusion that the future which God faces is partly open and partly settled.

Objections

1. The Open view undermines God's omniscience.

I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God is absolutely all knowing. There is no difference in my understanding of God's omniscience and any other orthodox theologian. But I hold that part of the reality, which God perfectly knows, consists of possibilities. The difference is in our understanding of creation, not in our understanding of God's omniscience.

2. The Open view undermines God's omnipotence.

I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God is omnipotent. He is the Creator of all things and thus all power comes from him. But with all Arminians, I also hold that God limits the exercise of his own power by giving free will to creatures (humans and angels).

3. The Open view undermines our confidence in God's ability to accomplish his purposes.

I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God can and has guaranteed whatever he wants to about the future, for he is omnipotent. But I also affirm (because I believe Scripture teaches) that part of God's purpose in creation is to have free agents who decide some matters for themselves (e.g. their own eternal destiny). Within the parameters set by the Creator, parameters which guarantee whatever God wants to guarantee about the future, humans have some degree of self-determination. This means that concerning the fate of particular individuals things may not turn out, as God desires. If we deny this, we must accept that God actually desires some people to go to hell. But Scripture unequivocally denies this. (I Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9)

4. The Open view undermines God's perfection.

I affirm (because Scripture teaches) the absolute perfection of God. But I do not see that Scripture teaches that the future must be exhaustively settled either in God's mind or in God's will for God to be perfect. Rather, I believe that God's perfection is more exalted when we understand him to be so self-confident in his power that he genuinely gives free will to creatures.

5. This Open view undermines the power of prayer.

I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that petitionary prayer is our most powerful tool in bringing about the Father's will \"on earth as it is in heaven.\" Indeed, because my view allows for the future to be somewhat open, I believe it makes the best sense out of the urgency and efficaciousness, which Scripture attaches to prayer.

6. The Open view cannot account for biblical prophecy.

I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God can and does determine and predict the future whenever it suits his sovereign purposes to do so. But I deny that this logically entails, or that Scripture teaches, that all of the future is determined and predictable. God is wise enough to be able to achieve his purposes while allowing his creatures a significant element of freedom.

7. The Open View is Incoherent

Some argue that it is logically impossible for God to guarantee some aspects of the future without controlling everything about the future. This objection has been raised by Calvinists against Arminians for centuries and is no more forceful against the Open view than it is against classical Arminians. Everything in life, from our own personal experience down to quantum particles, points to the truth that predictable stability does not rule out an element of unpredictability.


Recently read!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR likes to quote sources without citing them. The entire quotation above was taken verbatim from The Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.

No, what I like is for folks to r-e-a-d what I have written elsewhere instead of re-asking the same questions over and over due to skimming and looking for things to wail about. Makes it hard for anyone, including me, to keep track of what they have written and actually properly cited here. You are just too desperate, aren't you?

 

[themuzicman]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You understand of course that while you make the above accusation against the Open Theist, that the Open Theist can turn right around and just as easily make the same accusation against you. You say that we are rationalizing God into some preconcieved notion and we say the exact same thing about you. The question is who is right and why.

I would like for you to answer that question.

Why is your accusation accurate and ours not? How would you propose that some independent third party make a determination as to which of us is correct about the other rationalizing God into their own preconceived notion of what God should be?

I can appeal to hundreds of years of exegesis by others and you can appeal to the few writings of the likes of Sanders, Boyd, and Pinnock. Any intellectually honest person must conclude that any position contrary to what other great theologians have concluded from their proper exegesis cannot be so easily dismissed. Yet that is all you and your ilk are prone to do. You never seriously ponder these other men's writings seriously and unbiasedly. You have formed a position based upon shallow theology and methods, and won't step back and ask yourselves, "How can what I am saying be rejected by so many throughout history who are obviously not ignorant and are very spiritual?" I have yet to see you or anyone else take the arguments of the great theologians of this and past eras, dissect them carefully, and make a reasoned position. Yet, I and others, have written numerously about the errors of the interpretations by the few open theists that have published, carefully outlining and substantiating where they have erred in their techniques. The response from the open theist community has primarily centered around the genetic fallacies, "Aristotle!" "Calvin!", "Augustine!".

No one, Boyd, Pinnock, or Sanders, included, has taken up the task to respond to their critics with anything that resembles a proper exegetical rejoinder to their critics. I and many in the church would welcome such a response.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God and the Future: A Brief Outline of the Open View

by Dr. Gregory A. Boyd

Thank you. You have made my point perfectly obvious.

 

[themuzicman]

I can appeal to hundreds of years of exegesis by others and you can appeal to the few writings of the likes of Sanders, Boyd, and Pinnock. Any intellectually honest person must conclude that any position contrary to what other great theologians have concluded from their proper exegesis cannot be so easily dismissed. Yet that is all you and your ilk are prone to do. You never seriously ponder these other men's writings seriously and unbiasedly. You have formed a position based upon shallow theology and methods, and won't step back and ask yourselves, "How can what I am saying be rejected by so many throughout history who are obviously not ignorant and are very spiritual?" I have yet to see you or anyone else take the arguments of the great theologians of this and past eras, dissect them carefully, and make a reasoned position. Yet, I and others, have written numerously about the errors of the interpretations by the few open theists that have published, carefully outlining and substantiating where they have erred in their techniques. The response from the open theist community has primarily centered around the genetic fallacies, "Aristotle!" "Calvin!", "Augustine!".

