ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

tetelestai said:

This is a fancy way of saying God is too dumb to know the future.

Click to expand...

God is infinitely intelligent and not ignorant of anything knowable. He knows reality as it is, so He must know the future as possible vs actual if that is the way it really is.

If Open Theism compromised God's omniscience or intelligence, I would reject it (you are rejecting a straw man out of ignorance and arrogance).

Could you guys go into cryogenic freeze for an hour? I am having trouble catching up with other threads while you keep posting.

godrulz said:

God is infinitely intelligent and not ignorant of anything knowable. He knows reality as it is, so He must know the future as possible vs actual if that is the way it really is.

If Open Theism compromised God's omniscience or intelligence, I would reject it (you are rejecting a straw man out of ignorance and arrogance).

Could you guys go into cryogenic freeze for an hour? I am having trouble catching up with other threads while you keep posting.

Click to expand...

Pinnock says the following: "God could determine everything, but exercises divine self-restraint"

Process Theology believes God doesn't have such potential controlling power, only "persuasive" power.

What makes OVT right and Process Theology wrong? In other words, how do you guys know God is restraining Himself? Where in the Bible does it say God is restraining Himself?

godrulz said:

God is infinitely intelligent and not ignorant of anything knowable. He knows reality as it is, so He must know the future as possible vs actual if that is the way it really is.

If Open Theism compromised God's omniscience or intelligence, I would reject it (you are rejecting a straw man out of ignorance and arrogance).

Could you guys go into cryogenic freeze for an hour? I am having trouble catching up with other threads while you keep posting.

Click to expand...

Hours up, where are you? Open Theism does reject omniscience. The Open Theism Theologians have defined omniscience is such a way as to limit the capability of Almighty God. God has not changed. These men (Pinnock, Sanders and others) have changed God . Why do you call others ignorant and arrogant when you know it is Open Theism that is flawed.

tetelestai said:

What makes OVT right and Process Theology wrong? In other words, how do you guys know God is restraining Himself? Where in the Bible does it say God is restraining Himself?

Click to expand...

Good questions

What I dont understand is how could God prophecy about the future with 100% accuracy unless He has already seen it ? If He is just predicting based on what will "most likely" happen because of current and past events, then we would have seen many failed prophecies by now. At least one! But none of them have failed.

tetelestai said:

Pinnock says the following: "God could determine everything, but exercises divine self-restraint"

Process Theology believes God doesn't have such potential controlling power, only "persuasive" power.

What makes OVT right and Process Theology wrong? In other words, how do you guys know God is restraining Himself? Where in the Bible does it say God is restraining Himself?

Click to expand...

The fact that God allowed the holocaust and does not stop the brutal rape and murder of children is clearly a restraint of His power. He could have squashed Hitler or Satan like a bug, but did not. In both our views, there is restraint by God.

Process Thought and Open Theism differ significantly on key points. You fail to appreciate the differences, so don't be dogmatic out of ignorance. Pinnock himself emphasizes these differences (and the few simularities), so go do your homework.

Bright Raven said:

Hours up, where are you? Open Theism does reject omniscience. The Open Theism Theologians have defined omniscience is such a way as to limit the capability of Almighty God. God has not changed. These men (Pinnock, Sanders and others) have changed God . Why do you call others ignorant and arrogant when you know it is Open Theism that is flawed.

Click to expand...

If I knew it was flawed, I would reject it

Defining omniscience as knowing all that is knowable and omnipotence as able to do all that is doable is more precise than your generic definition and fully compatible with your beliefs. We agree that God knows everything and is ignorant of nothing, but differ as to the nature of His knowledge and what are objects of certain vs possible knowledge. Again, denying that God knows where Alice in Wonderland is would be a factual statement in both our views and not a denial of omniscience in either view. Just because you cannot see the parallel between Alice and the future does not mean you are right and we are wrong.:sam:

CJ37 said:

Good questions

What I dont understand is how could God prophecy about the future with 100% accuracy unless He has already seen it ? If He is just predicting based on what will "most likely" happen because of current and past events, then we would have seen many failed prophecies by now. At least one! But none of them have failed.

Click to expand...

