Is open theism heretical?
Brian Roden [11/06/2015 2:48 PM]
I’ve often seen Dr. Who as a type of commentary on the debate between absolute determinative foreknowledge and libertarian free will. Fixed points in time and all.
Ricky Grimsley [11/06/2015 2:49 PM]
Did god know what pharoah was going to do….yes because god put it in pharoah’s heart to do his will. God does what he wants. He foretells and makes it happen. Exodus 9:16 KJVS [16] And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.
Ricky Grimsley [11/06/2015 2:53 PM]
What it all boils down to is do you believe what the whole counsel of god says or do you take your preconceived ideas and put god in those boxes.
Roger David [11/06/2015 3:15 PM]
I believe Open Theism is poorly represented by some which can lead into heretical teachings. I also believe many, if not most of Christendom has never considered Open Theism or the questions it answers…or the new questions it creates. I myself have found this school of thought to be very interesting and have only recently begun to consider it more plausible. If I were a Calvinist I would call this heresy….as I am not I don’t see a huge problem with it. God causes some things to happen and as such knows that to be the future outcome. Other things are left open to our free will in which case Open Theism is not only entirely possible but likely.
I haven’t decided either way yet but it is not something I entirely cast out just yet. I’m still being a Berean.
Link Hudson [11/06/2015 3:16 PM]
I’m not expert, but my understanding is that Open Theism teaches that the future hasn’t all been ‘created’ yet, that it all hasn’t been mapped out in detail. Process theology is the idea that God is still learning and growing. People who believed in process theology tend to lean toward open theism. Some liberals like process theology. But one doesn’t have to believe in process theology to believe in open theism.
If someone’s morality doesn’t line up with the Old Testament, process theology may be an excuse for them to say that God’s morality has evolved over time, so they can try to make it conform with their modern western left-wing agenda.
Some Calvinists are heavily deterministic, thinking that God has every detail of the universe planned out, predetermined. There are clearly certain things that God planned out beforehand. But if child sacrifice to Baal of the Israelites ha not entere His mind, then how can we say He plannd out that detail? If He didn’t plan out that detail, how can we say that He planned out every detail?
I notice some of the philosophical apologetics for the existence pf God, including old earth creationist physics explanations say that God exists outside of time in eternity, and some versions of it seem to fit with Calvinistic deterministic thought.
its not to “make God more appealing”. its to legitimately address the scriptures of God learning, reacting, and the issues of God not being responsible for sin and tragedy of in fact he created man knowingnit would happen
Everyone who prays is to some degree and Open Theist.
lol no doubt
Not john piper. Lol
So Philip Williams are you openly confessing to be openly theistic or are you more of the relational theology inclination ?
What! God is a person and his children have a relationship with him through his Son, Jesus Christ. But though I personally knew the father of open theism, the process philosopher Charles Hartshorne, I have never been an open theist.
relational theology is a very close call IMO
Troy Day I don’t know what goes by that term in pop theology today. The importance isn’t what anyone thinks or not but whether biblical. If personal relationship is denied, it’s the furthest thing from every Pentecostal I have ever known deserving of the name.
not sure what pop theology is either and wasnt addressing it at all in this semi-serious discussion
I don’t see Philip Williams’ comment; but I have to say, it looks like your (1) demonizing open theism, and then (2) outing open theists
why dont you see Philip Williams’ comment Neil Short? He says he knows the father but does not agree with the theory
This article does not begin well by assuming something about open theist’s motives. I think their motives are not for appeal except in the fact that the classical model of God (as all foreknowing) is unbiblical and frequently devastating to Christian faith. When people try to draw nearer to God and they encounter contradictions, they don’t know what to believe and their love for God grows more distant and sometimes goes away altogether. The problem is that the God described in the Bible is different from (contradictory to) the classical assumptions of an essentially Calvinist god.
What article? – all I see is a discussion…
Quote: In an effort to make God more appealing to our society men like Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, and John Sanders have promoted a God who “does not know every detail about what will come to pass…[T]he future is, to some degree at least, open ended and God knows it as such.”[1]
That’s a little slanted.
oh this one is from The Dangers of Open Theism
by Tim Chaffey quoited from [1] Greg Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000) p. 8.
demonizing it – NO
calling it open heresy – YES
Neil Short “How many here are open theists? Before you raise your hands let me say with personal confidence that openness theology is heresy. Okay, now raise your hands.”
Oh man. I just wrote a carefully written comment by thumb-typing on my tablet. I accidentally brought up the ani-gifs and lost the whole text. I need to get some sleep; so it’s going to wait at least 6 hours.
give us the short version brief then
I came to open theism on my own – without reading any books. I just started noticing the disjunction (contradiction) between the Bible presentation of God and the classical Christian assumptions about God.
I was an Arminian (God is all-foreknowing but does not cause those events — particularly people’s future decisions); but I found this view to assume a lot outside the Bible. If classical Armnianism is true then prayer means nothing and God has no power to alter the course of history. The way the Bible presents God is as one who desires sincere chosen relationship. Thus, the biblical God would not coerce people’s choices and so compromise their choices to freely love God.
