User Tag List

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 118

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

  1. #46
    Over 500 post club Doormat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    In a temple made without hands.
    Posts
    719
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2463
    Quote Originally Posted by Doormat
    How is any foreknowledge possible if the future is unknown by the observer?

    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    Is. 46 and 48 shows how God can bring things to pass by His ability and thus declare these things in advance.
    God brought to pass Matthew 2:18?

    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    God is also intelligent and is able to extrapolate things about the future based on exhaustive past and present knowledge.
    Nothing surprises Him? He has no reason to repent?

    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    The mistake is to think that God somehow sees the non-existent future as certain/actual vs anticipatory or that He causes all things and thus knows all things.
    The mistake is to think that God is subject to your ideas about time.

    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    God determines/knows some things, while other aspects are indeterminate and left to be settled by contingent choices.

    He knows reality as it is, so He correctly distinguishes possible, necessary, actual, certain, probable (modal logic).
    Based on scripture, I believe that idea lacks integrity.
    So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

  2. #47
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,379
    Thanks
    1,912
    Thanked 1,844 Times in 1,362 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    530129
    Quote Originally Posted by Doormat View Post
    The appearance of detailed knowledge of the future suggests prescience. What I'm hearing from godrulz is that open theism precludes prescience. His idea of foreknowledge is not prescience.
    There are some people that believe in open theism but do not believe God has prescience, others believe that God has some knowledge of events that will not occur until a future time without having Exhaustively Defined Foreknowledge (EDF).

    I am in the former group, because I do not see any example in scripture where God needed any prescience in order to give the prophecies and to create the fulfillment.

    I believe that God is All Powerful, as it is written.
    When I look at what was needed to create the heaven and the earth and everything in it, I see a God that is powerful enough to create everything needed to fulfill of His word.

    If you think God needs to have seen the future in order to make detailed predictions, then you are really claiming that God is not All Powerful.

    God made a prediction to Moses that Moses found hard to believe.
    This is God's response to Moses's disbelief:

    Numbers 11:23
    23 And the Lord said unto Moses, Is the Lord'S hand waxed short? thou shalt see now whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Doormat View Post
    Matthew 2:17-18 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."

    How is that the type of foreknowledge that godrulz described in his response to me?
    Look at the circumstances around this prophecy.
    God had already declared that He would bring the messiah from the tribe of Judah and from the house of David.
    The land of Israel was split into two kingdoms after Solomon, and the southern kingdom contained the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.
    Benjamin came from Rachel.
    David came from the town of Bethlehem in the territory of Judah.
    Ramah, in the territory of Benjamin is a hill close enough to Bethlehem to be able to hear people shouting there.
    God has given Satan freedom to attempt to stop God's prophecies from coming true, so God could make a prediction that Satan would attempt to kill the Messiah after the Messiah was born and identified.
    In order to have the prophecy come true, the only things God would need to do is have the Messiah born in Bethlehem (as written in another prophecy) and have the birth of the Messiah made known.
    God relied on Satan to create the fulfillment of the prophecy of the weeping for the slain children being heard in Ramah.

    The fulfillment of the prophecy gives the appearance of detailed knowledge of the future, but really only needed present knowledge about Satan's typical reactions and slightly influencing a couple of people at the time of the fulfillment to bring about the rest.
    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

  3. #48
    Over 500 post club Doormat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    In a temple made without hands.
    Posts
    719
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2463
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    If you think God needs to have seen the future in order to make detailed predictions, then you are really claiming that God is not All Powerful.
    What if God has already observed what we call the future?
    So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

  4. #49
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,379
    Thanks
    1,912
    Thanked 1,844 Times in 1,362 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    530129
    Quote Originally Posted by Doormat View Post
    What if God has already observed what we call the future?
    Why would He need to?
    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

  5. #50
    Over 500 post club Doormat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    In a temple made without hands.
    Posts
    719
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2463
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Why would He need to?
    Do I really need to answer that for you to answer my question? If God has already observed what we call the future, does that necessarily mean the future is not open?
    So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

  6. #51
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,379
    Thanks
    1,912
    Thanked 1,844 Times in 1,362 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    530129
    Quote Originally Posted by Doormat View Post
    Do I really need to answer that for you to answer my question?
    People that believe God has prescience believe it in order to explain something they cannot explain any other way.
    My point is that I see no need to use prescience to explain anything God does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doormat View Post
    If God has already observed what we call the future, does that necessarily mean the future is not open?
    Of course. That should be blatantly obvious.
    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

  7. #52
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    11814
    Quote Originally Posted by oatmeal View Post
    After reading the first four posts, open theism has no agreed upon meaning.

