osubamey
Junior Member
WTOP 10 Oswego - News Director
Posts: 62
|
Post by osubamey on Sept 4, 2007 15:31:27 GMT -5
I'm guessing open theism is something like agnosticism, believing in a higher power, just not necessarily God?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 4, 2007 21:50:53 GMT -5
Open Theology seemed a little weird to me when I first heard it, but the problem was that I didn't understand it. But when I studied Open Theology, to understand it's perspective and biblical arguments, it made perfect sense. A deeply devoted Calvinist recently told me, "There are only two theologies that make sense to me, Calvinism and Open Theism."
I knew that there were men of God that I respected who believed in Open Theology. Winkie Pratney, David Ravenhill, Jed Smock, Jim Gilles, Gordon Olson, etc. And so I figured it was worth studying for myself.
Gregory Boyds book "God of the Possible" is the best case for the biblical perspective that the future is partly open and partly determined, that God foreknows all future certainties as certain and also that God foreknows all future possibilities as possible. Boyd's book gives a great biblical case for open theology.
Other recommended reading on it would be "The Foreknowledge of God" by Gordon Olson, "Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies A Necessity" by McCabe and "The Foreknowledge of God and Cognate Themes in Theology and Philosophy" by McCabe
Gregory Boyd is a modern Pastor, Professor, and Author. Gordon Olson was a Lecturer at ministries like Last Days, YWAM, Agape Force. And McCabe was a Methodist Theologian, Philosopher, and Professor from the 18 hundreds.
|
|
|
Post by originalsin on Sept 12, 2007 11:52:00 GMT -5
I know the teachings of OT. The fact that God has foreknowledge of future contingent propositions does not entail determinism and thus one can hold to a view of omniscience which includes absolute foreknowledge without precluding true free will. Most make this mistake because they don't understand propositional logic. In short the modal status of a contingent proposition NEVER changes; even with the addition of the propositons that "God knows all things". What appears as a contradiction to the layman is not. What also is overlooked is that ALL propostions on pain of the law of the excluded middle have to be true or false; even future contingent propositions. But those who believe that this entails determinism are putting the cart before the horse for the truth value is not causal. A great text book on logic that deals with these issues and is easy reading is "Possible Worlds" and can be purchased on Amazon for about $3.00
Blessings,
Original Sin
My question to the Open Theist is do they apply the same scrutiney to the Trinity as they do to free will and foreknowledge with consistancy? No matter how you cook it. The three in one God is a logical contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Sept 12, 2007 12:14:05 GMT -5
I'm somewhat familiar with the "doctrine of possible worlds." It's an interesting thought. I haven't put lots of time into thinking it out to see if it's scriptural or not.
Who is the book by? There are several books by that title.
|
|
|
Post by rebecca on Sept 12, 2007 12:24:26 GMT -5
What does repent mean in the Greek? Could it be that repent just means "turned" (as in direction) instead of "changed mind?" Just a thought.
Actually I guess you would have to look that up in the Hebrew.
Here it is, actually there are several meanings of the word:
Repent repent - Hebrew םהנ - /nacham/ - Strong's number 05162
Meaning: to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted.
KJV word usage: comfort 57, repent 41, comforter 9, ease 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
repent - Hebrew שוב - /shuwb/ - Strong's number 07725
Meaning: to return, turn back.
KJV word usage: return 391, return again 248, turn 123, turn back 65, turn away 56, restore 39, bring 34, render 19, answer 18, recompense 8, recover 6, deliver 5, put 5, withdraw 5, requite 4, miscellaneouer 5, put 5, withdraw 5, requite 4, miscellaneous 40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
repent - Greek μετανοέο - /metanoeo/ - Strong's number 3340
Meaning: to change one's mind, to change one's mind for the better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins
KJV word usage: repent 34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
repent - Greek μεταμέλομαι - /metamellomai/ - Strong's number 3338
Meaning: it is a care to one afterwards, it repents one, to repent one's self
KJV word usage: repent 5, repent (one's) self 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by originalsin on Sept 12, 2007 12:40:39 GMT -5
Josh it is authored by Raymond bradley and Norman Swartz. Logic text books are dry and diffucult reading, this one is not. They take propositional analyses and approach it from a "possible worlds" view.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Sept 18, 2007 9:58:27 GMT -5
I had a thought the other day....
