Right Divider
Body part
Claims are a dime a dozen.
Again, you have been shown and yet reject the plain text. Like Genesis 22:12
What did you believe before Open Theism?
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Again, you have been shown and yet reject the plain text. Like Genesis 22:12
That kind of funny. God already knew that that He would NOT have Abraham sacrifice Isaac.What was the promise to Abraham. That the nations would be brought forth through him. Hmm. now how could that be if Isaac were sacrificed as a burnt offering?
From the Blue Letter Bible:
First, it directly contradicts what the Lord Himself says about His ability to accurately predict future events. There is no doubt about this.
Second, open theism cannot guarantee the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God. This is another insurmountable problem for Bible-believing Christians.
When King Solomon dedicated the temple in Jerusalem he prayed a prayer of dedication. The following word of that prayer should reflect our desire.
Open theism denies that the God of the Bible does know the future. They focus more on His ignorance than His knowledge. This is tragic.
While one could argue that each of these writers accurately and inerrantly wrote exactly what God wanted them to write, given the view of open theism concerning human freedom, there is no guarantee for this. In fact, we can have no confidence in the Scripture whatsoever if we accept the open view of human freedom as it pertains to the writers of Scripture.
Contrast that with Jesus’ view as well as the view of the New Testament writers. They believed that God’s Word is trustworthy in all that it says. They had no doubt whatsoever that what was written was the very Word of God.
Summary – Question 35
Open theism, or the open view of God, claims to present an alternative to the historic or classical view of the God of the Bible. Rather than seeing God as an aloof monarch who sternly judges His people, open theism portrays God as a relational being who seems to be interested in our well-being above all things. Those who hold this open view claim this better fits what the Bible has to say about God and His dealings with humanity.
However, the evidence is to the contrary. Open theism does not merely refine the traditional view of God it re-defines God into a different Being than which the Bible portrays. For this reason, it must be rejected as the best way to understand the nature and character of the God of the Bible.
While those who hold to the open view of God should be commended for highlighting some of the deficiencies in the way God has been traditionally explained they go much too far in their quest. The idea that God somehow limited Himself to what He can and cannot know is not something which is taught in Scripture. Indeed, it is contrary to what the Lord clearly says about Himself and about His knowledge.
However, there is something else which needs to be emphasized. While open theism does not provide all the biblical answers to questions of God and His knowledge, this does not mean that we reject everything which it teaches.
For example, open theism agrees with many other Christians in the idea of general sovereignty. This means God has a general plan for the universe but does has not planned every detail in eternity past. Others argue for a specific sovereignty where every detail has been planned before the universe was created. There is no “Christian” answer to this question. There are good Bible-believers on each side of this issue. The views of open theism on this particular matter may indeed be the correct one.
If open theism is not the correct way to understand the God of Scripture then how shall we categorize it? Bible-believing Christians who reject open theism have a variety of responses to it.
Some see it as a possible alternative to the traditional view. Since open theists claim to get their position from the Bible itself, some Christians say the issue comes down to a matter of interpretation. The correct doctrine of God, His knowledge, His control over all events, is something which has to be decided from a study of Scripture. Good Christians can come up with different conclusions on these issues. The interpretations of the Bible by open theists may indeed be incorrect but that is what must be decided by examining Scripture. Therefore, these believers see open theism as one possible attempt to understand God’s nature. Consequently, they do not want to call it a heresy even though they do not accept its conclusions.
However this is not nearly strong enough. Others rightly believe open theism constitutes a real danger for Bible-believing Christians. They recognize the doctrine of God is of all-importance. If we think wrong about God we will be wrong about other issues. Open theism has gone too far in its understanding of the God of Scripture. It robs God of some of the attributes which He clearly claims to possess.
Whichever way a person wishes to categorize open theism, it is certain that when we consider all the facts, open theism falls short of what the Bible says about the majestic God of Scripture.
