ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Hilston]

Open Theists Misunderstand the Doctrine of Impassibility​

According to Bob Enyart, "Impassibility means that God has no emotion."With this simplistic statement, Enyart, and each Open Theist who follows his lead, eviscerates yet another straw man, only to find nothing but straw "oozing" out.

C.S. Lewis, a man I love but disagree with on this point, wrote that, "We correctly deny that God has passions He cannot be affected by love" (Miracles, 1960, pp. 92 93). Where in the world did Lewis get this notion from?

He gets it from scripture.

Not from Scripture.

Well, actually, he does. C.S. Lewis was speaking of the doctrine of impassibility that does not mean God is without emotion or love, but rather that He is in full control of His emotions and that He cannot be moved emotionally against His will. He loves because He chooses to love, not because someone evoked it from Him. Further, it can be said that God's emotions are unlike human emotions; not of like passions (Ac 14:15 Jas 5:17) He is not subject to mood swings. God's emotions are all perfectly volitional and purposefully determined by Him.

This error shows the extent of humanist influence on popular Christian belief.

Statements like these stagger the mind. What is more humanistic than to raise man up by bringing God down? This is precisely what process-theology and all of its Open-Theistic variants seek to do. I know, I know. Open Theism is not process theology. But Calvinism is Christianized Greek philosophy? Enough already with the special pleading.

There is also a philosophical naivete that often bubbles (even bursts) to the surface in my discussions with Open Theists concerning the meaning of the word absolute. Just watch.

However, like absolute immutability which denies that God can change at all, the doctrine of impassibility is also false.

See? It does not mean that God cannot change at all. It means He is completely free to change or emote as He so chooses, without any constraint or compulsion or limitation whatsoever, from anyone or by anything. The word absolute comes from the Latin absolutus, which is the coupling of ab (from) and solvere (to loosen). Thus, the word means to be free from all restraint or boundaries: true libertarian freedom, which only the absolute Being can have.

We will see below that God can change, as when God the Son became flesh.

Nobody denies this. Enyart's continued naive insistence that this somehow undermines classic theism is embarrassing. Perhaps Enyart is spurred on by his experiences of having posed these specious conundrums to less learned, lip-service Calvinists who have not adequately considered these fundamental theological questions. Perhaps, like his heel-nipping cronies on Theology Online, he is bound and determined to reformulate Calvinism into the persistent straw man that keeps rearing its ugly head in his arguments. In any case, he would do well, and would save himself from future embarrassment, if he studied what the Reformers really said and tried to understand what they really meant when they used words like "absolute" and "impassible" and "immutable."

Witness the following straw-man effort from Enyart:

The ways in which the Settled View diminishes God¹s glory and the Open View exalts Him are as many as the differences between a relational Person and a non-relational entity.

Compare this to Louis Berkhof, renowned Reformed theologian, who wrote in 1939:

The Bible teaches us that God enters into manifold relations with man and, as it were, lives their life with them. There is change round about Him, change in the relation of men to Him, but there is no change in His being, His attributes, His purpose, His motives of action, or His promises. (Readings in Christian Theology, Vol. 1, Erickson, Millard J., Ed., The Attributes of God, p. 341.)​

End notes:

Louis Berkhof (1873-1957) - Dutch Reformed scholar and former president of Calvin Theological Seminary. A well-read master of many disciplines, he is best remembered for his eloquent and insightful defenses of orthodox theology in the face of liberalism. His work is quoted by systematic theologians even outside Reformed circles. Titles: The Assurance of Faith; Foundations of Christian Education (with Cornelius Van Til); History of Christian Doctrines; I Believe Because...; Introduction to Christian Doctrine; Introduction to the New Testament; Manual of Christian Doctrine; Manual of Reformed Doctrine; Principles of Biblical Interpretation; Summary of Christian Doctrine; Systematic Theology (Source: http://faith.propadeutic.com/)

©James Hilston, August 2005

 

[RobE]

Ah!

Well then, yes! Really to that too!

God's plan was that none should perish, that all love one another and God. He didn't know exactly who would fall if anyone, but he had a plan even for those who did fall to dave them. But he didn't know who would reject that plan.

In God's mind, we all had the real chance ot going either way, he didn't know if anyone would fall for sure. According to you, God had to know who would fall, the countless millions, and be OK with it.

