Open Theism - Why is it a problem?

[Steven Burton]

My biggest problem with process theology and open theology is the need to start with theodicy (the existence of evil/suffering). My main problem with this approach is that it starts with the middle of the story with little consideration with the beginning and end of the story. God created a good creation and God will recreate a good creation. God wins, love wins and those with God wins. At the same time process has given us the concept of the God who suffers with us which, as Hans has said, has greatly drawn me closer to God. I guess I am more fascinated with how much of the future God reveals to God's people rather than how much of the future God knows. Because at the end of the day, I will only know what God knows by how much God reveals to me. So if God does not know something, I have no way of knowing it anyway.

As far as theologians, I think every church would benefit having a resident theologian. A wise preacher should never fear theology nor should a wise Christian. I am reminded that Paul went away for a period of time to learn about the faith before he journeyed around the world. At the same time, a solid preacher should never do his/her homework from the pulpit nor should they declare that "good preaching" as a cure all for inept study. Benny Hinn and the TBN preachers can draw in crowds with their personal charisma and speaking styles but I think we can all agree that what they preach is something completely different than the Gospel of Christ. I believe that if preaching by itself was more important than a correct discourse on God than God would have had Paul write more sermons and less theology in his letters. How many actual sermons do we have recorded in the Bible?

Sometimes I wonder if this is the case because it seems to come up so often. I know when I have had discussion on God with nonbelievers this seems to be one of the strongest things they argue. They seem to have an issue with a loving God and allowing evil.

[Kevin Rector]

The problem I have with theology in general is that theology in and of itself is an academic disclipline, not a divine revelation. I personally think that we have way more theologist than we need and not near enough preachers, prophets, and teachers.

[splitting hair]The word is "theologian" not "theologist"[/splitting hair]

I didn't personally come to know Jesus through theology, open or otherwise. I came to Christ through the witness and life of Christian parents and came to my decision point through a compelling sermon that convinced me I needed to make a choice and I needed to make it now. I chose, I am choosing, and will continue to choose daily to die to the world and live to Christ.

I dunno, just sayin...

Theology is logos (words) about theos (God). So when you speak of God you're doing theology and are therefore a theologian (whether you are a good theologian is another question entirely). That compelling sermon that led you to knowing of your need to make a choice was words about God, it was theology. Without theology, you wouldn't be a Christian today.

Just sayin...

[Dan Henderson]

Been playing with word usage Stew - Teacher vs Educator, Preacher Vs Theologian - I'll take Teacher and Preacher. Uncle Buddy was a preacher, but don't take my word for it, ask him yourself

[Steven Martinez]

Been playing with word usage Stew - Teacher vs Educator, Preacher Vs Theologian - I'll take Teacher and Preacher. Uncle Buddy was a preacher, but don't take my word for it, ask him yourself

I would but then I would be in serious problem with divining from spirits and then I would have to kick myself out of the Church.

[Dan Henderson]

I would but then I would be in serious problem with divining from spirits and then I would have to kick myself out of the Church.

There you go ...

[Dan Henderson]

Inerrant vs infallable vs imutable

Interesting, I decided to check these words to ensure that they mean what I think they mean. They do, however I found one dictionary, reliability unknown, World English Dictionary that defines Inerrant as: less common word for infallable. Just sharing here. I think I will check the etymology to see if the meanings have changed significantly over time. My guess before I check, is probably not.

[Dan Henderson]

Immutable = Unchanging as in Heb 6:17 (Unchanging in most translations, immutable in KJV, ASV, and a couple of others)
Infallible = not liable to error as in the Pope, seems to be for what the word was intended
Inerrant = not wandering as in reference to fixed stars vs wandering planets

[Hans Deventer]

Couldn't God choose not to know everything?
Thanks
Larry

Yes. In fact, He does at least regarding our sins: "Isaiah 43:25 - “I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more."

[Hans Deventer]

My biggest problem with process theology and open theology is the need to start with theodicy (the existence of evil/suffering)

I feel a little stupid here, but that was never how I got there. I remember discussing foreknowledge with Dennis B, ages ago, and him talking about our freedom of choice, which would be gone if God knew at forehand what choice I would make. The reasoning was that if God knows something to happen, it therefore must happen and hence, I am no longer free to make a choice. That reasoning never convinced me.

