What did you believe before Open Theism?

Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Derf said:
Then why are you doing so? "To view" or "to behold" carry exactly the same connotation as "to see", and it conveys an anticipation of the outcome, not a sense of already knowing.
Click to expand...
Because 'see' can mean so many things. It doesn't always have to mean 'discovery.' Rather to see is just and only 'see.' To witness, to be with, etc. etc. etc. Open Theism draws a narrow view, forgive the unintended pun, but it illustrates the need.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Clete said:
Oh yes! I remember it as if it happened yesterday!
Here's the WHOLE argument....


"Water baptism isn't necessary for salvation because there are two parallel passages...

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life." (John 6:47)​
​
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)​

The only way both statement can be true is if belief is the requirement, not baptism."


Believe it or not, that is what sent my Sunday School teacher into hysterics and had him practically screaming at me that, "We don't have to listen to you! Get out of here!"

And trust me! I was a child! I did NOT argue with this man. I was the opposite of a disrespectful kid and wouldn't have had the guts to stand up to any adult about anything for any reason. I was sitting there stunned as everyone else. All I could think was, "Well, don't ask questions if you don't want me to answer.", but I didn't say that out loud. I was sitting in the hallway with tears in my eyes wondering what the heck happened!
Click to expand...

Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!
www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 18:2-7 - New King James Version

Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the...
www.biblegateway.com www.biblegateway.com
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Clete said:
Typical Calvinist blasphmeny.

"We can trust God because He is arbitrary and because He cheats and because He can't change. If God was capable of learning, He'd betray us for sure!"

Why anyone accepts that blasphemous crap, I will never understand!
Click to expand...
Why is it that you can't accept traditional omniscience. It isn't blasphemy. It is truth. What did you believe before the advent of Open Theism in the 1980's. And what is it that Christians have believed for 2000 years. Certainly not Open Theism.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Bright Raven said:
Why is it that you can't accept traditional omniscience.
Click to expand...
Because it's false and unbiblical. We don't go by man-made traditions, we still with God's Word.
Bright Raven said:
It isn't blasphemy. It is truth.
Click to expand...
It's not truth... it's blasphemy to attribute false attributes to God.
Bright Raven said:
What did you believe before the advent of Open Theism in the 1980's.
Click to expand...
Who cares?
Bright Raven said:
And what is it that Christians have believed for 2000 years.
Click to expand...
Fallacy... appeal to antiquity, appeal to authority... take your pick.
Bright Raven said:
Certainly not Open Theism.
Click to expand...
Open Theism is Biblical.
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Right Divider said:
Because it's false and unbiblical. We don't go by man-made traditions, we still with God's Word.

It's not truth... it's blasphemy to attribute false attributes to God.

Who cares?

Fallacy... appeal to antiquity, appeal to authority... take your pick.

Open Theism is Biblical.
Click to expand...
Better write yourself another Bible, And since every word of the Bible is truth omniscience is truth. You better care where your beliefs come from. Fallacy or appeals to whatever, take your pick. Open Theism is a false doctrine that came out of the 1980's, both Pinnock and Boyd are mistaken in their beliefs. Sorry to see that you are following their lead. Open Theism denies traditional omniscience and is therefoe a heretical doctrine.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Bright Raven said:
Why is it that you can't accept traditional omniscience. It isn't blasphemy. It is truth. What did you believe before the advent of Open Theism in the 1980's. And what is it that Christians have believed for 2000 years. Certainly not Open Theism.
Click to expand...

Bright Raven said:
Better write yourself another Bible, And since every word of the Bible is truth omniscience is truth. You better care where your beliefs come from. Fallacy or appeals to whatever, take your pick. Open Theism is a false doctrine that came out of the 1980's, both Pinnock and Boyd are mistaken in their beliefs. Sorry to see that you are following their lead. Open Theism denies traditional omniscience and is therefoe a heretical doctrine.
Click to expand...

There are several problems with this.

First, Open Theism does not deny omniscience. It denies your philosophical definition of omniscience. God knows everything He wants to know, everything He needs to know, everything He has determined to bring about, and everything that exists to be known. What we deny is that the Bible teaches exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act.

Second, “traditional” is not a synonym for “biblical.” The question is not what later Christians systematized, repeated, or inherited. The question is what Scripture says.

Third, saying Open Theism “came out of the 1980s” is irrelevant. A modern label does not make a doctrine false. The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible either, and the doctrine was systematized over time. The issue is not when Pinnock or Boyd wrote something. The issue is whether Scripture presents the future as exhaustively settled.

