 |
| 
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/16/2003 1:01 AM (GMT -6) |   | Christian,
The OV contains many flaws. Ultimately, it leads to a sense of emptiness since the person's will, in finality, usurps the power of God. Starkman's comment reflects this emptiness of a life lived where the human will is greater than God's sovereignty and knowledge. "We simply live, act and operate as if this is the way it is" is a rather futile state of living. It is a description of life in which God is merely a spectator. The OV fights to defend what OV perceives to be God's inabilities rather than to submit to his undeniable greatness and authority.
And further more! I'll call your mommie and give her the what-have-you about you! (That's all I could think of to say after TGB addressed your response to me.)
Thanks Tom buddy!
Starkman
(After I call your mommie, Christian, I'll call my mommie too! So there!   )
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown
Edited by - Starkman on 05/16/2003 06:03:50 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/16/2003 2:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman: (That's all I could think of to say after TGB addressed your response to me.) Thanks Tom buddy!
Tom: Ooooops. Sorry 'bout that. So tempting to jump in sometimes. 
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/16/2003 3:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Don't mind at'all, I don't!
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
groovychick
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 14
| Posted 5/16/2003 8:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey! What's with the calling-your-mommy jive?! I have bunches of quest about this so called open view. I was told to check out this place from a good friend. No names mentioned! I'm not looking for rude replies though so if that's you, don't write! I see that kinda cr-- goes on a lot here! I browsed a bit before joining. The mommy jokes damage your testimony of open view ya know! That's not what I'm looking for. Thanks a bunch! Who's got probs. with open view? I do. I'd like to hear from those who do and what they are and anyone who doesn't, why not? Why don't you have a problem with it?
To God Be the Glory, Great Things He Hath Done! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/16/2003 8:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey groovychick, yer a chick but how do we know you're really groovy????
What is a proper test for grooviness?
Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through? | | Back to Top | | |
|
groovychick
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 14
| Posted 5/16/2003 8:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Laika! Groovy is that little flashing spacepuppy you got going on there! Haha! He's stylin'! Grooviness cannot be measured. One knows it when one sees it. I see it all over that dog! 
To God Be the Glory, Great Things He Hath Done! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/16/2003 8:55 AM (GMT -6) | | groovychick really is groovy
quote:
Hey Laika! Groovy is that little flashing spacepuppy you got going on there! Haha! He's stylin'! Grooviness cannot be measured. One knows it when one sees it. I see it all over that dog!
Flattery will get you EVERYWHERE.
Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?
Edited by - Laika on 05/16/2003 1:56:41 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
groovychick
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 14
| Posted 5/16/2003 9:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Did you notice his little puppydog tail wags to the beat of his flashing brain waves? That's groovy! 
To God Be the Glory, Great Things He Hath Done! | | Back to Top | | |
|
exborg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 5/16/2003 10:21 AM (GMT -6) | | groovychick-
I like your attitude. Theology is usually so draining cause ya usually end of shouting at others. I hope you can stay happy talking about theology with others. It's not easy. I hung out here just reading stuff for awhile before joining. Have read here and there, pro's and con's about open theism. Got the basics, but still have questions too.
So, with groovychick, I'd like to hear from those who don't like the open view what the bottom line objection is. And from those who like it, what's the bottom line advantage?
exborg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/16/2003 1:37 PM (GMT -6) | |
Some views tend or lend themselves to making God and me a prisoner of His own foreknowledge, the OV tries to avoid that at some, but not all cost. The OV sees the future as being open and not fixed in God’s knowledge of things, God changing His mind and that kind of stuff; I have no problem with the view from here, though some of its professors and distracters are mean, as you have mentioned.
So watch the sparks fly like pretty fireworks  , they’re so groovy chickadee, my girl.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/16/2003 4:28 PM (GMT -6) | |
Here is my argument,
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2057
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/16/2003 8:28 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Leila, continue your search. You ask good questions. Foreknowledge and free will are compatible yet difficult to grasp. The OV contains many flaws.
And these would be?
quote:
Ultimately, it leads to a sense of emptiness since the person's will, in finality, usurps the power of God.
