# Upcoming Debate with Open Theist-Need Suggestions



## Coram_Deo (Apr 6, 2004)

I have an upcoming debate with an open theist for a bunch of College Freshman, and wondering what people who have had experience with this, would suggest I strongly point out. I'm planning on the 5 points and the soveriegnty of God; but wondering if there are any other larger things that you would suggest. 
Thanks,
Blessings
Michael


----------



## Roldan (Apr 6, 2004)

[quote:d955b97b28][i:d955b97b28]Originally posted by Coram_Deo[/i:d955b97b28]
I have an upcoming debate with an open theist for a bunch of College Freshman, and wondering what people who have had experience with this, would suggest I strongly point out. I'm planning on the 5 points and the soveriegnty of God; but wondering if there are any other larger things that you would suggest. 
Thanks,
Blessings
Michael [/quote:d955b97b28]

I would suggest how open Theism is an attack on God's attributes especially His Omniscience and Foreknowledge.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Apr 6, 2004)

This is something I ran around in my head:

If God is not omniscient he does not know something (even if it is only one thing).

If he does not know about something, he cannot affect it without knowing what it is.

If he cannot affect that, he is not omnipotent, but only potent within the realms of his knowledge.

Neither of his attributes remain unique and absolute.

If we believe in a God is is no longer absolutely wise and absolutely powerful to carry out his commands, how can we be assured of our salvation in the least? What if God isn't powerful enough to carry out his promises?

I don't know if that helped. It's 12:51AM...I'm pooped.

Providential blessings in the debate.


----------



## Coram_Deo (Apr 6, 2004)

well, speaking clearly as devil's advocate; God's all knowingness is not being attacked. For God knows all possible worlds, just not actualizations, because that is left in the hands of man to decide. God knows all that there can be to know, and therefore His omniscence is not destoryed or lessened.
Praise God from whom all blessing flow,
Borg


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 6, 2004)

[quote:a88e6ae496][i:a88e6ae496]Originally posted by Coram_Deo[/i:a88e6ae496]
I have an upcoming debate with an open theist for a bunch of College Freshman, and wondering what people who have had experience with this, would suggest I strongly point out. I'm planning on the 5 points and the soveriegnty of God; but wondering if there are any other larger things that you would suggest. 
Thanks,
Blessings
Michael [/quote:a88e6ae496]

Of the books I have read from Open Theist, it is not only an assault on the soveriegnty of God but also the trustworthiness of Scripture itself.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 6, 2004)

I usually throw these folks off guard by expressing my appreciation for having the intellectual honesty to bravely demonstrate that arminianism taken to it's logical extreme greatly diminishes the godness of God.

Arminians for the most part are frightened to admit the consequences of arminianism and so they blur the logic. Open theists recognize that to be consistent in their argument then God must be taught as a weak, limited but well meaning entity.

&quot;Claiming to be wise, they became fools.....&quot;

What motivates the open theist is their need to defend the presence of evil so it's good to have a solid theodicy. I know he's not popular in this neighborhood but I like Gordon Clarks theodicy the best.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 6, 2004)

The best thing to do is to prepare acording to the knowledge you have for that particular audience, and for the particular jperson you are debating, if you know them. Come with the things they need to know. 

Whatever is said, and however the debate goes, you can have this confidence, that no one can harm the truth. So the focus has to be on the people who need the gospel, not on winning the debate. As a matter of fact, when the wrong side wins they usually lose ground, because their wins usually depend on tactics and misrepresentations rather than just plain truth. Their efforts are spent on bending truths out of shape and context to overwhelm their opponents. Do not fear, for they cannot reshape truth, and they cannot hide forever. It is a good way to expose them, even if you lose the debate by points. 

What I believe to be most helpful is to pray, not for yourself only, but more for the people who are being deluded by false religion or man-made teachings, and also for those who are doing the deluding. Don't just ask the Spirit to help you, but submit to being a help to the Spirit's work. If you are doing His work, then He will help you.


----------



## Optimus (Apr 6, 2004)

[quote:e281f682fa]
well, speaking clearly as devil's advocate; God's all knowingness is not being attacked. For God knows all possible worlds, just not actualizations, because that is left in the hands of man to decide. God knows all that there can be to know, and therefore His omniscence is not destoryed or lessened.
[/quote:e281f682fa]

[b:e281f682fa]Oh YES it IS!![/b:e281f682fa]

[quote:e281f682fa]
For God knows all possible worlds, just not actualizations
[/quote:e281f682fa]

In that statment alone shows that God does NOT know all things. Their saying that God is limited to know possibilities but NOT actualizations. If God has limits to His knowledge, then He is NOT all knowing, therefore destroying his attribute called omniscence.


