Theology Club: What is Open Theism?

[oatmeal]

Basically, the following;


What is Open Theism?

by Matt Slick

Open Theism, also called openness and the open view, is a theological position dealing with human free will and its relationship to God and the nature of the future. It is the teaching that God has granted to humanity free will and that in order for the free will to be truly free, the future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God. They hold that if God knows what we are going to choose, then how can we be truly free when it is time to make those choices --since a counter choice cannot then be made by us, because it is already "known" what we are going to do.1 In other words, we would not actually be able to make a contrary choice to what God "knows" we will choose thus implying that we would not then be free.

In Open Theism, the future is either knowable or not knowable. For the open theists who hold that the future is knowable by God, they maintain that God voluntarily limits His knowledge of free will choices so that they can remain truly free. 2 Other open theists maintain that the future, being non existent, is not knowable, even by God.3 Gregory Boyd, a well-known advocate of Open Theism says,

"Much of it [the future], open theists will concede, is settled ahead of time, either by God's predestining will or by existing earthly causes, but it is not exhaustively settled ahead of time. To whatever degree the future is yet open to be decided by free agents, it is unsettled."4

But open theists would not say that God is weak or powerless. They say that God is capable of predicting and ordaining certain future events because He is capable of working in the world and bringing certain events to pass when the time is needed. Therefore, God could inspire the Old Testament writers to prophesy certain events and then He could simply ensure that those events occurred at the right time.

Furthermore, open theists claim that they do not deny the omniscience of God. They, like classical theologians, state that God is indeed all-knowing. But they differ in that God can only know that which is knowable and since the future has not yet happened, it can not be exhaustively known by God. Instead, God only knows the present exhaustively, including the inclinations, desires, thoughts, and hopes of all people.

In Open Theism God can make mistakes because He does not know all things that will occur in the future. According to them, God also takes risks and adapts to the free-will choices of people. They claim biblical support for their position by citing scripture where God changes His mind (Exodus 32:14), is surprised (Isaiah 5:3–7), and tests people to see what they will do (Genesis 22:12).

Finally, Open Theism tends to portray the God of orthodoxy as distant, controlling, and unyielding while promoting the God of openness as involved, adapting, loving, interacting, and caring for humanity.

Bright Raven,

Grace and peace,

The following portion of the quote from Matt Slick is not making sense. If in fact, he believes in open theism

It is the teaching that God has granted to humanity free will and that in order for the free will to be truly free, the future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God. They hold that if God knows what we are going to choose, then how can we be truly free when it is time to make those choices --since a counter choice cannot then be made by us, because it is already "known" what we are going to do.

God's foreknowledge is simply that, knowledge.

Knowledge is not the same as predestination.

God knows that you will choose (or not choose) to eat breakfast tomorrow morning, but that does not mean that God has predestinated you to make a particular choice.

God, knowing what choices you will make, may choose to prepare for those choices you make but that does not mean God predestinates you to make those choices.

God knows how many times I might change my mind before I make a decision, but God does not overstep my free will right to make that decision.

Open theism is either open or its not.

oatmeal

 

[Shasta]

Where does the Bible say God gave us time?

The Bible does not say "time always existed" either. That conclusion was not arrived at through what was explicitly stated in a text. It was inferred by the way a number of scriptures have been interpreted and organized into a doctrinal system.

Based on evidence gathered over the last 50 years the "text" of the universe is telling us that time-space-matter are integral parts of each other. Without matter there is no space or time. Thus I maintain that when the Bible says "in the beginning God by His word created the heavens and the earth" matter, space and time all came into existence at the same time. This is consistent not only with science but with the Biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

 

[Lighthouse]

The Bible does not say "time always existed" either. That conclusion was not arrived at through what was explicitly stated in a text. It was inferred by the way a number of scriptures have been interpreted and organized into a doctrinal system.

Based on evidence gathered over the last 50 years the "text" of the universe is telling us that time-space-matter are integral parts of each other. Without matter there is no space or time. Thus I maintain that when the Bible says "in the beginning God by His word created the heavens and the earth" matter, space and time all came into existence at the same time. This is consistent not only with science but with the Biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

So, before God would you say there was no passage of events, from one moment to the next?

 

[Clete]

The Bible does not say "time always existed" either. That conclusion was not arrived at through what was explicitly stated in a text. It was inferred by the way a number of scriptures have been interpreted and organized into a doctrinal system.

This, at best, is an argument from silence but it fails on a more important, more substantial point as well.

You want to deny the existence of time while accepting the existence of God.

