 |
| 
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/7/2003 11:41 AM (GMT -6) |   | This is where I hope that the discussion that we've been having on the "New Anti-Openness Book" will continue, where we have been discussing some points of Open theism...
Bob, johnson, rpeterso, BBBCanada, Greg, anyone?
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/7/2003 12:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Why don't you serve up the volley.
Where would you like to begin?
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/7/2003 12:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everybody-
Just wanted to say that I'm still checking in from time to time. I'm still Stateside with my folks in Florida. Went swimming in the Atlantic yesterday. It was warm and wonderful. Crystal clear water. Like swimming in a glass of white wine! Coooool. I head back to Beirut the day after tomorrow.
I'd love to be able to discuss stuff more, but I have less and less time these days.
Doc, I just bought a book by John Feinberg called Deceived by God? A Journey Through Suffering (Crossway, 1997). Read it? Haven't looked at it yet, but it reminded me of your upcoming Myth of the Blueprint.
Serve up the volleys guys. We've seen all the differnt serves over the past couple of years.
Take care,
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/7/2003 2:10 PM (GMT -6) | | I'll begin.  . Can someone sum up in maybe 4-5 sentences the MAIN premises of Open Theism and perhaps in contrast to Calvinism. And if at all possible, in the simplest terms possible. I am not a theologian and studied some theology in college but that was 10 yrs. ago! I studied Open Theism awhile ago as well and will have to brush up on my study of it but I'd like to see a simple 4-5 point summary of the main points if someone could provide that. Thanks.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/7/2003 5:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Bob,
I guess what I'm wondering is whether your questions regard Open Theism or Arminian theology. The reason I ask is that we have been continually contrasting the Calvinistic understanding of God with what I feel is an Arminian understanding of God's sovereignity. In other words, the question seems to concern the God who dictates the future and who has chosen individually who will be saved and who will be damned versus the God who has a desire that all be saved but has given man the free will to accept or reject God's good will for their life. The latter position I would say would be a very concise summary of the Arminian understanding of God and his relation to his creatures.
Bob, I see that you have plenty of reading to do from Greg's posts concerning the scriptural references to God's "changing his mind." Also in response to an earlier post you asked quote:
For instance, Ryan has pointed out that the Calvinistic view of Rom. 9:11-13 is "arbitrary". But I am wondering... if that is so, then what exactly is Rom. 9:11-13 talking about? Is it just a passage of Scripture to be thrown out? Is it not literal? Is it that "God didn't really mean that"? Has God changed since then?
Ryan refuted the Calvinistic expanation of Rom. 9:11-13, but can someone then tell me what the "correct" interpretation of this passage would be?
I hate to give you even more reading, but I believe that Dr. Boyd has made a explanation of Romans 9 on the Christus Victor. I read it here before, but I can't seem to locate it on the website right now so if anyone can point that out it would be great.( I hope its still here...I know that I read it here somewhere
So Bob, a final question for you to hopefully clarify where we stand. Do you believe that God has endowed mankind with free will to accept or reject his offer of abundant life, or are we at the mercy of God's individual election as to whether we will be chosen to be among the elect or the reprobate?
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis
Edited by - rossfadeinout on 04/07/2003 10:07:10 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/7/2003 5:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Also, I would like to interact with johnson's last post. He said quote:
Ross,I let God define His hate. Malachi 1:2-5, I have loved you, says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?" "Is not Esau Jacob's Brother?" declares the LORD. Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert. If Edom says, "We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins," the LORD of hosts says, "They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called the wicked country, and the people with whom the LORD is angry forever." Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, Great is the LORD beyond the border of Israel!
Prov. 6: 16-19 ...and one who sows, discord among brothers.
Matt. 18:6 ...it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Matt. 10:28 ...fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 25: 41..."Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Gods, sence of justice is rooted in the fact that he is HOLY, not loving.