Indeed, there are two main reasons why open theism should be rejected as a viable option for Christians. First, it rejects God’s own testimony about His ability to accurate predict the future. Second, open theism cannot guarantee that the Scripture are God’s inerrant Word.
Rejecting the idea that God knows the future is denying a central biblical truth about the God of the Bible. This we cannot do. Since the Lord Himself argues that this is what separates Him from all other beings in the universe, we should not rob Him of this attribute. Indeed, instead of highlighting His ignorance we should be highlighting His knowledge.
Furthermore, not being able to guarantee an accurate inerrant Scripture is something which is not acceptable. The Bible is God’s authoritative and infallible Word. Those who hold to open theism cannot guarantee this. With their view of human freedom we cannot have any confidence that God’s Word is exactly what it is supposed to be. For all we know the problems and difficulties in Scripture may be actual contradictions. Open theism cannot assure us that this is not the case. Again, Christians cannot accept this conclusion.
While those who embrace open theism are sincere, they are sincerely wrong about a number of essential beliefs. Therefore, the system of open theism should be soundly rejected by Bible-believing Christians. It is not an option for us.
Open Theism Is Not a Legitimate Option
Therefore, in conclusion, the open view of God should not be seen as a legitimate option for those who take the Bible seriously. There seem to be two main reasons as to why this is so.First, it directly contradicts what the Lord Himself says about His ability to accurately predict future events. There is no doubt about this.
Second, open theism cannot guarantee the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God. This is another insurmountable problem for Bible-believing Christians.
Open Theism Contradicts What God Himself Says about His Ability
Open theism says that the God of the Bible has willingly given up His omnipotence, His control over the universe, as well His omniscience; that He has exhaustive knowledge of the future. Denying God’s knowledge of the future as well as denying His absolute control over all things is a dangerous step to make. This is especially the case since this is one of the arguments He uses to distinguish Himself from the so-called gods of the ancient world. We need to listen to His own words.According to God Himself, the thing that separates Him from the so-called gods is His ability to accurately predict what will take place in the future. Open theism denies Him of this attribute.
When King Solomon dedicated the temple in Jerusalem he prayed a prayer of dedication. The following word of that prayer should reflect our desire.
All the people of the earth need to know the true identity of the God of the Bible. The God of Scripture has said that He is the only God who exists. Indeed, He alone is all-powerful, He alone knows all things, and He alone knows and controls the future. This sets Him apart from all other beings in the universe. There is indeed none like Him.
Open theism denies that the God of the Bible does know the future. They focus more on His ignorance than His knowledge. This is tragic.
Open Theism Cannot Guarantee an Accurate Scripture
The second problem for open theism which does not make it a real option concerns it handling of Scripture. Since open theists insist that humans have complete freedom they cannot guarantee that the human authors of Scripture accurately recorded God’s truth. Therefore, what we have in Scripture are human beings who, without any supervision by God, wrote the various books of Scripture. Such a view causes enormous problems.While one could argue that each of these writers accurately and inerrantly wrote exactly what God wanted them to write, given the view of open theism concerning human freedom, there is no guarantee for this. In fact, we can have no confidence in the Scripture whatsoever if we accept the open view of human freedom as it pertains to the writers of Scripture.
Contrast that with Jesus’ view as well as the view of the New Testament writers. They believed that God’s Word is trustworthy in all that it says. They had no doubt whatsoever that what was written was the very Word of God.
The Line Must Be Drawn
Christians must draw a line where certain teachings are recognized as not being acceptable. Open theism has crossed this line. For these and other reasons, open theism should be decisively rejected! It is not sound biblical teaching.Summary – Question 35
What Should Our Conclusion Be about Open Theism? Is It a Legitimate Option for Believers, Heresy, or Something Else?
