Open Theism Stirs Controversy on College Campuses

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer


The Bible makes sense Airy, it does you no good to cling to pious sounding clichés and appeal to the fact that you can't understand them as evidence of their piety and truth. I agree that we cannot dream of fully understanding God but we can understand more than you are letting on, and the rest we are not responsible for.

A lot of people seem to think that God wants to be mysterious, but the evidence of the Bible is that he wants to be known by us!

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by deardelmar

A lot of people seem to think that God wants to be mysterious, but the evidence of the Bible is that he wants to be known by us!

"He is there, and He is not silent." - Francis Schaeffer

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by deardelmar

A lot of people seem to think that God wants to be mysterious, but the evidence of the Bible is that he wants to be known by us!

Yes, I completely agree!
That is the purpose of our existence, to know God and to be known by Him.
We cannot love whom we do not know. This is the purpose of God's word, that we might know Him and come to love Him in a genuine personal love relationship.

If God is utterly immutable, He is also impassable. John 3:16 by itself proves conclusively that God is passible and that He is therefore mutable as well.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

both claim that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ who died, was buried and rose again on high.

arminism says the future is closed, open theism says the future is open duh: )

I think Open Theism is a sub-type of Arminianism. Armin. says that we have genuine freedom. God knows the future through 'simple foreknowledge', whatever that is or means. He 'sees' the future without causing it. This view tries to have its cake and eat it too. It wants an open future, yet one that is exhaustively foreknown without causation. There is a logical problem here.

In Calvinism, God is able to know the future because He predestines it (closed; settled).

Open Theism seems to be the only view that recognizes that some of the future is settled and determined by God, while much of the future is open, contingent, and unknowable (except as possibility, until actuality/certainty). It is a mediate, alternative view to simple foreknowledge or predestination.

Our view of the nature of time and eternity also has a bearing ('eternal now' vs endless duration).

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by billwald

If the future exists then time travel might be possible.

The future is not a place, thing, space, or in existence yet. Therefore, time travel is an absurdity. The past is fixed, the future is open/not yet, the present is reality.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by godrulz

Lighthouse:

Do you believe in the conscious torment of unbelievers for eternity, or in annihilation where the unregenerate will cease to exist?

John Stott, Anglican, has also adopted your view of annihilation (as well as SDA, JWs, liberals, etc.). For the record, this is out of step with historical, biblical, orthodox Christianity. I would revisit the Scriptures vs sentimentalism. This is a topic for another thread and is not a salvific issue.

 

[AiryStottel]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

It is not absurd (logically).
I responded to this already. Your circle analogy doesn't work because God is not an inanimate object. He is alive. To suggest that any living thing perfect or otherwise cannot change is indeed logically absurd. The definition of being alive requires the ability to react to outside stimulus. A reaction is a change. And it is not a change for the better or for the worse. To assume that any change must necessarily be for the better or for the worse is an Aristotelian philosophical error. There is a third logical option.
Have you ever considered the possibility that if it is in the nature of some perfect thing to change then for it not to change would be a break down of one kind or another? That is precisely what I am saying. God is alive and by nature of that single fact, He must be able to react to things that happen. If God does not react to anything, He is not alive.
God is personal and relational as well. Before anything was every created, God had a loving and intimate relationship between the persons of the Trinity. This cannot happen if God is utterly immutable, it CANNOT HAPPEN.

In addition to this logical analysis, I have also demonstrated Biblically that God does in fact change in dramatic and undeniable ways.

Allow me to boil this down a bit in the hopes of making some better progress. If you will, please answer the following few questions...

Has God always been a man?

Has God ever been a man?

Is God a man today?

Has God ever died?

Is God dead now?

It what way is it possible to reconcile the incarnation, crucifixion, burial and resurrection with the idea that God is utterly immutable?



Then tell me where I am wrong. Simple.


Okay, great! No Open Theist would disagree with this much of what you said in principle.


Define "infinite knowledge" and provide Biblical support for applying that definition to the God of the Bible.


This is not so. If by infinite knowledge you mean that God knows everything that is knowable then it causes no problem logically or Biblically to say that God cannot know the actions of free will agents because to be free one must be able to do or to do otherwise. If God knows in advance what I will do then my ability to do otherwise does not exist and so neither does my freedom.


Both terms "infinitely just" and "infinitely merciful" are not Biblical terms or ideas. They are also mutually exclusive and therefore logically incoherent (a lot worse than a simple paradox). "Perfectly just" is a Biblical idea as is the idea that God is merciful but these are not mutually exclusive nor logically incoherent or even paradoxical for that matter.



The Bible makes sense Airy, it does you no good to cling to pious sounding clichés and appeal to the fact that you can't understand them as evidence of their piety and truth. I agree that we cannot dream of fully understanding God but we can understand more than you are letting on, and the rest we are not responsible for.


