Right Divider
Body part
Claims are a dime a dozen.
Again, you have been shown and yet reject the plain text. Like Genesis 22:12
What did you believe before Open Theism?
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Again, you have been shown and yet reject the plain text. Like Genesis 22:12
That kind of funny. God already knew that that He would NOT have Abraham sacrifice Isaac.What was the promise to Abraham. That the nations would be brought forth through him. Hmm. now how could that be if Isaac were sacrificed as a burnt offering?
From the Blue Letter Bible:
First, it directly contradicts what the Lord Himself says about His ability to accurately predict future events. There is no doubt about this.
Second, open theism cannot guarantee the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God. This is another insurmountable problem for Bible-believing Christians.
When King Solomon dedicated the temple in Jerusalem he prayed a prayer of dedication. The following word of that prayer should reflect our desire.
Open theism denies that the God of the Bible does know the future. They focus more on His ignorance than His knowledge. This is tragic.
While one could argue that each of these writers accurately and inerrantly wrote exactly what God wanted them to write, given the view of open theism concerning human freedom, there is no guarantee for this. In fact, we can have no confidence in the Scripture whatsoever if we accept the open view of human freedom as it pertains to the writers of Scripture.
Contrast that with Jesus’ view as well as the view of the New Testament writers. They believed that God’s Word is trustworthy in all that it says. They had no doubt whatsoever that what was written was the very Word of God.
Summary – Question 35
Open theism, or the open view of God, claims to present an alternative to the historic or classical view of the God of the Bible. Rather than seeing God as an aloof monarch who sternly judges His people, open theism portrays God as a relational being who seems to be interested in our well-being above all things. Those who hold this open view claim this better fits what the Bible has to say about God and His dealings with humanity.
However, the evidence is to the contrary. Open theism does not merely refine the traditional view of God it re-defines God into a different Being than which the Bible portrays. For this reason, it must be rejected as the best way to understand the nature and character of the God of the Bible.
While those who hold to the open view of God should be commended for highlighting some of the deficiencies in the way God has been traditionally explained they go much too far in their quest. The idea that God somehow limited Himself to what He can and cannot know is not something which is taught in Scripture. Indeed, it is contrary to what the Lord clearly says about Himself and about His knowledge.
However, there is something else which needs to be emphasized. While open theism does not provide all the biblical answers to questions of God and His knowledge, this does not mean that we reject everything which it teaches.
For example, open theism agrees with many other Christians in the idea of general sovereignty. This means God has a general plan for the universe but does has not planned every detail in eternity past. Others argue for a specific sovereignty where every detail has been planned before the universe was created. There is no “Christian” answer to this question. There are good Bible-believers on each side of this issue. The views of open theism on this particular matter may indeed be the correct one.
If open theism is not the correct way to understand the God of Scripture then how shall we categorize it? Bible-believing Christians who reject open theism have a variety of responses to it.
Some see it as a possible alternative to the traditional view. Since open theists claim to get their position from the Bible itself, some Christians say the issue comes down to a matter of interpretation. The correct doctrine of God, His knowledge, His control over all events, is something which has to be decided from a study of Scripture. Good Christians can come up with different conclusions on these issues. The interpretations of the Bible by open theists may indeed be incorrect but that is what must be decided by examining Scripture. Therefore, these believers see open theism as one possible attempt to understand God’s nature. Consequently, they do not want to call it a heresy even though they do not accept its conclusions.
However this is not nearly strong enough. Others rightly believe open theism constitutes a real danger for Bible-believing Christians. They recognize the doctrine of God is of all-importance. If we think wrong about God we will be wrong about other issues. Open theism has gone too far in its understanding of the God of Scripture. It robs God of some of the attributes which He clearly claims to possess.
Whichever way a person wishes to categorize open theism, it is certain that when we consider all the facts, open theism falls short of what the Bible says about the majestic God of Scripture.
Indeed, there are two main reasons why open theism should be rejected as a viable option for Christians. First, it rejects God’s own testimony about His ability to accurate predict the future. Second, open theism cannot guarantee that the Scripture are God’s inerrant Word.
Rejecting the idea that God knows the future is denying a central biblical truth about the God of the Bible. This we cannot do. Since the Lord Himself argues that this is what separates Him from all other beings in the universe, we should not rob Him of this attribute. Indeed, instead of highlighting His ignorance we should be highlighting His knowledge.