I don't think that any Christian would deny that these verses describe God and his exercise of anger, but I still believe that his anger comes from his love. the reason that God punishes is because God made mankind for fellowship with himself. Punishment is used to get our attention, in hopes that people will turn back to him in repentance. But their comes a point when a person's will is eternally set against God and (as C S Lewis put it) God says to these people-your will be done- and gives them what they want, which is seperation from him.
I think there is much more to be said concerning this subject johnson, but I'm already getting much too long in this post and I believe that there are others who would be much better at explaining God's purpose in his wrath and justice.
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/7/2003 5:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Bob: Can someone sum up in maybe 4-5 sentences the MAIN premises of Open Theism and perhaps in contrast to Calvinism.
Greg: Open Theism -- or, my preferred label -- the open view of the future -- is the belief that possibilities are ultimately real. Some of the future is, by God's design or by present causes, definite (already settled). But some of the future is indefinite (not yet settled). Because of this, free agents have the power, responsibility, and priviledge of shaping the future through prayer and morally responsible decisions.
The view contrasts with Calvinism in that Calvinism holds that all things are settled in the will of God. The future is predestined from the foundation of the world. Whatever happens reflects the will of God, and given the will of God, things could not transpire differently than they shall transpire. There are ultimately no real possibilities (things that may go one way or another). We experience possibilities only because of our ignorance of what shall occur.
The view also contrasts with Arminianism in that, while Arminians affirm free will, they hold that the future is eternally settled in the mind of God. There are no real possibilities, no maybe's, to God. Again, we experience possibilities only because of our ignorance of what shall occur.
Hope that helps.
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Rpeterso
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 4/7/2003 7:46 PM (GMT -6) | | 1. God is omnipotent…conditioned by no one…bound by nothing…limitless in all aspects!
2. Through the creation of this reality, this world we live in, God has a desired end, an objective that represents His ultimate divine sovereign purpose.
3. Being that God is unequivocally omnipotent, He can conceivably create an infinite number of worlds that would all reach His desired end, that same end that is someday going to be actualized in this world, perhaps ultimate self-glorification for you Calvinists out there.
Why does God choose this one? Arbitrary?
Why does God choose a reality where evil exists, or rather to put it more concretely, why does God choose a world where six million innocent human beings are slaughtered? Could not God have created a world where His final objective is realized and everyone is saved…He is bound by nothing?
I do not know if this too much of an overly simplified rendering of God and His project, but it appears to be somewhat coherent?? In any case this leads me to conclude that either:
a.) This world and everything it entails was arbitrarily selected from an infinite number of possibilities.
b.) God has some sick and twisted overarching purpose where events like the Holocaust are foreordained on behalf of some mysterious will.
c.) God choose to engage in a project where He conditions Himself to some agent, ultimately forfeiting an aspect of His omnipotence so that real and genuine love/communion can be achieved.
I will select C everyday of the week and twice on Sunday, for the mere existence of evil is proof that God is conditioned by some agent, whatever that may be.
Any thoughts/corrections/concerns???
-Ryan
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/8/2003 4:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Bob-
My summary will be similar to Doc’s.
My one sentence summary is: God faces possibilities.
My three sentence summary is:
1. God is omniscient
2. Possibilities are real
3. Therefore, God knows possibilities
My paragraph summary is:
1. God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. (This is Bill Craig’s definition of omniscience, OK? This is the orthodox view on omniscience. Trust me.)
2. There exist “possibilities” regarding our future in this world. Now, whether this is true or not, WE certainly have to LIVE as if this is true. Every time we contemplate future choices, we confess that we are presented with real alternatives, each of which hold out genuinely realizable futures. These alternatives present us with real “maybe’s.”
3. If both 1 and 2 are true, then it follows that God (who knows all truths and believes no falsehoods) knows possibilities (which are real) as possibilities.
Now, the way to defeat the open view is not to argue that open theists really aren’t operating with an orthodox definition of omniscience. Don’t waste your time trying to do this. The definition of Bill Craig above is quite orthodox and we do affirm it: It is impossible that God should either fail to believe anything that is true or that God should believe any falsehood. What one needs to show is that #2 above is false, that is, that there exist no possibilities regarding our future in this world.
