Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

toldailytopic: What is Open Theism? What do you think of it?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Why do you believe that God must lack self-control in order to be sovereign?
    Many human sovereigns attained their positions because of their great self-control. Alexander the Great is one example.
    I was meaning self-control in the sense that if God is bound to carry out all the actions he had previously determined to carry out.

    If he is open to his own future then he doesn't have that kind of self-control. He may be dependable and trustworthy but that doesn't mean that his every act is predictable, even to himself. Indeed, if he is dependable and trustworthy in character, then he must be open to his own future because otherwise such epithets would be meaningless.
    Total Misanthropy.
    Uncertain salvation.
    Luck of the draw.
    Irresistible damnation.
    Persecution of the saints.

    Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
    (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

    RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
    Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
    Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
      I was meaning self-control in the sense that if God is bound to carry out all the actions he had previously determined to carry out.

      If he is open to his own future then he doesn't have that kind of self-control. He may be dependable and trustworthy but that doesn't mean that his every act is predictable, even to himself. Indeed, if he is dependable and trustworthy in character, then he must be open to his own future because otherwise such epithets would be meaningless.
      God is not bound to carry out all the actions He has declared that He will do. He is dependable and trustworthy, but no one can truly call God predictable.

      God stated in His Word that He was open to changing His decrees based on our behaviour.

      Jeremiah 18:5-10
      5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying,
      6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
      7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
      8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
      9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
      10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.


      This explains why God did not destroy Nineveh during the time of Jonah.
      Learn to read what is written.

      _____
      The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
      ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
        How can God be "trusted to inspire" His children to take certain decisions when He Himself is as fallible as we are because He does not exhaustively know the future? It is hard to see how this view does not reduce God to the level of a television meteorologist--one who, because he is an expert in his field has access to information which is not readily available to others, is in a better position than most to make educated guesses about the future. The question remains, "Why should we trust such a God?"

        It is one thing to base your picnic plans on a weatherman's forecast. If unexpected rain ruins your day you may be disappointed and even frustrated with him and his predictions, but you recognize that he is only making an educated guess about meteorological patterns. You do not expect him to be infallible. We have much higher expectations of God. If He inspires us to actions which He later regrets then He is ultimately untrustworthy.

        The classical view of God will never lead to that conclusion. If, contrary to Open Theism, God knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10) and thinks and works in ways which are much higher than our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9), then we can trust Him to work all things--including inexplicably bad things--together for our good (Romans 8:28). Remove God's sovereign control over life and His complete knowledge of the future and the very foundation for trusting Him begins to crumble.




        Classical Theism is what is taught in the Bible. You can believe what you want but it isn't from scripture. You think you're solving problems with open theism, but you just create new, worse ones.
        If I am understanding this right, you are claiming "Classical Theism" comes from people that decided they could not trust the God of the Bible, so they invented a god with the characteristics they demanded their god had to have before they would trust him?
        Learn to read what is written.

        _____
        The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
        ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Nick M View Post
          That is only because you hedge your answers. And you are the worst at not coming out and saying with all your links to other people's thoughts. Here is a two part question for Mr Religion.

          1. Does God desire all men to be saved?

          2. Are all men saved?
          Rather than whining and being overcome with yourself, had you checked the last set of links they include two wherein I spend well over fifty pages of commentary on all matters related to open theism...yes, all posted in these forums. Being intellectually lazy means you don't get to dictate when and if I will respond. Invest a wee bit of yourself in the thoughts expressed in words by others and you will likely find they will do the same for you. Just sayin'.

          BTW, the answer to these well-word Arminian, openist questions is clearly given by me in the links to my previous posts herein. Must I repeat myself daily just because you will not avail yourself of the material well within your reach?

          AMR
          Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



          Do you confess?
          Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
          AMR's Randomata Blog
          Learn Reformed Doctrine
          I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
          Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
          Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
          The best TOL Social Group: here.
          If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
          Why?


          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
            If God contols everything then he is making you trust him, you can't take credit for trusting him.
            No.

            Odd that God is capable of speaking the universe into existence and a believer has no problem believing, assenting, trusting this fact.

            Yet, when God teaches clearly that He is sovereign and man is responsible, some believers will gnash their teeth ignoring that the same root of their belief in the former underlies the latter.

            You seem unwilling to apply the same faith (belief, assent, trust) you have in God's creating abilities to the simple fact that He declares He is sovereign in all senses of the word and we are responsible.

            Sadly, it is the fallen nature of man to resist any notion that he is just not as free as he would like to be. Thus you set off creating all manner of beyond the bounds views of God to explain how God pulls it all off, contrary to Deut. 29:29. In no place in the Scriptures do we find God explaining Himself on such matters. Why do you continue to try and peek behind the curtain treading where you are forbidden to do so?

