Calling all Open Theists for Feedback
- Thread starter Evil.Eye.<(I)>
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
I have always admired and appreciated Nick's use of the Word of God. We disagree theologically, but I've always admired that in scriptures, he's the real deal. -Lon
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
foreknowledge and the future........
foreknowledge and the future........
Thanks EE,
I've engaged quite a bit on past threads on 'God and Time' (most of these thread are no longer extant),...and enjoy some explorations within both Open Theism and Process Theology,...the metaphysics involved and how it relates with free agency. As far as the future being OPEN to different possibilities and probabilities, indeed,...since I see all creation as unfolding as an ever-evolving open future. I hold that 'God' knows all potentials, possibilities and probabilities, and since He is infinite, his knowledge (rightly termed 'omniscience') far exceeds our own limited finite knowledge which is limited by space-time, even if there are some aspects of the future that God does not FULLY know YET as an actualized reality, his infinity is all-encompassing.
Infinity itself, since it has within it all the potentials and actuals of existence, contains all that is, was or ever will be,.... all dimensions of space-time emerge and spring from its womb. - so that even if some aspects of the future are not yet known, the INFINITE still includes and concludes all. - this still allows for the free agency of souls, as God is ever the 'Father-Mother' of the creative potential and possibiltiies of the matrix (as it were), so his will ultimately triumphs in the whole, even if parts defect or become disintegrated. - this would account for some souls who may suffer the second death (being disintegrated) while the greater whole including souls who choose life, move one to fulfill their creative purpose.
At this point, I'd have to do more research/meditation upon what view I resonate with as far as the extent of God's foreknowledge or predication of future events, whether he can choose NOT to know some aspects or whether he actually is limited and cannot know certain aspects of the future because they are not knowable, and some other variables. Its a wonderful subject.
foreknowledge and the future........
Thanks EE,
I've engaged quite a bit on past threads on 'God and Time' (most of these thread are no longer extant),...and enjoy some explorations within both Open Theism and Process Theology,...the metaphysics involved and how it relates with free agency. As far as the future being OPEN to different possibilities and probabilities, indeed,...since I see all creation as unfolding as an ever-evolving open future. I hold that 'God' knows all potentials, possibilities and probabilities, and since He is infinite, his knowledge (rightly termed 'omniscience') far exceeds our own limited finite knowledge which is limited by space-time, even if there are some aspects of the future that God does not FULLY know YET as an actualized reality, his infinity is all-encompassing.
Infinity itself, since it has within it all the potentials and actuals of existence, contains all that is, was or ever will be,.... all dimensions of space-time emerge and spring from its womb. - so that even if some aspects of the future are not yet known, the INFINITE still includes and concludes all. - this still allows for the free agency of souls, as God is ever the 'Father-Mother' of the creative potential and possibiltiies of the matrix (as it were), so his will ultimately triumphs in the whole, even if parts defect or become disintegrated. - this would account for some souls who may suffer the second death (being disintegrated) while the greater whole including souls who choose life, move one to fulfill their creative purpose.
At this point, I'd have to do more research/meditation upon what view I resonate with as far as the extent of God's foreknowledge or predication of future events, whether he can choose NOT to know some aspects or whether he actually is limited and cannot know certain aspects of the future because they are not knowable, and some other variables. Its a wonderful subject.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Do Open Theists believe in the absolute sovereignty of God? Calvinists do.
Please quote out of Calvinist testimonies or Reformed confessions, where the bolded above is stated as belief.
As a Reformed believer, I can say this accusation is wrong. The Reformers believe only in imputed righteousness: Christ's righteousness alone that is acquired by faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone by the grace of God alone gifted at the moment of being born again by the power of the Holy Spirit alone.
As long as the Reformed faith is unlovingly and misrepresented by Open Theists as you example, there will be no unity between our camps, I am sorry to say.
