 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2004 2:25 AM (GMT -6) |   | Jo-anne, God foreknows all -- because God is God -- AND does not determine anything robotically.
To suggest that God determines some is to lock God in time at the point "in time" when that (even) partial determining would have been made. Perhaps that would need a name, alike "modular-calvinism?" Predestination locks God in time. God causes, acts in and through time as with all his creation; but is not limited to time, nor temporal in essence. The false choice between "out of" or "in" time is just that--a choice not needing to be made.
Where a thread title used the words "God's purpose" was closer to the mysterious truth. We can see that God can "use" anything: the scope of the fall and our barbage is beyond immagination right there. The Bible presents in narrative form the evidence of God acting in creation and time, and of the incarnate presence of God in the world, and with faith we can see clearly God's salvation, what he wills for all, presently being acted out by God's Spirit and his Body (the Church) in the world.
And that is what we have.
The Psalms teach us how to pray about this, and the Lord's Prayer. And we need to turn to those prayers to develop our faith in ways to comprehend God's mission.
150 of them.
- PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/20/2004 3:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne,
No one knows exactly what portion of the future is open. But the most simplist way to both understand and interact with some of that open portion of the future is to consider your own relationship with God and others. Just consider prayer for a minute...does God already know EVERYTHING about every prayer you'll ever pray? Do we really think that when we're done praying to God that we can say, "Well, God, you already knew exactly everything I would pray--you saw it all as if I already prayed it." What kind of relationship can anyone have with anyone if everything...EVERYTHING...about them is already known and seen as lived out? Does God exhaustively know our lives as if He could seat both Himself and you in front of a theater screen and watch it all before it happens, like watching a movie? And then can He look at you and say, "Well, you've seen your life--ALL of it--right here on the screen. So, go ahead now and live it out; you'll live it exactly as you saw it here."? This is not what Scripture reveals about God in relationship with us, or we in relationship with others, but it isn't even true to life.
The question, then, Jo-Anne, isn't really, "What part of the future is open?" Rather, it is what part of life reveals a partially open future? You can't find the answer in Scripture if you're looking for direct teaching. It's not there. But you'll see many examples in, say, the Old Testament, that reveal a partly open future; the way God and man interact is where it's seen the most.
With regard to that which is determined, we know, for instance, that God determined that Christ would come, die on the cross and resurrect. But what we don't have are the details as to how God would bring this about. We know it wasn't determined in the sense that ALL and EVERYTHING of Joseph and Mary's life was exhaustively known by God in order for God to bring about the birth of Jesus. Rather, we see quite the opposite: an angel visits Mary and says, "Yo, girl. You're going to bring forth a son." Mary cooperated. Not like a robot who's life God already exhaustively knows, but rather as a young girl willing to please her Lord.
It's not about trying to find out what part of the future is open--we're not given details to scrutinize it that carefully. It's about what we know in our day-to-day living that gives us a clue as to the future being open. This doesn't supercede God's word--God's word, first and foremost, reveals that something of the future is open. It just means that we have additional evidence of a partially open future by looking at our very own lives.
Hope this helps,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/20/2004 5:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
Hi Everyone,
I have a question. I have said this countless times, but honestly do not completely understand it myself. Perhaps I never will. I understand that the Open View is really about the future being partly open and partly settled. I've heard that expressed.
Now, my question: Which part of the future is open, and which is settled? What exactly does this mean? Can someone help me understand this?
Thanks & God Bless,
Jo-Anne
P.S. I know my salvation is settled
Jo-anne, God knows people will reject His love. He knows people will accept His love. He's determined to have a bride, a church. This is settled.
He knows His bride will be prepared for Him, He's ordained it. The individuals who will be part of His bride, He has not for-ordained. "whosoever" shows up, He accepts. Those who were invited, declined, so He's inviting others to join. There's a parable about that.
He knows His bride will go through trials and tribulations because He knows the enemy of His bride, yet He has promised He will protect His bride and purify them, bringing good out of the bad that the enemy brings on them.
He knows He will punish the wicked for their choices.
He didn't know the 1969 Mets would win the World Series. 
I personally don't like the "future is partly open, partly settled" adage, I think it confuses people.
God knows what God is going to do definitely, that's the settled part.
God knows what God might do and what we might do, that's the open part.
