• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Can someone explain Open Theism to me?

B.A.M. (you all know the site) ... and that is the sound my head makes as it hits the keyboard when I try to have a discussion at "Free Will Central".

I THOUGHT that I understood the definition of basic terms ... like "Double Predestination" or "Open Theism" ... until someone describes something that sounds EXACTLY like Open Theism, and I say "So you believe in Open Theism and God has to adjust His plan based on the free will decisions of people."

Then comes a denial of Open Theism, a wall of text about salvation that seems completely unrelated and a diatribe on Calvin and Piper and Nazis and Rwanda.

So, just to clarify whether they or I have gone "bonkers" ... could someone please explain Open Theism to me?
I know that there is an organization that calls themselves Spirit of Truth that is Open Theist. They even have their own Bible translation REV, and it is very difficult to find out anything about the translators other than claims they make about themselves. One of which, of course, is a claim to fluency in Greek and Hebrew, so that they above all others get it right. Where have we heard that before?

From exchanges I had with a poster on another forum, videos he posted giving the reworking of particularly Psalm 139, their teachings are designed to undo the sovereignty of God while also professing that they do not. This poster was also Unitarian and charismatic. Quotes taken from the REV, decapitlalize Holy Spirit, and remove the "the" from passages that are typically translate the Holy Spirit to just say holy spirit. If I am not mistaken the also decapitalize Lord when referring to Jesus.
 
Re: God is perpetually creating the universe from moment to moment

Matthew McMahon quotes Johnathan Edwards
First question: do created “things” (and things can be anything, but for our purposes “things” are going to be apple trees) have power in and of themselves to exist? The answer to this is “no.” If that is true, then this next proposition comes into play: apples trees exist either by an antecedent existence or by the power of a Creator. This seems to be obvious and just a more sophisticated way of saying the former but keeping with the line of thought. Edwards states, “It is plain, nothing can exert itself, or operate, when and where it is not existing [because] what is past entirely ceases when present existence begins…it does no more co-exist with it, than it does any other moment that had ceased twenty years ago.” What Edwards is saying is that the past has no power to sustain that which is in the present or that which is in the future. If this is true, and no thinking person could say otherwise, then each successive moment must be the effect of God’s power. God, then, is continuously upholding the apple tree upon every moment of its existence. Edwards then says, “God’s upholding created substance, or causing its existence in each successive moment, is altogether equivalent to an immediate production out of nothing, at each moment, because its existence at this moment is not merely in part from God, but wholly from him; and not in any part, or degree, from its antecedent existence.” God, then, continually recreates the apple tree in each moment that it exists. Its existence hinges on the reality that God continues to create it in that manner. Its past existence does not hold the existence of the tree in its present state, thus God must recreate the tree instantaneously moment to moment. Edwards explains this “philosophically” in this way, “If the existence of created substance, in each successive moment, be wholly the effect of God’s immediate power, in that moment, without any dependence on prior existence, as much as the first creation out of nothing, then what exists at this moment, by this power, is a new effect; and simply and absolutely considered, not the same with any past existence, though it be like it, and follows it according to a certain established method. And there is no identity or oneness in the case, but what depends on the arbitrary constitution of the Creator; who by his wise sovereign establishment so unites these successive new effects, that he treats them as one, by communicating to them like properties, relations, and circumstances; and so, leads us to regard and treat them as one.” I agree.
This also, would support the notion that to God, it all happened from a perspective we would call, "instantaneous", but from his way of speaking, it all, and individually, (macro and micro), came into being by His Word. He speaks, it is done.
 
B.A.M. (you all know the site) ... and that is the sound my head makes as it hits the keyboard when I try to have a discussion at "Free Will Central".

I THOUGHT that I understood the definition of basic terms ... like "Double Predestination" or "Open Theism" ... until someone describes something that sounds EXACTLY like Open Theism, and I say "So you believe in Open Theism and God has to adjust His plan based on the free will decisions of people."

Then comes a denial of Open Theism, a wall of text about salvation that seems completely unrelated and a diatribe on Calvin and Piper and Nazis and Rwanda.

So, just to clarify whether they or I have gone "bonkers" ... could someone please explain Open Theism to me?
Open theism huh.

Well, the proponents of open theism are, in one sense, committed Arminians.
That is they confirm such Arminian doctrines as.
1, The univerlasl and impartial love of God for all humanity and His true desire is to save all people.
2, God's creation of all humans with genuine freedom of will (ie, liberation freedom) and
3, The necessity of such genuine freedom for true worship of God, love for God, and human moral accountability.

But they do object to the Arminians the belief that divine Omniscience includes comprehensive knowledge of the future. They say God has comprehensive knowledge of the past and present only. All future decisions and choices have not happened yet, therefore, to God, it cannot be an object of knowledge, therefore it is not real.

Now there are many Arminians who declare this heresy. And they are correct.
 
Here is something to think about concerning Open Theism.
At a moment in the Garden of Gethsemane, was the decision made for Christ to be crucified, because only then, at that moment, was it clear to both the Father and the Son that this path alone would succeed. The Father along with the Son, learn here and now that Christ's death on the cross will be necessary. Together (the Father and the Son) they determine what the will of God is for this historical situation.

John sanders.
 
But they do object to the Arminians the belief that divine Omniscience includes comprehensive knowledge of the future. They say God has comprehensive knowledge of the past and present only. All future decisions and choices have not happened yet, therefore, to God, it cannot be an object of knowledge, therefore it is not real.
Therefore, they deny the self revealed God of the Bible--although unwittingly. It makes more sense to them, therefore it must be true. It is intensely man centered and man oriented.
 
Here is something to think about concerning Open Theism.
At a moment in the Garden of Gethsemane, was the decision made for Christ to be crucified, because only then, at that moment, was it clear to both the Father and the Son that this path alone would succeed. The Father along with the Son, learn here and now that Christ's death on the cross will be necessary. Together (the Father and the Son) they determine what the will of God is for this historical situation.

John sanders.
Heresy
 
Here is something to think about concerning Open Theism.
At a moment in the Garden of Gethsemane, was the decision made for Christ to be crucified, because only then, at that moment, was it clear to both the Father and the Son that this path alone would succeed. The Father along with the Son, learn here and now that Christ's death on the cross will be necessary. Together (the Father and the Son) they determine what the will of God is for this historical situation.

John sanders.
That does not merely assert a different omniscience, it compromises omnipotence (God acts without surety of results and He might fail despite His best "almighty" effort 🤪).
 
That does not merely assert a different omniscience, it compromises omnipotence (God acts without surety of results and He might fail despite His best "almighty" effort 🤪).
I just looked up, because I remember hearing the title, "The God Who Risks". Yep, John Sanders.
 
Back
Top