Openness View of Reality

[Cypress]

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.

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

 

[Van]

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.

 

[humblethinker]

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.
...

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

Thank you Aresman, i appreciate your post. I was not aware that the mainstream OT view is that Jesus could have made a mistake, or that there could be a possibility that He was not aware of or did not anticipate. Only this past week had I started to seriously look into the case for Open Theism.

Actually, I'm not sure that I would identify my views by the label. I find it more difficult now, to accept the idea that God would have a complete foreknowledge that was exhaustive and also certain. This view and the idea that man 'could have done otherwise' seem incompatible. How could man do anything other than that which was foreknown? What do you call an Arminian that believes that the only things capable of being foreknown with complete certainty are only the things that are predetermined?

 

[Van]

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

 

[humblethinker]

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

I really do think that there are many Arminians that would not accept Open Theism 101.

 

[convicted1]

I really do think that there are many Arminians that would not accept Open Theism 101.

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

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[humblethinker]

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.

Van, I think you are addressing Convicted1, correct? My understanding of Arminianism is 'open' to some degree. I am 'pro-limited open theism' to reference your term. I just wasn't sure how to understand your comments. I don't quite understand why Arminians would have such a problem with OT, at least as I've described it. Do you think you and I are on the same page as far as understanding what we are each intending to communicate?

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Van]

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."

 

[humblethinker]

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.

Agreed.:thumbs: I think it has to do with the idea that some Arminians believe that God's foreknowledge was, in the beginning, completely exhaustive to the 100% certainty of the specific actualized event (ie. fate) but yet they try to maintain that there were still other possibilities.

I hope this makes sense. I propose the following:

Fate is the foreknowledge of God to the extent that a specific event will necessarily occur.
Predetermination ensures the occurence of an event based on causality.
Fate requires the occurence of the event based on necessity.
Events that are predetermined are resultantly fated.
Events that are fated were predetermined.

So let's say we have a specific inevitable event that occurs. From the perspective of looking forward to the event it is considered to be predetermined and from the perspective of looking backward at the event is is considered to be fated.

 

[humblethinker]

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."

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[AresMan]

Agreed.:thumbs: I think it has to do with the idea that some Arminians believe that God's foreknowledge was, in the beginning, completely exhaustive to the 100% certainty of the specific actualized event (ie. fate) but yet they try to maintain that there were still other possibilities.

I hope this makes sense. I propose the following:

Fate is the foreknowledge of God to the extent that a specific event will necessarily occur.
Predetermination ensures the occurence of an event based on causality.
Fate requires the occurence of the event based on necessity.
Events that are predetermined are resultantly fated.
Events that are fated were predetermined.

So let's say we have a specific inevitable event that occurs. From the perspective of looking forward to the event it is considered to be predetermined and from the perspective of looking backward at the event is is considered to be fated.

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

 

[humblethinker]

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

No, I do not believe that God could be wrong or mistaken. I do believe that God has the prerogative to change his mind... who would disagree with that? This may also be relevant: I put forward that God can make predictions or determinations that are are contingent upon an act of free agency as well as being contingent on God changing His own mind.

 

[AresMan]

No, I do not believe that God could be wrong or mistaken. I do believe that God has the prerogative to change his mind... who would disagree with that? This may also be relevant: I put forward that God can make predictions or determinations that are are contingent upon an act of free agency as well as being contingent on God changing His own mind.

: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.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[humblethinker]

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.

Van, I'm not quite sure exactly who or what post you are addressing. If any of my posts, then I'd say that my references to God fulfilling a prediction based on contingency were regarding man repenting after the prediction and then God changing His mind based on that act of human free agency, in that He didn't complete the prediction. It seems that you voiced similar a similar view, if not the same view in this thread but posting without specifically quoting someone sometimes makes it difficult to follow.

 

[AresMan]

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.

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.

 

[AresMan]

No, I do not believe that God could be wrong or mistaken.

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

I do believe that God has the prerogative to change his mind... who would disagree with that?

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.

This may also be relevant: I put forward that God can make predictions or determinations that are are contingent upon an act of free agency as well as being contingent on God changing His own mind.

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.