Do You Hold to God being As stated By Open Theists then?

[ronshua]

Greetings Saints , I confess not knowing what Open Theists stated or if there be , Open Theists . Unless I overlooked Scripture basis for this doctrine , which wouldn't be a first , I'm a little confused . What I've gleamed from the above 30 comments , this new thing claims our Creator , ABBA YAHweh isn't quite Almighty , if that's the premise , I'll pass .

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

Isaiah 45
21 Declare ye, and bring near, Yea, they take counsel together, Who hath proclaimed this from of old? From that time hath declared it? Is it not I -- Jehovah? And there is no other god besides Me, A God righteous and saving, there is none save Me.

22 Turn to Me, and be saved, all ends of the earth, For I [am] God, and there is none else.

23 By Myself I have sworn, Gone out from my mouth in righteousness hath a word, And it turneth not back, That to Me, bow doth every knee, every tongue swear.

Isaiah 46
8 Remember this, and shew yourselves men, Turn [it] back, O transgressors, to the heart.

9 Remember former things of old, For I [am] Mighty, and there is none else, God -- and there is none like Me.

10 Declaring from the beginning the latter end, And from of old that which hath not been done, Saying, `My counsel doth stand, And all My delight I do.'

11 Calling from the east a ravenous bird, From a far land the man of My counsel, Yea, I have spoken, yea, I bring it in, I have formed [it], yea, I do it.

12 Hearken unto Me, ye mighty in heart, Who are far from righteousness.

13 I have brought near My righteousness, It is not far off, And My salvation -- it doth not tarry, And I have given in Zion salvation, To Israel My glory!

Isaiah 44
6 Thus said Jehovah, king of Israel, And his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: `I [am] the first, and I the last, And besides Me there is no God.

7 And who as I, doth call and declare it, And arrange it for Me, Since My placing the people of antiquity, And things that are coming, And those that do come, declare they to them?

8 Fear not, nor be afraid, Have I not from that time caused thee to hear, and declared? And ye [are] My witnesses, Is there a God besides Me? yea, there is none, A Rock I have not known.
Young's Literal Translation

Peace .

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The whole concept of omniscience includes complete and exhaustive knowledge of every possible potential eventuality or condition that ultimately results in reality. Interacting and intervening and influencing is the functionality of grace and mercy and wisdom and prudence and faith and hope and love as granted and ordained by a sovereign God.

I reject any form of Open Theism or Molinism, specifically based on the content and direction of these threads; though I had only casually disagreed with it before. I also find it odd that those just now exploring it have come to such adamant subjective opinions so quickly.

Anyway... Mankind is not collectively sovereign in determining an indefinite future of infinite potential eventualities. God knows the end before the beginning. He IS Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

[Zack702]

The whole concept of omniscience includes complete and exhaustive knowledge of every possible potential eventuality or condition that ultimately results in reality. Interacting and intervening and influencing is the functionality of grace and mercy and wisdom and prudence and faith and hope and love as granted and ordained by a sovereign God.

I reject any form of Open Theism or Molinism, specifically based on the content and direction of these threads; though I had only casually disagreed with it before. I also find it odd that those just now exploring it have come to such adamant subjective opinions so quickly.

Anyway... Mankind is not collectively sovereign in determining an indefinite future of infinite potential eventualities. God knows the end before the beginning. He IS Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

If the 12 disciples of Jesus never existed. Would the present day be different ?

[Yahweh1]

seems that Open theism is trying to shift away from God the mistaken belief that God is somehow responsibile for sinners staying lost, that some God responsible for sin and the fall etc...

IF they can get God to be stuck as we are in time, then can explain away their problems with God full sovereignty and not being responsible for people be lost, fall of man etc!

[the rookie]

The whole concept of omniscience includes complete and exhaustive knowledge of every possible potential eventuality or condition that ultimately results in reality. Interacting and intervening and influencing is the functionality of grace and mercy and wisdom and prudence and faith and hope and love as granted and ordained by a sovereign God.

