Open Theism - ?? what definition for it?

[Derf]

Huh? I position is exactly the opposite of that. I say God created us with free will.

Good! We're in agreement on this point.

Here's what I said in that other post (thanks for telling me where i became unclear):

No, I offered another option. Any determination that settles the future into only a single possibility will work. The only thing that won't work is that you and I get to settle our own future, because we didn't exist back when it was settled

The options were limited to what is available when the future is fixed/settled prior to God creating the world. Here's what I said earlier I'm the same post:

... I'm offering two choices. 1. That God knows because He causes us to do everything (That's Calvinism). 2. God knows because He can somehow see the future, or just somehow knows. (That's Arminianism, from what I understand.)
I think you agree with me that #1 is wrong.
Do you agree with #2?

Then I pointed out that a settled future results in what I described later in the post (quoted above in this post). That a fixed or settled future is a determined future. So if God can already know all of our choices before we are there to make them, they aren't really our choices.

You seem to be violently opposed to the very thing you are holding to.

 

[Gary K]

Good! We're in agreement on this point.

Here's what I said in that other post (thanks for telling me where i became unclear):

The options were limited to what is available when the future is fixed/settled prior to God creating the world. Here's what I said earlier I'm the same post:

Then I pointed out that a settled future results in what I described later in the post (quoted above in this post). That a fixed or settled future is a determined future. So if God can already know all of our choices before we are there to make them, they aren't really our choices.

You seem to be violently opposed to the very thing you are holding to.

I'm really sorry you don't know God well enough to trust Him. It's times like this I thank God for the decades of abuse I went through growing up and as a young adult. It taught me the power of sin and the even greater power of the love of God. Knowing somthing of that love enables me to know without a doubt the love God and to have some idea of just how good He is. He is better than you and I can imagine. And no one that good would ever do such a thing as your idea of God says He would do. It's just not possible,

Think about the love of Jesus for people like you and I and how that love caused Him to go to Calvary and hang on that cross for you and I. It's a love beyond our wildest imagination.

 

[Derf]

I'm really sorry you don't know God well enough to trust Him. It's times like this I thank God for the decades of abuse I went through growing up and as a young adult. It taught me the power of sin and the even greater power of the love of God. Knowing somthing of that love enables me to know without a doubt the love God and to have some idea of just how good He is. He is better than you and I can imagine. And no one that good would ever do such a thing as your idea of God says He would do. It's just not possible,

Which thing are you referring to?.

 

[Gary K]

Which thing are you referring to?.

Sorry, I don't have a clue what you're referring to as I never used the word thing in the post you replied to.

 

[Derf]

Sorry, I don't have a clue what you're referring to as I never used the word thing in the post you replied to.

This thing:

And no one that good would ever do such a thing as your idea of God says He would do. It's just not possible,

 

[Gary K]

This thing:

OK. Create man, or any of His sentient creation, without making them free moral agents.

 

[Derf]

OK. Create man, or any of His sentient creation, without making them free moral agents.

I agree.

Now that we've established that God shouldn't create man without making him a free moral agent, it behooves us to determine which, if any, of the positions have God making man incapable of being a free moral agent, right?

I'm considering 3 different positions in 2 categories.

Category 1: the future is settled from the foundation of the earth.
Position 1: God decreed everything man would ever think, do, or say. (This is Calvinism, or C)
Position 2: God knew everything man would ever think, do, or say, but did not decree it. (This is Arminianism, or A)

Category 2: the future is open
Position 3: God doesn't know everything everybody will think, do, or say. He might not have even known you and I would exist back when He formed the world. (This is Open Theism, or O)

Are you with me so far? Is there anything in the above that you disagree with? I've applied no moral judgment to any of the positions yet.

 

[Gary K]

I agree.

Now that we've established that God shouldn't create man without making him a free moral agent, it behooves us to determine which, if any, of the positions have God making man incapable of being a free moral agent, right?

I'm considering 3 different positions in 2 categories.

Category 1: the future is settled from the foundation of the earth.
Position 1: God decreed everything man would ever think, do, or say. (This is Calvinism, or C)
Position 2: God knew everything man would ever think, do, or say, but did not decree it. (This is Arminianism, or A)

Category 2: the future is open
Position 3: God doesn't know everything everybody will think, do, or say. He might not have even known you and I would exist back when He formed the world. (This is Open Theism, or O)

Are you with me so far? Us there anything in the above that you disagree with? I've applied no moral judgment to any of the positions yet.

No. I don't believe any man mad theology can ever rightly represent who God is. We are as we are finite and sinful. God is infinite and fully righteous so we are unable to fully comprehend who He is. The blind men and the elephant analogy comes to nind but even it cannot explain fully how much greater than we are that He is. Open theism denies that.

