ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

Isn't this the same Sander who teaches that the Father had no prior knowledge that His Son would die on the cross?

Nang

I've not heard that he taught any such thing but if he did, he's the only one in the world who believes it - I certainly don't and neither does any open theist that I know of. Christ's death and even his death on the cross was clearly planned by God far far in advance.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

We are actually told to evaluate God many times in Scripture. We are told to test Him and see if He will not be faithful to His word and pour out blessings on those who obey His word.

"Jesus said to him (Satan), 'It is written again, "You shall not test the Lord your God."'" Matthew 4:6

So where do you get off, saying different, Clete?

 

[Clete]

Hi all,

I haven't been following this discuss closely but I just came across an article that I highly recommend. It is, Hellenistic or Hebrew: Open Theism and Reformed Theological Method by Michael Horton. I think both Reformed and OT would do well to read it. One of Horton's points is to demonstrate that Reformed theology differentiates between immutability and immobility. Just because God is immutable doesn't mean He is immobile. Here is a rather surprising quote from Charles Hodge of Old Princeton in Horton's paper;

ut nevertheless that He is not a stagnant ocean, but an ever living, ever thinking, ever acting, and ever suiting his action to the exigencies of his creatures, and to the accomplishment of his infinitely wise designs. Whether we can harmonize these facts or not, is a matter of minor importance. We are constantly called upon to believe that things are, without being able to tell how they are, or even how they can be. Theologians, in their attempts to state, in philosophical language, the doctrine of the Bible on the unchangeableness of God, are apt to confound immutability with immobility. In denying that God can change, they seem to deny that He can act.[emphasis mine]

And Cornelius Van Til writes;

Surely in the case of Aristotle the immutability of the divine being was due to its emptiness and internal immobility. No greater contrast is thinkable than that between the unmoved noesis noeseos of Aristotle and the Christian God. This appears particularly from the fact that the Bible does not hesitate to attribute all manner of activity to God .... Herein lies the glory of the Christian doctrine of God, that the unchangeable one is the one in control of the change of the universe.

Now keep in mind you Open Theists out there, I am not Reformed. I am Lutheran. But I find that OT continually paints a picture of Reformed theology that is highly exaggerated and full of half truths. You must have the intellectual honesty to represent your opponent’s position correctly. I continue to find that Calvinism is more nuanced than many realize, including those who call themselves Reformed.

Ciao,
Cellist

Cellist,

When Calvinist say such things as God is immutable but not immobile they are talking out of both sides of their mouth and doing so intentionally. When discussed separately the affirm both things; that God is utterly immutable and without capacity for any sort of change including movement, and usually in separate conversations they will also affirm that God is a living and vital God who relates to His creation in intimate and meaningful ways. They affirm both and they make no attempt to reconcile the two. They simply accept the two positions as truth and go on about their business. They either completely ignore the incongruities inherent in the two beliefs or else they pull out the antinomy card and say that it is a matter of faith not of reason and that we should not expect to be able to understand everything about God. It's a shell game and they count on the intellectual laziness of most Christians to get away with it, that and their over eagerness to feel pious in their willingness to ignore sound reason in favor of blind belief.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

I've not heard that he taught any such thing

Well, you have demonstrated you have not heard much at all, let alone do you come close to knowing it all. . .you had to go to Wikipedia to learn for the first time about the historical "Three Forms of Unity."

 

[Clete]

"Jesus said to him (Satan), 'It is written again, "You shall not test the Lord your God."'" Matthew 4:6

So where do you get off, saying different, Clete?

I didn't say it Nang, God did! Here's but one example...

Malachi 3:10 Bring all the tithes into the storehouse,
That there may be food in My house,
And try Me now in this,”
Says the LORD of hosts,

“ If I will not open for you the windows of heaven
And pour out for you such blessing
That there will not be room enough to receive it.​

The word translated "try" in verse 10 is the Hebrew word 'bachan'.

bachan

1) to examine, try, prove

a) (Qal)

1) to examine, scrutinise

2) to test, prove, try (of gold, persons, the heart, man of God)​

b) (Niphal) to be tried, proved

c) (Pual) to make a trial​

Incidentally, neither Matthew 4:7 nor Malachi 4:10 makes any sense at all in a Calvinistic worldview.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Well, you have demonstrated you have not heard much at all, let alone do you come close to knowing it all. . .you had to go to Wikipedia to learn for the first time about the historical "Three Forms of Unity."

