Questions for Open View Theists Only Please [Archive]

geebob

February 3rd 2003, 07:55 PM

I am extremely discouraged and not sure what to do about it other than to just remove myself from the condemnation and belittlement, etc. that I've been experiencing of late.

I'd say that if they can't be your friend and allow you the freedom to do this, they aren't very worthy friends. They also have a highly shallow understanding of christian piety assuming matters such as these should weigh in on how we should treat our fellow Christians.

If your studies bring you away from this view, I certainly won't hold it against you. (and if it seems like I did, you can and should tell me what for). But if you tried to debate against it, I'd give a bit of resistence. But definitely (or at least, hopefully) I will have nothing personally against you on the issue.

I am allowing the bible to say what it means and mean what it says.

Don't be afraid to consider though that at times, scripture has it's veils and removing them is easier said than done.

It is the prima facia (face value) reading of the opposite view of the open view that started me down the path towards the open view. more on that below...

I'm sure it encompassed a great deal of bible study, but wonder specifically what "convinced" each of you? Was there a particular passage? A particular moment?

I was reading one of the passages that calvinists use to support their views and may response was utter revoltion. I was taught to believe that hell was a horribly wretched place but everyone who is and will be there will end up there because of their own actions. Now to learn that it is part of God's ultimate plan that they are there, they didn't have a chance, it was too much! I could not accept this and I remember actually considering leaving the christian faith.

What followed was a lot of prayer and seeking for answers. I looked for scripture that I didn't believe fit the calvinistic paradigm, for evidence that God was righteous and consistently loving towards all the lost. Matthew 23:37 for example was of great comfort, and I rejected the calvinist view of many wills in God as a poor solution to incoherence, so the effect of this passage was not reduced.

Between the open view and a view called corporate election, which in my opinion recieves it's best defence in a movement within biblical scholarship called The New Perspective on Paul which is an approach to Paul that is firmly rooted within first century Judaism, I found answers that were satisfactory.

So why the open view and not the typical Arminian stance? Well the reason is very Arminian (the open view is after all a developement within arminianism). Everyone has a chance for salvation. No one is left out of God's good intentions for seemingly arbitrary reasons. So, putting a percent on it, what is the chance that someone will accept Christ when it has been known since the beginning of time that they will not do so? The answer is Zilch! they have no chance. I believe the only solution to this is to say that for every man, before a point in his life, there can be no fact of the matter about how he will choose.

Bob Hill

February 4th 2003, 03:01 AM

Dear Linda,

I am writing a book on the Open View. Here is the first chapter. It tells how I moved from Calvinism to the Open View.

Calvinism Unmasked
Chapter 1
I’m a Calvinist

After I graduated from high school in 1951, I believed in Jesus Christ as my savior. Shortly after that, I was discipled by a high school friend of mine who went to the church where I got saved. Although the church was Arminian in theology, he was a Calvinist. All the Scripture he showed me was interpreted from that viewpoint. Since the explanations seemed reasonable to me, I became a strong advocate of Calvinism, reflecting Calvin’s statement in his Institutes:
No one who wishes to be thought religious dares simply deny predestination, by which God adopts some to hope of life, and sentences others to eternal death. But our opponents, especially those who make foreknowledge its cause, envelop it in numerous petty objections. We indeed place both doctrines in God, but we say that subjecting one to the other is absurd. When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things always were, and perpetually remain, under his eyes, so that to his knowledge there is nothing future or past, but all things are present. And they are present in such a way that he not only conceives them through ideas, as we have before us those things which our minds remember, but he truly looks upon them and discerns them as things placed before him. And this foreknowledge is extended throughout the universe to every creature. We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death.
Later, I was influenced by my wife’s dear uncle, who was a Universal Reconciliationist. He showed me in 1 Timothy 2:3-6, that God willed all men to be saved:
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
He explained that not all were saved in this life, but all would eventually be reconciled to God. He showed me that there were many ages in the Bible. This reconciliation would happen at the end of the ages. This added to my problem. Now I was wrestling with two doctrines – the doctrine of universal reconciliation, all will be reconciled to God, and limited atonement, Christ died only for the elect. At that time it seemed that these were my only choices. I believed God’s word is true and there is consistency in the biblical statements. Either God foreknew and predestined only the elect to be saved, or He exhaustively foreknew the future and willed all to be saved. Which one was right? Did God will only the elect to be saved? Or did He will all to be saved ultimately? I thought it had to be one or the other.

A Breach in My Calvinist Armor
Shortly after we moved to California in 1957, my pastor presented an idea to me that was new. He showed me another interpretation of Ephesians 1:4,5:
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.
He explained to me that both the election and predestination here were corporate. He pointed out in the passage that it didn’t say individuals were chosen to be saved or predestined to be saved. Instead, they were elected, because they were in the body of Christ, to be holy and without blame, and predestined to the adoption as sons.
In a different way of looking at it, I also saw that the nation of Israel was God’s elect, but many in elect Israel did not believe and were, ultimately, not included in redeemed Israel, God’s elect nation. Isaiah 45:1-4 shows Israel is His elect: “Thus says the LORD to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held – to subdue nations before him and loose the armor of kings, to open before him the double doors, so that the gates will not be shut: 2 ‘I will go before you and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the gates of bronze and cut the bars of iron. 3 I will give you the treasures of darkness and hidden riches of secret places, that you may know that I, the LORD, Who call you by your name, am the God of Israel. 4 For Jacob My servant’s sake, and Israel My elect, I have even called you by your name; I have named you, though you have not known Me.”
These ideas were the first problems I faced in my Calvinistic belief. However, in my mind, the idea of corporate election and predestination had a serious flaw which the Scriptures did not seem to support. That problem could be stated as follows: In this theory, in contrast to Calvin’s view of predestination, God’s foreknowledge was the basis of His election and predestination. But, I reasoned as Calvin wrote, since to God “all things always were, and perpetually remain, under his eyes, so that to his knowledge there is nothing future or past, but all things are present”, God knew everything as though it were present. Then, since I could see from Scripture that His election and predestination followed His foreknowledge, and since He knew everyone who was foreknown, then God’s predestination had to be individual just as His foreknowledge was. I was right back where I started. I could not reconcile this apparent biblical antinomy or paradox.
At this time of my life, this deterministic theology had a detrimental influence on my attitudes about prayer. If God knew everything, and I believed He did; and if God predestinated everything based on His foreknowledge, and I believed He did that too; then, everything that I prayed was foreknown and predestined. If I didn’t pray, that also was predestined; then, it became easy to feel, why should I pray? Unfortunately, I ended up having an abysmal prayer life. The only reason I prayed, I determined in my mind, was because God commanded it in His word. I realized that Christ and Paul were zealous in prayer, however, there was no zest in my prayers. Therefore, I recognized that something was seriously wrong with my Christian life. I knew this was wrong but didn’t know what to do about it.
During this troublesome period, my wife and I visited her parents in Illinois. Her father had a treasure trove of theological books. I was browsing through his books when I found one by William E. Biederwolf titled, How Can God Answer Prayer? I began reading it immediately. BOOK THREE chapter IV. had the title, “Why Pray if Everything Is Predetermined by God?” That was exactly my dilemma. I eagerly turned to that page. He had three answers based on three different explanations:
The first explanation declares that everything which comes to pass is first predetermined in the mind of God. It declares that God’s predestination precedes His foreknowledge as the ground of certainty for human action. God only foreknows that which He has predetermined to take place.
The second explanation, while admitting that God absolutely predetermines some things, contends that such things as respect the government of his free moral agents are only conditionally predetermined. God purposes to do under certain conditions, which depend upon the free agency of man, what He would not do under other conditions. This explanation further declares that God’s foreknowledge precedes His predestination. God only predetermines that which He foreknows will take place and the foreknowledge of human action has no influence upon its taking place; it does not necessitate the action.
The third explanation denies that God’s foreknowledge is necessarily all-comprehending.
The third explanation was a brand new idea to me. He then evaluated three suppositions. He started with, “Suppose we accept”. I will skip the first two explanations and will start with his third supposition:
3. Suppose we accept the third explanation: the explanation which affirms that God’s foreknowledge and foreordination are not necessarily all-comprehending.
You shrink from an attitude of thought like that toward the Supreme Being. It appears, does it not, to reflect discredit upon His perfection? Yet, let us not be too hasty in our judgment. Many earnest and noted scholars defend the position and strenuously maintain that not only does it not dishonor God, but that it is the only scheme of thought which does not divest Him of the essential attributes of His divinity.
The position is quite clearly set forth in W.W. Kinsley’s “Science and Prayer,” . . . This explanation, if it may be maintained consistently with the perfection of God’s character, relieves us, of course, of the difficulty in question.
It is contended by the advocates of this explanation, that when God created us in His own image and made us equally with Himself of sovereign will (and we know we are free to choose as we will) by His very so doing He surrendered at least partially His control over us and of necessity limited thereby His foreknowledge concerning us. Plainly it is the old time-worn controversy between two great schools of theology; between God’s sovereignty on one side (involving as it does His absolute foreknowledge and predestination) and man’s free will on the other, and between the horns of such a dilemma the only thing to do is to confess a wise ignorance and hang on to both.

Bob Hill

February 4th 2003, 03:03 AM

A controversion of God’s perfect foreknowledge does not set well with most of us, regardless of our denominational bias. The fear, however, of any belittling conception of God its advocates would overcome by showing what the theory of such foreknowledge really involves, leaving us to decide which is the greater injustice, if any, to the all-perfect character of God.
The following from the work above quoted on “Science and Prayer” will help us to an appreciation, if so be such is possible, of the position assumed by the advocates of the limited knowledge theory. The author says: “No petitioner can plead with any genuine unction unless he believes that he can actually effect some change in the purposes existing in the divine mind at the time his prayer is offered. . . . If God foreknows everything that will ever come to pass, all His own mental states must necessarily be included in that foreknowledge. A moment’s reflection will convince us that otherwise there is not a single present intention or plan but what is exposed to the possibility of modification. If a single thought or emotion is ever going to spring up in God’s mind unanticipated, God Himself must be as ignorant as we as to what part of His vast plan it will pertain. And so, if we would logically defend a belief in the all-comprehensiveness of God’s foreknowledge, we must affirm that not a single new idea can arise in His mind—not a single new emotion be felt—and that if He is thus limited now He must have been equally so at every moment in all the eternal past, and must be through all the years to come; for if there ever has been, or ever will be, a moment when a new thought can thus come, then during all the time preceding that moment the foreknowledge was incomplete. Where does this lead? In what sort of an intellectual or emotional condition does this irrefragable logic compel us to assert God to be continually? Unquestionably that of perfect stagnation. No thought processes can be carried on under such conditions—no succession of ideas, no change of mental state; but God must have been and must still be imprisoned in a hopelessly dead calm. . . . When, then, did He form His plans for creation? Under this supposition there never could have been a time when He began to think about them. . . . If God has had no thought succession, He can have had no feeling; His emotional state having ever necessarily been that of unbroken placidity—of absolute apathy, His heart throbless as a stone. He could experience no change of feeling, for that would involve thought-succession. From all the sources of joy or sorrow of which we can conceive He would be utterly debarred – from pleasurable or painful memories, from hopes and forebodings, from social sympathies, from emotions that accompany changes, contrasts, surprises, from the glow of activity, even from the delights and griefs of contemplation; for they all involve thought-movement. Therefore, under this supposition God can have no emotional activity, for He would have no thought-activity for its background. Thoughts must, of course, come and go, or the heart lies dead.” “Such,” he says, “are the absurdities in which we become hopelessly entangled the moment we attempt to defend the doctrine of God’s perfect foreknowledge.”
This was astounding to me. If this were true, it would change everything. But he had presented no Scripture to back up the argument. It was just philosophical reasoning. I had already been shown and then studied God’s word on this subject. The Bible said that God worked all things after the counsel of His will. But I thought about his statements. I must find a copy of that book, Science and Prayer, and see if there was any Scripture to back up this argument.
I relentlessly searched until I finally found the book in a used book store. I avidly read it, but it also was very philosophical. However, he wrote: “The doctrine of God’s perfect foreknowledge is not only unphilosophical, but also unscriptural.” That encouraged me to read further. I got to the part that Biederwolf had quoted. Then I realized Biederwolf had skipped the most important part, for me, the reference to Scripture. It was there! Kinsley even admonished the reader:
Read if you will the ninth chapter of Deuteronomy. Moses here rehearses the several rebellions of Israel, and his three separate pleadings before the Lord, of forty days and forty nights each, without either eating bread or drinking water. Each time he fell down before a very angry God who had fully purposed, and had definitely announced his purpose to destroy the rebels, and each time, if Moses can be credited, he actually changed that purpose right then and there and rescued his people. The God here depicted had none of that foreknowledge which theologians with such strange unanimity ascribe to him. But, say you, [And many have made these statements often.] that and similar accounts scattered throughout the Bible are simply instances of anthropomorphism, of rhetorical accommodation, of describing in the language of human experiences and human limitations what really transcends the human; that it was not the intent to have these narrations interpreted as literal history, but as poetic approximations of dim shadowings of really ineffable truths. It seems to me that it would be a strange way to bring the truth within our comprehension, to state what is directly opposed to the truth, and to reiterate the downright falsehood again and again, in a most misleading way, and in a matter of such vital moment that all possibility of religious life depends on it, and through which alone any lasting comfort comes to the hungry human soul.
What happened next changed my life. I read Deuteronomy 9 with a searching heart. Here is what shattered the foundations of my Calvinistic system of theology:
Deu 9:8-19 Also in Horeb you provoked the Lord to wrath, so that the Lord was angry enough with you to have destroyed you. 9 When I went up into the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the Lord made with you, then I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water. 10 Then the Lord delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly. 11 And it came to pass, at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant. 12 Then the Lord said to me, ‘Arise, go down quickly from here, for your people whom you brought out of Egypt have acted corruptly; they have quickly turned aside from the way which I commanded them; they have made themselves a molded image.’ 13 Furthermore the Lord spoke to me, saying, “I have seen this people, and indeed they are a stiff-necked people. 14 Let Me alone, that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and greater than they.” 15 So I turned and came down from the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire; and the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands. 16 And I looked, and behold, you had sinned against the Lord your God—had made for yourselves a molded calf! You had turned aside quickly from the way which the Lord had commanded you. 17 Then I took the two tablets and threw them out of my two hands and broke them before your eyes. 18 And I fell down before the Lord, as at the first, forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all your sin which you committed in doing wickedly in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger. 19 For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure with which the Lord was angry with you, to destroy you. But the Lord listened to me at that time also.
This Scripture shattered my presuppositions. Along with other Scripture it undermined my Calvinistic mindset about the immutability of God. Here was Scripture I had read but never grasped before. Before long, I found that there was a vast amount of Scripture which showed that God changed His mind – even repented. Since that time, I have studied the Bible on this issue for thousands of hours. This book is the result of my studies.

