CF's stance on Open Theism

[themuzicman]

The FAQ says:

Discussions about Nicene and Trinitarian beliefs may take place in the Christian-Only forums, all discussions regarding non-Nicene and non-Trinitarian topics will take place in Unorthodox Theology. Those topics include (but are not limited to)
● Universalism
● Open Theism
● Full Preterism
● Trinitarianism
● Annihilationism
● Masonry
● discussions related to unorthodox Christian religions

How exactly is open theism non-Nicene or non-Trinitarian?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

How exactly is open theism non-Nicene or non-Trinitarian?

If you are an open theist and Nicene/ Trinitarian maybe you should let CF staff know so they can be made aware that such people exist.

I'm really not sure what Masonry has to do with non-Trinitarianism or a rejection of the Nicene Creed either though so maybe the list goes beyond that and the opening statement is only part of the reason for the list.

 

[elopez]

How exactly is open theism non-Nicene or non-Trinitarian?

Well I know how OT neglects the Trinity. OT claims that God is only temporal, and that means that God is not viewed as atemporal. Yet if God created the universe, He must have existed without the universe. Since space and time are essentially one, without the universe there is no time. Thus, without the universe God existed atemporally. Such an idea that God is timeless without the universe is actually becoming more accepted in OT, however they also claim God ceases to be timeless which I think is where the stance ignores the Trinity.

God exists as three separate persons. The Son and Spirit were actually used to create the universe, earth, and life. We find that backed by Scripture. So the Father used the Son and Spirit to create. Taking that into consideration, we could say that the Son and Spirit are temporal, which is to say God is temporal. Though, the Father would have remained the same as He did without the universe, which is timeless, so in that respect we can also say God is atemporal. Therefore God is not just either or, but bot temporal and atemporal according to the Trinity.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

None of that would really prevent someone from accepting the idea of God being 3 persons 1 essence or from believing that God created heaven and earth and the other statements found in the Nicene creed though would it?

 

[Hoshiyya]

Well I know how OT neglects the Trinity.

True. (So too does the New.)

OT claims that God is only temporal, and that means that God is not viewed as atemporal.

Does it now ?

(I don't know of any Jews that view God this way, or Jewish texts that portray him thus, neither pre- nor post-exilic.)

 

[St_Worm2]

OT = "Open Theism" (not "Old Testament")

 

[elopez]

None of that would really prevent someone from accepting the idea of God being 3 persons 1 essence or from believing that God created heaven and earth and the other statements found in the Nicene creed though would it?

No, it would just be inconsistent theology that really just neglects the Trinity. We shouldn't say that God ceases to be timeless as the Father is timeless with and without the universe.

Really OT doesn't necessarily mean one cannot be Christian. It means they have a different view of omniscience and free will than most orthodox Christians who think omniscience requires infallible foreknowledge.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

No, it would just be inconsistent theology

That would be another issue all together though wouldn't it? It seems like it's specifically saying OT is inherently non-Trinitarian but it appears that some OTeists actually are Trinitarians. Just because people might think a specific theology is inconsistant (Armineans feel that way about Calvinism who feel that way about Catholicism who....etc... yet people generally don't accuse any of them of being non-Trinitarian ) doesn't mean it's adherents reject the idea of 3 persons one essence or that God created the heavens and the earth and whatnot.

 

[elopez]

That would be another issue all together though wouldn't it? It seems like it's specifically saying OT is inherently non-Trinitarian but it appears that some OTeists actually are Trinitarians. Just because people might think a specific theology is inconsistant (Armineans feel that way about Calvinism who feel that way about Catholicism who....etc... yet people generally don't accuse any of them of being non-Trinitarian ) doesn't mean it's adherents reject the idea of 3 persons one essence or that God created the heavens and the earth and watnot.

I am not sure if you've misread what I have claimed or what, but I have never said that OT is non - trinitarian. What I said was that OT neglects to take into account the Trinity itself. Again, I have not said OT rejects the idea of 3 persons in one essence but completely leaves it out in their theology specifically concerning this issue.

 

[drstevej]

The FAQ says:
How exactly is open theism non-Nicene or non-Trinitarian?

CF rules state:

Use the Member Services Center to submit questions and complaints about staff disciplinary action or rules.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I am not sure if you've misread what I have claimed or what, but I have never said that OT is non - trinitarian.

If you read the first post it was specifically discussing the issue of the Trinity and Nicene Creed. The person was asking why OT would be listed under a general statement about rejection of the Trinity.

