General Question about various beliefs held by various people

[njd83]

A few more thoughts as I mull this over:

Dizerner:

I don't think Open Theism is even in the top 50% of most serious heresies, but I can't see a point for entertaining it. - Dizerner

I have explained the importance of how entertaining openness can lead to a person to be able to understand and relate to God, find a reason and motivation to pray, and find purpose in their life--since their free will matters and can change things. Complete and Exhaustive Foreknowledge muddies those waters. Its not the most detrimental view in my opinion, but it could be more detrimental for certain people, etc. I don't see any detriment in believing a balanced view of both motifs found in the texts: openness & foreknowledge/predestination.
...

I don't think it’s a heresy, since heresies have been defined by the early church, the counsels and fathers. -me

...

While the openness believers believe that God created the world with free agents and so He hoped they would do what is right, commanded them to do what is right, and warned them of judgement and destruction for the evil committed. All this in hopes of them not doing evil. Yet also having a Plan B, to come into the world, explain himself and his commandments in the flesh and die to show his divine nature and love for his creation. -me

...

Limiting God's knowledge also is dishonoring God's attributes, it is attributing less power and glory to him than he has, and it is creating a God who is made in the likeness of our own limitations, a form of idolatry. That is why I think it is a sinful belief. I use "heresy" not in reference to ECF, but in reference to the Bible, a doctrine of demons. - Dizerner

Wait a second though, how do you define "heresy" if you do not consider the ECF or councils, but refer to the Bible, when there are so many denominations and theological camps? What theological presupposition do you have that you would then conclude openness theology would be heretical? There are pretty obvious heresies that most mainline denominations would denounce, and I think much of that is discussed in the ECF and councils.

The Complete and Exhaustive Foreknowledge camp has to say the motif of future openness in the texts is nonliteral, as Boyd was saying:

If the motif of future determinism required the view that the future were exhaustively settled, as the classical view of foreknowledge argues, Scripture would seem to contradict itself. Obviously, the future can’t be both partly open and exhaustively settled. As noted in the introduction, the classical view attempts to avoid this contradiction by claiming that the second motif in Scripture is nonliteral. If we accept the findings of the previous chapter that the motif of future determinism only requires us to view the future as partly settled, however, there is no contradiction. We are free to accept and celebrate both motifs in Scripture as telling us important truths about God and the nature of the future.

-Greg Boyd

Another example of heresy about evolution:

Also those who consider evolutionary theory assumptions would have to allegorize much of the OT, as well as conclude the NT is wrong when it quotes the OT as literal history (e.g Matthew 19:4-5, Acts 17:26).

and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,

-Acts 17:26

Evolution would say humans did not come from "one man", but a large group of half-evolved hominids. No literal Adam and Eve, no literal Garden of Eden, nor the Fall and curse, and also probably no real global deluge and Ark.

And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

Matthew 19:4

If man was made male and female from the "beginning", but evolutionary theory says that single cell organisms were in the beginning--and they too came billions of years after the "beginning" of the physical universe--we have a contradiction. And Jesus and the apostles were wrong about some stuff.

The compromise never ends.

Another example: versions of Hell and heresies:

To claim that there is no actual real suffering in "hell", but to allegorize hell would seem to be a clear heresy, since both the texts, the ECF and councils affirmed these truths. Now whether hell is "eternal" (aionios) in the sense of "everlasting" (aidios), and that God would never "snuff" anyone out of existence, is a topic of debate, also discussed in the ECF, which I have researched much. No hell, or actual punishment at all, would seem to be a clear heresy to me. Where is justice, which God is so adamant about?

But the possibility that God would eventually snuff out of existence whoever he choses to, at whatever time is right, is not a clear heresy to me. It seems to finds clear texts that show that.

“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

-Matthew 10:28

The "soul" (psuche) is immaterial--mind, will and emotions--and to "destroy" the soul would mean for the soul to not continue to have any kind of existence.

Only the presuppositional conclusion that every one of our sins needs an "eternity" (aionios or aidios?) of punishment would conclude that God would never snuff out a single unrepentant person, ever. So this may touch on the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory, but I'm not well versed on PSA or its ramifications one way or the other. Whatever the case, Jesus innocence and willing horrific death as a criminal on the cross, his separation from God, was "enough" to save sinners. Beyond that I'm not sure what else to say.

Again, you have claimed openness to be heretical, based on the Bible. What am I to think of that?

