Open Panel Discussion - Open Theism

[Begotten]

Open Theism
Like those in the Arminian-Wesleyan camp, open theists conceive of predestination as corporate rather than individual; but unlike those in the Arminian-Wesleyan camp, open theists do not base corporate predestination on God’s foreknowledge of future contingents. Corporate election maintains that God does not choose which individuals He will save before the foundation of the world, but God chooses the church as a whole. Hence God chose before the world’s creation that a group of people would be found by God through faith in Christ, namely, the church. God elected to save this group, and it is up to each individual as to whether they join the group (Rice, Foreknowledge, 52).

The debate between open theists and Arminian-Wesleyan thinkers centers on whether God foreknew prior to the world’s creation which individuals would become part of the church and so receive His predestination. While Arminian-Wesleyan thinkers argue that God foreknows the future choices of all persons, open theists claim that such foreknowledge would lead to fatalism. However, this claim has been powerfully challenged by William Lane Craig, who maintains that God’s mere knowing how persons will choose in advance exerts no causal power over their choices (Beilby and Eddy, Foreknowledge, 128–132).

Nevertheless, open theists like Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd, John Sanders, and Richard Rice have avoided the problem of fatalism by redefining predestination to mean God’s predetermination on behalf of those who are or will be Christians, not who will believe or how certain persons become Christians (Basinger and Basinger, Predestination, 159).

The Lexham Bible Dictionary

 

[civic]

I watched this debate since I listen to Idol Killer podcasts once in a while and he has been on Soteriology 101 a few times with Leighton. Also in this debate Matt Slick joins from our old forum we were on for years and Warren once again ( they previously debated ) proved he was also a dynamic onmiscience adherent. It was yet another time where slick doesn't understand his own position nor the position of his opponent. Its about the 2:05- 2:10 mark into the debate.

 

[civic]

There are really four distinct views on Divine Foreknowledge:

1. Simple Foreknowledge
2. Open View
3. Middle Knowledge
4. Augustinian-Calvinist

In this episode, Warren discusses Dynamic Omniscience, what it entails and what it does not. This is a long episode where viewer questions are included in the mix, some on topic, many are not.

Essentially, Dynamic Omniscience is the belief that God knows all things. However, here knowledge is not viewed through Platonist lenses where "perfect knowledge" equates to knowing only facts, but also includes "would counterfactuals" as well as "might counterfactuals". Therefore "perfect knowledge" is considered perfect in an epistemological sense.

Think of Dynamic Omniscience as approaching God's Middle Knowledge from an Open starting point. Thus Dynamic Omniscience can properly be called "neo-Molinism" or the "Infinite Mind" of God. God genuinely knows possibilities, their associated probabilities, He can know impossibilities and He can know His own decrees and whether they're conditional or unconditional.

While God knows of possibilities, His knowledge is not faulty and thus He doesn't know this in the same sense or epistemological category as He would a fact, or an unconditional decree.

Dynamic Omniscience recognizes that the future is partially fixed as it pertains to God's unconditional decrees, while it is also partially open as reality allows and accounts for genuine possibilities. Thus, it can be argued that Dynamic Omniscience incorporates the best of the four main views while not harming either the holiness and good nature of God, nor harming his perfect knowledge, nor denying Him the ability to decree what He wishes, nor falling into fatalism inherent in theistic determinism and thus recognizing that man is responsible. Warren McGrew

 

[civic]

Good read below on the discussion for those interested in the topic.

Neo-Molinism and the Infinite Intelligence of God - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

Classical Molinism holds that, since God is omniscient and knows all truths, he knows not only what every agent will do in the future, but also what every agent would have done in every other “possible world.” In this essay I argue that classical Molinism overlooked a whole category of truths...

reknew.org

 

[praise_yeshua]

In my view, all the systems mentioned are extremely flawed. CS Lewis basically established the modern theological approach to Omniscience. He was extraordinarily wrong.

Boyd is the most gifted man in this discussion. However, he often seeks to downplay God's clear purpose in humanity.

None of the participants actually establish their premise. They all start with the concept that all of existence is already established. That is not remotely true. One verse proves it is not true. There are more but just take it for what it says.

Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

It is the endless, yet, unquantified life of Jesus Christ that establishes our eternal life. Life without end.

No matter how they rearrange the narrative. They must establish their premise that time is just like CS Lewis states. They can't. They actually are establishing a quantifiable limited god with their beliefs.

