Open theism and the atonement

[AresMan]

I love it when a Calvinist claims my view is through the finite mind of man but their view expresses the divine view. Pure absurdity.

My point is that the open view takes the limitations that finite humans experience with each other and extrapolates them onto God:
1. If humans take in new knowledge, then God must as well
2. If humans are limited to experiencing the forward progression of time, then God must as well
3. If humans can only make educated guesses about the choices of other beings that are ontologically distinct, then so must God.

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isa 55:10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

The difference between God and man is that God's ways and "thoughts" are perfect. Man can have false ways and thoughts, but God's ways and thoughts are inscrutable. When God gives His word, it shall accomplish the thing that He pleases. This includes statements about what people would do in the future, and about His word saving those whom He predestined to adoption.

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

What is included in His counsel?

Jas 1:18 Of his own will (boulomai = "[he] counseling") begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Part of God's "counsel [that] shall stand" is His regenerating us through the means of His Word. If His "counsel shall stand," then, if He rebirths people through His Word in His counseling, then it must be effectual to ones that God has chosen:

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Christ)
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
...
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Lets number the false assertions:

1. Aresman claims to have shown the biblical rather than pagan source for exhaustive determinism. Pure twaddle. I have shown, in another thread, the pagan roots of Crystal Ball Theology.

Both of us claim our beliefs on a particular hermeneutic of the Bible and the influence of philosophical assumptions. There is "pagan" philosophy that agrees with both sides (and everything in between) of understanding of the nature of divinity. I would hope that you (as well as mainstream open theists) can drop the tiring charge of "paganism" against those who hold to a high belief of God's perfection and knowledge evidenced throughout church history.

2. Aresman claims my view is that correlation proves causation. Total fiction. Why is it that all Calvinist simply misrepresent the views of others rather than defend their own?

I never said that your view is that correlation proves causation. I said that the open theist charge of pagan Greek philosophy influencing the idea of divine exhaustive foreknowledge is invalid because Greek philosophy was by no means monolithic. There were arguments from Greek philosophers that are even being used today almost verbatim by mainstream open theists. The charge of exhaustive foreknowledge being "pagan" is a non sequitur as correlation does not prove causation.

3. Aresman claims my view rests on putting God under a transcendent morality. Total fiction once again. The Bible says God keeps His word, therefore we can accept what He says, and not nullify it by claiming He did not mean what He said.

Any argument that reasons that God could not be "moral" if there were some kind of ultimate purpose through divine decree for all things (including evil actions) assumes that there is a transcendent moral standard that we can recognize to which God must be subject to be a "good" God. The standard argument that "God would be a monster" if somehow all actions (including evil ones) ultimately find their origin in the decree of God presupposes that God cannot be "moral" (according to man's standard); therefore, there is a requirement on God to create a certain way, such that (1) He must create creatures ex nihilo such that they can create their choices ex nihilo, and that (2) evil must be a definite possibility (against His perfect will), without divine purpose, and outside His control.

4. Aresman claims my view makes God subject to space and time. Pure fiction, but God can choose to relate to us in time, just as the Bible says. He says if you do this, then I will do that. This does not make God subject to time, only that God interacts with us in time because He has chosen to do so. So yet another misrepresentation.

Of course I believe that God relates to us in time. However, putting God's knowledge (an essential part of His eternal being) in its fullness subject to the progression of time in that God can appropriate new knowledge to His eternal being is putting more upon God than Him simply "relating" to us in time. When we read the narrative passages, we have to assume anthropomorphism and anthropopathism on God's relationship to man.

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.

The open theist will take the "I will know" as literally defining the boundaries of God's eternal knowledge rather than an anthropopathic relationship. If we take this literally, we should also have to take the statements about God "going down" and "seeing if they have done" literally also, making God neither omnipresent nor knowledgeable of the past or the present. I say we have to accept that all the statement is anthropomorphic and anthropopathic because any form of "relating" between God as eternal spirit and man as finite creation in finite time is anthropomorphic by definition. We cannot define the eternal properties of the Creator by observing the limitations of the creature.

