|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 26, 2007 23:54:56 GMT -5
God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of GodBy Gregory Boyd I just recently started reading this book by Gregory Boyd which is about the nature of reality, the nature of the future (partly open, partly certain). I have heard about this book from men like Ravenhill, Gilles, Smock, Pratney, and other great men, but hadn't read it for myself. But it's a truly powerful book. It clears away all the philosphical fog Augustine and other theologians have brought upon the theological world and get's right to the scriptural root of the issue. When it comes to the future and foreknowledge, it seems very few theologians answer with scripture but answer instead with philosophy. (or sometimes with just brutal name calling) This is why I value this book. I am only interested in what the bible says. I think this book would be profitable for anyone to read. You can find it at:www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=gregory+boyd&y=0&tn=open&x=0
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Mar 28, 2007 13:51:27 GMT -5
Brother Jesse, the deeper you delve in the writings of man the further you stray from the Writing of God.
Beware, brother Jesse, of running after every fringe author and ministry around today.
The Body of Christ appears to be coming against your efforts and ministry itself, even Miles himself is beginning to speak up.
Soon, if you do not repent of following the doctrines of men and devils, the only one you'll be able to reach is yourself; most are already leaving your influence and are being made aware by the Spirit of God that you are in error.
Brother, many are pleading with you and have pleaded with you that you must return to Scriptural purity.
Consider the state of your soul before it is too late and you come to complete ruin.
Your ministry may even already now at this present time be corrupted and it may have already been done away by God Himself..... only He knows and the short and not too distant future will confirm all things.
You, the PERSON, however, may come to repentance.
Turn from the error of your ways, Brother Jesse.
Jesus Christ still waits for you to repent and return to Him as the Scriptures reveal Him.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 28, 2007 14:14:00 GMT -5
Brother,
I believe with all my heart that both the scriptures and the Spirit support my views. I do read a lot of books, but I judge everything by the Spirit and the scriptures.
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Mar 29, 2007 9:14:34 GMT -5
Jesse, did you come to your view through Scripture ALONE or did you only learn of this view AFTER reading others' take on it?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 29, 2007 17:57:35 GMT -5
Jesse, did you come to your view through Scripture ALONE or did you only learn of this view AFTER reading others' take on it? I think this is a very important question and I am glad you asked it Dan. It seems to me (and I could be wrong), that you didn't even come close to start believing in moral government and open theism until after you started heavily reading "theology books." I don't think you would have ever of come to the conclusions you have come to if you would have just read the Bible bro.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Mar 29, 2007 18:28:59 GMT -5
Wait a moment, guys. You know that I disagree with Jesse's views as strongly as anyone here, but I think this is bad reasoning. Are we supposed to "just read the bible"? What happens when you draw this out to its logical conclusion - where do you draw the line? You wouldn't be able to read any of the non-biblical books that you raed, and you wouldn't be able to even discuss views with other people - you would have to just read the bible and get your doctrine from there, right? Never any outside "influence"?
There is MUCH to be gained from reading theological books, it is just that the main authority must be Scripture and that as Jesse said, everything must be judged by it. Reading theological books, and of itself, is not Jesse's problem.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 29, 2007 19:08:05 GMT -5
Wait a moment, guys. You know that I disagree with Jesse's views as strongly as anyone here, but I think this is bad reasoning. Are we supposed to "just read the bible"? What happens when you draw this out to its logical conclusion - where do you draw the line? You wouldn't be able to read any of the non-biblical books that you raed, and you wouldn't be able to even discuss views with other people - you would have to just read the bible and get your doctrine from there, right? Never any outside "influence"? There is MUCH to be gained from reading theological books, it is just that the main authority must be Scripture and that as Jesse said, everything must be judged by it. Reading theological books, and of itself, is not Jesse's problem. Don't take what I said to the extreme Tyler. That is not what I am saying at all. Basically what I was saying was this: If Jesse had never started reading Finney's books (among others), he would have never of come to the conclusions he has come to. Why? Because I believe that Finney's views start with a preconceived idea and then try to force them onto Scripture (eisegesis) instead of just seeing what Scripture plainly says (exegesis). So, to a certain degree, you are right. The root of the problem is trying to fit ideas into Scripture. BUT, I still don't think Jesse would have come to the conclusions he has come to had he not picked up Finney's books. As I said though, I could be wrong about that Jesse...
