Does Open Theism limit God?

[Swordsman]

According to open theists, there are some basic presuppositions about God:

1. God's greatest attribute is love - He loves all and calls all to salvation.

2. Man's free will is truly free.

3. God does not know the future because either a) He cannot know because it hasn't been determined yet, or b) He chooses not to know even though He has the capability to know the future.

4. God takes risks with man and his free will even though man's choices are beyond His knowledge.

5. God learns as men make choices as time moves on.

6. God makes mistakes because He doesn't nkow future choices man will make, He has to change plans in order to keep His promises.

7. God changes His mind when something comes unexpectantly to pass and He has to use His limited knowledge to plan accordingly.

If these are perhaps what open theism is all about, then God is not omniscient, omnipresent, nor omnipotent. Is this at all Biblical?

[Zakath]

As you've described it above, the deity of the OVer sounds more like an old Sci-fi super being than the biblical deity.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Zakath

As you've described it above, the deity of the OVer sounds more like an old Sci-fi super being than the biblical deity.

Let the OVers come and defend their "old Sci-fi super being" then.....

1Way, God_Is_Truth, Clete, Sozo, where are ya?

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Let the OVers come and defend their "old Sci-fi super being" then.....

1Way, God_Is_Truth, Clete, Sozo, where are ya?

I am not an OVer.

[Knight]

I will respond in blue. Originally posted by Swordsman

According to open theists, there are some basic presuppositions about God:

1. God's greatest attribute is love - He loves all and calls all to salvation.

Greatest attribute? I have never heard an OV'er make that claiim.

2. Man's free will is truly free.

True. Although freewill has its limitations i.e., man cannot save himself, man cannot will himself to be God or jump higher than physics will allow etc.

3. God does not know the future because either a) He cannot know because it hasn't been determined yet, or b) He chooses not to know even though He has the capability to know the future.

God can indeed know certain future events if He so choses as He can "bring things to pass". God knows what He sovereignly decreed He would know.

4. God takes risks with man and his free will even though man's choices are beyond His knowledge.

That is a overstatement. Since God knows us entirely (currently) He knows our intentions and our thoughts etc. He can therefore know to a great degree what our near futures hold.

5. God learns as men make choices as time moves on.

True.

Genesis 2:19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.

Genesis 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

6. God makes mistakes because He doesn't nkow future choices man will make, He has to change plans in order to keep His promises.

It is not a mistake to not know the action of something you do not want to have knowledge of.

This statement of yours would be a gross misrepresentation of the open view and of logic in general. :down:

7. God changes His mind when something comes unexpectantly to pass and He has to use His limited knowledge to plan accordingly.

God changes because He is perfect. A perfect God can change and show mercy. A stone idol cannot change and cannot show mercy.

Jeremiah 18:7 “The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 “if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 “And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 “if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

If these are perhaps what open theism is all about, then God is not omniscient, omnipresent, nor omnipotent. Is this at all Biblical?

Only those that have bloated illogical definitions of the terms: omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence have trouble with the open view.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Let the OVers come and defend their "old Sci-fi super being" then.....

1Way, God_Is_Truth, Clete, Sozo, where are ya? BRVIII applicants wanted (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=432488#post432488)

Where have you been, Swordsman?

[1Way]

Knight – I’m interested in one thing you said that I am not sure about. You said 6. God makes mistakes because He doesn't know future choices man will make, He has to change plans in order to keep His promises.

It is not a mistake to not know the action of something you do not want to have knowledge of.

This statement of yours would be a gross misrepresentation of the open view and of logic in general. While I agree with your conclusion, I believe that while it’s true that God may decide to not want to know about some knowledge, via forgetting or not dwelling on, but I’m not sure I agree with what you said according to the way the question was stated.

I might have said something like:

It is not a mistake to not know of something that you have no (certain) knowledge of.

(Where certain is not “to some degree uncertain”, it is right/true and thus must happen that way. We often use the term “certain” in common use to mean “very sure”, however; in this case, I mean it to be sure to happen such that it can happen no other way, because if it could happen any other way, then of course that sort of knowledge would be demonstrated as actually being to some degree uncertain, since it turned out to be wrong.)

I hope this helps.

[1Way]

Sozo - shhhh quiet, come on, let them beileve good things about you! ;)

[Knight]

Originally posted by 1Way
I might have said something like:

It is not a mistake to not know of something that you have no (certain) knowledge of.