I came to this simple understanding in about 1982 which (I think) predates anything written about open theism. In around 2000, I was reading a book that was critical of Calvinism. The author took some time to criticize open theism and I realized that is what I believe. I looked up some of the authors and found that I agree with them.
There are several approaches to open theology. One approach is purely philosophical/theoretical. The other approach is strongly biblical. Different folks approach theology from a combination of the two. I am strongly on the side of the Bible. Philosophy is interesting; but not all that convincing to me.
thats like the Jesus only feller who said the Holy Spirit showed him the Jesus only teaching on his own
Neil Short what you may be overlooking is that it is Christ who appears in the OT passages. The Father appears in the OT only in Christ. It is he who knows all things, even the future. Else he would not be God.
IS A THEOPHANY then GOD OR NOT? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/is-a-theophany-god/
Troy Day by definition!
Philip Williams woah. Whose definition? Certainly not the Bible’s; so who’s? To say God must be this-or-that or he is not God is not good theology if that definition is invented.
Neil Short it’s not theology. It’s the definition of a word: theophany.
how is the poster posting during church times?
I am headed to Warsaw to speak to the Roman Catholic Church of Poland. They invited me and are paying my expenses.
https://www.facebook.com/events/587149661696394/?ti=ia
ask them why religia.TV is down
Troy Day maybe I’ll help em jump start it.
we helped them 10 yrs ago but still no go
Philip Williams Theophany? Interesting. You are the first person I have spoken with who actually defended a statement like, “If God does not have exhaustive definite foreknowledge then he is not God.” It is based on the definition of “theophany” (god appears). I do see theophany in the Bible; but I don’t see exhaustive definite foreknowledge in the Bible nor in the basic definition of theophany.
Neil Short God can wipe out the past, change the future. For him, time travel is a piece of cake.
Philip Williams Is that in the Bible?
Neil Short certainly is!
Where?
Isaiah 46:10?
“For nothing will be impossible with God.””
Luke 1:37
Philip Williams You believe that is a general metaphysical claim rather than something relating to Elizabeth’s pregnancy?
Matthew 18:18-19. Was Peter omnipotent? Are we?
Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.
Was Paul omnipotent?
Philippians 4:13
I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
Did John convert everyone in Judea?
Mark 1:5
And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.
Does God give everything to everyone?
Acts 17:25
nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
When you love some one, do you suddenly believe everything?
1 Corinthians 13:7
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Neil Short I don’t doubt his word. I have unbounded confidence in God’s goodness and power.
Philip Williams Me too.
Are open-theists going to hell? If so what can they do since God either… determined that they would be open-theists, or knew they would be open-theists and created them anyway. Seriously, though. How many would consider my position that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge a “damnable heresy”. Joe Absher Philip Williams
while keeping the main thing the main thing the problem with topics like this started in the group long ago by Ricky Grimsley is that 5000+ discussions later the Link still keeps popping up and ppl discuss it with great interest – but is it finally resolved?
Troy Day If God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge, how can he be God?
Did Old Testament saints or preAugustinuan believers all go to Hell? It seems likely that some of them were not determinists.
people go to hell because of unbelief in Jesus to give them eternal life. If someone believes this at the time of saving faith; but later gets into wrong theology, then they go to heaven, not hell.
RichardAnna Boyce do you think open theists progress unbelief in Jesus?
Troy Day Charles Hartshorne from whom Open Theists derive their arguments was a Panentheist but not a Christian.
But, as I pointed out to Hartshorne, pantheism, which derives from the operations of the physical world, cannot explain backward causation, an empirical truth. In a letter to me, Hartshorne conceded the problem.
Philip Williams there is not stronger evidence as to the fallacy of open theism than the fallacy of its author
It would be good if we acknowledge the Son as God’s agent and presence in the Creation and all throughout the Scriptures. The Son is the Creator of Divine Time and acts within Divine Time just as we see the Lord doing all throughout Scripture. The Son does not have exhaustive foreknowledge, but the Father who lives outside Divine Time as well as inside Divine Time, does.
Thus, we see the Son learning about his own Creation all throughout Scripture. He is doing what pleases his Father, who is God Almighty and a God whose nature is love.
Can’t have Christ as “savior“ and not “Lord”. He is both. Open theism denies this.
We must acknowledge that the Father lives outside of Divine Time, a Creation of his Son, and for sure outside of the physical time in which our bodies live. Otherwise, Time is God rather than a personal God.
ive not heard of open theists before. Faith is the persuasion or conviction that something is true. In Acts
17:4 Luke tells us concerning Jews at the synagogue in Thessalonica,
“And some of them were persuaded.” Then in the next verse he reports,
“But the Jews who were not persuaded…attacked the house of Jason…”
A few verses later Luke reports on the response of Jews at the synagogue
in Berea: “Therefore many of them believed…” (v 12). Clearly the persuasion of vv 4-5 is synonymous with the belief of v 12. Faith is persuasion of the truth of a fact or proposition, in this case, that Jesus is the
Messiah who guarantees everlasting life to all who believe in Him.