No one can usurp the power of God; your statement is just plain nonsense. No OV theist has ever said that any human has more power than God. As to whether or not it "leads to a sense of emptiness," I for one can say that is most definitely not the case. The more fully I have studied Open Theism and embraced it, the more wonderful, loving, merciful and awe-inspiring God has become to me. When I used to believe the traditional foreknowledge view, I was nearly constantly beset with doubts about God's goodness and righteousness.
quote:
Starkman's comment reflects this emptiness of a life lived where the human will is greater than God's sovereignty and knowledge.
What king has to micromanage each and every word, thought, and deed in his kingdom in order to be truly sovereign?
quote:
"We simply live, act and operate as if this is the way it is" is a rather futile state of living. It is a description of life in which God is merely a spectator.
Actually, the simple foreknowledge view is the one in which "God is merely a spectator." OVT highlights God's relational and personal aspects, not that he is "merely a spectator." Where do you get the idea that OVT presents God as merely a spectator?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Leila
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 5/17/2003 9:35 AM (GMT -6) | | It’s been interesting reading the different views on this topic. My thought process so far:
(1) Is God sovereign over all things or does he grant freedom?
(a) First I turn to scripture. I am certainly no Bible scholar, but it seems to me the arguments both for and against God giving us freedom can be supported. Thus, I cannot look to scripture for any conclusive answer on this topic.
(b) Then I turn to practical concerns. It seems that the problem of evil is insurmountable. And what about prayer? Why would God urge us to pray if our prayers can’t possibly make a difference? Why would God wish for all to be saved if it was all pre-ordained anyway? (Any Calvinists who can answer these questions for me?)
(c) So I (tentatively) conclude God grants freedom.
(2) Does God foreknow all?
(a) Again, I turn to scripture first. And again, I am not convinced one way or the other.
(b) Then I turn to reason. With the help of this discussion, I have come to believe that it is not logically possible for God to foreknow all and grant us freedom.
(3) I don't really understand molinism. Perhaps I'll look into that later, but for now, I'll take Alan's word that it is refutable and internally inconsistent.
(4) So I am left with tentatively accepting the Open View. And here’s why I like it. The Open View makes me feel like I can have a true back and forth relationship with God. And that’s not to say that I am humanizing Him, but basically that I am more than a pawn in his chessgame. It makes me feel like my prayers matter and that God is not always responsible when bad things happen. And if I can easily accept that God gives us free will, what’s so hard about accepting that He allows us to influence Him?
Of course this could all be wrong. Maybe the ultimate answer is something beyond my comprehension and no amount of analyzing and study could get me there. But if it's wrong, does it really matter? Not as long as the bottom line unaffected and I still love God. But in fact, I feel that the Open View makes it easier for me to love God. And that alone, whether right or wrong, may be reason enough to espouse it.
So there’s my thought process for all it’s worth. I’d appreciate hearing feedback from everyone – whether you think I get it or am totally off base. (And if you think I'm really missing it, or just a theological idiot, please be gentle with your critique.) Thanks!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 5/17/2003 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Exborg, the bottom line objection to OV is that it limits God's omniscience by arguing that he does not have a complete knowledge of the future.
There is a dichotomy according to the OV in which God is either a passionate, changing, intimate God (OV theism) or he is the cold and indifferent God of classic theism. The OV denies that a God who is all-powerful can be relational as well. The OV mischaracterizes the God of classic theism.
The OV claims that God chooses to not know the future but rather He adjusts His plans based on our choices in a give and take relationship between man and God.
The God of the OV replaces the God of classic theism by changing Him to a God who risks, who feels surprise and disappointment with our choices (which He cannot know beforehand), who works with us responding to us and adjusting to us. The God of classic theism is one who has absolute sovereignty and knows all things, even future things.
In the OV, God is not sovereign over man; man is sovereign unto himself.
Romans 3:11, There is no one who seeks after God, they have all turned aside. Ephesians 2:1, And you were dead in your trespasses and sins. It took the sovereignty of God to save me, because I wouldn’t and couldn’t come to Him freely. John 6:65, No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.
In the OV, it is the will of man that is omnipotent over the will and the intentions of God.
