A problem with open theism (HOF thread)

[Nathon Detroit]

Is this inattention/lack of dwelling on or inability/unawareness?

God is a righteous and holy God, God knows how wicked and sinful men can be and it seems He isn't interested in witnessing our vileness firsthand unless there is reason to do so, God also chooses not to retain all knowledge of all sin in His mind and therefore He choose to wipe it out and forget it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Is it fair for God to miss some acts of evil and not judge them, while He happens to catch me all the time because His love is always directed towards me? God is not like a speed trap that catches some, but not others. His radar is always on. I wonder if my idea of inattention vs inability is a better perspective than chosing to not know something that is knowable? Interesting ideas, but something just does not sit right with your definition. I prefer simply to say that He knows all that is logically knowable while recognizing He can focus on what He wants to at any given time without losing total awareness of possible objects of knowledge.

You have a hard time with this concept because you don't believe in a workless plan of salvation - but as they say.... that is a topic for another show.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Dear Robin and Freak . . .

Not wanting to make a mountain our of a mole hill but I have just got to get some closure on something you said earlier in this thread.

Robin stated . . .

John Calvin circa 1618

Greg Boyd circa 1994

Gee.....which theology has stood the test of time?

And Freak responded sarcastically....

Easy.
Boydism

I am assuming the point you were trying to make was the OV is wrong and Calvinism is correct.

The problem is . . . neither of you two are Calvinists!

When I asked the two of you if you were Calvinists here were your responses...

I'm not a Calvinist, Knight. I'm a follower of Jesus Christ. There are some biblical truths found in Calvinism but I do not find my identification in Calvinism. Rather I find it in Christ alone.

I am a Christian, not Calvinist, not Arminian, not anything other than a believer and follower of Christ.
Simple......

Now of course these follow-up responses didn't surprise me since neither one of you have been preaching anything near a Calvinistic point of view.

Therefore . . .
Why would you mock open theism using Calvinism which is diametrically opposed to your views?

Isn't that a bit odd?

And could you humor me with an answer to all this even if you think it's petty of me to keep bringing up?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Is the Lord actually saying that He did not think of something? :think: Even in open theism, God knows all things actual as well as potential. Yes? :think: That means that God can know all things in the present tense as well as all possibilities of things that could exist. Certainly God who knew the past sins of Israel would have thought about them doing such sin -- as horrible as it was. So, it doesn't make sense to interpret this as God admitting that He had never thought of something. :nono:

something he never though of as "actual" maybe. i agree that he knew of it as a possibility.

Furthermore, the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, RSV, 1901 ASV, all translate this as "and it did not come into My mind," What is interesting is that the LXX uses the Greek word "kardia", "heart" instead of the Greek word for mind. Since we can conclude that God can contemplate all potential forms of rebellion, we can then also conclude that God is addressing the issue of human moral behavior instead of expressing ignorance since that is what God is talking about. In other words, their sin did not enter the intention of God's heart in His plans for Judah.

P.S. The NASB has a marginal note of "heart." and The LXX, or Septuagint, is the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. It was translated by Jews around 200 B.C.

i actually agree with this, despite my being an open theist.

 

[godrulz]

You have a hard time with this concept because you don't believe in a workless plan of salvation - but as they say.... that is a topic for another show.

Excuse me...salvation is by grace through faith, not by works. Omniscience is a different issue than faith vs works. At the moment of justification, God does not empty His memory anymore than we do. God treats us AS IF we never sinned based on the person and work of Christ. This does not have to mean that He gets amnesia. He does not count our sins against us (biblical phraseology). This is not the same thing as having dementia.

 

[Clete]

godrulz,

Debating what God does or does not forget and to what degree is for another thread I think. I only brought it up as an example of what sorts of things I am referring too when I say that God knows what He wants to know. It was not my intention to bring up new issues to distract from the topic at hand, that being Open Theism. My real point, which you don't seem to have addressed, is that Biblical difficulties like the one Robin has brought up are wiped out if we accept that God knows only that portion of the knowable information in the universe which He wants to know and no more than that. That may not square with your definition of omniscience but my theology is not based on the definition of words that are not even in the Bible. The point is that such a theology allows me to read this Jeremiah passage and take it for what it is clearly saying without having to do back flips through the LXX to make it make sense. If the Bible teaches that the traditional understanding of God's omniscience is an overstatement then it is an overstatement and I'm perfectly comfortable with that.
Generally omnipotence is overstated as well, as Lee demonstrated for us and which you explained as well as anyone I've ever heard explain it. Likewise omnipresence is also overstated, God is where He wants to be and not where He doesn't want to be. Nobody can make God be somewhere He doesn't wish to be. He is not sitting inside your toilet while your doing your business. He is not now nor is He ever going to be in the Lake of Fire. He is not in any place that does not exist, like the past or the future or somewhere outside of time.
And so the point is (one last time), that if we have a Biblical view of God we can read the Bible and not get tripped up by very easy to understand passages that any home schooled third-grader could read and understand completely.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

OK, doc what Bible story is Paul referencing here in Romans 9?