Michigan is a very Calvinistic state with all of the Dutch people who are there. The headquarters for the Grace Gospel Fellowship, which is a mid-Acts denomination that I belong to, is in Grand Rapids. We have about 30 churches in the state.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

bar Jonah

February 4th 2003, 03:21 AM

Xmansmommy

February 5th 2003, 09:18 PM

Written last night but not sent until today...(yes I am a procrastinator ;) )
Dear Pastor Hill,
Thank you for you message. I attend Grace Bible Church of Warren Michigan. Pastor Tom Bruscha is my pastor. Here is the link if you are interested…
http://www.rightlydividing.org/
I have been attending here since I got saved a year and 5 months ago. I have felt somewhat disappointed in the “question asking dept.” for various reasons. None of which are Pastor Tom’s per se. He is a very wonderful pastor and very humble as well. I have had the wonderful opportunity to fellowship with many “right dividers” over this course of time. I’ve been blessed to fellowship with Pastor Richard Jordan, President of Grace School of the Bible once a month (will be seeing him tonight btw.) I’ve even asked him his thoughts on the OV. He was very kind, gracious and honest in his response. He even encouraged me to study for myself which is a great blessing to me.
My problem however, is the condemnation that I have experienced when asking questions and fellowshipping with the brethren on Paltalk. They have been extremely instrumental in my life over the last year and a half. For it is there on Paltalk that I heard the gospel preached with clarity, and finally learned how to get saved, because of the clarity of right division. They hold a very special place in my heart. And although many have attempted to address my questions regarding God’s omniscience, I am not satisfied nor convinced with the answers I have been given and expected to simply have “faith” in. I don’t apologize for that. I am expected to be a workman that needs not be ashamed. I can’t accomplish that by trusting in men. Nor will I settle for anything less than scriptural support for my becoming “fully persuaded.”
I’d like to express that I came out of Mormonism, got saved, learned right division and learned about OVT within a 6 month period of time. Oftentimes I feel overwhelmed at the wealth of knowledge that I’ve experienced. Other times, I am humbled at just how much I have yet to learn.
If you have ever known anyone who has come out of false teaching such as Mormonism, then I’m sure you know that usually (not always) they are very leary of trusting anything because they are absolutely aware of how susceptible they are. I’m no exception to that truth. And while I am totally aware that I can be deceived, I am also extremely cautious as to what I hold to be true. As I have shared, I tend to lean towards the OV based on my recent studies of the scriptures. I’ve begun reading to understand God’s omniscience as the bible teaches. I have found that in doing so, my relationship with God has grown a great deal over the last 5 months. Well, the last year to be exact. I am learning how He grieves over the actions of mankind, myself included. I desire to have a more intimate relationship with Him and know to more about who He is and how my own personal life affects Him.
I learned about OVT from Yxboom. I am ever so grateful to him for sharing things that I’m sure are not always so easy to share with people. To this day, I don’t quite know why he chose to share with me, but I am eternally thankful that he did. He has been the brunt of many, many questions that have come to my mind over the last year. I want to personally thank him for being so patient with me. Also, I have been conversing with 1Way (from another board) for the last 3 months and have been very blessed by his willingness to help me understand as well.
Pastor, I will probably post this message in the ”Questions for OVT’s only please” thread for the simple purpose of perhaps encouraging another brother or sister in Christ, who is searching and seeking answers such as myself. Again, I thank you for your response as I have noticed that you have responded to the thread. So I will now close with thankfulness and great admiration for those that stand for the truth, irregardless of what may come. Thanks in advance for your time and efforts here on TW, as I’m sure you are a very busy man. I am truly blessed by you as well as others who are willing to take the time to help me during my struggles. God Bless.

Humbly,
Your sister in Christ,
Linda

Xmansmommy

February 5th 2003, 09:50 PM

Dear geebob,
I want to thank you for your post and your encouraging words...
you said...
I'd say that if they can't be your friend and allow you the freedom to do this, they aren't very worthy friends. They also have a highly shallow understanding of christian piety assuming matters such as these should weigh in on how we should treat our fellow Christians.
Amen. From my own experiences I have learned that if fellow Christians were aware of how their words affect others, they might be a little more graceful and longsuffering, especially to those of us who are still babes in Christ.

If your studies bring you away from this view, I certainly won't hold it against you.
I thank you for that :)

Don't be afraid to consider though that at times, scripture has it's veils and removing them is easier said than done.
I understand that the issue I am studying is not so easily determined. And that it will require a great deal of prayer as well as study. I am prepared. I think LOL

I could not accept this and I remember actually considering leaving the christian faith.
While I feel sorrow that you experienced this, I too understand it, and am glad it drove you to seek answers to your questions rather than walking away. I've been there and done that.
I appreciate you sharing some intimate details of your search for truth. I don't believe in a God who created some for salvation and some for eternal damnation. I believe we each have a freewill. I know those are pretty broad statements and they encompass much more but I will let them suffice, since I'm sure you understand. Thanks again for sharing. I am blessed by reading your words. :thumb:

In His Grace,
Linda

Xmansmommy

February 5th 2003, 10:30 PM

Pastor Hill,
Wow! Thanks for posting the first chapter of your book. I greatly appreciate it. :)

Now I was wrestling with two doctrines – the doctrine of universal reconciliation, all will be reconciled to God, and limited atonement, Christ died only for the elect. At that time it seemed that these were my only choices. I believed God’s word is true and there is consistency in the biblical statements. Either God foreknew and predestined only the elect to be saved, or He exhaustively foreknew the future and willed all to be saved. Which one was right? Did God will only the elect to be saved? Or did He will all to be saved ultimately? I thought it had to be one or the other.
I can only imagine how this must have caused great inner conflict.

it became easy to feel, why should I pray? Unfortunately, I ended up having an abysmal prayer life. The only reason I prayed, I determined in my mind, was because God commanded it in His word. I realized that Christ and Paul were zealous in prayer, however, there was no zest in my prayers. Therefore, I recognized that something was seriously wrong with my Christian life. I knew this was wrong but didn’t know what to do about it.
I understand this all too well as I have struggled in my prayer life as well, not quite for the same reasons however. I even posted a thread on TOL regarding prayer in the dispensation of grace to find answers. Some of the responses were very humbling to me.
Although I'm not fully persuaded regarding the OV I can tell you that my prayer life has drastically changed since I've considered my relationship with God. It has improved greatly. :)

I was browsing through his books when I found one by William E. Biederwolf titled, How Can God Answer Prayer?
Sounds like a very intriguing book. I will have to see if I can find it.

You shrink from an attitude of thought like that toward the Supreme Being. It appears, does it not, to reflect discredit upon His perfection?
Absolutely my first reaction to OVT! For lack of a better term...it rocked my world! I felt "wrong" to question these issues as I thought it to be a sign of rebellion. I have now overcome those thoughts in a true desire to understand, even though others may see me as rebellious. It's wonderful to know that I'm not alone in these inner struggles to understand and grow. And it is wonderful to know that there indeed is "light at the end of the tunnel." :thumb:

Xmansmommy

February 5th 2003, 10:54 PM

Before long, I found that there was a vast amount of Scripture which showed that God changed His mind – even repented. Since that time, I have studied the Bible on this issue for thousands of hours. This book is the result of my studies.
I also am finding this to be the case. I appreciate that you have taken the time to study and even write a book on your findings. If you don't mind me asking, when will your book be finished and what will the name be? I most certainly would be interested in reading what you write on this topic. Thanks in advance.

For and By Him,
Linda

Xmansmommy

February 5th 2003, 11:04 PM

XmansMommy (I love your name, by the way), as someone else already said, if someone abandons you just because your theological views change, they were never your friends to begin with. Not true friends. Real friends know you are their sister in Christ, and nothing should truly come between the two of you. And I for one offer you my friendship, even my life, if you're interested. Truthfully, I am VERY much against the Calvinist view. But I will devote my life to you if you sincerely ask, regardless of whether you're a Calvinist or not.
Dear RightIdea,
Thank you. My SN is simply my 3 year old son's nickname with mommy added. :yipee: And I know that they were never true friends to begin with, but it is a hard lesson to learn nonetheless :(
I sincerely appreciate your offer of friendship and accept. :thumb: I look forward to much more discourse as TW grows and I have more questions, and of course much more fellowship with you and all the saints. ;) May we all be seeking to learn and grow in His grace. By the way, what does your SN mean and how did you come to chose it?

Blessings,
Linda

Xmansmommy

February 5th 2003, 11:12 PM

Well, since this is a question and answer thread, I might as well commence with the question asking. Someone posed this question to me earlier today and I, in all humility, don't have an appropriate answer. So I share with you all, to not only help this sister, but myself as well. So here goes....

when Jesus knew that Judas would betray him... God had forknowledge? and also when Peter denied Jesus 3 xs .... he knew before hand.... also we have a glimpse on things to come by hebrews to revelation.... doesnt that seem to recon that God does have foreknowledge on what is going to happen in the future? so we do have freewill but God already knows what each is going to choose before we know ourselves?
Any and all thoughts are greatly appreciated as I will be referring this sister the link to this thread. Again, thanks for all your patience with me as I ask for help regarding these issues.

For by Grace,
Linda

Bob Hill

February 6th 2003, 02:44 AM

Dear Linda,

I know Richard Jordan. He is an excellent theologian. I have conversed with 1way on my own website, biblicalanswers.com many times. I consider him a close friend. I am the pastor of Derby Bible Church in Commerce City, Colorado. I started a school, Derby School of Theology, that has been in operation for 29 years. Graduates and students from our school have planted other churches. We have an organization of Grace churches in Colorado called the Colorado Network of Grace Churches. We now have DSOT classes at 3 different sites.

Don’t get discouraged about your reception among grace believers. The Berean Bible Fellowship tends to be zero point/non Calvinists. The Grace Gospel Fellowship has a lot of 4 point Calvinists. I am a member of both of these organizations.

In August of 1978, I was a member of the National Cabinet of the GGF. I had started printing The Journal of Theology, Dispensational, Apologetical, Practical, in 1976. My first article was on what is now called the Open View. It was voted by the Cabinet of which I was a member, to send out a letter warning that my view could “lead to serious error if followed to a logical conclusion; for example, the danger of perceiving the essence of God’s nature as virtually finite.”

I had only been a pastor for 4 years, and this seemed like quite a blow. However, the next year I was made the Chairman of the National Convention that was held in Estes Park close to the Rocky Mountain National Park. Then, the next year I was made the Chairman of the National Pastor’s Conference.

I might add that five of our graduates who are pastors now, and myself, were main speakers or focus group speakers at our last convention in Keystone, Colorado. We were well received.

Why do I tell you this? Because you should be aware that your belief in the Open View will cause some to call you a heretic. You and I know that the Open View actually exalts God by showing His mercy, anguish, passion, sorrow, and love – things that Calvinism seems to impugn.

So, continue to do as you wrote. Be true to God’s word. God is free, or should I say, Open to do what He wants to do.

In Christ,
Bob Hill
:rofl:

Bob Hill

February 6th 2003, 03:15 AM

Dear Linda,

If God foreordained Judas to betray Jesus Christ, how can this be reconciled with other Scripture? Judas’ actions seem to have been ordained by God because they are prophesied. But, the betrayal of Christ was never foretold in the prophets.

