What is open theism?

[Siberian]

To the past couple posters...what was the purpose of having Abraham do what he did and more importantly the need to tell him to stop if there was no chance he was going to kill Isaac?

Abraham would have killed Isaac if God did not tell him to stop. Yet, that does not mean that God did not know what was in the heart of Abraham before this event occurred or how this event would unfold.

The purpose was to test Abraham's faith, not prove something to God that God did not already know (Heb 11.17-19). It is silly and wrong to suppose that this happened to supply some information that God lacked.

 

[Siberian]

To the past couple posters...what was the purpose of having Abraham do what he did and more importantly the need to tell him to stop if there was no chance he was going to kill Isaac?

Also, consider this: I think everyone here acknowledges along with Jeremiah that God knows the heart, and has unhindered ability to see what is in the heart of man. Hebrews 11.17-19 records what was going on in Abraham's heart and mind during this time of testing. Thus, I think everyone would agree that God knew what Hebrews 11.17-19 tells us while the testing of Abraham was unfolding.

So what did God 'learn' (i.e., what information did God gain that he lacked before Abraham raised his knife)? Obviously he knew before that point in time that Abraham would offer Isaac. But this theory of Boyd's suggests that it was not until the very moment that Abraham raised his knife that God learned that Abraham would be obedient, despite the information in Hebrews 11.

If we can admit that God knew this before that very moment (even if he knew a few hours or minutes before Abraham raised the knife) then the idea that "Now I know..." suggests limited divine forknowledge is undermined.

As it is, the whole idea of Open Theism is without any exegetical merit.

 

[jbh28]

To the past couple posters...what was the purpose of having Abraham do what he did and more importantly the need to tell him to stop if there was no chance he was going to kill Isaac?

A physical demonstration of Abraham's faith. (James 2)

 

[Iconoclast]

To the past couple posters...what was the purpose of having Abraham do what he did and more importantly the need to tell him to stop if there was no chance he was going to kill Isaac?

WD,
It was loaded with teaching as a great type of the cross. God provided Himself a Lamb as a substitute.

17By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

The godly line was preserved by God.God provided a substitute for the covenant seed.All the promises stayed intact.

5And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

Believing God's promise he and the lad worshipped believing God could raise him from the dead.
There is alot more in this section.

 

[webdog]

A physical demonstration of Abraham's faith. (James 2)

...and the purpose of "testing" or a physical demonstration of faith if it was already predetermined and unalterable? What is the definition of test and reconcile that with omniscience and determinism...

 

[Iconoclast]

...and the purpose of "testing" or a physical demonstration of faith if it was already predetermined and unalterable? What is the definition of test and reconcile that with omniscience and determinism...

Another part of this whole account is to give us scriptural revelation..it was written for our learning

 

[jbh28]

Jesusfan, you just repeated the pagan position once again.

A new low for you.

No scripture supports your view.

Well, that's just totally untrue. You have been given Scripture over and over again. You are either too blind to see it or purposefully ignore the passages the defeat your view.

So why not stick with scripture?

Yes, why not stick with Scripture that clearly over and over again say that God knows the future. You position is the one that is not based on Scripture. No where does it say that there is something that God doesn't know, but yet you say that this is true. You say that God knows what he has chosen to know, yet not one passage says that. You can only come to that conclusion though "philosophy, not scripture."

However, calling ones very biblical view "pagan" is totally uncalled for. I ask that you please edit your post.

 

[jbh28]

...and the purpose of "testing" or a physical demonstration of faith if it was already predetermined and unalterable? What is the definition of test and reconcile that with omniscience and determinism...

Another part of this whole account is to give us scriptural revelation..it was written for our learning

What Iconoclast said and that is glorifies God to see his people obey and physically show their faith in Him.

 

[webdog]

Another part of this whole account is to give us scriptural revelation..it was written for our learning

All Scripture is written for our learning, but that doesnt answer the questions posed.

 

[webdog]

What Iconoclast said and that is glorifies God to see his people obey and physically show their faith in Him.

