Open Theism - ?? what definition for it?

[BobRyan]

Richard Rice at LLU - promotes something he calls "Open Theism".

I don't know if Rice uses this definition or not

Open theism is a belief that God does not control everything in the universe, but allows humans to make free choices that affect the future123. God is open to what creatures do and responds to them with love123. The future is open in that there is more than one possible outcome23. Open theism emphasizes God's love and responsiveness over God's sovereignty and foreknowledge.​

"Some" define the term to mean "God does not actually know the future" or that "God knows possible futures but does not know which one will actually play out." -- and Idea which I am sure most people here would reject (as do I).

But what about the one above that admits "God allows humans to make free choices that affect the future"? I suspect almost everyone here would agree with the idea that choices do affect the future - yet God most certainly knows exactly what will happen without any doubt, confusion etc on His part.

In any case when I hear that term used I think of the negative side of it and reject it. However is it possible some are using it in a way that does not include that sort of negative constraint?

 

[zippy2006]

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.

 

[Laodicean60]

Richard Rice at LLU - promotes something he calls "Open Theism".

I don't know if Rice uses this definition or not

Open theism is a belief that God does not control everything in the universe, but allows humans to make free choices that affect the future123. God is open to what creatures do and responds to them with love123. The future is open in that there is more than one possible outcome23. Open theism emphasizes God's love and responsiveness over God's sovereignty and foreknowledge.​

"Some" define the term to mean "God does not actually know the future" or that "God knows possible futures but does not know which one will actually play out." -- and Idea which I am sure most people here would reject (as do I).

But what about the one above that admits "God allows humans to make free choices that affect the future"? I suspect almost everyone here would agree with the idea that choices do affect the future - yet God most certainly knows exactly what will happen without any doubt, confusion etc on His part.

In any case when I hear that term used I think of the negative side of it and reject it. However is it possible some are using it in a way that does not include that sort of negative constraint?

I believe all that's true but why do we have to give it a name? God holds everything together but our freedom is what gets us in trouble. Jesus has given us the story of mankind here on this earth. Look around it's happening now, we're worse than animals sometimes. I have done a reflection on the last 20 years of history and I ask myself How did we come to this? Lies from the media, politicians, FDA, WEF, and health. Seem we have allowed the spirit of Laodecia to work because we seem lukewarm to the truth. I am ashamed of myself. If every Christian in the USA attacked one lie at a time, do you think the future would change? The problem is you have to dig out the lie and that takes work. Peace

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Certainly we are opposed to the idea that God does not actually know the future.

But at the same time human decisions change future outcomes as in the case of Adam and Eve. Had they not of their own free will chosen to sin - no gospel would be needed, and a planet full of humans would not have been lost.

Of course - we also know that God knew about that issue ahead of time.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Derf]

Richard Rice at LLU - promotes something he calls "Open Theism".

I don't know if Rice uses this definition or not

Open theism is a belief that God does not control everything in the universe, but allows humans to make free choices that affect the future123. God is open to what creatures do and responds to them with love123. The future is open in that there is more than one possible outcome23. Open theism emphasizes God's love and responsiveness over God's sovereignty and foreknowledge.​

"Some" define the term to mean "God does not actually know the future" or that "God knows possible futures but does not know which one will actually play out." -- and Idea which I am sure most people here would reject (as do I).

But what about the one above that admits "God allows humans to make free choices that affect the future"? I suspect almost everyone here would agree with the idea that choices do affect the future - yet God most certainly knows exactly what will happen without any doubt, confusion etc on His part.

In any case when I hear that term used I think of the negative side of it and reject it. However is it possible some are using it in a way that does not include that sort of negative constraint?

I actually backed my way into open theism when I figured out the others were untenable, and couldn't find any bible verses that said "God knows all future events, choices, and final destinations of all people that will ever live."

Calvinism is untenable because it makes God the author of sin (I think you'll agree with me on that).
Arminianism is untenable because it is determinism by somebody besides God (I can explain that in a future post, if you want), and that makes the other somebody more powerful than God, because that other somebody actually determines God's future, too (sort of like the Fates in Greek Mythology).
Calvinism and Arminianism represent the two options in a world where the future is settled (meaning God knows it all from the very beginning), one where God knows the future because He decrees it all, and the other where God knows the future because He can either see it all laid out before Him or because the knowledge is inherent in Him (part of the definition of God).

 

[Derf]

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.

It only denigrates the power and character of God if it's false. (Which makes the argument beg the question.)

 

[Derf]

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 would limit the parts of the future that God doesn't know to those things which He has allowed humans or angels to control.

 

[Derf]

Certainly we are opposed to the idea that God does not actually know the future.

But at the same time human decisions change future outcomes as in the case of Adam and Eve. Had they not of their own free will chosen to sin - no gospel would be needed, and a planet full of humans would not have been lost.