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Mar 29, 2007 19:12:05 GMT -5
Don't take what I said to the extreme Tyler. That is not what I am saying at all. Basically what I was saying was this: If Jesse had never started reading Finney's books (among others), he would have never of come to the conclusions he has come to. Why? Because I believe that Finney's views start with a preconceived idea and then try to force them onto Scripture (eisegesis) instead of just seeing what Scripture plainly says (exegesis). So, to a certain degree, you are right. The root of the problem is trying to fit ideas into Scripture. BUT, I still don't think Jesse would have come to the conclusions he has come to had he not picked up Finney's books. As I said though, I could be wrong about that Jesse... I understand better what you were saying Kerrigan. Thanks for clearing it up. I am sorry if it looked like I was taking you out of context, that is just what I thought I saw in your post. I agree with your sentiment - I also agree that we don't really know what happened there and how it happened. I have also just been convicted about something - I need to be more charitable towards Jesse even though I think he is dead wrong. I am sorry if I have been too harsh towards you, Jesse. Some of the things I have said could have been said better (although the essence of the arguments would still be there).
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Mar 29, 2007 20:18:28 GMT -5
I agree that reading a theology book is not bad, so long as the theology in the book is not bad
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 29, 2007 22:12:23 GMT -5
The early apostles were not preaching to the Gentiles even though this was clearly written in the scripture. God had to give Peter a vision to get the apostles to see they were supposed to preach to the Gentiles also.
God gave us apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints (Ephesians 4:11-12). This means it is God's plan to train, equip, and teach His church partly by men who are anointed and called by God to do so.
Based on this, I have no problem with Christian's reading books. I believe God uses these men to open up the scriptures to us.
I was blinded for many years to many things that are in the scriptures because I was exposed to "Word of Faith/Charismatic" teachings. If it was not for some men of God whose books I read that exposed me to other things in the scriptures I may not have seen them.
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Mar 29, 2007 22:15:41 GMT -5
I agree 100% with you, Messengermicah. The problem is in WHAT we read. Open Theism is not Biblical
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 30, 2007 13:33:17 GMT -5
I agree with that!
I would challenge everyone who disagrees with open theism, purchase Boyds book with the purpose of disproving it. Read his clear scriptural arguements and then tell me that the bible does not clearly teach open theism if we read it plainly at face value.
|
|
|
Post by joem on Apr 11, 2007 12:18:21 GMT -5
We all have our own presuppositions that taint our view of scripture, whether we recieved them from someones preaching or someones book. In refusing to investigate teachings of men such as Finney and Boyd, you have not discerned their teachings, you have simply denied them through ignorance of what they have actually taught. In their writings you may find heresy, but only after you have read them and held them to scripture can you make an honest decision. Anytime you speak of scripture, you spend more time quoting the positions of dead theologians than expounding upon the teachings of God's Word. I praise God that Jesse is willing to learn and honestly study without a closed extra-biblical theological system in which most people operate, and hope that no ones systematic theology will prevent him from continuing to do so. I do pray that as Jesse and all of us contend for the faith, that we would be able to discern the Truth from error. I do not believe that anyone on this board or anywhere else for that matter, has arrived to the point that they do not need to be corrected by God or to continue to learn. If you are 99% positive that you are 100% correct in your theology, you can make statements, but you cannot have an honest discussion as you no longer teachable. I plan on reading this book and comparing it to scripture, not my doctrine but scripture, as I do every other theological work I read.
Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 11, 2007 13:36:40 GMT -5
Were Isaiah and Jonah false prophets? Was Jesus Christ a liar? Does you theology allow Isaiah and Jonah to be true prophets? Does your theology allow Jesus Christ to be truthful? Here is a chart I made answering some of these questions:
|
|
|
Post by joem on Apr 13, 2007 6:43:35 GMT -5
I believe both man and God have free-will and your chart does well illustrating this point.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 14, 2007 20:29:46 GMT -5
Yes both God and man has free-will.
A problem with exhaustive divine foreknowledge is that it would take away free will from man and from God.
If God knows that you will do something, you cannot do the contrary unless God's foreknowledge was wrong.
If God knows what He Himself will always do, He cannot do contrary (or change His mind as the bible says) unless His foreknowledge was wrong.
That is why everytime I show multitudes of scripture that says "God repented" or God changed His mind, those who hold to the classical view of foreknowledge say, "Nah uh! That's not what it means!" when that is what it clearly says!
