ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Bob Hill]

Lonster,

I agree with most of what you wrote:
Bob, Can God 'change' His mind? Good question but there are other answers to the scenario. Again, the traditional view is that sometimes a conditional situation is implied. We from the SV position tend to believe that God is not a man nor does He think like one. The implication here is that if God changes anything, it is a response to man's change. OV has this part right in our relational God. His hand moves by our prayers. He is responsive to us. Change in God's decisions and feelings is relational to our change. He is God and is perfect. The only change we see in Him is in relation to our change of heart and actions. Of course it is important to individual will and choice for discussion. How much we are able to answer concerning this change of relationship to us and God's perfection is a difficult one to answer in complete clarity. Here I see through a glass not so clearly. How is God able to remain unchanging and yet relational? My best estimate is that He perfectly remains, yet responds to us and our actions, words, and motivations.

How can that be?

Some biblical things are very difficult to understand and explain.

Bob Hill

 

[Clete]

More of the same. Logical or not. OV does not have an acceptable answer to these considerations. Once again, I'd rather be perplexed than wrong, which I believe OV is here. Clete, you are confusing vision and prophecy in this discussion. The vision is transcendant. It is also future. OV continues to fall very very flat on this.

Falls very very flat?

Are you sure that it doesn't simply "surpass understanding"?

Why is my position wrong and yours simply past understanding?

How do you tell the difference between that which is wrong and that which is right but beyond your ability to understand?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

How can there be a "conditional situation" in the SV?

 

[elected4ever]

How can there be a "conditional situation" in the SV?

Why not. The OVer accepts some absolutes.

 

[Clete]

Philetus,

You asked a terrific question but I think you might have forgotten that elected4ever is ultra-tolerant of outright irrationality within his theological worldview. He down right advocates it! :kookoo:

 

[elected4ever]

Philetus,

You asked a terrific question but I think you might have forgotten that elected4ever is ultra-tolerant of outright irrationality within his theological worldview. He down right advocates it! :kookoo:

You mean it is an absolute irrational position to accept an absolute?:dizzy:

 

[Clete]

You mean it is an absolute irrational possession to accept an absolute?:dizzy:

You are truly stupid.

Where in the world did I ever say that? I said just the exact opposite, you idiot!

You are the one who rejects the open view and at the same time accepts the idea of "conditional situations", which is totally consistent with your habit of intentionally ignoring sounds reason.

You are a hypocrite to boot!

You think that I've contradicted myself somehow and use that as an argument against my position but throw out the "human reason" trump card every time anyone accuses you of contradicting yourself which you do seemingly every time you make a post!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

You are truly stupid.

Where in the world did I ever say that? I said just the exact opposite, you idiot!

You are the one who rejects the open view and at the same time accepts the idea of "conditional situations", which is totally consistent with your habit of intentionally ignoring sounds reason.

You are a hypocrite to boot!

You think that I've contradicted myself somehow and use that as an argument against my position but throw out the "human reason" trump card every time anyone accuses you of contradicting yourself which you do seemingly every time you make a post!

Resting in Him,
Clete

No, Clete, it is not me that is contradictory . It is you. You contradict God and think it is fashionable to do so.

 

[Philetus]

Originally Posted by Philetus:
How can there be a "conditional situation" in the SV?

Why not. The OVer accepts some absolutes.

:doh: There it is.

What is it you don't understand? conditional vs settled

All your stuff is reactionary. The Open View doesn't hold that there are no absolutes. There are contingencies ... "conditional situations" ... which in a settled view seem quite impossible.

Clete is right. You’re an absolute hoot. Your answer is no answer.

Conditional and settled goes together like the OV and a closed mind.

 

[patman]

This seems to be the theme from the S.V.. I remember when there was some depth to the discussion from the S.V., looks like the steam is running out... what little steam was, there that is.

 

[elected4ever]

:doh: There it is.

What is it you don't understand? conditional vs settled

All your stuff is reactionary. The Open View doesn't hold that there are no absolutes. There are contingencies ... "conditional situations" ... which in a settled view seem quite impossible.

Clete is right. You’re an absolute hoot. Your answer is no answer.

Conditional and settled goes together like the OV and a closed mind.

Not so, You go back and read the OV responses and you will see that there are no absolutes in the brand of OVism being taught here. When they are challenged on it they sing a different song and accuse the challenger of purposely misleading. That is humanism and not and Openview at all.

