Free will must be limited and compatibilistic. It cannot mean the ability to generate new information from a vacuum. That opens up a whole can of worms (or wormholes?)
-
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
Since I, as a finite creature, cannot entirely understand God, I cannot answer the question in such a way that exhausts the description as it applies to God
Since God said that he "repented," yet He also said that He does not "repent" as "a man [repents]," I would say that
"It repenteth me [God] that I have set up Saul to be king"
would have substantially different implications of meaning from
"It repenteth me [Samuel] that I have set up Saul to be king"
I surmise that God's "repentance" is focused more on the emotion of changing His actions in response to what Saul--according to the dictates of His perfect knowledge of all things past, present, and future." It is not like man's repentance in that man is doing it from the condition of being wrong in some way.
I demonstrated above that if you try to argue that God's "repentance" over making Saul king is similar to how we relate to "repentance," there are serious problems. God does not "repent" because He didn't know, He "repents" precisely because He did know.
Would an Open theist say here that God really did NOT know that Saul would be so bad a King, and that he had to change his plans and install david instead?
That he thought saul would work out due to keeping open the future possibilities, but reacted to move in David when Saul went bad?
Free will must be limited and compatibilistic. It cannot mean the ability to generate new information from a vacuum. That opens up a whole can of worms (or wormholes?)
Wouldn't that involve mankind in a sense remaking God to our own Image, as he would be evolving /adapting to our actual decisions?
You'd be surprised to know that some do.Would an Open theist say here that God really did NOT know that Saul would be so bad a King, and that he had to change his plans and install david instead?
That he thought saul would work out due to keeping open the future possibilities, but reacted to move in David when Saul went bad?
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue58.htm
http://www.svchapel.org/resources/articles/23-doctrine/553-open-theism-part-4
There are many more that I could find.
Yup, or God and man making each other in their own image. To the open theist God and man participate with each other in a "genuine give-and-take relationship." This means that reality--including the body of all things "knowable"--is always growing. God's knowledge increases over time. New information is always being added through "genuine" "free will," which must mean new information comes from a vacuum, because every "free creature" must make "undetermined decisions." If a decision is "undetermined" God cannot "foreknow" it. If He did, it would be "determined" by the fact that He "infallibly knew" it.Wouldn't that involve mankind in a sense remaking God to our own Image, as he would be evolving /adapting to our actual decisions?
freeatlast
New Member
Since I, as a finite creature, cannot entirely understand God, I cannot answer the question in such a way that exhausts the description as it applies to God
Since God said that he "repented," yet He also said that He does not "repent" as "a man [repents]," I would say that
"It repenteth me [God] that I have set up Saul to be king"would have substantially different implications of meaning from
"It repenteth me [Samuel] that I have set up Saul to be king"I surmise that God's "repentance" is focused more on the emotion of changing His actions in response to what Saul--according to the dictates of His perfect knowledge of all things past, present, and future." It is not like man's repentance in that man is doing it from the condition of being wrong in some way.
I demonstrated above that if you try to argue that God's "repentance" over making Saul king is similar to how we relate to "repentance," there are serious problems. God does not "repent" because He didn't know, He "repents" precisely because He did know.
I am not trying to be smart here. I am simply trying to understand your approach. If you do to this part of scripture what you are doing to protect a doctrine that you hold then what happens when you come to the trinity. Jesus made it clear that God is Spirit. Yet we claim that Jesus was God. Do we say He was really not God like God is God using this same formula you are using to reject that God repented.
Now I agree that God does not repent like man because that is what scripture says. But scripture also says God repents. Here is what the Hebrew word means;
1) to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
a) (Niphal)
1) to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
2) to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
4) to comfort oneself, ease oneself
b) (Piel) to comfort, console
c) (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
d) (Hithpael)
1) to be sorry, have compassion
2) to rue, repent of
3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
4) to ease oneself
Which one of those describes what God did? I think the text makes it clear that He was sorrowful over what Saul had done. The same Gen. 6:7. with the creation of man. So my question. Why would He be sorrowful for something He knew was going to happen and nothing would change it? If God created this man, and God predestined everything he would do why be sorrowful when he does it?
freeatlast
New Member
Free will. The ability to make choices based on information at hand and or personal desire without any pressure or cohesion so as to force a decision.Free will must be limited and compatibilistic. It cannot mean the ability to generate new information from a vacuum. That opens up a whole can of worms (or wormholes?)
You'd be surprised to know that some do.
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue58.htm
http://www.svchapel.org/resources/articles/23-doctrine/553-open-theism-part-4
There are many more that I could find.
So jesus coould have chosen to NOT die upon the Cross? To sin, or to come of fthe Cross?
How can ot NOT be fixed and determined, as th Lord prophecied that he would come and die from the beginning?
Free will. The ability to make choices based on information at hand and or personal desire without any pressure or cohesion so as to force a decision.
Does God have absolute knowledge of all things or not?
freeatlast
New Member
Deut 29:29So jesus coould have chosen to NOT die upon the Cross? To sin, or to come of fthe Cross?
