Interestingly, I do have access to this sectionIf you would like to continue this round and round... I would be honored. I Love and appreciate you all the more for scripturally challenging me.
Interestingly, I do have access to this section
I don't mind you using it at all, and because you are asking atf, View attachment 25488
Generally, unless I have a pressing question or feel a need to make an important contribution, I think of myself as a visitor rather than participant because it is the OV club. Also, in the TOL archives, whether you are OV or other, Knight's Open Theism 1, 2, & 3 cover a lot of what we'd cover here. I think all three hallmark discussions over the issues and differences in Christendom over the topic, and for free no less! -Lon
Shenanigans? I won't be pulling any here. I'll save those for the "wild".
I have come here to explain why I accept the label of Open Theist. I'll keep this simple and try to express it in a way that allows for discussion and collaboration. I would like to ensure I "belong" here and am "welcome" here. Here goes...
OPEN THEISM - Because a "CLOSED" system of theology suggests that we have nothing more to learn from our True Teacher... (1 John 2:27; Rm. 8:9; Php. 1:19; Mt. 23:8) .. a solid defense of this point can be found in (Daniel 12:4) ... and if Jesus, Himself says "Mark 13:32" ... then it is fairly presumptive of individuals to "Close" theology and suggest that there's no effort required, because other people have figured it all out. Cough... Cough... (Apparently these people know more than the Son)
OPEN and SINCERE RELATIONSHIP - Love, Relationship; This is another major point. All through Scripture, God explains that His entire purpose of Creation is for "His Son". We also know the SON as the LOGOS and very "WORD, PROMISE, ROCK, PILLAR OF FIRE BY NIGHT, CLOUD BY DAY... Etc". We are assured in scripture that God has had a Father, Son relationship that is ETERNAL. When Jesus describes the coming of the Comforter... We have other verses that distinguish the "Comforter" as (Rm. 8:9; Php. 1:19 and so on), but a really mysterious set of verses are (John 10:30 and John 14:23). This suggests that the Holy Spirit is the very unity of Jesus the Son with His Father, within us! Within our HEARTS! If this isn't the most intimate relationship in my life, I don't know what else could be. My Point? God demonstrates His desire for sincere Relationship with us in EVERY Word of Scripture. Of-coarse, the biggest proof verse is (John 5:39f) and a the very lengths that Jesus went to so He could dwell in our Hearts! (Heb. 2:14)
OPEN WITHIN TIME - If one ponders that God limited His foreknowledge through His Son, all of those pesky doctrines that struggle to explain how God isn't a tyrant, but created a "Free" system that allowed Evil to manifest itself within said system, fall away. It becomes simple. The Son has always been the limited in foreknowledge presence of God within Time. This concept genuinely exonerates ONE that needed no exoneration in the first place. This also solidifies that the Theophanies in scripture are no Less than the LOGOS, Eternal SON that is truly Blameless!
OPEN HEART - By recognizing that God went to such great lengths to relate to us, we can see that he cherishes the unfolding relationship of Himself to Humanity and each individual human being. If this doesn't open a persons heart to Jesus, I don't know what else could. He even proved His love for us by Dying for us, while we were yet sinners and utter enemies.
Why start posting here? Because, I feel like many of the carnal understandings held within my grey matter, that the HOLY SPIRIT has conveyed through His amazing ways, are in opposition to much of "Closed Theism". I don't want to offend my Siblings in Christ any more than I already have with some of the matters that I look forward to discussing here in the future. I am looking forward to discussing these matters with fellow Open Theists.
I have to confess. I try to be an all inclusive person... but I am sincerely desiring dialog with genuine Open Theists. I'm not here to debate opposing views to Open Theology. I recognize that Open Theists are afforded to discuss matters of different understanding among one another, and I look forward to this.
My hopes from this OP are to prime a conversation with fellow open theists and find out if what I'm saying is on par with a home for my personal understanding of God as it stands today. I genuinely believe in progressive revelation, and scripture seems to agree with me on this particular point.