 

[Lon]

Lonster,

Here is my answer to the antinomy of predestination and free will.

The only thing that really counts in my mind, is biblical theology, God’s word.

That’s why it says in1 Corinthians 1:19-27 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty

Therefore, we must only look at the Bible.

The foundation of the Calvinistic view of predestination is immutability. Is God immutable? Is He impassible – not influenced by our problems? Does God ever change?

The question is not, does God change in His attributes. He doesn’t. He is love. He is merciful. He is omnipotent. He is always holy. God is light. God is omniscient.

He has other attributes that do not change. But, again, that is not the question.

The question can be stated a number of ways.

Does God ever really repent?
Does God ever really change His mind?
Does God ever think something will happen, and then it doesn’t?
Does God show emotion?
Does He change in any way in the state of His being?

I think the biblical answer to all these questions is, yes.

These ideas, instead of degrading God, cause us to appreciate and glorify Him all the more. He is and does do the things asked in these questions, but the most important thing for me concerns His supposed impassability – because He suffers.

In other words, He has passion.
This is the opposite of having no passion – impassability.

God suffers! What comfort that gives me. Our God is touched by our sufferings. God suffers because of us, with us, and for us.

In Hosea 11:1-4,8,9 it says, When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. As they called them, so they went from them. They sacrificed to the Baals, and burned incense to carved images. I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them. I drew them with gentle cords, with bands of love, and I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped and fed them. . . . My people are bent on backsliding from Me. Though they call to the Most High, none at all exalt Him.

How can I give you up, Ephraim?
How can I hand you over, Israel?
How can I make you like Admah? How can I set you like Zeboiim?
My heart churns within Me; My sympathy is stirred.
I will not execute the fierceness of My anger. I will not again destroy Ephraim.

For I am God, and not man, The Holy One in your midst, and I will not come with terror.

That is my God!

Bob Hill

Thanks. that is clear and many of the SVers would agree with much here. We see God similarly but it I'd hope the difficult questions aren't easily answered for OV as well. I agree with your assesssment of immutable character but, at least in my mind, His characteristics and attributes and relationship to us cross paths in a way that is often not easily differentiated. This seems to be one of the hot buttons for dialogue between OV/SV so I appreciate your careful work here.

Poly, appreciate your response but I think you misread and the 'canned' OV answer didn't speak to me. Did you read something between the lines that wasn't there?

 

[Lon]

Falls very very flat?

Are you sure that it doesn't simply "surpass understanding"?

Why is my position wrong and yours simply past understanding?

How do you tell the difference between that which is wrong and that which is right but beyond your ability to understand?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I admit this difficulty but I cannot dismiss the contradiction based on a working and seemingly logical theology system. OV states that God cannot see the future clearly and yet scripture does indicate this position is tenuous. Albeit, SV also has problems.

I suppose what this all really boils down to for me is that no single Theology position has it quite right as far as I can tell. I'd like to think that I'm a Biblical theologian who sees the good in differing perspectives, but using the same lenses for all interpretation simply has difficulties in explaining everything. I'm inclined to take a serious look through OV lenses but I appreciate your dilemmas as much as my own looking through SV lenses as well. We all need to keep examining our lenses and become more Biblical in our approach and understandings and we all should be accepting and not defensive when considering our respective positions. Theology is more of a handle and we have to make sure the attachments fit scripture properly. I appreciate the questions and good thinking OV brings to the table.

How can there be a "conditional situation" in the SV?

Case in point. Good question of course. I'm not sure I'm as settled in my understandings of scripture. There is a dilemma between our perspectives that isn't easily resolved, as Bob said so well. This dialogue is important only insomuch as we pray more, seek to know Him more, and seek to serve Him more fully. It is all academic otherwise. I appreciate these questions and this discussion, if only to know Him more and serve Him more fully.

In our precious Christ

 

[Philetus]

I admit this difficulty but I cannot dismiss the contradiction based on a working and seemingly logical theology system. OV states that God cannot see the future clearly and yet scripture does indicate this position is tenuous. Albeit, SV also has problems.

I suppose what this all really boils down to for me is that no single Theology position has it quite right as far as I can tell. I'd like to think that I'm a Biblical theologian who sees the good in differing perspectives, but using the same lenses for all interpretation simply has difficulties in explaining everything. I'm inclined to take a serious look through OV lenses but I appreciate your dilemmas as much as my own looking through SV lenses as well. We all need to keep examining our lenses and become more Biblical in our approach and understandings and we all should be accepting and not defensive when considering our respective positions. Theology is more of a handle and we have to make sure the attachments fit scripture properly. I appreciate the questions and good thinking OV brings to the table.



