The Theory of God's [lack of] Omniscience

[1Way]

Balder,
Thanks for the reply. What did you mean by saying "even if God did not create evil,"? I'm a Christian and I think I am in the majority view that holds very solidly that God does not create, nor is responsible for, moral evil. Why would you assume otherwise?

I disagree with your understanding of God's response to good and evil, and yet at the same time, I find (narrowly defined) some significant agreement with that issue. And I want to point out that God's word should always be held in esteem in a way that man's word should not be.

I believe that right and wrong are both of equal weight, and necessarily so. They are two halves of the same coin. And I do not believe that God Himself treats the one or the other in a disproportionate way.

What ultimately matters is our response to God and His teachings, not if our life conforms well to Augustine's confessions or the greater Westminster Catechism or the orthodox view or whatever. I am determined to not be persuaded by anything less that God's word.

I'm afraid that some of my last post was a bit fragmented. I'm glad you find some interesting points. I intend to sharpen then better as this progresses.

 

[1Way]

herald,
I agree with Clete, you are not presenting things quite accurately. But that aside, you said

Let's see.

You are saved by accepting Christ which means you have faith in Christ.

Faith is a grace from God.

Grace is an unmerrited gift from God.

Unmerrited means there is nothing we can do through our free will to receive grace.

So God has to predestine certain people to receive grace.

How do you account all that with free will and open theism?

We don't! I believe you are painting a picture that God does not paint. You are basically explaining individual predestination, yet the open view maintains that predestination unto salvation is not as much individual, but corporate or general. Often our error in understanding God and His ways is to reason with too much human intellect and not enough bible referencing. Consider

2 Corinthians 6:1 We then, [as] workers together [with Him] also plead with [you] not to receive the grace of God in vain.

Here the idea of "how man receives the grace of God" is up to man. So obviously it's not all just in God's doing that man receives God's grace, otherwise this verse would be meaningless, and we know that God's word never returns void. Man has something to do with him receiving God's grace.

I want to focus on this statement

So God has to predestine certain people to recieve grace.

He is understood by everyone, and God's character is redemptive, He gives His light to everyone that comes into this world! So everyone has at least some aid from God to find Him and ultimately trust in Him for life eternal.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by harold

Let's see.

You are saved by accepting Christ which means you have faith in Christ.

Faith is a grace from God.

Grace is an unmerrited gift from God.

Unmerrited means there is nothing we can do through our free will to recieve grace.

So God has to predestine certain people to recieve grace.

How do you account all that with free will and open theism?

Grace is the grounds (reason for which) of salvation. It is unmerited.

Repentant faith is the condition (not without which) of salvation. It involves love and trust. It is a volitional response to the conviction and convincing of the Spirit. In Eph. 2:8-10, salvation or grace is the gift of God, not faith (though this is true in a sense). Individual predestination (TULIP) and irresistible grace is Calvinistic, not biblical. Open Theism is a sub-type of Arminianism, so would not buy into your posted assumptions (your logic is faulty).

 

[Balder]

1Way,

As I said in my last letter, there are several points in your post that I'd like to resond to. But I'm not sure where to begin.

One thing I'd like to know, more for helping me contextualize your comments, is what you understand the final destiny of unbelievers to be. Do you think that they will all be cast in resurrected bodies into a lake of fire, to exist there forever in suffering and torment? Or do you have more of a C.S. Lewis view, where damned people are more like lost, confused wraiths stuck in a kind of "nowhere" or half-life? If you believe that people cast into the Lake of Fire suffer there forever, in unimaginable torment, then I'd like to ask you what sense you see in that. What would be the point of allowing people to "persist" forever in pain in what is essentially a furnace, a place of torture? When I mentioned that God "sustains" people in Hell or the Lake of Fire (I know they're different), I did so because I am imagining that all things exist only because their maker gives them existence. Or do you think that things can continue conscious existence entirely apart from God, without any "support" of their beings at all from Him? Are souls, of themselves and apart from God, eternal? Or not? If not, then isn't God essentially "sustaining" people in conditions of unimaginable torment?

