Open Theism Stirs Controversy on College Campuses

[Christine]

Originally posted by Lucky
Here I disagree. I don't think God has to be in the future to influence it. The present is simply what was the future just a second ago. If God needs to change things, he can do it actively, as it's happening in the present.

Justin, are you saying that God finds out about man's actions as they occur?

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Christine

Justin, are you saying that God finds out about man's actions as they occur?

Duh, Noel. I thought by now you would have figured out I don't believe everything was predestined.

 

[Christine]

Originally posted by Lucky

Duh, Noel. I thought by now you would have figured out I don't believe everything was predestined.

I guessed as much, Justin. However, you didn't answer my question. Does that mean that you think God finds out about man's actions as they occur?

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Sozo

Ok, but how did God know in advance that there would be a virgin available?

Even now I am fairly certain there are a few of them around

 

[Delmar]

I just found out that in two weeks there is going to be some college prof speaking at my church about Open Theism. I don't think he's in favor of it so this could be interesting.

 

[Christine]

Originally posted by lighthouse

If it exists to God, then it exists to us. So, either it exists, or it does not.

There you go again. You keep trying to place human limits on God. Mortal men can't know the future, so it's incomprehensible for you that God could and does know the future.

His prophesy against Nineveh didn't. He changed His mind.

You're assuming that was a prophecy. It wasn't, instead, it was a warning for the Ninevites. God knew that the Ninevites would repent of their wickedness before He even issued the warning. God was not in the least surprised by the Ninevite's reaction, and when the Ninevites repented, God did as His word says in Jeremiah 18:8 "If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them."

And David certainly thought God would change His mind about the death of the son he was to have with Bathsheba.

Lighthouse, in the case involving David's infant son, if that child had not died, Nathan would have been a false prophet. If the child had not died, David would have known that the prophecy was not from God and would have had Nathan stoned.

I never said that. But God does change His mind.

Do you think God can make mistakes, Lighthouse?

I am arguing that that which does not exist can not be known.

If you mean by men, you're right.

I never said God lies. But He did repent that He made man, and He repented of the evil that He said He would do against Nineveh.

If, according to you, God prophicised he would destroy Nineveh and then He didn't, isn't God lying?

He declared the end. He declared what He would do in the end. Nothing more. This does not give any reason to believe that He knows the details, or that he can even see the future. Only that He knows what He will do.

Are you saying that no matter what happens between now and the end, there will be a rapture and tribulation?

 

[Yorzhik]

I know this is for Clete, but I wanted to discuss and understand these issues as well.

Hilston writes
Do you believe reality is infinite?

I'm not sure. In what context? For instance, we can ask if the sound of blue is like a horn, but it cannot be an open-ended question like that, there must be more information to answer that kind of question.

Hilston writes
It's not a matter of size. It's a matter of existence. Anything that exists is contained within God. There is nothing that transcends Him or that is outside of Him.

Except that which is unholy.

Hilston writes
But you still think God can choose to not be somewhere?

Yes.

Hilston writes
God is infinite, completely free of limits and finite boundaries.
All of creation, without exception, is finite.
Therefore, God's knowledge of His finite creation is exhaustive.
… what part of the syllogism do you disagree with?

The major and minor premise.

God cannot be free of limits. He can at least pose limits on Himself. I realize your standard answer is that God posing limits on Himself is incoherent. But that would only be if you presuppose that God cannot pose limits on Himself. If one does not presuppose that God cannot pose limits on Himself, then it is not incoherent (obviously). Since all sentient beings we know can impose limits on themselves, the question then is: What information do we have on whether God is capable of posing a limit on Himself?

Creation is not completely without things infinite. Numbers are infinite. So is our existence.

 

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote: Do you believe reality is infinite?

Yorzhik writes:
I'm not sure. In what context? For instance, we can ask if the sound of blue is like a horn, but it cannot be an open-ended question like that, there must be more information to answer that kind of question.

Do you believe reality is boundless in duration, space, quantity and/or magnitude and subject to no external determination?

Hilston wrote: It's not a matter of size. It's a matter of existence. Anything that exists is contained within God. There is nothing that transcends Him or that is outside of Him.

Yorzhik writes:
Except that which is unholy.