How can ot NOT be fixed and determined, as th Lord prophecied that he would come and die from the beginning?
The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law.
freeatlast
New Member
All things? You means all things that are? If so then yes.Does God have absolute knowledge of all things or not?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
For all who are tempted by the heresy of "open theism".
Isaiah 40:28. Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
Someone may have posted this Scripture. If so it should have taught those who advocate a god on a learning curve something.
Isaiah 40:28. Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
Someone may have posted this Scripture. If so it should have taught those who advocate a god on a learning curve something.
humblethinker
Active Member
For all who are tempted by the heresy of "open theism".
Isaiah 40:28. Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
Someone may have posted this Scripture. If so it should have taught those who advocate a god on a learning curve something.
That verse too... It's congruent with an Open theism view... No problem.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
That verse too... It's congruent with an Open theism view... No problem.
In your wildest dreams!
convicted1
Guest
For all who are tempted by the heresy of "open theism".
Isaiah 40:28. Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
Someone may have posted this Scripture. If so it should have taught those who advocate a god on a learning curve something.
That verse too... It's congruent with an Open theism view... No problem.
How so? Please explain this for me, okay?
freeatlast
New Member
For all who are tempted by the heresy of "open theism".
Isaiah 40:28. Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
Someone may have posted this Scripture. If so it should have taught those who advocate a god on a learning curve something.
OldRegular open theism would claim that verse so I am not sure what you are saying. Here is some of what they claim. I am not agreeing with this any more then I do with your hyperism, but this is what they claim;
summary of openness theology
According to openness theology, the triune God of love has, in almighty power, created all that is and is sovereign over all. In freedom God decided to create beings capable of experiencing his love. In creating us the divine intention was that we would come to experience the triune love and respond to it with love of our own and freely come to collaborate with God towards the achievement of his goals. We believe love is the primary characteristic of God because the triune Godhead has eternally loved even prior to any creation. Divine holiness and justice are aspects of the divine love towards creatures, expressions of God’s loving concern for us. Love takes many forms-it can even be experienced as wrath when the lover sees the beloved destroying herself and others.
Second, God has, in sovereign freedom , decided to make some of his actions contingent upon our requests and actions. God elicits our free collaboration in his plans. Hence, God can be influenced by what we do and God truly responds to what we do. God genuinely interacts and enters into dynamic give-and-take relationships with us. That God changes in some respects implies that God is temporal, working with us in time.
God, at least since creation, experiences duration. [1] God is everlasting through time rather than timelessly eternal.
Third, the only wise God has chosen to exercise general rather than meticulous providence, allowing space for us to operate and for God to be creative and resourceful in working with us. It was solely God’s decision not to control every detail that happens in our lives. Moreover, God has flexible strategies. Though the divine nature does not change, God reacts to contingencies, even adjusting his plans, if necessary, to take into account the decisions of his free creatures. God is endlessly resourceful and wise in working towards the fulfillment of his ultimate goals. Sometimes God alone decides how to accomplish these goals. Usually, however, God elicits human cooperation such that it is both God and humanity who decide what the future shall be. God’s plan is not a detailed script or blueprint, but a broad intention that allows for a variety of options regarding precisely how these goals may be reached. What God and people do in history matters. If the Hebrew midwives had feared Pharaoh rather than God and killed the baby boys, then God would have responded accordingly and a different story would have emerged. What people do and whether they come to trust God makes a difference concerning what God does-God does not fake the story of human history.
Fourth, God has granted us the type of freedom (libertarian) necessary for a truly personal relationship of love to develop. Again, this was God’s decision, not ours. Despite the fact that we have abused our freedom by turning away from the divine love, God remains faithful to his intentions for creation and this faithful love was manifested most fully in the life and work of Jesus.
Finally, the omniscient God knows all that can be known given the sort of world he created. The content of divine omniscience has been debated in the Christian tradition; between Thomism and Molinism for example. In the openness debate the focus is on the nature of the future: is it fully knowable, fully unknowable or partially knowable and partially unknowable? We believe that God could have known every event of the future had God decided to create a fully determined universe. However, in our view God decided to create beings with indeterministic freedom which implies that God chose to create a universe in which the future is not entirely knowable, even for God. For many open theists the “future” is not a present reality-it does not exist-and God knows reality as it is.
This view may be called dynamic omniscience (it corresponds to the dynamic theory of time rather than the stasis theory). According to this view God knows the past and present with exhaustive definite knowledge and knows the future as partly definite (closed) and partly indefinite (open). God’s knowledge of the future contains knowledge of that which is determinate or settled as well as knowledge of possibilities (that which is indeterminate). The determined future includes the things that God has unilaterally decided to do and physically determined events (such as an asteroid hitting our moon). Hence, the future is partly open or indefinite and partly closed or definite and God knows it as such. God is not caught off-guard-he has foresight and anticipates what we will do.
