ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Philetus]

Doggieduff: That's the point of the little ; ) that I put in there. It's a sideways wink. I was being facetious.

You should wink more, it becomes you. I really like it. I do.

Doggieduff: Why would God, who desires all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4) make the gospel a mystery?

He didn’t make it a mystery; he was revealing the mystery to everybody who would listen. We are just going to have to disagree on that one. And revealing the mystery as apposed to making it a mystery may be more to the point of open theism than if first appears.

Doggieduff: You can't confuse the Calvinistic "Irresistable Grace" with the doctrine of "eternal security." They are definitely different.

Oh, yes I can! Trust me I can confuse any thing I like. And rather than joust with you here, I promise to go to the library and find some sources that support the Mid-Acts view and further confuse myself. Honestly, I will. This tit for tat (mine) really serves to do more harm than good. I don’t mean to belittle your view, it just sounds totally unnecessary. One reason I am here is because on the one hand I think I have always thought along the lines of an Open Theist. Raised in a somewhat closed Armenian doctrine but never able to reconcile “Irresistible Grace”, “Eternal Security” and what I experience as “free will” among many other doctrines and dogmas, I was left with my bible, the Holy Spirit, a passion for God and an open mind. (oh, and the library, which has been more or less helpful.)

I have read the thread ‘battle royal’ debate and last night I read “The Openness of God” and read both with an open bible and an open mind.

Doggieduff: Being open-minded is a beautiful thing.

Having a God with an open mind is even more beautiful.

Doggieduff: I was baptized by the Holy Spirit when I believed. God decided so. Don't forget 1 Cor. 12:13.

In all your theology, one simple question remains for me: Did you by choice have anything to do with it? That's all I need to know from you at this point. But, feel free ... this is an OPEN and FREE thread.

I really find it hard to have a serious conversation with either men or a god who have such a closed and airtight view of things that the end of the discussion is already closed for them and then they toss out the 'beautiful open-minded theory as an insult'. I'll read their books because I can open and close them at will, a trait that seems illusive for the mind closed by the will of God.

For many it seems that for God to allow humans to interact with him in a way that might cause him to change his mind in any way is to besmirch the character of God. That god they say is too small. But no one will ever make God any smaller than we did when we nailed him to a cross. Closed Theists seem to be saying that a god who cannot risk disappointment or rejection refuses to allow humans to choose for them selves, for if they choose not to love him, he could not endure such disappointment. Such a god in my POV is really small. In fact that god has to be the most insecure god ever imagined. Closed theists seem to be saying that when it comes to salvation and baptism you better have it all figured out because God is not as loving and as relational as he makes himself out to be or as John describes him in John 3:16. The mind of God is a terrible thing to waste and the mind of Christ is a most worthy goal.You can quote me.

Philetus

 

[GodsfreeWill]

Oh, yes I can! Trust me I can confuse any thing I like. And rather than joust with you here, I promise to go to the library and find some sources that support the Mid-Acts view and further confuse myself. Honestly, I will.

You may not get too far in the library. As far as I know, there are only 3 books that have ever been written on the mid-acts view I hold. They are "The Big Difference" by Bob Hill, "Things That Differ" by CR Stam, and "The Plot" by Bob Enyart. If you give me your address, I'd be glad to send you "The Big Difference" and "Things That Differ" free of charge. Just promise me you'll read them. ; )

Having a God with an open mind is even more beautiful.

Hey, I agree! BTW, I am an open theist as well. Good luck in your studies on the OV. See www.biblicalanswers.com for a ton of answers to questions on Open Theism and Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

In all your theology, one simple question remains for me: Did you by choice have anything to do with it? That's all I need to know from you at this point. But, feel free ... this is an OPEN and FREE thread.

Yes sir indeed. I FREELY chose to accept Christ as my Savior, and after FREELY choosing, the Holy Spirit sealed me as a member of the body of Christ unto the day of redemption.

I really find it hard to have a serious conversation with either men or a god who have such a closed and airtight view of things that the end of the discussion is already closed for them and then they toss out the 'beautiful open-minded theory as an insult'. I'll read their books because I can open and close them at will, a trait that seems illusive for the mind closed by the will of God.

