Open Theism, aka, Openness Theology/ Flexible Sovereignty

[George]

Steve,
Ephesians 1:11,
“also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,”. The problem Steve is that the Scripture I quoted says “...who works all things after the counsel of His will”, not just when He decides to intervene. My understanding of God is that not only the elect of this age does He work out, but all things. Romans 11:33-36,
“For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.







George, The word "all" is often used for emphasis and not in a literal way such as the gospel went out to "all" the world yet it was not preached in China or Africa.
Additionally Jesus prayed that God's will , will be done on earth as it is in heaven therefore it appears that God does not micro-manage every event but i think intervenes in major events to execute his plan and leaves man with a limited amount of freewill. If you want to take "all" literally then your last quote suggests God shows mercy to all , therefore that would support Christian universalism because his will is that all should be saved and none should perish.

Steve,
Yes, though I believe God to be totally sovereign in respect to ones salvation, I would also adhere to Christian Unversalism, especially in light of Colossian chapter 1:20, where in context "all" can only mean "all" unless you want to say that Christ did not perform in completeness the preceding verses.
Grace, George

[George]

George, I would also add that the point you are making with respect to the Ephesians passage would speak to God's ominpotence, and not to his omniscience. The Open Theist would affirm (perhaps more than the orthodox) God's omnipotent ability (not necessarily actuality) to control all things to ensure that his will is done. To their perspective, this is how He would ensure an outcome that He predetermined even though He hasn't "seen" it happen.

Out of curiosity, how can God be all powerful, but not all knowing? Does that mean that Psalm 139 (etc) is not true?
Peace, George

[darinhouston]

George, I would also add that the point you are making with respect to the Ephesians passage would speak to God's ominpotence, and not to his omniscience. The Open Theist would affirm (perhaps more than the orthodox) God's omnipotent ability (not necessarily actuality) to control all things to ensure that his will is done. To their perspective, this is how He would ensure an outcome that He predetermined even though He hasn't "seen" it happen.

Out of curiosity, how can God be all powerful, but not all knowing? Does that mean that Psalm 139 (etc) is not true?
Peace, George

I'm not an Open Theist, but they would contend that God knows all that's knowable, and that the future isn't a "thing" to be known. Besides, Psalm 139 etc. are clearly poetic and some poetic license would be reasonable. We can't expect the Psalmists to have understood the space-time continuum (and even that's a modern construct). We have no way of knowing what extent one can be outside of time. Time and space and even cause and effect could all be peculiar to our dimensional existence. We just really don't know, and we have no real ability to consider otherwise.

[George]

darinhouston,
It is interesting that you state that Psalm 139 is clearly poetic, is this not a dangerous approach to Scripture? Yes, the Psalm as a poetic quality, but does that mean the truth present there is actually false? I believe that many of the points that the Open Theist presents as arguments for their position are due to the fact they do not understand the anthropomorphic aspect of God speaking to man in a way that he can comprehend. Moses would be a good example in Exodus 32, where he pleads with God to change His mind about destroying the people, and God does change His mind, would it not be more reasonable to understand that God spoke this in a way to cause Moses to be an passionate advocate for those in his charge? What other way could God have spoken, except as a man to generate such a response from Moses? So, when God says He knows the "beginning from the end", can we not say "amen", or do we instead question His omniscience with passages such as Exodus 32?
Time was created for man, and I would agree that God exists in dimensions' that we cannot comprehend, but the Bible was written for man to understand not just in the "not yet", but the "here and now" and it is the "wisdom of kings" to seek out this truth passed down through the ages.

[darinhouston]

darinhouston,
It is interesting that you state that Psalm 139 is clearly poetic, is this not a dangerous approach to Scripture? Yes, the Psalm as a poetic quality, but does that mean the truth present there is actually false?

Hmm - I don't recall saying it was false. Poetry doesn't mean false (poetry may actually give a more true perspective of reality than prose is otherwise capable of) -- it just means it needs to be understood a little more loosely in context with the main point and balanced by other truths.