If open theism is true, then the classic theist has made a false god in their mind greater than the God of the Bible. This would be true since the classic theist believes God knows everything- past, present and future. On the day of judgment will the classic theist be charged with making a god greater than the God of heaven with his mind? Can a created mind come up with something greater than his creator? If open theism is true, then yes the created mind can produce a god greater than the God of heaven.
That just doesn't seem right to me...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Sept 18, 2007 10:08:41 GMT -5
Good point Josh...
|
|
|
Post by joem on Sept 18, 2007 11:26:12 GMT -5
I had a thought the other day.... If open theism is true, then the classic theist has made a false god in their mind greater than the God of the Bible. This would be true since the classic theist believes God knows everything- past, present and future. On the day of judgment will the classic theist be charged with making a god greater than the God of heaven with his mind? Can a created mind come up with something greater than his creator? If open theism is true, then yes the created mind can produce a god greater than the God of heaven. That just doesn't seem right to me... Josh, How do you get that a God who orchestrates all things is greater than a God who is willing to allow limited contingencies? Is the guy watching a rerun of a football game from his couch greater than the coach who is on the field at game time because the couch potato knows the outcome? The guy on the couch, even though he knows the next move, cannot presently affect the outcome of the game because it is already determined and past from his vantage point. Exhaustive foreknowledge will never equal greater power, it will always equal a lesser god. If God has exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events, He had to possess that knowledge eternally. If He possessed the knowledge of everything that would ever happen eternally, then He is bound by His own knowledge and can never act outside of what He already knows. If His knowledge precedes every event, then the hyper-Calvinist are right and their is no way to escape what God's knowledge has already determined will come about. God is then static, unchangeable and unable to act, think, learn or respond presently, as His exhaustive foreknowledge will not allow for anything original, ever, even from Himself. This is exactly what Plotinus and Augustine learned from Plato. The Greek god's are not greater than the God of the Bible, because the are static, non-existent and cannot think, act or respond. Classical Theism makes God equal to the pagan deities of Greek mythology. Open Theism shows God existing in a linear fashion, acting, learning, responding and existing in the same time which we exist. This is what is so radical about "God with us" as opposed to gods apart from us. An "Eternal Now" concept of God makes Him exist in a singular moment, outside the realm of our existence and therefor static. His knowledge is limited to certainties, which already exist in His mind, that cannot be deviated from. An open system says that God's knowledge extends to every certainty and every possibility, allowing for God to presently act, think and speak as He has original thoughts and makes original decisions. He is an active participant, not a casual bystander, nor a mere choreographer or a helpless observer. It consistent with Calvinism to uphold Classic Theism, but it is intellectual dishonest for the non-Calvinist to hold to the same. If God knew everything as a certainty when He spoke creation into existence, then He spoke sin and hell into existence at the same time He spoke the universe into existence. Then again, God speaking would require a sequence of events, therefor the act of creation itself testifies against the "Eternal Now" concept of God. And if God's knowledge has been eternally present, He could never have had the original thought to speak creation into existence in the first place. Classical Theism, logically followed, will soon require you to create another god to be God's creator, as at some point there has to exist something original in eternity past and an "Eternal Now" view does not allow for anything original, ever. Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Sept 18, 2007 13:43:40 GMT -5
Joe, can the god of the "Open View" then be subject to making mistakes?
Since he only knows the possibilities of what you may choose and not what you actualy will choose.
So he could calculate using past knowledge, present knowledge and come to a conclusion that is ultimately wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Sept 18, 2007 14:07:25 GMT -5
I guess I really don't understand what you are trying to say Joe. The ECFs before Augustine all believed that God had Exhaustive Foreknowledge as well. So, I don't think this is one of those things that Augustine changed...like the many other things he changed. Do you know of any Jews who believe in Open Theism? If not...that means that Open Theism isn't historical and is therefore "new." I just don't equate Foreknowledge with Causation. Plus, I don't see any backing for Open Theism in Scripture. The Scriptures that seem to back-up Open Theism (that I know of) can be translated inside the Classical Theism position. I might not be able to wrap my brain around God's foreknowledge or the way He views time, but I do trust that He knows all...
