 |
| 
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/4/2003 7:35 PM (GMT -6) |   | Things you might hear the God of open theism say
The following list of statements are not meant to be offensive to the Open Theist. They are meant to be both humorous and illustrative. Open Theism teaches that God does not know future events, that He can be surprised by them, that He can make mistakes, and that He learns what will happen as people make choices. Therefore, what kinds of things might we hear the God of Open Theism say?
*Ooops
*Doh!
*Uh, oh.
*Oh, no.
*Dang it!
*Shucks!
*Let me get back to you on that.
*Wow, that was a surprise.
*I hope it works out.
*Oh no, now what is he going to do this time?
*No, I haven't heard the joke about the open theist.
*Please, oh please, please, please believe in me.
*I'll not do that again.
*That didn't turn out to well, did it?
*I'll try and get it right next time.
*I'd answer your prayer but I don't know what is going to happen.
*Hey, I just learned something.
*Well, I can always go to plan B.
*Well, I can always go to plan C.
*Well, I can always go to plan D.
This is lighthearted and I mean no mockery nor insult, but this is a way of illustrating a point that the view of God in open theism means that God does not know all of the future and can even make mistakes --otherwise, according to openness, God wouldn't have any regrets.
If we assumed that the god of open theism was true, would it bring you comfort to know that God learns, that God doesn't know the future exhaustively, and that He has to wait to find out what people will do? How would that affect your prayers to Him? Would it give you confidence in God? After all, what if something happens that surprises God and He is unable to answer your prayer? If God is hoping for the best, reacting to people, and working around them to make things happen, then can you really count on God to be the sovereign in-charge Lord of the universe? I think not.
This view is problematic and undermines the trust that we can have in God's absolute sovereignty. It is a reduction of the stature and abilities of God.
By the way, how many open theists does it take to change a light bulb? No one knows untill it happens.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/5/2003 6:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Reminds me of what my dad use to say. "If you're not sure of what you're talking about, you shouldn't be talking about it."
I can't help wonder about someone who says this isn't meant as an insult and then insults the view with a joke.
By and large this is the view of someone who doesn't take the opposing position seriously, nor gives it the respect it deserves.
BTW, I know of no open theist who ASSUMES the position is true, but rather believes it is the best way to interpret scripture. We each should try, as best we can, to see what scripture says, not what would make us feel most comfortable.
Finally, open theists DO NOT believe God does not know the future, but rather he doesn't know the future as set. He does know all the possibilities in the future, however.
Edited by - honorman on 07/05/2003 11:33:04 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 7/5/2003 12:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood
and that He has to wait to find out what people will do? How would that affect your prayers to Him? Would it give you confidence in God?
Ron
I am glad He waits in longsuffering, it meant salvation for me.
Knowing God is longsuffering gives me patience in prayer for the salvation of others.
I trust in Jesus Christ to save me.
Isaiah 30:18 And therefore will the LORD wait, that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for the LORD [is] a God of judgment: blessed [are] all they that wait for him.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Fleetwood
If God is hoping for the best, reacting to people, and working around them to make things happen, then can you really count on God to be the sovereign in-charge Lord of the universe? I think not.
Ron
Matthew 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, [thou] Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
Matthew 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
Matthew 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.
Matthew 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Matthew 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great [is] thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
Matthew 15:29 And Jesus departed from thence, and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and went up into a mountain, and sat down there.
I think yes.
Ron Sirkel | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/5/2003 1:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Things you might hear the God of Fleetwood say
The following statement is not meant to be offensive to Fleetwood. It is meant to be both humorous and illustrative. In Fleetwoods view, a God who faces an open future can't anticipate future possibilities, is surprised by them, can make mistakes, learns what will happen as people make choices and has his providence improved by what he learns. Therefore, what kinds of things might we hear from the God of Fleetwood?
* If only I were smarter I could anticipate possibilities as good as I do certainites. Shucks.
* Good thing I have this crystal ball perspective. Otherwise I'd have to use my intelligence to run this universe, and I'm a little short on that.
* If I were more self secure, I'd risk giving these humans genuine free will. As it stands, NO WAY.
* Heh, don't blame me. I only foresaw it coming an eternity ago!
* I'm terrified of anything that isn't right in front of me so I can control it!
* Those poor humans who have to live adventureously, taking risks, being courageous, using their brains to figure stuff out that doesn't have a foregone conclusion. Ah, if only they'd been made in MY image.
* Do you have any idea how boring it is to watch the same movie an infinite number of times throughout eternity? Maybe those humans aren't so unfortunate.
