ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
elected4ever
New member
It is not open Clete. Your choices determine the outcome. and that is a settled issue. If you cannot understand what I am saying then it is because you do not wont to believe it. You supposed free choice is clouding you mine. I have tried to be civil for a change but you are incapable of hearing. How dare God limit your future. You are your own God.Clete said:
themuzicman
Well-known member
Where's my strawman smilie?
elected4ever
New member
What straw man are you talking about?themuzicman said:
Lon
Well-known member
Knight said:
Back to topic:
As promised, I'm slowly reading through the forum and trying to find any discussion that wasn't addressed or wasn't clearly addressed.
Here, the topic of predetermination in regards to creation of sin.
I'll go back to a Programmer analogy: The programmer of the game Yahzee made a randomizer for the dice throws realizing that one of the choices would throw the program into chaos. He continues playing the game, but the randomizer eventually chooses an unrelated randomizer variable (all the five dice add up to 94). This isn't allowed so the programmer uses "chance" to contain the variable even though it is wrong and keeps playing. He begins working on solving the problem and chance is the way he handles the problem until he can fix the bug. Eventually the programmer fixes the bug so that chance isn't the option. Possibly he works in a garbage bin that allows all undesired chaos randomizers to be tossed. This make the program playable, but it hasn't eliminated all chaos randomizers. Eventually he knows he will write the program to where the choas randomizer is totally eliminated but for now, the program simply tosses out the chaos randomizer and throws the dice again. There is a hidden bug now and everything is working fine, but there is a pause in the program as the computer reshuffles to throw an acceptable number. The programmer realizes that He will eventually need to create a new program with a properly working randomizer but for now the problem is taken care of.
Did the programmer create the chaos randomizer? Nope, the randomizer created the chaos, he didn't want the randomizer to make chaos choices. He knew the potential for it and knew what he'd do in the scenario.
Back to God:
God knew His creation had a choice for chaos (sin). He knew what He'd do to keep everything going in this event (History of Israel) and He knew He'd take care of the problem (Jesus and the cross). Eventually, there will be a new Heaven and a new Earth and sin will be eliminated from the equation. We are relational beings and we are learning about these effects as we go through the scenario. I believe that once a new program is underway, we will have learned our lessons from sin to never allow it to enter into the mix with a new heaven and earth where we will finally exist in perfection.
I meant pre-written history as in 'history written down in advance of the event'.RobE said:
And this sort of over thinking is what I meant when I said, "RobE... is apparently just flat out incapable of following the conversation."
And it isn't really my intent to be insulting. That is to say, I don't set out to look for reasons to insult people (unless they're homos, of course). In fact, I would love it very much if you and I could have a substantive and even complex discussion on these issues, but it just seems to be impossible and I'm tired of trying. It's just not worth the amount of effort it takes to keep your eye on the ball. A situation I find quite regrettable really.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Lon
Well-known member
Sorry Pastor Bob H. Your comments got lost in the shuffle. Of course I knew you were purporting the OV through that nice treatise, but you also acknowledge my post by it and for that I am thankful. Thanks for meeting halfway on that mark and lifting the praise and admiration of our Precious Precious Savior.
patman
Active member
Clete said:
Ya know... the S.V. says God sees everything in one timeframe... so the future is the past, the past is the present, and the future is the present...
So when we have God talking about a past event... well, every time that event is settled! Adam and Eve ate of the tree.. end of story. But when ever God is talking about a future event, and we O.V.er's point out it didn't happen so exactly as stated... well they just don't care. God can talk as certainly about the past without fudging on the story at all, but the future is different??????
You'd think I'd set off alarms in the thinking person's mind
The fixed past is different than the potential future, even for God. Presentism vs eternalism is more coherent (the present exists, the future is not yet, the past is fixed and not anymore, except in memory). Eternal now simultaneity is nonsense, even for God (if He is personal, which He is).
mitchellmckain
New member
Much closer to Open Theism than Calvinism.