|
|
|
Post by joem on Sept 18, 2007 14:22:37 GMT -5
Joe, can the god of the "Open View" then be subject to making mistakes? Since he only knows the possibilities of what you may choose and not what you actualy will choose. So he could calculate using past knowledge, present knowledge and come to a conclusion that is ultimately wrong? Are you asking if God guesses what will happen next and then gets it wrong? I believe God knows each contingency and His response to each contingency. He determines to respond in one manner if we act this way, and in another manner if we act another way. His knowledge is extended to all possibilities, all probabilities and all certainties. In this way, it is impossible for God to come to the wrong conclusion, as He knows that which He has determined as conclusive and those contingencies that He allows as contingent. He knows conclusively how He will deal with each contingency, therefor His judgment is never premature and is perfectly consistent. If no contingencies existed, we would have no need to pray, as our prayers and supplications would avail nothing. The entire premise of, "You have not because you ask not" and "The prayer of a righteous man avails much" would be lost. No contingency=no possibility=no point. Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by joem on Sept 18, 2007 14:48:19 GMT -5
I guess I really don't understand what you are trying to say Joe. The ECFs before Augustine all believed that God had Exhaustive Foreknowledge as well. So, I don't think this is one of those things that Augustine changed...like the many other things he changed. Do you know of any Jews who believe in Open Theism? If not...that means that Open Theism isn't historical and is therefore "new." I just don't equate Foreknowledge with Causation. Plus, I don't see any backing for Open Theism in Scripture. The Scriptures that seem to back-up Open Theism (that I know of) can be translated inside the Classical Theism position. I might not be able to wrap my brain around God's foreknowledge or the way He views time, but I do trust that He knows all... In reading the ECF's in regards to the impassibility of God and on Hellenism, I have found many statements that imply the ECF's believed in future contingencies. Much of what they wrote concerning foreknowledge dealt with not being able to surprise God and the impassibility of God. For the most part, I can affirm the majority of what the ECF's wrote on foreknowledge without compromising my position. They didn't have Classical Theism to deal with at the time, so this issue is not handled directly in their writings. At the same time, the ECF's were living in the time when Greek thinking greatly influenced their world view (which is obvious, given that the NT was written in Greek). It is only fitting for them to use the best philosophy of the day in their apologetics. As much as I value the ECF's, I believe scripture speaks plainly on this issue. I sent you an illustration via email that I hope will help you understand where I am coming from and the leap of faith it takes to create a system which Classical Theism can exist. The Augustine reference I made was in direct correlation to the "Eternal Now" concept of God, which is the basis for Classical Theism. They both taught that God existed in a singular moment of time, with no past, present or future. He never experienced anything new, never had an original thought and time as we know it was determined exhaustively at the moment God began to exist. They more or less turn the Creator into the created. "Eternal Now" is what I expect from Buddhists as a form of Nirvana, not from Christian theologians describing the existence of God. Without the "Eternal Now" concept, Classical Theism crumbles. When did God receive His exhaustive foreknowledge of the entire existence of creation? If He didn't always have exhaustive foreknowledge, was He not God because there was a time He didn't know? If He always had it, is not sin, death and hell unavoidable and therefor the ultimate will of God? Can God ever do anything outside of His preexisting knowledge, and if not, does He really have any creative ability at all? If God can't act apart from what He already knows, who determined what He knows and where is His knowledge derived from? If God says don't, yet knows you will do it anyway, is He powerless or do we need to create two separate wills of God to explain his commandments? etc, etc. Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by joem on Sept 18, 2007 16:31:15 GMT -5
Sorry Kerrigan, I did not respond to your question about Jews being Open Theist. There is a historical position that states God's foreknowledge is less than exhaustive, it is called Limited Theism. Below in an excerpt from an article written by Loius Jacobs, a conservative Jewish scholar;
While not himself a limited theist, Jacobs writes: "On a surface reading of the Jewish tradition, the picture which emerges is indeed one of God struggling, as it were, with that in the universe which frustrates His will. Gersonides, in his The Wars of the Lord holds that only such a view does complete justice to the Biblical record. The abstract term "omnipotence", after all, was coined by thinkers influences by Greek thought. Neither the term nor the idea of an all powerful God is found in the Bible or the rabbinic sources." (5)
Another classical Jewish proponent of limited theism was Abraham Ibn Daud. "Whereas the earlier Jewish philosophers extended the omniscience of God to include the free acts of man, and had argued that human freedom of decision was not affected by God's foreknowledge of its results, Ibn Daud, evidently following Alexander of Aphrodisias, excludes human action from divine foreknowledge. God, he holds, limited his omniscience even as He limited His omnipotence in regard to human acts". (18) See Ibn Daud's "Sefer Ha Emunah ha-Ramah", translated by Samson Weill, Frankfurt 1852, p.96.
