Open Theism

sentient 6 wrote: What I am not saying is that Moses was reminding God that he should keep His promises and acting like an advisor to Him.

I somehow have the feeling that this applies to something I have said earlier in the thread. It was poorly worded, good that you point it out. I believe I got that from something Luther said once.
This "reminding" is more applicable to the person who wants to "remind" God of anything. But when I pray to God, reminding Him of something, in hindsight it's always more of a reassurance to me than actually thinking to point out something that God may have forgotten.

Devon Hill wrote: It's somewhat similar to the story of God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.  Some people could argue God was being deceptive to Abraham by telling him to go do something (and even, imagine it, sinning by telling him to kill his own son), and then later telling him to not do it.  But is that really the case?  Or did God use it for a much bigger purpose and reason?  What happened in the story was a foreshadow in a sense that God would provide his Son Jesus for a sacrifice.  I'm guessing most people didn't make that connection of the deeper meaning until after Jesus was given as the sacrifice many centuries later.  Only after they saw what happened with Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, would the deeper meaning of that story be known.  

We know so little compared to the infinite wisdom and purposes of what God does.  Just like God wasn't deceiving Abraham, the same can be said that God was not relenting with Moses just because he changed his mind.  There is a much deeper meaning to it than that.  What sentient 6 said about showing that intercession is a major part of his plan and will, I think is a major key to understanding why it happened this way with Moses.

I agree with that deeper meaning, but at the same time you shouldn't neglect the message that went out from this at the time itself. As far as I know, child sacrifices were common in that area already, and by this, God pointed out He didn't want those. Just saying this to give some counterbalance

Devon Hill wrote:

New Creation wrote:

Hardcore Christian wrote:

Things I have to ask you as well, Adam is:

How did God plan for the Messiah if He didn't know man was going to sin? Yet Christ was at Creation? (In the beginning was the Word)

How did God give prophecies in the Old Testament if he was just guessing? What if he got one wrong, wouldnt He then be a liar?

Not all prophecies came true. Would you like examples?

Ok well thats a whole other discussion, anyway

No, it's central to this discussion. Prophecies fail because people change. Look at Nineveh. God said it would be destroyed and it was not.

I don't think what happened with Ninevah is a failed prophecy.  It's similar to if I said to my kid "I'm going to send you to your room for not cleaning the house".  The kid could apologize, and if I wanted to, out of mercy and compassion, not send him to his room.  Would that make me inconsistent and a person who doesn't keep my word because I relented?  I would sure hope not.  If that is the case with us, we shouldn't think that if God relents, it somehow makes his prophecy false.  Jonah's words to Ninevah were not a prophecy in the sense that as soon as the words left his lips, they can't be reversed, and no matter what anybody did, it couldn't be changed.  They were simply a warning.

God makes it very clear about stuff like this in Jeremiah 18:

"If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted,10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." (Jeremiah 18:7-11)

I agree fully, the prophecies are more of a warning than a perfect telling of things to come. That's the point I've been getting at, they don't always come to pass. Jeremiah 18, and it's equivalent for individuals in Ezekiel 18 are so amazing in this sense. God, the potter, in Jeremiah 18:4 was making a vessel an "it became marred in His hand" and so He changed His mind and made it into a different vessel!

God values repentance over prophecy. So if Nineveh did not come to pass, it's because they repented. Likewise, it would have been fantastic if Peter defied the Lord's prophecy and did not deny Him that night.

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

My take on this, what can happen in "the future" is FINITE. While undoubtedly astronomically high, there are NOT an infinite number of thoughts/behaviors/decision/words/actions that can possibly be done by each person. Since God is all knowing (there's a slew of scriptures to support this, but my favorite is probably 1st John 3:20) he KNOWS ALL possible paths that mankind can think/speak/do.

As for God knowing exactly which future is the one that will happen - we couldn't possibly know that.
...but Him being all knowing of all possibilities, I more than suspect He at least has a pretty good idea of what will happen.

Again, this is my take. I'm not interested in debating it, so if you don't like it, then leave me alone.

