Open Theism - ?? what definition for it?

[Derf]

I guess my main objection to open theism is that finite beings think that they can impose human limits upon God. By that I mean an infinite God has abilities far beyond our imagination, That means we are incapable of uderstanding how he can know the future and still leave the human free to make his own decisions. The only reason for someone to say that is because they limit God to what humans think is possible, God broke countless rules humans think possible by speaking worlds into existence.. You insist that God can't know the future and we are still free moral agents. I can't explain it, but I can't explain how He makes matter out of nothing either. Both are far beyond the abilities my puny mind and I expect yours too, but I accept both as true because God is infinitely greater than I am, but you will not. You limit God to your level of imagination. You desire to impose human limits upon Him.

Why is it, that when I ask you about your beliefs, you respond about mine, when I ask you about your determinism, you complain about open theism, when I ask about arminianism, you talk about creation, and when I answer you about creation, you change the subject back to open theism?

Despite the fact that you think open theism is wrong, but can't say why, tell me why determinism is suddenly ok with you, when you earlier said it was evil.

This is part of the process of reasoning together, like God said He wants to do with us--we put forth our ideas, then we test them out to see if they are sound.

Isaiah 1:18 KJV — Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

 

[Gary K]

Why is it, that when I ask you about your beliefs, you respond about mine, when I ask you about your determinism, you complain about open theism, when I ask about arminianism, you talk about creation, and when I answer you about creation, you change the subject back to open theism?

Despite the fact that you think open theism is wrong, but can't say why, tell me why determinism is suddenly ok with you, when you earlier said it was evil.

This is part of the process of reasoning together, like God said He wants to do with us--we put forth our ideas, then we test them out to see if they are sound.

Isaiah 1:18 KJV — Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

I gave you my ultimate reason for rejecting open theism and you have ignored my reasoning as If I said nothing to you. Like I said you have never addressed what I have said about God being infinitely greater than we are. Do you not believe that?

 

[Derf]

I gave you my ultimate reason for rejecting open theism and you have ignored my reasoning as If I said nothing to you. Like I said you have never addressed what I have said about God being infinitely greater than we are. Do you not believe that?

You used God's infinite greatness to say open theism is untenable, but that is meaningless. Anybody could say the same thing about their belief. It's an appeal to irrationalism. For instance, a Hindu could say, "Hinduism is right and/or Christianity is wrong, because God is infinitely greater, and we can't understand how Hinduism is right, but it is."

Replace Hinduism with Calvinism, evolution, or even Open Theism and replace Christianity with, say, Arminianism. They all work equally well. Which makes the argument insufficient to come to any rational conclusion.

 

[Gary K]

You used God's infinite greatness to say open theism is untenable, but that is meaningless. Anybody could say the same thing about their belief. It's an appeal to irrationalism. For instance, a Hindu could say, "Hinduism is right and/or Christianity is wrong, because God is infinitely greater, and we can't understand how Hinduism is right, but it is."

Replace Hinduism with Calvinism, evolution, or even Open Theism and replace Christianity with, say, Arminianism. They all work equally well. Which makes the argument insufficient to come to any rational conclusion.

You still have not addressed the fact that God is infinitely greater than we are in every way.

 

[Derf]

You still have not addressed the fact that God is infinitely greater than we are in every way.

God is infinitely greater than we are in every way!!!

How's that?

 

[Gary K]

God is infinitely greater than we are in every way!!!

How's that?

Great. Now why don't you believe He is able to do things we humans believe is impossible such as allow us to be free moral agents while He knows our futures? As an infinite God He well able to do such a thing.

 

[Derf]

Great. Now why don't you believe He is able to do things we humans believe is impossible such as allow us to be free moral agents while He knows our futures? As an infinite God He well able to do such a thing.

There is no doubt God can do things which are impossible for man. There are likely things we think are impossible for God that He is able to do. But there are also things that are impossible for God.

For instance it is impossible for God to act contrary to His character. Some of the more inane examples include making a married bachelor or a square circle. What's implicit in these examples is the idea of contradictory things. Is God at odds with Himself? We both would say No. So when He makes a circle, He doesn't make it square, or He will have failed to make a circle.

Neither can He, in my opinion, make a free moral agent whose choices have already been made for him by someone else. His infiniteness has nothing to do with it (which makes it a logical red herring).

I assume, because you've offered this red herring, it's because you are unwilling to answer the questions I've raised. You don't have to be ashamed of not having an answer, unless you continued to hold to something that is logically contradictory and biblically unnecessary. These questions, and our answers to them are highly biased toward traditional understandings of them. But we don't have to maintain tradition over scripture. Adventists are especially good at ignoring some traditions and striving for a return to biblically-based concepts (even if I might disagree with some of their conclusions). Why not this one as well?

 

[Gary K]

There is no doubt God can do things which are impossible for man. There are likely things we think are impossible for God that He is able to do. But there are also things that are impossible for God.

For instance it is impossible for God to act contrary to His character. Some of the more inane examples include making a married bachelor or a square circle. What's implicit in these examples is the idea of contradictory things. Is God at odds with Himself? We both would say No. So when He makes a circle, He doesn't make it square, or He will have failed to make a circle.

Neither can He, in my opinion, make a free moral agent whose choices have already been made for him by someone else. His infiniteness has nothing to do with it (which makes it a logical red herring).