I hope you don't mean me, as I'm definitely not the type. Ask Jeremy! ; )

For many it seems that for God to allow humans to interact with him in a way that might cause him to change his mind in any way is to besmirch the character of God. That god they say is too small. But no one will ever make God any smaller than we did when we nailed him to a cross. Closed Theists seem to be saying that a god who cannot risk disappointment or rejection refuses to allow humans to choose for them selves, for if they choose not to love him, he could not endure such disappointment. Such a god in my POV is really small. In fact that god has to be the most insecure god ever imagined. Closed theists seem to be saying that when it comes to salvation and baptism you better have it all figured out because God is not as loving and as relational as he makes himself out to be or as John describes him in John 3:16. The mind of God is a terrible thing to waste and the mind of Christ is a most worthy goal.You can quote me.

Philetus

Amen.

 

[Philetus]

[QUOTEYou may not get too far in the library. As far as I know, there are only 3 books that have ever been written on the mid-acts view I hold. They are "The Big Difference" by Bob Hill, "Things That Differ" by CR Stam, and "The Plot" by Bob Enyart. If you give me your address, I'd be glad to send you "The Big Difference" and "Things That Differ" free of charge. Just promise me you'll read them. ; )[/QUOTE]

Now that is an offer I can’t refuse! And read them I will, young Skywalker. Can I find an email address where I can send a snail-mail post address? I’ll look.

Yes sir indeed. I FREELY chose to accept Christ as my Savior, and after FREELY choosing, the Holy Spirit sealed me as a member of the body of Christ unto the day of redemption.

Now, that blows my hair back (in a very good way.) And whether or not you choose to be baptized is between you, God and your community of faith. Choose wisely, and if not His grace is sufficient.

Quote: Philetus
I really find it hard to have a serious conversation with either men or a god who have such a closed and airtight view of things that the end of the discussion is already closed for them and then they toss out the ‘beautiful open-minded theory as an insult’. I’ll read their books because I can open and close them at will, a trait that seems illusive for the mind closed by the will of God.
[/QUOTE

I hope you don’t mean me, as I’m definitely not the type. Ask Jeremy! ; )

In regard to the things you were saying about ‘the B word’ I must admit you did come off that way to me. But then I can only imagine how I sounded to you using “the other b word’ Beans and Baptisms don’t mix. I couln't for the life of me figure what all that had to do with OVT or why in the world you were so into it on this thread. (without going into a long thing ... does it?) If it does then my bad. I just felt like I was chasing your tail and you were the only one enjoying it. I’m glad we got past that.

Hey, I agree! BTW, I am an open theist as well. Good luck in your studies on the OV. See www.biblicalanswers.com for a ton of answers to questions on Open Theism and Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

Well, wonders never cease! And you can bet I’ll be clicking the link. And it is a sure thing that I will have more questions for you than you care to imagine.

Ain’t that just like most theology? So often it is no more than death by friendly fire. I apologize for shooting first and asking later.

Philetus

 

[godrulz]

Why is this the only thread that does not fit on my screen? Is there a technical problem?

 

[Mustard Seed]

I was wondering that same thing. I come here and my browser goes wacko.

 

[Philetus]

I haven't experienced that, but you can rest assured it's my fault. :doh:

Is there a chance there are other threads where OVT is being discussed? Directions would help. Or maybe its time for a new one.
Philetus

 

[elected4ever]

This page seems to be OK but the previous page is bunkers.

 

[Clete]

I haven't experienced that, but you can rest assured it's my fault. :doh:

Is there a chance there are other threads where OVT is being discussed? Directions would help. Or maybe its time for a new one.
Philetus

I started a new thread based on another thread which was focused specifically on divine foreknowledge. I invite you to check it out.

Settled Future vs. Christianity

 

[patman]

The Settled Equation

The Settled Equation

I am interested in hearing scriptural proof that states God knows the future. Otherwise the settled view followers seem to hold highly to assumptions:

I call these assumptions the "Settled Equations:"

1.) “A” knows the entire future because “A” accurately predicted “B”.

2.) “A” knows the entire future because of the large number of accurate predictions.

3.) “A” is powerful. Therefore A can do A>>Z (i.e. everything) including knowing the entire future.