If God has foreknowledge of everything, and He has always had foreknowledge of everything, then God could have never decided anything for the first time! His will would always be bound by His foreknowledge.
I just don't see the bible anywhere teach that God is a great big "stand-still" like Augustine taught. The bible seems to say God lives in a linear fashion, that God makes decisions, changes His mind, is genuinely disappointed and grieved, tries and tests man for His own knowledge, etc etc. We were truly made in the image of God! God is not living in a "stand-still", at least the bible doesn't say He is.
I am glad you will read Gregory Boyds book. We must be willing to read any theology book in order to test it by the bible.
Guess who else has published on open theism?? OUR FRIENDS AT INTERVARSITY!! lol
The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, Clark Pinnock InterVarsity Press
The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, John Sanders, InterVarsity Press
Who would have thought!
Jeremiah 18:7-8 - At one moment [time] I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if [contingency] that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent [genuinely change His mind] concerning the calamity I planned [His actual and literal intention] to bring on it.
|
|
|
Post by joem on Apr 14, 2007 22:35:08 GMT -5
I am not a fan of Sanders, obviously, but I have read many of his articles and post on his website concerning Open Theism. I have been in a discussion within our local church forum regarding Classical Theism, Open Theism and some other views that do not readily fit into either category. I have learned much and am enjoying the study. I look forward to reading this book. The ones that are most offended by discussing Open Theism are the same ones that are offended by our study of Dunn's "Jesus Remembered". The Reformed crowd is awfully defensive these days and not very open to discussing views other than their own. If you haven't read Dunn's works on the New Perspective on Paul, I encourage you to do so. Jesus Remembered is a book that people love to hate, yet if you are willing to work through it, much can be learned in regards to why we believe what we believe.
Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 14, 2007 22:37:36 GMT -5
It is often the reformed crowd that is the most offended at different views.
I have met some calvinists who say any theological view, other then precisely their 5 points (invented in the 15th Century), is heredical and unorthodox.
If everything is eternally decreed, why do they get so upset at what God has decreed?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 22, 2007 17:03:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rodgers on Apr 27, 2007 20:39:59 GMT -5
Does Open Theism make God out to be a pragmatist?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 1, 2007 13:35:00 GMT -5
A pragmatist? I don't understand how that would be connected with open theism.
God is certainly not arbitrary, God is eternally wise and eternally benevolent, so everything He does he has a wise, loving reason for. God's will is subjected to His eternal intelligence, which demands the highest well-being of all. So God is love, God's intelligence demands love, and God's will is subjected to the law of love. And God knows the mean's which will bring about this end.
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on May 3, 2007 16:49:45 GMT -5
Brother Jesse, to rob God of His Omniscience is very daring indeed.
Will you now look into robbing Him of His Omnipotence and Omnipresence?
A crippled gospel can only produce crippled Christians.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 5, 2007 21:12:58 GMT -5
Does God know that I have a 12 year old son?
Of coarse not. "What? God doesn't know? You are robbing him of his omniscience!"
No, I don't have a 12 year old son. That is not a part of reality, it doesn't exist. Therefore, it doesn't take away from God's omniscience.
God has all knowledge, God is omniscience. That is, God knows all that is an object of knowledge. But if the future is contingent upon our free-will, then the future is not certain, and if it is not certain then the future is open and therefore not exhaustively foreknowable.
And if the future is not knowledge, just like my 12 year old son doesn't exist, open theism is not robbing God of omniscience at all.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 5, 2007 22:40:47 GMT -5
Dan,
Here is an article regarding mainly the omnipresence of God:
A Theological Treatise on the Natural Linear Attribute of God
or
Two Fundamental Reasons for Rejecting the Platonic/Stoic/Manichaeism/Augustinian "Eternal Now" view of God
By Jesse Morrell
The "Eternal Now" View Explained From Original Sources:
Heathen Philosopher Plato taught that God experiences no "before" and no "after" but experiences all of time in a single, changeless, eternal moment.
