Open Theism

Not sure where to put this so if it needs to be moved go ahead. 

Open theism teaches that God doesn't know the future exhaustively, thus it is open. Proponents such as Greg Boyd and Clark Pinnock teach that God is omniscient in that he knows all there is to know but that he cannot know the future as it hasn't happened yet, making him the greatest historian of all time but not the God of the Bible who says this: Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it. - Isaiah 46:9 Also, think about how many prophecies came to past throughout Scripture. As Joseph said to his brothers: “It was not you who sent me here, but God”!
 


Thus being, God is bound by his own creation, that time holds control over Him. It also necessarily means that God, while extremely smart and benevolent, it responding to His creation as best he can but he is constantly taking risks, adjusting to the actions of his creation and is at times thwarted by them.
This is all done in an attempt to explain evil and posit God as more relational but reducing God's greatness and majesty. 

As Kerrick asked, I will remain civil.

Allow me to ask you this.

Who chose to start this thread, you or God?

New Creation wrote:As Kerrick asked, I will remain civil.

New Creation-“Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD” Psalm 139:4

Just as we see in Acts 2, man delivered up Jesus to be crucified according to the plan and foreknowledge of God, yet they are culpable for their actions.

Black Rider wrote:New Creation-“Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD” Psalm 139:4

Black Rider wrote:Just as we see in Acts 2, man delivered up Jesus to be crucified according to the plan and foreknowledge of God, yet they are culpable for their actions.

I'm curious if you will answer my question posed above. It's not a trap, it will help me gauge whether you are Calvinist, Arminian, or someone else.

Did I miss a previous conversation

I'll just put my stance that I believe God is all knowing and already knows the future

Anyway sorry to post so unknowingly

Hardcore Christian wrote:Did I miss a previous conversation

I'll just put my stance that I believe God is all knowing and already knows the future

Anyway sorry to post so unknowingly

This started in the Ted and animals thread. We was said to go here by the almighty Kerrick LOL.

New Creation wrote:...the almighty Kerrick LOL.

Actually if everyone could start referring to me as this... that'd be greeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaat.

...Minus the "LOL" part.  I'm afraid people may not take me seriously with that.  Actually, no one takes me seriously anyways so just forget it.  Just "Kerrick" is fine.

I'm a Biblicist who believes salvation is by faith, through grace and not of ourselves. You can call me Calvinist if you want.

Black Rider wrote:I'm a Biblicist who believes salvation is by faith, through grace and not of ourselves. You can call me Calvinist if you want.

-I too am a Biblicist and your brother in Christ.
-I don't want to call you anything. But since you started by labeling those of my persuasion as Open Theists, I accepted that label to ease the discussion. We can dispense of labels, that is fine.

I'd still like for you to answer my question above.

If you want for me to answer any questions, then please ask some. You have not done so yet.

As far as I understand the concept of Open Theism, I will be short (and blunt, perhaps).
Although I see its practical value to some extent, it's incorrect.

Will elaborate tomorrow

Kerrick wrote:Actually, no one takes me seriously anyways so just forget it.  Just "Kerrick" is fine.

Whatever you say the Almighty Kerrick LOL

New Creation wrote:If you want for me to answer any questions, then please ask some. You have not done so yet.

Im pretty curious myself

So if you call yourself an Open Theist do you believe what the OP states?

I, within the foreknowledge and plan of God, chose to start this thread. It did not happen or come as new knowledge to Him.

Hardcore Christian wrote:

New Creation wrote:If you want for me to answer any questions, then please ask some. You have not done so yet.

Im pretty curious myself

So if you call yourself an Open Theist do you believe what the OP states?

Thank you for asking the first question of me in this thread. I will try and quote feature and see how well this formats:

Black Rider wrote:Open theism teaches that God doesn't know the future exhaustively, thus it is open.

This is somewhat true. The future has not happened yet, and therefore is not knowable. However, God being who He is, can have reasonable knowledge most of the time what will happen because he knows human nature better than anyone.

Black Rider wrote:Proponents such as Greg Boyd and Clark Pinnock teach that God is omniscient in that he knows all there is to know but that he cannot know the future as it hasn't happened yet, making him the greatest historian of all time but not the God of the Bible...

I am not in full agreement here with Boyd (who is not a full Open Theist) and Pinnock, but I have great respect for both. My belief is that God knows what He chooses to know out of that which is knowable.

Black Rider wrote:Thus being, God is bound by his own creation, that time holds control over Him.

God cannot be bound by time, which in itself is not a thing. Time is a measurement. Strictly and simply speaking, time is the measurement between Event A and Event B. All events, whether they be spiritual or physical, happen in time. Timelessness is a creation of un-Biblical philosophers.

Black Rider wrote:It also necessarily means that God, while extremely smart and benevolent, it responding to His creation as best he can but he is constantly taking risks, adjusting to the actions of his creation and is at times thwarted by them.

Yes, God does take risks, for in relationship, there is risk. Was it not risk to create man in the first place and then find out that he does not love God in return? Absolute risk!

Black Rider wrote:This is all done in an attempt to explain evil and posit God as more relational but reducing God's greatness and majesty.