Breaking apart the Equations

1.) "A" knows the entire future because "A" predicted that "B" would happen with accuracy.

They say "A" = God, "B" = some bible verse, such as Peter denying Christ.

The Settled Equation is not a proof, it is a very bad theory. Why? If you substitute "A" with an actual person and "B" with an event they predicted, the conclusion is not they know the entire future.

For example,

My mother(A) predicted that one day I would get married(B). Therefore my mother knows the entire future.

"A" = mother
"B" = get married

Did it happen? Yes.

Therefore "A" (mom) knows all of the future.

This logic fails big time.


2.)“A” knows the entire future because of the large number of accurate predictions.

If one example isn't enough to prove 100% future knowledge, surely repeatedly showing someone knew many future events means that person know the entire future.

Examples of Settled Viewers:
God predicted Peter and Judas, the crucifixion, and the book or revelations, thus God knows the entire future.

But, again, my mom predicted many things about my future! That doesn't mean she knows all of the future. She said that one day I would go to high school, that I would have a broken heart from a girl turning me down, that one day I would learn to drive a car, and that I would go to the prom and graduate. She said I would go to college, despite my non-willingness to go. And to this day she thinks me and my wife will have children. Therefore, mom knows the entire future? No!

Do you see? It is obvious my mother does not know the future, yet if you plug her into the equation, she does!

God can do much the same. And he can intervene, make things happen.

Settled View logic again falls behind.


3.) "A" is powerful. Thus "A" can do "A-Z" (i.e. everything).

My computer is a powerful machine. It can do complex tasks in seconds. But can it stop the world from turning? No, it has a different kind of power, but it is powerful none the less.

God is powerful enough to do anything so can he be the worst sinner? No.

If you can agree with that, you must logically agree that having power does not give you the ability to do anything that is conceivable.

That includes God does not automatically have power to see the entire future.

The Settled view works on faith. "Any god has to know the future because that's what gods do. It makes them powerful." Says who? You?

Settled View uses this faulty logic and fear of insulting God to come to the conclusion that God knows the future. And it leads them to think that God does ordain sin, or that God is in such control that every aspect of every life is his to decide, thus he sends people to hell for his will.

If you simply think about God not knowing the future... It doesn't take away any of his might, it does not make him less of a god. It just means that when someone sins, God didn't say, "Ye shall sin." Or if someone goes to heaven, it was out of love, not force.

The settled viewers need to rethink their logic.

Thanks
-Patman

 

[patman]

bad HTML in a post is my guess

bad HTML in a post is my guess

I was wondering that same thing. I come here and my browser goes wacko.

It looks like one of the posts on here used some html that closed a layer or a table prematurely (i.e. a </div> or a </td> typed in the wrong place.)

Someone will have to edit that to fix the pages. In a few posts it will stop, is my guess.

Seeing as how the posts for the past 2 pages are displayed as you submit a message, that will mean a longer time before the submit page is fixed too.

Who used the html????? hehe.

-Patman

 

[patman]

Found the bad post!

Found the bad post!

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=981564&postcount=1355

The above is the post with a bad html tag in it. When you open it, you will see the browser goes way off screen. Others before and after it do not have this effect.

If any admins happen to see this and wish to fix it, I hope that this message is seen and helps.

Or, better yet if the poster wants to go back and edit out the bad html, that would be wonderful.

-Patman

 

[RobE]

I am interested in hearing scriptural proof that states God knows the future. Otherwise the settled view followers seem to hold highly to assumptions:

I call these assumptions the "Settled Equations:"

1.) “A” knows the entire future because “A” accurately predicted “B”.

2.) “A” knows the entire future because of the large number of accurate predictions.

3.) “A” is powerful. Therefore A can do A>>Z (i.e. everything) including knowing the entire future.


Breaking apart the Equations

1.) "A" knows the entire future because "A" predicted that "B" would happen with accuracy.

They say "A" = God, "B" = some bible verse, such as Peter denying Christ.

I call these assumptions the "Open Equations:"

1.) “A” doesn't know the future because “B” is too unpredictable.

2.) “A” doesn't know the future because of the handful of predictions that didn't come to pass.

3.) “A” is powerful. But "A" can't do anything my logic dictates He can't do.