Eastern Cultist Philosopher Enneads of Plotinus :
"We know Eternity as a Life changelessly motionless ... not this now and now that other, but always all; not existing now in one mode and now in another, but a consummation without part or interval. All its content is in immediate concentration as at one point; nothing in it ever knows development; all remains identical within itself, knowing nothing of change... What future, in fact could bring to that Being anything which it does not now possess ... as it can never come to be anything at present outside it, so necessarily it cannot include any past; ... futurity, similarly is banned; nothing could be yet to come to it. ... one which never turns to any kind outside itself that has never received any accession that is now receiving none and never will receive any .... " (Third Ennead VII,4-5, p.120-121)
Augustine in "The City Of God" -
"... It is not as if the knowledge of God were of various kinds, knowing in different ways things which as yet are not, things which are and things which have been. For not in our fashion does He look forward to what is future, nor what is present, nor back upon what is past; but in a manner quite different and far and profoundly remote from our way of thinking. For He does not pass from this to that by transition of thought, but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness; so that of those things which emerge in time, the future indeed are not yet, and the present are now and the past no longer are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in his stable and eternal Presence. ... nor does His present knowledge differ from that which it ever was or shall be, for those variations of time, past, present ad future through they alter our knowledge, do not affect His... Neither is there any growth from thought to thought in the conceptions of Him in whose spiritual vision all things which He knows are at once embraced." (City of God XI Ch. 21 p.333)
Augustine in his "Confessions" -
"...in the Eternal nothing passeth, but the whole is present; whereas no time is all at once present: and that all time past, is driven on by time to come, and all to come followeth upon the past; and all past and to come, is created, and flows out of that which is ever present... see how eternity [is] ever still-standing, neither past nor to come." (Confessions Book XI p.262)
Augustine in a sermon -
"Eternity is stability, but in time variety; in Eternity all things stand still, in time one thing comes, another succeeds." (Nicen and Post-Nicean Fathers, Volume 6, Sermon LXVII, p.)
In other words, "eternity" according to this philosophical view is not time "forever and ever" but eternity is rather the absence of time, a stagnant stand-still without any succession, duration, chronology, or sequence; from which God looks upon and dwells in all of time - past, present, and future simultaneously. God is not "everlasting" in the sense of never ceasing duration, but God is at a "ever stand-still" in the sense of absent of the succession of duration, dwelling in the past, present, and future all at once.
1. "Eternal Now” Renders Creation Impossible
The creation of something presupposes that it was not in existence before hand. You cannot create that which already exists; you can only create out of nothing that which was nothing, therefore the creation of something presupposes the non-existence of something. For God to have created duration, sequence, chronology, or succession, which is to say if God created time, you must presupposes that time did not exist. But such a creation, going from non-existence to existence, is itself duration, sequence, chronology, and succession. Without the existence of succession, it is impossible to create succession when succession did not exist. For such a creation requires succession.
God could not speak the sequence of, “let there be time“ before the existence of time in any sort of chronological or linear fashion, and then create time when it did not exist, because such would require time, sequence, and chronology to pre-exist. A pre-requisite to the activity of creating is unavoidably time, which is also called duration, sequence, chronology, and succession.
The omnipotent creating power of God would be rendered useless and unusable in a “stand-still” realm. If it is a “stand still”, passive realm, you cannot have active creating motion. Unless time already existed before creation, God could create nothing at all. The creation of all things, even that of the creation of time, would require succession in order for a thing to go from non-existence to existence. Without time being a natural and eternal attribute to God‘s existence (time caused by necessity of His eternal self-consciousness), God could be the Creator of nothing, for creation of a non-existing thing to an existing thing requires the sequence of time, the succession of events, the chronology of creation. Such a time requirement would be upon the creation of time itself. The creation of anything requires the existence of time or else “nothing” cannot go from non-existence to existence in order to be “something”. Going from a non-existence to existence is a chronological sequence. You cannot chronologically create chronology without the existence of chronology. The creation of time is a natural impossibility given the nature of creating. If time did not exist, time could never be created. Creating time is a self-contradiction, a natural impossibility, a logical absurdity.
Time is the necessary framework in which all successive action, all creation, can take place. Sequence is an unmovable condition for the creation of anything, including the hypothetical creation of time. The creation of a thing requires a preceding state and a proceeding state; the preceding state of non-existence succeeding to the state of existence and the state of existence preceding the state of non-existence. In the creation of anything there must be an antecedent and a consequent. Precedings, proceedings, antecedents and consequents all requires duration and sequence as a necessary condition. Therefore duration, sequence, chronology, succession, or "time" cannot be created. It is a natural impossibility.
