ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!

[Philetus]

"I will contend that if we truly believe God is omniscient, possessing unlimited intelligence and knowledge, there is no basis for concluding he is less “in control” if he knows the future partly as a realm of possibilities than he is if he knows the future exclusively as a realm of eternally settled facts. In fact, I shall argue that any view of God which thinks God gains any significant providential advantage simply by virtue of knowing the future exclusively as a realm of eternally settled facts (rather than as partly comprised of possibilities thereby concedes that it has a limited view of God. More specifically, ironic as it sounds, I shall argue that this charge is premised on a denial of God’s omniscience."


“Those who hold the future is exhaustively settled by God’s will are broadly labeled “Calvinist,” while those who hold the future is exhaustively settled in God’s knowledge, but not by God’s will, are broadly labeled Arminian. The distinctive teaching of Open Theism is that the future is not exhaustively settled, either by God’s will, or in God’s knowledge.”
Trusting God’s Infinite Intelligence: Why We Need Not Fear A Partly Open Future By Dr. Gregory A. Boyd​

http://www.christusvictorministries...n=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=99999999

 

[elected4ever]

"I will contend that if we truly believe God is omniscient, possessing unlimited intelligence and knowledge, there is no basis for concluding he is less “in control” if he knows the future partly as a realm of possibilities than he is if he knows the future exclusively as a realm of eternally settled facts. In fact, I shall argue that any view of God which thinks God gains any significant providential advantage simply by virtue of knowing the future exclusively as a realm of eternally settled facts (rather than as partly comprised of possibilities thereby concedes that it has a limited view of God. More specifically, ironic as it sounds, I shall argue that this charge is premised on a denial of God’s omniscience."


“Those who hold the future is exhaustively settled by God’s will are broadly labeled “Calvinist,” while those who hold the future is exhaustively settled in God’s knowledge, but not by God’s will, are broadly labeled Arminian. The distinctive teaching of Open Theism is that the future is not exhaustively settled, either by God’s will, or in God’s knowledge.”
Trusting God’s Infinite Intelligence: Why We Need Not Fear A Partly Open Future By Dr. Gregory A. Boyd​

http://www.christusvictorministries...n=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=99999999

[/quote] Pure Bunk

 

[Philetus]

All views agree that God is sovereign, but we understand sovereignty differently. Even in human government, we have a spectrum from dictatorship to passive figurehead. God is more democratic than dictator (is that fair to say?)....i.e. He created significant others with a limited say so and limited freedom, yet He is the final say so in the end.

I don't think it is at all accurate to compare the sovereignty of God to a democracy or any form of human government. We don't vote on the will of God or elect a governing body to rule over 'all things for the church'. The reign of God through the Lordship of Jesus Christ is unique especially as to His indwelling presence. There is no human government on the planet that even comes near the kind of personal intimate relationship that each has with his/her master in the Kingdom. We do not lord it over one another in the way of Jesus. His Kingdom is in the world but not of the world.

 

[Clete]

"I will contend that if we truly believe God is omniscient, possessing unlimited intelligence and knowledge, there is no basis for concluding he is less “in control” if he knows the future partly as a realm of possibilities than he is if he knows the future exclusively as a realm of eternally settled facts. In fact, I shall argue that any view of God which thinks God gains any significant providential advantage simply by virtue of knowing the future exclusively as a realm of eternally settled facts (rather than as partly comprised of possibilities thereby concedes that it has a limited view of God. More specifically, ironic as it sounds, I shall argue that this charge is premised on a denial of God’s omniscience."


“Those who hold the future is exhaustively settled by God’s will are broadly labeled “Calvinist,” while those who hold the future is exhaustively settled in God’s knowledge, but not by God’s will, are broadly labeled Arminian. The distinctive teaching of Open Theism is that the future is not exhaustively settled, either by God’s will, or in God’s knowledge.”
Trusting God’s Infinite Intelligence: Why We Need Not Fear A Partly Open Future By Dr. Gregory A. Boyd​

http://www.christusvictorministries...n=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=99999999

Excellent and substantive quote, Philetus. Thanks for posting it. :up:

 

[ApologeticJedi]

"I will contend that if we truly believe God is omniscient, possessing unlimited intelligence and knowledge, there is no basis for concluding he is less “in control” if he knows the future partly as a realm of possibilities than he is if he knows the future exclusively as a realm of eternally settled facts."