RichardAnna Boyce correct. You don’t know this subject that has been discussed among theologians for more than 50 years. Why am I not surprised that you don’t hesitate to opine on a subject about which you have never heard?
i was commenting on the OP. I believe that if someone starts off, or learns, the right faith; but later beliefs a wrong faith (open theism) , then that believer goes to heaven not hell.
so my comments are on when and why we want to send someone to hell.
RichardAnna Boyce are you a universalist?
Philip Williams of course not. Only those who believe (at a one time event) in Jesus as their personal Saviour (receive eternal life.
RichardAnna Boyce so you disagree with Jesus, the Apostles, and the book of Hebrews concerning the reality of apostasy. It makes sense that a know-it-all like you would suppose that you know more than all of them.
But why is a Baptist in a Pentecostal forum?
Another view, one I am comfortable with, is that a person can grow
in faith by increasing the number of biblical propositions which he or she believes. It is not that a person can have more or less faith in any single proposition. It is that a person can come to be convinced of additional truths found in Scripture.
that a person can grow is irrelevant as to the all knowingness of GOD himself – our knowledge does not change Him
Troy Day why inject a know-it-all like RichardAnna Boyce into this conversation when he knows nothing at all about this topic? The question is for you Troy Day.
Troy Day not grow in knowing but grow in believing
If “known to God from eternity are all His works” does not convince you that God has “exhaustive foreknowledge”, what would?
He is, after all, a counter puncher.
Alright, bucko. Get ready for a ride.
Essentially, my personal position is that of Open Theism. To ask yourself if it is a “damnable heresy”, you must first ask yourself what is orthodoxy? What constitutes heresy?
I, as an Anglican, find my “essentials” theology within the Nicene-Constantinople creed. Open theism does not fall outside of the bounds of the Nicene creed, and therefore would not be considered heresy in any sense of the word.
Now, it may be outside of the traditional view of God’s foreknowledge and Providence, but that would only make it a heterodox view of God.
I can argue scripture, philosophy, and theology all day long on this topic.
So you think that God is himself subject to Time?
Philip Williams
No, I think God created time in such a way that he can’t know the future.
Time and eternity, at this point, coexist without surpassing one another temporally, therefore, God cannot be subject to the future because the future does not exist.
What does not exist cannot by nature be known.
Tyler Lee Price
And so thought Charles Hartshorne, the father of Open Theism, which he called Process Theology.
I pointed out to him that the wavelength of the photon emitted by an electron is determined by its final state. It’s future state is impacting the present world.
So we deny of God even knowledge existing in the material world?
Philip Williams
That’s a logical fallacy. The final state of something that has not reached its final state cannot affect the present world.
I think the future doesn’t exist and therefore cannot be known by God.
I think prophecy is general in some ways. A lot of OT prophecy is based on contingency. “I will destroy your city if you do not do X”. Moses pleaded with God and changed God’s mind multiple times. God’s wrath was curbed a few times.
I think that prophecy is based on general things. For instance, God may not know WHEN something will happen, but he might know under what conditions he will bring something about.
Tyler Lee Price
Not a logical fallacy but an empirical fact. Quantum physics upon whose principles are used in constructing that device you are using depends on this fact.
Unless you wish to twist the facts to conform to your dogma. Any third-rate mind can do something like that.
So you deny God’s sovereignty? I don’t refer to a God determining everything, but definitely one who knows everything concerning his own plans and family.
Philip Williams
I think God knows his own plans and his plans concerning his family, but I think he only knows in contingencies or “counterfactuals”
Essentially, my personal belief is a mixture of middle knowledge and open theism.
Tyler Lee Price
God the Father? Or God the Son?
Philip Williams yes
Tyler Lee Price
Which does/ doesn’t know what?
Philip Williams
God the Father does not know the future but can see the future in counterfactuals. God the Son is limited to the present in terms of foreknowledge.
Tyler Lee Price
Oh my! So we can’t rely on those prophecies inspired by the Spirit of Christ in the prophets.
A God who lacks omniscience. Not as big a God as I thought.
I think half the “prophecies” offered in Charismatic circles are a little on the fleshly side, so I don’t think that most of them are reliable. There are /some/ but I don’t think it’s as common as Charismatics/Pentecostals say it is.
He’s still omniscient, I’m just saying that he can’t know what can’t be known because of the nature of that which is unknowable.
Philip Williams, APOSTASY
1 Tim 1:19-20 ‘having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, 20 of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.’
They had faith and good consciences, but both lost their faith, rejected and shipwrecked.
They had been regenerated, shown evidence of faith and conscience, but blasphemed, and needed to be taught (gr paideuo) as regenerates in 1 Cor 11:32; Titus 2:12-13; Heb 12:5-6.
The only other Christian handed over to Satan was 1 Cor 5:1-5 so he’ll stay saved eternally.