5. God allows us to make autonomous choices where our choice is not dictated by God's predestination directly or indirectly.

Says you. Our choices are autonomous from each other and ontologically distinct from God, but they are not autonomous from God's eternal decree and knowledge. For of Him, and through Him, and to Him are "all things." He "worketh all things after the counsel of His will" and His "counsel shall stand."

This what the Bible actually says.

This is what you think the Bible says by taking the narrative passages as literally defining God's eternal essence and using them to dictate how we understand the doctrinal statements, rather than the other way around.

Calvinism claims choice does not mean choice rewriting scripture to fit the inventions of men.

No, choice is still choice. The question is How are choices made? Are they made in a vacuum (ex nihilo) or are they based on something? All choices are made with motivation and purpose unless the agent is insane. If you contend that choices are "contra-causal," then you are essentially arguing that one factor can be the equal cause of two entirely opposite effects (A vs. B or NOT A).

6. The issue is not what causes men to change and do other than what they have done in the past. They can be moved by the Holy Spirit, by self interest, by emotion, and by folly. All these are biblically based reasons for change of desires, i.e. the coming to our senses as taught by Jesus.

But, when you try to argue that choices are made "contra-causally" and that all the above are only "influences," then you are arguing that the hinge of the choice is a vacuum.

7. Aresman then makes yet another non-germane argument, we always act according to our greatest desire AT the Time, and then claims our greatest desire cannot change over time. Pure twaddle.

I never said that our greatest desire "cannot change over time." They do change. When I asked "Upon what basis [do they change]?" I was not challenging the notion that they do change, but asking you to explain the basis for the change. If we "just up and" change our desires "contra-causally," that does not make sense, because desires change for a reason, and a reason cannot produce A or not A.

 

[AresMan]

8. God desires all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth according to His purpose and plan.

The context of 1 Timothy 2:4 is the "classes" of people for which Paul instructed Timothy to make intercession. Specifically, he was addressing the pagan kings who were persecuting them. In the previous chapter, He gives himself as an example (1:11-16) as a ruler who persecuted believers; upon this basis he tells Timothy to pray for "kings and for all who are in authority" because God "desires all men to be saved." This passage is far from teaching that God's ultimate desire fails miserably. In fact, the same way that God is said to be "a ransom for all" is explained by Christ being "a mediator between God and man." This is a priestly function, and the priest's mediation under God's instruction does not fail.
What is the nature of Christ's mediation under the New Covenant?

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant, and every member of that covenant "all know the Lord from the least to the greatest." Therefore, Christ as mediator between God and man mediates for those who are saved, and they are the same ones which God will save effectually by "putting [his] law in their hearts" a "be to them a God." This covenant is "in His blood" according to Jesus by which He has "purchased the church" (all saints) (Acts 20:28). The mediation of Christ does not fail, for He "is able to perfect forever them who are sanctified."

Christ gave Himself a ransom for all those for whom He is a mediator according to 1 Timothy 2, and those for whom He is a mediator are saved.

Therefore He creates a purview where we can choose life or death, and He begs us to choose life. Aresman redefines choice to mean non-choice.

No, we choose. It is just that our choices are not made in a vacuum.

9. Next, Aresman says we should invent the attributes of God and then interprete scripture according to the invented attributes. Totally wrong. We should accept what scripture actually says and conform our understanding of God to His revelation, not the other way around.

We should not define the nature of the eternal being of God by the anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms in the narrative passages that are required for the expression of relationship between God and man so that finite man can understand things.

10. And lastly we have Aresman claiming we should nullify the places where God's behavior does not fit our man-made doctrine, but then stand firm on the passages where His behavior supports our view of God. To clever by half.

We should let God's absolute statements about Himself define how we should understand the anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms found in the narrative passages so that we can understand that God is personal, but His eternal being is not defined by the limitations that we humans have of ourselves: limited, increasing knowledge and subjectivity to progression of sequence in spacetime.