Is not complete foreknowledge a theological presupposition, which then rejects the contradictory view that the motif of future openness is clear and plainly written in the texts, as Boyd pointed out? If you claim to take the Bible as your guide, but then you have to re-interpret clear passages indicating openness, you have just admitted to a non-textual conclusion but have claimed the be based on the Bible.

There seems to be very clear examples of openness in the texts. I don't see how openness theology, which emphasizes "both motifs" as Boyd says... would be in a heretical category, unless it is only placed in that category by a party with a strongly held theological presupposition.

I was just thinking while watching this sermon,

https://whchurch.org/sermon/forces-of-light/

About the verse in John:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

-John 1:1-3

It makes a lot of sense that ALL the free will agents God created were created through Jesus, since Jesus would be the means of rectifying whatever may come about through those free will agents' decisions.

Another verse that starts to make more sense when considering "Free Will" and openness theology.

And makes sense of God's tri-partite nature. Why is God triune? Well, can the eternal Almighty Father God of Heaven come down and die for the sins which were freely done by the free will agents he created, in order to save those who repent? No. But God who became flesh can.

[dizerner]

Thanks for you thoughts, always interesting.

I read Christian history with interest and respect, but I don't believe like the Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox that we can assume a certain Christian denomination or camp or creed or writings are somehow the one true church and authoritative. But, people object, if all you believe is the Bible everyone can just interpret differently, and you lose the security of having some group tell you the authoritative meaning. I think the only security is our personal relationship with God and if we don't feel we can know or hear God in any way on our own, we are putting our security in someone else's hands. That is not to say I never listen to anyone or submit, because I can personally hear God speaking to me through other people, but it's personal. This means our definition of destructive heresies has to come from what the Holy Spirit instructs us with directly from the Bible, doctrines of demons that are intent to mislead people and diminish the work and glory of Christ.

When you insist your version of openness is the only "literal" or "plain," reading I have to wonder why in years of sincerely walking with God and reading his Word I never once deduced what you are saying from the text. Thousands of hours—thousands—and it never once occurred to me that when God said he was going to find something out or now that he knew something, it must mean God had limitations of knowledge. Now I noticed it sounded a little odd and I felt the difficult at times of reconciling certain terminology—as with all doctrines—but I never thought "That obviously means God doesn't know the future," there is no necessary deduction that is so direct and clear it just has to be forced that God's knowledge is limited. On the contrary, there are many places where God clearly says he knows the future, predicts free will actions of men he had no natural way of predicting, declares that he specifically atones for sins before I have even committed them, demonstrates that nothing is too hard for him and he holds all power, that is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. Notice he does not say "One day I will be the end," or "I am the alpha and will eventually be the omega." Scripture clearly tells me that God inhabits eternity, that is he outside of time, and that is why he can interact with mercy and long-suffering before Jesus even was incarnated and accomplished the atonement. But because the Bible says God "finds something out" I have to throw all that out?!

Lastly, belief in evolution does not demand that there be no Noah's flood, or no original ancestors, or that Jesus was somehow "wrong" when he said God made them male and female. We can still believe God at some point made a male and female and they transgressed (perhaps even before this current form of creation as generational lines are spiritual, not just physical), or that Noah experienced a flood that exterminated the then populated land, or that there was an idyllic state with a garden and two trees. Evolution does not remove belief in the concepts of angels, demons, the spirit world, the afterlife, the atonement, the incarnation, miracles, or original creation or the final judgment. And even if one can't feel one can harmonize them logically—were this hypothetically the case—there is no Biblical command that one must perfectly be able to intellectually and logically harmonize and rationalize everything the Bible teaches. One could simply say they don't know how they are harmonized, and don't have to know to still believe they can be in some way, perhaps beyond our current knowledge.

Hopefully these thoughts prove useful and interesting and the Spirit uses them.

Peace to all the children of God in Christ.

[njd83]

I have a saved draft I have been trying to put together.

But I wanted to ask a couple questions. I don't want to seem too much like I am trying to convince you of Openness. Heck I literally just started thinking it was true a few months ago. That would not even be a super worthy goal, since loving God and salvation are 100 times more important that smaller theological matters.

I would much rather actually just have a good discussion where this view can be "put to the test", where others can play the devil's advocate, and I can try to defend it. Or others can try to defend it. But I did not want to try to regurgitate Boyd's book completely in my own words either.

I do genuinely think the theory is accurate in its view of God, and it seems to have already benefited me in my "mental picture and understanding of God", but I'm not sure if its completely true as described, and I would want to thoroughly consider any contradictions.