Holy means "separated." God is separate from everything and is uniquely holy because nothing except God is perfect, all-just, all-wise, all-knowing, all-sustaining, etc. But also, since God is infinite, all of finite reality is contained within Him.

Hilston wrote: But you still think God can choose to not be somewhere?

Yorzhik writes:
Yes.

You probably also believe He can create a rock too big to lift.

Hilston wrote:
God is infinite, completely free of limits and finite boundaries.
All of creation, without exception, is finite.
Therefore, God's knowledge of His finite creation is exhaustive.
… what part of the syllogism do you disagree with?

Yorzhik writes:
The major and minor premise.

God cannot be free of limits.

Then your God is not infinite.

Yorzhik writes:
He can at least pose limits on Himself.

So you must also believe He can create a rock too big to lift.

Yorzhik writes:
I realize your standard answer is that God posing limits on Himself is incoherent. But that would only be if you presuppose that God cannot pose limits on Himself.

No, that would only be if you presuppose the laws of logic.

Yorzhik writes:
If one does not presuppose that God cannot pose limits on Himself, then it is not incoherent (obviously).

No, it's incoherent any way you slice it.

Yorzhik writes:
Since all sentient beings we know can impose limits on themselves, the question then is: What information do we have on whether God is capable of posing a limit on Himself?

No sentient being compares to God. All sentient beings besides God are finite. The infinite cannot be finite at the same time. That is logic, Yorzhik. It's the law of identity.

Yorzhik writes:
Creation is not completely without things infinite. Numbers are infinite. So is our existence.

Numbers are infinite? Oooooo kay. Thanks for sharing. :freak:

 

[Yorzhik]

Ummm... numbers are not infinite?

(I'll get to the rest of the post later)

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Christine

There you go again. You keep trying to place human limits on God. Mortal men can't know the future, so it's incomprehensible for you that God could and does know the future.

How is not knowing something that does not exist a limit?

You're assuming that was a prophecy. It wasn't, instead, it was a warning for the Ninevites. God knew that the Ninevites would repent of their wickedness before He even issued the warning. God was not in the least surprised by the Ninevite's reaction, and when the Ninevites repented, God did as His word says in Jeremiah 18:8 "If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them."

Prove it. Prove that God knew Nineveh would repent.

Lighthouse, in the case involving David's infant son, if that child had not died, Nathan would have been a false prophet. If the child had not died, David would have known that the prophecy was not from God and would have had Nathan stoned.

No, if GOd had changed His mind, he would have sent Nathan back to David, to tell him. David prayed that God would change His mind, and that his son would not die. David trusted that Nathan was a prophet of God. And David was an open theist.

Do you think God can make mistakes, Lighthouse?

Well, He made...nevermind.

God does not make mistakes.

If you mean by men, you're right.

Does God know everything that is going to happen when all is said and done, and all of His children are with Him? Does He know everything that is going to happen for eternity, even after that? Are we going to know it then, too?

If, according to you, God prophicised he would destroy Nineveh and then He didn't, isn't God lying?

No. If God doesn't do something He said He would do, then He changed His mind. End of story.

Are you saying that no matter what happens between now and the end, there will be a rapture and tribulation?

Yes.

 

[SOTK]

Originally posted by lighthouse
Well, He made...nevermind.

:darwinsm:

 

[Lighthouse]

 

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Chileice

quote:
Originally posted by novice

Two points...

1. God doesn't manipulate every molecule for all of time. Yet there are times God manipulates in certain circumstances to accomplish specific tasks.

2. This manipulation does not remove freewill in the same sense that my manipulating my children (in certain circumstances) does not remove their freewill. In other words.... the people whom God manipulates still have the ability to reject Gods manipulation, and when and if this happens God finds another path to meet His objectives.

For instance...
God wanted to use the nation of Israel as a conduit to bring salvation to the world and set up God's kingdom here on earth. God manipulated Israel in a variety of ways to accomplish this goal. (Isaiah 5:2) But Israel continually rejected God (Isaiah 5:4) (Acts 7:51). Eventually God quite attempting to manipulate Israel and turned to the gentiles ushering in grace (via Paul) through faith in the risen Christ.

So there we have clear example of God manipulating a people yet not removing their freewill, Israel used this freewill to eventually move God to set-aside His people and turn to another.

