justind.clark
New member
Would you call this open theism or what. Does anyone have strong biblical proofs either way?
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Would you call this open theism or what. Does anyone have strong biblical proofs either way?
patman
Active member
Welcome to TOL
It is close to Open Theism. If a were to examine your analogy, I would note a few differences:
It sounds like the river already exists, every possibility is there, but which vein of the river we go down is unknown. The last part is defiantly Open Theism. God doesn't always know which course we will take. So welcome to the club
But the part about the river being there already is questionable, but close. Open Theists generally take the approach much of the future is unwritten. God can predict what could happen if option A is taken as opposed to option B, but only the option that takes place exists.
I personally think God doesn't need to know all possible options ahead of time. I do think he has planned for the worst and the best, but i don't really think God foresaw every imaginable alternative timeline.
All rivers lead to an ocean tho, no matter how you go down it. God is more than able to keep his promises.
I see nothing in the Bible that would support this idea. It feels like an attempt at some compromise position. As though you see and understand the veracity of the Open View position but are afraid to put more than your big toe over the line into it.
What's wrong with simply saying that God does not know the future? He doesn't know everything we are going to do because He chose to give us the ability to decide for ourselves what we will do, say and think and thereby gave us the ability to love Him and each other.
It just isn't necessary to believe in something so convoluted and complicated. Its really simple. There are things that God has predestined, but those things are not dependent on the actions of other free will beings. Aside from those few things, God is able to make promises and plans and is able, as our Creator, to very accurately predict what we will do but does not know for certain what any specific free will agent will do and He makes even His own promises and plans contingent upon our actions (Jer. 18). That's the Biblical position and the only rational position to hold and it need not be, in its essence, any more complicated than that.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Uh . . .because it is purely blasphemous testimony (the result of the curse of enmity) deliberately imposed against God's Person, Nature, and Essence?
Who are you . . .a little, and impotent, and hateful, sinful piece of flesh, to declare God Almighty ignorant of anything?
Nang
In the Open view, God is not ignorant of anything. He knows everything that is knowable and knows reality as it is. Since the future is partially open or unsettled, it must be known as possible, not actual/certain. If it was settled, He would know it as such. In both our views, God is omniscient. We just differ on the nature of creation (determinism vs free will) and possible objects of certain knowledge in the universe. The issue is more about determinism vs free will than foreknowledge/omniscience.
justind.clark
New member
Well Clete, i see where you are coming from. But it seems to me that these views are essetially the same (i.e. the river and OT) just different phrasing.
And i happen to have jumped all in a more questionable doctrines than open theism so don't accuse me of trying to please everybody by playing both sides. These were simply honest questions. Also, i would argue that it has good scriptural support, in fact it does a good job balancing the support for classical and open theism by reconciling seemingly conflicting verses.
And i happen to have jumped all in a more questionable doctrines than open theism so don't accuse me of trying to please everybody by playing both sides. These were simply honest questions. Also, i would argue that it has good scriptural support, in fact it does a good job balancing the support for classical and open theism by reconciling seemingly conflicting verses.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No, you have misappropriated the orthodox position on the word omniscience and recast it into non-omniscience omniscience-- a no-thing. Just as openists do for omnipotence, making God merely very, very, competent. In other words, openism uses the words as a mainstream veneer versus openism's true wholesale recasting of 2,000 years of orthodox Christianity.
Is the ‘all knowable’ the same for God as it is for humans? What I mean, is if a human was able to know all that is knowable in the universe, would that human know what God knows? I think the human view, no matter how extended, will not be the same as the Divine view, as the Divine view sees beyond any reality that humans would consider. Human reality is not Divine reality. The future is always open to humans but God would know the future by virtue of His divine view.
How would this idea of God’s foreknowledge affect a human’s sense of choice or notion of being able to choose one thing or idea over another?
Philetus
New member
Is the universe that God created and relates to the same universe that we live in? The question is whether OUR future already exists as knowable to God. Before creation, that is before He actually made it, did God know the world as actual or possible? There is the rub. Calvinism cannot divorce itself from foreknowledge as causative, hence in their view, God not only knows but predestines and meticulously controls every detail of our existence regardless what they say about our choices.
I think the question of foreknowledge as causal is really a bogus issue imposed by classical theology and we have primarily Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and the likes of AMR to thank for that. The church today needs to put Calvinism on ignore permanently. The world already has! Then maybe we could discuss what it means for God the creator to transcend Necessary-Being and relate to His totally unnecessary yet unconditionally loved creation.
Philetus
New member
Welcome to TOL. Most of us haven't read all 7000+ posts and we wrote em.