No one, Boyd, Pinnock, or Sanders, included, has taken up the task to respond to their critics with anything that resembles a proper exegetical rejoinder to their critics. I and many in the church would welcome such a response.

You don't realize that this is a losing argument for you, yet, do you...

Calvinism is only around 500 years old. Christianity is 2000 years old. Any Catholic or Eastern Orthodox theologian could make this same argument against you, and either you'd have to abandon your argument, here, or become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

Are you calling to set up your Catechism, yet?

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You don't realize that this is a losing argument for you, yet, do you...

Calvinism is only around 500 years old. Christianity is 2000 years old. Any Catholic or Eastern Orthodox theologian could make this same argument against you, and either you'd have to abandon your argument, here, or become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

Are you calling to set up your Catechism, yet?

Muz

I have no issues with the bulk of the Catholic faith. If you did your homework about me you would already know this.

 

[themuzicman]

I have no issues with the bulk of the Catholic faith. If you did your homework about me you would already know this.

So, you're an Arminian who believes that Mary is the co-Redemptrix, and that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, that we ought to pray to the saints, and that anyone who isn't in the Catholic church doesn't have access to the elements of salvation?

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So, you're an Arminian who believes that Mary is the co-Redemptrix, and that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, that we ought to pray to the saints, and that anyone who isn't in the Catholic church doesn't have access to the elements of salvation?

Muz

Please go to the other threads already started on the topic of Catholicism and engage the discussion and get your misunderstandings cleared up.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Please go to the other threads already started on the topic of Catholicism and engage the discussion and get your misunderstandings cleared up.

In other words.... "DOH" :doh:

 

[themuzicman]

Please go to the other threads already started on the topic of Catholicism and engage the discussion and get your misunderstandings cleared up.

Quit dodging the point. The point is that your " hundreds of years of exegesis argument" falls on its face, because you have the same problem. Protestantism began because the historical church fell into error in some areas after 1500 years, and there was a return to the bible. 500 years later, we're back to the same point. Reformed theology has good points, but there are areas that need to be fixed by returning to the bible. Enter Open View Theism.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

Thank you. You have made my point perfectly obvious.

Deal with his biblical arguments and summary. The points are valid and stand up to philosophical, theological, and logical scrutiny. Calvin, Luther, and Augustine had many unbiblical ideas that you would even reject. Boyd is not a household name like them, but that does not mean everything he says has no merit (nor does it mean everything he teaches is defensible...some is speculative or needs fine-tuning).

 

[godrulz]

I have no issues with the bulk of the Catholic faith. If you did your homework about me you would already know this.

You believe in Mass, Mariolatry, papacy, apostolic succession, rosary, purgatory, indulgences, tradition + Bible, etc.?!:sigh: :noid: :box:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Quit dodging the point. The point is that your " hundreds of years of exegesis argument" falls on its face, because you have the same problem. Protestantism began because the historical church fell into error in some areas after 1500 years, and there was a return to the bible. 500 years later, we're back to the same point. Reformed theology has good points, but there are areas that need to be fixed by returning to the bible. Enter Open View Theism.

Muz

No, actually you miss the point entirely. The Reformation was a fine tuning of some of the doctrines, not a wholesale re-write of the nature of God and the last states that open theism would have one believe. You don't understand your theological history or the essentials involved. That was patently obvious from your post above.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Deal with his biblical arguments and summary. The points are valid and stand up to philosophical, theological, and logical scrutiny. Calvin, Luther, and Augustine had many unbiblical ideas that you would even reject. Boyd is not a household name like them, but that does not mean everything he says has no merit (nor does it mean everything he teaches is defensible...some is speculative or needs fine-tuning).

As my point made earlier states, how can I or anyone deal with "affirmations" made without exegesis. The exegesis of my doctrines has been made and stands. There is none in Boyd's arguments posted. What little is in his book and the other open theists ' books have all been responded to. Yet we in the theological community await the rejoinders. There are none.

 

[Lon]

Well, how can God be moved, if He already knew what was going to happen, and all events are "now" to Him? Which emotion does God have all the time?

Muz

All of them, perfectly. Emotions are a dashlight indicator on our road in life. The lights tell us how things are going. Blinker for a turn, 'fill the washer fluid' "Gas Low.'

Some people live by their dashlights, but I have this one light that continues to come on faultily.

Our emotions are our responses to our surroundings. They indicate what is happening, what we think about it, and how we feel. God's feelings are not subject to fear as ours, nor doubt, nor any other imperfection caused by the fall.

We have a gambit of emotions that are influenced by the fall that God does not share. God has always been jealous for Israel, and us as we fight to keep Him God over our lives. God has always shown Love to us, and is always lamenting our sin condition. His emotion is more action than whimsical feeling. His indicators are perfect, there is never any warning, so He has no need for them as we do. Our lives are messed up, not His. He recognizes our emotions, but His are different.

 

[Lon]

:chuckle:

"Man without butter not know he not enjoy popcorn."

NOW he's back, I was concerned.

 

[Lighthouse]

Anyone who believes God has to be completely unchangeable in every single way, and has to have completely planned out every event over all of existence, in order to be trusted is an untrustworthy person.

 

[Lon]

Anyone who believes God has to be completely unchangeable in every single way, and has to have completely planned out every event over all of existence, in order to be trusted is an untrustworthy person.

See, this is a much better statement than "Do you trust God?" 50x's (Stipe)

Stipe,THAT'S why you get put on ignore lists. Say what you mean off the bat instead of baiting questions and hoping to 'reel 'em in.'

You are a fisherman (angler), I can tell.