Featured Openness View of Reality

Thanks Sola.....no worries and I appreciate the posts.

 

You know, the types alone, like Cain & Abel or Joseph, totally blows a lot of what they believe out of the water. GOD IS omniscient, AND sovereign.

 

A HUGE problem with Open Theism is how it is forced to handle prophecies that concern, or depend on the actions of human beings. For instance, let's look at Jesus' prediction of Judas' betrayal:

Joh 13:17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.
Joh 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
Joh 13:19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

Jesus invokes Scripture to proclaim that one of the disciples in the room would betray Him. In fact, He puts His claim to Deity on the line by declaring the future sinful action of Judas Iscariot. Why is this so important?

Deu 18:17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Deu 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Isa 41:21 Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob.
Isa 41:22 Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.
Isa 41:23 Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.

One of the "tests" of deity is the ability to declare the future. God said to Moses that He would "raise up a prophet" later and He would put His words in the prophet's mouth. The test for a true prophet of God (and the Christ prophet specifically) is that he would proclaim the words of God. If what he said did not come to pass, by definition he did not speak the words of God!

This is VERY IMPORTANT. Jesus made many proclamations of future things that would happen that were contingent on the actions of human beings: His crucifixion, the destruction of Jerusalem, the tribulations that would surround it, the betrayal of Judas, the triple denials of Peter, and others. Jesus claimed to be God Himself, and put His fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18 and Isaiah 40-48 on the line.

If His prophecy of Judas' betrayal and Peter's denials could have been proven wrong (as Open Theists insist as possible), the Jews who delivered Jesus to the Romans could have rightly accused Jesus of being a false prophet and breaking the Law of God. He would have died a sinner and have been worthy of death as the Law declared, and He could not have been our perfect substitionary sacrifice. He could not have been "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world"!

As we know from Scripture, they accused Jesus of breaking the Law because He claimed to be "the Son of God" (making Himself equal with God). However, their accusation was wrong because He is God! If He could have predicted falsely and therefore had "spoken presumptuously," I say He might as well had been wrong anyway. We cannot be satisfied to wipe our foreheads and breathe a sigh of relief that Jesus made a "good guess" and happened to be right, so that He was sinless. NO! The God-Man would NOT put His deity on the line so flippantly as to make a "good guess" about the SIN of a "free" human being, if He were not 100% sure that He would be correct! I cannot stress this enough!

Some Open Theists (like Bob Enyart and John Sanders) actually assert the Jesus really hoped to be proven wrong because He preferred that Judas and Peter exercise their "free will" and repent. Either they are ignorant of the ramifications of Jesus being wrong or they really think that the (assumed) libertarian free will of Judas and Peter are more important than the integrity of God Himself.

 

I have not read this whole thread, but in the early posts I saw the usual fictions being offered to disparage open theism.

If God predestines everything, per Calvinism, then the future is closed, it is fixed and nothing can alter the predetermined ourcome of each of our lives. When we sin, we were compelled to sin by God's predetination. When God punishes us for the sins He compelled, that just demonstrates God's glory. Some Calvinists try to avoid this "reality" by saying God uses secondary causes, but if those are predestined, the linkage back to God's compulsion is not broken.

In a closed future, prayer will not alter the future. The idea that we can accomplish much and God will respond is "challenged."

All Arminians and many Calvinists are open theists to a limited degree.

Proponents of Closed Theism claim God cannot limit His knowledge, "challenging" God's Omnipotence. God says He forgives and "remembers no more forever" our sins. Now it is likely He remembers our actions, but does not remember the resulting penalty. But discussion of this topic has been ruled inadmissible on this forum.

As far as the fiction that Open theism began recently, I think it represents the view help from the beginning, i.e. prayers alter the future, and God does what He says. Certainly Arminians and other free will advocates believed in limited open theism from the 1600, i.e. from before Calvinism.

 

Both of you are correct. Isaih 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.


This is not an issue with ot that posits a partially open view of the future. Ares is correct if the assumption is a totally open future.:love2::love2:

 

Hi Humblethinker, the "only" view of God's omniscience allowed to be discussed on this board in "total omniscience" where God knows exhaustively everything imaginable, even when He says He remembers no more, or now I know indicating He did now beforehand. This view has been determined to be orthodox, and any view that challenges that view, even when directly supported from scripture has been ruled unorthodox. But we can discuss "closed theism" till the cows come home.

 

Cypress, God does not make known the end from the beginning, what scripture actually says is God declares the end from the beginning. In the former wording, it could be understood that God told us end that would occur, rather than God telling us what will occur because God will cause it to occur. Two different realities, but only one is biblical.

 

Let me address just a few of the many fictions presented in this thread.

If God predestines something, does open theism question that whatever God has predestined, He will cause to happen? Nope. Thus Christ died by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.

