Theology Club: Open Theism and our Relationship orientated God

[Nathon Detroit]

[MENTION=10]Jerry Shugart[/MENTION] , [MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] , [MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION], [MENTION=15326]intojoy[/MENTION]

What say ye?

I thought your opening post was outstanding. :up:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I would say you are full of nonsense, and running full bore to jumping off a heretical cliff!

And this is how you get kicked out of the Theology Club.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I thought your opening post was outstanding. :up:

Your words mean more than I can express and the theological Iron against Iron, you have created a home for in ToL (For Christ) are sharpening many for HIM.

 

[Lon]

If you would like to continue this round and round... I would be honored. I Love and appreciate you all the more for scripturally challenging me.

- EE

Interestingly, I do have access to this section

I don't mind you using it at all, and because you are asking atf, View attachment 25488

Generally, unless I have a pressing question or feel a need to make an important contribution, I think of myself as a visitor rather than participant because it is the OV club. Also, in the TOL archives, whether you are OV or other, Knight's Open Theism 1, 2, & 3 cover a lot of what we'd cover here. I think all three hallmark discussions over the issues and differences in Christendom over the topic, and for free no less! -Lon

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Interestingly, I do have access to this section

I don't mind you using it at all, and because you are asking atf, View attachment 25488

Generally, unless I have a pressing question or feel a need to make an important contribution, I think of myself as a visitor rather than participant because it is the OV club. Also, in the TOL archives, whether you are OV or other, Knight's Open Theism 1, 2, & 3 cover a lot of what we'd cover here. I think all three hallmark discussions over the issues and differences in Christendom over the topic, and for free no less! -Lon

Awesome and

I will read through your links and appreciate them. You are welcome to contribute to this thread and any scripture you are impressed to post here will be deeply appreciated.

I love the image!

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Shenanigans? I won't be pulling any here. I'll save those for the "wild".

I have come here to explain why I accept the label of Open Theist. I'll keep this simple and try to express it in a way that allows for discussion and collaboration. I would like to ensure I "belong" here and am "welcome" here. Here goes...

OPEN THEISM - Because a "CLOSED" system of theology suggests that we have nothing more to learn from our True Teacher... (1 John 2:27; Rm. 8:9; Php. 1:19; Mt. 23:8) .. a solid defense of this point can be found in (Daniel 12:4) ... and if Jesus, Himself says "Mark 13:32" ... then it is fairly presumptive of individuals to "Close" theology and suggest that there's no effort required, because other people have figured it all out. Cough... Cough... (Apparently these people know more than the Son)

OPEN and SINCERE RELATIONSHIP - Love, Relationship; This is another major point. All through Scripture, God explains that His entire purpose of Creation is for "His Son". We also know the SON as the LOGOS and very "WORD, PROMISE, ROCK, PILLAR OF FIRE BY NIGHT, CLOUD BY DAY... Etc". We are assured in scripture that God has had a Father, Son relationship that is ETERNAL. When Jesus describes the coming of the Comforter... We have other verses that distinguish the "Comforter" as (Rm. 8:9; Php. 1:19 and so on), but a really mysterious set of verses are (John 10:30 and John 14:23). This suggests that the Holy Spirit is the very unity of Jesus the Son with His Father, within us! Within our HEARTS! If this isn't the most intimate relationship in my life, I don't know what else could be. My Point? God demonstrates His desire for sincere Relationship with us in EVERY Word of Scripture. Of-coarse, the biggest proof verse is (John 5:39f) and a the very lengths that Jesus went to so He could dwell in our Hearts! (Heb. 2:14)

OPEN WITHIN TIME - If one ponders that God limited His foreknowledge through His Son, all of those pesky doctrines that struggle to explain how God isn't a tyrant, but created a "Free" system that allowed Evil to manifest itself within said system, fall away. It becomes simple. The Son has always been the limited in foreknowledge presence of God within Time. This concept genuinely exonerates ONE that needed no exoneration in the first place. This also solidifies that the Theophanies in scripture are no Less than the LOGOS, Eternal SON that is truly Blameless!

