Openness Theism and Doctrine of Scripture

[quetzalphoenix]

I've read lots of posts debating the finer points of Greek and Hebrew and systematic theology between Openness and traditional Reformed folks. Can we do some prolegomena and examine what a doctrine of scripture would look like on the basis of a God whose ultimate purpose is for human beings to freely respond with him to the contingencies of creation and who does not interfere with their will? What would "inspiration" be, how would he ensure adequate revelation for response, how would he preserve (would he?) the revelation, etc.?

Any takers? Thanks.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 06:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48080#post48080)
quetzalphoenix:

I've read lots of posts debating the finer points of Greek and Hebrew and systematic theology between Openness and traditional Reformed folks. Can we do some prolegomena and examine what a doctrine of scripture would look like on the basis of a God whose ultimate purpose is for human beings to freely respond with him to the contingencies of creation and who does not interfere with their will? What would "inspiration" be, how would he ensure adequate revelation for response, how would he preserve (would he?) the revelation, etc.?

Any takers? Thanks.


You'll need to start another thread. The Open View has never stated that God doesn't interfere with our free will. That's actually a strong part of why we do believe in the open view. So your whole premise is basically worthless.

[Woman]

How 'bout if the question is changed to "Deist" instead of Theist?

[quetzalphoenix]

Today @ 06:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48288#post48288)
doogieduff:




You'll need to start another thread. The Open View has never stated that God doesn't interfere with our free will. That's actually a strong part of why we do believe in the open view. So your whole premise is basically worthless.

Maybe I'm entirely misunderstanding here...are you referring to Openness Theology, advocated by Clark Pinnock, Greg Boyd and others?

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 11:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48332#post48332)
quetzalphoenix:



Maybe I'm entirely misunderstanding here...are you referring to Openness Theology, advocated by Clark Pinnock, Greg Boyd and others?

Yes I am, although Pinnock is basically just Arminian (which is a view I do not believe) and Boyd is pretty good on the Open View, but I disagree with some things he believes. William Hasker probably holds the view that is closest to mine.

[yxboom]

If in fact you agree with Hasker, Sanders, et al you may need to qualify your "...never stated that God doesn't interfere with our free will". Thanks. As for Pinnock there are some side issues that he is a lone ranger but as far as Openness Theology I don't see how you insist he is just basically an Arminian.

[mustbenothing]

If you're going to allow a robust interference with "Libertarian" freewill like this, you're going to have to answer a lot of questions. Specifically, in that Open Theist arguments are going to start falling apart when they cannot rely on "But God can't interfere with our freewill." For instance, without that premise, why can God not foreknow or foreordain our actions? Is it just that you've arbitrarily stipulated that God can "cheat" with freewill on inspiration, but He's got to stick to the rules when it comes to every other choice we make?

Two positions are most plausible for the Open Theist to try to explain why his view provides us with completately (libertarian) free wills:
1. God could have interfered with our wills, but has decided not to do so
2. God cannot interfere with our wills, as otherwise we wouldn't have truly libertarian freewill.

However, if you're going to say that there's no blanket prohibition on God's interaction with or determination/foreknowledge of LFW, it looks like you're going to have nothing grounding your case against God's foreknowledge except arbitrary stipulation. You say that God doesn't interfere with (foreknow, etc.) our wills regarding salvation because they're libertarian and free; however, God does interfere with our wills regarding inspiration despite the fact that they're libertarian and free. There are two options: drop one, or explain this apparent inconsistency. What is the differentiating factor which allows you to say, on principled grounds, that God cannot interfere with our wills in salvation, but He can in inspiration? Or, would you argument be that God must interfere in inspiration and not salvation because, otherwise, your (presupposed) view falls apart? Doesn't this start to sound a little arbitrary?

[yxboom]

Mustbenothing,

That is to doggieduff correct?

[Jaltus]

I am going to post a paper I wrote on OV hermeneutics and see what you guys think.

I'll slap a link for it into this thread.

[Jaltus]

Ok, the paper I wrote is here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=48898#post48898).

[doogieduff]

To start off, you really don't know what I believe at all. So as I explain myself, hopefully it will become more clear as to how there's no real inconsistincies here.

Today @ 06:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48882#post48882)
mustbenothing:

If you're going to allow a robust interference with "Libertarian" freewill like this, you're going to have to answer a lot of questions.

You see, no one cannot allow for robust interference on free will. If you think about it, nobody really has entire free will, meaning they can do whatever they want. We can't move the sun, or reposition the stars, so in a sense, God has placed a limit on our free will. There's a million things which are possible, yet to man very very impossible.

Specifically, in that Open Theist arguments are going to start falling apart when they cannot rely on "But God can't interfere with our freewill."

Well, to be honest, I've never heard this arguement from an Open Theist, nor have I used it. A huge misunderstanding about the Open View, is that it's not about God and His attributes, but essentially it's about time and how we and God act in time. So the arguement is never God can't interfere with our free will, becasue He can, but it's rather God has given us this wonderful thing called free will. I think there are two ways of looking at it. God could have made us toy dolls and played with us in our doll house, if you will. In that case, we have no control, but God has all control. I think a good word for this is puppets. Or, God could have given us free will, (which i think HE has) and in turn we are free in our decisions. If you put two babies in a playpen, you have given them free will inside that playpen. God has placed us on this earth and given us free will on this earth. We don't have free will right now in heaven or hell, because we cannot go there by choice anytime we want. Now, just becasue you have plced two babies in a playpen and given them free will, doesn't mean you will never interfere with their free will if necessary. If one starts to cry because it is being beat, you will abruptly interrupt. All anaolgies fail at some point, especially this one, but I'm just trying to show how I think it is. God has had a greater task of dealing with people than we can ever know.