So, do you, as Boyd explains, hold that the texts describing the 1st motif of future determinism is literal and the 2nd motif of future openness is nonliteral? Or what words would you use to describe your belief on how you approach these types of texts?

Can you define what you believe "Dwelling in Eternity" means, and could it possibly be consistent with an open theological view?

I looked up the Hebrew reverse interlinear to see what it looks like in Isaiah 57:15:

For thus says the high and exalted One Who lives forever [Inhabits Eternity, Dwells in Eternity], whose name is Holy, “I dwell on a high and holy place, And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit In order to revive the spirit of the lowly And to revive the heart of the contrite.

Isaiah 57:15

2022-02-16 (11).png (225.09 KiB) Viewed 2394 times

I think the Hebrew transliterated word "ad" means more like "continually" or "perpetually".

So maybe the NASB translation is more correct when it says "Who lives forever". Or you could say "who lives perpetually", or "who lives and has no end". Something like that I think makes more sense of the text than "Inhabits Eternity".

The word most translated "Eternity" is Olam/Aion, which is more likely and often referring to the "age to come" the millennial reign of Christ, or the general whole age of the world existing before "The Great Day of Judgment/Decision", which of course if you believe evolution and long ages you are more likely not to believe in a 7th 1000 year period where Jesus comes back and reigns for a 1000 years.

The 6000 and 7000 are parallel the 6 days of creation, and the 7th day the sabbath rest, which the church fathers pointed to 2 Peter when they said this was the common interpretation of the parallel between the Creation in 6 days and the 6000 years before Jesus returns.

"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." 2 Peter 3:8

I point this out because the strongest argument you have had, and the reason I have not responded for a while, is the proof text of Isaiah 57:15 "Inhabits Eternity".

I wasn't sure what to say about that. Then a few days went by and I began thinking about my previous research into the Greek words Aion, Aionios and Aidios and the Hebrew parallel words "Ad" and "Olam", and I thought I would look up the Hebrew in Isaiah.

I have been enlightened before by looking at the original languages, so maybe it would be helpful this time too.

What other verses do you find describe God as "outside of time"? I've heard that a lot before, and I believed it myself, assuming it was true since it sounded like it would be true, and the verses they used seemed to make sense.

Remember though that the open view is not that God does not know the future at all, but that its partly known and partly not. Its partly open and partly closed so to speak. It affirms the texts that refer to God either knowing the future or predicting the future accurately, and it affirms the verses that plainly refer to God questioning outcomes, etc.

I still do not see what would be lost though, if one were convinced of the balance between both motifs.

I can see how people can be accustomed to Complete and Exhaustive Foreknowledge, and may be difficult to consider alternative views, but I don't see any danger or actual practical loss--that is, if God is still the Creator of the rather large universe and of free agents in his image. Its not like anything has really changed in terms of Almighty God and Salvation. God is still Almighty, and Jesus still died to save us. Nothing changes except free wills literally are actually completely free, although mostly predictable. And God has to deal with that reality every day, showing us how he can handle dealing with free wills, yet he does not enjoy them choosing what is not pleasing to him.

Its not that God's knowledge is limited, so to speak, but more like the definition of a "free will" is such that one cannot completely predict what it will do 100% of the time. By definition, "free" means, to some extent, "not 100% predictable, 100% of the time", by anyone, anywhere, anytime. And we could assume God actually made it that way, so that "Free Will" would actually be "free" in all frames of reference, including God's.

About security in your relationship with God. I have not really commented on that much because I don't believe Open Theology or the Traditional View has any hugely detrimental impact on a persons salvation or relationship with God. Yes, I believe that if openness were true it could seriously help some believers as well as unbelievers understand the God that was so confusing to them in the past. But I don't think its a salvation issue for those already saved and in a spiritual communing relationship with God. I would actually agree that the only "security" is in one's relationship to God:

“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

Being "secure" here is conditional upon being Jesus' Sheep, hearing His voice, and following him. So eternal security definitely depends on one's relationship with God. I don't debate that really.

But as for "one's relationship with God clearing up all theological confusion", I can't find a verse about that, and there lots of people who love God and have wildly different theologies. The "doctrines of demons" verse I believe is talking about destructive heresies that give license to sin or reject the main doctrines of the Gospel. Basically the main points of the Nicene Creed, since the creed was developed to fight heresies and for the disciples to know exactly what they are confessing the truth to be when they get baptized. Openness does not seem to fit the bill of a doctrine of demons or destructive heresy.