 

[Van]

Hi Aresman, you sure like to copy and post large sections of verbage.

My point is that the open view takes the limitations that finite humans experience with each other and extrapolates them onto God:
1. If humans take in new knowledge, then God must as well
2. If humans are limited to experiencing the forward progression of time, then God must as well
3. If humans can only make educated guesses about the choices of other beings that are ontologically distinct, then so must God.

Complete fiction. Rather than attributing our limitations to God, I simply base by view on what God said, i.e. now I know.... No one said God is limited by time, that is yet another of your misrepresentations of my view, (12 Strings take note!!!!) I said He choses to interact with us in time. And your third point is the complete opposite of what I said, God can know what existent folks will do given a circumstance. (12 Strings are you keeping count!!!!!)

Next you waste several inches of text making the point that God saves us, we do not save ourselves. Well duh!!!!

I hold to scripture alone as the basis of my views about God, not Greek philosophy. As far as my "charge" please read and rebut my presentation. My position is God does not predestine us to sin, then punishes us for His predestined sins that we were compelled to do. That is your position. Your claim that God would punish the son for the sins of the Father is unbiblical and has nothing whatsoever to do with putting God under a transcendent morality. Just another shuck and jive to avoid the absurdity of your view.

No, I take God at His word, and do not nullify the passages that show God sometimes chooses to test the faithfulness of individuals, without knowing beforehand what the person would do. Since that does not fit, you nullify that passage. But in another passage where the narrative fits your doctine, then we can take that passage to the bank.
Absurd.

We have been all through your logic maze, I can choose to leave my Father today, and suffer and then choose to return tomorrow, same individual making an ungodly choice one day and a godly choice the next. Many examples are found in scripture. Again, you must nullify these passages to fit with your man-made doctrines.

Next, you say because all men are not saved, that means God has failed. Twaddle. God saves men according to His purpose and plan, and that includes us autonomously repenting, rather than being compelled.

Next you repeat the charge that Christ did not die for all men, but rather for the supposedly preselected elect. It is not either/or, it is both, Christ became the propitiation for the whole world which includes each and every person God elects and puts spiritually in Christ.

Next, you repeat the claim that we choose not in a vacuum, but somehow avoid the actual issue, do our choices alter the outcome of our lives, do we choose life or death, or are we compelled by the fall to choose death unless altered by irresistible grace. Somehow that little item was described artfully as the absense of a vacuum. Too clever by half.

And lastly, we should understand God by His revelation, not interprete His revelation as necessary to make it fit with our man-made doctrine. To claim all the passages that do not fit with Calvinism do not mean what they say is wrong. God said, now I know.... God says He sets before us life or death, not life only for some and death only for others. Doctrine that requires a wholesale rewrite of scripture is worthless.

 

[Van]

You are making the judgement that anyone who accepts the Calvinistic view of some difficult texts of scripture is automatically more deceptive and dishonest than those who accept a different interpretation. No, the belief in the Calvinistic view does not require a person to misrepresent an opponents view. But being unable to defend Calvinism straightup leads folks to derail the conversation and suddenly I am answering all sorts of false charges, like the one you made above.

 

[JonC]

Complete fiction.

Van,

I realize that Open Theism is not a recent develop (August Neander, Albrecht Ritschl, Alfred von Harnack, and up to Walter Bauer – have contributions for example) – but it seems more known today by the works of Pinnock, Rice, Boyd and Sanders.

Aresman’s comments that you quote are actually correct regarding the ideas of the above mentioned. For example, Pinnock holds that “God learns things (and I would add) enjoys learning them,” and “omnipotence does not mean that nothing can go contrary to God’s will but that God is able to deal with any circumstance that may arise…the all-powerful God delegates power to the creature, making himself vulnerable. “ (From The Openness of God).