What did convince me was what John Sanders wrote. He said that all knowledge of God we have, comes from what He has revealed to us. We have no "higher" knowledge. All our philosophies that say what God can or cannot do, have to be considered in the light of His revelations, and not the other way around. Point in case, people say that God changing his mind is an anthropomorphism. But we actually have no ground from which we can judge God's revelation. If it says He changed His mind, then He did.

So I got to the point that Open Theism started to make sense to me, because of my high view of the Scriptures. BTW, Mike Lodahl wrote a very interesting book on how both the later Jewish traditions AND the Quran reject exactly these points ("Claiming Abraham: Reading the Bible and the Qur'an Side by Side").

Open Theism doesn't solve the problem of theodicy for me. I still ask "How long, LORD, will the wicked, how long will the wicked be jubilant?" (Psalm 94:3). And I don't have an answer. But it does bring me closer to the heart of God, and takes more seriously the Scriptures, without having them create an image of God as mankind would like it (see Greek philosophy, Jewish traditions and Islam, for instance).

Of course process theology goes further down this road, too far, in my view, and if you go there, it does solve the problem of theodicy. But the price is high: there is no more hope in God, just in man. And that, as far as I can tell, does not align with the Scriptures.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

3 words -- Uncle Buddy Robinson

He inspires me...and I'd love to see him inspire all those who think God has called them to attack fellow believers. Uncle Buddy's famous prayer is one that needs to be prayed for us all today:

“My prayer is now that the Lord will turn a hogshead of honey over in your soul and just let it ooze out between your ribs until you will be so sweet that every bumblebee and honeybee in the settlement will be abuzzing around your doorstep.”

Lord, let us be known for our sweetness - our love for you, for one another, and for our lost world.

[Dennis M. Scott]

“My prayer is now that the Lord will turn a hogshead of honey over in your soul and just let it ooze out between your ribs until you will be so sweet that every bumblebee and honeybee in the settlement will be abuzzing around your doorstep.”

Lord, let us be known for our sweetness - our love for you, for one another, and for our lost world.

Pretty good theology.

[Kyle Borger]

Inerrant vs infallable vs imutable

Interesting, I decided to check these words to ensure that they mean what I think they mean. They do, however I found one dictionary, reliability unknown, World English Dictionary that defines Inerrant as: less common word for infallable. Just sharing here. I think I will check the etymology to see if the meanings have changed significantly over time. My guess before I check, is probably not.

I am struggling to figure out how this appliess to the discussion at hand. Just a reminder that this specific forum is meant to allow one to throw out ideas and have dialogue without getting tied to a stake. I know that i am not firm in all of the statements I have made. Some i simply want to know what others think. The suggested links are great information, but please share what you got from that resource.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am interested in learning about this topic and why it is a problem. What are some positives; what are some negatives. Please avoid providing quick answers that show that you simply think it is wrong. What is it to you and why can't it be right. Also keep in mind that this forum is not a statement of faith but is rather a process of discovery.

[Rich Schmidt]

I feel a little stupid here, but that was never how I got there. I remember discussing foreknowledge with Dennis B, ages ago, and him talking about our freedom of choice, which would be gone if God knew at forehand what choice I would make. The reasoning was that if God knows something to happen, it therefore must happen and hence, I am no longer free to make a choice. That reasoning never convinced me.

What did convince me was what John Sanders wrote. He said that all knowledge of God we have, comes from what He has revealed to us. We have no "higher" knowledge. All our philosophies that say what God can or cannot do, have to be considered in the light of His revelations, and not the other way around. Point in case, people say that God changing his mind is an anthropomorphism. But we actually have no ground from which we can judge God's revelation. If it says He changed His mind, then He did.

So I got to the point that Open Theism started to make sense to me, because of my high view of the Scriptures. BTW, Mike Lodahl wrote a very interesting book on how both the later Jewish traditions AND the Quran reject exactly these points ("Claiming Abraham: Reading the Bible and the Qur'an Side by Side").