            I am not claiming we should refuse to use our God-given faculties to ponder and meditate upon His being. But we are admonished to confine said ponderings to what He has revealed to us.

            Do you honestly think God is incapable of seeing to it that you are responsible while not having to divest Himself of His divine essence to make it so? Your issue seems to be a refusal to simply accept what has been revealed. Instead you want an answer to all the how's and why's and will not submit yourself to the One whose holiness is of such a distance from ourselves that even a glimpse of such holiness drives the angels about the throne of God to never cease to proclaim it from eternity.

            AMR
            Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



            Do you confess?
            Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
            AMR's Randomata Blog
            Learn Reformed Doctrine
            I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
            Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
            Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
            The best TOL Social Group: here.
            If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
            Why?


            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
              Your comments need further explanation and exploration.

              I'm just being kind enough to give you a shot at making sense of it, before I show you the nonsense of it, perphaps you can deter me.
              I have made much sense of the matter. You have not availed yourself of the full treatment which has been linked several times. Please review my comments here. Until you do so, consider yourself deterred.

              AMR
              Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



              Do you confess?
              Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
              AMR's Randomata Blog
              Learn Reformed Doctrine
              I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
              Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
              Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
              The best TOL Social Group: here.
              If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
              Why?


              Comment


              • #97
                IMO, open theism is a more self-consistent form of arminianism... and as a result is more insulting to God and unbiblical.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by moparguy View Post
                  IMO, open theism is a more self-consistent form of arminianism... and as a result is more insulting to God and unbiblical.
                  I have no idea what that means

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by moparguy View Post
                    IMO, open theism is a more self-consistent form of arminianism... and as a result is more insulting to God and unbiblical.
                    And all you have here is your opinion. You haven't offered one single subjective piece of evidence that you're correct.

                    At least I can respect you were willing to admit it was just your opinion at the outset of your statement.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Doormat View Post
                      How does open theism explain God's apparent detailed knowledge of the future?
                      Predictive.

                      The better question is how does Calvinism explain the several prophesies in scripture that did not come to pass.
                      sigpic
                      "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                        Predictive.

                        The better question is how does Calvinism explain the several prophesies in scripture that did not come to pass.
                        No such thing . . .
                        "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

                        " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
                        Gordon H. Clark

                        "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
                        Charles Spurgeon

                        Comment


                        • IMO, open theism is a more self-consistent form of arminianism... and as a result is more insulting to God and unbiblical.
                          Originally posted by Delmar View Post
                          I have no idea what that means
                          What he means is that if something makes sense, then it must be false because if we are able to make sense of God or the Bible, this would contradict the Calvinistic notion that man is totally depraved and can't understand anything on his own.

                          In other words, the less sense Calvinist theology makes, the more they believe it.
                          Total Misanthropy.
                          Uncertain salvation.
                          Luck of the draw.
                          Irresistible damnation.
                          Persecution of the saints.

                          Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
                          (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

                          RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
                          Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
                          Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

                          Comment


                          • AMR links help us understand AMR views. They are not persuasive for us to adopt his Calvinism or to reject Open Theism.
                            Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                            They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                            I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                            Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                            "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                            The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                              No.

                              Odd that God is capable of speaking the universe into existence and a believer has no problem believing, assenting, trusting this fact.

                              Yet, when God teaches clearly that He is sovereign and man is responsible, some believers will gnash their teeth ignoring that the same root of their belief in the former underlies the latter.

                              You seem unwilling to apply the same faith (belief, assent, trust) you have in God's creating abilities to the simple fact that He declares He is sovereign in all senses of the word and we are responsible.

                              Sadly, it is the fallen nature of man to resist any notion that he is just not as free as he would like to be. Thus you set off creating all manner of beyond the bounds views of God to explain how God pulls it all off, contrary to Deut. 29:29. In no place in the Scriptures do we find God explaining Himself on such matters. Why do you continue to try and peek behind the curtain treading where you are forbidden to do so?

                              I am not claiming we should refuse to use our God-given faculties to ponder and meditate upon His being. But we are admonished to confine said ponderings to what He has revealed to us.

                              Do you honestly think God is incapable of seeing to it that you are responsible while not having to divest Himself of His divine essence to make it so? Your issue seems to be a refusal to simply accept what has been revealed. Instead you want an answer to all the how's and why's and will not submit yourself to the One whose holiness is of such a distance from ourselves that even a glimpse of such holiness drives the angels about the throne of God to never cease to proclaim it from eternity.

