Theology Club: Scripture that supports the Open View

Status
Not open for further replies.

surrender

New member
I thought it would be fun to have a thread specifically dedicated to Scripture that supports the Open View. Please add to the list at your leisure. If you’d like to debate about any particular verse or passage, please open a thread using the Scripture reference as the title.

First up...

Genesis 2:19
“So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was the name.”

This tells us the motive for God bringing the animals to Adam—in order to see or “find out” how Adam would choose. If God knew Adam’s choices as settled already, Scripture is incorrect when it describes God’s motive in bringing the animals to Adam.
 

surrender

New member
Genesis 6:5-6
“The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.”

The fact that God ended up destroying the entire human race and starting over with Noah implies that God genuinely felt deep regret. The only way to feel genuine regret is if there had been the possibility that things would have turned out differently. This means that God did not know with absolute certainty that man would come to such a pitiful state. I’m not suggesting that God didn’t foresee this as one of many possible scenarios for mankind, but the clear demonstration of regret by God shows that man coming to this shameful condition was not the most probable scenario that God foresaw.
 

surrender

New member
Genesis 22:12
“He said, ‘Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.’”

God says, “Since you have not…NOW I know.” It’s not that I think God didn’t already know that Abraham feared God (God knows Abraham’s heart). And I realize there were many times prior to this event that Abraham demonstrated through faith his fear in God. But there is something monumental in this particular event that demonstrated to God once and for all that Abraham feared God. If God knew the entire future as settled, God’s statement “now I know” would be completely disingenuous.
 

surrender

New member
Exodus 4:1-4:9
“Then Moses said, ‘What if they will not believe me or listen to what I say? For they may say, ‘The LORD has not appeared to you.’ The Lord said to him, ‘What is that in your hand?’ And he said, ‘A staff.’ Then He said, ‘Throw it on the ground…Stretch out your hand and grasp it by its tail…that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob has appeared to you.’ …‘Now put your hand in your bosom.’ …behold his hand was leprous like snow. …and when he took it out of his bosom, behold, it was restored like the rest of his flesh. ‘If they will not believe you or heed the witness of the first sign, they may believe the witness of the last sign. But if they will not believe even these two signs or heed what you say, then you shall take some water from the Nile..will become blood on the dry ground...’”

If the future is settled, God would have known exactly how many miracles it would have taken for the elders to believe God appeared to Moses. God uses the terms “if” and “may” indicating that there was a possibility they wouldn’t believe the first or second sign. If the future is settled, God saying “If they don’t believe you, they may believe the next sign” would be disingenuous. But I believe God was being sincere and genuine.

This passage also shows how God is confident in His ability to accomplish His purposes (i.e. getting the elders to believe Moses’ testimony) even when faced with the choices of free will agents. God doesn’t need to have everything settled in order to bring to pass what He desires. He is infinitely wise, infinitely resourceful and infinitely loving. He doesn’t need to use excessive force and He doesn’t need a crystal ball (i.e. the future doesn’t have to be settled).
 

surrender

New member
Exodus 4:10-16
10 Then Moses said to the LORD, "Please, Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither recently nor in time past, nor since You have spoken to Your servant; for I am slow of speech and slow of tongue." 11 The LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? 12 "Now then go, and I, even I, will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say." 13 But he said, "Please, Lord, now send the message by whomever You will." 14 Then the anger of the LORD burned against Moses, and He said, "Is there not your brother Aaron the Levite? I know that he speaks fluently. And moreover, behold, he is coming out to meet you; when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart. 15 "You are to speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I, even I, will be with your mouth and his mouth, and I will teach you what you are to do. 16 "Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and he will be as a mouth for you and you will be as God to him.

Moses doesn’t feel qualified for the job the Lord has in mind for him (verse 10), so the Lord reassures Moses that He will help him (verse 12). Moses isn’t reassured and continues to complain he isn’t qualified (verse 13), so the Lord gets angry with Moses (verse 14). If the Lord knew with certainty from the foundation of the world that Aaron was going to help Moses, why did the Lord try to convince Moses that he was qualified to take on this job alone, instead of just telling Moses from the beginning that his brother would help him? In other words, why did the Lord sincerely try to accomplish something He was eternally certain wouldn’t be accomplished? And why on earth would the Lord get so angry with Moses’ stubborn resistance if the Lord knew with certainty from the foundation of the world that Moses would behave this way?
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
This is a pitiful thread . . . indicative of how unbiblical the false theory of Open Theism proves to be.

Any of you who want to believe that the future is not settled according to the sovereign, omniscient, and omnipotent powers of God, should be EXTREMELY embarrassed about the lack of response to this OP.

Holy Scripture does not teach Open Theism, but just the opposite.

