Questions for Open Theists From carm.org

[JM]

Quote:

Do you believe that God learns?

Do you believe that God can make mistakes? For example, can God believe one thing will happen and it does not?

The Bible says that Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). If this is so, then how did God know which sins to place on Christ since we hadn't committed them yet when Jesus was crucified?

http://www.carm.org/open/questions.htm

Here's a free book by John Piper: http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/bo ... ooklet.pdf

Enjoy!

 

[lovely]

Thanks for the link to the free book. I thought the 15 reasons were accurate. I think number eight was particularly significant. The Lord bless you.

 

[Drew]

Do you believe that God learns?

As a matter of fact I do.

From Genesis 22:

When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied."Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

 

[Drew]

Do you believe that God can make mistakes? For example, can God believe one thing will happen and it does not?

I believe that the Scripture show that God "changes his mind" - he intends for one thing to happen and then revenses direction.

Example 1 2 Kings 20 (been there, so I won't repeat old arguments)

Example 2: Exodus 32

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.'

"I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."

But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "O LORD," he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.' " Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

If one counters that there is an unstated "unless you (Moses) ask Me to relent and I know that you will" clause, please, go ahead and do so. But please be prepared to defend any "closed theist" "proof" texts from similar arguments.

 

[Solo]

Open Theism is a relatively recent doctrine with its origin attributed mainly to Clark Pinnock around 1980 and recently to Dr. Greg Boyd, professor of theology at Bethel College, the educational arm of the Baptist General Conference. The doctrine has as its primary goal, a redefinition of the nature and character of God. Its foundational principle, which allows God to be redefined in numerous ways, is the proposition that God cannot know the future, because the future has not yet occurred and is therefore unknowable. From this premise it is stated that God can still predict certain events in the future and make plans for the future, since He has certain abilities to know how man operates and thinks, but since He cannot know what the future choice of man will actually be, the reality is that He cannot know with certainty what the future will bring or whether He will be able to accomplish the plans that He has made. In this theology, God is a victim of time, being confined to the present, and also a captive of, and subject to, the decisions of man. Because of His deficiencies in knowledge, God does not always do the right thing or make the right decision and is capable of causing unwaranted pain and suffering in the lives of individuals. The God of Open Theism is not sovereign, not perfect, can and does make mistakes, as a result of imperfect knowledge, for which He apologizes and regrets.

The fundamental flaw in the theology is also its basic claim, that God cannot know the future. When the foundation is defective, then the doctrine derived from that foundation is defective also. Open Theism defines God within the confines of the existing material universe in which man lives, but which God created. The assumption is made that God does not exist outside of this material universe, but He exists within, and is subject to, His own creation rather than the creation being subject to Him. It is also assumed that there are God-created entities that have greater authority than the God who created them. It was God who created the element of time in relation to this universe, to which the life and existence of all proponents of Open Theism must submit. It is the Open Theist who cannot know the future because they are subject to the properties and boundaries of the universe established by God.

The proponents of Open Theism would presume that the element of time, although created by God, somehow exerts a superior power over His ability to know, by restricting his knowledge through the means of confining Him to a literal present state of being, within a finite creation. By this view, the proponents of Open Theism deny the unlimited power of God to know the beginning from the end and fail to understand the statement of God in Exodus 3:14, "I Am Who I Am." It is God who is, standing always in the present, transcending the boundaries of time itself. Rather than God being subject to the present state of time, it is time itself that is subject to the eternal present state of God, who is past, present and future all at the same time and who sees the beginning through the end always in the present. The Open Theist does not consider the fact that time is a transient entity, having a beginning and ending subject to the good pleasure of God.

This universe and time, from their beginning to end, are encompassed by the unknowable and incomprehensible power and majesty of God who created all and continues to uphold all by His power. It escapes the reasoning of the Open Theist that God is greater than this universe and its limitations, and is greater than their ability to define and understand the God who was and is, even when this universe had not been created. By what measure was God's knowledge limited prior to His creation of the universe and time? How is it that God becomes a servant to His own created entities? Time itself is a subjective entity even in this material universe. Time at one place can be different from that in another; to the person traveling in space at light speed, time may even stand still for them, while the rest of the universe continues to age at what appears to be a frantic pace.