Read that sentence again and get it firmly in mind because it is the Achilles Heel of your position and that of all Calvinistic theologies.

Your position fails at this point because of what is called a Stolen Concept fallacy. The Stolen Concept occurs when you accept the validity of one concept while denying the validity of another concept upon which the concept you accept is predicated.

So, if concept B implies concept A and you accept concept B you must necessarily accept concept A. If you do not, you commit the Stolen Concept Fallacy.

Your argument, by accepting the concept of existence (i.e. God's existence), accepts by implication, the concept of time because, if nothing else, existence implies duration. Thus by excepting existence and rejecting time, you contradict yourself and falsify your position.

Based on evidence gathered over the last 50 years the "text" of the universe is telling us that time-space-matter are integral parts of each other. Without matter there is no space or time. Thus I maintain that when the Bible says "in the beginning God by His word created the heavens and the earth" matter, space and time all came into existence at the same time. This is consistent not only with science but with the Biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

There are many competing THEORIES in science. Just because Einstein's is the most popular today, doesn't make it true.

By your logic, Adam must have evolved from the apes because based on evidence gathered over the last 150 years the "text" of the universe is telling us that “We are the product of 4.5 billion years of fortuitous, slow biological evolution. There is no reason to think that the evolutionary process has stopped. Man is a transitional animal. He is not the climax of creation.” - Carl Sagan

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Time/eternity is more philosophical than speculative physics. Einstein was not right about time as 4th dimension or blurring distinctions between past, present, future. Affects of gravity on clocks (measures), perceptions of time, hypothetical speed of light issues, etc. are different than time as a fundamental concept of duration that is not created, not space, etc.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The Bible does not say "time always existed" either. That conclusion was not arrived at through what was explicitly stated in a text. It was inferred by the way a number of scriptures have been interpreted and organized into a doctrinal system.

Based on evidence gathered over the last 50 years the "text" of the universe is telling us that time-space-matter are integral parts of each other. Without matter there is no space or time. Thus I maintain that when the Bible says "in the beginning God by His word created the heavens and the earth" matter, space and time all came into existence at the same time. This is consistent not only with science but with the Biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,

In the creation there is only a new way of measuring time. The essence of time is sequence of activity that involves movement, change and time as past, present and future.

That matter, space and time have a relationship in this created world that has a beginning does not mean that time is not an aspect of God's activity. God clearly has a past of things he's done and a future of things he has yet to do, yes?

--Dave

 

[Lighthouse]

This, at best, is an argument from silence but it fails on a more important, more substantial point as well.

You want to deny the existence of time while accepting the existence of God.

Read that sentence again and get it firmly in mind because it is the Achilles Heel of your position and that of all Calvinistic theologies.

Your position fails at this point because of what is called a Stolen Concept fallacy. The Stolen Concept occurs when you accept the validity of one concept while denying the validity of another concept upon which the concept you accept is predicated.

So, if concept B implies concept A and you accept concept B you must necessarily accept concept A. If you do not, you commit the Stolen Concept Fallacy.

Your argument, by accepting the concept of existence (i.e. God's existence), accepts by implication, the concept of time because, if nothing else, existence implies duration. Thus by excepting existence and rejecting time, you contradict yourself and falsify your position.


There are many competing THEORIES in science. Just because Einstein's is the most popular today, doesn't make it true.

By your logic, Adam must have evolved from the apes because based on evidence gathered over the last 150 years the "text" of the universe is telling us that “We are the product of 4.5 billion years of fortuitous, slow biological evolution. There is no reason to think that the evolutionary process has stopped. Man is a transitional animal. He is not the climax of creation.” - Carl Sagan

Resting in Him,
Clete

Could you please fix the quote so it shows that it came from Shasta and not me?

Genesis 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,

In the creation there is only a new way of measuring time. The essence of time is sequence of activity that involves movement, change and time as past, present and future.

That matter, space and time have a relationship in this created world that has a beginning does not mean that time is not an aspect of God's activity. God clearly has a past of things he's done and a future of things he has yet to do, yes?

--Dave

Could you please fix the quote so it shows that it came from Shasta and not me?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Could you please fix the quote so it shows that it came from Shasta and not me?

Done

--Dave

 

[Lighthouse]

Done

--Dave

Thank you.

 

[Ktoyou]

After I write this, the next moment is undetermined
How's that?

 

[Nang]

After I write this, the next moment is undetermined
How's that?

Undetermined according to whom?

Nang

 

[godrulz]

Undetermined according to whom?

