[DittoJed2]

Here's another for ya.

[drstevej]

***Boyd, though, disagrees, saying that "since open theists hold that God is able to unilaterally settle as much of the future ahead of time as he desires, there is nothing in principle preventing us from affirming any specific decree of God.... Our view simply holds that God leaves open whatever aspects of the future he sovereignly chooses to leave open."***

It seems that both Open Theism and Arminianism believe God chooses to leave man free to accept or reject salvation. Open Theists want to leave many more things open.

There is only a difference in degree between Arminianism and Open Theism. They are clearly fraternal twins but not Siamese Twins. IMO both diminiish man's depravity and God's sovereignty in an unsuccesful attempt to rescue God from bad press and to soothe pastoral couseling perplexities.

Arminians who want to retain predictive prophecy and inerrancy stop short of a fully open view of God. Arminian is not Open Theology, but it is Theology Ajar!

[Jerry_M]

The SBC rejects open theism, while the CBF gives it "serious consideration".

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. - I John 2:19

Good riddance to old (and new) rubbish!

[George W. Bush]

Pinnock, Sanders and Boyd all submit detailed defenses of open theism, presenting what they consider biblical evidence and asserting that God does not know the future because there is nothing to know.

Boyd, in fact, argues that Ware's argument denies "God's infinite intelligence" because it limits God to only one outcome for each future event. Boyd says that while God does not know the outcome of specific events, he knows the countless possibilities of future events and is prepared to react to each one.

"God's intelligence is not limited," Boyd writes. "... God can consider and anticipate each of trillion billion possibilities as though each one was the only possibility he had to consider. ... In other words, for a God of infinite intelligence, there is virtually no distinction between knowing a certainty and knowing a possibility."

I thought I'd ask OPie if he has any thoughts on this. It the tendency, shown in this argument, which seems to lead almost inexorably toward this line of thinking that makes me so leary of the idea of God as a theoretical thinker and planner.

Boyd argues that Christ paid the price for "possible" future sins and that he "over-paid" for all the sins of the world.

It's difficult to conceive how Christ atoned for any sins of those but His own flock. In the end, in eternity, Christ has paid for the sins of each member of His flock (the Elect) and for no other. If He paid for your sin, you are His and will be with Him in eternity. If He didn't pay for your sins, you will be in hell for all eternity.

This is more of the possible-grace, possible-atonement nonsense we've heard from the Arminian faction before.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

Time is just as much a creation of God as is space, matter, and energy. We now know from modern physics that all are interconnected. Time does not exist independently from God, but was created by Him; it is God that exists independently of time. Because God exists "outside" of time, and because time is His creation, the omniscience of God is a logically necessary consequence. The notion that there are future events that are "unknown" to God is utter nonsense.

[PresbyRev]

Open Theism is Arminianism gone to seed. The assertions
of open theism are all latent within Semi-Pelagianism/Arminiansim.

[mdmathis6]

The real question is not about open or closed theism. The real question is whether or not God keeps a promise and stays true to his own principles eternally. I see in the arguements regarding open thesim or closed theism a kind of fear that God is really quite a fickle being whose ethics might change with the changes in eternal conditions; a kind of spiritual situational ethics. Or is this debate a subtle projection of the current situational ethics models governing human societies of late, onto the Kingdom of Heaven itself. The whole of the Bible depicts God as unchanging in nature and temperament...who "is not slack in keeping his promises as some would call slack...but one who is patient with us and slow to anger..". God has left some of the details of the future open to us and has promised a future opening of his word(as stated in Daniel, during the latter years prior to his coming onto the Earth thru his son Jesus). The wrong questions are really being asked. Revelations has a passage where God speaks and seven thunders answered him. John was going to write down what the thunders stated but was forbidden to do so. This seems to denote that God doesn't want us to know everything about his hidden truths and to speculate about "open" or "closed" theism is a "useless disputation" that the apostle Paul warned Christians against getting involved with. The real question is..can we trust God to do what he says he will? That to me is the question all men must ask for themselves.
The Psalmist David declares"I am thankful that I have not dwelt on things too high for me..." We should consider that current deliberations on the internal thought processes and psychological profile of the Almighty himself may be a strech beyond what he intends for us to reach. There is a danger that those who do ask such questions may to their dismay, get the answers to which they are seeking. I suspect that there may be a few mentally disturbed souls who got their answers but could not deal rationally with the info received. Ecclesiastes talks of wisdom increasing ones sorrow. Moses was warned that he could not see God's face and live. This open theism debate fairly challenges God to show his face, when the real truth is that God showed his LOVE toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Love is the essence of God's true face and it is this LOVE that will be the ultimate detirminate in God's ordained plans...for "life, the universe, and everything"! " God is Love" as it says in John!

[arthurus]

this does not seem to be an argument among Calvinists.