Fourth, the Bible repeatedly presents God as relational and responsive. God tests men, responds to men, grieves over what men do, relents from declared judgment when men repent, changes His declared course, and says things like “now I know.”

And Scripture goes even further than that. Three times in Jeremiah, God says that Israel burning their children in the fire was something He did not command, did not speak, and that it did not come into His mind. That is not a throwaway line. It is emphatic.

So no, I do not need to “write another Bible.” The Bible is precisely why I reject your view.

What you have done so far is assert that “omniscience” means exhaustive settled foreknowledge, then accuse everyone who rejects that definition of heresy. But that is not an argument. That is question-begging plus an appeal to tradition.
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
JudgeRightly said:
There are several problems with this.

First, Open Theism does not deny omniscience. It denies your philosophical definition of omniscience. God knows everything He wants to know, everything He needs to know, everything He has determined to bring about, and everything that exists to be known. What we deny is that the Bible teaches exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act.

Second, “traditional” is not a synonym for “biblical.” The question is not what later Christians systematized, repeated, or inherited. The question is what Scripture says.

Third, saying Open Theism “came out of the 1980s” is irrelevant. A modern label does not make a doctrine false. The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible either, and the doctrine was systematized over time. The issue is not when Pinnock or Boyd wrote something. The issue is whether Scripture presents the future as exhaustively settled.

Fourth, the Bible repeatedly presents God as relational and responsive. God tests men, responds to men, grieves over what men do, relents from declared judgment when men repent, changes His declared course, and says things like “now I know.”

And Scripture goes even further than that. Three times in Jeremiah, God says that Israel burning their children in the fire was something He did not command, did not speak, and that it did not come into His mind. That is not a throwaway line. It is emphatic.

So no, I do not need to “write another Bible.” The Bible is precisely why I reject your view.

What you have done so far is assert that “omniscience” means exhaustive settled foreknowledge, then accuse everyone who rejects that definition of heresy. But that is not an argument. That is question-begging plus an appeal to tradition.
Click to expand...
Is this what Open theism believes?

From GotQuestions. org

“Open theism,” also known as “openness theology,” the “openness of God,” and “free will theism,” is an attempt to explain the foreknowledge of God in relationship to the free will of man. The argument of open theism is essentially this: human beings are truly free; if God absolutely knew the future, human beings could not truly be free. Therefore, God does not know absolutely everything about the future. Open theism holds that the future is not knowable. Therefore, God knows everything that can be known, but He does not know the future.

Open theism bases these beliefs on Scripture passages which describe God “changing His mind” or “being surprised” or “seeming to gain knowledge” (Genesis 6:6; 22:12; Exodus 32:14; Jonah 3:10). In light of the many other Scriptures that declare God’s knowledge of the future, these Scriptures should be understood as God describing Himself in ways that we can understand. God knows what our actions and decisions will be, but He “changes His mind” in regard to His actions based on our actions. God’s disappointment at the wickedness of humanity does not mean He was not aware it would occur.

In contradiction to open theism, Psalm 139:4, 16 state, “Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD...All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” How could God predict intricate details in the Old Testament about Jesus Christ if He does not know the future? How could God in any manner guarantee our eternal salvation if He does not know what the future holds?

Ultimately, open theism fails in that it attempts to explain the unexplainable—the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and mankind’s free will. Just as extreme forms of Calvinism fail in that they make human beings nothing more than pre-programmed robots, so open theism fails in that it rejects God’s true omniscience and sovereignty. God must be understood through faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6a). Open theism is, therefore, not scriptural. It is simply another way for finite man to try to understand an infinite God. Open theism should be rejected by followers of Christ. While open theism is an explanation for the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and human free will, it is not the biblical explanation.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Bright Raven said:
Is this what Open theism believes?

From GotQuestions. org

“Open theism,” also known as “openness theology,” the “openness of God,” and “free will theism,” is an attempt to explain the foreknowledge of God in relationship to the free will of man. The argument of open theism is essentially this: human beings are truly free; if God absolutely knew the future, human beings could not truly be free. Therefore, God does not know absolutely everything about the future. Open theism holds that the future is not knowable. Therefore, God knows everything that can be known, but He does not know the future.

Open theism bases these beliefs on Scripture passages which describe God “changing His mind” or “being surprised” or “seeming to gain knowledge” (Genesis 6:6; 22:12; Exodus 32:14; Jonah 3:10). In light of the many other Scriptures that declare God’s knowledge of the future, these Scriptures should be understood as God describing Himself in ways that we can understand. God knows what our actions and decisions will be, but He “changes His mind” in regard to His actions based on our actions. God’s disappointment at the wickedness of humanity does not mean He was not aware it would occur.

