What do you think of Open Theism?

Ok Marcia, I'll be the other side just because I love to watch you teach...

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Did God know he was going to change his mind or did he change it because they repented? Prayer, I know we are to pray according to the will of the father but why pray if God already knows your prayer and the outcome?

 

Marcia, in posts # 22 and #23 on this thread, I stated that Open Theism was false doctrine, and also heresy.

And the BB must have been down, for I could not get through for some time, either before I went to sleep.

Ed

 

Not Marcia but I would say that the text you have selected is a perfect example of the type of passages that the open theist, as opposed to classical theist, go to in order to make a case biblically.

The fact that God repented in the way that they suggest would mean that God changed his mind. However, I view that the opposite is true. The object of his wrath repented of their sin, and in turn he relented not repented in the sense that he changed his mind. He relented due the the lack of need to act out his wrath. When sin is repented there is forgiveness and mercy. All God wanted was for the Ninevites to repent of their sin. When they did he relented of the disaster he had warned they would incur if they did not repent.

An even better text to discuss if you want to discuss an open theist challenge would be Gen. 6:5-8.

Based on the way the open theist read this passage God repents of an acknowledged mistake on his part. They suggest that God regrets he decided to make man.

 

Maybe slightly off topic, but I do find it interesting that in the entire OT, only one time was an individual said to repent, and that was Job, but God was said to repent or not repent about 50 times.

Ed

 

Instead of "fatalism" I should have written "determinism"

Thanks for the insight. My point was that many Calvinists and Arminians fall within the range of biblical doctrine. They both believe God is sovereign, knows the future, and has granted man freedom. They may disagree on how that works, but they are discoursing within the range of orthodox belief.

How God's grace interacts with man's free will is the fulcrum of the discussion. Full-fledged determinism and/or open theology take us out of that realm.

 

Maybe they both "believe" God is sovereign, but that doesn't mean they fall into the range of biblical doctrine. I could believe that God sovereignly decided to create everything and then sovereignly decided to stand by and watch how things unfold (deism, I think). I would be claiming to believe in the sovereignty of God, but upon examination, it's clear that my docrine contradicts what I claim to believe. God is not sovereign if He takes a hands-off approach to what happens after He's done with creation. It's simply nonsense, because what I'm saying is that God sovereignly decided not to be sovereign.

The same goes for open theism. Some people can claim that they don't believe in open theism, but upon closer examination, one could easily show that their doctrine depends upon open theism being true.

 

But so does Classical/Closed theism go against what is revealed about God, by the simple fact that they are ascertaining who God is and attempting to put Him in a box as Ed well pointed out that in man’s logic to limit God we start placing ourselves into a camp trying to explain a paradox by our finite understandings.

As Christians we have God as a Truth and are logically limited to hold to God being Truth in comparison to a non-Christian who does not believe God as Truth, which I think LeBuick’s point of 1Cor 2:14 is then well taken that it is foolishness to them; looking back at his point I think we are pretty close in agreement as I am not very comfortable applying any limits to God and think LeBuick feels the same but certainly I can not logically see how a believing Christian how we can ever deny the logic of saying God is limited to being the Truth which is the point I was trying to articulate. (Sometimes these things points easily get confused.)

That said my sympathy and defense does go out to an OVT or even to just a “Biblicist” who is attempting to hold to the whole truth of God in human terms. No matter which side it is coming from when they are attempting to put God in a box and denying the truths of God as plainly seen in His Word, whether we can understand it or not, in order to force their doctrine to be true it fits my definition of heresy.

When someone tries to limit God from being able to respond in Love to His creatures prayer claiming God must be sovereign in that light then their view of God’s sovereignty is plainly not logical in human terms or truth by His Own Word and could not be understood to be true doctrine except only as it is in their own vanity. Good verse Ed!

Fatalism happens when denying the truths of God as He is the Truth.

 

In a way as they are trying to combat the conclusion of the opposing heretical theisms. If it makes you feel better I also sympathize with the Calvinist trying to hold to their heretical doctrine. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Sounds like evidence of total depravity to me.

 

Yes he did, don't tell him but he spun my wig around with his answer. Even being devils advocate (which I love to be) I could not poke a "legitimate" hole in his answer.

The verse from Genesis, there have been plenty of times I've given someone a chance hoping they would prove me wrong. You do feel sorry when you find you were right all along.

 

A number of years ago in a Bible study class, the point was being made that Jesus became man and was subject to all the temptations and trials of mankind. The question was raised: How could that be since Jesus (being God) knew all things and therefore could not be subject to all the temptations and trials that we are, since He knew all things and we don't?

The answer was that from His birth to the beginning of His ministry, God made it so Jesus did not know all things. When His ministry started, then He knew all things.

Would that be considered Open Theism?

 

I don't believe so, I believe Jesus gave up knowing all things to come in the form of flesh and well among men.

Mt 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Mk 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

 

Maybe some of them are making those kind of statements but when I look at their theism explained they hold to God being Omniscient and Omnipotent and on God’s knowledge go into a kind of compatibilitism to maintain the truth of free will and I see no difference between that and the Determinist view of renaming free will to free moral agency to their admitted compatiblitism for the purpose to maintain predestination. One does damage to God’s knowledge and the other to God’s character.

Well maybe you don’t think determinist teachings have a real consequence to the basic teachings of the nature of the God of the Bible, but I find it much more damaging and personally if I had to pick between the two I would pick OVT over Determinism. Thank God I don’t have to pick!