 

[civic]

In my view, all the systems mentioned are extremely flawed. CS Lewis basically established the modern theological approach to Omniscience. He was extraordinarily wrong.

Boyd is the most gifted man in this discussion. However, he often seeks to downplay God's clear purpose in humanity.

None of the participants actually establish their premise. They all start with the concept that all of existence is already established. That is not remotely true. One verse proves it is not true. There are more but just take it for what it says.

Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

It is the endless, yet, unquantified life of Jesus Christ that establishes our eternal life. Life without end.

No matter how they rearrange the narrative. They must establish their premise that time is just like CS Lewis states. They can't. They actually are establishing a quantifiable limited god with their beliefs.

I find the dynamic view intriguing. I'm looking into it to see since it has certain things such as specific prophetic events fixed, others open depending upon conditions ( if you do this I will do that, if not this will happen- OPEN ) and God intervening within time/space and active in the present and not just " outside of time " as has been traditionally held by most.

 

[civic]

@praise_yeshua it even has me thinking about traditional Christianity's ideas/views with some of Gods attributes and how they would or would not fit in with the Dynamic model. Many would still fit but others might not.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I find the dynamic view intriguing. I'm looking into it to see since it has certain things such as specific prophetic events fixed, others open depending upon conditions ( if you do this I will do that, if not this will happen- OPEN ) and God intervening within time/space and active in the present and not just " outside of time " as has been traditionally held by most.

I see a slight difference but I believe the view still requires a limiting scope of "all things" already existing in the "mind of God". Let me know if you see this differently. I'd like to understand it if I'm wrong.

I prefer a predictability model with an endless scope.

 

[praise_yeshua]

@praise_yeshua it even has me thinking about traditional Christianity's ideas/views with some of Gods attributes and how they would or would not fit in with the Dynamic model. Many would still fit but others might not.

It definitely has an impact. It is why I restrict "change/mutability" to only apply to aspects relative to Character within Divinity.

 

[civic]

I see a slight difference but I believe the view still requires a limiting scope of "all things" already existing in the "mind of God". Let me know if you see this differently. I'd like to understand it if I'm wrong.

I prefer a predictability model with an endless scope.

It sounds similar to what you just described

 

[Wrangler]

Open Theism
Like those in the Arminian-Wesleyan camp, open theists conceive of predestination as corporate rather than individual; but unlike those in the Arminian-Wesleyan camp, open theists do not base corporate predestination on God’s foreknowledge of future contingents.

Dude! I don't even know what you're talking about. Is there a thesis statement in there somewhere?

I watched a SNL skit this weekend where Michael Myers, dressed as a Jewish woman, mentioned a topic and told the audience to discuss among themselves. Are you opposed to the Arminian-Wesleyan camp? Here is an example:

Thesis statement: Salmon is better than tuna because it is not as dry.​

​

Supporting Evidence. Proof people in America agree is salmon outsells tuna.​

People on this forum tend to be highly ant-Calvinist. There are already too many threads bashing such denominations. Are there only 2 options: open theist or Arminian-Wesleyan camp?

 

[civic]

Dude! I don't even know what you're talking about. Is there a thesis statement in there somewhere?

I watched a SNL skit this weekend where Michael Myers, dressed as a Jewish woman, mentioned a topic and told the audience to discuss among themselves. Are you opposed to the Arminian-Wesleyan camp? Here is an example:

Thesis statement: Salmon is better than tuna because it is not as dry.​

​

Supporting Evidence. Proof people in America agree is salmon outsells tuna.​

People on this forum tend to be highly ant-Calvinist. There are already too many threads bashing such denominations. Are there only 2 options: open theist or Arminian-Wesleyan camp?

Many more options

 

[Mod2]

Dude! I don't even know what you're talking about. Is there a thesis statement in there somewhere?

I watched a SNL skit this weekend where Michael Myers, dressed as a Jewish woman, mentioned a topic and told the audience to discuss among themselves. Are you opposed to the Arminian-Wesleyan camp? Here is an example:

Thesis statement: Salmon is better than tuna because it is not as dry.​

​

Supporting Evidence. Proof people in America agree is salmon outsells tuna.​

People on this forum tend to be highly ant-Calvinist. There are already too many threads bashing such denominations. Are there only 2 options: open theist or Arminian-Wesleyan camp?

it's from The Lexham Bible Dictionary

 

[Aeliana]

it's from The Lexham Bible Dictionary

It's the best!

