Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

toldailytopic: What is Open Theism? What do you think of it?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Delmar View Post
    God has a great many plans and the ability to make them happen.
    I agree, but does He have prescience in the open view or is it precluded?
    So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Doormat View Post
      I agree, but does He have prescience in the open view or is it precluded?
      Exhaustive definite foreknowledge is logically impossible if libertarian free will is a gift from God/reality.

      God can and does know some vs all things about the future (two motifs).

      Determinism could explain EDF as could simple foreknowledge, but these are not defensible views.

      Another pertinent issue is whether 'eternal now' timelessness is true or whether God experiences an endless duration of time (divine temporality). This will impact our conclusions about predestination, omniscience, free will, etc.
      Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

      They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
      I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

      Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

      "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

      The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

      Comment


      • #33
        Nothing is set in stone; else, why are we to choose between life and death?
        Neither is it necessary for God to react to every experience a human can have (open theism in my view); the reaction is built into our action; we do it to ourselves, blessing and cursing that is.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by godrulz View Post
          Exhaustive definite foreknowledge is logically impossible if libertarian free will is a gift from God/reality.
          How is any foreknowledge possible if the future is unknown by the observer?
          So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Doormat View Post
            How is any foreknowledge possible if the future is unknown by the observer?
            Is. 46 and 48 shows how God can bring things to pass by His ability and thus declare these things in advance. God is also intelligent and is able to extrapolate things about the future based on exhaustive past and present knowledge. The mistake is to think that God somehow sees the non-existent future as certain/actual vs anticipatory or that He causes all things and thus knows all things.

            God determines/knows some things, while other aspects are indeterminate and left to be settled by contingent choices. He knows reality as it is, so He correctly distinguishes possible, necessary, actual, certain, probable (modal logic).
            Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

            They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
            I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

            Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

            "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

            The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

            Comment


            • #36
              My understanding is that it means God chooses not to know the outcome of the future. Is that correct?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Dena View Post
                My understanding is that it means God chooses not to know the outcome of the future. Is that correct?
                God cannot choose to not know the knowable. The reason He does not know the future is inherent in creating a non-deterministic future that is not there yet to know. He is not ignorant of anything knowable. The future is at least partially open/unsettled and known as such. His limitation of exhaustive future knowledge relates to the type of world He actualized, not an act of will to be ignorant of the knowable.
                Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                Comment


                • #38
                  After reading the first four posts, open theism has no agreed upon meaning.

                  "open theism" is a useless title. Time to get back to what scriptures teach.

                  John 17:17 God's word is truth.

                  I Timothy 2:4 we are to come to the knowledge of the truth

                  Why so we can have fellowship with God, with His son and with fellow believers. I John

                  oatmeal
                  "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42

                  "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" Philippians 2:2

                  Pro scripture = Protestant

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by godrulz View Post
                    www.opentheism.info

                    Open Theism is a more biblical, coherent free will theism than Arminianism or Molinism or Process Thought.

                    It is the antithesis of deterministic, compatibilistic Calvinism that is unbiblical and impugns the character/ways of God.

                    I love you, AMR...
                    Process thought is a form of open theism, though not one typically held by conservative evangelicals. The reason being that process thought holds that the indeterminism of reality is not by choice from God, but rather from metaphysical necessity, and that a new understanding of omnipotence is required in light of this fact. For the process thinker, saying that God makes a sovereign choice when creating an indeterminate world presents a problem down the line, namely that it fails to address the problem of evil in any philosophically satisfactory way, it simply pushes the problem one step back.
                    "By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." (Luke 1:78-79)

                    The Light Eternal, breaking through,
                    the world to gleam anew;
                    His beams have pierced the core of night,
                    He makes us children of the light.

                    -Martin Luther

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Doormat View Post
                      How does open theism explain God's apparent detailed knowledge of the future?
                      The appearance of detailed knowledge of the future is seen more clearly in hindsight.


                      Luke 24:25-27
                      25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
                      26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
                      27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

                      Learn to read what is written.

