ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[RobE]

This just goes to show how insane and illogical this idea of knowing the future is. If you don't have the 12th child then you did not see the future, but if you did see the future then you have no free will and there is nothing you can do about it at all. Both of these options are nonsensical and the root problem comes from the idea of knowing the future absolutely. Therefore most ideas of such future knowledge see it as conditional - a view of what might happen depending on what we do. Your own post suggest this very thing by asking if we would still have the 12th child? But if this future vision is not absolute then it is possible that not having the 12th child is not the only solution. But if I truly believed that this was the only solution, then no I would not have the 12th child. Would you?

I might if I also foresaw good coming about because of him living. That, at least, would give some meaning to his existence. Would I be just in aborting his existence because of my knowledge?

Rob

 

[RobE]

What is a shame? This is -> someone who knows there is no Bible verse that says there that God has exhaustive foreknowledge preaches to others as if it did.

There is no verse which says man has free will either, but we do.

And then several on here have shown verses that show God changing his mind, being sorry, regretting even his own actions... And we show verses where God completely didn't even fulfill the prophecy he proclaimed he would fulfill.

It's interesting that open -theists and a -theists have the same take on scripture and the weaknesses of God.

[The terms were acceptable to god -- remember, he is supposed to be omniscient and know the future -- so he gave victory to Jephthah, and the first whatsoever that greeted him upon his glorious return was his daughter, as god surely knew would happen, if god is god. True to his vow, the general made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!] -- Judges 11:29-34

Why is this theology sooooo important? No Bible verse to support it, leaps of faith to believe it, and asserted impossible ideas to support it.

Jim Hilston has asked the same of you....

What is the mission and purpose of the Open Theist? To secure for themselves freedom from God, total autonomy and final authority.

How does the Open Theist set about to accomplish this? The steps are as follow:
(1) Under the guise of "freeing" God from any association with evil, the Open Theist strips God of His essential and transcendent attributes, i.e. His omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, impassibility and immutability;
(2) Under the guise of extolling God's hatred of evil, the Open Theist over-emphasizes and distorts God's imminent attributes, i.e. that He is living, loving, good, personal and relational;
(3) Under the guise of affirming justice, and all the while ignoring its true definition, the Open Theist makes man completely and totally autonomous by insisting that man's will must have libertarian freedom, otherwise God could not justly hold them accountable;
(4) Under the guise of affirming genuine love, and all the while ignoring its true definition, the Open Theist makes man the final authority by insisting that man must choose for himself whether or not God will save him.

What methods are used by the Open Theist to accomplish this?
(1) They sit in judgment of God by seizing upon apparent contradictions in the Bible, and explain them by declaring God's ignorance;
(2) They sit in judgment of God by seizing upon apparent contradictions in the Bible, and explain them by declaring God's lack of foresight;
(3) They sit in judgment of God by seizing upon finite and figurative descriptions of God as changing and emoting, and to explain them by declaring God's ignorance and lack of foresight.

These are the methods employed to one degree or another by every Open Theist I've encountered over the past eleven years. They takes a couple passages of scripture that seem to contradict, and eisegetically use them as prooftexts for his their theology. Do they bother to study them out to see what the verses really mean? No, there's no reason to. It says what it says. Nevermind that the concept of God actually changing his mind is contrary to the decretive will of God demonstrated from Genesis to Revelation. Instead the Open Theist jumps on the apparent contradiction and declares (by implication): See! See! Either God is less than God, or else the Bible contradicts itself. And since the latter cannot be true, the former must be. By insisting that God has actually, non-figuratively, changed His mind, you've made God less than God.

And such is the mission and purpose of Open Theism. If a passage seems to say that God is fickle, don't even consider that it might be a figure of speech intended to emphasize rich, poignant, and wonderfully important insights that the original audience would have readily understood. Use it instead to prove that God is fickle. If a passage seems to say that God is too dumb to see something coming (i.e. is surprised by something), don't even consider that it might be a figure of speech intended to emphasize rich, poignant, and wonderfully important insights that the original audience would have readily understood. Instead, use it to prove that God is a dimwit. If a passage seems to say that God is ignorant, don't even consider that it might be a figure of speech intended to emphasize rich, poignant, and wonderfully important insights that the original audience would have readily understood. Use it to prove that God is ignorant. And so on.​

What is so wrong with the O.V.? It unifies the scripture, and it shuts the mouth of the atheist who sees the holes that would exist in the word had exhaustive foreknowledge actually been included.

