So, whats the most damaging thing about Open Theism?

[Ken]

It seems to me that is seeks to create God in the image of man... summed up well by Mark Twain's "in the beginning God created man, and ever since that time, man has been trying to return the favor"!! LOL!



Open Theism destroys biblical prophecy, so that their caricature of God would actually fall to the criticism made by God when challenging the false gods:



Isa 41:21-24 NKJV "Present your case," says the LORD. "Bring forth your strong reasons," says the King of Jacob. (22) "Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former things, what they were, That we may consider them, And know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come. (23) Show the things that are to come hereafter, That we may know that you are gods; Yes, do good or do evil, That we may be dismayed and see it together. (24) Indeed you are nothing, And your work is nothing; He who chooses you is an abomination.



I like the way the New Living Translation puts this passage as well:



Isa 41:21-24 NLT "Can your idols make such claims as these? Let them come and show what they can do!" says the LORD, the King of Israel. (22) "Let them try to tell us what happened long ago or what the future holds. (23) Yes, that's it! If you are gods, tell what will occur in the days ahead. Or perform a mighty miracle that will fill us with amazement and fear. Do something, whether good or bad! (24) But no! You are less than nothing and can do nothing at all. Anyone who chooses you becomes filthy, just like you!



Open Theism’s doctrine also removes the possibility of receiving truly inspired writings from God through the biblical authors, for they elevate human autonomy to such lengths that if God were to superintend the biblical writers in such a way as to guarantee that what He truly wanted written was in fact written, it would do so by violating man’s libertarian free will.



Open Theism takes away confidence in God, that in the future, God’s ways will eventually win out. The Open Theist admits to God’s making mistakes, so hey, He could be mistaken about this whole battle with Satan thing, He may lose. And even if He were to win the war, the loss of some battles might result in the loss of certain persons salvation as the Devil may have been able to pull a fast one, and do something God could not have planned for.



This in turn affects Pastoral ministries, for what can we say to grieving families? It’s just too bad that such and such happened to Johnny, God just couldn’t be prepared for it, He didn’t see it coming, He would have liked to have prevented this bad thing, but just couldn’t, He may have violated someone’s free will in the process of preventing this great tragedy, and this just can’t be done… all we can do is hope that in the future, God can come up with a way to deal with situations like this, but, you never know… He may get fooled again….



But all these pernicious errors come from a faulty hermeneutic, which is inconsistent, accusing others of hiding behind anthropomorphisms, when they, hypocritical fashion, do the same thing… they try to take the moral high ground by saying that they interpret the Bible literally in places where God is said to repent, or that He is said not have known something about future events, but then they turn around and admit that in other places in Scripture, anthropomorphic language is being used… in reality it becomes a matter of just not linking where the lines in the sand are drawn, while acting as if they never drew any lines to begin with.



What about you? What things, if there are any, are there about Open Theism that bother you?

[Jaltus]

I think what bothers me the most is the inconsistent hermeneutic that is at play behind it.

OVers tend to appeal to narrative more than any other genre of scripture in order to make their point. They want narrative to be the driving genre of scripture, giving life and breath to the rest. However, narrative is open to multiple interpretations, especially when the narrator does not give any hint of a value judgment, the facts are just laid out.

In reality, a solid hermeneutic would be to look at doctrinal texts or didactic texts first and then to interpret narrative through that grid rather than vice versa. This way one can be sure of foundational statements and then build up instead of having to do harder interpretive work first.

[themuzicman]

The most damage that it does is to the Neo-platonic view of God adopted by reformed theology, and the poor exegesis that follows it.

[Starkman]

I think what bothers me the most is the inconsistent hermeneutic that is at play behind it.

I don't think it's inconsistency...

OVers tend to appeal to narrative more than any other genre of scripture in order to make their point. They want narrative to be the driving genre of scripture, giving life and breath to the rest. However, narrative is open to multiple interpretations, especially when the narrator does not give any hint of a value judgment, the facts are just laid out.

Well, there isn't straight-forward teaching about foreknowledge other than in the concept of election. "Today, class, we're going to talk about foreknowledge. God, who knows everythingl..." It's just not there. What we are left with, then, is narrative. And a lot of it is pretty simple and to be read as is, unlike apocalyptic language. Personally, I come to the conclusion, as I read how God interacts with us, that the Open View is the way things are. Further, this makes sense with how WE are. And that makes sense if we are made in His image. But, I digress.

In reality, a solid hermeneutic would be to look at doctrinal texts or didactic texts first and then to interpret narrative through that grid rather than vice versa. This way one can be sure of foundational statements and then build up instead of having to do harder interpretive work first.

That'd be nice, but I'm not so sure how plausible it is.

Starkman

[Findo]

Does OV remove the omniscience of God?

[Starkman]

It seems to me that is seeks to create God in the image of man... summed up well by Mark Twain's "in the beginning God created man, and ever since that time, man has been trying to return the favor"!! LOL!

On the contrary, man, being made in the image of God naturally reflects the image of God.