Our rejection of divine timelessness and our affirmation of dynamic omniscience are the most controversial elements in our proposal and the view of foreknowledge receives the most attention. However, the watershed issue in the debate is not whether God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF) but whether God is ever affected by and responds to what we do. This is the same watershed that divides Calvinism from Arminianism.
– Dr. John Sanders
http://www.opentheism.info/
Second, God has, in sovereign freedom , decided to make some of his actions contingent upon our requests and actions. God elicits our free collaboration in his plans. Hence, God can be influenced by what we do and God truly responds to what we do. God genuinely interacts and enters into dynamic give-and-take relationships with us. That God changes in some respects implies that God is temporal, working with us in time.
God, at least since creation, experiences duration. [1] God is everlasting through time rather than timelessly eternal.
Third, the only wise God has chosen to exercise general rather than meticulous providence, allowing space for us to operate and for God to be creative and resourceful in working with us. It was solely God’s decision not to control every detail that happens in our lives. Moreover, God has flexible strategies. Though the divine nature does not change, God reacts to contingencies, even adjusting his plans, if necessary, to take into account the decisions of his free creatures. God is endlessly resourceful and wise in working towards the fulfillment of his ultimate goals. Sometimes God alone decides how to accomplish these goals. Usually, however, God elicits human cooperation such that it is both God and humanity who decide what the future shall be. God’s plan is not a detailed script or blueprint, but a broad intention that allows for a variety of options regarding precisely how these goals may be reached. What God and people do in history matters. If the Hebrew midwives had feared Pharaoh rather than God and killed the baby boys, then God would have responded accordingly and a different story would have emerged. What people do and whether they come to trust God makes a difference concerning what God does-God does not fake the story of human history.
Fourth, God has granted us the type of freedom (libertarian) necessary for a truly personal relationship of love to develop. Again, this was God’s decision, not ours. Despite the fact that we have abused our freedom by turning away from the divine love, God remains faithful to his intentions for creation and this faithful love was manifested most fully in the life and work of Jesus.
Finally, the omniscient God knows all that can be known given the sort of world he created. The content of divine omniscience has been debated in the Christian tradition; between Thomism and Molinism for example. In the openness debate the focus is on the nature of the future: is it fully knowable, fully unknowable or partially knowable and partially unknowable? We believe that God could have known every event of the future had God decided to create a fully determined universe. However, in our view God decided to create beings with indeterministic freedom which implies that God chose to create a universe in which the future is not entirely knowable, even for God. For many open theists the “future” is not a present reality-it does not exist-and God knows reality as it is.
This view may be called dynamic omniscience (it corresponds to the dynamic theory of time rather than the stasis theory). According to this view God knows the past and present with exhaustive definite knowledge and knows the future as partly definite (closed) and partly indefinite (open). God’s knowledge of the future contains knowledge of that which is determinate or settled as well as knowledge of possibilities (that which is indeterminate). The determined future includes the things that God has unilaterally decided to do and physically determined events (such as an asteroid hitting our moon). Hence, the future is partly open or indefinite and partly closed or definite and God knows it as such. God is not caught off-guard-he has foresight and anticipates what we will do.
Our rejection of divine timelessness and our affirmation of dynamic omniscience are the most controversial elements in our proposal and the view of foreknowledge receives the most attention. However, the watershed issue in the debate is not whether God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF) but whether God is ever affected by and responds to what we do. This is the same watershed that divides Calvinism from Arminianism.
– Dr. John Sanders
http://www.opentheism.info/
freeatlast
New Member
Because Open theism does not claim that God is stressed out or caught off guard as in what happens in the world. They believe that passage. They hold He knows all the possibilities and is able to handle what ever happens and the things that He does ordain will come to pass no matter what happens in between. In other words all roads lead to the same ending, even though man has some freedom to pick which roads to get us there.How so? Please explain this for me, okay?
humblethinker
Active Member
However, the watershed issue in the debate is not whether God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF) but whether God is ever affected by and responds to what we do. This is the same watershed that divides Calvinism from Arminianism.
– Dr. John Sanders
Absolutely correct.
– Dr. John Sanders
Absolutely correct.
He ordained everything that comes to pass. That doesn't mean that He meticulously has to tinker with everything to get it the way He wants. Not everything that He has ordained goes according to His thelw--His "wish" or "desire" reflected in His moral revelation--but everything is according to His ultimate (perfect) will.The question it rases is if He does then did He have to look down through History to know or did He predestine everything?
Just because He "ordained" everything, doesn't mean His creatures are robots. They make all their choices according to their own will, without coercion. It just so happens that their choices also harmonize with God's ultimate decree.
Of course, Sanders does not accept that one can believe in the sovereign decree of God and believe that God is "affected by and responds to what we do." He only accepts these terms according to his own definition. In other words God has the be "affected by" and "respond to" us in the same way (with the same limitations) that we experience with each other. Once again, the open theist's theology is based on existentialist presumptions.However, the watershed issue in the debate is not whether God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF) but whether God is ever affected by and responds to what we do. This is the same watershed that divides Calvinism from Arminianism.
– Dr. John Sanders
Absolutely correct.