Theology Club: What is Open Theism?

[glorydaz]

He states that He will go down and see if the outcries are true, which implies He doesn't know. Then He says that "if not then I will know," which confirms He doesn't already know.

And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”
-Genesis 18:20-21

Then He enters into Abraham's bargain, which again shows He does not know, else He would have simply told Abraham there weren't that many righteous people in the cities.


I didn't appeal to Greg Boyd. Boyd is wrong; or do you not think it's possible for Boyd to be in error?


So since you agree with Boyd on this issue you get to appeal to him? How convenient for you.


Actually I hold that there are things today even that He does not know, because He's allowed to not know something if He doesn't want to; most of the time He simply doesn't care, because it doesn't matter.


You are a fool to think I am alone in my understanding of this passage. You are a fool to think I came up with it, or was even the first to proclaim it publicly.


“If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.” -Genesis 18:26, as opposed to “There are not fifty righteous people in the city.”

Yes, Abraham would have still gone on, if God had known He would not have responded with if/then statements.


The Bible is clear God is triune and He doesn't know when I'm going to die.

But nice excuse anyway.


If Abraham at least knew that God knew then he would have asked, "Are there fifty righteous people in the city?"


Genesis 18 bears out my conclusion.


Speaking of jaw-droppingly stupid things to say...


How sad for you that none of these say what you want them to say.

If He knew their hearts and minds He wouldn't need to test, or search, them.


I've yet to see anything in the Bible that contradicts my belief on this.


What have I falsified? Where have I lied?


So were the 12, at one time.


The only thing I said was the crux of the open view was that things change, including God's mind. If you weren't ignorant of comprehension you would have understood that.


Tho only verse that says what you claim here is the one from 2 Chronicles.

יָדַע

to know

1. (Qal)
   1. to know
      1. to know, learn to know
      2. to perceive
      3. to perceive and see, find out and discern
      4. to discriminate, distinguish
      5. to know by experience
      6. to recognise, admit, acknowledge, confess
      7. to consider
   2. to know, be acquainted with
   3. to know (a person carnally)
   4. to know how, be skilful in
   5. to have knowledge, be wise
   6. (Niphal)
      1. to be made known, be or become known, be revealed
      2. to make oneself known
      3. to be perceived
      4. to be instructed
   7. (Piel) to cause to know
   8. (Poal) to cause to know
   9. (Pual)
      1. to be known
      2. known, one known, acquaintance (participle)
   10. (Hiphil) to make known, declare
   11. (Hophal) to be made known
   12. (Hithpael) to make oneself known, reveal oneself

And there is even a slew of other words this into which this word was translated, including 'understand."

KJV: wist, shew, know, knowledge, understand, certainly, consider, acknowledge, acquaintance, declare, tell, misc, known, perceive, teach

So it does not necessarily mean "know" in the way you want it to.


No I don't; that's an illogical question.


How you think my question equates to the illogical question you referenced is beyond me. You clearly are incapable of recognizing the difference between logical and illogical.

As I stated earlier that verse doesn't say what you claim.

Very interesting discussion. I noticed this verse was cited. Proverbs 15:3

Why would God have to keep watch if He already knew? You make excellent points, Lighthouse, and I'm looking forward to reading this entire thread. Thanks for your insight. :thumb:

 

[Desert Reign]

Very interesting discussion. I noticed this verse was cited. Proverbs 15:3

Why would God have to keep watch if He already knew? You make excellent points, Lighthouse, and I'm looking forward to reading this entire thread. Thanks for your insight. :thumb:

Of course, Calvinists will pass off a verse like this as anthropomorphism. Unfortunately, in doing so, they deceive you as to the true meaning of that literary device. For anthropomorphism is a literary device that creates a simile between what it refers to and the device itself. For example, 'The Lord has bared his holy arm' is an anthropomorphism. It refers to a warrior in battle revealing the strength of his arm.

But whenever the Calvinist claims there is an anthropomorphism, he changes it to the exact opposite. Hence in your example, Prov 15.3 would be claimed to mean not that God looks everywhere to keep watch over evil and good but that he doesn't keep watch. The only part of this verse that is anthropomorphic is the 'eyes'.