Open Theism doesn't solve the problem of theodicy for me. I still ask "How long, LORD, will the wicked, how long will the wicked be jubilant?" (Psalm 94:3). And I don't have an answer. But it does bring me closer to the heart of God, and takes more seriously the Scriptures, without having them create an image of God as mankind would like it (see Greek philosophy, Jewish traditions and Islam, for instance).

Of course process theology goes further down this road, too far, in my view, and if you go there, it does solve the problem of theodicy. But the price is high: there is no more hope in God, just in man. And that, as far as I can tell, does not align with the Scriptures.

I was going to write something similar, but you beat me to it... and said it better than I would have.

1. My first encounters with the Openness view of God and what led me to like that perspective had nothing to do with theodicy. It was the fact that the Open view seems to put Scripture above philosophy, instead of the other way around.

2. Process seems to put philosophy first and then try to make the theology & Scripture fit... and in my opinion, it doesn't manage to do so. But this is mainly based on the various process views of the trinity that I read about 15-20 years ago in seminary.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Part of the challenge is that once a person has identified with a side of the issue, one tends to attribute to the other side things that side doesn't even maintain. In this case, those opposed to open theism frequently say that open theists maintain that God is sometimes surprised, and caught off guard. I don't know any open theists that maintain either of those. Many who are sympathetic to open theism don't go a whole lot farther than to observe that God apparently sometimes changes his mind, and that He is influenced by prayer.

While I personally am sympathetic to open theism, I wouldn't describe myself as a card carrying member, with "Open Theism" tattooed to my forehead. I also would also identify as a Wesleyan, but that doesn't mean I buy into every thought John Wesley ever had. I tend to be Arminian, but happen to think that Calvinists have some points, too. Must I check my spiritual brain at the door when I identify with a particular theological understanding?

[Jon Bemis]

I just ran across this 2010 blog post/article by Roger Olson & thought some of you might be interested: "Why open theism doesn't even matter (very much)" - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereo...ter-very-much/

I think Olson is on to something. IMO this part is pertinent regardless the topic:

Years ago one of my favorite evangelical authors, Joe Bayly, published a column in Eternity magazine entitled “Why the absolute absolutists always win.” He pointed out way back in the 1970s that in too many controversies among evangelicals (the case he had in mind was over women’s roles in church, home and society) loud mouthed extremists tend to win by creating fear of controversy. They move among the untutored lay people (and unfortunately too many untutored pastors!) and create fear that some view with which they disagree MIGHT be heretical and, as we all know from youth group talk illustrations, it is ALWAYS best to err on the side of safety.

[Dan Henderson]

I am struggling to figure out how this appliess to the discussion at hand. Just a reminder that this specific forum is meant to allow one to throw out ideas and have dialogue without getting tied to a stake. I know that i am not firm in all of the statements I have made. Some i simply want to know what others think. The suggested links are great information, but please share what you got from that resource.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am interested in learning about this topic and why it is a problem. What are some positives; what are some negatives. Please avoid providing quick answers that show that you simply think it is wrong. What is it to you and why can't it be right. Also keep in mind that this forum is not a statement of faith but is rather a process of discovery.

Those definitions are core to the discussions. How you view those concepts are part of the filters you use to determine the viability of Open Theology or virtually any other religious conversation on this site. And calling me out for being off-tipic on a thread, really? Look around.

[Charles W Christian]

If we are Wesleyans at all, then it seems that there must be at least a degree of "openness" in our theology in regard to God. Whether or not God already "knows the future", which is an in-house debate among Arminian/Wesleyan types, it seems that if you are not a strict Calvinist, you read the Bible as saying that God leaves room for actual decisions: accept or reject, etc. Therefore, there is a sense of openness in regard to God and God's approach to humanity.

So, sometimes these debates are not as clear cut as they seem. It is hard to say that someone is "Open" and someone is "not" in the Wesleyan tradition. Really, the question seems to be in regard to degrees of openness (as Scott explains rather well in an early post above).

Charles

[Steven Martinez]

I was going to write something similar, but you beat me to it... and said it better than I would have.

1. My first encounters with the Openness view of God and what led me to like that perspective had nothing to do with theodicy. It was the fact that the Open view seems to put Scripture above philosophy, instead of the other way around.