I'll let Jim Hilston answer this as well....

The Open Theist will misquote the scripure to deny that God is the author of confusion and evil. The Open Theist attempts to use God's own word to tear Him down and baldly asks the Settled Theist: "Is God the author of confusion or not?" The answer is yes. God is the author of everything. God is infinite, unbounded, supreme. Nothing is greater than God; God is not subordinate to anything, not time, not man, not man's judgment, not man's will. Yet the Open Theist will readily and eagerly seize upon any verse they can twist to make God subordinate to all of these. And since God's attributes of being "good, personal, living, relational and loving" take priority over everything else, then He really can't do anything, which is what has been demonstrated abundantly in this forum for more than a decade. It is abundantly evident in the inability of any Open Theist to tell me one thing that God actually, actively is doing in their lives on a daily basis. What is God actively doing in your life right this moment, patman? The Open Theist has no answer.

What are the results of Open Theist theology?
(1) God is reduced to an incidental being who does not really, actually, actively DO anything;
(2) Man is exalted to a level of total autonomy and final authority on all matters related his own life and eternal state.​

The O.V. will be a revolutionary change for the church one day. It will usher in many converts to Christ who would have denied him before because the S.V. theology. I wish you guys would see the simple fact that with no bible verse for it(Lonster, my PatPowers tell me I should add this -> not only is there no verse, there is only shaky evidence for it, and plenty of contrary evidence for the best supporting evidence, just look at any of Bob Hill's recent posts for that) and because there is no verse, those who believe it are actually putting words in the Bibles mouth, adding to scripture.

Patrick, the idea that God doesn't know something isn't new. Lucifer obviously believed he might escape punishment. It's my contention that the a-theists will simply say, "See, we were right! Those lousy Christians are finally understanding that there is no God, at least not a God who is more powerful than we are ourselves!".

Rob

 

[mitchellmckain]

Quoting this shameful rhetoric by Jim Hilston helps no one. I can redirect every single one of his accusations back at him. But most of all, I accuse him of idolatry, worshiping his concept of God in place of the real God. Why? Because he makes mountains out of the molehills in these differences between the ways we think of God.

I deny the authority that Jim Hilston claims for himself as the only infallable interpreter of scripture. Unlike him I will not deny my fallability, but plainly state that I prefer my "misuse of scripture" to his "misuse of scripture".

 

[RobE]

Quoting this shameful rhetoric by Jim Hilston helps no one. I can redirect every single one of his accusations back at him. But most of all, I accuse him of idolatry, worshiping his concept of God in place of the real God. Why? Because he makes mountains out of the molehills in these differences between the ways we think of God.

I deny the authority that Jim Hilston claims for himself as the only infallable interpreter of scripture. Unlike him I will not deny my fallability, but plainly state that I prefer my "misuse of scripture" to his "misuse of scripture".

Nor will I deny my fallability. I also agree that there is too much molehill expansion going on within these discussions. We all are able to agree on just about every point made with the exception of foreknowledge. I actually find your solution to be quite reasonable. My only problems with it is the limitations I see(rightfully or wrongfully) about achieving sufficiency of Grace, the scriptures which point to God purposefully allowing some future situations(such as Pharoah, Joseph, Judas, Peter), and God's purposes not being fulfilled because of lack of knowledge.

Would you also allow that the argument which Patman puts forward is invalid, especially when it agrees with the positions of the enemies of God?

Since you seem to be familiar with Jim Hilston's rhetoric, I must assume you've visited TOL before February. Is it true?

Rob

 

[patman]

This example is clever in its simplicity. We know for example the story in Macabees of the mother and her sons where her sons are put to death for their defiance. Would they have been better off not going through their suffering? Should their mother have had them to begin with?

The problem isn't as simple as is illustrated through the example. We might ask questions like: What influence did the 12th child have on those around him? What influence did his axe murder have on those who learned of it? Did the 12th child have any enjoyment in his life up to the murders? Will the murder of his siblings cause a change in him towards the good?

The ability to create good out of bad for a purpose. When considering foreknowledge and evil aren't we concerned with the overall results for all of mankind despite the individual? In other words, did Jesus Christ crucify himself? :think:

Rob

Rob, The example is an answer to an example of another point. Please re-read.

 

[patman]

There is no verse which says man has free will either, but we do.