For instance, without that premise, why can God not foreknow or foreordain our actions?

God can foreordain our actions, and therfore foreknow them. I don't doubt that at all. God can even foreordain every single thing from the beginning of time, and in turn, know the future in it's entirety. (AKA CALVINISM) The question then is, what has God chosen to do, the former or the latter? I believe I can show biblically it's the former. God has predestined some things, and therefore foreknows them. I can tell you that in five minutes I will brush my teeth (foreordain) and when I brush my teeth in five minutes, it will look as if I foreknew it, which I did to an extent. Something crazy could have happened to stop me from brushing my teeth (like an earthquake or tornado) but wiht an all-powerful God, nothing can stop Him, so foreordaining is basically as good as foreknowing.

Is it just that you've arbitrarily stipulated that God can "cheat" with freewill on inspiration, but He's got to stick to the rules when it comes to every other choice we make?

Be careful with your words. God is above all things. Even the rules. He made the rules. But then again, we've never said that it's a rule that we have to have free will 100% of the time. I believe we do for the most part now, but when God put forth His redemption plan for our salvation, He needed to interfere to make it come out perfectly as planned.

Two positions are most plausible for the Open Theist to try to explain why his view provides us with completately (libertarian) free wills:
1. God could have interfered with our wills, but has decided not to do so
2. God cannot interfere with our wills, as otherwise we wouldn't have truly libertarian freewill.

Wow, a lot of straw men on this website. Open View does not hold to this. The debate is free will versus no free will at all. Just because God interfered with man's free will in a few biblical occasions does not support the fact that everything from the beginning of time was foreordained.


You say that God doesn't interfere with (foreknow, etc.) our wills regarding salvation because they're libertarian and free; however, God does interfere with our wills regarding inspiration despite the fact that they're libertarian and free. There are two options: drop one, or explain this apparent inconsistency. What is the differentiating factor which allows you to say, on principled grounds, that God cannot interfere with our wills in salvation, but He can in inspiration? Or, would you argument be that God must interfere in inspiration and not salvation because, otherwise, your (presupposed) view falls apart? Doesn't this start to sound a little arbitrary?

There's no contradiction here to me. You see, part of God's plan must have been the Bible. It's somrthing we have today that is irrefutable despite many hard efforts to disprove it. I actually think it's the best evidence that there really is a God. Now, for this to be the case, for the Bible to be perfect, it must have had a perfect creator! And of course it did. Man is fallible therefore needed God's assistance in putting it together. Let's not look at it as interfering with free will, but rather as man and God writing it together!

[yxboom]

Today @ 06:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48901#post48901)
Jaltus:

Ok, the paper I wrote is here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=48898#post48898).

Shamless advertising :duh:

[quetzalphoenix]

Today @ 05:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48988#post48988)
yxboom:



Shamless advertising :duh:

:read: Maybe so, but this is kind of what I'm looking for. I was introduced to openness via Pinnock and the book he and others contributed to (The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God). So my understanding is very basic.

As a Reformed Christian, I do interpret the scriptures in question differently, but my major difficulties with what I read have always been with the issue of inspiration/inerrancy (and I have to say I've struggled with the typical Reformed understanding of those terms).

I'll read the essay... any resources beyond the book I cited that might give me a clearer picture of Openness? I don't want to build up a straw man to burn (as I would hold the Openness theologians did in their book...)

[quetzalphoenix]

Today @ 04:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48961#post48961)
doogieduff:

The debate is free will versus no free will at all.




How about a definition of terms here to focus the conversation? What do <i>you</i> mean by free will?

When I use the term "free will" in the sense that I believe God has given it to us, I mean the ability to act without "being determined to good or evil by any absolute necessity of nature" (to use WCF 9). That is, we are morally responsible creatures and cannot blame God for making us <i>structurally</i> evil (because we are not). We are a good creation, but we are unable to do spiritual good, although we are designed for this purpose.

I use the term "libertarian free will" when discussing Arminian thought. This distinguishes it from the above...this understanding of free will means that when faced with two choices, a human being will have the absolute freedom to choose either one. (The power of contrary choice) It seems to me that this is the kind of freedom that Arminians and Openness would say we have (because we seem to experience it).

So, back to the issue of scripture... what would revelation look like within your definition of "free will"?

[mustbenothing]

(yxboom) That is to doggieduff correct?

(Me) Directly, yes, but all Open Theists are free to respond.



(doogieduff) To start off, you really don't know what I believe at all. So as I explain myself, hopefully it will become more clear as to how there's no real inconsistincies here.

(Me) Perhaps I should read Hasker. You take a very different position than those Open Theists I have read.



(doogieduff) Well, to be honest, I've never heard this arguement from an Open Theist, nor have I used it. A huge misunderstanding about the Open View, is that it's not about God and His attributes, but essentially it's about time and how we and God act in time. So the arguement is never God can't interfere with our free will, becasue He can, but it's rather God has given us this wonderful thing called free will.