The truth of Genesis 1:1 is the ultimate presuppositional starting point of all systematic Christian thought, being universally presupposed by the intuitive reason of all intelligent agents. But "Eternal Now" is fundamentally destructive to all Christian thought, rendering Genesis 1:1 completely and utterly impossible, though Genesis 1:1 is an uncompromising fundamental truth to all Christianity explicitly taught in scripture and automatically assumed by the universal consciousness of all intelligent agents. "Eternal Now" inevitably violates both the explicit teachings of scripture and the intuitions of the reason.
2. "Eternal Now" Renders All Things Eternal
If God's eternal being means that He lives in the past, present, and future simultaneously, and there has never been any change or sequence in which the presence of God has been subjected, then the past, present, and future must be as eternal as God is. The past, present, and future, with all that it contains, could not be any younger then God and God cannot be any older then it. They all must be co-eternal if the “Eternal Now” doctrine is true.
The past, present, and future must have always existed, (along with all those beings which dwell in the past, present, and future) if God has always been there, if God has never experienced sequence or change to His presence. God can only eternally dwell in an eternal dwelling place. If God never started to dwell in the past, present, and future, and never ceases to live in the past, present, and future (for such starting and endings are sequence and change), then the past, present, and future has always, still does, and will always exist given this position.
For God to create the Heavens and the Earth, implies that God‘s being was not there to dwell in the uncreated. If uncreated, then naturally God could not dwell there, and if He once did not, but now does dwell there, what is this but sequence or change to the presence of God? Therefore, if God‘s Being experiences no sequence or duration, but is at an “Eternal Now” or at an “eternal stand still”, if God‘s presence dwells in the past, present, and future eternally, then the past, present, and future must be as eternal as God is. Therefore there was never a time in God‘s reality in which the past, present, and future did not exist and were created. For by necessity, they must have existed eternally in order for God to eternally dwell there. For God to have eternally dwelt in the past, present, and future, the past, present, and future must be eternal as well. And therefore the past, present, and future was never created in the reality of God given this position.
Simply, if God’s presence is not subjected to change, and God’s presence has dwelt in all of time, then God must have eternally dwelt there, and therefore all of time must be eternal for God to have dwelt in all of it eternally, or else God’s presence has been subjected to change and duration. If God’s presence never goes through change of sequence, if His natural attributes experience no succession or duration, then where God’s presence has dwelt He must have eternally dwelt, or else His presence has been subjected to change, sequence, succession, and duration.
God cannot be the Creator if He does not live in time, if His being has no natural attribute of succession or duration. God could not create anything, if God eternally experiences all things. God‘s eternal experience of all things would necessitate the eternal existence of all things. Because God‘s eternal experience of all things necessitates the eternal existence of all things, then all things and all people have always existed and will always exist, if it’s true that God‘s eternal experience has always and will always experience the past, present, and future.
If God does not always and will not always experience the past, present, and future, then there is change to the experience of God which is contrary to the "Eternal Now" position, contrary to the philosophy that God experiences no “before“ and no “after“ but is at an “eternal stand still“. But if God eternally experiences past, present, and future, then all of the past, present, and future, with all of those in it, are eternal as well.
If all things are experienced by God eternally, then all things (including time) must be eternal. If God eternally experiences time, then time must eternally exist, and is therefore not created. Therefore if "Eternal Now" is true, time could not have been created, since time has been eternally experienced by God. This again is self-contradictory to the point that the "Eternal Now" view attempts to prove, i.e. that time was created and eternity is the absence of time. If time has been eternally experienced, then time must eternally exist. Therefore time would have no beginning or end since God's experience would have no beginning or end, and according to this view, God's experience goes through no successions or changes. But this is completely self-contradictory to their "Eternal Now" position.
In essence: Eternally experienced = eternally existent = uncreated = eternally existent. If God eternally experiences all things in one changeless moment, then all things eternally exist; and if all eternally exist then all are uncreated; and if all is uncreated then all is eternally existent. This is inevitable if all things are eternally experienced by God “in one changeless, stand-still moment”.
Conclusion:God’s Existence is Linear By Natural Necessity
There is abundant scriptural evidence for:
1. God being the Creator of the universe, the Creator of things that are external to His own natural and eternal attributes.
2. God alone being eternal, while everything else being temporal, that God alone is infinite while everything else is finite.