It is important we take this step by step.

And if you go with me (step by step) you will see how your theology is reading more into this verse than is actually there.

Okay, the story originally referenced was the Hebrew exodus.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Okay, the story originally referenced was the Hebrew exodus.

Lets be a bit more specific . . . what other Bible passage is Paul pointing to in Romans 9?

 

[docrob57]

Lets be a bit more specific . . . what other Bible passage is Paul pointing to in Romans 9?

Also Isaiah, sorry

 

[godrulz]

godrulz,

Debating what God does or does not forget and to what degree is for another thread I think. I only brought it up as an example of what sorts of things I am referring too when I say that God knows what He wants to know. It was not my intention to bring up new issues to distract from the topic at hand, that being Open Theism. My real point, which you don't seem to have addressed, is that Biblical difficulties like the one Robin has brought up are wiped out if we accept that God knows only that portion of the knowable information in the universe which He wants to know and no more than that. That may not square with your definition of omniscience but my theology is not based on the definition of words that are not even in the Bible. The point is that such a theology allows me to read this Jeremiah passage and take it for what it is clearly saying without having to do back flips through the LXX to make it make sense. If the Bible teaches that the traditional understanding of God's omniscience is an overstatement then it is an overstatement and I'm perfectly comfortable with that.
Generally omnipotence is overstated as well, as Lee demonstrated for us and which you explained as well as anyone I've ever heard explain it. Likewise omnipresence is also overstated, God is where He wants to be and not where He doesn't want to be. Nobody can make God be somewhere He doesn't wish to be. He is not sitting inside your toilet while your doing your business. He is not now nor is He ever going to be in the Lake of Fire. He is not in any place that does not exist, like the past or the future or somewhere outside of time.
And so the point is (one last time), that if we have a Biblical view of God we can read the Bible and not get tripped up by very easy to understand passages that any home schooled third-grader could read and understand completely.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I agree with your understanding of Jeremiah, but do not see your definition as being necessary to it.

Omnipresence is not pantheism. God is not in the toilet, but His awareness and influence are everywhere. We cannot hide from Him. He is not localized in hell, but that does not mean He does not see or know the details of it. He does not have to focus and dwell on it.

Minimally, we agree that there are things that are unknowable as a certainty (future free will choices). Do we still agree that God only knows the past and present exhaustively? If so, I do not see how He cannot know something knowable. I think this is relevant to a thread about the problems with Open Theism. If we have wrong views within Open Theism, our opponents may reject the whole package (not saying you are wrong...I just do not see the nuance as you do). We can leave the footnote for now and affirm the general truths of the Open view.

 

[Clete]

I agree with your understanding of Jeremiah, but do not see your definition as being necessary to it.

It's only necessary when you want to take what the passage says at face value.

Omnipresence is not pantheism. God is not in the toilet, but His awareness and influence are everywhere.

Awareness and influence have to do with omniscience and omnipotence not omnipresence.

We cannot hide from Him. He is not localized in hell, but that does not mean He does not see or know the details of it. He does not have to focus and dwell on it.

I never suggested that we could hide from God but your concession that He is not in Hell is the equivelent to conceding my entire point. If there is anywhere, the toilet, Hell, anywhere that God is not located then the traditional understanding of omnipresence is overstated.

Minimally, we agree that there are things that are unknowable as a certainty (future free will choices). Do we still agree that God only knows the past and present exhaustively?

He knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable, nothing more nothing less.

If so, I do not see how He cannot know something knowable.

Because He chooses to ignore or for some other reason remain ignorant of it. God is in control of His own mind and His own awareness.

I think this is relevant to a thread about the problems with Open Theism. If we have wrong views within Open Theism, our opponents may reject the whole package (not saying you are wrong...I just do not see the nuance as you do). We can leave the footnote for now and affirm the general truths of the Open view.