* Don't ask ME how I regret outcomes I eternally foreknew, create people I know will go to hell, try to save people I know can't be saved, tell Ezekiel his audience might understand that I know full well they won't understand (Ezek 12:3), look for people to stand in the gap I know I won't find (Ezek 22:30-31), speak of the future in terms of what may or may not happen; tell people I change my mind when my mind is eternally made up and test people "to know what's in their heart" when I know full well what they're going to do from all eternity. Just trust me when I say.... urh... don't trust me when I say....
* I mean exactly what I say except when I don't mean what I say, okay?
This is lighthearted and I mean no mockery nor insult, but this is a way of illustrating a point that the view of God held by Fleetwood is a God who is insecure and lacking intelligence and therefore needs a psychic hotline to be trusted.
This view is problematic and undermines the trust that we can have in God's absolute sovereignty. It is a reduction of the stature, intelligence and abilities of God.
By the way, How does Fleetwood's God know how many Gods it takes to change a lightbulb?
He looks ahead and discovers it.
What's good for the goose is good for the ganter.
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.
Edited by - GregBoyd on 07/05/2003 7:00:03 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/5/2003 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | And we're not even talking magnum rounds much less both barrels! I've popped off my .22 and got shot back with a .38. That was enough to enlighten my rear end!
Better learn the open view a tad better, my dear Fleetwood, before you pop off them there .22s. They ain't nuttin' compared to the double-barrel universal sound of SCHUNK-SCHUNK as the rounds are racked in!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/6/2003 5:20 PM (GMT -6) | | I was just thinking of God spending an eternity, pre-creation, planning the holocaust (nine million jews and slavs), the slaughter of Armenians (1 million), the purges of Stalin (~15 million), the "great leap forward" of Mao (~35 million), the slaughter by Pol Pot (3 million) and Whoopi Goldberg movies. What an IMAGINATIVE God. Caricatures fall over so easy.
Edited by - Laika on 07/06/2003 11:02:50 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/6/2003 10:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh, cmon, there has got to be ONE good Whoopi movie out there...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/7/2003 2:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Oh, cmon, there has got to be ONE good Whoopi movie out there...
The ones she never made?
"Follow her down to worship some God, who never speaks to me, I wonder it that's odd, then she says, 'You're never listening'" | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/7/2003 4:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika - you say according to non-open theism, God spent the "time" before creation planning the holocaust,etc etc. According to the OT, God was blind-sided by the holocaust and by all other human and natural disasters.
Doesn't seem like OT offers any comfort either. Either God ordained the bad things that happen to innocent people, or he is powerless to prevent them. Either way, not much comfort.
"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace." - John Lennon | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/7/2003 4:24 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Laika - you say according to non-open theism, God spent the "time" before creation planning the holocaust,etc etc. According to the OT, God was blind-sided by the holocaust and by all other human and natural disasters.
Doesn't seem like OT offers any comfort either. Either God ordained the bad things that happen to innocent people, or he is powerless to prevent them. Either way, not much comfort.
I take comfort in the fact that God doesn't plan and cause evil. You do?
You're a lawyer. Do you convict the parents of criminals because those parents gave birth to them?
How does God rule His creation? Through brute force or through persuasion? How you believe this colours your view of Him.
"Follow her down to worship some God, who never speaks to me, I wonder it that's odd, then she says, 'You're never listening'"
Edited by - Laika on 07/07/2003 09:39:15 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/7/2003 4:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Well first, lawyers don't convict people. Judges and juries do.
And this analogy is patently not applicable. Do parents have the ability to control the children? Are parents omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and perfect? No. End of analogy. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/7/2003 4:44 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Well first, lawyers don't convict people. Judges and juries do.
And this analogy is patently not applicable. Do parents have the ability to control the children? Are parents omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and perfect? No. End of analogy.
And since God is the puppeteer, He is responsible for everything the puppets do. And there's a reason the puppeteer made me reject your deterministic view of Himself. Puzzling...
"Follow her down to worship some God, who never speaks to me, I wonder it that's odd, then she says, 'You're never listening'"
Edited by - Laika on 07/07/2003 09:49:00 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/7/2003 4:44 AM (GMT -6) | | RD,
quote:
According to the OT, God was blind-sided by the holocaust and by all other human and natural disasters.
Wait! Think through what you've just said here. (First, God is never blind-sided. Second, this is not the Open View!) To believe that God is blind-sided by anything is to forget that God reads minds, reads hearts, knows all possibilities and plausibilites, can foresee things well in advanced based on the minds, hearts, plans and trajectories of men, and is quite able to control the future as He sees fit (yes, there may be those "rules of engagement" we've talked about here, but nevertheless).