Is there some spiritual law somewhere that states that God cannot be both relational and great and majestic at the same time? Perhaps your definition of greatness and majesty are limited?

Black Rider wrote:I, within the foreknowledge and plan of God, chose to start this thread. It did not happen or come as new knowledge to Him.

Thank you. Your answer was more than what I was looking for, but perhaps you were trying to predict future discussion. That's OK, let's go with it.

By your admission, God knew you would start the thread and then you started it.

This leads me to a new question, "Can God know a lie, or does He only know actual future events?"

If God takes risks, he stops being all knowing, ever present and all powerful. You are positing that God created beings and circumstances that he could lose control over and had to go in damage control mode to try to fix the problem yet even with that, there is no assurance that he can as he continually has to respond to the unknowns.

Not sure what you're asking. Are you asking can God be deceived?

Let me ask; can God fail?

I won't get into this deeply.  I will state what I believe and step aside.

I believe that God knows the future and is working to fulfill His plans.  If He does not know the future, then to me He is not all knowing, omnipresent, or omnipotent.  God fails to be, well, God if He doesn't know what will happen.  It also makes Him to be a liar with what the Bible declares about Himself.  If He is a liar because He really doesn't know the future, then He cannot be God or even good.

Black Rider wrote:If God takes risks, he stops being all knowing, ever present and all powerful. You are positing that God created beings and circumstances that he could lose control over and had to go in damage control mode to try to fix the problem yet even with that, there is no assurance that he can as he continually has to respond to the unknowns.

We must first establish where the term all knowing, or omniscience comes from. The same goes for omnipresence and omnipotence. I believe these are pagan concepts inserted into modern Christianity and they cannot be found in God's Word.

Yes, He created beings that He could lose control over. Does not God delegate authority to angels and men and does He not willingly give power to these individuals? I'm thinking of the "prince of the power of the air" and of "kings" like Saul and David. Some of these creatures rule within His will and some do not.

Black Rider wrote:Not sure what you're asking. Are you asking can God be deceived?

No. I'm asking if God can know a lie. I admit, it was somewhat rhetorical. No, God cannot know a lie. Therefore, if He knew ahead of time that you would start this thread, then that means you had no other choice than to start this thread, because God will not be a liar. He knows only truth.

Black Rider wrote:Let me ask; can God fail?

"Fail" is a broad word. Does God regret His actions? Yes. Not due to mistakes made, because He only makes decisions when he has all the facts, but due to the other parties making decisions that violate His will. This is why he "repented" that He had made man on the earth in Genesis 6:6.

Speaking of His will, is it not thwarted daily by evil men who sin?

alldatndensum wrote:I won't get into this deeply.  I will state what I believe and step aside.

I believe that God knows the future and is working to fulfill His plans.  If He does not know the future, then to me He is not all knowing, omnipresent, or omnipotent.  God fails to be, well, God if He doesn't know what will happen.  It also makes Him to be a liar with what the Bible declares about Himself.  If He is a liar because He really doesn't know the future, then He cannot be God or even good.

Blessings brother! Even though you plan not to engage, I respectfully ask that you read along if you have the time because I am addressing and will address these statements.

Open theism has made a God who is not in control and is subject to his creation, a sort of demi-god. Omni-presence and omniscience are Biblical teachings that refute pagan teaching whose gods were limited in scope and control.  This is not the God of the Bible who says he has made everything for it's own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil. And let's consider Jesus words in John 13 when he told the Disciples that he would begin telling them things before they take place so that when they occur, “you may believe that I am he” (John 13:19). If Jesus was guessing, how could he tell Peter that he'd deny him three times? And if God has to learn from mans action we are left with a God who may have acted wrongly or unjustly and has to change course which leaves us a God who isn't completely trustworthy. 
Here's how God challenged the pagan gods to prove they were real in Isaiah's time:“Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods” (Is. 41:23).

Forgot to say that OT stems from a very Aristotelian idea that any proposition about the future can be neither true nor false and if taken to it's full conclusion, many Open Theists posit that God can be positively wrong.

Black Rider wrote:Open theism has made a God who is not in control and is subject to his creation, a sort of demi-god. Omni-presence and omniscience are Biblical teachings that refute pagan teaching whose gods were limited in scope and control.  This is not the God of the Bible who says he has made everything for it's own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil. And let's consider Jesus words in John 13 when he told the Disciples that he would begin telling them things before they take place so that when they occur, “you may believe that I am he” (John 13:19). If Jesus was guessing, how could he tell Peter that he'd deny him three times? And if God has to learn from mans action we are left with a God who may have acted wrongly or unjustly and has to change course which leaves us a God who isn't completely trustworthy. 
Here's how God challenged the pagan gods to prove they were real in Isaiah's time:“Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods” (Is. 41:23).

Black Rider wrote:Forgot to say that OT stems from a very Aristotelian idea that any proposition about the future can be neither true nor false and if taken to it's full conclusion, many Open Theists posit that God can be positively wrong.

Making statements about Open Theism (as if to protect the members of this forum (they can take care of themselves)) is one thing. To actually address my statements and replies made above is another.