ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[MrsDearDelmar]

Great points, Clete. I find it interesting that people feel if you believe that God didn't predestine everything or look into the future, you're limiting God but it's the very ones that do believe this that limit Him. They don't feel God is powerful, smart or wise enough to cause things to come about, in all confidence, without having planned every detail. They're attitude is "Sorry, God, you have to be a God that pre-plans things cause we just don't trust you enough to cause things to come to pass or be glorified unless you do." I believe in a God who is way more powerful than that. He gives man a true freewill and still He is victorious. Man's freewill will never take away from the Glory that is His.

Very well put!!! :BRAVO:

 

[Clete]

Great points, Clete. I find it interesting that people feel if you believe that God didn't predestine everything or look into the future, you're limiting God but it's the very ones that do believe this that limit Him. They don't feel God is powerful, smart or wise enough to cause things to come about, in all confidence, without having planned every detail. They're attitude is "Sorry, God, you have to be a God that pre-plans things cause we just don't trust you enough to cause things to come to pass or be glorified unless you do." I believe in a God who is way more powerful than that. He gives man a true freewill and still He is victorious. Man's freewill will never take away from the Glory that is His.

This does seem to be a central sticking point with most Calvinists. I remember thinking the same sort of things years ago but the logic of it really is backward. The fact of the matter is that God does indeed predict the future with stunning accuracy; accuracy which could not be attained by anyone but God. But insisting that such things are accomplished because God is able to actually see the future removes the impressiveness of the prophecy first of all but then also creates all sorts of logical problems that are just simply not necessary. Not the least of which is the need for an explanation of the prophecies in the Bible which did not come to pass! As well as the logical difficulties having to do with what it means to love God and each other and what it means to have free will, which most Calvinists insist that we somehow still process despite exhaustive predestination and on and on and on. All these problems and many more are instantly resolved by simply saying that God knows everything He wants to know that is knowable, and that He is everywhere at once as long as He wants to be there and the place actually exists. Or to put it in a single sentence, God can do anything He wants to do that is doable.
In short, having a correct view of who God is and what He is like resolves countless seemingly unrelated issues simultaneously and effortlessly. Open Theism has an eloquence to it that lends credence to the theology that isn't possible with any other theological system that I have yet been exposed too.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Agape4Robin]

You are a liar and a fool! I absolutely insist that you DO NOT pray for me, you condescending jackass! Who exactly do you think you are anyway?
Show me where anything I've said is untrue. Show me where you were not being arrogant and condescending. Show me if you can. I've reread your posts just to see if maybe I missed something but no, it is as I first thought. You think you've got it all figured out and that the rest of us are immature dolts who are too stupid to figure out that none of this can be figured out. You're perfectly happy to tell us that we've got it all wrong but refuse to establish a word of it Biblically. Why are you even here on a theological debate web site if you aren't going to debate? I'm not interested in your preaching at me and praying for me and I'm not interested in what you THINK the truth is. God has given us the truth in His word and I can and have repeatedly established my beliefs Biblically, historically, and logically and am willing to do it again

Calling a brother in Christ a liar, a fool and a jackass? Wow....I'm convinced of your arguement! Your condescending and venomous attitude does nothing to soften the heart of one who would either debate you or even care to hear what you have to say. It is neither noble nor intelligent. It simply makes you appear immature.

You do not know me from Adam, you have no idea what I''m like and you have no idea what sort of spirit I have.

A Christian is known by their fruit. According to Galatians 5:22, you do not exhibit any of the Spiritual fruit described there. So, yeah....I have a pretty good idea what sort of Spirit you do have, based on your tirade.

Cop out city. You will not because you cannot or fear that I will destroy you Biblically or both. What did you do, try to look some of this stuff up and couldn't find any of it in the Bible?

CIK has already done so. Why drag it all out again?

I've destroyed every Calvinist that has ever debated me, destroyed them (must have been predestined, eh?). You will be no different if you choose to actually engage the debate.

Christ must be soooo proud of you...............

I was a Calvinist for 20 years before I became an Open Theist.

20 years? You held out that long before you embraced this heresy?

More than likely, I know your own arguments better than you do. I know, I know, you're not a Calvinist, right?. Whatever. If you believe that God exists outside of time and that He is utterly immutable, then you are a Calvinist or you are logically inconsistent. Either way, if you ever do actually debate me you will lose, I guarantee it.