 

[Lighthouse]

Very interesting discussion. I noticed this verse was cited. Proverbs 15:3

Why would God have to keep watch if He already knew? You make excellent points, Lighthouse, and I'm looking forward to reading this entire thread. Thanks for your insight. :thumb:

You're welcome.

 

[Dialogos]

Very interesting discussion. I noticed this verse was cited. Proverbs 15:3

Why would God have to keep watch if He already knew?

Do you believe that this verse is true GloryDaz? Lighthouse doesn't. He doesn't believe that God knew the veracity of Sodom's sin.

Do you believe that verse?

You make excellent points, Lighthouse, and I'm looking forward to reading this entire thread.

You will likely see only what you want to see and won't see that Lighthouse's irrational dedication to scripture twisting Genesis 18 led him to make wildly erroneous conclusions regarding the nature of God's knowledge prior to the cross.

You will likely not realize that Lighthouse has only a cursory familiarity with biblical Hebrew and therefore erroneously concludes that hebrew words only have future tense.

 

[Lighthouse]

Do you believe that this verse is true GloryDaz? Lighthouse doesn't. He doesn't believe that God knew the veracity of Sodom's sin.

Do you believe that verse?

You will likely see only what you want to see and won't see that Lighthouse's irrational dedication to scripture twisting Genesis 18 led him to make wildly erroneous conclusions regarding the nature of God's knowledge prior to the cross.

You will likely not realize that Lighthouse has only a cursory familiarity with biblical Hebrew and therefore erroneously concludes that hebrew words only have future tense.

You admitted the usage in Genesis 18 was future tense, though you argue that He already knew.

And you deny the possibility that the perfect tense in the other verse could mean that He presently searches it out.

You contradict yourself and puff yourself up in arrogance and conceit.

 

[Dialogos]

You admitted the usage in Genesis 18 was future tense, though you argue that He already knew.

First, the usage in Genesis 18 is in the imperfect and is Cohortative. I don't expect that you will know what that means. But suffice it to say that's not the same thing as future tense. The "I will" is not a statement of tense it is a statement of intent.

Second, the usage of the word "yada" is applied to a counterfactual. God doesn't know that their sin isn't great because it is.

And you deny the possibility that the perfect tense in the other verse could mean that He presently searches it out.

You have no idea what the perfect tense means do you?

It denotes completed action.

 

[Dialogos]

Of course, Calvinists will pass off a verse like this as anthropomorphism.

Silly us for not believing the Lord has millions of physical eyes....

But whenever the Calvinist claims there is an anthropomorphism, he changes it to the exact opposite. Hence in your example, Prov 15.3 would be claimed to mean not that God looks everywhere to keep watch over evil and good but that he doesn't keep watch. The only part of this verse that is anthropomorphic is the 'eyes'.

Wrong again.

the Calvinist claims that prov 15:3 shows that God is omnipresent, and as a result He knows all the works of men at all times. As such, there is never a time in which men know something that God doesn't.

Which is a truth that both you and Lighthouse deny. The only question is will glorydaz be one of the blind following the blind and also fall into the pit.

 

[godrulz]

For the record, Open Theists do not deny God's exhaustive past/present knowledge. For a human to know knowable things that God does not is a denial of omniscience, even by OT standards (so LH and others have an odd minority view that I challenge them on as an OT...there are other ways to interpret the text they base their idea on that is contradicted by other texts).

 

[Desert Reign]

the Calvinist claims that prov 15:3 shows that God is omnipresent, and as a result He knows all the works of men at all times. As such, there is never a time in which men know something that God doesn't.

Which is a truth that both you and Lighthouse deny. The only question is will glorydaz be one of the blind following the blind and also fall into the pit.

Nope, that's a deception. It is not as a result of his omnipresence that this happens. If he has created all of history at once then he perforce knows everything that happens in it. So there is no room in the Calvinistic worldview for a scripture that plainly says that God keeps watch over good and evil. That's what I mean by anthropomorphism.

