Open Theism's Attack on the Atonement

[JM]

Open theism arose in evangelicalism over a decade ago when evangelicals posited a God to whom one can easily realte and who is manageable in place of a God who punishes sinners for their sin. This they did by proposing a model of Christ's atonement that was not substitutionary. To do so they adopted the model of the 16th-century Socinian heresy, which taught that God could forgive without the payment of a ransom. The biblical doctrine, however, is that Christ's atonement was substitutionary, a teaching that was not immediately defined in the early church, but which Anselm stated clearly during the 16th century. Open theists on the other hand tend to vacillate between the inadequate positions of Abelard and Grotius in their views of the atonement. Because of their distorted views of the atonement, open theists do not belong in the ranks of evangelicalism.

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

 

[ChristineES]

Can someone PM me and let me know what "Open Theism" is? It would be much appreciated.

 

[mutzrein]

Can someone PM me and let me know what "Open Theism" is? It would be much appreciated.

There is another thread in this forum called 'Open Theism'. Hope this helps.

 

[ChristineES]

Thank you, it does help.

 

[ChristineES]

I read the thread and I also did a google search on this and I have to say I am not an open Thiest.

 

[Drew]

Hi ChristineES:

Since you seem to believe that God has full knowledge of the future, perhaps you can explain texts like 2 King 20:1-7:

1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."

2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, 3 "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.

4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: 5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.' "

7 Then Isaiah said, "Prepare a poultice of figs." They did so and applied it to the boil, and he recovered.

My very simple question is this: If God knew all along that he would heal Hezekiah of his illness, why does He tell him (via Isaiah): "you will not recover"? Since Hezekiah did indeed recover, the statement "you will not recover" would have to be a falsehood. Can you please explain from the perspective of someone who believes that God fully knows the future?

 

[Solo]

Hezekiah was dying from an illness and was not going to recover from it.
Hezekiah prayed for a healing and God removed the illness.
Hezekiah did not recover from the illness because the illness was removed.
Until Hezekiah prayed for God's healing, he was dying from an unrecoverable illness.
Simple, but against those who are following the heresy of Open Theism, and this is the one verse of scripture that they lay their entire set of beliefs upon.
You open theists can continue to walk with your eyes closed to the truth. Good bye.

 

[Drew]

Hezekiah was dying from an illness and was not going to recover from it.
Hezekiah prayed for a healing and God removed the illness.
Hezekiah did not recover from the illness because the illness was removed.
Until Hezekiah prayed for God's healing, he was dying from an unrecoverable illness.
Simple, but against those who are following the heresy of Open Theism, and this is the one verse of scripture that they lay their entire set of beliefs upon.
You open theists can continue to walk with your eyes closed to the truth. Good bye.

Note the bolded line above and please compare with 2 Kings 20:7:

"Then Isaiah said, "Prepare a poultice of figs." They did so and applied it to the boil, and he recovered."

Please draw your own conclusions as to whether the statement "Hezekiah did not recover from the illness because the illness was removed" can be reconciled with the 2 Kings 20 text. For my part, I see verse 7 as saying that Hez did indeed recover, while Solo claims that Hez did not recover.

 

[Solo]

Deja Vu :o

 

[Solo]

Seriously, if Drew wants to believe in Open Theism and think that God almighty CANNOT see into the future events of mankind, and deal with man in the way in which man can understand, then we should just pray for God to give Drew wisdom and understanding so that he may know the truth, and bring glory to God in the highest.

 

[Drew]

Seriously, if Drew wants to believe in Open Theism and think that God almighty CANNOT see into the future events of mankind, and deal with man in the way in which man can understand, then we should just pray for God to give Drew wisdom and understanding so that he may know the truth, and bring glory to God in the highest.

If this understanding which I lack has been granted to others, perhaps they can explain 2 King 20. If one has this understanding, presumably it can be articulated and put in the form of a post. Its time to stop posturing present some kind of real explanation for 2 Kings 20. Solo's explanation is obviously incorrect. Do the rest of the readers have anything to add? Do you agree that Solo's argument that Hez "did not recover" is correct in light of the content of verse 7?