I believe that many of the points that the Open Theist presents as arguments for their position are due to the fact they do not understand the anthropomorphic aspect of God speaking to man in a way that he can comprehend. Moses would be a good example in Exodus 32, where he pleads with God to change His mind about destroying the people, and God does change His mind, would it not be more reasonable to understand that God spoke this in a way to cause Moses to be an passionate advocate for those in his charge? What other way could God have spoken, except as a man to generate such a response from Moses? So, when God says He knows the "beginning from the end", can we not say "amen", or do we instead question His omniscience with passages such as Exodus 32?
Time was created for man, and I would agree that God exists in dimensions' that we cannot comprehend, but the Bible was written for man to understand not just in the "not yet", but the "here and now" and it is the "wisdom of kings" to seek out this truth passed down through the ages.

Again, I'm no expert and not an OT (it would be nice having them here to speak for themselves), but from what I've read I don't believe they rely so heavily on the anthropomorphisms (or anthropopathisms?) as they do philosophical and logical conclusions from the broader teachings of scripture, and such things as resolving the philosophical difficulties between omnipotence and omniscience (largely greek philosophical notions) without reducing God to an impersonal singularity of existence limited by the certainty of the future.

[darinhouston]

By the way, Isaiah 46:10 to which you allude doesn't say God "knows" the beginning from the end -- it says he "declares" or "makes known" the end from the beginning (you also got that backwards). That's consistent with a God who can ensure an outcome. In fact, the immediate context of that passage is relating specifically to His omnipotence and His abiltity to ensure such an outcome -- it speaks not about His actual present knowledge of the future. So, yes, an OT would say "amen."

I can announce at the beginning of my journey home today that I will drive into my driveway and hug my children and kiss my wife. I can say with some certainty that my plan will be realized, and that I will accomplish what I desire. I am still conditioned on God's permitting me (by not getting into an accident, etc.) in ways that God is not limited, but the concept is the same. In my limited measure (contrasted with God's unlimited measure), I can tell you now what will happen tonight, because nothing but God will get in my way. God's not so limited, and so the outcome is definite. He doesn't take that stand on everything, and permits some things (I believe) that He could otherwise prevent, but He will ensure that the XYZ that He declares to occur will occur. That's all Isaiah was saying (and that's a lot, so why the need to make it say more?).

[steve7150]

By the way, Isaiah 46:10 to which you allude doesn't say God "knows" the beginning from the end -- it says he "declares" or "makes known" the end from the beginning (you also got that backwards). That's consistent with a God who can ensure an outcome. In fact, the immediate context of that passage is relating specifically to His omnipotence and His abiltity to ensure such an outcome -- it speaks not about His actual present knowledge of the future. So, yes, an OT would say "amen."





Exactly and that's what the Open Thiest believes, that God causes events to happen to make the ship go where he wants it to go. BTW George there are many verses in the OT that sound like God regreted something or did'nt know something or changed his mind like when God regreted making man before he caused the flood.

[George]

“Hmm - I don't recall saying it was false. Poetry doesn't mean false (poetry may actually give a more true perspective of reality than prose is otherwise capable of) -- it just means it needs to be understood a little more loosely in context with the main point and balanced by other truths.”

My point is that, just because the verses have a poetic quality does not mean that the verses cannot stand on their own merit (i.e. verses 4, 16).

“Again, I'm no expert and not an OT (it would be nice having them here to speak for themselves), but from what I've read I don't believe they rely so heavily on the anthropomorphisms (or anthropopathisms?) as they do philosophical and logical conclusions from the broader teachings of scripture, and such things as resolving the philosophical difficulties between omnipotence and omniscience (largely greek philosophical notions) without reducing God to an impersonal singularity of existence limited by the certainty of the future.

Is God impersonal if He is sovereign over all things (Eph. 1:11, Romans 11:36) or is He simply working out our salvation in a plan started before the ages? (Chapter one of Ephesians seems very personable)? This plan that has no surprises (the Fall being predetermined), God takes this sinful clay and forms it into vessels as He sees fit in every age. Where correction and refinement will and does take place, up into that final age when through the Cross of Christ, all of creation is reconciled (Col.1:20).

“By the way, Isaiah 46:10 to which you allude doesn't say God "knows" the beginning from the end -- it says he "declares" or "makes known" the end from the beginning (you also got that backwards). That's consistent with a God who can ensure an outcome. In fact, the immediate context of that passage is relating specifically to His omnipotence and His abiltity to ensure such an outcome -- it speaks not about His actual present knowledge of the future. So, yes, an OT would say "amen."