(Me) Non-responsive; the will is not truly free if it is bound to comply with God's dictates. In other words, this would mean that the will is free except when it's not. If you're going to make this case, I'll just say that the will is free (in a libertarian sense) except when it's not, but it's not all the time.

As for the play-pen analogy and so forth: You're discussing the external ability to actually accomplish what you will versus the internal ability to will anything. Libertarian freedom of the will deals with what you are able to will -- not with your ability to execute the dictates of your will. To the libertarian, I am free to choose whether or not I will try to lift 2,000 lbs, but I am not able to actually perform what I have willed. You're dealing with the latter case, rather than the former.



(Previous) “ For instance, without that premise, why can God not foreknow or foreordain our actions? ”

(doogieduff) God can foreordain our actions, and therfore foreknow them. I don't doubt that at all. God can even foreordain every single thing from the beginning of time, and in turn, know the future in it's entirety. (AKA CALVINISM) The question then is, what has God chosen to do, the former or the latter? I believe I can show biblically it's the former. God has predestined some things, and therefore foreknows them. I can tell you that in five minutes I will brush my teeth (foreordain) and when I brush my teeth in five minutes, it will look as if I foreknew it, which I did to an extent. Something crazy could have happened to stop me from brushing my teeth (like an earthquake or tornado) but wiht an all-powerful God, nothing can stop Him, so foreordaining is basically as good as foreknowing.

(Me) I was talking about the effective, not conceivable ability; in other words, it seems that Open Theists either believe that God literally cannot interfere with our wills, or He has chosen to refrain from interfering with our wills. Your position appears to be the latter. I explained this later on in my post.



(doogieduff) Be careful with your words. God is above all things. Even the rules. He made the rules. But then again, we've never said that it's a rule that we have to have free will 100% of the time. I believe we do for the most part now, but when God put forth His redemption plan for our salvation, He needed to interfere to make it come out perfectly as planned.

(Me) God has to stick by rules that He has made in the Calvinist system. To my understanding, Open Theists also generally say that God is bound by rules He has made regarding Himself (although, I find this to be inconsistent with the arguments establishing the belief that God changes His mind). Do you agree that God must stick by the rules (read: promises) He has made, along with the rest of the Open Theists (or, at least, the rest of them, as far as I have seen)?

Also, the arbitrariness I mentioned earlier is starting to stick out. You say that God doesn't interfere with our freewill in regards to things like our eternal destiny. On the other hand, you also say that sometimes God needs to interfere with our freewill in order to make things come about as He has perfectly planned. So, the following questions are relevant:
1. Most Open Theists say that, in the Bible, there are many instances where God has planned something, but then it doesn't happen, so either a) God changed His mind, or b) humans did something which He was incapable of counteracting without interfering with their freewill. Do you use this argument? If so, do you use (a) and (b) as the two justifications? If you do use them, how can this remain consistent with the view presented above (that God will interfere with our freewill if it is needed to execute His plans)?
2. If God doesn't foreknow our choices, how does He know that He needs to interfere with our freewill?
3. Aren't you making your position unfalsifiable, so that if any case in which God has obviously overridden our freewill is presented, you can just chalk it up as "one of those exceptions"?
4. How, then, do you answer the Problem of Evil?




(doogieduff) Wow, a lot of straw men on this website. Open View does not hold to this. The debate is free will versus no free will at all. Just because God interfered with man's free will in a few biblical occasions does not support the fact that everything from the beginning of time was foreordained.

(Me) The classic problem with Foreknowledge and Libertarianism is usually the Open Theist's grounding for denying God's foreknowledge. Do you not use this argument? If not, where is your argument made with the Arminian or Molinist?

As a Calvinist, I do not support and will not support the argument that God has occasionally disrupted freewill, so God must have ordained everything. I draw this from Scriptures (though this is not the place to do so) referring to God's ordination, and add various philosophical arguments.



(Previous) “ You say that God doesn't interfere with (foreknow, etc.) our wills regarding salvation because they're libertarian and free; however, God does interfere with our wills regarding inspiration despite the fact that they're libertarian and free. There are two options: drop one, or explain this apparent inconsistency. What is the differentiating factor which allows you to say, on principled grounds, that God cannot interfere with our wills in salvation, but He can in inspiration? Or, would you argument be that God must interfere in inspiration and not salvation because, otherwise, your (presupposed) view falls apart? Doesn't this start to sound a little arbitrary? ”

(doogieduff) There's no contradiction here to me. You see, part of God's plan must have been the Bible. It's somrthing we have today that is irrefutable despite many hard efforts to disprove it. I actually think it's the best evidence that there really is a God. Now, for this to be the case, for the Bible to be perfect, it must have had a perfect creator! And of course it did. Man is fallible therefore needed God's assistance in putting it together. Let's not look at it as interfering with free will, but rather as man and God writing it together!