Much closer to Open Theism than Calvinism.
I only became aware of this term "Open Theism" during the last year. It was the only "controversial doctrine", discussed in the rules of a previous forum I participated in, that I found myself close to agreeing with. Perhaps you can call me an Orthodox Open Theist, for I would say that God chooses not to know some things as a part of His creation and preservation of our "free will". Nevertheless I hold the Bible to be authoritative and therefore I cannot deny that God knows and predestines many things.
To really get at the core of things let me explain how this fits into my view of Soteriology.
About the only thing I have in common with the Calvinists and Augustine is my use of the phrase "utterly depraved" in the description of mankind. I find this description quite an apt one because of our ubiquitous indulgence in self-deception, which make any apprehension of God an impossible thing. Salvation therefore requires an act of intervention by God, nevertheless, I quite firmly believe that God requires an act of free will and choice as a part of this process. Liberating our free will from its degradation due to the ravages of sin is clearly an important part of this intervention by God for our salvation.
Now it seems clear to me that different Christians experience salvation in various ways, to where some even feel that they have been dragged against their will by this act of God into receiving Christ into their life. But I still think that this is a passive acceptance and I think this feeling derives in no small part from a confusion between free will and the habits of sin. You see as living beings we are like self-programming entitites. The programing comes from the choices we make and the program consists of the habits that result from those choices. I strongly believe that "free will" is the essense of life and that sin consists of the habits which destroy that "free will" and life. In sin our free will is greatly diminished and we act like robots controled by sinful habits, and so being dragged against the influence of such habits is not a violation of our free will, because we are subsequently made free to return right back to those habits like a dog to its vomit.
Reality like the Bible is a complex thing. Oversimplifications help nothing and no one. So just as it behoves us to accept the compromises of the 4th century eccumenical councils in order to embrace the fullnes of scripture and Christian exprerience, so also should we see that the scriptures and salvation should not be squashed into the onesided viewpoint represented by Calvinism.
Much closer to Open Theism than Calvinism.
I only became aware of this term "Open Theism" during the last year. It was the only "controversial doctrine", discussed in the rules of a previous forum I participated in, that I found myself close to agreeing with. Perhaps you can call me an Orthodox Open Theist, for I would say that God chooses not to know some things as a part of His creation and preservation of our "free will". Nevertheless I hold the Bible to be authoritative and therefore I cannot deny that God knows and predestines many things.
To really get at the core of things let me explain how this fits into my view of Soteriology.
About the only thing I have in common with the Calvinists and Augustine is my use of the phrase "utterly depraved" in the description of mankind. I find this description quite an apt one because of our ubiquitous indulgence in self-deception, which make any apprehension of God an impossible thing. Salvation therefore requires an act of intervention by God, nevertheless, I quite firmly believe that God requires an act of free will and choice as a part of this process. Liberating our free will from its degradation due to the ravages of sin is clearly an important part of this intervention by God for our salvation.
Now it seems clear to me that different Christians experience salvation in various ways, to where some even feel that they have been dragged against their will by this act of God into receiving Christ into their life. But I still think that this is a passive acceptance and I think this feeling derives in no small part from a confusion between free will and the habits of sin. You see as living beings we are like self-programming entitites. The programing comes from the choices we make and the program consists of the habits that result from those choices. I strongly believe that "free will" is the essense of life and that sin consists of the habits which destroy that "free will" and life. In sin our free will is greatly diminished and we act like robots controled by sinful habits, and so being dragged against the influence of such habits is not a violation of our free will, because we are subsequently made free to return right back to those habits like a dog to its vomit.
Reality like the Bible is a complex thing. Oversimplifications help nothing and no one. So just as it behoves us to accept the compromises of the 4th century eccumenical councils in order to embrace the fullnes of scripture and Christian exprerience, so also should we see that the scriptures and salvation should not be squashed into the onesided viewpoint represented by Calvinism.
mitchellmckain said:
It is good to not uncritically accept things. It sounds like you are on the right track.
