Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

How can a God who knows all things change his mind. Does not this conversation show that God listened to Moses and decided to do something different that his original idea?
Exodus 32:10,14 KJVS
[10] Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. [14] And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

William Lance Huget [01/12/2016 1:31 PM]
Yes, Open Theism is more biblical, coherent than alternate views.

John Kissinger [01/12/2016 1:34 PM]
The described above is not really Open Theism. Open Theism is an Attack on the Atonement and considered heresy by some for being “hyper-Arminians” http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/is-open-theism-heretical/

William Lance Huget [01/12/2016 1:38 PM]
This is a motif that can be taken at face value if one does not hold to tradition that is not truth: http://reknew.org/2015/04/doesgodchangehismind/

William Lance Huget [01/12/2016 1:39 PM]
Hezekiah and Jonah also illustrate this: http://reknew.org/2008/01/isnt-god-changing-his-mind-an-anthropomorphism/

John Kissinger [01/12/2016 1:40 PM]
To the open theist, God is limited by time. The Bible teaches that God created time: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1: 1). It could only have been “the beginning” if time started at that point. Einstein’s theory of relativity also posits that time is a physical property of our universe. If there were no matter, there would be no time. Since there is matter then there is time.

William Lance Huget [01/12/2016 1:40 PM]
http://reknew.org/2012/07/qa-how-can-prayer-change-gods-mind/

John Kissinger [01/12/2016 1:40 PM]
Open theists often construct a straw man to knock down at this point. They claim that God cannot look down the passages of time to see what an individual will freely choose to do. This straw man betrays their misunderstanding of God’s nature. God is not “in time” as we are. He transcends time. He is not part of His creation like the pantheist declares. He is outside of it (transcendent) but can intervene when and where He chooses. Since God is not physically bound to the universe, He is not affected by time. As such, God does not need to “look down the passages of time” to see the future. He sees the entire timeline at the same moment.

William Lance Huget [01/12/2016 1:48 PM]
No, God is not limited by time like it limits us. He has endless time and is also omnipresen/omnipotent. We have limited time and are finite. It is an aspect of the personal God’s experience, not a limitation. The incarnation was more limited because of His body, not because of time, per se.

Gen. 1 does not talk about the creation of time, but the creation of unique measures of time (sun, moon, stars). Duration/sequence/succession is the nature of eternity, not Platonic, Augustinian timelessness.

Einstein confused time and space, speculated about 4th dimensions. His stuff appliers to subjective perceptions of time, minute effects of gravity on clocks, theories about speed of light that could never apply to man, etc. Time is a philosophical concept, not a material thing. Time marches on unidirectionally with or without matter, clocks, people.

You have foreknown choices being actualities instead of possibilities trillions of years before agents supposedly exist and freely make choices. This is incoherent and would mean the agent is not free, but fatalistically fixed.

You also use spatial analogies (in/out of time) for durative issues. Einstein was also wrong to blur distinctions between past/present/future. Endless time is found in Scripture and is not pantheistic?!

Eternal now is Greek philosophy and many Christian philosophers, etc. defend A vs B theory of time.

If you are not familiar with the wealth of literature on this subject, various views, technical arguments, etc., you should not be so dogmatic. You have wrong assumptions leading to wrong conclusions.

John Kissinger [01/12/2016 1:48 PM]
If Boyd and his fellow open theists are correct, it will be very easy for Satan to make God a liar. When the “man of sin” (Antichrist) comes on the scene Satan could inspire him to act contrary to what Revelation says about him. Rather than beheading those who refuse to worship him and receive his mark (Revelation 20: 4), Antichrist could put them in the electric chair. This would nullify biblical prophecy and in turn, make God into a liar.

William Lance Huget [01/12/2016 1:54 PM]
You are assuming a specific interpretation on details in a book that has much figurative stuff. There is no end to speculation and interpretation of the book of Revelation because much of it is general vs specific. Minute details are not the issue as much as broad things that God can providentially be woven into future history. If it was black and white, there would not be endless views and interpretations on eschatology or any given verse within these views by various proponents.

Your view is problematic. Objections to Open Theism can be handled, even if not perfectly. This is true of any doctrine that we can establish parameters for without having every answer for every issue. Prophecy is an objection, but not all prophecy is unconditional or predictive (e.g. Jonah).

John Kissinger [01/12/2016 2:02 PM]
God has staked His reputation on His ability to tell the future. In Isaiah 44 – 48 God proves to Israel that He is the only true God. Throughout this passage He refers to His ability to prophesy with one hundred percent accuracy. “I have declared the former things from the beginning…” (Isaiah 48: 3). The book of Revelation is almost entirely about future events; many of which will be fulfilled at least 1,900 years after they were first declared. If we serve a “God who risks” then He is extremely lucky at guessing the future. No, God does not take any risk when He foretells the future. He does not need to. He has perfect knowledge of every single free choice made by every single free being. He “knows” what will take place in the future. He does not guess.

William Lance Huget [01/12/2016 2:45 PM]
There is no providential advantage with exhaustive definite foreknowledge since God could not change the fixed future even if He wanted to (would make FK false). So, some say God saw that you were going to get killed, so He had you change your route, etc. This is nonsensical science fiction time travel, not sound thinking.

