Open View Theology

[Bright Raven]

Which, again, brings us back to this:



Continuing on...



You're ASSUMING that God knew that they would do the things they did, rather than just accurately predict what they would do, the former of which excludes any choice from the matter, and you're left with what amounts to what the Greeks called "Fate."

Why?

See here:

https://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=5352334

As Clete said, there were times when God's predictions, some of which He even specified "without fail," failed that He wanted to come to pass, and others that He DID NOT want to come to pass, that did.



No, He did not.

Read the verse again, slowly this time.

The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. - Revelation 17:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...8&version=NKJV

Did you catch it?

The title of the book?
"The Book of Life"

Not:
"The Book of Life from the foundation of the world"

The phrase "from the foundation of the world" is not referring to the book, but to the people who lived on the earth.

"And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast"

In other words, people whose names were never written in the Book of Life, those people will marvel.



If what you have been taught is found to be wrong, you shouldn't cling to it.

It's called being intellectually dishonest.

You're so attached to what you've been taught, that you're not willing to accept correction, because it goes against what you were taught.

You should be willing to discard doctrine that has been shown to be false, and re-examine doctrine that has holes in it.

A cracked foundation will eventually lead to the building's collapse.

Your foundation is cracked. You should reevaluate your position.



Which isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Bible DOES NOT say that God IS those things, or at the very least, not in the same way you understand those things.



Are you willing to fall on that sword?

Because taking such a position, as a natural consequence, makes you a Necessary Being.

Again, I point to http://kgov.com/amber and https://kgov.com/bel/20190723.

God is the only necessary being.



The fact remains that your doctrine makes you a necessary being (even though you are not). It's a form of idolatry, and even blasphemy.

I advise you to retract your statement, that "If God is not all knowing then He is not God."



The idea that God is free (let alone man) has been around since before Christ came to the earth.

See Jeremiah 18.

Then along came Augustine and his adherence to Plato's and Aristotle's pagan teachings on fate, and then Calvin with his adherence to Augustine, and you end up with the omni's and im's.



It tries to show God for who He really is, not through the lens of pagan Greek philosophy, but through the lens of scripture.



Rather, what it questions is the pagan foundations of many doctrines which have been incorporated into Christianity that are not in the Bible.



This is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.



See Clete's post above.

I do not believe that what I believe in is wrong and you believe in what you believe. I agree to disagree with you for I will not change my position

[JudgeRightly]

I do not believe

It's not a matter of believing something to be right or wrong, BR. If your beliefs are wrong, then you should abandon them or at least revise them, because they are wrong.

that what I believe in is wrong and you believe in what you believe.

Again, it has nothing to do with one's opinions about one's beliefs. If you or I did not exist, the belief that "If God is not all knowing then He is not God" would STILL be false, it would STILL be idolatry, because it inherently makes the existence of the person putting forth the argument a necessary being.

The fact is that what you believe IS wrong, and not only that, but also IDOLATROUS, and you should therefore modify your beliefs to remain intellectually honest, and in order to not sin.

I agree to disagree with you for I will not change my position

This is called being intellectually dishonest, holding to a position when you know it has been shown to be incorrect.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

And not only that, doubling down on your position, you have asserted yourself as a Necessary Being (kgov.com/amber), which is idolatry.

[Bright Raven]

It's not a matter of believing something to be right or wrong, BR. If your beliefs are wrong, then you should abandon them or at least revise them, because they are wrong.



Again, it has nothing to do with one's opinions about one's beliefs. If you or I did not exist, the belief that "If God is not all knowing then He is not God" would STILL be false, it would STILL be idolatry, because it inherently makes the existence of the person putting forth the argument a necessary being.

The fact is that what you believe IS wrong, and not only that, but also IDOLATROUS, and you should therefore modify your beliefs to remain intellectually honest, and in order to not sin.



This is called being intellectually dishonest, holding to a position when you know it has been shown to be incorrect.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

And not only that, doubling down on your position, you have asserted yourself as a Necessary Being (kgov.com/amber), which is idolatry.

You have in NO WAY PROVED that God is not totally omniscient. I do not believe in "Open Theism" and never will. In my mind God always has been and always will be totally omniscient. You believe that God changes his mind and does not know the future, That is a false belief so preach to the Choir; Boyd, Pinnock et al. With me you are wasting your time. God is who God is Omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. The theological movement known as open theism is shaking the church today, challenging the doctrines of God's sovereignty, foreknowledge, and providence. Sorry, I'll have none of it.

[JudgeRightly]

You have in NO WAY PROVED that God is not totally omniscient.

