Does Open Theism question the total omniscience of God?
Does Open Theism question the total omniscience of God?
No, it accepts it.
Not so
Gotquestions.org
Question: "What is open theism?"
Answer: “Open theism,” also known as “openness theology,” the “openness of God,” and “free will theism,” is an attempt to explain the foreknowledge of God in relationship to the free will of man. The argument of open theism is essentially this: human beings are truly free; if God absolutely knew the future, human beings could not truly be free. Therefore, God does not know absolutely everything about the future. Open theism holds that the future is not knowable. Therefore, God knows everything that can be known, but He does not know the future.
Open theism bases these beliefs on Scripture passages which describe God “changing His mind” or “being surprised” or “seeming to gain knowledge” (Genesis 6:6; 22:12; Exodus 32:14; Jonah 3:10). In light of the many other Scriptures that declare God's knowledge of the future, these Scriptures should be understood as God describing Himself in ways that we can understand. God knows what our actions and decisions will be, but He “changes His mind” in regard to His actions based on our actions. God’s disappointment at the wickedness of humanity does not mean He was not aware it would occur.
In contradiction to open theism, Psalm 139:4, 16 state, “Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD...All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” How could God predict intricate details in the Old Testament about Jesus Christ if He does not know the future? How could God in any manner guarantee our eternal salvation if He does not know what the future holds?
Ultimately, open theism fails in that it attempts to explain the unexplainable—the relationship between God's foreknowledge and mankind's free will. Just as extreme forms of Calvinism fail in that they make human beings nothing more than pre-programmed robots, so open theism fails in that it rejects God's true omniscience and sovereignty. God must be understood through faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6a). Open theism is, therefore, not scriptural. It is simply another way for finite man to try to understand an infinite God. Open theism should be rejected by followers of Christ. While open theism is an explanation for the relationship between God's foreknowledge and human free will, it is not the biblical explanation.
What is Open Theism?Most Open Theists I know about would trust the bible over Gotquestions.org. What you quoted above is an interpretation of an interpretation of the bible, so it's one level below what Open Theism is, which is just an interpretation of the bible.
But I see Gotquestions did quote a single passage from the bible, although not the whole thing. It's amazing what you can prove by quoting partial verses. Let's look at vs 4, in context.
[Psa 139:1 KJV] [[To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.]] O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known [me].
[Psa 139:2 KJV] Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
[Psa 139:3 KJV] Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted [with] all my ways.
[Psa 139:4 KJV] For [there is] not a word in my tongue, [but], lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
[Psa 139:5 KJV] Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
Verses 1, 2, 3, and 5 are obviously talking about God knowing something about the author that is available to be known. It says "Thou hast searched me" (past tense). It doesn't say "Thou searched me even before I existed." It says "Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising." It doesn't say "Thou knew that I was going to sit down at this time even before I was born." It says "Thou understandeth my thought afar off." It doesn't say "Thou understoodeth my thought before I even thought it." It says "Thou art acquainted with all my ways." It doesn't say "Thou art acquainted with the ways I will go in ten years." It says "[Thou] laid thine hand upon me." It doesn't say "Thou will lay thine hand upon me tomorrow."
So, the context of vs 4 is things that God can know about or do with us currently, not something He knows about our future. Does vs 4 maintain such context? Yes, it does. And vs 2 gives us a clue to what vs 4 means. Vs 4 says "...not a word in my tongue, [but]...Thou knowest it altogether." How would God know a word on our tongue before we say it? Maybe He can read my thoughts. Does that fit the context? Yes--look at vs 2.
The funny thing about Gq's article is that they think they can throw a one-passage answer at the question and they've completely obliterated Open Theist thinking. The other funny thing is that you thought the same thing.
But just in case you think I'm being insincere, let's answer Gq's questions:
"How could God predict intricate details in the Old Testament about Jesus Christ if He does not know the future?" How did Jesus know what to do and say when He came to earth? [Jhn 12:49 KJV] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Do you think it would be hard for God to know intricate details about Jesus Christ's life beforehand? Doesn't seem like it.
Well, maybe I'm still being to flippant about this subject. Let's consider some of the "intricate details" they allude to. How about His virgin birth? "How in the world would God know that Jesus would be born of a virgin?" I ask incredulously. Well, maybe it was because God planned to send the Holy Spirit to her: [Mat 1:18 YLT] And of Jesus Christ, the birth was thus: For his mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before their coming together she was found to have conceived from the Holy Spirit,
Do you think God could "predict" what the Holy Spirit would do? Do you think God knew what He Himself would do? Gotquestions seems to think God is impotent if He can't see into the future. Open Theists think God is quite capable of coming up with a plan and executing the plan, in spite of billions of free agents, some of whom might even work against God's purposes.
"How could God in any manner guarantee our eternal salvation if He does not know what the future holds?" This question can be easily turned around: "How could God know what the future holds, unless He can guarantee our eternal salvation?" Do you see my point? Gotquestions has it all wrong. They are depending on God's knowledge of events He has no control over, instead of depending on His power to control events.