I say all of that (which isn’t much compared to the length of these posts) to ask this – since your understanding is not “Open Theism” as described by Pinnock, Rice, Boyd or Sanders (which, in my opinion, is a good thing), who exactly could I turn to in order to reference this “limited” brand of open theism? (I say “limited” because this is how it’s introduced in the first post – not to slight your view, and “open theism” because you use the term. If there is another term, moderate perhaps, please let me know).

I ask because I have read the scripture provided but disagree with your conclusions. I certainly wouldn’t be convinced by a member posting on the board and I don’t expect to alter another’s views by my posts (rule #1, never drink online kool-aid ) but I would like to read of the doctrines you present in order to better understand your position compared to my understanding of Pinnock’s view. (You may have mentioned some, but I missed it because I'm a little lazy when it comes to reading lengthy posts).

 

[Van]

Hi JonC, the idea is quite simple and needs no in-depth study. I am a simple guy. Does God predestine things? Yes. So at least some future events are predestined, settled and fixed. However, does the Bible say God predestines all things? No. Such claims are based on taking something said and extrapolating it.

Now if we name the everything is predestined view of Calvinism "Closed Theism" we can call the acceptance of the view that some things are not predestined as open theism.

However, if you read some of the articles published addressing extent or scope of the unfixed future, you find a range of views. So to speak of Open Theism as a defined specific view is to present a misrepresentation. I have not read all the articles, but I profoundly disagree with some of the premises presented. I have posted numerous times where I think some of the views held by some Open Theists are "complete fiction."

If our sins were predestined, either directly or indirectly, then God is the author of sin, and for God to punish us for our predestined by Him sins conflicts with the principle of God not punishing the son for the sins of the Father. Therefore, to this limited degree, I maintain that limited open theism, everything is not predestined, fixed and settled, is the Biblical view. But some things are predestined, and so the future is not completely open, but is only open as far as God allows it to be shaped by our autonomous choices. Hence, limited open theism.

As far as God learning things, I agree that God can learn things, for He said, Now I know....

Now when I read, I have read your scriptural basis but disagree with your conclusions, I say tell me which conclusion you disagree with? Did God not say, now I know? If you do not believe God means what He says, I disagree with your conclusion as well. But I can not rebut your rebuttal, if nothing specific is offered for discussion.

 

[JonC]

Hi JonC, the idea is quite simple and needs no in-depth study. I am a simple guy. Does God predestine things? Yes. So at least some future events are predestined, settled and fixed. However, does the Bible say God predestines all things? No. Such claims are based on taking something said and extrapolating it.

Now if we name the everything is predestined view of Calvinism "Closed Theism" we can call the acceptance of the view that some things are not predestined as open theism.

However, if you read some of the articles published addressing extent or scope of the unfixed future, you find a range of views. So to speak of Open Theism as a defined specific view is to present a misrepresentation. I have not read all the articles, but I profoundly disagree with some of the premises presented. I have posted numerous times where I think some of the views held by some Open Theists are "complete fiction."

If our sins were predestined, either directly or indirectly, then God is the author of sin, and for God to punish us for our predestined by Him sins conflicts with the principle of God not punishing the son for the sins of the Father. Therefore, to this limited degree, I maintain that limited open theism, everything is not predestined, fixed and settled, is the Biblical view. But some things are predestined, and so the future is not completely open, but is only open as far as God allows it to be shaped by our autonomous choices. Hence, limited open theism.

As far as God learning things, I agree that God can learn things, for He said, Now I know....

Now when I read, I have read your scriptural basis but disagree with your conclusions, I say tell me which conclusion you disagree with? Did God not say, now I know? If you do not believe God means what He says, I disagree with your conclusion as well. But I can not rebut your rebuttal, if nothing specific is offered for discussion.

Hey Van,

Thanks for helping me to understand a little more of your position.