Obviously, do deny this shows a lack of faith in God's omipotence.
Good quote.

 

[godrulz]

Pure Bunk[/QUOTE]


You do not understand the nature of the debate. If you did, you would not call it junk.

 

[godrulz]

I don't think it is at all accurate to compare the sovereignty of God to a democracy or any form of human government. We don't vote on the will of God or elect a governing body to rule over 'all things for the church'. The reign of God through the Lordship of Jesus Christ is unique especially as to His indwelling presence. There is no human government on the planet that even comes near the kind of personal intimate relationship that each has with his/her master in the Kingdom. We do not lord it over one another in the way of Jesus. His Kingdom is in the world but not of the world.

I agree, sir. I was just using an analogy to contrast extremes (Dictator vs Democracy; God as Control Freak vs God as Father).

 

[elected4ever]

Pure Bunk

You do not understand the nature of the debate. If you did, you would not call it junk.[/QUOTE]
"I shall argue that any view of God which thinks God gains any significant providential advantage simply by virtue of knowing the future exclusively as a realm of eternally settled facts (rather than as partly comprised of possibilities thereby concedes that it has a limited view of God. More specifically, ironic as it sounds, I shall argue that this charge is premised on a denial of God’s omniscience." Dr. Gregory A. Boyd

I do concede that my view of God is limited. Does that mean that Dr. Boyd's isn't? That goes for every one. If it were not so we would not have this discussions. WE shall know Him and be like Him when we meet him face to face and not before. Besides I don't think that all this will mean much then.

 

[godrulz]

He did not mean that our understanding is limited. He meant that some wrong views of God 'limit' who He is. Open Theists are accused of limiting God's greatness and reducing Him to a man. This is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the view. Boyd is trying to say that the issue is the nature of the future (settled or only partially settled), not whether He is omnipotent or omniscient (which He is!).

Further, just as not creating a square circle does not limit God, so not knowing a nothing does not limit God (the future is not a settled thing so it is known as possible vs actual).

 

[Philetus]

I agree, sir. I was just using an analogy to contrast extremes (Dictator vs Democracy; God as Control Freak vs God as Father).

:up:

I thought so. But after reading The Myth of a Christian Nation, Boyd's latest and probably most controversial book, I guess I was a little nit-picky. I did catch your own questioning "is that fair to say?" comment.

Dictator vs God rule! In fact God rule vs everything else!

And yeah, Boyd is a pastor doing some good hard thinking work. Any ideas on how I might shape a dissertation around his stuff? :think:

 

[godrulz]

:up:

I thought so. But after reading The Myth of a Christian Nation, Boyd's latest and probably most controversial book, I guess I was a little nit-picky. I did catch your own questioning "is that fair to say?" comment.

Dictator vs God rule! In fact God rule vs everything else!

And yeah, Boyd is a pastor doing some good hard thinking work. Any ideas on how I might shape a dissertation around his stuff? :think:

Could you contrast his view (neo-Molinism) with the different nuances of other prominent Open Theists? I think he differs from Clark Pinnock, for example, in some details.

 

[Joe Roberts]

If you believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins, what does it really matter whether you believe in open theism or not?

 

[godrulz]

If you believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins, what does it really matter whether you believe in open theism or not?

It is not essential, salvific (heaven or hell) truth, but we should desire to know God as He is. We do not want to misrepresent God and His ways. Open Theism does have practical implications for prayer, evangelism, social concerns, apologetics, etc. Some thinkers resist becoming Christians because some theologies are incoherent (e.g. Calvinism can make some think that God is responsible for heinous evil and thus not worthy to be trusted).

 

[Philetus]

BUNK!