Concerning the "illogicality" of evil, I agree. I think the particular take on things that you seem to be presenting makes evil even more inexplicable, however. This will probably take some explaining on my part.

I'm out of time for the moment. But I'd like to hear your thoughts on my questions above before saying more.

Peace,
B.

 

[1Way]

harold,
Godrulz replied to you saying

Godrulz said
... Open Theism is a sub-type of Arminianism, so would not buy into your posted assumptions (your logic is faulty).

That is simply not true, Open Theism is quite opposed to Arminianism except that they each promote man's free will, but in very different ways. Sometimes Calvinists or Covenentalists like to suggest that the Open View is akin to Arminianism.

• However, Arminianism holds that God has exhaustive foreknowledge yet we have free will (however inconsistently).
  
  The Calvinists believe that God has exhaustive foreknowledge and we do not have free will (at least they are consistent).
  
  The Open View is that God does not have exhaustive knowledge and we have free will.

So when you consider the heart of the Open View issue, which is whether or not the future holds at least some contingency or optional outcomes, the Arminians are much closer to being Calvinistic than they are Open View. Calvinism is a branch off from Arminianism, so the fact that they are closely related besides TULIP is not surprising.

 

[godrulz]

Most Open Theist teachers would find more affinity with Arminianism than Calvinism. Your observations are correct as to the beliefs. It depends on which aspects of the views you compare or contrast.

Greg Boyd contends that the Calvinists use similar arguments against Open Theism as they do against Arminianism. As you said, Open Theism and Arminianism are both free will theisms in contrast to determinism. It is correct that Arminians oppose Open Theism and have exhaustive foreknowledge in common with the Calvinists (different reasons: simple foreknowledge vs predestination). Yes, Calvinists are consistent, but flawed. Arminians have a biblical and philosophical problem with future contingencies and how they are known. Open Theism is theologically and philosophically coherent.

So, as to free will, Open Theism is considered by most OTs as a sub-type of the older, larger system of Arminianism (formal development of Open Theism is relatively recent compared to Arminianism, though it can be traced throughout church history). As to exhaustive foreknowledge, Calvinism and Arminianism are in the same boat. Since Augustine preceded Arminius, it is not usual to think of Calvinism coming out of Arminianism. The early church fathers were often free will theists.

Open Theists also recognize that some of the future is predestined (can use a sub-set of deterministic verses). It also recognizes the other motif that much of the future is open (free will contingencies). Arminianism tries to have its cake (free will) and eat it too (exhaustive foreknowledge).

One can make up arbitrary classification systems. Unless we qualify the similarities and differences, we could categorize the relationships in more than one way.

 

[1Way]

Godrulz,
The key issue with Open Theism is whether or not the future holds at least some contingency or optional outcomes. So according to it's main idea, Calvinism and Arminianism are far apart from Open Theism, as well as being far apart from what is biblically and logically consistent.

The uniqueness and distinctive ideas of Open Theism helps to promote itself against errant (although popular or longstanding) views.

 

[Clete]

1way is right, Arminians have more in common with Calvinists than they do with Open Theists. However, Arminians are way more tollerable because when you go to their churches, you never hear them blaiming God for things like cancer or drunk driving accidents or the like. When you go to an Arminian church at least the sermons and Sunday school lessons are prepared with man's free will as a foundational beleif and are therefore at least applicable to one's life in some respect without complete logical incoherance.
When I go to a Calvinist church, I can't help thinking that all these people must think that this whole church thing (as well as the rest of their lives) is just an academic exercise. What is the point of telling a Sunday school class that they should strive to be loving kind and gentle people but that they have been predestined to be what they are and that they don't have a free will in the first place. If they asked the question, "If what I do is predestined, why do I bother to come to church?", the answer would be, "Because you were predestined to come to church."...

• "I was?"
  
  "Yep, from before the foundation of the world!"
  