Of course - we also know that God knew about that issue ahead of time.

The question that then arises is, "When did God know about that issue ahead of time?" If from all eternity, then it means God is the subject of His own predestination--He actually was required to create the world exactly as He did, because He knew that's how He would create it. It suggests there was never a moment in God's eternal existence that He wasn't slated to perform exactly what He has performed so far or everything else He will ever perform in His existence. God is not free, but exists in a determined state.

 

[Gary K]

I actually backed my way into open theism when I figured out the others were untenable, and couldn't find any bible verses that said "God knows all future events, choices, and final destinations of all people that will ever live."

Calvinism is untenable because it makes God the author of sin (I think you'll agree with me on that).
Arminianism is untenable because it is determinism by somebody besides God (I can explain that in a future post, if you want), and that makes the other somebody more powerful than God, because that other somebody actually determines God's future, too (sort of like the Fates in Greek Mythology).
Calvinism and Arminianism represent the two options in a world where the future is settled (meaning God knows it all from the very beginning), one where God knows the future because He decrees it all, and the other where God knows the future because He can either see it all laid out before Him or because the knowledge is inherent in Him (part of the definition of God).

The problem with open theism is it is a response to something God has already proven about Himself. He has proven that He is out to control nobody. The devil alone is proof of that let alone 1/3 of the angels who fell with him, plus 6000 years of sin on this earth. If He was a control freak He would have displayed that behavior long before now. If that isn't enough evidence about the character of God for you to accept there is no need for open theism I don't know what to tell you.

I got sucked into it on TOL years ago for a short time but it didn't take me very long to see it's failings.

 

[Derf]

The problem with open theism is it is a response to something God has already proven about Himself. He has proven that He is out to control nobody. The devil alone is proof of that let alone 1/3 of the angels who fell with him, plus 6000 years of sin on this earth. If He was a control freak He would have displayed that behavior long before now. If that isn't enough evidence about the character of God for you to accept there is no need for open theism I don't know what to tell you.

I got sucked into it on TOL years ago for a short time but it didn't take me very long to see it's failings.

I don't see how any of that argues against it.

 

[Gary K]

I don't see how any of that argues against it.

It does if a person considers how their beliefs reflect upon how God's character is viewed by others. I think upholding the character of God to the world is very important as the devil's aim is to make God appear in as negative a light as possible.. I don't want to help him out anymore than I can help it as a sinful human being.

 

[Derf]

It does if a person considers how their beliefs reflect upon how God's character is viewed by others. I think upholding the character of God to the world is very important as the devil's aim is to make God appear in as negative a light as possible.. I don't want to help him out anymore than I can help it as a sinful human being.

You'll have to explain to me why it denigrates the character of God.

How is not knowing the future a moral deficit?

 

[Gary K]

You'll have to explain to me why it denigrates the character of God.

How is not knowing the future a moral deficit?

God has already proven that He doesn't violate anyone's power of choice by allowing sin to develop in a perfect universe. The Bible shows through prophecy that when God says something it comes to pass. Look at all the prophecies concerning Jesus. They all came true. Look at the prophecies concerning the Jews and nation of Israel. They all came true. God doesn't say something and hope it comes true.

Amo_3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

sa 44:26 That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof:
Isa 44:27 That saith to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers:
Isa 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Also look at the dreams of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar. All of those prophetic dreams came true. Also look at the 70 years of captivity prophecied in Babylon. It's true there were prophecies that didn't come true but those were conditional on God's people of those days obeying God such as the third temple prophecied by Ezekiel. The Jews didn't obey God so the temple was never built. See the text below.

2Ch_7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

 

[reddogs]

Richard Rice at LLU - promotes something he calls "Open Theism".

I don't know if Rice uses this definition or not

Open theism is a belief that God does not control everything in the universe, but allows humans to make free choices that affect the future123. God is open to what creatures do and responds to them with love123. The future is open in that there is more than one possible outcome23. Open theism emphasizes God's love and responsiveness over God's sovereignty and foreknowledge.​

"Some" define the term to mean "God does not actually know the future" or that "God knows possible futures but does not know which one will actually play out." -- and Idea which I am sure most people here would reject (as do I).

But what about the one above that admits "God allows humans to make free choices that affect the future"? I suspect almost everyone here would agree with the idea that choices do affect the future - yet God most certainly knows exactly what will happen without any doubt, confusion etc on His part.

In any case when I hear that term used I think of the negative side of it and reject it. However is it possible some are using it in a way that does not include that sort of negative constraint?

In my view, it seems to limit God on many levels, and that is a problem.

 

[Derf]

In my view, it seems to limit God on many levels, and that is a problem.

Let's talk about some of those. Maybe start with the one that is most concerning to you.

 

[Derf]

God has already proven that He doesn't violate anyone's power of choice by allowing sin to develop in a perfect universe.