I have never pretended to know it all Nang. But not being familiar with that particular term is hardly evidence that I'm making this stuff up as I go. I've heard of all of the things that short hand term refers to, I just hadn't heard them referred to in that manner before, or at least I don't recall ever having heard it before. I was a Calvinist for a very long time but I was never a Calvinist theologian.

 

[Nang]

Incidentally, neither Matthew 4:7 nor Malachi 4:10 makes any sense at all in a Calvinistic worldview.

Matthew 4:7 is certainly understood by Calvinists, but Malachi 4:10 is a mystery . . .since there is no Malachi 4:10 in the Bible. :dizzy:

Besides, what do you think you know about the "Calvinistic worldview?" The Calvinistic view is of the heavenly kingdom of God, and not the world . . . didn't you know that either?

 

[Lon]

God's character does not change. He always has been and always will be love, light, and justice, etc.. But the Bible clearly tells us that God can change his mind, make plans, and alter them.

Any kind of change for Aristotle is an imperfection. He defined four kinds of change that he saw in nature. "Change of what a thing is is simple coming-to-be and perishing; change of quantity is growth and diminution; change of affection is alteration; change of place is motion." He also said everything in nature "changes from being potentially to being in actuality; a thing changes, for instance, from being potentially white to being actually white."

In reference to God Aristotle said, "There is something that moves things while being itself immovable and existing in actuality (without any potential for change), it is not possible in any way for that thing to be in any state other that in which it is."HA! I told you I didn't buy all of Greek philosophy!
It is very important that we define what we mean by time. Time is a characteristic of anything that exists and is active. Any kind of movement is a change of some type and incorporates the essence of time in three ways: 1. before and after; 2. past, present, and future; 3. duration. Time does not exist in itself as something material or as an invisible form of energy. The measuring of time is relative because it can be done in many ways in different places.

Einstein "If we assume that all matter would disappear from the world, then before relativity, one believed that space and time would continue existing in an empty world. But according to the theory of relativity, if matter and its motion disappeared, there would no longer be any space or time."

Time exists in God because he is active in the world he has created--Revealed Theology. We know that God existed 'before" he created the world and so we can also say that the creation of the world is in his "past". Before the creation of the world there was "movement" within the Trinity. Love and communication are forms of movement. God endures forever, time for God is unlimited, he had no beginning and he will have no end.


To understand the essentials of Greek philosophy, as I have outlined it, is essential in an understanding of what OV is and why it is so important. Augustine is one of many theologians who have attempted to synthesis philosophy with revelation and produced a theology of contradictions and confusion. Biblical terms and concepts must be defined and understood within their own context and not a Platonic one.
There is some truth to this, EXCEPT, where and if Plato was correct. We don't look to errancy, we look to inerrancy, but anyone that agrees with scripture is in agreement. This not to say that there is absolutely no greek influence whatsoever, but to say correlations is not the same as saying extrapolations. I find the extrapolation theory from OV a bit unfounded.
The key to understanding OV is not primarily in a concept of eternal time or a view of free will and foreknowledge, but in our understanding of God. God has "infinite potentiality". He has unlimited potential and freedom of thought and action in an eternity of unlimited time. God does not do everything all at once nor does he do anything carelessly.

If we can continue along this way, we can focus on key definitions, compare scripture with philosophy and see "if" and "how" theologians have combined them, and see if we are doing the same or not.

Infinite potentiality," but with logical parameters. I appreciate the infinite potentiality view here very much, but it seems there are limits to the infinite in speaking with a few as I've been here.

 

[Lon]

Cellist,

When Calvinist say such things as God is immutable but not immobile they are talking out of both sides of their mouth and doing so intentionally. When discussed separately the affirm both things; that God is utterly immutable and without capacity for any sort of change including movement, and usually in separate conversations they will also affirm that God is a living and vital God who relates to His creation in intimate and meaningful ways. They affirm both and they make no attempt to reconcile the two. They simply accept the two positions as truth and go on about their business. They either completely ignore the incongruities inherent in the two beliefs or else they pull out the antinomy card and say that it is a matter of faith not of reason and that we should not expect to be able to understand everything about God. It's a shell game and they count on the intellectual laziness of most Christians to get away with it, that and their over eagerness to feel pious in their willingness to ignore sound reason in favor of blind belief.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I know this is frustrating, but you do see antimony in scripture I assume. I agree it is no excuse for nonattempt of a partial answer at worst, but I see these in scripture.

