 |
| 
AbuGian
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 7/18/2004 6:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | - Open theism; open view theism.
- It deals with human free will and its relationship to God and of the things future
- God can know all things but chose not to know all for human beings to be able to make genuinely free choices (their main premise is that what God knows future God causes to come to pass)
- God certainly knows some things future because he will make it come to pass.
- Pet verses: Exodus 32:14; Isaiah 5:3–7; Genesis 22:12
Did I just accurately describe OVTheism?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/18/2004 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't speak for all open theists. The past doesn't exist, but God knows it exactly as it was. The future doesn't exist either, but God will know it fully as he provides for its existence. But God has created man in His own image. Just as God can make choices and effect change, so can man. God is not greedy, and He's not insecure. He has no problem allowing the creatures He loves to love Him back. The thing is, if you've programmed your creatures in such a way that they are perfectly predictable, then they cannot sincerely love. All they can do (in fact they are forced to) is obey by following the destiny planned for them. If I make a robot that confesses it loves me every five minutes, so what? But if I am strong and wise enough to create a robot that can choose what it wants and can even surprise me, not only am I an amazing builder, but any love for me that the robot has is now sincere; it's genuine.
The future hasn't been created yet, and God is not its sole creator. He has shared some of it with us. But rest assured, God still is the biggest, and what He plans to do, He will do.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/18/2004 12:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
- Open theism; open view theism.
- It deals with human free will and its relationship to God and of the things future
- God can know all things but chose not to know all for human beings to be able to make genuinely free choices (their main premise is that what God knows future God causes to come to pass)
- God certainly knows some things future because he will make it come to pass.
- Pet verses: Exodus 32:14; Isaiah 5:3–7; Genesis 22:12
Did I just accurately describe OVTheism?
A few things:
God did not limit His knowledge. Apart from that future God has ordained, and apart from that future which is obvious before God--e.g., you're heart's going to give out very soon--the rest of the future is simply not a reality. It hasn't happened and there's nothing to know.
Otherwise, I think I can see between the lines as to what you mean, but your understanding just needs to be expressed more clearly and completely so we can see if there's any misconceptions.
Thanks much,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/18/2004 5:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Abu: Did I just accurately describe OVTheism?
Tom: Nope.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
AbuGian
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 7/18/2004 11:25 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Abu: Did I just accurately describe OVTheism?
Tom: Nope.
Why? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/19/2004 2:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by AbuGian
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Abu: Did I just accurately describe OVTheism?
Tom: Nope.
Why?
Like starkman said, for starters there's nothing to KNOW about the future. Future facts don't exist.
When God declares that's He's going to do something in the future, He has the power to make sure it happens.
This is not passive knowlege, this is declarative intention.
I have similar declarative intention. I declare I will wear white socks tomorrow. When I show up with white socks tomorrow, will you grant that I have "exhaustive foreknowlege" as well?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/19/2004 4:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Interesting name, AbuGian. Are you Middle Eastern?
I’ll offer why I think you summary is not entirely accurate.
quote:
AbuGian: - It deals with human free will and its relationship to God and of the things future.
There’s a difference between saying open theism “deals with human free will and its relationship to God” and saying open theism “deals with our relationship to God and its implications for human free will.” The difference is very important to open theists and is why your summary isn't entirely accurate. I, as an open theist, am not about championing a particular view of free will first and then working out the implications this has for my understanding of God. I’m about championing a particular relationship to God and then working out the implications this has for my understanding of freedom. It’s what we believe God’s intentions for creating and relating to us are that, for me at least, decide where we come out on the question of freedom.
I've said it a lot (others have too): It's not about freedom. It's about loving relationship. As far as I'm able to tell, freedom follows FROM that, not the other way around.
quote:
AbuGian: - God can know all things but chose not to know all for human beings to be able to make genuinely free choices (their main premise is that what God knows future God causes to come to pass)
“God CAN know all things but CHOOSES NOT TO KNOW all [things] for human beings to be able to make free choices…” isn’t open theism at all. Choosing not to know what is there to be known (besides not making sense of "how" one would do such a thing) ends up denying omniscience, which we don't want to do.
