Theology Club: What is Open Theism?

[godrulz]

Not.

The fall of Adam was predetermined, and more importantly, rectified and remedied by God, before the world was created.

Nang

Mormons say the Fall was necessary for God's plan/probation, etc.

Calvinism says it was predetermined for God's glory, etc.

The Bible shows it as something that God did not intend nor desire, but mitigated with a plan of redemption that was possible in eternity past, implemented in Gen. 3 AFTER the FALL, and actualized centuries later.

I am so right about this. God does not determine evil, suffering, His own grief, etc. You are right that God responded to it, but you are wrong to assume that God is the author of things contrary to His will and holy character.
:ha:

 

[godrulz]

Should the open view be considered dangerous to the Body of Christ since it seems to contradict the Omniscience of God?

The Open view does NOT deny the omniscience of God. We just say that God knows reality as it is and correctly distinguishes past from future, actual from possible. He knows all that is knowable and is ignorant of nothing. If we denied this, you would have a point.

A denial of a wrong traditional view is not a denial of a biblical view.

Nang is wrong to think we deny God's sovereignty just because we deny a wrong Calvinistic view of the word/concept.

 

[Nang]

I am so right about this.

No you are not . . .

 

[Bright Raven]

The Open view does NOT deny the omniscience of God. We just say that God knows reality as it is and correctly distinguishes past from future, actual from possible. He knows all that is knowable and is ignorant of nothing. If we denied this, you would have a point.

A denial of a wrong traditional view is not a denial of a biblical view.

Nang is wrong to think we deny God's sovereignty just because we deny a wrong Calvinistic view of the word/concept.

If it denies total omniscience, it denies omniscience. What does the word in and of itself mean. If partial omniscience is the attribute, isn't that what it would say?

 

[godrulz]

If it denies total omniscience, it denies omniscience. What does the word in and of itself mean. If partial omniscience is the attribute, isn't that what it would say?

Omnipotence must be qualified by the doable (an omnipotent being cannot make logically absurd square circles).

Omniscience is qualified by the knowable (an omniscient being is not ignorant or lacking knowledge to not know where Yoda is; it can also be demonstrated that exhaustive definite foreknowledge is incompatible with libertarian free will; you do not see this, but it is defensible).

The future is not yet, a nothing. God correctly knows it as possible/probable (or certain if He is going to unconditionally settle aspects in advance). It is not a denial of omniscience to be ignorant of a nothing.

The issue is the nature of creation. The future is anticipatory, not actual. It is not like the fixed past or the actual present. For God to know a free will choice in the future means it is not contingent and the agent is not actualizing the choice. You are left with determinism and all its problems of making God the cause of evil, etc.

You assume a wrong understanding of omniscience and beg the question. You have not interacted with the wealth of literature by credible thinkers who can demonstrate the problem with the classical view that you assume despite not being able to truly defend it.

 

[Bright Raven]

Omnipotence must be qualified by the doable (an omnipotent being cannot make logically absurd square circles).

Omniscience is qualified by the knowable (an omniscient being is not ignorant or lacking knowledge to not know where Yoda is; it can also be demonstrated that exhaustive definite foreknowledge is incompatible with libertarian free will; you do not see this, but it is defensible).

The future is not yet, a nothing. God correctly knows it as possible/probable (or certain if He is going to unconditionally settle aspects in advance). It is not a denial of omniscience to be ignorant of a nothing.

The issue is the nature of creation. The future is anticipatory, not actual. It is not like the fixed past or the actual present. For God to know a free will choice in the future means it is not contingent and the agent is not actualizing the choice. You are left with determinism and all its problems of making God the cause of evil, etc.

You assume a wrong understanding of omniscience and beg the question. You have not interacted with the wealth of literature by credible thinkers who can demonstrate the problem with the classical view that you assume despite not being able to truly defend it.

And Psalm 139 tells us what?

 

[godrulz]

And Psalm 139 tells us what?

Ps. 139 is about God's present knowledge of the womb. The other proof text tells us about God's intentions and plans, not an exhaustive prescience of future free will choices.

Ps. 139 is also poetic, not didactic. They are generalized statements of the Psalmist that can be figurative, are accurately recorded, but not necessarily divine revelation (cf. imprecatory Psalms).

God sees us in the womb=present, possible knowledge. This is different than seeing us with an X-ray before we are conceived!

God declared elsewhere plans, purposes, intentions for nations or individuals that did not come to pass. Proverbs also makes generalized truisms that are not wooden literalisms and are not always true like a magic genie promise box god approach. Consider the genre.

The issues of time vs eternity (endless time/eternal now), predestination, foreknowledge, omniscience, modal logic, etc. sometimes are not clearly resolved in Scripture and require godly philosophy, sound logic/reasoning, etc. to formulate a biblical, reasonable view. Your view rests on a few proof texts out of context, but does not consider all relevant verses or technical proofs beyond what Scripture explicitly covers.

 

[Nang]

The future is anticipatory, not actual.

For men, yes.

For God, no.

