 |
| 
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/9/2004 4:36 AM (GMT -6) |   | Just to get some of this straight...
1 Greg Boyd, from this very site, only used 70 verses from the Bible to support his open view (note: only 7 from the NT), and this is only .2% (64/31,103) of the Bible. It seems as though this is highly lacking a systematic theology.
2 Boyd: "And, since he is not willing that any should perish (2 Pet. 3:9), why not simply create in heaven those people whom he foresaw would meet the conditions necessary to enter into this state and refrain from creating anyone else?"
Doesn't this question the very nature of God as wrathful? It seems as though this is only an emotional and not a Biblical argument (and thereby contradict Romans 9:18-22)?
3 If we posses Libertarian free will, that is the ability to choose otherwise, then Christ could have effectually died for no one.
4 Why do OT completely write off phenomenological language in the Bible?
"This is a major reason why we must interpret the narrative passages of Scripture by the didactic or "teaching" portions. If we try to find too much theology in narrative passages, we can easily go beyond the point of the narrative into serious errors.
The biblical narratives in which God appears to repent, or change His mind, are almost always narratives that deal with His threats of judgment and punishment. These threats are then followed by the repentance of the people or by the intercessory petitions of their leaders. God is not talked into "changing His mind." Out of His gracious heart He only does what He has promised to do all along - not punish sinners who repent and turn from their evil ways. He chooses not to do what He has every right to do."*
- R.C. Sproul
*http://www.doctrine.net/divinerepentance.html
"To confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly."
Augustine | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Moderators Second Cousin
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 85
| Posted 12/9/2004 6:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by cpoteet
Just to get some of this straight...
1 Greg Boyd, from this very site, only used 70 verses from the Bible to support his open view (note: only 7 from the NT), and this is only .2% (64/31,103) of the Bible. It seems as though this is highly lacking a systematic theology.
1. You're looking at his web site, not his books.
2. You seem to be assuming 99.98% of scripture supports the other side, it doesn't.
3. If one person believes God knows every single thing about the future, it only takes one thing God doesn't know about the future to disprove that thesis. That's the problem of "for all" in logic, only one "there exists one" negates the "for all".
4. I have seen NO verses (0.0% of scripture) that state God knows "for all" future instances. I've seen some verses that states God knows "there exists one" for what He is going to do. There would have to be either of two things in scripture to prove God knows "for all":
1. a verse that says Gods knows "for all"
2. "for all" future instances, a verse "there exists one" for each one
For example, where's the verse about the Mets winning the 1969 world series?
I suggest you try for 1, because 2 would require infinite "there exists one"
quote:
2 Boyd: "And, since he is not willing that any should perish (2 Pet. 3:9), why not simply create in heaven those people whom he foresaw would meet the conditions necessary to enter into this state and refrain from creating anyone else?"
Doesn't this question the very nature of God as wrathful?
How about inefficient? Inefficient is equivalent to imperfect according to your Hellenistic logic.
Besides, it's "God is love", not "God is wrathful". HTH
quote:
3 If we posses Libertarian free will, that is the ability to choose otherwise, then Christ could have effectually died for no one.
Christ died for those who had already placed their future hope in Him.
See Abraham and Job for references.
quote:
The biblical narratives in which God appears to repent, or change His mind, are almost always narratives that deal with His threats of judgment and punishment.
Not true.
Who is God talking to in Genesis 6?
Genesis 6:6 "The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
7 The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."
Himself! He's not communicationg with people here, He's sorry He made them and wastes them with a flood.
Is God lying to Moses in the desert when He wants to wipe Israel out and start over? God's not talking to the rebellious people, He just wants to wipe them out. He's not threatening Moses with judgment, He's promising Moses a nation of his descendants.
There were no "threats of judgment and punishment" when God told Abraham, "for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me".
And I'll use Sproul's quote to show that God's knowlege of the actual future is conditional on our responses. 
Jesus said that prayer was like the woman beating on the door of the judge, she got him to change his mind based on her persistance.
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Moderators Second Cousin
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 85
| Posted 12/9/2004 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Let's look at a couple of statements, we'll call them A and B.
A is from scripture -- "you shall call Him Immanuel"
B -- "tomorrow, I will wear white socks"
Now if we look at A and think it shows God sees the actual future, then we've
proved that I see the actual future as well due to B coming true tomorrow.
A is true because God sees it happening in the future.
B is true because I see the future as well.
But, if we look at A as God declaring what He will do when the time arrives,
then B means the same thing. When tomorrow arrives, I will put on white socks.
