I am not sure what you are saying. Can you expound?
Open Panel Discussion - Open Theism
- Thread starter Begotten
- Start date
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I have been blessed in my life to have circumstances that require me to support and build some rather complex physical and virtual environments. I don't like to talk about it because most take me as "bragging" about it. I'm really not.
If you're going to make something that "works", you must build from the ground up. You can not start with the "roof" and work your way backwards. You must start at the foundation. You can take this principle from the arguments Paul made concerning a "house". Jesus spoke of building upon an unmovable foundation. "The Rock". Paul expanded this with his comments about those in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
I don't know the times in my life that I've had to go back and repair/change what I thought about my foundation. Whether spiritual or physically (they parallel one another), I had to fix a bad design at a fundamental level to make it actually work. Sometimes the flaws doesn't show itself for years. Sometimes it is just a crack that might be difficult to see unless you're paying close attention.
I hope this makes sense to you? Thanks
I believe even those who hold to the classical view hold that God enters into and works in time
It makes sense but I do not see how it applies to arguments about open theism
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Correct. The foundation of this thought process is nonsensical. It can not be proven nor established via revelation or reason. It is a fundamental flaw in the process. This comes from an "end around" approach.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
The Open Theist still considers Eternity as a "construct" where everything already exists relative to God.
Whether physically or "virtually" in the mind of God.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
For example. The completed construct = omniscience as treated by the Open Theist (and most other theologies).
Some food for thought. The Character of God requires consistency. We know from the Sculptures that the Character of God will never change (Immutability) . He has no need of change. Most all theologies take such "thoughts" to mean/demand that God knows everything in a "single thought" (my words/description).
I don't believe such a thing. I abandoned these thoughts a long time ago.
There is a meaningful difference in my "construct" but the same result. God never changes but it is relative to Character and not relative to knowledge.
If God is always the same in Character you get the same consistent result that always equal the same things from God. Man, that is a different story all together.
Which essential to the very fabricate of this life we lead. Character. It is what we are. It what we do when no one else is looking. It is the removal of impurities in our construct. It is experience that is required of "flesh".
Some food for thought. The Character of God requires consistency. We know from the Sculptures that the Character of God will never change (Immutability) . He has no need of change. Most all theologies take such "thoughts" to mean/demand that God knows everything in a "single thought" (my words/description).
I don't believe such a thing. I abandoned these thoughts a long time ago.
There is a meaningful difference in my "construct" but the same result. God never changes but it is relative to Character and not relative to knowledge.
If God is always the same in Character you get the same consistent result that always equal the same things from God. Man, that is a different story all together.
Which essential to the very fabricate of this life we lead. Character. It is what we are. It what we do when no one else is looking. It is the removal of impurities in our construct. It is experience that is required of "flesh".
That is the classic view. Open theism rejects that
So you hold God's knowledge is dynamic as does the open theist. There are such things as tense facts
What is now true may not have been true in the past and may or may not be true in the future. God's knowledge would change and thus be dynamic
Rockson
Well-known member
Interesting. I've watched up till 121..00 Will watch the rest later.
First observation......find interesting these are all relatively young men. Could be wrong but this is like a saying that you might like a young doctor? They say an older physician may not keep abreast with the latest ways of treating things. Are not older theologians even willing to talk about these things? Maybe they're too quick to dismiss anything different because of entrenched traditions....and if you're even willing to debate it almost gives credence to the question?
John Sanders would be an example of an older theologian holding to open thesism
Open Theism - John Sanders
drjohnsanders.com
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
They claim they reject it. They don't really. The construct they build requires it. Their ending claims concerning knowledge fits within the overall construct of God being outside of time. Thusly, God ultimately knows everything at any time. Some Open Theists claim otherwise but if you start from the foundation of what they believe, then it is required.
If you want to take their position, I can prove it to you.
Sure. However, if you start trying to construct a working position that actually equals this fact, you will find that they can't. Just like the Calvinist claims God chose them, their claims don't equal the details relative to revelation and reason.
I have to say that you're looking for compatibility here and I don't care one thing about fitting anything into an existing theory.
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I'll start proving my points....
1. The term Dynamic Omniscience is a "misnomer".
definition of misnomer = a wrong or inaccurate use of a name or term.
The English word Omniscience could never be dynamic. It is a reference to "all knowledge".
At a fundamental level (foundation), the term is nonsensical given the theological position found in Open Theism.
2. Relative to God's Character being Immutable, We can safely say that there is nothing dynamic about God. God doesn't change relative to Character. God can certainly change His mind when dealing with mutable things. Yet, God is and never will be untrue to His Character.
This is how a thought is constructed and is extended. Open Theism tries to find compatibly with other man made doctrine and is thusly.... flawed.
civic
Well-known member
On the flip side maybe “ omniscience “ in traditional Christianity has defined it incorrectly or scripture does not agree with the traditional view/ definition of omniscience. I think that’s the open theists position. That’s where dynamic comes into view.
