What do you think of Open Theism?

[EdSutton]

I think Open Theism is clearly false doctrine.

Amen and Amen, Bro.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Interesting stuff. I'm not real familiar with Open Theism to have a real educated opinion but looking at some of the links I'll throw out some observations and hope some who know more about it can fill me in.

After three days of heated debate, the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) voted Nov. 16 overwhelmingly to affirm what almost every Christian in the history of the church has always believed -- that God knows everything, including the future decisions of his creatures.

I agree. But could God on His own limit His foreknowledge? I do not believe so but I wouldn’t necessarily toss a guy who believed it possible. There is a C/A argument in here somewhere but I can’t quite put my finger on it.


The non-binding resolution stated that the society believes "the Bible clearly teaches that God has complete, accurate and infallible knowledge of all events past, present and future including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents."

I agree, but what does one do with this:

Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more."

Heb 10:16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord; I will put My Laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,"
Heb 10:17 also He adds, "their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more."

Now one could honestly make the case that these two verses prove that God does choose to limit His past knowledge. Again I don’t, I believe this is covenantal language but a pure literalist could see a contradiction.

Charlie Draper, professor of New Testament at Southern Seminary's BoyceCollege, and Russ Bush, academic dean at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina, both argued that a denial of God's foreknowledge is a denial of the inerrancy of Scripture, since a God who cannot know the future cannot guarantee the truth of a Bible that speaks to future events.

Don’t know if this is necessarily has to be true. Though I do agree with it. I guess one could make the case that God could limit His foreknowledge yet still work His perfect will.

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

 

[Paul33]

Open Theism makes prophecy incomprehensible.

 

[2BHizown]

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!

 

[J.D.]

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.

 

[Bro Tony]

The majority of those who call themselves "evangelical" today are hard-core synergists. It shouldn't surprise Norman Giesler that his own theology leads people down the road to open theism.

As far as the ETS, one universal feature of human nature is that once a person becomes a member of a club, he will never be kicked out as long as he's "liked".

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

 

[2BHizown]

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.

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!

 

[2BHizown]

[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]

 

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by LeBuick:
1Co 2:14 Only to those of mature faith can he impart God's wisdom 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

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.

It might seem illogical to some but the Bible warned us this would happen.

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.

I know Paul says God cannot lie but there are good reasons why he "doesn't" as compared to "cannot". The foundation of our faith is trust in God's word and character. Because God is truth, he is the source of all truth. This is the reason he cannot lie. So it's not that he's limited to the truth, he is truth.

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.

Your anology of the rock only makes sence if you limit God to man's understanding. God is not limited to man's understanding. Take his Son for example, how can he be older than his mother yet the Son of his mother. To man this is impossible. We really shouldn't try to God our understanding of this world.

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 God is not only omniscience but omniscient also. This means he not only has all knowledge but he knows what to do with it. Scripture everywhere teaches the absolute universality of the divine knowledge.

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.

Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

God is Alpha and Omega, we should not try to limit him to just our time.

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.

 

[Deacon]

"hardcore synegyst"?

The majority of those who call themselves "evangelical" today are hard-core synergists. It shouldn't surprise Norman Giesler that his own theology leads people down the road to open theism.

As far as the ETS, one universal feature of human nature is that once a person becomes a member of a club, he will never be kicked out as long as he's "liked".

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

 

[2BHizown]

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!

 

[2BHizown]

This is a comparison chart:

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

 

[J.D.]

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.

 

[npetreley]

This works against the idea that God is "trying" to save every person without exception, for that would mean that God is "trying" to save those whom He already knows will not be saved. That's illogical.

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

 

[J.D.]

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.

 

[Marcia]

What is the word for that type question? It's a divine question that God does know the anwer to but wants to know what we say? Ez Can these bones live or Where is your brother?

Do you mean a "rhetorical question?"

 

[Marcia]

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.

I am not a Calvinist and am also strongly opposed to Open Theism, as are many other non-Calvinists I know. I have not turned to Open Theism. I do not believe God changes his mind, that he is influenced by men, and that he only knows portions of the future. I believe that God knows all things all the time ("all the time" being something from the perspective of man since for God, he just knows).

Like many Christians, I acknowledge that God's sovereignty and man's limited will are not in conflict, but that it is a mystery we cannot understand or explain. If we could, we would not have endless debates here on the BB on that topic.

BTW, I do not want this thread to turn into a Calvinist/Non-Calvinist debate -- please! :wavey:

 

[Marcia]

Problem is there is a lack of logic in your statement, as in God certainly does have limitations. We have to use logic in our reasoning otherwise there is no grounds for discussion, one could ask if God is Omnipotent can He make a rock so big He can’t lift it. If God can not lie He is limited to the truth is He not?

God does not go against his nature or he would not be God. You may call that a limitation if you wish, but I don't think that is what was meant by whoever said God has no limitations. God cannot make a rock so heavy he can't lift it because such a rock cannot exist. That's just because God is God.

As for Geisler, evidently he can’t stand being told he doesn’t have all the answers and if he can’t have it his way he’s gonna take his ball and leave.

I learned the above from Dr. Geisler. And much more. I've used what I've learned from him pretty successfully here on the BB many times and in my ministry. :smilewinkgrin:

How’s that for sympathy Marcie?

:tongue3: :tongue3:

 

[Marcia]

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.

Thanks, Bro Tony! :thumbs:

 

[npetreley]

Do you mean a "rhetorical question?"

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."