God does predestine some things, but not all things. Free will is genuine, not illusory.
Total depravity does not mean total inability. Synergism, not monergism (God provides and initiates salvation, but man must subjectively appropriate His objective work).
Omniscience means that God knows all that is knowable. He knows the past and present exhaustively. He cannot chose to not know possible objects of knowledge. The way His foreknowledge is limited is by creating a partially open future with contingencies. He correctly knows much of the future as possible/probable, not actual/certain before it comes to pass. Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies would require determinism (contrary to love, freedom, relationship).
Lon
Well-known member
godrulz said:
The very nature of His sustaining power suggest otherwise in and of itself (Col. 3).
A simple question: What if you are wrong. I find the lack of extensive foreknowledge very precarious up against scripture that speaks contrary. I am lead to believe in extensive foreknowlege in many many passages. The OV claims that prophecy is a point of strong support for OV, but as I understand prophecy it is the opposite: it points to foreknowledge.
More specifically visions. Visions, regardless of OV or SV and how we look at them are a 'seen' thing. An incredible accuracy. I've stated I believe John is wisked into a future setting. It makes no difference if it was a transportation or a vision merely. It was a "seen" and experienced accuracy to exact detail. While OV admits to a certain amount of foreknowledge, I believe it isn't a good idea to place any kind of limit on God's ability.
When Jesus tells His apostles exactly how they will find a donkey and upperroom, there is an accuracy that is future. When David explains that God knows his thoughts before he utters the words, there is future foreknowledge. I cannot read scripture any other way. If you find fault with any of these examples, you still cannot argue against the foreknowledge of the future events. It is extensive.
patman
Active member
Lonster said:
What do you think of prophecies that God himself said didn't come to pass?
Such as his telling Joshua he would "without fail" drive out all the people who lived in Israel and then turn around and say he will not?
Or Nebuchadnezzar's Tyre victory that he later said, 'it isn't going to happen but Nebuchadnezzar would take over Egypt', which also didn't happen.
These prophecies outcome changed by God's own admission and choice. How is absolute foreknowledge possible when God doesn't just say what really happened?
Lon
Well-known member
Hebrews were not greek, our Western logicians. Even OV has to contend with the discussion here. I'd like you to appreciate that the skeptic doesn't buy your answer any more than they buy ours.
What I appreciate it is that it forces us both to look at the question.
Obviously the prophets who wrote the incomplete prophecy were not stoned to death as was the perscription. What can we say then? You say God changed His mind, and we say that the prophecy or promise was understood as conditional. Whoever came up with the father/children fishing analogy for the OV was pretty accurate in my mind. The only difference here would be how we see God's foreknowlege in all of this, but I believe SV is on the same page in interpretation on some of these particulars. I think it is just how we get to the same place that is different. We could argue about the way to get to Alaska. You say go by car. It is relational to the road through Canada and you have a relationship building time with those you travel with.
I say fly. It is a bit impersonal, but it is faster, more direct, and you'll get there clean.
We both end up in Alaska, but we argue about what we really saw in Alaska. I saw mountain peak after mountain peak. I saw the Pacific Ocean and some of the glaciers.
You saw the terrain and drove through the trees. You met the people and saw the animals.
We both experienced Alaska very differently, but we wound up in the same place. We might even describe Alaska differently. Because I'm in the civilized part, it's pretty much like Seattle with snow. Because you are in the wilderness, Alaska is wholly uncivililized and wilderness.
What I'd like to see from OV/SV is a meeting in the middle to compare notes. God is amazingly complex and just as if you said I was wrong about Alaska being civilized, I believe that there is something to learn from the other's perspective. Who is right? See, if we compare notes I can assess that. It makes no difference to me how 'right' you feel you are. I am a man and I'm imperfect. As I read OV it isn't the God I've come to know, but I appreciate your perspective. (btw...I'm more of the Alaska wilderness guy, the airplane Alaskans are sissy's! -kidding, kidding, kidding- I've done both, it is nice to arrive 'clean' once inawhile).