They are all carnal Christians who have denied their faith, and lost rewards at the Judgement Seat of Christ , but their spirit is eternally saved.
2 Tim 2:17-19 ‘And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of Christ[a] depart from iniquity.”
The same Hymenaeus had destroyed others faith.
‘The Lord knows who are His’ refers to Num 16:5 means God knows who are His leaders are, not God knows who are regenerate Christians. God knows H and A are appointed regenerate leaders who have committed apostasy against His appointed leader Paul.
Apostasy in Hebrews 10:38-39 ‘Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back,
My soul has no pleasure in him.”
39 But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.
‘Preserving of the soul’ means maintain physical life, never going to heaven when you die.
Heb 10:26-38 refers to a Carnal Christian ‘righteous one’ (having the righteousness of Christ) ruining his physical life and if he loses his faith then God will be angry with him at the Judgement Seat of Christ, taking his rewards away and not being co-heir with Christ, but going to heaven as a child of God.
Apostasy in Galatians 6:12 ‘As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.’
They had severed himself from Christ (5:2) fallen from grace (5:4) and were liable for judgement by forfeiting their share of rewards in the coming kingdom (5:10).
2 John 8. ‘Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.’
Apostasy in the Last Days in 1 Tim 4:1-3 ‘Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.’
They are regenerate Christians who are contrasted with liars with a seared conscience (V2), the latter non Christians leading these believers away into apostasy.
Denial of the Faith of Christians in 1 Tim 5:8, and apostasy of widows who turn away from the Christian life in 1 Tim 5:14-15
1 Tim 6:21 Timothy, a Christian, is being warned against the possibility of apostasy.
Apostasy of Demas and others.
Philemon 24 Demas was a fellow worker with Paul and Luke in Col 4:14 but deserted the imprisoned Paul and ‘loved this present world’ (2 Tim 4:10)
2 Tim 2:24-26 refers to those in opposition needing to repent ‘leading to knowledge of the truth’ and parallel usage in Tit 1:1 refers to the knowledge of Christians to lead Godly lives.
1 Tim 3:7 parallel passage about being ensnared by the devil clearly refers to believers.
2 Tim 2:24-28 Regenerate believers have fallen from the faith and are opponents of Paul.
The Free Grace partner’s belief is that the combined weight of the warning passages,
the passages illustrating the fact of the carnal Christian,
and the specific biblical illustrations of apostasy,
firmly establish the possible existence of the permanently carnal Christian
who is living a lifestyle of sin or has lost his faith.
After careful examination of the biblical data, the only reason for believing this is not true, that carnal Christians can’t exist, is ‘my denomination believes something different.’
Scripture doesn’t prove that those who believe will keep their faith to the final hour.
Scripture guarantees that God’s faithfulness is independent of man’s faith.
‘If we are faithless, God will remain faithful.’
The sense of moral revulsion that God would allow a sinning Christian to enter heaven, betrays a lack of appreciation of grace in our lives, and the motive behind Lordship Salvation exegesis.
RichardAnna Boyce
I don’t intend to read your reactive boilerplate. If Troy Day wishes to allow you to do that so as to drive people from his forum, he has a right to do that. But unless you can make your point in the few words of someone who has a grasp of the issues, I will not be reading your blab.
Philip Williams what is APOSTASY?
Troy Day rebelling against Jesus by those who have known him.
Philip Williams Jews or open theists?
unbelieving Jews definitely in rebellion. Also many Pentecostal preachers.
I’m afraid some will pull back from their faith just from the confusion generated by these contentious remarks!! I know this site is just for biblical “experts” and I don’t belong. So don’t bother attacking my ignorance, I’m out!!
A really ridiculous meme.
I may have to agree with that
that’s the way they were heading…and Scripture doesn’t say GOD said that; it says Jonah (the one with the bad attitude) said it.
People who believe God has exhaustive foreknowledge but still believe in free-will just haven’t thought it through yet.
Ricky Grimsley I discussed this more than 40 years ago with the creator of open theism. I see no problem with freewill and exhaustive foreknowledge. God the Father exists above and beyond any kind of Time, all part of his own creation.
Philip Williams You see no problem with it because you are still stuck in the delusion. “Oh I’m sorry little girl that you were born to the pedophile…….I knew that was gonna happen before I created the world but I did nothing to change it and it was impossible to change from the moment o decided to create”
Oh wait. There can’t be a moment before God decided to create#iwin
Ricky Grimsley
You are equating your tiny, tiny little mind with the Creator of Heaven and earth. If ever a better example of arrogance, I cannot imagine.
Philip Williams it’s not arrogance. It’s just common sense. Even my tiny mind can let the Bible say what it says. Your too bound by tradition to even refute it with scripture
Ricky Grimsley
“Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.””
Luke 18:27
Ricky Grimsley
Has anyone ever held a too great view of God?
Ricky Grimsley
How did God foreknow?
“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.” Romans 8:29
How did he predestine us before the beginning of time?