(Me) I'm really having trouble distinguishing your view from some sort of Molinism or Arminianism. Traditionally, the key Socinian tenets adopted by Open Theists are:
1. God's temporality
2. God's lack of foreknowledge regarding human decisions
3. Man's libertarian freewill

Yet, you appear to see (1) and (2) as not being set in stone, such that sometimes God really is the ultimate author of things, but sometimes it's both God and man. You appear to see (3) as sometimes true, sometimes false. Please describe your version of Open Theism, especially in the differentiation between Arminian/Molinist thought and your own. E.g.,
1. What kind of foreknowledge does God have (extent, etc.)?
2. What kind of decrees has God made (mutability, extent, etc.)?
3. God's succession in time and Middle Knowledge
4. What is the status quo regarding salvation? Can there ever be exceptions (e.g., Judas, Paul)?

[adam.naranjo]

I'm going to be writing a paper showing that OVT's cannot even know God ("Know" being "justified true belief") by vitrue of the open view's own presuppositions.


(oh no, here comes the firestorm)

My paper, which will come in time, (as I am in the middle of a few others) will show that the open vew is actually in a worse place then the atheists and skeptics in regards to knowledge, and submission to Christ's authority as the starting point, giving preconditions, for knowledge.

Adam.naranjo (actually, it might end up being a book, who knows -- the god of open theism doesn't know thats for sure)
imagine the hymn writer trying to lift up the downcast?
"I know not what the future holds, but I know the god who doesn't know either." :huh:

[joelkaki]

imagine the hymn writer trying to lift up the downcast?
"I know not what the future holds, but I know the god who doesn't know either."

Sad that people hold to that doctrine0.

Joel

[doogieduff]

Today @ 03:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49730#post49730)
adam.naranjo:

I'm going to be writing a paper showing that OVT's cannot even know God (&quot;Know&quot; being &quot;justified true belief&quot;) by vitrue of the open view's own presuppositions.


(oh no, here comes the firestorm)

My paper, which will come in time, (as I am in the middle of a few others) will show that the open vew is actually in a worse place then the atheists and skeptics in regards to knowledge, and submission to Christ's authority as the starting point, giving preconditions, for knowledge.

Adam.naranjo (actually, it might end up being a book, who knows -- the god of open theism doesn't know thats for sure)
imagine the hymn writer trying to lift up the downcast?
&quot;I know not what the future holds, but I know the god who doesn't know either.&quot; :huh:

I'm not sure what Open View you're talking about. My Open View believes that God DOES know the future!

[doogieduff]

Today @ 06:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49837#post49837)
joelkaki:


Sad that people hold to that doctrine0.

Joel

Watch comments like this please. Are you just trying to put people down? You obviously haven't even studied enough to know if it's true or not. You openly admitted to Acts9 that you haven't studied the fact that God repents. This is a very important issue in the Open View. You say you haven't studied it enough to go 5 rounds in a debate, which basically means you don't know it at all. 1 round would be for what you think against it, and the rest you would have to answer questions, so that 5 round stuff is just garbage to me. Let me ask you this, would you be willing to admit that you may be wrong on the fact that God does indeed repent? I mean, you haven't studied it thouroughly enough to begin with. If you're at least willing to admit that you don't know for sure, then you're comment looks really foolish...

[joelkaki]

Watch comments like this please. Are you just trying to put people down?

You know, that is kind of funny coming from you since you say I'm hypocritical, ignorant, and a host of other things. Not to mention calling my theology sick.


You obviously haven't even studied enough to know if it's true or not.

I have studied it enough to know that God knows the future.


You openly admitted to Acts9 that you haven't studied the fact that God repents. This is a very important issue in the Open View. You say you haven't studied it enough to go 5 rounds in a debate, which basically means you don't know it at all. 1 round would be for what you think against it, and the rest you would have to answer questions, so that 5 round stuff is just garbage to me.

Look, I have debated and discussed this with both you and Acts9 in an informal debate setting. But I do not feel adequately prepared to represent my view in the specific section of this site devoted to one-on-one debate. I "know it at all." That does not mean I am well enough prepared to do a formal debate with someone who is a pastor on it. You didn't seem to have a problem with Acts9 declining to debate me on limited atonement or the mode of baptism, so please quit bothering me about this.


Let me ask you this, would you be willing to admit that you may be wrong on the fact that God does indeed repent? I mean, you haven't studied it thouroughly enough to begin with. If you're at least willing to admit that you don't know for sure, then you're comment looks really foolish...

Look, I am convinced from Scripture that God does not repent in the way that you say he does. I do not think he is surprised at the turn of events and has to say, "woops, I guess I should have done that differently." And I think I can support that with Scripture. But there is a sense in which God does repent, and if you wish to see my comments on that, go to the "The Logical Impossibility of Open View Dispensationalism" thread in the Dispensationalism 101 forum. And I do not feel adequate to debate this difference in a formal setting for 5 rounds. So give me a break and get off my back about this if you don't mind.

Joel

[doogieduff]

Today @ 03:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49717#post49717)
mustbenothing:

[QUOTE]
(Me) Perhaps I should read Hasker. You take a very different position than those Open Theists I have read.

I'm not here to take someone else's position. I take the Bible's position and stand by it strongly. I have changed my mind many times, and when I have, it's because they have shown me how the Bible disagrees with my position. No one person can be right about everything, so I read other's views as possibilities. Scripture is the final say. I can't say I agree with everything one person says. The closest I get to is Acts9_12out, as we only have a few minor disagreements.


(Me) Non-responsive; the will is not truly free if it is bound to comply with God's dictates. In other words, this would mean that the will is free except when it's not. If you're going to make this case, I'll just say that the will is free (in a libertarian sense) except when it's not, but it's not all the time.