You're not committed to Biblical doctrine, at least, not as much as you claim to be.

You're more committed to the pagan Greek humanist teachings brought into Christianity by Augustine, which he got from Plato and Aristotle.

If you believe in the settled future, and that God has static knowledge, that is, eternally unchanging exhaustive omniscience of everything that will ever be, including you, and that this eternal foreknowledge is an essential attribute of deity, then that means that you too are a necessary being (even though you're not). That is, if God could not be God apart from his knowledge of the human being that is you, then indeed, God could not be God, nor could anything else exist, if it weren't for you. So, either you are a necessary being (which you're not), or your commitment to the pagan Greek humanist doctrine that the future is settled is misplaced (which it is). So we've gone back and retitled the kgov.com/amber program.

https://kgov.com/bel/20190723
(Emphasis mine.)

I do not believe in "Open Theism" and never will.

Even if it is shown to be correct?

In my mind God always has been and always will be totally omniscient.

And you commit idolatry by thinking that, because you place yourself on the pedestal that says, "If I did not exist, then God could not be God."

Take yourself off the pedestal, BR.

Neither you nor knowledge of your existence is necessary for God to be God.

You believe that God changes his mind and does not know the future,

Why is that a problem?

That is a false belief so preach to the Choir;

Why is it a false belief? Saying it doesn't make it so, BR.

Boyd, Pinnock et al.

Who?

With me you are wasting your time.

Sounds like you've hardened your heart in your sin.

You should stop sinning, BR.

God is who God is

Stating tautologies does not make your position correct.

Omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

Like I said, you're committed to the pagan Greek humanist doctrines, more than you are to Biblical truth.

"Any theological system that requires a man, or knowledge of a man, to be part of God for eternity past, is essentially humanist."
(Bob Enyart, kgov.com/amber)

The Bible says that God has delegated power (He's not omnipotent), that people can depart from His presence (He's not omnipresent), and you have been shown that the natural consequence of omniscience is that YOU must exist for God to be God, for without you, or even knowledge of you, God could not be God, because if He didn't know about you, then He would not be omniscient (all-knowledge/all-knowing).

The theological movement known as open theism is shaking the church today, challenging the doctrines of God's sovereignty, foreknowledge, and providence.

And?

If what the church CURRENTLY believes is bad doctrine, and Open Theism corrects that doctrine, then all the better.

Sorry, I'll have none of it.

BR, can you state, without hesitation, "God could not have been God without Bright Raven eternally in His mind."

[way 2 go]

No, He did not.

The title of the book?
"The Book of Life"

Not:
"The Book of Life from the foundation of the world"

The phrase "from the foundation of the world" is not referring to the book, but to the people who lived on the earth.

"And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast"

In other words, people whose names were never written in the Book of Life, those people will marvel.

And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast


when were the names written in "the Book of Life"
that would be ...
from the foundation of the world

Eph 1:4 according as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,

[JudgeRightly]

And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast


when were the names written in "the Book of Life"
that would be ...
from the foundation of the world

Eph 1:4 according as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,

Will address this better later. Trying to sleep right now.

[JudgeRightly]

And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast


when were the names written in "the Book of Life"
that would be ...
from the foundation of the world

You missed it.

Read what I said again:

The title of the book?

"The Book of Life"

Not:

"The Book of Life from the foundation of the world"

The phrase "from the foundation of the world" is not referring to the book, but to the people who lived on the earth.

"And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast"

In other words, people whose names were never written in the Book of Life, those people will marvel.

The book is not called "The Book of Life from the foundation of the world."

The phrase "from the foundation of the world" is modifying "whose names are not written."

The phrase does NOT mean "at the foundation," but rather it means "since the foundation."

In other words, the book was empty at the foundation, but as time went on, names were written in it.

Compare with:

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. - Revelation 13:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...8&version=NKJV

Do you think that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world? Or is "from the foundation of the world" referring to when the people's names were written?

Eph 1:4 according as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,

Right, the GROUP called the Body of Christ was chosen to be "in Him," not the individuals to be in the group.

Notice the "us" and "we" in the verse.

Not "each one of us." Not "we as individuals."

See this post for an analogy that explains this in more detail:
https://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=5352363

[Lighthouse]

Abraham did not have divine foreknowledge. He had faith. So yes it meant a lot. Was God lying?

Titus 1:2 New King James Version (NKJV)
2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,

So if God cannot lie then what did He mean?

If Abraham did not know what he was going to do then how could God know by means of knowing Abraham's heart? In order for God to know He would have had to know through some means other than knowing Abraham's heart.