“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—”
Ephesians 1:4-5
Philip Williams it means all logical things are possible with god. Not everything is possible with god though. Hebrews 6:18 KJVS
[18] That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
https://tbibl.es/8uot
Philip Williams the great view is the true view
Philip Williams this also implies though that there are though that he does not foreknow. Because “those god foreknew”
Ricky Grimsley
What is illogical about God transcending Time?
Ricky Grimsley the reasoning that you use pertains to classical mechanical thought. But it’s also inadequate for the physical world, as in the case of backward causation. How much less God’s ways and world! Your little view of God is manifestly not a great view.
“this also implies though that there are though that he does not foreknow. Because “those god foreknew”
Scratch head. ?
Choose this day ( we choose ) that does Not stop God’s ability to provide A Spotless Lamb one that He Knew we would need from the foundations of the world ..
His ways are so much higher!
Revelation 13:8 “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
The Father and The Son being one even so The Son has no knowledge of the the day or the hour , this does not mean that ability to know the future doesn’t exist , God may choose to for example ” throw our sins into The Sea Of Forgetfulness” …. God is also All Powerful Omnipotent… He has no limits . We are the ones with limits not Him.
Ricky Grimsley ” All Things ” not everything …. All things are possible .
Matthew 19:26
“Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
I dont see how neither of you could be right
Philip Williams because that concept is irrelevant. The future doesn’t exist so he doesn’t step outside time and look at it. The past already happened so he can’t change that.
Philip Williams I meant the fact that there are those he foreknew implies that there are those he didn’t foreknow
Ricky Grimsley He who is both beginning and the end most certainly exists,
Ricky Grimsley Many years ago I wrote to Hartshorne, father of your dogma, God isn’t interested in unclean garbage dumps, lottery results, or the details of evil doing, But he does know everything about which he cares. If he knows some things and some not yet born, he certainly knows the future.
Our God is omniscient , Alpha and Omega , The Beginning And The End !
I don think much
“I don think much”
So, I have noticed.
Philip Williams isnt that precisely the thing with open theism?
We are pray
the truth is out there Ricky Grimsley may know it
I am an open theist
Chukwu Amarachi Marcus congratulations to you sir.
How unfortunate, I hope and pray you repent of believing in such a false theology.
Yes, so they would repent.
Johnathon Morris the question of the OP simple. Did God lie
Arthur Adam Haglund well not intended that
Arthur Adam Haglund false question
Johnathon Morris No, it is not.
If you agree with the OP, then you believe that God lied. Well unless you give a deeper explanation.
But since Open Theism claims that God does not know, CAN NOT KNOW, the free will choices of any creature, Then God’s absolute declarations about future things are only hunches, guesses and so on.
Johan did not want to give the proclamation against Ninevah, as is stated, because he knew that God is a forgiving God and that he would forgive and relent if Ninevah repented, turning from their sin.
Jeremiah 18:1-10 covers this, as does Ezekiel, chapters 18 and 33.
the Open theist cannot have his cake and eat it too.
He cannot have God cannot know, and God making absolute declarations, prophetic words of truth about the free will of any man or nation.
Arthur Adam Haglund incorrect, it is impossible for God to lie. It is a false question because you seek to question God, whom you also claim doesn’t exist. So which is it? A fool would only question something he doesn’t believe in, and a fool says within his heart, “there is no God.” Does a loving parent not warn us so that we may turn to Him? Only a fool would question and test God, whom promises His wrath abides on you for your sin against Him. God is not mocked, He will have the final say. Go to Him through Jesus for mercy and grace, or receive judgement for your iniquities. Whatever you choose, there will be consequences for your actions and questioning of foolishness.
Johnathon Morris I agree that God cannot lie. That fact does not change another fact, that being that Open Theism calls God a liar by claiming two polar and mutually exclusive opposites at the same time.
Perhaps an example is in order.
God proclaims that one army will attack. Since he does not know the decisions (IN Open Theism), such a prophecy could be a lie, since he is declaring something he is not controlling, actively bringing to pass. Thus, the other army may very well NOT attack.
Open Theism states these two things:
1. God knows everything, exhaustively, all the things he controls.
2. Since man has free will and is not controlled by God, Goda cannot know the future actions, thoughts of mankind
The error lies in one or both of those. It is axiomatic that God knows what he will do and since he does it, it is under his control.
With that being said, the error must fall under the second claim, and here there are two possibilities, God does control mankind and there is no free will or that there is free will, God not controlling mankind, yet God still knows what men will do.
You wrote, “It is a false question because you seek to question God, whom you also claim doesn’t exist.”
Unless I made a typo, had a palm check on my touchpad (or otherwise had my cursor placed in a wrong place and typed without noticing it), you cannot find that I have claimed that God does not exist. I suppose that it is possible that my brain got adled and I wrot the word not when I did not intend to, which would make your claim technically true, but true due my error.
I affirm there is A god, that such god is THE God of the Bible.
Arthur Adam Haglund incorrect. God forbid having any personal interpretation on His Word. Unless you are saved by Jesus Christ, you will be blind to the truth because of you sin. Does the pot question the potter or the potter’s will? Clearly not. Trust in Christ. Reas His Word how He says His Will is done.