Wow, the will is free except when it's not! That's brilliant! I wish I would have thought of that. Cmon dude. There are few times in the Bible where God intervened on free will. That makes it reasonable to believe He may do the same thing today. I can't show that He does, and maybe He doesn't. You must answer to scripture where God does intervene on free will, and also answer where it shows He does have free will. This isn't a new revelation by me, it's just plain scripture. Like I've said previous, the debate is free will or ABSOLUTELY NO FREE WILL AT ALL LIKE YOUR CALVINISTIC BELIEFS HOLD. I don't like repeating myself. This is what's up for debate. I have free will trust me. I chose what to eat for breakfast. Unlucky for you, it was predestined that you have waffles, so you couldn't of had tasty cereal like me. Even if God feels like He needs to intervene on my free will sometime in my life, I know it's for the better because I worship a loving God, and I also know that it's probably not very often.


As for the play-pen analogy and so forth: You're discussing the external ability to actually accomplish what you will versus the internal ability to will anything. Libertarian freedom of the will deals with what you are able to will -- not with your ability to execute the dictates of your will. To the libertarian, I am free to choose whether or not I will try to lift 2,000 lbs, but I am not able to actually perform what I have willed. You're dealing with the latter case, rather than the former.

Ok.



(Me) I was talking about the effective, not conceivable ability; in other words, it seems that Open Theists either believe that God literally cannot interfere with our wills, or He has chosen to refrain from interfering with our wills. Your position appears to be the latter. I explained this later on in my post.

Hmmm, you're not listening. I don't like that. From now on, refer to me by name Will, as I'm not all other Open Theists. I don't even know what all other Open Theists believe, so I can't really help you. But write this down. I don't believe either of the two things you just said. God has granted us free will, and if He feels it is necessary to intervene, He will! It didn't happen very often in the bible, and I have reason to believe it happens even less today.


(Me) God has to stick by rules that He has made in the Calvinist system. To my understanding, Open Theists also generally say that God is bound by rules He has made regarding Himself (although, I find this to be inconsistent with the arguments establishing the belief that God changes His mind). Do you agree that God must stick by the rules (read: promises) He has made, along with the rest of the Open Theists (or, at least, the rest of them, as far as I have seen)?

I'm sorry you don't worship the God of the Bible! Maybe we can change that! :thumb: The only thing I can think of, is that I believe God is bound to the rules He made concerning moral good vs. moral evil. I believe God has set the standard concerning right vs. wrong, and in turn is bound to the good. God never sinned and will never sin. The Calvinist God lies though, so makes this position tough for you. God said that:

Ezekiel 26:12 "they (Nebuchadnezzar and his army) willplunder yrour riches and pillage your merchandise"

yet in Ezekiel 29:18 God said:

"Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre;...yet neither he nor his army recieved wages from Tyre."

If you're calvnist God exists, then He lied here. You have some explaining to do...

Rules and promises are two different things, so I won't fall into that trap. You see, God actually changes to remain the same! Let me explain. God is a just and merciful God. God declared Ninevah would be destroyed in 40 days. Ninevah truly repented as God could see their hearts. Now for God to remain the same in His character, He had to change His threat! You see, a just and merciful God could not remain just and merciful while killing off a truly repentful nation. So God changed His mind to remain constant in His character. What an awesome God we have!


Also, the arbitrariness I mentioned earlier is starting to stick out. You say that God doesn't interfere with our freewill in regards to things like our eternal destiny. On the other hand, you also say that sometimes God needs to interfere with our freewill in order to make things come about as He has perfectly planned. So, the following questions are relevant:
1. Most Open Theists say that, in the Bible, there are many instances where God has planned something, but then it doesn't happen, so either a) God changed His mind, or b) humans did something which He was incapable of counteracting without interfering with their freewill. Do you use this argument? If so, do you use (a) and (b) as the two justifications? If you do use them, how can this remain consistent with the view presented above (that God will interfere with our freewill if it is needed to execute His plans)?

When I spoke of God intervening on free will to make his plans come to pass perfectly, I was speaking of Christ's crucifixion. Considering the fact that Christ's death paid the sin for the entire world past, presentnd to come, I think it was very important that it came out perfectly. Since God so graciously granted us free will, there was the possibility of pontius Pilate, Herod and the crowd choosing to Kill Jesus Barrabass and not Jesus Christ. God did not allow this to happen according to Acts 4:27-28.

By the way, I have never said and I will never say that God was incapable of counteracting. You are readin some crazy open theists man.

Like I've also said before, God changes His mind to remain constant in Hos character. Remeber that. So , NO, I don't use those arguements.



2. If God doesn't foreknow our choices, how does He know that He needs to interfere with our freewill?

Read some verses on God reading the hearts of men. He knows what they will choose before they actually do it. It's just that He doesn't know from the beginning of creation.


3. Aren't you making your position unfalsifiable, so that if any case in which God has obviously overridden our freewill is presented, you can just chalk it up as &quot;one of those exceptions&quot;?

No, I'm just telling like God has told me how He His through His word. Everybody wants to debate this philospohically, yet in Acts 17, Paul basically says philosphy is stupid and God is way above philosphy. This isn't about making a unfaslifiable position, it's about learning God through God and not anything else.