Bob, if God’s knowledge of the future is infallible (which it is), and if God believes the future contains no possibilities (that is, if God’s knowledge of our future is composed exclusively of what “shall” and “shall not” happen and excludes all knowledge of what “may” and “may not” happen), then it follows that possibilities don’t exist. After all, the future is what God infallibly believes it is, right? The question is, are there any good reasons for believing that possibilities are ever real for God? The orthodox definition of omniscience does not answer this for us. One must turn from the question of the knower (God) to the known (creation).
If you can show, for example, that…
“God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods”
requires that
“John Kennedy shall be assassinated in 1963”
be true when spoken prior to 1963, then you shall have defeated the open view. And, by the way, if you can show this, then I believe open theists’ first love for “God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods” will lead them to happily abandon open theism.
But simply offering “Well, God is omniscient, so he must have believed eternally that John Kennedy would be assassinated in 1963, since that’s what happened—that’s what omniscience means” won’t work. That’s not what omniscience means. Omniscience means…
“God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods.”
But this in itself doesn’t tell us whether “John Kennedy shall be assassinated in 1963” is true or false when spoken prior to 1963. “Kennedy SHALL be assassinated in 1963” may in fact be false prior to 1963. It very well might be that “Kennedy MAY be assassinated in 1963” is what was true prior to 1963. God knows. Point is, if “Kennedy MAY be assassinated” is true prior to 1963, then it follows that “Kennedy SHALL be assassinated” is necessarily false prior to 1963 even though Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.
I’m not too good at explaining this Bob. If you forget it all, remember this: Open theists CAN affirm “God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods.”
Tom
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 04/08/2003 09:32:12 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/8/2003 4:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, I thought that your explanation was very helpful! It was very well put. I hope to perhaps put some questions that I have about the open view out there to discuss in a little bit (I'm at work right now-no time!!)
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/8/2003 5:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, you do a nice job.
(Vacation has been good for you. ) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 4/8/2003 2:17 PM (GMT -6) | | I'll second POW. Great explanation, Tom.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/9/2003 5:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Cool stuff, Tom! Tight, as always, my man. 
He said:
quote:
If you can show, for example, that…
"God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods"
requires that
"John Kennedy shall be assassinated in 1963"
be true when spoken prior to 1963, then you shall have defeated the open view. And, by the way, if you can show this, then I believe open theists’ first love for “God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods” will lead them to happily abandon open theism.
The only way can think of to do this would be to so define the locus of freedom in Creation that some type of determinism were true.
This is what I wonder. Why don't we just say the following:
God COULD have made a Creation where there would be no possibilities (with there inherent uncertainty) experienced by God as such. God could have made Creation such that the locus of freedom in Creation's beings were so PREDICTABLE that functional EDF would have been a result. But this may have resulted in God not having the FULLEST sense of interactivity with God's creation.
So...
God thought it would maximize aesthetic appreciation in Creation to endow It with freedom that was NOT SO predictable. Where EDF is NOT possible. Where the sense of interactivity with Creation is most intensely felt by God.
And there you have it. Simple, yes?  Being honest, that's one of the things that I think it comes down to for some open theists.
Well, just my two cents.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/9/2003 9:29 AM (GMT -6) | | I haven't been around this site too long, but the more that I read about the open view of the future, the fewer objections I have to it. I have firmly rejected the idea of Calvinism, which Greg summed up this way quote:
The view contrasts with Calvinism in that Calvinism holds that all things are settled in the will of God. The future is predestined from the foundation of the world. Whatever happens reflects the will of God, and given the will of God, things could not transpire differently than they shall transpire. There are ultimately no real possibilities (things that may go one way or another). We experience possibilities only because of our ignorance of what shall occur.
As a firm believer in the reality of human freedom and God's universal offer of salvation, I see the basic choices concerning God's knowledge of the future as divine timeless foreknowledge, Molinism, and the Open View. I followed the thread where there was a very good discussion of the problems with the Molinistic view, and I realize that there are major problems with this view.