Yes, but if God knew a particular sin would develop in a particular person before that person existed, then there are only two ways for Him to know it. 1. That He was going to cause that sin to develop, or 2. That someone or something else was going to cause that sin to develop that existed at that time in eternity. Either way, the person is not responsible for his own sin.

The Bible shows through prophecy that when God says something it comes to pass.

No, it doesn't. I'll quote a wise man, "It's true there were prophecies that didn't come true."

Look at all the prophecies concerning Jesus. They all came true.

That's not true, either, though I expect them all to come true eventually

Look at the prophecies concerning the Jews and nation of Israel. They all came true.

There are numerous prophecies about the Jews that haven't come true (yet?).

God doesn't say something and hope it comes true.

No, He accomplishes His purposes.
Isaiah 46:11 KJV — Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

Also look at the dreams of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar. All of those prophetic dreams came true.

Part of Nebby's dream was that the Medes and Persians would conquer Babylon. How did God know? He purposed it. Then He set about to accomplish it. That dream revealed God's plan, not just a telling of future events as a spectator. Same for the dream that had the large tree cut down and chained up. It was fulfilled when Nebby thought he had accomplished so much in Babylon and didn't give glory to God. God caused him to go crazy for awhile. That was not just God looking into the future, it was God doing a mighty work to humble Nebby.

Also look at the 70 years of captivity prophecied in Babylon. It's true there were prophecies that didn't come true but those were conditional on God's people of those days obeying God such as the third temple prophecied by Ezekiel. The Jews didn't obey God so the temple was never built. See the text below.

If God knows all the contingent outcomes ahead of time, then is He lying when He tells the Ninevites they will be destroyed in 40 days?

A contingent prophecy tells us the future isn't settled.

And it doesn't demean God's character one iota.

 

[QvQ]

Revelation as a statistical probability?

 

[Gary K]

Yes, but if God knew a particular sin would develop in a particular person before that person existed, then there are only two ways for Him to know it. 1. That He was going to cause that sin to develop, or 2. That someone or something else was going to cause that sin to develop that existed at that time in eternity. Either way, the person is not responsible for his own sin.

No, it doesn't. I'll quote a wise man, "It's true there were prophecies that didn't come true."

That's not true, either, though I expect them all to come true eventually

There are numerous prophecies about the Jews that haven't come true (yet?).

No, He accomplishes His purposes.
Isaiah 46:11 KJV — Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.





Part of Nebby's dream was that the Medes and Persians would conquer Babylon. How did God know? He purposed it. Then He set about to accomplish it. That dream revealed God's plan, not just a telling of future events as a spectator. Same for the dream that had the large tree cut down and chained up. It was fulfilled when Nebby thought he had accomplished so much in Babylon and didn't give glory to God. God caused him to go crazy for awhile. That was not just God looking into the future, it was God doing a mighty work to humble Nebby.


If God knows all the contingent outcomes ahead of time, then is He lying when He tells the Ninevites they will be destroyed in 40 days?

A contingent prophecy tells us the future isn't settled.

And it doesn't demean God's character one iota.

I disagree with your entire post so see so need to go through it point by point. Saying God doen't know things definitely makes God look like less than He is. Your God is not omnipotent, omnipresent. nor does He see the end from the beginning as scripture tells us He does.

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 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:

I'll stick with scripture, not some man made theology. I really don't understand why people want to make God like themselves. Just because we can't understand how something can be true doesn't mean it isn't true. We are finite. God is infinite. Therefore He is beyond the greatest thing we can imagine.

God spoke creation into existence and yet He doesn't know the end from the beginning? Explain how Gd did that since you need to explain things you can't understand.

 

[Derf]

I disagree with your entire post so see so need to go through it point by point.

You even disagree with the part where I agreed with you? That doesnt help your argument much.

Saying God doen't know things definitely makes God look like less than He is. Your God is not omnipotent, omnipresent. nor does He see the end from the beginning as scripture tells us He does
Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 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

Can you show me the scripture that says God "sees the end from the beginning"? The one you quoted doesn't say that, but says He declared the end from the beginning, telling us He is accomplishing His counsel/pleasure.

I'll stick with scripture, not some man made theology.

Which means, "I'll stick with my own interpretation of scripture, even if you show me it's wrong." I thought you would do better than that, Gary.

I really don't understand why people want to make God like themselves. Just because we can't understand how something can be true doesn't mean it isn't true. We are finite. God is infinite. Therefore He is beyond the greatest thing we can imagine.

But we don't have to imagine when God tells us something about Himself.

God spoke creation into existence and yet He doesn't know the end from the beginning?

Why would speaking creation into existence mean He does or doesn't know the end from the beginning, much less, every minute detail in between?

Explain how Gd did that since you need to explain things you can't understand.

There are many things about God I can't explain, But when God speaks about Himself, then I can explain, based on what He says. Is that the part you disagreed with in my last post?