Open theism and the atonement

[Van]

Hi HOS, I watched the video where it was asserted if God knows what you will do you can do something else. Then if you do something else, that was what God knew you would do. Mumbo jumbo

But you are quite correct that the Biblical meaning of foreknowledge is not knowing the future, but rather knowing something from the past that is or can be used in the present, such as a plan made before creation being implimented in the present. Thus by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.


But this topic, the extent of God's knowledge is only allowed to conclude in advocating God knows everything imaginable, on this forum. So if you want to discuss it further, please PM me.

 

[Amy.G]

Did anyone ever see a Calvinist accurately represent an opponents view? Just asking. Note how limited open theism became Open Theism?

What is "limited" open theism? If God's knowledge is limited, it is He who limits it, and if He limits it, how does He decide what knowledge He isn't going to know without knowing all things to begin with??

 

[jbh28]

What is "limited" open theism? If God's knowledge is limited, it is He who limits it, and if He limits it, how does He decide what knowledge He isn't going to know without knowing all things to begin with??

It's not possible and of course not biblical. Some want to degrade God to something less that He is. The Bible clearly teaches that God knows everything. There is nothing that God doesn't know (I John 3:20). I've never heard nor read anything of "limited" open theism. It sounds more like a belief that is like open theism, but they realize that open theism is false so they make a "limited" version of it. Limited false teaching is still wrong.

 

[humblethinker]

It's not possible and of course not biblical. Some want to degrade God to something less that He is. The Bible clearly teaches that God knows everything. There is nothing that God doesn't know (I John 3:20). I've never heard nor read anything of "limited" open theism. It sounds more like a belief that is like open theism, but they realize that open theism is false so they make a "limited" version of it. Limited false teaching is still wrong.

Amy, if your a calvinist then you will share jbh28's sentiments. If you're not a Calvinist then it's not so easy, which is why I believe classical arminians are not so quick to argue with Open Theism, especially on this board since the main debate is Cal -vs- Arm.

Although he is not an Open Theist, Roger E. Olson has written quite a bit about his thoughts about the view. If you want to read a critic of the open theism view I would recommend his writhings. If you are not a calvinist then I think you would be better served by reading Arminian responses to Open Theism.

 

[Van]

Hi Amy, limited open theism is anything other than Calvinism's closed theism where the future is settled, predestined and fixed, where nothing we are able to do will alter the outcome of our lives. Now some folks find a biblical truth and then extrapolate it beyond what is said and come up with sweeping generalizations, like Arminianism, Calvinism and Open Theism.

My view is we should take a minimalist view and ask the question, "What is the least or minimum extent of the scope of this biblical statement or doctrine." So for example, when scripture says God is all knowing, the question is "all knowing about what?" To assert all knowing about everything imaginable is not a minimalist view. If you read those passages in context, you will see God knows everything about the hidden thoughts, attitudes and motives of those He is dealing with. In John 21, Jesus knows Peter's heart and the hearts of the other disciples. Take a look at 1 John 3:20, cited by Jbh28 as supporting the "everything imaginable" understanding. The idea is we know our hidden thoughts buried in our hearts and so "our hearts condemn us, because we are wretched. But God is bigger - can remove the condemnation - and He knows every thing hidden in our heart that condemns us. Therefore, because we trust that God has removed the condemnation, our heart does not condemn us, if we truly do trust in Christ as the propititation for our sins, and we can come to God with confidence, like an innocent child crying Abba Father!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hi HOS, I watched the video where it was asserted if God knows what you will do you can do something else. Then if you do something else, that was what God knew you would do. Mumbo jumbo

Mumbo Jumbo??? I don't understand. Are you dismissing the notion out of hand? Maybe if I merely made it as a bald assertion.....but WLC? It may be correct, it might very well be wrong, but to dismiss it out of hand? I do realize that it is counterintuitive, but there is a body of material on the topic if you would like to discuss it. Maybe that was not your intention, but I decidedly think you should at least vet the idea first no?

 

[Amy.G]

Hi Amy, limited open theism is anything other than Calvinism's closed theism where the future is settled, predestined and fixed, where nothing we are able to do will alter the outcome of our lives.

That doesn't answer my question. Exactly what is limited?

 

[humblethinker]

That doesn't answer my question. Exactly what is limited?

If your question is regarding the comment about "limited open theism" then let me say this: I think someone (not sure who) was just using the 'limited' as a label, a descriptor to distinguish from some other beliefs about God that some Open Theists adherants would have. Similar to how I might describe a certain Calvinist as a "hyper-calvinist", or a determinst as a "hard determinist" or a "soft determinist". So I wouldn't get hung up on the descriptor of "limited"... I think that someone was just indicating that a 'limited' view is not as extreme as the other views.

Does that help? or, are you asking how Open Theism would teach that God is limited? If so, and if you're reacting to the idea of 'God being limited', I'd encourage you to think about how any model of reality may seem to 'limit' God. The idea of an abstract being that embodies all 'ultimates' and 'omnis' without limitations within those ideas, to me, is rather absurd. The God of the Bible is not the one that Plato would say that He would have to be.

 

[AresMan]

What is "limited" open theism? If God's knowledge is limited, it is He who limits it, and if He limits it, how does He decide what knowledge He isn't going to know without knowing all things to begin with??

From what I can see, mainstream open theism contends that God can be wrong about certain prophecy where man's free will is a contingent factor.

Van's "limited open theism" denies this (like Arminianism and Calvinism), but asserts the logic of open theism on anything where the Scripture is silent. In other words, if it is not the subject of prophecy, it can be part of the "open" future.

Van, does this sound correct?

 

[Amy.G]

From what I can see, mainstream open theism contends that God can be wrong about certain prophecy where man's free will is a contingent factor.

