Open Theism

[ElectedbyHim]

Never been there, though I've heard about it from several directions.

Worth lurking?

Check it out.

I like monergism.com the best. But then again there are a ton of resources online.

Gotquestions.org is a good source for a quick fix and they lean towards Reformed.

Its been a while and I believe Matt Slick is a non-cessationist if memory serves correctly.

A lot of truth on his thread.

 

[makesends]

Binyawmene said:
Your god can't. Because your god isn't omniscient.

I'm done with people that try to claim that YHWH is not my God that I trust in.
I'll waste no more time with you.

Tambora, I think @Binyawmene would agree that even his conception of what 'God' is, nevermind his articulation of it, falls short. I think what he is trying to get across is that what you claim concerning God logically implies that God is not, after all, omniscient, and that as such, that is not God, but merely a superhuman being, "god", with a lower case 'g'.

If you are "In Christ", you do believe in the real, the true God. And that, he has not denied. He only disagrees with your articulations, and, like me, with the mindset that produces those articulations.

 

[makesends]

Check it out.

I like monergism.com the best. But then again there are a ton of resources online.

Gotquestions.org is a good source for a quick fix and they lean towards Reformed.

Its been a while and I believe Matt Slick is a non-cessationist if memory serves correctly.

A lot of truth on his thread.

Oh. I thought it was a debate forum site, like CF and CCAM

 

[ElectedbyHim]

I don't see this as entirely correct.
God can know the future in that He can state that a thing will happen in the future and make it happen.
In other words, since God is the most knowledgeable, no matter how man reacts God can still figure out a way to cause it to happen.

I've heard it put this way, comparing it to a chess game:
Which is more confident of his power to win the game:

1. One that can say I will win because I already know every single move you will make in advance.​

2. One that can say it doesn't matter where you move, I will figure out a way to win anyway even without knowing your moves in advance.​

​

To me, #2 is more awesome than #1.

In other words, since God is the most knowledgeable, no matter how man reacts God can still figure out a way to cause it to happen.

Can you share a Scripture on this statement?

Your statement does not sound like God is sovereign over man.

It is almost like God has to do the bidding of man and his free will.

 

[makesends]

I don't see this as entirely correct.
God can know the future in that He can state that a thing will happen in the future and make it happen.
In other words, since God is the most knowledgeable, no matter how man reacts God can still figure out a way to cause it to happen.

I've heard it put this way, comparing it to a chess game:
Which is more confident of his power to win the game:
1. One that can say I will win because I already know every single move you will make in advance.
2. One that can say it doesn't matter where you move, I will figure out a way to win anyway even without knowing your moves in advance.

To me, #2 is more awesome than #1.

In other words, since God is the most knowledgeable, no matter how man reacts God can still figure out a way to cause it to happen.

There's your problem --God is not "the most knowledgeable" concerning fact, but, rather, the very establisher of fact. There is no fact, but what he caused and maintains. It is by him that anything is fact, truth, exists.

He need not consider this as opposed to that. He is the reason for all of it. And there is none of it that is what it is, on its own. He doesn't 'look to see'. That kind of thing is anthropomorphic in our necessary expression of it.

He doesn't need to "figure out a way" to do anything. It is [already] so by his doing it.

Can you share a Scripture on this statement?

Your statement does not sound like God is sovereign over man.

It is almost like God has to do the bidding of man and his free will.

Sure does come down to that, in the final analysis.

But God is not like us, and the notion that God is only very smart and powerful, places him as only another 'resident within the omni', instead of the very creator of the omni.

 

[Binyawmene]

Is he still around CARM?

I forgot about his website.

Thanks for the reminder.

I used to be very active in CARM, but nowadays I only post once in a while.
I know he is still writing articles, and I try to keep myself inform on variety of his writings.

I'm done with people that try to claim that YHWH is not my God that I trust in.
I'll waste no more time with you.

Sure. I feel the same way about heretics. Anyone who doesn't believe God knows the future and the future is uncertain. Then you flat-out deny who the Omniscient God of the Bible is essentially. No pun intended, no joke.