Was God constrained by some law greater than Himself to make the measure of time as it appears? Could he not have changed that measure, so that what now appears as a year could be a fraction of a second or a million years? How is the infinite God limited to the finite boundaries of His own creation? God has created a universe at His good pleasure and He can and will change that universe at His good pleasure, including the fabric of time itself. God is the sovereign ruler of all that is known and all that is unknown, in this universe and whatever infinitude of spheres in which He exists. He created the universe out of nothing, by His power and He upholds its operation by His power. God created time by His power, and He determines whether it continues or ceases by His power.

The open theist engages in a myopic, self-centered delusion by believing that their thoughts and subsequent decisions have the power to change the course of God's determined will. The universe in which the open theist exists, and its consequent inclusion of time, is but an infinitesimal speck, itself confined, hidden and lost within the majesty and infinity of the God who is "I Am."

The hidden agenda of Open Theism is apparent, because it is opening the door for a unification of what are now many divergent beliefs. Open Theism can embrace the Mormon church, which is desperately seeking to appear to be mainstream Christianity, and its concept of God who is imperfect and continually in a state of learning. Recently, Gordon Hinckley, Prophet and President of the Mormon church, has equivocated on the historic Mormon doctine that man can become a god. Consequently, their teaching that the god of this universe was once a man, might eventually be placed in their archives of convenient forgetfulness, opening the way to a connection with mainstream Christianity. The Positive Confession, Word of Faith proponents, such as Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland, who claim that words and faith have superior power over the will of God and can control the actions of God, and many, many groups holding to Arminian theology in which God is subject to the choice of man, could easily embrace Open Theism with only minor adjustments. With the charismatic experince having already united many Protestant and Catholic groups, the meeting of the charismatic (which is exclusively Arminian in theology) and Open Theistic theologies could further bring about a unity of unprecedented magnitude. To be mainstream is not necessarily to adopt a biblical foundation, and in most cases that is the case. Unity can always be achieved by adopting the lowest common denominator which, in the majority of cases, is to deny the absolute sovereignty of God. Although masquerading under the cloak of historic protestant orthodox belief, Open Theism is a very sinister and deceitful heresy of the highest magnitude.

Retrieved from http://www.ondoctrine.com/20openth.htm on July 9, 2006

 

[Drew]

In this theology, God is a victim of time, being confined to the present, and also a captive of, and subject to, the decisions of man. Because of His deficiencies in knowledge, God does not always do the right thing or make the right decision and is capable of causing unwaranted pain and suffering in the lives of individuals. The God of Open Theism is not sovereign, not perfect, can and does make mistakes, as a result of imperfect knowledge, for which He apologizes and regrets.

In short, I believe that the Scriptures support the notion that God has certain intentions at certain times which He subsequently changes. I do not know if this qualifies as a "mistake", however.

From Genesis 6:
"The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain"

I submit that the reason why the argument in the quoted material from Solo seems to undermine open theism is precisely the following: it appeals to our very human sense that if something is not known to us, or is beyond our ability to control, we cannot accomplish our purposes with certainty.

This is how we think, not taking into account the sophistication of God. And of course, not having his sophistication, we really have no other choice - we cannot help but think that God has to know everything to accomplish his purposes.

The writer of the material from Solo's post characterizes God as being captive of and subject to the decisions of man. I see the situation somewhat differently: God's wonderful sovereignty is all the more amazing rich precisely because He still accomplishes all his purposes while operating in a world where He has granted man a degree of autonomy.

 

[lovely]

Drew, I have a few questions.

