Open Theism

[JM]

Please read at least Wikipedia definition before voting, thank you.

Open Theism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Open theism, also known as free will theism, is a theological movement that has become popular within Evangelical Protestant Christianity.

The first known mention of an open theistic view is found in the writings of Calcidius, a 5th-century theologian. It experienced a resurgence in the late 19th century when several theologians wrote in its defense, including G.T. Fechner, Otto Pfeiderer, Jules Lequier, Adam Clarke, Billy Hibbard, Joel Hayes, T.W. Brents, and Lorenzo D. McCabe. Open theism later had a modern rendering in 1980 with Seventh-day Adventist theologian Richard Rice's book The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will. Open theism did not become widespread until 1994, when five essays were published by Evangelical scholars (including Rice) under the title The Openness of God. Open theism is an alternative to some classical ideas about God, Classical Theism, stemming from a single crucial point of difference: Open theism asserts that the future exists partly in terms of possibilities rather than certainties. This means that God’s knowledge of the future, being perfect, would also consist largely of possibilities and not certainties. God has knowledge of some future certainties such as those things that He ordains, and He knows all future possibilities such as the free will choices of His created beings. This view of God, based on a libertarian view of free will, allows its advocates to 1) Attribute both power and wisdom to Him without suggesting that He ordains everything to His own glory, including evil (Calvinism) 2) Avoid the logical inconsistency of suggesting that libertarian human freedom can coexist with foreknowledge and Divine Sovereignty (Arminianism).

This is not only a rejection of predestination as it is understood by Calvinism, but also in most accepted alternative versions. The writers in favor of free-will theism differentiate their views from those of Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Arminianism, Eastern Orthodoxy, neo-orthodoxy, and Islam, all of whichâ€â€differently from one another, but similarly over against open theismâ€â€assert that God has a certain knowledge of all aspects of the future.

Theologians of note currently espousing this view include: Gregory Boyd, Thomas Jay Oord, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and William Hasker.

Do they have a scriptural leg to stand on? No. CARM.com has a list of proof text they use and explains the misunderstanding they have of the passages. One example being found in Exodus 32:14 where we read “the Lord changed His mind†in the NASB. The word is nashash refers to repent, relent, change. Being consistent with God’s word, we know that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future and all events, it is absolutely within the scoop of the Hebrew for the word to mean God changed His purpose toward His people. For a complete list see: http://www.carm.org/open/list.htm

Here is more to read on the subject:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... arian.html

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... eason.html

url= http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj12a.pdf

http://www.ondoctrine.com/20openth.htm

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/119/52.0.html

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil//articles/impassib.htm

 

[Solo]

God knows all and transcends time, space, matter; He transcends his entire creation. Open Theism is a lie.

 

[JM]

First, open theists affirm a qualified divine omniscience (all-knowing). God possesses exhaustive knowledge about proper subjects of knowledge. Since the future does not exist to know, God cannot know the future free choices of His creatures. God possesses present knowledge, that is, perfect knowledge of the past and present. Open theists do not regard this qualification as compromising God’s omniscience. To buttress their case, open theists note, for example, God’s omnipotence (all-powerful), does not mean that God possesses the power to do anything whatsoever. God cannot do the illogical (make round squares) or the immoral.

Second, open theists reject a monarchial metaphor of God’s sovereignty in favor of a parental “at-risk†sovereignty. They argue the metaphor of a sovereign king depicts the tyrannical control of an insecure, weak and sick being. In God’s “sovereignty over His sovereignty,†He chose to grant His creatures genuine freedom–God created mankind in His image, which means that humanity participates with God in creating an open future. This risk-taking God has a goal for His creation, yet His free creatures can thwart and even frustrate the purposes of God. Rather than emphasizing God’s omnipotence, open theists affirm God’s omnicompetency (all-ability) to adapt to surprises and unexpected situations.

Third, open theists highlight God as a relational being. Love is the preeminent attribute of God. The dynamic God of open theism creatively interacts and responds in a vulnerable, loving fashion. God exercises control through persuasion, not coercion.