God is the creator of all things, including the beginning and END of all He has made.

 

[godrulz]

For men, yes.

For God, no.

God is the creator of all things, including the beginning and END of all He has made.

The future is objectively the same for God and man. 2014 and its events have not objectively happened yet. God knows reality as it is. Calvinists would say God determines it and thus knows it (if determinism was true, that would be true, but it is not). Arminians say that God knows it with simple foreknowledge and eternal now issues without determining it.

Only Open Theism correctly understands that God determines, knows, settles SOME vs all aspects of the future.

If an agent makes choices in the future, the outcome only exists when the agent exists and makes the choices. To say God sees and knows from eternity past is nonsense, sheer assumption without evidence. In your view and logic, you could say that I am a man to my wife, but God actually sees and knows that I am a woman?

 

[Nang]

To say God sees and knows from eternity past is nonsense,

:nono:

You say this in unbelief.

I fear for your soul.

 

[godrulz]

:nono:

You say this in unbelief.

I fear for your soul.

This is not unbelief. To say that God knows the outcome of a Superbowl contest before the event is played or the players exist is nonsense. It is not unbelief to deny a false view.

I do not deny God, but I do deny a traditional view that is not truth.

God knows aspects of the future, but contingent choices have an element of uncertainty and are known as possible vs actual BY GOD'S SOVEREIGN CHOICE to allow love and relationship to be part of creation vs sheer robotics (your view impugns his character and ways with evil, contrary to holiness).

:hammer:

I do not deny God, His attributes, His character, His Word. I deny wrong views of these things. Your tradition is not infallible. Calvin has some beliefs that would make you cringe. He was not infallible and his view is not about critical examination. To reject Calvin is not the same thing as rejecting God/Jesus/Bible.

You turn your view into a sect or cult. Dynamic vs static omniscience is not a salvific issue. Rejecting the Deity and resurrection of Christ, existence of God, monotheism, salvation by grace through faith apart from works, etc. is.

You do not belong on a theology forum if you cannot understand views you reject.

 

[Nang]

This is not unbelief. To say that God knows the outcome of a Superbowl contest before the event is played or the players exist is nonsense. It is not unbelief to deny a false view.

I do not deny God, but I do deny a traditional view that is not truth.

God knows aspects of the future, but contingent choices have an element of uncertainty and are known as possible vs actual BY GOD'S SOVEREIGN CHOICE to allow love and relationship to be part of creation vs sheer robotics (your view impugns his character and ways with evil, contrary to holiness).

:hammer:

I do not deny God, His attributes, His character, His Word. I deny wrong views of these things. Your tradition is not infallible. Calvin has some beliefs that would make you cringe. He was not infallible and his view is not about critical examination. To reject Calvin is not the same thing as rejecting God/Jesus/Bible.

You turn your view into a sect or cult.

This is an either/or matter, GR.

God either knows all things, or He is as limited in knowledge as we mortals, who can not know what tomorrow might bring.

God is either God, or He is not God.

I believe in the Omniscient Creator God.

Who exactly is your god?

 

[godrulz]

This is an either/or matter, GR.

God either knows all things, or He is as limited in knowledge as we mortals, who can not know what tomorrow might bring.

God is either God, or He is not God.

I believe in the Omniscient Creator God.

Who exactly is your god?

God knows all things, we agree. What are possible objects of certain knowledge, we disagree. I don't think God knows where Alice in Wonderland is. According to your wrong definition, I reject omniscience?

You have a false dichotomy. We know virtually nothing compared to God. He knows the past and present exhaustively. He knows much of the future, knows what is actual and what is possible or probable. He also has infinite power and intelligence and does not need to see the future before it exists to be seen. You have a controlling God who is not praiseworthy. I have an omnicompetent God who remains sovereign despite not being omnicausal (by His choice).

You wrongly assume that if I reject pagan philosophically tainted views of God that I am rejecting God (like a Muslim with Allah does vs YHWH).

You wrongly assume that if I reject your pet theory on TULIP, impassibility, immutability, aseity, etc. that I am rejecting God. No, I am rejecting one philosophical (not supported by Scripture) idea about God for a more biblical one.

I believe that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal. He is YHWH fully revealed in Christ.

To reject a false view of impassibility that you might hold (from Aquinas or Augustine) is NOT the same thing as rejecting a more biblical view.

:box::box::box:

 

[Bright Raven]

Psalm 139:16

New King James Version (NKJV)

16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.

Is He omniscient or not?

 

[godrulz]

Psalm 139:16

New King James Version (NKJV)

16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.

Is He omniscient or not?

Yes, God is omniscient. He knows all that is knowable. The first part refers to present knowledge that can be seen on ultrasound.

The last phrase has been translated in various ways with the Hebrew not necessarily what Calvinistic KJV says. Psalms is poetic, not didactic. It has Hebraisms that are not wooden literalisms. The Psalmist expresses his heart, but that does not mean everything he says is divine revelation and doctrinal (imprecatory Psalms, for e.g.). The last part shows that God has plans and intentions, but unless you are a fatalist, we have some self-determination if forming our future.

