Theology Club: What is Open Theism?

[Nang]

About omnipotence: that literally means capable of doing anything etc. However, the Calvinists reinterpret this into 'actually does control everything'.

The attribute is described as "all powerful." God, being sovereign, controls all His domain, and is capable of achieving His purposes and will, despite the failed attempts of His creatures to live up to their human responsibilities in righteous fashion.

It is this that gives rise to another one of my mottos describing Calvinism: God's omnipotence at the expense of man's impotence.

Man proves impotent because he is corrupted by sin. This does not negate mankind's obligations to God according to his creation and obligations to live holy according to God's commands.

IOW's, God created man willful and with moral agency to obey God and do what is good. Man failed. God then fulfilled His own Law by sending His Son, and attributed His accomplishments to an elect people, through the Mediation and accomplishments of Jesus Christ.

Jesus fulfilled all the human responsibilities of His people, in their stead, and imputed His righteousness to their account, so on Judgment Day they might be able to stand accountable before God.

That is to say, both doctrines are vitally important! The omnipotence of God must be declared, and the human responsibility of man, under the Laws of God must also be upheld . . . in order to present a true and accurate message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

To deny either one or the other of these fundamental doctrines, is to drift into error or heresy.

Nang

 

[Desert Reign]

You are making me think about this. As I said, your ponderings are a little over my head, but it's nice to stretch. For example, the idea that God doesn't have to know every thought in my head in order to know my motives and intentions is a valid point. At least, I think it is. And God certainly doesn't need to know how many dust particles are on my desk in order to be the God He is. I mean, what's that knowledge have to do with being God anyway, right? :think:

Exactly. Man aspires to power, to knowledge and to influence or control and in his thirst for more of these he can only envisage God as the ultimate man. God is everything that man would love to be. I have to laugh when someone like Geisler 'proves' that God must be all three and then goes on to show how the Christian God fits the bill for the philosophically proven one. I laugh because he can't see what he is doing. He doesn't seem to be able to self-reference. As I have said before, the God of the Bible is just nothing like that. And in particular, the cross militates against this view. Here is God expressing himself in Christ, and not just a bit of God, mind, but perfectly expressing himself in Him, a man who is a) in only one place, b) limited in knowledge and c) choosing the way of submission to death. The 3 omnis simply doesn't reflect our God at all.

Got to go.

 

[Clete]

I can't say why I'd disagree with any of this. Thanks for posting it for consideration, Clete.

I'd say then that you're at least 90% of the way to being an Open Theist, if you're not one already.

If you really want to boil it down, what's really going on with Open Theism is a completion of the work that the Reformation started.

The Reformation wasn't so much an anti-Catholic movement as it was a pro-bible movement. It ended up taking the form of an anti-Catholic movement because Luther's Ninety-Five Theses focused on practices of the Roman Catholic Church that were not biblical. Essentially the Reformation had to do with getting the unbiblical influences of Rome out of the Christian faith.
Likewise, Open Theism isn't so much an anti-Calvinist movement as it is a pro-bible movement. It ends up looking very much like an anti-Calvinist movement because Calvinism is little more than Systematic Reformed Augustinian Theology. You see, Augustine formulated much of his theology in such a way as to conform the Bible to the teachings of Aristotle and Plato. If you believe that God has all of history planned out, that He exists outside of time, that He cannot change His mind or in any other way for that matter and that He is in meticulous control of every minute detail of every event that occurs in all of reality, well, then you have Augustine to thank for it, not the Bible. Essentially, Open Theism has to do with getting this unbiblical influence of pagan Greek philosophy out of the Christian faith.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Guyver]

1. To have knowledge of something that object must exist. If the future does not presently exist then it cannot be known.
2. Omniscience, as defined by Calvinists and Arminians, is not presented in the Bible.
3. God even goes so far as to state there are present events of which He does not have knowledge, because He has chosen, in His sovereignty, to not be aware of all things.

1. Things that don't exist now, can exist in the future. Do you think God was taken by surprise by the invention of the automobile or discovery of penicillin?

2. Omniscience, by the very definition of the term...means the same thing regardless of who is presenting the notion.

3. Now that point is a winner! Bingo. God chooses to know things, and not know things, and that is not a reflection of his capabilities..but his will.

 

[Lighthouse]

1. Things that don't exist now, can exist in the future. Do you think God was taken by surprise by the invention of the automobile or discovery of penicillin?

First off, no duh. Secondly, yes it is possible for God to be surprised by things that happen. The Bible even has some instances where He states He never even thought certain things would happen; i.e. it never even crossed His mind.

However, this is not to say that I believe his mind could be blown, to quote the vernacular.

2. Omniscience, by the very definition of the term...means the same thing regardless of who is presenting the notion.

No it doesn't, because some people use it to mean God knowing all things throughout all of time, as though all of time exists at once; and yet others use it to mean knowing all of the past and present.

3. Now that point is a winner! Bingo. God chooses to know things, and not know things, and that is not a reflection of his capabilities..but his will.

