Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 98

Thread: Open Theism: Part X

  1. #1

    Open Theism: Part X

    I've been reading various materials on this topic. This is really a fresh view that challenges a lot of traditional theological/philosophical thinking.
    Remembering how our approach and philosophy affects how the Bible is interpreted, OT gives some really compelling insights to consider.

    I am not "promoting" OT, but I have found that it gives better answers than the traditional Classical Theology on some things.

    Here is a good "starter page" that describes what OT is. What are your thoughts?

    https://godisopen.com/

    Open Theism: Part X-opentheism-jpg
    Last edited by Jonathan david; 10-06-2018 at 10:54 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Isa 41:21 “Present your case,” says the Lord.
    “Bring forth your strong reasons,” says the King of Jacob.
    22 “Let them bring forth and show us what will happen;
    Let them show the former things, what they were,
    That we may consider them,
    And know the latter end of them;
    Or declare to us things to come.
    23 Show the things that are to come hereafter,
    That we may know that you are gods;

    Yes, do good or do evil,
    That we may be dismayed and see it together.
    24 Indeed you are nothing,
    And your work is nothing;
    He who chooses you is an abomination.

    Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began

    Or as the original Greek says "pro aionos chronos", literally "before eternal times".

    Although those types aren't found on this site, it's a well known fact that a lot of Open Theists have watered down their Christian beliefs a lot more than merely defining God as confined within the flow of time. That's typically just a small part of it.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Cardinal TT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    7,640
    Thanked: 5995
    Blog Entries
    2
    I disagree with the general premise of OT even though there are variations of meaning.
    God knows 100% the exact future and choices humans will make.

    The only thing that is open is the freedom God gives humans to make choices which can be minor to extreme but it still only occurs within the parameter God has ordained.

    Every choice by humans and even the angels that fell were already known by God before the beginning of time.

    God has placed man in a tiny tiny tiny speck called earth in the unfathomable vast universe.
    Man is restricted to this basic parameter no matter how many science fiction movies are made. We live our lives within Gods boundary.

    When Jesus returns and into eternity that may change but nonetheless man will only ever live within the parameter God sets.

    Satan fell because he lusted for something outside of God's boundaries.
    Adam and Eve fell because they desired something outside of God's boundaries.

    I have digressed to a different topic but imo they linked as it seems in OT that man wants to operate outside of what is best for him...I could be misunderstanding but that is my take

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cardinal TT For This Useful Post:

    Colonel (10-06-2018), Jonathan david (10-06-2018)

  5. #4
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    As Cardinal pointed out, man wanting to be like God is one issue here. Isa 41 that I quoted above suggests that men made idols in their own image that didn't qualify as gods according to God and the same men didn't demand that they should qualify in order to treat them as gods either. They had made idols that were closer to their own characteristics than that of the real God. Precise knowledge of the future (any prophet moved by demonic spirits would be able to take an educated guess) is mentioned, also the ability to carry through with promises, to change the natural course of events is mentioned. Foreknowledge and a high level of power approaching the allpowerfulness of the real God is what was required to qualify.

    So why do men want to mold gods including their view of God in their own image ? One reason could be that they want to be able to contain Him within their own minds, to feel in control of Him. An other reason could be that with a more limited view of God, it is easier for them to see themselves as gods. If God is also sinful, like the idols mentioned in Isa 41 were then the gap has become much smaller towards where man may feel that he has attained his own godlike status. With some degree of knowledge and understanding and some power and being very sinful like Moloch (or whoever), the idolater suddenly feels somewhat divine, like Moloch is supposed to be.

  6. #5
    I can see that "man wanting to be like God" is a bad motive for being an OT adherent. For someone who has an interest in Christianity, and adopts that mindset is a bad thing for sure. In fact these would be effectively non-Christian OT adherent.

    So far I have found selective aspects of OT to be compelling, but great difficulty with other aspects. Unfortunately, it takes some philosophical journeying (time) to grasp some of the underpinnings. Even the use of the word philosophy seems like a red flag to many Christians, but OT points out that ALL are subject to current philosophy (ways of thinking) of the time - and must react with it (e.g., Plato or Aristotle).

    For me: Underlying philosophy can be helpful to provide a referential framework for biblical understanding, but not the content, which needs to be from the Word of God itself.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan david View Post
    Here is a good "starter page" that describes what OT is. What are your thoughts?

    https://godisopen.com/
    The site basically describes OT as an antithesis to Calvinism. According to Calvinism God has foreknowledge because he has predestined the future. An other antithesis to Calvinism is Arminianism which the beliefs of the majority of Charismatics and the vast majority of Pentecostals fall under. According to Arminianism God has foreknowledge but he has not predestined the future. How this works is more difficult to understand than with the other two which both base God's foreknowledge or lack thereof on whether or not he has predestined the future. To a Calvinist OT may well seem as an alternative alongside Arminianism but to an Arminian who also understands Arminian theology, OT seems more like upsidedown Calvinism and doesn't really add anything useful.

