Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > (No Subject)
 
Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Crosswind
Registered Member


Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 7
 
   Posted 3/1/2003 1:23 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I got an article by Norman Geisler from a local forum (www.thebereans.net/forum/index.php?board=16;action=display;threadid=489;start=45). The article titled: NEOTHEISM: Tha Dangers of Making God In Our Image. I'll post some sections that I, as a new Open Theist, have no idea how to deal with, so I hope that you "old" Open Theists guys would help me understand how our system of theology works by giving me some feed back on this criticism of Open Theism. Hee's a part of Geisler's article:

quote:
Predictive Prophecy Would Be Fallible

If all predictive prophecy involving free choices is conditional, then the Bible could not have predicted where Jesus would be born. Micah, however, did predict that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2), as He was. Indeed, the Bible also predicted when He would die (Dan. 9:25-27), how He would die (Isa. 53), and how He would rise from the dead (Ps. 16:10 cf. Acts 2:30–31). Either these predictions are infallible or else they were just guesses on God’s part. If they are infallible, then neotheism is wrong, since according to their view God cannot make infallible predictions. On the other hand, if it is not infallible, then God was just guessing.

The same is true of most, if not all, prophecies about the Messiah. Such prophetic fulfillments involved free choices somewhere along the line, which — according to neotheism — God did not know. For example, if God does not know future free acts with certainty, then He does not know that the beast and the false prophet will be in the lake of fire. The Bible, however, says they will be there (Rev. 19:20; 20:10). Hence, either this prophecy is potentially false, or neotheism is not correct. In other words, if neotheism is true, then this prediction may be false.

Before leaving prophecy, another point must be addressed. Neotheists claim "the problem with the traditional view on this point is that there is no if from God’s perspective. If God knows the future exhaustively, then conditional prophecies lose their integrity."7 This argument confuses two perspectives. Of course, from God’s perspective (since He knows the future infallibly) everything is certain. As noted above, this does not mean that from the human standpoint these actions are not chosen freely. It is simply that God knew for certain how people would freely exercise their choice.


It Undermines the Test for False Prophecy

If all prophecy is conditional, then there cannot be any such thing as a false prophecy. The Old Testament, however, lays down tests for false prophets, one of which is whether or not the prediction comes to pass. "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously" (Deut. 18:22). If the neotheists are correct, however, then this test cannot be valid.


Since I am new to Open theism


Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 3/1/2003 8:20 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi Crosswind (and welcome!)

At the risk of oversimplifying, I think what Geisler overlooks is the fact that Open Theists consistently state that the future is made up of that which is settled as well as that which is not. Considering God's omnipotence, it does not present a logical difficulty for an Open Theist to say that God causes some things to happen precisely as He wills (the Incarnation/Mission of Christ, the eschaton, etc.). But an Open Theist would say that that does not necessarily require that all of the future is settled.

That is, insofar as God has determined specific things in the future, the future is to that extent settled, and insofar as God has not determined other things in the future (contingencies), the future is to that extent open.

How this would apply to OT predictive prophecies of The Messiah would be that God intervenes in history when necessary to fulfill His purpose in history. But this would be the exception to the general rule that God allows people to choose.

My 2c

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net




Edited by - John Earp on 03/02/2003 01:27:26 AM
Back to Top
 

Starkman
Registered Member




Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
 
   Posted 3/2/2003 1:59 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Crosswind,

Welcome!

What someone like you who's seriously comparing the Open View with the Classical view will find out is that the Open View will SERIOUSLY challenge just how much you really believe God is able to do . . . anything (logically and plausibly possible, of course.)

See, when it really comes down to it, we (who have seriously considered the Open View) find just how remarkably challenging it is to think that God really can control things as He wishes. There isn't anywhere near the challenge to the faith of an individual like there is in the Open View for someone who believes that a) God already predestined everything; or b) He just knows what's going to happen; that, itself, being contradictive to our prayer life: if God simply knows what's going to happen, it's already set--determined, and God cannot intervene to change anything. Both my prayers and my own life (and the freedom that drives it) are meaningless.

It doesn't stand that just because the Open View is more faith-challenging that it is therefore correct, it only means that one's eyes are opened slightly more to what it means to really believe God is able.

God is quite able to decide what future He chooses to be settled; He has said that Christ will return. No one or nothing is going to stop Him. But He has also more than able to get what He ultimately wants even if He's afforded us enough freedom--He has NOT given us total freedom--to also ensure we will choose or not to choose to love Him.

Hope this helps.

For Freedom and Choice, and trust in the God who is able,

Starkman

Back to Top
 

Crosswind
Registered Member


Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 7
 
   Posted 3/2/2003 4:35 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi John,

Thanks for the feed back. I appreciate that. BTW, I was converted to Open Theism 2 years ago through revival theology site, but i believe it's not the one in your link. The articles that brought me to OV are also now at biblical-theology.com.

Hi Starkman,

That's true and I experienced that. The OV is somewhat liberating. It gives me more sense of responsibility in my relatonship with God. Prayer is approached as the Bible teaches it to be and not merely "aligning one's will to the Sovereign Will" that cannot be changed.

But let me clarify something. You said: "It doesn't stand that just because the Open View is more faith-challenging that it is therefore correct..." Do you mean that we just have settle for it as being "faith-challenging" even though it's "not" correct?

BTW, you know guys, I've not yet even starting to promtoe this theology in my location, a group here is already planning to put a stop to this "heresy." Anyway, I hope to learn more from you over this forum. And if there are links that promotes OV that you can share, please let me know. I'll appreciate you doing that.

Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 3/2/2003 6:29 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

Hi John,

Thanks for the feed back. I appreciate that. BTW, I was converted to Open Theism 2 years ago through revival theology site, but i believe it's not the one in your link. The articles that brought me to OV are also now at biblical-theology.com.



I was "converted" to Open Theism through Jon Duttweiler's old website, too: revivaltheology.com. Jon converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and shut his site down about 1-1/2 years ago. A few of us have tried to bring back the old site, as the new owner of the domain name is anti-openness, though pro-holiness. The biblical-theology.com site does in fact have much of what was on Jon D's old website. Another website in the making that is very good is Anthony Barbieri's: http://twtministries.com/articles/

You may find the links page to my discussion group helpful as well:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Revival_Theology/links

My website, revivaltheology.net is very much in the beginning stages. As time and money are available, I hope to place more content on it.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net



Edited by - John Earp on 03/03/2003 12:18:23 AM
Back to Top
 

Starkman
Registered Member




Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
 
   Posted 3/3/2003 2:34 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hey there, Crosswind,

When I said, It doesn't stand that just because the Open View is more faith-challenging that it is therefore correct, it only means that one's eyes are opened slightly more to what it means to really believe God is able., what I meant was that just because the concept of the Open View challenges the faith more so (in my opinion) than the Classical view, that wouldn't be proof that it is legit. I was just pointing out that one tends to find this challenge (of one's faith) when confronted with a clear concept of the Open View. I, too, and a fellow Open Theist!

Starkman

Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:59 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