If people would read scripture sans their a-priori deterministic mindset, they might see how generic and vague most pronouncements of the future are. "there will be wars" "there will be earthquakes" "sin will abound" "cats will nap" "dogs will scratch"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2004 6:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
He didn't know the 1969 Mets would win the World Series.
Yes he did. But it was not something that fits what we call "deterministic." (We call that an antinomy.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/20/2004 6:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
He didn't know the 1969 Mets would win the World Series.
Yes he did. But it was not something that fits what we call "deterministic." (We call that an antinomy.)
He did?!?!? Chapter and verse, please.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2004 6:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
He didn't know the 1969 Mets would win the World Series.
Yes he did. But it was not something that fits what we call "deterministic." (We call that an antinomy.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/20/2004 6:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
He didn't know the 1969 Mets would win the World Series.
Yes he did. But it was not something that fits what we call "deterministic." (We call that an antinomy.)
He did?!?!? Chapter and verse, please.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/20/2004 6:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne-
Good question. PoW and I have been around the block, so if his answer helps you, fine. I can’t even understand his answer, so I’ll suggest another answer that makes sense of open view claims regarding a partially open and partially settled future.
To say that the future is partly open and partly closed/settled is to say something about the PRESENT state of reality, namely, in what ways the world “will,” “will not,” and “might and might not” change in the future. As I write this, the world (at present) is such that some events “will” certainly happen (i.e., their occurring is inevitable given the way the world is right now), some events “will not” happen (i.e., their not occurring is inevitable given the way the world is right now), and some events “might and might not” happen (i.e., neither their occurring nor their not occurring is inevitable given the way the world is right now). What we call the future is the sum total of these three present realities: what will happen, what will not happen, and what might and might not happen. It’s that simple. The future is settled or closed with respect to what “will” and “will not” happen. The future is open with respect to what “might and might not” happen. Some events follow “necessarily” from other events. So once the latter occurs the future is in a certain respect closed or settled. If I jump out of a plane at 10,000 feet without a parachute, at THAT point my future is closed: I will splat on the ground and die. But other actions we perform don’t yield consequences that follow “necessarily.” If I offer a girl a proposal of marriage, it doesn’t follow that she “will” or “will not” accept. Perhaps she “might and might not” accept. The future is in some respects open to occurring THIS way or THAT way.
If this is the way reality is, the way the world actually is, then an omniscient God would know it as such. God would know all truths and believe no falsehoods. God would whatever true “will” statements (“x will happen”) there are at any given point in time, whatever true “will not” statements (“x will not happen”) there are at any given point in time, and whatever true “might and might not” statements (“x might and might not happen”) there are at any given point in time. As the world changes and the sum total of truths about the world changes, God keeps immediate and infallible track of the state of the world. He is always omniscient. His knowledge is constantly changing as what he infallibly knows constantly changes.
Think of how you approach each new day. You assume that some things about that day “will” happen, some things “will not” happen, and other things “might and might not” happen. We connect them all (and they all ARE connected) to live, to make choices, to plan, to form responses. If we believed all was “will” or all was “might and might not” we could not meaningfully deliberate, plan, or make sense of life. I defy determinists to actually demonstrate their faith in the manner in which they deliberate between options. Can’t be done. We DO assume a partly open and partly settled future every day we live. Now we just need a theology that makes sense of how we live. Long time coming!
Make sense?
Now, the idea that if God were temporal (and ONLY temporal) given the existence of a temporal world, God would be “subject” to time and that God being “subject” to anything is a BAD thing is simply misguided. And it begs the question. Fact is, now that God has freely created the world, the world is there. Not even God can escape relating to the world in some fashion. A relation must obtain between God and the world and God is subject to this. So long as creation exists, God MUST relate to it. Even if he were to willfully ignore creation (apart from sustaining its existence), such willful ignorance would constitute a relation of sorts. God would know there’s a world he’s choosing to ignore. So God is, by virtue of his free choice to create, “subject” to some things, i.e., to standing in SOME manner of relation to creation. I happen to feel that creation’s very existence necessarily entails a temporal mode of existence for God. And I say “thank God!” But this is not the sort of “subjection” or “subjugation” that one calls to mind when one thinks of being subjected against one’s will to something or someone. God freely choose this mode of existence for the sake of relating to the world. Now, you can speculate on atemporal or hypertemporal (of time-travel) modes of God’s existing if you don’t have anything else to think about, but none of that can offer the slightest help in explaining how God relates to THIS world. It cannot explain foreknowledge, prophecy, or how God works providentially in the world. So speculate if you like, but such speculations can never be useful in explaining anything. So when PoW says “God foreknows all,” I say “Sure! God foreknows what ‘will’, ‘will not’, and ‘might and might not’ come to pass.” Exactly. Don’t let PoW confuse you. He’s a confused open theist but just has too much of a history here disagreeing with us to humble himself and admit that he's really an open viewer! Someday he’ll get free and fess up. Until then we just need to be patient with him.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/20/2004 7:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Sisters: God didn't know the 1969 Mets would win the World Series.
