1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Open View of God

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by keith, Oct 13, 2001.

  1. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Chris,

    Since you profess to know eveything that is a "damnable heresy" and have therefore already judged that those who believe these things are on their way to hell, how can I or anyone else whom you have thus "convicted" have any meaningful discourse with you?
     
  2. John Wells

    John Wells New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Keith- this does not explicitly say He knows all the future exhaustively. It can be interpreted to say He knows all that is available to be known)
    Your god has limited knowledge of the future. My God is the God of hundreds of prophesies that have come true. He’s batting 1000! Are future events “available to be known?”

    I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it. – Isaiah 45:11b

    Another example that flies in the face of your god:

    Psalm 139:1-6 (NASB95)
    O LORD, You have searched me and known me.
    You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thought from afar.
    You scrutinize my path and my lying down, And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
    Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.
    You have enclosed me behind and before
    , And laid Your hand upon me.
    Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it.

    Job 23:10 (NIV)
    But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.

    Keith said, “All of them (except myself) are self described Fundamentalists and Baptists.”

    Are you aware of the rules of this board, Keith? If you are not a Baptist then you are breaking rules that you agreed to when you registered.
     
  3. John Wells

    John Wells New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michael the cheap shot artist! Anything intelligent to add? :( :( :(
     
  4. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    John,

    Keith is a Baptist; I know him from another board. Just because he wasn't cut from the same cookie-cutter that made you and Temple doesn't mean he's not Baptist.

    I, a cheap shot artist? I've never accused a Christian brother of holding to a damnable heresy.

    I don't want to add anything TOO intelligent; it might just go over the heads of some here--not mentioning any names.
     
  5. John Wells

    John Wells New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't think so!

    Based on Keith's wording, it was a ligimate question to ask. Thank you for minding his business.

    [ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: John Wells ]

    [ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: John Wells ]
     
  6. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for minding mine.
     
  7. keith

    keith New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2001
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
    [QB][/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Chris

    Let me tell you that I have not come to believe in the OV through any presuppositions. I fought the thought very hard for quite some time because it wasn't what I was brought up believing. I came to it by recognizing that the Bible (most clearly in the Torah) does not demand belief in exhaustive foreknowledge. In fact it seems to deny it at several places. For instance, when Abraham was sacraficing Isaac and God stopped him, God said "and now I know that you trust me...". This implies quite clearly that He didn't know what Abraham would do. This is the natural intepretation.

    I hope by now you have looked at the biblical evidence link I posted. There is a lot more evidence (some counter evidence I will adfmit like Romans 9). You still haven't shown what Romans 1 has to do with the OV. You appeared to use it to call down God's wrath on me. Believe me, I have considered the "whole counsel of God" in changing my previous views (which were basically a reluctant Calvinist aligned with scientific determinism).

    You say that the OV God cannot answer prayer. I disagree. As I said God can intervene in the World and if we pray He may decide to answer our prayers just the way we want (or otherwise). It is the Closed View of God that claims all thiings are settled in advance (since God knows them now how could it not be settled). If all things are settled prayer cannot change anything.

    You say God cannot predict events. This is true except for those events He Himself plans make happen - like sending his Son.

    You say that God cannot control events. Yes He can control any event He wants according to the OV. He just chooses to limit His omnipotence by granting genuine huiman freedom and in doing so He relinquishes the application of His power. But He never relinquishes His power to do as He pleases at anytime.

    My friend, reconsider your thinking and your presuppositions. And read up on the OV so you can at least stop mistating it.

    Peace got to go to a church potluck hmmmm.
     
  8. ellis

    ellis New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey! I'm not involved in this discussion, yet. How'd my name get in here?

    It may be a while before I do get involved in this one. You guys have put up a lot of stuff here. I went through the whole thread to see where it is heading (fearing a collapse into a KJV Only argument) and I'm barely a third of the way through Chris Temple's first post. I haven't hit the links yet.

    This has been a topic of discussion in a Bible study group in which I am involved, though that was some time back. I have copied the thread and will take it back there at first opportunity. Will return here when we've sifted through it a bit.