Is. 46 and 48 is claimed by Calvinists. The mistake is to extrapolate some things to all things. God can predict and bring to pass judgments on nations in that context. This does not mean He knows the outcomes of random lotteries from eternity past. So, Open Theism has two motifs in Scripture with some vs all of the future predestinated and known. The passage also undermines Arminianism because it talks about His ability to bring things to pass, not a supposed timeless prescience. Too many import their wrong paradigms into proof texts.

http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-do-you-respond-to-isaiah-469-11/

Ricky Grimsley [01/12/2016 2:46 PM]
If God exhaustively knows the future, then what is the point of anything. If we just the use the bible to decide this open theism wins easily. Unless open theism is correct there is no such thing as free will. If God already knows then the “choice” is made already. That means that prayer changes nothing. That means God

John Kissinger [01/12/2016 2:46 PM]
The open theist usually responds by saying that God knows some future events, just not all of them. He will bring certain events to pass but leave the other events up to the individuals to whom He has bestowed the ability to choose. In other words, certain events are predestined. They have to happen because God said they would but to accomplish these things God will have to override the free will of certain individuals. Here is the ultimate dilemma for the open theist. Their entire theology is based on man’s free will as opposed to the hyper-Calvinist’s view of predestination. Yet at the same time, they affirm the exact same thing they wish to get away from; namely, that God will force or coerce certain individuals to do what He wants [i.e. Antichrist will persecute true believers and Jews]. This fact alone destroys the viability of open theism since it is founded on a hopeless self-contradiction.

Ricky Grimsley [01/12/2016 2:52 PM]
You cant get away from some individuals being predestined. Did john the baptist have a choice. You have to live in the reality that all these things the bible says is true. God changes his mind, he learns, he has real emotion. He also predicts the future by making it happen. Notice the wording. Matthew 26:56 KJVS
[56] But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

John Kissinger [01/12/2016 2:56 PM]
Open theism creates other problems as well. A person’s view of God is extremely important. After all, if one misses the mark on the person and/or work of God, the rest of his theology will likely be askew. Robert Brow, a staunch supporter of open theology, wrote an article in Christianity Today in which he proposed “new explanations for biblical concepts such as divine wrath, God’s righteousness, judgment, the atonement – and just about every aspect of evangelical theology.” If this wasn’t bad enough ponder the following statement by Brow: “‘the cross was not a judicial payment,’ but merely a visible, space-time expression of how Christ has always suffered because of our sin.” This is a classic example of how a warped view of God distorts the rest of one’s doctrines. We would ALL benefit from Paul’s exhortation to the young evangelist Timothy: Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness…But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2: 15 – 16, 23 – 26).

William Lance Huget [01/12/2016 2:59 PM]
Some of the above is correct, but overriding free will is not held by most Open Theists (if done, it is more compatibilistic and not relating to salvation/destiny). It is not hard to predict that the mob would turn on Jesus or that Peter would deny Jesus given the circumstances. You overestimate the help of timelessness or determinism and underestimate an omnicompetent God (intelligence, wise, omniscient, omnipotent, etc.) vs an omnicausal one. Great experts rely on ability and intelligence to respond to things and simply do not need foreknowledge (God would have it if it was possible with free will, but this is illogical like square circles). The two motifs are in Scripture, but you must make the openness them figurative without warrant.

William Lance Huget [01/12/2016 3:19 PM]
I have never heard of Brow and that does not mean OT support all of his views. Calvinists and Arminians also have various views on any given verse or doctrine (spectrum). Brow must be a minor player that most would not agree with (nor do his views flow out of basic Open Theism necessarily). 2 Tim. 2 is not about godly, capable debates among believers. There is a difference between false doctrines and pagan philosophy and robust Christian theology and philosophy.

Ricky Grimsley [01/12/2016 3:39 PM]
I have never of brow either. The problem is this. I can argue that God learns and God changes his mind from scripture. All the other side can say is that it violates their version of God. I take all the scriptures into account. God awesomeness is displayed by him telling you what he will do and then doing it, not by creating robots or by setting some giant plan in motion and the punishing everyone for doing exactly what he always knew we would do. If god is not willing that any should perish…….but somehow we still do….then his plan is being violated. Was not jesus an open theist?Matthew 26:39 KJVS
[39] And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt .
Can we really believe that the son of god, the man on whom the spirit dwelt without measure, the body in whom all the fulness dwelt….didnt understand?

John Kissinger [01/12/2016 3:41 PM]
well, if you’ve never heard wouldn’t it be well proposed to read about it before discussing and subscribing to Open Theism?

William Lance Huget [01/12/2016 4:02 PM]
I have studied Open Theism for decades. It is odd that Brow has not been on our radar. Using him to denigrate the prominent proponents or view is simply guilt by association or ad hominem. Can you link us some information about him or his writings so we can inform ourselves?

John Kissinger [01/12/2016 4:14 PM]
decades? – broader articulation of open theism did not begin till 1994

Brian Roden [01/12/2016 4:15 PM]
Which was 22 years ago. So a little over two decades. The plural is appropriate.

John Kissinger [01/12/2016 4:18 PM]
must have began studying it right when it started; wonder what type of valid study tools were available right the way? also wondering why such important for our faith doctrine has been lacking in the first 20 centuries of church history only to be revealed to us today? 🙂

William Lance Huget [01/12/2016 4:29 PM]
I have been Open Theist since 1980 (35 years). The view predates 1994 (McCabe 1800s, etc.). I have a chart with Open Theist proponents for centuries. It was not an issue compared to early Christological controversies. Novelty or antiquity is not proof or disproof of a view compared to Scripture.