  "Wow! So if I don't come to church, that was predestined too, right?"
  
  "Absolutely!"
  
  "What if I were to punch you in the mouth for having blamed God for my Grandmother's cancer, would that be predestined?"
  
  "Yes, both the action and the motivation would have been predestined before you ever existed."
  
  "You're a nut! I'm outa here!"
  
  "If I'm a nut, it's because God predestined that I would be a nut and you'll go only if God has predestined you to go! You can't hide from God son!"
  
  "I'll be content with hiding from you, thanks!

I seriously don't know how that conversation doesn't happen every single Sunday at Calvinist churches! I guess it must not have been predestined to happen, eh? :kookoo:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way

Godrulz,
The key issue with Open Theism is whether or not the future holds at least some contingency or optional outcomes. So according to it's main idea, Calvinism and Arminianism are far apart from Open Theism, as well as being far apart from what is biblically and logically consistent.

The uniqueness and distinctive ideas of Open Theism helps to promote itself against errant (although popular or longstanding) views.

:thumb:

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

1way is right, Arminians have more in common with Calvinists than they do with Open Theists. However, Arminians are way more tollerable because when you go to their churches, you never hear them blaiming God for things like cancer or drunk driving accidents or the like. When you go to an Arminian church at least the sermons and Sunday school lessons are prepared with man's free will as a foundational beleif and are therefore at least applicable to one's life in some respect without complete logical incoherance.
When I go to a Calvinist church, I can't help thinking that all these people must think that this whole church thing (as well as the rest of their lives) is just an academic exercise. What is the point of telling a Sunday school class that they should strive to be loving kind and gentle people but that they have been predestined to be what they are and that they don't have a free will in the first place. If they asked the question, "If what I do is predestined, why do I bother to come to church?", the answer would be, "Because you were predestined to come to church."...

• "I was?"
  
  "Yep, from before the foundation of the world!"
  
  "Wow! So if I don't come to church, that was predestined too, right?"
  
  "Absolutely!"
  
  "What if I were to punch you in the mouth for having blamed God for my Grandmother's cancer, would that be predestined?"
  
  "Yes, both the action and the motivation would have been predestined before you ever existed."
  
  "You're a nut! I'm outa here!"
  
  "If I'm a nut, it's because God predestined that I would be a nut and you'll go only if God has predestined you to go! You can't hide from God son!"
  
  "I'll be content with hiding from you, thanks!

I seriously don't know how that conversation doesn't happen every single Sunday at Calvinist churches! I guess it must not have been predestined to happen, eh? :kookoo:

Resting in Him,
Clete

This seems to be the logical end result of determinism. The Calvinists here would deny this 'caricature' and try to say we have free will, yet things are predestined. This is called compatibilism. I believe incompatibilism is more correct (determinism and libertarian free will do not mix).

 

[1Way]

Clete,

:darwinsm: :thumb:

That was a serious crack up. Calvinists tend to be more abrasive because their foundational beliefs are pretty terrible, but the Arminians got man's free will right, but mostly for wrong and illogical reasons, which lack of cogent reasoning helps promote a good deal of ignorance and susceptibility to all kinds of false doctrine. Better is, learn and comply with the truth from God, there is no single unalterable destiny, the future is open to at least some contingency.

Both camps are Christian and as such serve a better chance at harming God's work in this world than the heathen do. But as the Arminian's seem to have some better conclusions and thus may represent God a bit more accurately, there is the idea that their (significant) error is that much more damaging.

I say that together, both represent a terribly damaging effect on our ability to effectively reach a dying world, and why people discredit God because of these false teachings. It may be that more people go to hell because of Calvinism and Arminianism than because of Secularism for example. It's the truth that sets people free, not error and false teaching.

But if I had to attend either kind of church, I know I could not last minuets in a Calvinistic church without having a cow. As to illogic and error typically found in the Arminian camp, sadly, my senses have been somewhat dulled by hundreds of years of Christian tradition and errant clichés, plus, at least they don't (typically) blame God (or make Him responsible) for sin and evil.