I am not sure you are saying you are an open theist, or if you are just checking it out, and my intent is not to argue. I am wondering what the problem with anthropomorphism is biblically? I understand that someone, who may be some form of open theist, will say that God's wisdom is able to deal with infinate possiblities related to man's every decision, but isn't it more humble to just say that God's power is unlimited in wisdom, and knowledge of the entire future, and man can not understand how God works this out, but can trust that He does? I think that this is the Arminian view as I understand it in a classical way.

I read some things that Dr. Boyd wrote, but the ones I saw never seemed to point out what was wrong with an anthropomorphic view. And, I would like you to choose a verse that I, or others, would use to support God knows the future in it's entirety, and explain how that fits in with God not knowing the future exhaustively. I also haven't quite figured out if the open theist believes if because God is unable, or unwilling, or is it because they have some sort of different belief about time itself.

If you care to start a new thread, that is fine, btw. If you don't care to, or do not have time to answer my questions, that's okay too. I am just trying to define things in my head at this point, and understand the belief better.

The Lord bless you.

 

[TanNinety]

I would like you to choose a verse that I, or others, would use to support God knows the future in it's entirety, and explain how that fits in with God not knowing the future exhaustively.

That sounds like a good idea lovely. I would like to try that too, if it is open for everyone who is sympathetic towards open theism. Care to find a verse that says God has exhaustive foreknowledge so we can attempt? I think instead of a list we can start with a single verse you have, so that we keep order in the discussion than just throw verses and counter-verses out there. :fadein:

 

[Drew]

The Bible says that Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). If this is so, then how did God know which sins to place on Christ since we hadn't committed them yet when Jesus was crucified?

Here is a response that I have made to the same question in the past:

This text from 1 Peter works perfectly even if we haven't committed certain sins yet and even if God does not know about all the sins that we will indeed commit. Here is an important point: While I am sympathetic to open theism, my version of it is not all that open - I still think God knows that all men will sin.

The gift of salvation has the characteristic of being like a blank check. The nature of the gift is such that it is "open-ended" to cover any sins that I might commit.

I can give my friend a blank check in anticipation of his future debts. He may not yet have fallen into any particular debt, but I know that he will fall into some debt, the check is there in case he does). So my check is efficacious for debts he has yet to fall into.

A key point: The act of writing the blank check fully suffices for debts yet to be fallen into. So I have really already paid for my friends debt - it is a completed act, just like Jesus' work is a completed act. The act of bearing my friend's debt lies in the writing of the blank check, it does not lie in the cashing of the check by the recipient. The writing of the check is the act of irreversible commitment (even if the dollar figures are not known in advance) - it is the act where I incur loss. No matter what actual debt my friend incurs, there is no escape for me- I will pay the debt.

Returning to the specifics of salvation: Jesus dies on the cross 2000 years ago. Even if He does not know all the sins that will be committed by men through the centuries to follow, He does know that all will sin (my version of "open theism" is not "wide open") and that even 1 sin separates us from God. So he pays the price at Calvary. The cross does indeed "seal the deal", it is a finished act in the sense that future sins, whatever they might turn out to be, are washed away by the gift of the unblemished Christ.

There is nothing in this texts rules out an open-ended gift. The text works perfectly well with such an interpretation. I simply do not see how this text demands that God knows the exact list of sins - like a blank check, the gift of salvation is open-ended enough to accomodate the future.

 

[Drew]

I understand that someone, who may be some form of open theist, will say that God's wisdom is able to deal with infinate possiblities related to man's every decision, but isn't it more humble to just say that God's power is unlimited in wisdom, and knowledge of the entire future, and man can not understand how God works this out, but can trust that He does? I think that this is the Arminian view as I understand it in a classical way.

What matters is not what is more humble but what is more Biblically correct. I am curious how "closed theist" deal with texts like Genesis 22 ("now I know") and 2 Kings 20 ("you will not recover" and then Hez recovers) and yet not have to sacrifice a "literal" reading. Lovely, how do you explain these texts without placing yourself in a position where others can apply the same "the text does not mean what it literally says" argument in respect to texts that support exhaustive foreknowledge? Please answer this questions as directly and specifically as you can. I do not object to background explanation, but I really would ask you supply a sentence somewhere that begins with:

"In Genesis 22, when God says "now I know...." this does not mean that He has acquired new knowledge (which clearly is the "plain reading") because........."

