Open Theists?

[Stripe]

John Sanders' Wiki Page.

open theists affirm “dynamic omniscience” (a term coined by Sanders). God knows all that has happened in the past and all that is happening in the present. God knows those future events that are determined to occur and God knows all that could possibly happen but does not know as definite what creatures with freewill will do. God has anticipatory knowledge (foresight) of what we are likely to do so God is not caught off-guard.

-source.

I guess your only recourse is to insist I should have known you meant existential knowledge before you declared that was what you were talking about.

[Stripe]

Arminian Today - What Unites And Divides Arminians From Open Theists.

3. The Omniscience of God
Arminians likewise agree with Calvinists that God is all-knowing. There is nothing that God does not know nor does He learn anything from humanity. Since God is omnipresent (John 4:24) and since God is omnipotent (1 Corinthians 1:25) then it logically follows God is also all-knowing and He foresees all events and He foreknows all things even the free will decisions of men. For instance, we see this in the life of Jesus. Jesus not only is able to know the thoughts of men (Mark 2:8; John 2:25) but He also is able to foreknow the actions of others (Luke 22:31-34) and He foreknew who would betray Him (John 6:69-70). Further Jesus foreknew His time had come (John 13:1) and He was able to foresee future events (Matthew 24:1-2). John even records that Jesus foresaw Nathanael before he came to Him (John 1:48).
Since Jesus is God (John 1:1; Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:5-11) then it follows that the Triune God is omniscient.
To be fair, Open Theists would counter that they don't doubt what I have stated above. Yet their point is that God Himself limits His ability to know the free will decisions of men. No doubt some things will come to pass such as the Lord Jesus' birth, death, and His resurrection as well as His second coming but the free will actions involving those events were not preplanned by God. God simply foreknows the events but not the actions of free creatures.

-source.

Top 6 Misnomers about Open Theism.

Misnomer 5: Open Theism teaches that God does not know the Future.
It might shock some people to discover that Open Theism is quite indebted to Calvinism in at least two crucial ways: 1) Open Theism believes that God foreknows that which he foreordains. Like Calvinism (and unlike Arminianism) God’s foreknowledge is based on what he has predetermined to sovereignly cause and to sovereignly make happen. 2) God sovereignly over-rules man’s free will in order to sovereignly cause or sovereignly make what he has predetermined to happen, happen. So it is not accurate to say that God does not know the future. He knows it in so far as he determines it.

-source.

[jimipresley]

I think you're an atheist friend of jimipresley's, who is here to raise hell and have some fun at other people's expense..

Stripe is a good friend of mine, but he's certainly not atheist.

[Fortigurn]

The context was knowledge of the future. You restricted that to "experiential" knowledge. It may have been obvious to you that this is what you meant, but it is certainly not what I meant and nor was it obvious.

I used it in the sense that it's typically used in the context of this subject. That you were unaware of this usage shows you aren't sufficiently familiar with the subject.

Is all your knowledge based upon anti-OT expositions?

I did not provide you with 'anti-OT expositions'. I provided you with standard definitions from standard reference sources, as well as from open theist theologians and sympathizers with the open theist view. The fact that you dismissed them as 'anti-OT expositions' shows that you didn't read them properly and didn't check any of the sources.

Ironically, you have yourself provided me with a quotation and link from an Arminian source which explains why he doesn't agree with open theism, yet you don't see that as 'anti-OT exposition'. You also provide me with a source which argues against open theism, describing it as 'a position with inconsistent hermeneutics' and 'a teaching that has been espoused by no orthodox believers in almost two thousand years of church history'; this is explicitly an 'anti-OT exposition'. So we find that your complaint about me supposedly using 'anti-OT expositions' is fraudulent; it's simply an attempt to avoid the facts. It is telling that none of the sources you cited are actually within the relevant scholarly literature. Even your source which quoted Boyd shows Boyd equivocating even as he acknowledges that God knows the future of free agents only as possibilities.

And yet, He can still know what will happen.

Now who's ignoring qualifiers? In open theism He can only know for certain what He will sovereignly determine; conversely, He can only know the possibilities of what others will do. None of this is experiential knowledge of the future. The whole point about open theism is that it rejects the classical ontology of a being with experiential knowledge of the future.

Well, I'm not an atheist. What kind of atheist confesses Jesus Christ and Lord and God, personal saviour and coming judge?

Well I hadn't seen you do that, and your lack of standard Biblical knowledge makes you look like someone with next to no familiarity with the Bible.

Either that or you are now misrepresenting him...

I'm not misrepresenting him. He didn't you were an atheist, he told me that most of what you have written is (in his words), 'pure troll'. I agree with that.