Help me with this: "God does not repent" "God repented"
(no, I'm not trying to trap you, it is just a good point for sympathetic dialogue)

Here is a thought as well I've been working on: Each Theological position has it's own form of antimony because of the holes of logical presentation. In other words, as I look at our various theological stances I see a lot of holes in different places. Going back to a puzzle analogy, we are all working at the puzzle and none of us has it completed so there are differing pictures and corresponding holes. That is another good reason why I try to be open to learning from other's perspectives, I want to move always toward a biblical theology.

 

[godrulz]

Isn't this the same Sander who teaches that the Father had no prior knowledge that His Son would die on the cross?

Nang

Can you reference this? Open Theists believe that the plan of redemption was in the mind of God before creation as a possibility. The Fall was not a certainty, but a possibility. Once the Fall took place, the potential plan was implemented as a certainty/necessity. Even then, it did not become actual until centuries after Gen. 3.

I would read Sanders in full context. He also could be more precise about some things and is wrong about other things. We are talking about the gist of his understanding, not claiming infallibility on every idea that he wrestles with.

 

[Yorzhik]

I know this is frustrating, but you do see antimony in scripture I assume. I agree it is no excuse for nonattempt of a partial answer at worst, but I see these in scripture.

You realize you just said, "I cannot trust God!"?

Help me with this: "God does not repent" "God repented"

You'd consider mentioning this like it might be viewed as a trap? The context of these passages is so simple that a 3rd grade reading level would sort it out without much difficulty. I'm not joking - 3rd grade. You don't need any help with this beyond reading these passages as if GOD WROTE A NORMAL STORY ABOUT IT! Just.like.He.did.

It's a story for goodness sake. Like a novel, only real. Have you ever read a novel? They usually have characters that do things and interact with their environment and the events that unfold could be seen in your mind's eye and you can actually realize and understand what is taking place... even without pictures or video.

I mean... the bible cannot possibly be that confusing to you that the context of these passages isn't obvious. ... or is it that confusing? I'm serious. Is it? When you read the context of these passages is it not obvious? Like reading, you know, a book?

That is another good reason why I try to be open to learning from other's perspectives, I want to move always toward a biblical theology.

First, there is no antinomy in the bible. Now that that is out of the way, I doubt this statement you just made is true. We've been very patient and clear and complete with answers but you don't seem to know how we are going to answer the same question asked for the 10th time. Obviously, you aren't learning the OV perspective.

 

[Lon]

You realize you just said, "I cannot trust God!"?
No, nice try though.
You'd consider mentioning this like it might be viewed as a trap? The context of these passages is so simple that a 3rd grade reading level would sort it out without much difficulty. I'm not joking - 3rd grade. You don't need any help with this beyond reading these passages as if GOD WROTE A NORMAL STORY ABOUT IT! Just.like.He.did.
.....And "if you are from OV persuassion." Thats twice you've hit me in the intelligence department.
It's a story for goodness sake. Like a novel, only real. Have you ever read a novel? They usually have characters that do things and interact with their environment and the events that unfold could be seen in your mind's eye and you can actually realize and understand what is taking place... even without pictures or video.
Three
I mean... the bible cannot possibly be that confusing to you that the context of these passages isn't obvious. ... or is it that confusing? I'm serious. Is it? When you read the context of these passages is it not obvious? Like reading, you know, a book?
And this would be four.

First, there is no antinomy in the bible. Now that that is out of the way, I doubt this statement you just made is true.
That's five.
We've been very patient and clear and complete with answers but you don't seem to know how we are going to answer the same question asked for the 10th time. Obviously, you aren't learning the OV perspective.

Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? That is 6 or 7 now. I'll tell you the same thing I tell my students. When you pass your menza exam you can put my intelligence down, until then, you are only accentuating your own score. This has nothing to do with my or your theological position and everything to do with your own self-image. Go ahead and take them, but remember accusatory and demeaning language has one finger pointing at the intended and those three remaining fingers are VERY tell-tale of your own. Condescension doesn't bother me much.