 

[Desert Reign]

For the record, Open Theists do not deny God's exhaustive past/present knowledge. For a human to know knowable things that God does not is a denial of omniscience, even by OT standards (so LH and others have an odd minority view that I challenge them on as an OT...there are other ways to interpret the text they base their idea on that is contradicted by other texts).

You have a faulty concept of knowledge. Are you a tall man? Can you run fast? Give me an answer: yes or no.

 

[godrulz]

You have a faulty concept of knowledge. Are you a tall man? Can you run fast? Give me an answer: yes or no.

5' 10'' (average, not tall). I used to be fast, but not now.

This is a relative question needing qualification vs yes/no (too subjective). If you define tall and fast, I will be able to answer yes/no.

My post does not indicate a defective concept of knowledge from an Open Theist viewpoint.

 

[Lighthouse]

First, the usage in Genesis 18 is in the imperfect and is Cohortative. I don't expect that you will know what that means. But suffice it to say that's not the same thing as future tense. The "I will" is not a statement of tense it is a statement of intent.

Second, the usage of the word "yada" is applied to a counterfactual. God doesn't know that their sin isn't great because it is.


You have no idea what the perfect tense means do you?

It denotes completed action.

I'm still waiting for you to prove your claims.

 

[Dialogos]

Nope, that's a deception. It is not as a result of his omnipresence that this happens.

What are you talking about? You don't believe God is omnipresent, why are you now assuming that He is?

If he has created all of history at once then he perforce knows everything that happens in it.

Yup.

So there is no room in the Calvinistic worldview for a scripture that plainly says that God keeps watch over good and evil.

Wrong. And if you believe that God is omnipotent then you can easily see why it is wrong. Many OV proponents will argue that predictive prophecy happens because God makes it happen. So God, perforce, knows that something will happen. That doesn't preclude Him from also observing what He caused.

A movie director has a hand in every scene in the movie, that doesn't preclude him from "watching" the finished movie, does it?


Contrary to your empty assertion, knowing something in advance doesn't preclude anyone from watching it happen.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

For the record, Open Theists do not deny God's exhaustive past/present knowledge. For a human to know knowable things that God does not is a denial of omniscience, even by OT standards (so LH and others have an odd minority view that I challenge them on as an OT...there are other ways to interpret the text they base their idea on that is contradicted by other texts).

It is unfortunate that more openists are not offering correction to LH, et al. It seems that much like the Catholics at TOL, when one of their proponents stray beyond the bounds they would rather remain silent than step up and rein the person back in...as if correcting someone makes the whole group look bad or something. It ends up with folks like chrys among the Catholics and LH among the openists running open-loop and potenially leading others within their respective camps astray.

See, I can "help" sometimes.

AMR

 

[Lighthouse]

It is unfortunate that more openists are not offering correction to LH, et al. It seems that much like the Catholics at TOL, when one of their proponents stray beyond the bounds they would rather remain silent than step up and rein the person back in...as if correcting someone makes the whole group look bad or something. It ends up with folks like chrys among the Catholics and LH among the openists running open-loop and potenially leading others within their respective camps astray.

See, I can "help" sometimes.

AMR

It's sad that you've been here this long and are ignorant enough to believe the majority of the open viewers on TOL disagree with me.

 

[godrulz]

It is unfortunate that more openists are not offering correction to LH, et al. It seems that much like the Catholics at TOL, when one of their proponents stray beyond the bounds they would rather remain silent than step up and rein the person back in...as if correcting someone makes the whole group look bad or something. It ends up with folks like chrys among the Catholics and LH among the openists running open-loop and potenially leading others within their respective camps astray.

See, I can "help" sometimes.

AMR

Unfortunately, most OT on TOL are connected with Enyart (The Plot), MAD, etc.

Musicman, myself, and a few (minority) of others were more influenced by academic Open Theists like Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders, Hasker, Basinger, Olson, Pratney, etc. They would also not support LH, etc. because it is not defensible from a biblical, logical Open Theist perspective. Enyart, Knight, LH, etc. are not scholars, by their own admission (I am a student, not a scholar). I reject MAD, but agree with OT, just not this one detail of their understanding (Open Theism is not as hammered out as Calvinism/Arminianism). Open Theists also disagree on various objections, passages, nuanced concepts, even as Calvinists (supra/infra, etc.), etc. do.