Based upon these two undisputable scriptural truths, that God is the Creator, and created things temporal and finite while He alone is eternal and infinite, the ancient pagan philosophical view of "Eternal Now" or “eternal still standing” being a natural attribute to God's existence should be utterly rejected as sheer non-sense, being absolutely and utterly recognized as an absurdity. An understanding and acceptance of the biblical truth that time itself is grounded in the succession of God's eternal consciousness, and is therefore a natural and eternal attribute to God's existence, is a vital perception requisite to a proper theology.
God is the God that dwells in the "now". The past is no more except in the eternal memory. It does not exist and is not still occurring in some alternative dimension. And the future is not yet, it is not occurring in some alternative dimension. Only the now is actual reality in all of reality, only the now is occurring. The omnipresence of God includes only realities; it does not include unrealities or anything that is non-existing.
God is everlasting from everlasting, dwelling in never ceasing, never ending present time. He has always existed and will always exist in the now. God's experience of now is eternal. And the saints spending “eternity” in Heaven and the sinners spending “eternity” in hell will not experience a "stand-still" joy or a "stand-still" torment but will experience never ceasing, never ending duration of pain or pleasure; an eternal succession of bliss or an eternal succession of misery. Such is the nature of “eternal life” and “eternal damnation” presented in the scriptures - perpetuation of consciousness. Eternity is never ceasing experience, the never ending consciousness of an onward, perpetual, forward, linear motion without termination. And such is a natural, eternal attribute of God's very being, because of the eternal self-consciousness of the Godhead.
Since time cannot be created, being a self contradiction and requiring a natural impossibility, then it must be an internal, eternal attribute to the being and existence of God, since God alone is eternal. His eternal self-consciousness being the foundation for time, which attribute of self-consciousness we were made with, being made in His image. Thereby God is naturally experiencing duration, as we are naturally experiencing duration, since God is eternally self-conscious and we were created self-conscious, made in the image of His own existence.
God's nature or natural attributes are never changing but are eternal. The personality of God is made up of Intelligence, Sensibilities, and Free-Will; and such are the eternal elements of His personality. But God’s personality has succession of experiences. God is a God who experiences succession of reality, the successions of events, who has succession of emotions, thoughts, and decisions.
"Eternal Now" or “eternal stand still” is contrary to the very nature of God's personality, contrary to His active linear existence of being. His eternal attributes essentially require that He be in the progressive now. The God of reality is not the god of Philosophy, but is the God of Scripture. God is not a stagnant, passive, frozen Being outside of our realm of personal experience; but He is a dynamic, active, creative, personal God, which created our own being and our own existence in the very image of His own. And all who have a personal relationship with Him, and expect an eternal relationship with Him, consciously or subconsciously affirm His existence as being eternally such and not at all as an "eternal stand still" as some philosophical theologians have dogmatically assumed.
Scriptures attributing succession to the experience of God; actively creating that which previously was non-existent, experiencing the sequence of emotions, making new plans, changing old plans, not hearing then succeeding to hearing His people, etc:
Gen 1:1-31, Gen 6:6, Gen 22:12, Exo 32:14, Num 11:1-2, Num 14:12-20, Num 16:20-35, Num 16:41-48, Jud 2:18, Jud 10:13-16, 1Sam 8:18, 1Sam 15:35, 1Sam 23:10-13, 2Sam 24:12-16, 2Sam 24:17-25, 1Kings 21:21-29, 2Kings 13:3-5, 1Chron 21:15, 2Chron 7:12-14, Isaiah 46:9-10, Isaiah 38:4-5, Jer 7:5-7, Jer 26:19, Jer 38:17-18, Jer 38:21, Eze 20:5-22, Eze 33:13-15, Hos 11:8-9, Jonah 3:10, Amo 7:3-6, Job 35:13, Ps 7:11, Ps 40:5, Ps 66:18, Matt 25:41, Acts 15:7, Acts 21:10-12, 2Pet 3:8
|
|
|
Post by swordsmith on Nov 17, 2007 21:23:29 GMT -5
Actually, the open theists claim to elevate God's omnisciense. In fact, Greg Boyd gives reasons why we need not fear the idea that part of the future is open here
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 18, 2007 12:45:03 GMT -5
"the open theists claim to elevate God's omniscience"
That's precisely right. Kerrigan and I were recently talking about that.