2. Process seems to put philosophy first and then try to make the theology & Scripture fit... and in my opinion, it doesn't manage to do so. But this is mainly based on the various process views of the trinity that I read about 15-20 years ago in seminary.

Rich and Hans,
I am sorry if I did not clarify my statement. I was implying that the history of the movements, especially process, seem to begin with the issue of theodicy. I did not mean to imply that anyone who finds themselves getting there begins the same way. I strongly deny the validity of process as an orthodox theology for myself but open theology seems to be an ever shifting movement looking for a God who is constantly revealing Godself to us. I might perhaps be a closet open theologian as I would say that I agree with the two of you in theology as much as anyone on NazNet.
I am sorry if my post seemed to degrade your spiritual journey, for that I would like to apologize.

[Kyle Borger]

Those definitions are core to the discussions. How you view those concepts are part of the filters you use to determine the viability of Open Theology or virtually any other religious conversation on this site. And calling me out for being off-tipic on a thread, really? Look around.

Then please share how those definitions impact the discussion. Your post was

Inerrant vs infallable vs imutable

Interesting, I decided to check these words to ensure that they mean what I think they mean. They do, however I found one dictionary, reliability unknown, World English Dictionary that defines Inerrant as: less common word for infallable. Just sharing here. I think I will check the etymology to see if the meanings have changed significantly over time. My guess before I check, is probably not.

I'm just not making the connection and need your help showing me how they fit the discussion. I can make assumptions regarding what you might be trying to say, but I would rather not.

[Benjamin Burch]

I was going to write something similar, but you beat me to it... and said it better than I would have.

1. My first encounters with the Openness view of God and what led me to like that perspective had nothing to do with theodicy. It was the fact that the Open view seems to put Scripture above philosophy, instead of the other way around.

2. Process seems to put philosophy first and then try to make the theology & Scripture fit... and in my opinion, it doesn't manage to do so. But this is mainly based on the various process views of the trinity that I read about 15-20 years ago in seminary.

I hope to, soon, read Joseph Bracken's most recent contribution to the discussion - God: Three Who Are One

[Doug Ward]

Kyle, the problem with Open Theism is not that it is not traditional - the problem is that it is not Calvinistic. Most of the heat and fire from this discussion comes from within Calvinistic circles - just ask Rob Bell. I would hope and expect that most Nazarene pastors would have the same thought that you expressed - hey, I have been teaching this my whole ministerial life - Amen.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Kyle, the problem with Open Theism is not that it is not traditional - the problem is that it is not Calvinistic. Most of the heat and fire from this discussion comes from within Calvinistic circles - just ask Rob Bell. I would hope and expect that most Nazarene pastors would have the same thought that you expressed - hey, I have been teaching this my whole ministerial life - Amen.

At least in our doctrinal neck of the woods I think the problem is that people think it's about the nature of God when it's actually about the nature of time. I know that, from my point of view, if someone showed up at church on Wednesday night and told me that they thought God couldn't know some things I'd set out to correct them. However, if they showed up and told me that they don't think the future exists yet I'd nod my head and wonder why they think anyone thinks otherwise.

[Doug Ward]

At least in our doctrinal neck of the woods I think the problem is that people think it's about the nature of God when it's actually about the nature of time. I know that, from my point of view, if someone showed up at church on Wednesday night and told me that they thought God couldn't know some things I'd set out to correct them. However, if they showed up and told me that they don't think the future exists yet I'd nod my head and wonder why they think anyone thinks otherwise.

Scott, I think the nature of time is extremely important when we talk about the experience of death. Of course, in pop-theology, Aunt Margaret is looking down on us right now from heaven. We all smile at the funeral, but we have just fallen prey to a variety of problems from a Scriptural perspective. Simply put, how do we reconcile "to be absent the body is to be present with the Lord" with "then the dead in Christ will rise?"

While I wholeheartedly reject the idea that my Spirit will float away when I die, since we embrace a bodily resurrection, I also want to leave room for an immediate experience of eternity. I think our experience of time is the answer to this tension.

[Kyle Borger]

At least in our doctrinal neck of the woods I think the problem is that people think it's about the nature of God when it's actually about the nature of time. I know that, from my point of view, if someone showed up at church on Wednesday night and told me that they thought God couldn't know some things I'd set out to correct them. However, if they showed up and told me that they don't think the future exists yet I'd nod my head and wonder why they think anyone thinks otherwise.