So, most are not speaking up because they do not see the problem or are in agreement.

The only time I have heard of LH view on this was a tiny footnote in an obscure Open Theist book. I think Dallas Willard (??now dead) may have hinted at it (or some other obscure historical thinker), but it is unlikely he was even Open Theist (just had some of the same ideas on some points).

 

[godrulz]

It's sad that you've been here this long and are ignorant enough to believe the majority of the open viewers on TOL disagree with me.

The vast majority of Open Theists in the world disagree with you on this point, especially the big name, published academic ones.

As I pointed out to AMR, in this small wild west circle of TOL, you do have company because of the Knight/Enyart/Denver influence. Enyart is Open Theist, but he is not academic when it comes to original languages, etc. He is not a prominent, published Open Theist, though he does embrace and defend the view overall well.

So, you are in a majority, perhaps, on TOL, but a drop in the bucket of countless more OTs who would disagree with you for good reasons (there is a difference between a dabbling amateur and a rigorous scholar/expert).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Unfortunately, most OT on TOL are connected with Enyart (The Plot), MAD, etc.

Musicman, myself, and a few (minority) of others were more influenced by academic Open Theists like Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders, Hasker, Basinger, Olson, Pratney, etc. They would also not support LH, etc. because it is not defensible from a biblical, logical Open Theist perspective. Enyart, Knight, LH, etc. are not scholars, by their own admission (I am a student, not a scholar). I reject MAD, but agree with OT, just not this one detail of their understanding (Open Theism is not as hammered out as Calvinism/Arminianism). Open Theists also disagree on various objections, passages, nuanced concepts, even as Calvinists (supra/infra, etc.), etc. do.

So, most are not speaking up because they do not see the problem or are in agreement.

The only time I have heard of LH view on this was a tiny footnote in an obscure Open Theist book. I think Dallas Willard (??now dead) may have hinted at it (or some other obscure historical thinker), but it is unlikely he was even Open Theist (just had some of the same ideas on some points).

Does Pastor Enyart actually agree with LH's peculiar view with respect to the omniscience of God? I do not recall seeing where he has made such a statement.

In the Lamerson debate, Lamerson observes:

"<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:TargetScreenSize>800x600</o:TargetScreenSize> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]-->[FONT=&quot]Serious problems come when we try to apply this “straightforward hermeneutic” to other passages of Scripture. Consider, for example, Gen 3:9-13, which records God’s actions after the fall of Adam and Eve. After their sin, Adam and Eve tried to hide from God among the trees of the garden. Then we read, “But the LORD God called to the man, ‘Where are you?’” (vs. 9). Following openness suggestions to “simply accept the plain meaning of Scripture,” this text seems to imply that God does not know the present location of Adam and Eve. And as the narrative of Genesis 3 proceeds, another problem emerges. In vs. 11, God asks Adam, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” Does not a “straightforward” reading of this verse lead to the conclusion that in this case God was ignorant of what Adam had done in the past? And God’s similar question to Eve in vs. 13 (“What is this you have done?”) seems to imply a similar divine ignorance of the past as far as Eve’s actions were concerned. Thus reading Gen 3:9-13 in the same manner that open theists encourage us to read Gen 22:12 seems to result in a denial of God’s exhaustive knowledge of both the present and the past."
[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot] Pastor Enyart never directly responded to the implied question. Does he really believe that when God makes a statement like, "I will go down now" (e.g., Gen 11:5; Gen 18:20-21; Isaiah 5:4) to see what is going on that God did not already know? This is LH's view and I doubt that view is a majority view among openists even at TOL.

AMR

[/FONT]

 

[godrulz]

I suspect LH is getting it from Enyart and others. Seems to me Clete and others also defend it and think I am an idiot for not jumping on the bandwagon. Keep digging or someone speak up who is in the know?

 

[Lighthouse]

[FONT=&quot]This is LH's view and I doubt that view is a majority view among openists even at TOL.[/FONT]

And you wold be wrong.

Were you not paying attention when we went over this with Lon?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94431