I was wondering if anyone could give what they see to be the problem with the view of simple foreknowledge. The way I understand this view is that God has knowledge of the future because he is outside of time, he doesn't necessarily have foreknowledge, but sees reality all at once. I have trouble trying to understand how exactly this would work, but it seems to have been the view held by most of the early church fathers (from my basic reading of some of their writings-I could be wrong on this) Specifically this is the view that C S Lewis takes in Mere Christianity, and explains in some detail in an appendix to Miracles.I do not have my copy of the appendix in front of me, but I thought that he made a fairly clear and well argued defense of the position. I've been meaning to pick up the Four Views book where I think Paul Helm defends this view, but from what little I read of that book, some of the argumentation seemed a little over my head.
I love this forum and what it has helped me learn since I've been here, and I'm sure that there is someone out there who will be glad to give me some help on this.
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/9/2003 11:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Quick question and it may sound awfully simple, but... how would you explain all of this to a "normal" lay person? In other words, without theological terms and "big" words... how could you sum up Open Theism-- its basics-- for a person who does not study or know theology?
MOST average people in this world, if they read the comments in here, will have no clue as to what you are talking about, so in all honesty, what good does it do them? This is an honest question seeking a sincere answer. In other words, so far I have only read really "wordy" things about Open Theism... very theological sounding, very intellectual sounding as well, and I'm sure that most college professors and other intellects would be able to sift through weighty terminology... BUT the average lay person does not have the time, the desire, or the inclination to do so. So... can someone share how you would share this theology in simple layman terms? What I mean is... can you word it for me in such a way that it is simple and understandable by not just a student of theology but also by a working mother with 4 children and no time to do research on the subject, or the average father who has a 9-5 job and a wife and children and just wants the facts, or perhaps a person who is not college-educated or who isn't even interested at all in all theological discussions?
For instance, here are some statements that are very profound yet very simply stated: God loves you. Love your enemies. Eve was decieved. Satan is like a roaring lion who wants to destroy you. God hates divorce. Jesus died for all people. Jesus wants all people saved. Etc, etc. In other words, if I shared these very profound things to a simple, uneducated person, they would maybe not understand the implication of them or the profundity of them, but they would understand the language and the basic meaning.
I realize there are many things in the Bible that are difficult to understand and even to explain in simple terms and without Christian terminology, but I do feel that everything I've read on here and in books re: Open Theism has been nothing close to "understandable" by the average person and esp. the average person who has no interest in theology... he's not going to want to sift through all of this to figure it all out.
My question is: does Open Theism interest the average layperson or does it only interest the theologically-minded... the studied and educated person who has both time and knowledge of phrases such as "locus of freedom" and "God thought it would maximize aesthetic appreciation in Creation to endow It with freedom that was NOT SO predictable"? Sorry, no offense at all to the writer, but I really don't get that comment! God thought we'd enjoy the beauty in the world if he gave us freedom that wasn't 'predictable'? Predictable freedom? I still don't get it!
Is it a "doctrine" that is a person is "indoctrinated" with? In other words, it is too hard to break it down into simple terminology and it is simply "shared" via teaching on other subjects?
This is just an observation I have made in my short time in the discussions of Open Theism on here.
Now, I know these same questions could apply to Calvinism as well or any other theology or philosophy. I remember in college getting into all sorts of weighty discussions but now, in post-college working and family life, well... as you know, the study of theology is not the most popular among your avg. American.
If you go into the Christian bookstore, the theology section will be much smaller than the family/marriage section or the women's section or the Christian living section. Most people want simple terms. And that is what I meant by is this a doctrine that is "indoctrinated"? Amidst a book on parenting, is this doctrine "taught" by the views given on parenting (vs. a Calvinistic father's views). Hope that makes sense! It's kinda hard to explain what I mean by that.
Thanks.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 4/9/2003 12:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Bob,
Here's my attempt to describe “open theism” without using “big” words:
1. What will happen tomorrow is not already settled. Tomorrow, possibly this may happen or possibly that may happen.
2. God may know a lot (or even most) of what will happen tomorrow. However, part of what will happen tomorrow depends on what people will do. This is what “open theists” mean by “free will”– that people have some “say so” regarding what will happen tomorrow.