It has never been the Open View's position that God is helpless, non-omniscient or blind-sided. How in the world can that be possible in the OV simply because some of the future is open? You are still facing off, RD, with what so many folk face off with when they encounter the OV: that somehow God becomes less knowing and less powerful and less ... well less a whole lot of things. He doesn't. Not at all. The OV simply means that God addresses some of the future as it comes upon Him, but NOT like we do: blind-sidedly. By definition, being God means He CAN'T be blind-sided; but ... by definition, being God does not mean He has to know all of the future as if it's already happened.
Talk to yourself about these perspectives you're holding to, RD. Talk them through out loud, if need be. (I do when I'm in my car or walking ... by myself, you see. I don't want anyone thinking that I'm anymore blind-sided than I already am!) But take a statement or perspective you have and literally talk through it out loud. (Yeah, I'm giving you some advise to get passed some of these OV issues which simply aren't true. It's the only way you're finally going to get that light to go on and the bell to ring so that you can say, "Ah! I got it!" You won't anser all the questions you have, but you'll sure as hek feel your feet hit solid earth below them!)
For working through it,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/7/2003 5:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Starkman - I used the word "blind sided" in a sarcastic manner. I understand what the open view is- I'm quoting from this website:
"Response to #2 | Isn’t it true that God doesn’t know the future in the open view?
This is perhaps the most common misconception about the Open view. Open theists and Classical theists disagree about the nature of the future, not about God’s exhaustive foreknowledge of it. While Classical theists believe that the future consists entirely of settled realities, Open theists believe that the future is partly settled and partly open to possibilities, and thus that God perfectly foreknows it as such.
Critics who accuse Open theists of denying God’s foreknowledge of the future (or of demeaning God’s sovereignty) are sadly misrepresenting the view rather than acknowledging the common ground both views share. In addition to God’s foreknowledge of the future and God’s absolute sovereignty, the common ground these views share includes the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ; the authority of Scripture; and the doctrine of the Trinity; among many other core Christian beliefs."
I simply disagree with this. I think it is illogical to say that the future is partly open, partly settled. What does this mean, in practicality? For example, was the Holocaust a settled event, or not? How do we know what are settled events and what events come to pass through other means? Actually, there is no way to differentiate.
I see the OV saying "partly settled" in order to get around the fact of prophecy. If we say, things are open, but only those things that are prophesized are settled, it may seem to solve the problem. But in actuality, it does not. To me, if anything is settled at all, it necessitates that everything must be settled. Otherwise what is there to ensure that the necessary causative events occur that produce the predicted event?
OK, you say God knows the future as a set of possibilities- so he is not blindsided. Well then why would God repent of things in the Old Testament? Why would he ever say "might" - like the thread on counterfactuals has exhausted ad nauseum? If he knows all possibilities, then he does know everything, and would never be surprised, would never have to "repent" of anything, or "regret" anything. The words "surprise" and "repent"- in our human English language, imply non-perfection. If someone is surprised, then they didn't see it coming. Were caught unaware. If someone repents, they turn from their wrong ways. If someone regrets, they are sorry b/c they wish they would have done things differently . All of these words mean imperfection to us. I maintain that they are used anthropomorphically (sp?) in the Old Testament. OV'ers claim they are to be taken literally.
If they are to be taken literally, though, then how did God know the events as possibilities? IF something is possible and God knows it, why would he be surprised, or why would he repent or regret things? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/7/2003 8:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, I'm glad to know that you really don't think that God is blind-sided (whew!)  So let's consider the rest of your post.
quote:
I think it is illogical to say that the future is partly open, partly settled. What does this mean, in practicality? For example, was the Holocaust a settled event, or not? How do we know what are settled events and what events come to pass through other means? Actually, there is no way to differentiate.
That you cannot satisfactorily identify what is and is not open does not mean that nothing is open. We don't have to exhaustively know what is and is not open in order for the truth to be. And yes, something of a distinction can be made between the settled and the open. I'll give an example of that futher on.
quote:
I see the OV saying "partly settled" in order to get around the fact of prophecy. If we say, things are open, but only those things that are prophesized are settled, it may seem to solve the problem. But in actuality, it does not. To me, if anything is settled at all, it necessitates that everything must be settled. Otherwise what is there to ensure that the necessary causative events occur that produce the predicted event? [Emphasis Starkman's]
Here again is what I was saying before about the immediate confrontation with the open view a classicalist concludes: that God is less powerful in the OV than in the classical or traditional view.
