What do you think of Open Theism?

Amen and Amen, Bro.

Ed

 

Grasshopper (Strange name around the farm. I spray to kill grasshoppers in the alfalfa fields! :laugh, I'm not so sure this is predominately a C/A issue as much as an inerrancy issue. But it is heresy, nevertheless.

Ed

 

Open Theism makes prophecy incomprehensible.

 

Not at all! God used many ways to show us His hand, His will, His desires for us, including His decree!

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 1 Tim 3:16

God uses His ways, means and methods to tell us His mind. It is to our benefit to study and come to know Him through His word, not to question His reason or to decide what He did or did not mean! His word is inerrant and has been since BEFORE the foundation of the world when He designed it all!

 

2BHizown, I think what Paul33 is trying to say is that if God only knows what MIGHT happen in the future, not what WILL happen, as some open theists claim, then bible prophecy makes no sense.

 

I think we need to be very careful with these kinds of statements. Its like someone saying to a calvinist that your belief leads someone to the conclusion that God is responsible for original sin because nothing happens that He did not make happen. Just because someone does not hold to TULIP does not make them open theist nor does it lead to open theism.

Bro Tony

 

Oh my, guess this is an apology then! Responded too quickly!
I do agree with your statement that open theists are in opposition to inerrancy by their own statement and also I think this leans down such a dangerous road, not only of synergism but if extrapolated it would lead one right into atheism!

John Frame and Bruce Ware have both written to address this heresy of open theism!

 

[FONT=times new roman, arial,
helvetica]MacARTHUR, JOHN F.
"Open Theism's Attack On The Atonement"</I>[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, arial, helvetica]"Unfortunately, the major segment of this generation of evangelicalism seems to lack the will or the knowledge to decide whether open theists are wolves in sheep's clothing or true reformers. But let it be clearly stated: by any definition of evangelicalism with historical integrity, open theism opposes the very core truths that evangelicals stand for. And by any truly biblical definition, they are heretics, purveyors of a different gospel. Both of these charges are substantiated by open theism's abandonment of substitutionary atonement alone." [/FONT]

 

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt to what it seems you may be implying about my faith and spiritual maturity with your use of 1Cor 2:14.

I think you might need to calm down on your allegations here; this is a debate board with someone having an opposing view to yours, try attacking the position instead of the anti… I mean person.

You are correct that God is the Truth, as that is His nature, therefore He can not lie as lying is not part of His nature, so He is limited by His Own self derived nature. Contrary to your belief God can be limited by His Own nature, example: He can not learn as His nature is Omniscient, you can not logically say God can learn and hold to Him knowing all.

The analogy of the rock never makes sense as it is a logical fallacy. Your comparison of the Son to His mother does not prove the analogy to the rock is possible, another logical fallacy. It is a truth that the Son is older than His mother, there is logic involved in that statement; there is no logical reasoning in the rock analogy. Further, you seem to be agreeing with me that man can not understand God’s infinite wisdom.

I believe we can not understand the depth of God’s divine knowledge in regards to His creation of time. You don’t seem to understand that I agree with you that God is Omniscient but I am not going to cast away that He is also the Truth as part of His nature as some would do to fit their heretical doctrine; and scripture also teaches that He interacts with His creatures within time as He created them in truth.

I don’t, somehow He abides in both, in and out of time, and that my point; nor did I say He was limited to time in or by His knowledge, I’m saying we don’t know the depth of His knowledge to understand how He does both. I am saying God’s nature being Truth and He being unchanging means He is limited by His Own true nature in His Own self existence because He is Truth.

I believe God of His own self derived volition (the ability to make conscious choices or decisions) does so within the scope of truth as He is Perfect in truth.

If you deny God can freely interact with His creatures within time while also not being restrained by time then it is you that is limiting God in regards to His Omniscience and Omnipotent nature to abide both in and out of time. I never said any such thing and suggest you read my post more carefully next time.

 

"hardcore synegyst"?

I don't mean to get this thread off tract but please pardon my ignorance and explain what a synergyst is?
How is it related to evangelicalism?

...and why does Norman Giesler's teaching lead one in this direction?

Thanks

Rob

 

First, 'monergism' is the belief that God alone by His grace is responsible for saving us by regeneration.

'synergism' is the belief that human will, plus God's grace are needed for regeneration.

Calvinists believe that God alone effects regeneration by His own sovereign will and effects of His irrisistible grace which causes one to respond with hunger and thirst for more spiritual light!

 

This is a comparison chart:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/twoviews.html

 

Open Theism, at least as it relates to foreknowedge, election and predestination, is the logical consequence of synergism (or, it may be said, free-will theology).

We've seen the process right here on BB. Synergists ("non-calvinists"), in order to villify calvinism, in their zeal to defend free-will, when confronted with the clear logic that anything that God foresees (or foreknows) must be immutable, fixed, unchangeable, or else He would not foresee it; in their zeal, they unwittingly turn to open theism.

They come up with all sorts of theories that limit God's omniscience, even reducing Him to human indecisiveness. They say God repents, as a man would repent. God has a plan A and a plan B, and will keep working His plans until it comes out the way He wants it. He only "knows" the future in terms of what it eventually will be; but he does not know the actual events, persons, and times in which His will will be done.

 

That's a good point. I have never heard it put quite that way.

 

You read that before I edited it out. It was a good statement but I took it out because I was getting some apples and oranges mixed up there.

This is the conundrum for the synergist - they claim Christ died for every person without exception (even those that were already in Hell as Jesus bled), and that God is "trying" to save every person without exception. Yet, say they, election is according to foreknowledge (as they mean it, foresight), God having looked down the corridors of time and saw who would believe, and therefore elected believers to salvation.

Now, by their own doctrine of foreknowledge, it is established that the future is fixed and unchangeable. So they have God "trying" to save those whom He knows will not be saved.

 

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but there was a hilarious conversation in a game my kids were playing.

Man1: "What will they think of next?"
Man2: "I don't know what they'll think of."
Man1: "Don't you know what a rhetorical question is?"
Man2: "Nope, I have no idea."