In regards to getting it backwards, and using the word “knows”; that is what happens when you write things quickly at work and do not have time to proof read before submitting.

Isaiah 46:9-10, “remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,”

I believe this passage coupled with passages all ready addressed (Eph.1:11, Romans 11:36) tells me that God before the foundation of the earth knew the end of every situation before it ever transpired. Elihu describes God as the one "who is perfect in knowledge" (Job 37:16 c.f. Job 36:4). John says that "For God is greater than our hearts and he knows everything" (1 Jn 3:20).The writer of Hebrews says that "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid before the eyes of him to whom we must give account." (Heb 4:13 c.f. 2 Ch 16:9).Job said "for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens" (Job 28:24).Jesus said "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Mt 10:29-30).
For someone who does not adhere to Open Theism, you sure seem to support their views. What do you believe in regards to God Sovereignty Darin?

[

I sort of address this in another previous post (anthropomorphic, anthropopathic ways God addresses mankind) .
Grace, George

[steve7150]

Steve wrote;

“Exactly and that's what the Open Thiest believes, that God causes events to happen to make the ship go where he wants it to go. BTW George there are many verses in the OT that sound like God regreted something or did'nt know something or changed his mind like when God regreted making man before he caused the flood.”

I sort of address this in another previous post (anthropomorphic, anthropopathic ways God addresses mankind) .
Grace, GeorgeGeorge




George, I understand you addressed it but you are making an assumption that may or may not be true. The references you gave Darin were good but again they could refer to all the knowledge that is knowable which may not include future events.
BTW i'm not an Open Theist, just playing devil's advocate.

[darinhouston]

Is God impersonal if He is sovereign over all things (Eph. 1:11, Romans 11:36) or is He simply working out our salvation in a plan started before the ages? (Chapter one of Ephesians seems very personable)?

Not in my mind (or the OTs I've read). That's their point -- they would say that the settled future position would logically require an impersonal, immovable, God who is no longer sovereign, and that this is inconsistent with Scripture. They posit that the three aspects are inconsistent if carried to their ultimate logical conclusion, and that nothing in scripture requires such dogmatic infinitude.

For someone who does not adhere to Open Theism, you sure seem to support their views. What do you believe in regards to God Sovereignty Darin?

If one was here vigorously and intelligently defending their position, I would likely be on the other side of this question, and trying to get them to answer hard questions. I'm a scientist and a lawyer -- as a scientist, I'm fascinated by the topic of time and dimensions -- as a lawyer, I'm supposed to be able to defend a view I may not agree with, no? Frankly, I don't think one can honestly disagree finally with a position until he knows it well enough to defend it. So, consider it an exercise to test my own opposite beliefs (one benefit from any debate). I'm also particularly sensitive to positions being considered heretical simply because they don't comport with convention, so I'm anxious to defend the position as well as possible -- if it still falls short, then I feel better discounting it as a legitimate position.

Since you asked, though, biblically I am a bit agnostic on the topic because I see very little biblically to outright discount the OT position (or to require it). Extra-Scripturally, though, I just can't climb on board the OT position, but that's largely due to an emotional preference to the conventional position, and (perhaps) led by the Holy Spirit. Something inside me can't imagine the God I know and who's love I feel and who guides my steps to lack the ability to know where I'll land, but I also have to subject that to reason as it is an extra-biblical influence.

I don't discount tradition, my personal feelings, or the leadings of the Spirit, but I do have to keep them in their proper place because too often, tradition, my "experiences" and non-scriptural influences are unreliable. If you read the "best" of the OT's writings, they have some pretty compelling philosophical and logical arguments, and I think I just have to stay humble in this one. There are definitely aspects of mystery to the topic; God's nature in this regard is elusive; and there's probably no more difficult topic, scientifically, than the nature of time and space and what's beyond our finite universe (and how cause and effect are tied at least mathematically to this dimensional space-time).

So, basically, I'm on the "settled future" side of the fence, but I have to grit my teeth at how that seems to interferes with choice/freewill (mine or God's), and so I do have at least an arm resting on the fence.