Historical positions, don't assure correct theology, however I will post some more examples when time permits.
Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by dmatic on Sept 27, 2007 18:01:37 GMT -5
Joe, I hope you find the time to post more on this topic. I loved reading the thoughts expressed so far, because it helps me to see how amazing God must be!
Though this stuff can be thoughts that are much too high for me, I am not afraid to press on because I know that God loves me, and will not leave me "out there"...with my wonder...to overwhelm me, without His presence being there too!
peace, dmatic
|
|
|
Post by michaelsei on Sept 27, 2007 19:54:25 GMT -5
joem,
do you believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient?
and
do you equate foreknowledge with causation?
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Sept 28, 2007 3:56:42 GMT -5
It is important to God that we know He is sovereign. Our God has done something that no other “god” has done; He accurately tells the future long before it comes to pass. It is hard to live the Christian life without knowing that God is sovereign. Without this knowledge, we will not have the peace, rest, and the fear of God that we need in the midst of trials. We will always be wrestling with people and circumstances and trusting in our own strength, instead of seeing God’s hand and trusting in His strength. (Hos.4:6) My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. (Isa.46:8) Remember this, and show yourselves men; bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors. (9) Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me; (10) declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. God does all of His pleasure so that only His counsel comes to pass. The proof, that God is the only God, is that He declares the end from the beginning.
The example of king Cyrus , who was a pagan king is remarkable.
(Isa.46:11)…I have spoken, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it. God is very self-willed. He has a right to be. His self is not corrupt, but ours is. He brings to pass what He desires because it is right. In the text, God is speaking of Cyrus, the pagan king of the Media?Persian Empire. God raised up Cyrus to destroy Babylon in order to set His people free from bondage. At that time, Cyrus had no idea that the Lord had put the desire in him to do exactly what He wanted. (Isa.44:28) That saith of Cyrus, [He is] my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. How can God be so sure that a man who has been a pagan all his life will do everything that will please Him? We see here that nothing or no one can resist God’s good purpose for His people. God is sovereign over the future of the great empires of the world in order to deliver and prepare His people. (Isa.45:1-4) Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and I will loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and the gates shall not be shut: I will go before thee, and make the rough places smooth; I will break in pieces the doors of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron; and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that it is I, the Lord, who call thee by thy name, even the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel my chosen, I have called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. The Euphrates River passed through the city of Babylon. One of the gates spoken of here crossed in the Euphrates River to keep the enemy out. Cyrus by the help of God performed a monumental feat in diverting the Euphrates so that his army could enter the city beneath this gate. After they had entered the city, they discovered that the gates on either bank leading into the city had been left unlocked (by God, verses 1 and 2), which was strange, considering that the Babylonians were at war. After Cyrus conquered Babylon, the high priest showed him these prophecies and more that were written about him hundreds of years before he was born. The Jews say Cyrus was very impressed to see his name and works written in prophecy before the fact and became a believer in the God of Israel. God stated clearly that He was going to open those gates for Cyrus to do His Will. After hearing these revelations, Cyrus knew that God had empowered, planned, and made his way.