If the betrayal of Christ by Judas was foreknown and foreordained, how could Matthew 26:24 be true? “The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” Judas would have had no choice. Therefore, God would have predestined a man to damnation. Does God do evil that good may come? James 1:13-17 says God doesn’t even tempt men with evil let alone predestine them to do it.

What does, “That it might be fulfilled,” mean? Matthew 2:15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.” 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.” [No OT Scripture, but consider Isa 11:1; where we find the Hebrew word nezer.]

Barnes wrote that fulfilled means, “The words do aptly and appropriately express the thing referred to, and may be applied to it.” Bloomfield, “Appears quite suitable or applicable to it.” Moses Stuart, “O.T. phraseology expresses in an apt and forcible manner, the thought which they desired to convey.” For example, Isaiah 6:9,10 was fulfilled before the Babylonian captivity but confer John 12:37-40; Mat 13:14 “And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:” Act 28:28; Isa 6:9-10 And He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ 10 “Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.”

Dr. Edward Robinson, in his Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, wrote: the “Phrase is used as a formal quotation and implies ‘that something took place, not in order that a prophecy might be filled, but so that it was fulfilled; not in order to make the event correspond to the prophecy, but so that the event would and did correspond to that prophecy. The phrase is often used to express historical or typical parallelisms.’ ”

There are other portions of Scripture we should consider when it says prophecy is fulfilled are: Mat 27:9-10 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, 10 and gave them for the potter’s field, as the LORD directed me.” There is no Jeremiah passage. In Zechariah 11:12,13, it says: Then I said to them, “If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.” So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. 13 And the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter. Other passages are: John 15:24,25—Psa 35:19; John 19:36—Psa 34:19,20.

These following passages just illustrate things that happened to Jesus, but they were not what we would call a fulfillment of prophecy: John 13:18 “I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.’ ” Psalm 41:9 “Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.” Ps 41:4-10. His prayer had been one for healing after confessing his sin (v. 4). However, he lamented the fact that his enemies took advantage of his condition. Wanting him to die (v. 5), they feigned friendship while slandering him (v. 6), saying that he would never survive (vv. 7-8). Even his trusted friend betrayed (lifted up his heel against) him (v. 9). These words, of course, were quoted by Jesus concerning Judas (John 13:18). But here David had in mind the treachery of his friend Ahithophel, who betrayed him, and then hanged himself (2 Sam. 16:20-17:3, 23). Barnes wrote, “It is difficult to tell whether the text has any reference whatever to Judas Iscariot.”

John 17:12 “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. John 6:37-40; John 10:27-29; Heb 2:13. No OT Scripture says this.

Here is some scripture in Acts to consider: Acts 1:16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled [What Scripture?], which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus 17 for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.” David didn’t say this about Judas. He said it about his “own familiar friend”. Psa 41:9 “Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.” These scriptures were fulfilled in the sense of illustration by Judas.

Acts 1:20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, and let no one live in it’; and, ‘Let another take his office.’” Psa 109:8 Let his days be few, and let another take his office. Psa 69:25 “Let their dwelling place be desolate; Let no one live in their tents.” Peter said that David prophesied of Judas. But when did David discuss Judas Iscariot? Certainly he did not refer to him directly or name him.

The Psalms often anticipate Christ. Likewise the enemies of the royal psalmist became the enemies of the Messiah. Therefore, someone was predicted in Psalms 69:25 and 109:8. Both of these Psalms are royal imprecatory Psalms, but the prophecy is very general. Acts 1:20 applies them to Judas. Therefore, I believe Judas had free will.

I hope this helps you. I’ll work on Peter next.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

bar Jonah

February 6th 2003, 04:01 AM

Amen, Bob. And Greetings from one of the GODISNOWHERE boys. :)

Xmansmommy

February 6th 2003, 11:21 AM

Perhaps someone can give a general description of what the OVT is for those who don't know? I know I can't do it justice so I will refrain. :(

Bob Hill

February 7th 2003, 01:12 AM

What is Open View Theology?

Open View Theology, Open Theism, or whatever it may be called, is the view about God to which I hold. It is about God and His ability to have feelings, passion, remorse, anger, expectations, sorrow, etc. It is the biblical theology that shows that man has enough freedom to believe God when God says he may be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as his Savior because He died for him. Open Theism also believes God has the ability to change His mind or repent about something He said He would do. He usually does this when man has done something to cause God to either repent from harm that He said He would do, or repent from something good that He said He would for man because the man sinned.

It is also the answer to the Calvinistic view that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen. We have much material on this subject on our site. biblicalanswers.com. Look under the predestination material.

I learned about this position a little over 40 years ago. At that time, I knew of no one who believed it. That has really changed in the last 15 years.

In Christ,
Bob Hill
:joy:

bar Jonah

February 7th 2003, 01:28 AM

In other words, in a nutshell:

God doesn't know the future because if we have free will, the future is undetermined and therefore it doesn't exist to be known.

Open Theism doesn't limit God's omniscience, but fully supports it. God simply cannot know something that is untrue, illogical or non-existent. Open Theism doesn't limit God; it limits Creation.

God responds to the actions and decisions of Man. When God changes His mind or relents or repents of His decision to do something, it is not because God failed. Rather, it is because Man has failed.

Xmansmommy

February 7th 2003, 04:21 PM

Dear Pastor Hill,
I agree Pastor Jordan is an excellent theologian. And as for 1Way, I have been talking with him for several months now and have even been blessed by him coming up to Michigan to meet me and my family (You can see a pic on TOL if you are interested LOL)

I had only been a pastor for 4 years, and this seemed like quite a blow. However, the next year I was made the Chairman of the National Convention that was held in Estes Park close to the Rocky Mountain National Park. Then, the next year I was made the Chairman of the National Pastor’s Conference.
Wow! While I know this must have been very disheartening, I can only imagine how encouraged you were to become Chairman of both of these.

Why do I tell you this? Because you should be aware that your belief in the Open View will cause some to call you a heretic. You and I know that the Open View actually exalts God by showing His mercy, anguish, passion, sorrow, and love – things that Calvinism seems to impugn.
I am aware now unfortunetly. But I will stand for the truth regardless. And so far, my tendency to be OV has helped me a great deal in learning how it exalts God, amen!

So, continue to do as you wrote. Be true to God’s word. God is free, or should I say, Open to do what He wants to do.
That I'll do :thumb: Thanks for uplifting me Pastor. :) And thanks for sharing who you are and also the things you've had to struggle with.

Blessings,
Linda

Xmansmommy

February 7th 2003, 04:27 PM

Wow! Very interesting comments regarding Judas! Thank you, I'll have to consider them a bit more but I am impressed with the answer you have given so far. :) I can't wait to hear about Peter :thumb:

Xmansmommy

February 7th 2003, 04:32 PM

Thank you both for your explanation of OVT. I'm sure they will be very helpful to those who have never heard of OVT, or to those who don't quite know what it entails. Perhaps now that a general desription has been given, some will desire to learn what passages that OVT's use to support the theology. I often hear people don't think there are any passages to support this theology and I wonder if those who say this are reading their bibles? I dunno. :huh:

geebob

February 8th 2003, 11:29 AM

Bob's take on Judas is one that I have great sympathies with and something I would like to get a better handle on, and that is concerning how the Jews practiced exegesis during the time of Christ. I say I have great sympathies with it though as I do not know how to answer people who speak of dual intent behind divine inspiration. Sure these scriptures spoke of something else they may say, but God also had these events in mind and that is why he inspired the new testament authors to recognize these parrallels. My answer to that is that if this is true, Judas as an individual is still not finguered in the old testament, and at most, it is his role as betrayer which is determined. Had Judas lived a life faithfully responding to God's grace appropriately, he would not have been choosen to fulfill this role, and truthfully, God may have choosen someone else.

I'd like to add a few other angles from which the topic can be approached. In the open view you may find some diversity in handling some of these things, and within a paradigm that can be a strength. I sometimes take a philosophical approach as that is where my training lies.

In the open view, the reason why God doesn't always know with certainty is because we have freedom such that many possibilities are open for us two choose (as RightIdea indicated). This is called libertarian freedom or incompatibilistic freedom. I don't believe that this type of freedom describes all of our choices as I believe that we do make choices that have been determined and are perfectly predictable. But unless they are determined, they cannot be known in terms of how they will turn out. But for us to be held responsible for a wicked action (and possibly be allowed praise for a good action, though I am not as gung ho about that), the choice must be libertarian free and the only exception to this rule (my own personal rule) is when the choice arises out of our character that is disposed to the evil. HOWEVER, our character MUST have reached that point due to libertarian free choices. So for real moral responsibility, for just moral responsibility, libertarian freedom must be in the background.

So How do we apply this too Judas and Jesus' prediction. I'd say the most difficult passage for the open view regarding this is the following.

John 13:18-19
"I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.
I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He."

Now applying what I've just said, it would not be right if Judas was destined from birth, even as a child adored by his mother to become the most hated traitor of history. Even if he was by his own free hand as the classical arminians would say, I don't see the point in holding him morally responsible if he never had a true chance to avoid this wretched fate. And if it was always certain that he would choose this path, the chance that he would not choose it is zero, in otherwords there was no real chance, and again, no moral responsibility.

So if it was certain that Judas would choose what he did when Jesus made this prediction, and it's hard not to see how it was, what recourse does the open theist have? I'd go back to my exception to the rule.

the only exception to this rule is when the choice arises out of our character that is disposed to the evil. HOWEVER, our character MUST have reached that point due to libertarian free choices. So for real moral responsibility, for just moral responsibility, libertarian freedom must be in the background.

It may have been true at the time that Jesus made this prediction that Judas would betray him, but it was not necessarily true before that time. So there may have been a point in Judas life where he was struggling with God, and at that point, there was no truth about the certainty as to whether Judas would betray Jesus or not. But Judas during that time consistently choose against God, and so his heart became hardened. After that point, it was true of Judas that he was the kind of man who would betray Jesus. Now when was this point of no return? I think there are a range of possibilities. It might have been prior to the very beginning of Jesus' ministry when Jesus choose Judas. This is in line with the view that the role of betrayer was destined (and not the specific man). That point may have been as late as the incident where Judas cuts a deal with the priests for the silver he recieved as payment.

Now there is another answer that Open Theist John Sanders promotes. That is that even when Jesus made this prediction, Judas still could have repented and avoided the betrayel. The reason for this is that many prophecies in the old testament are contingent prophecies that may or may not have come to pass such as the prophecy of Jonah of destruction to the Ninevites or God's announcement that Hezekiah would die. IN both cases, the prophecy as stated did not come to pass because God changed his mind. They were not stated as contingent, and yet contingent they were. So John Sanders asks why we should assume that none of the prophecies that come to pass are contingent and those that do are absolute?

God's modus operandi along these lines is stated in Jerimiah 18 if you are interested.

I like this way of looking at it, but I think that the most difficult passage to approach with this interpretation is the passage from John that I quoted above.

Now with regard to Peter's denial, most of what I said above applies. The approach that Sanders advocates with Judas works especially well with Peter. That is because clearly an opening for Peter to repent and say "Lord, what must I do to prevent this," but that is not what we read. Peter instead asserts an overconfident answer.

So why three times? I used to flounder through this, I think I had an adequate answer though it wasn't very good. I like Yxboom's answer to this alot though and that is the possibility that there was an angelic dialogue between God and Satan concerning Peter very similar to the one that we read of in Job. After all, Jesus said that Satan had sifted for Peter. So somehow, out of this council came the detail that Peter would be tempted 3 times.

Hope this helps

bar Jonah

February 8th 2003, 12:16 PM

GeeBob, in regards to Peter, you may be looking at his denial from the wrong angle altogether. How did Jesus know Peter would deny him exactly three times? Think outside the box... :)

Because Peter would have denied Jesus 33 times, and that's what Jesus knew. He knew Peter's heart. But He simply wanted to make a point to Peter.

Peter denies Christ. Then a second time. Then a third time. God makes a rooster crow, and that's what determines the number. It wasn't necessarily determined in Peter's mind or heart to deny Christ specifically three times. Peter's will didn't determine the number -- Jesus did.

"God poked a chicken," as a friend of mine put it. LOL True foreknowledge for Jesus in this situation didn't require direct foreknowledge. It only required God to inject His own involvement and stop the process at three denials.

geebob

February 8th 2003, 09:49 PM

It wasn't necessarily determined in Peter's mind or heart to deny Christ specifically three times.

that wasn't my approach. The three times would've been established in a dialogue between Satan and God, similar to the one in Job.

LOL True foreknowledge for Jesus in this situation didn't require direct foreknowledge.

in the open view, foreknowledge of the certain is of course based upon what is determined, so in one scenario, Peters pride determines that he will that he will not humbly submit to Jesus' warnings, satan determines that he will tempt Peter, God determines to not allow Satan to tempt in such a way that it will have more or less than three outward expressions of denial, and between these three we get the prophecy.

In the other scenario Peter determines that he will not humbly submit to Christ's warnings thus placing himself in a position where he is apt to deny Christ given the chance and pressure to do so, and God determines that the roaster will get a jabbing after the third such incident.