I think this subject is of great importance because it strikes at the heart of who God is. "God is love". True free relational love between us and Him only makes sense in the open view. God's desire and work that he wants us to share in bringing others to Him to share in Him, in His love through the dangers, the pitfalls, the valley of the shadow of death made so worthwhile when the angels stop to sing for joy when one that is loved by blood of Christ turns to God in humble repentance. A glorious story of love that is not over, one in which God still watches His beloved martyred so more can come and know a love so high, so wide, so deep it can never be truly even be fathomed through our dull view on Earth. But that dull view screams He loves us all and He is patiently waiting until His patience can be no more... The love story is not over yet...
This bothers me a bit. I think what it does is not only to separate the persons of God (which is ok, I think), but also to separate the purposes of God. Purposes plural because they appear to be at odds with each other. If God the Father had a purpose in testing (not tempting) but Jesus/Memra had a purpose in tempting, then the two are no longer one in the primary aspect they maintained their oneness in during Christ's passion.--"Not MY will but thine be done." It seems you are having Jesus say: "Our wills will both be fulfilled in the same act, but for different reasons.""Another point to bring in now... Testing vs. Tempting. This very theological information is crucial to get right! One tests and one tempts! Also... There is Father Tree theology and there is Son Tree Theology.
Tree of Life (Son, Fruit of the Spirit, Faith, Trust, God's Provision)
(Tree of The Knowledge O.G.A.E.) (Father, Perfection, Law, Omniscience, LORDSHIP, Provider)
Testing... (Dt. 8:2) ... Tempt... (James 1:13)
Why is this imperative?
Because if the "Memra" (Word) had "foreknowledge" in Creation and Time... Placing the tree of the Father Tree within the garden and knowing the outcome would simultaneously be Testing and Tempting. Any theology that fails to distinguish that the Logos (Word/Memra) had purpose and design set forth (John 10:37, 5:19), yet didn't have the foreknowledge of the outcome is defining God as The Tempter.
I don't think you've given the full picture. The loaded gun is stowed in a drawer labelled "don't use", something most 7-year-olds understand perfectly. But you would need to peer into the mind of God to understand why it's necessary for it to be there.One model of theology is clearly lacking next to the other! Let's get blunt through analogy. Instead of the Father Tree and the Garden... we'll use the analogy of a Loaded Gun and a Locked room.
-One theology has God locking a 7 year old in a room with many toys... including a loaded gun, knowing full well the Gun will be used to bring self-harm. This would make God "Evil".
And here I think you've distinguished TOO MUCH. The self sacrifice is in both theologies, except that perhaps (and ONLY "perhaps") only one outcome is possible in one of them.-The other theology has God creating everything in sincerity and through co-collaboration of Omniscience and Limited foreknowledge... that Free Will could reign. How did the omniscient Father prepare matters to ensure sincerity? Self Saccrifice that would pay for the presence of the Loaded Gun and simultaneously allow... (Switching back to Spiritual Verbiage) Sincerity and Fertile soil of Love, with utter provision for all possible outcomes.
Does this relationship start at creation? or at the birth of Jesus? If at creation, then, as I said above, Jesus had already emptied Himself before "being born in the likeness of men.", since that limited-foreknowledge relationship started, in your scenario, in the Garden of Eden.Two Trees...
But that would mean that the Father was the "Architect" and the Son was the "Builder"! Yup! The Architect Planned Sincerely and Perfectly and the "Builder" Built Perfectly! No Right hand hiding it's intentions from the Left hand... GOD is never a LEFT HAND! God is ONE!"
And so... I leave you with these questions...
Is God now, not Tri? Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
When did the Son, who we both Agree... per. (Col. 1:15, 16f, 18) is the Physical Creator ... "Finish Creation"?
spoiler] My proposed Answer: (John 19:30 and Hebrews 4 tied to Gen. 2:2 and (Luke 14:28f, 30) ... In other words... The Father designed it and willed it... and the Son Created it and maintained it...