In the classical view, man acts freely, while at the same time God is working in man both to will and to do His good pleasure. If I act in accordance with my desires, even if my desires and my actions are ordained by God, my actions are still free, I’m still responsible for them, and God is still sovereign. The OV says this cannot be so.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/17/2003 3:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Leila,
quote:
(4) So I am left with tentatively accepting the Open View. And here’s why I like it. The Open View makes me feel like I can have a true back and forth relationship with God. And that’s not to say that I am humanizing Him, but basically that I am more than a pawn in his chessgame. It makes me feel like my prayers matter and that God is not always responsible when bad things happen. And if I can easily accept that God gives us free will, what’s so hard about accepting that He allows us to influence Him?
This is it! This is really--rock-bottom--what it's all about (if you ask me!). This is why I said earlier Ultimately, if you ask me, the strongest argument for the Open View is our own lives. We simply live, act and operate as if this is the way it is. And God seems to agree.
Bottom line: this is what it's all about.
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/17/2003 3:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Christian,
quote:
Exborg, the bottom line objection to OV is that it limits God's omniscience by arguing that he does not have a complete knowledge of the future.
No, the OV doesn't limit God's omniscience; it simply defines omniscience differently than you define it. OT doesn't believe there's necessarily any future to know beyond that particular future God has ordained as determined. Your view (the Classical View, I assume) says God's omniscience must include the future. (I'd say the OV claims your view is weak BECAUSE your view claims God has knows the future.) It's merely a difference in defining omniscience, not limiting God.
quote:
There is a dichotomy according to the OV in which God is either a passionate, changing, intimate God (OV theism) or he is the cold and indifferent God of classic theism. The OV denies that a God who is all-powerful can be relational as well. The OV mischaracterizes the God of classic theism.
No, the OV does not mischaracterize the God of classic theism; it redefines the concept of omniscience. Still the same God, though. Further, the OV does not believe that God is a "changing" God.
You really have a lot of misconceptions about the OV, Christian.
quote:
The OV claims that God chooses to not know the future but rather He adjusts His plans based on our choices in a give and take relationship between man and God.
You couldn't have made it more obvious (your misconceptions about the OV), Christian, that you do not yet understand the OV, and you are mischaracterizing it badly. For the record: the OV does not believe that God "chooses not to know the future." (Horrible misrepresentation, Christian. It just is.) The OV believes that there simply is no future (other than that future God has ordained and deterimined) in existence to know. He NEVER limits what He knows and pretends He doesn't know it, or "erases" it out of His memory banks. Not at all (Study more!)
quote:
The God of the OV replaces the God of classic theism by changing Him to a God who risks, who feels surprise and disappointment with our choices (which He cannot know beforehand), who works with us responding to us and adjusting to us. The God of classic theism is one who has absolute sovereignty and knows all things, even future things.
No, the OV doesn't change God at all. The OV CAN'T change God. He's who He is. Period. Now, you were going kind of fine there with "... who feels surprise and disappointment with our choices ...." But then you had to throw in that dig with "The God of classic theism is one who has absolute sovereignty ...." That's completely unrelated to there being a future or no future for God to know. Sovereignty is NOT the issue here. The God of the OV is as sovereign as the God of Classical Theism. (As I noted, the OV simply cannot change God; and that includes His sovereignty.) God is still on the throne and quite capable of running the world just as efficiently and just as sovereignly as Classical Theism would have Him running the world.
quote:
In the OV, God is not sovereign over man; man is sovereign unto himself.
Well, now you've simply gone way outside any bounds of OV theology. (Any OVers here believe that man is sovereign to himself? Eee gads, Christian. Ease up, dude!
quote:
Romans 3:11, There is no one who seeks after God, they have all turned aside. Ephesians 2:1, And you were dead in your trespasses and sins. It took the sovereignty of God to save me, because I wouldn’t and couldn’t come to Him freely. John 6:65, No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.
Well, we might have to talk about what it means to come to God freely. But if what you mean is no one would be able to come to God if He didn't "draw" them (John 6:44), then fine. But that doesn't sound like what you're saying. You're inserting the word "freely" in here when freedom isn't the issue.
quote:
In the OV, it is the will of man that is omnipotent over the will and the intentions of God.
Well, you just left us OVers again! None that I know believes this. Sheesh, a Christian would have to be a complete nincompoop to believe that!)
quote:
In the classical view, man acts freely, while at the same time God is working in man both to will and to do His good pleasure.