Nang
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
This is a pitiful thread . . . indicative of how unbiblical the false theory of Open Theism proves to be.

Any of you who want to believe that the future is not settled according to the sovereign, omniscient, and omnipotent powers of God, should be EXTREMELY embarrassed about the lack of response to this OP.

Holy Scripture does not teach Open Theism, but just the opposite.

Nang

The originator of this thread has requested no dialogue, so it becomes of little interest to those on this forum. Any verses you and I give for or against our views is subject to interpretation (so your deterministic verses can be countered by other verses, context, or not foisting a deterministic paradigm on them).

If you were familiar with Open Theism literature, we claim scads of biblical support (but your ilk just makes them figurative, without warrant). We have also responded to your proof texts, but you stick your head in the sand. If a book is too much, the OT websites have many verses for you to consider that show two vs one motif in relation to the future (you just proof text one motif and ignore the other one).
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
The originator of this thread has requested no dialogue, so it becomes of little interest to those on this forum. Any verses you and I give for or against our views is subject to interpretation (so your deterministic verses can be countered by other verses, context, or not foisting a deterministic paradigm on them).

If you were familiar with Open Theism literature, we claim scads of biblical support (but your ilk just makes them figurative, without warrant). We have also responded to your proof texts, but you stick your head in the sand. If a book is too much, the OT websites have many verses for you to consider that show two vs one motif in relation to the future (you just proof text one motif and ignore the other one).

. . . Are you trying to say something?

Are you making excuses instead of presenting a scriptural apologetic for Open Theism?

Or are you admitting you have failed in the past to biblically support the OV sufficiently, and are just too lazy to try again?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
. . . Are you trying to say something?

Are you making excuses instead of presenting a scriptural apologetic for Open Theism?

Or are you admitting you have failed in the past to biblically support the OV sufficiently, and are just too lazy to try again?

The poster asked me to delete my dialogue posts, so I obliged. He will do the same again for us when he sees this. You are too lazy to look at the biblical support, but I am reading anti-Open Theism books (Beyond the Bounds, etc.). If I give you 100 verses, you will read them through your lens/paradigm. This is why I am not posting on this thread (does not mean there is no support/verses, your wrong conclusion).
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
The poster asked me to delete my dialogue posts, so I obliged. He will do the same again for us when he sees this. You are too lazy to look at the biblical support, but I am reading anti-Open Theism books (Beyond the Bounds, etc.). If I give you 100 verses, you will read them through your lens/paradigm. This is why I am not posting on this thread (does not mean there is no support/verses, your wrong conclusion).

What is pitiful, is that only a very few scriptures have been presented in response to the OP as proof texts, and done so without proper exegesis or hermeneutical consideration.

I contend there is no solid or respectable scriptural foundation or apologetic to be made for the false theory of a so-called Open View Theology.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
What is pitiful, is that only a very few scriptures have been presented in response to the OP as proof texts, and done so without proper exegesis or hermeneutical consideration.

I contend there is no solid or respectable scriptural foundation or apologetic to be made for the false theory of a so-called Open View Theology.

If you start a thread with Calvinistic verses and say no commentary is allowed (other threads available for that), it will also die a slow, painful death whether you are right or not or post 1 or 1000 verses.

Again, the Open Theism resources list 100s or 1000s of verses in support. You will just dismiss them anyway.
 

surrender

New member
If you two would delete your posts, it would be appreciated. If not, I will have to begin this thread again with another title (I'd like the thread to be easy to follow for those contemplating this view without all the back and forth dialogue). I know it's hard to control yourself when you oppose what is presented. But as godrulz pointed out to you, Nang, I opened this thread so we could have a thread specifically dedicated to Scripture that supports the Open View. I asked in the opening post that if anyone would like to debate about any particular verse or passage to please open a thread using the Scripture reference as the title. I ask that you please honor my request. Thank you.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Genesis 3:9
9 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”

God might be asking a rhetorical question, but then again, He might not.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Genesis 3:22
22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”

This is not questionable like Genesis 3:9. God is simply saying "lest", which means maybe, might, could be, perhaps which God is applying to Himself.
 

surrender

New member
I asked Nang in a private message to please consider deleting her posts since this thread is for posting Scripture that supports the open view without dialogue so that those earnestly seeking to understand how this view fits in with Scripture can easily follow it without the back and forth dialogue and rabbit trails. Nang has refused to remove her posts and will continue to ignore the request made in the opening post that asks those who oppose what’s presented to open separate threads for the purpose of debate. Nang said she would only refrain from comments in a thread if the opening post excludes her by name, so I will abide by her wishes even though she refused to abide by mine. I only hope she remains true to her word.

This thread is now closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top