|
|
|
Post by joem on Sept 28, 2007 9:10:13 GMT -5
joem, do you believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient? When I was first called to preach, I spent a great deal of time studying theology starting with William Evans book and learning the terms omnipotent, omniscient, omni-sapient and omnipresent. I began to search the scriptures and never found any of these words. They are all terms used to try and define who God is, by the standard of what we think God should be. That said, I do believe God is omnipotent and omniscient. I also believe He is omni sapient, which is an oxymoron if He exist outside of time. I believe He is omnipresent also, which is also not possible if the Eternal Now theory is true. If you read much Calvin, you will know that his position on exhaustive foreknowledge does in fact equal exhaustive causation. It has been a matter of debate for several hundred years in which the Calvinist have consistently shown, what God knows as certain can never be contingent. The Bible shows us many contingencies which have caused many classically trained theologians who take scripture at face value to try and come up with a system in which exhaustive foreknowledge would not equate to exhaustive causation. Some have simply said that these things are to high for us to understand. What we are not told, is that the discussion about the nature of God's existence and foreknowledge was not rooted in scripture and we have inherited their position; Classical Theism. Maybe it would help, if I briefly tell you how I came to my position. In studying Reformed Theology, I found (as others have) that the most basic presuppostion used to interpret scripture was Classical Theism. Every time I found something inconsistent with the Reformed position or with Classical Theism, I was told to overlook it by those in the circle I operated in. This seemed dishonest and I wanted to by faithful to the scriptures, so I began to compare the passages used as a proof text for Classical Theism to the ones that contradicted it. I found more evidence against the classical view than for it, and my journey was underway. I started studying the origin of the Eternal Now theory and ended up at Plato. During this time I was also researching other views of theism, including the open view. Calcidus, a Christian who did an extensive commentary on Philo, rejected the eternal now concept as presented by Plato and supported an open view of the future. Plotinus (a pagan philosopher) was an avid supporter of Plato's eternal now concept and as it turns out was a good friend of Augustine. As I read Augustine, his position seemed to just mirror Plotinus' position. I studied the ECF's and found statements that could support either position. When they spoke on the impassibility of God, they seemed to support a closed view. When they spoke of God's present mediation and action, it seemed they supported the open view. The ECF's did not address all the issues surrounding Classical Theism vs. Open Theism because it was not a hot topic in their day. Since Classical Theism began as a philosophical position rooted in Greek thinking, I began to study it from a philosophical standpoint. After finding that the Eternal Now concept was a philosophical and logical impossibility, I noticed that it raised the same problems that Calvinism did when faced with taking scripture at face value. I was already in a two year study of the New Perspective on Paul and was well aware of the presuppositions that Martin Luther had when the Reformation began. Augustine, though his positions were not considered orthodox until after the Reformation, left a great deal of material behind in written form. His writings influenced Martin Luther's perspective and eventually the perspective of Calvin. The Eternal Now concept fueled what is now considered Calvinism, with Classical Theism being used as its basis. Reformed dogma has become orthodox over the past several hundred years, and Classic Theism has become a basic presupposition of both Calvinist and Armenian. As I studied the New Perspective on Paul and reading Jesus Remembered by James Dunn, I realized that what we believe today is not necessarily based on scripture at all, but on a long history of intertwining lines of thought. It was upon this realization that I became convinced to find the Biblical position on theism. The following months resulted in my reading Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, William Hasker, Gerorge Porter, John Sanders, Karl Barth, Polkinghorne and others who have provided a wealth of information regarding this subject. As I read the dissenting voices of those who honestly understand the open view (which is very rare), the primary objection is that of accepted orthodoxy, not whether or not exhaustive foreknowledge equals causation. Much of what is considered orthodox, changes about every fifty years and is often dictated by the current discussion of the day. When searching for eternal truths, we enter into a discussion that has been taking place for centuries. Since we are new participants in the discussion, it only makes sense that we would first want to know who said what and why, before we agree or disagree with their position. If we accept that the key for finding eternal truth is through Jesus Christ, by the leading of His Spirit and the study and meditation of the holy scriptures, we will often arrive at a position outside the accepted tradition of our day. I will answer all the questions that I possibly can, but I encourage you all to research these things thoroughly on your own also. I will not harbor any ill will towards anyone who disagrees with my current position, as I myself had once held to a different view. I am encouraged to see the healthy discussions here lately, and hope that we will all be edified by further discussion. Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by dmatic on Sept 28, 2007 15:45:11 GMT -5
joe wrote: How true! I appreciate your tone brother, and your efforts to share your convictions. I, for one, will attempt to find some of the authors you recommend and start my study! Peace, dmatic
|
|
|
Post by dmatic on Sept 28, 2007 15:45:59 GMT -5
good post debbonaire! Peace, dmatic
|
|
|
Post by michaelsei on Sept 29, 2007 14:18:18 GMT -5
Joe,
How did you come to this conclusion? If this is where it started for you, I am interested to know more of this step of your intellectual journey.
Do you hold to New Perspectives Doctrine or was this simply a catalyst for challenging the status quo?
|
|
|
Post by joem on Oct 1, 2007 8:29:22 GMT -5
It was an 8mnth study on the Eternal Now theory that brought me to my conclusion. I would start with chapter 11 of Augustine's Confessions, the writings of Plato, Plotinus, Dogen Zenji (a 13th century Zen Buddhist), and related works on the subject. You will soon find that the EN theory does not allow for any present thought, emotion, experience, speech or action, ever. In other words, God could not have spoken creation into existence as that would have required a sequence of events. God could not interact with man as that would require a present action. God could not create, act, speak, judge or even think. He would exist in a singular static moment, much as the atheist view death. Jesus could not have been God incarnate, as God could not leave His Eternal Now state, as that would require an action in the EN state, denoting a present which would then necessitate the existence of a past and future. Jesse made a pretty good post on the subject, I would check it out in the other thread. If you have any specific questions, I may be able to answer them, but to cover the entire Eternal Now position and then refute it, would take months.