I assume, because you've offered this red herring, it's because you are unwilling to answer the questions I've raised. You don't have to be ashamed of not having an answer, unless you continued to hold to something that is logically contradictory and biblically unnecessary. These questions, and our answers to them are highly biased toward traditional understandings of them. But we don't have to maintain tradition over scripture. Adventists are especially good at ignoring some traditions and striving for a return to biblically-based concepts (even if I might disagree with some of their conclusions). Why not this one as well?

Derf.

I'm not ashamed of my answers. I truly believe God has given us the ability to be free moral agents. And I think it is sad you justify your continued belief in open theism and justify it by it by an example of a square circle which by definition is no longer a circle. That is not true of free will. It is still free will. It doesn't change it's definition so that is now determinism. Nothing impossible like that except in your mind. To me it is imposing human limitations in thinking on our belief in God.

 

[Derf]

Derf.

I'm not ashamed of my answers. I truly believe God has given us the ability to be free moral agents. And I think it is sad you justify your continued belief in open theism and justify it by it by an example of a square circle which by definition is no longer a circle. That is not true of free will. It is still free will. It doesn't change it's definition so that is now determinism. Nothing impossible like that except in your mind. To me it is imposing human limitations in thinking on our belief in God.

Yet you agreed with me that if all of our choices were determined prior to our existence, it is determinism. Isn't it impossible for God to create us free moral agents and also to determine everything before we were born? Your argument has justified Calvinism, in your attempt to retain Arminianism. You can't have free will that's not free, right? Yet your argument allows that (because God is infinitely more than we are).

 

[Gary K]

Yet you agreed with me that if all of our choices were determined prior to our existence, it is determinism. Isn't it impossible for God to create us free moral agents and also to determine everything before we were born? Your argument has justified Calvinism, in your attempt to retain Arminianism. You can'Yet your argument allows that (bet have free will that's not free, right. Because God is infinitely more than we are).

That's correct I think you have made an error in understanding me. I don't believe God determines our future just because He knows it. That's your position.

 

[Derf]

That's correct I think you have made an error in understanding me. I don't believe God determines our future just because He knows it.

No, but somebody must have determined it already, if not God, then somebody else, because, as we discussed, if the future is known without any gaps of knowledge ir errors, then it is determined (That's the definition of "determined": fixed, unalterable), but the knower of the future is not necessarily the determiner.

You, however, could not be the determiner of your own future, if it is determined before you existed.

You said you agreed with this in an earlier post. Are you revoking your agreement?

 

[Gary K]

No, but somebody must have determined it already, if not God, then somebody else, because, as we discussed, if the future is known without any gaps of knowledge ir errors, then it is determined (That's the definition of "determined": fixed, unalterable), but the knower of the future is not necessarily the determiner.

You, however, could not be the determiner of your own future, if it is determined before you existed.

You said you agreed with this in an earlier post. Are you revoking your agreement?

I agreed because you asked me to, no other reason. So, who in your mind determined it if God didn't? Who in the universe has that kind of power other than God?

 

[Derf]

I agreed because you asked me to, no other reason.

Then it should be just as effective to ask you to agree with open theism.

So, who in your mind determined it if God didn't? Who in the universe has that kind of power other than God?

That's where Arminianism breaks down. That's why it isn't tenable.

Do you agree? (Please don't say "yes" if you don't mean yes.)

 

[Gary K]

Then it should be just as effective to ask you to agree with open theism.


That's where Arminianism breaks down. That's why it isn't tenable.

Do you agree? (Please don't say "yes" if you don't mean yes.)

Of couse I do not.

 

[Derf]

Of couse I do not.

Then is God's information possibly incorrect?

 

[Gary K]

Then is God's information possibly incorrect?

No. How can you even suggest that?. Itsounds to me like open theism has become an idol to you.as you're willing to suggest God is wrong.to maintain your belief in it. You've gone from a God who is infinite to a god who makes mistakes like you and I. That really saddens me.

 

[Derf]

No. How can you even suggest that?. Itsounds to me like open theism has become an idol to you.as you're willing to suggest God is wrong.to maintain your belief in it. You've gone from a God who is infinite to a god who makes mistakes like you and I. That really saddens me.

Then how could God give two opposite futures without one of them being either a lie or a mistake?
Isaiah 38:1 KJV — In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live.

Followed by

Isaiah 38:4-5 KJV — Then came the word of the LORD to Isaiah, saying, Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.

God told him he would die, then He told him he would recover and His life would last 15 years longer than previously.

Both prophecies were about the same man's future. They were conflicting in nature, and, according to you, God knew the information from before the world began.

Was God lying or was he mistaken in the first prophecy?

 

[Gary K]

Then how could God give two opposite futures without one of them being either a lie or a mistake?
Isaiah 38:1 KJV — In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live.

Followed by

Isaiah 38:4-5 KJV — Then came the word of the LORD to Isaiah, saying, Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.

God told him he would die, then He told him he would recover and His life would last 15 years longer than previously.

Both prophecies were about the same man's future. They were conflicting in nature, and, according to you, God knew the information from before the world began.

Was God lying or was he mistaken in the first prophecy?

Because God is livingkindness as the Bible tells us He is.

Isa 38:2 Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed unto the LORD,
Isa 38:3 And said, Remember now, O LORD, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore.

So, do you believe God answers heartfelt prayers?

 

[Derf]

Because God is livingkindness as the Bible tells us He is.



So, do you believe God answers heartfelt prayers?

Do you believe God knows what you are going to pray before you pray it? Even before you are born?

 

[Gary K]

Do you believe God knows what you are going to pray before you pray it? Even before you are born?

What differnce does it make when He answers honest prayers?