Oh, and Adam - my favorite example of God changing his mind happens in Ezekiel chapter 4. God commands Ezekiel to bake bread using a fire fueled with human feces. (verse 12) Ezekiel says (I'm paraphrasing) "WTF? Really?" in verse 14, to which God says "Fine, you can use cow poop instead" in verse 15.

ThomasEversole wrote:what can happen in "the future" is FINITE.[...]

As for God knowing exactly which future is the one that will happen - we couldn't possibly know that.
...but Him being all knowing of all possibilities, I more than suspect He at least has a pretty good idea of what will happen.

This exactly. My single greatest objection to the idea of open theism, is its certainty on a subject that actually is clouded in mystery because we can't possibly know exactly. Indeed, I think that God is all-knowing, also about the future, but I'm not gonna raise it to the level where it becomes a dogma.

Andreas89 wrote:

ThomasEversole wrote:what can happen in "the future" is FINITE.[...]

As for God knowing exactly which future is the one that will happen - we couldn't possibly know that.
...but Him being all knowing of all possibilities, I more than suspect He at least has a pretty good idea of what will happen.

This exactly. My single greatest objection to the idea of open theism, is its certainty on a subject that actually is clouded in mystery because we can't possibly know exactly. Indeed, I think that God is all-knowing, also about the future, but I'm not gonna raise it to the level where it becomes a dogma.

Are you saying we can't know God? The Creator of the entire universe is not possible of revealing Himself to us? He wrote 66 books to us just so that He COULD reveal Himself to us AND He visited us in person. That sounds like a God that wants to be known, not shrouded in mystery.

Now you're implying that these two are mutually exclusive. The fact that those 66 (or actually less) books are a revelation from God about Himself, does not mean that we get to know certain attributes of Him conclusively. Especially on the topic of God's relationship to the future, it seems kind of adventurous to say with such certainty that God does not know the future. True, there are some kinds of texts that seem to point that way, but there's enough texts in the Bible that make me refrain from taking the position of open theism.
Just because we don't know the future, does not mean that God doesn't know either.

I'm not firmly in the "opposite camp" or anything, to me it's just a topic that is not important enough to argue that fanatically about. I'd rather keep the matters of time in God's hand, where they belong.

New Creation wrote:

I agree fully, the prophecies are more of a warning than a perfect telling of things to come. That's the point I've been getting at, they don't always come to pass. Jeremiah 18, and it's equivalent for individuals in Ezekiel 18 are so amazing in this sense. God, the potter, in Jeremiah 18:4 was making a vessel an "it became marred in His hand" and so He changed His mind and made it into a different vessel!

I think there is a distinct difference between prophecy and what God said to cities like Ninevah though.  The point I was trying to make is that I don't think one should make the point that God doesn't know the future because of examples like this.  It isn't a prophecy (that has to happen) just because it is spoken by God.  Therefore if it indeed does not happen, that doesn't point to the fact that God didn't know the future.  This is very different than blatant prophecies that will occur, and have to occur, because they cannot change.  

The Bible says in Deuteronomy 18:

“But you may wonder, ‘How will we know whether or not a prophecy is from the Lord?’ 22 If the prophet speaks in the Lord’s name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the Lord did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared."

This clearly is stating that if any prophecy does not happen, it is not from God.  Therefore every prophecy that God makes, will be fulfilled.

It's just odd to me that so many will read God's Word and come away with conclusions on all sorts of matters such as God's love, God's character, God's power, God's saving grace, God's creation, God's people, God's nation (Israel), God's will, and then when the subject of God's knowledge comes out, everybody backs away and says "Oh, that's not for us to know. God is a mystery and can't be understood by the human mind."

Yet that's what we've been doing all along, understanding God and His ways via what He's shown us in His word. Who are we to pick and choose just because a subject is uncomfortable or challenges what nearly the entire Body of Christ holds dear?

Don't hold onto beliefs because of tradition.
Don't hold onto beliefs because of others.
Don't hold onto beliefs because of feelings.
Don't hold onto beliefs because of memories.

HOLD ONTO BELIEFS BECAUSE THEY ARE TRUE IN GOD'S WORD.