Open theism, on the other hand, argues that the “openness” is ontological, that is, it’s the way the world really is irregardless of whether we know it or not. But what you say here seems to me to suggest that you think the “openness” isn’t real, it’s apparent. And it’s only apparent because God “chooses to not know what he COULD know.” That is, all my future choices are knowable before I make them, and God could know them but chooses not to in order to preserve my freedom. But even if an omniscient God could choose NOT TO KNOW some truths, this wouldn’t preserve my freedom. In order for my freedom to do other than I do to make sense (again, to me at least), I have to believe my freedom reflects the reality of the situation and not God’s ignorance of the reality of the situation. Make sense? So, it’s not that God CAN know all things BUT CHOOSES NOT TO KNOW all things. It’s that God DOES know all things AND the all things God knows include REAL (real for God as well as for me) options. God believes, in some instances at least, that “x might and might not happen” is true. And in these cases, “x will happen” and “x will not happen” are by definition false. So omniscience simply means “God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods,” and this is consistent with there being some true “might and might not” propositions about the future. Clear as mud?
quote:
AbuGian: - God certainly knows some things future because he will make it come to pass.
Well, that God can know as certain what he intends to bring about unconditionally is certainly true. This is precisely how theological determinists argue God knows the future. Since God unconditionally determines ALL THIGNS, he can know the future exhaustively as what “will” and “will not” come to pass. But to “summarize” open theism as believing that God knows the future with certainty only in this sense isn’t true. God can know what will certainly come about if he’s making it certain by determining it unconditionally. But that’s not the ONLY way God is able to know what will certainly come to pass. Some things that happen determinately are determined by physical laws and not an unconditional decree of God. God knows those things too, and whatever else happens as the inevitable result of existing factors. And this would include predictable behavior flowing from a character sufficiently solidified over time by the free choices of an agent (like knowing for certain that when an incorrigible alcoholic passes in front of her favorite bar with $20 in her purse, she'd "certainly" go in and buy a drink). God can know some future actions certainly without having determined the action where our wills are sufficiently cemented into good or evil in certain circumstances. So your summary sentence is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t capture other ways God can know with certainty what will happen and it doesn’t summarize why it is that God knows some of the future as what “might and might not” occur.
When summarizing a view, try to think of the “core values” necessary to that view. Try this: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2543
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2004 5:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Both the OV-ers and the Calvinist/Arminians who decry the OV have something in common. While the OV-ers take certain expressions in scripture to be literal and the antiOV-ers take them to be "anthropomorphizations, BOTH exercise a hermaneutic that parallels if not owes it existance to journalism (Print or broadcast, you take your pick.) The expectation is that certain sets of words are exactly what God "said." A fly on the wall put it to wax, or ink, or MP3 -- and here we have it.
SHIFTING TOPICS FOR A MOMENT,
AWAY FROM "KNOWLEDGE" AND ONTO HERMANEUTICS
In contrast is how an Athanasias looked at the Gospels concerning the divinity and the humanity of Christ. In theology Athanasias held that the words are there in the OT, but that the NT perspective is required to understand them. BUT, as to hermaneutics (Hope I'm spelling that right, Tom!) Athanasias held that we have to take the text account for itself, and reading the whole story and seeing and understanding its end, then understand how to recognize in it those elements that reveal the humanity (like eating; which Christ's divinity did not need) and the divinity (like working miracles; that humanity cannot do). THAT is called "partative exigesis." (There, I spelled it another way.)
BACK TO THE TOPIC.
Now, if we are only interested in proving our "side" in "the arguement" then this is useless. Annoying even. But if our aim is to understand the texts, and to find application to our life with God, then it is very important.
Partitive hermaneutic recognizes that some things are revelatory of one aspect (which can be thought about separately, yet does not divide from the whole of Christ's be-ing) and others of another, without any of them being false. Like the Etheopian Eunich who asked "I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?" and needed to know "who" before interpreting the text, Athanasias needed to know first "who" in terms of divinity or humanity the "today have I begotten thee" refered. (And, he differred strongly with Arias in his answer!!!)