 

[Solo]

I understand that someone, who may be some form of open theist, will say that God's wisdom is able to deal with infinate possiblities related to man's every decision, but isn't it more humble to just say that God's power is unlimited in wisdom, and knowledge of the entire future, and man can not understand how God works this out, but can trust that He does? I think that this is the Arminian view as I understand it in a classical way.

What matters is not what is more humble but what is more Biblically correct. I am curious how "closed theist" deal with texts like Genesis 22 ("now I know") and 2 Kings 20 ("you will not recover" and then Hez recovers) and yet not have to sacrifice a "literal" reading. Lovely, how do you explain these texts without placing yourself in a position where others can apply the same "the text does not mean what it literally says" argument in respect to texts that support exhaustive foreknowledge? Please answer this questions as directly and specifically as you can. I do not object to background explanation, but I really would ask you supply a sentence somewhere that begins with:

"In Genesis 22, when God says "now I know...." this does not mean that He has acquired new knowledge (which clearly is the "plain reading") because........."

Perhaps you should read the verse prior to the "I know" phrase to find out that it is an angel proclaiming the knowledge not God.

11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. Genesis 22:11-12

 

[Drew]

Perhaps you should read the verse prior to the "I know" phrase to find out that it is an angel proclaiming the knowledge not God.

11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. Genesis 22:11-12

You certainly may have a point. Based on my very preliminary investigations (less than 15 minutes), the identity of "the angel of the Lord" is rather unclear.

For example, in the following text (Genesis 31:3), he seems to equate himself with God:

Then the angel of the Lord spoke to me in a dream, saying, ‘Jacob.’ And I said, ‘here I am.’ And He said, lift your eyes now and see, all the rams which leap on the flocks are streaked, speckled, and gray-spotted; for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the pillar and where you made a vow to Me. Now arise, get out of this land, and return to the land of your family.†(Genesis 31:11-13)

On the other hand, we have texts like Exodus 23:20-23:

Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Beware of Him and obey his voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies, and an adversary to your adversaries. For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites and I will cut them off.

The general sense of this text is that a different person is being described.

In any event, I will reformulate my question to lovely by changing the reference to 2 Kings 20.

So I would now ask lovely to have a sentence in her answer that is of the following form: "In 2 Kings 20, when God says "you will not recover" (and later Hez indeed recovers) this does not mean that He has changed his mind (which clearly is the "plain reading") because........."

I believe that in the past lovely has argued that the "you will not recover" statement was true at the time it was made and false later. I think such an argument (whether lovely made it or not) is clearly unworkable.

Lovely, I hope to get back to some of your other questions as time permits.

 

[TanNinety]

Angel of the Lord

This is hilarious at best. Some trinitarians will prove that Angel of the Lord was Jesus Christ pre-incarnate. See link:
http://www.preceptaustin.org/angel_of_the_lord.htm

But for Solo, conveniently "Angel of the Lord" is not not Jesus the second godhead but just a mere angel.

Love the trinitarian floor dance, "He's a man in that sentence, but He is God in the other sentence. Blah that was just an angel. You fool that angel was Jesus pre-incarnate Himself in the other sentence". Wish I had trinitarian tools to prove open theism. But Alas, all I have is what God has to say about Himself.

 

[Solo]

Based on my very preliminary investigations (less than 15 minutes), the identity of "the angel of the Lord" is rather unclear.

It seems that most of your informational posts takes you longer to type than to investigate, but that is just the appearance; you may investigate much longer than it appears.

 

[lovely]

Hi Tan and Drew,

I have not been ignoring your posts, I just stepped away from these forums for a second to take a breath. I am going to answer, and possibly in a new thread. The Lord bless you.