I think they're both fine answers. I like your scenario. Mind you both are based on speculation, but the important thing is the defense of the plausibility of the open view. :thumb:

bar Jonah

February 9th 2003, 03:37 AM

Of course, I just love the phrase, "and God poked a chicken." :p

Xmansmommy

February 10th 2003, 04:12 PM

I want to thank you all for I have been enjoying the conversation thus far. I do have a very difficult time understanding some of the "language" however. I am simple minded and much seems to go right over my head. :bawl: Nonetheless, I do desire to understand the OV biblically. So I would like to ask a question and I've asked it of CVT's and have heard their explanation. So now I will ask it of you all....

Ge:2:19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

In this passage God "seen" what Adam would call the creatures God had created. I believe this literally. However, the CV suggests that God knew what Adam would name the creatures beforehand, but was just there as a "witness" to His own foreknowledge therefore he "seen." My question would be, I suppose, (and it's one that I have asked of CVT's many times without a sufficient answer) Is there a method or formula in which a person can know when to take the scriptures literally and when figuratively? Axniously awaiting a response.

In Him,
Linda

yxboom

February 10th 2003, 06:32 PM

This will be the yxboom interjection which geebob has already alluded to which I don't ever recall sharing with him :huh: But I will expound a little on what I believe as an open theist and how the Open View harmonizes with the gospel story of Peter's denial.

Luke 22:31-34 And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.” But he said to Him, “Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death.” Then He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me.”
I believe that this "prophecy" concerning Peter's denial hinges on it's opening which is

Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat.
And notice in following verse Jesus alerts Peter that He has prayed (interceded) for him.
Scripture states the role Satan plays is one of a roaring lion seeking to devour 1 Peter v.8 and accuser of God's saints Rev. xii.10. I find with this portrait of Satan a parallel in Scripture of this type of event occurring back in Job.
Satan presents himself before YHWH and after a short interlude YHWH knowing Satan's intents presents Job and negotiations ensue between YHWH and Satan. Satan was given the open opportunity to inflict as much damage as YHWH would allow. It was YHWH who set the bounds of Satan's work Job i.12.
In the instance with Peter I see much paralleled in that there were bounds set, the sheep would scatter and Peter would deny 3 times before the cock crew. Jesus being God I see no reason that He would not be privy to such information and goings on in Heaven between YHWH and Satan. I believe He was well aware of the negotiations taking place. Add to that Jesus' ability as God to know the very hearts of man, would know well that Peter would not be able to withstand the test. The deal was set. I don't hold too much that God made the chicken crow at the third denial (although I don't rule it out) but rather I see it that Satan took his last advantage to get as much damage done, the third denial in before the rooster crowed be it God did the New York New's Years countdown for Satan 3.....2.....1....cock-a-doodledoo what have you ;).
I tend to extend this to this being more of an attack on Jesus than the disciples themselves as Jesus was already struggling with His fate that lay before Him but to then be abandoned by those whom He cared and loved would extend a far more strenuous yoke upon Him. The knowledge that Peter whom loved Jesus would deny him 3 times and the rest of his disciples would flee before Him. I see this as a very heart-wrenching picture of the suffering of our Messiah.
All this simply put is that I see a clear biblical portrait of our suffering Messiah and His ability to foretell our actions based on greater things than just our own volition but that of angelic influences, circumstances, etc. I feel there is no need to resort to an exhaustive foreknowledge as all Jesus would have needed and done: considered all things available and been able to make an accurate predication based on the sum of all that was in place...and did. Uh does that help :hrm:

bar Jonah

February 10th 2003, 06:46 PM

YXboom, this is a minor detail, but I just wanted to point out something in your otherwise outstanding post.

Scripture indicates that YHWH refers either to the Son, or to the entire Trinity, but not to specifically God the Father, who I have a feeling you're really referring to here. Jeremiah 23:5-6 states that the name of the messiah will be YHWH. So I believe you may be making a slight misnomer in stating that Jesus the Son was privy to conversations in Heaven between YHWH and Satan.

Just a tiny FYI. :thumb:

Xmansmommy

February 10th 2003, 06:59 PM

Yxboom ....

All this simply put is that I see a clear biblical portrait of our suffering Messiah and His ability to foretell our actions based on greater things than just our own volition but that of angelic influences, circumstances, etc. I feel there is no need to resort to an exhaustive foreknowledge as all Jesus would have needed and done: considered all things available and been able to make an accurate predication based on the sum of all that was in place...and did. Uh does that help
Fantastic post Y! Very helpful and detailed. Thanks. ;) But now, that brings to mind another question regarding this portion that is quoted.
If God is able to foretell our actions based on each of these things, why then are there instances in scripture where He wasn't so accuate in His predictions? I hope my ? makes sense. I know what I want to say, it's just that finding the words are oftentimes difficult :( Thanks for your post. ;}

For and By Him,
Linda

yxboom

February 10th 2003, 08:51 PM

RightIdea:
YXboom, this is a minor detail, but I just wanted to point out something in your otherwise outstanding post.

Scripture indicates that YHWH refers either to the Son, or to the entire Trinity, but not to specifically God the Father, who I have a feeling you're really referring to here. Jeremiah 23:5-6 states that the name of the messiah will be YHWH. So I believe you may be making a slight misnomer in stating that Jesus the Son was privy to conversations in Heaven between YHWH and Satan.

Just a tiny FYI. :thumb: :huh: I believe that Satan presented himself before the triune God not necessarily ONLY the Father. I apologize if I made this unclear. I believe the Holy Spirit was very much present as well, and for all intents and purposes the Son may have been there not physically but by omniscience. Which would result in the presence of the entire Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. :D

geebob

February 10th 2003, 08:54 PM

This will be the yxboom interjection which geebob has already alluded to which I don't ever recall sharing with him

<twilight zone music enters>

yxboom

February 10th 2003, 08:57 PM

geebob:

<twilight zone music starts to play> :noid: [jr asparagus] There were these space aliens who switched brains with the cows and the cows with the brains of the space aliens..........broke the plate! [/jr asparagus]

geebob

February 10th 2003, 11:48 PM

If God is able to foretell our actions based on each of these things, why then are there instances in scripture where He wasn't so accuate in His

recall what I said to RightIdea. Foreknowledge is always based upon what has been determined. Peters resolve was week, Satan had a plan, and God had decided to let this plan go only so far. the combination of the three yeilded certainty.

Things just aren't always like this. Sometimes there is a loose end because a free choice hadn't been made or a person's heart has not been hardened or matured sufficiently that their actions can be predicted. The suggestion is that all the loose ends had been accounted for, provided Peter did not repent right then and there asking "Lord, how can I prevent this." There were no doubt loose ends before, but by the time Jesus made his prediction, they had been resolved.

My question would be, I suppose, (and it's one that I have asked of CVT's many times without a sufficient answer) Is there a method or formula in which a person can know when to take the scriptures literally and when figuratively?

There are a few ways of taking this, and I'll mention breifly a rather sophisticated approach given by John Sanders in his second chapter of the God who risks. I think what I've written below is understandable, but hold your breath, it gets a little complex, and after this first answer, I have another one which I believe you may find easier.

The classical theists say that most of the descriptions of God in the bible are metaphorical. So when God is described as changing his plans, claiming the discovery of new information, or grieving or rejoicing, the classical theists will say that this is just God's condescention for us, or in other words, he is speaking in human terms "lisping like a nurse maid to babies" as Calvin puts it.

The interesting thing is that an open theist does not have to disagree that these are metaphores or that God is speakin to us in human terms. You see, where some open theists like Sanders cries foul is that in describing these as metaphores, the classical theist fails to say what these metaphores mean or that they give it an adequate meaning. They use the metaphorical nature of the metaphorical nature to toss out the descriptions (or at least that is often the way it appears).

Now in contrast to this devalueing of metaphores, Sanders suggests that metaphores reveal reality in degrees. So in the bible we have God described as a rock, a hen, a shepard, a husband, and a father and so on. So metaphores such as God as a rock, there is the least amount of contact between God and the rock. A mother Hen protecting her young in a crisis has a higher degree of reality depiction. Higer up is God as a shepard, then God as a husband or father. So the more personalistic the metaphore is, the closer it is to depicting God as he really is.

So sure, when God is described as having emotions, discovering new information, or changing his plans, but these metaphores really hit the nail on the head in terms of who God is because these are such personalistic metaphores.

Now you might ask, "don't we ov'ers believe that God literally changes his plans, discovers new information, and has changes in emotion?" The simple answer is "yes we do." But there is something about Sanders' picture that most unusual and most people do not catch on to it. Sanders does not believe in literal language. So the whole bible is metaphorical. Now some might take this to mean that he's some ultraliberal who for example doesn't believe that the resurrection really happened. That is totally wrong. He'd say that "Yes the resurection really happened." However, he'd add that "Yes the ressurection really happened" is a metaphorically based, no matter who says it and what they mean by it because metaphores are far more deep seated in language than we take for granted. This a radically new way to take language itself, and it has a richness and a lot of merit that we don't see in the simple literal/figurative dichotomy.

Now I don't know that this is in fact a valid way to take language, and you may not have to take it this way to still see that Sanders has a very good point in calling the cvt's to account when they use metaphore as a way of what could very well be argued as a mishandling and dimantling of the text instead of asking, "okay, just what is it that these metaphores are actually saying?" and even after they do this, it has to be convincing and adequate and not just an excuse.

Now I'll give you what I believe is perhaps an easier picture to deal with. Forget everthing I told you, lets go back to the normal view where there is indeed literal language and there are both metaphorical and literal descriptions of God. I'll give you some examples where cvt's say we are inconsistent so we have something to work with.

I will agree with the Calvinist that God accomodates himself to us in communicating us. He speaks so that we may have some understanding or sufficient understanding. This is the principle by which I wish to demonstrate the ov's consistency in taking some passages literally and some figuratively.

Now I say that when God says to abraham "Now I know that you fear the Lord," he is indicating an actual change in knowledge. When God says to adam and eve "where are you hiding?" he is not necessarily indicating a lack of present knowledge (which open theists believe he has exhaustively).

So how does this work? How can I claim this. Well lets start with the statement to Abraham. Some Calvinists suggest that when God says "now I know that your fear the Lord," it is like a teacher who says after explaining something "Now we know the velocity of an african swallow." So when God includes himself, he really is speaking of Abraham's situation. Now I simply don't see why we should or even can make this connection. Just because we can think of an example like the teacher and students doesn't mean that the same applies and I think that this example is too far removed from what we see with God and Abraham. God is testing Abraham, and then he says "Now I know." He does not include Abraham in this like the teacher does with her students. We are totally taking for granted the distinction of subject and predicate here. Abraham, specifically something about him, is the object of the knowledge and God is the one who is making the claim to knowledge and he does not include abraham in this.

And finally, lets consider this simple question. If God says "Now I know" when he really means that Abraham learned something, was he very accomodating? I don't see how. If you look at some of DDW's answers in another thread in this forum on young earth creationism, she asks concerning the issue of a literal creation "IF the text of Genesis 1 is not clear that God meant 6 24 hours days, how COULD he have worded it that would have been any clearer?" If God was merely commenting on Abraham's knowledge, he could have been clearer, and if God was commenting on his own knowledge, I don't think he could have been any clearer.

Now there is one way a cvt can get around this. He may attempt to show that there is an idiom or manner of speaking within Hebrew or within the Bible where a Human makes a similar claim "Now I know" when in fact he always knew precisely. And it of course has to be in a similar context such as after what might be considered a test or so on. Now if they could come up with such an example, it would not necessarily mean that we can't take it this way, but only that consistency would mean that we could not in a dogmatic sort of way. We would have to admit, yes, this does not prove our case, but we can still take it this way as one peice of evidence that although it does not stand on it's own contributes to a greater whole.

Now what about God's question to Adam "where are you?"? I suggest that we do have manners of speach that are similar to this in similar contexts where no ignorance is implied on the part of the questioner. I like to use star trek for my example. Suppose the Enterprise comes to a planet populated by Amazonian women who are fighting over the planets limited resouce of men. So commander Riker suggests that he offer himself to the amazonians to resolve some of the conflict. Captain Picard my look at him and say "Number One, what is the *Prime Directive?" You see the captain in no way is implying ignorance. In asking this, he is trying to guide rikers thoughts getting him to come to terms with what he suggested getting Riker to think on his own. Likewise, God asking Adam where he was was trying to guide Adam's thoughts, to get him to think about why he was hiding and to give him a chance confess his motivations in hiding.

*for those of you not familier with star trek, the prime directive is a law of star fleet which prohibits interference with the developement of other cultures.

yxboom

February 10th 2003, 11:56 PM

What was the prime directive of this thread again?

Xmansmommy

February 11th 2003, 02:12 AM

yxboom:
What was the prime directive of this thread again?
LOL actually I'm enjoying the discussion. I will however, have to re-read geebob's post another 20 times to hopefully better understand. ty geebob ;)

yxboom

February 11th 2003, 02:25 AM

The geebob short short version:

"Now I know"....how can it possibly be read any other way?!

"Adam where are you?" easily understood and accepted as a figure of speech because it can be relayed that way.

compare:

"Now I know"....how can it possibly be read any other way?!

