-
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!
What do you think of Open Theism?
- Thread starter Marcia
- Start date
Marcia said:
Right, I understand, as long as you are happy with the perpetual tension between God's sovereignty and man's "free" will, that's your business. The monergist system relieves that tension, as does the open theist system. It's synergist that instist upon relieving that tension in favor of man's free will that wind up in open theism.
Baptist_Pastor/Theologian
New Member
BTW, wikipedia has a great article on open theism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism
I have been really impressed with the depth of knowledge on this site.
If you ever do not know about something and want to know more than the average joe plug in a search on this site and you will be up to speed in a hurry.
I have read many of the works by the open theists, ie Gregory Boyd, Thomas Jay Oord, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and William Hasker. I would also include in that group Stanley Grenz, who is definitely heading in that direction.
I agree this is not an argument primarily between Calvinist and Arminians. This is an argument over whether open theism represents an orthodox view of God.
However, all the freewillers on the board need to be aware that many of your criticisms of open theism will draw similar criticism of your position from Reformed theologians. After all one of the main references to open theism is 'freewill theism.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism
I have been really impressed with the depth of knowledge on this site.
If you ever do not know about something and want to know more than the average joe plug in a search on this site and you will be up to speed in a hurry.
I have read many of the works by the open theists, ie Gregory Boyd, Thomas Jay Oord, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and William Hasker. I would also include in that group Stanley Grenz, who is definitely heading in that direction.
I agree this is not an argument primarily between Calvinist and Arminians. This is an argument over whether open theism represents an orthodox view of God.
However, all the freewillers on the board need to be aware that many of your criticisms of open theism will draw similar criticism of your position from Reformed theologians. After all one of the main references to open theism is 'freewill theism.'
The Scriptures teach that man has free will.
The Scriptures teach that man has sinned.
The Scriptures teach that man is dead in his sin.
The Scriptures teach that man will not choose God first.
But
The Scriptures teach that God lifted up Christ before the foundation of the world.
The Scriptures teach that God is drawing all men to himself.
The Scriptures teach that God desires that none perish.
The Scriptures teach that Adam's tresspass brought condemnation to all men.
The Scriptures teach that Christ's righteousness brings life for all men.
The Scriptures teach that those who persist in rebellion are under wrath.
Therefore both Calvinists and Arminians are seeking to answer the wrong question.
The question is not, "How am I saved?" The question is "How do I remain lost?"
The answer? Remain indifferent and/or persist in rebellion in the presence of grace (the lifted up Christ).
We are saved by God's grace when we "stop rebelling." When we do nothing (surrender), God regenerates and gives the gifts of faith (to look to Jesus) and repentance (to turn from sin).
Therefore, God is the ultimate reason why anyone is saved. And when his creatures do nothing (stop rebelling), they experience God's desire for them (regeneration) which results in faith and repentance which results in salvation.
The Scriptures teach that man has sinned.
The Scriptures teach that man is dead in his sin.
The Scriptures teach that man will not choose God first.
But
The Scriptures teach that God lifted up Christ before the foundation of the world.
The Scriptures teach that God is drawing all men to himself.
The Scriptures teach that God desires that none perish.
The Scriptures teach that Adam's tresspass brought condemnation to all men.
The Scriptures teach that Christ's righteousness brings life for all men.
The Scriptures teach that those who persist in rebellion are under wrath.
Therefore both Calvinists and Arminians are seeking to answer the wrong question.
The question is not, "How am I saved?" The question is "How do I remain lost?"
The answer? Remain indifferent and/or persist in rebellion in the presence of grace (the lifted up Christ).
We are saved by God's grace when we "stop rebelling." When we do nothing (surrender), God regenerates and gives the gifts of faith (to look to Jesus) and repentance (to turn from sin).
Therefore, God is the ultimate reason why anyone is saved. And when his creatures do nothing (stop rebelling), they experience God's desire for them (regeneration) which results in faith and repentance which results in salvation.
What does this have to do with Open Theism?
God foreknew before the foundation of the world which of his creatures would persist in rebellion and be passed over, and which would surrender (do nothing) and be found in Christ.
Our free will in time and space is not nullified because God foreknows with certainty the future before he even creates time and space.
Today I will choose to do many things. I am completely responsible for my choices. God foreknew what I would do, and by virtue of being God, these future acts have been rendered certain. But they are still my choices and I am still responsible for my choices.
