Featured Openness View of Reality

I have watched it over a year ago so it is not very fresh in my mind. Sometimes things I watched yesterday I dont recall too well either, lol.
I understand and appreciate the view but to get much discussion you will need to be specific. PM me if you need too.

 

I had a class on it years ago in college, it is called Open Theism. After considering several implications of God not knowing the future it creates many many troubling things within some of the essential doctrines in Christianity. If this thread keeps going I will break out my notes on it and make a few posts.

 

A small part of a debate on Open Theism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8gtjNhpr5I&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

If you are talking about the Open Theism Theory then IMO their problem is that they identify eternity from the basis of the time continuum.

IMO, Its the other way around - time must be considered in the light of eternity.

Apparently God stepped out of eternity and entered the time stream.

The end product being that almighty God became a human being.

"And the word became flesh and dwelt among us".

There were certain characteristics of deity which had to be modified for this to become a reality which cannot be fully comprehended in our present state.

"Before Abraham was I AM".

Here (John 8:58) eternity and time are shown to be connected by the incarnation.

One "day" it (time) will end and perhaps then we will understand.

Revelation 10

5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:​

NKJV Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.​

Until then I suppose our futile debates trying to reconcile these things will continue (myself included).

HankD

 

I wasn't necessarily referring to the OT but essential doctrines. I will break out my textbook and see if I can share a few items of concern a little later.

 

Proponents of Open Theism say it is a challenge or even a denial to the sovereignty of God. Clark Pinnock was one of the first if not the first proponent of this teaching and he states that God doesn’t always control all that happens and that He is open to human input before deciding on matters. The proponents of this teaching say God can make mistakes, and is limited in His knowledge.

Open Theism answers the age old question presented by Calvinists and Arminians of God being sovereign over all. The Arminian believes that God looks down the corridor of time and sees how man will respond to the gospel and therefore chooses or elects man. God’s sovereignty is still held in this view and the Open Theist doesn’t like this. He will say that God must be limited in His foreknowledge to allow for man’s free will. Some Open Theists even go as far as stating God cannot know any future event. Guy’s like Greg Boyd aren’t in that camp but he does hold to God being limited to some future events. He says the future is unknowable and this does damage to God’s Omniscience. Since their God cannot know all then He can make mistakes and therefore changes His mind depending on what He discovers man doing in time and space. This is why it’s called “open”.

A lot of the difficulty Open Theists have is the concept of time. Time was created by God and therefore it isn’t beyond God or above Him. He controls it. The Open Theist almost makes God subject to time. Another problem Open Theists have is there reading of scripture, they have difficulties in reading passages that state God changed His mind or repented. They read such verses in a wooden literal sense, and this appears to make God unsure or to actually make mistakes.

Boyd states that God is more loving and kind when He doesn’t know our future and is surprised by what happens to us. He says it’s easier to Sheppard people when God is surprised to our difficulties in life.

Open Theists have difficulty in the death of Jesus on the cross, they state that God was unsure if Jesus would actually go through with it. This is to deny His divinity. They also state that if it wasn’t for the Jews and Roman soldiers carrying out the crucifixion that Jesus may not have been put to death. They say God wasn’t sure if it would actually happen. This is a possible denial of the atonement. John MacArthur says that Open Theists deny the Biblical doctrine of Atonement in that they make God to be all-loving and not the God of wrath and judgment as found in the bible. They say the crucifixion was just a public display of the awful consequences of sin and not a payment for our sins, this would make God into a monster (sounds like Brian McLaren).Basically the God of Open Theism is one made to be easier to understand and more like us. Open Theism has many dangerous possibilities if thought through fully.

 

This is all pretty accurate apart from the last paragraph

"
Open Theists have difficulty in the death of Jesus on the cross, they state that God was unsure if Jesus would actually go through with it. This is to deny His divinity. They also state that if it wasn’t for the Jews and Roman soldiers carrying out the crucifixion that Jesus may not have been put to death. They say God wasn’t sure if it would actually happen. This is a possible denial of the atonement. John MacArthur says that Open Theists deny the Biblical doctrine of Atonement in that they make God to be all-loving and not the God of wrath and judgment as found in the bible. They say the crucifixion was just a public display of the awful consequences of sin and not a payment for our sins, this would make God into a monster (sounds like Brian McLaren).Basically the God of Open Theism is one made to be easier to understand and more like us. Open Theism has many dangerous possibilities if thought through fully."
_
Some may hold those positions but none that I know of._________________

 

Just because you don't know of any Open Theists that hold to that doctrine doesn't make my statement untrue does it? I was just paraphrasing John MacArthur anyway. I agree there are varying types of Open threists.

 

Yes HT, I am aware of this difference. It is not a matter of interpretation but a difference in the text itself.

It is interesting because the KJV English for this passage is based upon a TR type Greek text which differs both from the Byzantine Majority and the African based texts (Alexandrinus and Vaticanus).

The Scrivener 1894 Greek Text (a collation of other texts) retains it in this manner that time itself will cease.

Scrivener : chronos ouk estai eti
Byzantine : chronos ouketi estai

I don't remember where Scrivener got this, I checked the Stephanus and it's not his.

Perhaps someone can check this out with a Critical Apparatus?

Thanks
HankD

 

Sure, the Book of Revelation has a lot of mysterious oddities like this.

HankD

 

In the future, would you like me to consider all your statements as absolutely true? I certainly qualified my reservations by stating that I did not know of any that had those issues. I was in no way implying that you were deliberately making false statements.

 

It was just that you stated that my statement was not accurate, that sounded to me like you were saying I was being false. If that wasn't your intention then I apologize.

 

humblethinker,

My post was from my textbook on the subject of Open Theism and not my thoughts. I told you in a earlier post that I was going to post this. Although I do agree with the majority of what I posted.

The textbook used quotes from Pinnocks book, The Openess of God, and Boyd's book, God of the possible.

I was not posting this in a rebutal to any of your posts, but just for yours and others benefit to see what this textbook had to say.