We have a saying: "Knowledge is power." It means that if you know something, you have the ability to do something about it--to take control of a situation. For God, this leads to a conundrum. If God knows about something that will happen, He can't stop it without showing that He didn't really know what will happen. Read that again if it seems odd to you. Here's an example:
Let's say that God looks into the future and sees that you will die in a car accident tomorrow when a driver going across your path runs his red. Because your mother always prays for your safety, God arranges events such that the light you were going through turned yellow, then red, 3 seconds earlier than it normally would have done, saving you from the driver that ran the red going across your path. That's wonderful, right? Except now we have to ask what God would have seen when He looked into the future the day before the accident. He would NOT have seen that you were in an accident, but that you were saved by His hand.
Thus, the "future" has changed. It used to "show" that you die in a car accident, but now it shows that you DON'T die in a car accident. Can "the future" show two opposite outcomes? No, it can't, or it's not "the future".
I didn't talk yet about the other part of Ps 139 Gq quoted. That was Vs 16, quoted by Gq as "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." Should we look at context again? How about if we even just quote the full verse: "[Psa 139:16 NIV] Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." It seems to be talking about something besides David's life. "Unformed body"? What does that mean? Let's get the previous verses, so we can find out:
[Psa 139:13 NIV] For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.
[Psa 139:14 NIV] I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
[Psa 139:15 NIV] My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
[Psa 139:16 NIV] Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
It is apparent, when read in context, that David is speaking of the process of building a human being. Vs 12 talks about being knit in my mother's womb. Vs 15 talks about "the secret place", and being "woven together in the depths of the earth". Now we understand what "unformed body" is referring to--a fetus' progression. So if the first half of vs 16 is referring to a fetus's progression, what is the second half of vs 16 referring to? Maybe the same thing? And how long does a fetus's progression usually take? 9 months, maybe? How long do you think it took back in David's day? 9 months, maybe?
Do you see how it might make more sense if David is referring to the length of time it takes to make a baby rather than how long David would live?
BUT...
None of this has anything to do with your OP, nor my answer to it.
Does Open Theism question the total omniscience of God?
No, it accepts it.
No, it accepts it.
Free will must be defined to ensure both parties are on the same page, so should omniscience.
Sigh.
Anti-Calvinist: Do Calvinists believe in free will?
Calvinist: Yes
Clearly, an example of how to not make a point when the question begs a proper answer.
Just as free will must be defined to ensure both parties are on the same page, so should omniscience. These sort of curt answers to set some bait are the stuff of cultists seeking to appear orthodox to the ill-informed. We all can do better than the Mormons who happily affirm they believe in Jesus Christ. :AMR:
Open theists accept the omniscience of God as long as one defines omniscience to mean God knows all that there is to know, which obscures the plain views of open theists that God does not know the future because, well, the future does not exist.
It is best to examine a wide range of critiques and analyses of open theism before actually engaging an open theist, for example:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3415136#post3415136
AMR
"Free will" is a tautology; if it's not free, it's not a will.
To have a will is to have the ability to choose. To have a free will is to have the ability to choose.
There you go. Matt Slick agrees with me.What is Open Theism?
by Matt Slick
...
Furthermore, open theists claim that they do not deny the omniscience of God.
...
Not so
Gotquestions.org
Question: "What is open theism?"
Answer: “Open theism,” also known as “openness theology,” the “openness of God,” and “free will theism,” is an attempt to explain the foreknowledge of God in relationship to the free will of man. The argument of open theism is essentially this: human beings are truly free; if God absolutely knew the future, human beings could not truly be free. Therefore, God does not know absolutely everything about the future. Open theism holds that the future is not knowable. Therefore, God knows everything that can be known, but He does not know the future.
Open theism bases these beliefs on Scripture passages which describe God “changing His mind” or “being surprised” or “seeming to gain knowledge” (Genesis 6:6; 22:12; Exodus 32:14; Jonah 3:10). In light of the many other Scriptures that declare God's knowledge of the future, these Scriptures should be understood as God describing Himself in ways that we can understand. God knows what our actions and decisions will be, but He “changes His mind” in regard to His actions based on our actions. God’s disappointment at the wickedness of humanity does not mean He was not aware it would occur.
In contradiction to open theism, Psalm 139:4, 16 state, “Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD...All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
How could God predict intricate details in the Old Testament about Jesus Christ if He does not know the future?
How could God in any manner guarantee our eternal salvation if He does not know what the future holds?
Ultimately, open theism fails in that it attempts to explain the unexplainable—the relationship between God's foreknowledge and mankind's free will.
Just as extreme forms of Calvinism fail in that they make human beings nothing more than pre-programmed robots, so open theism fails in that it rejects God's true omniscience
and sovereignty.
God must be understood through faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6a).