I suggest that God has allowed the form of Himself that is directly interactive with Mankind to be limited in foreknowledge to experience genuine relationship and provide free will, without being "responsible" for it's abuse. I further propose that He paid the price for providing Free Will, that Love could be "Genuinely" manifested from our Hearts to Him. After all... (Ephesians 1:4 and 1 Peter 1:20 ... Also ... Romans 8:9)...[/spoiler]
Hi EE. I've had a hard time reading through your posts, and I admit I haven't the foggiest of what you are trying to get at sometimes, but I wanted to at least join in the conversation. I chose to do it here instead of your other post, as I was more lost there than here. Hopefully I can be at least some grist to your mill. But to do it, I had to significantly pare down your mill, to accommodate so little grist.
This bothers me a bit. I think what it does is not only to separate the persons of God (which is ok, I think), but also to separate the purposes of God. Purposes plural because they appear to be at odds with each other. If God the Father had a purpose in testing (not tempting) but Jesus/Memra had a purpose in tempting, then the two are no longer one in the primary aspect they maintained their oneness in during Christ's passion.--"Not MY will but thine be done." It seems you are having Jesus say: "Our wills will both be fulfilled in the same act, but for different reasons."
In addition, I think you have either made Jesus's emptying of himself in Phil 2:5 a separate act from His becoming a man, or you've made His "putting on flesh" happen at a much earlier time than He was born of Mary. If either is the case, then are we saying that His birth of Mary was more for show than for substance?
[Phl 2:6-8 ESV]who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
I don't think you've given the full picture. The loaded gun is stowed in a drawer labelled "don't use", something most 7-year-olds understand perfectly. But you would need to peer into the mind of God to understand why it's necessary for it to be there.
I don't want to be crass here, but I think you need to be more distinguishing in your theologies. I think the other option that you may be trying to articulate here is that God puts the gun in the 7-year-old's hand, forces him to point it at his head and pull the trigger.And here I think you've distinguished TOO MUCH. The self sacrifice is in both theologies, except that perhaps (and ONLY "perhaps") only one outcome is possible in one of them.
Does this relationship start at creation? or at the birth of Jesus? If at creation, then, as I said above, Jesus had already emptied Himself before "being born in the likeness of men.", since that limited-foreknowledge relationship started, in your scenario, in the Garden of Eden.
I don't think there is biblical warrant for saying that Jesus emptied Himself in two phases, one at creation and one at birth.
individual Quote said:EE,
You are reading more into this than my intentions. Until we can establish exactly your view about the future knowledge of God, proceeding further must be postponed. And I most certainly do intend to proceed in responding to your other points.
The Godhead is of one mind and one will on this matter, EE. There are no changes in the Godhead with respect to essence, divinity, attributes, due to the Incarnation, else many errors are then assumed.
I know the majority view of the open theist on the matter of the knowledge of God concerning the future. That view has been discussed by openism's major proponents, e.g., Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders. Even Rev. Enyart, a favorite of many and pastor to some here at TOL, has made his position clear (see below).
This is possible true, but no two theologians are "SINCERELY" alike. We are all unique and diametrically different... like snow flakes... as we sincerely attempt to hear the still small voice while we read and pray. Beyond Essential Doctrines... (John 5:39f and Eph. 2:8f)... everything else becomes a dance of communication between people who are all utterly captivated by OUR Precious Lord, God and Savior... Jesus Christ the Messiah.Individuals Contribution said:What I want to know is your own view, which appears to be more than just a nuance ("a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound.") of commonly understood open theism.
Individuals Contribution said:Do you believe God knows exactly each and every thought, word, or deed, that you or I will do in the remainders of our lives on this earth?
Individuals Contribution said:Not what we might do, but what in fact we will actually do. Simply, is the future settled as far as God's knowledge is concerned, in that God knows we will do these events even before we will actually do them?
Individual's contribution said:
Also... I will answer to more of your excellent counter observation in the near future... but I'm on a very specific focus right now in ECT.
I assume you mean Eternal Conscious Torment rather than Exclusively Christian Theology. I saw some of your posts over there. Maybe I'll go join the conversation, but it was tiring before when I tried--nothing new after a few posts from the anti-ECTers. Maybe you've added some new thoughts.