In contradiction to open theism, Psalm 139:4, 16 state, “Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD...All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” How could God predict intricate details in the Old Testament about Jesus Christ if He does not know the future? How could God in any manner guarantee our eternal salvation if He does not know what the future holds?

Ultimately, open theism fails in that it attempts to explain the unexplainable—the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and mankind’s free will. Just as extreme forms of Calvinism fail in that they make human beings nothing more than pre-programmed robots, so open theism fails in that it rejects God’s true omniscience and sovereignty. God must be understood through faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6a). Open theism is, therefore, not scriptural. It is simply another way for finite man to try to understand an infinite God. Open theism should be rejected by followers of Christ. While open theism is an explanation for the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and human free will, it is not the biblical explanation.
Click to expand...

Yes, that article is describing the general issue, but it makes the same mistake you are making.

Open Theism does not deny that God knows the future. God knows what He has determined to do, what He has promised to do, what He intends to bring about, what He is able to bring about, what is predictable from present reality, and whatever He chooses to reveal or know.

What Open Theism denies is the claim that every future free act already exists as a settled fact.

The GotQuestions article simply assumes the settled-view definition of omniscience and then condemns Open Theism for rejecting it. That is question-begging.

It also dismisses the key biblical texts by saying they are just God “describing Himself in ways we can understand.” But that is not an argument. That is a way of explaining away the text. Genesis 22:12 says, “now I know.” Exodus 32:14 says God relented. Jonah 3:10 says God relented. Jeremiah 18 says God changes His declared course depending on what men do. And Jeremiah says three times that Israel burning their children in the fire was something God did not command, did not speak, and that it did not come into His mind.

You cannot just wave all that away and then say, “But Psalm 139.”

Psalm 139:13-16 is not about the future being exhaustively settled. It is about, fetology, the child in the womb. David says, “You formed my inward parts,” “You covered me in my mother’s womb,” “my frame was not hidden from You,” and “Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.” The subject is God’s intimate knowledge of David as he was being formed before birth.

Even if one takes “all my days were written” to refer to David’s lifespan, that still does not prove that every future free act of every person was eternally settled. At most, it would show that God knew or ordained something about David’s life. But Psalm 139:13-16 is a womb text, not a settled-future text. It is about David’s formation before birth: his inward parts, his frame, and his unformed substance. In modern terms, that points more naturally to what is written into the person from conception, what we would associate with DNA: the foundational design that shapes much of who a person is and how he will naturally develop. DNA determines many foundational realities about us, but it does not morally choose for us. That is a far cry from saying every future free decision David would ever make was already settled.

Psalm 139:4 is the same problem. God knowing David’s word before it is on his tongue does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act. It proves God knew what David was about to say. Amen. Open Theists do not deny that.

As for prophecy about Christ, that is no problem for Open Theism. God can declare what He intends to do and then bring it to pass. Knowing and accomplishing His own plan is not the same thing as every free choice of every creature being eternally settled.

So again, the issue is not whether God is omniscient. He is. The issue is whether omniscience means what GotQuestions assumes it means. I reject that definition because Scripture does not teach it.
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
JudgeRightly said:
Yes, that article is describing the general issue, but it makes the same mistake you are making.

Open Theism does not deny that God knows the future. God knows what He has determined to do, what He has promised to do, what He intends to bring about, what He is able to bring about, what is predictable from present reality, and whatever He chooses to reveal or know.

What Open Theism denies is the claim that every future free act already exists as a settled fact.

The GotQuestions article simply assumes the settled-view definition of omniscience and then condemns Open Theism for rejecting it. That is question-begging.

It also dismisses the key biblical texts by saying they are just God “describing Himself in ways we can understand.” But that is not an argument. That is a way of explaining away the text. Genesis 22:12 says, “now I know.” Exodus 32:14 says God relented. Jonah 3:10 says God relented. Jeremiah 18 says God changes His declared course depending on what men do. And Jeremiah says three times that Israel burning their children in the fire was something God did not command, did not speak, and that it did not come into His mind.

You cannot just wave all that away and then say, “But Psalm 139.”

Psalm 139:13-16 is not about the future being exhaustively settled. It is about, fetology, the child in the womb. David says, “You formed my inward parts,” “You covered me in my mother’s womb,” “my frame was not hidden from You,” and “Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.” The subject is God’s intimate knowledge of David as he was being formed before birth.

