Openness View of Reality

[Cypress]

Like Cassius some of you here think too much; "such men are dangerous," especially on a day before the weekend!

Ya think?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[AresMan]

The reality is all Arminians and many Calvinists (non-Hypers) are open theists to a limited degree in that they believe we sin by our autonomous choice and not by the compulsion of predestined sin.

Van, I have already explained that your definition is incorrect. The sine qua non of open theism that distinguishes itself from Arminianism and Calvinism is that it believes that the future is "partially open" in that God does not know what people will do. Anyone who believes that God has exhaustive knowledge of all things past, present, and future cannot be said to be "open theist" to any degree. To argue otherwise is to make the term meaningless.

 

[Van]

Pitchback

Van, I have already explained that your definition is incorrect. The sine qua non of open theism that distinguishes itself from Arminianism and Calvinism is that it believes that the future is "partially open" in that God does not know what people will do. Anyone who believes that God has exhaustive knowledge of all things past, present, and future cannot be said to be "open theist" to any degree. To argue otherwise is to make the term meaningless.

You have already posted this nonsense before, that is true. My definition is correct, valid, spot on and without flaw. Closed theism says the future is predetermined exhaustively. Open Theism says part of the future is not predestined. That is the sine qua non of limited open theism. Your argument runs like this, all Tigers are cats, therefore if it is not a Tiger, it is not a cat. Utter nonsense.

Calvinists have been successful in besmirching limited open theism in the past by defining it as opposing total omniscience, but using the Skandelon escape clause, i.e. total omniscience does not predestine everything, limited open theism stands firmly in the orthodox views of Arminianism and Calvinism, except for the Hypers.

 

[AresMan]

You have already posted this nonsense before, that is true. My definition is correct, valid, spot on and without flaw. Closed theism says the future is predetermined exhaustively. Open Theism says part of the future is not predestined. That is the sine qua non of limited open theism. Your argument runs like this, all Tigers are cats, therefore if it is not a Tiger, it is not a cat. Utter nonsense.

Calvinists have been successful in besmirching limited open theism in the past by defining it as opposing total omniscience, but using the Skandelon escape clause, i.e. total omniscience does not predestine everything, limited open theism stands firmly in the orthodox views of Arminianism and Calvinism, except for the Hypers.

Van, does not open theism distinguish itself from the Calvinism/Arminianism debate by taking libertarian free will to its logical conclusion that God cannot have exhaustive knowledge of all future events? In your "limited open theism," are you not still affirming that there are some future things that God does not know, while clashing with mainstream open theism's assertion of fallible prophecy?

Throughout church history there have been people who have believed that God does not "predetermine" all things. To call all these people "limited open theist" is anachronistic. Your broad definition of "limited open theism" puts everyone in that category except for "hard determinists," which is anachronistic. The whole point of open theism is to challenge the Arminian idea of exhaustive foreknowledge and libertarian free will and show that they are incompatible. For one to be "open theist" to some degree should mean that one has to believe there is something in the future (due the actions of free agents) that God does not know with 100% certainty. The distinguishing factor of open theism from historic Arminianism is not about the predeterminism of God, but about the (logically resulting) knowledge of God. To argue otherwise is really to make open theism synonymous with Arminianism, which would jeopardize the efforts of Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, Greg Boyd, Bob Hill, Bob Enyart, and company to distinguish their theology.

 

[Van]

Nice Try

Van, does not open theism distinguish itself from the Calvinism/Arminianism debate by taking libertarian free will to its logical conclusion that God cannot have exhaustive knowledge of all future events? In your "limited open theism," are you not still affirming that there are some future things that God does not know, while clashing with mainstream open theism's assertion of fallible prophecy?

Throughout church history there have been people who have believed that God does not "predetermine" all things. To call all these people "limited open theist" is anachronistic. Your broad definition of "limited open theism" puts everyone in that category except for "hard determinists," which is anachronistic. The whole point of open theism is to challenge the Arminian idea of exhaustive foreknowledge and libertarian free will and show that they are incompatible. For one to be "open theist" to some degree should mean that one has to believe there is something in the future (due the actions of free agents) that God does not know with 100% certainty. The distinguishing factor of open theism from historic Arminianism is not about the predeterminism of God, but about the (logically resulting) knowledge of God. To argue otherwise is really to make open theism synonymous with Arminianism, which would jeopardize the efforts of Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, Greg Boyd, Bob Hill, Bob Enyart, and company to distinguish their theology.

It is certainly true that Arminians seeking to put their theology on stronger biblical ground thought about the future as not settled or predestined exhaustively.

