Does Arminianism Lead to Open Theism?

[SynodOfDort]

After hearing his name brought up recently, I have been reading up on a little bit of Seventh-Day Adventist Richard Rice's theology, specifically his book God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will. His interaction with both free will and Predestinarianism was a unique and insightful approach, espically concerning the problem of God's foreknowledge and libertarian free will.
The dilemma I wish to present would be that concerning the question of the relationship between free will and the sovereignty of God. The following is a sample from Dr. John Frame's Philosophy: A Christian Perspective:

A number of [open-theistic] writers come out of the Arminian theological tradition, and their open theism is a response to a problem in Arminian theology. Traditional Arminianism teaches (1) that man has libertarian freedom, so God does not control all things, and (2) that God nevertheless foreknows everything that comes to pass. Arminians think (2) is important in the doctrine of salvation. They do not want to maintain, with Calvinists, that God chooses (elects) people to salvation merely by his own power. Rather, they want to affirm that God foreknows how each person will respond (freely) to his offers of grace and prepares his blessings accordingly.
But if God foreknows everything that happens, he thereby renders every event certain. If God knew in 1931 that I would write this book in 2013, then it would certainly happen. I would not be free to avoid writing it. So if God foreknows everything, everything that happens must happen, and there can be no libertarian free will.* There are two possible solutions to this dilemma: either deny libertarian free will (as in Calvinism) or deny exhaustive divine foreknowledge. Open theists choose the second alternative.
*This is true even if we reject the notion that God makes everything happen. The relevant point is the certain occurrence of all events, whether by divine action or some other determining factor(s). In our example, if God did not make me write the book, then someone or something else did, and it is on the basis of that causality that God foreknew my writing of the book. So exhaustive divine foreknowledge implies determinism, whether or not that determinism is the result of divine causality.

Do you believe that this is an accurate critique of Arminianism by John Frame? Or would you consider it excessive? Thanks for the input!

 

[Skandelon]

Open Theism is to Arminianism what Hyper-Calvinism is to Calvinism. Both are perversions based on taking a particular doctrine 'too far.' Though both could be argued to be the logical ends of the system, most scholars from both perspectives would be quick to deny such assertions.

With that said...I will say that the charge against Open Theism has become known as being a denial of Divine Omniscience, but from SOME of what I've read from the leading proponents (which I admit is limited) that doesn't appear to be a fair assessment. They seem to be arguing against linear knowledge (i.e. knowing something based upon looking through the corridors of time), and they seem to be promoting the idea that God's knowledge of all things rests in his eternal, omnipresent nature...His Great I AMness. An oversimplification would be that He knows all things because He is present at all times and at all places, not because he predetermined all things before he created them. In either case, their is obviously a lot left to mystery, after all we are talking about a infinite being.

 

[Skandelon]

Do you believe that this is an accurate critique of Arminianism by John Frame? Or would you consider it excessive? Thanks for the input!

This part of Frames quote seems incomplete:

There are two possible solutions to this dilemma: either deny libertarian free will (as in Calvinism) or deny exhaustive divine foreknowledge. Open theists choose the second alternative.

I don't believe MOST open theists would accept this categorization of their view. As stated above, its less about denying that God has knowledge of all things, and more about what His knowledge is based upon.

 

[Reformed]

Open Theism is to Arminianism what Hyper-Calvinism is to Calvinism. Both are perversions based on taking a particular doctrine 'too far.' Though both could be argued to be the logical ends of the system, most scholars from both perspectives would be quick to deny such assertions.

I absolutely agree.

 

[Winman]

I believe in the foreknowledge of God view, and that men have freedom of choice. I would respond to this;

But if God foreknows everything that happens, he thereby renders every event certain. If God knew in 1931 that I would write this book in 2013, then it would certainly happen. I would not be free to avoid writing it. So if God foreknows everything, everything that happens must happen, and there can be no libertarian free will.* There are two possible solutions to this dilemma: either deny libertarian free will (as in Calvinism) or deny exhaustive divine foreknowledge. Open theists choose the second alternative.

I do not understand foreknowledge and man's freedom like this. I simply believe God knows with absolute certainty what a man will choose. If a man chooses to believe on Jesus sometime in his lifetime, that is what God foreknew. If the man never believes on Jesus in his lifetime, that is what God foreknew.

This has support in scripture. Scripture says that if the princes of this world knew what God was doing, they would not have crucified Jesus.