                      _____
                      The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                      ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Selaphiel View Post
                        Process thought is a form of open theism, though not one typically held by conservative evangelicals. The reason being that process thought holds that the indeterminism of reality is not by choice from God, but rather from metaphysical necessity, and that a new understanding of omnipotence is required in light of this fact. For the process thinker, saying that God makes a sovereign choice when creating an indeterminate world presents a problem down the line, namely that it fails to address the problem of evil in any philosophically satisfactory way, it simply pushes the problem one step back.
                        Could you explain that? I'm not sure what you mean by process thought. If you mean bi-polar godism, then how does that affect any 'problem of evil'?

                        In the open view I explained on page 1, openness implies responsibility so I don't see how it could be accused of not dealing with the problem of evil. Indeed one of the principal drivers in my development of openness theology was that moral responsibility is not intuitive in Calvinist theology. Since God has predestined all things, it is a lot harder to then justify that men are responsible for what they do. Openness tackles that issue properly.
                        Total Misanthropy.
                        Uncertain salvation.
                        Luck of the draw.
                        Irresistible damnation.
                        Persecution of the saints.

                        Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
                        (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

                        RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
                        Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
                        Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Dena View Post
                          My understanding is that it means God chooses not to know the outcome of the future. Is that correct?
                          God knows everything that he needs to know, is as powerful as he needs to be and is wherever he needs to be for the purposes of accomplishing his purpose.

                          If God were fully aware of all that will be, then he can't have any purpose himself because the very concept of purpose implies that the future is open. If the future is not open, then all that can happen is that God just goes with it, as do we. Purposes and intentions would just be illusions. Purposes and intentions are things that you want the future to look like and which you strive to bring to pass because you value them but if the future is fixed then there is no point in wanting it to be any different to what it will certainly be. In that case, wants and purposes would be pathological.
                          Total Misanthropy.
                          Uncertain salvation.
                          Luck of the draw.
                          Irresistible damnation.
                          Persecution of the saints.

                          Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
                          (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

                          RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
                          Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
                          Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                            Could you explain that? I'm not sure what you mean by process thought. If you mean bi-polar godism, then how does that affect any 'problem of evil'?
                            By process thought I mainly refer to the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne and the theology inspired by those systems of thought.
                            That philosophy addresses the problem of evil by viewing the openess (that is ultimate indeterminacy) of reality as metaphysical, rather than as a decision by divine fiat. According to the process view, God cannot even in principal unilaterally control everything since all other actual occasions (that is the fundamental unit of reality in process thought) has at least a degree of subjectivity, that is self-determination. Evil occurs when an actual occasion does not act according to the ideals of God.

                            And to be a bit pedantic, it is dipolar theism, not bipolar.

                            In the open view I explained on page 1, openness implies responsibility so I don't see how it could be accused of not dealing with the problem of evil. Indeed one of the principal drivers in my development of openness theology was that moral responsibility is not intuitive in Calvinist theology. Since God has predestined all things, it is a lot harder to then justify that men are responsible for what they do. Openness tackles that issue properly.
                            However, process thought goes beyond human evil. It feels that natural evil must be considered as well. Not just the suffering of humans, but the suffering that seems to be a part of fundamental processes such as evolution and natural disasters.

                            So a process thinker would say that open theism where God by divine fiat makes an indeterminate creation is not sufficient to deal with the problem of evil since the ultimate responsibility for evil, at least natural evil, would rest upon that primordial decision rather than metaphysical necessity.
                            "By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." (Luke 1:78-79)

                            The Light Eternal, breaking through,
                            the world to gleam anew;
                            His beams have pierced the core of night,
                            He makes us children of the light.

                            -Martin Luther

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Hopefully anyone unaware of open theism won't see it as similar to an open relationship, that may cause some problems.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
                                The appearance of detailed knowledge of the future is seen more clearly in hindsight.
                                The appearance of detailed knowledge of the future suggests prescience. What I'm hearing from godrulz is that open theism precludes prescience. His idea of foreknowledge is not prescience.

                                Matthew 2:17-18 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."

                                How is that the type of foreknowledge that godrulz described in his response to me?
                                So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X