 

[Tambora]

Binyawmene said:
Your god can't. Because your god isn't omniscient.

Tambora, I think @Binyawmene would agree that even his conception of what 'God' is, nevermind his articulation of it, falls short. I think what he is trying to get across is that what you claim concerning God logically implies that God is not, after all, omniscient, and that as such, that is not God, but merely a superhuman being, "god", with a lower case 'g'.

If you are "In Christ", you do believe in the real, the true God. And that, he has not denied. He only disagrees with your articulations, and, like me, with the mindset that produces those articulations.

Nah, I knew he meant what he said about YHWH not being my God because I've dealt with folks like him before.
You can side with him if you want.

No one has to believe that God knows the entire future in advance to recognize that He can accomplish anything He wants.
Time is a measurement, like inches.
God didn't have to create inches before He could move an inch, and He didn't have to create time because He is eternal (has always been and always will be).

 

[makesends]

Nah, I knew he meant what he said about YHWH not being my God because I've dealt with folks like him before.
You can side with him if you want.

No one has to believe that God knows the entire future in advance to recognize that He can accomplish anything He wants.
Time is a measurement, like inches.
God didn't have to create inches before He could move an inch, and He didn't have to create time because He is eternal (has always been and always will be).

You still don't get it.

God doesn't need to work within fact, to make fact. It's not a question of what he can or can't do, or what he has to do or doesn't have to do. He simply does, and so everything that is, is, as a result. You keep making him accommodate himself to what you apparently suppose is base fact. But there is no base fact but God. Everything else results FROM God.

Reality itself, is God's 'invention'.

 

[Binyawmene]

Binyawmene said:
Your god can't. Because your god isn't omniscient.

Tambora, I think @Binyawmene would agree that even his conception of what 'God' is, nevermind his articulation of it, falls short.

I don't think so.

Open Theism is a concept of combining God's omniscience with libertarian free will of humans. That will obviously create errors Theologically about God. So, in order to make this idea to work, then they have to subtract a known future from God's omniscience. That he doesn't exhaustively know the future and the future is uncertain. Then they often appeal to the idea that he is love and personal. He cares about you and I. Because he intervenes in human affairs, except for (a). violating free will of human's choices, and (b). supernatural revelation about who he is and what the future holds.

They must place 'the Eternal God' of the Bible inside of our timeframe. Creating a god who only knows about things through the sequences of time periods. He cannot know ahead of time what the choices of people will be. He must learn it, receive information and knowledge about it, and discover what humans decide to do. Their god is clueless about the future or have amnesia. And this is based on the idea of free will of humans. A god who is subjected to free will of human's choices. While the human's free will choices deal the cards, and God play the hand he is dealt so to speak. The future is only known afterwards from either A or B choices of humans. Their god doesn't know timelessly the end from the beginning who has no beginning or end. Rather this framework is established from metaphoric and anthropomorphic expressions about God in the Bible. Then conclude that he takes risks, make mistakes, learns, searches, counts, changes his mind, etc. as the future unfolds before him. Not a god you want to trust if he doesn't know the future, makes mistakes, and changes his mind.

I think what he is trying to get across is that what you claim concerning God logically implies that God is not, after all, omniscient, and that as such, that is not God, but merely a superhuman being, "god", with a lower case 'g'.

To subtract anything from God, then he is no longer God.

 

[Tambora]

You still don't get it.

Or you don't get what I am saying.

Truth be known, both of us "don't get it" when it comes to all that God is.
But we both try to imagine.

God doesn't need to work within fact, to make fact.

I can say that God didn't invent time because any time that He had a thought or moved or did anything at all was in time.
Because "time" is not a thing, it is simply a conceptual measurement between events.
God told us ways to measure time (such as day, hour, season, now, before, after, etc.) and created things that we could measure time by (such as sun, moon, stars, etc.) but time is not a thing created.

It's not a question of what he can or can't do, or what he has to do or doesn't have to do.

And yet we hear people telling others things God can or cannot do, or what He has to do or doesn't have to.
I bet you've done it yourself.