You confuse paradox with contradiction; they are not the same thing. The former only implies missing information or faulty understanding, the latter implies logical incoherence.
The fact that there is ONE God who exists as three persons, what we refer to as the doctrine of the Trinity is a great example of paradox. We do not understand because there is information about the nature of God in this respect that we do no have access to. The concept transcends our ability to comprehend it but it is vitally important to know that the doctrine of the Trinity IS NOT SELF CONTRADICTORY! It is not logically incoherent in any respect. In fact the Trinity must be logically presupposed in order to make logical sense of the world around us, but that's a topic for another thread.


Saying it doesn't make it so Airy. I have demonstrated both the Biblical support and the logical soundness of my position, you have done neither.


Merry Christmas to you and your family! I too will be gone after today for a few days so I hope we can continue next week.
And don't worry about your posts; you'll get it figured out eventually! :thumb:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[AiryStottel]

To Clete:

If you refuse to answer my question, how can we have an honest debate on this question of open-ended theology? My question is this: do you believe that God is absolutely perfect? Yes or no!

If your answer is yes, then it is impossible for someone who is absolutely perfect to undergo a change, because then by changing, what WAS absolute perfection is NO LONGER absolute perfection. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand that. My example of an absolutely perfect circle, was just that..... an example, just as Jesus Christ had to use examples to explain to his ignorant apostles what God was all about.

If your answer is no, then you are making a blasphemous statement concerning the one true God, or you are describing your god, who is mutable and imperfect, and you have every right to worship false gods, rocks, chickens, ducks .....and the sun, among many other things.

Will be in and out the next few days, but will reply as best I can.

Merry Christmas,

Airy
P.S. If you knew the real nature of God, saying that God is alive is an understatement times infinity. You are trying to teach someone who is light years ahead of you in this area.. Alive means infinite love, infinite power, infinite light, infinite mercy, infinite justice, .................and so on. Think before you speak.

 

[godrulz]

Your wrong assumption is that change must be related to imperfection. A tadpole or sapling changes and does not become imperfect. Just because God has new thoughts, creates (this is a change in reality initiated by God), experiences, etc. does not mean these changes result in imperfection.

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by AiryStottel

To Clete:

If you refuse to answer my question, how can we have an honest debate on this question of open-ended theology? My question is this: do you believe that God is absolutely perfect? Yes or no!

If your answer is yes, then it is impossible for someone who is absolutely perfect to undergo a change, because then by changing, what WAS absolute perfection is NO LONGER absolute perfection. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand that. My example of an absolutely perfect circle, was just that..... an example, just as Jesus Christ had to use examples to explain to his ignorant apostles what God was all about.

If your answer is no, then you are making a blasphemous statement concerning the one true God, or you are describing your god, who is mutable and imperfect, and you have every right to worship false gods, rocks, chickens, ducks .....and the sun, among many other things.

Will be in and out the next few days, but will reply as best I can.

Merry Christmas,

Airy
P.S. If you knew the real nature of God, saying that God is alive is an understatement times infinity. You are trying to teach someone who is light years ahead of you in this area.. Alive means infinite love, infinite power, infinite light, infinite mercy, infinite justice, .................and so on. Think before you speak.

GOD is perfect! I believe God is perfect! Clete believes God is perfect! every one on this thread including those I disagree with on a great many things believe God is perfect!

You claim perfection can not change!
Knight has refuted your claim!
Clete has refuted your claim!
godrulz has refuted your claim!
Your response,instead of arguing against specific points that each of them made, was to call their arguments blasphemous! Because you are "light years ahead ... in this area"! Grow up and answer specific points addressed or go away!

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by AiryHead

I am always willing to help others know God, but when they think they can teach ME, then their ears are closed and their mind is already baked and fried by either drugs or excessively bloated pride.

You've got to be kidding me! How hypocritical can one sentence be?! You are an arrogant, hypocritical, proud child. And God will bring you down, if you don't submit yourself.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

John Stott, Anglican, has also adopted your view of annihilation (as well as SDA, JWs, liberals, etc.). For the record, this is out of step with historical, biblical, orthodox Christianity. I would revisit the Scriptures vs sentimentalism. This is a topic for another thread and is not a salvific issue.

Could you remind me why I asked you this question? Or was I asking someone else?

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by AiryStottel

You are trying to teach someone who is light years ahead of you in this area.. Think before you speak.

Pride comes before a fall.

 

[Delmar]

I have a feeling he'll regret that one if he's around long!

 

[Lighthouse]

So do I. So do I.:nono:

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Could you remind me why I asked you this question? Or was I asking someone else?

You mentioned it in passing concurring with logos-x or someone else who disagreed with you on other areas, but shared common ground on the eternal destiny of the wicked. I was catching up on the thread so gave my two cents. It is not an issue at this point of the thread, but is of interest for my curiosity. I disagree with you, but respect your right and boldness to hold non-traditional views, as I do in some areas. You deny a classic, biblical belief in this one area. It does not make you an unbeliever in Christ. I wish you had the same sense in my case.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by godrulz

Tell us about yourself, Airystotle. Do you have a faith or denominational background? What books/authors do you enjoy reading? What is your educational/vocational background? It will help us have a better idea of what you believe. I do not recall seeing you post before.

You are not hiding anything, are you? I am an open book. Courtesy of a reply, s'il vous plait?