1 Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The devil knew Jesus was the Son of God, and right away he tried to kill Jesus by tempting him to jump off the temple (Mat 4:6). And at least on two occasions the devil stirred the Jews up to attempt to kill Jesus, once by dragging him to the top of a hill to cast him off (Luk 4:28-30), and another time they attempted to stone him (Jhn 8:59).

The devil did not know or understand that killing Jesus would defeat himself, otherwise he would not have crucified Jesus.

What does this have to do with foreknowledge? Everything. God does not tempt any man to sin, but God in his foreknowledge knew the Jews would conspire against Jesus. God knew and prophesied that Judas would betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver;

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Jesus "knew from the beginning" that Judas would betray him. This is foreknowledge.

And we are told that Jesus was "delivered" by the foreknowledge of God;

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

God knew Judas would lead the soldiers to Jesus, and Jesus allowed himself to be taken.

If the devil had understood what God was doing, he would not have crucified Jesus (1 Cor 2:8). The devil didn't know it, but he was destroying himself when he crucified Jesus.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Now, why am I telling you all this? What does this have to do with the OP? Everything.

1 Corinthians 2:8 proves that the devil did not HAVE to kill Jesus. It was not determined, it was not set in stone, it could have gone differently if the devil had been smart enough to understand prophecy. The OT scriptures were full of prophecy saying the Messiah would come and die for the people and save them from their sins, but the devil (and most everyone else as well) did not understand this.

If the devil had known this, he WOULD NOT have crucified Jesus. So, God was not controlling the devil, he simply FOREKNEW what he would do.

1 Cor 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

After hearing his name brought up recently, I have been reading up on a little bit of Seventh-Day Adventist Richard Rice's theology, specifically his book God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will. His interaction with both free will and Predestinarianism was a unique and insightful approach, espically concerning the problem of God's foreknowledge and libertarian free will.
The dilemma I wish to present would be that concerning the question of the relationship between free will and the sovereignty of God. The following is a sample from Dr. John Frame's Philosophy: A Christian Perspective:



Do you believe that this is an accurate critique of Arminianism by John Frame? Or would you consider it excessive? Thanks for the input!

I've long said that the logical conclusion of the terrible and Unbiblical theology of Finneyism is open theism, which is heresy.

 

[Winman]

I've long said that the logical conclusion of the terrible and Unbiblical theology of Finneyism is open theism, which is heresy.

BOO!



Hope I didn't scare you too bad, I know how terrified of Charles Finney you are. He's a real Boogieman! :laugh:

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe in the foreknowledge of God view, and that men have freedom of choice. I would respond to this;



I do not understand foreknowledge and man's freedom like this. I simply believe God knows with absolute certainty what a man will choose. If a man chooses to believe on Jesus sometime in his lifetime, that is what God foreknew. If the man never believes on Jesus in his lifetime, that is what God foreknew.

This has support in scripture. Scripture says that if the princes of this world knew what God was doing, they would not have crucified Jesus.

1 Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The devil knew Jesus was the Son of God, and right away he tried to kill Jesus by tempting him to jump off the temple (Mat 4:6). And at least on two occasions the devil stirred the Jews up to attempt to kill Jesus, once by dragging him to the top of a hill to cast him off (Luk 4:28-30), and another time they attempted to stone him (Jhn 8:59).

The devil did not know or understand that killing Jesus would defeat himself, otherwise he would not have crucified Jesus.

What does this have to do with foreknowledge? Everything. God does not tempt any man to sin, but God in his foreknowledge knew the Jews would conspire against Jesus. God knew and prophesied that Judas would betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver;

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Jesus "knew from the beginning" that Judas would betray him. This is foreknowledge.

And we are told that Jesus was "delivered" by the foreknowledge of God;

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

God knew Judas would lead the soldiers to Jesus, and Jesus allowed himself to be taken.

If the devil had understood what God was doing, he would not have crucified Jesus (1 Cor 2:8). The devil didn't know it, but he was destroying himself when he crucified Jesus.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Now, why am I telling you all this? What does this have to do with the OP? Everything.

1 Corinthians 2:8 proves that the devil did not HAVE to kill Jesus. It was not determined, it was not set in stone, it could have gone differently if the devil had been smart enough to understand prophecy. The OT scriptures were full of prophecy saying the Messiah would come and die for the people and save them from their sins, but the devil (and most everyone else as well) did not understand this.

