Open Theism - ?? what definition for it?

[Gary K]

No, not if there are other ways to understand it. Your version is one possibility, but another is that God declares what He's going to bring to pass. In other words, "God knows because He will do it," rather than "God knows because He sees everything in a crystal ball."

If you read Is 46:10, it is apparent the former is intended.
[Isa 46:10 KJV] 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

If you use this verse to say that God KNOWS all things future, then it means He plans all things future, which means He takes pleasure in all things. So what you are saying by using this verse to say God knows everything in the future is, "God takes pleasure in sin."

This passage is not a good one for your view.

How is that a bad verse for my point of view? God says He will do all my pleasure. God gave us all the ability to make our own choices.

God is in no way responsible for evil. He allowed Satan to choose his own way in heaven and the Bible calls it the mystery of iniquity. You just can't see that God is infinitely greater than we are and we can't understand what He is capable of doing. You limit Him to human understanding of what He can do. Why? He broke all of our understanding of physics repeatedly during creation. Plus He created an apparently infinite universe in the eternity before He created the environment here on earth. All of that is far beyond our understanding.

Even further beyond our understanding is how He can create a friend of His out of one of His enemies. Can you explain how He does that? I can't.

 

[Derf]

How is that a bad verse for my point of view? God says He will do all my pleasure.

You're using that verse to say that God knows all future actions of every person that will ever live.

The verse explains HOW God can declare the future...because He will DO all His pleasure, and because His counsel will stand.

So, if the verse means what you say it means, that God KNOWS every future action of everyone, and it's because those future actions are God counsel and God pleasure, then you are saying that God's counsel (His advice to people) and God's pleasure (what He enjoys) include men sinning in the most egregious ways.

God gave us all the ability to make our own choices.

Yes. But if the future actions of everyone are known because they are God's counsel and pleasure, that MUST include sin, which are some of the future actions. And if His counsel will stand and He will do all His pleasure, and that's how He knows the future actions, then He doesn't really give anyone the ability to make their own choices. Your verse contradicts your assertion.

God is in no way responsible for evil.

Correct. That's why that verse CANNOT mean what you say it means.

He allowed Satan to choose his own way in heaven and the Bible calls it the mystery of iniquity. You just can't see that God is infinitely greater than we are and we can't understand what He is capable of doing. You limit Him to human understanding of what He can do. Why? He broke all of our understanding of physics repeatedly during creation. Plus He created an apparently infinite universe in the eternity before He created the environment here on earth. All of that is far beyond our understanding.

Using the "mystery" defense for your view is acknowledging that I'm right and you've run out of arguments against what I'm saying.

Even further beyond our understanding is how He can create a friend of His out of one of His enemies. Can you explain how He does that? I can't.

He can't without our wanting to be His friend. That's why some people will be in hell.

 

[Gary K]

You're using that verse to say that God knows all future actions of every person that will ever live.

The verse explains HOW God can declare the future...because He will DO all His pleasure, and because His counsel will stand.

So, if the verse means what you say it means, that God KNOWS every future action of everyone, and it's because those future actions are God counsel and God pleasure, then you are saying that God's counsel (His advice to people) and God's pleasure (what He enjoys) include men sinning in the most egregious ways.

Yes. But if the future actions of everyone are known because they are God's counsel and pleasure, that MUST include sin, which are some of the future actions. And if His counsel will stand and He will do all His pleasure, and that's how He knows the future actions, then He doesn't really give anyone the ability to make their own choices. Your verse contradicts your assertion.

Correct. That's why that verse CANNOT mean what you say it means.

Using the "mystery" defense for your view is acknowledging that I'm right and you've run out of arguments against what I'm saying.

He can't without our wanting to be His friend. That's why some people will be in hell.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as I will never accept the open point of view. It limits God to a finite point of view. As He is infinitely beyond that I see it as foolishness to accept it.

The progress you've made on the state of the dead issue I really like. That's why I see you as honest but stubborn. Just like me.

 

[Derf]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as I will never accept the open point of view. It limits God to a finite point of view. As He is infinitely beyond that I see it as foolishness to accept it.

It seems more foolish to say "No matter how much you show me what the Bible says on a matter, I will instead believe what I already believe."

That kind of mindset justifies ANY religion, and will send multiple people to hell.

The progress you've made on the state of the dead issue I really like. That's why I see you as honest but stubborn. Just like me.

No. I'm willing to discuss a different understanding of the state of the dead BECAUSE I wasn't willing to say, "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as I will never accept the <different> point of view."

 

[Gary K]

It seems more foolish to say "No matter how much you show me what the Bible says on a matter, I will instead believe what I already believe."

That kind of mindset justifies ANY religion, and will send multiple people to hell.



No. I'm willing to discuss a different understanding of the state of the dead BECAUSE I wasn't willing to say, "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as I will never accept the <different> point of view."

It seems foolish to me to limit an infinite God to what finite man can understand.

I gave you a LOT of Biblical evidence for my position that didn't limit God to being no than finite man can understand.

 

[Derf]

It seems foolish to me to limit an infinite God to what finite man can understand.

I gave you a LOT of Biblical evidence for my position that didn't limit God to being no than finite man can understand.

Which is a long-winded way to say, "Because God is too marvelous to understand, my understanding is better than yours."

 

[Gary K]

Which is a long-winded way to say, "Because God is too marvelous to understand, my understanding is better than yours."

No. I'm saying He is beyond my ability to fully comprehend. I admit that fully and freely. You seem very hesitant to do so. I don't understand why either. Why would you be hesitant to admit you're finite with limits to your abilities? You're human.

There's a Clint Eastwood saying that applies here. A man has to know his limitations.

 

[Gary K]

Open Theism is the idea that God does not know the future because the future is unknowable. This assertion is meant to safeguard the freedom of human actions.