Fourth, the central component of the open theist’s position is human libertarian freedom. According to Pinnock, humans have the ability to make free-choices without the coercion of “nature, nurture or God.†In line with the “at-risk†model of providence, God does not generally intervene in human affairs. Humanity, therefore, bears the primary responsibility for the developing future.

Fifth, open theists conceive of their viewpoint as a solution to the problem of evil and some forms of human suffering. Human libertarian freedom and an open future entail the possibility of great evil. God knows neither the content nor the consequences of his creatures’ future free choices. God, therefore, cannot prevent evil. God is responsible for the potentiality of evil, but he is not responsible for the reality of evil.

http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/1058.article

 

[Gendou Ikari]

God knows all and transcends time, space, matter; He transcends his entire creation. Free-Will is a lie.

 

[phatcatholic]

how can something be both false and within the realm of Christian orthodoxy? :smt017

 

[Drew]

Do they have a scriptural leg to stand on? No. CARM.com has a list of proof text they use and explains the misunderstanding they have of the passages. One example being found in Exodus 32:14 where we read “the Lord changed His mind†in the NASB. The word is nashash refers to repent, relent, change. Being consistent with God’s word, we know that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future and all events, it is absolutely within the scoop of the Hebrew for the word to mean God changed His purpose toward His people.

Obviously begs the question - need to actually make a case that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future and all events". This is precisely what open theism denies, so the question-begging could not be more blatant. Remember that "Open theism asserts that the future exists partly in terms of possibilities rather than certainties. This means that God’s knowledge of the future, being perfect, would also consist largely of possibilities and not certainties".

Definition of "Begging the Question": The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form.

Example: Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth
Ref = Barker: 159, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 144, Copi and Cohen: 102, Davis: 33

 

[JM]

how can something be both false and within the realm of Christian orthodoxy? :smt017

I noticed after the voting started now it's too late to change it, rub it in, .

Most folks are sharpe enough to see the booboo and vote true or heretical.

 

[JM]

Do they have a scriptural leg to stand on? No. CARM.com has a list of proof text they use and explains the misunderstanding they have of the passages. One example being found in Exodus 32:14 where we read “the Lord changed His mind†in the NASB. The word is nashash refers to repent, relent, change. Being consistent with God’s word, we know that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future and all events, it is absolutely within the scoop of the Hebrew for the word to mean God changed His purpose toward His people.

Obviously begs the question - need to actually make a case that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future and all events". This is precisely what open theism denies, so the question-begging could not be more blatant. Remember that "Open theism asserts that the future exists partly in terms of possibilities rather than certainties. This means that God’s knowledge of the future, being perfect, would also consist largely of possibilities and not certainties".

Definition of "Begging the Question": The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form.

Example: Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth
Ref = Barker: 159, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 144, Copi and Cohen: 102, Davis: 33

It's not begging the question since the Bible does teach predestination and open theism has been viewed as heresy for the length of it's doctrinal existance by the church (every one of them). The question between believes is the extent at which God predetermines events, not IF He knows them or not. :

 

[BradtheImpaler]

how can something be both false and within the realm of Christian orthodoxy? :smt017

Simply enough - if orthodox Christianity is false.

Oh, I forgot...that's not open to consideration :roll:

 

[Drew]

It's not begging the question since the Bible does teach predestination and open theism has been viewed as heresy for the length of it's doctrinal existance by the church (every one of them). The question between believes is the extent at which God predetermines events, not IF He knows them or not. :

I would have thought that the purpose of this thread is to provide a forum for people to discuss open theism, with free exchange of ideas and arguments. To simply declare a proponent of "open theism" to be a heretic, without explaining why, makes for a rather pointless thread, don't you think? We need to know why open theism is heresy.

If you are in any sense advocating for the positions you seem to hold, you are not going to get very far by simply declaring that your opponents have a heretical view.

 

[Solo]

So far it is 7 to 1 against Open Theism. It doesn't surprise me that one heretic exists on this forum. I'll bet I know who that is.

 

[Guest]

So far it is 7 to 1 against Open Theism. It doesn't surprise me that one heretic exists on this forum. I'll bet I know who that is.

Despite what you may think, sweetie pie, I didn't vote. 8-)

 

[Solo]

So far it is 7 to 1 against Open Theism. It doesn't surprise me that one heretic exists on this forum. I'll bet I know who that is.