(Where certain is not “to some degree uncertain”, it is right/true and thus must happen that way. We often use the term “certain” in common use to mean “very sure”, however; in this case, I mean it to be sure to happen such that it can happen no other way, because if it could happen any other way, then of course that sort of knowledge would be demonstrated as actually being to some degree uncertain, since it turned out to be wrong.)

I hope this helps. I agree. Your description is much better.

My sentence was poorly worded. Another causalty of haste.

[helmet84]

I have a question about Open Theism. When I read Greg Boyd's book a couple of years ago, seems like I remember him saying that although God chooses not to know some things about the future, he does know everything about the present and the past -- specifically he knows everything about us exhaustively (you know, our personalities, chemical makeup, thoughts, etc.).

Would this be an accurate statement for Open Theism? Or am I remembering wrong?

[Knight]

Originally posted by helmet84

I have a question about Open Theism. When I read Greg Boyd's book a couple of years ago, seems like I remember him saying that although God chooses not to know some things about the future, he does know everything about the present and the past -- specifically he knows everything about us exhaustively (you know, our personalities, chemical makeup, thoughts, etc.).

Would this be an accurate statement for Open Theism? Or am I remembering wrong? Not to speak for Boyd.... But I would state it as such....

God knows everything knowable that He chooses to know.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by 1Way

Sozo - shhhh quiet, come on, let them beileve good things about you! ;)

Why throw away my perfectly good reputation? :D

[1Way]

Helmet84 – I agree with Knight, and would just offer that although I have not read Boyd, I’ve heard from others the same sorts of remarks you made.

But your question is a bit more appropriate about what Boyd may believe, as compared to what the Open View holds to.

The issue
Open theism (verses closed theism), at it’s essence, is nothing more than one single issue concerning the future and certainty or contingency. Does the future hold at least some uncertainty/contingency or not? The answer to that question by affirming that at least some uncertainty or contingency does exist, is what the open view is all about.

My premise
There are only two possible answers to question of the nature of the future as it pertains to options and uncertainty and contingency, with only two consistent systems of belief that can be maintained as a result of answering that one single question. Either the future holds at least some uncertainty/contingency, or it does not. So either the future is “open” to optional outcomes, or it is “closed” to them.

My conclusion
So either you’re an open theist, or you are a closed theist, there is no middle ground.

However, some try to walk both sides of the fence at the same time, which I think should be very difficult. (ouch)

I wager that unless you can find something wrong with my premises, then my conclusion stands. And so far I have heard nothing to dissuade me from my conclusion. Also, a few years back I think it was, I challenged Boyd on his own website on a biblical issue that had something to do with salvation and a particular translation. After a few rounds it became apparent that he was inflexible, after all, he had already published a book with that info in it and was very hard pressed to get a direct response about that. He is not very receptive to spiritual challenges either, but that is another topic. So from my perspective, it’s what God’s word teaches that matters, not what so and so believes.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Swordsman

According to open theists, there are some basic presuppositions about God:

1. God's greatest attribute is love - He loves all and calls all to salvation.

2. Man's free will is truly free.

3. God does not know the future because either a) He cannot know because it hasn't been determined yet, or b) He chooses not to know even though He has the capability to know the future.

4. God takes risks with man and his free will even though man's choices are beyond His knowledge.

5. God learns as men make choices as time moves on.

6. God makes mistakes because He doesn't nkow future choices man will make, He has to change plans in order to keep His promises.

7. God changes His mind when something comes unexpectantly to pass and He has to use His limited knowledge to plan accordingly.

If these are perhaps what open theism is all about, then God is not omniscient, omnipresent, nor omnipotent. Is this at all Biblical?

my responses:

1. i do believe that God IS love. i do believe that he wants all people saved. but i'd have to understand what you mean by "greatest attribute" before i agree with you or disagree.

2. yes, man is truly free and every decision is ultimately decided by himself unless his free will is taken away.

3. i believe that the future is open and can be changed. God knows it as it exists, full of possibles (our choices i.e what i will eat for breakfast tomorrow) and actuals (his sovereign decrees i.e. Satan will be thrown in the lake of fire).

4. yes, God does take risks, but he considers them worth it and better than the alternative.

5. God "learns" in that what he knew before as a possible has now become an actual. however, God is never surprised that something occurred. he may be surprised THAT it occurred, but he was aware of the possibility of it occuring.

6. define what you would call a "mistake" and i'll tell you if i agree or disagree.