Your idea isn't biblical, because at least once, God was sorry he created man because of all the ones who were falling. Only one was righteous. Did God intend for all those to fall just so he could save Noah? That's what you say, But God didn't want that to happen, to the point that he wished he didn't create man. Didn't he foresee his wishes? Did he change his mind?

This is a little bit of a mis-characterization of what I say. I say God allowed those to fall for the sake of Noah. I understand that other views are unable to understand this even though they use the same argument themselves when they say God allowed sin. Nevertheless, when the time came to destory all men except Noah, God felt remorse for the loss of life. For God so loved the world, and His own creation, that sorrow filled Him; but then, He continued the actions which He foresaw through His omniscient mind to fulfill the decree of creation. His purpose was greater than their suffering or His own.

Rob

 

[RobE]

Patrick,

I'm sure glad that I wrote an entire post with several entries so that you would answer one question that I presented in it. Would you mind answering the rest of that post?

Rob

 

[RobE]

Perhaps you'll take note of the name: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Before the fall, the only evil act Adam and Eve knew to avoid was eating of the tree. They didn't have a "sinful nature", so there's simply no reason to say that they would have contemplated any kind of evil. Granted taht this "knowledge" was probably experiential knowledge, but prior to the fall, Adam and Eve simply had no basis upon which to commit evil acts.

So your position is that there was no way for man to be evil without breaking God's command? Didn't Satan commit evil without eating from the tree or breaking a command?

Only if you assume that Adam and Eve were prone to sinning, but that would require a denial of their being created "good."

This is a false dichotomy. Something might be able to sin and still be good, as long as they resist sinning.

_____________________________________________

And you have yet to show that God allowed anything, according to OVT.

I don't have to because you already did - Muz:

"However, God did promise "the seed of the woman", and subsequently made further promises and decrees regarding having a people for Himself and such, so God would have to fulfill His own word before doing so."

"Again, we have the creative decree of free will with the purpose of Adam and Eve choosing to believe God and live by His commands. If God goes an intervenes at the point of the choice He wanted them to freely make, He's violating His own decree."

"No, this decree was post-fall. If God did not declare a way for sin to be propitiated and creation redeemed, wrath and utter destruction would be God's only other option."​

Asking me to prove something which is already known and agreed upon by everyone is somewhat of a dishonest position to take. Does God allow you to exist in your sinful state? If so, then does God allow sin to exist through His own decree?

_______________________

I said: Did God decree that sin would continue in the world after Adam and Eve decided to disobey Him? In other words, did God allow sin to continue in the world as an act of His own will?

You Replied: No, God decreed that time would be allowed for men to place their faith in God and for God to offer a propitiation for sin. One consequence of this decision was that men would continue to sin until this process was complete.​

This again is a little dishonest to say that God decreed time for sin and to deny that sin was allowed to continue in the same statement.

No. Sin already existed when God decreed that He would redeem the world, so there cound not be a decree regarding the existance of sin.

I would say that evil existed before the fall, but that man hadn't sinned. Strictly speaking you are right when we make a distinction between partaking of evil and evil itself. It doesn't however answer the question adequately so I'll ask again.....

So you are saying that God decreed sin would exist within the world after the fall just as Hilston has declared. Doesn't this substantiate Hilston's position that God decreed that sin would exist?​

Rob

 

[RobE]

God's passion is real. It wouldn't be real if He knew from all eternity exactly what was going to happen down to the scratching of an ear in my home. :banned:

Bob Hill

Bob,

This is blantantly untrue. I want you to consider that you have an idea that your children or spouse might die. You contemplate it and know of its occurance, but that knowledge is far different than experiencing the same event. Experiencing something evokes far more emotion than thinking about it, even in humans.

You also state that the o.v. has answers to questions about things that happened in the bible such as King Saul. I submit that your cure is a greater problem than the problem it is applied to.

Rob

 

[patman]

Patrick,

I'm sure glad that I wrote an entire post with several entries so that you would answer one question that I presented in it. Would you mind answering the rest of that post?

Rob

What am I missing? I thought I summed it up.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

How does He help you, specifically? What does He DO?

Jim, I think that's a great question.

And in your response to me you kind of answered it yourself when you said... "How will He direct your steps? Will push or pull you emotionally? Psychologically?"

