Featured Openness View of Reality

Well said Ares....lovely post and interaction!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks:love2:

 

Thanks Aresman, I guess what I was saying, perhaps a tad too strongly, is that some Open Theists put forth some, shall we say, unbiblical positions. But to attack limited open theism, which is fully supported with specific scripture, based on these fringe assertions is not the best road forward, in my opinion.

As far as I have been able to discern, limited open theism is the reality presented in scripture. And yet it conflicts with Calvinism, which makes discussion quite difficult.

 

Hi Humblethinker, you call an Arminian that believes in what the Bible teaches about God's certain knowledge of the future, i.e. what He has predestined to occur, an Arminian. Do not accept what a Calvinist says concerning limited open theism, rely upon what the Bible teaches. The idea that Gregory A Boyd thought Jesus was not certain that Judas would betray Him, or that Peter would deny Him has been directly contradicted.

Open Theism is any view that rejects closed theism, which is that everything is predetermined and predestined. This is the mainstream view of reality, that some things are predestined, whatever God has predestined, and some things occur because of the decisions of men as allowed by God. Open Theism 101

 

This "A" doesn't.....

 

So, God compelled you to sin, then punishes you for the sins He compelled you to do? All Arminians are open theists to a limited degree, in that they believe mankind makes autonomous decisions just as the bible says. Please provide a link to any published Arminian position that endorses closed theism. No source will be forthcoming.

 

No once comes to Christ unless drawn by God's lovingkindness. However, is this grace resistible, all you anti-limited open theism folks of the Arminian persuasion? Did God predestine those who resist to resist? Or did we go our own way because that was our autonomous choice? And if our choice was not predestined, then that is Open Theism 101 which you claim to reject. I know Calvinists run from their own doctrine but this is my first experience with Arminians running from theirs, especially since this part of their doctrine is biblical to the max.

 

Hi Humblethinker, we are now, but I had misunderstood your post #45 in that I thought you had included yourself in the group of Arminian nay-sayers. I have no idea how any Arminian could be anti-limited open theism, which is to say no actual Arminian could be.

All Arminians and many Calvinists believe in limited open theism, which is to say the Calvinists do not believe God predestines and is therefore responsible for the sins we commit.

Our actual differences are in the extent of reality that God leaves open to the autonomous choices of men. For example I believe we can alter the outcome of our lives, we can choose life or death.

 

Hi Humblethinker, if you frame an argument, you have a leg up on winning the argument. If Open Theism is characterized as "God is suprised, makes mistakes, and is subject to the will of men" then anyone who knows their Bible would reject Open Theism. But if Open Theism is characterized as "God allows autonomous decisions of men to sin or not sin, to believe or not believe, and makes conditional promises to men" then to this limited degree, open theism would be accepted.

And another possible reason for rejecting my view, was expressed well in the movie Pride and Prejudice, "I would have been much more willing to tolerate his vanity if he had not wounded mine."

 

Do you believe that God makes (or endorses) any prophecy concerning the actions of human beings that He can then be wrong about?

 

:thumbsup:
I think we both disagree with mainstream open theists (at least some that I observe) that seem to go out of their way to argue that God can and has fully intended something that He predicted to come about by His prediction of human actions only to see His prophecy fail. This is the biggest beef I have with mainstream open theism.

Examples include (among others):
1. Joseph's dream allegedly including his mother (as the moon) bowing down to him, but partially failing because God did not know when his mother would die.
2. Agabus' prediction that the Jews would bind Paul, but that it was actually the Romans instead.
3. Jesus' prediction about the destruction of the temple ("not one stone upon another") not being fulfilled exactly as He intended.

 

These are the definitions: Open Theism = everything is not predestined
Closed Theism= Everything is predestined.

Based on these definitions, all Arminians and many Calvinists accept limited open theism.

It is a straw man argument to claim God makes prophecy by prediction of behavior. This is not supported in scripture. God fulfills His prophecy, He causes what He declared would happen to happen. Therefore He is alway 100% certain of the outcome.

He certainly can look into our hearts and know what we would do if that circumstance occured, i.e. if they saw my miracles, they would repent. But when God makes a prophecy, when He declares the end from the beginning, such as in Isaiah 53, He brings that prophecy into fulfillment, i.e. Acts 2:23.

 

I would argue that the sine qua non of open theism is a "partially open future," which must mean that God does not know some of what will happen in the future, and can be surprised in His being (not just anthropopathically in His emotions). If a Calvinist, Arminian, or any "non-Cal" believes that God exhaustively knows the future, regardless how they define free will, they cannot be classified as "open theist" to any degree.

 

Thank you for being orthodox on this point. :thumbs:

It depends on what you would mean by "change His mind." I believe God "changes His mind" in a sense that cannot[/b] equal the way man changes his mind. I do not believe God "changes His mind" from a lack of information. When God "changes His mind," it is more from our relationship and perspective to Him, not the other way around.

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

When God makes unconditional declarations, He does not change His mind from these. Some open theists really like to argue that God makes plans fully intending to carry them out, but becomes shocked by what people do and decides to change His plans. When they argue this, I wonder upon what basis we are to trust God if He can change His mind about His intentions based on the actions of people.
When God "changes His mind," it is "responsive" to the actions of man, and what He said was intentionally contingent. I also believe that God knows what people will do anyway; therefore, the actions and words of God in the narratives are inherently anthropomorphic because that is how He can communicate to us in a way that we can understand in our finite, time-bound beings.

I can agree that God makes contingent declarations ("if you do this, this is the result; if you do that, that is the result"), but I believe God also knows the outcome, as well.