And why would you think the law has been thrown out?

Because when you started the thread you didn't explain what you actually believe. You didn't explain open theism properly at all. If you had done so, in the manner I described, you wouldn't be facing such questions now. Let's see if you do any better from here on.

I guess your only recourse is to insist I should have known you meant existential knowledge before you declared that was what you were talking about.

You should have, since it's the crux of the open theist position. It's one of the reasons why I reached the conclusion that you don't know very much about open theism. You seem to have a passing acquaintance with the pop-theology version, as demonstrated by your recourse to the blogs. To date you haven't actually demonstrated an accurate understanding of what the position is actually addressing about God.

[Stripe]

Stripe is a good friend of mine, but he's certainly not atheist.

Praise the Lord for that and amen!

I used it in the sense that it's typically used in the context of this subject. That you were unaware of this usage shows you aren't sufficiently familiar with the subject.

I think you're being a tad ungracious.

If you look at my OP, there is no claim that I am anything of an expert in theology. It's just a friendly enquiry to see if there are any like-minded people here in Taiwan. Then you went off the deep end...

I did not provide you with 'anti-OT expositions'.

Sure, you did. I asked if you could provide an OT-proponent who believed God did not have any knowledge of the future and you went down another road.

The fact that you dismissed them as 'anti-OT expositions' shows that you didn't read them properly and didn't check any of the sources.

Ironically, you have yourself provided me with a quotation and link from an Arminian source which explains why he doesn't agree with open theism, yet you don't see that as 'anti-OT exposition'. You also provide me with a source which argues against open theism, describing it as 'a position with inconsistent hermeneutics' and 'a teaching that has been espoused by no orthodox believers in almost two thousand years of church history'; this is explicitly an 'anti-OT exposition'. So we find that your complaint about me supposedly using 'anti-OT expositions' is fraudulent; it's simply an attempt to avoid the facts.

Fraudulent!?

Rational discourse seems well beyond you, sir. Perhaps you need to calm down and have a careful think through this. I provided you with quotes showing you that OT people (and even their critics) believe God has knowledge of the future. My links have almost certainly destroyed your perception that "Open theists believe knowledge of the future is unknowable to God". Perhaps I should have realised that you were talking about experiential knowledge only. Perhaps that is the only knowledge that may be referred to in that context. Perhaps my knowledge of these things is not quite up to your standard. But fraudulent? Puh-leeeze.

Now who's ignoring qualifiers? In open theism He can only know for certain what He will sovereignly determine; conversely, He can only know the possibilities of what others will do. None of this is experiential knowledge of the future. The whole point about open theism is that it rejects the classical ontology of a being with experiential knowledge of the future.

No argument.

Well I hadn't seen you do that, and your lack of standard Biblical knowledge makes you look like someone with next to no familiarity with the Bible.

You should watch the semantics of what you say. This statement is very close to self-contradictory nonsense.

My lack of "standard biblical knowledge" implies the possession of biblical knowledge. To use that as evidence for no biblical knowledge is pretty funny.

I'm not misrepresenting him. He didn't you were an atheist, he told me that most of what you have written is (in his words), 'pure troll'. I agree with that.

Oh. Well I guess this all comes down to your inability to recognise a bit of light-hearted banter for what it is.

Because when you started the thread you didn't explain what you actually believe.

And that gives you right to invent any old thing about me?

You didn't explain open theism properly at all.

Sure, I did. I'm an OT - I explained what I believe.

If you had done so, in the manner I described, you wouldn't be facing such questions now. Let's see if you do any better from here on.

Perhaps you can lighten up.

You should have, since it's the crux of the open theist position.

No, it's not any sort of crux. It's a detail that helps differentiate between OT and Calvinism and Arminianism. And if it's such an obvious distinction that I should have automatically made, it should be pretty easy to show, right? Unfortunately when I Google the term "open theism experiential knowledge" I get a rather circular sort of result. Try it. It's intriguing.

It's one of the reasons why I reached the conclusion that you don't know very much about open theism. You seem to have a passing acquaintance with the pop-theology version, as demonstrated by your recourse to the blogs. To date you haven't actually demonstrated an accurate understanding of what the position is actually addressing about God.

Sure, I have. You just don't like the way I express myself. You need to lighten up and learn to have a conversation.

[Stripe]

William Lane Craig debating George Williamson said the classical definition of omniscience holds that God knows all true propositions, not that He knows all experiences. I guess there are more people than just me who do not need knowledge to be solely experiential. And this was in response to foreknowledge, in case you're going to suggest the context has changed.

-source.

The good doctor sounds like an OT from minute 53, but the relevant part of the audio starts at: 50:50.