Despite what you may think, sweetie pie, I didn't vote. 8-)

You were not my choice, darlin'. Sorry. Perhaps you will win next time.

 

[John the Baptist]

God knows all and transcends time, space, matter; He transcends his entire creation. Open Theism is a lie.

******
John here:
I agree. I like the K.J. last part of the verse of Romans 4:17. We can't do this, but the Godhead can because they know Eternity!
then comes:

JM wrote:
Do they have a scriptural leg to stand on? No. CARM.com has a list of proof text they use and explains the misunderstanding they have of the passages. One example being found in Exodus 32:14 where we read “the Lord changed His mind†in the NASB. The word is nashash refers to repent, relent, change. Being consistent with God’s word, we know that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future and all events, it is absolutely within the scoop of the Hebrew for the word to mean God changed His purpose toward His people.
_______
John Again:
God has a condition attached to His Eternal Covenant in which He gave an alternative (obey or disobey) as in Nineveh, and Jonah's preaching. They repented & God Reverenced His Word. :fadein:

 

[BradtheImpaler]

So far it is 7 to 1 against Open Theism. It doesn't surprise me that one heretic exists on this forum. I'll bet I know who that is.

Despite what you may think, sweetie pie, I didn't vote. 8-)

You were not my choice, darlin'. Sorry. Perhaps you will win next time.

I didn't either 8-)

But are you saying that a minority viewpoint is what determines a theological heresy?

 

[Solo]

So far it is 7 to 1 against Open Theism. It doesn't surprise me that one heretic exists on this forum. I'll bet I know who that is.

Despite what you may think, sweetie pie, I didn't vote. 8-)

You were not my choice, darlin'. Sorry. Perhaps you will win next time.

I didn't either 8-)

But are you saying that a minority viewpoint is what determines a theological heresy?

No.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

But are you saying that a minority viewpoint is what determines a theological heresy?

No.

Then why did you say this...

So far it is 7 to 1 against Open Theism. It doesn't surprise me that one heretic exists on this forum

:roll:

 

[Georges]

So far it is 7 to 1 against Open Theism. It doesn't surprise me that one heretic exists on this forum. I'll bet I know who that is.

Despite what you may think, sweetie pie, I didn't vote. 8-)

Nor did I....and besides heretic is in the eye of the beholder...so that means squat...

After reading the articles and posts...I still don't know enough to have formed an opinion....I just felt I had to comment on the mod's comment. It's not kosher....it's supposed to be a discussion forum...

 

[TanNinety]

I voted "True" for the second vote. Call me a heretic if you will. I would rather be a heretic than be a pharisee.

Not sure what ALL of "open theism" represents but I can identify myself with what has been put in the original post about open theism.

Calling anyone heretic without any substantial argument against them on a fundamental xtian forum is as justified as a muslim calling a Christian an infidel because his views doesnt match theirs.

If majority always "holds" the truth then can I take a 1000 police officers that didnt see me speed against the one police officer who gave me the ticket to court to win a case?

Is this "lets brand them as a cult" thread or are the "closed theists" going to produce any proof that supports their views?

 

[Drew]

From an essay written by Gregory A. Boyd (Bethel College):

Scripture clearly depicts God as willing and able to change his mind. One of the best illustrations of this is found in Jeremiah 18. The Lord has revealed his plan to bring judgment on Israel, but he wants Jeremiah and the Isrealites to know that he is willing to change his plans if they will change their wicked ways. So the Lord directs Jeremiah to go observe a potter at work:

But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make.

Then the word of the LORD came to me saying,

Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.

At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it;

if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.

"Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it;

if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.

Jer 18:4-10

The Lord then applies this teaching to Israel, saying, "So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, 'Thus says the LORD, "Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds" (Jer 18:11).

Though Calvinists frequently cite the potter-clay analogy in suport of an omnicontrolling model of divine sovereignty, the only passage that develops the analogy at length makes the opposite point. This passage celebrates the fact that God is not a unilaterally controlling deity who decrees an unalterable future. Instead, this passage teaches that even after God has devised and announced a certain course of action, he (like a flexible potter) is willing and able to revise his plan if the people (like the clay) will change.