Open theism, or the open view of God, claims to present an alternative to the historic or classical view of the God of the Bible. Rather than seeing God as an aloof monarch who sternly judges His people, open theism portrays God as a relational being who seems to be interested in our well-being above all things. Those who hold this open view claim this better fits what the Bible has to say about God and His dealings with humanity.However, the evidence is to the contrary. Open theism does not merely refine the traditional view of God it re-defines God into a different Being than which the Bible portrays. For this reason, it must be rejected as the best way to understand the nature and character of the God of the Bible.
While those who hold to the open view of God should be commended for highlighting some of the deficiencies in the way God has been traditionally explained they go much too far in their quest. The idea that God somehow limited Himself to what He can and cannot know is not something which is taught in Scripture. Indeed, it is contrary to what the Lord clearly says about Himself and about His knowledge.
However, there is something else which needs to be emphasized. While open theism does not provide all the biblical answers to questions of God and His knowledge, this does not mean that we reject everything which it teaches.
For example, open theism agrees with many other Christians in the idea of general sovereignty. This means God has a general plan for the universe but does has not planned every detail in eternity past. Others argue for a specific sovereignty where every detail has been planned before the universe was created. There is no “Christian” answer to this question. There are good Bible-believers on each side of this issue. The views of open theism on this particular matter may indeed be the correct one.
If open theism is not the correct way to understand the God of Scripture then how shall we categorize it? Bible-believing Christians who reject open theism have a variety of responses to it.
Some see it as a possible alternative to the traditional view. Since open theists claim to get their position from the Bible itself, some Christians say the issue comes down to a matter of interpretation. The correct doctrine of God, His knowledge, His control over all events, is something which has to be decided from a study of Scripture. Good Christians can come up with different conclusions on these issues. The interpretations of the Bible by open theists may indeed be incorrect but that is what must be decided by examining Scripture. Therefore, these believers see open theism as one possible attempt to understand God’s nature. Consequently, they do not want to call it a heresy even though they do not accept its conclusions.
However this is not nearly strong enough. Others rightly believe open theism constitutes a real danger for Bible-believing Christians. They recognize the doctrine of God is of all-importance. If we think wrong about God we will be wrong about other issues. Open theism has gone too far in its understanding of the God of Scripture. It robs God of some of the attributes which He clearly claims to possess.
Whichever way a person wishes to categorize open theism, it is certain that when we consider all the facts, open theism falls short of what the Bible says about the majestic God of Scripture.
Indeed, there are two main reasons why open theism should be rejected as a viable option for Christians. First, it rejects God’s own testimony about His ability to accurate predict the future. Second, open theism cannot guarantee that the Scripture are God’s inerrant Word.
Rejecting the idea that God knows the future is denying a central biblical truth about the God of the Bible. This we cannot do. Since the Lord Himself argues that this is what separates Him from all other beings in the universe, we should not rob Him of this attribute. Indeed, instead of highlighting His ignorance we should be highlighting His knowledge.
Furthermore, not being able to guarantee an accurate inerrant Scripture is something which is not acceptable. The Bible is God’s authoritative and infallible Word. Those who hold to open theism cannot guarantee this. With their view of human freedom we cannot have any confidence that God’s Word is exactly what it is supposed to be. For all we know the problems and difficulties in Scripture may be actual contradictions. Open theism cannot assure us that this is not the case. Again, Christians cannot accept this conclusion.
While those who embrace open theism are sincere, they are sincerely wrong about a number of essential beliefs. Therefore, the system of open theism should be soundly rejected by Bible-believing Christians. It is not an option for us.
This is basically, "I don’t like what the passage entails for my theology, therefore it must be rhetorical."
Genesis 2:19 says God brought the animals to Adam "to see what he would call them."
You do not like the implication of that wording, because it does not fit exhaustive settled foreknowledge. So you call it rhetorical.
But calling it rhetorical does not explain the passage. It only tells us that you do not accept the plain implication of the passage.
The question remains: what in the text itself tells us that "to see what he would call them" does not mean what it appears to mean?
This is the same problem.