OPEN HEART - By recognizing that God went to such great lengths to relate to us, we can see that he cherishes the unfolding relationship of Himself to Humanity and each individual human being. If this doesn't open a persons heart to Jesus, I don't know what else could. He even proved His love for us by Dying for us, while we were yet sinners and utter enemies.

Why start posting here? Because, I feel like many of the carnal understandings held within my grey matter, that the HOLY SPIRIT has conveyed through His amazing ways, are in opposition to much of "Closed Theism". I don't want to offend my Siblings in Christ any more than I already have with some of the matters that I look forward to discussing here in the future. I am looking forward to discussing these matters with fellow Open Theists.

I have to confess. I try to be an all inclusive person... but I am sincerely desiring dialog with genuine Open Theists. I'm not here to debate opposing views to Open Theology. I recognize that Open Theists are afforded to discuss matters of different understanding among one another, and I look forward to this.

My hopes from this OP are to prime a conversation with fellow open theists and find out if what I'm saying is on par with a home for my personal understanding of God as it stands today. I genuinely believe in progressive revelation, and scripture seems to agree with me on this particular point.

I think this subject is of great importance because it strikes at the heart of who God is. "God is love". True free relational love between us and Him only makes sense in the open view. God's desire and work that he wants us to share in bringing others to Him to share in Him, in His love through the dangers, the pitfalls, the valley of the shadow of death made so worthwhile when the angels stop to sing for joy when one that is loved by blood of Christ turns to God in humble repentance. A glorious story of love that is not over, one in which God still watches His beloved martyred so more can come and know a love so high, so wide, so deep it can never be truly even be fathomed through our dull view on Earth. But that dull view screams He loves us all and He is patiently waiting until His patience can be no more... The love story is not over yet...

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I think this subject is of great importance because it strikes at the heart of who God is. "God is love". True free relational love between us and Him only makes sense in the open view. God's desire and work that he wants us to share in bringing others to Him to share in Him, in His love through the dangers, the pitfalls, the valley of the shadow of death made so worthwhile when the angels stop to sing for joy when one that is loved by blood of Christ turns to God in humble repentance. A glorious story of love that is not over, one in which God still watches His beloved martyred so more can come and know a love so high, so wide, so deep it can never be truly even be fathomed through our dull view on Earth. But that dull view screams He loves us all and He is patiently waiting until His patience can be no more... The love story is not over yet...

I can't use a big enough font to proclaim AMEN to what you have written! You caught my very heart on this matter and everything I try to express about Jesus!

Thank you so very much!

 

[Derf]

Hi EE. I've had a hard time reading through your posts, and I admit I haven't the foggiest of what you are trying to get at sometimes, but I wanted to at least join in the conversation. I chose to do it here instead of your other post, as I was more lost there than here. Hopefully I can be at least some grist to your mill. But to do it, I had to significantly pare down your mill, to accommodate so little grist.

"Another point to bring in now... Testing vs. Tempting. This very theological information is crucial to get right! One tests and one tempts! Also... There is Father Tree theology and there is Son Tree Theology.

Tree of Life (Son, Fruit of the Spirit, Faith, Trust, God's Provision)

(Tree of The Knowledge O.G.A.E.) (Father, Perfection, Law, Omniscience, LORDSHIP, Provider)

Testing... (Dt. 8:2) ... Tempt... (James 1:13)

Why is this imperative?

Because if the "Memra" (Word) had "foreknowledge" in Creation and Time... Placing the tree of the Father Tree within the garden and knowing the outcome would simultaneously be Testing and Tempting. Any theology that fails to distinguish that the Logos (Word/Memra) had purpose and design set forth (John 10:37, 5:19), yet didn't have the foreknowledge of the outcome is defining God as The Tempter.

This bothers me a bit. I think what it does is not only to separate the persons of God (which is ok, I think), but also to separate the purposes of God. Purposes plural because they appear to be at odds with each other. If God the Father had a purpose in testing (not tempting) but Jesus/Memra had a purpose in tempting, then the two are no longer one in the primary aspect they maintained their oneness in during Christ's passion.--"Not MY will but thine be done." It seems you are having Jesus say: "Our wills will both be fulfilled in the same act, but for different reasons."