[Fortigurn]

If you look at my OP, there is no claim that I am anything of an expert in theology. It's just a friendly enquiry to see if there are any like-minded people here in Taiwan. Then you went off the deep end...

I didn't go off the deep end. I made a comment about open theism, and you immediately attacked it as wrong.

Sure, you did.

Please specify which of the sources I used was an 'anti-OT' source. As I have pointed out, you have already used two 'anti-OT' sources yourself so your objection is fraudulent; you're perfectly happy with using 'anti-OT' sources yourself.

I asked if you could provide an OT-proponent who believed God did not have any knowledge of the future and you went down another road.

No you didn't ask that, and I never said any open theist believes God does not have any knowledge of the future.

Perhaps I should have realised that you were talking about experiential knowledge only.

I would expect someone who claims to be an open theist to know this; I would expect them to actually understand the doctrine in which they claim to believe.

My lack of "standard biblical knowledge" implies the possession of biblical knowledge.

No it doesn't actually. It doesn't say anything about whether you have no Biblical knowledge, or just a little.

To use that as evidence for no biblical knowledge is pretty funny.

I never claimed you had no Biblical knowledge. You just haven't demonstrated that you have more than very little Biblical knowledge.

Oh. Well I guess this all comes down to your inability to recognise a bit of light-hearted banter for what it is.

I'm sorry it's not just me; jimi himself told me that most of what you wrote was trolling, and he called you on it himself. You need to make up your mind whether you want to engage in 'light-hearted banter' (in which case you need to stop furiously defending your claims and telling others they're wrong), or if you're being serious.

Perhaps you can lighten up.

Unfortunately that isn't going to help you express yourself any better.

No, it's not any sort of crux. It's a detail that helps differentiate between OT and Calvinism and Arminianism.

Yes it is a crux. That's precisely why it differentiates between open theism on the one hand and Calvinism and Arminianism on the other; the latter both share the classical conception of God, which open theism rejects.

And if it's such an obvious distinction that I should have automatically made, it should be pretty easy to show, right?

Indeed. See my first list of citations for plenty of evidence. Previously you said 'No argument' when I observed that 'The whole point about open theism is that it rejects the classical ontology of a being with experiential knowledge of the future'. Now you're denying it's a crux, and complaining that it's difficult to find support for such a statement. You need to make up your mind what you believe.

Sure, I have. You just don't like the way I express myself.

This is not about how you express yourself, it's about your repeated insistence that other people are wrong, while you yourself have to Google for details of a doctrine you claim to believe and can't explain it accurately.

William Lane Craig debating George Williamson said the classical definition of omniscience holds that God knows all true propositions, not that He knows all experiences.

He's not talking about the same issue. As I have pointed out, experiential knowledge of the future means that God experiences knowledge of the future in the same way that He experiences knowledge in the present and past. Craig's claim that God knows all true propositions is indeed the classical position; it is not open theism. What you have missed is the context of the debate, which is this.

I was listening to a debate between George Williamson and William Lane Craig on the existence of God. Williamson argued that the concept of God is incoherent. He claimed omniscience would require that God possess all empirical knowledge (experiential, know-how), and yet God clearly does not know what it is like to play basketball, ride a bike, or sin. Craig responded that the classical definition of omniscience holds that God knows all true propositions, not that He knows all experiences. Williamson counters that theists have so defined omniscience only to escape the logical absurdities involved in a being who is truly omniscient. So is the classical definition ad hoc as Williamson claims? No. There is good reason to limit omniscience to propositional knowledge.

The topic under discussion in that debate is whether or not God has experiential knowledge of all possible experiences, and whether or not omniscience is limited to propositional knowledge. What's clear is that this is bothering you, so instead of looking through the relevant scholarly literature you're Googling frantically to find something which sounds like what you thought open theism actually is. This is not the position of someone who is certain about what they believe.

[Stripe]

I didn't go off the deep end. I made a comment about open theism, and you immediately attacked it as wrong.

Perhaps you should go back and read that little exchange again.

Please specify which of the sources I used was an 'anti-OT' source.

All of them except perhaps the encyclopaedia and the dictionary.

As I have pointed out, you have already used two 'anti-OT' sources yourself so your objection is fraudulent; you're perfectly happy with using 'anti-OT' sources yourself.

And, as was very clear, I was wondering if you could quote an OT who believed God cannot know the future. You quoting non-OT sources does not answer that challenge. My quoting non-OT sources is perfectly reasonable.

That wager remains open, by the way.

No you didn't ask that, and I never said any open theist believes God does not have any knowledge of the future.

Sure, I did. Right here:

You show us one OTer who believes God has zero knowledge of the future and I'll buy you a Big Mac Combo (or the vegan equivalent).