I believe the NP has helped to correct many false assumptions we have had over the years regarding the Pauline epistles. I believe that Dunn has done a wonderful job in his research and I encourage everyone to read his work. Some opponents of the NP have worked hard to label the proponents of the NP as heretics, the same way they have labeled proponents of Open Theism as heretics. The New Perspective is actually an old perspective, seeking to uncover the right perspective. I don't think you can label it "doctrine", but rather an attempt to recover proper context in which doctrine can be derived.
The catalyst for challenging the status quo, was scripture. I got really tired of trying to explain away all the verses that didn't fit into some dead guy's systematic theology.
Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by michaelsei on Oct 1, 2007 19:33:32 GMT -5
My problem is that you are rejecting doctrines based upon a philosophical study. ...because EN theory is self-contradictory, Calvinism/Classical Theism is wrong... EN theory may be wrong. I think they are few people on this message board trained in philosophy...I really can't get into the philosophical side of it as much as I would like to (My suggestion to you is to take the philosophical debate to Classical Theists who are philosophically trained ). I fear they may not want to debate an open theist because he is a "heretic," but I would hope they'd debate you. On this board you ought to stick to the Bible side of the debate. Yes, logic and sound philosophy apply, but I have no desire to read Zen voodoo whoever he is, Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus or any of the others right now. I hope to be a student of philosophy someday; right now I'll stay an armchair philosopher...What does the Bible itself have to say about the nature of God-Let's start there and I think more people can really get involved with this debate. I understand that our view of God will affect our understanding of His word; then the real question is "what view of God is the Bible trying to give us?"
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 1, 2007 23:02:32 GMT -5
I recommend reading "God of the Possible" by Gregory Boyd. He cuts through all the philosophical arguments and goes straight to what the bible teaches. It's the best biblical introduction to open theism that I know of.
But it was Jonah chapter 3 that sealed it for me. I was not convinced of open theism by any book except for the book of Jonah.
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Oct 2, 2007 3:56:41 GMT -5
Hi Jesse, Do you say this about the book of Jonah because it is said that God ‘repented’ (or change his mind) ?
I’ve came across an article (below) that speaks of this, and it brings another perspective.
.... (Isa.46:10) Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. If He sees all from the beginning, why would He ever need to change His mind? God will not change what is written in His Word. (Ps.119:89) Forever, oh Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. His Word is likened unto a rock, immovable and unchangeable. However, God can change or delay what He speaks to you personally as a warning through prophets, dreams, visions, or His Spirit. When the Word ultimately comes to pass, it will be fulfilled as the Bible says it will.
God gave us an example of this in the book of Jonah. Jonah “Cried and said, yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown” (Jnh.3:4). God told Jonah to “preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee” (Jnh.3:2), so he did. He was not a false prophet. God spared Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, because they repented. This angered Jonah because Assyria was the mortal enemy of Israel and the prophets had already been prophesying that Assyria would conquer rebellious Israel. He wanted them to be destroyed for what he perceived was Israel’s sake. Jonah knew that if he preached to Nineveh and they repented, God would not destroy them, so he fled. (Jnh.4:1) But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry. (2) And he prayed unto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I hasted to flee unto Tarshish; for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness, and repentest thee of the evil.
God spared Nineveh around 752 B.C. so that Assyria could conquer the northern ten tribes of Israel around 720 B.C. and then Judah around 701 B.C. Nineveh ultimately did fall around 612 B.C. God knew before He threatened Nineveh that He was going to spare them for the purpose of using them to chasten Israel. From Nineveh’s perspective, they changed God’s mind by repenting, but from God’s perspective, He changed Nineveh’s mind and fulfilled His plan from the beginning for them, which was to chasten Israel! Jonah’s Hebrew word for “repentest” here is nacham, meaning “to sigh” and by implication “to be sorry.” In itself, nacham does not admit evil doing, or even a change of mind, only sorrow. As Father, God must do many things that He sorrows over. When the Scriptures speak of God repenting, it is for our perspective because it appears to us that He changed His mind and did not do what He threatened....