 

[Derf]

No. I don't believe any man mad theology can ever rightly represent who God is. We are as we are finite and sinful. God is infinite and fully righteous so we are unable to fully comprehend who He is. The blind men and the elephant analogy comes to nind but even it cannot explain fully how much greater than we are that He is. Open theism denies that.

For now, can you stay with me while we think through the options together? Eventually we can look at the options to determine which one or ones represent the God-made theology you are looking for.

Can you agree with me that there are two possible categories that we might use to describe the future:
1. The future is settled, i.e., from the foundation of the earth, everything that everybody has done or ever will do was able to be known without error.
2. The future is not settled, i.e., the information available when the earth was founded did not include some things about you and me, like what you are going to have for breakfast tomorrow.

You don't have to pick a category that you believe is more accurate, but you may, if you like. For now, can we divide the options for the future into these 2 categories? Can you think of others?

 

[Gary K]

For now, can you stay with me while we think through the options together? Eventually we can look at the options to determine which one or ones represent the God-made theology you are looking for.

Can you agree with me that there are two possible categories that we might use to describe the future:
1. The future is settled, i.e., from the foundation of the earth, everything that everybody has done or ever will do was able to be known without error.
2. The future is not settled, i.e., the information available when the earth was founded did not include some things about you and me, like what you are going to have for breakfast tomorrow.

You don't have to pick a category that you believe is more accurate, but you may, if you like. For now, can we divide the options for the future into these 2 categories? Can you think of others?

I can't do that as it is denying reality to me. I realize you're a one track mind kind of guy from our fairly long history of Biblical discussions, but I also know how honest you are from that too. You have come to some pretty solid conclusions that started with me telling you what I see in the Bible. I have a lot of respect for you because of it and I find it impossible to like people I can't respect. Thus I believe you will one day come around to my point of view.

I'll continue to try to discuss it with you but I had to get that off my chest

 

[Derf]

I can't do that as it is denying reality to me.

You can't do what? You can't discuss alternative views of the future?

 

[Gary K]

You can't do what? You can't discuss alternative views of the future?

I will try for your your sake, but they are heresy to me.

 

[Derf]

I will try for your your sake, but they are heresy to me.

Great! Can you then go back to my 2 categories and 3 options and tell me if I'm missing any categories or options. I've attempted to divide things into obvious dichotomies.

 

[Gary K]

Great! Can you then go back to my 2 categories and 3 options and tell me if I'm missing any categories or options. I've attempted to divide things into obvious dichotomies.

Oh, man, you're asking too much. Please restate them.

 

[Derf]

Oh, man, you're asking too much. Please restate them.

Let's start with the categories.

Can you agree with me that there are two possible categories that we might use to describe the future:
1. The future is settled, i.e., from the foundation of the earth, everything that everybody has done or ever will do was able to be known without error.
2. The future is not settled, i.e., the information available when the earth was founded did not include some things about you and me, like what you are going to have for breakfast tomorrow.

 

[Gary K]

Let's start with the categories.

Can you agree with me that there are two possible categories that we might use to describe the future:
1. The future is settled, i.e., from the foundation of the earth, everything that everybody has done or ever will do was able to be known without error.
2. The future is not settled, i.e., the information available when the earth was founded did not include some things about you and me, like what you are going to have for breakfast tomorrow.

Yes.

 

[Derf]

Yes.

Then with the first category comes two opposing positions.
Position 1: God decreed everything man would ever think, do, or say. (This is Calvinism, or C)
Position 2: God knew everything man would ever think, do, or say, but did not decree it. (This is Arminianism, or A)

 

[Gary K]

Then with the first category comes two opposing positions.
Position 1: God decreed everything man would ever think, do, or say. (This is Calvinism, or C)
Position 2: God knew everything man would ever think, do, or say, but did not decree it. (This is Arminianism, or A)

OK. Agreed so far.

 

[Derf]

OK. Agreed so far.

And you would agree that Calvinism represents a determined future, one where everything is determined ahead of time, right?

Would you also say that Arminianism represents a determined future, just everything is not determined by God?

Here's the definition of determined (past participle) from Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

---

DETERMINED, participle passive
1. Ended; concluded; decided; limited; fixed; settled; resolved; directed.

Do you see those two words I underlined? Aren't they the same words you agreed describe both A and C?

 

[Gary K]

And you would agree that Calvinism represents a determined future, one where everything is determined ahead of time, right?

Would you also say that Arminianism represents a determined future, just everything is not determined by God?

Here's the definition of determined (past participle) from Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

---

DETERMINED, participle passive
1. Ended; concluded; decided; limited; fixed; settled; resolved; directed.

Do you see those two words I underlined? Aren't they the same words you agreed describe both A and C?

Yes to all your questions.