# Wikipedia entry on Open Theism



## panta dokimazete (Dec 3, 2005)

I do not have a high view of wikis, but...



> This view of God, based first on Scripture and second on philosophy, allows its advocates to 1) Attribute both power and wisdom to Him without suggesting that *He ordains evil (Calvinism)* 2) Avoid the logical inconsistency of suggesting that human freedom can coexist with foreknowledge of free decisions (Arminianism).



Bold mine - is this an accurate summary of the Calvinistic position?

If not, the wiki needs to be edited...

...and I will need some guidance - God *allows* evil, but does not *ordain* it, right?

That is hyper-Calvinistic, yes?

evil - opposite of good and "not-God"- as contrasted with calamity - which I believe He does ordain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Theism

[Edited on 12-4-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 3, 2005)

BTW: Open Theism <- EEEWWW! 

[Edited on 12-4-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 4, 2005)

I think WCF chapter three summarizes it best:



> I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
> 
> II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.



In some ways it often may seem paradoxical, but it is not contradictory. Some very helpful things have been said on this matter here, here and here.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 4, 2005)

so - and I am interested in specific responses along with references, please -

"He ordains evil"

while simplistic - is accurate?


----------



## gwine (Dec 4, 2005)

> ...and I will need some guidance - God allows evil, but does not ordain it, right?



Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: 
I make peace, and *create evil*: 
I the LORD do all these things. (KJV)

I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and *create calamity*,
I am the LORD, who does all these things. (ESV)

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and *create disaster*;
I, the LORD, do all these things. (NIV)

I know this word evil (calamity, disaster) has been discussed before but I thought you might like to see some of the renderings.

biblegateway.com is a good place to see different versions, although a parallel one would be nice. Any out there?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 4, 2005)

I would certainly say it is simplistic, yes. I would still say, however, that He did ordain the Fall as well as every other event with its consequences, including evil ones, but that He is not the "author of sin" - partially meaning that He does not actively and directly commit the evil acts Himself, and having at the root of its meaning the fact that no evil resides in Him at all. That is what I see as biblical, and consistent with the Confession's intent, and is also what is elaborated on in the threads I linked above.

What are your thoughts on the matter overall?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 4, 2005)

I am closely aligned with your thoughts:

God ordains all events - evil is integrated into these events as a necessary component of redemptive history, but is man authored in Creation.

so - Calvinism:

God ordains the effects of evil to His Glory?

...searching for the right words in a pithy context...


----------



## Presbyrino (Dec 4, 2005)

Like other's have mentioned, words like "ordains", "allows", "permits" or "decrees" can at first glance seem simplisitic and in need of some further explaination. Perhaps you could start an wiki entry on the "Decrees of God" and link the entry back to the word.

Maybe this can help:

*Characteristics of the Divine Decree.*

7. WITH REFERENCE TO SIN IT IS PERMISSIVE. It is customary to speak of the decree of God respecting moral evil as permissive. By His decree God rendered the sinful actions of man infallibly certain without deciding to effectuate them by acting immediately upon and in the finite will. This means that God does not positively work in man "œboth to will and to do," when man goes contrary to His revealed will. It should be carefully noted, however, that this permissive decree does not imply a passive permission of something which is not under the control of the divine will. It is a decree which render the future sinful act absolutely certain, but in which God determines (a) not to hinder the sinful self-determination of the finite will; and (b) to regulate and control the result of this sinful self-determination. Ps. 78:29; 106:15; Acts 14:16; 17:30.

_Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, 1960 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1984), p. 105._


*Objections to the Doctrine of the Decrees.*

3. It makes God the author of sin. This, if true, would naturally be an insuperable objection, for God cannot be the author of sin. This follows equally from Scripture, Ps. 92:15; Eccl. 7:29; Jas. 1:13; 1 John 1:5, from the law of God which prohibits all sin, and from the holiness of God. But the charge is not true; the decree merely makes God the author of free moral beings, who are themselves the authors of sin. God decrees to sustain their free agency, to regulate the circumstances of their life, and to permit that free agency to exert itself in a multitude of acts, of which some are sinful. For good and holy reasons He renders these sinful acts certain, but He does not decree to work evil desires or choices efficiently in man. The decree respecting sin is not an efficient but a permissive decree, or a decree to permit in distinction from the decree to produce, sin by divine efficiency. No difficulty attaches to such a decree which does not also attach to a mere passive permission of what He could very well prevent, such as the Arminians, who generally raise this objection, assume. The problem of God´s relation to sin remains a mystery for us, which we are not able to solve. It may be said, however, that His decree to permit sin, while it renders the entrance of sin into the world certain, does not mean that He takes delight in it; but only that He deemed it wise, for the purpose of His self-revelation, to permit moral evil, however abhorrent it may be to His nature.

_Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, 1960 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1984), p. 107-108._


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 4, 2005)

Good idea - thank you!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 4, 2005)

I would commend to you John Frame's _The Doctrine of God_. He does a superb job interacting with and refuting Open Theism both from Scripture and plain reason.

As far as the statement goes that you quoted with Wikipedia, I don't have a problem with the part that says God ordains evil.

It is the first part of the quote that is wrong:


> This view of God, based first on Scripture and second on philosophy...


There is nothing Scriptural about it.

The last part is also stated wrong.

How about:


> This view of God, based on a libertarian view of free will, allows its advocates to 1) Attribute both power and wisdom to Him without suggesting that He ordains everthing to His own glory, including evil (Calvinism) 2) Avoid the logical inconsistency of suggesting that libertarian human freedom can coexist with foreknowledge and Divine Sovereignty (Arminianism).


There's really nothing wrong with the idea that God ordains evil unless one is offended by the idea of God. The part about ordaining evil is inadequate primarily because it reads like it's the only thing we believe He ordains.

To understand Open Theism you must begin with their presupposition which is the libertarian view of free will. Really, an Open Theist is a consistent Arminian.

Here's a pretty good article on libertarian free will:
http://www.carm.org/open/free_will.htm

But, again, Dr. Frame's work is magnificent on this subject.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 4, 2005)

Semper, I think you got it dead on - I have made the modification - 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

Thanks!

[Edited on 12-5-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------

