humblethinker
Active Member
No, it is not.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Openness View of Reality
- Thread starter humblethinker
- Start date
No, it is not.
No, it is not.
It is a terrible doctrine that conflicts with other core doctrines. Namely the Omniscience of God. You cannot have it both ways.
It is a terrible doctrine that conflicts with other core doctrines. Namely the Omniscience of God. You cannot have it both ways.
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
HT.....this is a very dangerous and unbiblical idea.Mandy and I do not agree too often, but you will find that christians oppose this idea for the error it is.
humblethinker
Active Member
It is a terrible doctrine that conflicts with other core doctrines. Namely the Omniscience of God. You cannot have it both ways.
No, I do not agree. I believe it is the model that, of the current theologies, best represents reality. Open Theists believe that God is 'omniscient'.
Wanting it 'both ways' is better exemplified by the closed theist who holds that God believes contradictory truths. It is the closed theist who holds that God sees a creature's free will option and that God genuinely believes that the choice is a possibility yet this same theist holds that God genuinely believes that it is not a possibility but a certainty: that it certainly cannot be the case that the creature make any other choice than the one God knows he will make.
Alive in Christ
New Member
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.
Goodness. This stuff is full blown Heresy.
humblethinker
Active Member
That quote you posted is presumption, here-say and inaccurate.Goodness. This stuff is full blown Heresy.
Yeah, because we all know that "reality" must be understood in what humankind can perceive through the senses and the rational mind (e.g. God can only be a "relational" Being if He relates to His creatures in the same way--limitations--in which they relate to each other).No, I do not agree. I believe it is the model that, of the current theologies, best represents reality. Open Theists believe that God is 'omniscient'.
Compatibilism does not necessitate "that God believes contradictory truths." Compatibilism holds that there is a compatibility between the will of God and the wills of His creatures in that the "free" choices they make without coercion (against their will) fulfill the God's ordained plan.Wanting it 'both ways' is better exemplified by the closed theist who holds that God believes contradictory truths. It is the closed theist who holds that God sees a creature's free will option and that God genuinely believes that the choice is a possibility yet this same theist holds that God genuinely believes that it is not a possibility but a certainty: that it certainly cannot be the case that the creature make any other choice than the one God knows he will make.
According to the logic of open theism, God cannot create "relational" beings and "relate" to them unless they have the god-like ability to contribute to warp and woof of reality in a vacuum.
humblethinker
Active Member
How do you perceive the world if it is not through your rational thinking or your senses? I would like to hear this! Wait... Can the explanation you give be a visual representation since those are the only senses I use to receive information from baptistboard.com. I then use reason to understand it... Will your explanation be such that reason can make it understandable?Yeah, because we all know that "reality" must be understood in what humankind can perceive through the senses and the rational mind
That was toungue-in-cheek... but really, what is the problem you have with what you said?
Would you say that God does not meticulously control all events? The act of willing something is an event, no? From a Cal perspective, if God didn't cause the event then how could he still be sovereign?Compatibilism does not necessitate "that God believes contradictory truths." Compatibilism holds that there is a compatibility between the will of God and the wills of His creatures in that the "free" choices they make without coercion (against their will) fulfill the God's ordained plan.
Hmmm... I don't quite follow what you mean. I would say this though:According to the logic of open theism, God cannot create "relational" beings and "relate" to them unless they have the god-like ability to contribute to warp and woof of reality in a vacuum.
According to the logic of open theism, God cannot create "relational" beings that are not "relational". But surely you would not disagree so I'm not sure what you are saying.
Goodness. This stuff is full blown Heresy.
:thumbs::applause::thumbs: AIC!!!!!you got it:applause:
AiC, where did you get that quote? From what I understand, I don't think it is entirely accurate.Goodness. This stuff is full blown Heresy.
This sounds like what Boyd would say, and I have no reason to doubt it.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.
There may be some that would say this. The ones I know try to argue that the Crucifixion was a "special case" as was the selling of Joseph into Egypt, but they would say that the specific actors were not ordained to do what they did. Supposedly, the time and conditions were "just right" so that Jesus would be guaranteed to be put to death by someone.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.
However, Bob Enyart and his followers emphasize the "real choice" that Jesus had in the Garden of Gethsemane. They argue that if Jesus did not have the "real" ability and possibility of choosing to forego His mission, He did not have a "real" choice (and that would be BAD, BAD, BAD!) They also emphasize Jesus' statement that He "could have called ten legions of angels," and say that if Jesus' nature as God determined that He "really" could not because He had to fulfill His mission, then His words were a lie, because "could have called" must mean "could have called" in a "real" sense, not a "hypothetical" sense.
In other words, for Jesus to be truly "good" and "loving," He had to have the "real" ability to do exactly the opposite of what He earlier said He would do--and plunge the universe into utter doom!
