I find it interesting that most people appear to be Open Theists without even knowing it

[Sabertooth]

God never changes His mind

I'm not defending open theism, but here are some conflicting incidents,

• Jonah prophesies the destruction of Nineveh. Nineveh repents. God relents.
• God plans to destroy the Hebrews and restart His plan with Moses as patriarch. Moses intercedes. God abandons that plan. Exodus 32:10-14
• Isaiah prophesies to Hezekiah his imminent death. Hezekiah asks for more time, which God grants. 2 Kings 20:1-6
• God delays Captivity for Josiah's faithfulness.

 

[Philip_B]

The Scriptures are written for us humans using our very limited languages which cannot fully explain the infinite God of the Bible. Take for example Genesis 6 where we read God "repented", where the Hebrew is literally "to sigh or breathe heavily" because of our sins. A sign of God being grieved. All the examples you give can easily be explained

Thank you for misunderstanding my post.

 

[Alpha.Omega]

Thank you for misunderstanding my post.

I am explaining the limitations of our languages

 

[Alpha.Omega]

I'm not defending open theism, but here are some conflicting incidents,

• Jonah prophesies the destruction of Nineveh. Nineveh repents. God relents.
• God plans to destroy the Hebrews and restart His plan with Moses as patriarch. Moses intercedes. God abandons that plan. Exodus 32:10-14
• Isaiah prophesies to Hezekiah his imminent death. Hezekiah asks for more time, which God grants. 2 Kings 20:1-6

Nor are there any contradictions in the Bible

 

[RDKirk]

While I agree... you're going to learn that a blanket statement like that on that subject will do nothing but give you many hours of grief. There are verses that say, "God repented," which certainly indicates a change of mind. While I would argue that whatever it was went in the direction He knew it would to begin with... the presence of lines like that make it possible for others to take an opposing view. To argue it with them, if they are not seeking to see it your way, is a waste of time and a blood pressure raiser and for no reason.

1. I would argue that such phrases are the result of scripture necessarily being written by men with brains of mere meat trying to explain actions that are beyond their comprehension.

2. That linguistic concepts themselves have changed in ways that the best translators may realize exist, yet not be able to translate with due justice.

Take, for instance, the meanings of "remember" and "forget."

Scripture says "God remembered Noah." That does not mean the knowledge of Noah had escaped God's omniscience, but that He took action on His intention for Noah at that point in time.

In the same way, to say that God "forgets" our sins does not mean that they have been removed from His omniscience, but that He will never take action on them.

 

[Philip_B]

Nor are there any contradictions in the Bible

Article XX
Of the Authority of the Church
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.​

I know that this from my tradition of faith, however I think it raises a question about how we deal with the text of scripture when it seems that there are alternate views expressed.

Your approach it would seem is to find a way to fit one inside the other and so find a unified single view. The other approach is to accept that both views carry truth, and to allow that seeming disconnect to be part of the mystery in which we find ourselves. If I might use an Eastern word in thinking about God it would be ineffable (unable to be told in story).

They do not need to be contradictions, but life is not always simple enough to be suitable for the dumbed down breakfast infomercial style of television. There is more than one description of God in the text, yet the text is clear - God is One.

 

[Alpha.Omega]

I'm not defending open theism, but here are some conflicting incidents,

• Jonah prophesies the destruction of Nineveh. Nineveh repents. God relents.
• God plans to destroy the Hebrews and restart His plan with Moses as patriarch. Moses intercedes. God abandons that plan. Exodus 32:10-14
• Isaiah prophesies to Hezekiah his imminent death. Hezekiah asks for more time, which God grants. 2 Kings 20:1-6

ALL of which you show from these examples, and many more, are already part of the huge plan of God, for all of His Creation. God does not "relent" of anything, as in change His mind due to some error, but He already has in His purposes and plans that when the Ninevehites repented, that He would forgive them. God abandons no plan, as though it were a mistake and He changed His mind. Even Moses interceding for the children of Israel, was already part of what would happen, and God's response.

Jeremiah 18:5-10,

"Then the word of the Lord came to me: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it"

Joel 2:12-14

"“Yet even now,” declares the Lord,“return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; and rend your hearts and not your garments.” Return to the Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love; and he relents over disaster. Who knows whether he will not turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind him, a grain offering and a drink offering
for the Lord your God?"

Ezekiel 18:21-24

"But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die."

 

[Alpha.Omega]

Article XX
Of the Authority of the Church
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.​

I know that this from my tradition of faith, however I think it raises a question about how we deal with the text of scripture when it seems that there are alternate views expressed.

Your approach it would seem is to find a way to fit one inside the other and so find a unified single view. The other approach is to accept that both views carry truth, and to allow that seeming disconnect to be part of the mystery in which we find ourselves. If I might use an Eastern word in thinking about God it would be ineffable (unable to be told in story).

They do not need to be contradictions, but life is not always simple enough to be suitable for the dumbed down breakfast infomercial style of television. There is more than one description of God in the text, yet the text is clear - God is One.

Both views carry the truth? How is this even a possibility? Take 3 examples

1. Isaiah 7:14, "virgin" or "young woman"?

2. 1 Timothy 3:16, "God was manifest in the flesh", or "He who was manifest..."?

3. 1 John 5:7, "there are Three Who bear witness in Heaven...", or nothing?

Which of these is actually the original autograph, and therefore the Word of God?