Many of the epistles touch on this "licentiousness". Jude has some strong language:

Jude 3–16 (NASB95)

3Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

4For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

5Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

6And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,

7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

8Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.

9But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

10But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed.

11Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.

12These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted;

13wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.

14It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,

15to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

16These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.

Yes, you can believe in evolution and just throw up your hands and say that you don't understand how it can all be consistent and make sense. I kind of did that, but I did not like doing it. Had no choice. Until I spent a good amount of time reading articles on Creation.com and watching lectures on the topics of biological and chemical evolution, archeology, geology, cosmology, astronomy/physics.

But... its not consistent.

Do you honestly believe that whenever Jesus was speaking, he always had in mind that Genesis was not literal, but that, knowing Truth, he always had in mind that we all came from evolution and that there was no literal Adam and Eve created directly by God in the Garden of Even, but that we came from hominids? Because if evolution is true, Jesus must have known it, and must have known how to correctly read Genesis, correctly explain it, and correctly interpret it, right?

Did the Jews, Jesus, apostles and early church all commonly believe that Genesis was not literal history but that we actually came from hominids? It must have been common knowledge since Jesus must have known exactly what the true interpretation of Genesis was, and must have explained it to his disciples. Did he have this worldview in his mind whenever he went around preaching? Jesus also must have known that the Universe has been around for billions of years, not 4000 years. Did Jesus truly have this billions of year old Universe in mind when he went around preaching, or did he have the Genesis genealogical timeframe of creation and approx. ~100 generations from Adam created from dust? Which worldview did Jesus actually have, as you read the text?

[dizerner]

Really nice post brother, I am encouraged. Trying to keep my thoughts concise is a challenge, I'm tend to be wordy.

First, Isaiah. The verb is from the word for tent, and by extension means to dwell. As you can see the idea represented in a tent, I think it means more than just exist or live. You had a good sense of "ad," which is often used with olam. It is the word used in Isaiah 9:6 for Jesus as the "father of ad." It doesn't always mean forever, but the idea when used for the afterlife seems to be perpetuity. I think it is significant that God tabernacles in eternity, because if God simply tabernacled in the "now," that doesn't seem very significant does it. We all live in the now. And if God tabernacled forever, it seems to be two contrasting ideas; notice the same word is used for the location God dwells in, a high and holy place, immediately after. I wouldn't just be a hater on the NASB, it is not beyond a possible meaning as dwell forever, but it wouldn't be a parallel thought that Hebrew loves so much. The verse discusses where God lives, not how long.

Another strictly logical point is predicting future free will decisions, like Peter's denial. One could say God is the best guesser ever factoring on the current data, but if free will really exists, then Peter would be free at any time. It would be extremely embarrassing for Jesus if Peter suddenly had a change of heart. To me, from a strictly logical point of view, I would consider this the strongest argument most directly derived from Scripture outside of kind of deducing God's attributes in general. There literally is no logical way Christ could ensure Peter's future choice here.

I have seriously pondered two ideas; one that God can withhold knowledge from himself. Or two, that God could simply not utilize his future knowledge. We do have an example of Jesus both knowing a thing uniquely and not knowing a thing uniquely; the day or hour, he says he does not know; yet in Revelation is a name that is said to be known only by him. God may simply relate to us without utilizing or factoring in his future knowledge. How painful would it be to share a loving moment with someone you know will one day forsake you? And yet, surely this alone would not stop a God of pure love. I have personally felt like God spoke to me about some things that turned out conditional upon other people's choices and found this very confusing.

Yet still in the end, I have seriously prayed about this and felt this is a doctrine of men trying to fit God into something their limited brains feel they can handle. I see no righteous motivation to lower the power of God. Smarter people than I am consider logic, space and time to be a part of God himself, because it is so hard to imagine anything outside of them; but this must be a function of being a created thing, there are boxes we simply cannot think outside of, and making God a part of creation is just, however well-meaning, a form of idolatry. And even from a totally sinful point of view, making God a gimpy knower doesn't comfort me at all, it just makes God an equally guilty God that is a bit wimpier.

It's really interesting you bring up Christ's words, and whether I believe they were literal. See, here I fall into an area that is not considered generally orthodox, because I am a semi or functional kenotic theologian. I believe Christ did not utilize divine attributes during his human life, but truly became a man, and I think the Scriptural language strongly supports this. If Jesus did not have access to omniscience, his knowledge would necessarily be limited to his human experience and what he heard from God. Under this scheme—where Jesus the human simply had to directly depend on the Holy Spirit for all revelation and miracles—he wouldn't have to necessarily know scientific details. But the fact that I take a non-standard view shows I'm not just toeing party lines or unwilling to consider new things.