This contradicts what you just said: "It took the sovereignty of God to save me, because I wouldn’t and couldn’t come to Him freely." If man can act freely, then he must also be able to freely respond to the prompting of the Spirit of God. Just because God come to God. (That God draws a man doesn't mean that the man doesn't freely respond to the draw. But, that's the debate between Calvin and Arminius. Not the issue in regard a definition of omniscience.
quote:
If I act in accordance with my desires, even if my desires and my actions are ordained by God, my actions are still free, I’m still responsible for them, and God is still sovereign. The OV says this cannot be so.
Hek, YOU'RE saying it cannot be so. I mean, which is it: You're free to act or God ordained your actions? Can't be both. Further, the issue is compounded by the idea that God holds one responsible for what He ordained the one to do. THAT does not make sense, Calvinism or no Calvinism. (Re-read Romans 9-11 carefully.)
Christian, you owe it to yourself and to the rest of the board to do your research and spend a good deal of time with an open heart, studying what the OV is. Then when you want to post and debate, you'll be doing it from an educated position, and you'll both gain respect and give it. It ain't easy to let your guard down and just say, "Okay, I'm really going to see what this is about," but that's what you need to do. Many here already have.
For the Open View,
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown
Edited by - Starkman on 05/17/2003 9:22:14 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Leila
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 5/18/2003 3:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Starkman. Could anyone else respond to my preliminary OV analysis? This is exciting to me and I really want to make sure I get it. Thanks!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/18/2003 4:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey there again Leila,
What is the most convincing argument in support of OT; is it Scriptural . . .
Exd 19:3,6And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and [how] I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
The contingency of if/then in the above Scripture shows that the future is open to possibilities, rather than all determined. That is God has only determined what He will do if they meet the condition, keep my covenant?
For what it’s worth, here’s what I believe or my understanding of the subject . . .
God is infinitely wise, with universal knowledge; knows all those things, which are possible as possible, certain as certain, contingent as contingent, and all those things, which are foreordained as predestined conclusion.
God, with an infinite foreknowledge or intelligence, without fatalistic determinism, remains free to make decisions and alter purposes according to His own will and wisdom; He is not a prisoner of His own foreknowledge.
That I am the desire of God and His being; loved and born to love, this is the miracle of life; Gods creation.
From here in left field, my Father appears to be masculine. - Tim | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/19/2003 2:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Christian: Exborg, the bottom line objection to OV is that it limits God's omniscience by arguing that he does not have a complete knowledge of the future.
Tom: exborg, if the few posts you offered us are any indication of your understanding of the open view, then I think you’ll see that Christian’s summary of the OV here is not accurate. The open view does not argue that God does not have complete knowledge of the future. On the contrary, we argue God does have complete knowledge of the future.
Now, Starkman answered by saying: “No, the OV doesn't limit God's omniscience; it simply defines omniscience differently than you define it.”
I think this is wrong too, Starkman! (OK, so run me over with your new van! ) I don’t think open theists “define” omniscience any differently than determinists. This has to be true if we want to maintain that we all believe God is omniscient. If we in fact define omniscience differently, then one of us is denying that God is omniscient since two different definitions of the same thing can’t both be true. (Compatibilists glory in paradox, but that’ll never fly!) For sure, determinists and other non-open theists might not see this, but I think we’ve successfully proven here that open theists do “define” omniscience the same way Calvinists and traditional Arminians do.
I posted it elsewhere (can’t remember where!) and asked ReasonableDoubt to say whether she agreed or not (got no answer), but here’s the definition of omniscience given by Bill Craig (which he thinks open theists cannot agree):- “For any agent x, x is omniscient if for every statement s, if s is true, then x knows that s and does not believe that not-s.”
Put more simply:- A being is omniscient if and only if that being knows all truths and believes no falsehoods.
Or in other words:- It is impossible that God should either fail to believe anything that is true or that he should believe any falsehood.
And still, to make it simpler:- There is nothing true that God doesn’t know as true, and nothing false that God doesn’t know as false.
SO THIS IS IT:- God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods
Can you agree to this definition of omniscience, Christian? In the sentence, “God…knows…all things” omniscience specifically concerns itself with the middle part, the “act of knowing.” That’s what it defines. It cannot define the “all things,” that is, the object of God’s knowledge. Our doctrine of Creation does THAT. And THAT is what the debate is about.