    :rolleyes:

    [ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: ellis ]
     
  9. John Wells

    John Wells New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    ellis,

    My apologies on your name; it has been corrected.
     
  10. keith

    keith New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2001
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wells:

    Your god has limited knowledge of the future. My God is the God of hundreds of prophesies that have come true. He?s batting 1000! Are future events ?available to be known??
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


    Defend this 1000 batting average. I have one book that claims 1000 (J Barton Payne's Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy") and another that claims .0000 ( Callahan's "Biblical Prohecy"). Callahan's is more believable although he is more cynical in his wording than I would be. How about the fact that most (if not all) NT writers predicted the parousia was coming "soon", or "before all those now living die".

    Test the truth. Be honest. It does no good to just declare -all good Christians know its 1000 and only infidels say it is &lt;1000.

    I think many Christians often fear testing the truth; maybe their faith will be destroyed - it need not be so. My faith has been enriched through deep honest study of the Bible facing the hard questions headon. I found I had to rely more on the Spirit of God convicting of truth and less on the written words. But Paul thought the same - 2 Cor 3:6 "The letter kills but the Spirit gives Life"

    No need to hurry this answer (it is not simple) since I doubt that I can do much baptistboarding next week. Have major all-week review with meetings from 8:00am until 8:00pm each day. Maybe next weekend I could reply.
     
  11. keith

    keith New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2001
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wells:

    Keith said, ?All of them (except myself) are self described Fundamentalists and Baptists.?


    Are you aware of the rules of this board, Keith? If you are not a Baptist then you are breaking rules that you agreed to when you registered.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Sorry I mistyped. The "except myself" refers to Fundamentalists not to Baptist. I have been a Baptist since 1987. Read "Hi ya'll" message in the Welcome to Baptist Board section for a brief bio.

    The point I was making was that many Fundamentalists believe in the OV. In fact, the Moral Government crowd guys like LC McCabe, Charles Finney in the 1800's believed in it under another name and they were very conservative. Most early Christians before Augustine favored a God granting free will over anything like the all-determining God of Augustine/Calvin. But in all honesty they didn't even comment on exhaustive foreknowledge (at least from what I've read.

    So Chris's claim that the OV was not even thought for 6000 years is not really accurate.
     
  12. Joy

    Joy New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    0
    There was a development in church history called Socianism. It basically taught that divine omniscience means knowing only that which can be known and that God is ignorant concerning future decisions of His creation. Neotheism is nothing more than "Socianism in modern garb." (Dr. Larry Oats, MBBC)

    Just because men like Finney may have believed it, doesn't make it right.
     
  13. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, if it's "Socinianism" he and you are talking about, you should at least get the spelling right.
     
  14. Joy

    Joy New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Instead of attacking my spelling, Michael, how about showing me from the Bible how neotheism is correct. ;)
     
  15. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just wanted to make sure of exactly what movement you were talking about. If it was indeed Socinianism, this is a variation of ancient Arianism, a doctrine that denied the Trinity.

    Finney was not a Socinian.
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    From a fellow doing his doctoral work at TEDS:

    Verses "supporting" OT: 105
    Verses supporting the traditional view of God: 4695

    How should we understand the 105? We should understand them in light of the 4,695.
     
  17. Ars

    Ars New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2001
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    [21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    [23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    Romans 1:21-23
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wrote this several days ago and never posted it but I want to get it off my desktop now and I figure this is as good a place as any to dump it.
    _________________________

    What does the “test of Abraham” (Gen 22)prove about the knowledge of God?

    For the open theist who claims this passage proves his point, he is on the horns of a dilemma for it proves too much. First, it erases God’s knowledge of the past and present. God had already known Abraham’s faith and counted it to him for righteousness. For the OT, such knowledge and “crediting” is useless because there was still more to be known. He could not know the present state of Abraham’s heart for he must await a test to find it out. However, even then, the most the test would prove is the immediate commitment, not the future commitment. That would still await to be seen. Therefore, God could say nothing of the future. Second, it renders ridiculous the claim of the author of Hebrews that Abraham believed God would raise him from the dead if necessary. Third, it renders the test meaningless because God since God stopped him short of carrying out the act, he could not really know anything about Abraham’s true faith. Perhaps in the last several inches of the plunge with the knife, Abraham would have backed out. Fourth, Abraham's faith was already known by the statement "We will go worship and we will come again." There are other reasons that could be given but this is enough for now. Gen 22 is a very weak passage to support a very weak position.