7. God does change his plans but to say he is "limited in knowledge" is a misrepresentation. he knows things as they are. whatever can be know for certain, that's how God knows it. what can only be known as possible, that's how God knows it. God is infinite in understanding, wisdom, and intelligene and is able to account for any and every possibility.

and finally I, like all open theists, believe that God is omniscient (knowing all that can be known), omnipotent (able to do all that can be done), and omnipresent (being everywhere at once).

God Bless.

In Christ,

God_Is_Truth

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Let the OVers come and defend their "old Sci-fi super being" then.....

1Way, God_Is_Truth, Clete, Sozo, where are ya?

lol this might just be the first time i've ever been referred to as an "OVer" :cool:

[godrulz]

Baptist General Conference website that posted some of Boyd's responses to their concern about his views (he is a member in good standing despite their objections to some of his ideas).

Dr. Gregory Boyd:

Objections:

a) 'The Open View undermines God's omniscience'.

Boyd: I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God is absolutely all knowing. There is no difference in my understanding of God's omniscience and any other orthodox theologian. But I hold that part of the reality, which God perfectly knows, consists of possibilities. The difference is in our understanding of creation, not in our understanding of God's omniscience.

GR comments: (i.e. God knows all that is knowable. He knows reality as it is= possibilities and certainties are known as such. Some things are not logically knowable= absurdity/logical contradiction= e.g. know contingent choices as a certainty before they are made)

b) 'The Open View undermines God's omnipotence'.

Boyd: I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God is omnipotent. He is the Creator of all things and thus all power comes from Him. But with all Arminians, I also hold that God limits the EXERCISE of His own power by giving free will to creatures (human and angels).

GR comments: (God can do all that is doable...He cannot do the logically absurd or contradictory...e.g. make a rock so big He cannot lift it, or make a triangle a circle at the same time).

GR: c) Omnipresence is not usually the issue (Clark Pinnock may be rethinking if God has a localized aspect). Omniscience is the controversial area.

The Open View affirms that God knows everything that is logically possible to know. He knows the past and present perfectly. He knows some of the future as a certainty (what He intends to bring to pass by His ability, regardless of other moral agents), and some of the future as open (future free will, contingent moral and mundane choices of moral agents).


I disagree with Knight (I may not understand his belief here) that God can chose to not know something, if it is an object of knowledge somewhere in the universe (God would be aware of everything that is knowable as a reality; an omnipresent being cannot tune out some areas of the universe...He could divert His attention away from hell, but could refocus? He does not literally forget our sins that we can still remember...He choses to not bring them up again, achieving the same result as forgetting).

[1Way]

godrulz – Slow down there a moment. You quoted a man, a very wise man at that, and said the following as though you are justified in so doing, you are not. You are justified by conformity to God’s word. Perhaps you meant no connection between your quote which you did not separate from your own words (tsk tsk) and you did not indicate where Boyd was talking verses the Baptist GC, or if there was any change in person talking. Very confusing. But even if you meant no connection of support for your comment, you seem to be somewhat at odds with scripture. You said. I disagree with Knight that God can chose to not know something, if it is an object of knowledge somewhere in the universe (God would be aware of everything that is knowable as a reality; an omnipresent being cannot tune out some areas of the universe...He could divert His attention away from hell, but could refocus? He does not literally forget our sins that we can still remember...He chooses to not bring them up again, achieving the same result as forgetting). Perhaps there is a moderate view to be considered. I agree that if something can be known, God can know it, and He would know it as a reality if nothing else. But that is not the same as Him knowing something that He is dwelling on
or concerned with.

So perhaps we are differing on issues of various attention levels. The thought that if it is knowable/real, then God must have that knowledge in His mind is philosophically and biblically unfounded. For example, God says that He purposefully forgets things (our sins), and that some current things did not come into His mind (Molec and baby sacrifice). Think of it, is it good and godly for man to dwell our knowledge with sin? If not, and we are to be godly, then there is good reason to believe that God does must keep His knowledge dwelling on sinful things. I mean, if you but momentarily considered all the terrible and wicked things that go on, and all the petty sins as well, who is man to say that no matter what, God must be mindful of it all without any qualification, God must know it, He must be aware of it, no matter what. Such an idea is only foreign from scripture. Sufficient knowledge is good enough.

And when we consider God’s focus, which obviously is a congruent reflection of God’s knowledge and thinking, we find Him focusing on the issue at hand, and often as though He is thinking about nothing else but that issue at hand. I mean, if Moses actually pled with God, and you see the wisdom of Moses’ admonition to God to remain just and not give Himself a bad name, then unless you think that God was completely insincere in His testimony that ended up prompting Moses to pled with God as He did, then you should accept that God displayed a certain focus and did not presently deal with every single factor involved, otherwise, if life was a game of chess, Moses would have never had been able to win space or material against God, but he did. And if that is the case, then God’s knowledge or contemplation or awareness may not need include everything that exists to be known. Sure God has supernatural ability, but one of the greatest lessons we have from the open view, is to not exceed what the scripture plainly teaches.