But to challenge Skandelon's argument is to be threatened with putting forth unorthodox baptist views, views that are not allowed on this forum. As I have said, there is more than one way to solve the difficulty. You solve it by saying God can somehow predestine everything, yet not be responsible for our sins. This is your failure to follow your theology to its logical conclusion.

Next, please provide a link to a quote from a published open theist, and not a Calvinist misrepresentation, that says open theism asserts God's prophecies might not come true because His crystal ball is foggy. The very assertion shows a misapprehension on your part as to how God fulfills prophecy according to the Bible.

Next, while it may be anachronistic to call Arminian thinking of the 16 hundreds and 17 hundreds open theists, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. And once we reach the 18 hundreds, we have open theism in full bloom in the Arminian garden.

And finally, I do not agree with all those authors on all of their assertions, one needs to present something specific, and then I will address it.

For example, Boyd asserted that it might be a problem to regret what was a probable outcome? I think not. God regrets every time we choose to think or act at odds with His will for our lives.

 

[humblethinker]

Van, does not open theism distinguish itself from the Calvinism/Arminianism debate by taking libertarian free will to its logical conclusion that God cannot have exhaustive knowledge of all future events?

It seems that OT could be distinguished by it's view of the nature of the future. Greg Boys states,

"If one is willing to understand the open view in terms of its own understanding of reality, open theists do not deny that God possesses exhaustive knowledge of the future."​

This is an excerpt of the defense of the open view prepared in 1996 for the Overseers of the Baptist General Conference:

The issue concerning the “openness of the future” is not about the infallibility or fallibility of God’s foreknowledge, but rather about the nature of the future which God infallibly foreknows.​

In your "limited open theism," are you not still affirming that there are some future things that God does not know, while clashing with mainstream open theism's assertion of fallible prophecy?

Quotes from Greg Boyd relevant to your question above:

I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God can and does determine and predict the future whenever it suits his sovereign purposes to do so. But I deny that this logically entails, or that Scripture teaches, that the future is exhaustively determined.

In our view, as in the classical view, God’s knowledge is co-extensive with reality. What we deny is that the future is exhaustively definite. In our view, the future is partly composed of possibilities. Hence, precisely because we affirm that God’s knowledge is perfect, we hold that God knows the future as partly definite and partly indefinite. He possesses exhaustive foreknowledge, for he knows everything about the future there is to know. But he does not possess exhaustively definite foreknowledge, for the future he perfectly knows is not exhaustively definite. As we have consistently maintained, the disagreement between open theists and classical theists is not over the scope of God’s knowledge, but over the content of reality that God’s perfectly knows.​

These quotes of Boyd's are from his blog. In it he is addressing an article by Bruce Ware. Boyd seems to make a point that would be worth considering regarding how we (I, at least) may object to the way your are engaging us in this thread and on this topic:

Ware makes it seem like we deny the exhaustiveness of God’s knowledge. This sounds more alarming and perhaps helps his cause, but it doesn’t engage open theists on their own terms and in their strongest possible light—which, presumably, is one of the ethical norms academic societies ought to uphold.​

 

[Van]

Humblethinker, no need to come at it sideways. If everything is predestined, then Calvinism's view is correct. However if the reality presented in the Bible is correct, God has hewn out a purview for mankind to make choices that alter the outcome of their individual lives, He sets before us the choice of life or death, not life only for some and death only for the rest which is the Calvinist rewrite.

Once any Calvinist admits that God does not predestine our sin, then further discussion of reality is possible. However if you can find any Calvinist, 12 Strings, Aresman, Mark 13, or any other Calvinist with a modicum of integrety to admit that our sins are not predestined, therefore part of the future is open, I will be surprised. They are all Hypers, they just deny the logical consequences of their theology, just many Arminians do.

 

[humblethinker]

Humblethinker, no need to come at it sideways.

I'm not sure whzat you mean in that I am coming at it 'sideways', nor did the remainder of what you said clue me in on what 'sideways' is supposed to mean (maybe I'm missing something...).

They are all Hypers, they just deny the logical consequences of their theology, just many Arminians do.

Are you saying that 'many Arminians' deny the logical consequences of their own theology? I am beginning to feel that this is the case but I hope to address that in a subsequent thread... I get the feeling that you are tip-toeing around something, concerned that you may get censored. If that is the case, pm me...

 

[Van]

As you may know, in response to some issues among Baptists, those in charge rewrote their "what we believe" document to define "omniscience" as God knows the past, present and future exhaustively." Then claiming this modification, done in 2000, was what folks specifically believed beforehand, they claimed any other view was "unorthodox" and banned that view.