Have you read Is. 46 and 48. You guys usually proof text it, but fail to interpret it. You extrapolate from the general to the specific, from partial to exhaustive. The text tells us that it is His ability, not foreknowledge, that explains prophecy and the contrast with false gods who are impotent to bring to pass what they declare. "I will do it", not "I see it and know it, so I will declare it"

e.g. Messianic prophecies...God does not have to see baby Jesus born in actuality in advance to declare that it will happen. It will happen because of His unilateral ability to incarnate and come again (Second Coming), not because He saw it on a pre-recorded film of the future. The future is anticipatory, even for God. The past is memory, not actually still existing. Only the present is real, even for God (His past memory is exhaustive and His future anticipation is significant, but not exhaustive since it is not fixed like the past is).

godrulz said:

Have you read Is. 46 and 48. You guys usually proof text it, but fail to interpret it. You extrapolate from the general to the specific, from partial to exhaustive. The text tells us that it is His ability, not foreknowledge, that explains prophecy and the contrast with false gods who are impotent to bring to pass what they declare. "I will do it", not "I see it and know it, so I will declare it"

e.g. Messianic prophecies...God does not have to see baby Jesus born in actuality in advance to declare that it will happen. It will happen because of His unilateral ability to incarnate and come again (Second Coming), not because He saw it on a pre-recorded film of the future. The future is anticipatory, even for God. The past is memory, not actually still existing. Only the present is real, even for God (His past memory is exhaustive and His future anticipation is significant, but not exhaustive since it is not fixed like the past is).

Click to expand...

What exactly is the benefit or motivation behind denying God's ability to see the future? Did the founders of Open Theism invent this theology in response to Calvinism ? Im trying to understand what you hope to accomplish by claiming God cannot see into the future. From my point of view, all you are doing is limiting God and reducing Him to man's level of understanding. Does it help you feel closer to Him to think that He is limited just like you are ? Trying to understand the motivation behind this theology

CJ37 said:

What exactly is the benefit or motivation behind denying God's ability to see the future? Did the founders of Open Theism invent this theology in response to Calvinism ? Im trying to understand what you hope to accomplish by claiming God cannot see into the future. From my point of view, all you are doing is limiting God and reducing Him to man's level of understanding. Does it help you feel closer to Him to think that He is limited just like you are ? Trying to understand the motivation behind this theology

Click to expand...

The motivation is to be biblical and coherent. If it happens to expose the errors of Calvinism/determinism, so be it.

You beg the question by assuming God sees the future. If there is biblical and logical evidence against your view, you are ignorant of it for whatever reason. What is your motivation to uncritically clinging to tradition rather than truth?

EDF or simple foreknowledge offers no providential advantage to God. Denying it is not denying anything necessary to God. If it was possible, I would affirm it. If it is impossible, I will not believe a falsehood just to make you and tradition happy.

It does not limit God to not know the unknowable. It does not limit God to not do the undoable. You seem to refuse to accept that there are things God cannot do and know. I have given you e.g. to open your narrow mind, but you plug your ears.

In the Open view, God is not limited just like we are. We have a drop in the bucket of knowledge compared to God who has all knowledge. Even if His knowledge is only certain about the past and present, how infinitely more vast is it than all of humanities' knowledge?! We do not limit God to say He correctly knows the unsettled future as possible vs certain. You violate Scripture and logic and misrepresent God and His Word. You are rejecting a straw man due to your ignorance. We are exalting God in all His glory and majesty without reducing or limiting Him. You underestimate His perfection, even from an Open view understanding. Nothing is impossible for God except that which is logically impossible. Non-Open Theists do not dispute this observation. If they do, they are dumber than atheists who can see the point (do you honestly believe in square circles...you cannot draw one, but don't assume God can!).

godrulz said:

Nothing is impossible for God except that which is logically impossible. .

Click to expand...

Is it logically possible for a virgin to give birth ? For the Red Sea to part ? For the dead to be raised back to life ? For the universe to be created out of nothing ? Please explain, logically, how any of these events took place.

Can you logically explain the origin of God ?

Godrulz and CJ37, do you guys ever sleep?

CJ37 said:

Is it logically possible for a virgin to give birth ? For the Red Sea to part ? For the dead to be raised back to life ? For the universe to be created out of nothing ? Please explain, logically, how any of these events took place.

Can you logically explain the origin of God ?

Click to expand...

Revelation> reason.

I can defend that an omnipotent God can supernaturally intervene in nature (your e.g.). I do not have to understand or explain it exhaustively to affirm its truth.

I cannot defend EDF and free will. It can be shown that there is a problem, just as you can show why a wrong view of sovereignty as meticulous control (determinism) is not compatible with libertarian free will. Calvinists know enough to reject LFW if they are not willing to reject their definition of sovereignty (which is not meticulous, BTW).

Your e.g. do not extricate you from the problems with your view. They do not undermine my view either since it is not parallel. As long as you argue for square circles, I cannot help you.