He simply does, and so everything that is, is, as a result.

That would basically mean that God is time since there was no time God was not.
I could live with saying that but cannot live with saying God created time since there was no time God was not.

You keep making him accommodate himself to what you apparently suppose is base fact. But there is no base fact but God. Everything else results FROM God.

You are also claiming base facts about God.

Reality itself, is God's 'invention'.

God wasn't a reality before He invented it?
That doesn't sound right.


But hey, it's been nice contemplating such things with you.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Binyawmene said:
Your god can't. Because your god isn't omniscient.

Tambora, I think @Binyawmene would agree that even his conception of what 'God' is, nevermind his articulation of it, falls short.

I don't think so.

Open Theism is a concept of combining God's omniscience with libertarian free will of humans. That will obviously create errors Theologically about God. So, in order to make this idea to work, then they have to subtract a known future from God's omniscience. That he doesn't exhaustively know the future and the future is uncertain. Then they often appeal to the idea that he is love and personal. He cares about you and I. Because he intervenes in human affairs, except for (a). violating free will of human's choices, and (b). supernatural revelation about who he is and what the future holds.

They must place 'the Eternal God' of the Bible inside of our timeframe. Creating a god who only knows about things through the sequences of time periods. He cannot know ahead of time what the choices of people will be. He must learn it, receive information and knowledge about it, and discover what humans decide to do. Their god is clueless about the future or have amnesia. And this is based on the idea of free will of humans. A god who is subjected to free will of human's choices. While the human's free will choices deal the cards, and God play the hand he is dealt so to speak. The future is only known afterwards from either A or B choices of humans. Their god doesn't know timelessly the end from the beginning who has no beginning or end. Rather this framework is established from metaphoric and anthropomorphic expressions about God in the Bible. Then conclude that he takes risks, make mistakes, learns, searches, counts, changes his mind, etc. as the future unfolds before him. Not a god you want to trust if he doesn't know the future, makes mistakes, and changes his mind.

You "don't think so". You don't think what? I wasn't saying you agree with her, nor even that your theology is not better than hers (or Open Theism's), but that (I thought that) your conceptions of what 'God' is, necessarily fall short in your articulation of it.

To subtract anything from God, then he is no longer God.

Amen that! That should be even logically obvious, if someone doesn't even believe in God. If, for example, 'page' necessarily includes certain things like "continuous over the whole 8 x11 sheet", then a page without that attribute is no longer page, but only paper, or pieces of paper.

 

[makesends]

Or you don't get what I am saying.

Truth be known, both of us "don't get it" when it comes to all that God is.
But we both try to imagine.


I can say that God didn't invent time because any time that He had a thought or moved or did anything at all was in time.
Because "time" is not a thing, it is simply a conceptual measurement between events.
God told us ways to measure time (such as day, hour, season, now, before, after, etc.) and created things that we could measure time by (such as sun, moon, stars, etc.) but time is not a thing created.


And yet we hear people telling others things God can or cannot do, or what He has to do or doesn't have to.
I bet you've done it yourself.


That would basically mean that God is time since there was no time God was not.
I could live with saying that but cannot live with saying God created time since there was no time God was not.


You are also claiming base facts about God.


God wasn't a reality before He invented it?
That doesn't sound right.


But hey, it's been nice contemplating such things with you.

To avoid getting off topic, I think I'll move this to a new thread. In my opinion it is not entirely off topic, though it is tangential, and hopefully it can come back around to the notions of middle-knowledge and open-theism, but for not, it seems unpopular to stay long on tangents. One reason for that is because usually they don't come back to topic because by the time they are dealt with happily enough for either party, the topic is forgotten.

 

[Binyawmene]

Binyawmene said:
Your god can't. Because your god isn't omniscient.

makesends said: Tambora, I think Binyawmene[ would agree that even his conception of what 'God' is, nevermind his articulation of it, falls short.

You "don't think so". You don't think what? I wasn't saying you agree with her, nor even that your theology is not better than hers (or Open Theism's), but that (I thought that) your conceptions of what 'God' is, necessarily fall short in your articulation of it.

