Is Open Theism Heresy?

Post by **_tartanarmy** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:50 pm

Does Open Theism make a mockery of the innerancy of Scripture?

Of course it does.
To say that scripture is innerant is to agree that God is innerant, but some of these Open Theists are saying boldly that God makes mistakes, does not know the future and risks aka gambles with the future.

For any thinking person, including Arminians, it is quite obvious that Open Theism is challenging such things as Innerancy.

As I have said since I debated an Open Theist over 5 years ago, the position is a slippery slope heading in one direction.

But let me just say something positive for those entertaining some of the concerns of Open Theism.
We do not have to embrace this heresy in order to promote and maintain a God with whom we can powerfully enter into relationship with, A God who is active and involved with His creation, a God who everyday is concerned with us etc.

Post by **_SoaringEagle** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:46 pm

We do not have to embrace this heresy in order to promote and maintain a God with whom we can powerfully enter into relationship with, A God who is active and involved with His creation, a God who everyday is concerned with us etc.

How is God free to respond to our actions if everything that comes to pass is part of God's blueprint/story that he authored before time? If he is so concerned, then why did he pre-choose our choices for us before we were even born in His supposed divine Script from creation to final consummation?

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:42 pm

Thank you, Soaring Eagle, for bringing some reality into this "discussion".

Post by **_Derek** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:16 pm

How is God free to respond to our actions if everything that comes to pass is part of God's blueprint/story that he authored before time?

Personally, I think that God does know the future. I also think that He has free will. I realize that both Open Theists and Calvinists disagree with me on that point.

According to Calvinists and Open Theists foreknowledge negates free will. I know how open theists deal with this problem, but I would be interested to know how Mark thinks God has free will. I am yet to understand how His being "outside of time" fixes this problem.

Post by **__id_1679** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:33 pm

Hello SE,

QUOTE: "If he is so concerned, then why did he pre-choose our choices for us before we were even born in His supposed divine Script from creation to final consummation"?

My thoughts aren't as expansive as yours our Paidion's. But your question poses some need for clarification. How does God choose our choices?

Fundamentily, God gave man only two choices, life or death. Our freedom as it relates to God and our relationship with him is entirely bound within this framework. He did pre-choose our options. He did not make us choose either way but gave us the consequences, of our choices IMO.
Therefore IMO, it seems the grand experiment is that God is proving to us that indeed, "man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that precedes out of the mouth of God". He is a Good Teacher, not a tyrant.
Our freedom doesn't mean unlimited choice. To be free, one only needs to have the ability to make a choice unfettered between at least two alternatives. Just because God "stacked the deck" so to speak by limiting our choices to only two, it does not follow that He makes our choices for us, IMO.

Peace in Him,
Bob

Post by **_Homer** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:52 pm

Bob,

You wrote:

To be free, one only needs to have the ability to make a choice unfettered between at least two alternatives. Just because God "stacked the deck" so to speak by limiting our choices to only two, it does not follow that He makes our choices for us, IMO.

According to the postion taken by the Calvinist side of the discussion, the person unregenerate has no choice. It is maintained he is "dead" and unable to choose God. When regenerated, grace is irresistable and he will always choose God. Where does the Calvinist see there are ever two real (not just apparent) choices?

Post by **_SoaringEagle** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:34 pm

1 Corinthians 10:1-5
1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

According to the Calvinist view of God and His Meticulous Sovereignty, He whatsoever comes to pass is God's will (secret, decretive will). Yet how do we understand this text, if this view is correct? It says God was not well pleased, but why not? Isn't this part of His divine plan for these people, if Meticulous Sovereignty is true?

Post by **_tartanarmy** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:32 am

Providing a response at Doctrines of Grace for the moment. Feel free to come over and interact.

http://doctrinesofgrace.net/modules/web ... log_id=123

Post by **__id_1679** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:01 am

Hello Homer,

Well, I am not a "Calvinist" and really don't know how they would answer your question. However, IMO the unregenerate is bound to make choices
according to his unregenerate nature. The term "dead" as used in the Bible has multiple meanings of which is determined by the context. The "umbrella" meaning for death in our discussion would IMO, mean separation from the life of God. With this in my mind, Paul makes a contrast between one who is regenerated and one who is not; Rom3:10-18
"no one is righteous, not even one..there is no one who understands,no one who seeks God". If no one is righteous, what makes you think a person in his unrighteous state has the ability to make a righteous decision for Christ? Thats a question that deserves an answer. I'll leave it there for now.

Post by **_tartanarmy** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:08 am

but I would be interested to know how Mark thinks God has free will. I am yet to understand how His being "outside of time" fixes this problem.

When I say God has free will, I mean it in the ordinary sense of Libertarian free will. There are no constraints acting upon whatever God does. There are no influences acting upon what He does.

Being outside of time is only to define God as He is apart from His creation. Time is a created thing. How can we even begin to think that God is subject to His creation? If God chooses to interact in time with His creation He is certainly able to do so.

Does this effect His decree? If it does, the logical argument is simply that God decreed to interact in time. I do not see any problem with any of this for God, and I see no problems as far as it affecting His freedom in any way.

According to the position taken by the Calvinist side of the discussion, the person unregenerate has no choice. It is maintained he is "dead" and unable to choose God. When regenerated, grace is irresistible and he will always choose God. Where does the Calvinist see there are ever two real (not just apparent) choices?

The unregenerate act according to their nature, and hence choose accordingly. The regenerate, having a new nature then act within the new principals of the new nature and hence choose accordingly.

People choose according to their natures, and there is nothing apparent about it. Both are real, and both really act according to their natures. What is there not to understand?

Dead natures spiritually choose dead things according to their dead spiritual nature, hence sin, unbelief, pride, anger, adultery, lying etc

Alive natures spiritually choose alive things according to their new alive spiritual nature, hence righteousness, faith, repentance, humility, gentleness, sobriety, honesty etc.

It is not complicated Homer.

According to the Calvinist view of God and His Meticulous Sovereignty, He whatsoever comes to pass is God's will (secret, decretive will). Yet how do we understand this text, if this view is correct? It says God was not well pleased, but why not? Isn't this part of His divine plan for these people, if Meticulous Sovereignty is true?

This is just such an ignorant misunderstanding of How God chooses to indulge us in time, for the purpose of speaking to us in ways we can grasp His preceptive will. It could be likened to baby talk.

The fancy term is anthropomorphic language.
The Bible is full of such baby speak. It helps us get a fix on God's will.

It is not meant to paint God as some kind of buffoon like Open Theism tends to present Him, and this question asserts by the board Open Theist.
It is ignorance of who God is an how He chooses at times to communicate with us at the level we can perceive some things about God.

Asking why God should ask such things when He ordains everything is like saying that God didn't have a clue where Adam was in the garden when He asked Adam where He was.

I have even heard Open Theists say that God didn't know where Adam was when Adam hid from Him in the garden.

Believe such things if you want to, but please do not pass it off as the God of the Bible is all I am saying.

Mark