3. Why did God create people with free will? Because the goal is love and love requires choice. You can’t force someone to love.
4. But giving people choices requires taking the risk that people will choose evil. This helps to explain how so much evil can exist in a world created by a morally perfect God.
5. The open view is more in line with how we live. We are frequently faced with what appear to us to be genuine options; we deliberate on these choices; and we make decisions as though we freely choose one option over another. The open view does not require us to believe that the freedom we experience in our day to day lives is just an illusion.
6. Because the future is not entirely settled, it is possible that our prayers may effect what happens in the future.
Thanks,
Earl
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/9/2003 12:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey, Earl. That's pretty darn good, player. I dig it.
"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/9/2003 1:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi bob,
Here's how I perceive Open Theism to differ from classical theism, in layman's terms:
1. Prayer changes things.
2. We can make a real difference in history, for good or evil.
3. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:9). In other words, Jesus died to save all mankind, not just a select few.
4. We can "be holy, for God is holy." (1 Pet. 1:14-17).
5. God does not send anyone to hell apart from their own choice (such as babies, as in classic Augustinianism-Calvinism).
As far as I can tell, Calvinism has to deny all five of the above.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/9/2003 2:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Earl. I really wondered whether it was even possible to simplify it because in most everything I've read there has been no simplicity or brevity. I appreciate your basic 5 points. You showed me that yes, it is possible to simplify it.
You said: "The open view is more in line with how we live". And this is a truth about Open Theism that alone causes me great "fear" of something that is very possibly a false teaching. This theology is "more in line" with how WE live? Isn't theology supposed to be "more in line" with how GOD wants me to live? How I live, how you live, and how many people live is completely out of line with God's will for our lives! So, are we making a theology that will fit our lives rather than changing our lives (through obedience) to fit God's Word and His will?
Does anyone here have any "fear" at all regarding the teachings/beliefs of Open Theism? You see, I have a very holy reverent fear of God! He has made no doubt about it in His Word-- He is a very holy, righteous, just God who does not put up with false teaching or man's philosophies! There is ONE way. Now, if Open Theism is that ONE way and you are right about these things (that God doesn't know the future or chooses not to), then great! But... if you are in any way wrong and if you are teaching things to others that in any way will lead them astray from the truth of who God is... well, that's some dangerous ground.
Since the beginning of time, men have wanted God to suit them. They have wanted to say things like, "Well, God forgives so my sin is okay" or "Surely God doesn't expect this from me" or "Certainly God didn't mean that"... kind of like Lot's wife who was told NOT to turn around but she turned around (we all know her outcome)... and we end up deceiving ourselves. We think we have figured God out and it sets us "free" but in reality, we have only decieved our own selves and ultimately allowed Satan to deceive us. God does NOT change in any way, shape, or form. The same God then is the same God now.
If, who you speak of is that God, then I obviously need to embrace Open Theism, correct? I mean, if Open Theism will free me from the opposite teachings I have believed for 20+ years, and if it is the truth of God's Word, then I need to embrace and cling to these teachings. But, if they are not truth, then I will be held responsible for deceiving myself and you will be responsible also for deceving me.
You said, "The open view does not require us...". I must confess to you, Earl, and to all others... I really am not too concerned about what Open Theism "requires;" however, I am extremely concerned about what GOD requires! I am not going to live a life in which my beliefs conform to the requirementes of Open Theism but I am going to live a life in which my beliefs conform to the Word of God. Now if the two are the same, then I am "safe." If they are not the same, I will certainly be glad that I chose the Word of God over Open Theism.