I think that God pushes us, pulls us, and directs our attention to an answer what we pray for, and helps bring events to pass using these means. God can also comfort us, sooth us and relieve us of our worry and mental stress therefore allowing us to blossom with the fruit of the spirit (love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.).

But how does He do this mechanically? I admit that I really don't know. Maybe others do know, but I certainly cannot say for sure. I have heard people state that God designed us in a way where possibly our brains and synapses may be a conduit to the Spirit, and therefore God could be influencing us (if we let Him) directly through our brain! Clearly this is something that would be hard to test but it is interesting especially when you consider that our brain is really the only organ that couldn't be replaced without completely losing our identity.

In the past God has answered prayer in a far more dramatic way that we can read about in the Bible but it seems He isn't intervening in such a dramatic way these days (no pillars of fire, raising the dead or manna fields to pick). It seems these days (in this dispensation) God answers prayers in a more personal, psychologically way yet also a physical way possibly through our brain.

Any way, I hope I am at least close to answering your question in the spirit that you asked it. If not let me know and I will try again.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Bob,

This is blantantly untrue. I want you to consider that you have an idea that your children or spouse might die. You contemplate it and know of its occurance, but that knowledge is far different than experiencing the same event. Experiencing something evokes far more emotion than thinking about it, even in humans.

Rob, I really would like you to reconsider the example you just gave. I think if you think about it enough you will agree it's not a very good comparison.

You are saying that God would still be emotional at an event (say the death of a saint - like me or you ) just like we would still be emotional at an event even though we have a good idea it was going to happen. It think that is a poor comparison UNLESS you were coming from the open view perspective NOT the settled view perspective.

Here is the deal....

The open theist would/could say that God might have a "good idea" that an event was going to happen yet still be emotional when it happened and therefore that might be a good comparison to how us humans might feel. However the settled viewer (like you) does NOT believe that God has a "good idea" that something is going to happen, instead you believe that God decreed all the events that are going to happen. God planned it, ordained it, orchestrated it in ever detail. That difference is NOT subtle. That difference makes all the difference in the world.

 

[themuzicman]

Muz,

Just curious. How did Eve's doctrinal error creep in? How is it she changed the wording of the commandment?

Doctrinal error? What was wrong witrh how she put it?

If God says that I should rest on the Sabbath say, and I say that I should take it easy on Saturdays, have I committed doctrinal error?

Muz

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Rob, one more thought to add.... speaking of emotions.

From your perspective....
If all things are for God's glory and God decreed all events why would God feel negative emotions about events that He decreed for His own glory? Why grieve about an event that is planned for your own glory? Shouldn't that event be glorious?

 

[sentientsynth]

Doctrinal error? What was wrong witrh how she put it?

She both detracted a word and added multiple words. Compare what she said to Lucifer with what God said to Adam.

To me, this is definitely a "missing the mark." Other events surrounding the exchange between Lucifer and Eve are quite interesting.

But it just so happens that there was only one explicit command, and there is no imputation of sin nor any violation where there is no command (Ro 4:15, 5:13). Sin was in the world, but it was not imputed until the violation of the commandment.

Do you see where I'm going with this?


SS

 

[RobE]

Rob, I really would like you to reconsider the example you just gave. I think if you think about it enough you will agree it's not a very good comparison.

It is a precise comparison.

You are saying that God would still be emotional at an event (say the death of a saint - like me or you ) just like we would still be emotional at an event even though we have a good idea it was going to happen. It think that is a poor comparison UNLESS you were coming from the open view perspective NOT the settled view perspective.

Here is the deal....

The open theist would/could say that God might have a "good idea" that an event was going to happen yet still be emotional when it happened and therefore that might be a good comparison to how us humans might feel. However the settled viewer (like you) does NOT believe that God has a "good idea" that something is going to happen, instead you believe that God decreed all the events that are going to happen. God planned it, ordained it, orchestrated it in ever detail. That difference is NOT subtle. That difference makes all the difference in the world.

'That difference is NOT subtle' and is an incorrect analysis of my position.

I'm glad this post is here. Maybe we can clear up some misconceptions that exist between us. God certainly planned and ordained creation. However, He planned for a system containing creatures with free will. Orchestrating is the word here that I think goes too far in your definition of my position. Orchestrated would seem to make God the primary cause of the death instead of just making Him the cause of the environment which the death occured in.