I cannot explain creation and complexity apart from God. It would be more indefensible to deny His existence especially in light of revelation. The time vs eternity debate is not parallel to this. We can support endless time, but must uncritically accept timelessness without support?:help:

godrulz said:

Process Thought and Open Theism differ significantly on key points. You fail to appreciate the differences, so don't be dogmatic out of ignorance. Pinnock himself emphasizes these differences (and the few simularities), so go do your homework.

Click to expand...

I will do my homework, but my question was this:

In other words, how do you guys know God is restraining Himself? Where in the Bible does it say God is restraining Himself?

Click to expand...

Forget PT for now, where in the Bible does it say God restrains Himself?

tetelestai said:

Godrulz and CJ37, do you guys ever sleep?

Click to expand...

You should talk?

I hope he is not in another country during the day.

It is 0400 here. The problem is that I have been awake for two 14 hour night shifts and minimal sleep in between. I woke up around supper, so my body and mind think I am staying awake or I have basically slept all night. Shift work...bah...I took a Melatonin (works for jet lag too), so I should be off to neverland soon.

tetelestai said:

I will do my homework, but my question was this:


Forget PT for now, where in the Bible does it say God restrains Himself?

Click to expand...

PT? God pronounces judgment. When the people repent, it says God relents. God also said He would destroy men, but then relented or restrained Himself because of Noah. He also could wipe us out again, but He said he would restrain Himself and not send a Flood again (rainbow promise). Every time God extends mercy instead of judgment, He restrains Himself.

When God changed His mind about Hezekiah, He restrained an intention to do something different.

God is personal, so He can do what He wants if and when He wants. He can even change His mind (Bible says ?37x in response to changing contingencies, consistent with His character and purposes).

Jesus could have called legions of angels, but did not. This is God with a face restraining independent exercise of His power to do the Father's will. God is more free than we are.

The fact that God could have killed Hitler or stopped any form of evil by any individual or group shows that He is patient, not impulsive. This is a form of restraint. If He always exercised justice vs mercy immediately, there would be no restraint. He talks about His anger burning, but the prayers of a few restraining Him (Lot e.g.). He looks for intercessors to stand in the gap. If He does not find any, He goes ahead with something that could have been different. This is not a misleading representation of God and His ways, but the way He actually is. Prayer is not just for our sake, but can actually influence God, by His choice, for various reasons. Calvinism (you have some vestiges of it) has a different paradigm that must distort Scripture vs accept it.

tetelestai said:

Godrulz and CJ37, do you guys ever sleep?

Click to expand...

How can I sleep with all these unresolved theological issues ?:jawdrop:

CJ37 said:

How can I sleep with all these unresolved theological issues ?:jawdrop:

Click to expand...

How can I sleep knowing there are people in cyber-space with unresolved issues not being helped by infomercials?! Truth compels us to sacrifice for others so they may sleep with resolved theological issues.

godrulz said:

PT?

Click to expand...

Process Theology (open theism's cousin)

godrulz said:

Revelation> reason.

I can defend that an omnipotent God can supernaturally intervene in nature (your e.g.). I do not have to understand or explain it exhaustively to affirm its truth.

I cannot defend EDF and free will. It can be shown that there is a problem, just as you can show why a wrong view of sovereignty as meticulous control (determinism) is not compatible with libertarian free will. Calvinists know enough to reject LFW if they are not willing to reject their definition of sovereignty (which is not meticulous, BTW).

Your e.g. do not extricate you from the problems with your view. They do not undermine my view either since it is not parallel. As long as you argue for square circles, I cannot help you.

I cannot explain creation and complexity apart from God. It would be more indefensible to deny His existence especially in light of revelation. The time vs eternity debate is not parallel to this. We can support endless time, but must uncritically accept timelessness without support?:help:

Click to expand...

So God always existed and is all powerful BUT He exists in the same bubble of time that we do and therefore cannot infallibly know the future, since He is restricted by time just as we are. Well I suppose in a way that does make God more "managable" to the human mind, makes Him "more like us" , or does it make "us more like Him" ? Maybe some of both ? But in my opinion it is a very limited view of God. I believe He is capable of immeasurably more than we can imagine and it is foolish to limit Him in any way shape or form.

tetelestai said:

Process Theology (open theism's cousin)

Click to expand...

You are as bad as the Calvinists who say Arminianism is Pelagianism...nope, it is not.

PT is the opposite extreme of hyper-Calvinism. It is heretical on essential points, whereas many Calvinists and Arminians admit that Open Theism is not defective on essential truths. Differing on the nature of creation is a far cry from denying the Trinity or Deity of Christ, etc.

See my misconceptions about OT thread (now completed).