That helps. I don't ever wish to imply that God is unable to do something or know something. But as I contemplate, read, & pray I just continues to make sense that God is active with me in a personal relationship right now. That within the context of that relationship God impresses upon me and I impress upon God. Somehow, someway, the Master of the Universe, the Almighty Creator, is different because I exist and is different because of all 7 billion of us and all of the billions of people before us. I see God moving and changing course with His children. I see a God who has reacted in anger. Why would He be angry if we were just some experiment he started and He has no relational attachment to us? I see a God who is pleased with us. How is that God experiences different things based on what we do if we do not impact God?

Why are so many people determined to see a rigid God that just made some rules that we have to follow? Why aren't more people willing to give up everything they have just for the smallest of opportunities to serve a God who loves us so much that He was willing to become one of us and suffer more than we have ever suffered?

[Craig Laughlin]

Kyle, the problem with Open Theism is not that it is not traditional - the problem is that it is not Calvinistic. Most of the heat and fire from this discussion comes from within Calvinistic circles - just ask Rob Bell. I would hope and expect that most Nazarene pastors would have the same thought that you expressed - hey, I have been teaching this my whole ministerial life - Amen.

I think this needs to be said a lot more. Awhile back I contacted Dr. Oord and asked for some direction in understanding the debate. He pointed me to a video that was very very good. I walked away saying "That is just updated and more thoroughly thought out Arminianism. What is the big deal?" - In fact I remember discussing a much more simplified version of this with Dr. AE Sanner in Sr. Theology at NNC. - The thought of someone accusing Dr. Sanner of being emergent... now that is funny.

I don't have a dog in this fight because I think scripture in light of Einstein teaches that God exist both inside and outside of time at the same time. (Sorry can't get away from time words) I also believe that I/we have no idea what that means. (yet - sorry more time words) It is all pure speculation to my mind. - Open Theism, given what we have to work with, seems to be the most logical of that speculation but like I said, I don't have a dog in the fight.

[Kevin Jackson]

I don't hold to open theism, but do agree with it's goals. It's an honest attempt to explain the problem of evil, to affirm the goodness of God, and to deal with the nature of time.

What troubles me about the open view is that by holding foreknowledge and free will as incompatible, it results in God being coercive when it comes to prophesy and other settled matters. On those issues open theism actually sounds Calvinistic. Take Judas' betrayal and Peter's denial for example. Jesus stated that Judas would betray him, and that Peter would deny him three times. Does that mean that Jesus coercively caused what Judas and Peter did? I hope not! But I don't see a way around this with the open view. But if Jesus simply had knowledge of the future, and Judas and Peter still made their own choices, then they are responsible for what they did.

I think that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future AND we still make free choices. God passively knowing the future makes it certain, but it doesn't make it caused by him. Just like God knows what I did yesterday, but I still made the choices, I think God knows what I will do tomorrow, but I still make the choices. Foreknowledge in and of itself is passive. It's possible for us to have certain knowledge of future events without having caused them. If that's the case with us, it can be with God too.

So the question to be asked is, does God's foreknowledge necessarily take away our free will? If it doesn't then the traditional view of God's foreknowledge is adequate. If it does, then open theism falls short on the theodicy issue whenever the future is settled.

[Charles W Christian]

I don't hold to open theism, but do agree with it's goals. It's an honest attempt to explain the problem of evil, to affirm the goodness of God, and to deal with the nature of time.

What troubles me about the open view is that by holding foreknowledge and free will as incompatible, it results in God being coercive when it comes to prophesy and other settled matters. On those issues open theism actually sounds Calvinistic. Take Judas' betrayal and Peter's denial for example. Jesus stated that Judas would betray him, and that Peter would deny him three times. Does that mean that Jesus coercively caused what Judas and Peter did? I hope not! But I don't see a way around this with the open view. But if Jesus simply had knowledge of the future, and Judas and Peter still made their own choices, then they are responsible for what they did.