Calling it “rhetorical” is not an explanation. It is just a label.
What makes it rhetorical? What is the rhetorical device? What meaning is the rhetoric supposed to communicate? And why is “to see what he would call them” rhetorical while the rest of the verse is taken plainly?
Genesis 2:19 says God brought the animals to Adam “to see what he would call them.” That wording naturally presents Adam’s naming as a real event God brought about and observed.
If you want to say it means something else, then you need to show that from the text, not merely assert “rhetorical” because the plain reading conflicts with your doctrine.
No problem. Jesus knew who did not believe, and Jesus knew who would betray Him.
Open Theism does not deny prophecy, nor does it deny that Jesus could know the hearts of the men standing in front of Him, know who did not believe, and know who would betray Him.
But that does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act.
John 6:64 says Jesus knew “from the beginning” who among them did not believe and who would betray Him. It does not say every future free act of every moral agent was eternally settled.
This is the same mistake Bright Raven keeps making: taking a passage where God knows something and inflating it into exhaustive settled foreknowledge of everything.
This overstates the Open Theist claim.
Open Theism does not claim God is blind to men’s present hearts and trajectories. In John 6, Jesus was dealing with men already present, already following Him, and already unbelieving. Knowing their hearts and knowing where Judas’s rebellion was headed is not the same thing as exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act.
And “from the beginning” in John 6:64 does not mean “from the beginning of creation.” It means from the beginning of His dealings with them, from the time He called them out to follow Him.
So yes, Jesus knew who did not believe and who would betray Him. He knew them personally. He knew their hearts, their character, their motives, and the direction they had chosen. That is very different from treating them as fixed entries in an eternal database before creation.
John 6:64 proves that Jesus knew those men in that situation. It does not prove that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
This has been a problem throughout this entire thread. You keep asserting your conclusion instead of demonstrating it from the text.
What evidence do you have that God already knew what Abraham would do?
The passage does not say that.
The passage says:
“Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
If God already knew what Abraham would do, why did He say, “now I know”?
That is the issue you keep avoiding.
You are not getting “He already knew” from Genesis 22:12. You are bringing that doctrine to Genesis 22:12 and then forcing the verse to fit it.
The one going against scripture here is you.
Why does the ram being in the thicket show that God already knew what Abraham would do?
The ram could have served as the sacrifice either way.
If Abraham reached for the knife, God could stop him and provide the ram instead, which is what happened.
But if Abraham had refused to offer Isaac, they still would have been standing on a mountain with an altar, wood, fire, and no sacrifice. The ram would still have been useful.
So why is the ram proof that Abraham’s reaching for the knife was necessary or exhaustively foreknown?
The ram does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge. It proves God provided.
God can provide for contingencies. God can act in real time. God can prepare an alternative without every future free act being eternally settled.
And the text itself gives the reason God says “now I know”: “seeing you have not withheld your son.”
So Abraham’s actual obedience is the stated basis.
Omniscience is not necessary.
God providing the ram does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge.
God is perfectly capable of providing for contingencies. He did not need the entire future exhaustively settled in order to provide a ram.
Besides, the promise concerning Isaac does not require God to let Isaac remain dead. Even if Abraham had completed the sacrifice, God could have raised Isaac from the dead. Hebrews 11:17-19 says Abraham reasoned along those lines.
So the promise to Abraham does not erase Genesis 22:12.
Men are all knowing.
So “all-knowing” cannot simply mean “knows.” The question is what kind of knowledge Scripture attributes to God.
There are powers other than God.
So “all-powerful” cannot mean “the only being who has any power at all.” It means God’s power is supreme, unmatched, and sufficient to accomplish His will.
Is God in the toilet bowl when you defecate?
If you say yes, then your doctrine has become absurd, and you should be offended, not at me, but at your own position.
If you say no, then “all-present” does not mean what your slogan seems to imply, and it has to be defined biblically.