PoW: Yes he did. But it was not something that fits what we call "deterministic." (We call that an antinomy.)
Tom: All antinomies and pardoxes are apparent. God doesn't sit pondering the Liar's Paradox. Reality is in fact self-consistent, not self-contradictory.
And no, God didn't know (from eternity) that the '69 Mets would win the World Series. It might have been the case that the combined realities of player talents, batter line-ups, fatigue, team moral, and home-court advantage all combined to determine the outcome at some point in time prior to the end of the Series, and if so God would have known that too. But nothing about God, his perfections, or the most objective hermeutic possible demands that we read the Bible and conclude that God must know the end of any 'undetermined' outcome, the '69 World Series included. If THAT were the case, I can think of one perfection God would NOT possess (which he certainly MUST have!): the excitement of NOT knowing who will win! Think of the fun God would miss out on. I mean reeeeally people. Give God a break.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/20/2004 7:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Sisters: God didn't know the 1969 Mets would win the World Series.
And no, God didn't know (from eternity) that the '69 Mets would win the World Series. It might have been the case that the combined realities of player talents, batter line-ups, fatigue, team moral, and home-court advantage all combined to determine the outcome at some point in time prior to the end of the Series, and if so God would have known that too.
All right. But did God know who shot J.R.?
Or did God know if Ross and Rachel would get together at the end?
Imagine the scary, insecure world it would be if God didn't know from eternity past whether Ross and Rachel would get together at the end?!?!?!? Divine Perfection HAS to include His knowing that, right?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 7/20/2004 7:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If THAT were the case, I can think of one perfection God would NOT possess (which he certainly MUST have!): the excitement of NOT knowing who will win!
This is something I'm interested in. The aesthetics of openness. Mephi used to talk about this. The idea that, besides love requiring freedom, an "open" universe might be the only type of universe that a perfect being would want to create (for aesthetic reasons).
Is this discussed in any of the openness literature to date? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2004 8:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
God didn't know (from eternity) ...
Glad you qualified that, Tom. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/20/2004 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: God didn't know (from eternity)...
PoW: Glad you qualified that, Tom.
Tom: What difference does it make? You believe God foreknew the Mets would win the '69 World Series before they won. You deny that he got this knowledge FROM any team-related factors DURING the Series that might have determined the outcome. You also deny that God determines all things (presumably he didn't determine the '69 World Series). So, where DOES God get his knowledge of the truth "The Mets 'will' win the '69 World Series" before the event itself?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/20/2004 8:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Sisters: I personally don't like the "future is partly open, partly settled" adage, I think it confuses people.
God knows what God is going to do definitely, that's the settled part.
God knows what God might do and what we might do, that's the open part.
Tom: I feel your pain!  But if you describe "what God is definitely going to do" as "the settled part" and "what God might and might not do" as the open part then a) you limit what is settled and what is open to God's specific choices and don't say anything about those "settled" events which are settled ahead of time by factors other than God's will (like it being settled ahead of time that I'll die ONCE I jump out of a plane without a parchute APART from God having determined that I do so), and b) you STILL end up with a partly settled and partly open future if God settles SOME things and doesn't settle OTHER things! 
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2004 8:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
P.S. I know my salvation is settled
Jo-anne. Here is a favorite page: http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A_OLD/hebrews6.html
We can say that Christ "finished" it all on the Cross. But we are not "saved" until we finish the race. So, we can't fall asleep like those in the parables, or be found unprepared. Jesus says. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/20/2004 2:25 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
Hi Everyone,
I have a question. I have said this countless times, but honestly do not completely understand it myself. Perhaps I never will. I understand that the Open View is really about the future being partly open and partly settled. I've heard that expressed.