If the devil had known this, he WOULD NOT have crucified Jesus. So, God was not controlling the devil, he simply FOREKNEW what he would do.

1 Cor 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

God knows all things that will ever come to pass in time, as he existed before and beyond time, not bound in it as we are, so to Him all things already have happened!

the names of all to get saved were alreadywritten int he book of Life from very foundation of the earth, as the Lord saw you and me dsaved by His grace as he determined and caused that to happen!

 

[Winman]

God knows all things that will ever come to pass in time, as he existed before and beyond time, not bound in it as we are, so to Him all things already have happened!

the names of all to get saved were alreadywritten int he book of Life from very foundation of the earth, as the Lord saw you and me dsaved by His grace as he determined and caused that to happen!

Wow, you actually said something I can agree with.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP, but for once you said something correct.

Congratulations, you get a Potty-Pop.

 

[SynodOfDort]

I believe in the foreknowledge of God view, and that men have freedom of choice. I would respond to this;



I do not understand foreknowledge and man's freedom like this. I simply believe God knows with absolute certainty what a man will choose. If a man chooses to believe on Jesus sometime in his lifetime, that is what God foreknew. If the man never believes on Jesus in his lifetime, that is what God foreknew.

This has support in scripture. Scripture says that if the princes of this world knew what God was doing, they would not have crucified Jesus.

1 Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The devil knew Jesus was the Son of God, and right away he tried to kill Jesus by tempting him to jump off the temple (Mat 4:6). And at least on two occasions the devil stirred the Jews up to attempt to kill Jesus, once by dragging him to the top of a hill to cast him off (Luk 4:28-30), and another time they attempted to stone him (Jhn 8:59).

The devil did not know or understand that killing Jesus would defeat himself, otherwise he would not have crucified Jesus.

What does this have to do with foreknowledge? Everything. God does not tempt any man to sin, but God in his foreknowledge knew the Jews would conspire against Jesus. God knew and prophesied that Judas would betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver;

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Jesus "knew from the beginning" that Judas would betray him. This is foreknowledge.

And we are told that Jesus was "delivered" by the foreknowledge of God;

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

God knew Judas would lead the soldiers to Jesus, and Jesus allowed himself to be taken.

If the devil had understood what God was doing, he would not have crucified Jesus (1 Cor 2:8). The devil didn't know it, but he was destroying himself when he crucified Jesus.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Now, why am I telling you all this? What does this have to do with the OP? Everything.

1 Corinthians 2:8 proves that the devil did not HAVE to kill Jesus. It was not determined, it was not set in stone, it could have gone differently if the devil had been smart enough to understand prophecy. The OT scriptures were full of prophecy saying the Messiah would come and die for the people and save them from their sins, but the devil (and most everyone else as well) did not understand this.

If the devil had known this, he WOULD NOT have crucified Jesus. So, God was not controlling the devil, he simply FOREKNEW what he would do.

1 Cor 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Great clairification on what Arminianism is! :thumbsup:

 

[SynodOfDort]

God knows all things that will ever come to pass in time, as he existed before and beyond time, not bound in it as we are, so to Him all things already have happened!

the names of all to get saved were alreadywritten int he book of Life from very foundation of the earth, as the Lord saw you and me dsaved by His grace as he determined and caused that to happen!

Great summation of a Biblical soteriology!

 

[JohnDeereFan]

BOO!



Hope I didn't scare you too bad, I know how terrified of Charles Finney you are. He's a real Boogieman! :laugh:

I'm not scared of him. I just believe he and his followers practice a very shallow, superficial, Unbiblical brand of man centered, Pelagian Christianity.

 

[DocTrinsoGrace]

Despite the caricatures, I think that Open Theism is an alien doctrine to Arminianism. (I have yet to meet an historical Arminian -- and certainly none that are of Baptist extraction. However, those on that side of the fence never seem to actually quote Jacobus Arminius. I cannot say why.) It only takes a cursory reading of what Arminius had to say to immediately see that he would deem Open Theism as a denial of some of the most fundamental attributes of God. Simply look at what he had to say about prevenient grace.

If anyone would like to expend the intellectual sweat, you can find the complete works of Jacobus Arminius here:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/arminius

 

[Winman]

I'm not scared of him. I just believe he and his followers practice a very shallow, superficial, Unbiblical brand of man centered, Pelagian Christianity.

Pelagius is another Calvinist boogieman.