Open Theism destroys biblical prophecy, so that their caricature of God would actually fall to the criticism made by God when challenging the false gods:[Isa 41:21-24 NKJV follow]

The issue isn't that God knows the future exhaustively and the idols don't; it is that the idols can't do diddly squat, no how, no way when it comes to the future. God is hardly challenged in the Open View context because an idol cannot make any future prediction. I mean, seriously now. If an idol can't predict and foretell the future, is God, then, going to be found telling all of us, "Gee, I thought that was going to happen, but I guess I was wrong. Man, I gave it my best and screwed it up pretty badly, I guess, didn't I. I'll shut up from now on."?

The issue is that a partially open future makes it a given that God would hope, believe and wish that Israel, for instance, would have repented from their sins the many times they didn't. It's the way things are, that's all.

Open Theism’s doctrine also removes the possibility of receiving truly inspired writings from God through the biblical authors, for they elevate human autonomy to such lengths that if God were to superintend the biblical writers in such a way as to guarantee that what He truly wanted written was in fact written, it would do so by violating man’s libertarian free will.

What do you mean? God speaks to the author, the author writes. What's the problem? This has nothing whatsoever to do with libertarian freewill. God speaks, the author writes. Where did anyone get the idea that man is libertarianly free to not write what God tells him?

Listen, as humans, we're free, but we ain't THAT free. As a matter of fact, we are far from as free as we would like to think we are.

Open Theism takes away confidence in God, that in the future, God’s ways will eventually win out. The Open Theist admits to God’s making mistakes, so hey, He could be mistaken about this whole battle with Satan thing, He may lose. And even if He were to win the war, the loss of some battles might result in the loss of certain persons salvation as the Devil may have been able to pull a fast one, and do something God could not have planned for.

You don't understand the Open View. You really don't. I can see, and understand, why you think the way you do about the Open View, but I have to tell you that you don't understand it. Think about it: do you really think Open Theists teach something that makes God out to be helpless, so helpless that God could be mistaken about the battle with Satan and, for that matter, every other battle--anything for that matter? Oy vai! As if God's going to say, "Hey, where'd that come from? I didn't see that. Why didn't someone tell me about that? For pete's sake, aren't you angels paying attention to the battle? What am I paying you for? What?....oh, I don't pay you. Well, THAT answers everything!"

Hang in there, Ken. You'll come to understand it more as we talk about it. Then, I hope, that you'll see it a bit clearer, even though you may still disagree with the concept.

This in turn affects Pastoral ministries, for what can we say to grieving families? It’s just too bad that such and such happened to Johnny, God just couldn’t be prepared for it, He didn’t see it coming, He would have liked to have prevented this bad thing, but just couldn’t, He may have violated someone’s free will in the process of preventing this great tragedy, and this just can’t be done… all we can do is hope that in the future, God can come up with a way to deal with situations like this, but, you never know… He may get fooled again….

Oh, the pain, the anguish...THE HORROR OF IT ALL! (Sound of a "You Loose" buzzer going off in the background as a voice says, "We're sorry, Ken, but you're understanding of the Open View is not correct. Please study more and seek for a better clarity of the Open View. If you feel you've reached this recording in error..." (I'm joshin' ya, Ken!)

But all these pernicious errors come from a faulty hermeneutic, which is inconsistent, accusing others of hiding behind anthropomorphisms, when they, hypocritical fashion, do the same thing… they try to take the moral high ground by saying that they interpret the Bible literally in places where God is said to repent, or that He is said not have known something about future events, but then they turn around and admit that in other places in Scripture, anthropomorphic language is being used… in reality it becomes a matter of just not linking where the lines in the sand are drawn, while acting as if they never drew any lines to begin with.

It's...well, it's not...quite like that, Ken.

What about you? What things, if there are any, are there about Open Theism that bother you?

wELL, IT...(darned Caps key!). It doesn't "bother" me, but it is trialsome to see folk not understand the view and not see that what they think they understand is so foolish that no Open Theist in their right mind would believe as they're said to believe.

Well, I gotta get Galaxy Quest back to the video store before six, or I'll be paying more than it was worth (funny movie, but not THAT funny!)

Starkman

[Jaltus]

This is not a debate thread.

However, it is an inconsistent hermeneutic because "God is love" is the key text, but then it is interpreted by the narrative texts rather than building on didactic or doctrinal sections.

What makes for better theology, beginning with Romans or beginning with I Kings?

Romans, every time.

And La Scala, OV believes that God does not know the future.

[themuzicman]

Does OV remove the omniscience of God?

No. It has a different view of what exists and is knowable.

Michael

[Amazing Rando]

Moved to Theo 201.

[Starkman]

This is not a debate thread.

However, it is an inconsistent hermeneutic because "God is love" is the key text, but then it is interpreted by the narrative texts rather than building on didactic or doctrinal sections.

What makes for better theology, beginning with Romans or beginning with I Kings?

Romans, every time.

And La Scala, OV believes that God does not know the future.