Because I didn't give any conception of what God is or given any kind of articulation. I did quote Isaiah 41:21-24 and black bold plus underlined the self-explanatory and the obvious.

I'm not a psychic and read minds. Say what you want to say and present your case.

Isaiah 41:21-24 “Present your case,” says the Lord. “Set forth your arguments,” says Jacob’s King. “Tell us, you idols, what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods. Do something, whether good or bad, so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear. But you are less than nothing and your works are utterly worthless; whoever chooses you is detestable.​

Your god can't. Because your god isn't omniscient.

God is being contrast to idols. Those idols cannot declare 'things to come' and they don't know 'what the future holds.' They cannot be qualified as God in the same manner Open Theism cannot qualify too. Do you need another passage in the Bible? How about Daniel 2:26-30?

The king asked Daniel (also called Belteshazzar), “Are you able to tell me what I saw in my dream and interpret it?”Daniel replied, “No wise man, enchanter, magician or diviner can explain to the king the mystery he has asked about, but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries. He has shown King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in days to come. Your dream and the visions that passed through your mind as you were lying in bed are these: “As Your Majesty was lying there, your mind turned to things to come, and the revealer of mysteries showed you what is going to happen. As for me, this mystery has been revealed to me, not because I have greater wisdom than anyone else alive, but so that Your Majesty may know the interpretation and that you may understand what went through your mind.

God is "The Revealer of Mysteries." God sent the dream and sent Daniel to interpret the dream. Do you think that Open Theism can claim their god knowing the future about 'what will happen in days to come'? Of course, not.

Amen that! That should be even logically obvious, if someone doesn't even believe in God. If, for example, 'page' necessarily includes certain things like "continuous over the whole 8 x11 sheet", then a page without that attribute is no longer page, but only paper, or pieces of paper.

Yes, it's clear and obvious. Very basic logical reasoning.

A attribute of an orange is juicy. If you take away the juiciness from the orange, then it's no longer qualified as orange.
The attribute of God is omniscient. If you take away his omniscience, then he is no longer qualified as God.

After all, that is what Isaiah 41:21-24 claims. To qualify as God, then you must 'declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds.' I didn't make the Biblical rules. It is, what it is.

 

[makesends]

Because I didn't give any conception of what God is or given any kind of articulation. I did quote Isaiah 41:21-24 and black bold plus underlined the self-explanatory and the obvious.



God is being contrast to idols. Those idols cannot declare 'things to come' and they don't know 'what the future holds.' They cannot be qualified as God in the same manner Open Theism cannot qualify too. Do you need another passage in the Bible? How about Daniel 2:26-30?

The king asked Daniel (also called Belteshazzar), “Are you able to tell me what I saw in my dream and interpret it?”Daniel replied, “No wise man, enchanter, magician or diviner can explain to the king the mystery he has asked about, but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries. He has shown King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in days to come. Your dream and the visions that passed through your mind as you were lying in bed are these: “As Your Majesty was lying there, your mind turned to things to come, and the revealer of mysteries showed you what is going to happen. As for me, this mystery has been revealed to me, not because I have greater wisdom than anyone else alive, but so that Your Majesty may know the interpretation and that you may understand what went through your mind.

God is "The Revealer of Mysteries." God sent the dream and sent Daniel to interpret the dream. Do you think that Open Theism can claim their god knowing the future about 'what will happen in days to come'? Of course, not.

I'm thinking you meant to address the above to @Tambora , not me. Maybe edit to reflect whatever was intended to whomever?

Yes, it's clear and obvious. Very basic logical reasoning.

A attribute of an orange is juicy. If you take away the juiciness from the orange, then it's no longer qualified as orange.
The attribute of God is omniscient. If you take away his omniscience, then he is no longer qualified as God.

After all, that is what Isaiah 41:21-24 claims. To qualify as God, then you must 'declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds.' I didn't make the Biblical rules. It is, what it is.

Yep. Simple.