Breaking apart the Equations

1.) "A" doesn't know the future because "A" predicted that "B" would happen with accuracy and it didn't.

They say "A" = God, "B" =Nineveh would be destroyed.​

The Open Equation is not a proof, it is a very bad theory. Why? If you substitute "A" with an actual person and "B" with an event they predicted, the conclusion is they did know the entire future.

For Example: Mike(A) predicted the Sun would rise(B) this morning.


The problem with both equations is that no one believes that one prediction or lack of prediction answers the question definitively.

Your Friend in Christ,

Rob

I'm sorry about my post's form.

 

[patman]

RobE

RobE

I call these assumptions the "Open Equations:"

1.) “A” doesn't know the future because “B” is too unpredictable.

2.) “A” doesn't know the future because of the handful of predictions that didn't come to pass.

3.) “A” is powerful. But "A" can't do anything my logic dictates He can't do.

Breaking apart the Equations

1.) "A" doesn't know the future because "A" predicted that "B" would happen with accuracy and it didn't.

They say "A" = God, "B" =Nineveh would be destroyed.​

The Open Equation is not a proof, it is a very bad theory. Why? If you substitute "A" with an actual person and "B" with an event they predicted, the conclusion is they did know the entire future.

For Example: Mike(A) predicted the Sun would rise(B) this morning.


The problem with both equations is that no one believes that one prediction or lack of prediction answers the question definitively.

Your Friend in Christ,

Rob

I'm sorry about my post's form.

Rob,
I hate to say it, but are you going to copy me or rebut me?

1.) “A” doesn't know the future because “B” is too unpredictable.

This is a statement which could be true assuming God only relies on predictions as his ability to see the future. Do you think the Open view states this to be the case? If you do, ok, but if not, you should reconsider your first point to the your copy- I mean open equation.

2.) “A” doesn't know the future because of the handful of predictions that didn't come to pass.

This seems logical as long as you assume A is not lying. Otherwise A could know the future and still make a "bad" prediction and know the future.

3.) “A” is powerful. But "A" can't do anything my logic dictates He can't do.

I am pretty confident we base our conclusions on the Bible in part and in whole. Our views are nothing without the bible. I think I speak for most Opentheist in saying this.

Thanks for your post tho, Rob. Nice try to spin it.......

-Pat

P.S. Apology accepted.

 

[RobE]

The Bible says anything is possible for God.

I am pretty confident we base our conclusions on the Bible in part and in whole. Our views are nothing without the bible. I think I speak for most Opentheist in saying this.

Does it mean anything or just what you can rationalize?

Pals,

Rob

 

[Mustard Seed]

Rob,
3.) “A” is powerful. But "A" can't do anything my logic dictates He can't do.

I am pretty confident we base our conclusions on the Bible in part and in whole. Our views are nothing without the bible. I think I speak for most Opentheist in saying this.

I'm not really involved to any depth in this but I just noticed this statement and felt I needed to point out the failure of it.

You claim that you're 'pretty confident' that your conclusions are based on the Bible. Well, your entire view of what the Bible is is dependent on your fluency with a truly viable logic system. So your saying that he's just applying his logic to God when you are not doing anything different in applying your logic to the Bible. You are simply assuming, in a round about way, that your logic-and hence your view of the Bible-is superior to that of Rob's.

 

[godrulz]

The Bible says anything is possible for God.



Does it mean anything or just what you can rationalize?

Pals,

Rob

Somethings are logical contradictions or absurdities. These would be logically excluded from 'anything' (+ the context is not talking about sheer power). It is not possible for God to be a dog. He is the uncreated triune Creator, not a canine. It is not possible for God to have exhaustive, manipulative control and to create libertarian free agents. What is the evidence of the type of creation He sovereignly chose: determinism or self-evident free will creation. A consequence of this type of creation and the biblical nature of His providential sovereignty is that the contingent future is not exhaustively settled or foreknown. This is biblical revelation that stands the scrutiny of sound reasoning.

He could have created a settled, foreknown future, but He did not. It would have came at the expense of significant others and reciprocal relationships. Robots are not the love object God desired. In His wisdom, He chose this creation, though there was a calculated risk (possibility vs certainty of evil). In response to the reality of the Fall, God responded with a plan of redemption. The rest is history...but this does not mean that God always gets His way in every individual's life. It grieves God, but it is still a higher good than not creating or being a control freak.

