Announcement

Collapse

Theology Club Rules

For years many TOL members have asked for a special set of forums where theology could be discussed without the distraction of troublemakers and other distractions. To post in the Theology Club forums you must apply for membership (yes even TOL subscribers must apply). Almost all memberships will be approved however your membership will be revoked if you engage in anti-Christian rhetoric, repeated cases of red-herrings, quibbling over terms (equivocation), strawmen, false allegations, and other devices contrary to honest debate. In short the Theology Club is a place for honest and friendly discussion regarding theological topics.
See more
See less

The use of the word "future"

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by fishrovmen View Post
    So, why not just say that God can create the future. He interacts with the flow of history and creates the outcome of the future as it unfolds by His decisions and actions.?
    Because He is not alone in that effect. We are autonomous, and therefore able to create the future in conjunction with God.
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #17
      So why doesn't the Open View Theology statement read so? Why doesn't it say : The Open View teaches that God can create the future in conjunction with autonomous humans. He interacts with the flow of history and creates the outcome of the future as it unfolds by both His and our decisions and actions.?
      Omniscience limited
      Prophetic guesses
      Election by observation
      No future yet

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Saved.One.by.Grace View Post
        For this theological belief, one cannot believe in God's sovereignty. This also puts into question the prophecies of the OT prophets, Jesus, and the NT prophets. This position questions God's prescience, His foreknowledge. Isn't this creating God in our image?
        Sovereignty is not complete manipulation of everything. That's not what a sovereign does. That's not even what a dictator does. A sovereign provides the security, discipline, moral guidance and infrastructure to enable his subjects to live in peace and freedom. Those who would have God exercise complete control over every decision and every action and event are actually denying sovereignty, not affirming it.

        Similarly, it would be trivial if God knew absolutely everything that was ever going to happen, what would be the point of prophecy? Prophecy makes sense as a supernatural thing, a miracle, etc., precisely because in general the future is unknowable. Your view of prophecy amounts to nothing more than God showing off. But if God has a plan to do something in a particular way and tells you about it, then that is something valuable.

        The open view is not creating God in man's image. It is recognising God's sovereignty in ways that are logical and practical. Man was made in God's image and that means that it ought to be possible to communicate with God and share in his purposes. Your view of man is so different to God that it is impossible for man to contribute anything at all, let alone be the image of God himself.
        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


        • #19
          Originally posted by fishrovmen View Post
          So why doesn't the Open View Theology statement read so? Why doesn't it say : The Open View teaches that God can create the future in conjunction with autonomous humans. He interacts with the flow of history and creates the outcome of the future as it unfolds by both His and our decisions and actions.?
          What do you mean by 'the Open View Theology statement'? If you're referring to this
          The Open View teaches that God can change the future. He interacts with the flow of history and changes the outcome of the future as it unfolds by His decisions and actions. This forum is dedicated to the discussion of openness theology.
          then I already answered your question in my earlier posts. If you think this wording is wrong, it's no big deal, it is only a brief summary. A fully fledged theological statement was not called for just to introduce a discussion forum.
          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


          • #20
            Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
            What do you mean by 'the Open View Theology statement'? If you're referring to this

            then I already answered your question in my earlier posts.
            I was responding to Lighthouse's interpretation of that statement.
            Omniscience limited
            Prophetic guesses
            Election by observation
            No future yet

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by fishrovmen View Post
              So why doesn't the Open View Theology statement read so? Why doesn't it say : The Open View teaches that God can create the future in conjunction with autonomous humans. He interacts with the flow of history and creates the outcome of the future as it unfolds by both His and our decisions and actions.?
              It essentially does. But, as Desert Reign pointed out, a fully fledged theological statement was not needed for this sub-forum. This particular idea is one that is explained during discussion of the topic. And also something I would expect to be self-evident from the statement available, which uses commonly understood language to explain the open view.

              Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
              What do you mean by 'the Open View Theology statement'? If you're referring to this
              then I already answered your question in my earlier posts. If you think this wording is wrong, it's no big deal, it is only a brief summary. A fully fledged theological statement was not called for just to introduce a discussion forum.
              sigpic

              Comment

              Working...
              X