[godrulz]

Boyd was responding to criticism from his denomination on the Open View. The Baptist website reported his responses. They disagreed with his position, but felt it was clarified enough to remain in good standing.

I refer to this since Boyd is associated with the OV and someone wondered about his views and the orthodoxy of his understanding of the omni. attributes.

I edited my post for clarification....thanks.

(I wonder if God 'forgetting' is not literal, but somewhat a figure of speech/Hebraism...forget does not have to mean a blank mind...'You owe me $10! "Forget it!"...I will not bring it up again or actively remember what I could chose to?)

[1Way]

Godrulz - It seems somewhat repugnant to assume that God must subject Himself to every vile and sinful thing, just because omni - what ever says He must. Yes God is supernatural, but He is not super "man's traditional". When you take in all the limiting aspects of who God is, the prospect of His greatness is only amplified since He is still more than able to handle whatever comes His way.

All of language has various layers of literal verses figurative meaning. So you do have a point, God says He forgets sins and I assume that can be figurative, but I also assume that God does not remain mindful of them either.

One last perhaps novel thought. How much information is there to know? Is it finite or is it infinite? An infinite amount of knowledge could “never” be (fully/perfectly) known just as much as an infinite number line could never be fully counted. An infinity is unending. God is logical and reasonable, He is not “holy other”. So just logically speaking, it is not possible for God to even know everything knowable because I suggest that represents an infinite amount of knowledge and it is not possible to know an infinite amount of anything, because no matter how hard you try, you will never reach it all, there will always be more and more and more and more and ... :think: So perhaps hidden in the reasonable claim, that God knows everything knowable, is the idea that all things knowable is a finite or reasonable amount of things.

Take one atom for example. There is an infinite number of ways that any atom can relate to itself (at least theoretically speaking). This involves the ideas of analogue and digital. There is only 360 degrees in one circle, but there is an infinite number of positions that an electron could be in relationship to the center of the nucleus. And that is just one electron in one atom, etc. There is an unreal amount of knowledge that could be known, like at what time will an atom’s neutron face its nearest position to another proton in another atom that is a million light years away. And the list of inane unimportant but theoretically possible knowledge that could possibly be known quickly gets to be a unlikely that God is altogether aware and mindful of it ALL, because there is no having an all of any infinity, let alone an infinity of infinities. Perhaps there’s not an infinite number of infinites, but my guess is there is, but all you need is one infinite and you have an unattainable amount. So, I have my doubts that God knows all things knowable "without exception". :)

[Knight]

Originally posted by 1Way
However, some try to walk both sides of the fence at the same time, which I think should be very difficult. (ouch)
:chuckle:

[Knight]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Let the OVers come and defend their "old Sci-fi super being" then.....

1Way, God_Is_Truth, Clete, Sozo, where are ya? Hey Swordsman.... you invited us all to dinner, we all showed up.... but you were nowhere to be found. :confused: :think:

[helmet84]

Originally posted by Knight

Hey Swordsman.... you invited us all to dinner, we all showed up.... but you were nowhere to be found. :confused: :think:

Some of us actually have to work for a living . . . :chuckle:

Swordsman and I are both IT Analysts for the same company. We actually read this stuff here and there as we get time. Some days are extremely busy (we're in meetings, etc.), like today. Sometimes we do catch-up in the evening. But that's not likely to happen tonight either, since we have a bible study we're attending after work today.

So bear with us . . .

P.S. Must be nice to be a pastor of some church and just cruise these forums all day long. I wonder it that is the case with 1Way? ;)

[Knight]

Originally posted by helmet84

Some of us actually have to work for a living . . . :chuckle:

Swordsman and I are both IT Analysts for the same company. We actually read this stuff here and there as we get time. Some days are extremely busy (we're in meetings, etc.), like today. Sometimes we do catch-up in the evening. But that's not likely to happen tonight either, since we have a bible study we're attending after work today.

So bear with us . . .

P.S. Must be nice to be a pastor of some church and just cruise these forums all day long. I wonder it that is the case with 1Way? ;) Relax.... I was just teasin'.

Yet at the same time..... when you throw down a gauntlet you best be prepared to respond. :D

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Knight

Relax.... I was just teasin'.