 

[Philetus]

Frist, I am sorry for the html thing. I told you it was me. I'm still learning my way around here and if I could figure out how I would edit the post.

Godrulz: The rest is history...but this does not mean that God always gets His way in every individual's life. It grieves God, but it is still a higher good than not creating or being a control freak.

Well said, but I thought the point was that the rest is not history quite yet.

Let me try this out on you guys and ask for your response.

I think all the logic lists (in this and other threads) have done is to prove that you can't improve on the biblical understanding of God by using the same old worn out proofs and systems that got us so far off track in the first place. The goal is not to define God but to know him; to unleash him form our preconceived, predetermined projections.

What OVT seems to promise is that God is beyond definition in the sense that to define him is to defile him. God defies static definition in that he is relational, loving and omincompetent. That new word (at least to me) has resolved a host of otherwise irreconcilable notions derived from logic about God.

One question that persistently presents itself to me is: where free-will agents are concerned, why would it be necessary or in the least bit desirable for God to know every precise and meticulous future detail? (Why would he want or need to?) So, it is not God who needs to know the future in such a way in order to be God, but rather it is the need of insecure free-will agents for him to know it. Such a God who could not risk suffering disappointment in the event his creatures did not love him, is in IMHO the most insecure God imaginable.

What’s all the fuss then? Well, I think that at the root is a human mind set that is so insecure in not having an omnicontrolling God that it must project one rather than take responsibility for its own thoughts and actions and risk being wrong. The predetermining and predestining of every thought and action is actually a mask for ascending to a seat of judgmental superiority under the guise of humility and surrendering to fate and a false sense of security. Such a mind can rest in confidence that the hard work of relationship has been replaced by predestanition. That would not work with my wife who lays down her life for me and the kids every day, so I can't imagin God would go to the expense and through the experience of prefecting his Son through suffering for such a fabricated relationship with me.

It is not God who is made less in OVT. It is creatures who are put in their place to decide, respond and hopefully relate.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

I'v tried to edit my post but cain't get-er-done. And instruction would be welcome.

I did it Patman, help me out here.

Philetus

 

[patman]

I'v tried to edit my post but cain't get-er-done. And instruction would be welcome.

I did it Patman, help me out here.

Philetus

No can do! I'm just the finger pointer here

If we can't edit any of our posts then you can't fix it. If you can edit, just shoot me the source code from your message and I'll fix it for you. Send it to my email address if you like.

The biggest thing to pay attention to is having a </something> with out a <something> going first. Ever </> must have a <>first.

Best thing to do is to stick to the form's method of styleizing. Use [] instead of <>

 

[patman]

Mustard Seed

Mustard Seed

I'm not really involved to any depth in this but I just noticed this statement and felt I needed to point out the failure of it.

You claim that you're 'pretty confident' that your conclusions are based on the Bible. Well, your entire view of what the Bible is is dependent on your fluency with a truly viable logic system. So your saying that he's just applying his logic to God when you are not doing anything different in applying your logic to the Bible. You are simply assuming, in a round about way, that your logic-and hence your view of the Bible-is superior to that of Rob's.

Yeah i think my logic is superior than Robs, just like you think yours is superior to mine....

That's why we are here, isn't it? To tell each other" you are wrong (or the occasional opposite, you are right)". All that based on our logic. Right?

I think you missed the point tho.. I am not accusing him of applying logic! That's silly. "Rob, you logic applier. How dare you apply that logic." I just said he copied my format, kinda implying he mocked me a little. All I did is ask for a rebut, what's wrong with that?

And I didn't even say "3.) “A” is powerful. But "A" can't do anything my logic dictates He can't do" That's Rob.

If I look at the bible and find several instances of unfulfilled prophecies, I feel compelled to to say the future is open. And If I let the Bible read itself to me and never hear the words "God knows the future" I am not inclined to add those words in! That has little to do with my logic, but more to do with the Bible's words.

So, yeah, I am pretty confident the open theist isn't reading anything into the bible using our own logic.