In addition, I think you have either made Jesus's emptying of himself in Phil 2:5 a separate act from His becoming a man, or you've made His "putting on flesh" happen at a much earlier time than He was born of Mary. If either is the case, then are we saying that His birth of Mary was more for show than for substance?

[Phl 2:6-8 ESV]who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.​

One model of theology is clearly lacking next to the other! Let's get blunt through analogy. Instead of the Father Tree and the Garden... we'll use the analogy of a Loaded Gun and a Locked room.

-One theology has God locking a 7 year old in a room with many toys... including a loaded gun, knowing full well the Gun will be used to bring self-harm. This would make God "Evil".

I don't think you've given the full picture. The loaded gun is stowed in a drawer labelled "don't use", something most 7-year-olds understand perfectly. But you would need to peer into the mind of God to understand why it's necessary for it to be there.

I don't want to be crass here, but I think you need to be more distinguishing in your theologies. I think the other option that you may be trying to articulate here is that God puts the gun in the 7-year-old's hand, forces him to point it at his head and pull the trigger.

-The other theology has God creating everything in sincerity and through co-collaboration of Omniscience and Limited foreknowledge... that Free Will could reign. How did the omniscient Father prepare matters to ensure sincerity? Self Saccrifice that would pay for the presence of the Loaded Gun and simultaneously allow... (Switching back to Spiritual Verbiage) Sincerity and Fertile soil of Love, with utter provision for all possible outcomes.

And here I think you've distinguished TOO MUCH. The self sacrifice is in both theologies, except that perhaps (and ONLY "perhaps") only one outcome is possible in one of them.

Two Trees...

But that would mean that the Father was the "Architect" and the Son was the "Builder"! Yup! The Architect Planned Sincerely and Perfectly and the "Builder" Built Perfectly! No Right hand hiding it's intentions from the Left hand... GOD is never a LEFT HAND! God is ONE!"

And so... I leave you with these questions...

Is God now, not Tri? Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

When did the Son, who we both Agree... per. (Col. 1:15, 16f, 18) is the Physical Creator ... "Finish Creation"?

spoiler] My proposed Answer: (John 19:30 and Hebrews 4 tied to Gen. 2:2 and (Luke 14:28f, 30) ... In other words... The Father designed it and willed it... and the Son Created it and maintained it...

I suggest that God has allowed the form of Himself that is directly interactive with Mankind to be limited in foreknowledge to experience genuine relationship and provide free will, without being "responsible" for it's abuse. I further propose that He paid the price for providing Free Will, that Love could be "Genuinely" manifested from our Hearts to Him. After all... (Ephesians 1:4 and 1 Peter 1:20 ... Also ... Romans 8:9)...[/spoiler]

Does this relationship start at creation? or at the birth of Jesus? If at creation, then, as I said above, Jesus had already emptied Himself before "being born in the likeness of men.", since that limited-foreknowledge relationship started, in your scenario, in the Garden of Eden.

I don't think there is biblical warrant for saying that Jesus emptied Himself in two phases, one at creation and one at birth.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Hi EE. I've had a hard time reading through your posts, and I admit I haven't the foggiest of what you are trying to get at sometimes, but I wanted to at least join in the conversation. I chose to do it here instead of your other post, as I was more lost there than here. Hopefully I can be at least some grist to your mill. But to do it, I had to significantly pare down your mill, to accommodate so little grist.

This bothers me a bit. I think what it does is not only to separate the persons of God (which is ok, I think), but also to separate the purposes of God. Purposes plural because they appear to be at odds with each other. If God the Father had a purpose in testing (not tempting) but Jesus/Memra had a purpose in tempting, then the two are no longer one in the primary aspect they maintained their oneness in during Christ's passion.--"Not MY will but thine be done." It seems you are having Jesus say: "Our wills will both be fulfilled in the same act, but for different reasons."

In addition, I think you have either made Jesus's emptying of himself in Phil 2:5 a separate act from His becoming a man, or you've made His "putting on flesh" happen at a much earlier time than He was born of Mary. If either is the case, then are we saying that His birth of Mary was more for show than for substance?