Case in point. Good question of course. I'm not sure I'm as settled in my understandings of scripture. There is a dilemma between our perspectives that isn't easily resolved, as Bob said so well. This dialogue is important only insomuch as we pray more, seek to know Him more, and seek to serve Him more fully. It is all academic otherwise. I appreciate these questions and this discussion, if only to know Him more and serve Him more fully.

In our precious Christ

I’m glad the question didn’t get lost.

Open Theism is a response against ‘tenuous’ theologies. It certainly doesn’t answer all the questions. Yet. But, its open. It is a young discipline as theologies go, and the others go way back but post date the scripture and experience of the first century church and are the product of Christendom and Greek Philosophy. Still, the OV resolves on a very basic level concerns about the dynamic, relational and personal expressions found in scripture about God.

The only hope we have is not that God has settled every future detail (or even already knows the outcome of every contingency) but rather that even in giving others a significant say so in their own existence, God remains faithful and will fulfill every promise made in Christ. The future God has planed for those who embrace the truth about God revealed in the Gospel and the future that Christ is even now preparing (“I go to prepare …”) and the future the Spirit of Christ Jesus is preparing us for, is not yet. Our guarantee that it will be is God’s own faithfulness. It is in Him we place our trust, not in a settled future, not even in His ‘immutability’; no, we trust HIM! not because he knows or controls the future in meticulous detail, but because NOTHING can separate us from His love in Christ.

It is more than mere academics; knowing him in the power of his resurrection that happened in time and place informs the future, and from our perspective at least doesn’t settle it. Why else pray, serve and grow into his likeness?

Moreover, the dialog is important because it shapes the church’s witness and the message we send to the world. The tenuous nature of the message of a settled view communicates that the decisions people make have no real bearing on the future, regardless how many ‘alter calls’ or ‘altar calls’ are issued.

Either the future is settled or it is open to a greater or lesser extent. The discussion among the thinking is the degree to which it is open. The future is settled as far as God has determined it. It is open to the degree that God has given his creatures a significant say in their own futures and will not compromise their freedom to choose. The future is as bright as the promises of God in Christ. God knows how he plans to bless us in the future. What he doesn't know is exactly who will and who will not embrace that future.

Also in Him,
(Just not resting as much as Clete. :grave: )

 

[Philetus]

Not so, You go back and read the OV responses and you will see that there are no absolutes in the brand of OVism being taught here. When they are challenged on it they sing a different song and accuse the challenger of purposely misleading. That is humanism and not and Openview at all.

:dizzy:

I think the German Theologians have a term for your brand of reasoning: 'bullvachita'.
But honestly, E4E, I don't think you could purposely mislead anyone, Jesus called it the 'blind leading the blind'. Or was it 'the bland'?:yawn: :yawn:

 

[Philetus]

I need your prayers.

My wife has EDF!

Last week, she told our son to be off the phone by 10pm.
He said sure thing mom. (like really)
She said, You will be back on the phone before the alarm clock rings in the morning.
He was.

God, help me! My future is settled.:execute:

 

[lucaspa]

"Open theists proclaim that God cannot know future contingent events. That is the fancy way of referring to events in the future, which result from human beings making free choices. ... Because, you see, to these open theists, God is completely surprised by any large number of events that happened in the world. But this poor, impotent deity, who is described by the open theists, this finite God of open theism, had no way of knowing at the time that Jesus was dying if even one human being would accept His Son as Savior. This poor, impotent deity faced the possibility that the suffering of His Son on the cross would bring about the salvation of no one. Another open theist, who happens to be a friend of mine, Bill Hasker, teaches at a college in Indiana, says that the very fact that there is a church of God is a matter of God's dumb blind luck because God had no way of controlling whatever outcome might follow the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross. Now I believe all of these consequences are absurd."--Ron Nash

Your criticism has taken the position of "open theism" to make a strawman.

There is a difference between God not knowing, in exact detail, the future, and God not knowing at all. But yes, for God to be truly loving, He must not know the future exactly and must be surprised from time to time by the actions of individual humans. Since God is very wise, God would have a pretty good idea, in general, of the outcomes of large events.

