never heard of it. got a quick synopsis or source that outlines its idea?
Until God turns the light switch on, thereby drawing a man, no one can exercise the God given gift of LFW God-ward. That verse says the man comes to Him, not that God does the coming for the man. So, arguably, its synergism, not monergism, it teaches.
âOpen Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future.â
Cool. thanks for the quick explanation. The only thing that would worry me about that is that âthe future is conditionalâ then for one could that mean He recants His salvation to any or all and for two where would this fit with âGod is unchangingâ verse. As well as if He doesnt know everything could He truly be said to be omniscient?
Also how could He âtell the end from the beginningâ if the end is not only subject to change but dependent on what we do?
And where would that leave âHe is working all things in accord with His willâ?
Youâre right⌠it was never a question but an answer (as I state above) given to inform you â but like so many answers you donât like you just blithely read right over itâŚ
ironic projection?
Even if such deterministic verses were applicable to only israels redemption it would STILL BE DETERMINISTIC.
My questions werent directly being answered as qaz saw. Your answer would STILL not prove free will, even relative to israel. And simple yes or no answers werent being adressed until origen posted.
You seem snark. And ive grown tired of your patronization. So comment all you want but Im done responding since you wanna tongue in cheek insults towards me.
What in the name of St Peter and all the angels does THAT mean? No true American would ever talkâŚohâŚwaitâŚmy bad. 
ATR - davo is from âdown underâ. I have been advised, warned, counseled, upbraided, by experience and direct communication from davo himself - he and his ilk are fond of rattling oneâs cage, hoisting oneâs petard, pulling oneâs leg, tweaking oneâs nose - in other words, he will prank you, poke you, prod you, etc. to the point of your hair spontaneously going all a-fire - and he will chuckle. I forgive him because heâs smart, contributes a lot, and is, under that southern equatorial crust, a good guy. Ignore the taunts if you can, he will probably teach you something. I hate to say it, but I - even I, the genius behind FWED - have learned from him. I hope he doesnât read this. LOL
1 Like
God is still flourishing the fruit of patience with me and I just cant. If I give civility and it is not reciprocated I just dont have the time or patience to entertain a person that, even IF they have a point, deliver it with such contempt that it just annoys me. Maybe one day I can tolerate it. But not today, not now.
Id rather just cut off the conversation between him and I then further my frustration and lash out in anger. I know I dont have the patience so Id rather withdraw before it gets outta hand.
currently reading through that source. But to me its just not sticking.
For one it says something along the lines of âGod is omnipotent but cannot do something illogicalâ God is the author of logic, physics, mathematics etc. And I could think of no other illogically impossible action than creating something (the universe) from nothing. Or producing good from evil (the Cross)
Furthermore it renders prophecy as âeducated guessesâ for a lack of better words. That would be to say God just âgot luckyâ with His guesses about prophecies? Some of which prophecies had not prior precedent to use as a formula to guess (such as judas betraying Christ). Is Him âDECLARING [not guessing] the end from the beginningâ just an educated guess that might go wrong too?
Also God could hardly be âall knowingâ if He doesnt know the future. I understand that its stating He is all knowing in regards to whats already happened, but I personally wouldnt consider that âall knowingâ.
Just seems a bit off to me so far. Ill keep reading but those are just a few red flags for me imo.
I think the idea came about to reconcile the idea of âfree willâ and Gods foreknowledge. But when you suppose the actual conclusion is He foreknows because He foreordained then that complication is hardly a complication imo.
It seems like a lot of sophistry to prove a point when I could sum up my stance in a few verses of scripture alone; âGod counsels all things according to His willâ He âcreates good and evilâ and âsubjects creation as the potter over its clayâ and that ultimately âHe has declared the end from the beginningâ and âHis counsel shall standâ. Luckily that will of His being the reconciliation of all things back to Himself and creation being wiser having gone through the experience of suffering and evil to more greatly appreciate vivification, justification,grace and harmony among all creation.
Those are some excellent points, sure I could quibble about one or two, but why quibble? I think you have sufficient grounds for defending them. Others might have sufficient grounds for differing. In the end we choose what to believe.
I might say in passing: Iâve noticed that those of a Calvinist frame of mind - in general (not pointing at anyone here) - stress, above all else, Godâs Sovereignty. Thatâs the beginning and end of their theology - His unlimited power to accomplish all He wills.
And of course, Sovereignty is something we can be thankful for, amazed at, and worship.