So verses of God declaring what He will do when the time arrives only show:
1. God will do the specified thing when the time arrives.
2. No truths about any other future events can be inferred.
Now if you think that God knows A because He will determine EVERY single event up to A, in order to have A accomplished, then I have to determine EVERY single event up to B, in order to have B accomplished.
But I don't. In fact, there's very little I have to do in order to accomplish B. Am I more powerful than God?
No, God doesn't have to determine EVERY single step up to A in order to accomplish A, either.
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." | | Back to Top | | |
|
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/9/2004 8:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
1. You're looking at his web site, not his books.
So can you give me an exhaustive list of OT proof texts?
quote:
2. You seem to be assuming 99.98% of scripture supports the other side, it doesn't.
Actually you're right, 99.8% of Scripture doesn't represent the other side--100% does.
quote:
If one person believes God knows every single thing about the future, it only takes one thing God doesn't know about the future to disprove that thesis. That's the problem of "for all" in logic, only one "there exists one" negates the "for all".
But OT haven't adequately proven, with exegesis, that there is indeed such a passage. Nowhere in the Bible contemplated on the "fairness" of His nature/will/decree, or granted us Libertarian free will. I still have not seen a verse that even begins to explain the OT theory of the will.
quote:
I have seen NO verses (0.0% of scripture) that state God knows "for all" future instances.
"Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."
1 Samuel 15:29
Let's start with that, and after you try to answer that we'll go from there.
quote:
For example, where's the verse about the Mets winning the 1969 world series?
I think that is in 1 Maccabees (ok no more Catholic jokes, although they have better theology than OT).
quote:
Besides, it's "God is love", not "God is wrathful". HTH
So, OT believe God is not wrathful?
quote:
Christ died for those who had already placed their future hope in Him.
See Abraham and Job for references.
So is this a synergistic theology or a monergistic, that is only man? Because that's the way this anthropocentric theology looks to me.
quote:
Who is God talking to in Genesis 6?
Genesis 6:6 "The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
7 The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."
Himself! He's not communicationg with people here, He's sorry He made them and wastes them with a flood.
You're literally intrepreting a text that has didatic meaning (in that it show justification for the flood). God doesn't regret something He knew would happen (well, you wouldn't see that this way, because of course He couldn't right?).
quote:
Is God lying to Moses in the desert when He wants to wipe Israel out and start over? Isn't that hilarious? God lying to Moses.
What did you just say?
quote:
And I'll use Sproul's quote to show that God's knowlege of the actual future is conditional on our responses.
Jesus said that prayer was like the woman beating on the door of the judge, she got him to change his mind based on her persistance.
I don't know where you came up with that; looks like more eisegesis to me. Please explain.
"This anthropocentric system [OT] has failed to recognize that "time" itself is just as much of a part of God's good creation as "space and matter". In science 101 we learned that time, as we know it, requires the existence of space and matter. But God is omnipresent and eternal and He stands outside of time, thus seeing end from beginning. While we can speculate as to whether God may exist in His own temporality as part of His perfections, but He surely isn't limited to ours. The result of open theism is a breach of the first commandment, which is to have no other gods before Him (Ex 20:3). Such a smallish view of Almighty God is a human construct; a god who is limited by part of his creation, has less glory than something he made. Time, in this scheme, would therefore be the greatest essence in the universe, thus those who hold the open view make an idol out part of His creation."
OT Have characterized Reformed Theology (and any other theology), because they don't bother to let the Scriptures speak for itself and let Biblical paradoxes remain so (the Trinity is a great example of one that all Christians, except the cults). It doesn't make sense, but it's true. No OT would deny that, to do so would make the not a Christian.
For instance (from a writing I did):
The Trinity
(A) The Father is God (John 8:41), The Son is God (John 1:1), The Holy Spirit is God (1 Corinthians 3:16).
(B) God is one (Mark 12:29).
(C) Therefore, God is Triune.
Now let’s look at how Compatibilism shapes out:
(A) God is sovereign (Ephesians 1:11).
(B) Man is free (James 1:14) and responsible (Isaiah 55:6-7).
(C) Therefore, free will is compatible with sovereignty.
Now there more verses backing these statements, but I can find no such statement that leads to God's limited knowledge.
Foreknowledge does not annul:
1) Human Responsibility
2) Human Freedom
But it does annul:
1) God's omniscence
2) God eternal decree
3) God's sovereignty
I love all of you, but Open Theism, along with Molinism and Process Theology are heresy.
"To confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly."