Furthermore, not being able to guarantee an accurate inerrant Scripture is something which is not acceptable. The Bible is God’s authoritative and infallible Word. Those who hold to open theism cannot guarantee this. With their view of human freedom we cannot have any confidence that God’s Word is exactly what it is supposed to be. For all we know the problems and difficulties in Scripture may be actual contradictions. Open theism cannot assure us that this is not the case. Again, Christians cannot accept this conclusion.
While those who embrace open theism are sincere, they are sincerely wrong about a number of essential beliefs. Therefore, the system of open theism should be soundly rejected by Bible-believing Christians. It is not an option for us.
Open Theism Is Not a Legitimate Option
Therefore, in conclusion, the open view of God should not be seen as a legitimate option for those who take the Bible seriously. There seem to be two main reasons as to why this is so.First, it directly contradicts what the Lord Himself says about His ability to accurately predict future events. There is no doubt about this.
Second, open theism cannot guarantee the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God. This is another insurmountable problem for Bible-believing Christians.
Open Theism Contradicts What God Himself Says about His Ability
Open theism says that the God of the Bible has willingly given up His omnipotence, His control over the universe, as well His omniscience; that He has exhaustive knowledge of the future. Denying God’s knowledge of the future as well as denying His absolute control over all things is a dangerous step to make. This is especially the case since this is one of the arguments He uses to distinguish Himself from the so-called gods of the ancient world. We need to listen to His own words.According to God Himself, the thing that separates Him from the so-called gods is His ability to accurately predict what will take place in the future. Open theism denies Him of this attribute.
When King Solomon dedicated the temple in Jerusalem he prayed a prayer of dedication. The following word of that prayer should reflect our desire.
All the people of the earth need to know the true identity of the God of the Bible. The God of Scripture has said that He is the only God who exists. Indeed, He alone is all-powerful, He alone knows all things, and He alone knows and controls the future. This sets Him apart from all other beings in the universe. There is indeed none like Him.
Open theism denies that the God of the Bible does know the future. They focus more on His ignorance than His knowledge. This is tragic.
Open Theism Cannot Guarantee an Accurate Scripture
The second problem for open theism which does not make it a real option concerns it handling of Scripture. Since open theists insist that humans have complete freedom they cannot guarantee that the human authors of Scripture accurately recorded God’s truth. Therefore, what we have in Scripture are human beings who, without any supervision by God, wrote the various books of Scripture. Such a view causes enormous problems.While one could argue that each of these writers accurately and inerrantly wrote exactly what God wanted them to write, given the view of open theism concerning human freedom, there is no guarantee for this. In fact, we can have no confidence in the Scripture whatsoever if we accept the open view of human freedom as it pertains to the writers of Scripture.
Contrast that with Jesus’ view as well as the view of the New Testament writers. They believed that God’s Word is trustworthy in all that it says. They had no doubt whatsoever that what was written was the very Word of God.
The Line Must Be Drawn
Christians must draw a line where certain teachings are recognized as not being acceptable. Open theism has crossed this line. For these and other reasons, open theism should be decisively rejected! It is not sound biblical teaching.Summary – Question 35
What Should Our Conclusion Be about Open Theism? Is It a Legitimate Option for Believers, Heresy, or Something Else?
Open theism, or the open view of God, claims to present an alternative to the historic or classical view of the God of the Bible. Rather than seeing God as an aloof monarch who sternly judges His people, open theism portrays God as a relational being who seems to be interested in our well-being above all things. Those who hold this open view claim this better fits what the Bible has to say about God and His dealings with humanity.However, the evidence is to the contrary. Open theism does not merely refine the traditional view of God it re-defines God into a different Being than which the Bible portrays. For this reason, it must be rejected as the best way to understand the nature and character of the God of the Bible.
While those who hold to the open view of God should be commended for highlighting some of the deficiencies in the way God has been traditionally explained they go much too far in their quest. The idea that God somehow limited Himself to what He can and cannot know is not something which is taught in Scripture. Indeed, it is contrary to what the Lord clearly says about Himself and about His knowledge.
However, there is something else which needs to be emphasized. While open theism does not provide all the biblical answers to questions of God and His knowledge, this does not mean that we reject everything which it teaches.
For example, open theism agrees with many other Christians in the idea of general sovereignty. This means God has a general plan for the universe but does has not planned every detail in eternity past. Others argue for a specific sovereignty where every detail has been planned before the universe was created. There is no “Christian” answer to this question. There are good Bible-believers on each side of this issue. The views of open theism on this particular matter may indeed be the correct one.