It isn't a turn of phrase here, it is a truth and it is absolutely Biblical. "Log-eye, judge not...." Now you don't have to be corrected by me, but scripture does give us guidelines. Follow them or ignore them as you like.

Now about antinomy: Judas, how did he kill himself MT 27:5 AC 1:18 ? Next: 1Samuel 15:11 & 29 (This isn't antinomy?)

For any who do not know, antinomy is an apparent contradiction between truths. It doesn't mean something cannot be answered, it means that we have to either just take the difference at face value until there can be resolved, or reserve judgement about things we know nothing about.

So, now while I tried to come across as genuine, you've come across exactly opposite. It is this kind of arrogance, misread, and attitude that really makes friends and influences people. Well done.
My question, to Clete,
was real and genuine. I didn't post the disclaimer to him, he always knows I'm asking genuinely, It was stated so others would know that it was genuine, but apparently that backfires). I've heard this supported by OV, but I've never asked how they view the apparent contradiction, and I wanted to know. One thing that helps keep a conversation going in here is to ask a genuine question. I wasn't asking a nonOVer, I know our answer.

Now, in the future if you are bothered by something, I'd appreciate a PM, but this sort of arrogant condescension is pointless, meaningless, not great debate, and makes me arrogant in viewing your poor opinion of yourself, and I'd just as soon like you for who you are and stay humble myself.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Posted by DFT_Dave
In reference to God Aristotle said, "There is something that moves things while being itself immovable and existing in actuality (without any potential for change), it is not possible in any way for that thing to be in any state other that in which it is."

Posted by Lonster
HA! I told you I didn't buy all of Greek philosophy!

Posted by DFT_Dave
To understand the essentials of Greek philosophy, as I have outlined it, is essential in an understanding of what OV is and why it is so important. Augustine is one of many theologians who have attempted to synthesis philosophy with revelation and produced a theology of contradictions and confusion. Biblical terms and concepts must be defined and understood within their own context and not a Platonic one.

Posted by Lonster
There is some truth to this, EXCEPT, where and if Plato was correct. We don't look to errancy, we look to inerrancy, but anyone that agrees with scripture is in agreement. This not to say that there is absolutely no greek influence whatsoever, but to say correlations is not the same as saying extrapolations. I find the extrapolation theory from OV a bit unfounded.

What part of it do you "buy" and what part don't you? What part of Greek philosophy is compatible with scripture and which parts are not is what we will determine.

Posted by Lonster
Infinite potentiality," but with logical parameters. I appreciate the infinite potentiality view here very much, but it seems there are limits to the infinite in speaking with a few as I've been here.

What do you mean by logical parameters". Can I assume that you agree with my definition and description of "time"?

 

[elected4ever]

Question How are we supposed to obey God if there is not a choice to do so? In the Old testament those who retained God in there heart did so by choice. God provided a way that He could be approached. That way was through blood sacrifice of animals. This sacrifice had to be repeated over and over again. So the choice was made over and over again because the animal sacrifices were not a permanent covering for sin. This fact is evident to all men who can read, even Calvinist. This fact is true of all men born of the seed of Adam. As lone as we remain of the seed of Adam then a conscious choice has to be made to obey God and to retain God in one's heart. No exceptions.

 

[godrulz]

Question How are we supposed to obey God if there is not a choice to do so? In the Old testament those who retained God in there heart did so by choice. God provided a way that He could be approached. That way was through blood sacrifice of animals. This sacrifice had to be repeated over and over again. So the choice was made over and over again because the animal sacrifices were not a permanent covering for sin. This fact is evident to all men who can read, even Calvinist. This fact is true of all men born of the seed of Adam. As lone as we remain of the seed of Adam then a conscious choice has to be made to obey God and to retain God in one's heart. No exceptions.

You sound like a free will theist like myself. Based on the above, I am not sure why you reject robotic OSAS.

Without free will, there is no love, relationship, freedom, or responsibility/accountability.

 

[Lon]

Hi Dave

Hi Dave

I tried to standardize this a bit more so it'd be easier to follow, but if I actually made it worse, let me know please, and I'll leave them alone. Thank you.

