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

Alate_One

Well-known member
Maybe you will answer my questions, AMR was apparently was too afraid to respond.

Is a God who controls everything good?

Is a God who controls everything love?

--Dave



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.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame

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.

Ah, the myth of classical theism. There is no one classical theism in church history. There are endless doctrinal debates/disputes/divisions. The history of dogma is not as simple as you think.

Even the autocratic Roman Catholic church has issues, not cultic uniformity like JWs (who also have splinter groups, as do Mormons).

Calvinism is not classical theism. Arminianism also claims to be this, as does Lutheranism, etc. etc.

Models of providence were not THE big fish to fry over the years. There is no one apostolic tradition on eschatology, time vs eternity, nature of free will, etc. Church Fathers were not infallible. Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, etc. etc. influenced various issues, none being infallible. Even within major views, there are many nuanced debates (infra vs supralapsarianism, etc.).
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Define prescience.

One time at a job my co-worker was ringing out a mop and he was pushing too hard. I told him that he was going to break the ringer. The next night he broke it. Was that prescience? Was that foreknowledge? Did I see into the future and observe it?
Conscious and Anomalous Nonconscious Emotional Processes: A Reversal of the Arrow of Time?
Two previous experiments have been reported that tried to explore physiological indicators of "precognitive information" in which subjects respond prior to presented stimuli. In an elegant experiment in the early seventies, John Hartwell, then at Utrecht University, measured the Contingent Negative Variation (CNV) after a warning signal and before a random selected picture of a face was to be displayed (Hartwell 1978). The CNV is a brain potential that has been associated with anticipatory processes; more precisely the CNV is interpreted as a "readiness for response" preparation. The subjects in Hartwell's studies were asked to respond with one of two buttons depending on the gender of the face on the picture. The warning stimulus was sometimes informative, that is, the subject could infer from the warning stimulus what the gender type of the face on the picture would be. In those trials a mean CNV was observed that clearly differed for the two stimuli categories. In the other case the warning stimulus was uninformative but it was hoped that the CNV still would indicate what type of picture was about to be shown. Such a finding would suggest that in some way or another the subject had nonconscious knowledge of the nearby future. 1

Nearly 20 years elapsed before the idea of precognitive information reflected in the physiology of subjects was picked up again by the second author of this article (Radin 1996). He used the physiological measures Skin Conductance, Heart Rate, and Plethysmography, which reflect behavior of our sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system. Furthermore, in contrast to Hartwell, he used highly emotional pictures that were presented 5 seconds after the subjects had pressed the button for the next trial. In 3 independent studies Radin found significant differences in physiology, most notably in the skin conductance, preceding the exposure of calm versus extreme pictures. The precognitive response was termed "presponse." Radin discussed a number of possible classical explanations for presponse but concluded that these do not apply.

However one potential "normal" explanation, namely the effect of anticipatory strategies, was not discussed at the time. Subjects who participate in this type of experiment while being aware that once every so often an extreme picture will be displayed may build up (generally incorrect) expectations about the probability that such an extreme picture will be shown in the forthcoming exposure. Indeed, owing to the "gambler's fallacy," their expectation may increase after each calm picture and decrease after an extreme. Superficially it appears that this could result in a mean anticipatory presponse that is smaller for calm stimuli than for extreme stimuli.

This possible explanation of the differences in presponse was later modelled through elaborate computer simulations by the first author and by an independent sceptical outsider. It turned out that the effect as described above only emerges when randomization is done without replacement, and therefore it could not explain Radin's original results (see also discussion section). Thus the experimental results by Radin suggested a true, large and replicable "precognitive" psi effects with a remarkable signal to noise ratio

The first author of this chapter (DJB) was skeptical of these results and therefore decided to replicate the experiments using the same general procedure and the same picture material but completely different software and hardware and also a different randomization procedure. This would, if the effects could be replicated, make an explanation in terms of technical artefacts or inappropriate randomization less likely.​
What a load of hooey!
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Ah, the myth of classical theism. There is no one classical theism in church history. There are endless doctrinal debates/disputes/divisions. The history of dogma is not as simple as you think.

Even the autocratic Roman Catholic church has issues, not cultic uniformity like JWs (who also have splinter groups, as do Mormons).

Calvinism is not classical theism. Arminianism also claims to be this, as does Lutheranism, etc. etc.

Models of providence were not THE big fish to fry over the years. There is no one apostolic tradition on eschatology, time vs eternity, nature of free will, etc. Church Fathers were not infallible. Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, etc. etc. influenced various issues, none being infallible. Even within major views, there are many nuanced debates (infra vs supralapsarianism, etc.).
Unfortunately there are some who would swallow your jejune understanding of history. Rather than this stridency, you should consider being more circumspect when weighing in on matters where your knowledge is barely superficial, and just wrong on every point.

AMR
 

Vaquero45

New member
Hall of Fame
Couldn't the future be open from the perspective of the human observer and exhaustively known from the perspective of God?

As soon as you believe that is the case it becomes false. It is no longer open, it is merely unknown.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Unfortunately there are some who would swallow your jejune understanding of history. Rather than this stridency, you should consider being more circumspect when weighing in on matters where your knowledge is barely superficial, and just wrong on every point.

AMR

There is no one classical theism. This is fact, not fiction. Like Catholics, you assume that your version of Calvinism is THE original view. This is simply naive, myopic, arrogant.
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I do not play schoolyard games wherein someone asks a question hoping to someone will take the bait so they can yell "gotcha!". Rather that you simply lay out in detail whatever is lurking behind the question(s) you are asking rather than just teasers in a game of twenty questions.

AMR

The questions are clear and simple, explain how a God who controls everything is a good God, or loving God. You're the one who contrasted open view with your view of absolute control of everything by God.

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.

--Dave
 
Last edited:

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
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.

We trust God because he is love and good, not because he controls everything or knows everything.

If God contols everything then he is making you trust him, you can't take credit for trusting him.

If God controls everything then God is making some not to trust him.

Classical theism makes God both ying and yang, pantheism.

We love him because he first loved us, yes?

--Dave
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Rather that you simply lay out in detail whatever is lurking behind the question(s) you are asking rather than just teasers in a game of twenty questions.

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?
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
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.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
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.
 

genuineoriginal

New member

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?
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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'. :AMR:

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
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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? :idunno:

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
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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
 

moparguy

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

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
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.
 
Top