Nang

It is either determined or not objectively. God's reality is not diametrically opposed to our reality. If I am typing this right now, God sees it right now in reality. He knows reality as it is. The Second Coming will be the same reality for God and us. It is illogical to say that the Second Coming will be 1000 years before it happens for us.

God determines some vs all things. You wrongly assume He determines all things reducing us to robots without responsibility, making God responsible for evil, etc.

 

[Nang]

God determines some vs all things.

How can you tell what God might not determine? You can't. So, if you cannot know what God supposedly has not determined, on what basis do you make your assertion?

You wrongly assume He determines all things

I do not assume God determines all things, I know God determines all things. Such truth is revealed throughout all of scripture.

reducing us to robots without responsibility, making God responsible for evil, etc.

This is your faulty conclusion; not mine.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

How can you tell what God might not determine? You can't. So, if you cannot know what God supposedly has not determined, on what basis do you make your assertion?





I do not assume God determines all things, I know God determines all things. Such truth is revealed throughout all of scripture.



This is your faulty conclusion; not mine.

Nang

We know that God does not determine sin, evil, suffering, death, etc. since we have revelation that these are contrary to His will and holy character. They are seen as consequences of sinful rebellion. Your problem is a wrong view of sovereignty vs free will (and a stubborn streak).

 

[Shasta]

Genesis 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,

In the creation there is only a new way of measuring time. The essence of time is sequence of activity that involves movement, change and time as past, present and future.

That matter, space and time have a relationship in this created world that has a beginning does not mean that time is not an aspect of God's activity. God clearly has a past of things he's done and a future of things he has yet to do, yes?



--Dave

I agree. Time IS an aspect of God activity. In fact, it is absolutely necessary one if God is to bring His plan to completion. This is because He has chosen to reach that end through temporal creatures in a temporal universe.

 

[COLA76]

After I write this, the next moment is undetermined
How's that?

How isn't it?

 

[DFT_Dave]

I agree. Time IS an aspect of God activity. In fact, it is absolutely necessary one if God is to bring His plan to completion. This is because He has chosen to reach that end through temporal creatures in a temporal universe.

Nice to meet a fellow open theist. :cheers:

--Dave

 

[Nang]

We know that God does not determine sin, evil, suffering, death, etc. since we have revelation that these are contrary to His will and holy character.

Scripture reveals Triune God is Almighty Creator God, and that He ". . made the world and all things therein . . " Acts 17:24

". . For by Him (Jesus Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: All things were created by Him and for Him." Colossians 1:14-16

Does this give us license to exempt from all created things, Satan and wicked men? Or even the existence of evil?

No.

For Almighty God Himself testifies:

"I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and I create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things." Isaiah 45:7

They are seen as consequences of sinful rebellion.

Indeed. For Almighty God created wicked men, endowed with secondary moral agency, able to cause sin, death, and all kinds of evil.

Your problem is a wrong view of sovereignty vs free will (and a stubborn streak).

I reject the concept of mortal free will that is exercised autonomously from the sovereign, controlling, and purposeful will of God.

No such thing.

 

[godrulz]

God creating all things refers to initial creation. It does not mean he creates our choices, Apple Computers, Ford cars, newspapers, etc. (giving us self-determination and creativity does not mean God actually makes machine guns).

The proof texts about evil (check other versions) relates to righteous judgments/calamities, etc., not moral evil like Hitler's killings.

You are twisting everything to retain a flawed view, not exegeting in context.

You are not as smart as you look.:deadhorse:

 

[Nang]

God creating all things refers to initial creation.

It does? You mean God created all things in the beginning, and then sat back to see what happened?

That is Deism . . . not Christianity.

It does not mean he creates our choices, Apple Computers, Ford cars, newspapers, etc. (giving us self-determination and creativity does not mean God actually makes machine guns).

Are you saying that God did not create you or me, nor Hitler, Bill Gates, Henry Ford, etc.?

If God did not create each of us to do what He purposed we would do, who did bring forth Hitler, Bill Gates, Henry Ford, etc.?

The proof texts about evil (check other versions) relates to righteous judgments/calamities, etc., not moral evil like Hitler's killings.

So what is the cause of Hitler and his moral evil? Where did Hitler come from? Why was Hitler allowed. (Hint: Romans 9:17)

You are twisting everything to retain a flawed view, not exegeting in context.

You are not as smart as you look.:deadhorse:

People that end attempts to discuss and debate, with ad hominems against their opponents, always prove to be the loser of the discussion/debate.

Nang