But the fact that such a view could not be found in the writings of the various Baptist doctrinal statements, opens the possibility that differing views were held.

However, that does not change the ruling of those in charge of what may be posted in this forum, and they have ruled that the only view of omniscience that can be presented is "total omniscience." Any other view should be posted in the "unorthodox forum."

The "sideways" comment addressed the word game by Boyd, where because the future is not settled, God's perfect and infallible foreknowledge knows the future as unsettled. He knows what will happen in that He knows all the possibilities, and therefore no matter how the future plays out, God knew it beforehand exhaustively. Hence the God of the Possible. My view is we should confront our differences head-on - Is the future totally predestined? Try to get anyone to answer that question and then address the logical necessities of that view.

 

[Van]

Let me try it another way, if God knows the future as settled, i.e what will actually occur, but the reality is that the future is unsettled, and various possibilities could occur, then God's foreknowledge would not be perfect. What Boyd is trying to bring the determinists to understand is that their presupposition, the future is settled but simply not known by our finite minds, is not the reality presented in the Bible.

 

[humblethinker]

The "sideways" comment addressed the word game by Boyd, where because the future is not settled, God's perfect and infallible foreknowledge knows the future as unsettled. He knows what will happen in that He knows all the possibilities, and therefore no matter how the future plays out, God knew it beforehand exhaustively. Hence the God of the Possible.

This seems like a head-on explanation to me... I have a tendency to take people at their word, meaning that I believe that they are honestly attempting to convey a meaning that is consistent with their choice of word usage and that they, unless one of us is genuinely mistaken, believe that the understanding that I have in my mind is what they were attempting to convey. In more recent years I have come to realize that this is too often not the case. Call me gullible, naive, idealistic, it is what it is and life is a process of becoming self aware. So, if you are saying that Boyd does not really believe what he is saying here, then I'll have to think about that... However, my first take... and second... and third... is that Boyd meant what he said and said what he meant and what he said resonates with me.

My view is we should confront our differences head-on - Is the future totally predestined?

I agree... and once that question is answered, my followup question very close after that is, "Is the future foreknown in the sense that it could not have happened differently." To me, it seems that if the answer is 'yes' then the answer to both questions share many of the same ramifications.

Try to get anyone to answer that question and then address the logical necessities of that view.

Repeating my thought above, then let's address the logical necessities of the views of classical foreknowledge.

 

[Van]

Well we can try, but certain areas of the discussion have been ruled out of bounds by those holding the classical foreknowledge view.

First, the modern meaning of "foreknowledge" is to know something that will occur in the future. But the words translated as foreknowledge and foreknown (foreknew) do not mean that at all. So the first point is anyone holding to classical foreknowledge has a misapprehension of the meaning of the word. What the words actually mean is to know something from the past which can or is being used at a later date. Thus when God fulfills a prophecy or predetermined plan, it is according to His foreknowledge.

Once, through bible study, a person comes to a biblical understanding of those words and an understanding of how God fulfills prophecy, i.e. He makes it happen rather than foresees it, a whole new perspective on Divine Knowledge unfolds.

 

[Van]

So right out of the box, we can look at Romans 8:29, for whom He foreknew. First, it appears God foreknew those in view from before the foundation of the world, i.e. before creation. Calvinists will claim this means God foresaw them as individuals, waxing on about how "knew" suggests an intimate relationship. However, before creation, no human existed, so here we confront the idea of God's exhaustive knowledge of the future. Without "total omniscience" Calvinism then collapses like a house of cards.

However, if we look at the verse (Romans 8:29) as saying God had a plan for redemption from before the foundation of the world, then this plan also included being predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. So this view, rather than looking forward in time, has Paul acknowledging that God's redemption plan was formulated before creation.

Now if we flip over to Romans 11:2, we again see a group referred to as being foreknown, i.e. His people. So there seems to be no evidence that a corporately elected group, say a target group of His redemption plan could not be referred to in Paul's day as "whom He foreknew."

Humblethinker, care to indicate whether you agree with this analysis and if not, why not?

 

[Van]

As far as Boyd, no I was not questioning his integrety, but his effort to hide limited knowledge of the future, God does not know which possibility will occur because it is unsettled, and still cling to the definition of total omniscience. To clever by half.

 

[humblethinker]

Well we can try, but certain areas of the discussion have been ruled out of bounds by those holding the classical foreknowledge view.

wow, is there a sticky thread regarding this topic like there is regarding the homosexuality issue? I think, and I think you would agree, that domain names are honored as private property and so I suppose they can establish whatever rules they want. There is much to consider regarding their right to excercise their own standards and the ramifications of doing such. I am certainly appreciative of the existence of this board, knowing that the maintenance required to keep it a vibrant and thoughtful place for discussion is a very sizeable job. They have my admiration.