 

[AiryStottel]

TO godrulz:

YOU WROTE:
Your wrong assumption is that change must be related to imperfection. A tadpole or sapling changes and does not become imperfect. Just because God has new thoughts, creates (this is a change in reality initiated by God), experiences, etc. does not mean these changes result in imperfection.

MY RESPONSE:
A tadpole or sapling “needs” to grow. God doesn’t. BIGGGGG difference. The Eternal One is complete perfection, lacking nothing. Why would God need to grow, and since God is the Prime Cause, what outside source does God need to rely on for growth, for “new thoughts”. The Infinite Source needs nothing or no one and can exist forever without the need for any thing or being.

My friend, Christ’s apostles were ignorant of the things Jesus was trying to teach them about his Heavenly Father, and until they closed their mouths and opened their ears, they could not understand him. The people on this website need to close their mouths and open their ears IF they want to learn eternal things. Otherwise, they will follow their lemming leader over the cliffs and into the eternal abyss devoid of God’s grace forever.

Peace,

Airy

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by AiryStottel

TO godrulz:

YOU WROTE:
Your wrong assumption is that change must be related to imperfection. A tadpole or sapling changes and does not become imperfect. Just because God has new thoughts, creates (this is a change in reality initiated by God), experiences, etc. does not mean these changes result in imperfection.

MY RESPONSE:
A tadpole or sapling “needs” to grow. God doesn’t. BIGGGGG difference. The Eternal One is complete perfection, lacking nothing. Why would God need to grow, and since God is the Prime Cause, what outside source does God need to rely on for growth, for “new thoughts”. The Infinite Source needs nothing or no one and can exist forever without the need for any thing or being.

My friend, Christ’s apostles were ignorant of the things Jesus was trying to teach them about his Heavenly Father, and until they closed their mouths and opened their ears, they could not understand him. The people on this website need to close their mouths and open their ears IF they want to learn eternal things. Otherwise, they will follow their lemming leader over the cliffs and into the eternal abyss devoid of God’s grace forever.

Peace,

Airy

God does not NEED to grow. The reality is that any living thing or person, including God, is perfect because they do change. The heart pumping is perfect because it pumps. God is perfect despite thinking new thoughts, experiencing new feelings in response to His relations with man, and doing new, creative things like creation, incarnation, or Second Coming.

The issue is not with God's perfection or being or knowledge. The issue is with the type of creation and reality God chose to create. He could have created robots with a determined, settled, knowable future. Instead, in love and freedom, He created free moral agents with contingent aspects that are correctly known as possibilities before they become actualities/certainities.

Pinnock: "Aspects of the future, being unsettled, are not yet wholly known, even to God. It does not mean that God is ignorant of something He ought to know, but that many things in the future are only possible and not yet actual. Therefore, He correctly knows them as possible and not actual."

God perfectly know all that is logically knowable.

As omnipotence is limited by the possible, so omniscience is limited by the knowable. We do not limit God's perfect omnipotence by denying its power to do impossible or self-contradictory things. Neither do we limit perfect omniscience by denying its power to foreknow unknowable things.

A future free act is, previous to its existence, a nothing; the knowing of a nothing is a bald contradiction.

Your view creates logical, philosophical, and Scriptural problems and makes genuine freedom in God and His creation an illusion.

If an act be free, it must be contingent. If contingent, it may or may not happen, or it may be one of many possibles. And if it may be one of many possibles, it must be certain; and if uncertain, it must be unknowable.

These are not limiting analogies about God. They are consistent with modal logic and the nature of reality for God and His universe.

We both affirm God's absolute omniscience. The question is what is the nature of the objects of God's knowledge. Exhaustive foreknowledge of non-existent future free will contingencies is an absurdity and logical contradiction. It is not a limitation on God's absolute perfection and omniscience.

 

[AiryStottel]

12/26/04 From deardelmar

YOU WROTE:
GOD is perfect! I believe God is perfect! Clete believes God is perfect! every one on this thread including those I disagree with on a great many things believe God is perfect!You claim perfection can not change!
Knight has refuted your claim!
Clete has refuted your claim!
godrulz has refuted your claim!
Your response,instead of arguing against specific points that each of them made, was to call their arguments blasphemous! Because you are "light years ahead ... in this area"! Grow up and answer specific points addressed or go away!

MY RESPONSE:
Just because you are ignorant of the meaning of the terms “absolute perfection” and “eternal”, you want me to go away. Is it because you are at a loss to explain your contradictions? Or is it because you wish to wallow in the pigsty of blasphemous theology? Which is it?

Explain your contradiction that you believe God is absolutely perfect, and that God changes. Explain why a being Who has everything needs anything. If a being has everything it needs, then why would it need “new thoughts”? You, my friend, are in a dilemma, you have painted yourself into a corner, and now you want me to help you explain why you painted yourself into a corner. You are the one who painted himself into a corner, I had nothing to do with it and so now you are angry with me for something you did.

No sir, I will not take the blame for what you did to yourself, no sir.

Bye,

Airy