Everyone agrees that if God didn't know my future decisions, they would indeed be free. Why are they any less "free" just because God is God and knows beforehand what I will choose?
They are my choices if God doesn't know.
And they are my choices if God does know.
And because he knows, they are rendered certain, because what God foreknows will come to pass.
But his foreknowing does not take away my freedom to choose, it only renders my free choices certain.
God foreknew before the foundation of the world which of his creatures would persist in rebellion and be passed over, and which would surrender (do nothing) and be found in Christ.
Our free will in time and space is not nullified because God foreknows with certainty the future before he even creates time and space.
Today I will choose to do many things. I am completely responsible for my choices. God foreknew what I would do, and by virtue of being God, these future acts have been rendered certain. But they are still my choices and I am still responsible for my choices.
Everyone agrees that if God didn't know my future decisions, they would indeed be free. Why are they any less "free" just because God is God and knows beforehand what I will choose?
They are my choices if God doesn't know.
And they are my choices if God does know.
And because he knows, they are rendered certain, because what God foreknows will come to pass.
But his foreknowing does not take away my freedom to choose, it only renders my free choices certain.
Last edited by a moderator:
Right. Now think about what you said. Is there anything you can do today to change the choices you're going to make tomorrow? How is your will "free" if it is bound inexorably to do that which has been rendered certain? Why do you pray? Do you pray to change the future, or God's mind? If you pray for healing, and you receive healing, wasn't that healing "certain" to happen, or was it an in-time response from God?
Let's apply this to eschatology. As it was said in some other thread, is God "waiting" for us to evangelize the world before the end comes? Or, is the "end" already fixed, determined, unchangeable? And if it is unchangeable, what can we do to either thwart or accelerate it's time?
Is God "trying" to save those whom He KNOWS immutably, unchangingly, wil NOT be saved?
Marcia
Active Member
J.D. said:
I know you're asking someone else, but I'm giving my answer. I pray because Jesus prayed and told us to pray. I pray as part of my relationship with God, to align my will with God's, to remind myself I depend on God, and to glorify Him when I see how he works through prayer (whether or not it is what I prayed for). I do not pray to change God's mind or to influence Him.
The end is already determined. Whoever said this about God "waiting" for us to evangelize the world - you need to ask him/her what he/she meant. That was not on this thread so why are you bringing it up? Has anyone said that on this thread? Is the person who said it an Open Theist? Only then would it be relevant here on this thread. Otherwise, I would really appreciate it if you would please go back to that thread and deal with it there. Thanks. :smilewinkgrin:
Marcia
Active Member
Baptist_Pastor/Theologian said:
That's the discussion I was aiming for. Does God change his mind? Does God know the future completely? Is God influenced by man?
The Baptist from the other thread who said, "What's wrong with Open Theism" has not been around to speak up. Maybe he's on vacation.
Marcia said:
Well said Marcia--we dont believe that prayer is about changing God's mind, or getting Him to do what we want. Prayer brings us into communion with the Lord. It allows us to know His heart and seek His will, not our own. I pray because I do not know everything---in prayer I am priviledged to speak to the One that does.
Bro Tony
Open Theists would have the creature which is limited by time and space restrict the Creator who transcends time and space!
It just ain't so!
Prophecy alone shoots down the open theists' hypothesis. They claim to be dealing with the Scriptures, but they ignore or interpret away all of the Scriptures that speak to God's exhaustive foreknowledge (knowledge of the future).
The Scriptures teach both God's exhaustive foreknowledge and man's free will. Open Theists deny God's exhaustive foreknowledge, and some Supralapsarians deny man's free will.
Arminians often misrepresent the Calvinist position on free will.
Calvinists often misrepresent the Arminian position on God's sovereignty.
Most Arminians and Calvinists believe in the sovereignty of God/exhaustive foreknowledge and man's free will.
It is the hyper-Calvinists (fatalists) and hyper-Arminians (open theists) that we need to watch out for.
It just ain't so!
Prophecy alone shoots down the open theists' hypothesis. They claim to be dealing with the Scriptures, but they ignore or interpret away all of the Scriptures that speak to God's exhaustive foreknowledge (knowledge of the future).
The Scriptures teach both God's exhaustive foreknowledge and man's free will. Open Theists deny God's exhaustive foreknowledge, and some Supralapsarians deny man's free will.