God can be wrong?? Anyone who believes that is surely not a Christian.

 

[AresMan]

God can be wrong?? Anyone who believes that is surely not a Christian.

Some open theists will simply try to define most or all of God's prophecy as inherently conditional like the message Jonah preached to Ninevah. John Sanders tries to make Jesus' prediction of Peter's denials as a conditional "warning" to Peter with the hope that Peter would not succumb to the temptation. With this, some open theists would say that it is not that God was "wrong," but that things just didn't turn out the way God anticipated, and that God was making conditional guesses at what people would do.

Of course, such notions make the "false prophet" test of Deuteronomy 18 virtually meaningless because either (1) God requires of His people scrutiny that is beyond what He applies to Himself, or (2) God's prophecies of human actions are necessarily and intentionally conditional, making the test not really mean what it seems to mean. Mainstream open theists are so focused on the "love" of God (which seems to have no power to accomplish anything) that this trumps the accuracy of God's own words. In other words, "love" is better than "truth" or the trustworthiness of God.

I do have to accept that some open theists are Christians. I have VERY close family and friends who are, and they give me no reason to doubt their love for Christ, their selfless love for others, and their affirmation of the simple gospel of Christ. However, they do need a good wrecking ball to break down their emotional and philosophical lens to the truth.

 

[humblethinker]

God can be wrong?? Anyone who believes that is surely not a Christian.

Reacting to the belief that a caricature is a good representation is not helpful. There is first hand information available to everyone to educate ourselves regarding what Open Theism teaches. I think you will find the most caricatured descriptions of Open Theism come from Calvinists and then followed up by uninformed non-calvinists.

And even if someone thought that God could be wrong, why would that mean that they were not a Chrisian?

 

[Van]

Hi Amy.G, I did answer the question, unless you believe the future is settled, closed, fixed, exhaustively predestined, you believe in limited open theism. For you to deny this obvious truth is not helpful. All Arminians and many Calvinists accepted limited open theism, they just draw the limit line in various places. Answer this question, is the future exhaustively settled, fixed and predestined as Calvinism proclaims? Yes or No?

 

[jbh28]

Van, did you makeup the term "limited open theism" or can you quote someone else that has used it? I can't seem to find anyone that uses the term.

 

[Van]

Mumbo Jumbo??? I don't understand. Are you dismissing the notion out of hand? Maybe if I merely made it as a bald assertion.....but WLC? It may be correct, it might very well be wrong, but to dismiss it out of hand? I do realize that it is counterintuitive, but there is a body of material on the topic if you would like to discuss it. Maybe that was not your intention, but I decidedly think you should at least vet the idea first no?

First, mumbo jumbo describes the explanation of God knowing what we will choose perfectly and then saying we could choose something else. No, we could not! Alternately saying whatever we freely choose, God knows it before we choose is mumbo jumbo. The reason for the discussion is to logically answer the paradox of God knowing the future without predestining the future in the perfection of His foreknowledge.

 

[Van]

Hi Jbh28, I believe you are an advocate of closed theism, but deny that makes God the author of sin. I say God is not the author of sin, but explain it by having our sins not being predestined by God. That means the future is not totally fixed, but open for us to sin or sin less. Thus limited open theism. Now God limits our abililty to make choices, we make plans but He directs our feet. Thus limited open theism and not closed theism is the bibilical view.

 

[AresMan]

Hi Amy.G, I did answer the question, unless you believe the future is settled, closed, fixed, exhaustively predestined, you believe in limited open theism. For you to deny this obvious truth is not helpful. All Arminians and many Calvinists accepted limited open theism, they just draw the limit line in various places. Answer this question, is the future exhaustively settled, fixed and predestined as Calvinism proclaims? Yes or No?

If one believes that God knows the future exhaustively, regardless how one understands how God knows this is not "open theist." Open theism has to do with God's knowledge of future events, not whether He determines them.

We can both agree that an Arminian is logically inconsistent by trying to argue that God exhaustively knows future actions while still claiming the creature has true libertarian free will. However, the Arminian still cannot be considered "open theist" because the term has to do with God's knowledge, not His determination.

 

[Van]

Pitchback

If one believes that God knows the future exhaustively, regardless how one understands how God knows this is not "open theist." Open theism has to do with God's knowledge of future events, not whether He determines them.

We can both agree that an Arminian is logically inconsistent by trying to argue that God exhaustively knows future actions while still claiming the creature has true libertarian free will. However, the Arminian still cannot be considered "open theist" because the term has to do with God's knowledge, not His determination.

Totally bogus, the issue is whether the future is settled or not. Some Arminians say God knows the future exhaustively but mysteriously that does not fix the future yet God is not wrong.

Closed Theism says the future is settled, and any other view cracks open the theism to some degree.

 

[Iconoclast]

Reacting to the belief that a caricature is a good representation is not helpful. There is first hand information available to everyone to educate ourselves regarding what Open Theism teaches. I think you will find the most caricatured descriptions of Open Theism come from Calvinists and then followed up by uninformed non-calvinists.

And even if someone thought that God could be wrong, why would that mean that they were not a Chrisian?[/QUOTE]

Is this a bad joke

 

[HeirofSalvation]

First, mumbo jumbo describes the explanation of God knowing what we will choose perfectly and then saying we could choose something else. No, we could not! Alternately saying whatever we freely choose, God knows it before we choose is mumbo jumbo. The reason for the discussion is to logically answer the paradox of God knowing the future without predestining the future in the perfection of His foreknowledge.

Well, if you KNOW this unquestionably......I disagree that foreknowledge of the future decisions of free willed creatures renders them necessary....But if you can't entertain the notion that determinism is not the only way to exhaustively know the future then sail on.