Open theism is, therefore, not scriptural.
It is simply another way for finite man to try to understand an infinite God.
Open theism should be rejected by followers of Christ.
While open theism is an explanation for the relationship between God's foreknowledge and human free will, it is not the biblical explanation.
An omniscient entity — a computer that is programmed with every piece of data — places two bowls of ice cream in front of a man and declares which one he will choose.
Then the man chooses.
What is Open Theism?
by Matt Slick
Open Theism, also called openness and the open view, is a theological position dealing with human free will and its relationship to God and the nature of the future. It is the teaching that God has granted to humanity free will and that in order for the free will to be truly free, the future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God. They hold that if God knows what we are going to choose, then how can we be truly free when it is time to make those choices --since a counter choice cannot then be made by us, because it is already "known" what we are going to do.1 In other words, we would not actually be able to make a contrary choice to what God "knows" we will choose thus implying that we would not then be free.
In Open Theism, the future is either knowable or not knowable. For the open theists who hold that the future is knowable by God, they maintain that God voluntarily limits His knowledge of free will choices so that they can remain truly free. 2 Other open theists maintain that the future, being nonexistent, is not knowable, even by God.3 Gregory Boyd, a well-known advocate of Open Theism says,
"Much of it [the future], open theists will concede, is settled ahead of time, either by God's predestining will or by existing earthly causes, but it is not exhaustively settled ahead of time. To whatever degree the future is yet open to be decided by free agents, it is unsettled."4
But open theists would not say that God is weak or powerless. They say that God is capable of predicting and ordaining certain future events because He is capable of working in the world and bringing certain events to pass when the time is needed. Therefore, God could inspire the Old Testament writers to prophesy certain events and then He could simply ensure that those events occurred at the right time.
Furthermore, open theists claim that they do not deny the omniscience of God. They, like classical theologians, state that God is indeed all-knowing. But they differ in that God can only know that which is knowable and since the future has not yet happened, it can not be exhaustively known by God. Instead, God only knows the present exhaustively, including the inclinations, desires, thoughts, and hopes of all people.
In Open Theism God can make mistakes because He does not know all things that will occur in the future. According to them, God also takes risks and adapts to the free-will choices of people. They claim biblical support for their position by citing scripture where God changes His mind (Exodus 32:14), is surprised (Isaiah 5:3–7), and tests people to see what they will do (Genesis 22:12).
Finally, Open Theism tends to portray the God of orthodoxy as distant, controlling, and unyielding while promoting the God of openness as involved, adapting, loving, interacting, and caring for humanity.
Orthodox Christianity
Historic Orthodox Christianity states that God knows all things, even the entirety of the future, exhaustively. 1 John 3:20 it says, "...for God is greater than our heart, and knows all things." Likewise, Peter said to Jesus in John 21:17, "...You know all things; You know that I love You..." God's sovereignty is clearly taught in scripture, and His sovereignty is tied to His omniscience. Orthodox Christianity teaches that God is very loving, very involved, and even condescends to our level and interacts with us in a manner that we can understand. This means that we will see what appears to be instances of God changing His mind, testing, and adapting. But, this is all due to God's working with creatures who have limited vision, short life spans, and are sinners. God must work on our level since we cannot work on His.
God and time
The question about God's knowledge of the future is very important because it deals with the actual definition of God's nature in relation to the nature of the future. Is God all-knowing about the future or not? Is God existing in the future or not? Is God limited to the present or not? The answers to these questions reflect the very nature and scope of God's existence. The open theists are pushing a description of God that reduces God from knowing all things, past, present, and future, to not knowing all things in the future. God's omnipresence is also in jeopardy in Open Theism, since some open theists deny the existence of the future and thereby deny the omnipresence of God in the future.
Conclusion
My opinion is that openness is a dangerous teaching that undermines the sovereignty, majesty, infinitude, knowledge, existence, and glory of God and exalts the nature and condition of man's own free will. Though the open theists will undoubtedly say it does no such thing, it goes without saying that the God of Open Theism is not as knowledgeable or as ever-present as the God of orthodoxy.
So, [MENTION=4465]Bright Raven[/MENTION], If you are only going to throw other people's refutations at us (and poor ones at that), is it because you don't have an opinion of your own?
Do you want to explain what you mean by "total omniscience"? And then tell us why you believe in it, using scripture, preferably?
Thanks,
Derf
Should I give you verses that say that God learned something, or that something occurred that He had not considered before?Know all things totally. Does not change his mind.
I have a reputation to maintain.I knew you were going to say that.
I didn't assume anything; I presented a thought experiment.The declaration declared a contradiction is not as you assume.
No man is capable of making a choice contrary to the strongest desire of his heart.
Know all things totally. Does not change his mind.
Yep, there are several to consider.Should I give you verses that say that God learned something, or that something occurred that He had not considered before?
Or shall I give you verses that literally say God repented (turned away from)?