What I appreciate it is that it forces us both to look at the question.
Obviously the prophets who wrote the incomplete prophecy were not stoned to death as was the perscription. What can we say then? You say God changed His mind, and we say that the prophecy or promise was understood as conditional. Whoever came up with the father/children fishing analogy for the OV was pretty accurate in my mind. The only difference here would be how we see God's foreknowlege in all of this, but I believe SV is on the same page in interpretation on some of these particulars. I think it is just how we get to the same place that is different. We could argue about the way to get to Alaska. You say go by car. It is relational to the road through Canada and you have a relationship building time with those you travel with.
I say fly. It is a bit impersonal, but it is faster, more direct, and you'll get there clean.
We both end up in Alaska, but we argue about what we really saw in Alaska. I saw mountain peak after mountain peak. I saw the Pacific Ocean and some of the glaciers.
You saw the terrain and drove through the trees. You met the people and saw the animals.
We both experienced Alaska very differently, but we wound up in the same place. We might even describe Alaska differently. Because I'm in the civilized part, it's pretty much like Seattle with snow. Because you are in the wilderness, Alaska is wholly uncivililized and wilderness.
What I'd like to see from OV/SV is a meeting in the middle to compare notes. God is amazingly complex and just as if you said I was wrong about Alaska being civilized, I believe that there is something to learn from the other's perspective. Who is right? See, if we compare notes I can assess that. It makes no difference to me how 'right' you feel you are. I am a man and I'm imperfect. As I read OV it isn't the God I've come to know, but I appreciate your perspective. (btw...I'm more of the Alaska wilderness guy, the airplane Alaskans are sissy's! -kidding, kidding, kidding- I've done both, it is nice to arrive 'clean' once inawhile).
mitchellmckain
New member
Except for one thing - I am not a great fan of debate, for it presumes that things can be proven and that is not a presumption that I accept. Therefore I consider the attitude which attends discussion to be much more realistic.Jefferson said:
An echo of my thoughts exactly!godrulz said:
Absolutely. But let me clarify my position on this. My rejection of total inability has more to do with the fact that I consider total depravity an inevitable quality of human beings rather than a universal quality of human beings. Sin is a disease in which we participate by our own individual choice, and therefore its progression varies considerably from person to person. And thus we are born innocent. BUT we were never intended from our creation to navigate the moral landscape without a personal relationship with God. Stumbling blind through this treacherous ground (especially surrounded by the misleading advice of the others who surround us) makes our fall an inescapable inevitability.godrulz said:
As a physicist I particularly like the following imagery: we are under the law of sin much like we are under the law of gravity. Due to circumstances for which we can take little credit, some of us may have a downward velocity and some of us may be moving upward, but the relentless downward acceleration of sin makes our ultimate destination one and the same unless we fall into the hands of God (and choose to remain in those hands).
I would not dare to limit God in any way to say that there is anything which God cannot know, so I definitely do not accept your interpretation. But I would point out from my understanding of physics that it is not always possible to know something without changing its state or its nature. Therefore I say that God's choice to limit his knowledge is the essence of our free will, and for God to excersise His power to know what we will do would destroy that free will.godrulz said:
I do not believe in limiting God according to the definitions of men. Omniscience and Omnipotence mean that power and knowledge are at the beck and call of God, NOT that He is at their mercy. In particular, my God is not defined by power and knowledge or any need to preserve these things. They are as dispensible to His divinity as they are dispensible to our humanity. I therefore categorically deny that God is incapable of risk, sacrifice, limiting Himself, or of granting us the privacy of our future choices.