Yet at the same time..... when you throw down a gauntlet you best be prepared to respond. :D

Will do my dear friend Knight. Don't worry, I'm not going anywhere.

1Way, gimme some time to respond to your posts. Thanks.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Will do my dear friend Knight. Don't worry, I'm not going anywhere.
:thumb:

[1Way]

Helmet84 – Ministry is a joy, but one that I fear I have a very limited capacity to express. I am a slave to debt and so my life is not free as most is. Soon enough folks may notice my fleeting “freedom” is once again gone.

Swordsman – Ok, didn’t know I should be expecting any, but thanks for the notice.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by 1Way

Helmet84 – Ministry is a joy, but one that I fear I have a very limited capacity to express. I am a slave to debt and so my life is not free as most is. Soon enough folks may notice my fleeting “freedom” is once again gone.

But believers are FREE in Christ. Don't worry about being a slave to anything of this world. Paul didn't. He worshipped and glorified God in prison.

Knowing that God gracefully chose me unto His kingdom - WOW! Now that is freeing indeed!

[Knight]

Originally posted by Swordsman

But believers are FREE in Christ. Don't worry about being a slave to anything of this world. Paul didn't. He worshipped and glorified God in prison.

Knowing that God gracefully chose me unto His kingdom - WOW! Now that is freeing indeed! Uh.... I think you missed 1Way's point.

[geralduk]

The single most prevaling thing that 'limits' God working in the lives of men is thier UNBELEIF.
and the most prevailing thing that releases the power of God in ,through and to mens lives is FAITH.

AND while men 'debate' but never ACT then their lives are limited in their effectiveness in the kingdom of God.

and while in those who never act according to thier faith they say they have God cannot use or work in and through them and thier lives are unfruitfull.
Those who seeing Him who is invisible so act accordingly not only come out of all bondage but enter into the promise and those "....works preordained from before the foundations of the world that we should walk in them."
and while God is 'limited' by somes unbeleief in those who walk by faith and not by sight HE IS NOT limited and worketh in and through them according ot the measure of the SPIRIT that is in them.

[smaller]

1Way's POINT?


And the list of inane unimportant but theoretically possible knowledge that could possibly be known quickly gets to be a unlikely that God is altogether aware and mindful of it ALL

This is 1Way's continual whine. There is just TOO MUCH for God to keep track of.

I find 1Way's LIMITED VIEW of God to be a simple minded form of IDOLATRY.

It is 1Way who DOES NOT KNOW, not GOD.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by geralduk

The single most prevaling thing that 'limits' God working in the lives of men is thier UNBELEIF.
and the most prevailing thing that releases the power of God in ,through and to mens lives is FAITH.

AND while men 'debate' but never ACT then their lives are limited in their effectiveness in the kingdom of God.

A profound thought indeed, geralduk. We can debate these issues till the cows come home, but we're only responsible for ourselves. Lifestyle Christianity, not argumentative Christianity.

Makes you wonder why debating or arguing never opens peoples eyes to the truth. It just puts everybody on the defensive.

[helmet84]

Originally posted by geralduk

The single most prevaling thing that 'limits' God working in the lives of men is thier UNBELEIF.
and the most prevailing thing that releases the power of God in ,through and to mens lives is FAITH.

AND while men 'debate' but never ACT then their lives are limited in their effectiveness in the kingdom of God.



geralduk,

I saw your comment here before I saw Swordsman's response to you above, but I was so moved I wanted to reply also.

This is amazing insight indeed. I have been a Christian for more than 20 years, and I am only just now beginning to truly realize the truth of this statement in ways I never have before.

Blessed are your eyes, my friend, for they see. I trust I shall see you in glory.

-- helmet84

[geralduk]

EVERY true BORNagain child of God has the POTENTIAL to be LIKE JESUS.
For THAT is the WILL OF GOD.
That we be conformed unto the image of CHRIST.
and that POTENTIAL is progresively'REALISED' when we lay HOLD OF THE PROMISES OF GOD and by faith "enter into them" by the grace of Him who so calls us.
Not looking unto the "weakness of sinfull flesh" But to the power of God that is "towards us who believe"
and "be not conformed to this world but be ye transformed by the renewal of your minds"
for
"The whole world groaneth waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God"
and has yet to see that full manifestation of men and women transformed by the power of God into a terrible army with banners coming out of the wilderness.
Who can leap over a wall and run through a troop.
and who are "more than conquerers through Him who loved us and gave Himself for us..."
clothed and in thier right minds and seated with CHRIST in heavenly places.