4. How, then, do you answer the Problem of Evil?

Free will involves the ability to be able to choose opposite of something. God created good and in doing so gave us the option of choosing opposite. We did. It sounds very reasonable to me. You believe God predestines all evil, which just makes me cry....


(Me) The classic problem with Foreknowledge and Libertarianism is usually the Open Theist's grounding for denying God's foreknowledge. Do you not use this argument? If not, where is your argument made with the Arminian or Molinist?

I don't deny God's foreknowledge. I just deny exhaustive foreknowledge from before creation.


As a Calvinist, I do not support and will not support the argument that God has occasionally disrupted freewill, so God must have ordained everything. I draw this from Scriptures (though this is not the place to do so) referring to God's ordination, and add various philosophical arguments.

Like I've said, the Bible says philosophy is stupid, and that God is above it, but if you want to base your beliefs about God on that, that's your choice. I couldn't really care less if you won't support it. It's biblical, so if you choose to deny the inspired word of God, that's cool.


(Me) I'm really having trouble distinguishing your view from some sort of Molinism or Arminianism. Traditionally, the key Socinian tenets adopted by Open Theists are:
1. God's temporality
2. God's lack of foreknowledge regarding human decisions
3. Man's libertarian freewill

Yet, you appear to see (1) and (2) as not being set in stone, such that sometimes God really is the ultimate author of things, but sometimes it's both God and man. You appear to see (3) as sometimes true, sometimes false. Please describe your version of Open Theism, especially in the differentiation between Arminian/Molinist thought and your own.

Remeber I'm Will, not other Open Theists.

[adam.naranjo]

Yesterday @ 08:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49860#post49860)
doogieduff:



I'm not sure what Open View you're talking about. My Open View believes that God DOES know the future!

Perhaps you need to stop calling your view Open then. THe "open" means something you know?

"your" view doesn't quite fit into the "open" catagory.
"your" view sounds somewhat similar to Bob Hill.

I dont have time for this right now.

Good day,
Adam

[Jaltus]

Hmmm, should I start a separate thread for comments on my paper?

[yxboom]

you think?

[Jaltus]

Nobody likes a smart-spawn.


Looks like you lucked out, everybody likes you, Boom.

:wink:

[quetzalphoenix]

Today @ 07:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50330#post50330)
Jaltus:

Hmmm, should I start a separate thread for comments on my paper?

Or can we just back track to the reason I started the thread? I didn't think it was a hard question to answer...but no one here seems to know how to do anything but bash each other's interpretation of the Bible....the existence of which (not interpretation of!) was the focus of my question.

I will post a response to your paper...but I'm kind of sad that the thread got usurped by bickering...

[yxboom]

Quez I would recommend next time as the thread starter to utilize the Report button feature if the thread is hijacked or there are any problems.

[joelkaki]

quetzal, sorry I loaded your thread with those posts (actually it was only 2 but that ain't the point). I just didn't like being personally attacked, so I responded, but nevertheless, I should have respected your thread.

Jaltus, I haven't had time to read the whole paper yet, but I liked and agreed with what I did read.

Joel

[Jaltus]

Take your time, joel. I tend to be unable to write short papers. Even my 24 pager had to be trimmed to be 26.

[quetzalphoenix]

Yesterday @ 11:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50431#post50431)
yxboom:

Quez I would recommend next time as the thread starter to utilize the Report button feature if the thread is hijacked or there are any problems.

Thank you. So I just hit report, send it to a moderator, and the offending parties will be told to be nice and play fair? I'm new here, and I don't want to seem crotchety or nitpicky.... it does, seem, however, like there are certain posters who are very focused on one issue...in every thread.....

[yxboom]

FYI- The offending parties are not alerted as to who reported the post. However action is taken upon moderator determination.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 05:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50162#post50162)
adam.naranjo:



Perhaps you need to stop calling your view Open then. THe &quot;open&quot; means something you know?

&quot;your&quot; view doesn't quite fit into the &quot;open&quot; catagory.
&quot;your&quot; view sounds somewhat similar to Bob Hill.

I dont have time for this right now.

Good day,
Adam

The debate hasn't ever been "Does God know the future?" Both views believe God knows the future. (At least mine does, and I'm fully Open View.) It's HOW God knows the future that's up for debate!

[yxboom]

Sanders has said in a debate with Dr. White that he (Sanders) believes that God knows the future and knows it exhaustively. It is within OVT proponents to acknowledge God knows the future. I for one agree God knows the future. Now what is left is defining and understanding....exactly what IS the future.

[Sher]

Can someone bullet point what open view theism is/not? Not only would that help us blondes (:teeth:), but perhaps would establish a common ground to build the discussion on ... moving away from bickering.

[yxboom]

It is not Chinese Cuisine.
It is not a bunch of women on a tv show gossiping.
It is not the new fashion out on GQ magazine.

It is a Theology of God's "Openness" in that He relates to mankind in a dynamic fashion. IOW God relates to and responds to mankind "IN" time, so God experiences time not necessarily as men experience time but is not transcendent to time.
The God sees the "whole parade" analogy would be what OVT is not.

www.gregboyd.org has some resources.

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 11:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50772#post50772)
SherBear:

Can someone bullet point what open view theism is/not? Not only would that help us blondes (:teeth:), but perhaps would establish a common ground to build the discussion on ... moving away from bickering.