The Bible does not present God as spatially smeared through every object and every filthy place in creation. It presents God as being in heaven, sending angels and messengers, coming down to see Babel and Sodom, appearing where He chooses, and acting wherever He wills.
So just repeating “all-present” does not settle anything. Like “all-knowing” and “all-powerful,” it has to be defined by Scripture, not by classical philosophy.
Amen!
I do not question God’s ability.
I question your definitions and what you attribute (wrongly) to God.
You are using “all-knowing,” “all-powerful,” and “all-present” as slogans, but each one still has to be defined by Scripture.
God is mighty in power, infinite in understanding, and able to accomplish all His purposes. Amen.
But none of that proves that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.
That is the part you keep assuming instead of proving.
This is another leading question.
No, Open Theism does not “challenge” God. It challenges your doctrine about God.
God wanted me to repent. God worked to draw me. God knew my heart, my circumstances, my sins, my opportunities, and the path I was on.
But that does not prove my eventual response was an eternally settled fact before I existed.
The Bible does not teach that men are saved because their future faith was already fixed from eternity past. It teaches that God calls, convicts, draws, warns, pleads, commands men to repent, and responds to those who believe.
So the issue is not whether God is challenged.
The issue is whether your doctrine turns real repentance, real warning, real drawing, and real response into a scripted inevitability.
Yes, it is. You are very silly.
You already admitted that “omniscience” is not in the Bible.
So at minimum, it is a man-made theological term. That does not automatically make it false, but it does mean you don't get to define it however you want, import that definition into Scripture, and then accuse everyone who rejects your definition of denying the Bible or holding to "man made doctrine." That just makes you a hypocrite.
And if we are talking about your definition of it, exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act, then that is not only man-made, it is foreign to the way Scripture actually describes God.
That definition comes through pagan Greek philosophical categories and was imported into Christian theology through men like Augustine.
The Bible does not describe God as an immutable, impassible, timeless knower of a fully settled future.
The Bible describes God as living, personal, relational, good, and loving. It shows Him as responsive, grieved, pleased, angry, testing men, relenting, changing His declared course, and saying “now I know.”
So the question is not whether God knows things. Of course God knows things.
The question is whether your man-made definition of omniscience should be allowed to override the way Scripture describes God.
Why does that matter?
Truth is not determined by who popularized a doctrine, when it became prominent, or whether it is currently fashionable in the church.
That is just another version of the same appeal to tradition/popularity you have been making.
The question is not, “Who brought Open Theism to the forefront?”
The question is, “Does Scripture present God as living, relational, responsive, testing men, relenting, changing His declared course, and saying ‘now I know’?”
It does.
So deal with the text, not the publication history.
And I am asking why that matters.
A doctrine is not true or false based on when it became prominent.
That is an appeal to institutional approval.
Denominations have approved infant baptism, transubstantiation, sacerdotalism, amillennialism, replacement theology, Calvinism, Arminianism, women pastors, and plenty of other doctrines various Christians here would reject.
So no, denominational approval is not the standard of truth.
Hypocrite!
You already admitted “omniscience” is not in the Bible, yet you keep using your man-made definition of that term as the test of orthodoxy.
So this accusation cuts both ways, and much harder against your position.
Then show that from the Bible.
Not from GotQuestions. Not from Webster. Not from Geisler. Not from Blue Letter Bible. Not from denominational popularity.
From. Scripture.
Show where Scripture says every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.
Then deal with what is between the covers of the Book.
There are hundreds of passages that present God as living, relational, responsive, and acting within real history.
Open Theism Bible Verses in 33 Categories | Open Theism
They have compiled over 590 verses into 33 categories showing that the future is not exhaustively settled.
A few examples:
Genesis 2:19 says God brought the animals to Adam “to see what he would call them.”
Genesis 22:12 says, “now I know.”
Exodus 32:14 says God relented.
Jonah 3:10 says God relented.
Jeremiah 18:7-10 says God changes His declared course depending on what men do.
Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5, and 32:35 say Israel burning their children in the fire was something God did not command, did not speak, and that did not come into His mind.
Isaiah 5 says God expected His vineyard to bring forth good grapes, but it brought forth wild grapes.
Zephaniah 3:7 says God said, “Surely you will fear Me, you will receive instruction,” but they corrupted all their deeds.
Those are all between the covers of the Book.
So no, the issue is not that I reject Scripture.
The issue is that you reject the plain reading of any passage that does not fit exhaustive settled foreknowledge.
You keep claiming to believe the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, but when these texts are brought up, you explain them away to protect your doctrine.
Again, that is your assertion. It is not what Genesis 22:12 says.
The text says God stopped Abraham and then said, “now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
So the question remains: if God already knew what Abraham would do, why did He say, “now I know”?
Your position is full of holes.
You are framing the alternative incorrectly.
The alternative to God stopping Abraham as he reached for the knife is not God letting Isaac remain dead and thereby breaking His promise.
The alternative is Abraham never reaching for the knife in the first place.
That is what the test was about.
Would Abraham obey God, or would Abraham withhold his son?
Genesis 22:12 gives the answer:
“Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
The stated basis for “now I know” is Abraham’s actual obedience: “seeing you have not withheld your son.”
So the promise concerning Isaac does not erase the test. God was always able to (and was going to) keep His promise concerning Isaac. The issue was whether Abraham would obey.
The whole trip up Mount Moriah was to test Abraham. That is the stated purpose of the passage, and Genesis 22:12 gives the result of the test.
Your position removes the point of the test entirely. If God already exhaustively knew Abraham’s act as a settled fact, then nothing was actually being tested, nothing was being learned, and “now I know” cannot mean what it says. In your view, God did not discover Abraham’s faithfulness through Abraham’s obedience; He merely watched Abraham act out what He already eternally knew could not be otherwise.
First of all, you didn't cite the article properly, I had to go look for it myself. Didn't you ever learn to cite your sources in school?
What Should Our Conclusion Be about Open Theism? by Don Stewart
Don Stewart :: What Should Our Conclusion Be about Open Theism?
Second of all, we've now gone from GotQuestions, to Merriam-Webster, to Geisler, to Blue Letter Bible.
Again, none of those are Scripture.
And this article repeats the same two errors you keep repeating.
First, it says Open Theism denies that God can accurately predict future events.
That is false.
God is wise and has infinite understanding, and has access to far more information than we do to be able to predict certain outcomes. He knows men’s hearts, circumstances, motives, and trajectories. And not only that, but He is fully capable of bringing about what He wants to bring about.
Open Theism does not deny prophecy. It does not deny that God can declare what He intends to do and bring it to pass. It does not deny that God can make promises and keep them. It does not deny that God can know, declare, and accomplish His own plans.
What Open Theism denies is that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens and that prophecy is prewritten history.
Those are not the same claim.
Isaiah 44 does not say every future free act of every creature is already settled. It says God can declare what He will do and challenge false gods to do the same. Amen. God can declare His purposes and accomplish them. That does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act.
Second, the article claims Open Theism cannot guarantee accurate Scripture.
That is also nonsense.
God is perfectly capable of inspiring Scripture, directing prophets, preserving His word, and accomplishing His purposes without every human choice being exhaustively settled in eternity past.
The Holy Spirit inspiring Moses to write Genesis does not require every free act of every person to have been settled before creation. It requires God to be capable of communicating, directing, correcting, and ensuring that His word says what He wants it to say.
And He is.
The article is arguing against a caricature.
It says Open Theism denies God knows the future. We do not.
It says Open Theism denies prophecy. We do not.
It says Open Theism denies God’s sovereignty. We do not.
It says Open Theism cannot affirm inerrant Scripture. We can and do in its original manuscripts.
The actual question remains untouched:
Where does Scripture say every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens?
That is what you still have not shown.