Does open theism question that Christ died for all men and became the means of salvation for the whole world? Nope 1 John 2:2

Does open theism have a problem with God being able to overrule time? Nope, He created time and can do with it as He wills, He is the potter and time is on His wheel.

Does open theism say God cannot know any future event? Nope, Everything He has predetermined will occur in the future, He knows will occur because He will cause it to occur.

However open theists do take God at His word, when He says He relents because people repented, that is consistent with open theism.
God makes contingent promises to people. If you do this, then God will do that. If you do not do this, then God will bring calamity. You can find this from Genesis to Revelation. Closed theists must nullify all these passages and alter their meaning such that the mean the opposite of what God said.

 

Hey Van, I am equally comfortable with the translation you are using. To me we are splitting hairs here. If God declares it or makes it known it is so. The point I am making is more dependant on the end of the verse. Neither precludes parts of the future being open, only that God can determine as much of it as He wants to with absolute certainty. Am I missing your point?

 

"Could it be?"

There is NO distinction or qualifier in Deuteronomy 18 nor in Isaiah 40-48 about the prophecy/determination of the actions of God vs. that of the contingencies of human beings. As I said in my post above, much of Jesus' prophecies were about things that would come to pass with human agency! Jesus was acting as "the prophet like unto Moses" in Deuteronomy 18 (see. Acts 3:22; 7:37). The test for a true prophet of God was that if he declared that something would happen (with no qualifier given!) that it actually happen as prophesied! This criteria for a true prophet is in the context of the promised prophet Jesus Christ!

Jesus put his claim to Deity on the line when he predicted that Judas would betray Him. He said that "when it happens you may believe that I AM" (ego eimi). If Jesus was merely making an "educated guess" then He was "speaking presumptuously" according to Deuteronomy 18, and He would have been guilty of breaking God's Law!
Now, seeing that Judas was predestined to betray Jesus (also fulfilling Zechariah 11:12-13 (which includes his suicidal condemnation!), you would argue that God did not hold these actions against Judas. Again, your unsubstantiated presumptions are that someone cannot be held morally responsible for his actions if he "could not have done otherwise" in the openness understanding of free will. However, Scripture does not bear out your presumption:

Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas,which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Act 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

This does not sound like the language of forgiveness, such that Judas' actions of betraying Jesus, selling Him for thirty pieces of silver, and "casting them to the potter's house" (buying the field for suicide)!

Joh 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.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
...
Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
Joh 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

If Jesus "knew from the beginning" (when He chose the twelve) "who should betray him," then could Jesus have mistaken?! Did not Judas have 3 1/2 years to "turn himself around" and not betray Jesus?

Joh 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

There is NO getting around this! All of the following statements are true:
1. Jesus infallibly prophesied the sinful betrayal of Judas Iscariot. This was determined by the inspired Scriptures.
2. Judas did this willfully and was not "coerced" against his will.
3. Judas was justly punished as a result of His wicked actions, and he was condemned ("son of perdition" who received "the reward of iniquity").
4. Libertarian free will in the Openness sense is provably and utterly false.

 

No, you are spot on! Thanks

 

There are no problems with limited open theism, i.e. that which is clearly supported by scripture. What we have seen are strawman problems, open theism says this false thing, and then showing from scripture it is not true. Same ole, same ole.

Lets consider a prophecy contingent upon people. In forty days Nineveh will be overturned, Jonah 3. The reason God had Jonah warn the people and provided time for repentance, was according to His purpose. He was concerned about the children in the city. And because they repented, He relented. If they had not repented, God would have overturned the city. So these kind of prophecies are no problem to biblical open theism, but they are to closed theism. Why would God say He would overturn the city, if He had predestined Himself to overturn the city, and then alter that future? No answer will be forthcoming, only shuck and jive. The only way this account meshes with God's attributes is to say His prophecy was contingent and not predestined. QED

 

Sure, but the OT view must allow for God the possibility of mistaking about prophecies of human actions.

The open theist view of the atonement is utterly destitute in my view. Because the open view argues that God did not even know that I (and everyone living today) would be born during Jesus' earthly ministry, nor the sins that anyone would commit, the atonement cannot be literally applicable to the individual sinner. In other words, the atonement of Christ cannot be truly substitutionary.

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our SINS in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Peter said that Christ "bore our SINS in His own body on the tree." If Jesus did not know that I would be born then, nor the sins I would commit, His sacrifice could not have been substitutionary and truly penal for my sins. Both the Calvinist and the Arminian positions allow for the atonement to be truly substitutionary, the open view makes that impossible. I cannot accept this!

Yeah, but the open view requires that God in His eternal state is either naturally subject, or subjected Himself to the boundaries of time. Some open theists try to argue that time itself is eternal, which would clash with the Kalam argument and Einstein's theory of relativity. Otherwise, the metaphysical assumption of open theism is based entirely on the overriding sine qua non of "libertarian free will." This is the be-all-end-all of open theism ("will worship" Col 2:23).