That is one of the reasons I said this is yet another lousy joke for a thread. All one needs to do is look a the wiki article on Open Theism to see that, theologically speaking, one of the greatest controversies of the twentieth century arose between Open Theism and Calvinism/Reformists. In fact that is just about exactly what one of the quotes from wiki says, "Roger E Olsaon said that open theism triggered the "most significant controversy about the doctrine of God in evangelical thought" in the late 20th and early 21st centuries", (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism), and if you read further down in that link it is plain as day who the two main parties are in that dispute. So essentially the OP says that he has "buried the hatchet" with Reformers and Calvinists but now proceeds to post this thread, "Calling all Open Theists", knowing that Open Theism is diametrically opposed to the Calvinist and Reform understanding of the Sovereignty of God. It is really just too outrageous for me to believe that the OP is actually trying to mend such deep theological differences that have gone on for as long as they have already; no, but rather, the OP does appear to get his kicks out of controversy and uproar, just as he has shown time and time again: it appears that chaos is king in his world, and the more controversy the better, and therefore this choice of current thread topic. It is a waste of time because tomorrow he will likely be proclaiming something else of a totally different belief system simply for the controversy, notoriety, and attention. Okay, I'm back out now, enjoy the unity party.
Eagles Wings
New member
Purposeful agitators at TOL?
How dastardly!
How dastardly!
Nang
TOL Subscriber
That is one of the reasons I said this is yet another lousy joke for a thread. All one needs to do is look a the wiki article on Open Theism to see that, theologically speaking, one of the greatest controversies of the twentieth century arose between Open Theism and Calvinism/Reformists. In fact that is just about exactly what one of the quotes from wiki says, "Roger E Olsaon said that open theism triggered the "most significant controversy about the doctrine of God in evangelical thought" in the late 20th and early 21st centuries", (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism), and if you read further down in that link it is plain as day who the two main parties are in that dispute. So essentially the OP says that he has "buried the hatchet" with Reformers and Calvinists but now proceeds to post this thread, "Calling all Open Theists", knowing that Open Theism is diametrically opposed to the Calvinist and Reform understanding of the Sovereignty of God. It is really just too outrageous for me to believe that the OP is actually trying to mend such deep theological differences that have gone on for as long as they have already; no, but rather, the OP does appear to get his kicks out of controversy and uproar, just as he has shown time and time again: it appears that chaos is king in his world, and the more controversy the better, and therefore this choice of current thread topic. It is a waste of time because tomorrow he will likely be proclaiming something else of a totally different belief system simply for the controversy, notoriety, and attention. Okay, I'm back out now, enjoy the unity party.
At best, EE seeks attention and a high-scoring thread. At worst, EE desires to influence and suck Calvinists down, and to drown, in a thick muck of heretical controversy . . .only with the old and lame temptation of "unity through love ."
Don't know about my Reformed brethren, but I was (definitely) not born yesterday!
Nang
TOL Subscriber
:crackup:
What?
You are not going to join unity party with EE like your fellow brother Lon?
I think AMR joined EE and Lon too.
You are the next one that EE will silence you with his usual flattering tactic.
Lon
Well-known member
Proverbs 18:24; 27:6,17 You don't always have to stand on that side of the fence, but it would require you to be vulnerable to what others believe about the scriptures. My theology can handle it simply because I study still, to show myself approved. 2 Timothy 2:15 ;3:16-17
Discuss 'with' rather than preaching 'at...' Either someone is indoctrinated and resistant, or they have built their theology over time and hard study. The former could ONLY preach at, because they haven't the skills to prove the word of God.
Open Theists do not believe in the total omniscience of God.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I know.
I do.
So on what basis does this great rift between beliefs unify as EE proposes?
Through "love?"
What "love" do Open Theists and Madists exhibit toward Calvinists?
I have been posting on TOL for 10 years. I am not "loved" by the Open Theists nor any Madists at all.
Nada, never . . .
What makes you think a thread by EE is going to bridge the gap?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Too late . . I have already been threatened with serious censor by Knight.
When they cannot love you, they ban you . . .
Bright Raven,
I've grown to respect you enormously. In the base understanding of Open Theism... God is absolutely Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient... Open Theism states that God willfully and purposely limited His foreknowledge to ensure freewill and sincere relationship. We have a live example of this here... (Php. 2:5f, 7f)
I have an extensive response to Lon that shares a differing perspective to his. But, let me make this clear... Lon's opinion in the matter is as valid as mine and so is yours. I only write this in response for the sake of sharing my personal perspective in the matter.
Link to come...
LINK HERE
I always appreciate scriptural opposition and information that comes from the stance of sincerity and Christ based Love and concern! (That would be anything you share, Bright Raven).
- EE
Now that's quality "feedback"!