In open theism:
- God does not need to cause the future in order to know it - God does not need to time travel into the future in order to know it - God does not need to live outside of time in order to know it - God does not need to intuitively perceive all of the future in order to know it
If any of these were the case, there would really be no genius or skill in God knowing the future.
But if the future is open, with multiple possibilities and probabilities, and God's infinite mind is able to calculate all of them, and then to declare precise and accurate predictions, how brilliant and how genius is the mind of God!!
|
|
|
Post by swordsmith on Nov 18, 2007 13:54:42 GMT -5
Exactly Jesse. That God can still work things together after the counsel of His will, (which relates to His eternal purpose revealed in Christ), even though the future and choices of his creatures aren't deternimed by Him, gives Him "more glory" than a god who must determine everything to accomplish his purposes.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 18, 2007 14:26:17 GMT -5
Yes God's omniscience is exalted in open theism because it shows God's genius in declaring the future.
And God's omnipotence is exalted in open theism because it shows God's skill in bringing about His purposes in a world full of open possibilities, because God is able to govern a world of freewill beings.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 18, 2007 15:18:03 GMT -5
Do you think that God, in the classical view, does not also know hypothetical possibilities about the future? I have seen you follow this line of reasoning before, and I have critiqued it in the same way - you seem to think that just because, in the classical view, God knows absolutely what will happen both because of His determining AND foreknowing it, that therefore, that is "all He knows" or something like that. Not so.
To make some kind of "bar" by which you will be impressed, or not impressed, with God's attributes anyway is wrong. In your post you simply presuppose (wrongly!) that the classical (consistently, the Calvinist) view of God is worse, just because God supposedly doesn't know all of the possibilities that you THINK makes Him more worthy of worship and praise and glory within the Open view. But this really just begs the question... where in the Bible does it say that that is even a quality that is to be esteemed, one way or the other? The argument is about what IS, not about your subjective wishes and opinions, positive or negative, concerning God's attributes or what they "should be".
So this whole bit about trying to list ways in which the open view, apart from Scripture of course (for there is no quotation of Scripture in your post) is "better" than the classical view is inherently flawed. Just as it would be if I were to start saying "Well, the Calvinist view is better because it portrays God as absolutely and meticulously sovereign over all creatures, wills, and things in the heavens, earth, and physical universe" - without making any appeals to what Scripture teaches. If this is what Bruce Ware does in his book then he is wrong, but I am pretty sure that is not as deep as his criticisms go, because I have glanced through the book at my church's bookstore. Unfortunately I have not read it yet.
The question is "what do the Scriptures teach", not "what lists can I formulate that include subjectively desirable qualities God would have under system X".
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 18, 2007 15:50:52 GMT -5
Possibilities can only exist within an open system. Possibilities consist of only what is possible. And if it is possible, then it must be open. But within a settled system, there can be no possibilities but only certainties. If all is foreknown as certain, then all is settled, and if all is settled, then nothing is possible or open.
If God, from all of eternity, foreknew every event as a certainty, then there have never been any possibilities but only certainties. Eternal foreknowledge of all events as certainties means all is certain. And therefore nothing contrary is possible.
God could neither make plans, change plans, or even have possible plans. Everything was predetermined, without God, from all of eternity. Because if God foreknew all events as certain, from all of eternity, then there was never a time in which God could have planned or predetermined it. If all events are eternally intuitive to God, God is an eternal observer but not a dynamic director.
But in the bible, God makes plans (which presupposes openness), changes plans (which presupposes openness) and is capable of making possible plans (which presupposes openness).
God made plans when He predetermined Christ should be crucified. This presupposes that it was not determined until God determined it. God changed plans when He repented of destroying Nineveh. This presupposes that God's mind is not eternally and exhaustively settled since He changes His mind sometimes. And God is capable of making possible plans since Christ said all things are possible for the Father and He could pray for 12 Legions of Angels and they would come if He wanted to.
But if God foreknew all events as certain from all of eternity, God could neither determine nor avoid. He could not determine any plans because they were already foreknown from all eternity past. And He could not avoid them because He accurately foreknew them from all eternity past.
Very plainly, the logical conclusion of exhaustive eternal foreknowledge is an incompetent god who isn't able to make or modify any plans, who has no control over the course of history, and is rendered absolutely powerless and is therefore no god at all.
Only in an open system can God even be God. Only in an open system can God make plans, change plans, guide or control the course of history. Only in an open system can God be God at all.
|
|