Featured Openness View of Reality

It is a terrible doctrine that conflicts with other core doctrines. Namely the Omniscience of God. You cannot have it both ways.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

HT.....this is a very dangerous and unbiblical idea.Mandy and I do not agree too often, but you will find that christians oppose this idea for the error it is.

 

Goodness. This stuff is full blown Heresy.

 

Yeah, because we all know that "reality" must be understood in what humankind can perceive through the senses and the rational mind (e.g. God can only be a "relational" Being if He relates to His creatures in the same way--limitations--in which they relate to each other).

Compatibilism does not necessitate "that God believes contradictory truths." Compatibilism holds that there is a compatibility between the will of God and the wills of His creatures in that the "free" choices they make without coercion (against their will) fulfill the God's ordained plan.

According to the logic of open theism, God cannot create "relational" beings and "relate" to them unless they have the god-like ability to contribute to warp and woof of reality in a vacuum.

 

:thumbs::applause::thumbs: AIC!!!!!you got it:applause:

 

AiC, where did you get that quote? From what I understand, I don't think it is entirely accurate.

This sounds like what Boyd would say, and I have no reason to doubt it.

There may be some that would say this. The ones I know try to argue that the Crucifixion was a "special case" as was the selling of Joseph into Egypt, but they would say that the specific actors were not ordained to do what they did. Supposedly, the time and conditions were "just right" so that Jesus would be guaranteed to be put to death by someone.

However, Bob Enyart and his followers emphasize the "real choice" that Jesus had in the Garden of Gethsemane. They argue that if Jesus did not have the "real" ability and possibility of choosing to forego His mission, He did not have a "real" choice (and that would be BAD, BAD, BAD!) They also emphasize Jesus' statement that He "could have called ten legions of angels," and say that if Jesus' nature as God determined that He "really" could not because He had to fulfill His mission, then His words were a lie, because "could have called" must mean "could have called" in a "real" sense, not a "hypothetical" sense.
In other words, for Jesus to be truly "good" and "loving," He had to have the "real" ability to do exactly the opposite of what He earlier said He would do--and plunge the universe into utter doom!
In other other words, Jesus could not be "genuine" unless He really, really could LIE (contra Deuteronomy 18). However, the Word of God is clear that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18); yet, Jesus says that He is "the truth" (John 14:6). There is NO reason to believe that God has to have the "ability" to lie for His truthfulness to be "genuine."
In the same way, we are told that "love is of God" and "God is love" (1 John 4:7-8,16); yet, there is NO reason to believe that God has to be "really" capable of unrighteous hatred for His love to be "genuine."

The rationale of the mainstream open theist is a form of good-evil dualism (like zoorastrianism, or yin-yang) that transcends God, because any "personal" being must have the libertarian free will capacity of true good and true evil to be "genuine" and "personal."

Not all open theists would believe or argue this way, but there are problems with where their view leads. Open theists cannot believe in a truly "substitutionary" atonement because God cannot know what sins would have been committed after the Cross. This means that the atonement could not have been a real payment for any sins in particular, but only for "sin" in general, governmental sort of way.

1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Peter is clear that Christ "bore OUR sinS" (plural), and He did it "in His own body on the tree." Just as Israelites had to offer specific sacrifices for specific sins in the law, so Christ as the ultimate Lamb of God had to have paid for sin in an intimate way, regarding the very sins themselves. That is a difficult pill to swallow, and extremely humbling to think of Christ actually suffering the putridness of MY sinS, but that is what substitutionary atonement is all about. It makes us understand how intimate our salvation really is and what grace and mercy are, rather than just an historical, academic doctrine.

 

Well, how bout that!

We agree on something. :wavey:

 

The name open theism contradict that statement, much less what its adherents believe.

The above sounds like you are chasing your tail!

 

From a post earliar in the thread, or maybe a link from this thread. Cant remember for sure. Its from that "Boyd" person.

 

No it is not heretical. It may not be totally correct, but it is not heretical. While I personally do not subscribe to the whole ball of wax that openness teaches some things I do hold to. I can tell you that is is closer to being accurate then preterism.

 

Open Theism questions the character and nature of God, preterism does not, therefore, you are wrong!

 

I


I have already told you where I found the post.

And on post 110 someone verified that it sounds like something Boyd would say.

 

The more I read about "open theism" the more I am convinced it is a serious heresy.

AresMan says in an earlier post:

Anything that transcend God must then become God. So here we have the philosophical ramblings of man trying to create a god that What? Strokes their ego? Fits their image? I can't imagine. I fear God too much to engage in such nonsense. Scripture tells us:

Proverbs 1:7. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

God addresses the heresy of "open theism" perfectly in the above Scripture.

 

If anything questions the character of God it is Calvinism that teaches God ordains/predestines everything. How does open theism question the character of God?

 

You are simply ignorant of the Doctrines of Grace, but God is Good, even to those who do not understand.

Open theism makes a liar out of God.