Open Theism, aka, Openness Theology/ Flexible Sovereignty

[kaufmannphillips]

George wrote:
To believe in freewill and or Open Theism, in my estimation suggest that God is not all knowing and something less then Almighty.

"Almighty" is a tendentious rendering of the two words that underlie it in translation: Shaddai & Pantokrator. These terms need not be construed in such a fashion.

[Michelle]

George wrote:
To believe in freewill and or Open Theism, in my estimation suggest that God is not all knowing and something less then Almighty.

"Almighty" is a tendentious rendering of the two words that underlie it in translation: Shaddai & Pantokrator. These terms need not be construed in such a fashion.

So, how would you translate or construe those words?

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, Michelle,

There are a number of possibilities for the etymology behind "Shaddai." I am not dogmatic. But if one would construe the basic sense to be "strength" - which is debatable - there is still no inherent necessity to construe this to such an absolute point as omnipotence.

"Pantokrator" could mean something like "all mighty," or something like "all holding" (cue "He's got the whole world ... in his hands"), or something like "all ruling."

[darinhouston]

Interesting...

I did some googling... http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Shaddai.html

Seeing it as "the self-sufficient" one actually makes more sense when I see how it's used in a word study -- often, it follows alpha, omega, without beginning, etc. so a canon of construction would suggest a similar or encompassing meaning, not a different category.

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, Darin,

Your link states: "The rabbinic theory is that [Shaddai] may be formed by the particle [sha-], meaning who, which, or where, or that, plus the word [day], meaning sufficient, enough. Hence the name Shaddai contains the meaning of Self-Sufficient."

The rabbinic literature can be very creative in its interpretation. In this case, one may question the historical likelihood of their latter-day construal. Shaddai seems to be an older epithet for G-d [cf. Exodus 6:3]. But sha- seems to be preponderantly a later grammatical construct. It seems dubious that an older epithet would derive from a later construct.

darinhouston wrote:
Seeing it as "the self-sufficient" one actually makes more sense when I see how it's used in a word study -- often, it follows alpha, omega, without beginning, etc. so a canon of construction would suggest a similar or encompassing meaning, not a different category.

Be careful in your "canon of construction." Examples adduced from Revelation are from Pantokrator, and may or may not be indicative of Shaddai.

Indeed, it is questionable whether a "canon of construction" will be helpful here. In the biblical text, we find usage that riffs off of shad (breast), shadad (devastate), and perhaps even sadeh (field) (with their related forms). But Hebrew literature loves to engage in word-play, and not all puns are etymologically-based. If the epithet were taken over from an earlier time and/or another culture, biblical usage might not telegraph its basic sense at all. Indeed, Shaddai may have lost any of its basic sense in usage, like "Hosanna" has in most Christian quarters.

[George]

How would one explain away this verse if one were to believe in Open Theism?
Eph. 1:11, "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will"

Grace, George

[steve7150]

How would one explain away this verse if one were to believe in Open Theism?
Eph. 1:11, "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will"






If i were an Open Theist i would say God simply intervenes to make things happen the way he wants. The things he predestines was the plan for those who choose to be in Christ and that Christ himself would be the sacrifice for our sins which God foreknew would be necessary because he knows our nature.

[George]

Steve,
Ephesians 1:11,
“also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,”. The problem Steve is that the Scripture I quoted says “...who works all things after the counsel of His will”, not just when He decides to intervene. My understanding of God is that not only the elect of this age does He work out, but all things. Romans 11:33-36,
“For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.
33Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!
34For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR?
35Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN?
36For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things To Him be the glory forever. Amen.”
Does it not seem that this passage has God in control of not just the Jews but the Gentiles also? Are we not all blind to God’s Son until the veil is lifted (see also verses 8 and 9 of this chapter)?
Peace, george

[steve7150]

Steve,
Ephesians 1:11,
“also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,”. The problem Steve is that the Scripture I quoted says “...who works all things after the counsel of His will”, not just when He decides to intervene. My understanding of God is that not only the elect of this age does He work out, but all things. Romans 11:33-36,
“For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.







George, The word "all" is often used for emphasis and not in a literal way such as the gospel went out to "all" the world yet it was not preached in China or Africa.
Additionally Jesus prayed that God's will , will be done on earth as it is in heaven therefore it appears that God does not micro-manage every event but i think intervenes in major events to execute his plan and leaves man with a limited amount of freewill. If you want to take "all" literally then your last quote suggests God shows mercy to all , therefore that would support Christian universalism because his will is that all should be saved and none should perish.

[darinhouston]

George, I would also add that the point you are making with respect to the Ephesians passage would speak to God's ominpotence, and not to his omniscience. The Open Theist would affirm (perhaps more than the orthodox) God's omnipotent ability (not necessarily actuality) to control all things to ensure that his will is done. To their perspective, this is how He would ensure an outcome that He predetermined even though He hasn't "seen" it happen.