Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The use of the word "future"

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

  • Lighthouse
    replied
    Originally posted by fishrovmen View Post
    So why doesn't the Open View Theology statement read so? Why doesn't it say : The Open View teaches that God can create the future in conjunction with autonomous humans. He interacts with the flow of history and creates the outcome of the future as it unfolds by both His and our decisions and actions.?
    It essentially does. But, as Desert Reign pointed out, a fully fledged theological statement was not needed for this sub-forum. This particular idea is one that is explained during discussion of the topic. And also something I would expect to be self-evident from the statement available, which uses commonly understood language to explain the open view.

    Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
    What do you mean by 'the Open View Theology statement'? If you're referring to this
    then I already answered your question in my earlier posts. If you think this wording is wrong, it's no big deal, it is only a brief summary. A fully fledged theological statement was not called for just to introduce a discussion forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • fishrovmen
    replied
    Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
    What do you mean by 'the Open View Theology statement'? If you're referring to this

    then I already answered your question in my earlier posts.
    I was responding to Lighthouse's interpretation of that statement.

    Leave a comment:


  • Desert Reign
    replied
    Originally posted by fishrovmen View Post
    So why doesn't the Open View Theology statement read so? Why doesn't it say : The Open View teaches that God can create the future in conjunction with autonomous humans. He interacts with the flow of history and creates the outcome of the future as it unfolds by both His and our decisions and actions.?
    What do you mean by 'the Open View Theology statement'? If you're referring to this
    The Open View teaches that God can change the future. He interacts with the flow of history and changes the outcome of the future as it unfolds by His decisions and actions. This forum is dedicated to the discussion of openness theology.
    then I already answered your question in my earlier posts. If you think this wording is wrong, it's no big deal, it is only a brief summary. A fully fledged theological statement was not called for just to introduce a discussion forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Desert Reign
    replied
    Originally posted by Saved.One.by.Grace View Post
    For this theological belief, one cannot believe in God's sovereignty. This also puts into question the prophecies of the OT prophets, Jesus, and the NT prophets. This position questions God's prescience, His foreknowledge. Isn't this creating God in our image?
    Sovereignty is not complete manipulation of everything. That's not what a sovereign does. That's not even what a dictator does. A sovereign provides the security, discipline, moral guidance and infrastructure to enable his subjects to live in peace and freedom. Those who would have God exercise complete control over every decision and every action and event are actually denying sovereignty, not affirming it.

    Similarly, it would be trivial if God knew absolutely everything that was ever going to happen, what would be the point of prophecy? Prophecy makes sense as a supernatural thing, a miracle, etc., precisely because in general the future is unknowable. Your view of prophecy amounts to nothing more than God showing off. But if God has a plan to do something in a particular way and tells you about it, then that is something valuable.

    The open view is not creating God in man's image. It is recognising God's sovereignty in ways that are logical and practical. Man was made in God's image and that means that it ought to be possible to communicate with God and share in his purposes. Your view of man is so different to God that it is impossible for man to contribute anything at all, let alone be the image of God himself.

    Leave a comment:


  • fishrovmen
    replied
    So why doesn't the Open View Theology statement read so? Why doesn't it say : The Open View teaches that God can create the future in conjunction with autonomous humans. He interacts with the flow of history and creates the outcome of the future as it unfolds by both His and our decisions and actions.?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lighthouse
    replied
    Originally posted by fishrovmen View Post
    So, why not just say that God can create the future. He interacts with the flow of history and creates the outcome of the future as it unfolds by His decisions and actions.?
    Because He is not alone in that effect. We are autonomous, and therefore able to create the future in conjunction with God.

    Leave a comment:


  • Saved.One.by.Grace
    replied
    Originally posted by fishrovmen View Post
    Thanks Desert, that is understandable given the description in the forum. So both the OV God and humans then operate on the most likely probabilities and percentages due to the past record and human nature to repeat the past?
    For this theological belief, one cannot believe in God's sovereignty. This also puts into question the prophecies of the OT prophets, Jesus, and the NT prophets. This position questions God's prescience, His foreknowledge. Isn't this creating God in our image?

    Leave a comment:


  • fishrovmen
    replied
    Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post


    As I said, it's semantics. The open view is simply saying that those who say the future is fixed and cannot be changed are wrong, because the future does not exist, thus is not fixed. To say it can be changed is a figure of speech, not meant literally.
    So, why not just say that God can create the future. He interacts with the flow of history and creates the outcome of the future as it unfolds by His decisions and actions.?
    Last edited by fishrovmen; December 24th, 2013, 04:32 PM. Reason: different wording

    Leave a comment:


  • Lighthouse
    replied
    Originally posted by fishrovmen View Post
    How can you change something that doesn't exist to change?