I've tried to explain that they are reducing his omniscience, but she's trying to throw words in there that confuse her, to try to get me to see that the concept of God not knowing what isn't yet, is not an admission that he is subject to principles beyond himself. I'm working on an answer about that, but it is a bit off topic, I think. Not sure I want to take it to its own thread, though, because to me it is relevant to her arguments attempting to support Open Theism.

 

[Binyawmene]

I'm thinking you meant to address the above to @Tambora , not me. Maybe edit to reflect whatever was intended to whomever?

Yep. Simple.

I've tried to explain that they are reducing his omniscience, but she's trying to throw words in there that confuse her, to try to get me to see that the concept of God not knowing what isn't yet, is not an admission that he is subject to principles beyond himself. I'm working on an answer about that, but it is a bit off topic, I think. Not sure I want to take it to its own thread, though, because to me it is relevant to her arguments attempting to support Open Theism.

It's possible that she really doesn't know what Open Theism actually teaches. The obvious reasons on how she responds to posts in this thread. That usually cause a person to be dismissive and speaking pass each other. Often times people are just looking how to reinforce what they already assume instead of being open minded. So, I think you both should define your terminologies like "omniscience" for example. Then discuss the philosophical aspect that creates the preunderstanding and presuppositions. And then discuss out the proof-texting verses without her superimposing any presuppositions. The correct interpretation is key to unrevealing the logical knots.

An Examination of Open Theism

“God experienced the events of the world He has created. . .as they happen, rather than all at once in some timeless, eternal perception. This also means that not even God knows the future in all its details.” Open theists maintain that God does not know what a given human being will do until he acts. They refer to such human actions as “possibilities.” Because God remains unaware of human possibilities, the future remains “open” in His mind. This means that rather than God knowing all things, He is in the process of learning new things as they take place. (Bible..org)​

 

[makesends]

It's possible that she really doesn't know what Open Theism actually teaches. The obvious reasons on how she responds to posts in this thread. That usually cause a person to be dismissive and speaking pass each other. Often times people are just looking how to reinforce what they already assume instead of being open minded. So, I think you both should define your terminologies like "omniscience" for example. Then discuss the philosophical aspect that creates the preunderstanding and presuppositions. And then discuss out the proof-texting verses without her superimposing any presuppositions. The correct interpretation is key to unrevealing the logical knots.

An Examination of Open Theism

“God experienced the events of the world He has created. . .as they happen, rather than all at once in some timeless, eternal perception. This also means that not even God knows the future in all its details.” Open theists maintain that God does not know what a given human being will do until he acts. They refer to such human actions as “possibilities.” Because God remains unaware of human possibilities, the future remains “open” in His mind. This means that rather than God knowing all things, He is in the process of learning new things as they take place. (Bible..org)​

@Tambora will not agree to my definition of omniscience, due to implications and due to his singular existence, quite apart from anything we can say to describe it. She goes on what people say and what words mean as though what humanity understands (experiences) is definitive of anything. She turns words around in her mouth as though the funny contradictions that result indicate that the concepts we describe by those words are bogus concepts.

It's true that OUR concepts are weak, and our words even weaker, but the wordplay proves nothing, and, particularly, the notion that truth is dependent on what WE say, is ludicrous.

But, that isn't the topic of this thread.

 

[Binyawmene]

@Tambora will not agree to my definition of omniscience, due to implications and due to his singular existence, quite apart from anything we can say to describe it. She goes on what people say and what words mean as though what humanity understands (experiences) is definitive of anything. She turns words around in her mouth as though the funny contradictions that result indicate that the concepts we describe by those words are bogus concepts.

Different definitions are to be expected. Open Theism doesn't believe in foreknowledge like Molinism. They have a god that technically isn't eternal per se but existing in time. To them, that's how their god relates to free will in time as opposed to his eternal nature. They believe their god is omniscient only in the sense of time. That he only knows the past and present in the temporal sense. But he doesn't know the future because it hasn't occurred in time yet. The future is open and uncertain. So, an Open Theist definition of omniscience will be redefined to fit their man-made theology. I've been trying to tell you this ...