I think that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future AND we still make free choices. God passively knowing the future makes it certain, but it doesn't make it caused by him. Just like God knows what I did yesterday, but I still made the choices, I think God knows what I will do tomorrow, but I still make the choices. Foreknowledge in and of itself is passive. It's possible for us to have certain knowledge of future events without having caused them. If that's the case with us, it can be with God too.

So the question to be asked is, does God's foreknowledge necessarily take away our free will? If it doesn't then the traditional view of God's foreknowledge is adequate. If it does, then open theism falls short on the theodicy issue whenever the future is settled.

Well, not quite, but I see your points here.

First, if you believe that God knows the future but does not cause it, then you are certainly within the camp of many Arminian/Wesleyans. However, you are expressing a degree of openness, too. You are saying that God gives us freedom, yet knows what we are going to choose. You are thus arguing that God does not cause the future, but the way God and time are related makes it possible for God to know something before our way of knowing, yet without causing it. In the view you express (which I have just described, I think, based upon what you said), there is a degree of Open Theism involved. The future is indeed "open" to some degree even in your view, but God knows it.

Many Open Theists see the future as open with God knowing every possibility or contingency that will happen. Either way, in BOTH of these views, God is not caught off guard in some way. In your view, God is not off guard because due to His special relationship to time, He knows what will happen exactly. In the other view, God is not caught off guard because in His infinite wisdom He is completely prepared for every possibility (even though He doesn't know the exact possibility that will occur, since He has granted freedom).

So, both are open views (even yours).

Thanks,
Charles

[Paul DeBaufer]

I don't hold to open theism, but do agree with it's goals. It's an honest attempt to explain the problem of evil, to affirm the goodness of God, and to deal with the nature of time.

What troubles me about the open view is that by holding foreknowledge and free will as incompatible, it results in God being coercive when it comes to prophesy and other settled matters. On those issues open theism actually sounds Calvinistic. Take Judas' betrayal and Peter's denial for example. Jesus stated that Judas would betray him, and that Peter would deny him three times. Does that mean that Jesus coercively caused what Judas and Peter did? I hope not! But I don't see a way around this with the open view. But if Jesus simply had knowledge of the future, and Judas and Peter still made their own choices, then they are responsible for what they did.

I think that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future AND we still make free choices. God passively knowing the future makes it certain, but it doesn't make it caused by him. Just like God knows what I did yesterday, but I still made the choices, I think God knows what I will do tomorrow, but I still make the choices. Foreknowledge in and of itself is passive. It's possible for us to have certain knowledge of future events without having caused them. If that's the case with us, it can be with God too.

So the question to be asked is, does God's foreknowledge necessarily take away our free will? If it doesn't then the traditional view of God's foreknowledge is adequate. If it does, then open theism falls short on the theodicy issue whenever the future is settled.

How about Jesus knew his disciples. In a discussion earlier in the thread Dan Henderson and I were talking about being observant and getting to know people and that we both beat the odds at predicting what certain people would do in a given situation. It isn't foreknowledge. So no, Jesus doesn't cause the act, yet he makes a rather well informed prediction. Although with Peter, maybe he planted a seed in his subconscious. I have a friend facing some criminal charges, I said this this and that are going to happen. This and that happened exactly as I said they would. Not foreknowledge, knowledge and experience with the same system and knowing my friend and his reaction to that system. If I can do it, certainly Jesus, who knows hearts, can.

[Paul DeBaufer]

So the question to be asked is, does God's foreknowledge necessarily take away our free will? If it doesn't then the traditional view of God's foreknowledge is adequate. If it does, then open theism falls short on the theodicy issue whenever the future is settled.

If it is known absolutely what I am going to do at a certain junction, then that decision has been made in advance. If I did not know that I was fated to do X at that junction and it is set in stone, then I have not made a choice, did not exercise my will, because I had no choice.

I really do not understand how you came to your conclusion concerning theodicy if God does not have foreknowledge and the future becomes the present. Would you please explain, show how you reach this conclusion?