It isn't that God does not have the power to create a race of robots obeying his every command.... yet it is that God did not want a race of robots obeying His command.



I have read this whole thread with a great deal of interest. Two things strike me:
1. the general lack of scriptural backing for the ideas presented.
2. the general uselessness of the argument in spite of its interest.

SOTK had us pray for his wife a while back. Philosophizer did just a couple of days ago. WHY? Because they thought that God would do something. SOTK's wife now has a job, thanks to his church connections. Would we say thanks to God? Did God "manipulate" someone to get her the job? Or did SOTK manipulate someone? Did the person feel pressure because she was in the church or was she just the best person for the job?

The point is that we EXPECT God to manipulate people and events or we would never pray. Prayer itself presupposes a certain disposition toward open theism. If all is pre-determined, what on earth does it matter if we pray or not?!

Yet, on the other hand we expect that same God to have the power to do what we need... even to change the future. In a sense, we all expect that God DOES live in the future as well as the present. Again, why would we pray to someone who MIGHT be able to figure out the future?

I think Novice is on the right track. God operates in a way that seems ambiguous to us. Is it illogical? Who can really say? Do we really know all the logic of the universe? Does God transcend His creation? Is he bound by his own creation? Is he rational, suprarational, irrational, in need of rations? What does it really matter? We know we are dealing with a being beyond our total comprehension. If not, we limit him as much as the mormons with their doctrine of eternal progression. Yet if He is all in all how do we explain evil? These are the great questions humans have struggled with since time began. To assume we here on TOL, even with our amazing intelligence and collective wisdom, are going to come up with the definitive answers to free-will vs. sovereignty; transcendence vs. imminence, etc., I think we have a grossly inflated sense of our own capabilities and importance.

These are the points, though very interesting as intellectual gymnastics, that can divide churches, mar the witness of Christianity in the world and generally take us out of any truly important spiritual battles. We spend our life on the sidelines fighting over non-provable minutia while the world goes to hell in a hand basket. I think in PRACTICAL terms, every Christian wotrth his salt is somewhere in between, whether that is logical or not. We pray because we were told to. We trust because we believe God is good. We think we have free-will but we trust he is sovereign enough to make things work out in spite of man's gross errors on this planet. We believe He is almighty, but somehow merciful and relenting of evil. If not, our lives are a moral and physical absurdity.

Maybe I could call myself a closed theist with an open mind. Or an open theist in a closed universe. Why do we always think the answer is either/or? Could it not be both/and?

Thanks for the post, Chileice! I like your thinking.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by SOTK

I don't think God used Israel for salvation at all. You are right about the gentiles and Paul, but I don't feel God ever intended for Israel to be used for salvation. By the way, I don't think God has ever "set a side" Israel. They are still His people.

In Christ,

SOTK

[Jesus]"Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."[/Jesus]
-John 4:22

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."
-Romans 1:16

"What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."
-Romans 11:7

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."
-Romans 11:25

Actually, just read Romans 11 all the way through.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Chileice

I have read this whole thread with a great deal of interest. Two things strike me:
1. the general lack of scriptural backing for the ideas presented.

I used the story of Nineveh, and of David's prayer that his son be spared.

2. the general uselessness of the argument in spite of its interest.

It seems that either side would disagree with you. This is not pointless. Much rests on it. Does it matter in the scheme of whether or not one is saved? No. But truth is truth, and truth shall make you free.

The point is that we EXPECT God to manipulate people and events or we would never pray. Prayer itself presupposes a certain disposition toward open theism. If all is pre-determined, what on earth does it matter if we pray or not?!

Wholly agreed.

Yet, on the other hand we expect that same God to have the power to do what we need... even to change the future. In a sense, we all expect that God DOES live in the future as well as the present. Again, why would we pray to someone who MIGHT be able to figure out the future?

No. God works it out in the present. He works toward the future. And He is not such that He "might" be able to do anything. He can do whatever He sets His mind to, as long as it is not impossible. God does not change the future. There is no future to change. He only works toward the future. To say that God changes the future is to say that the future has already happened, and that what has already happened can be changed. God does not change the future. Even if I believed that He saw the future, I would not believe that He would change it. All He does is work toward it.