You are basically telling me that God is not an all-knowing God, correct? This is what I hear in the things I have read. God chooses not to know the future, or He doesn't know the future (I've heard/read both statements). Does He just sit up there and pick and choose what He will know and what He won't know? For instance, He knew that Jesus would be crucified. He chose to know that I guess an Open Theist would say. He chose to know every single person in the lineage of Jesus. He chose to know that Abraham would bear a son in his old age. He has chosen to know how the world will end. We know this by His Word and the prophecies given long before these things ever came about. (I suppose that's why many people still debate the prophecies re: end of the world because those prophecies have not yet been fulfilled). So these things that he has "chosen" not to know, how exactly does He go about choosing which things to know and which things not to know? I am curious as to what Open Theism teaches regarding this.
Sorry, but it just doesn't make sense and seems to be as if Open Theists are trying to conform God to their limited understanding of God, and as well, are desiring to conform Him to what they want Him to be rather than who He truly is. Forgive me if I am off-base... this is simply from my limited study of this theology and what I have read thus far in various comments.
I printed out the excerpts from Greg's book and other comments here so that I could take the time to read them over and then give some at least halfway intelligent comments!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/9/2003 2:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi John, I saw your reply as soon as I posted my last reply so let me quickly reply. That's alot of replies!
Well, from what you wrote... I see descrepencies as compared to what Earl wrote. What you wrote is what most Christians believe (myself included). Perhaps that is the purpose of theological/philosophical terminology... perhaps those words are necessary to use in order to more finely define Open Theism? I am somewhat wondering aloud but if anyone can explain more, please feel free.
I also don't know alot about Calvinism but are you certain Calvinism denies all 5 of these things? Would you be able to give me some specific "proof" of this because I would argue that Calvinism does not deny these 5 things.
Is there a disagreement among Open Theists as to what Open Theism is all about? I am wondering because of varying explanations.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/9/2003 2:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi again bob,
Open Theism does not say, "God doesn't know the future," or "God chooses not to know the future." Much to the contrary, Open Theism says, "God knows all certainties as definitely certain and all contingencies as definitely contingent." That is, He does not know less than all that will actually transpire, He knows more than all that will actually transpire (because he knows all possibilities as well as all certainties).
That is, God knows all contingent events as truly contingent ad infinitum, and due to His ultimate intelligence, He is able to respond to each and every development in order to bring about His ultimate plan for mankind.
And yes, you are quite right about wanting to know how God wants us to live; I do not think that Open Theism, properly considered allows for a disregard for God's will. Much to the contrary, I submit that Open Theism is the only theology that is able to make coherent, practical sense out of the clear biblical call to discipleship.
To a Calvinist everything that happens does so as a result of God's will; therefore, if one is sinning it is God's will that he sin, and thus it is inescapable to conclude that God himself is the author of all sin.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 04/09/2003 7:20:47 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/9/2003 2:36 PM (GMT -6) | | bob said: Well, from what you wrote... I see descrepencies as compared to what Earl wrote.
John replies: Looking back at Earl's post, I don't think he and I are saying anything different at all.
bob said: I also don't know alot about Calvinism but are you certain Calvinism denies all 5 of these things? Would you be able to give me some specific "proof" of this because I would argue that Calvinism does not deny these 5 things.
John replies: Calvinism is summed up by the acrostic "T.U.L.I.P."
T = Total Depravity. All mankind is condemned to hell because of Adam's sin. (No human choice but Adam's impinges upon one's condemnation; all "non-elect" children and even babies are condemned to hell because of Adam's sin).
U = Unconditional Election. God choose out an elect people who alone would be saved before He even created mankind.
L = Limited Atonement. Following points "T" and "U", Christ's atoning death is limited in its efficacy--Christ only died for the elect.
I = Irresistible Grace. Building on the three previous points, it of necessity follows that God's grace, when fastened upon the elect, is irresistible in its operation.
P = Perseverance of the Saints. All those who are of the elect will persevere in faith and be saved, no matter how much rebellion their lives may exhibit, as they are "irresistibly drawn" to repentance, faith, and perseverance.
One should be able to see clearly the common thread in Calvinism -- a denial of real human free will. Many Calvinists (and classical Arminians) try to use a concept called "compatibilistic free will," which boils down to "you are free to do as you desire, but your desires are exclusively formed by God." Another way of describing Calvinism is simply, "Everything that ever happens is God's will."