I think that it is a fine hair to split and that unless discussing it with another Open Theist the distinction almost never becomes vital and so I generally don't make a big deal about it. And this specific issue is definately relevant to Open Theism, I just didn't want to get off onto a debate about what if anything God is able to forget. That would take us too far off into rabit trail country.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

Would it be possible for someone to pick up on Knight's Romans 9 explanation for me so that I might be properly educated and this thing can move along?

 

[Clete]

Would it be possible for someone to pick up on Knight's Romans 9 explanation for me so that I might be properly educated and this thing can move along?

I think that he is refering to the fact that Paul references the Potter and the clay story which is found in Jer. 18 along with it's interpretation.

Mr. Coffee and I are starting a one on one thread covering this very issue. You won't be able to post there but you might find it interesting to follow it anyway. I think it can be pretty easily established that Romans 9 has nothing at all to do with predestination, at least not the Calvinist version of it anyway.

Here's a link to the thread...
On on One: Romans 9

 

[godrulz]

Clete: I think omnipresence and omniscience are related. If you could be in NY and LA at the same time, your knowledge of what is going on in both cities would be greater than if you were only in NY (making you unaware of LA issues first hand).

There seems to be a sense that God is in a locale, while His presence and awareness/influence is everywhere. Pantheism is not true. God the Creator is distinct from His creation. My omnipresence thread was an attempt to speculate on these things since I understand it less than I do omnipotence or omniscience.

 

[Clete]

Clete: I think omnipresence and omniscience are related. If you could be in NY and LA at the same time, your knowledge of what is going on in both cities would be greater than if you were only in NY (making you unaware of LA issues first hand).

There seems to be a sense that God is in a locale, while His presence and awareness/influence is everywhere.

Okay fine but as I said, there are passages in the Bible that come right out and say that God had been unaware of some current event in a particular location. My view seems to agree with that Biblical evidence more so than a traditional view.

Pantheism is not true. God the Creator is distinct from His creation.

You've said this twice now. I don't think that any Christian would disagree with this even if they stridently held to the strictest of interpretaions of what it means to be omnipresent. Saying that God is absolutely everywhere doesn't at all mean that He is everything or that everything is God.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I think that he is refering to the fact that Paul references the Potter and the clay story which is found in Jer. 18 along with it's interpretation.

Mr. Coffee and I are starting a one on one thread covering this very issue. You won't be able to post there but you might find it interesting to follow it anyway. I think it can be pretty easily established that Romans 9 has nothing at all to do with predestination, at least not the Calvinist version of it anyway.

Here's a link to the thread...
On on One: Romans 9

OK... so I wont "spill the beans" then.

Doc, I am guessing Clete will address this issue very much the way I would have. I encourage you to read along with his "one on one" thread.

 

[Freak]

I asked Knight back in post #272:

Quote:
God's prediction "wrong?" Is God sometimes "wrong?"

Knight responded:

Quote:
Of course!

Knight, where did God go wrong? How many times has He been wrong??? Curious to know.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, where did God go wrong? How many times has He been wrong??? Curious to know.

When predicting the actions of freewill agents being inaccurate isn't a bad thing. It's simply evidence that man can (at times) do what God didn't expect that they do.

Words like . . . "wrong" or "inaccurate" or "relent" or "repent" are only bad words if you have a fragile view of God and His power. So fragile that the hint of anything like these descriptions can break Him.

God isn't worried that people may think less of Him, He still tells it like it is even when we disappoint Him.

Isaiah 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. 2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Freak, when you get a chance could you respond to my post #623?

 

[Agape4Robin]

Dear Robin and Freak . . .

Not wanting to make a mountain our of a mole hill but I have just got to get some closure on something you said earlier in this thread.

Robin stated . . .
And Freak responded sarcastically....I am assuming the point you were trying to make was the OV is wrong and Calvinism is correct.

The problem is . . . neither of you two are Calvinists!

When I asked the two of you if you were Calvinists here were your responses...Now of course these follow-up responses didn't surprise me since neither one of you have been preaching anything near a Calvinistic point of view.

Therefore . . .
Why would you mock open theism using Calvinism which is diametrically opposed to your views?

Isn't that a bit odd?

And could you humor me with an answer to all this even if you think it's petty of me to keep bringing up?

Knight, I did it because is appears to me that the Open Theist view is a relatively new movement with in Christianity. Besides, I was constantly being told that my views were Calvinistic, and I was frustrated....I guess you could say that my remark was a bit off the cuff. I should have thought that one out a bit more. Sorry for the confusion!