    The God of the OT renders prayer unnecessary and useless for divine intervention that might sway the free choices of man would certainly be less than fair. The God who risks must want a level playing field (isn't that the reason for abandoning control to begin with?) Therefore, to intervene for one person from whom people are praying while not intervening for another person who simply was not lucky enough to have concerned Christian friends who prayed for him would be a gross injustice and violation of fairness.

    The OT has no real God at all. The God of the OT is not omnipotent; he is reactive—omnicompetent—able to react to whatever man might throw his way. The God of the OT cannot have ordained a redemption before the foundation of the world because he simply could not have known man would have sinned. He could not have had a predetermined plan for the crucifixion as Peter says in Acts 2 because he had no way to know that man would sin and no way to know that Rome would have domination over the Jews and no way to know that Jews would hate the Messiah and … ad infinitum. God could only know the almost infinite numbers of possibilities thereby filling God’s head with useless information.

    The God of OT deals with the suffering of mankind with, as one person put it, plausible deniability. He simply didn’t know what would happen. He could not, as Joseph said, "meant it for good." In fact, he could not have meant it for anything because he could not have meant it period. He simply could not have known what the brothers would do. He has, as this person said, become Clintonian: “I didn’t know. I feel your pain.” What a glorious God that must be.

    The most recent two issues of BibSac have a two part review and rebuttal of the Open Theism idea which is well worth reading.

    [ October 17, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  19. keith

    keith New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2001
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
    From a fellow doing his doctoral work at TEDS:


    Verses "supporting" OT: 105
    Verses supporting the traditional view of God: 4695


    How should we understand the 105? We should understand them in light of the 4,695.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


    Would like to see the complete list (references only) of verses supporting each view according to this doctrinal research. I would like to see some of what counts as support(e.g. hidden assumptions)

    Since becoming interested in teh OT after reading a book by Richad Rice in about 1985, I've have read virtualy the whole Bible with a special eye for explicit or inplicit Open View(OV) supporting passage. I found very few explicit verses supporting the OV (that is non-exhaustive foreknowledge) or against it. It just isn't a subject for discussion. I found many verses implicitly supporting the OV. Verses that encourage or challenge their readers to faithful living
    imply that the readers can in fact do so by his or her's own volition. It would be disengenous in the extreme if God asked us to change our ways, repent, live for Him if He knew in advance what we were going to do. Not sure if there are 4695 such calls for faithful living bu there are many. This was my assumption (now displayed for all to criticize) as I reread the Bible with an eye for OV supporting / nonsupporting passages.

    If you have access to his dissertation (or know him), try to understand and print his assumptions - like did he think that all prophecies were predictive of free future human action and that God didn't in anyway intervene.

    Thanks in advance. I will reply more this weekend or next weekend.
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by keith:
    Would like to see the complete list (references only) of verses supporting each view according to this doctrinal research. I would like to see some of what counts as support(e.g. hidden assumptions) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What are hidden assumptions? That is a hermeneutical issue. I believe it is still in progress and, knowing the people at TEDS, it will not be allowed to be shoddy.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I found very few explicit verses supporting the OV (that is non-exhaustive foreknowledge) or against it. It just isn't a subject for discussion. I found many verses implicitly supporting the OV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I have never found one that doesn't require the contradiction of clear Scripture. You are right that it isn't a subject for discussion. That is why it is amazing that it is being discussed.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Verses that encourage or challenge their readers to faithful living
    imply that the readers can in fact do so by his or her's own volition.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This shows a typical misunderstanding of free will. To accuse God of disingenuousness because he doesn't conform to what (some of) our fragile, finite minds think he should seems out of line for the creature.

    However, I am not going to take time to defend the Scriptural view here. I gave a couple of recent references to read and they would be worth looking at.
     
Loading...