:hrm: :D

Xmansmommy

February 11th 2003, 09:44 AM

Y, so you are saying "if" we can take it literally take it literally, and if figuratively then figuratively, based on the surrounding text, correct? Just trying to make sure I understand. Thanks for your reply btw ;}

geebob

February 11th 2003, 10:42 AM

I will however, have to re-read geebob's post another 20 times to hopefully better understand.

feel free to ask more questions about it. I can always try to hit these things from other angles.

As for Sander's view on language, you could ask me about that, but with a view as complex as that, I'd think some book recomendations would be in order.

Xmansmommy

February 11th 2003, 10:49 AM

Geebob, Thanks. I will go over your post and pull out the details that need clarifying. As for books, I have TGWR but simply put, I'm looking for biblical evidence to support or deny OV. Although a friend is supposed to be sending *cough* me another book. :hrm:
Also this week I am going to be listening to some Bob Enyart tapes...That ought to be really cool. Again, thanks.

In Christ,
Linda

yxboom

February 11th 2003, 08:35 PM

Xmansmommy:
Y, so you are saying "if" we can take it literally take it literally, and if figuratively then figuratively, based on the surrounding text, correct? Just trying to make sure I understand. Thanks for your reply btw ;} Short answer is yes. I do believe that geebob was pointing out via ala Sanders that all language is metaphorical and we take to it what we will. In Scripture the idea is that every description we have of God is metaphorical but not untrue. Pinnock put it really good he said, all metaphors should be taken seriously even if not taken literally. So the point being even if we take all that Scripture says about God metaphorically and not literally we still need to take it seriously. What is the author trying to say about God is what we need to ask ourselves while we read instead of blowing it off as "metaphor". For instance take grieving the Holy Spirit Eph iv.30, grant that this is metaphorical language ruling out that it is literal. Ask yourself, what is Paul saying or portraying about the Holy Spirit? What is Paul attempting to convey by saying the Holy Spirit can be grieved? Think that here God is revealing something to us, what is it? Taken figuratively, what does it say about the Holy Spirit......that He grieves. Literally or figuratively it lines up with only one reason and purpose, we learn that we can grieve the Holy Spirit. :hrm:

Bob Hill

February 12th 2003, 05:05 AM

Dear Linda,

Judas’ actions, predicted by Christ, were a real problem for me. Here is what I believe.

Most people think that Judas’ actions were ordained by God because they are prophesied. But, when we look at the Scriptures, the betrayal of Christ was never foretold in the prophets.

If the betrayal of Christ by Judas was foreknown and foreordained, how could Mat 26:24 be true? “The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

Judas would have had no choice. Therefore, God would have predestined a man to damnation. Does God do evil that good may come? Jam 1:13-17 says God doesn’t even tempt men with evil let alone predestine them to do it.

What does, “That it might be fulfilled,” mean? Mat 2:15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.” 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.” No OT Scripture says this, but we do have to consider Isa 11:1, where we find the Hebrew word nezer. But nothing says, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

Barnes wrote that fulfilled means, “The words do aptly and appropriately express the thing referred to, and may be applied to it.” Bloomfield says, “Appears quite suitable or applicable to it.” Moses Stuart, “O.T. phraseology expresses in an apt and forcible manner, the thought which they desired to convey.”

For example, Isaiah 6:9,10 was fulfilled before the Babylonian captivity. But, confer John 12:37-40 & Mat 13:14 “And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says”. Act 28:28; Isa 6:9-10 And He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ 10 “Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.”

Dr. Edward Robinson in Greek Lexicon of the New Testament: “Phrase is used as a formal quotation and implies ‘that something took place, not in order that a prophecy might be filled, but so that it was fulfilled; not in order to make the event correspond to the prophecy, but so that the event would and did correspond to that prophecy. The phrase is often used to express historical or typical parallelisms.’ ”

Consider Mat 27:9-10 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, 10 and gave them for the potter’s field, as the LORD directed me.” However, there is no Jeremiah passage. However, Zec 11:12-13 says, Then I said to them, “If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.” So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. 13 And the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter. Look at these verses too: John 15:24,25; Psa 35:19; John 19:36; Psa 34:19,20.

John 13:18 “I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.’ ” Ps 41:9 “Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.” Ps 41:4-10. His prayer had been one for healing after confessing his sin (v. 4). However, he lamented the fact that his enemies took advantage of his condition. Wanting him to die (v. 5), they feigned friendship while slandering him (v. 6), saying that he would never survive (vv. 7-8).

Even his trusted friend betrayed (lifted up his heel against) him (v. 9). These words, of course, were quoted by Jesus concerning Judas (John 13:18). But here David had in mind the treachery of his friend Ahithophel, who betrayed him, and then hanged himself (2 Sam. 16:20-17:3, 23). Barnes wrote, “It is difficult to tell whether the text has any reference whatever to Judas Iscariot.”

John 17:12 “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. John 6:37-40; John 10:27-29; Heb 2:13. But, No Old Testament Scripture says this.

In Acts 1:16 it says: “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled [What Scripture?], which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus 17 for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.” David didn’t say this about Judas. He said it about his “own familiar friend”. Psa 41:9 “Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.” These scriptures were fulfilled in the sense of illustration by Judas.

Acts 1:20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it’; and, ‘Let another take his office.’ Psa 109:8 Let his days be few, And let another take his office. Psa 69:25 Let their dwelling place be desolate; Let no one live in their tents. Peter said that David prophesied of Judas. But when did David discuss Judas Iscariot? Certainly he did not refer to him directly or name him.

The Psalms often anticipate Christ. Likewise the enemies of the royal psalmist became the enemies of the Messiah. Therefore, someone was predicted in Psalms 69:25 and 109:8. Both of these psalms are royal imprecatory psalms, but the prophecy is very general. Acts 1:20 applies them to Judas.

Therefore, I believe Judas had free will.

Bob Hill
I believe people are just :rant: ing.

geebob

February 12th 2003, 10:56 AM

I hope you've caught that I've given two different answers to the question of interpretation.

yx sums up nicely the first answer.

The second one doesn't really bother with explaining how metaphores could be true of God.

It merely suggests that we go on commonsense trying to understand each individual case on it's own terms asking the question "is this really an effective way to communicate?" The method to determine this is to come up with other examples of similar uses of speach that support what is claimed about the text.

This isn't fail proof because just because we don't have a way of saying something in an odd way in english doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in hebrew. So then the challenge to the cvt's is for them to come up with examples that demonstrate a similar thought with regard to passages such as the one with God telling Abraham "now I know."

And within that second answer, there is an admission that the classical theists may indeed come up with such an example, but if that's the case, it doesn't mean that they are right to insist that there view is correct. It only means that what they say of the passage is reasonable, and we couldn't prove our view by that passage alone, but rather use this in a cummulative case where we have a lot of evidence that contributes to the strength of the case.

Bob Hill

February 18th 2003, 03:06 PM

Dear Linda,

Peter’s action of denying Christ, is a problem only if we do not read the extended context. Just before our Savior was going to die for our sins, we see from Christ’s remarks that there was council in heaven similar to the one that occurred in Job’s time. Satan must have asked for permission to sift Peter.

Jesus Christ was in touch with the Holy Spirit enough to know that Satan was given the permission to take impetuous Peter beyond what he could handle. I call this the law of cause and effect and contrast it with the law of freedom.

Cause and effect never develops character. For instance, a table is not good because it holds the plates and silver ware. Some man made it able to hold them. When the law of cause and effect is in place, it cannot be resisted. Therefore, a person under those circumstances loses his freedom. Instead of human freedom, outside influence becomes causal. The outside force causes the effect. Cause and effect may not produce moral responsibility.

In Peter’s case, since he did not survive a fairly minor testing of his faith, he learned by this humbling experience. In this incident, Christ knew that Satan had permission to take Peter beyond Peter’s ability. Christ had said to him in Luke 22:31,32, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.” The phrase, “when you have returned to Me”, shows us that Satan was going to be able to test Peter beyond his ability to withstand it in his own strength.

Therefore, Jesus knew the father would not answer His prayer because He gave permission to Satan as it shows in Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”

Satan had asked to be able to sift Peter, and God allowed Satan to do it. Christ knew that Satan was going to test Peter beyond Peter’s ability, at that time, to withstand the testing. That’s why Christ said, “when you have returned to Me”

God allowed Satan to do what he did since it was a reasonable test. God would use Satan’s test to help Peter grow. Did God do it? No! Did God know what would happen when Satan tested him? Yes. Again, that’s why Christ told him “when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”

Mat 26:32-35 But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee.” 33 Peter answered and said to Him, “Even if all are made to stumble because of You, I will never be made to stumble.” 34 Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” 35 Peter said to Him, “Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!” And so said all the disciples.

Peter’s confidence in himself did not hold up, though.

Mat 26:69-75 Now Peter sat outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came to him, saying, “You also were with Jesus of Galilee.” 70 But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are saying.” 71 And when he had gone out to the gateway, another girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.” 72 But again he denied with an oath, “I do not know the Man!” 73 And a little later those who stood by came up and said to Peter, “Surely you also are one of them, for your speech betrays you.” 74 Then he began to curse and swear, saying, “I do not know the Man!” And immediately a rooster crowed. 75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” So he went out and wept bitterly.

Mark 14:29-31 Peter said to Him, “Even if all are made to stumble, yet I will not be.” 30 Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” 31 But he spoke more vehemently, “If I have to die with You, I will not deny You!” And they all said likewise.

Mark 14:66-72 Now as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came. 67 And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were with Jesus of Nazareth.” 68 But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you are saying.” And he went out on the porch, and a rooster crowed. 69 And the servant girl saw him again, and began to say to those who stood by, “This is one of them.” 70 But he denied it again. And a little later those who stood by said to Peter again, “Surely you are one of them; for you are a Galilean, and your speech shows it.” 71 Then he began to curse and swear, “I do not know this Man of whom you speak!” 72 And a second time the rooster crowed. Then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” And when he thought about it, he wept.

Luke 22:31-34 And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.” 33 But he said to Him, “Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death.” 34 Then He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me.

Luke 22:54-62 Having arrested Him, they led Him and brought Him into the high priest’s house. And Peter followed at a distance. 55 Now when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them. 56 And a certain servant girl, seeing him as he sat by the fire, looked intently at him and said, “This man was also with Him.” 57 But he denied Him, saying, “Woman, I do not know Him.” 58 And after a little while another saw him and said, “You also are of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not!” 59 Then after about an hour had passed, another confidently affirmed, saying, “Surely this fellow also was with Him, for he is a Galilean.” 60 But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are saying!” Immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. 61 And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” 62 So Peter went out and wept bitterly.

John 13:36-38 Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, where are You going?” Jesus answered him, “Where I am going you cannot follow Me now, but you shall follow Me afterward.” 37 Peter said to Him, “Lord, why can I not follow You now? I will lay down my life for Your sake.” 38 Jesus answered him, “Will you lay down your life for My sake? Most assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till you have denied Me three times.

When we see that God allows the devil to do something or does not prevent his actions, isn’t God really responsible? If God is responsible, by permitting Satan to test a man, isn’t God doing it? I don’t think so at all, because when God gives Satan permission to test one of His believers, that doesn’t mean God is responsible, Satan is.

Satan is the prince of the power of the air and the god of this age. Satan asked, I think, because God had a hedge around Peter just like He had one around Job as well as a hedge around us: 1 Co 10:12,13 “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.”

In Peter’s case, God knew it was beyond Peter’s ability, at that time, but God would use it to build Peter’s character. It did build his character after the Holy Spirit came upon him at Pentecost.

After the resurrection Christ told Peter in John 21:15-18, So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Feed My lambs.” 16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep.

Therefore, I believe God allows Satan to tempt us free-will beings, but He does not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear when we are dwelling with the Lord by being in His word and meditating on it.

In Christ,
Bob Hill
:read:

Xmansmommy

February 18th 2003, 04:33 PM

Dear Pastor,
Great post! Thank you. It does however, bring a couple of questions to mind.

Luke 22:31,32, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”...
Therefore, Jesus knew the father would not answer His prayer because He gave permission to Satan as it shows in Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”

If Jesus knew that God would not answer His prayer regarding Peter's "faith not failing," why then did He pray for it? I do see that He knows that Peter would indeed return to Him, which indicates to me that Jesus knew his faith would fail. I'm confused. :huh:

God allowed Satan to do what he did since it was a reasonable test.
Wouldn't it have been a reasonable test for Judas then as well? God then used His knowing of Judas' heart to accomplish His means?
I know I'm asking a lot of questions and I apologize. I just have so many. Do you consider "sifting" a transdispensational truth? And is it applicable today if so? For now, I'll allow these questions to suffice although I have others. :brow:
Thank you so much Pastor, for your time and well expressed answers.

For and By His Grace,
Linda

bar Jonah

February 20th 2003, 03:07 AM

XMansMommy, I will leave your first question to the pastor, as I expect he'll answer it better than I would. But as for your second question, I think you are using false logic here.

Judas' situation was totally unique from Peter's. In fact, Judas' involvement was prophecied, even if Judas himself wasn't necessarily predestined for the execution of it. Peter's was not. Apples and oranges.