Johnathon Morris, “Unless you are saved by Jesus Christ, you will be blind to the truth because of you sin”
Unbiblical
“Does the pot question the potter or the potter’s will? Clearly not.”
This shows a lack of understanding on your part, I am guessing that you hold to Calvinism.
Do you, better asked, CAN you, and if you can, WILL you explain YOUR thinking, YOUR understanding of WHY that section is in Romans9 and what it really means.
Arthur Adam Haglund no I am not a calvinist, I am a biblical Christian. Go back and read the book of Roman’s. God made Himself known to you, even the nature of the Godhead that you have no excuse. God gave you up to your sin. All those that deny Him do so because of unrighteousness. Will will not enter heaven until you are saved by Jesus Christ. You are blind to the truth until you are saved. Jesus Christ is the truth. You may not pick and choose what to believe in scripture. It is not merely literature. It is the Word of God, and it doesn’t change according to our feelings and beliefs, but it is the standard of which we ought to believe. We must trust in Christ to be saved. The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. The only way to the father is through Christ.
Johnathon Morris “Does the pot question the potter or the potter’s will? Clearly not.”
This shows a lack of understanding on your part, I am guessing that you hold to Calvinism.
Do you, better asked, CAN you, and if you can, WILL you explain YOUR thinking, YOUR understanding of WHY that section is in Romans9 and what it really means.
“I am not a calvinist, I am a biblical Christian.”+Calvinistic interpretation= Calvinist.
Arthur Adam Haglund that shalt not question the LORD YOUR GOD.
Incorrect. My standard of truth is the Bible.
Do you know what section of scripture Paul refers to when he speaks of the Potter and the Clay?
Irrelevant. The Bible changes not for any person. Nor is God a respecter of persons. We must trust in Christ to get to heaven. Unless we are saved we will perish. We are blind in our sin until we put our trust in Christ.
Johnathon Morris You just aid that the passage that Paul cites is irrelevant.
Sorry, but you just showed a sinful, yes, SIN, in your practice of biblical study and teaching!
You just said that the example given, to help them understand, has zero importance to the message he used the example to illustrate.
Well, it is of the utmost importance and without understanding his reference, you cannot understand his current teaching.
I will now instruct you.
Jeremiah is the section of reference. And the reason that they cannot complain against the potter is because they put themselves in the position to be formed as they are and, thus, rightly receive the consequences.
The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, “Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.”
Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter?” Saith the LORD, “Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it? If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it? If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.”
There two unmentioned pots as well. But they do not need to be mentioned for they did not have marred clay. they neither repented of Evil nor good.
So, In Romans 9, when Paul says to them that they will say, “How can God find fault in us, HE MADE US THIS WAY!”, Paul is rebuking such a thought. The Potter was not forming their actions, but the end consequence of their actions. Paul is telling them that God had NOTHING to do with what they did, but DOES bring righteous punishment!
ANY OTHER reading, especially one that pretends that this teaches that God causes them to commit their sin (potter forming clay) and then judging them for HIS doings is Satanic doctrine!
Arthur Adam Haglund incorrect.
Not only am I NOT incorrect, YOU cannot show error in it!
Go to the Old Testament and search for every occurance of the word, POTTER. No other passage CAN possibly be the reference of Paul, and God, himself, gives the teaching. So, you are saying that GOD IS WRONG!
Which is typical for the Verse Theology of the Calvinist, which you are.
Sure I can. The pot cannot question the potter. Go to any pot and watch them mold the pot to there will, and you will never see the pot question the potter. But when the pot moves against the potter, the potter corrects the pot, or starts afresh. If the clay is not yet ready for the potter to mold, it is rejected, and yet when the clay is ready the potter molds the clay to the pot of His desire.
I have already testified that all scripture is true, I also testify that it is the standard of truth. As the pot does not question the potter, we shall not test the Lord our God. Look to job.
My memorizing certain verses does not change the nature and characteristics of truth, nor is God’s nature or characteristics changed. No man goes to the Father but through Jesus Christ. Is is by faith in Jesus Christ that we are saved not by our works lest any man should boast.
Johnathon Morris IF the pot could not, the question of condemning the pot doing it cannot exist.
The mar in the clay, and GOD HIMSELF EXPLAINS HIMSELF is repentance of the nation. The Clay is NOT cooperating with being formed unto either destruction or blessing, this is reformed according to its current national manner, either righteousness or sinfulness.
WHO ARE YOU; O MAN is not saying there is no abulity to question God, but that doing so is wrong, for it accuses God of unrighteousness, when God is righteously making the Pot according to the characteristic of the clay. Notice that God does not fit a sinful nation for blessing, nor a righteous nation for destruction.