 

[elopez]

If you read the first post it was specifically discussing the issue of the Trinity and Nicene Creed. The person was asking why OT would be listed under a general statement about rejection of the Trinity.

There are issues with OT and the Trinity. OT rejects certain theological aspects of the Trinity, like the one I stated.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The Trinitarian requirements of the Nicene creed , the form that this site takes as authoritative for "orthodoxy", doesn't specifically mention that issue though.

This is the creed of first council:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;
He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]
​

It was later expanded at the next council and they may be including this as part of the Nicene Creed as well but it still doesn't add anything an OT couldn't agree to.:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

​

You might say that it would be illogical for an OT to adopt a belief in the Trinity. Maybe you believe that some of their philosphical beliefs about God should logically lead to a different conclusion? But if they don't actually follow those conclusions you think they should and still embrace the Nicene statement on the Trinity I don't see why they wouldn't be called Trinitarian.

 

[St_Worm2]

My question about the creed and OT would be the business about God being "Almighty". How can someone be considered "Almighty" who is not in some manner or fashion in control of all things? For that matter, how could such a being be considered "God" ..

If OT adherents are happy with a being who is God of SOME things, fine for them.

As for me, I prefer to stick with worshipping a being who is God of ALL things, past, present, and future. How else can He truly be trusted to fulfill any of the promises He has made to us? And again, if He is not Lord of ALL, how can He be considered Lord at all ..

--David

 

[Ishraqiyun]

They might say Almighty implies the possession of all power that there is to possess. They could possibly interpret it as implying that God has more power than any other being. Probably a few different ways you could reconcile it.

 

[elopez]

There are those OT out there that deny eternal meaning no beginning. I've even encountered one on here before. Those OT that do are indeed making non - trinitarian statements which are also inconsistent with the Nicene Creed. Not all OT claim that though, and those that do not have no similar issue as those that do. I still think you've misread what I said. In fact, if you would have read one of my earlier posts you would have noticed I said I think those OT that say God is eternal are still Trinitarian, just that they ignore the Trinity in their OT philosophy. I am responding to the OP's question by stating no, not OT are all non - trinitarian, some are, and those that are not simlpy ignore the concept.

 

[elopez]

Plus there are also those OT who deny timelessness altogether. Though timelessness is inferred from the eternal nature of God, which to say timelessness is not an attribute of God is near saying eternalness is not either, of course coming close to contradicting the Nicene Creed.

 

[themuzicman]

Well I know how OT neglects the Trinity. OT claims that God is only temporal, and that means that God is not viewed as atemporal. Yet if God created the universe, He must have existed without the universe. Since space and time are essentially one, without the universe there is no time. Thus, without the universe God existed atemporally. Such an idea that God is timeless without the universe is actually becoming more accepted in OT, however they also claim God ceases to be timeless which I think is where the stance ignores the Trinity.

Umm.. well.. Most OTs that I know say that God exists outside of created time and space, but does experience a chronology of His own. So, I don't think that's a valid claim.

God exists as three separate persons. The Son and Spirit were actually used to create the universe, earth, and life. We find that backed by Scripture. So the Father used the Son and Spirit to create. Taking that into consideration, we could say that the Son and Spirit are temporal, which is to say God is temporal. Though, the Father would have remained the same as He did without the universe, which is timeless, so in that respect we can also say God is atemporal. Therefore God is not just either or, but bot temporal and atemporal according to the Trinity.

This really has nothing to do with Open Theism.

 

[themuzicman]

CF rules state:

I'm not asking about the rules ,but rather the theology.

 

[themuzicman]

My question about the creed and OT would be the business about God being "Almighty". How can someone be considered "Almighty" who is not in some manner or fashion in control of all things? For that matter, how could such a being be considered "God" ..

I would submit that it is a denial of omnipotence to say that God MUST control everything in order to accomplish His purpose. It seems to me that if one does not control everything and still accomplishes one's purpose, then one's power is far greater.

If OT adherents are happy with a being who is God of SOME things, fine for them.

I find it unclear as to why "control of all things" is equated to being "God of all things." Are you saying that someone who isn't under God's meticulous control can't be "of God"?

As for me, I prefer to stick with worshipping a being who is God of ALL things, past, present, and future. How else can He truly be trusted to fulfill any of the promises He has made to us?

This really sounds like a denial of omnipotence to me. Are you saying that unless God has meticulous control of all things that He isn't capable of keeping His word and accomplishing His purpses?

And again, if He is not Lord of ALL, how can He be considered Lord at all ..

Who said that He isn't Lord of all? Is meticulous control of everything required to be "Lord"?