Patrick, the idea that God doesn't know something isn't new. Lucifer obviously believed he might escape punishment. It's my contention that the a-theists will simply say, "See, we were right! Those lousy Christians are finally understanding that there is no God, at least not a God who is more powerful than we are ourselves!".

Rob

Rob, your answers is basically "so what" to everything I said, followed with accusations that I am open theist for some personal desire for freedom, and a comparison to Satan.

Wow, I thought you said I was a blessing. So much for that, :jawdrop: eh?

For the record, and to show an example of a direct answer, there is mention of freewill AND there is also no mention that we are completely under control, but rather plenty of verses asking us to choose for ourselves. It is another really bad hopeless comparison, freewill verses are different from S.V. verses. Address the question directly instead of hiding behind this.

 

[RobE]

Rob, your answers is basically "so what" to everything I said, followed with accusations that I am open theist for some personal desire for freedom, and a comparison to Satan.

Wow, I thought you said I was a blessing. So much for that, :jawdrop: eh?

For the record, and to show an example of a direct answer, there is mention of freewill AND there is also no mention that we are completely under control, but rather plenty of verses asking us to choose for ourselves. It is another really bad hopeless comparison, freewill verses are different from S.V. verses. Address the question directly instead of hiding behind this.

What was the question(I just re-read your post and didn't see one which didn't appear to be rhetorical!)?

How are free will verses different than verses about foreknowledge?

I edited this post to point out that I don't believe you are Satan, nor do you accept Satanic thinking directly.

Rob

 

[patman]

What was the question?

How are free will verses different than verses about foreknowledge?

Rob

There wasn't one. Still waiting on the direct answers to the last post.

 

[RobE]

There wasn't one. Still waiting on the direct answers to the last post.

Then what should I respond to. I believe I responded appropriately.

Rob

 

[patman]

What's the question?

:wave: Catch you on the flip side Rob...

 

[Poly]

I'll let Jim Hilston answer this as well....


The Open Theist will misquote the scripure to deny that God is the author of confusion and evil. The Open
Theist attempts to use God's own word to tear Him down and baldly asks the Settled Theist: "Is God the author of confusion or not?" The answer is yes.

Well I don't know if they do anything "baldly" because many of them do have hair but I really don't see how that's important.

This is how Open Theists misquote God, attempting to use His own words to tear Him down.​

1 Corinthians 14:13​

"For God is not the author of confusion but of peace"​

How dare we take this scripture and mangle it up in such a way to make it look as if He's saying He's not the author of confusion. :dizzy:​

Btw, just a little advice. In the future it might not be such a good idea to let Hilston do the talking for you. :up:​

 

[mitchellmckain]

Nor will I deny my fallability. I also agree that there is too much molehill expansion going on within these discussions. We all are able to agree on just about every point made with the exception of foreknowledge. I actually find your solution to be quite reasonable. My only problems with it is the limitations I see(rightfully or wrongfully) about achieving sufficiency of Grace, the scriptures which point to God purposefully allowing some future situations(such as Pharoah, Joseph, Judas, Peter), and God's purposes not being fulfilled because of lack of knowledge.

Perhaps if I could really understand that objection we could make more progress. I will not deny that God makes use of considerable knowledge of our character in understanding how we will respond to things. I in fact believe that this is what lies behind Jesus' prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and his prediction of Peter's denial of Christ three times. I do not think these are based on absolute forknowledge but simply the observations of an intellegent person who is sees the forces in play in the circumstances of Israel, and who clearly saw weakness of Peter. Our sinful habits makes us extremely predictable and in that regard I believe God knowledge of what we will do is rather extensive. I just don't think He cheats by looking ahead in time to see what will actually happen. If you wish to say that the future does not actually exist to be looked at, that is basically saying the same thing, because God's decisions to do things a certain way are indistinguishable from the laws of the universe.

Would you also allow that the argument which Patman puts forward is invalid, especially when it agrees with the positions of the enemies of God?

Well you need to be more specific. I cannot say that I read Patman's posts throroughly. I respond to posts that intrigue my interest and that may be a biased and unfair filter, but what can I say. His enthusiastic and agressive endorsement of Open Theism is clearly not something that I am not 100% in alignment with.

But I also do not agree with calling all atheists the enemies of God. Communists and Nazis yes. These are decidedly anti-Christian. But a lot of atheists I have talked to are much more properly described as Christians with issues.