God decided to become a helpless infant born to Mary and thus decided that while in that form not to do anything that a helpless infant would not do. Any thought on our part that God could any time change His mind and act contrary to His original decision is clearly way off base. He simply does not do things like that. God's decisions are the laws of the universe, and therefore when God decided not to do anything that a helpless infant could not do, that is indistinguishable from laying aside His infinite knowlege and power to be a helpless infant in truth. But that infant was nevertheless still fully the God that created both the heavens and earth, for that helplessness does not make Him any less God than losing an arm or memory makes us any less the person who we are. God is a PERSON not a human concept and definition! Therefore I can without any hint of heresy fully embrace the following biblical passages.
Phillipians 2:5-8 "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross,"
Luke 2:52 "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men."
Mark 13:32, "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."
So also do I embrace hypostatic union that Jesus was fully God and fully man, that without any loss to His divinity that He was in truth a man in every sense of the word sharing in our experience of finitude gaining access to the power of God through prayer as He said any human being could do if they had but the faith the size of a mustard seed. Otherwise, why did Jesus say in Matthew 26:53 "Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?" If Jeus had all the infinite power and knowledge of God, why would he even need the help of angels? Thus as fully man in every way, Jesus was indeed an example that we can aspire to follow, while as fully God, He was also a reconcilliation between man and God that relies on the power of God to save us and not upon the efforts of human beings. We nailed God (the one who created us and love us more than we love ourselves) to a cross to torture and mock Him. We must choose between the sin that did (and continues to do) that to Him and the God who loves us so much that He is willing to bear the consequences of our sin.
Unlike many Christians, I would not dream of saying there is anything which God cannot do. Nevertheless I think that God created us precisely for our free will, and that in fact our free will is indistinguishable from our life. Thus I believe that the preservation of our free will is God's greatest concern. In fact I think that it is the very nature of sin that it destroys our free will and potentiality as living organisms through its addictive habitual characteristics.Lonster said:
In other word God delights in our unpredictablity and it is His great sorrow that in our sin we are so utterly predictable and boring. With God's omnipresent knowledge and power it is beyond trivial to predict or manipulate us around the rather pathetic scope of the free will that remains to us. This is in fact why God must be extremely careful in how he interferes in our lives for our free will is rather fragile. Furthermore the the human tendency to abandon our own free will abdicating our responsibility for our own life and our world, is a rather pervasive one all the way back to the Garden of Eden. In fact, as long as our grasp on our own free will remains so weak, the overwhelmingly powerful influence of God presence becomes something of dubious value in our lives. It is only with a very strong affirmation of our responsibility in the acknowledgement of our sins and the will to turn away from them that a personal relationship with God can be regained without actually doing us harm.
Last edited:
Mitchell:
Dr. Gregory Boyd develops the affinity of the Open view with quantum mechanics and chaos theory.
Do you know much about general and special relativity?
We should be careful about applying physical analagies to spiritual matters.
What is your understanding of eternity? Tradition (influenced by Platonic thought) thinks it is timelessness, eternal now simultaneity (B-theory of time; eternalism). I believe eternity is endless time or endless duration, succession, sequence...(A-theory of time; presentism).
Our view of time vs eternity affects our understanding of foreknowledge and omniscience.
J.R. Lucas "A treatise on time and space" is mathematically and philosophically difficult, but I think he is on the right track.
Dr. Gregory Boyd develops the affinity of the Open view with quantum mechanics and chaos theory.
Do you know much about general and special relativity?
We should be careful about applying physical analagies to spiritual matters.
What is your understanding of eternity? Tradition (influenced by Platonic thought) thinks it is timelessness, eternal now simultaneity (B-theory of time; eternalism). I believe eternity is endless time or endless duration, succession, sequence...(A-theory of time; presentism).
Our view of time vs eternity affects our understanding of foreknowledge and omniscience.
J.R. Lucas "A treatise on time and space" is mathematically and philosophically difficult, but I think he is on the right track.
- Status