Augustine | | Back to Top | | |
|
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/9/2004 8:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Moderators Second Cousin
Let's look at a couple of statements, we'll call them A and B.
A is from scripture -- "you shall call Him Immanuel"
B -- "tomorrow, I will wear white socks"
Now if we look at A and think it shows God sees the actual future, then we've
proved that I see the actual future as well due to B coming true tomorrow.
A is true because God sees it happening in the future.
B is true because I see the future as well.
But, if we look at A as God declaring what He will do when the time arrives,
then B means the same thing. When tomorrow arrives, I will put on white socks.
So verses of God declaring what He will do when the time arrives only show:
1. God will do the specified thing when the time arrives.
2. No truths about any other future events can be inferred.
Now if you think that God knows A because He will determine EVERY single event up to A, in order to have A accomplished, then I have to determine EVERY single event up to B, in order to have B accomplished.
Your "proof" does not even attempt to understand the difference between divine and material (human) foreknowledge (ie study Hypostatic Union). Even though He decrees what events will happen and what means it will come about, that does not annul our freedom and responsiblity.
The Westminster Confession of Faith
CHAPTER IX
Of Free Will
God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.
Matt. xvii. 12; James i. 14; Deut. xxx. 19.
II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good, and well pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.
Eccl. vii. 29; Gen. i. 26; Gen. ii. 16, 17; Gen. iii. 6.
III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
Rom. v. 6; Rom. viii. 7; John xv. 5; Rom. iii. 10, 12; Eph. ii. 1, 5; Col. ii. 13; John vi. 44, 65; Eph. ii. 2, 3, 4, 5; 1 Cor. ii. 14; Titus iii. 3, 4, 5.
IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
Col. i. 13; John viii. 34. 36; Phil. ii. 13; Rom. vi. 18, 22; Gal. v. 17; Rom. vii. 15, 18, 19, 21, 23.
V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.
Eph. iv. 13; Heb. xii. 23; 1 John iii. 2; Jude. ver. 24.
quote:
But I don't. In fact, there's very little I have to do in order to accomplish B. Am I more powerful than God?
No, God doesn't have to determine EVERY single step up to A in order to accomplish A, either.
In your own theology you declare that humans are more powerful than God. If God is unable to set down and know events before hand then we have a freedom that God, seemingly can't impose on, and thereby making him weak to human will.
Even though we do not posses Libertarian free will, we are still free. Somethings in the Bible don't make sense, and it doesn't have to. The Bible speaks for itself. We don't need to put brackets in Scripture, it is sufficient.
So, did Jesus' knowledge of Judas' betrayal not really happen? Did Judas just whisper it into His ear?
"To confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly."
Augustine | | Back to Top | | |
|
Moderators Second Cousin
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 85
| Posted 12/9/2004 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by cpoteet
quote:
1. You're looking at his web site, not his books.
So can you give me an exhaustive list of OT proof texts?
Actually you're right, 99.8% of Scripture doesn't represent the other side--100% does.
Look Chris Poteet, if you're going to be an asswipe, we'll not get far in this discussion.
quote:
quote:
If one person believes God knows every single thing about the future, it only takes one thing God doesn't know about the future to disprove that thesis. That's the problem of "for all" in logic, only one "there exists one" negates the "for all".
But OT haven't adequately proven, with exegesis, that there is indeed such a passage.
There's plenty of verses.
God expected good grapes from His vineyard, got bad ones instead.
It never entered God's mind that His people would do the horrible things that the Canaanites did.
God went to see how bad Sodom and Gomorrah had become.
It took a test for God to know Abraham's resolve.
etc.
quote:
Nowhere in the Bible contemplated on the "fairness" of His nature/will/decree, or granted us Libertarian free will. I still have not seen a verse that even begins to explain the OT theory of the will.
Actually, most people act like they have free will as it's pretty intuitive. You'd need to prove to me I don't.
Like Hindus who don't believe in reality yet stop at red lights are Calvinists who don't believe in free will yet willfully and freely try to prove to others they don't either. You belie your beliefs by your actions.
quote:
"Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."
1 Samuel 15:29
Concerning that matter. Look at the context of 1 Samuel.
If God NEVER changed His mind, why would He say He wouldn't change His mind in that matter? It'd not be necessary.
If I say I'm not going swimming in the ocean today, you'd assume it were possible for me to go swimming in the ocean today, wouldn't you?
quote:
Besides, it's "God is love", not "God is wrathful". HTH
So, OT believe God is not wrathful?
quote:
quote:
Christ died for those who had already placed their future hope in Him.