[Dan Henderson]

How about Jesus knew his disciples. In a discussion earlier in the thread Dan Henderson and I were talking about being observant and getting to know people and that we both beat the odds at predicting what certain people would do in a given situation. It isn't foreknowledge. So no, Jesus doesn't cause the act, yet he makes a rather well informed prediction. Although with Peter, maybe he planted a seed in his subconscious. I have a friend facing some criminal charges, I said this this and that are going to happen. This and that happened exactly as I said they would. Not foreknowledge, knowledge and experience with the same system and knowing my friend and his reaction to that system. If I can do it, certainly Jesus, who knows hearts, can.

So, Paul, you certainly did not misquote or mis-represent me here. I want to commend you for accurately portrayiing our discussion. Even still, I think God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have the leg-up on me because they do have foreknowledge. I would like to move the conversation this way, What does the Bible say about it. I will admit up-front that I will use a version of the Wesleyan Quad: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. From my argument base, these are not co-equals in the quad. They are ranked in the order I listed them. So if Scripture speaks on the topic, the question is settled, if the topic is not clear, then how have those who have gone before dealt with the issue, then the Rule of Reason, and lastly my own experience. Now this is not the only way I use the quad. I might alternatively accpet Tradition, Reason, and Experience as Pillars with Scrpture as their over arching roof and base. I might even use this tool in other constructs, but in all my constructs, Scripture will have pre-eminence and all others must be in agreement with Scripture to have validity.

[Paul DeBaufer]

So, Paul, you certainly did not misquote or mis-represent me here. I want to commend you for accurately portrayiing our discussion. Even still, I think God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have the leg-up on me because they do have foreknowledge. I would like to move the conversation this way, What does the Bible say about it. I will admit up-front that I will use a version of the Wesleyan Quad: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. From my argument base, these are not co-equals in the quad. They are ranked in the order I listed them. So if Scripture speaks on the topic, the question is settled, if the topic is not clear, then how have those who have gone before dealt with the issue, then the Rule of Reason, and lastly my own experience. Now this is not the only way I use the quad. I might alternatively accpet Tradition, Reason, and Experience as Pillars with Scrpture as their over arching roof and base. I might even use this tool in other constructs, but in all my constructs, Scripture will have pre-eminence and all others must be in agreement with Scripture to have validity.

Why thank you Dan, I tried to get our little exchange right, would not want to misrepresent you, your words or your thoughts and beliefs, if I ever do it is unintentional. And I just may because sometimes I unintentionally misrepresent my own, or have had new information come in and changed my opinion since last stated.

I know that we are in the vast minority, but I kind of sympathize with a growing number of people who see Scripture as arising within tradition and not wholly separate from it. But this distinction is difficult to pin down. The creeds, e.g., Apostles, Nicene, etc., arise out of tradition but are not equal to the scriptures. So we are not far apart.

That said can you think of any scriptures that speak to God having exhaustive foreknowledge? I think of the three omni statements the only one that might be biblically addressed (directly) is omnipresent (Proverbs 15:3 "The eyes of God are everywhere," and 2 Chronicles 16:9 "the eyes of the Lord range throughout the entire earth," come to mind.)

[Dan Henderson]

Why thank you Dan, I tried to get our little exchange right, would not want to misrepresent you, your words or your thoughts and beliefs, if I ever do it is unintentional. And I just may because sometimes I unintentionally misrepresent my own, or have had new information come in and changed my opinion since last stated.

I know that we are in the vast minority, but I kind of sympathize with a growing number of people who see Scripture as arising within tradition and not wholly separate from it. But this distinction is difficult to pin down. The creeds, e.g., Apostles, Nicene, etc., arise out of tradition but are not equal to the scriptures. So we are not far apart.

That said can you think of any scriptures that speak to God having exhaustive foreknowledge? I think of the three omni statements the only one that might be biblically addressed (directly) is omnipresent (Proverbs 15:3 "The eyes of God are everywhere," and 2 Chronicles 16:9 "the eyes of the Lord range throughout the entire earth," come to mind.)

God's Response to Job comes to mind right off the bat. Job 37 ??

