What do you think of Open Theism?

[Marcia]

I used to debate against an open theist in another forum. Believe me, they can hold their own in a debate.

I did this as well with someone who said he was a "convert" to Open Theism. However, he had to admit that God would have to manipulate people and/or impose on their will in order for certain outcomes to take place (such as the crucifixion and many things in the past, and things in the future such as the Tribulation and final battle - assuming one is a futurist about Rev., which he was), and this imposed on man's "free will" even more than non-Open Theism views. When he saw this, he actually said he was abandoning Open Theism.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Ed Sutton
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'.

I agree that when we use labels, such as Calvinism and Arminianism, we do this. However, God has revealed Himself in the Bible and has revealed enough of his attributes that we can ascertain who He is and compare that with non-Christian views of God, and with various theories, such as Open Theism. Open Theism goes against what the Bible says about God.

I don't think people on the BB who sympathize with some Open Theist views, such as God changing his mind, have posted, so I guess this thread will die. No one has really taken up the challenge to the question:

Does Open Theism change the nature of God as revealed in the Bible? Maybe that's what I should have asked.

<BTW, was the BB down last night? I tried over the course of 4 hrs. to get on and just got a blank blue page with "Baptist Board" at the top>

 

[LeBuick]

I don't think people on the BB who sympathize with some Open Theist views, such as God changing his mind, have posted, so I guess this thread will die. No one has really taken up the challenge to the question:

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?

 

[EdSutton]

I agree that when we use labels, such as Calvinism and Arminianism, we do this. However, God has revealed Himself in the Bible and has revealed enough of his attributes that we can ascertain who He is and compare that with non-Christian views of God, and with various theories, such as Open Theism. Open Theism goes against what the Bible says about God.

I don't think people on the BB who sympathize with some Open Theist views, such as God changing his mind, have posted, so I guess this thread will die. No one has really taken up the challenge to the question:

Does Open Theism change the nature of God as revealed in the Bible? Maybe that's what I should have asked.

<BTW, was the BB down last night? I tried over the course of 4 hrs. to get on and just got a blank blue page with "Baptist Board" at the top>

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

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

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?

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.

5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

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.

 

[EdSutton]

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

 

[Paul33]

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.


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.

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.

 

[npetreley]

My point was that many Calvinists and Arminians fall within the range of biblical doctrine. They both believe God is sovereign

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.

 

[Benjamin]

I agree that when we use labels, such as Calvinism and Arminianism, we do this. However, God has revealed Himself in the Bible and has revealed enough of his attributes that we can ascertain who He is and compare that with non-Christian views of God, and with various theories, such as Open Theism. Open Theism goes against what the Bible says about God.

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.

 

[Marcia]

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?

Hello, LeBuick! I think Baptist Pastor Theologian gave a good response to this. I have a good link on the use of the word "repent" in the Bible when used of God but I'll maybe refer to it later.

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

I think I responded to this earlier -- we pray because we are told to pray, it causes us to depend more on Him, and to glorify God when we see Him work through prayer. I never think I am influencing God when I pray though sometimes I pray as though I am. Yet I know I'm not. But praying as though I am is humbling and reminds me that God is in charge.

 

[Marcia]

[/color]

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.

So you are sympathetic to Open Theist views that God does not know all the future or that He limits himself to knowing the future?

 

[Benjamin]

So you are sympathetic to Open Theist views that God does not know all the future or that He limits himself to knowing the future?

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:

 

[Marcia]

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.

This (from the 2nd link given below) is John Piper's response to Gregory Boyd (Open Theist) on one of Boyd's statements:

1. 1. A natural reading of 1 Samuel 15 would seem to imply that there is a way that God does "repent" and a way that he does not. That is what I am arguing in the texts that Boyd puts forward. He insists that God repents in a way that implies lack of foreknowledge of what is coming. I think this is the kind of "repentance" that would fall under Samuel's criticism: "God is not a man that he should repent."
   2. In other words, God does not have the human limitations of knowledge that would involve him in repenting that way. Rather his repentance is an expression of a resolve or an attitude that is fitting in view of new circumstances. That God is ignorant of what will call for that new resolve or attitude is not necessarily implied in the change.
   3. So the repentance over Saul means not that he did not know what Saul would be like, but that he disapproves of what Saul has become and that he feels sorrow at this evil in his anointed king and that he looks back on his making him king with the same sorrow that he experienced at that moment when he made him king, foreknowing all the sorrow that would come.
      For God to say, "I feel sorrow that I made Saul king," is not the same as saying, "I would not make him king if I had it to do over knowing what I know now." God is able to feel sorrow for an act that he does in view of foreknown evil and pain, and yet go ahead and will to do it for wise reasons. And so later when he looks back on the act he can feel the sorrow for the act that was leading to the sad conditions, such as Saul's disobedience.

Piper responds to other passages that say God repented.

For those interested, some good sites on Open Theism (refuting it, that is)
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/foreknowledge.html

http://www.ondoctrine.com/2pip1201.htm

(This one is on "Divine Repentance")
http://www.tmch.net/divrepent.htm

http://www.probe.org/content/view/1247/47/

 

[Marcia]

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.

If that's all Open Theism was, it wouldn't be such a big deal. What's serious about it is that they make statements about God that are clearly and specifically contradictory to the Bible. This is not about interpretation only.

I don't think it's just an another abstract theological theory to say God doesn't know the future or that He changes. These beliefs have real consequence to the inerrance of scripture and basic teachings on the nature of God from the Bible. I see Open Theism as nothing less than an attack on the Bible and on the nature of God.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Baptist Pastor/Theologian
An even better text to discuss if you want to discuss an open theist challenge would be Gen. 6:5-8.

Quote:
5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

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.

Right, they do use this passage. I think it means God felt sorrow for what man had become. He was grieved.

 

[npetreley]

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

Sounds like evidence of total depravity to me.

 

[LeBuick]

Hello, LeBuick! I think Baptist Pastor Theologian gave a good response to this. I have a good link on the use of the word "repent" in the Bible when used of God but I'll maybe refer to it later..

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.

 

[drfuss]

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?

 

[LeBuick]

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.

 

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by Marcia:
If that's all Open Theism was, it wouldn't be such a big deal. What's serious about it is that they make statements about God that are clearly and specifically contradictory to the Bible. This is not about interpretation only.

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.

I don't think it's just an another abstract theological theory to say God doesn't know the future or that He changes. These beliefs have real consequence to the inerrance of scripture and basic teachings on the nature of God from the Bible. I see Open Theism as nothing less than an attack on the Bible and on the nature of God.

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!