Amazing how a person can be manipulated and not even know it.

 

[JonC]

I think that Open Them is of Arminian trajectory, particularly in regards to divine knowledge (here they appear identical). But Arminianism, IMHO, does not lead to Open Theism and openness theology is not its logical conclusion.

 

[Iconoclast]

Despite the caricatures, I think that Open Theism is an alien doctrine to Arminianism. (I have yet to meet an historical Arminian -- and certainly none that are of Baptist extraction. However, those on that side of the fence never seem to actually quote Jacobus Arminius. I cannot say why.) It only takes a cursory reading of what Arminius had to say to immediately see that he would deem Open Theism as a denial of some of the most fundamental attributes of God. Simply look at what he had to say about prevenient grace.

If anyone would like to expend the intellectual sweat, you can find the complete works of Jacobus Arminius here:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/arminius

:thumbs::wavey::thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

A The following is a sample from Dr. John Frame's Philosophy: A Christian Perspective:

Quote:
A number of [open-theistic] writers come out of the Arminian theological tradition, and their open theism is a response to a problem in Arminian theology. Traditional Arminianism teaches (1) that man has libertarian freedom, so God does not control all things, and (2) that God nevertheless foreknows everything that comes to pass. Arminians think (2) is important in the doctrine of salvation. They do not want to maintain, with Calvinists, that God chooses (elects) people to salvation merely by his own power. Rather, they want to affirm that God foreknows how each person will respond (freely) to his offers of grace and prepares his blessings accordingly.
But if God foreknows everything that happens, he thereby renders every event certain. If God knew in 1931 that I would write this book in 2013, then it would certainly happen. I would not be free to avoid writing it. So if God foreknows everything, everything that happens must happen, and there can be no libertarian free will.* There are two possible solutions to this dilemma: either deny libertarian free will (as in Calvinism) or deny exhaustive divine foreknowledge. Open theists choose the second alternative.
*This is true even if we reject the notion that God makes everything happen. The relevant point is the certain occurrence of all events, whether by divine action or some other determining factor(s). In our example, if God did not make me write the book, then someone or something else did, and it is on the basis of that causality that God foreknew my writing of the book. So exhaustive divine foreknowledge implies determinism, whether or not that determinism is the result of divine causality.

Do you believe that this is an accurate critique of Arminianism by John Frame? Or would you consider it excessive? Thanks for the input!

The logic in the quote is flawed because it presumes that the one evaluating the options, like the reader, is God.

The first question to be answered (in terms of the obvious) is

1. Does God have true libertarian freedom?

2. Does God the Son have it - even while on earth as the God-man?

3. Did God know everything Christ would do?

The Arminian Answer to all of the above is "yes".

The Calvinist answers is confusion.

The next question is "HOW" can God (and yes even Christ as God The Son as the God-man while on Earth) have true libertarian free will IF He knows all that the Son would do as Christ on Earth?

The answer? "It is TOUGH to BE God!"

Rather than the answer being "Whatever limits a Calvinist would need to get the job done is the same limit on God" -- which I do not accept.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Yeshua1]

Pelagius is another Calvinist boogieman.

Amazing how a person can be manipulated and not even know it.

amazing that you seem to support a theology that denies the fall, original Sin, and that you hold to a system that denies we are sinners who cannot come to God apart from Him enabling us to do such!

 

[Winman]

amazing that you seem to support a theology that denies the fall, original Sin, and that you hold to a system that denies we are sinners who cannot come to God apart from Him enabling us to do such!

And what theology is it that you claim I support?

And I have NEVER said man can come to God without God enabling him. I challenge you to show where I have ever said that. That is a false accusation and you should apologize unless you can prove I have ever said such a thing.

Let's see if you are a real man. Either prove I have said man can come to God without God's enabling or apologize.

I will be waiting for your proof that I have said man has the ability to come to God without God enabling him, or your apology for making a false accusation against me.

 

[OldRegular]

I do not understand foreknowledge and man's freedom like this. I simply believe God knows with absolute certainty what a man will choose. If a man chooses to believe on Jesus sometime in his lifetime, that is what God foreknew. If the man never believes on Jesus in his lifetime, that is what God foreknew.
[/COLOR][/B]

If God foreknows something will happen how can it be otherwise?

I believe that is what Frame means when he writes:

So exhaustive divine foreknowledge implies determinism, whether or not that determinism is the result of divine causality.