Doc’s used this analogy before, and I like it too. Let me offer it here. Suppose you and I are standing in a large room full of several hundred people. You study the room and say that there are two hundred fifty people in attendance. I say there are only two hundred people present. What are we disagreeing about? We’re disagreeing about the contents of the room, about how many people are in the room. But we both agree that God knows the exact number of people in the room, right? You believe God knows there are two hundred fifty people present while I believe God knows there are only two hundred people present. You believe God knows there are more people present than I do. Does this mean you believe God is omniscient and I do not? Does it mean you believe God is greater than I do because you believe he knows there are more people in the room than I do? Wouldn’t it be silly of you to accuse me of taking away from God’s glory and greatness because I disagree with you about how many people God knows are in the room? (Thanks Doc for the analogy!)
This is analogous to the debate over omniscience. Despite claims to the contrary, it is not about whether God is God or whether or not God’s omniscience is exhaustive in its scope or infallible in its operation. It is about the “everything” which we both agree God knows. It is about the “contents” of the room. Let’s imagine the room is called “reality” and let’s imagine that all past, present, and future realities are in the room. We may disagree about what future reality is or about the specific nature of this reality (is it exhaustively determined, or partly contingent?), but we do not disagree that omniscience means God knows exactly what is there even if we may disagree. In terms of the definition of “omniscience,” then, including its exhaustive scope and its infallible nature, open theists are perfectly orthodox. The debate is about the nature and scope of creation and not about God’s knowledge. It would really help if opponents of the open view would concede this. But I fear that the reason the more vocal opponents of the open view will not concede this because branding open theists as “deniers of omniscience” helps discredit open theists among people who don’t know better. It helps their cause to oust the open view from evangelicalism.
Christian: The OV denies that a God who is all-powerful can be relational as well.
Tom: Not so. I don’t have any problem believing that an all-powerful God can be relational. I believe God is all-power and I believe God is relational. I think YOU may be the one denying this, Christian, by defining “ALL-powerful” to mean “ONLY-powerful” as in, God is the only one exercising any “say-so” (Doc’s phrase) about what goes on in the world. But cannot an all-powerful God share some of his “say-so” (in a limited but true sense)? In fact, wouldn’t a being who could not do this be less than all-powerful?
God isn’t the only one deciding what happens, but this was God’s own sovereign and free determination. God created a world in which some of what happens would be left up to us and is put at no disadvantage whatsoever by foreknowing much, even the vast majority, of our contribution as possible outcomes rather than certain outcomes. Thus, we coauthor history with God, although in limited ways sovereignly determined by God, yet as real for him as for us. This is open theism, exborg. But I think you know this.
Christian: The OV claims that God chooses to not know the future…
Tom: Gotta stop ya right there ‘cause this is no “claim” of the open view. To choose not to know what exists and can and ought to be known by an omniscient being would be to choose to be ignorant (about that which one chooses not to know). This is not what’s “claimed” by the OV. (I am told that this is Dallas Willard’s view however.)
Christian: The God of the OV replaces the God of classic theism by changing Him to a God who risks…
Tom: Now you’re singing!
Christian: …who feels surprise and disappointment…
Tom: Let the music rise!
Christian: …with our choices (which He cannot know beforehand)…
Tom: …which he DOES foreknow as the possibilities they are.
Christian: …who works with us responding to us and adjusting to us.
Tom: Yep.
Christian: The God of classic theism is one who has absolute sovereignty and knows all things, even future things.
Tom: If “absolute sovereignty” means God is incapable of giving us the freedom to say “no” to him for ourselves then I’d suggest this is a weak view of God, for it views God as capable only of deterministic ways of relating to us, a relation we as persons universally condemn as weak.
Christian: In the OV, God is not sovereign over man; man is sovereign unto himself.
Tom: Well, I wouldn’t use “sovereign” to describe the freedom to act which God gave us. I would say we are “self-determining” in very limited ways sovereignly determined by God.
Christian: It took the sovereignty of God to save me…
Tom: Me too.
Christian: …because I wouldn’t and couldn’t come to him freely.