New Creation wrote:It's just odd to me that so many will read God's Word and come away with conclusions on all sorts of matters such as God's love, God's character, God's power, God's saving grace, God's creation, God's people, God's nation (Israel), God's will, and then when the subject of God's knowledge comes out, everybody backs away and says "Oh, that's not for us to know. God is a mystery and can't be understood by the human mind."

We, as a person, can't even LOOK at God and live through it. (Exodus 33:20)
There's NO WAY we could "understand" God the way God understands God without our head exploding.

If you think you understand God as well as He does, then the problem is more than just a verbiage disconnect here. You've got an ego out of this world.

As far as thinking its "odd" that there's different conclusions to God's word, well... I think its odd that you're surprised by that. There's different conclusions even over this simple "understanding God" disconnect here - of COURSE men are going to come to different conclusions/interpretations to about everything spoken/written/remembered/etc.

...which is why I'm not an advocate to "I'm right, they're wrong" regarding non-salvation doctrines and dogmas - like, perfect example, "Does God know the future?"....

Every person on this board could be pointed toward someone centuries ago, who was smarter, more biblically educated, more devoted in their life to spirituality who came up with some very different "conclusions" to God's word than we did.

Considering that, it takes a lot of nerve to say "I'm right, they're wrong." in those regards. Actually, "nerve" isn't near enough strong of a word...

ThomasEversole wrote:

New Creation wrote:It's just odd to me that so many will read God's Word and come away with conclusions on all sorts of matters such as God's love, God's character, God's power, God's saving grace, God's creation, God's people, God's nation (Israel), God's will, and then when the subject of God's knowledge comes out, everybody backs away and says "Oh, that's not for us to know. God is a mystery and can't be understood by the human mind."

We, as a person, can't even LOOK at God and live through it.  (Exodus 33:20)
There's NO WAY we could "understand" God the way God understands God without our head exploding.  

If you think you understand God as well as He does, then the problem is more than just a verbiage disconnect here.  You've got an ego out of this world.

As far as thinking its "odd" that there's different conclusions to God's word, well...  I think its odd that you're surprised by that.  There's different conclusions even over this simple "understanding God" disconnect here - of COURSE men are going to come to different conclusions/interpretations to about everything spoken/written/remembered/etc.

...which is why I'm not an advocate to "I'm right, they're wrong" regarding non-salvation doctrines and dogmas - like, perfect example, "Does God know the future?"....  

Every person on this board could be pointed toward someone centuries ago, who was smarter, more biblically educated, more devoted in their life to spirituality who came up with some very different "conclusions" to God's word than we did.  

Considering that, it takes a lot of nerve to say "I'm right, they're wrong." in those regards.  Actually, "nerve" isn't near enough strong of a word...  

1. The personal attack has been noted.
2. You stated earlier in this thread that you posted and then you're done. I see that you're back, so that means your statements are fair game for answering and/or rebuttal.
3. I'm not talking about knowing the unknowable facets of God. I'm talking about knowing the knowable facets. He has revealed certain aspects of Himself and His nature to us in His word. He wants us to know Him. I'm simply doing that.
4. I never said it was odd that we disagree. Humans will always disagree, that's a known fact, even by those who disagree. I said that it was odd that we can come to conclusions on all topics except this one. Why are others choosing not to explore it? Possibly because it makes them uncomfortable?

Thomas, I'm going to respectfully ask that you bow out of this debate/discussion/thread. You are angry at me for a past event and it's showing. If I'm wrong on that, then I'll bow out if asked by the moderators.

Personal attack? You're the one throwing past dirt in my face and you're the one bringing it up.

I didn't say in an earlier thread I was done here. I PMed someone that when they asked, and I TEXTED that to you when you asked where I was. Should have known it was just bait to further "judge".

Adam, I'm going to respectfully ask that YOU bow out of this debate/discussion/thread. You are angry at me for a past event and it's showing. If I'm wrong on that, then I'll bow out if asked by the moderators.

Thomas and Adam, that is ABSOLUTELY enough, gentlemen.  