[syzito]

It doesn't matter what form of definition you give for your supreme being[god],the necessary characteristics/properties/ and essence in being god makes the concept incoherent.Calvinism,open theism or anything in between is incoherent.God does not and can not exist!

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by syzito

It doesn't matter what form of definition you give for your supreme being[god],the necessary characteristics/properties/ and essence in being god makes the concept incoherent.Calvinism,open theism or anything in between is incoherent.God does not and can not exist!

Thou art a troll.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Thou art a troll.

and ignorant as proved by the claim of God being unable to exist.

[geralduk]

Originally posted by syzito

It doesn't matter what form of definition you give for your supreme being[god],the necessary characteristics/properties/ and essence in being god makes the concept incoherent.Calvinism,open theism or anything in between is incoherent.God does not and can not exist!

As I have said many times before a point blank DENIAL is NO ARGUMENT!

You say 'He cannot exist'?

That initself is illogical.
Seeing that if God did exist then he COULD!
and you only assert that He does not because by YOUR 'reasoning' hE CANNOT!


By the same logic and 'reasoning ' I could sat the exact opposite and would be as vlaid as yours!

Yet you have a serios problem.
In that 25 years ago I found that the GOD of the BIBLE does exist and what is more is MORE than I thought !
and have since proved to my complete satisfaction and by EXPERIENCE that what HE WAS as it was writtten of Him He is the SAME today.
and that the more I walk in the light of the Word of God the more certain if I could be and the more happy I am in it .
what is more that those who do NOT believe in the truth thier lives ALSO prove the existance of God.
For where as I who do manifest in some measure that which is promised to not only my good but those in whom I am in contact.
They who do not manifest the opposite and those things that THEIR faith is in does day by day become LESS sure and less certain and unworthy of our trust.
and while those things that ARE seen AND IN WHICH MEN HAVE THIER FAITH IN.
BECOMES like sand and is fast disapearing as it were over the horizon.
That "which is invisible" in which My faith is in is becoming more and more MANIFESTLY like a ROCK which cannot move and is more certain thatn the rising of the sun.


Now men may say this or that about God.
and it is true there are many ideas and concpets of God which men blindly folow.
Yet God is GOD and He is not changed by mens ignorance or knowldge of Him.
Nor do men profit from having wrong concepts about God.
God himself in answer to your last statement gives an answer.
For with MAN it IS impossible.
But with God He says "I am that I AM"
Meaning that God IS that HE might be GOD and continues to Be God that He might be God conitnually for ever.
As such then God is God and IS so that HE might be WHO He is.
For He cannot deny Himself.

Thus I say let "God be true and ALL the world be a liar"

For if there was NO GOD then MAN is LOST utterly and He has NO HOPE in this world.
But the glory of the gospel is that while we were yet sinners CHRIST died for us"
For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son thaT WHOSOEVER believeth ON HIM would not perish but have everlasting life"
Therefore it is a foolish man "who says in his heart there is no God"
and if he would seek for Him with ALL of His heart he would find Him"Whom to know is life eternal"

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

and ignorant as proved by the claim of God being unable to exist.

You mean syzito, right? :)

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Swordsman

You mean syzito, right? :)

what does "syzito" mean? i've never heard of it before.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

what does "syzito" mean? i've never heard of it before.

the name of that user back on post# 34

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Swordsman

the name of that user back on post# 34

:doh:

yeah, it was in reference to him. sorry bout that.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

:doh:

yeah, it was in reference to him. sorry bout that.

No prob.

BTW, I like the 2 Timothy passage in your sig. See my thread Believers being deceived (http://theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13563). We're hitting that topic over there.

[helmet84]

Concerning the title of this thread:

Does Open Theism limit God?

Answer: Yes :D

helmet84

[godrulz]

A 'straw man' caricature of Open Theism 'limits' God. Properly understood and represented, it does not.

[helmet84]

Originally posted by godrulz

A 'straw man' caricature of Open Theism 'limits' God. Properly understood and represented, it does not.

I can respect that. Seeing that I've seen many Arminians and Open Theists build straw men caricatures of calvinism.

I think if one truly has the Spirit of God dwelling in them, they know in their heart that God is sovereign, no matter what their thinking may be in their mind.

Blessings,
helmet84

[godrulz]

All views uphold the sovereignty of God, but understand it with different nuances.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by godrulz

All views uphold the sovereignty of God, but understand it with different nuances.