I didn’t offer a rebuttal to rebut, but was really trying to understand your view in relation to others who have wrote of “Open Theism.” I’m not really planning on getting into points where we would disagree as much as trying to understand your position and not attribute beliefs to you that you do not actually hold.
In answer to your question, I’ll say that we do disagree in that I do not interpret Scripture to indicate that God learns things. I classify some examples in the Bible as anthropomorphism. (“I will look upon it, to remember” – Gen 9:16; “So the Lord changed His mind” – Exodus 32:14; “Thy mighty arm” – Psalm 89:10; “I stretch out My hand” – Exodus 7:5; “the Lord regretted” – 1 Sam. 15:35, and of course “now I know”). I view these passages as relating God to the human experience, but not necessarily speaking of the nature or characteristics of God. I do not, for example, see Genesis 22:12, when God states “Adam, where are you,” or the subsequent questions to Adam to indicate that God did not possess a knowledge of Adam’s whereabouts or what he had done. In this regards, I would view that a consistency of Open Theism based on your proof text would also indicate that not only did God not know what Adam would do, but God did not know what Adam had done, or even where he was. Instead, I believe that God’s revelation to man is within a human context rather than a divine context and does not necessarily reflect the whole nature of God.

So, I suppose that we both view the other’s theology as flawed. But the reason for my post was not to enter into a debate or defend traditional theism. I would image that you have knowledge of traditional theism, and if not can easily reference sources that oppose your view, so I really don’t have anything to add to what is already available to you. I just wanted to better understand your view, and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to answer my inquiry.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Van:

But this is not the whole story, for God hardens hearts and therefore alters what a person would do given a circumstance to fit His purpose and plan.

I agree completely....You don't have a clue what I believe, or what most Molinists believe obviously....I have only challenged fundamentally one assumption of yours...and I don't know if you could name what that assertion is.

And then we have Abraham and Isaac, where God did not have "middle knowledge" of what Abraham would choose to do.

O.K. obviously this is a passage, that given your point of view, would indeed create a problem text for people who believe in exhaustive foreknowledge...but promise me you don't hang your hat on that one. I freely admit that this passage does, at least at first glance, seem to imply a more "Open Theism" view and it is worth being answered....One question for you....Have you ever freely admitted the same to any who disagree with you?

Your view is nonsense

1.) you don't know my view very well as I will demonstrate
2.) this kind of statement-even if you disagree- says little for you...I disagree vehemently with many points of view expressed on this board, but they are not necessarily nonsense...they are quite often well thought out and coherent. I don't see any evidence that you are personally capable of actually perceiving the strengths of other points of view, and by extension the weaknesses of your own....here's a tip: THEY ALL HAVE THEIR STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES.

Lets say I hear the gospel and am considering going all in for Jesus. Now God's plan for the future has me going to hell. Therefore He arranges circumstances whereby I freely choose to reject Jesus.

No Molinist I am aware of believes this. Neither do I....You are taking (in effect) a non-Calvinist point of view, and turning it into double-predestination. Most Calvinists on this board do not believe in double-predestination...sheesh...

Therefore He actually decided my choice, making it a non-choice, similar to putting me in a room with one door and then punishing me for going through that door. Utter nonsense.

THAT, and only that, has been what I have been attempting to disagree with...this assumption right here...You have yet to engage this, instead you simply keep using this word....

Utter nonsense.

While unloading all of your heavy artillery against beliefs I do not even hold....it does not strengthen your position, nor speak well for Open Theism.

 

[Cypress]

My point is that the open view takes the limitations that finite humans experience with each other and extrapolates them onto God:
1. If humans take in new knowledge, then God must as well
2. If humans are limited to experiencing the forward progression of time, then God must as well
3. If humans can only make educated guesses about the choices of other beings that are ontologically distinct, then so must God.

Ares, just a quick question. Would you deny that God could create the situation where this could occur? Only asking if you think it is possible. And a second question would be why not, if you deny it.:love2:

 

[12strings]

You are making the judgement that anyone who accepts the Calvinistic view of some difficult texts of scripture is automatically more deceptive and dishonest than those who accept a different interpretation. No, the belief in the Calvinistic view does not require a person to misrepresent an opponents view. But being unable to defend Calvinism straightup leads folks to derail the conversation and suddenly I am answering all sorts of false charges, like the one you made above.