You can read more on my view of this here:

https://forums.carm.org/threads/kenosis ... ost-602575

Praying for your growth in Christ.

[njd83]

A new article about evolutionary theory in gradual steps or punctuated equilibrium.

https://phys.org/news/2022-02-sudden-evolutionary.html

The article basically says:

"We didn't have a good example of how evolutionary changes can occur abruptly, until now. Darwin's theory talked about gradual evolutionary steps, but these transitions are not seen in the fossil record. We now have a mutation in a flower's developmental genes that develops without its petals. This is an abrupt biological change that supports the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution, where evolutionary changes happen so fast in the fossil record that we do not have any record of them."

There is a huge glaring problem though. Evolution would need "many" information "increasing" genetic changes to develop "new" organ systems and developmental body plans, not a destructive mutation which deletes information, or a "copy cat mutation" which only puts the same genetic information somewhere else in the genome or body. New genetic information needs to come from a genomic process where a single cell organism can increase the amount of information in the DNA to the point the complexity of a lizard, horse or human. This article does not demonstrate that, and it actually exposes the true problem with evolutionary theory that there are no transitional forms, nor is there any genomic mechanism to "increase" the information in the genome.

What do ya think?

[dizerner]

What do ya think?

I think it's a 100% legitimate point and no one should claim that they can explain how evolution happened yet.

Mutations plus natural selection is just not even close to a strong enough engine to go from molecules to man, and many evade that.

In my research, self-organizational properties of matter and energy could potentially fill some of these gaps.

We also could extend the timeline for abiogenesis by speculating the first forms of life came in on comets.

It may feel dumb and frustrating to simply not know the answer, but there is a lot of power in humility.

[njd83]

Well our cellular biochemistry already uses forms of self-organization, along with guided organization via the molecular interactions to make proteins etc. But, are you anywhere near convinced that self-organization can do what it would need to do to explain chemical and biological evolutionary theory?

Giving self-organization "some" credit, say "< 1%", still you haven't even crossed our solar system, let alone the galaxy, let alone the universe.

I know some principle investigators think self-organization is promising... but all researchers are optimistic about their research. I mean. seriously. Self organization.... simple chemicals, to simple cells.. to complex cells... to humans?

I can't expect much out of a secularist... but a believer in the Almighty and JC... are you kidding me?

Given how many issues the secular academia has with evolutionary theory, knowing the supernatural Deity in the bible... why even think there's a need to hold out that evolutionary theory will come through someday? Its been 200 years since Darwin. The scientific community used to accept the Mosaic account... rejected it after Lyell and Darwin... and has been stubbing their toes ever since.

Its not dumb and frustrating to take God's word for it if the data doesn't even match up to the secular theories. Its not humility to doubt God's word because secular academia mock people who are willing to take God's word seriously.

[njd83]

I forgot to add a joke at the end of my last post...

So you see my whole point about evolution right...?

If the secular interpretation falls short we have no reason not to give God the benefit of the doubt... and take the text as plainly written, and as plainly meant to be understood.

We could also think to take the rest of the texts related to other theological matters.... not Creation matters... as plainly written too... hint hint



Come on, you have to admit that was good. =)

[njd83]

We also could extend the timeline for abiogenesis by speculating the first forms of life came in on comets.

But that just pushes back the abiogenesis question to an unknown location which could never really be studied. Untestable scientific claims are called "psuedo science":

Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (See also: Falsifiability). Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict.

Same with untestable or unfalsifiable scientific claims in cosmology such as inflationary theory, dark matter and dark energy, and of course the big bang "something from nothing"

Hey I thought only the creationists were the psuedo scientists?

=)

[dizerner]

Everybody says their doctrines are plainly read and understood. If I had a dollar for every time a Calvinist told me they just believe the Bible for what it said and there's no free will in the Bible, I think I'd be a millionaire. Should I believe them because they tell me that? Should I believe you?

Look, I could be wrong about evolution. I'm willing to admit that. The circumstantial evidence for me is significant—overwhelming really. Because even using the same building blocks, it would not be hard for God to simply break even a conceivable logical chain of heredity between living things.

Seeing as I still believe in original sin, the incarnation, the resurrection, the final judgment, the spiritual realm, and one original Creator who was inventive enough to form life by a clever chain of dominoes, it's hard to see where the belief has robbed me of something Biblical.

peace