As I noted, Jaltus, it's not "inconsistent" just because it looks more to the narrative. It could be said to be "incomplete," but, again, as I noted above, there's just not a lot (in Romans) to talk about the foreknowledge of God apart from election purposes.

Finally, "God is love" is not the key to Open Theism. That may the the drive behind some Open Theists, but it is not the drive behind why I am an Open Theist. What drives my Open Theims is that I see Scripture most naturally and appropriately interpretred this way. Others do have the "God is love" or a theodicy behind their motives. I just happen to think it's the way things are, Scripturally and in reality.

I'm confused about the thread thing also. Aren't we supposed to respond to and discuss what someone posts. (Apparently this thread was moved to the Theology section, but I don't remember what it was in before that.)

Starkman
Starkman

[brett]

From a person that rejects open theism, just a couple of comments.

Having just finished Boyd's section of "Divine Forknowledge, four views," it seems the simplest way to describe the OV position is this. They deny God is logically able to definately know the future freewill decisions of free agents. But isn't this exactly what many calvinists have asserted in their objection to middle knowledge? It would seem then, calvinists would be more in agreement with OV than with traditional arminianism. Would you agree with this Ken?

[Ken]

awhile back I has asked, in regard to the thread "So, what's the most damaging thing about Reformed Theology?"
"Frankly, I do not see how a thread titled with disparaging remarks about a person's worldview could NOT turn into a debate... what? are we just supposed to sit by and watch?"

To which geebob answered

Pretty much. There's nothing wrong with free will theists having an inhouse discussion about what they find so damaging or problematic with the reformed view and if reformed folk want to do the same, well they can do so.

I plan on taking the exact same route here, even if the thread gets moved... this is a place for Reformed or Classical Arminian persons to air their concerns... that is all...

• Edited by a Moderator •

[themuzicman]

Probably because the OP was just a question, not a dissertation.

However, comments of this kind belong in the Locker room, not in the thread. Please read the forum guidelines.

[Tercel]

It would seem then, calvinists would be more in agreement with OV than with traditional arminianism.

I believe that is one reason calvinists are so afraid of it.

[GoBahnsen]

It seems to me that is seeks to create God in the image of man... summed up well by Mark Twain's "in the beginning God created man, and ever since that time, man has been trying to return the favor"!! LOL!



Open Theism destroys biblical prophecy, so that their caricature of God would actually fall to the criticism made by God when challenging the false gods:



Isa 41:21-24 NKJV "Present your case," says the LORD. "Bring forth your strong reasons," says the King of Jacob. (22) "Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former things, what they were, That we may consider them, And know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come. (23) Show the things that are to come hereafter, That we may know that you are gods; Yes, do good or do evil, That we may be dismayed and see it together. (24) Indeed you are nothing, And your work is nothing; He who chooses you is an abomination.



I like the way the New Living Translation puts this passage as well:



Isa 41:21-24 NLT "Can your idols make such claims as these? Let them come and show what they can do!" says the LORD, the King of Israel. (22) "Let them try to tell us what happened long ago or what the future holds. (23) Yes, that's it! If you are gods, tell what will occur in the days ahead. Or perform a mighty miracle that will fill us with amazement and fear. Do something, whether good or bad! (24) But no! You are less than nothing and can do nothing at all. Anyone who chooses you becomes filthy, just like you!



Open Theism’s doctrine also removes the possibility of receiving truly inspired writings from God through the biblical authors, for they elevate human autonomy to such lengths that if God were to superintend the biblical writers in such a way as to guarantee that what He truly wanted written was in fact written, it would do so by violating man’s libertarian free will.



Open Theism takes away confidence in God, that in the future, God’s ways will eventually win out. The Open Theist admits to God’s making mistakes, so hey, He could be mistaken about this whole battle with Satan thing, He may lose. And even if He were to win the war, the loss of some battles might result in the loss of certain persons salvation as the Devil may have been able to pull a fast one, and do something God could not have planned for.



This in turn affects Pastoral ministries, for what can we say to grieving families? It’s just too bad that such and such happened to Johnny, God just couldn’t be prepared for it, He didn’t see it coming, He would have liked to have prevented this bad thing, but just couldn’t, He may have violated someone’s free will in the process of preventing this great tragedy, and this just can’t be done… all we can do is hope that in the future, God can come up with a way to deal with situations like this, but, you never know… He may get fooled again….



But all these pernicious errors come from a faulty hermeneutic, which is inconsistent, accusing others of hiding behind anthropomorphisms, when they, hypocritical fashion, do the same thing… they try to take the moral high ground by saying that they interpret the Bible literally in places where God is said to repent, or that He is said not have known something about future events, but then they turn around and admit that in other places in Scripture, anthropomorphic language is being used… in reality it becomes a matter of just not linking where the lines in the sand are drawn, while acting as if they never drew any lines to begin with.



What about you? What things, if there are any, are there about Open Theism that bother you?

Ken, you took the words right out of my partially sanctified mouth. Good gutsy post.