Drawing a personal example from my own life that we have already discussed here, my mother was doing God's will when she committed adultery and destroyed our family, and she could in no way have done other than she did, for everything that happens is God's will. Adolf Hitler acted freely no more than did Mother Theresa, and both exhibited "God's will" to the world by the lives they lived.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/9/2003 2:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi John:
You said: "God knows all certainties as definitely certain and all contingencies as definitely contingent." That is, He does not know less than all that will actually transpire, He knows more than all that will actually transpire (because he knows all possibilities as well as all certainties)".
Layman terms??? Is there a way to say that without the terminology? Which is one of my observations. It seems to me that everytime someone tries to explain the deeper truths of Open Theism (thus far), it is with weighty theological terms that somwhat obscure meaning.
Let me try: what I think you said above is that God KNOWS everything that's going to happen (certainties) or the things that will definitely happen (which would why they'd be "cerain", right?).
And on the other hand, he knows all possible (not certain) things as possilbe.
And.. your point is? I'm sorry... this is not to say you are a poor writer at all, but I really do not understand the above statement. God knows the cerain as certain. ??? Don't get it. He knows the possible as possible? Still don't get it. ??? As opposed to what? He knows the cerain as opposed to... not knowing the certain? It sounds really intellectual but I really don't get the gist of these statements. What exactly are you saying? In layman terms without all the terminology.
You also said: "He does not know less than all that will actually transpire, He knows more than all that will actually transpire (because he knows all possibilities as well as all certainties)".
Again, I have a big question mark. God doesn't know less than what will happen? Okay... let me think this through. God KNEW Jesus would die, right? That's pretty simple. But, He did not know less of that? What exactly is "knowing less"?? I really don't get what this is saying.
He knows MORE than what will happen. Okay, He knew Jesus would die. But He also knew more. Now that I might get. I can see how He knew Jesus would die but He also knew Jesus would be resurected. In other words... He knew more than we knew!! Now that's the God I know! Okay, I think I got that part. God knows more than what actually happens, right? So you are saying that all that happens that is certain to happen (like Jesus dying)... God knows beyond that... He knows that Jesus will also rise from the dead, He knows Jesus will also be seated in heaven... etc.
But I still don't get that God knows "less". I will be honest with you... this sounds like foolishness to me. It sounds like a statement that makes no sense.
I majored in English and have had a career in this field and while I'm no theologian and not the greatest English scholar to live, to me this looks like a sentence that I would say, "Edit it.. it doesn't make sense!" Is there a way someone can reword it in simpler terms in which it is more understandable because I know this is one of the primary beliefs of Open Theism.
You also stated: "I submit that Open Theism is the only theology that is able to make coherent, practical sense out of the clear biblical call to discipleship".
IF this is true... that Open Theism is the "ONLY" theology that is able to make "coherent" and "practical" sense, then for my 22 yrs. of what I would consider having a relationship with the Lord, I have not. I have been decieved by incoherent and impractical beliefs. Is this true? Would you be willing to say that I have been in error and if so, have I then been "lost"? Am I even saved? I asked someone earlier if they believed that non-Open Theists are going to hell but I received not an answer but a laugh that I asked such a thing. I would like an answer though.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/9/2003 2:43 PM (GMT -6) | | John, you also said: "To a Calvinist everything that happens does so as a result of God's will; therefore, if one is sinning it is God's will that he sin, and thus it is inescapable to conclude that God himself is the author of all sin"... and again, I simply ask-- are you certain?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/9/2003 2:47 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John, you also said: "To a Calvinist everything that happens does so as a result of God's will; therefore, if one is sinning it is God's will that he sin, and thus it is inescapable to conclude that God himself is the author of all sin"... and again, I simply ask-- are you certain?
From Calvin's Institutes:
"But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding." Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 6 (emphasis mine)
John Calvin said that Adam fell by God's decree (will):
http://gospeltruth.net/John_said.htm
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 04/09/2003 7:47:49 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 309 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:59 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 |
|
|