Wow, what an outstanding piece of baby sized common ground that we have in common, we both serve a God that is,,, good. :chuckle: Yippy!!! YeHaaaa!!!
:doh:
May the truth set them free, indeed!

 

[godrulz]

Whitefield (Calvinist) and Wesley (Arminian) both saw revival under their ministries. Predestination and perfection were hotly debated. Many evangelical denominations are in the Arminian camp. Comparatively few Open Theists are having an impact in evangelism. Thankfully, the Church is Christocentric and preaches the Gospel calling people to repentant faith. God's kingdom is exploding around the world without most people knowing about Open Theism. God honors faith, not theological excellence. There are many permutations of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Open Theism.

I agree that Open Theism is important and would enhance prayer and evangelism. The Spirit and Truth is more powerful than understanding the nature of sovereignty vs free will, the nature of time and eternity, etc.

I say this as a mitigation of the statement that secularism is less damaging than the godly churches and believers who are serving and dying for the risen Christ, Open Theist or not.

Go, Open Theism, Go (I am as excited about it as you are). It is an easier paradigm shift for Arminians than Calvinists.

 

[Lighthouse]

That was beautiful, Clete!:crackup:

 

[1Way]

Godrulz,
About it being an easier paradigm shift for Arminians, I think I would agree, although not be a huge margin. Calvies dislike the Open View because we effectively dismantle their view by promoting our view. The Arminian likes most of our conclusions but suffers from too much inconsistent reasoning. So each group has it's struggles.

I say that between the Open View and Mid Acts dispensationalism, the damage that has been done because of the false teachings that these views serve to correct, is enormous and long standing. People have died for a lack of bible truth directing their faith. Glory Barner's (a cult that I heard about locally) expect miracles for today and were against doctors and medicine, and some of them died (even children or babies) for a lack of some basic medical attention. Christian's lives are dysfunctional as they sometimes equate law and grace, circumcision with uncircumcision, being under the law and being freed from the law, that we can loose our salvation, and we can't, etc. God says that it's the truth that sets us free, not what is false and in error.

I have plans on chatting with a likely Arminian type about the open and closed view in the next coming weeks. So I hope your right about them being easier to convert.

 

[Emo]

Clete, that was very good, as usual. I pray that Arminians & Calvinists would simply open their hearts & eyes so that they could openly feel the true love of God.

Originally posted by 1Way

May the truth set them free, indeed!

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way

I have plans on chatting with a likely Arminian type about the open and closed view in the next coming weeks. So I hope your right about them being easier to convert.

People get defensive when they think the Open View undermines the attributes and character of God. The issue is more about the nature of the future, rather than the omniscience of God. What are the objects of God's perfect knowledge? Are there genuine contingencies and freedom? Is eternity timelessness? Is there a difference between necessities, actualities/certainties, and possibilities? I hope you have as many opportunities to 'convert' people to Christ as you do fellow believers to Open Theism.

 

[1Way]

godrulz,
Cool deal. To me there is no difference in giving anyone the real Christ, I want to spread the truth about Him to the lost just as much as to the saved. The more truth you have on your side, the more joy you have to spread to whoever will have it. Thanks for the encouraging words and helpful suggestions, I think your right, I will keep them in mind.

 

[Ninjashadow]

Ok, so I agree that God probably doesn't allow himself to know the future, but isn't it possible that on a level that humans cannot understand, that God CAN allow free will and still know the future?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

Ok, so I agree that God probably doesn't allow himself to know the future, but isn't it possible that on a level that humans cannot understand, that God CAN allow free will and still know the future?

It would be irrational for God to not allow Himself to know the future yet still know the future.

God is not irrational.

 

[Ninjashadow]

Originally posted by Knight

It would be irrational for God to not allow Himself to know the future yet still know the future.

God is not irrational.

Of course He isn't, but we can only comrehend God on a very small level, but on a God level that we cannot possibly understand, could it be possible?