[Phl 2:6-8 ESV]who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.​

I don't think you've given the full picture. The loaded gun is stowed in a drawer labelled "don't use", something most 7-year-olds understand perfectly. But you would need to peer into the mind of God to understand why it's necessary for it to be there.

I don't want to be crass here, but I think you need to be more distinguishing in your theologies. I think the other option that you may be trying to articulate here is that God puts the gun in the 7-year-old's hand, forces him to point it at his head and pull the trigger.And here I think you've distinguished TOO MUCH. The self sacrifice is in both theologies, except that perhaps (and ONLY "perhaps") only one outcome is possible in one of them.
Does this relationship start at creation? or at the birth of Jesus? If at creation, then, as I said above, Jesus had already emptied Himself before "being born in the likeness of men.", since that limited-foreknowledge relationship started, in your scenario, in the Garden of Eden.

I don't think there is biblical warrant for saying that Jesus emptied Himself in two phases, one at creation and one at birth.

Derf... Satan Temps... God Tests... I think you misunderstood me. I assumed that people know that Satan is known as "The Tempter".

The book of James makes it clear that God... Never tempts.

As for the Logos... Consider these verses and see if they assist in your understanding of what is being said here.

Heb. 1:3
Ex. 33:18
Heb. 13:8
1 Co. 10:1f, 3f, 4

I could give more verses, but I believe you may have misunderstood me. I never said that Jesus... "Emptied Himself". I fully think of God as Spirit (Father), Body (Son) and Soul (Holy Spirit)...

The very premise of the "limited" foreknowledge comes in with the idea that God can utilize His TriUnity to accomplish things from multiple perspectives.

I'll try to find a post where I explain this further. Also... I will answer to more of your excellent counter observation in the near future... but I'm on a very specific focus right now in ECT.

Okay... editing this in... From another discussion...

First... You are deeply appreciated! As I have done in the past towards you... you are cutting to the heart of the matter. I appreciate your putting up with my "FLESHLY" communication in my last response and giving my words so much time and sincere respect, despite our differing understandings. You have conveyed matters to a further clarity.

EE,

You are reading more into this than my intentions. Until we can establish exactly your view about the future knowledge of God, proceeding further must be postponed. And I most certainly do intend to proceed in responding to your other points.

The Godhead is of one mind and one will on this matter, EE. There are no changes in the Godhead with respect to essence, divinity, attributes, due to the Incarnation, else many errors are then assumed.

I know the majority view of the open theist on the matter of the knowledge of God concerning the future. That view has been discussed by openism's major proponents, e.g., Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders. Even Rev. Enyart, a favorite of many and pastor to some here at TOL, has made his position clear (see below).

I agree with the GodHead being of ONE MIND. I would say... (The Father... Spirit... MIND... Architect). However, when I say this, I specifically insinuate that the very TriUne relationship of the Trinity allows for a very complex relationship with mankind, that ends up simplifying matters for mankind and exonerating the ONE that never needed Exoneration in the first place.

What I have expressed here...

Yes = Full Omniscience. (A-Temporal Omniscience)
No = Limited Foreknowledge
Mediator = Person of Trinity that Mediates between the (A-Temporal) and the (Temporal) to Limit Foreknowledge and allow Free Will and Sincere, linear, relationship towards ALL Creation, while allowing Architectural intervention upon the needs of mankind and God's ultimate will.

Is a fair summation of what I am expressing... However... your following dialogue assists me in communicating an answer towards you that is worded in a way that will be compatible with what you are looking for.

What I want to know is your own view, which appears to be more than just a nuance ("a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound.") of commonly understood open theism.

This is possible true, but no two theologians are "SINCERELY" alike. We are all unique and diametrically different... like snow flakes... as we sincerely attempt to hear the still small voice while we read and pray. Beyond Essential Doctrines... (John 5:39f and Eph. 2:8f)... everything else becomes a dance of communication between people who are all utterly captivated by OUR Precious Lord, God and Savior... Jesus Christ the Messiah.

Do you believe God knows exactly each and every thought, word, or deed, that you or I will do in the remainders of our lives on this earth?