Other verses and philosophical principles would show that some aspects of the future are unsettled and unknown except as possible/probable until the choice is made and they become certain. The myth of the blueprint is Calvinistic, not biblical. God does not map out that some will be raped and murdered and others will be rich. He does not dictate that some pastors will be faithful and others will commit adultery (this would be a wooden interpretation of the verse that contradicts everything else we know about God).

So, you are proof texting a verse that does not prove your view nor disprove my view.

http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-do-you-respond-to-psalm-13916/

Here is an alternate exegesis to the problematic traditional view. You should at least understand it if you are going to reject it in favor of tradition that is not always truth.

If you are not willing to read it, you will lack credibility in this debate.

 

[Bright Raven]

Yes, God is omniscient. He knows all that is knowable. The first part refers to present knowledge that can be seen on ultrasound.

The last phrase has been translated in various ways with the Hebrew not necessarily what Calvinistic KJV says. Psalms is poetic, not didactic. It has Hebraisms that are not wooden literalisms. The Psalmist expresses his heart, but that does not mean everything he says is divine revelation and doctrinal (imprecatory Psalms, for e.g.). The last part shows that God has plans and intentions, but unless you are a fatalist, we have some self-determination if forming our future.

Other verses and philosophical principles would show that some aspects of the future are unsettled and unknown except as possible/probable until the choice is made and they become certain. The myth of the blueprint is Calvinistic, not biblical. God does not map out that some will be raped and murdered and others will be rich. He does not dictate that some pastors will be faithful and others will commit adultery (this would be a wooden interpretation of the verse that contradicts everything else we know about God).

So, you are proof texting a verse that does not prove your view nor disprove my view.

http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-do-you-respond-to-psalm-13916/

Here is an alternate exegesis to the problematic traditional view. You should at least understand it if you are going to reject it in favor of tradition that is not always truth.

If you are not willing to read it, you will lack credibility in this debate.

As for Boyd's five points;

1. Does God know the number of your days, even if there is a change? See point 4.

2. If the psalm is strictly poetic, why is it mentioned in the passage instead of some other place?

3. If the psalmist does not believe it to be so, why does he pen the words?

4. Even if the psalmists life span were to changed, would that not only be through God's foreknowledge?

5. Can't this psalm also be interpreted by the reader as apply to himself (the reader) ?

 

[Choleric]

Q: What is open theism

A: Half right

:first:

 

[Dialogos]

Then your God is outside of time, not in time.

That's still a false dichotomy.

Is your God in everywhere and in everything?

There is no where one can go where God's presence cannot be experienced.

That is not the same things as saying He indwells all things (He doesn't). That's not what omnipresence means anyway.

 

[Dialogos]

Calvinism says it was predetermined for God's glory, etc.

No, no it doesn't. Not if what you mean is that God caused the fall.

If that is what you mean then keep pushing down that straw man.

Open theists need to ask themselves a few questions.

1. Did God foresee the fall?

2. If so, could God have prevented the fall?

3. Since God didn't prevent the fall, doesn't that mean that He permitted the fall?

Apply those answers and you pretty much have the Calvinist explanation for the problem of evil.

 

[DFT_Dave]

No accolades yet Dave. The fact that God participates in the experience of temporal creatures has never been an issue with me. It is just not the whole story. God is transcendant we well as immanent. The dynamic tension between these two produces a paradox which is not meant to be resolved. It is like those glasses they give you to produce a 3D effect. One lens is red and the other, blue. Separately the colors do not agree but when the glasses are put on the images take on depth and dimension. What you have presented to me is a false dichotomy based on the assumption that because I can see through the blue lens that I deny the red lens and have joined the “blue” camp.

I can make arguments for either position. There are conditional promises, options that have real outcomes and decisions that have a real effect. These express the immance of God in our temporal experience. Saying He is ONLY temporal strips Him of many of His divine attributes among them, infinitude and pure actuality. It also gives rise to irresolvable conundrums on matters as basic as the creation of the universe. Also despite OT attempts to alter the definition of foreknowledge as it has always been understood, the concept resists redefinition. For every example of God “changing His mind” there are other examples of God foreknowing absolutely what supposedly unknowable actions of freeagents will be.

It might be “enough” for me as an individual to see the past and my present role in the plan of God; however, since men’s choices cannot truly be known and the future does not exist I cannot be sure if that final end of the plan will ever be reached. Perhaps it will fail like God’s first plan for Adam failed and be replaced by one of God’s alternate plans.

The Biblical Creator of the world is not the philosophical Unmoved Mover, the former is "infinite potentiality" the later is pure actuality. Pure actuality cannot act. So many of you who use the phrase don't really understand the concept. If anyone told Aristotle that the God of Genesis is the same God that he invisioned I'm sure it would make him laugh.

We can only know what is "true" when, by contradiction, we can know what is "not true". Anyone who accepts contradictions can never really know what is or is not true.

A theology of contradictions is no match for one that is not, now I'm laughing.

--Dave