    As I said, it's semantics. The open view is simply saying that those who say the future is fixed and cannot be changed are wrong, because the future does not exist, thus is not fixed. To say it can be changed is a figure of speech, not meant literally.

    Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    You cannot. Open theism's view of God is probabilistic in that God is playing catch up with decisions made by autonomous creattures that He does not know about, only predicts, sometimes getting it wrong. Sort of like the Survivor show, in that God is outwitting, outplaying, and outlasting His creatures. To the open theist, God is accreting knowledge, learning as time passes from them. So the God of Moses has less real knowledge than the God of today or five minutes from now. LH's view is even more bizarre and atypical of open theism in that he thinks God had to "go down now" to places like Sodom to see what was actually going on and react to the same. Sigh.

    AMR
    God never gets it wrong, so stop lying about the OV. If you can't bring yourself to be honest you should keep your trap shut.

    Leave a comment:


  • Desert Reign
    replied
    Originally posted by fishrovmen View Post
    So it is not only God changing the "future", but also man, as he reacts to other mankind due to a response that is contrary to what was expected of him/her?
    Yes. But remember that your question - and hence my answer - was about changing the future. Generically, the future is simply the sum total of all the things that have not yet happened but which will happen. (And I say this to simplify.)

    So, there are exceptions?
    In the Bible Paul says that God's plan of salvation was not dependent on anything any man did. Paul gives different examples of this, one of which is the choice of Jacob over Esau to be the father of the chosen nation. Paul explains that this choice was not based on anything good or bad the twins did since the choice was made while they were still in the womb. This gives a flavour of what it means when we say that God's plan didn't depend on anything anyone did. Many people assume that the subsequent history was also predestined but it was not. It turned out that Jacob loved God eventually. But Paul's point is that it need not have turned out that way. Jacob could have remained the villain that he started out as and it would not have affected God's plan. Jacob would still have been the father of the chosen nation.

    So in general I can make a principle, that God interacts with the world according to his faithful character but that if he wishes to force an outcome, then he may, regardless of any event or anyone's decision.
    That is after all what sovereignty means.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ask Mr. Religion
    replied
    Originally posted by fishrovmen View Post
    I would agree AMR. I am trying to understand the supposed "benefits" of the Open view and can't put together how something that doesn't even exist can be changed? I have a feeling that I'm missing something; a wrong definition?
    The openist seeks to resolve the conflict between free will and the sovereignty of God. In so doing, God is no longer omnipotent nor omniscient. He is "omnibenevolent" and cannot know the future for God is no longer atemporal and the future does not exist.

    See all about this and more here:
    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...ad.php?t=41620
    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...ad.php?t=41922
    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...ad.php?t=53669
    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...ad.php?t=63586
    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...ad.php?t=74408

    And this:
    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...36#post3415136

    AMR

    Leave a comment:


  • fishrovmen
    replied
    So it is not only God changing the "future", but also man, as he reacts to other mankind due to a response that is contrary to what was expected of him/her?


    Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Normally, yes.
    So, there are exceptions?

    Leave a comment:


  • fishrovmen
    replied
    Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post

    Of course I sense you are trying to trap me into saying that God's plan is uncertain and based on probabilities. Couldn't be further from the truth. But I'll let you say that if you want and I can answer then.
    No traps, just asking questions for now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Desert Reign
    replied
    Originally posted by fishrovmen View Post
    Thanks Desert, that is understandable given the description in the forum. So both the OV God and humans then operate on the most likely probabilities and percentages due to the past record and human nature to repeat the past?
    Normally, yes. Except it is not probabilities, but expectations. Probabilities are more objective than expectations. Expectations are your subjective choices of what you commit to. As I explained, 'commit to' means the things you do without making alternative provisions. (For example your wife would not take too kindly to you nurturing a few friendships which, even though that is all they are, in your mind they are your fall back in case you decide to call it a day with her. She expects to be your only future...)

    Of course I sense you are trying to trap me into saying that God's plan is uncertain and based on probabilities. Couldn't be further from the truth. But I'll let you say that if you want and I can answer then.
    Last edited by Desert Reign; December 24th, 2013, 01:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • fishrovmen
    replied
    Thanks Desert, that is understandable given the description in the forum. So both the OV God and humans then operate on the most likely probabilities and percentages due to the past record and human nature to repeat the past?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X