|
|
|
Post by joem on Oct 2, 2007 7:01:01 GMT -5
My problem is that you are rejecting doctrines based upon a philosophical study. ...because EN theory is self-contradictory, Calvinism/Classical Theism is wrong... EN theory may be wrong. I think they are few people on this message board trained in philosophy...I really can't get into the philosophical side of it as much as I would like to (My suggestion to you is to take the philosophical debate to Classical Theists who are philosophically trained ). I fear they may not want to debate an open theist because he is a "heretic," but I would hope they'd debate you. On this board you ought to stick to the Bible side of the debate. Yes, logic and sound philosophy apply, but I have no desire to read Zen voodoo whoever he is, Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus or any of the others right now. I hope to be a student of philosophy someday; right now I'll stay an armchair philosopher...What does the Bible itself have to say about the nature of God-Let's start there and I think more people can really get involved with this debate. I understand that our view of God will affect our understanding of His word; then the real question is "what view of God is the Bible trying to give us?" Michael, If you want to study Classical Theism, you have to study philosophy, because it is a philosophical position, not a biblical one. It is all based on the Eternal Now position, which is rooted in pagan philosophy. I am not rejecting Classical Theism because of a philosophical position, I just don't believe Classical Theism because it is bad philosophy, not scripture. I have posted many, many passages in scripture that have lead me to my position, and as I have stated before, they seem to be overlooked or ignored. I have answered every question that I have been given by those seeking to prove exhaustive foreknowledge, including every question regarding different passages of scripture. I have shown the basis of Classical Theism as a philosophical position that was not derived from scripture. Unless I am mistaken, I was asked specifically about the philosophical aspect of Classical Theism and now I am being chastised for answering that question. This seems to be the normal pattern in this discussion. Folks ask questions, I answer, they don't like the answer, they say we shouldn't talk about the question they just asked and ask another question, so we can repeat the process. If you want to discuss scripture only, I will pose a couple passages for your consideration including multiple translations to ensure accuracy. Jer 19:5 KJV They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake [it], neither came [it] into my mind: NASB and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it {ever} enter My mind; RSV and have built the high places of Ba'al to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Ba'al, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; It takes quite a bit a twisting and turning to try to make this passage say anything other than what it clearly says. 2 Kings 20:1 KJV In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live NASB In those days Hezekiah became mortally ill. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, "Thus says the LORD, 'Set your house in order, for you shall die and not live.' " RSV In those days Hezeki'ah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, "Thus says the LORD, 'Set your house in order; for you shall die, you shall not recover.'" 20:5-6 KJV Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD. And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake. NASB "Return and say to Hezekiah the leader of My people, 'Thus says the LORD, the God of your father David, "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the LORD. "I will add fifteen years to your life, and I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for My own sake and for My servant David's sake.'"" RSV "Turn back, and say to Hezeki'ah the prince of my people, Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will heal you; on the third day you shall go up to the house of the LORD. And I will add fifteen years to your life. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria, and I will defend this city for my own sake and for my servant David's sake." Here we have God saying "you shall die, you shall not recover" which I assume He was telling the truth about. Hezekiah was certainly going to die. Hezekiah prayed, God changed His mind and said, "I will add fifteen years to your life". Either God was lying in His first message, or He really changed His mind and therefor a new outcome was realized. Again, it would take quite a bit a twisting and turning to deny the plain words of this passage, and I don't understand why anyone would want to. Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by Brother Adiel on Oct 2, 2007 10:26:19 GMT -5
Jer 19:5 KJV They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake [it], neither came [it] into my mind: NASB and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it {ever} enter My mind; RSV and have built the high places of Ba'al to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Ba'al, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; It takes quite a bit a twisting and turning to try to make this passage say anything other than what it clearly says. I thought you said that you believe that God fore-sees all things as either certainty or contingency? When God says that it didnt cross His mind, are you implying that God means that He was really blind-sided? That He was caught off guard by their choice? That He didnt see it coming? Not even contingently? Had not child-sacrificing been done by the pagans before? Surely He was familiar with the practice. As a matter of fact, wasnt it God who years earlier commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son? What do you believe this verse clearly says? How do you interpret it? Then I will tell you what I believe it means.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 2, 2007 11:29:09 GMT -5
Foryou,
God foreknows events as either certainties or contingencies, as settled events or as possible events. So God knows the future as the future is.