[Dan Henderson]

Oh and Heb 4:13 (why did I forget that one, our TBQ material this year)

[Dan Henderson]

I will get called out for being off topic again (but why should I be different from anyone else) but our Wed night Bible study, led by a Lutheran trained scholar, former Lutheran Pastor before he became Nazarene, is Covering Ephesians. Our teacher takes exception to the translation of the phrase in Eph 1:5, "adoption to sonship" He stated that this has been so ingrained since the Council of Nicea that it is difficult to shake. His premis is that this is more actuatly phrased "made a son" or literally birthed by God. The Jesus as "Son of God" describes his full humanity, not his Divinity (which he is also fully Divine). He gave John 1:12b as the more accurate comment "right to become children of God." I thought this was interesting, the concept of being adopted as Children of God, being inferior as a translation to "birthed as Children of God."

[Paul DeBaufer]

God's Response to Job comes to mind right off the bat. Job 37 ??

Read from 37-41 or 2 and saw nothing concerning omniscience.

I believe that God knows all things knowable. I also believe that God can do all things doable. Not everything we can conceive of doing is actually doable. "Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?" No. Or Yes. Or it's a stupid nonsensical question, an undoable conception.

Read the Hebrews passage, all that exists stands before God, nothing that exists is hidden from Him. The future, while existing as an idea, does not exist, IMHO.

[Dan Henderson]

Read from 37-41 or 2 and saw nothing concerning omniscience.

I believe that God knows all things knowable. I also believe that God can do all things doable. Not everything we can conceive of doing is actually doable. "Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?" No. Or Yes. Or it's a stupid nonsensical question, an undoable conception.

Read the Hebrews passage, all that exists stands before God, nothing that exists is hidden from Him. The future, while existing as an idea, does not exist, IMHO.

14 “Listen to this, Job;
stop and consider God’s wonders.
15 Do you know how God controls the clouds
and makes his lightning flash?
16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge?

23 The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power;
in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress.

I cannot debate your comment on the Heb portion because it it an opinion. Everybody has one. If you hold "ownership" of any opinion, then no debate is possible on that opinion

[Hans Deventer]

14 “Listen to this, Job;
stop and consider God’s wonders.
15 Do you know how God controls the clouds
and makes his lightning flash?
16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge?

23 The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power;
in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress.

Yes. That is we should always realise that our little theologies are exactly that: human words about One we cannnot fully comprehend. That's why to me, open theism is a theory. It is helpful to the extent that it explains some parts of Scripture and helps to align my thinking with the way God has revealed Himself. But I should always remember that it is a mere human description of God, we should not think it is anything more than that. And we do know at least one day it will be replaced by better knowledge, when we see Him face to face.

[Paul DeBaufer]

14 “Listen to this, Job;
stop and consider God’s wonders.
15 Do you know how God controls the clouds
and makes his lightning flash?
16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge?

23 The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power;
in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress.

I cannot debate your comment on the Heb portion because it it an opinion. Everybody has one. If you hold "ownership" of any opinion, then no debate is possible on that opinion

Yes, we all have opinions. Aren't our interpretations, doctrines, theologies all opinions? Maybe well researched, well studied and considered opinions, but opinions none the less. This isn't mathematics where we can add 2 + 2 and get 4 as a fact.

[Dan Henderson]

Yes, we all have opinions. Aren't our interpretations, doctrines, theologies all opinions? Maybe well researched, well studied and considered opinions, but opinions none the less. This isn't mathematics where we can add 2 + 2 and get 4 as a fact.

My point is that if you hold your opinion as personal, it becomes for you a Truth or a Principal. Once it is so engrained, it will not be changed by debate. My suggestion is to put our opinions on the table (don't "own" them or make them a part of your persona) and let them duke it out. The person is never under attack, the persons opinion is fair game. Any opinion that can be shredded, probably should be shredded.

[Paul DeBaufer]

My point is that if you hold your opinion as personal, it becomes for you a Truth or a Principal. Once it is so engrained, it will not be changed by debate. My suggestion is to put our opinions on the table (don't "own" them or make them a part of your persona) and let them duke it out. The person is never under attack, the persons opinion is fair game. Any opinion that can be shredded, probably should be shredded.

Yeah, my opinions reflect my current understanding. You are right ad hominems are never appropriate. I was a neo-atheist, scientist for a long, long time, yet changed religions: from neo-atheism (which is very neo-fundamentalist in nature) to Christian. I went kicking a screaming, but I was won over through a mystical experience. Reason prepared the way but was unable to get me to actual belief.