Where Have All The Dmins Gone?

As an open theist...

Per Bill G.:
The difficulty OT(1) faces is that other major doctrines as divine sovereignty, Scriptural inerrancy, and even Christology(2) can be made corollaries to the doctrine of God's exhaustive foreknowledge with results which threaten OT's view on God's omniscience.

Per C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity:

Well, if that were true, if God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to them. But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call 'tomorrow' is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call 'today'. All the days are 'Now' for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them, because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not 'foresee' you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions just the same way--because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already 'Now' for Him. This idea has helped me a good deal. If it does not help you, leave it alone. It is a 'Christian idea' in the sense that great and wise Christians have held it and there is nothing in it contrary to Christianity. But it is not in the BIble or any of the creeds. You can be a perfectly good Christian without accepting it, or indeed without thinking of the matter at all.

As an open theist, I hold as much adherence to those classical theological attributes and concepts of God such as God's sovereignty, God's omniscience, Scriptural inerrancy, and even Christology. As CS Lewis said, there's no need to hold to a staunch understanding of foreknowledge, as Evangelical Christianity holds, in order to be a good (and complete) Christian. I hold to the fulness and completeness of Jesus being God; I hold completely to Scriptural inerrancy, to a full and complete concept of God's omniscience, UNLESS one is going to define omniscience as including the future exhaustively. And that is almost all the difference there is between OT and, say, Arminianism.

Regarding omniscience (like Bill, time is limited here for discussion), an open theist defines omniscience as knowing all there is to know including all logical possibilities in and under all possible circumstances. If there's no future as of yet, then there's nothing to know, EXCEPT--and please note this--that portion of the future which God has already deterimined will happen. God is surely not helpless to be unable to insure that that portion of the future He insists will happen will, in fact, happen.

God does not "learn", as if you'd find Him saying, "Oh my, I never knew that. I'm glad someone told me that." It's as simple as a parent watching to see what his child will do under a given circumstance; the parent doesn't "learn" in the mathmatical, propositional sense; the parent does, however, discover what the child will ultimately choose to do. To use the game of chess, as a lowly example (compared to running, say, the universe), God knows all the possible moves and combinations that can possibly be made; He cannot learn anything more about the game. He does, however, learn (if we can correctly and properly utilize the word "learn" here) how the opponent will move. (Let us not forget, too, that God can read the mind and heart.) No matter how the opponent moves, it is already a done deal that God will not only win but never be caught off guard during the game; He'll never say, "Oh my, I didn't see that move...didn't know that one was coming."

As far as Christology, that Christ is God, that He died on the cross to save us both from our sins and the power of Satan and death, that He resurrected and will return one days...how in the world has that have anything to do with open theism? That is, unless, of course, one wants to attempt to prove that an open theist can't hold to this belief by matters of deduction. That'd be some trick!

Finally, inerrancy of Scripture isn't even an issue, unless one is going to try (again) to deduce that an open theist can't believe in inerrancy of Scripture. That (again) is an all-together different game with its own set of rules than the claim that God doesn't know (and doesn't have to know) the future exhaustively. I've neither been seen the logic hold or the persuasivness of arguments from Evangelical Christianity (which, I consider myself to be very evangelical) to deduce open theism as holding to anything less than true Scriptural inerrancy.

Thanks much,

Keith

 

Keith

I'm glad you weighed in on this. I'll have to avoid getting into another lengthy and broad discussion. Above I supplied some of the reasoning of opponents of OT, and as said, I've read a little on both sides. If you are convinced , then that's fine!

On the other hand, if you would like to discuss individual Scriptures used by OT, then see my invitation on Off Topic.

Blessings,

Bill

 

Hau! O son of great Shaka! O water carrier of great Pitchers!
I meant that Lutheranism was largely outside the defining discussions of what is or is not protestantism, let alone evangelicalism. As to "open theism," confessional Lutherans obviously reject it.

 

Hi Bill,
If you're interested you can find many people discussing Open Theism on Greg Boyd's message board at: Christus Victor

Boyd posts there frequently.

BLD

 

===

water carrier? would the son of Shaka carry water?
next you'll have me washing the disciples feet

 

==

Thanks Barry. I know it's important, and I really feel bad about the apparant separation. I just have lots to do so don't want to get too involved.

 

Hey guys

Bill~

I sure hope I didn't stifle your engaging spirit by frustrating you on off topic. I have learned a great deal from it.

The Rest~

I just wanted to weigh in and say, as an OT theologian, I think that "open theism" is becoming accepted by too many OT scholars, and uncritically so. I'm also not convinced by the use of scripture I see in the different writings I have consulted of Pinnock, Boyd, etc. The evidence is just not convincing. There are places where one can make a legitimate argument, but I'm not convinced. The kind of writing I see, so far, is mostly prooftexting and not systematic enough to really grasp the whole and grasp it effectively.

Chris

 

...and riding into KwaDlangezwa on the roof of a borrowed bakkie (hang on, baas)...

 

Re: Hey guys