And this is Part#2! Most of the questions here have been debated over and over ... and still there are a lot of good questions that remain unasked, stuff we haven't thought of. So, please, ask away! There are some very well informed Open Theist posting here. I owe em more than I can say.
You see incorrectly.
I wasn't accusing you of anything. Your post did, however, leave the impression that you are playing both sides against the middle.
I can appreciate that. I like honest questions and offer honest replies to those questions when they are asked. Don't be so defensive, okay?
You see what I mean about playing both sides against the middle?
There is no Biblical support for classical theism. That is, unless you count the writings of Plato as Scripture. Not only that but classical theism is a garbled mess of irrational nonsense that even the most strident Calvinist must write off as unexplainable.
As for arguing that your stated position has Scriptural support, I recommend that rather than simply saying that, you should show us the Scriptural support that you believe exists so that we can look at it and discuss it in detail.
Resting in Him,
Clete
:rotfl:
You're such an idiot!
God is the one who said it, not me! I didn't write Jeremiah or Genesis or any other part of the Bible for that matter! I just read it and report what I've read and even quote it directly and in context. You're the one who has to turn it all into figures of speech because of Aristotle and Plato, not me!
Resting in Him,
Clete
Philetus
New member
Classical dogma beat GR to the punch on that one!
I'll take omnicompetent over 'dead' any day.
And you need to bone-up on your math.
Philetus
Philetus
New member
themuzicman
Well-known member
No. He already said that God doesn't know which stream we will ultimately go down.
We can use this element of Molinism, as it does embrace Free Will. We just have to avoid the idea that God actualizes the stream.
Muz
Omnipotence implies God is all-powerful. This does not mean omnicausal (he does not make cars and computers), nor does it mean He always exercises brute force all of the time, though He could. How does the Open view differ on this doctrine? Tell me you do not think God makes married bachelors, square circles, makes objects too heavy to life (logical absurdities, not limitations on omnipotence).
Omniscience really is knowing all that is knowable. You say the future is knowable as a certainty because it is settled by God (I would agree if there was evidence that meticulous vs providential control is in Scripture). If creation is partially unsettled, then God would know it as such. So, we disagree about creation, not about an attribute of God (possible objects of certain knowledge; we both agree that God is not ignorant of anything that is logically knowable, but disagree about what is logically knowable...e.g. God does not know where Aslan in Narnia is because it is fictitious, not fact...this is not a limitation of omniscience).
Until you grasp this nuance, you do not have credibility to reject something you do not understand.
Dogmatism and tradition does not ensure you are right.
Reality is objective. There is a logical problem to say the future is open and settled at the same time (whether from human or divine perspective). It would presume that our choices are made before they are made?! If it is open, it is open for God and us and known as such (possible, not certain). If it is settled in God's mind in the future, then it is objectively settled and would merely be an illusion of openness for us. One cannot have there cake and eat it too. The revelation in Scripture is that the future is partially open and known/experienced this way by God (hence, He changes His mind; expects one thing, but something else happens; tests to see what people will do; etc.).
The content of God's knowledge is exhaustive (past and present). The content of our knowledge is very finite and limited. His understanding of the future is also greatly beyond ours, but that does not mean an open future becomes settled trillions of years in advance in God's mind (He knows reality as it is).
By creating free moral agents/contingencies vs determinism, the extent and nature of His foreknowledge was voluntarily limited. Exhaustive definite foreknowledge of the future would be possible, but only if determinism was true, which it is not. The bottom line is that the future is fundamentally different than the fixed past of actual present and thus known differently, even by an omniscient God. A face value reading of Scripture supports a unidirectional view of time with God experiencing duration, not a philosophical, incoherent 'eternal now' divine simultaneity.
justind.clark
New member
1 Samuel 15:29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.
Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps
Genesis 50:20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive
Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Plus how would you explain prophecy? I'm very intrested in hearing your comments.
These are old objections against OT that are easily answered.
Don't forget I Sam. 15:35 (changed his mind) that is not a contradiction (I Sam. 15:11), properly understood. Hint: Will not is not cannot. God does not change His mind in a fickle, capricious way like man does, but He can change it and remain righteous in response to changing contingencies (personal being; cf. Hezekiah and Jonah).
Take it away, Clete.
Don't forget I Sam. 15:35 (changed his mind) that is not a contradiction (I Sam. 15:11), properly understood. Hint: Will not is not cannot. God does not change His mind in a fickle, capricious way like man does, but He can change it and remain righteous in response to changing contingencies (personal being; cf. Hezekiah and Jonah).
Take it away, Clete.
Last edited:
- Status