----------



## sundoulos (Apr 6, 2004)

I would point out that God is immutable. He cannot change in the slightest. If God is not omniscient than he has to change as regards his knowledge.

Secondly, God's attributes are perfection. In detracting from an attribute, there is less than perfection.

Thirdly, God is infinite in all his perfections. If God is limited in his knowledge, or any other perfection, than something other than God can conceivably gain more of it than God has, throwing God off his thrown. Such is ludicrous.


----------



## mjbee (Apr 6, 2004)

I would assume that you have put on the full armor of God and are armed with the truth. I must agree with JohnV. Don't fret over the outcome of the debate. Please read Psalm 64 and trust that God will make your opponent stumble over his own tongue. You will not be booed by God's elect. The Holy Spirit is quite capable of giving you answers. God gives the increase, and it has nothing to do with your persuasiveness. 
Prayers,
Bee


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 7, 2004)

If you haven't, pick up Bruce Ware's most devestating critique of OT - God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism.

He dismantles OT in the first four chapters alone.

Most OT advocates have been on the defensive ever since his book came out. In fact, many OT advocates (like Greg Boyd) have had to revise their views and still affirm God's Sovereignty ( they can't get past the fact that scripture does present direct instances where God settles the future and overrides the 'free will' of men in order to do so), yet in the same breath, claim that he only settles some events, not all.

Of course, the major flaw with that is it presents an unloving God who really doesn't take personal 'risks' at all (since in the OT scheme, God is like a 'master chess player' who, because of His knowledge, can always out-move his opponents), but is instead taking risks with the His creation - the objects of His love (in the OT scheme). His risk taking and non-settling of the future and allowing 'free human actions to occur' is directly to blame for all of the human suffering.

At the end of that presentation, tell your opponent to repent and become a Calvinist. :biggrin:


----------



## LauridsenL (Jul 5, 2004)

Thanks for the helpful thread, and particularly the advice about how to approach discussions about OT and the recommendation of Bruce Ware's book. I ran into an old friend of mine about a week ago at a local Christian bookstore/coffeehouse who said that he's read Greg Boyd's works and is convinced by OT. After a brief discussion about the matter, he agree to read a book I recommend after I've read Boyd. (On Friday night he called me from the same bookstore to discuss possible books to read; when he called, I was reading and literally had in my hand John Frame's book, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism; I assume he believes it was just a &quot;coincidence&quot; and had nothing to do with God's foreordination/providence!) 

At my friends insistence, I started Boyd's &quot;Satan and the Problem of Evil&quot; this weekend. I can understand why it would be persuasive to someone who has little or no background in reading sound theology. He raises some difficult (though obviously not insurmountable!) issues, and although there are many holes in the reasoning and exegesis, it certainly has a scholarly &quot;feel.&quot; I'm not convinced that Frame's book is the best to recommend to someone who is already convinced by Boyd. I have a sense that it assumes too much that the reader has an acquaintance with the reformed teaching and understanding of Scripture. I've been looking for additional material -- my pastor has lent me a series of six tapes containing lectures by D.A. Carson in which he explains and rebuts OT. And I've thumbed through Beyond Bounds, edited by Piper. Anyone read that one? 

I very much look forward to reading Ware's book. If there's anything else I should read, please let me know.

Thanks!

Lee Lauridsen


----------



## IX (Jul 5, 2004)

One point that I think is slightly over looked from time to time, is the concept of time.

The Open Theist has a god ruled by, and within, time that he supposedly created, learning as he moves through it. Only knowledgeable as a wise chess player who knows of all possible moves to come. 

For the Biblical God is above and exists outside of time, and knows the beginning from the end not only because He can see them in an instant, but because He is already in all places past and future alike. So God is present in our future in time seeing what has already taken place according to His Will. 

as was mentioned by others, If God has unlimited knowldege,.. then nothing can limit it, not even Himself, or the definition of &quot;unlimited&quot; is vanity. 

For your open theist opponent ask, &quot;with what certainty did God uttered prophecies in the OT when, according to them, they were all subject to failure, due to God not knowing for certain what men would do.&quot; 

I would also make good use of Luther's Bondage of the Will, and Calvin's The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, for references on how they will come at you with Arminian freewillisms.

Peace and Grace be with you in Christ!
John


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jul 5, 2004)

Be sure and mention Isaiah 41:21-24. God calls anyone that worships a god that cannot tell the future with certainty an abomination.


----------



## LauridsenL (Jul 5, 2004)

Thanks for the suggestions. I've already asked him to read Luther's, of the Will. It was one of the books God used to convince me of the correctness of the historical Protestant /evangelical understanding of Scripture.


----------