Xmansmommy

February 20th 2003, 07:41 AM

Dear RI,
Thank you for your response. I will wait for Pastor Hill to address my first question. As for my second question,...I don't tend to be the most logical person so you are probably right :blush:
As for "sifting" do you think it is applicable today? I know these are not only OV issues but I am still curious to know what others think. I apologize if I am confusing the issues. Thanks for your participation in this thread and helping to answer my questions.

In Him,
Linda

Xmansmommy

February 20th 2003, 08:44 AM

I've read somewhere (and I don't recall where now) that some OVT's believe in loss of salvation. Is this indicative of what many, most or some OVT's believe? For those of you (OVT's) who do believe we can loose our salvation, can you explain what your reasoning for this is? Thank you in advance.

Blessings,
Linda

geebob

February 20th 2003, 10:58 AM

The open view is considered by many including myself to be an developement of arminianism. Amongst traditional Arminians you have both who believe in OSAS or at least perseverence of the saints and those who reject the notion and it is the same in the open view.

I myself reject the notion but the issue is not within my strong suit for explanation. Any free will theist who rejects the notion could give a defence of this rejection regardless of whether they are open theists or not thus it really is not strictly speaking a non-ov vs ov issue. Jaltus and Arminian neither of whom are open theists are more articulate on the issue than I am.

Jaltus thinks that the ov is less compatible with OSAS but I tend to think that the issues will be the same for any theism that affirms libertarian free will.

bar Jonah

February 20th 2003, 04:21 PM

Although the OV may have been born out of Arminianism (I don't personally know), there are nevertheless plenty of OVers who are not Arminian. In fact, four members of GODISNOWHERE are subscribe to the partially open view, and yet we are all OSAS. The issue is dispensational, and has little to do with God's foreknowledge. All things are lawful for us. Naturally, there's a lot more scriptural basis for our dispensational OSAS belief, but that's it, in a nutshell.

Xmansmommy

March 7th 2003, 01:31 AM

Jim,
I've noticed you use the term "Partial Open View" in another thread as well as this one, and I'm curious to know exactly what that means? I'm learning there are differing types of OVT's as there are differing views on dispensationalism. Perhaps someone could give a definition of the types of OVT's, so that I might better understand the varying positions. Thanks in advance.

Blessings,
Linda

bar Jonah

March 7th 2003, 01:54 AM

Sometimes we call it the Partially Open View. I dont' know of any Open Viewer that doesn't believe God knows some of the future. Any situation that doesn't involve human free will can be known by God 100% for certain.

For example, any system run purely by the rules of physics, like an exploding star on the other side of the universe, God would know where every atom is going to go, how fast, etc.

Or, this also applies to anything that God decides to unconditionally do, such as the birth and death and resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Those things were planned since the fall of mankind in the Garden. God wasn't going to let any human free will stand in the way of those things.

God can know everything about the future, 100%, all the time. But for that to happen, we'd have to lose our free will. If God knows you're going to do X, then you cannot do Y or Z. But God decided to give us free will, and therefore the future isn't determined.

Anyone who believes God can't possibly no the future, no matter what... is a heretic who denies God's nature, His omnipotence and omniscience.

Xmansmommy

March 7th 2003, 08:06 AM

Great post Jim, thanks! I guess I am aware that OV'rs believe there are some things that God does indeed know, especially those things He is going to cause to happen. I suppose where I am confused, is on the issue of the differing types of OV. Or would that be better stated, the differing types of freewill? :huh:

Xmansmommy

March 7th 2003, 08:09 AM

Heb:4:12: For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.Heb:4:13: Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Comments?

Xmansmommy

March 7th 2003, 08:24 AM

How could Moses say these things?....

De:4:25: When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger: 4:26: I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. 4:27: And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you. 4:28: And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.

....is the "lest" in verse 23 the key?

1Way

March 15th 2003, 12:09 PM

RightIdea - I posted a question for you regarding your profile and Calvinism. Please respond at:

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2030

Thanks!

Xmansmommy

March 15th 2003, 12:41 PM

Hey 1Way :hi: Would you be interested in addressing some of my questions that have been left unanswered? :bawl:

1Way

March 15th 2003, 01:07 PM

RightIdea – You said
Sometimes we call it the Partially Open View. I dont' know of any Open Viewer that doesn't believe God knows some of the future. Any situation that doesn't involve human free will can be known by God 100% for certain. Foundational issues matter. The open and closed view is over the existence (or non-existence) of some yet future uncertainty or contingency (=options). You can’t “partially” exist or not exist. The discussion of how much of God’s for-knowledge is certain and uncertain, parallels, but is a subsequent discussion after one considers the open and closed views. In fact, OVer’s hold varying amounts of future knowledge, so how much future knowledge God knows with absolute certainty, seems to not be the central issue. It’s not about knowledge, nor even about how much knowledge, it’s about a kind of knowledge, it’s over the changelessness aspect of God’s foreknowledge. So according to that consideration, the future is either absolutely CLOSED to options/contingency, or it is OPEN to it. “Either” “or”.

1Way

March 15th 2003, 01:51 PM

Xmansmommy :hi: – Sure, I’ll try. :juggle:
If Jesus knew that God would not answer His prayer regarding Peter's "faith not failing," why then did He pray for it? I do see that He knows that Peter would indeed return to Him, which indicates to me that Jesus knew his faith would fail. I'm confused. I think if you try to follow Bob’s line of reasoning, he is referring to two different ideas with nearly the same terms. :doh: One is that Jesus knows that Peter is about to be tested "beyond his abilities" – sifting. Actually, I see it as Jesus knowing that Peter spoke "out of bounds" about his faith. The other is that Peter's faith "should" be restored and built up after this breach occurs. So, although Jesus knew what was basically going to happen, especially during the "sifting", He still had a heart in hopes of Peter being reconciled and to benefit from this example. Peter spoke unrealistically about his faith, and He knew it, and at the same time, He hoped that Peters faith would become stronger at least on the issue of being more truthfully realistic and less puffed up with undo self esteem.
Wouldn't it have been a reasonable test for Judas then as well? God then used His knowing of Judas' heart to accomplish His means? I don’t think so, remember, whatever happened to both of them we know “after the fact”. So in the case with Judas, God judged his heart for betraying Jesus, so Jesus would not have prayed for him to return since his heart was set against Him. Think of the two comparisons. Judas, without any miraculous testing/sifting, sold out on God. But Peter, prior to the testing, falsely accredited to himself too much faith, or too much self sacrificial valor. In both cases, God knew of these things using current knowledge. In the case of Peter, Jesus knew that he would not willfully die for Him especially so soon. Perhaps Jesus knew of Peter’s desire to spread the gospel of kingdom to Israel, so yes, Peter loved Jesus, Peter was loyal to Jesus, but Peter was not willing to become martyred that night, and Jesus simply knew it.
As for "sifting" do you think it is applicable today? I don’t think so, I don’t see this sort of thing going on after this example. And I’m not convinced that Peter’s case was the same as Job’s, Jesus/God may have simply taken offense at Peter’s self puffed up and false claim to greatness of faith, and decided to humble him on that very point. But it is comforting to see how it is that in both cases, God personally hoped for, or promoted/provided healing and restoration.
I've read somewhere (and I don't recall where now) that some OVT's believe in loss of salvation. Is this indicative of what many, most or some OVT's believe? For those of you (OVT's) who do believe we can loose our salvation, can you explain what your reasoning for this is? I don’t believe that the OV can be set into one theological camp that comfortably. It’s a view, although it has wide sweeping ramifications, it does not settle the issue of OSAS, nor just about any other issue like dispensational covenant issues, etc. The OV simply holds that the future holds contingency, it is not closed to options.

One thing I might suggest may be found in typical association to the OV, is a tendency to lift up scripture higher than man’s traditions. The issue of divine repentance alone refutes the closed view. God changes in significant, life giving, consistent ways!

bar Jonah

March 17th 2003, 12:03 PM

Well-said, 1Way! And welcome to TheologyWeb!

1Way

March 21st 2003, 10:24 PM

Thank you RightIdea! Hmmmm, what is it with your avatar?

Inquiring minds want to know. . .

bar Jonah

March 22nd 2003, 02:34 AM

Today @ 07:24 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42106#post42106)
1Way:

Thank you RightIdea! Hmmmm, what is it with your avatar?

Inquiring minds want to know. . .
My avatar? Formerly a devilish unbeliever, now a haloed saint! I once was lost, but now am found! I have traded in my pitchfork ... in favor of the righteous SPORK of Christ! :cool:

1Way

March 23rd 2003, 01:16 PM

RightIdea – As to your avatar, thanks for explaining.

I've started an entire thread over your point of Calvinism. Here's the link.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2030&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

Please respond.

PS. If you want to see who all is referencing you or your handle, then go to advanced search and simply enter your handle in the keyword box and the click search. It’s a big board, and some folks get spoken about without even noticing. I am usually interesting in what others are saying about myself.

Also, if your like me and you don't always perfectly remember where you have been posting, you can do another separate search for all posts you have made by entering your handle in the User name box and clicking search so as to help remind yourself of whatever threads that you may not have been currently active in, yet others may be awaiting your response.

Looking forward to your response!

Lazy Agnostic

March 25th 2003, 04:24 PM

You know, it's just this type of discussion which makes Christianity seem like such an exercise-in-ego.

"The Holy Spirit is leading me this way..."

"That's a good point, but I feel God means this when He said..."

"I've studied this at seminary and I have degrees from that institution..."

"I've had supper many times with this noted theologian..."

"I've been appointed by godly people to head up that organisation [so keep in mind my thinking on the topic ]..."

"Jesus knew this...Jesus set aside His divinity, so He opted to not know that..."

"Well, that's what Scripture says...but it really means this..."

None of those quotes appeared in the thread; they are my perception of the type of assertions and conjecture I see rampant in discussions by those who claim divine anointing.

To me they are covert excuses to avoid doing what Jesus taught: Don't waste time being smitten by pontificating egg-heads. Gently push aside your ego and do noble things for the Poor, the Sick, and the Stupid.

All else is merely commentary by people who just love to hear themselves talk.

That's why they whacked him. Next time please read the Foum Guidelines before posting here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=760)

Lazy Agnostic

March 25th 2003, 05:06 PM

My apology for the oversight. You know us agnostics; we tend to avoid reading the rules.

themuzicman

April 14th 2003, 02:26 PM

If you don't mind me throwing my two cents in, I'll contribute:

(If you do mind, please feel free to ignore me :teeth: )

I do not belong to any denomination, although I have been to three different seminaries/bible schools. My conclusion to adopt my own version of the open view is a result of my study to this point. I don't claim to have all the answers, or even to know to be right, since I am human, but I think you'll find that my beliefs are my own.

I came to the open view via the problem of sin, and the inevitable nature of the closed view.

In studying the closed view, I found that God is identified as the sole initiator of our universe and time, and He did so knowing that many (the majority?) of souls that would come into being would sin, and be eternally separated from Him. He also knew that there was nothing He or they could do to change that, since every moment in time, every decision and action was predetermined and fixed. To use the closed view terms, the future was actual from the beginning.

I go back to the garden and ask the question: Could Eve (and Adam) refused to eat of the fruit? The only unconflicted answer the closed view can give is "no", since to say "yes" would violate their view of God's omniscience.

If they had no other choice, why were they cursed? If it were inevitable because of the stringent line of events that must occur due to the closed view's definition of God's omniscience, and in spite of the fact that Adam and Eve had no fallen sinful nature, how is it that they and we are cursed?

Now, I understand that God may do as He wishes, since He is God. But I believe both open and closed view theologans hold that another part of God's nature is that He is just, which is to say that when people are judged, they get what they deserve.

I have a difficult time seeing how Adam and Eve could be judged for doing what it was predetermined they would do.

Michael

Xmansmommy

April 14th 2003, 03:58 PM

Michael,
Thank you so much for contributing your thoughts and reasons as to why you hold to the OV. It certainly can explain the problem of sin, as I have always asked those questions..."If God knew...etc.." Hope to be seeing you post more soon!

Grace and peace,
Linda

1Way

April 18th 2003, 04:49 AM

I came to the open view because the truthful and faithful God of the bible repents from previous intentions, which utterly denies the closed view. God is shown repenting like that repeatedly, and all attempts that I have observed at dismissing these demonstrations of divine repentance away from what the passage clearly says, fail at simple tests, such as remaining contextually consistent.

As a result, it makes the weighty things such as the fall and the problem of evil easy to understand, and the bible has become a vibrant and incredibly clear testimony. Imagine that, God was wise enough to say what He meant, and He meant what He said too.