And, of course, I have never stated that God's way of dealing with mankind is subject to human understanding.

 

[Solo]

Drew might present us with his understanding of God's ability to know the future in its entirety, and if he isn't able to, then the problem is not with God's omnicient character, but Drew's inability to understand God.

Drew has been shown the following information from http://www.CARM.org in previous threads where Open Theism is shown to be false teachings, but he refuses to accept the fact that God knows the future.

2 Kings 20:1-6
You shall die and not live...I will add 15 years to your life

"In those days Hezekiah became mortally ill. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, "Thus says the Lord, ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die and not live.’" 2Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed to the Lord, saying, 3"Remember now, O Lord, I beseech Thee, how I have walked before Thee in truth and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in Thy sight." And Hezekiah wept bitterly. 4And it came about before Isaiah had gone out of the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, 5"Return and say to Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of your father David, "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. 6"And I will add fifteen years to your life, and I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for My own sake and for My servant David’s sake,"’" (2 Kings 20:1-6).

We see here an example of God listening to the prayer of someone and then apparently changing His mind about a course of action that He said He would do. Does God actually change His mind? The answer is yes and no.
From all eternity God knew exactly what was going to happen and had planned to "change His mind" when Hezekiah prayed. This means that God works in real time and purposely responds to the prayers of His people and then appears to change His mind when people pray. This is one of the points of the text -- that God hears our prayers and responds to them. We are not robots and God is not inflexible. Yet, at the same time, God knows all things (1 John 3:20; John 21:17). So, even though God knows what will ultimately happen, that doesn't mean He can't respond to our prayers, which is part part of His plan, that brings about what will ultimately happen.
Furthermore, it says in 1 Sam. 15:29, “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind." We can see that the Bible tells us that God does not change His mind, yet we see how He seems to do just that. Again, the answer is found in looking at the problem from two perspectives. From the eternal perspective, God does not change His mind since He knew from all eternity what the ultimate decision would be. From the temporal perspective (relative to us), God changes His mind in response to the prayers and pleading of His people.

http://www.carm.org/open/2Kings20_1-6.htm

Continue to pray for God to give Drew understanding and wisdom to know the truth of scripture.

 

[Drew]

We can see that the Bible tells us that God does not change His mind, yet we see how He seems to do just that. Again, the answer is found in looking at the problem from two perspectives. From the eternal perspective, God does not change His mind since He knew from all eternity what the ultimate decision would be. From the temporal perspective (relative to us), God changes His mind in response to the prayers and pleading of His people.

The fact remains that God says "you will not recover" in verse 1 and then we have Hezekiah's recovery in verse 7.

The quote that Solo has provided could be true - there is nothing illogical about it and I do not dispute it as a statement of a possible state of affairs.

Let's start with an extract of the above and see where it leads when considered in light of 2 King 20:

1. Assertion from Solo's post: From the eternal perspective, God does not change His mind since He knew from all eternity what the ultimate decision would be.

2. Assertion from Solo's post: From the temporal perspective (relative to us), God changes His mind in response to the prayers and pleading of His people.

3. There can only be one "fact of the matter" concerning the question of whether God changed his mind - either he did or he did not. Even though there are 2 perspectives, there is only one reality about whether God actually changed his mind.

4. The opponent of open theism has to accept the following: God does not, in point of fact, change his mind. He can then certainly argue that from our perspective, God seems to change his mind. This what the Solo's post does.

5. The key point: The material conveniently avoids the issue of God's declaration: "you will not recover". This statement comes from God. It is a clear statement about Hez's future. Verse 7 tells us Hez did indeed recover. Therefore, the statement "you will not recover" is a falsehood. This is the problem. If God had not said "you will not recover", then the argument provided by Solo could be used.

But, of course, God did say "you will not recover".

 

[Solo]

We can see that the Bible tells us that God does not change His mind, yet we see how He seems to do just that. Again, the answer is found in looking at the problem from two perspectives. From the eternal perspective, God does not change His mind since He knew from all eternity what the ultimate decision would be. From the temporal perspective (relative to us), God changes His mind in response to the prayers and pleading of His people.

The fact remains that God says "you will not recover" in verse 1 and then we have Hezekiah's recovery in verse 7.