See Abraham and Job for references.
So is this a synergistic theology or a monergistic, that is only man? Because that's the way this anthropocentric theology looks to me.
Job looked ahead towards a redeemer who hadn't come to earth yet and hadn't died on the cross yet. Job was righteous based on his works and his belief in a coming Messiah who would permanently justify him.
God declared Job "upright and righteous".
God is talking to Himself in Genesis 6.
quote:
quote:
Is God lying to Moses in the desert when He wants to wipe Israel out and start over? Isn't that hilarious? God lying to Moses.
What did you just say?
God tells Moses He wants to wipe out Israel and start over with Moses. He must have meant it because He told Noah the same thing.
In Noah's case, He did do it.
In Moses' case, He didn't because Moses talked Him out of it.
quote:
quote:
Jesus said that prayer was like the woman beating on the door of the judge, she got him to change his mind based on her persistance.
I don't know where you came up with that; looks like more eisegesis to me. Please explain.
Luke 18:
1 Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart,
2 saying, "In a certain city there was a judge who did not fear God and did not respect man.
3 "There was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, 'Give me legal protection from my opponent.'
4 "For a while he was unwilling; but afterward he said to himself, 'Even though I do not fear God nor respect man,
5 yet because this widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, otherwise by continually coming she will wear me out.'"
6 And the Lord said, "Hear what the unrighteous judge said;
7 now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them?
God is the judge, we are the woman banging on the door. Keep banging/praying, we can change the judge/God's mind.
8 "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"
I don't know, Jesus, why are you asking them, I thought You knew?
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Moderators Second Cousin
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 85
| Posted 12/9/2004 8:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by cpoteet
quote:
Originally posted by Moderators Second Cousin
Let's look at a couple of statements, we'll call them A and B.
A is from scripture -- "you shall call Him Immanuel"
B -- "tomorrow, I will wear white socks"
Now if we look at A and think it shows God sees the actual future, then we've
proved that I see the actual future as well due to B coming true tomorrow.
A is true because God sees it happening in the future.
B is true because I see the future as well.
But, if we look at A as God declaring what He will do when the time arrives,
then B means the same thing. When tomorrow arrives, I will put on white socks.
So verses of God declaring what He will do when the time arrives only show:
1. God will do the specified thing when the time arrives.
2. No truths about any other future events can be inferred.
Now if you think that God knows A because He will determine EVERY single event up to A, in order to have A accomplished, then I have to determine EVERY single event up to B, in order to have B accomplished.
Your "proof" does not even attempt to understand the difference between divine and material (human) foreknowledge (ie study Hypostatic Union). Even though He decrees what events will happen and what means it will come about, that does not annul our freedom and responsiblity.
Where's your answer?
I just see b.s.
It's intuitive that if I cause something to happen, I'm responsible for it.
The knowlege of a choice fixes the creation point of that choice.
If God knows the choice before the chooser, He's the one who created the choice, not the chooser.
Tomorrow I will wear white socks; prove to me I don't have complete, exhaustive knowlege of the future.
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." | | Back to Top | | |
|
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/9/2004 3:45 PM (GMT -6) | | I found this list of OT views. I want to make sure I verify this with the other side and not just get it from a reformed perspective.
- God's sovereignty has been self-limited by virtue of the creation of free agents.
God's power stops where human will begins and God Himself has established this self-limitation.
- God’s knowledge is self-limited, because foreknowledge of the actions of free agents would evidence that they are not free.
- God’s plan has a multitude of blanks due to the unforeseen actions or decisions of free agents, God’s greatness is manifest in that He is able to cope with anything that turns up.
- Prophecy is based on God's educated guesses as to what will happen, and it is often conditional upon some activities or decisions of free agents. This conditionality is not always expressed in connection with prophecy, promise or warning. Hence, the appearance of non-fulfillment. Cf. the history of Jonah and Nineveh.
- Prayer is an effectual activity whereby angels and humans can function as God’s counselors and change His mind.
- God's love is the supreme perfection of God and all other characterizations must be envisioned, and if necessary reinterpreted, in terms of our understanding of that love.
- God is too merciful to keep any one in eternal torment. Those not saved will simply cease to exist.
- God's predestination does not relate to individuals: it is God’s blessing upon those, whoever they might be, who repent and believe on their own initiative. It is also at times God’s appointment for service.
[*]
Does OT really believe that God won't send anyone to hell?
So, do OT believe in any perfect foreknowledge (not a guess)?
