Having looked him up on Wikipedia, I'm not surprised.This discussion reminds me of Rabbi Harold Kushner.
God, i.e. omnipotent first cause, is not subject to any principle, including the future. He is the CAUSE of the future.While I disagree with open theism, it's a false accusation that open theism is a modern innovation. Open theism was taught by the medieval Jewish philosopher Gersonides, as well as other medieval Jewish thinkers, based on Genesis 22:12.
Genesis 22:12
“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” He said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
The reason why open theism doesn't contradict God's perfection is because, according to open theists, the future is unknowable because, by definition, it doesn't yet exist.
Asking if God can know a future that doesn't exist yet is, according to open theism, like asking if God can create a rock so big that even He can't lift it.
According to open theism, while God knows beforehand all the choices open to each individual, He doesn't know ahead of time exactly what man's choice will be. At the same time, God is able to fulfill prophecy by, in real time, influencing events to His will.
Open theism, just like Calvinism, Molinism, Arminianism, provisionism, etc. is a legitimate interpretation of scripture, since it has nothing to do with the essentials of salvation.
"In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity."
I disagree with open theism because I don't think it's strong enough on the fulfillment of prophecy, but I could be wrong, and it has nothing to do with the essentials of salvation anyway.
Ecclesiastes 7:18
It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.
1 Corinthians 8:2-3
Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much. But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.
Open Theism Bible Verses in 33 Categories
Open Theism Bible Verses in 33 Categories | Open Theism
God, i.e. omnipotent first cause, is not subject to any principle, including the future. He is the CAUSE of the future.
Casually? Even if you mean 'causally', those passages make perfect sense when God 'talks down to' those who assume constancy (validity) to their mindset. Further, such things as him 'changing his mind' grammatically can mean 'changes the direction of his action' and the like.That's assuming God casually determines everything which comes to pass, which wouldn't make sense of scripture passages where God appears to change His mind based on human decisions.
This verse does not prove " open theism" . God is allowing Abraham to "process" his choice of obedience by sharing the experience with him on a human level. Another example would be God seemingly not knowing where Adam and Eve are in the garden when in fact He did know. Adam and Eve needed to realize their actions while God shared in their process. God knows the end to the means however we do not .So is God lying when He says " now I know" absolutely not.“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” He said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
Did he say that it proved Open Theism? Your description of what God knows is not found in the text... which is the point and why it implies Open Theism.This verse does not prove " open theism" . God is allowing Abraham to "process" his choice of obedience by sharing the experience with him on a human level. Another example would be God seemingly not knowing where Adam and Eve are in the garden when in fact He did know. Adam and Eve needed to realize their actions while God shared in their process. God knows the end to the means however we do not .So is God lying when He says " now I know" absolutely not.
He in fact is confirming to Abraham what He already knew but Abraham did not know but now does know.
Be blessed,
I've read the book (Openness of God), have a relative (philosophy professor) who believes it, and what I saw of the video is pretty much the same. They not only believe that God is a victim (yes, my extrapolation of what they say) of the future, but that freewill (as in uncaused choice) is the only way man can be responsible for his choices. They are wrong on both counts.This video explains open theism with scripture alone:
It is implied in the rhetoric of the text here, and many places, as the Bible does not contradict itself, implying here that God didn't actually know something when elsewhere it is said that God knows everything.Did he say that it proved Open Theism? Your description of what God knows is not found in the text... which is the point and why it implies Open Theism.
The problem is you are taking some verses and making it say something about God and then making excuses for other verses that say or imply otherwise. Open Theists do this too, but with the contra verses.It is implied in the rhetoric of the text here, and many places, as the Bible does not contradict itself, implying here that God didn't actually know something when elsewhere it is said that God knows everything.
If the future doesn't exist, there is no future. But God is not encumbered by our philosophies, our thinking, our concepts, nor, in fact, any principle at all, time or non-time.
This verse does not prove " open theism" . God is allowing Abraham to "process" his choice of obedience by sharing the experience with him on a human level. Another example would be God seemingly not knowing where Adam and Eve are in the garden when in fact He did know. Adam and Eve needed to realize their actions while God shared in their process. God knows the end to the means however we do not .So is God lying when He says " now I know" absolutely not.
He in fact is confirming to Abraham what He already knew but Abraham did not know but now does know.
Be blessed,
The problem is you are taking some verses and making it say something about God and then making excuses for other verses that say or imply otherwise. Open Theists do this too, but with the contra verses.
So God knowing everything in most verses refers to God knowing everything about something specific, rather than knowing others. In other instances a case can be made for rhetoric implying (as in the OT) that God's knowledge is beyond what we can comprehend. This then allows the verses that show God not knowing something to be truthful (e.g. God telling Jonah that Ninevah will be destroyed).
Rabbi Yeshayahu Horowitz explained the apparent paradox of his position by citing the old question, "Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot pick it up?" He said that we cannot accept free choice as a creation of God's, and simultaneously question its logical compatibility with omnipotence.
Gersonides - Wikipedia
Not if the "texts at their word" means eisegesis and ignoring of Scripture to the contrary.What open theism does for these passages is take the texts at their word, rather than reading into them an outside philosophy. Isn't that what sola scriptura is all about?
So you say God does not know what we will choose,decide etc. because these verses must be taken literally or at face value?What open theism does for these passages is take the texts at their word, rather than reading into them an outside philosophy. Isn't that what sola scriptura is all about?
If the future doesn't exist yet then, by definition, it's unknowable by God. It's like asking if God can create a rock so big that even He can't life it.
So you say God does not know what we will choose,decide etc. because these verses must be taken literally or at face value?
Rabbi Yeshayahu Horowitz explained the apparent paradox of his position by citing the old question, "Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot pick it up?" He said that we cannot accept free choice as a creation of God's, and simultaneously question its logical compatibility with omnipotence.
Gersonides - Wikipedia
This statment is not particularly a good way to prove Calvanism wrong. It causes a whole other set of problems. God simply knows the future but does not control the future however He can if it is in His will. . Blessings.If the future doesn't exist yet then, by definition, it's unknowable by God.
This statment is not particularly a good way to prove Calvanism wrong. It causes a whole other set of problems. God simply knows the future but does not control the future however He can if it is in His will. . Blessings.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?