Knowing of a death is not the same as being the direct cause of that same death. God is an indirect cause of the death since He is responsible for giving life, He did create all of creation, and He did know what outcomes those actions would produce; in order, to achieve a greater purpose despite the evil which would occur.

Open theism only has a problem with the knowledge portion of my position. They ask "If He knew then why didn't He achieve His objectives in a better way?". My response is that this is the best way!

From your perspective....
If all things are for God's glory and God decreed all events why would God feel negative emotions about events that He decreed for His own glory? Why grieve about an event that is planned for your own glory? Shouldn't that event be glorious?

The end results of creation will be glorious. The achieving of the desired purpose is glorious. It doesn't mean that God doesn't feel sorrow during the process. My wife having children is a great example of this. There is pain and sorrow in the process, but the end result makes the pain and sorrow worth it to her. In the end, don't you agree that God will forget those who didn't survive the process and will rejoice over those who did? What does the scripture say about those who reject God?

Rob

 

[RobE]

What am I missing? I thought I summed it up.

Rob,

I have never understood why you equate allowance for sin to decreeing it. If I allow you to answer this question am I responsible for your answer?

What if Love prevents God from controlling if we sin or not, then how can he be responsible? Love prevents it.

Edge 1 allows for no shadow of love at all.

If I have the power to stop an evil and I allow it then it is essentially my will to allow it. I allow that which I will just as I decree that which I will. Is love expressed by allowing someone to destroy themselves?

If this doesn't answer the question you have, then re-state.

You say it was necessary for the LORD to create things in this way in order to save the ones who would be saved, but as a necessary consequence, countless billions are doomed.

According to their own will. Jesus Christ is a means for 'all' to be saved that so choose.

To this, I submit what I used to think when this I believe the same thing... why ia all this necessary? If God had the foresight to see his actions, couldn't he setup a better creation that saved everyone?

Not if love truly existed as you have pointed out many times.

Maybe instead of throwing us all in one pot, give us each our own "Matrix"?

Create us one at a time and see what happens. Divine justice and the balance of our choice would be coerced outside of reality which this system would produce through unreality.

Well, obviously he didn't, and there are sinners going to hell. If God really loved us all, and had future knowledge, and was OK with using his future knowledge to save a few, why not use it to save us all?

He did save all of us who choose salvation and we are the elect.

And in saving us all, why not prevent wars and hate all together?

Because He wills it to be as it is. He is able to prevent wars and hate all together, but that is not His will whether He foreknew of them or simply observe them.

God could foresee the how the dominos would be falling in before he pushed them over, why not make the dominos that fall in a good way instead a way that damned half of us?

My position says that all have a just chance. Your analogy would mean that isn't true. Remember, God interacts with the dominoes for the best possible outcome and purpose.

We both know he could do it with future knowledge... why didn't he? It just doesn't make God sound loving at all. It completely contradicts the Bible.

I believe that God would be making a square circle if He created a universe where all were saved without the perfect One Jesus Christ.

No future knowledge, you must see, there is no such problem such as this.

It certainly cuts the knot of this particular problem, but creates far more problems in exchange. I'll hang on to one difficulty and pass up the problems which I would run into if I were to worship Zeus or Odin.

In fact there is no problem with a lack of Future knowledge for God, he is powerful without it just as he is with it. Only now he can be considered loving in context to creation.

Really?

Rob

Here's my original post to you. Where is your summation?

Rob

 

[patman]

Here's my original post to you. Where is your summation?

Rob

I addressed the things I disagreed with, the reasons we say the same things but the reasons we say them are different.

Just for the record, I really hate the line by line, play by play commentaries.

When someone gives you one of them you have no choice but to answer them the same way or look like you are not answering them. If you do answer the same way you end up with this huge post which gets clouded in words and others don't read al of it.

Sure, it is a good way to smart off ( not saying you did this, but I see it a lot ) with one liners and a good way to ahg things on for forever, and they can be useful, I still try not to. I take the meat of the conversation and answer that, or I answer complete paragraphs.

That format of posting is a good example of how not to have a disagreement with someone. When you have a disagreement, you take things one point at a time, and move on to the next point without bringing something up that isn't fair, relative, or a subject changer.

When I post, (generally) one sentence doesn't stand on its own unless it is the/a conclusion. The rest of them go together to complete a thought. That's what I try to do.