Now if only some others could get this through their heads.

 

[Bright Raven]

Why doesn't God know all future events when Psalm 139 seems to teach God's perfect knowledge of man?

 

[godrulz]

Why doesn't God know all future events when Psalm 139 seems to teach God's perfect knowledge of man?

Ps. 139 is poetic, not a philosophical dissertation on foreknowledge.

Ps. 139 talks about past and present knowledge (which is exhaustive). You are wrongly extrapolating this to FK. Did I not give a credible link on Ps. 139 and God's intentions vs prescience?

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

Good question, though. The EDF proof texts have alternate understanding, but you also must deal with the openness motif in Scripture (no contradiction).

 

[Lighthouse]

Why doesn't God know all future events when Psalm 139 seems to teach God's perfect knowledge of man?

Perfect knowledge only requires knowledge of the extant.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Why doesn't God know all future events when Psalm 139 seems to teach God's perfect knowledge of man?

If the entire Bible and all we knew about God was only Psalm 139 then I might agree with you.

Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

Perfect knowledge only requires knowledge of the extant.

He knows reality as it is distinguishing actual/certain from possible/probable/contingent.

 

[IMJerusha]

As often as I have witnessed this, I don't get the point or the need to put God in a box and stick a label on it. This isn't something we're capable of so why do we keep trying? All we succeed in doing is putting labels on each other. What does that accomplish?

Oh, I forgot to quote post #1 of this thread. This post is in answer to it. I must be getting old or something!

 

[surrender]

As often as I have witnessed this, I don't get the point or the need to put God in a box and stick a label on it. This isn't something we're capable of so why do we keep trying? All we succeed in doing is putting labels on each other. What does that accomplish?

Oh, I forgot to quote post #1 of this thread. This post is in answer to it. I must be getting old or something!

Labels are part of the communication process. Without them, we'd have a much harder time giving and receiving information.

 

[IMJerusha]

Labels are part of the communication process. Without them, we'd have a much harder time giving and receiving information.

Communication with God is simple. It's called prayer.
Communication with each other, in terms of the faith, is information that should be sanctioned by God. I question His sanctioning of us deciding what He is capable of and what He is not.

 

[surrender]

Communication with God is simple. It's called prayer.
Communication with each other, in terms of the faith, is information that should be sanctioned by God. I question His sanctioning of us deciding what He is capable of and what He is not.

WE don't decide. Scripture tells us.

 

[IMJerusha]

WE don't decide. Scripture tells us.

I agree. So where do Matt Slick and John Sanders come up with such outrageously ridiculous things? Our future is known. Our choices are known though God does not make them for us. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He is in all time at all time. To claim that God doesn't know what our choices will be and therefore doesn't know the future is to deny the Prophets. It's a denial of Yeshua's revelation to John. And consider Psalm 139.

 

[surrender]

I agree. So where do Matt Slick and John Sanders come up with such outrageously ridiculous things?

Who are they?

Our future is known.

And I should believe your words over what Scripture reveals because...?

Our choices are known though God does not make them for us. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He is in all time at all time. To claim that God doesn't know what our choices will be and therefore doesn't know the future is to deny the Prophets. It's a denial of Yeshua's revelation to John. And consider Psalm 139.

I've considered it and it lines up quite well. If you truly want to discuss it, I will. You let me know.

 

[IMJerusha]

Who are they?

Oh....just names I pulled out of a hat!

And I should believe your words over what Scripture reveals because...?

I have not posted that you should believe my words over Scripture.

I've considered it and it lines up quite well. If you truly want to discuss it, I will. You let me know.

Okay.

 

[surrender]

Oh....just names I pulled out of a hat!

Shrug...okay.

I have not posted that you should believe my words over Scripture.

But you've given me your words but no Scripture to back it up.

Okay.

Okay what? If your mind is made up, please don't waste my time. This issue is not salvific, so it doesn't matter to me whether you believe God knows the future as fact or not. But if you're curious as to why I've come to the conclusion that God does not know all the future "as fact" then I'd be happy to go into it further. But, please, be honest. If you're not interested and/or if you're more secure in thinking God knows all the future as fact, then you should continue to adhere to that notion and not waste the time of those who are simply here to share with those who are truly interested.

 

[IMJerusha]

<snip>

Okay what? If your mind is made up, please don't waste my time. This issue is not salvific, so it doesn't matter to me whether you believe God knows the future as fact or not. But if you're curious as to why I've come to the conclusion that God does not know all the future "as fact" then I'd be happy to go into it further. But, please, be honest. If you're not interested and/or if you're more secure in thinking God knows all the future as fact, then you should continue to adhere to that notion and not waste the time of those who are simply here to share with those who are truly interested.

Sorry to have bothered you.

 

[surrender]

Sorry to have bothered you.

Absolutely no bother for those who are genuinely interested in learning why I've come to the conclusions I have. In those cases, it's a pleasure.