You're sidestepping the issue.

Exactly.

God knew what Abraham would do and God said now I know after what Abraham did

That's illogical and grammatically incorrect.

God knew what Judas would do Mat 26:24 & what Peter would do Mar 14:30

Judas had already betrayed Him, and He knew Peter was weak. He didn't need foreknowledge to know these things.

God knew Abraham's name, my name , your names & wrote them in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world

Point to the verse that says any names were written in the book at the foundation of the world.

Rev 17:8 The beast which you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss, and goes to perdition. And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, the ones whose names have not been written on the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, seeing the beast, that it was a thing, and is not, yet now is.

From = since.

I do not believe that what I believe in is wrong and you believe in what you believe. I agree to disagree with you for I will not change my position

That is sad. You will never be able to change anyone else's ind if you aren't open to your mind being changed.

[genuineoriginal]

God knew Abraham's name, my name , your names & wrote them in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world

Rev 17:8 The beast which you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss, and goes to perdition. And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, the ones whose names have not been written on the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, seeing the beast, that it was a thing, and is not, yet now is.

The Book of Life has existed from the foundation of the world, but the names written in it have been added and blotted out throughout time.

[genuineoriginal]

Sorry, I can't go against all that I have been taught and know about the attributes of God.
If God is not all knowing then He is not God.

If God does not fit the non-Biblical attributes of God that you were taught to believe, then God suddenly stops being God?

[genuineoriginal]

And those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast


when were the names written in "the Book of Life"
that would be ...
from the foundation of the world

A better translation would be "since the foundation of the world", indicating that the names were added after the foundation of the world.

Revelation 17:8 EXB (Expanded Bible) 8 The beast you saw ·was once alive but is not alive now [L was, and is not; 13:3, 12, 14]. But soon it will come up out of the ·bottomless pit [Abyss; 9:1] and go away to ·be destroyed [its destruction]. There are people who live on earth whose names have not been written in the ·book [scroll] of life [3:5] since the ·beginning [foundation; creation] of the world. They will be amazed when they see the beast, because he was ·once alive, is not alive now, but will come again [L was, is not, but is to come; C imitating the divine title of the Lamb (1:18; 2:8) and God (1:4, 8; 4:8)].

[Bright Raven]

A better translation would be "since the foundation of the world", indicating that the names were added after the foundation of the world.

Revelation 17:8 EXB (Expanded Bible) 8 The beast you saw ·was once alive but is not alive now [L was, and is not; 13:3, 12, 14]. But soon it will come up out of the ·bottomless pit [Abyss; 9:1] and go away to ·be destroyed [its destruction]. There are people who live on earth whose names have not been written in the ·book [scroll] of life [3:5] since the ·beginning [foundation; creation] of the world. They will be amazed when they see the beast, because he was ·once alive, is not alive now, but will come again [L was, is not, but is to come; C imitating the divine title of the Lamb (1:18; 2:8) and God (1:4, 8; 4:8)].

Is that a correct interpretation or does that better fit your theology?

[genuineoriginal]

Is that a correct interpretation or does that better fit your theology?

It is a correct interpretation that is available in some English translations.

Revelation 17:8 refers to people whose names haven’t been written in “the book of life from the creation of the world.” Doesn’t this conflict with open theism? As in Revelation 13:8, the clause “from the foundation” (apo kataboleis) need not mean “from before the foundation” but simply “from the foundation” (= since the foundation). It’s not that names either were or were not written in the “book of life” before they were ever born. Rather, throughout history, in response to the choices people made, God either wrote or omitted their names from the “book of life.” The fact that names may be blotted out even after they’ve been included (Exod. 32:33; Rev. 3:5, cf. Rev. 22:18) further suggests this “book of life” is not eternally written in stone.

[Bright Raven]

It is a correct interpretation that is available in some English translations.

Revelation 17:8 refers to people whose names haven’t been written in “the book of life from the creation of the world.” Doesn’t this conflict with open theism? As in Revelation 13:8, the clause “from the foundation” (apo kataboleis) need not mean “from before the foundation” but simply “from the foundation” (= since the foundation). It’s not that names either were or were not written in the “book of life” before they were ever born. Rather, throughout history, in response to the choices people made, God either wrote or omitted their names from the “book of life.” The fact that names may be blotted out even after they’ve been included (Exod. 32:33; Rev. 3:5, cf. Rev. 22:18) further suggests this “book of life” is not eternally written in stone.

Should be in all translations not just some.

[genuineoriginal]

Should be in all translations not just some.

Words change meaning over time and no translation fully conveys the meaning found in the original language.