...yet there is no true obedience in the determinist model. Words have meanings...what does test and obey mean?

 

[Siberian]

...and the purpose of "testing" or a physical demonstration of faith if it was already predetermined and unalterable? What is the definition of test and reconcile that with omniscience and determinism...

Why would I need to reconcile friends? Honestly, there is no tension here. God can know everything and still put Abraham through a test. Jesus could test Philip in John 6.6 even though he knew the outcome (and knew what was in the heart of man - John 2.25). These tests are not to supply God with knowledge that he lacks.

 

[jbh28]

...yet there is no true obedience in the determinist model. Words have meanings...what does test and obey mean?

I hope you are advocating that the determinist model means that God makes people act the way they do like puppets. You should know better than that by now.

 

[webdog]

Why would I need to reconcile friends? Honestly, there is no tension here. God can know everything and still put Abraham through a test. Jesus could test Philip in John 6.6 even though he knew the outcome (and knew what was in the heart of man - John 2.25). These tests are not to supply God with knowledge that he lacks.

Lots of evading, imo. Again, it was a test...but not really a test. Abraham would have killed his son....but he wouldnt have as God knew his heart. He told him to stop else he would have killed his son...but he wouldnt have really killed his son...it was done in order to be recorded for our purpose. My head is spinning...

 

[webdog]

I hope you are advocating that the determinist model means that God makes people act the way they do like puppets. You should know better than that by now.

I didnt say puppet...you did

 

[Siberian]

Lots of evading, imo. Again, it was a test...but not really a test. Abraham would have killed his son....but he wouldnt have as God knew his heart. He told him to stop else he would have killed his son...but he wouldnt have really killed his son...it was done in order to be recorded for our purpose. My head is spinning...

Who said he would not have really killed his son? Reread the posts more carefully.

 

[jbh28]

I didnt say puppet...you did

hopefully you got my point though.

 

[Siberian]

Lots of evading, imo. Again, it was a test...but not really a test. Abraham would have killed his son....but he wouldnt have as God knew his heart. He told him to stop else he would have killed his son...but he wouldnt have really killed his son...it was done in order to be recorded for our purpose. My head is spinning...

No one is evading, just engaging.

You are assuming that testing is purely to supply a lack in God's knowledge. If that were the case there would be tension between omniscience and testing. However, that assumption is incorrect.

 

[webdog]

Who said he would not have really killed his son? Reread the posts more carefully.

So God knew He would kill his son...told him to do it...yet knew he wouldnt ultimately do it and had to tell him to stop from doiing it?

Why not just admit the tension of finit beings not fully grasping how God deals, and chooses to deal with His creation?

 

[Van]

Folks, as you can see, the Closed Theists on this board have no scripture to support their view. They go back to the claim that "all knowing" means everything imaginable, yet do not address that Peter said Jesus was all knowing yet did not know the time of His return.
The claim is without foundation and so out comes the personal attack M.O, you are a blasphemer, and you should apologise for this or that. That is all they have folks, the same tired tricks of deception used over and over and no one holds them accountable.

Did you see all the vague general claims that this or that had been refuted? The refutation amounts to God did not mean what He said. That is it. A straightup denial of God's word.

When God says He remembers no more, the Closed Theists say He lied.

When God says Now I know, the Closed Theists say He lied.

Only folks who are seeking truth will listen to God. The rest will say God does not mean what He says if it contradicts their man-made doctrines. They offer pagan metaphysics, as proof of something not said in scripture and say something is so because scripture does not say it is not so. Pink elephants, folks, lots of pink elephants posing as scripture.

One of the hallmarks of the Reformed view is sole scripture, scripture alone, and yet they have abandoned scripture and embraced pagan metaphysics dressed up as biblically based reasoning. A sad day.

 

[webdog]

No one is evading, just engaging.

You are assuming that testing is purely to supply a lack in God's knowledge. If that were the case there would be tension between omniscience and testing. However, that assumption is incorrect.

You are begging the question by assuming there is no tension. Of course I disagree and see this kind of tension throughout Scripture.