You cannot claim truthfully that I am a calvinist, because I do not testify calvinism. I testify that Jesus Christ Alone is the Lord, not John Calvin. Any who lean to the left or right, to armenianism or calvinism do error in their desire of doctrines of men. God is indeed sovereign, and yet in His sovereignty we have freewill, but our freewill does not change the justice of God, or His nature, but it is in His nature to give us mercy and grace, only by His means and not our desires. That is through Jesus Christ alone, and not our works. No man is free to fly like a bird by flapping his arms, nor is any man free to be God Himself, and yet we are free to love each other as ourselves as God commanded, free to obey and disobey His commandments, and free to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. Though we have this limited freedom, we are not free of the consequences of our sin. And so we must choose to trust wholly unto Christ, or reject Him, of which both have detrimental consequences.
Arthur Adam Haglund incorrect again. If we live in sin we are condemned already, but we only receive forgiveness of sins if we live in Christ.
“The pot cannot question the potter. Go to any pot and watch them mold the pot to there will, and you will never see the pot question the potter. But when the pot moves against the potter, the potter corrects the pot, or starts afresh. If the clay is not yet ready for the potter to mold, it is rejected, and yet when the clay is ready the potter molds the clay to the pot of His desire.”
Fully contrary to scripture and you cannot quote scripture and show parallel of rightly divided scripture to support this!
Gods Word is the standard of truth. What I say when my statements are true does not contradict scripture, because scripture itself is my standard. You cannot get to heaven by your good works. There is none good but God. Until you put you trust in Christ you will not receive the truth, though you know the truth, if your trusting in your works to save you, the truth will escape you as your conscience bares witness to your sins.
Doesn’t open Theology destroy God’s. Pure foreknowledge???
There are contingent proclamations….
what do you mean by that?
Troy Day God eventually did judge Ninevah ?
Bob McKay oh OK you are commenting on the thumb but did not read the actual article No problem there
God knows what he want to do, what you are thinking , what you thought. God doesn’t know before hand those things. God knew it as you are thinking of it. That is why he was recorded as one who regretted in Genesis 6
Chukwu Amarachi Marcus WRONG
I’d say it is now Isara Mo Steve Losee
I’m having a hard time keeping up with the labels. I’m a Biblical Inerrantist. If Scripture teaches it, it’s so. I believe God means what He says when He says it, even when He knows things will change in such a way to cause a change in His actions to remain consistent with His character.
Steve Losee you may be open theist then
I’ve been called worse.
Steve Losee its not a calling but a question Just clarifying with a question in order to provide an answer
Isaiah 46:10 NLT
“Only I can tell you the future before it even happens. Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish.”
Open theism is of satan. That is all.
some BIBLE to support such claim pls?
Open Theism has a non-transcendent God just like the pagan gods. Of course it’s heretical.
I am not sure how do you see this as it applies in the case of free grace preached by RichardAnna Boyce
Yes. God is proactive, not reactive. Try to surprise God and tell me if you think it worked.
was God surprised by what you just said?
Troy Day never is
Why do we need to make God more appealing to our society? We should make our society appeal to God for mercy.
do you feel open theism does all that ?
It’s so funny seeing talk of DYNAMIC nature of God’s will, and the PANDERING to human whim. The old reformers knew best. We’re in a desperate sinful state and unless we turn to God the dynamism gets real hot. Better just to present the gospel, plain and simple.
Karl Ernst Von Buddenbrock what about relational theology ?
Another new hip and happening term. Here’s the relation. We sin and are deserving of God’s wrath. We throw ourselves on His mercy. He forgives us. We live in the fading kingdom and look forward to the advancing one.
Reprehensible theology.
Philip Williams I suspect open theism is about as dangerous and heretical as free grace by RichardAnna Boyce
Thall shalt NOT test the Lord your God! Go back and read about Job.
Johnathon Morris I am NOT wrong, and not wrong, again. You are jeaving Romans 9 and the refernce OF Romans 9 to wrongfully inject portions of scripture that are neither of those contexts.
Paul speaks
Paul makes a reference while speaking.
You cannot know his meaning without the reference
You avoid the reference and go elsewhere.
This is dishonest study.
Johnathon Morris Again, not touching the passage of Romans, nor the reference IN romans, thus dishonest.
Johnathon Morris Scripture is not your standard. your Calvinistic interpretation which you learned outside ot the Bible and not from pure Bible study, is your standard.
Arthur Adam Haglund incorrect.
Johnathon Morris See, taht is not how iit works. You have not shown that Paul does not refer to Jeremiah 18, but to another passage.
You have only said, incorrect
You have not countered the point that when reference is made, it has the purpose of exposition and expounding what is being said and this causes the need to understand the reference..
Saying and repeating, “Incorrect” only shows that you cannot do those things I just listed. Your ineptitude and impotence lead you to simple contradiction without basis.