Amen. But I don't see how the Open Theist or Arminian views really uphold the sovereignty of God. Because ultimately, their salvation is dependant on them, and not God. The proponents of those two camps will never admit that, but in their beliefs it comes out. Free will theism, losing your salvation, etc. That, my friend, does not uphold God's sovereign grace.

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Amen. But I don't see how the Open Theist or Arminian views really uphold the sovereignty of God. Because ultimately, their salvation is dependant on them, and not God. The proponents of those two camps will never admit that, but in their beliefs it comes out. Free will theism, losing your salvation, etc. That, my friend, does not uphold God's sovereign grace.

i've never heard of open theism claiming that one can lose their salvation.

as for the salvation being dependent on us, i would agree and disagree at the same time. God is the only one who saves us, but we have to ask him to save us.

it's kinda like if there were 10 people sitting on top of a house and watching as the floods around them get higher and higher. very soon there will be nowhere to stand and they will drown. suddenly, there is a boat that appears that can hold all 10 people and carry them to safety.

the boat is Jesus. we are the people on the house. Jesus is fully capable of saving all of us, but we must each individually make the decision to get in the boat.

so really, Jesus is the only one who saves us, cause it's his boat, but we're the ones who have to decide to get in the boat. he won't make us get in if we choose not to.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

i've never heard of open theism claiming that one can lose their salvation.

No, I know. The Arminians do though.

as for the salvation being dependent on us, i would agree and disagree at the same time. God is the only one who saves us, but we have to ask him to save us.

You can't have it both ways. Either salvation is by works (man earned it), or it is by grace (unmerited favor).

it's kinda like if there were 10 people sitting on top of a house and watching as the floods around them get higher and higher. very soon there will be nowhere to stand and they will drown. suddenly, there is a boat that appears that can hold all 10 people and carry them to safety.

the boat is Jesus. we are the people on the house. Jesus is fully capable of saving all of us, but we must each individually make the decision to get in the boat.

so really, Jesus is the only one who saves us, cause it's his boat, but we're the ones who have to decide to get in the boat. he won't make us get in if we choose not to.

I do not agree with your analogy totally. Yes, Jesus is the boat. When He comes by and we see Him (the truth), He pulls us in to safety. The others (the non-elect floating in the waters) are not offered a hand to safety. Hence, they are the ones who do not believe. As Christ told the religious leaders in His day when they asked "Tell us plainly that you are the Christ."

I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. John 10:25-26

[God_Is_Truth]

No, I know. The Arminians do though.


i believe some do and some don't. there is no agreement among them on it.


You can't have it both ways. Either salvation is by works (man earned it), or it is by grace (unmerited favor).


open theism does not believe man earns his salvation. stepping into the boat is not a work, but an act of faith. you didn't earn the right to go into the boat. nothing about you is special which allows you to go into the boat. it's just about a choice you to make to either go in or stay out.


I do not agree with your analogy totally.

that's ok. it was the best i could come up with at the time of how i see salvation.

God bless.

[Swordsman]

GIT, I think we may be just confusing some terminology about salvation. My question to you is - Did God save you? If so, do you believe it was because He revealed Himself to you, convicted you of your sin, told you to repent, and you believed?

I'm just trying to see where we differ, if any, on the gift of salvation. That's all. :)

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Swordsman

GIT, I think we may be just confusing some terminology about salvation. My question to you is - Did God save you? If so, do you believe it was because He revealed Himself to you, convicted you of your sin, told you to repent, and you believed?

I'm just trying to see where we differ, if any, on the gift of salvation. That's all. :)

yes, God was the one who saved me. explain what you mean by "revealed himself to you". explain "convicted of your sins" explain "told you to repent" and yes i believed.

do you mean by those things of "revealed, convicted and told" to be specific revelation or just general like the bible and creation?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Amen. But I don't see how the Open Theist or Arminian views really uphold the sovereignty of God. Because ultimately, their salvation is dependant on them, and not God. The proponents of those two camps will never admit that, but in their beliefs it comes out. Free will theism, losing your salvation, etc. That, my friend, does not uphold God's sovereign grace.

Most Arminians and Open Theists do not believe in unconditional eternal security (once saved, always saved). Bob Enyart's view of dispensations and Open Theism is one exception.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Swordsman

GIT, I think we may be just confusing some terminology about salvation. My question to you is - Did God save you? If so, do you believe it was because He revealed Himself to you, convicted you of your sin, told you to repent, and you believed?

I'm just trying to see where we differ, if any, on the gift of salvation. That's all. :)

Arminians are in the Protestant/Reformed camp on salvation by faith/grace, not works.