I just reread your post and realized what you said. How can a theology safeguard anything? Man cannot control God in any way, shape, or form.

 

[zippy2006]

Open theism denigrates the power and character of God as the "reason" for it is that it is to "safeguard" the ability freely make choices that God has given humanity to His entire sentient creation when He created them. If He had not done so there would be no sin as the angels rebelled while living in the presence of God. So what's the reason for the theology? Distrust of God.

If you ask me it is satanic theology.

I just reread your post and realized what you said. How can a theology safeguard anything? Man cannot control God in any way, shape, or form.

Safeguarding something has no necessary relation to controlling God. You are needlessly introducing polemics.

The idea is that, "If the future is knowable and God knows it, then we do not have free will. But we do have free will, therefore the future is unknowable, even by God."

It is a claim about God, not an attempt to control God. Similarly, when we say that God is omnipotent we are making a claim about God, we are not attempting to control God.

 

[Gary K]

Safeguarding something has no necessary relation to controlling God. You are needlessly introducing polemics.

The idea is that, "If the future is knowable and God knows it, then we do not have free will. But we do have free will, therefore the future is unknowable, even by God."

It is a claim about God, not an attempt to control God. Similarly, when we say that God is omnipotent we are making a claim about God, we are not attempting to control God.

Sorry about that. It was your wording about safeguarding free will that caused me to believe what I did about your beliefs.

I have a problem with open theism because God is infinite and thus so far beyond our understanding it is impossible for me to believe that finite beings can come up with a theology that accurately describes what He cannot do. IOWs open theism limits God to the limits of our finite understanding. His abilities are infinitely greater than our ability to understand.

 

[zippy2006]

Sorry about that. It was your wording about safeguarding free will that caused me to believe what I did about your beliefs.

That's alright. I am not an Open Theist.

I have a problem with open theism because God is infinite and thus so far beyond our understanding it is impossible for me to believe that finite beings can come up with a theology that accurately describes what He cannot do. IOWs open theism limits God to the limits of our finite understanding. His abilities are infinitely greater than our ability to understand.

It is very common for theologians to maintain that God cannot do what is impossible, such as change the date of your birth. So the Open Theist's claim rests on their premise that it is impossible to know the future.

 

[Derf]

Sorry about that. It was your wording about safeguarding free will that caused me to believe what I did about your beliefs.

I have a problem with open theism because God is infinite and thus so far beyond our understanding it is impossible for me to believe that finite beings can come up with a theology that accurately describes what He cannot do. IOWs open theism limits God to the limits of our finite understanding. His abilities are infinitely greater than our ability to understand.

Do you think God is able to communicate His attributes and abilities to us in a way we can understand? Or is God unable to do that?

 

[Gary K]

Do you think God is able to communicate His attributes and abilities to us in a way we can understand? Or is God unable to do that?

Of course He can. But we can only understand what He reveals to us.

 

[Derf]

Of course He can. But we can only understand what He reveals to us.

Then why, when I point out what He has revealed to us, do you say it's beyond our understanding?

 

[Gary K]

Then why, when I point out what He has revealed to us, do you say it's beyond our understanding?

Because I differ with you in the meaning of what the text says. The way you read the text limits God to no more than what human understanding can grasp. As to your example of Hezekiah you don't believe God knew what would happen to him. To me the prophet waa the one who didn't understand what was going on. He didn't know Hezekiah had turned his face to the wall, prayed and wept bitterly. Hezekiah was a man of great faith and God answered his prayer. I don't see anything inconsistent in that at all on God's part.

 

[Derf]

Because I differ with you in the meaning of what the text says. The way you read the text limits God to no more than what human understanding can grasp. As to your example of Hezekiah you don't believe God knew what would happen to him. To me the prophet waa the one who didn't understand what was going on. He didn't know Hezekiah had turned his face to the wall, prayed and wept bitterly. Hezekiah was a man of great faith and God answered his prayer. I don't see anything inconsistent in that at all on God's part.

God knew that he turned his face to the wall? Or that he would turn his face to the wall when the world began?

 

[Gary K]

God knew that he turned his face to the wall? Or that he would turn his face to the wall when the world began?

What difference does it make?

 

[Derf]

Because I differ with you in the meaning of what the text says. The way you read the text limits God to no more than what human understanding can grasp.

But the way you read it limits God to the way you understand Him! Why is that better than the way i understand Him? This is a double standard you are employing. You say we can't understand God my way, but you can understand God your way. If God is beyond understanding, then He's just as much beyond your understanding as mine.

But if He reveals Himself to us, and we've agreed that He is capable of revealing some things to us in ways we can understand, then we should read the Bible as understandable, and not as beyond our understanding, right?

As to your example of Hezekiah you don't believe God knew what would happen to him.

Not true. I believe God did know what would happen to him--he was going to die of that illness. Then God changed what would happen to him--he would survive that illness. But you can't change what God knows about the future in your view. Yet here we have a passage where what God knew about the future was changed. Just this one instance completely debunks your view (and the Calvinist view, too).

To me the prophet waa the one who didn't understand what was going on.

The prophet said "Thus says the Lord." Both times.
#1 Isaiah 38:1 KJV — In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live.
#2
Isaiah 38:5 KJV — Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.

He didn't know Hezekiah had turned his face to the wall, prayed and wept bitterly. Hezekiah was a man of great faith and God answered his prayer. I don't see anything inconsistent in that at all on God's part.

Notice that God ADDED 15 years to his life. This is a change to Hezekiah's future. How does the future change, if God already knows the future as it was?

 

[Derf]

What difference does it make?

I can see why you're afraid to answer.

 

[Gary K]

I can see why you're afraid to answer.

Afraid to answer? When in our conversations have I ever been afraid to answer?