I agree that "belief in the Calvinistic view does not require a person to misrepresent an opponents view." But you said that ALL Calvinists DO misrepresent their opponents view instead of simply defending their position. The only reason you would say that is if you believe that those who oppose Calvinism DO NOT do the same thing, or at least not to the same degree. Therefore I inferred that you believe Calvinists misrepresent opponents views MORE than those of other persuasions in other debates. Did I miss-interpret your intent?

If I did not, are you not declaring that ALL Calvinists are MORE guilty of miss-representing opponents than non-Calvinists?

And if you are declaring this, is it not a character judgement on Calvinists?

 

[Van]

Hi 12 Strings, I am not interested in discussion my supposed flaws. If you have something to say, other than character attacks, have at it. You did not address the fact that you made a false charge, just continued to attack. Thus my view is based on direct observation of you and the others that have made one false charge after another against me.

Here is the test, are you attempting to defend your doctrines or point to flaws in my character? The use of such logical fallacies is driven by a lack of a doctrine that stands up to study. And I believe you know it.

 

[Van]

Hi HOS, if you will not present your position, just say what I say is wrong, we can conclude your views are bankrupt.

I presented Molism as found in published articles. You said they miss mark, which they may, but then did not say where. Too clever by half.

Any empty suit can offer such rebuttal, all sizzle and no steak.

Your view is simply another form of closed theism, but instead of hiding it in a cloud of compatibilism, you hide it behind cloud of circumstance known to God to result in His desired outcome.

 

[humblethinker]

...cloud of circumstance known to God to result in His desired outcome.

HoS, for me this is a problem with Molinism.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hi HOS, if you will not present your position, just say what I say is wrong, we can conclude your views are bankrupt.

I presented Molism as found in published articles. You said they miss mark, which they may, but then did not say where. Too clever by half.

Any empty suit can offer such rebuttal, all sizzle and no steak.

Your view is simply another form of closed theism, but instead of hiding it in a cloud of compatibilism, you hide it behind cloud of circumstance known to God to result in His desired outcome.

You are very dogmatic, overconfident, and insulting. I didn't present the WHOLE of all that I believe because this is about Open Theism, not Molinism...but the very crux of where I think OT goes wrong, I did mention...I only wanted to point our that I feel that OT and Calvinism...indeed Arminianism as well makes a modal mistake in assuming that the fixity or known outcome of a future event renders it necessary and is therefore incompatible with free will.

Your view is simply another form of closed theism,

Dogmatic statements about "my view?" by someone who assumes I would hold that God double-predestines to damnation. Consider: I merely politely suggested that your one assumption about the necesarry nature of a foreknown event might be off the mark, and somehow it has devolved into "non-sense", "paganism", "empty-suit", "hiding something" and "bankruptcy" Do you even KNOW how to have a somewhat civil conversation with others who have areas of disagreement with you? I am rude and brash myself sometimes, and I recognize that as a failing of mine and I attempt to work on it....I am having a hard time imagining why anyone ever attempts to engage you in debate at all.

 

[humblethinker]

Van or humblethinker, from the "limited open theism" model, can you explain a logical basis upon which finite creatures of God make their autonomous decisions. Do they act according to their greatest desire? Can they act contrary to their greatest desire, and if so, upon what basis is their actions?

Also, how is it that God Who created ex nihilo creates creatures who themselves create ex nihilo (their contra-causal choices)? Does God know His creatures (whom He created) better than they know themselves? If so, how can God be surprised by what they do if they are not surprised themselves?

According to 1 John 3:20 "God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things." If God "is greater than our hearts, and knows all things" how is it that the Holy Spirit can "try" to convict everyone's hearts given His omnipotence and omniscience and fail in His attempts? It would seem to me that in this case, neither God nor the finite creature has knowledge or control of the creature's mysterious will and all is up to randomness.