Really, do we think it is that hard for God to control and arrange the affairs of the world (universe for that matter) to ultimately conclude it the way He said it will be concluded? Not knowing the future exhaustively hardly disables God's omnipotence. But there is that voice in the classicalist or traditionalist's mind: God just couldn't orchestrate things well enough to fulfill prophecy if He has He neither predestined all of the future nor knows it exhaustively. Couldn't: Can't. Isn't able to. Not omnipotent.
You see, the concept here of omnipotence is similar to the concept of omniscience. There are things God cannot do; Classicalists and Traditionalists (and OVers) acknowledge this. But we don't consider those "can nots" as a threat to the security of God's throne. But see, Classicalists and Traditionalists can only live with the "God can not" part IF omniscience means God "knows" EVERYTHING (no exception as in the exceptions to omnipotence). Something of ominipotence deteriorates in the mind of the Classicalist and Traditionalist if omniscience is defined any other way than God knowing everything exhuastively, including the future. The OV simply says that the definition of omniscience is knowing all propositional truth values rather than defined as knowing everything that is and isn't. Thus, as omnipotence can have its definition NOT include God being literally able to do everything, so, too, omniscience can mean that God doesn't have to know EVERYTHING, particularly that which hasn't even happened yet.
Moving on ...
Here is an example of this in action, a means of proving there is a differentiation between the settled and the open, though my point is not to necessarily differentiate specifics as it is to demonstrate the two (the settled and the open) are in existence.
Say God appears before me right now and says, "Keith, I know exactly what you're going to do in one minute. See, I know this because I saw it all happen, like a movie being played out, in eternity past." (Remember, God must know EVERYTHING from ETERNITY PAST if He knows all things. There can't be this sudden "I created something and NOW I can know all things about it. That won't work in the Classical or Tradtional view.)
Well, God goes on to tell me what I'm going to do in one minute. He tells me I'm going to look over to the left, then blink, and then scratch my head. After all, He has seen EVERYTHING (thought, word, action, deed, emotion, movement. There is nothing of the future He has not seen. He must have seen it all).
You know what I do? I wait till the minute's up, and then I sit down and don't do any of those things God said I was going to do. You might think that God will then say, "Well, I knew you were going to do that too. I saw it already in eternity past." Okay, then, why didn't God tell me that I was going to sit down? You know why He canot have told me that? Because there was no time from the past up to the very moment that I decide what it is I'm going to do so that it could be known what I will do. My movement wasn't known in the past, because I prove it wasn't; the free will I have demonstrates the effectiveness of the open view, because it is most faithful to how things really are.
Now, is EVERY situation like this--open with no interference or influence making the decision not a decision but a compatibilism or determinism? No. We see times in Scripture where God controls things seemingly (and perhaps so) beyond the choice of a free-will person. But those are the exceptions, not the norm. We also know there is that part of history God has already determined. Any honest OVer will admit that there are troublesome Scriptures regarding the Open View. But problem exist in any doctrinally held position, not just the OV.
quote:
OK, you say God knows the future as a set of possibilities- so he is not blindsided. Well then why would God repent of things in the Old Testament? Why would he ever say "might" - like the thread on counterfactuals has exhausted ad nauseum? If he knows all possibilities, then he does know everything, and would never be surprised, would never have to "repent" of anything, or "regret" anything. The words "surprise" and "repent"- in our human English language, imply non-perfection. If someone is surprised, then they didn't see it coming. Were caught unaware. If someone repents, they turn from their wrong ways. If someone regrets, they are sorry b/c they wish they would have done things differently . All of these words mean imperfection to us. I maintain that they are used anthropomorphically (sp?) in the Old Testament. OV'ers claim they are to be taken literally.
Is there only ONE context for being surprised, angry, regretful, repentive? Must the only context in which these terms can be used is in the context you've given? Can a parent (an example, again, of the way things really are) not be surprised that their child did such and such without the surprise being in the context of "I didn't know this was possible? I had no idea that it could happen?" Similarly, can a parent regret having given a child X freedom without confining the parent's regret to that of failure (the parent didn't "fail" because the child mis-handled freedom)?
You must broaden your concept of these terms as to how you yourself would use them in every day life; and you certainly do not use these terms in only a context of failure. The Open View recognizes the day-to-day heart God expresses. Nothing to do with failure, just the ramifications of having a relationship with semi-free humanbeings.
I have GOT to go!!!
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 07/07/2003 9:18:11 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:45 AM (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 |
|
|