    "open theism" is a useless title. Time to get back to what scriptures teach.

    John 17:17 God's word is truth.

    I Timothy 2:4 we are to come to the knowledge of the truth

    Why so we can have fellowship with God, with His son and with fellow believers. I John

    oatmeal
    It is a descriptive model of providence in contrast to Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Process Thought.

    It is based on God's Word that we all must interpret to formulate a theology.

    We can label your views historically, so don't be so smug and simplistic/superspiritual.
    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.

  8. #53
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    11814
    Quote Originally Posted by Selaphiel View Post
    Process thought is a form of open theism, though not one typically held by conservative evangelicals. The reason being that process thought holds that the indeterminism of reality is not by choice from God, but rather from metaphysical necessity, and that a new understanding of omnipotence is required in light of this fact. For the process thinker, saying that God makes a sovereign choice when creating an indeterminate world presents a problem down the line, namely that it fails to address the problem of evil in any philosophically satisfactory way, it simply pushes the problem one step back.
    Process Thought has a few similarities with Open Theism, but more differences. It is more extreme on the spectrum. Most Open Theists do not accept Process, panentheism, etc. (Thomas Jay Oord is perhaps an exception among others).

    This is like Calvinists saying that Arminianism is Pelagianism. This is simply not true (just because both affirm free will does not make the views identical or common on most points).
    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.

  9. #54
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    11814
    Quote Originally Posted by Doormat View Post
    The appearance of detailed knowledge of the future suggests prescience. What I'm hearing from godrulz is that open theism precludes prescience. His idea of foreknowledge is not prescience.

    Matthew 2:17-18 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."

    How is that the type of foreknowledge that godrulz described in his response to me?
    Fulfill in the NT of OT passages is not usually predictive prophecy, but fulfilled in the sense of illustrative, parallel (this is why the verses seem so out of context at times or a dual fulfillment, historically and future).
    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.

  10. #55
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    11814
    Quote Originally Posted by Doormat View Post
    What if God has already observed what we call the future?
    How? There is no mechanism to imagine that God can see settled choices of free moral agents before they even exist to make indeterminate choices?!

    Simple foreknowledge (Arminianism), middle knowledge (Molinism), eternal now, determinism, etc. are proposed mechanisms, but not without problems, not defensible in the end.

    To not know a nothing is not a deficiency in omniscience.
    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.

  11. #56
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    11814
    Quote Originally Posted by Doormat View Post
    Do I really need to answer that for you to answer my question? If God has already observed what we call the future, does that necessarily mean the future is not open?
    Does not compute...
    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.

  12. #57
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,588
    Thanks
    16,942
    Thanked 40,140 Times in 20,064 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147833
    Quote Originally Posted by Inzl Kett View Post
    People make more of this term, perhaps, than they should. In short--Open Theism is a term for a living God- a Biblical God that hears your prayers. Not a preprogrammed God with your future set in stone. He is a God that willing that none should end up in hell.
    2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

    He is a God that has given you a free will because He loves you. I believe in a living God. How about you?
    I had no idea what Open Theism was, but, yes, I do believe in a living God.

  13. #58
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,588
    Thanks
    16,942
    Thanked 40,140 Times in 20,064 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147833
    Quote Originally Posted by Nang View Post
    License never leads to morality.

    Morality comes from outside fallen men, as a gift of grace from God.

    There are no inherent moral values apart from the moral standards of God (Law), and the only access sinners have to those standards is by righteousness being imputed to them from Jesus Christ.

    Solus Christus!
    Have you forgotten God created us with a conscience which lets us know right from wrong?

  14. #59
    Over 500 post club Doormat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    In a temple made without hands.
    Posts
    719
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2463
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    People that believe God has prescience believe it in order to explain something they cannot explain any other way.
    Rather, I see evidence of prescience so conclude that God has observed what we call the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doormat
    If God has already observed what we call the future, does that necessarily mean the future is not open?
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Of course. That should be blatantly obvious.
    Couldn't the future be open from the perspective of the human observer and exhaustively known from the perspective of God?
    So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

  15. #60
    Over 500 post club Doormat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    In a temple made without hands.
    Posts
    719
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2463
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    How? There is no mechanism to imagine that God can see settled choices of free moral agents before they even exist to make indeterminate choices?!
    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.
    So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

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