ANYWAY

This is a little bit of a mis-characterization of what I say. I say God allowed those to fall for the sake of Noah. I understand that other views are unable to understand this even though they use the same argument themselves when they say God allowed sin. Nevertheless, when the time came to destory all men except Noah, God felt remorse for the loss of life. For God so loved the world, and His own creation, that sorrow filled Him; but then, He continued the actions which He foresaw through His omniscient mind to fulfill the decree of creation. His purpose was greater than their suffering or His own.

I know this is what you meant, I do not intend to misrepresent you.

I am glad you see why someone might have a problem with this. The bible quotes God as being sorry he created man. Not sorry he had to destroy man True as it may be, he was saddened to have to destroy them, it is not the same thing.

With such a powerful event, God being sorry he created man, this presents a huge problem to the S.V.. How can he be sorry he did anything if he foresaw it happening yet did it anyway. After all, who else would create man?

Is God indecisive about his foreknowledge?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'm glad this post is here. Maybe we can clear up some misconceptions that exist between us. God certainly planned and ordained creation. However, He planned for a system containing creatures with free will. Orchestrating is the word here that I think goes too far in your definition of my position. Orchestrated would seem to make God the primary cause of the death instead of just making Him the cause of the environment which the death occured in.

Knowing of a death is not the same as being the direct cause of that same death. God is an indirect cause of the death since He is responsible for giving life, He did create all of creation, and He did know what outcomes those actions would produce; in order, to achieve a greater purpose despite the evil which would occur.

Open theism only has a problem with the knowledge portion of my position. They ask "If He knew then why didn't He achieve His objectives in a better way?". My response is that this is the best way!

Oh... my bad. I didn't know you were an Open Theist. :freak: I apologize.

By the way... welcome aboard! :up:

 

[themuzicman]

She both detracted a word and added multiple words. Compare what she said to Lucifer with what God said to Adam.

To me, this is definitely a "missing the mark." Other events surrounding the exchange between Lucifer and Eve are quite interesting.

I don't see her missing the mark at all. She's already implemented a guard against eating by saying that she shouldn't even touch it. That's wise in any case. If looking at pornography is wrong, then you probably shouldn't be in the risque magazine section at the store, either.

But it just so happens that there was only one explicit command, and there is no imputation of sin nor any violation where there is no command (Ro 4:15, 5:13). Sin was in the world, but it was not imputed until the violation of the commandment.

Do you see where I'm going with this?


SS

Yes: the wrong direction. You're saying that Adam and Eve sinned because God commanded them not to eat of the tree, thus making God the cause of sin through the law.

Paul's point is building upon chapters 1-3, where Paul makes the case that we are all under the law. In this case, Paul is saying that if we don't have any law, then there cannot be sin, but because we act sinfully in the presence of the law, we are guilty as charged.

Muz

 

[RobE]

Oh... my bad. I didn't know you were an Open Theist. :freak: I apologize.

By the way... welcome aboard! :up:

Nor did I realize that Open Theists on this website now accepted foreknowledge as fact. :thumb:

It's good to see that you've come around.


:cheers: to our new understanding of each other,

Rob Mauldin

 

[themuzicman]

God foreknows all possible courses of the future and each outcome. Nice to see that you've embraced OVT foreknowledge.

Muz

 

[RobE]

With such a powerful event, God being sorry he created man, this presents a huge problem to the S.V.. How can he be sorry he did anything if he foresaw it happening yet did it anyway. After all, who else would create man?

Is God indecisive about his foreknowledge?

Now that we're communicating, I would like to know HOW you think this presents a problem for those of us who believe God foreknows outcomes of His own acts.

It seems that God being remorseful of destroying all mankind except Noah, might be sorry He created man altogether. In the next few verses He continued with the foreknown plan of creation and destroyed them anyway letting Noah survive. Was He able to do otherwise. Of course. Yet His Logos is higher than His emotions and He kept His decree to Abraham.

Moses would be a another good example of this:

God in a moment of anger offered to make a people from Moses and destroy the Israelites. He then remembered His decree and kept His word. Impassible doesn't mean unemotional. It simply means that He is in control of His emotions and will keep His word despite them.

Hope this clears it up,
Rob

 

[RobE]

God foreknows all possible courses of the future and each outcome. Nice to see that you've embraced OVT foreknowledge.

Muz

Augustine and Molina would be proud of you as well. Pinnock and Boyd will have to answer for plagiarism later of course.

Rob