Suggesting a new theological distinction that is compatible with Open Theism from Classical Theism.

Classical Omniscience = Linear Omniscience
Open Omniscience = Multidimensional Omniscience

And with this definitive distinction... per the chart I provided...

Yes.

Not what we might do, but what in fact we will actually do. Simply, is the future settled as far as God's knowledge is concerned, in that God knows we will do these events even before we will actually do them?

In light of my previous answer... No... I disagree with (Linear Omniscience)

Rev. Enyart, when contrasting another's like my own, was plain spoken in providing an answer:

"The Open View, alternatively, reports that the future is not settled..."

I have many friends here that like Bob E. I don't dislike Bob E. But, he is not my theological reference point and I simply recognize him as another human being that is sharing his understanding of God, as we all are. I commonly state that the only time Theism was 100% accurate was HERE... (John 5:39). With this in mind... the actual Open Theist answer (IMO) should not be as Bob E. answered.

There are multiple facets to the logical answer to the question Bob E. was obviously asked.

(1) Prophetic Architecture (The Architects Ultimate Plans)
This future is settled by the Father (Architect)

Example... All Biblical Prophecy

(2) Nations and Tribes
This future is deeply settled yet marginally relational by a co-collaborated effort of the (Temporal and A-Temporal) Existence of our Omnipresent God.

Example... Niniva.

(3) Prophets, Kings, Rulers, Anointed Servants (Of GOD)...
NOT... {The Wicked Kings and Rulers, or vessels that were anointed by the Adversary of GOD (Accuser)} ... These would be recognized via the Temporal and A-Temporal co-collaboration and utilized and then put down for God's purpose... yet they "Appointed themselves or were appointed by wicked people.")

(3) continued from broken thought... Back to those (of God)
Their future is mostly settled, yet still a co-collaborated effort of the (Temporal and A-Temporal) Existence of our Omnipresent God.

David, Isaiah, Daniel... etc.

(4) Individual People
This future is not settled... though... Salvational Assurance claimed... indeed settles our ULTIMATE FUTURE... ( :

From the perspective of God (which I don't even have a fraction of ability to actually comprehend), Who is THE non-linear... Infinite Origin of ALL, given His Loving Nature and Utter Goodness, and grounded in scripture, it is clear that He never ORDAINED EVIL. This is why (Dynamic or Multidimensional) Omnipresence and Omniscience (Afforded by the GodHead) is so very important to take into account. The Multi-Dimensional Omnipresence and Omniscience of God, in relation to Time (Temporal) and Timelessness (A-Temporal), allows the Infinite to remain blameless from the wickedness that plagues creation. The lives of God's Creations are special, unique and utterly meaningful to God, thus God the Father Architecturally (A-temporally) planned, but sincerely (Temporally) through the Son and Holy Spirit... in a genuine Manner that allows sincere unfolding of time and RESPONSE TO HUMAN CHOICE relates to mankind by human choice., and without predestined fate. If the future to be were utterly settled from God's perspective, then Time would be an illusion and life would be a distorted sham. The future is not utterly settled (By the Choice of the Architect, Mediator and Builder that Co-Collaborate and are utterly ONE, yet THREE.), because God loved us so much that He provided fertile soil of genuine choice that allows for the sincere return of Love towards Him, or the Sincere rejection of His Love.

All Christian Love and Respect...

EE

 

[Derf]

Also... I will answer to more of your excellent counter observation in the near future... but I'm on a very specific focus right now in ECT.

I assume you mean Eternal Conscious Torment rather than Exclusively Christian Theology. I saw some of your posts over there. Maybe I'll go join the conversation, but it was tiring before when I tried--nothing new after a few posts from the anti-ECTers. Maybe you've added some new thoughts.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I assume you mean Eternal Conscious Torment rather than Exclusively Christian Theology. I saw some of your posts over there. Maybe I'll go join the conversation, but it was tiring before when I tried--nothing new after a few posts from the anti-ECTers. Maybe you've added some new thoughts.

Wow! ... Please drop a mention of my name when you go there and if you respond. I don't want to miss it!

All respect,

- EE