Xmansmommy

April 18th 2003, 08:28 AM

Great post 1Way! As I read the bible I also see that God repents from previous intentions. And it certainly makes the problem of evil very understandable. That is something I always wondered about, even before I got saved. If God knew that satan would fall and mankind as well, why did He create them? Why would a loving God create something that He knew would grieve Him, so deeply that He repented from making them in the first place, and almost wiped all of them out? The Closed View has not sufficiently addressed that issue for me, whereas the Open View not only addresses it for me, but I see the Open View as biblical. I am so glad to let go of my presuppostions and simply believe the passages. I'm sure it will become much clearer as I study this issue out and believe the bible. Thanks for your comments and participation in this thread 1Way! :thumb:

bar Jonah

April 18th 2003, 01:31 PM

Today @ 06:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71893#post71893)
Xmansmommy:

Great post 1Way! As I read the bible I also see that God repents from previous intentions. And it certainly makes the problem of evil very understandable. That is something I always wondered about, even before I got saved. If God knew that satan would fall and mankind as well, why did He create them? Why would a loving God create something that He knew would grieve Him, so deeply that He repented from making them in the first place, and almost wiped all of them out? The Closed View has not sufficiently addressed that issue for me, whereas the Open View not only addresses it for me, but I see the Open View as biblical. I am so glad to let go of my presuppostions and simply believe the passages. I'm sure it will become much clearer as I study this issue out and believe the bible. Thanks for your comments and participation in this thread 1Way! :thumb:
Amen, sister. Exactly the way I felt when I first came to the Partially Open View.

Xmansmommy

April 18th 2003, 02:45 PM

RI :thumb:

$cirisme

May 1st 2003, 10:05 PM

I've seen this thread before, but haven't really looked much.

This seems like a most excellent thread, and I will be busy reading! :read:

Xmansmommy

May 29th 2003, 02:05 AM

I recently listened to a debate between an OVT (who claims to be reformed ~ isn't that an oxymoron?) and a Calvinist. It has sparked some new questions I'd like to ask here. I'll have to gather my thoughts and post them soon. :thumb: Also I read Gregory Boyd's, "God of the Possible"......awesome book!!! I literally couldn't put it down. It's not a very big book but I read it in less than 36 hours :wink: I'd recommend it to anyone who desires to have a general idea of what the OV is. It was very well written and extremely easy to read and understand. For someone who couldn't understand much philosophy this book was such a blessing! Thanks :yx:!!!!! :brow:

Xmansmommy

May 29th 2003, 09:34 AM

Ok guys, after listening to the debate, these passages need some clarification for me, if anyone is willing. I have some thoughts on them, but would like others viewpoint as well. What are these passages expressing? Thanks in advance. :thumb:

Isa:41:22: Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Isa:41:23: Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.
and.....
Isa:42:9: Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.
Again, I greatly appreciate all the patience that each of you have shown me. And your willingness to explain so that I may understand. Thank you. Blessings in Him.

Grace and peace,
Linda

geebob

May 30th 2003, 02:18 PM

You could take the notion from Isaiah 41 that God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge, but that isn't necessary.

God is claiming that he can do something here that the idols can't regarding foreknowledge. Why does he have this foreknowledge while the idols do not? one obvious possibility is that God has edf. But another answer that is more necessary to the text is that God can foretell because God has power to make it happen. EDF is not necessary here. Power is. If you look at the surrounding context, God isn't merely looking into a crystal ball and telling what events are going to take place that have little to nothing to do with israel. He is foretelling what HE is going to do and we see this highlighted in the chapter where God says.

23 tell us what the future holds,
so we may know that you are gods.
Do something, whether good or bad,
so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear.

So the future events that are relevent to these passages are ones that some deity brings about by his power and might. So unless you're a determinist, there's no reason to conclude edf from this passage.

Xmansmommy

May 31st 2003, 12:06 AM

Geebob,
I agree with your post 100%! Thanks for your response. You answered exactly what I was thinking. :xmm:

chance

May 31st 2003, 08:20 AM

I always laugh when I hear someone bring up those passages in Isaiah saying that what makes God God is His having exhaustive definite knowledge of the future. As if God just stands by and tells us what is going to happen.

That Calvinists leave God's ability or power out of those passages is sort of strange since they say that God ordained everything and that God alone possesses power such that nothing can happen contrary to His will.

I thought James White came across as a real ass during the debates he has with Sanders, but moreso in the debate over the open view.

Xmansmommy

May 31st 2003, 09:05 AM

Chance, :hi:
Thanks for your response. Much appreciated brother! I recently listened to the debate between White and Sanders....I won't tell you what I really think. :nc: But I will say that White certainly has an air of confidence about him. He's a bit sarcastic too. I loved it! :lol: I especially loved the EDF debate. I've listened to that one probably 4 or 5 times now. :brow:
Anyway, as I've been reading and studying the bible, my questions regarding the OV have diminished as much, if not more than this thread. :tongue: But as I challenge everything, I'm certain I'll eventually have more questions as I dig further into the word of God...can't wait to get there. :joy:

Blessings in Him,
Linda

Xmansmommy

June 27th 2003, 09:56 PM

1Kings 13:2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.
How does God prophecy specifics regarding the name of an individual and the things that that individual will do before he is ever born? God even gives a sign to witness to King Jeroboam that this will come to pass.
1Kings 13:6 And the king answered and said unto the man of God, Intreat now the face of the LORD thy God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored me again. And the man of God besought the LORD, and the king's hand was restored him again, and became as it was before.
And just a few passages later, Jeroboam entreats the man of God to appeal to the mercies of God to restore his hand, indicating that God's mind can be changed. And indeed his hand is restored. I see a God who hears the prayers of men and answers. But what I don't fully understand is how God can prophecy about Josiah and then He seems not to know other future events. Oh this can be confusing. :frown:
:help:

Thanks,
Linda

Spokoina

June 27th 2003, 10:29 PM

Hi Linda,

I am not exactly an open theist, but I understand the major points of it and the predestination views of Calvin.

Why I lean from Calvinism to open theism deals with relationships and with the grief of God.

Calvin stated God has reasons for his own good pleasure. But this view would mean that God, to create goodness, and restore his kingdom of joy, would get pleasure and satisfaction out of sentencing the wicked to hell.

Eze, 18 and Eze 33 certainly state otherwise.

What reason would God have for the longing and grief we see thru the heart of Jesus if it was just all set in motion for his good pleasure, including the evil in this world?

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who were sent to you. How oft I would have gathered you together like a hen gathers her brood but you would not come.

The only thing that eases that longing is for people to come.

So how does God's foreknowledge fit in? The way I see it is this:

God's absolute predestined will is for the restoration of his Kingdom and the restoration of man. His foreknowledge is thus his absolute will and this will be done. He wills and foreknows only goodness, truth, beauty, and his will.

How his will is accomplished is by giving men opportunities to respond. He winks, it says, in times past, means even they don't quite do it all as he wants, he moves it along ..until certain key times in which men must respond or not.

For example, in the time when Moses led the people out of the wilderness, they had many failures, and many times God was patient with them, until it was enough. Then the first generation died in the wilderness, and he found the second generation to accomplish what he had predestined: that is them going into Canaan. But who did it? Those who responded to God in faith.

Not even Moses entered Canaan because he failed to sanctify God at the moment it was counted for him. Was God's will thrwarted? No, just postponed while the faithless were replaced by the faithful who then needed to do what God was going to have done by his foreknowledge.

So this is why I think history repeats itself, that God is allowing circumstances which allow us to respond, and if we dont, we will take another trip around the circle until the time when it must count for us, at death.

And for some, the circle they travel is big and with many pitfalls.

Here are the verses:

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Num 20:12 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Xmansmommy

June 27th 2003, 11:04 PM

{{{Spokoina}}}
So great to see you here at TW! :joy: What a wonderful and heartfelt post! Thank you for sharing. I see a portrait of God painted through His word, who desires to love and be loved. Seeing and knowing this has affected my life tremendously. I won't get into that here, for it is very personal. But I do hope to share my testimony with others who have experienced this wonderful change in relationship with God. I don't, at this point, yet understand what God does or does not know. But I do know that scripture paints a portrait of God that doesn't micro-manage the details of the future, good and evil, for His pleasure. He does however, bring to pass good from the evil deeds of men.

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Our God is so awesome! :bow:

:xmm:

Xmansmommy

July 5th 2003, 03:11 AM

How does God prophecy specifics regarding the name of an individual and the things that that individual will do before he is ever born? God even gives a sign to witness to King Jeroboam that this will come to pass.

This question was answered for anyone who is following this thread, here.......

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6682&perpage=16&pagenumber=1

It's the 9th post. Sorry I tried to link directly to the post but I couldn't for some reason. :frown: Keep following the thread and :yx: does a great job of addressing this issue. Thanks :yx:!!!

Blake Reas

September 10th 2003, 08:48 PM

Why do I tell you this? Because you should be aware that your belief in the Open View will cause some to call you a heretic. You and I know that the Open View actually exalts God by showing His mercy, anguish, passion, sorrow, and love – things that Calvinism seems to impugn.

*cough* strawman *cough* Oh, sorry I must of "spoken"(wait that is anthropomorphic!) out loud.
:stop:

:metro: :saywhat:

bar Jonah

September 10th 2003, 08:58 PM

Today @ 06:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=208282#post208282)
Blake Reas:
*cough* strawman *cough* Oh, sorry I must of "spoken"(wait that is anthropomorphic!) out loud.
:stop:

:metro: :saywhat:
If you're the exception to the rule by not accepting the part of Calvinism that holds to impassibility, that doesn't make it a straw man.

Furthermore, this thread is only for those who hold to the Partially Open View, aka Open Creationism. But thanks for playin'... here's a copy of our home game. :riwink:

Xmansmommy

September 11th 2003, 01:05 AM

Blake, while I do appreciate a great discussion regarding opposing views of the OV...this thread is specifically for OVT's only. I do have a thread entitled "Questions for Closed View Theists Only" if you are interested in addressing my questions there. Thanks for your consideration :smile:

Solly

September 11th 2003, 03:05 AM

Please take note of the requests Blake

Xmansmommy

August 7th 2004, 04:39 PM

Ok, I've been considering some things and once again would like some input from OVTs only. Having heard Matt Slick ask numerous times, "How does God know which sins to impute to Christ since He never knew what sins we would commit?", it has brought some thoughts to my mind that I need clarification on. How do you as an OVT explain how God knows exactly what sins we have committed when we stand before Him? Does He take an account of all our sins (even though we are forgiven) and bring them to remembrance on that day and judge us accordingly? I'll fully admit to you now, that I struggle with understanding God's present knowledge and how He aquires it.

Since I don't believe God is omnipresent in the sense that He is in all places at all times, this is an issue for me. And I'm hoping to be able to understand these things better biblically and within my worldview. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. :smile:

Xmansmommy

August 8th 2004, 09:52 PM

:bump:

geebob

August 9th 2004, 09:31 AM

"How does God know which sins to impute to Christ since He never knew what sins we would commit?", it has brought some thoughts to my mind that I need clarification on. How do you as an OVT explain how God knows exactly what sins we have committed when we stand before Him? Does He take an account of all our sins (even though we are forgiven) and bring them to remembrance on that day and judge us accordingly?

I don't think there's anything about the atonement that requires us to believe that God had to apply specific instances of sin to the cross.

Jesus died for sin in general. It's not that God doesn't care about specific instances of sin. It's just that because of what he did, he has made a way to deal with all sins whatever they be. This may clash with the personal piety of believers who speak of "putting their sins on the cross". We have to remember that this is metaphorical language (as most conceptual language, believe it or not, is). Even though God may not have had those specific instances in mind, he can remember that he already made the steps to take care of whatever sins we may commit. It's like the cross opened up a checking account with an infinite balance, and whenever we have a debt of sin, there is no end to the forgiveness available to us.

Xmansmommy

August 9th 2004, 11:08 AM

Hey Geebob, good to see you again bro. :smile:

I agree completely with what you have said. My problem isn't with the general payment of sin at Calvary. I'm referring to the day when we stand before God and we are judged by our works. And while I've heard it said that we will not be judged on specific sins per se, that is a widely held belief within Christianity. I suppose my question is more about how God will have an account of our works than anything else. Is there an actual book that our deeds are written in or is God going to bring to our remembrance every deed we did when we stand before Him, based on His memory? Our memory? I know it's a strange question, but I truly was considering what Matt Slick has said and this came to my mind. I was hoping that someone who believes we will be judged according to our sins who is an OVT (if there is such a creature :nsm:), would respond. But now that I've kinda changed the question, I'm open for any and all thoughts from OVTs. Thanks again geebob. You are always very helpful. :thumb:

Xmansmommy

August 9th 2004, 11:13 AM

To clarify a little better, in the Classical View, God knows from eternity past every deed we will ever do. So I assume that He uses that information on judgement day and reminds us of our deeds. The Reformed View has God knowing and judging based on what He determined we would do. And I would imagine that the OV has God knowing each deed we have done (because at this point it will have all been past and settled) and bringing them to our remembrance (and possibly His? :shrug:). I think anyway. But I'm just trying to think this through logically too. Forgive me for my ramblings. :doh:

kofh2u

August 9th 2004, 01:29 PM

Xmansmommy

August 9th 2004, 02:06 PM

kofh2u, are you an Open View Theist? I do appreciate your attempt to answer my question but I think I'm gonna need a dictionary and a science course to interpret your comment. :frown:

geebob

August 9th 2004, 02:59 PM

I suppose my question is more about how God will have an account of our works than anything else. Is there an actual book that our deeds are written in or is God going to bring to our remembrance every deed we did when we stand before Him, based on His memory? Our memory? I know it's a strange question, but I truly was considering what Matt Slick has said and this came to my mind. I was hoping that someone who believes we will be judged according to our sins who is an OVT (if there is such a creature ), would respond. But now that I've kinda changed the question, I'm open for any and all thoughts from OVTs.