[*]http://www.pilgrimcovenant.com/weeklyQA/wklyQA_021124.html
"To confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly."
Augustine | | Back to Top | | |
|
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/9/2004 4:03 PM (GMT -6) | | For the choir director. A Psalm of David. O LORD, You have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thought from afar. You scrutinize my path and my lying down, And are intimately acquainted with all my ways. Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all. You have enclosed me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it. Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, Even there Your hand will lead me, And Your right hand will lay hold of me.
Psalms 139:1-10
quote:
If God knows the choice before the chooser, He's the one who created the choice, not the chooser.
Tomorrow I will wear white socks; prove to me I don't have complete, exhaustive knowlege of the future.
"Free will," that is Biblical, free will is not conjured on our ability to do otherwise (now your getting my bias, and I know you'll disagree), because we cannot do otherwise because God has perfect foreknowledge. He has determined and foreordained those actions, but the issue is whether we are coerced or not.
Compatibilism holds that we are willing agents (i.e. Jonathan Edwards: "Freedom of the Will"), but we are morally constrained by our nature (whether that be a state of complete depravity/spiritual death from the fall, or a renewed will post regeneration). The Bible teaches that we are responsible, free, and yet God foreordains actions. (This paradox is similiar to that of the Trinity, which you have not responded to that Paradox. Run that through OT theology for me.)
When we decisions that are of our own volition and we do so freely; God does not coerce us.
Further, you don't have perfect foreknowledge; you might very well know what socks you are going to wear tomorrow, but you don't know when Jesus is coming back. Jesus Himself didn't when He walked the earth (now that is not to say He's waiting on us, it demonstrates against His Hypostatic Union), but the neat thing is that God the Father knows
Really neat article on compatibilism:
http://www.wetheliving.com/pipermail/psychology/2003-June/000393.html
From the article:
"The "freedom" in freewill is the glorious ability of our minds to reprogram themselves and to evaluate automatic thoughts and emotions. We all have this ability, and we all choose to utilize it to a greater or lesser degree. The effects of nature, nurture, random events, and past decisions are not eliminated, but can be modified by our ability to project consequences and by our power to influence choices - by our awareness of freewill itself. All of this abstract thinking, projecting and deciding is the product of mechanistic causation, determined but not determinable. It is this freedom
that makes us human."
Look, I struggled with compatibilism too, except I came in from the Stoic fatalistic persepective when I came to Christianity. I had no problem believing we were puppets of God, actually it comforted me; but that is not what the Bible teaches. And the Bible trumps human philosophy/knowledge (Colossians 2:8).
Grace and peace!
Chris
"To confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly."
Augustine | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/9/2004 5:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Cepoteet-
About the summary you posted:
Summary: God's sovereignty has been self-limited by virtue of the creation of free agents. God's power stops where human will begins and God Himself has established this self-limitation.
Tom: I wouldn’t say God’s limited his sovereignty. I’d just say he’s created the sort of world in which sovereignty doesn’t mean absolute, unconditional, and meticulous determination of all things. I wouldn’t say the power of God “stops” where human will begins either. Certainly the exercise of God’s power is determined by God in relation to different factors, and our will is one of those factors. But that God’s power has to “stop” where our will begins is not one of the factors. Let’s see, I’ll just “will” to sin with impunity. Since that’s what I “will,” God can’t judge me. There are limits to human will and conditions under which God’s purposes DO include acting without having to get our permission.
Summary: God’s knowledge is self-limited, because foreknowledge of the actions of free agents would evidence that they are not free.
Tom: This is wrong. There may be some open theists who believe God chooses not to know certain truths about the future, but this is not a move essential to the open view. As an open theist, I insist God’s knowledge is NOT limited. God’s fully omniscient, which I take to mean: God knows all and only truths. That is, he knows no falsehoods. If there are truths about the future, God knows them, whatever they are. If you want a more logical expression of it: For every p, if p, then God knows that p and does not know that not-p. God may limit the “exercise” of his power as he chooses, but I don’t believe he can limit his knowledge. God is omniscient.
Summary: God’s plan has a multitude of blanks due to the unforeseen actions or decisions of free agents, God’s greatness is manifest in that He is able to cope with anything that turns up.