So maybe the better term would be dynamic knowledge
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
On the flip side maybe “ omniscience “ in traditional Christianity has defined it incorrectly or scripture does not agree with the traditional view/ definition of omniscience. I think that’s the open theists position. That’s where dynamic comes into view.
So maybe the better term would be dynamic knowledge
Good points. If we start with the reference "Dynamic Knowledge".... then I think we have a good foundation and the begins of a good working model.
I've found that the word "Omniscience" is important but many carry too much "baggage" into the conversation when the word is used as a primary point of reference. It creates a necessity that hinders the construct.
And what if truth changes i.e. is dynamic changing in time?
According to proponents of dynamic omniscience God knows all past and present facts as well as all future possibilities
No one claims God character changes but classic theism denies God can change his mind
Everything he knows, he knows instantly and eternally and his knowledge cannot be in error according to classic theism
To hold God changes his mind is a vote in favor of an open view
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Not trying to be petty... but "Truth" comes from God and is an essential aspect of His Character. In that sense, truth never changes. Yet, evil is present among us. Evil always changes and is written in chaos.
I can't accept what you said at "face value" given these principles. Just making the point. Again not being petty. I wouldn't use those words to express the thoughts that I have. Maybe we are closer than I think. Not sure yet.
Change relative to Character is an issue with mutability. I have no problems with God tolerating chaos and change within the aspects of His creation. Love is demanded in Longsuffering.
Agreed. Add some thoughts of probability to this and you're starting to come my way a little. Probability is more than uncertain possibilities.
Absolutely and this is where I have long had issues with this topic. God changes His mind about us sinners. At one moment, we are loved enemies of God. In the next moment we are passed from death unto life wherein God literally changes his mind about us. Which is where repentance is a two way street. Not a one way street. A two way street where the mind of God and the mind of men agree together.
It is closer but not exacting enough for me. I like Greg Boyd. I like the way he teaches. I believe he has a gift. I love his methods. I do. He has an exactly approach that is inspirational to me. Even though I disagree with him on many things, I can't often fault him for not being exacting in his approach. I find respect for him in this. I do believe he's faults lie in his desire to be true to those that surround him. We all do this to some degree.
Lord knows I have my own. I'm trying to find them all and remember them. Sometimes I lose track of them to find them again...
Last edited:
Really?
Ephesians 2:11–13 (KJV 1900) — 11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Proponents of dynamic omniscience would also hold God knows the probabilities
Yet again the classic view is God cannot change his mind.
The truth value of every proposition was known instantly and eternally by God.
The idea God changes his mind (repents) is a view of open theist.
There are some two dozen verses I am told where God changes his mind or repents.
How to understand these verses are the issue
Classic theist claim these are anthropomorphisms
Open theist claim there is no reason to thing thusly
Boyd is an open theistIt is closer but not exacting enough for me. I like Greg Boyd. I like the way he teaches. I believe he has a gift. I love his methods. I do. He has an exactly approach that is inspirational to me. Even though I disagree with him on many things, I can't often fault him for not being exacting in his approach. I find respect for him in this. I do believe he's faults lie in his desire to be true to those that surround him. We all do this to some degree.
Lord knows I have my own. I'm trying to find them all and remember them. Sometimes I lose track of them to find them again...
He has a very interesting book
it is a basic primer for open theism
The God of the possible
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I don't understand your comments "Really" in context to what I said.
No They wouldn't. Probabilities are different than Possibilities. Probabilities are certainly possible. However, there are more aspects of probabilities than possibilities. Which is where I'm getting with the failures of Open Theism. Be exacting.
Circumstances for the change of mind recognized is different. I just love how you're using "instant" to be compatible with your historical theology. Instance means nothing in the context of this discussion relative to knowledge and immutability.
This is a meaningful difference in what I believe and the mistakes made in Open Theism. I'm taking an "engineers" approach. There are plenty of engineering aspects to God. Open Theism falsely tries to exclude these very real facts. They are so focused upon proving that God can change that they can't possible "build" a working theological prospective for this.
They only have a "drivers" perspective of where they are going. They couldn't possibly build the car itself if they tried.
I've known his works since he first wrote them Tom.
Yeah. I was there when it was released. I participated in the discussions concerning the impact. I've been arguing this topic for a very long time. Accept my experience in this or not. I know the subject well. I hardly ever agree with anyone completely on complex topics. I can't. It is not in me to take a complex topic and "boil it down" to just a few topic areas of discussion.
Rockson
Well-known member
That's good. Whether open theism or some variation of it is true or not it'll probably take a few years before a great body of believers will give it the time of day. Seems to me that's usually the way things go. Right now it kind of like low hanging fruit where people are delighted to throw out the label OPEN THEISIST and believe they've laid on them a shoe in to make it seem they're a heretic.John Sanders would be an example of an older theologian holding to open thesism
Open Theism - John Sanders
Ps it is available on logos