Aresman, I think these are great questions and the 'tone' and spirit they are asked is much appreciated. I really do think that these questions are put to and very appropriately addressed by classical arminians, so, I would say that their arguements would be mine as well. I don't mind answering the questions but I'm really swamped and I don't think that they are unique to Open Theism... ask Skan!

However, this question may not be appropriate for a classical arminian: "If so, how can God be surprised by what they do if they are not surprised themselves?"

Regarding the idea of "surprise": Events are most surprising when there is no idea of their possibility and are less surprising with the knowledge of their possibility and even less surprising when the odds or degree of probability is known. So, as you might guess, in one sense, God is not surprised when a free creature freely chooses. The creature is freely choosing from options that are known to God and this choice is no surprise to the creature, of course, as you have stated. So, I think it is a misrepresentation to say that Open Theism would teach or would lead to the idea that God would be surprised when man would not.

However you do touch on an idea that would speak to man's lack of appreciation or awareness for the options that we have, yet, a lack of appreciation from man would be a non-sequitur to God's appreciation of the free choice event. As I understand OT, the way that God would 'appreciate' such an event is in knowing that He gave man this option and made it such that man can choose, and these available choices, that are known to God, are known to him in levels of probability. So, God would never respond in a way that would indicate a lack of knowledge but would respond in a way that would affirm his knowledge of the potential choice but also show appreciation reflective of the level of probability for the choice made.

I recently celebrated a milestone in the way of birthdays... the big 4-0, or thirtyten as I prefer to say... My wife completely surprised me with lots of friends at a cajun restaurant. I must say I was completely oblivious to her plans and my sense and expression of surprise was genuine! She organized it all on Facebook and I am surpised how successful the 'surprise' was. I hadn't even considered the odds of a surprise party.

We humans use the word 'surprise' to describe a response of unawareness in both scenarios: when the 'impossible' occurs and when the 'possible', yet unexpected occurs. If God believes something to be 'impossible' then it is, since He can only hold true beliefs. With humans, if something is unexpected then it is usually the case that we are unprepared as well. God, being omniresourceful, is never unprepared for possibilities and therefore is ready and prepared for whatever free-will event occurs. It seems to me that IF an Open Theist attributes the idea of 'surprise' as an emotion of God, that he is meaning to attribute an appreciation of a free will excercise that was unlikely, rather than God being unaware.

While you may disagree with the Open Theist regarding their view of what is knowable, do you not find the above reasonable? It seems that Calvinists and Arminians (and all of us) often get tangled in an unfortunate form of arguement. The better form of arguement is to argue what kind of world he has created and what kind of God he is based on scriptural revalation rather than argueing what kind of world he had to have created and what kind of God he has to be, ie. the 'ideal' creation and 'ideal' concept of a maximal being.

 

[Yeshua1]

Van,

I realize that Open Theism is not a recent develop (August Neander, Albrecht Ritschl, Alfred von Harnack, and up to Walter Bauer – have contributions for example) – but it seems more known today by the works of Pinnock, Rice, Boyd and Sanders.

Aresman’s comments that you quote are actually correct regarding the ideas of the above mentioned. For example, Pinnock holds that “God learns things (and I would add) enjoys learning them,” and “omnipotence does not mean that nothing can go contrary to God’s will but that God is able to deal with any circumstance that may arise…the all-powerful God delegates power to the creature, making himself vulnerable. “ (From The Openness of God).

I say all of that (which isn’t much compared to the length of these posts) to ask this – since your understanding is not “Open Theism” as described by Pinnock, Rice, Boyd or Sanders (which, in my opinion, is a good thing), who exactly could I turn to in order to reference this “limited” brand of open theism? (I say “limited” because this is how it’s introduced in the first post – not to slight your view, and “open theism” because you use the term. If there is another term, moderate perhaps, please let me know).

I ask because I have read the scripture provided but disagree with your conclusions. I certainly wouldn’t be convinced by a member posting on the board and I don’t expect to alter another’s views by my posts (rule #1, never drink online kool-aid ) but I would like to read of the doctrines you present in order to better understand your position compared to my understanding of Pinnock’s view. (You may have mentioned some, but I missed it because I'm a little lazy when it comes to reading lengthy posts).

many knock me for bring this point up, but isn't open theism process theology inthe sense that God limited himself to experiencing/knowing the future as we do? that he chose to "stick himself" in time restrictions?