Tom: Well, certainly it’s a great thing to be able to deal adequately with anything that turns up, don’t you think? Would this ability count as a weakness? But it’s not an accurate reflection of the open view to say God’s plans have a multitude of blanks due to unforeseen actions. Consider, contingent events ARE foreseen as contingent, that is, as possible events. So its never the case that when something that was contingent happens, God only THEN finds out that it was even possible that it happen. On the contrary, God’s always (in my understanding) been aware that it might and might not occur. So, blanks? Not really. Consider driving to work. You have a plan: to get to work. That’s the determined end. But you don’t HAVE equally to determine every street you’ll take, every right and left. In fact, you probably know of several equally good ways of fulfilling your plan, of getting to work. Determined ends. Open routes. It’s brief, but that’s the idea. So, there are no “blanks” in God’s knowledge where God considers the future and says, “Gee, guess I’ll have to wait until that moment comes around to prepare for it; I’m totally in the dark about that. It’s just a blank.” Likewise, there are no “unforeseen” (better, “not foreknown”) actions. All was foreseen. The question is, was it foreknow as something which “will” happen or as something which only “might/might not happen”?
Summary: Prophecy is based on God's educated guesses as to what will happen, and it is often conditional upon some activities or decisions of free agents.
Tom: If all prophecy is a divine guess, then ALL of it is, by definition, conditional. But this isn’t an essentially open view take on prophecy. Some prophecies can be conditional. Open theists aren’t the only ones saying this. But some prophecies can be unconditional.
Summary: This conditionality is not always expressed in connection with prophecy, promise or warning.
Tom: Easily demonstrated, provided one concedes the conditionality (and open theists aren’t the only ones who do).
Summary: Prayer is an effectual activity whereby angels and humans can function as God’s counselors and change His mind.
Tom: Not entirely to the point. I think those who have it out for the open view like to characterize our view of prayer as “us giving counsel to God.” As an open theist I have to say that this is not my view of prayer. I do take prayer to be effectual. I faintly recall Scripture encouraging believers with the fact that fervent and righteous prayer releases a lot of power. I think God does change his mind in the sense of genuinely intending one course of action and then ceasing from that intention and intending another course of action. But I don’t see this as prayer’s fundamental purpose.
Summary: God's love is the supreme perfection of God and all other characterizations must be envisioned, and if necessary reinterpreted, in terms of our understanding of that love.
Tom: This is tough. Open theists themselves don’t always agree on everything. And when it comes to what God looks like from the inside out, well, we all have to stand on the outside and look at what’s revealed. That’s all we’ve got. But the Bible does describe God as love in ways it doesn’t describe God as anything. John’s “God is love” is pretty categorical. And not other attribute is predicated to God so categorically. This doesn’t mean God has to be viewed as spineless, wimpy, or soft, like some big divine push-over. But it does seem to mean that God IS uniquely love in a way he’s not anything else. So I think I’d agree that love is the fundamental prism through which we view God. But as I do that, I don’t find myself white-washing God’s attitude about sin, his judgment, etc. It’s all there.
Summary: God is too merciful to keep any one in eternal torment. Those not saved will simply cease to exist.
Tom: Nowhere even close to being entailed by the open view. Not even close. I affirm eternal conscious torment. It’s my least favorite doctrine. And I’m open to considering alternative understandings of Scripture. But either way, this or that view has nothing to do with the open view itself.
Summary: God's predestination does not relate to individuals: it is God’s blessing upon those, whoever they might be, who repent and believe on their own initiative. It is also at times God’s appointment for service.
Tom: You’re talking about predestination to salvation. Open theists aren’t the first people to understand such predestination as corporate. Corporate election has been a popular view among many Arminians for a long time.
And no, we don’t believe “on our own initiative.” Hardly. God’s grace is a necessary condition of any person’s salvation.
Cepoteet: Does OT really believe that God won't send anyone to hell?
Tom: There is no “open view” view on hell. None. Some are conditionalists. Some of annihilationists. Some are universalists. And some are traditional fire and brimestoners.
Cepoteet: So, do OT believe in any perfect foreknowledge (not a guess)?
Tom: God never “guesses” (if we’re both in agreement on what a guess is). Now, if they’re using their brains, open theists believe ALL foreknowledge is perfect. Yep. Omniscience is infallible knowledge of all reality, all truths. But, Chris, if some future event is itself, in reality, genuinely contingent (that is, it really might/might not occur), then THAT is the truth about the event, and if that’s the truth about the event, then what else could an omniscient God know?
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 how many people are in the room. But we both agree that God knows the exact number of people in the room. 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?
If you want a summary, try this (it’s mine):
- Open theism understands the future as partly settled and partly open. Both the genuinely determinate and the genuinely indeterminate 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 can and does determine minutia, but does not do so exclusively. 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.
Peace,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:55 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 |
|
|