I reject any form of Open Theism or Molinism, specifically based on the content and direction of these threads; though I had only casually disagreed with it before. I also find it odd that those just now exploring it have come to such adamant subjective opinions so quickly.

Anyway... Mankind is not collectively sovereign in determining an indefinite future of infinite potential eventualities. God knows the end before the beginning. He IS Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

Hmmm - I'd be interested in why you are so intense about Molinism in particular. I wouldn't say I'm in that stream of thought, but neither would I find that stream objectionable. William Lane Craig, whom I respect, would be the most well-known and able defender of the viewpoint and he's a pretty sharp (and godly) guy

We had a great discussion on Molinism here years ago - led by one of our members who articulated the position well. You can find it here. I would love to hear why you find the view so objectionable. It seems to honor the omniscience of God at another level (related to the complexity of free will) not diminish it - which I feel Open Theism tends to do, even unintentionally. I can understand an intense reaction to Open Theists (those guys are rather used to it) - but help me out with Molinism, which seems rather benign - and not articulated by anyone in this thread.

[Yahweh1]

isn't that the belief that the Lord could have created an infiniteamounts of worlds. but chose this earth as way it happened, fall and all, and that he stills allows for man to freely decide to accept/reject jesus to get saved?

[the rookie]

isn't that the belief that the Lord could have created an infiniteamounts of worlds. but chose this earth as way it happened, fall and all, and that he stills allows for man to freely decide to accept/reject jesus to get saved?

Um, no. Not even close, actually.

[markedward]

seems that Open theism is trying to shift away from God the mistaken belief that God is somehow responsibile for sinners staying lost, that some God responsible for sin and the fall etc...

Nope. It is an attempt to explain passages in the Bible that depict or imply that God seems to not know the future. Examples are given in this post. Open theism is strictly an attempt to understand God's knowledge in relation to time; it has little (if anything) to do with understanding salvation or lack thereof.

IF they can get God to be stuck as we are in time,

The view does not perceive God as being 'stuck' in time. It simply posits that to exist necessitates the passing of time, and hence time has always existed because God has always existed.

What is 'truth'? It is not a tangible thing, it is an abstract concept. When Scripture says that God cannot lie, does that mean God is 'stuck' in truth? Of course not. 'Truth' is not a tangible thing to be 'stuck' in. It's not as if 'truth' is greater than God is, and so he is bound by truth.

Remember that 'time' is an abstract concept, and is not a tangible thing. It is not a 'container' (to use Nihil Obstat's word), to be 'trapped' inside of. So trying to say that 'time' is a tangible thing that God is 'stuck' in doesn't make sense.

then can explain away their problems with God full sovereignty and not being responsible for people be lost, fall of man etc!

'Explain away' is such a subjective, accusative way of interpreting their position... especially when you don't properly understand what their position is.

[Revmitchell]

Open Theism, kie so many other things, works to explain things about God He never explained Himself. It is trying to us man made logic to explain that which is unexplainable.

[markedward]

It seems to honor the omniscience of God at another level (related to the complexity of free will) not diminish it - which I feel Open Theism tends to do, even unintentionally.

Let me play out a fictional conversation, based on one we are all familiar with. (The following is my own.)

Can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?

No.

But if you believe God can't create a rock so big he can't lift it, then you are reducing God's omnipotence.

But the question doesn't make sense, because it assumes something that is logically impossible.

But 'with God, all things are possible.' The Bible says as much. So you're diminishing God's omnipotence.

Yes, but statements like that in the Bible need to be interpreted properly; not everything means what it says at face value. (Otherwise Jesus was telling us to go cut off our hands whenever we sinned.) God's omnipotence must be defined Scripturally, not broadly.

If we just use the word 'omnipotent', we come away thinking God can do absolutely anything, including logical impossibilities.