In only an analogous fashion -- lot literally the same thing -- we need to approach each text in this "arguement" and find out what is being revealed. What is the purpose for its being written down -- what is the prophet revealing?!! And then let us not add our own meanings, either "literal/journalistic" or "anthropomorphic" upon it afterwards.
If we can help our compulsions.
Thank you.
PotOnWheel
____________________________________________________
Jeremiah
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/19/2004 7:05 AM (GMT -6) | | POW: as to hermaneutics (Hope I'm spelling that right, Tom!)…
Tom: HermEneutics. 
POW: …Athanasias held that we have to take the text account for itself…
Tom: Hey that’s new! Nobody else in this debate has suggested that.
POW: …and reading the whole story and seeing and understanding its end, then understand how to recognize in it those elements that reveal the humanity…and the divinity.
Tom: Who in this debate doesn’t intend to do just that?
POW: Now, if we are only interested in proving our "side" in "the arguement" then this is useless.
Tom: Can I disagree with you without your concluding that I do so only because I want simply to prove my “side” of the argument? Just wanna know.
POW: We need to approach each text in this "argument" and find out what is being revealed. What is the purpose for its being written down -- what is the prophet revealing?!! And then let us not add our own meanings, either "literal/journalistic" or "anthropomorphic" upon it afterwards.
Tom: Who doesn’t think they’ve done precisely that? Doesn’t this simply beg the question? I think I get open theism from the text as it is without adding my own meaning. Calvinists think they do the same thing. You think you do the same thing.
It doesn’t help to suggest that those who disagree with you are both wrong because they don’t take the text as it is without adding their own meaning and that if they only corrected this they’d see things your way.
I’m not helped here.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 7/19/2004 1:36 PM (GMT -6) | | | POW: you have picture of Jeremiah?! I didn't know they had cameras then (is it me or just he look a lot like Jesus?) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2004 1:48 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
POW: you have picture of Jeremiah?! I didn't know they had cameras then (is it me or just he look a lot like Jesus?)
This is MOSES from the same Vatican website:
Iconography grows out of a tradition where the "type" of person is more important than the details. And even details often (in Egyptian funerary painted pannels) were rendered on a pre-started prototype. Moses looks a lot like Jeremiah there, doesn't he? But both are recognizable as prophets, in stead of martyrs, etc.
It works, and they didn't try to fix it.
Mamma please don't take my Kodachrome away! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/28/2004 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/28/2004 8:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Mark C.
Mark C. here again.
I see alot the words "know" and "knowledge" in reference to man’s ability to know God or know the mind of God or God’s ways. Some of these posts are quite silly logically even though many are well thought out and studied. In the first place: How can man know God? Second: How can created finite man have or gain absolute knowledge about the Uncreated Infinite God, and Thirdly, be so bold as to claim such ability? Can a cockroach teach Steve Hawking about quantum theory? Or, Mr. Hawking teach a roach? How can puny man be so elevated that he claims to know God or about God and that in any absolute way? Is there a logical way through this Open Theism?
Indeed, how can anyone "know" whether it was proper for Augustine to bring greek/manichaean thought into Christian theology?
Or how can anyone "know" that Open Theism is wrong?
Such is the conundrum of "knowlege". A conundrum, wrapped in an enigma with a side order of mystery.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/28/2004 9:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
But He said, "The things that are impossible with people are possible with God." No, God is not strong enough nor is He smart enough nor is He loving enough to make a creature that could know Him. God can do a lot of things, but not that. There's too much of a difference between God and man. It's not like God actually became man and restored the relationship. No, even if God wanted man to know Him (which, of course He doesn't; He doesn't love us), He couldn't pull it off. That is impossible for God.
Exactly! Why would God create people in His image and in a way He could communicate with them? It's all a mystery, except for our knowlege that it's a mystery. That we can know. 
If an ignorant man tells you all men are ignorant, can you believe him?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 7/28/2004 9:40 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/28/2004 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by billzbob
Doesn't God take care of all of that?
that, yes, but what about this???
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:44 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 |
|
|