You can't predict the outcome of the debate before it happens as to guarantee its success. If God can't do that, what makes you think you can?

 

[Clete]

Calling a brother in Christ a liar, a fool and a jackass? Wow....I'm convinced of your arguement! Your condescending and venomous attitude does nothing to soften the heart of one who would either debate you or even care to hear what you have to say. It is neither noble nor intelligent. It simply makes you appear immature.

I call 'em as I see 'em sister. If someone comes in here and starts talking down to me and acting as if I am stupid based solely on the fact that I do not believe as he does and then proceeds to literally make stuff up and try to pass it off as established fact, you can bet that they will be called exactly what they are. If I am proven wrong then I will admit it. But I couldn't care less what saying the truth makes me look like to you or anyone else.

A Christian is known by their fruit. According to Galatians 5:22, you do not exhibit any of the Spiritual fruit described there. So, yeah....I have a pretty good idea what sort of Spirit you do have, based on your tirade.

Now you are the one telling lies. This is unbelievable. You do not know me, Robin.

CIK has already done so. Why drag it all out again?

No he hasn't! We've spent the last two weeks hearing about original sin. He's established nothing concerning Open Theism at all, nor has he hardly tried. If I've missed something perhaps you could point out to me where he's Biblically established his Calvinism. If so, I'll respond to it.

Christ must be soooo proud of you...............

What is that sarcasm? That's not very nice of you is it?

Be careful what you say. If Jesus is proud of me, you just insulted your savior.

20 years? You held out that long before you embraced this heresy?

Calling it a heresy doesn't make it one. Even very well known hard core Calvinist like R.C. Sproul do not call Open Theism heresy. Do you pretend to know more than they do? Do you even know what the term heresy means? If so then I bring the challenge to you. Establish that Open Theism is heresy and I will drop it here and now. I can prove absolutely the Calvinism is not only unbiblical but actually pagan in origin. Will you make the same commitment to the truth and drop Calvinism if it can indeed be shown to be pagan? I doubt it.

You can't predict the outcome of the debate before it happens as to guarantee its success. If God can't do that, what makes you think you can?

Based simply on past experience. It's not like I can peek into the future and see the outcome like you claim God can do, but I am not stupid and have been debating this issue for quite a good while now. I haven't heard a fresh argument in favor of Calvinism since Jim Hilston left TOL several months ago. And he was the only one who even made me have to stop and think about this stuff. I can debate this issue in my sleep and know my opponents arguments before they make them. Success is all but totally guaranteed. Care to try and prove me wrong?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[ChristisKing]

Nothing here suggests that God knows more than is knowable. Nothing here suggest that God knows more than was suggested in docrob57's post.

Sure there is, you just don't want to believe "the suggestion," just take a look at your response below on how you try to refute what "is not being suggested." :chuckle:

You are reading into the text. It does not say this. It would not be difficult for God to know what you are going to say before you say it. I do that with my wife all the time and God knows her much better than I do. Even so, I only strongly suspect or am able to reliably predict what my wife will say because I know her so well, it is the same with God. Stop reading your theology into the text and simply read it for what it says.

This goes to the heart of your error, you think God is like you!

You have forgotten God's description of Himself when He said, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Comparing God's perfect knowledge of the entire human race to your puny knowledge of your wife is simply ridiculous. I can't believe I actually have to spend time refuting this claim, children can refute this argument.

PSA 139:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me.

You can't search and know your wife, at best you can only observe and talk to her. Even the Holy Spirit asks you, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" And then the Lord even gives you the answer, "I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jer 17:9-10)

PSA 139:2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.

Here is another clear revelation of how God is different than you and your wife. God knows our thoughts; "I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee." (Job 42:2)

PSA 139:4 Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O Lord, You know it all.

David is revealing that the Lord knows everything that we are going to say before we say one thing and He is always right! This is not to even close to your puny ability to anticipate what your wife might say in isolated incidences, in which I'm sure you will even admit that you are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

That is why David says, "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it." (PSA 139:6)

The knowledge you have of your wife is not "too wonderful or too high that you cannot attain to it." As a matter of fact it is a rather very common knowledge that we and David and all have/had for our spouses.