 
I'm NOT going to ask, I'm going to TELL the both of you to cease engaging with each other in this one.  First one of you to test me will be vacationing for a bit.

Despite my better judgement and strong urge to button things up, I'll leave the thread open so that the other participants do not lose out......but this is the ONE eruption of petulance I'll allow.

[EDIT: ninja'd by Exo, but I'll leave my original response as it was.]



I don't think any moderators are going to request anyone to leave the thread... at least not by me at this time anyways.  If anything the whole thread will be locked, but I'm hoping this can get resolved and we all move on.

Thomas, telling someone that they have an ego out of this world like that doesn't do anyone good and that's bordering on the kind of stuff that got the TR locked in the first place: reverting to making things personal instead of keeping to the topic at hand.  I've been trying to keep a relatively close eye on this thread but there is plenty I'm sure I've missed.  I'm a bit lost: what "past dirt" is Adam throwing at you?  How is he "judging" you?  I can't speak for Adam but I *think* he was choosing to not respond to you because you apparently told him you weren't continuing in this thread.  When you posted again, I read his comment as simply that he would reopen the possibility of continuing the discussions you began to have together but never finished.

Adam, it's best if you let the mods handle requesting folks to leave a thread, etc.  In situations like this, please come to one of us first instead of directly to the person in question.  In my experience, accusing someone of being angry at you (even if it's true) only makes things worse and I recommend against it - at least in public like that.  Confrontation with the intent of resolution should be done on a one-on-one level, not here.

Alright, can we keep this thread going?  Can you two please leave this issue out of this thread?  If you have any issues, please contact me (or one of the other mods) privately.  Thank you...

New Creation wrote:It's just odd to me that so many will read God's Word and come away with conclusions on all sorts of matters such as God's love, God's character, God's power, God's saving grace, God's creation, God's people, God's nation (Israel), God's will, and then when the subject of God's knowledge comes out, everybody backs away and says "Oh, that's not for us to know. God is a mystery and can't be understood by the human mind."

It should not be odd to you. God's knowledge about the future is something different than the things you mention. We can speak of those because He has shown us through His Word. So what happened in the past, is not a mystery to us (anymore); that what is necessary for our redemption is even shown in full.

Let me just scratch the surface: the future is something different, because we simply can't know for sure what it holds. Now I do believe that God knows, or at the very least can know the future. To say differently like you do, may be not as much the result of a large ego (although pride is within all of us); I think of it more as projection. Maybe it's the result of unconscious reasoning like "I don't know the future, and I can't imagine how God could know it, so He doesn't know either".

It also deserves attention that the arguments you give for open theism are solely based on circumstantial evidence from Scripture. Given the fact that there's also abundant circumstantial evidence in Scripture for an opposing view, it shouldn't be strange to you that people (like me) don't want to "jump to conclusions" about this.

There's not much to be gained by holding the view of open theism. Why would it be so important to you for God not knowing the future? To me, it holds no value whatsoever. I can imagine how it could help a brother or sister in his or her relationship with God, so that's why I don't want to be too harsh about this.

I still have a lot of reading to do in the Bible, and I think you are way ahead of me in that regard. So if anything I said is incorrect, please say so.

I split this thread because we were getting off topic though it's stuff that should probably be ironed-out, or at least discussed.  New thread is here:
https://thecmr.forumotion.com/t10121-internet-theology-social-norms-etc

Andreas89 wrote:

New Creation wrote:It's just odd to me that so many will read God's Word and come away with conclusions on all sorts of matters such as God's love, God's character, God's power, God's saving grace, God's creation, God's people, God's nation (Israel), God's will, and then when the subject of God's knowledge comes out, everybody backs away and says "Oh, that's not for us to know. God is a mystery and can't be understood by the human mind."

It should not be odd to you. God's knowledge about the future is something different than the things you mention. We can speak of those because He has shown us through His Word. So what happened in the past, is not a mystery to us (anymore); that what is necessary for our redemption is even shown in full.