Since you seem to be familiar with Jim Hilston's rhetoric, I must assume you've visited TOL before February. Is it true?

No my first post here is on February 26th after I dropped out of the excessively Catholic dominated christianforums.com. I was responding to your quote of Jim Hilston's rhetoric which I found inflamatory and unreasonable.

It was only after joining christianforums.com on 18th March 2006, that I became familiar with the term, "Open Theism". I was surprised to find that it was the only one of the controversial doctrines they listed where I found myself agreeing with the position they were describing, although, looking up Open Theism I did find some descriptions of beliefs associated with this to be more extreme that I was willing to agree with. During my time in that forum I also carefully considered all five points of Calvinism and was forced to conclude that I reject them all, although I came very close on eternal security, agreeing with it at first and then changing my mind. the argument for it seems logical but I finally decided that it was wrong for pragmatic reasons and somewhat blasphemous.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This example is clever in its simplicity.

Rob, I agree. I actually think the example is ridiculous. In reality it was Lonsters example from a previous post, I just expanded on it to more closely fit what the settled view is actually like.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Oh Lonster... bring your feet closer to the fire I am not yet done warming them up...

Oh Lonster... bring your feet closer to the fire I am not yet done warming them up...

Lonster, I always do my best to directly answer questions that are asked of me, indulge me and do likewise....

A. Do you believe that God has EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge?
B. Do you believe that there has ever been a time when God did not have EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge?
C. Do you believe that God's foreknowledge is accurate?

 

[Lon]

That is a logical impossibility.

The knowledge came first, that's why we refer to it as FOREknowldge (as in beFORE), in this case the knowledge came an eternity before the event (at least that's what you are asserting).

The event must adhere to the FOREknowledge (otherwise the foreknowledge isn't accurate and therefore not actually foreknowledge). Therefore the foreknowledge (in the case of the settled view) writes the book for the actuality.

That can only be true if the future is open and God's foreknowledge is not EXHAUSTIVE.

There will be a time in your life when you finally realize how EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge settles the future. Until then you will be stuck in confusion as you have admitted elsewhere.

:rotfl:

The future does not exist.

The past doesn't even exist (anymore). The only thing that truly exists (as far as time is concerned) is the ever passing moment - the here and now.

Don't put your trust into science fiction. It is after all... fiction.

Please do your best to answer my questions directly, as I do with your questions.

A. Do you believe that God has EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge?
B. Do you believe that there has ever been a time when God did not have EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge?
C. Do you believe that God's foreknowledge is accurate?

A. Yeah, but discussion here has led me to re-examination (In process, be patient, You don't want me buying anything as great a purchase as this without 'thorough' examination do you?)
B. No, if it is true, He'd always have to have had it.
C. Yes.

:squint: :crackup:

I hope this is a red flag to people out there with some sense showing that you have to nearly throw your brain out the window to believe this doctrine. :doh:

Bye bye, brain!! :wave2:


:chz4brnz:

LOL, yep, until 10-15 years ago nobody had a brain. Gotcha. Good argument. Those poor retarded 'all of Christianity' (sorry, these kind of statements crack me up).

I believe in a lot of things that are equally ridiculous. Is it really intelligent to have microwave instructions on my box of poptarts? (how many seconds will I actually save?) What do you put in 'instant water?' Why did a 'man' create nylons?

My mind can reason and accept the concept of time travel. Science speculates. Einstein proposed theories. This book is nowhere closed to fictitious yet. Traveling to the moon was fantasy when I was growing up and the stuff of fiction. It was thought impossible because we had no concept for it. It was not logically thought possible until smarter people in science dreamed and calculated. If one day even the theory works on paper, the shoe will be on the other foot. I wouldn't point fingers so quickly, because the day it happens......

 

[Lon]

Lonster,

I am just so at a loss. It is like the answer is just staring you in the face, but your desire to explode the truth into something more than it is is your downfall.

If God wanted us to think he knew absolutely every future event, wouldn't he just say it, You almost act is if there some great magic trick only he knew the secret to? You may not see what I mean by this. So again, I am at a loss.

Lets examine analogy and show why it isn't good. The car maker only made a car that wasn't designed to go off-roading. Ok, that is God designing us not to sin. Well he knows that EVERYONE will go off-roading. If everyone everywhere is going off-roading, and lets face it, like we really can get a Range-rover instead..(OK, we are all born human, what other choice have we?)