Our concept of 'omnipotent' must instead be filtered by what Scripture teaches, and also by the tool of logic (which is a gift from God, and not something inherently anti-God). Scripture teaches that God is 'Almighty', but it never depicts him doing something logically impossible. And basic logic tells us that logically impossible things are, well, impossible. God cannot create a rock so big he cannot lift it because by Scriptural definition, God is immeasurably superior to the things he creates. By logic, God cannot draw a square circle, because a 'square' and a 'circle' each have their own definitions that contradicts the other.

Scripture also tells us that God 'cannot lie'. Well, what does this mean, that God is so weak-willed that even if he desired to lie, he couldn't do it? Of course not. For God to 'lie' would be a logical contradiction, because God is truth. A true thing cannot be a false thing, and vice versa. Since God in his nature is true, he cannot be false. Since God by his nature is truth, he cannot lie.

To believe that there are certain things God cannot do does not mean our belief is 'reducing' or 'diminishing' who God is. It is simply recognizing a basic fact about who God is. For God to be 'omnipotent' does not mean God can do absolutely anything; it means he is capable of doing things which are logically possible, and which do not contradict his own being.

So apply this to the present discussion.

Does God know the future?

No.

But if you believe God doesn't know the future, then you are reducing God's omniscience.

But the question doesn't make sense, because it assumes something that is logically impossible.

But 'with God, all things are possible.' The Bible says as much. So you're diminishing God's omniscience.

Yes, but statements like that in the Bible need to be interpreted properly; not everything means what it says at face value. (Otherwise Jesus was telling us to go cut off our hands whenever we sinned.) God's omniscience must be defined Scripturally, not broadly.

If we just use the word 'omniscient', we come away thinking God knows absolutely anything, including logical impossibilities.

Our concept of 'omniscient' must instead be filtered by what Scripture teaches, and also by the tool of logic (which is a gift from God, and not something inherently anti-God). Scripture never depicts God as knowing something logically impossible. And basic logic tells us that logically impossible things are, well, impossible. God cannot know about the chinchilla I am holding in my hand if I don't have a chincihilla in my hand. It doesn't make sense to say that God knows about something I am presently holding if I'm not holding anything. It's a logical contradiction.

If the future does not exist yet, then it does not make sense to say that God 'knows' something which does not exist. He may 'know' possibilities, like me holding a chinchilla in my hand (I've never actually seen a chinchilla), but we can 'know' possibilities just as much as God. Possibilities (i.e. hypotheticals) do not equate to actual knowledge. It does not mean that God is 'stuck' within time anymore than God is 'stuck' within truth. To exist simply necessitates the passing of time, so for God to exist necessitates that time exists.

So if the future does not exist yet, then to say that God does not know it is not to reduce or diminish God's omniscience. It's simply the recognition of a basic fact about who God is. For God to be 'omniscient' does not mean God knows absolutely anything; it means he knows everything that there is to know, being: the past, the present, and when related to his predetermined plan that he (as the Almighty) will certainly bring to pass, the future.

[markedward]

Open Theism, kie so many other things, works to explain things about God He never explained Himself. It is trying to us man made logic to explain that which is unexplainable.

I totally agree. Doesn't mean we can't explore it, though... as long as we don't let it become divisive.

[Revmitchell]

I totally agree. Doesn't mean we can explore it, though... as long as we don't let it become divisive.

It serves no purpose.

[markedward]

If you don't care about the contents of the thread, 'it serves no purpose' to disrupt the discussion with this little detour. Just ignore the thread, move on to something you care about.

[nzyr]

What exactly does this mean? Can you give an example or two, in order to illustrate this? I just want to make sure I've never come to that conclusion, since I don't see how an evolving God fits with the God of the Bible.

I said the opposite of what you are saying. I said God does not need to evolve. Since He is already perfect and always has been.

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. (Psalms 90:2)

[divaD]

I said the opposite of what you are saying. I said God does not need to evolve. Since He is already perfect and always has been.

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. (Psalms 90:2)

It seems you may have misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to imply otherwise about what you stated. I got your point. IOW, I was pretty much agreeing with you. I just thought you might have some more insight into it, via an example or two, of how some would see an evolving God in Scriptures..