If open theism is not the correct way to understand the God of Scripture then how shall we categorize it? Bible-believing Christians who reject open theism have a variety of responses to it.
Some see it as a possible alternative to the traditional view. Since open theists claim to get their position from the Bible itself, some Christians say the issue comes down to a matter of interpretation. The correct doctrine of God, His knowledge, His control over all events, is something which has to be decided from a study of Scripture. Good Christians can come up with different conclusions on these issues. The interpretations of the Bible by open theists may indeed be incorrect but that is what must be decided by examining Scripture. Therefore, these believers see open theism as one possible attempt to understand God’s nature. Consequently, they do not want to call it a heresy even though they do not accept its conclusions.
However this is not nearly strong enough. Others rightly believe open theism constitutes a real danger for Bible-believing Christians. They recognize the doctrine of God is of all-importance. If we think wrong about God we will be wrong about other issues. Open theism has gone too far in its understanding of the God of Scripture. It robs God of some of the attributes which He clearly claims to possess.
Whichever way a person wishes to categorize open theism, it is certain that when we consider all the facts, open theism falls short of what the Bible says about the majestic God of Scripture.
Indeed, there are two main reasons why open theism should be rejected as a viable option for Christians. First, it rejects God’s own testimony about His ability to accurate predict the future. Second, open theism cannot guarantee that the Scripture are God’s inerrant Word.
Rejecting the idea that God knows the future is denying a central biblical truth about the God of the Bible. This we cannot do. Since the Lord Himself argues that this is what separates Him from all other beings in the universe, we should not rob Him of this attribute. Indeed, instead of highlighting His ignorance we should be highlighting His knowledge.
Furthermore, not being able to guarantee an accurate inerrant Scripture is something which is not acceptable. The Bible is God’s authoritative and infallible Word. Those who hold to open theism cannot guarantee this. With their view of human freedom we cannot have any confidence that God’s Word is exactly what it is supposed to be. For all we know the problems and difficulties in Scripture may be actual contradictions. Open theism cannot assure us that this is not the case. Again, Christians cannot accept this conclusion.
While those who embrace open theism are sincere, they are sincerely wrong about a number of essential beliefs. Therefore, the system of open theism should be soundly rejected by Bible-believing Christians. It is not an option for us.
This is basically, "I don’t like what the passage entails for my theology, therefore it must be rhetorical."
Genesis 2:19 says God brought the animals to Adam "to see what he would call them."
You do not like the implication of that wording, because it does not fit exhaustive settled foreknowledge. So you call it rhetorical.
But calling it rhetorical does not explain the passage. It only tells us that you do not accept the plain implication of the passage.
The question remains: what in the text itself tells us that "to see what he would call them" does not mean what it appears to mean?
This is the same problem.
Calling it “rhetorical” is not an explanation. It is just a label.
What makes it rhetorical? What is the rhetorical device? What meaning is the rhetoric supposed to communicate? And why is “to see what he would call them” rhetorical while the rest of the verse is taken plainly?
Genesis 2:19 says God brought the animals to Adam “to see what he would call them.” That wording naturally presents Adam’s naming as a real event God brought about and observed.
If you want to say it means something else, then you need to show that from the text, not merely assert “rhetorical” because the plain reading conflicts with your doctrine.
No problem. Jesus knew who did not believe, and Jesus knew who would betray Him.
Open Theism does not deny prophecy, nor does it deny that Jesus could know the hearts of the men standing in front of Him, know who did not believe, and know who would betray Him.
But that does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act.
John 6:64 says Jesus knew “from the beginning” who among them did not believe and who would betray Him. It does not say every future free act of every moral agent was eternally settled.
This is the same mistake Bright Raven keeps making: taking a passage where God knows something and inflating it into exhaustive settled foreknowledge of everything.
This overstates the Open Theist claim.
Open Theism does not claim God is blind to men’s present hearts and trajectories. In John 6, Jesus was dealing with men already present, already following Him, and already unbelieving. Knowing their hearts and knowing where Judas’s rebellion was headed is not the same thing as exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act.
And “from the beginning” in John 6:64 does not mean “from the beginning of creation.” It means from the beginning of His dealings with them, from the time He called them out to follow Him.
So yes, Jesus knew who did not believe and who would betray Him. He knew them personally. He knew their hearts, their character, their motives, and the direction they had chosen. That is very different from treating them as fixed entries in an eternal database before creation.
John 6:64 proves that Jesus knew those men in that situation. It does not prove that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.