So, yes, God could be very confident that some people would accept Jesus as Savior. BUT, there was the possibility that no one would. I personally think this makes a much more loving, personal God than the all-knowing one you are portraying. This means God made a real sacrifice of His Son. That is, God risked a lot for us. By your reasoning, God risked nothing, because God knew the outcome.

Now, to continue your reasoning, did God know that Christianity would break up into more than 20,000 denominations, with consequent hatred of some for others? If so, why didn't God do something to prevent that? You end up with just as "impotent" a God as the open theists -- you just put the impotence somewhere else: God's inability to act to prevent what He knows is coming.

For our lives to have meaning, our actions have to have real consequences. If all our actions are known -- to the minutest detail -- beforehand, then we become mindless puppets. I don't want God to be a puppetmaster. Too bad you do.

Trustees of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, passed a resolution saying, "Open theism's denial of God's exhaustive definitive foreknowledge constitutes an egregious biblical and theological departure from orthodoxy and poses a serious threat to evangelical integrity."

That's their assertion. Since you didn't post the reasoning behind it, I can't determine whether that reasoning is sound. However, I disagree. Let's take one example: if God knew that He would rescind the dietary laws in the future, then why did God make them at all? If God knew that Moses and David would each reason to get God to change His mind, then why did God not go with the second decision from the beginning?

Or, better yet, taking a literal reading of Genesis 2-3, if God knew beforehand that Adam and Eve were going to disobey, why didn't God make it impossible for them to get to the fruit of the trees? Here God shows less knowledge of human nature than any parent. Parents know that kids are going to go for the cookie jar if you tell them not to. So we put the cookie jar out of their reach.

So, as I look at the Bible, God is very knowing, but not all knowing.

The Evangelical Theological Society approved a resolution rejecting open theism and supporting the position that "God has complete, accurate and infallible knowledge of all events past, present and future, including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents."

God's Creation contradicts this. God created a universe where He can't have exhaustive knowledge of the future. So the Evangelical Theological Society is not listening to God. Not a good idea.

At the heart of quantum mechanics is the Uncertainty Principle. This states that some knowledge is impossible to have. That doesn't mean "impossible to humans", but really impossible. For anyone or anything, including God. For instance, decay of radioactive nuclides is regular in that you know that half of the atoms will decay within a time limit (half-life). BUT, it can't be known which atom will decay in any particular half life. So the future can't be known in "complete, accurate and infallible" detail.

Instead of denying God, the Society would do better to try to figure out why God limited Himself this way.

 

[VanhoozerRocks]

Hey,
Was wondering in any of you have read Placher's Domestication of Transendence? It has a great segment where he talks about the history of the Calvinist/Arminian debate (Still very applicable to open theism). Using Aquinas' metalinguistic theory of analogical/univocal/equivocal language about God he demonstrates that this debate really didn't take off until people believed it was possible to talk univocally about God. Does anyone here hold to (Tanner's?) the theory of non-competition? Or is it impossible for one to affirm human and divine action simultaneously? Just some quick questions that are maybe a little off topic...but oh well..

 

[godrulz]

Hey,
Was wondering in any of you have read Placher's Domestication of Transendence? It has a great segment where he talks about the history of the Calvinist/Arminian debate (Still very applicable to open theism). Using Aquinas' metalinguistic theory of analogical/univocal/equivocal language about God he demonstrates that this debate really didn't take off until people believed it was possible to talk univocally about God. Does anyone here hold to (Tanner's?) the theory of non-competition? Or is it impossible for one to affirm human and divine action simultaneously? Just some quick questions that are maybe a little off topic...but oh well..

Yes, I read it right after the morning comics?! Huh? Reading stuff like that could give one brain damage.

I am reasonably well read, but I don't have a clue about your questions. Try talking s-l-o-w-e-r.

 

[VanhoozerRocks]

Sorry. I will ask one primary question. Let's say we're speaking of an act. This act is my decision to go to college. Is it possible for me to talk of this act simultaneously being an act of God and of myself. This being that the act is able to be 'attributed' to 100% human and 100% God. Or, in comparison, if I hypothetically state that God acted in 51% of this decision, does that necessitate that I only did 49% of it? Let's leave aside how God actually 'acts' in these decisions. I am asking this question in light of Kathryn Tanner's theory of non-competition and Aquinas' metalinguistic categories.