I like your answer yxboom, but it's not as simple as that. I personally wouldn't refer the term "open" to God, but rather the future. This theology is not about what God can or cannot do, it's based on the fact the future is in fact "open" and because of, can be changed. And sherbear, you can't just bullet point open theism. It's a view which can be come to understood with an in depth study of scripture. I actually came to the Open View through scripture and logicality (a word?) and not by someone's book. That's why I disagree with a lot of what the well-known Open Viewers teach. I'd read Boyd or Hasker to start to understand it, and most definitely the scriptures!

[joelkaki]

SherBear, "The Sadness of Open Theism" thread tells some about it, with quite a bit of debate on it. Ignore the last 2 or 3 pages mostly--a bunch of bickering.

Oh, and www.opentheism.org will give you info on it. I reject Open Theism most certainly, for it says that God does not know for certain what will happen tomorrow.

Joel

[yxboom]

Today @ 06:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50987#post50987)
doogieduff:



I like your answer yxboom, but it's not as simple as that. I personally wouldn't refer the term &quot;open&quot; to God, but rather the future. This theology is not about what God can or cannot do, it's based on the fact the future is in fact &quot;open&quot; and because of, can be changed.


Without detracting too much from the thread, on both accounts I disagree. The term "open" is used of God in that God is dynamic experiencing reality, not reality experiencing God. The cause of an open future rests on the sole decision of the Creator that it would be so. So the future being open is of mere consequence. The focus is God and His relation to creation. The future is open because of a living, pro-active God. A dynamic reality exists because God relates to creation dynamically. And I would state that theology IS about who God is and ultimately what He can and can not do. An open future would dictate that God can not know it as a logical impossibility. God can not make a squared circle based on it's logical impossibility. God can not monogistically save humans if he has set up a synergistic system of salvation due to a logical impossibility. God's omniscience rests on the logical impossiblity of God to exhaustively foreknow events that do not yet exist.

[Jaltus]

It's HOW God knows the future that's up for debate!

More appropriately: "It's to what extent God knows the future that's up for debate!"

[Woman]

Jaltus,

I learned a lot reading your paper. Thank-you for sharing.

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) Perhaps I should read Hasker. You take a very different position than those Open Theists I have read. ”

(doogieduff) I'm not here to take someone else's position. I take the Bible's position and stand by it strongly. I have changed my mind many times, and when I have, it's because they have shown me how the Bible disagrees with my position. No one person can be right about everything, so I read other's views as possibilities. Scripture is the final say. I can't say I agree with everything one person says. The closest I get to is Acts9_12out, as we only have a few minor disagreements.

(Me) If you say that you are an Open Theist, you've got to share some core beliefs with all other Open Theists.




(Previous) Non-responsive; the will is not truly free if it is bound to comply with God's dictates. In other words, this would mean that the will is free except when it's not. If you're going to make this case, I'll just say that the will is free (in a libertarian sense) except when it's not, but it's not all the time. ”

(doogieduff) Wow, the will is free except when it's not! That's brilliant! I wish I would have thought of that. Cmon dude. There are few times in the Bible where God intervened on free will. That makes it reasonable to believe He may do the same thing today. I can't show that He does, and maybe He doesn't. You must answer to scripture where God does intervene on free will, and also answer where it shows He does have free will. This isn't a new revelation by me, it's just plain scripture. Like I've said previous, the debate is free will or ABSOLUTELY NO FREE WILL AT ALL LIKE YOUR CALVINISTIC BELIEFS HOLD.

(Me) Oh no, I believe that we have libertarian freewill, too. I just think that it is compromised all the time. It's just like your position, but I think that there's a little more interference.




(doogieduff) I don't like repeating myself. This is what's up for debate. I have free will trust me. I chose what to eat for breakfast. Unlucky for you, it was predestined that you have waffles, so you couldn't of had tasty cereal like me. Even if God feels like He needs to intervene on my free will sometime in my life, I know it's for the better because I worship a loving God, and I also know that it's probably not very often.

(Me) Do you have any real arguments, or do you have to resort to "If I insult my opponent's position and tell him that I don't like his view, his view will become wrong"?




(Previous) God has to stick by rules that He has made in the Calvinist system. To my understanding, Open Theists also generally say that God is bound by rules He has made regarding Himself (although, I find this to be inconsistent with the arguments establishing the belief that God changes His mind). Do you agree that God must stick by the rules (read: promises) He has made, along with the rest of the Open Theists (or, at least, the rest of them, as far as I have seen)? ”

(doogieduff) I'm sorry you don't worship the God of the Bible! Maybe we can change that! The only thing I can think of, is that I believe God is bound to the rules He made concerning moral good vs. moral evil. I believe God has set the standard concerning right vs. wrong, and in turn is bound to the good. God never sinned and will never sin. The Calvinist God lies though, so makes this position tough for you. God said that:

Ezekiel 26:12 "they (Nebuchadnezzar and his army) willplunder yrour riches and pillage your merchandise"

yet in Ezekiel 29:18 God said:

"Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre;...yet neither he nor his army recieved wages from Tyre."

If you're calvnist God exists, then He lied here. You have some explaining to do...