 

[Philip_B]

Both views carry the truth? How is this even a possibility? Take 3 examples

1. Isaiah 7:14, "virgin" or "young woman"?
2. 1 Timothy 3:16, "God was manifest in the flesh", or "He who was manifest..."?
3. 1 John 5:7, "there are Three Who bear witness in Heaven...", or nothing?

Which of these is actually the original autograph, and therefore the Word of God?

I clearly do not understand the issue that you have with this. We are the autograph of God, made in his image and after his likeness as scripture tells us, so the Kingdom of God is within us. I certainly affirm a belief in the Holy Trinity and at the absolute outset that means that God is One and God is Three, without contradiction. The challenge of life is not for me to have God under control, but rather to bring my rebellious spirit under God's control. I don't see how the rendering of Hebrew text in English (whilst it is no doubt interesting and important) has any bearing on what I was saying, and certainly not what I thought we were discussing.

 

[danielmears]

God is love, light and spirit. Jesus implored us to become One as he and the father are One because this is the way, loving the Father and one another. It is an awareness that God is in us and we in him. Are you not grieved when your child strays because you want only good for them.Likewise since the Father is love he wants only goodness for us. Jesus sets the record straight, explaining the kingdom principles and what is required.

 

[Resha Caner]

Open theism does also claim that God knows every POSSIBLE future, but does not know the future exhaustively, since it doesn't exist.

To "know" a logical impossibility is absurd. People are just way too free with speaking in God's place for my comfort - making dogmatic declarations about God IS this and God IS that. Since we finite beings can't establish whether the future exists, I think we should stop declaring that it does - stop belaboring Scripture with things it never says and creating heresies out of our own limited knowledge.

If the future doesn't exist, it doesn't strip God of his sovereignty to say he doesn't know a nonexistent future. By simply believing Scripture that he is the maximal being, we know God can determine any future he desires (which is different from knowing a nonexistent future).

On the flip side, to say God knows a logical absurdity is to call him mad. Isn't that a heresy?

Whatever the case, I'll borrow from Joan of Arc when she sat before the inquisition. She was likewise given a question meant to trap her into confessing a heresy (as the OP seems to be doing). So, if my future exists, I pray God's power has placed me in a state of grace. If my future does not exist, I pray God's grace keep me so.

 

[Micah888]

This is an interesting observation I thought might stir some interesting discussion.

Had you provided the various definitions of Open Theism, it would have been helpful. Indeed, there are quite a few different definitions:

1. Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/o-theism/

2. The argument of open theism is essentially this: human beings are truly free; if God absolutely knew the future, human beings could not truly be free. Therefore, God does not know absolutely everything about the future. Open theism holds that the future is not knowable. Therefore, God knows everything that can be known, but He does not know the future.
What is open theism?

3. ... all references to God’s feelings, surprise and lack of knowledge are literal and the result of His choice to create a world where He can be affected by man’s choices. God’s exhaustive knowledge does not include future free will choices by mankind because they have not yet occurred.
Challenges to the Church - Open Theism - Tim Challies

4. It is the teaching that God has granted to humanity free will and that in order for the free will to be truly free, the future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God.
What is Open Theism? | CARM.org

What it boils down to is that Open Theism claims that God's foreknowledge is somehow limited by man's free will. But since the Bible makes it crystal clear that God cannot be limited in any way by anything, and that His omniscience includes His absolute foreknowledge, then Open Theism is simply another nonsensical idea.

 

[GUANO]

Because most people don't know jack about their own religion and aren't concerned with logic, even within their own rationality.

 

[Micah888]

Why does everything have to be put into one of these three little boxes?

Because a lot of Christians can't think outside the box.

 

[Alpha.Omega]

Both Calvinism and Arminianism are wrong.
I have never heard of "Open Theism", but if it says that God can't know the future, then it is wrong as well.
Why does everything have to be put into one of these three little boxes?

"Both Calvinism and Arminianism are wrong". Are you some sort of authority on these two groups? Do you really know what they actually teach? The greater majority of what the both teach, is what the Bible says, so to say that they are both wrong, in a blanket statement, is wrong itself!

 

[Alpha.Omega]

Because most people don't know jack about their own religion and aren't concerned with logic, even within their own rationality.

the Christian Faith of the Holy Bible, is definitely not "logical", but is 100% Truth.

 

[Resha Caner]

the Christian Faith of the Holy Bible, is definitely not "logical", but is 100% Truth.

I find it to be both logical and true.

 

[Alpha.Omega]

I find it to be both logical and true.

That God can and does forgive a wretched sinner, and take their punishment for their sins that they have committed against Him, and grant them pardon and eternal life. These, are not what is known as "logical", because it is supernatural Grace that does it!

 

[Resha Caner]

That God can and does forgive a wretched sinner, and take their punishment for their sins that they have committed against Him, and grant them pardon and eternal life. These, are not what is known as "logical", because it is supernatural Grace that does it!

I find nothing illogical about it.

It seems you're using "logical" as a very loose synonym for "not typical of human behavior", which is not how I would use that word.

 

[Doug Melven]

"Both Calvinism and Arminianism are wrong". Are you some sort of authority on these two groups? Do you really know what they actually teach? The greater majority of what the both teach, is what the Bible says, so to say that they are both wrong, in a blanket statement, is wrong itself!

I have had extensive debates with Calvinist's and I can definitely tell you Calvinism is wrong.
God does not determine who will and who won't go to Heaven.

Of the 5 points of Arminianism 2 are completely wrong.