Your "brushing off" of these wonderfully revealing verses of God's high attributes and Omniscience, "that are all simply too high to attain to," by bringing them down to your common and ordinary knowledge of your wife only reveals the intent of your heart and theology. That intent seems to be to bring God down to your puny level of knowledge and understanding which is never "too high to attain," and to put Him in a nutshell so you can understand Him in your way. You are basically forming God into your image of what God should be like or rather what you want or hope Him to be like.

P.S. I want to thank you for actually engaging the debate! This is probably the most substance this issue has seen in six months on this site.

It is my pleasure, I started this thread almost 2 months ago hoping to see some substance and quite frankly I have been very disappointed. As a matter of fact no one has even refuted my rather basic opening point in post #71:

"I think on this very point Open Theism rises or falls, because if God did indeed predestine Christ to come and die before creation than of course He predestined the fall, etc. etc. and etc.

Thank God He revealed this to us:

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,"

The point is why was Christ, God becoming man, foreordained before the foundation of the earth if He didn't know and plan that man was going to sin before He created him? Maybe you'd like to take a shot at it? Everyone else was quick to change the subject and get me chasing them down "the rabbit trails." I believe the heretical unorthodox teachings of Open Theism, that you believe and are teaching, falls on just these two simple verses.

 

[godrulz]

Dr. Gregory Boyd gives alternate, cogent understandings of your proof texts. You have a filter/blinders on.

I have been an Open Theist for 25 years (within a year or two of my conversion...I was probably Arminian-Wesleyan since that is the only view I was exposed to in Bible College...and Calvinism, but it simply did not make sense in light of Scripture...though I liked Sproul, Packer, etc.).

 

[ChristisKing]

Dr. Gregory Boyd gives alternate, cogent understandings of your proof texts. You have a filter/blinders on.

I have been an Open Theist for 25 years (within a year or two of my conversion...I was probably Arminian-Wesleyan since that is the only view I was exposed to in Bible College...and Calvinism, but it simply did not make sense in light of Scripture...though I liked Sproul, Packer, etc.).

Clete also gave us an alternate understanding of these proof texts, his knowledge of his wife, now I ask you who really has blinders on?

Open Theism is consistent Arminianism to be sure. You are much more consistent than John Wesley in your denial of the Sovereignty and Omniscience of God. They simply could not break with orthodoxy to the extent that you have. You are certainly "blazing new trails!"

 

[docrob57]

With all due respect, none of the posts related to what I wrote have much to do with what I was talking about. The human "will" is not an alternative explanation to what I was saying. Unless you are prepared to argue that the behaviors, beliefs, etc. that humans have and exhibit are without cause. In this case they would be essentially random and knowable only in a probabalistic sense. If they are knowable in a probabalistic sense, then they are at least to some extent governed by whatever forces determine the nature of the probability distribution.

Anyway, there have now been some posts to the thread I started which I believe is called "A problem with open theism." If those who would like to discuss this matter would go there I would greatly appreciate it as I am feeble minded and have trouble tracking 2 threads.

 

[godrulz]

Clete also gave us an alternate understanding of these proof texts, his knowledge of his wife, now I ask you who really has blinders on?

Open Theism is consistent Arminianism to be sure. You are much more consistent than John Wesley in your denial of the Sovereignty and Omniscience of God. They simply could not break with orthodoxy to the extent that you have. You are certainly "blazing new trails!"

Sovereignty means providential vs meticulous control. I affirm the sovereignty of God (though the word is rarely used in the Bible).

I also affirm God's absolute omniscience. He knows all that is knowable. Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity and not a limitation on omniscience.

 

[Clete]

Clete also gave us an alternate understanding of these proof texts, his knowledge of his wife, now I ask you who really has blinders on?

It must be you CiK because your argument against me is essencially MY argument. You didn't say anything against my position at all. I recommend not making points assuming that you've shown me to be in error until you find out whether you've actually done that.

I'll explain in detail as soon as time allows.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[ChristisKing]

Sovereignty means providential vs meticulous control. I affirm the sovereignty of God (though the word is rarely used in the Bible).

I also affirm God's absolute omniscience. He knows all that is knowable. Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity and not a limitation on omniscience.

Absolute Sovereignty means total control of everything and everything working together as you will and as you planned without exception.

Absolute Omniscience means knowledge of all things that are and will be without exception.

See how highly we think of God? I ask you, who has a higher view of God's power and knowledge?