Now, my question: Which part of the future is open, and which is settled? What exactly does this mean? Can someone help me understand this?
Thanks & God Bless,
Jo-Anne
P.S. I know my salvation is settled
Jo-anne, God knows people will reject His love. He knows people will accept His love. He's determined to have a bride, a church. This is settled.
He knows His bride will be prepared for Him, He's ordained it. The individuals who will be part of His bride, He has not for-ordained. "whosoever" shows up, He accepts. Those who were invited, declined, so He's inviting others to join. There's a parable about that.
He knows His bride will go through trials and tribulations because He knows the enemy of His bride, yet He has promised He will protect His bride and purify them, bringing good out of the bad that the enemy brings on them.
He knows He will punish the wicked for their choices.
He didn't know the 1969 Mets would win the World Series.
I personally don't like the "future is partly open, partly settled" adage, I think it confuses people.
God knows what God is going to do definitely, that's the settled part.
God knows what God might do and what we might do, that's the open part.
If people would read scripture sans their a-priori deterministic mindset, they might see how generic and vague most pronouncements of the future are. "there will be wars" "there will be earthquakes" "sin will abound" "cats will nap" "dogs will scratch"
Wow. Thank you Sahid, P.O.W. and Starkman for the wonderful answers. This has made me realize that I still do not have a really good grasp on what the Open View teaches about the future being partly open and partly settled, and I can see now how confusing this must be when I share this with others. I don't know if it is just because this view is so different from the status quo, or why it is objected to so vehemently by some. Do any of you have thoughts on that? It has made such a difference in my relationship with the Father, that I want to share it with others; but on the other hand, I feel so immature in my understanding of it - even after reading all the "essential" books by Dr Boyd as well as The God Who Risks by Sanders, and Flame of Love by Pinnock. It took me so long to chug through God At War and Satan and The Problem of Evil. Dr Boyd would probably be aghast if he saw what I did to the margins of all his books and how highlighted they are! Even though I have been warned (literally warned) not to share this view with others, I managed to recommend "Is God To Blame" to the Salvation Army Bookstore in Town, and to my delight - they ordered them! (smile...we find ways of sharing, don't we?)
I bought one of them and gave it to my head elder.  I told him I'd love to discuss it with him (YIKES).
Anyway...thank you for helping me with this. If someone could tell me what they DO share with people to introduce them to the possibility of seeing God differently - I would appreciate that. I do not want to offend people, but the view itself seems to confuse, offend, or anger people. I admit, when a friend; the only other person I know that holds to this view, gave me "God of the Possible" I was confused, and at first could not believe what the book was saying - until I read on, and it started to make practical sense. It is applicable. It resolved the scriptural "mysteries" which I puzzled over previously.
Sisters of Cain,
Thank you for this: "God knows what God is going to do definitely, that's the settled part.
God knows what God might do and what we might do, that's the open part."
I must admit, I had to purpose to set aside my "a-priori determinism" (never heard that term before), and allow the Holy Spirit to show me something new and wonderful, and meaningful. I was told I was wacked by one person (a family member), then that I would "wash up on the shores of destruction" (whatever they meant by that). So it has taken some courage and determination to explore, and it has stretched me in the area of grace; enduring some "bashing" and not retaliating - even smiling back, and being quiet at times when I would love to have shared.
I realize that grace and love in relationships is more important than "being right".
This is wonderful so far. Thanks. I have a lot to learn.
God Bless each of you,
Jo-Anne 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2004 2:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-anne, I have to write quickly because Tom hates my observations and I hear him coming in through the phone wire. But... In my obwervation a lot of OV comes from ex-calvinistic thinking, and failed to completely disentangle itself from certain elements. And it tends to look at the trees and not regard the forest in its interpretation of individual details. And it seems to think its creating a replacement movement instead of addressing single issues.