                              AMR
                              In the most basic sense I completely agree with you that God is sovereign and man is responsible. I'm sure you are aware that open theism is not a complete rejection of classic theism or Calvinism nor a full acceptance of Arminianism.

                              I would not call it a synthesis of both but one could argue it is, and for the sake of making a valid point I would accept the synthesis as a valid proposition. Open theism is against the control of "all things" that your understanding of God's sovereignty implies and the knowing "all future things" that is implied in Arminianism.

                              God clearly, in open view, controls "some", but not all things and knows "some", but not all future things. The things he controls he would have certain and actual future knowledge of. If there are things he is not controlling then he would not have certain or actual future knowledge of.

                              The problem is the "all-ness" that is embedded in classic view (CV), your view and Arminian. In CV God cannot be "perfect or infinite" unless every attribute of God is unlimited, both fully and timelessly actualized.

                              I don't think we need argue if this "all-ness", as I call it, is Natural Theology and not Biblical Revelation, I think we agree that it is Natural theology. That the one is antithical to the other we may, or may not, argue over but the difference between us would be if this "all-ness", the reason for God's full and absolute sovereignty, is Biblical or not.

                              The Bible does not portray God as Natural theology does as "pure actuality", or as the "Unmoved Mover", or as "fully timelessly actualized" in "all" of his attributes. If God were immovable, changeless, and timeless in "all" of his attrbutes and in his relationship to the world, to us, then he could not be good, he could not be love.

                              So I would ask you how God can be good or love if he "controls everything" as you have said contrasts OV. You are correct to say that God in OV does not control everything but wrong to conclude that in OV he controls nothing. How in CV can a God who controls all things be good? That God would be responsible for all that is evil as well as all that is good if he controlls "all" things. How in CV can God be love if he controls us?

                              When you say because of the absolute depravity of man or because we are finite, we cannot comprehend this "all-ness" of God and therefore what only seems like a contradict in our minds is still absolutely and necessarily true you end up with an irrational faith. I say an irrational faith because what ever is a contradiction to the the rational human mind is, humanly speaking, irrational.

                              --Dave
                              www.dynamicfreetheism.com
                              The only view of ultimate reality that provides
                              rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
                              The only view that proves the existence and explains
                              the nature of God.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                                No.

                                Odd that God is capable of speaking the universe into existence and a believer has no problem believing, assenting, trusting this fact.

                                Yet, when God teaches clearly that He is sovereign and man is responsible, some believers will gnash their teeth ignoring that the same root of their belief in the former underlies the latter.

                                You seem unwilling to apply the same faith (belief, assent, trust) you have in God's creating abilities to the simple fact that He declares He is sovereign in all senses of the word and we are responsible.

                                Sadly, it is the fallen nature of man to resist any notion that he is just not as free as he would like to be. Thus you set off creating all manner of beyond the bounds views of God to explain how God pulls it all off, contrary to Deut. 29:29. In no place in the Scriptures do we find God explaining Himself on such matters. Why do you continue to try and peek behind the curtain treading where you are forbidden to do so?

                                I am not claiming we should refuse to use our God-given faculties to ponder and meditate upon His being. But we are admonished to confine said ponderings to what He has revealed to us.

                                Do you honestly think God is incapable of seeing to it that you are responsible while not having to divest Himself of His divine essence to make it so? Your issue seems to be a refusal to simply accept what has been revealed. Instead you want an answer to all the how's and why's and will not submit yourself to the One whose holiness is of such a distance from ourselves that even a glimpse of such holiness drives the angels about the throne of God to never cease to proclaim it from eternity.

                                AMR

                                I couldn’t help but respond to such failure to understand the creation and speak of it as you understand it all!!! – Your first sentence tells on you.
                                This whole thing again is so simple it impossible for the smarter than God to see it. - Even God knows that no one is going to go through that much garbage, ( 50 pages ) to see something so simple as the Creation!!

                                God “SPOKE” the Creation into existence?? – That is God’s simple way of showing how He did it for even the simple minded.

                                This is how God does most everything. --- God simply says: ( “LET - ( Let Who ), there be”, and ( He ) takes on the “Form” that He has in His ( “Mind / Thought / Word / Right Hand / Son / Savior / Truth / “LIGHT”. – Because the Creation IS who God IS. - Now the Creation Declares the Glory of God, and the “Firmament” / “Earth” showeth His “( HANDY )” Work!!!
                                The Creation is Just that simple, and it doesn’t take 50 pages of stuff not spoken by the Creator / the Creation!!! --- Sorry if I interrupted you all fight.

                                Paul – 041313
                                ---Gal. 4:16.
                                ---"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth"???

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X