I'm not sure that your question then is really relevent to the issue of open theism.

To clarify a little better, in the Classical View, God knows from eternity past every deed we will ever do. So I assume that He uses that information on judgement day and reminds us of our deeds. The Reformed View has God knowing and judging based on what He determined we would do. And I would imagine that the OV has God knowing each deed we have done (because at this point it will have all been past and settled) and bringing them to our remembrance (and possibly His? ). I think anyway. But I'm just trying to think this through logically too. Forgive me for my ramblings.

actually, I don't think it is in the best interest for those who hold to calvinism and timelessness to articulate that that way.

a calvinist is not necessarily going to want to say that God judges us on the basis of what he determined we would do, but rather that he will judge us on what we will actually do...which of course is what he determined. But there is a logical progression that the calvinist would not want you to subvert. We will be damned for our sins and not because we were determined to do those sins. But of course we will sin because we were damned to do so, and in a logical sense, I ulitmately, you will be damned because of what God determined, but to point this out is to pick the scabs of calvinism and pour salt into the wound. It's to highlight their problem with establishing responsibility in us.

a calvinist might not like what I said here and may not agree with how I've articulated, but of course this a major sore thumb here.

everyone wants to say that we will be judged according to what we do and because we do it.

that the OV has God knowing each deed we have done (because at this point it will have all been past and settled) and bringing them to our remembrance (and possibly His? ). I think anyway. But I'm just trying to think this through logically too. Forgive me for my ramblings.

I think that's a fine way of articulating it. And I have forgiven thee for thy ramblings! j kidding

Xmansmommy

August 9th 2004, 03:22 PM

I'm not sure that your question then is really relevent to the issue of open theism.

It is probably relevant in all views but I was most interested in OVTs response specifically because I'm trying, as an OVT, to understand the dynamics of how God obtains and recalls the information. If that makes any sense. :doh:

actually, I don't think it is in the best interest for those who hold to calvinism and timelessness to articulate that that way.

a calvinist is not necessarily going to want to say that God judges us on the basis of what he determined we would do, but rather that he will judge us on what we will actually do...which of course is what he determined. But there is a logical progression that the calvinist would not want you to subvert. We will be damned for our sins and not because we were determined to do those sins. But of course we will sin because we were damned to do so, and in a logical sense, I ulitmately, you will be damned because of what God determined, but to point this out is to pick the scabs of calvinism and pour salt into the wound. It's to highlight their problem with establishing responsibility in us.

a calvinist might not like what I said here and may not agree with how I've articulated, but of course this a major sore thumb here.

everyone wants to say that we will be judged according to what we do and because we do it.

I agree with everything you've said. And it wasn't my intent to broadbrush Calvinists or to pour salt in the wounds. My apologies to any Calvinists reading if that's how I came across.

I think that's a fine way of articulating it. And I have forgiven thee for thy ramblings! j kidding

:wink: :lol: So, to dig a little deeper, will God supernaturally remind us of all our deeds? Does He bring them to the forefront of His mind and recite them to us on judgement day, when we will acknowledge each and every one because we would not dare deny them in His presence? Again, I do realize this is not an issue that only OVTs deal with. But I think the dynamics would certainly be different (perhaps and perhaps not) in how those things would occur, since the nature of how He acquired the information is different.

Now I'm really making my head spin. :dizzy: :lol:

geebob

August 9th 2004, 04:48 PM

My apologies to any Calvinists reading if that's how I came across.

ah I wouldn't apologize. It's not pouring salt into wounds in the sense of being insensitive and uncurteous but rather in adressing what many would consider to be an achilles heal. What I'm saying is, they would be embarrased for you to describe their view that way and would be challenged to explain it in terms such that it wouldn't lead to that notion. Or some might bite the bullet and find some way to get around it.

So, to dig a little deeper, will God supernaturally remind us of all our deeds? Does He bring them to the forefront of His mind and recite them to us on judgement day, when we will acknowledge each and every one because we would not dare deny them in His presence? Again, I do realize this is not an issue that only OVTs deal with. But I think the dynamics would certainly be different (perhaps and perhaps not) in how those things would occur, since the nature of how He acquired the information is different.

some would probably insist that such a thing wouldn't happen for those who have accepted the atonement for themselves. Or perhaps it would but at each point, we'd be brought to understand that that is what the atonement means for us.

Xmansmommy

August 9th 2004, 04:57 PM

Thanks geebob, you always give me more to consider that I hadn't before. I appreciate it. :thumb:

Xmansmommy

August 14th 2004, 10:52 AM

Quick question.....do any of the OVTs here believe that one of the purposes for the incarnation of Jesus Christ was to experience humanity?

yxboom

August 14th 2004, 11:15 AM

Quick question.....do any of the OVTs here believe that one of the purposes for the incarnation of Jesus Christ was to experience humanity?
Sure, but I'd kinda alter the wording a bit though. Instead of "experience humanity", I'd say God sought to dwell with humans on their own turf.

Xmansmommy

August 14th 2004, 12:11 PM

Thanks for your response :yx:. The reason I ask is because I have run into Christians who (I have no idea if they are OVTs and I'll state that upfront) believe that God took upon human form so that He could experience humanity and actually understand our sufferings from a human viewpoint. And although I don't know whether or not any OVTs would agree with that statement, I wondered if there are any here who do, would that experience be something that God did not have an understanding of until He experienced it through the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ? Did God learn to sympathize with our sufferings because Jesus, God in the flesh, suffered in His humanity? I know I'm just trying to understand here, so I do trust that my questions are understood in the spirit in which they are intended. Thanks to all who respond. :smile:

Spiritus Naturae

August 14th 2004, 12:50 PM

Quick question.....do any of the OVTs here believe that one of the purposes for the incarnation of Jesus Christ was to experience humanity?

I don't think that's the case. From what I read in scripture, Christ was fully aware of what it is to be human as He is the Creator of humanity, He would thus understand all the implications of what being human is prior to His incarnation. Now as to what individual humans decide to do and how they as individuals will live out their human experience...well, we all know that one. :wink:

Xmansmommy

August 14th 2004, 01:07 PM

yxboom

August 14th 2004, 03:25 PM

Hey Jonathon, thanks for your response bro. Excellent point which brings to my mind this question, does being the Creator of humanity automatically assume the implications prior to His experience within His creation? Why or why not? Nope. Why, because we are fallen. Sin is now apart of our subjective knowledge and experience. I don't think God possesses this knowledge by default.

Xmansmommy

August 14th 2004, 03:33 PM

How does He possess this knowledge?

yxboom

August 14th 2004, 03:34 PM

How does He possess this knowledge? By going to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles.

Xmansmommy

August 14th 2004, 03:38 PM

:doh: :lol:

Xmansmommy

September 7th 2004, 10:59 AM

You guys are going to get tired of me asking questions. :doh: Been reading Boyd's, Letters From a Skeptic and I have a question that perhaps some OVTs here can address for me. First I'll quote Boyd....

Anytime anyone "discovers" some new "truth" in the bible that no one else in church history has ever seen - and these sects are founded on just this assumption - one should immediately become suspicious.

While I'm aware that OVT is not a sect per se, I've often heard this argument from CTs regarding OVT being a "new truth" no one else in church history has ever seen. How do you address this argument? It would be quite helpful to me as an OVT to have some background history. Thanks. :smile:

themuzicman

September 7th 2004, 12:17 PM

One of the tenants of the protestant reformation is the idea of "Semper Reforma" - always reforming. It's the idea that our theology isn't inerrant, and, while the core doctrines of the church need to remain constant, we should not grow so arrogant that we can proclaim ourselves to be right just because a bunch of smart people from long ago said it and no one has disagreed with them until now.

Honestly, for any protestant to say this is silly.

In fact, the nature of God and the problem of evil have been issues in the church for centuries. Augustine dealt with it, as did Aquinas. Arminius, Calvin, Molina and a host of other have chewed on this issue from many angles, such that we have determinism, compatiblism, molinism, arminianism, and probably some other -isms that I've forgotten, that try to address this problem. Even the Westminster confession states the obvious contradiction, and then never addresses it.

To say that this is "new" isn't a suprise. There isn't a good answer to the problem of evil to this point, and OVT attempts to address this problem directly.

Of course we should treat something new by being circumspect. But that's not what most opponents of OVT do. You've heard Matt Slick. He's not interesting in whether OVT has scriptural basis or not, but is interested in taking anything he can out of context and twisting it into making OVT a heresy. He doesn't treat the subject with intellectual honesty, nor does he approach it trying to understand it.

And that's where many opponents of OVT err.

Michael

Xmansmommy

September 7th 2004, 12:54 PM

One of the tenants of the protestant reformation is the idea of "Semper Reforma" - always reforming. It's the idea that our theology isn't inerrant, and, while the core doctrines of the church need to remain constant, we should not grow so arrogant that we can proclaim ourselves to be right just because a bunch of smart people from long ago said it and no one has disagreed with them until now.

Honestly, for any protestant to say this is silly.

In fact, the nature of God and the problem of evil have been issues in the church for centuries. Augustine dealt with it, as did Aquinas. Arminius, Calvin, Molina and a host of other have chewed on this issue from many angles, such that we have determinism, compatiblism, molinism, arminianism, and probably some other -isms that I've forgotten, that try to address this problem. Even the Westminster confession states the obvious contradiction, and then never addresses it.

To say that this is "new" isn't a suprise. There isn't a good answer to the problem of evil to this point, and OVT attempts to address this problem directly.

I agree with everything you've said here Michael. :thumb:

Of course we should treat something new by being circumspect. But that's not what most opponents of OVT do. You've heard Matt Slick. He's not interesting in whether OVT has scriptural basis or not, but is interested in taking anything he can out of context and twisting it into making OVT a heresy. He doesn't treat the subject with intellectual honesty, nor does he approach it trying to understand it.

And that's where many opponents of OVT err.

Michael

Indeed I have, on many occasions Michael. And the argument is always the same. That's why I pointed him in the direction of others who are much more well known on the issue of OVT. Of course he will not accept that invitation, but such is life. Anyway, I know I'm not alone when saying that it is an often used argument against OVT that it is a new doctrine which has no place in church history. So I was hoping to be able to learn for myself an honest and clear response to this argument.

geebob

September 8th 2004, 08:26 AM

Anytime anyone "discovers" some new "truth" in the bible that no one else in church history has ever seen - and these sects are founded on just this assumption - one should immediately become suspicious.

I'd say it's a generally good idea. And that should be applied to the open view. One should be suspicious and and carefully scrutinize the evidence and think things through before embracing such a new idea. I've done that and continue to do that and find that the open view remains solid.

note by the way that Boyd was only playing with the open view at the time he wrote that book. I believe he gives that position to his dad as one possible solution to a problem though it wasn't something he was necessarily going to stick to at the time.

we should be cautious with novelty but at the same time, we shouldn't rule it out as anyone who values orthodoxy will value theological novelty as there was very substantial development of theology throughout the history of the church. See my comments in Gobahnson's "what do you think of theological novelty thread. (actually I'm not sure that gobahnson started that thread).

Xmansmommy

September 8th 2004, 09:35 AM

Hey geebob. I agree we should scrutinize any "new" teaching we hear and compare it with scripture. And I didn't quote Boyd for anyone to use his words against him. I actually agree with him. It's honestly that I hear people often say that OVT is a new age teaching which has no history in the church, so it can't be a valid view. I recall reading something you wrote, (don't even begin to ask me where) regarding some of the earlier proponents of OVT dating pretty far back. That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for.

geebob

September 15th 2004, 10:49 AM

I have two recomendations. One is to go to the the opentheism.info site, then to the questions page and on to the questions under the heading Questions of a Historical and Who's Who Nature.

Secondly, if you have either The God Who Risks or The Openness of God, read the chapters on history and tradition. And if you've read them, you might want to reread them from a different angle. One of the disadvantages of at least one of the questions answered at the .info site is that the authors answer the question of who might've believed in open theism prior to the 1900's by discussing a few church thinkers who've suggested that the future was open or unknowable, or knowable as open and not closed. I can't say it enough. the debate about foreknowledge, though the most controversial and the most discussed is NOT the central issue in the openness of God. Thus I suggest reading John Sanders' discussions on church history in both books (The one in The openness of God is the abbreviated version, so I would suggest TGWR, but TOG is still good enough for what I'm suggesting) is not just in criticism classical theism throughout church history but also points to the traditions in the church upon which the open view builds it's case. So sure, it's important to note that calcidius in the 4th or 5th century suggested that God knew the future as not settled and certain but as "contingent" and some open theists might even call him an open theist for that reason, but Luther in fact gets even closer to the heart of open theism when he argues that God suffers. I'm not saying that it's less important in general that Calcidius held to a less important aspect of the open view than Luther's challenge to impassibility. It is critically important because this necessary aspect of the open view is in fact the most controversial. But I do think that disagreements in church history over God's impassibility do outweigh the few challenges regarding the issue of foreknowledge.

So don't just read those chapters looking at where and why the church got things wrong. That's just an innappropriate way to approach tradition. Read them to look at them to see where the church has preceeded the open view in many of the claims of openness.