Gotta run! | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/20/2004 2:51 PM (GMT -6) | |
(TGB) To say that the future is partly open and partly closed/settled is to say something about the PRESENT state of reality, namely, in what ways the world “will,” “will not,” and “might and might not” change in the future. As I write this, the world (at present) is such that some events “will” certainly happen (i.e., their occurring is inevitable given the way the world is right now), some events “will not” happen (i.e., their not occurring is inevitable given the way the world is right now), and some events “might and might not” happen (i.e., neither their occurring nor their not occurring is inevitable given the way the world is right now). What we call the future is the sum total of these three present realities: what will happen, what will not happen, and what might and might not happen. It’s that simple. The future is settled or closed with respect to what “will” and “will not” happen. The future is open with respect to what “might and might not” happen. Some events follow “necessarily” from other events.
(Jo-Anne) TGB, I really appreciate the expanded explanation of the future being partly open and partly settled. It vaguely made sense before, but is beoming a bit clearer now in my thinking. If I make one choice; a choice that is not the Father's best for me - how much do you think that impacts the future. Can I "undo" God's best for other people because of one choice that I make? Does that make sense. My previous tag line was "Choice by choice I affect eternity." How much do you believe that is true? Do we really impact eternity that much - even by our day to day choices?
Another question: Why are people so threatened by the Open View? Why is it sooo ofensive to them?
(TGB) If this is the way reality is, the way the world actually is, then an omniscient God would know it as such. God would know all truths and believe no falsehoods. God would whatever true “will” statements (“x will happen”) there are at any given point in time, whatever true “will not” statements (“x will not happen”) there are at any given point in time, and whatever true “might and might not” statements (“x might and might not happen”) there are at any given point in time. As the world changes and the sum total of truths about the world changes, God keeps immediate and infallible track of the state of the world. He is always omniscient. His knowledge is constantly changing as what he infallibly knows constantly changes.
(Jo-Anne) TGB, somewhere in my reading of either Dr Boyd's books, or possibly Sanders or Pinnock's, I read a quote similar to this: "God knows each and every possibility, as though it were the only possibility". I wish I could remember where I saw this, but what really amazed me; what really amazes me about this thought that you just shared above is His ability to respond perfectly, and without hesitation to an open future. When I realized that, I realized how creatively sovereign He is. Sovereignty took on a whole new meaning for me. Previously, I thought that to be sovereign, there had to be absolute control, and exhaustive foreknowledge. I was much more "Calvin" then I knew. Actually I did not know what Calvinism, or Arminianism, or any of the other views were. I just believed what I was taught (like a good little girl), and dismissed what didn't make sense as the "mysteries" of God. They troubled me though. Certain passages in scripture; as well as certain events that had taken place in my life were particularly troubling, until I came to understand the Father this way.
(TGB) Think of how you approach each new day. You assume that some things about that day “will” happen, some things “will not” happen, and other things “might and might not” happen.
(Jo-Anne) Tom, this is where things get a little "dicy" for people. There is some comfort in believing that God knows exactly what will happen, when it will happen - that He has EVERYTHING under control. I hear that phrase almost every week in church when someone prays. To share something different is like taking a child's carefully constructed tower of blocks, and knocking it over, right before their eyes. How do you share this without destroying someone's sense of security, of comfort...?
(TGB) We DO assume a partly open and partly settled future every day we live. Now we just need a theology that makes sense of how we live. Long time coming!
(Jo-Anne) That is something that I realized about how I prayed. I believed God was in control of everything, knew it all before it happened; but I prayed like I could change things - at least I hoped I could. I did not have the enthusiasm for prayer that I now have - because now I KNOW that my prayers matter.
(TGB) Make sense?
(Jo-Anne) As I learn, it is like watching the fog clear. Things slowly start to come into view. The picture before me starts to make more sense.
(TGB) Now, the idea that if God were temporal (and ONLY temporal) given the existence of a temporal world, God would be “subject” to time and that God being “subject” to anything is a BAD thing is simply misguided.
(Jo-Anne) God does transcend time right? He relates to us in time, but is not limited by time as we are. Another abstract that I'm trying to grasp. What do you mean by God being "temporal?"
(Jo-Anne) I'm afraid you've lost me on the last big about temporal/atemporal...(just a rookie...sorry!)
Wow, I got to the end! Thanks for taking the time to help me with this. I appreciate everyone's insights, explanations...
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/20/2004 3:03 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2004 4:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-anne: That does make sense Tom. This is where the free will of man, free will of other agents, and complexity of creation comes in - right?