Let me just scratch the surface: the future is something different, because we simply can't know for sure what it holds. Now I do believe that God knows, or at the very least can know the future. To say differently like you do, may be not as much the result of a large ego (although pride is within all of us); I think of it more as projection. Maybe it's the result of unconscious reasoning like "I don't know the future, and I can't imagine how God could know it, so He doesn't know either".

It also deserves attention that the arguments you give for open theism are solely based on circumstantial evidence from Scripture. Given the fact that there's also abundant circumstantial evidence in Scripture for an opposing view, it shouldn't be strange to you that people (like me) don't want to "jump to conclusions" about this.

There's not much to be gained by holding the view of open theism. Why would it be so important to you for God not knowing the future? To me, it holds no value whatsoever. I can imagine how it could help a brother or sister in his or her relationship with God, so that's why I don't want to be too harsh about this.

I still have a lot of reading to do in the Bible, and I think you are way ahead of me in that regard. So if anything I said is incorrect, please say so.

To piggyback on what is said here, I would add that all of our "conclusions" about what the Bible says regarding whatever are more speculation and belief than actual knowing.  A lot of that is rooted in what our view of "Scripture" is.  The person who believes it is more or less dictated by God will come to different conclusions about a lot of things than someone who believes it was written by people as a reaction or interpretation of what they saw God doing around them.  There are a lot of theological questions worth wrestling with and many of them are much more complex than others.  What God knows is one of those complex ones and I think the "we can't possibly know that" is really kind of a cop-out answer.  I believe that God has a different relationship with time than humanity does, so I think God absolutely can know the future, but that it is more like an awareness of it having already happened rather than the idea that the future is scripted out   It is how I believe God can know who will turn to him and who will die in their rebellion without negating the idea of human choice in the matter.  At least that is where I am right now.  I don't see faith and belief as something that you arrive at, I see it as a journey that is constantly evolving and developing throughout life.

messiaen77 wrote:To piggyback on what is said here, I would add that all of our "conclusions" about what the Bible says regarding whatever are more speculation and belief than actual knowing. 

It would seem to be and can often be and yet, I do believe that the bible is knowable, understandable, that God wouldn't leave us half lost feeling around in the dark with a scripture that is unknowable.

A lot of that is rooted in what our view of "Scripture" is.  The person who believes it is more or less dictated by God will come to different conclusions about a lot of things than someone who believes it was written by people as a reaction or interpretation of what they saw God doing around them.

Yes, it's an important factor.

 There are a lot of theological questions worth wrestling with and many of them are much more complex than others.  What God knows is one of those complex ones and I think the "we can't possibly know that" is really kind of a cop-out answer.  I believe that God has a different relationship with time than humanity does, so I think God absolutely can know the future, but that it is more like an awareness of it having already happened rather than the idea that the future is scripted out   It is how I believe God can know who will turn to him and who will die in their rebellion without negating the idea of human choice in the matter.  At least that is where I am right now.  I don't see faith and belief as something that you arrive at, I see it as a journey that is constantly evolving and developing throughout life.

Interesting.

messiaen77 wrote:
To piggyback on what is said here, I would add that all of our "conclusions" about what the Bible says regarding whatever are more speculation and belief than actual knowing.

I agree. ...which makes fighting over non-salvation matters even more excessive...

^That's a bit of a vague statement. Lots of things that may seem as something that has nothing to do with salvation, actually have a connection with salvation. Simply put: if I live my life however I like now because Jesus earned salvation for me anyway, you know as well as I do that that won't work; there's something more at play here.

To stay a bit on topic with this remark, I'd say that the position that Adam holds is not very biblical and does not give us a right idea about both God and the future; the future is somehow reduced to human choices. If I would think that concept through consistently (at least in my view), it would have severe repercussions for my view of salvation. Yet Adam somehow has managed to have a worldview that does not include all the dangers that I would expect from a position like his (for which I'm very glad).
While God's knowledge about the future does not really seems to be linked to salvation, I'd say that it is not out there to say there is. If our choices determine the future, howcome He got me by surprise more than six years ago?