  8. #7
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan david View Post
    I can see that "man wanting to be like God" is a bad motive for being and OT adherent. For someone who has an interest in Christianity, and adopts that mindset is a bad thing for sure. In fact these would be effectively non-Christian OT adherent.

    So far I have found selective aspects of OT to be compelling, but great difficulty with other aspects. Unfortunately, it takes some philosophical journeying (time) to grasp some of the underpinnings. Even the use of the word philosophy seems like a red flag to many Christians, but OT points out that ALL are subject to current philosophy (ways of thinking) of the time - and must react with it (e.g., Plato or Aristotle).

    For me: Underlying philosophy can be helpful to provide a referential framework for biblical understanding, but not the content, which needs to be from the Word of God.
    One could place the three mentioned theologies in a triangle :

    Calvinism : foreknowledge and predestination
    Open Theism : no foreknowledge and no predestination
    Arminianism : foreknowledge and no predestination

    Technically all would say that God predestines events to at least some degree (that which he has decided to do himself in the future) and that he possess foreknowledge of at least that much. But the above is the general picture.

    The fourth possibility "no foreknowledge and (still) predestination" is logically impossible. God has to foreknow that which he has in fact predestined.

  9. #8
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,274
    Thanked: 14133
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan david View Post
    I've been reading various materials on this topic. This is really a fresh view that challenges a lot of traditional theological/philosophical thinking.
    Remembering how our approach and philosophy affects how the Bible is interpreted, OT gives some really compelling insights to consider.

    I am not "promoting" OT, but I have found that it gives better answers than the traditional Classical Theology on some things.

    Here is a good "starter page" that describes what OT is. What are your thoughts?

    https://godisopen.com/

    Open Theism: Part X-opentheism-jpg
    VW is a big proponent of it. We've talked about it some. My jury is still out, but yet many aspects of it are really interesting and make sense to me. I believe a lot of rejection to it is that we all have preconceived notions of how God has to be in order to be God. "If God isn't ______ then He can't be God!' kind of thing.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to fuego For This Useful Post:

    Jonathan david (10-06-2018)

  11. #9
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by fuego View Post
    VW is a big proponent of it. We've talked about it some. My jury is still out, but yet many aspects of it are really interesting and make sense to me. I believe a lot of rejection to it is that we all have preconceived notions of how God has to be in order to be God. "If God isn't ______ then He can't be God!' kind of thing.
    I think the most fundamental objection is that God's existence doesn't depend on the existence of anything else and he isn't predated by anything else. He is ontologically prior to anything and everything else. He's the bottom line of everything.

    With Open Theism God's existence depends on time since he is confined within its flow and basically has to wait for it to pass to be sure about what will happen in the future. Time becomes ontologically prior to God. In my mind that makes Time as an entity a bigger and more fundamental god than God, which makes no sense. Time doesn't do much except go through its motion but it becomes the main "boss" that everyone else has to obey.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by fuego View Post
    VW is a big proponent of it. We've talked about it some. My jury is still out, but yet many aspects of it are really interesting and make sense to me. I believe a lot of rejection to it is that we all have preconceived notions of how God has to be in order to be God. "If God isn't ______ then He can't be God!' kind of thing.
    I remember as a young Christian the "required" reading was Knowing God, by JI Packer (The title should have more accurately been Knowing About God). But the point was he described the multitude of God's "Omni's". It made sense, it was simple, it had supporting scriptures, and thereby most saw it as the complete truth.

    Then you start to read the Bible on your own and you start to notice that the JI Packer model doesn't quite jive with a lot of what you are reading, and there is more to the story. The "conventional wisdom" doesn't appear to cover, or that seems to provides inadequate answers for. You realize that a more complex and nuanced level of understanding is in order, that can be a valid alternative or modified view of God and how he works.

    We see cases where God changes his mind, regrets things he has done, or allows himself to be bargained with. The Classical Theology response of these things being"anthropomorphisms" just doesn't cut it as the right biblical answer. OT presents some possibilities with some biblical support, that other ways of seeing God's purpose and operation are reasonably possible and not necessarily heretical.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Jonathan david For This Useful Post:

    fuego (10-06-2018)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
You can avoid unexpected and expensive repair costs with an extended service plan for your Lexus. Many vehicle repairs can cost thousands of dollars in unexpected expense, now may be the time to consider an extended service plan for your vehicle.