They must place 'the Eternal God' of the Bible inside of our timeframe. Creating a god who only knows about things through the sequences of time periods. He cannot know ahead of time what the choices of people will be. He must learn it, receive information and knowledge about it, and discover what humans decide to do. Their god is clueless about the future or have amnesia. And this is based on the idea of free will of humans. A god who is subjected to free will of human's choices. While the human's free will choices deal the cards, and God play the hand he is dealt so to speak. The future is only known afterwards from either A or B choices of humans.​

I even quoted from Bible.org

“God experienced the events of the world He has created. . .as they happen, rather than all at once in some timeless, eternal perception. This also means that not even God knows the future in all its details.” Open theists maintain that God does not know what a given human being will do until he acts. They refer to such human actions as “possibilities.” Because God remains unaware of human possibilities, the future remains “open” in His mind. This means that rather than God knowing all things, He is in the process of learning new things as they take place.​

That philosophical aspect is what creates her preunderstanding and presuppositions about omniscience.

It's true that OUR concepts are weak, and our words even weaker, but the wordplay proves nothing, and, particularly, the notion that truth is dependent on what WE say, is ludicrous.

Haha makes me think of 1 Corinthians 1:25.

But, that isn't the topic of this thread.

It is on topic. You simply lack knowledge about Open Theism.

 

[makesends]

Different definitions are to be expected. Open Theism doesn't believe in foreknowledge like Molinism. They have a god that technically isn't eternal per se but existing in time. To them, that's how their god relates to free will in time as opposed to his eternal nature. They believe their god is omniscient only in the sense of time. That he only knows the past and present in the temporal sense. But he doesn't know the future because it hasn't occurred in time yet. The future is open and uncertain. So, an Open Theist definition of omniscience will be redefined to fit their man-made theology. I've been trying to tell you this ...

They must place 'the Eternal God' of the Bible inside of our timeframe. Creating a god who only knows about things through the sequences of time periods. He cannot know ahead of time what the choices of people will be. He must learn it, receive information and knowledge about it, and discover what humans decide to do. Their god is clueless about the future or have amnesia. And this is based on the idea of free will of humans. A god who is subjected to free will of human's choices. While the human's free will choices deal the cards, and God play the hand he is dealt so to speak. The future is only known afterwards from either A or B choices of humans.​

I even quoted from Bible.org

“God experienced the events of the world He has created. . .as they happen, rather than all at once in some timeless, eternal perception. This also means that not even God knows the future in all its details.” Open theists maintain that God does not know what a given human being will do until he acts. They refer to such human actions as “possibilities.” Because God remains unaware of human possibilities, the future remains “open” in His mind. This means that rather than God knowing all things, He is in the process of learning new things as they take place.​

That philosophical aspect is what creates her preunderstanding and presuppositions about omniscience.



Haha makes me think of 1 Corinthians 1:25.



It is on topic. You simply lack knowledge about Open Theism.

Bro. Really? I know the differences, and I agree with you!, but they all boil down to the same thing: A less than omnipotent god. No need for the remonstrances. Direct them at the heretical teachers and their teachings --they are not mine.

 

[Tambora]

@Tambora will not agree to my definition of omniscience, due to implications and due to his singular existence, quite apart from anything we can say to describe it. She goes on what people say and what words mean as though what humanity understands (experiences) is definitive of anything. She turns words around in her mouth as though the funny contradictions that result indicate that the concepts we describe by those words are bogus concepts.

It's true that OUR concepts are weak, and our words even weaker, but the wordplay proves nothing, and, particularly, the notion that truth is dependent on what WE say, is ludicrous.

But, that isn't the topic of this thread.

Just stop already!!!!
I have NEVER EVER EVER said that truth is dependent on what WE say.

 

[makesends]

Just stop already!!!!
I have NEVER EVER EVER said that truth is dependent on what WE say.

Nevertheless, your constructions are dependent on what you say, by which you attempt to show that God's omnipotence is bound by certain facts. Your declarations so far depend on sequence of events (which you say is what time means) and within this God must operate. That is your construction, where words ("time", "events") carry your mind around.