Tom: If by “freely” here you mean “independent access to God” or “free to come to God uninvited,” then every open theist I know would agree. If you mean to deny that we are able to say “yes” to God’s invitation unaided by the Spirit, I would also agree with you. We do not possess uninvited access to salvation independent of God’s gracious offer and aid.
But if you mean I cannot say “no” to God’s gracious invitation and aid, then I’d disagree.
Christian: In the OV, it is the will of man that is omnipotent over the will and the intentions of God.
Tom: [long sigh and exhale]…Don’t leave this site until exborg has helped you understand the OV accurately.
Christian: If I act in accordance with my desires, even if my desires and my actions are ordained by God, my actions are still free, I’m still responsible for them, and God is still sovereign. The OV says this cannot be so.
Tom: I got news for ya, Christian; open theists aren’t the only people saying this cannot be true. All Arminians (even those who hate the OV) say this cannot be so. And every Calvinist who is not a compatibilist also says this cannot be so. This is NOT an open view issue.
Now, as a compatibilist you claim that you are morally responsible for you sin and that God unconditionally predetermined your desire and choice to sin. You seem to think that just because you are acting in accordance with your “desires” that you are responsible for those desires and the actions that follow. This would be true only if you are also responsible for your desires. But if God unconditionally determines your desire as well, you cannot be responsible for them. Acting in accordance with one’s desires does not in itself secure moral responsible behavior. One must also be responsible for the desire. A person in a hypnotic state may respond to the command to murder, but nobody would hold such a person morally responsible simply because they were conscious and acting in accordance with their desires. Something else is needed.
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 05/19/2003 07:59:31 AM
Edited by - TGB on 05/19/2003 08:01:37 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/19/2003 2:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Leila-
If you’re looking for Scripture to give evidence for a future which is ONLY open or ONLY determined, then you won’t find that. Both “motifs” (Doc calls them) are there in the Bible. The future is partly open and partly determined. Take the evidence for both motifs seriously and let them both be true. There’s only a problem if you try to universalize one of the motifs as telling us everything about the future there is to know.
And it’s important (if you wanna be able to talk about these issues with all sides) to be careful and specific when you talk about the key concepts, like “free will”,” or “God not knowing the future,” or the future being “open.” For example, determinist will agree we are “free” and so responsible for our actions, but they mean something different by “free” than Arminians and open viewers do. They hold to “compatibilistic freedom” while others hold to “libertarian freedom.” Make sure YOU know what you mean.
For example, your second question: “Does God foreknow all?” Everybody answers this positively! I don’t say “God doesn’t know the future” to summarize the open view. I know what open theists mean when they say this, but it misleads. God does know the future. He knows it all. He knows it perfectly. This comes out looking differently than determinism because the “future” (or creation, or reality) is itself defined differently than in determinism. Make sense?
The same is true for all the important terms used in the debate, like “sovereignty.” Open theists have no problem with God being “sovereign.” But we’re constantly accused of denying God’s sovereignty. Why? Because those making the accusation define sovereignty differently. They insist “sovereignty” can ONLY mean one thing: Exhaustive and exclusive CONTROL. Here it IS a difference of definition (unlike the case of “omniscience”). Does “sovereign” mean exhaustive and exclusive control of every detail of what’s going on? This is what some call “specific sovereignty.” Or does God exercise “general sovereignty,” allowing us freedom to oppose him and say “no” to his will for our lives? On this one you can’t go to the dictionary; you have to get your definition of sovereignty from the Bible’s description of God’s actions in relation to us. What do you see when you read the Bible?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/19/2003 2:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Leila-
I’m in danger of boring you to death, I know! But let me post here a bit of a conclusion to a paper I submitted some time ago on the open view. Maybe it’ll help clarify things too.- Open theism understands the future as partly settled and partly open. Both genuine certainties and possibilities exist and God knows them as such. Both motifs are described in Scripture and together constitute the dynamic sort of future which God perfectly knows.
- Open theism insists that God is omniscient, meaning his knowledge is co-terminus with reality. It is neither the nature nor scope of God’s omniscience which the open view questions. It is rather the nature and scope of creation itself, the object of God’s omniscient knowledge, which open theists believe they understand more accurately.