And since there are contingent elements to the future, or different possibilities, God can have expectations and thereby God can have disappointments. If God only lived in a world of settled certainties, when all is inevitable and unavoidable, God cannot have expectations which result in disappointment. But since God lives in a world of possibilities, God does expect and God is disappointed.
So when the bible says "neither did it enter my mind" or "it grieved God" it means that God was not truly expecting it as an actuality (though He knew it as a possibility) and that God was disappointed that it occurred.
So God is able to have expectations and disappointments. I don't believe God truly expected the fall of Adam. God foreknew the possibility and knew what He would do if it occurred. But God gave Adam every reason and motive not to fall. So I believe God was genuinely disappointed at the fall of Adam. Hence Genesis 6:5-6 means exactly what it says.
[On a side note: because God foreknows the future as partly open, that is why the bible says he lead Israel into the wilderness "to know what was in their heart" and why God tested Abraham, to "know that" he "fears God". God lives in a world of possibilities and tests the hearts of men. And the results of these tests can genuinely grieve and disappoint the heart of God because God can have expectations upon His people that fail to become actualities]
|
|
|
Post by joem on Oct 2, 2007 11:55:17 GMT -5
Jer 19:5 KJV They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake [it], neither came [it] into my mind: NASB and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it {ever} enter My mind; RSV and have built the high places of Ba'al to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Ba'al, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; It takes quite a bit a twisting and turning to try to make this passage say anything other than what it clearly says. I thought you said that you believe that God fore-sees all things as either certainty or contingency? When God says that it didnt cross His mind, are you implying that God means that He was really blind-sided? That He was caught off guard by their choice? That He didnt see it coming? Not even contingently? Had not child-sacrificing been done by the pagans before? Surely He was familiar with the practice. As a matter of fact, wasnt it God who years earlier commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son? What do you believe this verse clearly says? How do you interpret it? Then I will tell you what I believe it means. All I have done is quote scripture, and you have already became defensive and started making assumptions about my position. I didn't imply anything, nor did I deny past human sacrifices or Abraham's experience (neither of which have anything to do with the subject at hand), I simply posted scripture. If you have a problem with the passage, take it up with God, not me. Such a reaction to scripture automatically send out a red flag, to me anyway. which I commanded not- God didn't command it - So much for determination. nor spake [it]- God didn't speak it- So much for the "two wills" theory neither came [it] into my mind - God didn't expect it - Did God know it was possible? Yes. Did He expect it? No. Seems simple enough. Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by Brother Adiel on Oct 2, 2007 11:58:32 GMT -5
Foryou, God foreknows events as either certainties or contingencies, as settled events or as possible events. So God knows the future as the future is. And since there are contingent elements to the future, or different possibilities, God can have expectations and thereby God can have disappointments. So when the bible says "neither did it enter my mind" or "it grieved God" it means that God was not truly expecting it as an actuality (though He knew it as a possibility) and that God was disappointed that it occurred. So God is able to have expectations and disappointments. I don't believe God truly expected the fall of Adam. God foreknew the possibility and knew what He would do if it occurred. But God gave Adam every reason and motive not to fall. So I believe God was genuinely disappointed at the fall of Adam. [On a side note: because God foreknows the future as partly open, that is why the bible says he lead Israel into the wilderness "to know what was in their heart" and why God tested Abraham, to "know that" he "fears God". God lives in a world of possibilities and tests the hearts of men. And the results of these tests can genuinely grieve and disappoint the heart of God because God can have expectations upon His people that fail to become actualities] No Jesse. All that it means is that it did not enter Gods mind to command them to sacrifice their children to the devil. Why not you ask? Because God tempts no one. He is absolutely and perfectly holy and does not and indeed cannot sin. Now does God work His sovereign will in and through sin? Yes. He clearly does. Example given: Thus says the LORD: ‘Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, before the sun.’” 2 Samuel 12:11-12 20 Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give advice as to what we should do.” 21 And Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; and all Israel will hear that you are abhorred by your father. Then the hands of all who are with you will be strong.” 22 So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the top of the house, and Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel. 2 Samuel 16:20-22 But is He Himself guilty of sin? Or does He Himself ever tempt anyone to sin? NEVER! I am interested in hearing how you interpret these passages.
|
|