 

[Poly]

Absolute Sovereignty means total control of everything and everything working together as you will and as you planned without exception.

Absolute Omniscience means knowledge of all things that are and will be without exception.

See how highly we think of God? I ask you, who has a higher view of God's power and knowledge?

The ones who realize that God is powerful enough to give man a true freewill and do not limit Him thinking it isn't possible for Him to do this.

 

[ChristisKing]

The ones who realize that God is powerful enough to give man a true freewill and do not limit Him thinking it isn't possible for Him to do this.

You mean like how it isn't possible for God to sin?

 

[Poly]

You mean like how it isn't possible for God to sin?

Oh I see. That's a nice little out for you isn't it? You get backed in a corner since claiming that God cannot do this and so to recover you put it on the same level as God cannot sin.



(Oh Thank You Lord that I'm no longer the blinded, prideful, arrogant "I believe it cause great men believe it and that's good enough for me" Calvinist that I was.)

 

[Clete]

Sure there is, you just don't want to believe "the suggestion," just take a look at your response below on how you try to refute what "is not being suggested." :chuckle:

I’m not laughing and I am trying to take this discussion very seriously. You and I come to these verses with a different paradigm in place. I suggest you make an effort to actually understand the point being made before responding to it. Otherwise you will continue to respond by arguing my side of the debate like you have in this post.

This goes to the heart of your error, you think God is like you!

You have it backward, God is not like me, I am like God. I have not only been made in His image but have been being conformed to His likeness in character for decades now.

God is logical or else I could not be. God is personal or else I could not be. God is intelligent or else I could not be. God is moral or else I could not be. God is volitional (has a free will) or else I could not choose. Etc.

You have forgotten God's description of Himself when He said, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

I have forgotten nothing. You really should think about not phrasing your arguments this way. I can guarantee you that I know your own arguments better than you do. Not that I’m trying to say I’m smarter than you, it’s just I’ve been doing this for what seems like forever and you won’t bring anything up that I haven’t heard a hundred times. I am not stupid and I will not tolerate be treated as such. This sort of comment is designed to score emotional points but does nothing whatsoever to argue against my position with substance and intelligence. I'm simply asking you to respect the debate and not treat me like I'm a child or like I'm stupid.

Comparing God's perfect knowledge of the entire human race to your puny knowledge of your wife is simply ridiculous. I can't believe I actually have to spend time refuting this claim, children can refute this argument.

Everything following this condescending remark was simply a restatement of my original point. Everything. Thank you for arguing my side of the debate. If I didn’t know better, I’d declare victory and we could talk about something else. But I do know better so let me clarify what I mean.

I know almost nothing about my wife in comparison to what God knows and yet in spite of that astonishing ignorance, I can still reliably predict not only her actions but also her attitudes and the very words she will speak. I can do all this without even one time sneaking a peek into the future or stepping for even a moment outside of time. God, as you have so eloquently presented Him, is millions of times more intelligent than I and has access to every single bit of all of the possible information and can analyze all of it flawlessly in an instant. So how much better could God predict the future than I? A whole lot better, to say the least! And there is no need whatsoever to have Him residing outside of time or jumping ahead into the future to steel a sneak peek in order to accomplish it.

Your "brushing off" of these wonderfully revealing verses of God's high attributes and Omniscience, "that are all simply too high to attain to," by bringing them down to your common and ordinary knowledge of your wife only reveals the intent of your heart and theology. That intent seems to be to bring God down to your puny level of knowledge and understanding which is never "too high to attain," and to put Him in a nutshell so you can understand Him in your way. You are basically forming God into your image of what God should be like or rather what you want or hope Him to be like.

This is all 100% false. I never said anything remotely like this. You are either lying or you have some seriously thick Calvinist colored classes on. I strongly suspect the latter. You really need to try to understand what I am actually saying and stop responding to this nonsense that no one believes or has even said.

It is my pleasure, I started this thread almost 2 months ago hoping to see some substance and quite frankly I have been very disappointed. As a matter of fact no one has even refuted my rather basic opening point in post #71:

"I think on this very point Open Theism rises or falls, because if God did indeed predestine Christ to come and die before creation than of course He predestined the fall, etc. etc. and etc.