Arminians often misrepresent the Calvinist position on free will.
Calvinists often misrepresent the Arminian position on God's sovereignty.
Most Arminians and Calvinists believe in the sovereignty of God/exhaustive foreknowledge and man's free will.
It is the hyper-Calvinists (fatalists) and hyper-Arminians (open theists) that we need to watch out for.
Hello Paul, just a few points of refinement on your comments that I hope you find helpful:
Pretty much true, however, some OT's propose that God restricts HIMSELF from seeing the future - a self-imposed limit.
ALL supras AND sublapsarians deny man's LIBERTARIAN, NEUTRAL, free will. When man sins, he sins WILLINGLY in accordance with his fallen nature. When man repents and believes, he does so WILLINGLY due to the new nature which God has infused into his heart throught the new birth.
Fatalism is not really the same thing as God's predeterminate counsel. The end of all things serve a purpose which God has determined. In Fatalism, the end serves no intelligent or meaningful purpose. Also, I don't think it's fair to hang that on those we consider "hyper".
What is the definition of hyper-calvinism? In practice, it's anyone to the "right" of me, or you, on predestination.
"Hyper-arminians" are better known theologically as Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, and several other lesser known branches of historical humanistic theology.
Pretty much true, however, some OT's propose that God restricts HIMSELF from seeing the future - a self-imposed limit.
Yes, they interpret scriptures in accordance with their own preconcieved framework. However, I wouldn't say they ignore scripture. They would say that prophecy is not specific because God doesn't know the specifics, just the general outcome.
ALL supras AND sublapsarians deny man's LIBERTARIAN, NEUTRAL, free will. When man sins, he sins WILLINGLY in accordance with his fallen nature. When man repents and believes, he does so WILLINGLY due to the new nature which God has infused into his heart throught the new birth.
A's and C's both believe IN sovereignty and free will, but they certainly do not agree ABOUT sovereignty and free will. On the surface, the differences may seem small, but they are in fact irreconcilable.
Fatalism is not really the same thing as God's predeterminate counsel. The end of all things serve a purpose which God has determined. In Fatalism, the end serves no intelligent or meaningful purpose. Also, I don't think it's fair to hang that on those we consider "hyper".
What is the definition of hyper-calvinism? In practice, it's anyone to the "right" of me, or you, on predestination.
"Hyper-arminians" are better known theologically as Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, and several other lesser known branches of historical humanistic theology.
Last edited by a moderator:
J.D. said:
With all due respect, J.D. [the moniker somehow brings up memories of "The Dukes of Hazzard" and a bunch of jokes I'll attempt to supress, especially since I bear some certain physical resemblances to 'Uncle Jesse' (both of 'em)!], I think you have exactly, albeit unwittingly, hit the nail dead center with your head. And this happens to be true regardless of whatever position one takes as to some of these points.
You used two telling phrases: (a) "...when confronted with the clear logic that...", and (b) "They come up with all sorts of theories that limit...".
And that is exactly the problem, as I see it. It makes little difference whether one is an "Open Theist" ( in opposition to being a 'Closed Theist', maybe?), 'Calvinist' or 'non-Calvinist", synergist, monergist, or most any other 'ist'. It makes little difference whether one is espousing "Open Theism", 'Closed Theism', synergism, monergism, Calvinism, Arminianism or virtually any other "ism", 'asm', or spasm. The only 'ist' that is valid for a Christian is Biblicist - "What does the Scripture say is so, since that is all we have to go on?" The only 'ism' is Biblicism - Same question.
No amount, quality, and/or quantity of logic, nor no number of theories - good, bad, and/or indifferent can possibly substitute for the revelation from God we have in the Scripture. Absolutely nothing in human experience or understanding, for example, does or could possibly illustrate the Triune God, or give understanding to the Atonement, or that Jesus was the God-man -100% fully God, and at the same time 100% fully man. Yet we are to believe these examples I've mentioned. But each and every theory that any man could come up with about these are nothing more than empty words or so much "hot air".
The Preacher said,
and Isaiah, the prophet, added -
What we too often attempt to do IS to limit God and His workings to our understandings, and box Him up according to our ideas. Maybe it's just me, but somehow I don't think God is interested in 'playing along'.
Ed
Last edited by a moderator: