User Tag List

Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Open View Theology

  1. #1
    LIFETIME MEMBER Bright Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Calfornia
    Posts
    9,191
    Thanks
    380
    Thanked 4,917 Times in 2,854 Posts

    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147750

    Open View Theology

    Is it true or is it false? I do not see how it can be true

    From Gotquestions.org

    Question: "What is open theism?"

    Answer: “Open theism,” also known as “openness theology,” the “openness of God,” and “free will theism,” is an attempt to explain the foreknowledge of God in relationship to the free will of man. The argument of open theism is essentially this: human beings are truly free; if God absolutely knew the future, human beings could not truly be free. Therefore, God does not know absolutely everything about the future. Open theism holds that the future is not knowable. Therefore, God knows everything that can be known, but He does not know the future.

    Open theism bases these beliefs on Scripture passages which describe God “changing His mind” or “being surprised” or “seeming to gain knowledge” (Genesis 6:6; 22:12; Exodus 32:14; Jonah 3:10). In light of the many other Scriptures that declare God's knowledge of the future, these Scriptures should be understood as God describing Himself in ways that we can understand. God knows what our actions and decisions will be, but He “changes His mind” in regard to His actions based on our actions. God’s disappointment at the wickedness of humanity does not mean He was not aware it would occur.

    In contradiction to open theism, Psalm 139:4, 16 state, “Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD...All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” How could God predict intricate details in the Old Testament about Jesus Christ if He does not know the future? How could God in any manner guarantee our eternal salvation if He does not know what the future holds?

    Ultimately, open theism fails in that it attempts to explain the unexplainable—the relationship between God's foreknowledge and mankind's free will. Just as extreme forms of Calvinism fail in that they make human beings nothing more than pre-programmed robots, so open theism fails in that it rejects God's true omniscience and sovereignty. God must be understood through faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6a). Open theism is, therefore, not scriptural. It is simply another way for finite man to try to understand an infinite God. Open theism should be rejected by followers of Christ. While open theism is an explanation for the relationship between God's foreknowledge and human free will, it is not the biblical explanation.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

    Jim Elliot

  2. #2
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,054
    Thanks
    34,081
    Thanked 8,586 Times in 5,507 Posts

    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147638
    Quote Originally Posted by Bright Raven View Post
    Is it true or is it false? I do not see how it can be true

    From Gotquestions.org

    Question: "What is open theism?"

    Answer: “Open theism,” also known as “openness theology,” the “openness of God,” and “free will theism,” is an attempt to explain the foreknowledge of God in relationship to the free will of man. The argument of open theism is essentially this: human beings are truly free; if God absolutely knew the future, human beings could not truly be free. Therefore, God does not know absolutely everything about the future. Open theism holds that the future is not knowable. Therefore, God knows everything that can be known, but He does not know the future.

    Open theism bases these beliefs on Scripture passages which describe God “changing His mind” or “being surprised” or “seeming to gain knowledge” (Genesis 6:6; 22:12; Exodus 32:14; Jonah 3:10).
    See below.

    In light of the many other Scriptures that declare God's knowledge of the future, these Scriptures should be understood as God describing Himself in ways that we can understand.
    In other words, the author is telling the reader that the verses should not be read plainly, without interpretation, first, but that they should interpret it in such a way that it fits with the settled view.

    That's called question begging. Assuming the truth of your position to prove your position is correct.

    Instead, what the reader should do is read the scriptures presented, and whichever position uses them with the least amount of interpretation and explanation of those verses is probably the correct one.

    Think Occam's razor.

    God knows what our actions and decisions will be, but He “changes His mind” in regard to His actions based on our actions. God’s disappointment at the wickedness of humanity does not mean He was not aware it would occur.

    In contradiction to open theism, Psalm 139:4, 16 state, “Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD...All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
    Ok, so, Taking two verses out of their context and saying that they then contradict an entire doctrine is a bit much.

    First of all, "before a word is on my tongue" just means before I say something. And where is speech before it is uttered? In the brain. Is GQ ignoring that relatively simple fact? Because it refutes the first part of their claim that the verse contradicts open theism, because God can know what is on a person's mind before they say it. He's powerful enough to do that.

    Second, verse 16 is not talking about the entire life of a person. Verses 13-16 are verses on fetology, and are also a powerful weapon against abortion:


    The Sanctity of Unborn Life – Biblical Fetology: "For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb… My frame [skeleton] was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth [womb; see below]. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them." –Psalm 139:13-16
    "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you..." –Jeremiah 1:5

    God wrote the book of fetology, that is, the development of the baby in the womb which is described in the human genome and the gametes of the parents. That book documents the course of a child's fetal development and birth. In verse 16, David is bragging about God's extraordinary design of the development of the baby in the womb. The embryo goes through the trimesters of development not haphazardly but by direction from God. The child forms in the womb by God's intricate plan of fetal development, which we now know He recorded in the written instructions of our DNA and in the cells of the ovum and sperm which unite to form the single-celled brand new human child (organism). That single cell contains step-by-step, day-by-day directions of the 280 days of gestation which the Spirit inspired David to write about, the days of the child's development in the womb. "You formed my inward parts; you covered me in my mother’s womb," explains that God designed the process by which the baby is formed, protecting the little one (Latin, fetus) within his mom. "My frame [skeleton] was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth." David praised God, for even as he developed in the womb, God could see his frame (Hebrew, skeleton, lit. bones) being knit together, "skillfully wrought," in "my mother's womb." The Hebrew idiom, "the lowest parts of the earth" was a common expression for "the womb" as one can see from the reverse use of the idiom in Job 1:21, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there." No one returns to their mother's womb at death, but rather, goes into the grave, i.e., the lowest parts of the earth, which phrase came to be a Hebrew figure representing the womb, even as Man was made from the earth, the dust of the ground. The genetic code written by God describes the development of the baby in the womb, so God reveals, "Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed (as the baby travels down the fallopian tube, even before he is formed in the womb, Jer. 1:5) and in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them." God sees the child, who he or she really is, the baby's substance, all through the extraordinary DNA code which God wrote (which David of course had no concept of, but which as the author, God knew all about). So, from the moment of conception, "being yet unformed," that is, as just a single cell in my mother's fallopian tube, God saw me, and knit me together, and in His book of instructions for the baby's awesome development in the womb, all "the days fashioned for me," that is, all the days which God decreed for the fashioning of a fetus, they were written and set from the very beginning, before a single day's growth unfolded, even before the first cell divided into two, all 280 days of gestation, beginning with that moment of fertilization. So regardless of one's theology about predestination and free will, Psalm 139 does not teach that if a child is aborted, that moment of death was written in God's book. Rather, the book and its pages describe the development of the fetus, not his lifetime and ultimate death. Psalm 139:16 presents a couplet, a simple Hebrew parallelism. The two sentences of Psalm 139:16 both speak of the same topic, with each further explaining the other. Thus "the days fashioned for me" were not the days of my childhood, or my marriage, nor do they describe the child's death certificate, for these were the days when only God could see "my substance, being yet unformed." For He knows what each human being is like, in the most extraordinary detail, at the moment of conception. And the wonderful passage at Jeremiah 1:5 is another Hebrew couplet, where both parts describe aspects of the same unformed single-celled child in the womb. "Before I formed you in the womb... before you were born" (Jer. 1:5). Both halves of the couplet are describing the same time of when the baby was in his mother's womb. Likewise, God created the Earth yet calls it unformed (Gen. 1:1-2) because the dry land hadn't yet appeared until the third day when it was then ready to support life. So God didn't have to wait for Jeremiah to graduate from high school, so to speak, or even for him to be born, before He could know him. God knew him from the moment of conception, that is, from the moment he was conceived in his mother's womb!


    - https://americanrtl.org/what-does-th...rtion#Fetology

    How could God predict intricate details in the Old Testament about Jesus Christ if He does not know the future? How could God in any manner guarantee our eternal salvation if He does not know what the future holds?
    Because God is powerful enough and wise enough to bring about that which He plans.

    Ultimately, open theism fails in that it attempts to explain the unexplainable—the relationship between God's foreknowledge and mankind's free will. Just as extreme forms of Calvinism fail in that they make human beings nothing more than pre-programmed robots, so open theism fails in that it rejects God's true omniscience and sovereignty. God must be understood through faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6a). Open theism is, therefore, not scriptural.
    That's not what was said above:


    Open theism bases these beliefs on Scripture passages which describe God “changing His mind” or “being surprised” or “seeming to gain knowledge” (Genesis 6:6; 22:12; Exodus 32:14; Jonah 3:10).



    There's also Jeremiah 18, John 11, and many others that show that the future is not settled.

    Saying it's not a scriptural belief is just flat out lying.

    It is simply another way for finite man to try to understand an infinite God. Open theism should be rejected by followers of Christ.
    RATHER, instead of making such a hasty defense of their beliefs as if they were scared of the doctrine of open theism, the author of this article should have taken the time to consider what it actually says, as most of his rebuttals have already been addressed by proponents of the doctrine.

    While open theism is an explanation for the relationship between God's foreknowledge and human free will, it is not the biblical explanation.
    Again, saying it doesn't make it so, and it has been shown otherwise, especially with Jeremiah 18.

    There's not a lot of substance to this article, it's basically just open theism bashing, without actually trying to understand what open theism really is about.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us