PoW: I'm surprised to have had this thought, but it seems sometimes that the OV just UNDER VALUES the role of the human WILL in the big picture. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/20/2004 4:14 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW: Jo-anne, I have to write quickly because Tom hates my observations and I hear him coming in through the phone wire.
Tom: See JoAnne? I told you we'd have to be patient with PoW.
I don't "hate" your observations PoW. Not even close.
Peace!
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 7/20/2004 4:44 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
Now, my question: Which part of the future is open, and which is settled? What exactly does this mean? Can someone help me understand this?
Hi Jo-Anne,
Only God knows which part is open and which part is settled. Unless it has been somehow revealed to us by God, we cannot know precisely how much of the future is able to be changed. However, it seems we can pray "the Serenity Prayer."
As far as people getting upset when first hearing the Open View, much of this reaction stems from the fallacious reasoning many employ, that somehow for God to lead us and guide us the future must be completely definite. I don't know how many times I've heard my Arminian pastor (who I love dearly) use an illustration from his past to demonstrate God's providence and then sum it up by saying, "God KNEW such and such would happen and spoke to us ahead and of time so that we would not be afraid and would trust Him."
Even worse, I've heard classical Arminian pastors say (in almost the same breath) such ridiculous things as, "Prayer changes things...and God is in CONTROL!!!!" A more deterministic thing could hardly be said.
I've often thought that I must have been born an Open Theist. At the age of seven I remember asking my dad what the Bible meant when it said in Gen. 6 that "God repented that he had made mankind, and it grieved him to his heart." My dad really wasn't sure how to fully respond to this typical childlike inquisitiveness, but he certainly didn't try to tell me that this was something us puny humans simply couldn't be expected to understand (which is what I've since learned is basically the standard Calvinistic response to such questions).
Several years before I even had heard of the Open View, I preached a message based on 2 Kings 20 in the A/G church where I pastored, entitled, "Changing God's Mind Through Prayer." When I first discovered the Open View in 1999, I was absolutely elated to find that there were highly educated men like Dr. Boyd who were saying the same thing I had been thinking for several years. Probably the only difficulty I had at first was shedding the whole "God is above time" concept. Once that imagination that exalts itself against the knowledge of God had been cast down, the rest of the Open View was a perfectly natural fit for me.
As far as sharing this wonderful view with others, I find that it is best to stay away from hot-button issues at first, such as "God doesn't know something." Or, if you do want to share that point, start by showing that everyone agrees that there are many things God does not know (like 2 + 2 = 5, or that right is left and up is down, for instance).
Another point I find that is an easy sell with most people is to talk about the virtually unanimous Christian belief that "prayer changes things." I like to use biblical examples when explaining this point. Show the logical contradiction of the future being 100% certain if in fact "prayer changes things" is true. This is an appeal to intuition and to the Bible, for both strongly affirm that prayer changes things and that we can make a difference in history, for better or for worse.
Also, I have found Dr. Boyd's illustration of the contents of a "History of the World" book, written in say, 1492 A.D. to be helpful. If anything in the future is in fact a "possibly this or possibly that," then the book is not complete prior to the actualization of such possibilities in history or the book is written in erasable ink. In either case, the future cannot be "written in stone," if in fact the future contains ANY possibilities.
Finally, I find the emphasis on real possibilities is crucial to an understanding of the OV and communication of this to others. In the Open View, God does not know LESS than in the classical view of foreknowledge--He knows infinitely MORE, because He knows all the possibilities from possibilities, etcetera ad infinitum, in addition to knowing all the certainties within the realm of the future. (In the classical view, God knows far less than in the OV, for in the classical view there is only ONE sequence of events in history, with no real possibilities at all.
An important followup to this last point about the virtually infinite possibilities God knows is that in light of God's infinite INTELLIGENCE, he is able to deal with each and every possibility as if it were the only thing he had to think about (for His intelligence is infinite).
Also, it helps to show how the traditional view of foreknowledge really does nothing to make us more secure in God. If God knows with a certainty that I am going to be shot and killed at a convenience store tomorrow, neither God nor I can change it, and it really is in a sense "the will of God." Personally, I don't see how anyone can find comfort in such a powerless view of God's knowledge.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
| 64 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:26 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|