Even if one takes “all my days were written” to refer to David’s lifespan, that still does not prove that every future free act of every person was eternally settled. At most, it would show that God knew or ordained something about David’s life. But Psalm 139:13-16 is a womb text, not a settled-future text. It is about David’s formation before birth: his inward parts, his frame, and his unformed substance. In modern terms, that points more naturally to what is written into the person from conception, what we would associate with DNA: the foundational design that shapes much of who a person is and how he will naturally develop. DNA determines many foundational realities about us, but it does not morally choose for us. That is a far cry from saying every future free decision David would ever make was already settled.

Psalm 139:4 is the same problem. God knowing David’s word before it is on his tongue does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act. It proves God knew what David was about to say. Amen. Open Theists do not deny that.

As for prophecy about Christ, that is no problem for Open Theism. God can declare what He intends to do and then bring it to pass. Knowing and accomplishing His own plan is not the same thing as every free choice of every creature being eternally settled.

So again, the issue is not whether God is omniscient. He is. The issue is whether omniscience means what GotQuestions assumes it means. I reject that definition because Scripture does not teach it.
Click to expand...
Does Open Theism believe in the God knowing Future Foreknowledge
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Bright Raven said:
Better write yourself another Bible, And since every word of the Bible is truth omniscience is truth.
Click to expand...
You are a very confused guy BR. I really feel for you.
Bright Raven said:
You better care where your beliefs come from.
Click to expand...
I do, you should to.
Bright Raven said:
Fallacy or appeals to whatever, take your pick.
Click to expand...
Make an actual argument. Instead you just ramble on and on.
Bright Raven said:
Open Theism is a false doctrine that came out of the 1980's, both Pinnock and Boyd are mistaken in their beliefs.
Click to expand...
You're wrong and simply repeating that falsehood does not move anyone.
Bright Raven said:
Sorry to see that you are following their lead. Open Theism denies traditional omniscience and is therefoe a heretical doctrine.
Click to expand...
Again, you could NOT be more WRONG.
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Right Divider said:
You are a very confused guy BR. I really feel for you.

I do, you should to.

Make an actual argument. Instead you just ramble on and on.

You're wrong and simply repeating that falsehood does not move anyone.

Again, you could NOT be more WRONG.
Click to expand...
All you are telling me is that I am Wrong. You're not telling me why.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Bright Raven said:
Does Open Theism believe in the God knowing Future Foreknowledge
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what you mean by “the God knowing Future Foreknowledge.” It sounds like you are treating your doctrine of exhaustive settled foreknowledge almost like one of God’s titles.

I believe in God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Living God, the God who searches hearts. I believe God knows whatever He knows perfectly. I believe God knows what He has determined, promised, declared, and intends to bring about.

What I do not believe is that every future free act already exists as a settled fact. That is not “denying God.” That is denying your definition of foreknowledge.

So please define what you mean. Are you asking whether I believe God knows anything about the future, or whether I accept exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act? Those are not the same question.
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
JudgeRightly said:
I’m not sure what you mean by “the God knowing Future Foreknowledge.” It sounds like you are treating your doctrine of exhaustive settled foreknowledge almost like one of God’s titles.

I believe in God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Living God, the God who searches hearts. I believe God knows whatever He knows perfectly. I believe God knows what He has determined, promised, declared, and intends to bring about.

What I do not believe is that every future free act already exists as a settled fact. That is not “denying God.” That is denying your definition of foreknowledge.

So please define what you mean. Are you asking whether I believe God knows anything about the future, or whether I accept exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act? Those are not the same question.
Click to expand...
I think you do not believe that God does not know about future events. Is that correct? If that is so you don't believe in the total omniscience of God.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Bright Raven said:
All you are telling me is that I am Wrong. You're not telling me why.
Click to expand...

The “why” has been stated repeatedly, but here it is plainly.

You are treating exhaustive settled foreknowledge as though it were identical to “God knows the future.” That is the dispute.

I believe in God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the living God who searches hearts. I believe God knows whatever He knows perfectly, including what He has determined, promised, declared, and intends to bring about.

What I deny is that every future free act already exists as a settled fact. That is not denying God’s knowledge. It is denying your definition of foreknowledge.

Scripture repeatedly presents God as living and responsive. He tests men, responds to men, relents when men repent, grieves over what men do, changes His declared course, and says “now I know.”

But in your system, the future is exhaustively settled before anyone acts. God’s tests reveal nothing to Him. His warnings involve no real alternatives. His grief is over what He eternally knew could not be otherwise. His relenting is not a real change in course. And “now I know” has to be emptied of its plain meaning.

That is why we reject your view. Open Theism takes those passages seriously. Exhaustive settled foreknowledge has to reinterpret them until they no longer mean what they say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top