Thank God He revealed this to us:

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,"

The point is why was Christ, God becoming man, foreordained before the foundation of the earth if He didn't know and plan that man was going to sin before He created him? Maybe you'd like to take a shot at it? Everyone else was quick to change the subject and get me chasing them down "the rabbit trails." I believe the heretical unorthodox teachings of Open Theism, that you believe and are teaching, falls on just these two simple verses.

Christ’s death was planned for but not ‘set in stone’ as it were. These verses do not teach that the fall was predestined or even that Jesus' coming was predestined, only that God planned in advance to do what was needed if the situation called for it.
God knew that creating a creature with a free will meant that they could rebel (and probably would). He set a plan in place wherein He would redeem any who had fallen if they would repent and believe. The salvation of those who would believe made it more than worth the risk of having most of mankind remain in rebellion and be sent to Hell. These verses you've quoted would indicate simply that this planning out of the plan of salvation was done in advance of creation and was not an afterthought of God's.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Christ’s death was planned for but not ‘set in stone’ as it were. These verses do not teach that the fall was predestined or even that Jesus' coming was predestined, only that God planned in advance to do what was needed if the situation called for it.

That is not "foreknown," though, a plan is based on projections, but "foreknowledge of Christ" is more than projections.

God knew that creating a creature with a free will meant that they could rebel (and probably would).

But this is at most foreknowledge of a possibility, not foreknowledge of Christ, there is a difference!

He set a plan in place wherein He would redeem any who had fallen if they would repent and believe.

Revelation 13:8 ... and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.

Now a book of life, written before the foundation of the world, with some not written in it, must imply that God knew the fall would indeed occur. And the NIV is even stronger:

Revelation 13:8 ... the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

Open Theism does indeed fall down here...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[ChristisKing]

Christ’s death was planned for but not ‘set in stone’ as it were. These verses do not teach that the fall was predestined or even that Jesus' coming was predestined, only that God planned in advance to do what was needed if the situation called for it.

God knew that creating a creature with a free will meant that they could rebel (and probably would). He set a plan in place wherein He would redeem any who had fallen if they would repent and believe. The salvation of those who would believe made it more than worth the risk of having most of mankind remain in rebelion and be set to Hell. These verses you've quoted would indicate simply that this planning out of the plan of salvation was done in advance of creation and was not an after thought of God's.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I'm sorry, but I just :chuckle: have to laugh, that is absolutely the most ridiculous interpretation of those verses I have ever seen. You have just totally re-written Scripture.

You are saying that these verses only say that Christ was just a contingency plan just in case there might be a fall, because some could rebel, and then they might also repent and believe this contingency plan and be saved? Are you really serious? Do you really believe what you just wrote? Where in the world are you getting all that from, your Open Theism theology book 101? Because it sure ain't in Scripture!

The verses are simple very plainly worded, don't read anything into them. Just read it and let it speak to you and then get ready to say good-bye to Open Theism, forever.

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

God was foreordained before the foundation of the world to become a man, Jesus Christ, and shed His blood for our sins. Therefore God, before the foundation of the world, knew Adam was going to sin and that he and his posterity would need a Savior. All things were created for Jesus Christ to receive all the glory. See how highly we think about Jesus Christ?

 

[godrulz]

The potential plan was ordained from the beginning. The creation was 'very good'. After the Fall, the potential plan was implemented as a certainty. It did not become reality until it became actual when the Messiah came and died. He was not literally slain in eternity.

 

[ChristisKing]

The potential plan was ordained from the beginning. The creation was 'very good'. After the Fall, the potential plan was implemented as a certainty. It did not become reality until it became actual when the Messiah came and died. He was not literally slain in eternity.

Where do you read that God had a "potential plan" ordained from the beginning?

I read that Christ was verily foreordained before the foundation of the world to shed His blood:

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

I read that Christ's death was absolutely so certain from all eternity that He is actually described as being slain from the very foundation of the world:

REV 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Where are you picking-up those extra words "potential plan?" Are you and Clete reading the same Open Theism 101 book?

 

[Clete]

ChristisKing,

It is very unfortunate that you've decided that you don't care to discuss this seriously. The word translated as forordained does not have to mean predestinate and I think you know that already and so must resort to making fun and reacting as though this is all too rediculous to take with more than a grain of salt. You are a waste of my time.

I'll be around if you decide you want to take this more seriously. In the mean time...

:wave2:

Resting in Him,
Clete