First, the modern meaning of "foreknowledge" is to know something that will occur in the future. But the words translated as foreknowledge and foreknown (foreknew) do not mean that at all. So the first point is anyone holding to classical foreknowledge has a misapprehension of the meaning of the word. What the words actually mean is to know something from the past which can or is being used at a later date. Thus when God fulfills a prophecy or predetermined plan, it is according to His foreknowledge.

Interesting... maybe you are correct. I don't know if this is applicable, but we know that the meanings of words will change. There is nothing that anyone can do to deny that but possibly slow the speed at which the change occurs.

Once, though bible study a person comes to a biblical understanding of those words and an understanding of how God fulfills prophecy, i.e. He makes it happen rather than foresees it, a whole new perspective on Divine Knowledge unfolds.

Regarding the means by which he 'makes it happen'... could it be that options available to free moral agents are 'pruned' in such a way that he can ensure with 100% certainty that which he has prophesied or predetermined or are you saying that God himself, in every way and every time, necessarily causes it to actualize?

 

[humblethinker]

So right out of the box, we can look at Romans 8:29, for whom He foreknew. First, it appears God foreknew those in view from before the foundation of the world, i.e. before creation. Calvinists will claim this means God foresaw them as individuals, waxing on about how "knew" suggests an intimate relationship. However, before creation, no human existed, so here we confront the idea of God's exhaustive knowledge of the future. Without "total omniscience" Calvinism then collapses like a house of cards.

However, if we look at the verse (Romans 8:29) as saying God had a plan for redemption from before the foundation of the world, then this plan also included being predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. So this view, rather than looking forward in time, has Paul acknowledging that God's redemption plan was formulated before creation.

Now if we flip over to Romans 11:2, we again see a group referred to as being foreknown, i.e. His people. So there seems to be no evidence that a corporately elected group, say a target group of His redemption plan could not be referred to in Paul's day as "whom He foreknew."

Humblethinker, care to indicate whether you agree with this analysis and if not, why not?

Your comments on Calvinism also seem agreeable to me. Your interpretation of the passages in Romans seems reasonable me. I would not disagree, nor do I see any reason to to have reservation with your assessment.

 

[humblethinker]

As far as Boyd, no I was not questioning his integrety, but his effort to hide limited knowledge of the future, God does not know which possibility will occur because it is unsettled, and still cling to the definition of total omniscience. To clever by half.

I don't think he is intending to be clever. I don't think he was trying to 'hide' 'limited knowledge' of the future. It is, to me, a reasonable statement not to be regretted.

Would one be 'hiding' by stating that God is omnipotent and yet 'secretely' believe that God cannot make square circles? Especially when he later describes later how it is the case that that really is a bad question.

I think I see what you mean by coming at it sideways though. I would answer, though, that there are many ways to come to understanding the truth of a matter without approaching it 'head-on'. Historically speaking, many 'discoveries' of the truth of the matter have been by a way that, retrospectively, was not the obvious or 'head-on' way. In communicating meaning, if so long as one is not intending to deceive or obfuscate and is attempting to illuminate to the best of his ability, what more can we ask for?

 

[Van]

Hi Humblethinker, your point is valid and I stand corrected, I should not have demeaned Boyd's attempt to illuminate the truth. Pride comes before the fall.

As far as the secret sticky, please PM Skandelon, he will be glad to explain the ruling.

As far as word meanings changing, our job is to discern the meaning intended by the use of the word, and that original intent does not change with time. Thus, the Greek words translated as foreknew and foreknowledge originally referred to knowledge obtained or formulated in the past that is or can be used at a later date, such as a prophecy or predetermined plan.

Yes, looking into the future and seeing what will happen and then declaring that happening is total fiction. It is based on the Neo-Platonism paganism of a metaphysical realm. The Bible clearly teaches that God brings about what He declares, He causes it to happen. Now lets say He chooses a person like Judas to be His betrayer. Certainly God could look into the person's heart and know that the person would be willing to betray Jesus should a circumstance arise. So God would only have to bring about the circumstance, and preclude (perhaps by allowing Satan to possess him) a change of mind.

Scripture does not tell us exactly how in every case, God fulfills His prophecy, but it does tell us He causes what He declares to happen, which is totally different from the crystal ball theology of many who have not studied the topic.

 

[humblethinker]

A video generally explaining Open Theism

This video by youtube 'vlogger' Fenoglios has a pretty good informative take on the Open View of reality.

 

[OldRegular]

Open Theism is heretical. As long as people understand that ???????