Just because you don't see the link with salvation, does not mean that there isn't one. And somewhat bluntly indirectly accusing people of fighting over it is not very decent. Discussion is not a bad thing, and it should not be a problem that it can be heated from time to time. As long as we can remain brothers and keep looking at each other like that.

Andreas89 wrote:^That's a bit of a vague statement. Lots of things that may seem as something that has nothing to do with salvation, actually have a connection with salvation. Simply put: if I live my life however I like now because Jesus earned salvation for me anyway, you know as well as I do that that won't work; there's something more at play here.

I'm not talking about non-salvation matters regarding how someone LIVES. We need to strive to live like Christ as much as we can - not only is that emphasized in scripture, but its a given when we see other Christians in their daily walks.

I'm talking about non-salvation matters regarding what someone else BELIEVES.

If someone lives like Christ, has Christ in their heart, but believes in, lets say, "infant baptism" - it seems like overkill to IGNORE how they live, IGNORE them having Christ as their savior, just to pick pick pick pick pick pick pick pick at that baptism issue until they fix it.

ESPECIALLY with this ↓ being true for all parties.

messiaen77 wrote:
To piggyback on what is said here, I would add that all of our "conclusions" about what the Bible says regarding whatever are more speculation and belief than actual knowing.

Well, you might be right if what we believe did not matter. But it does.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone's salvation depends on whether he or she believes in infant baptism or grown up baptism (HINT: infant baptism all the way). Same goes for your answer on the mere question whether or not God knows the future (well, you know my answer on that one).

However, what you believe does have a certain influence on your walk with God. Even more so, it may have an influence on other people's walk with God. Just because you are "on track" despite some, let's call it heretical beliefs, does not mean that others won't be led astray by that belief. Therefore it is even vital that we can hold each other accountable for each other's beliefs. And don't forget that many beliefs are grounded in Scripture.

After all, you are apparently allowed to hold others accountable for their belief that you should be able to hold people accountable for their beliefs.

Of course, you can get a bit carried away when trying to convince people of your own right and their wrong, but that goes for everyone, christian or not. Everyone needs to learn when enough is enough, but that does not mean that we should stop scrutinizing each other's beliefs altogether. Nobody, especially christians, should want a scrutiny-free zone here.

Realistically, the only way another Christian would find out about other "Christian beliefs" is if they volunteered it for the sake of discussion, or they're asked about it an answered honestly. ...probably only with other Christians they've known for a little bit.

No ones going to start their introduction to another new Christian by "Hi, I'm a Christian and I believe Noah had dinosaurs on the Ark". Not going to happen.

I personally don't subscribe to infant baptism, but it sounds like you do. I don't think it has anything to do with anything in the grand scheme of faith, so I don't see any harm to you or I in believing it or not believing it... but IF it did negatively effect me in my walk, I would argue that there's something in me that's the problem - not you for having that belief.

I don't necessarily think Christianity should be a giant scrutiny-free zone, but if said scrutiny breeds fights/discord/contempt/etc. then the approach needs to be reevaluated.

Enough is enough isn't a universal concept either. I can definitely attest to having enough of my own beliefs picked apart, and they're just getting started...

ThomasEversole wrote:I personally don't subscribe to infant baptism, but it sounds like you do.  I don't think it has anything to do with anything in the grand scheme of faith, so I don't see any harm to you or I in believing it or not believing it...  but IF it did negatively effect me in my walk, I would argue that there's something in me that's the problem - not you for having that belief.

I don't necessarily think Christianity should be a giant scrutiny-free zone, but if said scrutiny breeds fights/discord/contempt/etc. then the approach needs to be reevaluated.

Generally I'd agree with the first statement of looking inward if there's an issue (though the caveat there is that if you're doing something that causes a fellow believer to stumble, stop it [1 Corinthians 8:13] - but that's more in actions not beliefs... which sometimes overlap.  ANYWAYS...).  I'd also generally agree with you on the second point of avoiding causing fights/discord/etc.  However, I think the logic of your first statement should additionally be applied to your second statement.  Is it the scrutiny that is causing these fights?  Or is it the pride within (of both/either/or the accusing AND the receiving parties)???