- Open theism affirms God’s sovereign rule over creation but understands this not as meticulous control of every detail of history. God exercises a general sovereignty. His ultimate purposes for creation are settled and non-negotiable, but the routes to fulfilling these purposes are sometimes open. God is confident, wise, and resourceful enough to accomplish his ultimate ends without having to determine the minutia of history. Some routes to accomplishing these ends are open precisely because it is God’s wish that they be determined through our choosing to partner with him.
- Open theism believes that God has sovereignly chosen to create a world in which human beings are granted libertarian free will. This means that God may not always get what he wants, for we may choose not to realize his purposes for us. Such a world, however, is the only kind of world in which love is possible. In addition, God’s relationship to us possesses an integrity to it which is impossible to account for on the belief that he either causes all things or eternally foreknows them as certain.
- Open theism denies that God is absolutely timeless, immutable, and impassible. God experiences the flow of time, undergoes changing states of mind and emotion, interacts with us in genuine give-and-take relationships, and is open to change (not in his essential nature, but in his relationship to creation).
- Open theism argues that self-determining free choices cannot be eternally foreknown as certain, though God, being infinitely intelligent, eternally knows all possibilities and thus all possible choices we may ever make. As such, God is able to attend to an infinite number of possible story lines, perfectly anticipating each possibility as if it were the only thing that could have happened. God is not so insecure and unintelligent a Sovereign that the accomplishing of his ultimate purposes requires that he be limited to having to attend to only one certain route to the fulfillment of these purposes as opposed to several possible routes to their fulfillment.
Hope it helps. The open view may never be THE view among evangelicals (or any other group), but it is at least a permissible explanation of how God may be believed to possess exhaustive foreknowledge of all things and to exercise sovereignty over creation, a sovereignty that is loving, creative, just, all-encompassing, infinitely intelligent, resourceful beyond measure, and more than adequate to guarantee the ultimate fulfillment of his purposes and the final victory of his kingdom.
Such a God is certainly worthy of our worship and our deepest devotion and I commend him to you without reservation.
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 05/19/2003 07:40:34 AM
Edited by - TGB on 05/19/2003 08:06:07 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/19/2003 3:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom said, Now, Starkman answered by saying: “No, the OV doesn't limit God's omniscience; it simply defines omniscience differently than you define it.”
What I meant, and should have said with the correct choice of words, is that open theism in it's concept of omniscience (not " definition of omniscience"--bad, bad choice of words on my part) does not include an exhaustively known future as does omniscience in the Classical concept.
(The van's nice, Tom, but gads, I don't think it'll make it to Beirut!)
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/19/2003 4:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkperson (let's be gender neutral shall we? )-
No, no, don't drive it Beirut! Only to St. Paul this October!
Starkperson: What I meant, and should have said with the correct choice of words, is that open theism in it's concept of omniscience (not " definition of omniscience"--bad, bad choice of words on my part) does not include an exhaustively known future as does omniscience in the Classical concept.
Tom: I'm so cruel! I wouldn't even go this far. To define IS to conceive. If we share the same definition of omniscience ("God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods") then we share the same concept of omniscience.
So why is there a debate at all? It's because open theists define "creation" (the thing "KNOWN") differently than others. Since we define the thing "KNOWN" differently, we end up claiming GOd knows different things. But it's not differening definitions or concepts of omniscience that's behind the disagreement.
Wanna run me over in St. Paul now?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/19/2003 5:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmm, Tom.
quote:
So why is there a debate at all? It's because open theists define "creation" (the thing "KNOWN") differently than others. Since we define the thing "KNOWN" differently, we end up claiming GOd knows different things. But it's not differening definitions or concepts of omniscience that's behind the disagreement.
I'm thinking that there is still the matter of approach to creation (and time) that makes the debate an issue. The traditional classical perspective of God and time sees God outside time (though, not all Classical Theists hold to this view)--hence, God is able to see the future as well as the past and present. Open Theism, on the other hand, sees God temporal flowing with time (though, again, not all Open Theists believe God is temporal, at least not without knowing they do!)
Doesn't this bear on the concept of omniscience--notwithstanding its definition? This was why I said that Classical Theism doesn't "include" an exhaustive foreknowledge; the concept, not the defintion, being affected. In other words, God is no less omniscient because I can or cannot conceive of Him as knowing or not knowing the future exhaustively.
Whatta ya think?
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
| 66 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:17 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 |
|
|