Arthur Adam Haglund if my words are not true, then why do you seek to disobey God by striving against me? But if my words are true when what do you have against me? Calvinism and Armenianism are both heresies alike. God’s Word speaks of freewill and God’s Sovereignty. Scripture is clear and is the standard of truth, morality, and behavior. Any deviation to the left or right is sin. The only acceptable interpretation of scripture is it’s own interpretation. The word I speak are made manifest from scripture, though my words are imperfect, it does not take away from the perfection of scripture. Therefore seek to be corrected by scripture and not doctrines of men, nor desire to please men, or yourself by agreeing to doctrines of men or anything, but agree in the Holy Spirit. God made Himself known to everyone that He exists, that they are without excuse for the sin against the God they know exist. They don’t deny Him because they don’t believe in Him, but they come up with excuses and lies that will permit them from sin. God does not force them away from sin, but He gives then up to their desires, that they be blind to there sin.
Arthur Adam Haglund didnt even see it, you’ve ignored the truth and didnt even know it. Anything that is contrary to the truth is incorrect and everything that is false must be claimed so. If I were to say otherwise I myself would be lying, but I dare not say scripture is a lie and what I say comports and agrees with scripture. Read your Bible and see. Instead of fitting his Word to our prebeliefs, all of our beliefs must be changed to His Word. Assumptions, beliefs, feelings, thoughts, are not truth, but truth is God’s Word.
Arthur Adam Haglund you do not get to decide what is true or false, truth comports to the standard of truth, scripture. I don’t have to give verses for my statements to be true, nor am I obligated to repeat verses to you, but we are to show OURSELVES approved unto the Lord. We are to workout OUR OWN salvation before the Lord. His Word is good for reproof, edification, and correction. He didnt day for some things or things we choose, it is meant to be without exception. God did not give exception to this rule. So go and be corrected by all scripture. Including proverbs, Roman’s, and 2 john.
Johnathon Morris Sorry, If you are wrong, striving against YOU as you say is a sin?
LMBO
And, the totality of your comments can be summed up in this.
“I have my view, you are entitled to it and if you reject it, which happens to be the Calvinistic view that I hold, you are against God. By the Way, I will not address anything you say, because I do not have to. You just must accept that you are wrong and believe me.”
Not your words, but it is your message and stance.
So, once again, you refuse to deal with the Potter and God’s explaining his messge to the prophet who recorded it. Since you do so, your view of Romans 9 is null and void.
One cannot reject the message then proclaim its meaning, which is your method.
Arthur Adam Haglund that is not correct. You make a claim of me without evidence and without a witness. I am not a calvinist, I even proclaim it to be heresy, you don’t have to agree, but you have no basis to say your statement is true, especially because it isnt.
Johnathon Morris Well, stop holding to it.
Arthur Adam Haglund you have made a false assumption. Your assuming I am holding on to calvinism falsely. If you seek to argue against calvinism I will agree with you, but you judgement of my appearance is sin. I am not a calvinist. Perhaps it would be wise to judge righteously, than to judge by appearance, even according to your false assumptions. Even so you are not permitted to hate calvinist but are commanded to preach the gospel to them also out of love and kindness. And you have not done that here.
OK, done with this and you.
You refuse to engage with the text and the reference, So, error away. I am disinterested in your subeterfuge
I am rebuking you for pretending thatyou can read my heart. god reserves this power for himself. Here is a news flash, you are not God.
You are not the standard of which I ought to agree, God’s Word is.
God says in His Word what is in our hearts, our hearts are deceitfully wicked, who can know it?
WELL now none of this really makes any good theological sense What does it ALL mean to us?
Let’s see: heretical against whose theology? Self appointed critic of believers? Ok, but one person’s question here. I believe in God in the Blessed Trinity, no heresy. Lots of statements doubting, ok. Statements are ALL they are.
BOTTOM LINE on this one Philip Williams It is now shown to be true that OPEN theism of God who dont know ALL and free grace as preached by RichardAnna Boyce come from the same heretical school of frontology and as such should be considered BOTH heretical #noughSaid http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/is-joseph-prince-free-grace/
These “free grace” preachers are the Nicolatians of our day. They use the grace of God as a license to sin.
There are free grace preachers who preach against sin.
Please give us a name of a free grace preacher who uses it as a license to sin and tell us what his sins are. If you make a claim you should be able to back it up.
Chris Westerman Joseph Prince and RichardAnna Boyce
Philip Williams What sins does Joseph Prince commit with his license?
Chris Westerman I refer to his teachings.
Philip Williams You said he uses his preaching of free grace as a license to sin. What sins is he commiting? I think it would be wise just to say you disagree with his teaching on grace and not say he uses free grace as a license to commit sin.
Chris Westerman Does Joseph Prince teach the need for repentance?
Philip Williams this is the key difference – Calvin also cares little about repentance RichardAnna Boyce has rejected repentance as being unBiblical though it’s in MY Bible
Troy Day without repentance we have the grace of God being used as a license to sin.
Philip Williams they are all fathered by the same father
The error of open theism is they don’t recognize that it is Jesus, Israel’s Heavenly Messiah who lives in God the Father, who is making these decisions such as the Flood Nineveh, Sodom, and Nineveh which the Open Theists claim shows that God doesn’t transcend time. The Father in whom the Christ lives, does transcend time and knows the everything about the future as well as the past. Through him, Christ will bring all Creation under subjection to the Father so God can be all in all.