Yes, but open view proponents will ascribe precious little (if at all) predetermination of God on the actual future actions of human beings. Perhaps you allow for more of them, but the standard textbook arguments put forth by Pinnock, Sanders, Boyd, Enyart, and company are that Jesus could have been wrong about Judas' betrayal and Peter's three denials. If you accept these as infallibly "predetermined" then kudos to you for upholding the integrity of Jesus as the perfect prophet of Deuteronomy 18 who could not ever be wrong. However, you would not agree with mainstream open theism.

1 Sam 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
The way God "repents" cannot be the way man "repents." God does not "repent" from a lack of information. He does not repent "like a man." He "changes His mind" because of the actions of man, but this is not the way men change their mind toward each other.

Um, no. "Contingent promises" do not necessitate the openness view of libertarian free will. They are contingent on the resulting actions, not on the "freedom" of the agent to "do otherwise."

 

Calvinism is defended not by clearly representing the DoG, but by misrepresenting what other believe. This whole post is a work of fiction.

Is their any actual biblical support for God being mistaken? Nope. Are there some published Open Theists who claim God may be mistaken? Yes. But the work of fiction is to claim, limited open theism allows the thought of God being mistaken.

Does open theism fit with the fiction of penal substitution, Calvinism's Trojan horse for Limited Atonement. Nope. Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism is proven wrong by 1 John 2:2 and a host of other passages.

Question, when were your sins forgiven. Ephesians 2 tells us we were by nature children of wrath, thus unforgiven when we entered the world. But Christ had died 2000 years ago. So what gives? Our individual sins are taken away when we as individuals are spiritually placed in Christ during our lifetime. This view is consistent with all scripture, but the Penal Substitution view is contradicted over and over again. So once again we see a totally false charge against limited open theism as embraced by all Arminians and many Calvinists.

Time is a non-problem for limited open theism. The biblical view of time is fully supported.

I have not read everything the folks you mentioned by name have written, but lets take Boyd on what Jesus knew about Judas. "Indeed, Jesus Himself knew that Judas would betray him, and that Peter would deny him three times."

As I said, Calvinism is defended by misrepresenting the views of others. Of course God does not repent, meaning turning from the wrong path to the right path, God is always on the right path, but He can bring judgment or mercy, and He does based on His promises.

In closing contingent prophecy does necessitate biblical limited open theism. Otherwise, nothing would be contingent.

 

Van and humblethinker, I apologize if I have misunderstood or misrepresented your views. My arguments are against the "mainstream" open theism, and when you use the label to describe your views, I assume you follow the label to its fullest.

I personally know many "mainstream" open theists, and I have discussed theology with them in person. Yes, the mainstream open view does say that the future is "partially open" and that God has "predetermined" some things to occur. The "mainstream" view differs from your view in that you would agree with me that the prophecies of Peter's denials and Judas' betrayal were 100% certain. The open theists that I know in person go out of their way to defend "libertarian free will" in almost all cases of Bible prophecy, with some "minor" exceptions such as with the crucifixion of Christ. Proponents such as Bob Enyart are not shy to suggest that Jesus really could have been proven wrong in His bold predictions of Peter's denials and Judas' betrayal. Enyart even tries to use 1 Cor. 13:8 to argue that "love is greater than prophecy," and that Jesus really, really hoped that He would be wrong and that Judas would repent and Peter would not deny Him. He tries to argue that so-called "love" trumps even the integrity of Jesus' claims to be God. If you do not take this view, praise God!

Greg Boyd does differ somewhat from Enyart and Sanders in that he tries to formulate an idea of freely formed compatibilism. He accepts some elements of "compatibilism" such that a person starts off "free," but through his "free choices" shapes his character into such that is essentially compatibilistic over time. At the point in Peter's life in John 13, Jesus could predict with 100% certainty what Peter would do given the circumstances, because He knew the totality of Peter's "character."[1] Still, the specificity of this prediction in the midst of all the countless contingencies involved in making this situation play out, as well as the factor of "three" does not convince me that just knowing Peter's character is enough to make the prediction 100% certain.

Sanders claims that the prediction of Jesus was "conditional" and was a "warning" to Peter rather than an actual dictation of what would occur.[2] However, the fact of the three timely denials would be a problem, because Peter was not the only agent in this alleged "warning." All the persons in the trial, and the women in the outskirts were also "free" agents that would contribute to the "conditions" of this "test."

If you advocate what you call a "limited open view," then I will try to understand your position and respond to it specifically.


1. Greg Boyd, "How do you respond to Matthew 26:36?", http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/open-theism/responses-to-objections/how-do-you-respond-to-matthew-2636/
2. John Sanders, The God Who Risks, p.136.