In other other words, Jesus could not be "genuine" unless He really, really could LIE (contra Deuteronomy 18). However, the Word of God is clear that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18); yet, Jesus says that He is "the truth" (John 14:6). There is NO reason to believe that God has to have the "ability" to lie for His truthfulness to be "genuine."
In the same way, we are told that "love is of God" and "God is love" (1 John 4:7-8,16); yet, there is NO reason to believe that God has to be "really" capable of unrighteous hatred for His love to be "genuine."
The rationale of the mainstream open theist is a form of good-evil dualism (like zoorastrianism, or yin-yang) that transcends God, because any "personal" being must have the libertarian free will capacity of true good and true evil to be "genuine" and "personal."
Not all open theists would believe or argue this way, but there are problems with where their view leads. Open theists cannot believe in a truly "substitutionary" atonement because God cannot know what sins would have been committed after the Cross. This means that the atonement could not have been a real payment for any sins in particular, but only for "sin" in general, governmental sort of way.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.
1Pe 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 is clear that Christ "bore OUR sinS" (plural), and He did it "in His own body on the tree." Just as Israelites had to offer specific sacrifices for specific sins in the law, so Christ as the ultimate Lamb of God had to have paid for sin in an intimate way, regarding the very sins themselves. That is a difficult pill to swallow, and extremely humbling to think of Christ actually suffering the putridness of MY sinS, but that is what substitutionary atonement is all about. It makes us understand how intimate our salvation really is and what grace and mercy are, rather than just an historical, academic doctrine.
Alive in Christ
New Member
:thumbs::applause: AIC!!!!!you got it:applause:
Well, how bout that!
We agree on something. :wavey:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
No, I do not agree. I believe it is the model that, of the current theologies, best represents reality. Open Theists believe that God is 'omniscient'.
The name open theism contradict that statement, much less what its adherents believe.
Wanting it 'both ways' is better exemplified by the closed theist who holds that God believes contradictory truths. It is the closed theist who holds that God sees a creature's free will option and that God genuinely believes that the choice is a possibility yet this same theist holds that God genuinely believes that it is not a possibility but a certainty: that it certainly cannot be the case that the creature make any other choice than the one God knows he will make.
The above sounds like you are chasing your tail!
Alive in Christ
New Member
AiC, where did you get that quote?
From a post earliar in the thread, or maybe a link from this thread. Cant remember for sure. Its from that "Boyd" person.
freeatlast
New Member
No it is not heretical. It may not be totally correct, but it is not heretical. While I personally do not subscribe to the whole ball of wax that openness teaches some things I do hold to. I can tell you that is is closer to being accurate then preterism.Open Theism is heretical. As long as people understand that ???????
Last edited by a moderator:
humblethinker
Active Member
I doubt that. Link/source please...From a post earliar in the thread, or maybe a link from this thread. Cant remember for sure. Its from that "Boyd" person.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
No it is not heretical. It may not be totally correct, but it is not heretical. While I personally do not subscribe to the whole ball of wax that openness teaches some things I do hold to. I can tell you that is is closer to being accurate then preterism.
Open Theism questions the character and nature of God, preterism does not, therefore, you are wrong!
Alive in Christ
New Member
II doubt that. Link/source please...
I have already told you where I found the post.
And on post 110 someone verified that it sounds like something Boyd would say.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The more I read about "open theism" the more I am convinced it is a serious heresy.
AresMan says in an earlier post:
Anything that transcend God must then become God. So here we have the philosophical ramblings of man trying to create a god that What? Strokes their ego? Fits their image? I can't imagine. I fear God too much to engage in such nonsense. Scripture tells us:
Proverbs 1:7. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
God addresses the heresy of "open theism" perfectly in the above Scripture.
AresMan says in an earlier post:
The rationale of the mainstream open theist is a form of good-evil dualism (like zoorastrianism, or yin-yang) that transcends God, because any "personal" being must have the libertarian free will capacity of true good and true evil to be "genuine" and "personal."
Anything that transcend God must then become God. So here we have the philosophical ramblings of man trying to create a god that What? Strokes their ego? Fits their image? I can't imagine. I fear God too much to engage in such nonsense. Scripture tells us:
Proverbs 1:7. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
God addresses the heresy of "open theism" perfectly in the above Scripture.
freeatlast
New Member
If anything questions the character of God it is Calvinism that teaches God ordains/predestines everything. How does open theism question the character of God?Open Theism questions the character and nature of God, preterism does not, therefore, you are wrong!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You are simply ignorant of the Doctrines of Grace, but God is Good, even to those who do not understand.If anything questions the character of God it is Calvinism that teaches God ordains/predestines everything.
How does open theism question the character of God?
Open theism makes a liar out of God.