The Most Advanced Bible Dictionary​

Get the most advanced Bible dictionary in existence. The Lexham Bible Dictionary spans more than 7,000 articles and 4.5 million words, with contributions from over 700 top scholars from around the world.

Get it free...

Lexham Bible Dictionary

Lexham Press | God’s Word Changes Things.

lexhampress.com

 

[Mod2]

DOES THE BIBLE AFFIRM OPEN THEISM?​

Does the Bible Affirm Open Theism?

by John M. Frame A group of thinkers known as “open theists,” such as Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, Gregory Boyd, and William Hasker, seek to do justice to the give-and-take in Scripture between God…

wordsofjesus68538540.wordpress.com

 

[Rockson]

There's a lot of fancy terms for everything. Open theism, dynamic view....lol....sometimes my mind feels strained trying to understand it all. I wish they would just summarize in one small paragraph in an easy to understand way. But i have studied Open Theism, and before that gave much thought to verses like about God saying about Abraham....."Now I know....."

Now I know??? So what are the possibilities in how one can think about this. How can it be that God comes to the place of KNOWING? Now I've heard for years what the traditionalist say about this....while I'm not exactly a proponent of Open Theism nor do I feel the traditionist (on this subject) have a credible answer in regard to this. (and other verses which leave the clear impression that God is watching actions and becoming aware)

 

[civic]

There's a lot of fancy terms for everything. Open theism, dynamic view....lol....sometimes my mind feels strained trying to understand it all. I wish they would just summarize in one small paragraph in an easy to understand way. But i have studied Open Theism, and before that gave much thought to verses like about God saying about Abraham....."Now I know....."

Now I know??? So what are the possibilities in how one can think about this. How can it be that God comes to the place of KNOWING? Now I've heard for years what the traditionalist say about this....while I'm not exactly a proponent of Open Theism nor do I feel the traditionist (on this subject) have a credible answer in regard to this. (and other verses which leave the clear impression that God is watching actions and becoming aware)

Yes its an interesting position that has some merit with the Dynamic view. The term is new to me also and I find it to have some validity the way Warren McGrew presents that position about God and how it relates to His attributes.

 

[Wrangler]

There's a lot of fancy terms for everything. Open theism, dynamic view....lol....sometimes my mind feels strained trying to understand it all. I wish they would just summarize in one small paragraph in an easy to understand way.

That’s what I mean by thesis statement. I’ve learned that if one cannot summarize in an easy to understand way, one does not understand it themselves.

Void a thesis statement, one gets th sense of immediately getting lost in the weeds with no possibility of tying it all together in a coherent way … and then out pops a conclusion, of sorts.

 

[civic]

God is not static , God is dynamic and personal , not impersonal . That’s the jest of the dynamic view. God interacts in a personal way it time with conditions of you do this then I will do that. Not everything if fixed as in determinism.

 

[Rockson]

God is not static , God is dynamic and personal , not impersonal . That’s the jest of the dynamic view. God interacts in a personal way it time with conditions of you do this then I will do that. Not everything if fixed as in determinism.

I've found this topic through the years interesting but also a struggle to deal with. Reason is so many are so committed to their paradigm way of thinking and their passion to defend it shuts out any other possibility to be considered. And then you also get the charge that you're a heretic or you're this or that.

Some times I wonder what Paul meant when he stated when in heaven he heard things he was not allowed to speak. 2 Cor 12:4 I ask could that be because what he learned was good but people's minds on earth would go tilt or that it would be so staggering that people would put their focus on that....instead of the job, the great commission, the things that God in this present time would want our focus on?

Or could it be it would create controversy with rolling out then strife among the spiritual immature? Years ago I believe God showed me how all these things work that is TIME, or God knowing or not knowing things. Granted I know many make claims God told them this or that.....not really a fan too much of one's asserting such and people should take such assertions with a grain of salt even from me.

The claim God told me has with it a sense one is speaking an infallible truth and not fair to any reader to try to lift the weight or seeking to prove the one might be wrong. I acknowledge I COULD BE WRONG. but we do formulate our beliefs at times at what we feel God personally in our spirits has revealed.

I backed off from wanting to get into any details concerning it but I will say it most certainly does set aside Calvinistic assertions on determination. I will say this. God is Good! God is Great And God does know the future but not necessarily in a way that an open theist would have it. As you said Civic....there could be other options.