"I shall argue that any view of God which thinks God gains any significant providential advantage simply by virtue of knowing the future exclusively as a realm of eternally settled facts (rather than as partly comprised of possibilities thereby concedes that it has a limited view of God. More specifically, ironic as it sounds, I shall argue that this charge is premised on a denial of God’s omniscience." Dr. Gregory A. Boyd​

E4E: I do concede that my view of God is limited. Does that mean that Dr. Boyd's isn't? That goes for every one. If it were not so we would not have this discussions. WE shall know Him and be like Him when we meet him face to face and not before. Besides I don't think that all this will mean much then.

The question or issue is not as to our limitation in knowing, understanding or telling others about God. We are all limited in that regard. We can not beg off that easily. Souls hang in the balance. Thanks be to God and the Lord Jesus for the gift of the Spirit and grace. Otherwise none would ever come to any saving knowledge. And I totally agree with you that in the here-after none of this will matter one iota. It will be to late to matter to the lost. However, many say it doesn’t matter now, because God is in meticulous control either through His will or His knowledge of the future. And many who say this are among the unsaved. Where did they get such a contaminated notion? Could it be from the SV? Where else? That is why I offer no lenience for either the Calvinist or the Arminian. Both, to a greater or lesser degree, misrepresent the truth about God and deny the reality evident in creation.

IT MATTERS A GREAT DEAL HERE AND NOW, because we want to share the truth about God in the clearest way possible and even then we must rely on the Sprit to do the ultimate truth-telling and convincing. Still, it is absolutely imperative that we share the Good News (which is after all only the truth about God) in a way that in no way hinder that News with false exaggerations or embellishments that serve only to confuse and frustrate the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of unbelievers and cause them to walk away from God's salvation hospitality thinking it won't matter in eternity.

The quote which you disregard as ‘bunk’ goes straight to the heart of this debate! Does the God who became flesh and blood, moved into our neighborhood and offered His very life to redeem sinful man in anyway limit the use of His OMNIs?

Go figure.

 

[Philetus]

If you believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins, what does it really matter whether you believe in open theism or not?

See the response just above this post.

 

[Philetus]

Could you contrast his view (neo-Molinism) with the different nuances of other prominent Open Theists? I think he differs from Clark Pinnock, for example, in some details.

I've considered it, but the foremost authority on Pinnock is on campus. :chew: I'm not that brave! Still he might be a great resource if he were more accessible. I'm thinking about moving to MN for a few months, joining Boyd's church and doing a bio and survey of his work. :chuckle: I just don’t know if I can put it together in time.

 

[Philetus]

It is not essential, salvific (heaven or hell) truth, but we should desire to know God as He is. We do not want to misrepresent God and His ways. Open Theism does have practical implications for prayer, evangelism, social concerns, apologetics, etc. Some thinkers resist becoming Christians because some theologies are incoherent (e.g. Calvinism can make some think that God is responsible for heinous evil and thus not worthy to be trusted).

I must spread it around before giving it to 'youknowwho' again.

While I was typing my long answer .... once again you said it succinctly!


Do you have any links or sources (pro or con) on neo-Molinism and maybe specifically as they relate to Boyd's views or OVT in particular?

 

[Joe Roberts]

It is not essential, salvific (heaven or hell) truth, but we should desire to know God as He is. We do not want to misrepresent God and His ways. Open Theism does have practical implications for prayer, evangelism, social concerns, apologetics, etc. Some thinkers resist becoming Christians because some theologies are incoherent (e.g. Calvinism can make some think that God is responsible for heinous evil and thus not worthy to be trusted).

Ok I understand, I used to think that if you trust in Jesus dieing for our Sins that was enough.

 

[Delmar]

Ok I understand, I used to think that if you trust in Jesus dieing for our Sins that was enough.

Hey Joe
I think he just agreed with you that it is enough for salvation! I think he is also suggesting that it is good to go from, living on milk, to eating solid food!

 

[godrulz]

Ok I understand, I used to think that if you trust in Jesus dieing for our Sins that was enough.

That is enough for initial salvation. We are saved by faith, not theological perfection. This does not mean that sound doctrine is not important or that it is not a factor in right living subsequent to salvation.