Why not just make it so everyone can safely go off-roading by WISLEY making Range Rovers instead of Cadillacs? Then everyone can REALLY drive anywhere with their great and wonderful freewill.

Original design. You are questioning like in Romans "Why did you make me like this?"

We were not made for the tree. We were supposed to stay away from it. You are correct, we have all gone the way of sin as the off-road analogy goes, but it is sin.

Great post previously btw. Good call on the award Knight.

Patience is a virtue. Have no doubt if you shoot all of the strings and attachments I'll be a free-floater, but allow God and His Holy Spirit to do the work as well. I've said this before, If God convinces me of this truth, I'll have no problem making a doctrinal change. As it sits for the time being, there has to be much more open discussion and there has to be really clear argumentation. 'Right now' I don't see the truth of it like you do. I see some interpretations of scripture from OV that do not (at least seem) to line up for me. I respect and appreciate the OV position. I may never fully agree (I don't know, I think God actually does if not exhaustively) but I will always appreciate the OV perspective and love it if even from afar. It has given me a very good vantage point for theological perspective and will either greatly strengthen my appreciations and/or will change them. Even if a guy comes out tomorrow with 'time travel' on paper, I'd still appreciate the perspective OV has given me and the challenge to think these things through and focus.

 

[Poly]

I wouldn't point fingers so quickly, because the day it happens......

I can't seem to point quick enough!

:mock: Lonster





So tell me.

Are those Star Trek conventions really all they're cracked up to be?

 

[patman]

My mind can reason and accept the concept of time travel. Science speculates. Einstein proposed theories. This book is nowhere closed to fictitious yet. Traveling to the moon was fantasy when I was growing up and the stuff of fiction. It was thought impossible because we had no concept for it. It was not logically thought possible until smarter people in science dreamed and calculated. If one day even the theory works on paper, the shoe will be on the other foot. I wouldn't point fingers so quickly, because the day it happens......

Lonster,

Reasons time travel is impossible is because of the millions of paradoxes it makes:
-A man travels back in time and shoots his own father.
-A man goes back in time to prevent a past event (shooting of JFK). He succeeds. Now in the future, the traveler never learns of this event. Never travels back in time, then JFK is dead again.
-A man goes back in time to see his own birth. The same adams that make up his brain are suddenly in two places at once (Physically impossible) so he dies at birth.

There there is only one way this is possible. Multiple dimensions would have to exist, in which case you are not traveling back in time, but rather to another dimension. The travelers original dimension is actually never traveled to, or altered in anyway. It's like watching the old Freaky Friday stopping in the middle, then starting the new one from the beginning.

If time travel were possible, all time would have to exist at once. For God, time would be a DVD he could rewind or fast forward. This means he made time. If he made time, we have no freewill. I hope that is logical to you.

But he never mentions in the bible going back in time to set future events right. And time isn't really an object in the bible. It is a huge accusation to set forth, one that goes WAY beyond scripture...

I hope you are getting a theme I am trying to establish for you. Look at your theology and how you are trying to support it, look at how far outside of scripture you must go.

 

[godrulz]

Going to the moon was within the realm of possibility, even if it seemed absurd to the ancients.

Time travel is not within the realm of possibility, even if it seems plausible to you. The past is fixed. The future is not yet. Time is not a place nor a thing, so it cannot be travelled to in any sense. Other dimension speculation does not make it any more coherent, now or forevermore. Time is unidirectional. This is self-evident.

 

[patman]

Original design. You are questioning like in Romans "Why did you make me like this?"

Lonster, God has allowed many many people to be confused about their theology for years and years. Not just talking about the O.V.. Just look at the dark ages. He leaves it to us to learn what we want, and to live by grace when we screw up.

Lets take it one verse at a time then.

Lets start with Romans. God made the pot for destruction, right? Then says "who are we to question why he did that?" What does he say right after that?

"What if God bore with great patience with that pot before hand?"

So.... God apparently tried and tried to get the pot to be a pot of glory, then made it one for destruction.

So what Paul is saying is "Why did God make me like this" and the answer is "Because you deserved it."

BUT the majority of the S.V. and the only logical outcome of their theology is this:

"Why Did God make me like this" the answer is "Because he needed to use your misery for his good purposes."

There are usually two outcomes for people in this thread who are S.V. They either embrace the O.V., or they slide down the slippery slope of Calvinism and start accusing God of authoring sin.

I am praying for you.