That they hold that God willed that He experiences growth and knowledge for the "human perspective?" Almost like idenifing with us through/in the Incarnation of Christ was not enough for Him to "experience" the human condition!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

HoS, for me this is a problem with Molinism.

I think (via previous conversation) that I know what you mean.....but defined this way...so dysphemistically....I am not sure I know how to respond.....I am aware of the "grounding objection" which is the only signifigant objection to the "Middle Knowledge" point of view that I am aware of....OT's and Calvinists alike are perfectly well suited to level that objection to the Molinist view....and it is a legit objection....but I don't know what a "cloud of circumstance" is....If one is suggesting that it is hard to imagine something like "truth value" to seemingly loose-ended ideas like how any given creature will respond in any given circumstance....well o.k. I decidedly see how that is not an easy assertion to agree with.....another thread against the "grounding objection" may be worthwhile.....but your partner...Mr. Van....well.....quite frankly...I no longer have any desire to attempt meaningful conversation with him, as he appears to be incapable of it.....

If you are interested in discussing something like that....(the grounding objection) I would be delighted.....but this thread was about Open Theism....I did not want to derail the focus of the thread so, the effervescent VAN has hurled his wrath upon me for, in his words... "not present (ing) your position" what do I do?? I would enjoy a conversation with you about it in another thread.\

For the interested... I present this:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/grounding.html

and....I suppose...I will paste this statement from Plantinga to bolster... "It seems to me much clearer that some counterfactuals of freedom are at least possibly true than that the truth of propositions must, in general, be grounded in this way." [Emphasis mine]

 

[JonC]

many knock me for bring this point up, but isn't open theism process theology inthe sense that God limited himself to experiencing/knowing the future as we do? that he chose to "stick himself" in time restrictions?

That they hold that God willed that He experiences growth and knowledge for the "human perspective?" Almost like idenifing with us through/in the Incarnation of Christ was not enough for Him to "experience" the human condition!

I have to agree with Bray when he wrote that Open Theism fails to reckon with the seriousness of human sin. It is man that is not what he should be, and because of sin that man has to be changed into creatures that are pleasing to God. God is not subject to sin. God is immutable.

Bray also notes that classical theism is not perfect and does leave many questions unanswered. Unfortunately, Open Theism – in my opinion – not only fails to satisfactorily answer the questions that it attempts to address, but also rejects answers that are provided through Scripture. It’s interesting from as a philosophical exercise, and the open theists do bring up important questions – I just believe that they don’t provide adequate answers.

 

[Yeshua1]

To me, there biggest error is failure, or unwillingness, to understand that there are things that ONLY we can know about person and nature of God in his revelation called the Bible, and jesus the Incarnation of God!

they try to fill in with reasoning and philosophy what they refuse to acknowledge what the Bible states about God, as that does not fit their definition of how he should be!

 

[humblethinker]

...I feel that OT and Calvinism...indeed Arminianism as well makes a modal mistake in assuming that the fixity or known outcome of a future event renders it necessary and is therefore incompatible with free will.

HoS, would you say that there is any degree of probability greater than 0 and less than 1 regarding God's knowledge of a free choice of a human? (This maybe a bad question in the sense that probability is inherantly between 0 and 1, but, I think you know what I mean.) It seems to me that Molinism would remove any probability related to the free choice of man. Is this what your are referring to as the OT's modal mistake? In the explanation I gave, is the Open Theist inaccurate regarding their criticism of Molinism and classical arminianism regarding foreknowledge? Maybe this deserves a separate thread since we are off topic. I've got several threads in my mind... and just not enough time!

I'm not sure about others, but I'm desiring less debate and more understanding. Some people have it all figured out though... Some people really enjoy the comfort of a settled opinion.