Rules and promises are two different things, so I won't fall into that trap. You see, God actually changes to remain the same! Let me explain. God is a just and merciful God. God declared Ninevah would be destroyed in 40 days. Ninevah truly repented as God could see their hearts. Now for God to remain the same in His character, He had to change His threat! You see, a just and merciful God could not remain just and merciful while killing off a truly repentful nation. So God changed His mind to remain constant in His character. What an awesome God we have!

(Me) Again, I hear a lot of insults and rhetoric. I don't hear arguments or exegesis.




(Previous) Also, the arbitrariness I mentioned earlier is starting to stick out. You say that God doesn't interfere with our freewill in regards to things like our eternal destiny. On the other hand, you also say that sometimes God needs to interfere with our freewill in order to make things come about as He has perfectly planned. So, the following questions are relevant:
1. Most Open Theists say that, in the Bible, there are many instances where God has planned something, but then it doesn't happen, so either a) God changed His mind, or b) humans did something which He was incapable of counteracting without interfering with their freewill. Do you use this argument? If so, do you use (a) and (b) as the two justifications? If you do use them, how can this remain consistent with the view presented above (that God will interfere with our freewill if it is needed to execute His plans)?

(doogieduff) When I spoke of God intervening on free will to make his plans come to pass perfectly, I was speaking of Christ's crucifixion. Considering the fact that Christ's death paid the sin for the entire world past, presentnd to come, I think it was very important that it came out perfectly. Since God so graciously granted us free will, there was the possibility of pontius Pilate, Herod and the crowd choosing to Kill Jesus Barrabass and not Jesus Christ. God did not allow this to happen according to Acts 4:27-28.

(Me) Non-responsive to my argument that your position is arbitrary and ad hoc.




(doogieduff) By the way, I have never said and I will never say that God was incapable of counteracting. You are readin some crazy open theists man.

Like I've also said before, God changes His mind to remain constant in Hos character. Remeber that. So , NO, I don't use those arguements.

(Me) Again, you haven't answered my question. In some of these situations, do you believe that God changed His mind on His own, do you believe that human actions forced God into a different plan of action, both, or do you have another view?



(Previous) 2. If God doesn't foreknow our choices, how does He know that He needs to interfere with our freewill?

(doogieduff) Read some verses on God reading the hearts of men. He knows what they will choose before they actually do it. It's just that He doesn't know from the beginning of creation.

(Me) First, how do you draw the distinction? Second, how can the future be open if God already knows what's going to happen??



(Previous) 3. Aren't you making your position unfalsifiable, so that if any case in which God has obviously overridden our freewill is presented, you can just chalk it up as "one of those exceptions"? ”

(doogieduff) No, I'm just telling like God has told me how He His through His word. Everybody wants to debate this philospohically, yet in Acts 17, Paul basically says philosphy is stupid and God is way above philosphy. This isn't about making a unfaslifiable position, it's about learning God through God and not anything else.

(Me) You haven't answered the argument.

I don't see how you're getting that Paul is opposed to philosophy from Acts 17. In Colossians 2, he seems fairly concerned with opposing philosophy according to the elemental principles of the world, but supports philosophy according to the wisdom of Christ.





(Previous) 4. How, then, do you answer the Problem of Evil?

(doogieduff) Free will involves the ability to be able to choose opposite of something. God created good and in doing so gave us the option of choosing opposite. We did. It sounds very reasonable to me.

(Me) And yet, if God knew that man would sin, and God created man, then God chose to bring about evil!



(doogieduff) You believe God predestines all evil, which just makes me cry....

(Me) Since when is truth decided by what makes you cry?



(Previous) The classic problem with Foreknowledge and Libertarianism is usually the Open Theist's grounding for denying God's foreknowledge. Do you not use this argument? If not, where is your argument made with the Arminian or Molinist? ”

(doogieduff) I don't deny God's foreknowledge. I just deny exhaustive foreknowledge from before creation.

(Me) As above, I need you to explain your focus on both points -- 'exhaustive' and "from before creation."




(Previous) As a Calvinist, I do not support and will not support the argument that God has occasionally disrupted freewill, so God must have ordained everything. I draw this from Scriptures (though this is not the place to do so) referring to God's ordination, and add various philosophical arguments. ”

(doogieduff) Like I've said, the Bible says philosophy is stupid, and that God is above it, but if you want to base your beliefs about God on that, that's your choice. I couldn't really care less if you won't support it. It's biblical, so if you choose to deny the inspired word of God, that's cool.

(Me) Honestly, why are you even here? Is your only purpose to insult people and try to strong-arm your opposition? If you're going to continue to act like this, leave the forum.




(Previous) I'm really having trouble distinguishing your view from some sort of Molinism or Arminianism. Traditionally, the key Socinian tenets adopted by Open Theists are:
1. God's temporality
2. God's lack of foreknowledge regarding human decisions
3. Man's libertarian freewill

Yet, you appear to see (1) and (2) as not being set in stone, such that sometimes God really is the ultimate author of things, but sometimes it's both God and man. You appear to see (3) as sometimes true, sometimes false. Please describe your version of Open Theism, especially in the differentiation between Arminian/Molinist thought and your own. ”

(doogieduff) Remeber I'm Will, not other Open Theists.

(Me) You must actually mean something by the term "Open Theist," though.

You're also refusing to answer any of my questions. What is your position???

Finally, stop the insults. Stop assuming that you're right. Stop the strong-arming. All you're doing is making yourself look like a fool.