You confuse the grounds of salvation (reason for which= grace, atonement, resurrection) and the conditions of salvation (not without which= repentance, faith, continuance in the faith...these are not works).

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by godrulz

Arminians are in the Protestant/Reformed camp on salvation by faith/grace, not works.

You mean they make a claim to believe in salvation by grace. Last time I checked, they believed in a conditional salvation. How is grace incorporated in a salvation that depends on man?

You confuse the grounds of salvation (reason for which= grace, atonement, resurrection) and the conditions of salvation (not without which= repentance, faith, continuance in the faith...these are not works).

Correct. Repentance, faith, and continuance in the faith ultimately all comes from God. Each of those traits are the result of the Holy Spirit injected into ones life. Without the Holy Spirit, repentance and faith can never be attained. He creates it within us.

Its all of God, and not of us. That is grace.

[godrulz]

"Unless YOU repent, you will perish."

God initiates, not coerces salvation. He gets all the glory, but we are capable of responding with our wills as He sets us free to repent and trust."

Relationship involves 2 parties. To deny the different roles of God and man in salvation is to negate relationship and replace it with robotic control or metaphysical change (substance)...rather that in the realm of morals where it belongs.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by godrulz

"Unless YOU repent, you will perish."

God initiates, not coerces salvation. He gets all the glory, but we are capable of responding with our wills as He sets us free to repent and trust."

Relationship involves 2 parties. To deny the different roles of God and man in salvation is to negate relationship and replace it with robotic control or metaphysical change (substance)...rather that in the realm of morals where it belongs.

"He gets all the glory, but". WHY DO YOU HAVE TO ADD THE 'BUT'. He gets all the glory. Period.

Ephesians 2:8-10
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

God, and God only, imputed salvation upon us. I had nothing to do with my salvation. He even gave me the faith to believe in Him.

Acts 13:48
Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

How and why did they believe? Because God had appointed them or ordained them. Do you not see where saving faith comes from? None of it comes from man. Like I said before. God gets all the glory. Not man.

[God_Is_Truth]

Swordsman,

God still gets glory when we do things. God does not have to do everything himself to get all the glory.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Swordsman,

God still gets glory when we do things. God does not have to do everything himself to get all the glory.

I think it depends on what you mean by that statement. Really the only thing a sinner does (if God has chosen him) is believe. And that "believing" merely comes from the Holy Spirit turning one's heart to receive Christ.

God will get His due glory whichever way you want it. Ultimately, it all depends upon His grace. If He gives it to you and not unto someone else, it is for His purpose and not man's.

Here's a good passage that spells this out.

Ephesians 1:3-6
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Swordsman,

God still gets glory when we do things. God does not have to do everything himself to get all the glory.

When I raise my voice to praise God or serve Him in the name of Jesus, He gets all the glory even though I am the one doing it with His help. Yet, I still do it. Motive is the key. If I repent and trust with the motive of glorifying God and recognizing His help, He gets the glory even though it is my mouth that says: Have mercy on me a sinner!

[Swordsman]

Galatians 2:19-20
For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

Oh I love this verse. Paul says it like no other. Christ lives through our lives. Its not me at all living my Christian life. And my life is only glorifying Him through my faith which He gave me.

What an awesome God! I thank you God for your sovereign grace. For if it was up to me, I cannot ever deserve you. You have chosen me as a vessel and you're molding me in the likeness of your Son. I owe it all to you. Use me to the glory of your grace. Amen.

[Swordsman]

And here is something else to think about. Something I've been pondering for quite some time. If man truly does have "free will" then why does anyone "choose" God? What made that person change in order to see they needed to make a change to their life?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Swordsman

And here is something else to think about. Something I've been pondering for quite some time. If man truly does have "free will" then why does anyone "choose" God? What made that person change in order to see they needed to make a change to their life?

The Spirit of God moves through the land looking for hearts that are open to Him. He convicts, loves, draws, woos, reveals Christ through the preaching of the Gospel/Word, etc.

It is the grace and goodness of God that leads to repentance. Without God's revelation and drawing, we might not repent. God has put a God-shaped vacuum and longing for eternity in our hearts. Millions of people are seeking God, longing for something more, trying to fill the empty void. When the Gospel is preached in love and power, those who put down their swords of rebellion are born again into the Kingdom of God.

God will not always strive with men, but the soft-hearted He can and does save. Those who reject the truth (e.g. Judas, Pilate, etc). experience the wrath of God (though He did everything possible to see them come to Him that they may have abundant and eternal life).