I think Novice is on the right track. God operates in a way that seems ambiguous to us. Is it illogical? Who can really say? Do we really know all the logic of the universe? Does God transcend His creation? Is he bound by his own creation? Is he rational, suprarational, irrational, in need of rations? What does it really matter? We know we are dealing with a being beyond our total comprehension. If not, we limit him as much as the mormons with their doctrine of eternal progression. Yet if He is all in all how do we explain evil? These are the great questions humans have struggled with since time began. To assume we here on TOL, even with our amazing intelligence and collective wisdom, are going to come up with the definitive answers to free-will vs. sovereignty; transcendence vs. imminence, etc., I think we have a grossly inflated sense of our own capabilities and importance.

Is the idea of sending your son to die, in order to forgive people for the very thing that caused you to send him logical to you? Is it rational? Well, that's exactly what God did, isn't it?

These are the points, though very interesting as intellectual gymnastics, that can divide churches, mar the witness of Christianity in the world and generally take us out of any truly important spiritual battles. We spend our life on the sidelines fighting over non-provable minutia while the world goes to hell in a hand basket. I think in PRACTICAL terms, every Christian wotrth his salt is somewhere in between, whether that is logical or not. We pray because we were told to. We trust because we believe God is good. We think we have free-will but we trust he is sovereign enough to make things work out in spite of man's gross errors on this planet. We believe He is almighty, but somehow merciful and relenting of evil. If not, our lives are a moral and physical absurdity.

Debating here is not taking away from witnessing. We are debating among fellow believers who already know teh basics of the gospel message. And we are witnessing to each other, our beliefs within Christianity. Witnessing to those who are not in Christ is not the place to debate Open Theism. But if the subject comes up, we can certainly give them our view. But we must also be able to back it up with scripture, without taking anything out of context.

Maybe I could call myself a closed theist with an open mind. Or an open theist in a closed universe. Why do we always think the answer is either/or? Could it not be both/and?

How could the future be both closed and open?

 

[SOTK]

Originally posted by lighthouse

[Jesus]"Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."[/Jesus]
-John 4:22

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."
-Romans 1:16

"What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."
-Romans 11:7

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."
-Romans 11:25

Actually, just read Romans 11 all the way through.

lighthouse,

I appreciate the scripture, but I don't think any of that has to do with God choosing the people of Isreal to bring salvation to the world.

Your first piece of scripture (John 4:22) I think has to do with Jesus being a Jew. Jesus is salvation. Jesus is of the Jews.

Let me clarify what I meant: God chose Israel to bring the message to the world that there is One God and One God only. God chose Israel to reveal Himself to the world. To make known. Through Israel, the world knew God. God also used Israel to bring forth God's righteousness. God's righteousness was revealed through the Law. The Law does not save. Salvation is had through the shed blood of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ only. God used Jesus Christ for salvation and not Israel. I believe this was the plan from the beginning.

In Christ,

SOTK

 

[Lighthouse]

He still used Israel to bring Messiah to the world.

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by lighthouse

He still used Israel to bring Messiah to the world.

Amen!
This is my favorite kind of post! Short sweet and profoundly full of truth!

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by lighthouse

He still used Israel to bring Messiah to the world.

:thumb:

Before Abraham, there were no Jews, and there was no Isreal. The purpose of the descendents of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, was to bring the Law (Moses) and the "seed" (Christ). The Law was given to prove all men unrighteous and to see their need for a Savior. Christ is that Savior! God's reason for all that He did to protect them (Israel), was so that the "seed" should come.


Don't try and give them any more importance than that.

"Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations shall be blessed in you." So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them." Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "The righteous man shall live by faith." However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "He who practices them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-- for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree "-- in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

 

[logos_x]

What is the difference between Arminianism and Open Theism?

Do they not both claim that only those who receive the proper information, and act on it properly before they die, will avoid suffering endlessly. They claim that God is unable to successfully influence anyone's will, unless they let Him.

Calvinism is cruel and unloving because it claims that God allows beings to come into existence that deserve to suffer endlessly, and will suffer endlessly, except for a few that God will rescue from such a fate by His "irresistable" grace. (I'm not sure what they mean by "irresistable", since most are able to resist it)

Both positions are profane.

The truth of universal transformation solves all of the irreconcilable differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. It recognizes that our "free will" is the freedom to choose only in the direction of the strongest influence, and that God is in intimate sovereign control over all influences.

Have a wonderful day.