And sure, you did. Here:

Open theists believe knowledge of the future is unknowable to God.

I would expect someone who claims to be an open theist to know this; I would expect them to actually understand the doctrine in which they claim to believe.

I do. I believe that God knows all sorts of things about the future. Just nothing from experience given that the future does not exist. Can we move on?

I'm sorry it's not just me; jimi himself told me that most of what you wrote was trolling, and he called you on it himself. You need to make up your mind whether you want to engage in 'light-hearted banter' (in which case you need to stop furiously defending your claims and telling others they're wrong), or if you're being serious.

Perhaps you can lighten up.

Indeed. See my first list of citations for plenty of evidence. Previously you said 'No argument' when I observed that 'The whole point about open theism is that it rejects the classical ontology of a being with experiential knowledge of the future'. Now you're denying it's a crux, and complaining that it's difficult to find support for such a statement. You need to make up your mind what you believe.

It hasn't changed.

This is not about how you express yourself, it's about your repeated insistence that other people are wrong, while you yourself have to Google for details of a doctrine you claim to believe and can't explain it accurately.

Dude! You insisted that I support what I said! You need to make up your mind. I'm perfectly willing to discuss what I believe or I can scour the internet and tell you what others believe.

Your insistence that I match up to your scholarly standards off the top of my head is just plain nutty.

He's not talking about the same issue. As I have pointed out, experiential knowledge of the future means that God experiences knowledge of the future in the same way that He experiences knowledge in the present and past. Craig's claim that God knows all true propositions is indeed the classical position; it is not open theism. What you have missed is the context of the debate, which is this.

Nice Googling. That's exactly where I got my link from.

The topic under discussion in that debate is whether or not God has experiential knowledge of all possible experiences, and whether or not omniscience is limited to propositional knowledge. What's clear is that this is bothering you, so instead of looking through the relevant scholarly literature you're Googling frantically to find something which sounds like what you thought open theism actually is. This is not the position of someone who is certain about what they believe.

You need to make up your mind. First you're complaining that I am too insistent about what I believe now you are accusing me of not knowing what I believe.

How about you just let go of your preconceived notions and have a discussion.

[Fortigurn]

All of them except perhaps the encyclopaedia and the dictionary.

We make progress. Now please demonstrate that I used any 'anti-OT' sources at all. And what are you going to do with the encyclopaedia and dictionary, which said the same as the other sources?

And, as was very clear, I was wondering if you could quote an OT who believed God cannot know the future. You quoting non-OT sources does not answer that challenge.

I've already given you three; I also had to explain to you (incredibly), what it means in open theism to say that God cannot know the future.

My quoting non-OT sources is perfectly reasonable.

I have never objected to it. You were the one who objected to such sources. Your objection was fraudulent, an attempt to avoid the fact that the sources provided disagreed with you.

And sure, you did. Here:

I'm sorry, that does not say what you claimed. I have already explained to you several times what that means.

I do. I believe that God knows all sorts of things about the future. Just nothing from experience given that the future does not exist. Can we move on?

Excellent, you're making progress. Now you're actually using the definition I've given.

Perhaps you can lighten up.

Perhaps you can behave yourself.

It hasn't changed.

So do you agree that the whole point about open theism is that it rejects the classical ontology of a being with experiential knowledge of the future, or do you disagree? Which is it now?

You insisted that I support what I said!

Yes I did; from the relevant scholarly literature (not random blogs scraped from frantic Googling). To date you haven't supported any of the claims I've asked you to support. During the course of this discussion you've claimed open theism is X, then denied it is Y (when I showed it is Y), then tried to Google for evidence that it's really X, then agreed it's Y, then kept Googling for more evidence that it's really Y. This is total confusion.

Your insistence that I match up to your scholarly standards off the top of my head is just plain nutty.

I am not making any such demand. On the contrary, I have urged you more than once to go and read the relevant scholarly literature. Your responses off the top of your head are clearly inadequate.

Nice Googling. That's exactly where I got my link from.

Of course it is. I have plenty of experience at reverse-engineering sources, and in this case it was very easy to find. What's clear is that you didn't even read the source properly. This is your standard pattern of behaviour.

You need to make up your mind. First you're complaining that I am too insistent about what I believe now you are accusing me of not knowing what I believe.

Now you're changing the subject again, having been proved wrong. I didn't claim you don't know what you believe, I said you appear to be uncertain of what you believe.

How about you just let go of your preconceived notions and have a discussion.

I don't have any preconceived notions. How about you start making factual statements for a change?

[Tempo Gain]

Is this that complicated? God doesn't know the future. Isn't that really it?