Posted by Dave To understand the essentials of Greek philosophy, as I have outlined it, is essential in an understanding of what OV is and why it is so important. Augustine is one of many theologians who have attempted to synthesis philosophy with revelation and produced a theology of contradictions and confusion. Biblical terms and concepts must be defined and understood within their own context and not a Platonic one.

Posted by Lonster
There is some truth to this, EXCEPT, where and if Plato was correct. We don't look to errancy, we look to inerrancy, but anyone that agrees with scripture is in agreement. This not to say that there is absolutely no greek influence whatsoever, but to say correlations is not the same as saying extrapolations. I find the extrapolation theory from OV a bit unfounded.

Dave responded What part of it do you "buy" and what part don't you? What part of Greek philosophy is compatible with scripture and which parts are not is what we will determine.
New reply Well, it would have to be the part where they are Biblical. Just for the record, I have an intro class in this (3 actually) but the answer really is: Pick one. If it lines up with scripture, it is biblical, if it doesn't it is not. That's the only point I was trying to make. We nonOV do get accused of carrying these greek philosophies, but I don't think it would be accurate to suggest that any of them are not scriptural at all.

Posted by Lonster
Infinite potentiality," but with logical parameters. I appreciate the infinite potentiality view here very much, but it seems there are limits to the infinite in speaking with a few as I've been here.

Reponded by Dave What do you mean by logical parameters". Can I assume that you agree with my definition and description of "time"?

Well, God cannot know what does not exist according to the OV. I've been told God cannot know the future, but I disagree strongly. I've been told that freewill and God's sovereign determinism cannot both be true, but I also disagree strongly.

Thanks Dave

In Him

Lon

 

[elected4ever]

You sound like a free will theist like myself. Based on the above, I am not sure why you reject robotic OSAS.

Without free will, there is no love, relationship, freedom, or responsibility/accountability.

it is not that I am less the son of Adam than the next person. It is who I am after salvation. After i was born again of the seed of God. There was no way on God's green earth to live righteously as lone as I remain in the flesh, before or after salvation. My Father in heaven says that I am a new creation. That I am as Christ is. That I have been born of his righteous seed and therefore I am not a sinner as I was before. It is not a matter of what I do anymore that determines my status before God but who God, the Father, has made me to be. I am that, regardless of my fallen nature in the flesh. I am no longer of the flesh but of the spirit. Why, Because my Spirit has been born of God. If we do not have the Spirit then we are none of His. It does not mean that I do nothing wrong while I remain in the body of this death. This body will die or be changed like unto the body of Christ at His appearing. The resurrection and the coming of the Lord are my great hope. All who have this hope purifies himself. I am born of God and I am as He is. Sense I am no longer a son of Adam, I am no longer under the curse of Adams death. I am not a sinner because that is not what my Father has made me to be. It is the same with all God's children regardless if they know it or not. He leads me in the path of righteousness for His namesake. When I mess up he corrects my path because He loves me. There is now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Posted by DFT_Dave
What part of Greek philosophy is compatible with scripture and which parts are not is what we will determine.

Posted by Lonster
New reply; Well, it would have to be the part where they are Biblical. Just for the record, I have an intro class in this (3 actually) but the answer really is: Pick one. If it lines up with scripture, it is biblical, if it doesn't it is not. That's the only point I was trying to make. We nonOV do get accused of carrying these greek philosophies, but I don't think it would be accurate to suggest that any of them are not scriptural at all.

Posted by DFT_Dave
Can I assume that you agree with my definition and description of "time"?

Posted by Lonster
Well, God cannot know what does not exist according to the OV. I've been told God cannot know the future, but I disagree strongly. I've been told that freewill and God's sovereign determinism cannot both be true, but I also disagree strongly.

You did not answer my questions, why? Can we say according to the Bible, that the creation of the world is in God's past? Can we say according to Plato or Aristotle, that the creation of the world is in God's past?

 

[Nang]

Really? In my readings, he did not favor Catholicism at all. Calvin was also soft on limited atonement (he did not believe it but believed in general redemption cf. John 3:16...world, not elect).

I found an article for you to read:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=238

 

[Nang]

Christ's death and even his death on the cross was clearly planned by God far far in advance.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I am glad we can agree on this fact.

I believe Jesus Christ was the Lamb of God covenantally considered "slain" before the foundation of the world. (Rev. 13:8)

Nang