Calvinism and Open Theism are strange bedfellows?

I see Iconoclast has pulled out yet another play from the Calvinist play book, claiming something sound has been presented in the unreferenced past. Pure twaddle folks, pure twaddle.

If everything is predestined, God is the author of sin.
If everything is not predestined, which is what scripture says, then open theism to a limited degree is biblical.

 

It is true, some Open Theists hold to a view of Omniscience that is not allowed to be advocated on the BB. However, that is immaterial to the issue that if the future is not totally predestined, which would allow God not to be the author of sin, then open theism to a limited degree is biblical.

 

It is obvious that God was putting Adam on the spot rather than that He was trying to obtain information that He needed and did not know. Do you believe that God in His eternal state decided to take on a finite body and cease being omnipresent and omniscient (even of present events) just so that the obviously anthropomorphic and anthropopathic statements can be taken "literally"?

Jonah wanted God's judgment on Ninevah. If it was clearly the intent of God revealed to Jonah that the purpose of the preaching was simply to give them a heads up of what they would inevitably face, I do not see where Jonah would have a problem doing just that. However, Jonah clearly recognized that God's intention was that of a call to repentance, thus the warning. If you disagree with that, then you argue that Jonah knew God's nature better than God Himself! In the last chapter, Jonah complained "I knew you were a merciful God." Then, God said "Wow, Jonah, I wasn't really intending on sparing these people, but because they repented, I changed my mind and decided to spare them. You knew my mind better than I knew it myself!"

Puh-lease! If the open theists cannot see God's intention in the book of Jonah and the obviously implied conditional statement in the message to Ninevah based on the narrative of the story, they truly have lost it. Theologians have understood this until the open theists suggested otherwise.

Nope, we can recognize anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms where they are obvious, whereas the open theists get themselves in a bind by taking certain passages literally.

When the Bible says that God "stretched out his hand," what was the size and shape of His hand and into what did He "stretch" it? Obviously, it is figurative language to describe a solemn act of God.
When the Psalmist says that God is his Rock, Fortress, Strong Tower, and so on; or when Jesus describes Himself with the "I am" passages, are these to be taken "literally" or figuratively?

Now, let's address Genesis 22 and the "now I know" challenge:

Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Did God not know that Abraham feared Him? Well, what is God's intention with this statement? God had already justified Abraham by his faith in Genesis 12, and He had already given him the promise that he would be the father of many nations. Was God testing Abraham for His need or for Abraham's need? I guess it would depend on what "now I know" from God means. Also, if God needed to learn if Abraham was "faithful enough" for the promise, and Abraham had truly libertarian free will, how many tests would God need for Himself to "guarantee" that Abraham would not mess it up?

Let's compare Scripture with Scripture, shall we?

Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

This text should be a problem for the open theist view that asserts that God knows the past and present exhaustively, but not the future. Taking this statement to Abraham "literally" would require the following:
1. God is not omnipresent. He has a finite body, and He can only be in one "place" at a time. Hello, Mormonism!
2. God does not exhaustively know the present. He has to "go down... and see" something to know what is currently going on.
3. God does not exhaustively know the past. He has to "see whether they have done." Either He has forgotten something, or His finite presence does not afford him full knowledge of the present or the past.

If "now I know" from 22:12" must be taken literally, then should not "I will know" from 18:21 by the same standard?
If so, do "go down," "see," and "have done" have to be taken literally as well? If so, how can open theism's assertion that God knows the past and present exhaustively, but not the future stand up to scrutiny? It would seem that open theism is subject to the same scrutiny of trying to figure out what is "literal" and what is anthropomorphic or anthropopathic. The open theist will, of course, accept whatever fits their philosophical understanding of God according to their demands of "libertarian free will," and filter the literal/figurative distinction through this lens. The open theist position is no more Scripturally driven than what they criticize.

Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Here we have again statements from God that would seem to make Him less than the "I AM"--the self-sufficient one--that created the universe, if taken literally. God tells Himself to "behold" the people. If this is the Trinity, then perhaps the Father happen to "stumble upon" this event and then tell the Son and Spirit "come and see this." He then tells them that they need to confound the language of the people. How shall they do this? Well, they all have to "go to" and "go down" and "there" confound the language. They spoke the universe into existence, yet they are limited in both time and space. To confound the language, they have to "go down" to where the people are. They have to move from one space of occupancy to another.

Perhaps, God is making an anthropomorphic statement to make a point. The people are "down" trying to get "up" to heaven. God is "up" in heaven "looking" "down" on these pitiful people. God is "up," they are "down." It is an understatement to emphasize that these proud people endeavoring to be "high" were truly "low." If not, then we have a God Who is limited in time and space. He has limited knowledge of past, present, and future. He is just a bigger guy in the sky and trusting Him for your every need is futile. He may not even know you exist.

Sorry, I will compare Scripture with Scripture and understand what is literal and what is figurative and know that my God can be trusted at ALL times. He transcends His creation, yet He can relate to it without being necessarily limited to its dimensions. He is omnipresent, not bound to time, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and perfect in holiness and justice. He holds my very future in His hands (I am speaking anthropomorphically, of course), and I can rest entirely in Him. Praise the Lord! If He can be taken literally by surprise in His eternal state, then there is NNE in whom I can place my unwavering trust, and evil truly rules the universe. God forbid.

 

thank you very much!

 

I can only say this when it is true. Heretic!

 

I'm not suggesting you deny anything Just answer the question if you can.

Omnipresents and knowing all are two separate things. The passage I quoted showed that God had to go down and look at what man was doing. We all know what Omnipresence means but does it mean he is always everywhere at the same time all the time. For instance I do not believe God is in hell because spiritual death really means the absence of God. There could be no outer darkness for example because God is light if God were in outer darkness. All would be lit up.

I know it is widely believed that God is all knowing and everywhere at the same time yet I can't find any scripture to support this at all.
MB

 

At least he is open about being a Heretic. Those that shade it are the real threats to Christianity.

 

That is true... And of late there seems to be a spate of those folks around here.

 

Skandelon, Great post!

If everything is predestined some are predestined to Hell. Sound like another gospel to me.

Very true so why did you call me an Open Theist? I did not say you were an Open Theist, I said you were an open theist to a limited degree, which is what you just said.

It is clear to me that all things are not predestined such as my sins. God is just and will punish sinners for their sins, not His predestined sins they were compelled to choose. The is very Baptist.

My conclusion is God does not predestine everything. You agree. Therefore we are open theists to a limited degree. You have no idea how God attains knowledge, unless you are appealing to special knowledge. You hold doctrine over scripture, I hold scripture over doctrine. Thus now I know means God did not know beforehand. You say this verse does not mean what it says because that does not match your doctrine.

You have told me I cannot present arguments in favor of my view of Omniscience on this forum. I can answer any question that is answered from scripture. Did Jesus say what Peter would do? If yes, then was not Jesus declaring the end from the beginning? How would Jesus know. Because He knew what Peter would do given a circumstance?

Skandelon, you are simply mistaken and all you need to do is restudy those verses that clearly teach on the topic. But you must set aside those unwarranted extrapolations. All means all the author had in view, not everything imaginable.

 

1. As to the question of God saying he will "go find out", Ares man has give an excellent answer regarding anthropamorphic language, and that God is not like we are.

2. Read the bolded statement you wrote above...apparently we all DON'T know what Omnipresence means.

3. If Colosians 1 is correct when it says that "in Him all things Consist (hold together)" Then even hell could not exist apart from the contiued sustaining action of God...so while his has removed his presence TO BLESS, his presence to punish is still there. There are many places where God says he will remove his presence from people, but he still is around enough to know what they are doing that warrents his continued "removal."