At the same time, Calvinists in general (and I was one for a spell) are wary of Love, Godâs love. When I was becoming most aware of where I was differing from my Calvinist brethren, it was when I would say âGod is Loveâ and they would always respond âYes, BUTâŚâ and go on to tulip, or stress that love is limited by justice , or any one of certain themes that put LOve well in the background.
To quote a famous man: âGOD IS LOVEâ. That is imo infinitely of greater meaning to mankind than even Sovereignty. Pagans could conceive of a big powerful god, in fact bunches of them, and that puported power brought awe and fear and attempts to satiate that godâs desires.
So Power in a âgodâ was not a scandalous thing to say in the Pagan world.
But Love, or as I like to say, sovereign love, was and is scandalous. The God with whom we have to do is first - Love. He has the power to accomplish the love he has for us who He has made, and nothing can separate us from that, to quote another famous man. The scandal is that He is the profligate Father, running to accept those who have rejected Him, debased themselves, and come groveling back not out of love, but out of need - and for those He throws a party and bids all to come.
Can immortality be ârecantedâ? Godâs purpose of the eons is to head up all beings in the universe âin Christâ (Eph.1:9-11). Why would Love Omnipotent achieve that & then throw it away?
God is unchanging in His nature. In other ways He effects change, e.g. He abolishes the Old Covenant. He changes His mind about destroying a person when they repent:
Ezekiel 33: 13 When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it. 14 Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; 15 If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. 16 None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.
From the beginning He knew âthe endâ, i.e. that God will be âall in allâ (1 Cor.15:28), not necessarily every detail in between the beginning & the end.
Even when men oppose His will (Mt.23:37).
The source seems to propose it as a possibility when it states âHe has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions.â
Fair enough on the second point about His essence unchanging.
I really would have liked to see them try to explain the more troubling passages though such as the ones Ive provided. I mean if God simply doesnt know, and lets us decide, how could it be said âHe is working all things in accord with His willâ. That verse and the potter and the clay verse seem to just contradict any type of notion that we are not being subjected to His will at all times.
Eh to me thats a bit of a stretch for Him to guess and would, likewise, be just a educated guess much like prophecy according to the ideology of open theism. It cannot be for certain until it is as the ideology states. I see the word âdeclareâ as a stronger word than âguessâ.
Yes even when men âopposeâ His will. He has consigned people to disobedience (romans 11:32)
Again I think that it makes more sense that God is playing a role, and progressively informs us, but before a revelation of a certain matter is given (much like the revelation of âworking all things in accord with his willâ) He is playing a role under what knowledge man currently has of His being and our relationship to Him.
Did God create something from nothing or from His Word?
Is the cross producing good from evil, or the overcoming of evil by good?
I would say prophecy is not educated guesses, but sure things that God arranges by controlling the circumstances & people as much as is necessary to fulfill His word.
Paidon is the Open Theist here & has addressed this point before. In Open Theism God is omniscient in the sense that He knows all that can be known. That excludes LFW choices.
nothing was meant to indicate that there was nothing before His word. Not that His word, the catalyst by which He made kosmos, was nothing.
Well the cross definitely was evil, but it produced good. Id say it could be said to be both.
I know you said you are just looking into open theism and arent exactly sure or ascribed to the idea. But thats not how its presented. And if God arranges it by âcontrolling the circumstances and peopleâ Id say that much like a potter controlling clay 
I admitted I understand thats how they define âall knowingâ I was just saying thats not how Id define it.
Also if âHe knows only what can be knownâ then that WOULD render the declaration of the end from the beginning a âeducated guessâ and He does NOT truly know it to be true until it happens. UNLESS he âcontrols the circumstances and peopleâ which I think validates my side more than invalidates it.
I wouldnât consider it a guess. He âknowsâ the end from the beginning. So if i were an Open Theist i suppose I wouldnât agree with that about âguesingâ. And i imagine what you read is just one of a number of types of Open Theism.
Im sure there could be another source thats more nuanced. But Im only going off of hows its been presented which is that âGod only knows whats going to happen as it happensâ so by that logic He COULDNT TRULY know the end from the beginning. He could guess, but until it transpired its just a guess.
I think the hardest part about people believing God is conrol of all things, other than the relative verses where He condescends to play a part in His creation, is that people just dont wanna acknowledge that God is the author of evils. It seems to go against everything we were taught about God. But isaiah 45:7 clearly states it and stating that He crafts vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor seem to confirm this as well.
Epicurusâ dilemma of evil would still apply to compatiblism, open theism, and all other forms that teach human free will;
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
The ONLY way, as I see it, to solve the dilemma of evil is if God Himself has purposed it for a greater good.