The quote that Solo has provided could be true - there is nothing illogical about it and I do not dispute it as a statement of a possible state of affairs.

Let's start with an extract of the above and see where it leads when considered in light of 2 King 20:

1. Assertion from Solo's post: From the eternal perspective, God does not change His mind since He knew from all eternity what the ultimate decision would be.

2. Assertion from Solo's post: From the temporal perspective (relative to us), God changes His mind in response to the prayers and pleading of His people.

3. There can only be one "fact of the matter" concerning the question of whether God changed his mind - either he did or he did not. Even though there are 2 perspectives, there is only one reality about whether God actually changed his mind.

4. The opponent of open theism has to accept the following: God does not, in point of fact, change his mind. He can then certainly argue that from our perspective, God seems to change his mind. This what the Solo's post does.

5. The key point: The material conveniently avoids the issue of God's declaration: "you will not recover". This statement comes from God. It is a clear statement about Hez's future. Verse 7 tells us Hez did indeed recover. Therefore, the statement "you will not recover" is a falsehood. This is the problem. If God had not said "you will not recover", then the argument provided by Solo could be used.

But, of course, God did say "you will not recover".

Either God is a liar or Drew doesn't understand God. I will place my bet that God is NOT a liar.

 

[TanNinety]

Have anything to contribute other than ad hominem Solo?

Drew divided his refutation into points. Makes sense to anyone who can understand a little logic.

Only refutation I see from the opponents of open theism is "you dont understand", "you are a heretic", "you are ignorant".

Any other intelligent "closed" theist want to explain Drew's post in the light of "all settled future" without ad hominem?

 

[Drew]

Either God is a liar or Drew doesn't understand God. I will place my bet that God is NOT a liar.

Really? Are these the only alternatives available?

Methinks not.

Solo is trying to "slip one past goalie" by not admitting to the following possible explanation:

God is not a liar - when He says "you will not recover", we conclude that God actually does not fully know the future and really intends to let Hez succumb. This keeps God from being a liar (which the text would require if we adhere to a closed theist point of view). God then changes his mind (not just in appearance but in fact) and allows Hez to live.

It is telling that you (Solo) often "make your case" through attacks on the intelligence or motivations of those you disagree with. If there were an actual defence for your position, why not show us - but your argument (reposted many times) that Hez "did not recover" has been shown (by TanNinety actually) to be incorrect due to the clear dictates of verse 7.

 

[ChristineES]

Tan Ninety- I know you asked me a question, but I do not want to be in this discussion any longer. I have only known about Open Theism for one day, and I don't think I know enough about it to really state any more than I have already said. :

 

[TanNinety]

Tan Ninety- I know you asked me a question, but I do not want to be in this discussion any longer. I have only known about Open Theism for one day, and I don't think I know enough about it to really state any more than I have already said. :

I completely understand ChristineES. My invitation was mostly for everyone who was bashing open theism without sound biblical support and logic.

I wish there was some intelligent attempt from the opponents of open theism in explaining 2 Kings 20 scripture put forth by Drew.

 

[Solo]

Have anything to contribute other than ad hominem Solo?

Drew divided his refutation into points. Makes sense to anyone who can understand a little logic.

Only refutation I see from the opponents of open theism is "you dont understand", "you are a heretic", "you are ignorant".

Any other intelligent "closed" theist want to explain Drew's post in the light of "all settled future" without ad hominem?

Did I forget to say that you are a heretic also if you hold to the teachings of Open Theism? If I did, then forgive me for shirking my duties. Also ignorance may be the reason why some fall into the trap of satan when believing that God doesn't know the future. Those that are not truly born again cannot understand the spiritual things of God according to the scriptures. Man's logic doesn't mean anything unless it aligns with the truth of God.

As far as contributions, I have made plenty; you are just too ignorant to understand the truth. :

 

[Drew]

As far as contributions, I have made plenty; you are just too ignorant to understand the truth. :

Hey TanNinety: You should give up that annoying habit of actually dealing with the issue ay hand and applying clear thinking. You could spend your time so much more profitably tearing down others and posting nonsense instead of substance.....