# Open Theists



## soladogg5 (Oct 9, 2004)

I am at a Methodist-Wesleyan school and completely surrounded by people from both affiliations. However, there are also alot of people who are very liberal which leads to things like Open Theism. A prof of mine had me come and talk to him about some of this stuff, and that conversation went rather well. We had just started the topic of God's unchangableness, and I used Malachi 3:6 to begin with, and he brought up Ex. 32. It is the passage when Moses reminds God of their covenant, and in NASB it said that God changed His mind. He disagreed with me that that was a lesson on mediation, and then claimed that scripture condradicts itself. Any suggestions on how to deal with a prof, elder, and one who is condescending towards his students, in a gentle and respectful way?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 9, 2004)

Thinking of reply...give me a few minutes


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 9, 2004)

This reply is going to be limited at the moment and will focus on a few of the prof's questions. He said that Scripture contradicts itself; humor him for the moment. Ask him if he considers the Scriptures that contradict his presuppositions valid and authoritative (expect a no answer). Then ask him by what standard does he validate "his scriptures" that support his position (expect relativistic answer). If you can get a relative response..take it from there.

By the way,
I do not know your prof so a lot of this might not work. Please critique my above suggestion. I am in a quasi-debate/verbal war with an Anti-Christian (he is a nominal christian but attacks those who attack his autonomy) and he loves the cute, cuddly sayings of Jesus (never mind the hell one; people just don't respond to "Cursed are ye into the fire") as opposed to "Paul's opinion." Any modifications or critiques will be warmly appreciated.


----------



## openairboy (Oct 9, 2004)

[quote:16ab797399="soladogg5"]I am at a Methodist-Wesleyan school and completely surrounded by people from both affiliations. However, there are also alot of people who are very liberal which leads to things like Open Theism. A prof of mine had me come and talk to him about some of this stuff, and that conversation went rather well. We had just started the topic of God's unchangableness, and I used Malachi 3:6 to begin with, and he brought up Ex. 32. It is the passage when Moses reminds God of their covenant, and in NASB it said that God changed His mind. He disagreed with me that that was a lesson on mediation, and then claimed that scripture condradicts itself. Any suggestions on how to deal with a prof, elder, and one who is condescending towards his students, in a gentle and respectful way?[/quote:16ab797399]

There is a lot to this issue--epistemology, hermeneutics, metaphysics, etc.--so, I believe, the end of the matter isn't really trying to proof-text one another, because your presuppositions are so different. Bahnsen, in his lectures on transcendental arguments, demonstrates the necessity of Calvinism due to induction. We can have no assurance of the uniformity of nature if God doesn't know what tomorrow holds. The minute your professor is willing to admit that tomorrow will be like today, then he will buy into some element of determinism, which he so strongly wants to deny. This changes the nature of the discussion immediately.

The fact that your prof says that the Bible contradicts itself shows that there are going to be great hermeneutical and epistemological differences between the two of you. If you have read some presupp material, then I would challange his notion of "logic" predicated on his worldview, which is applying predetermined laws of thought to a changing and free universe, followed by a presentation of why you believe logic only works in a worldview where God, who is reasonable and logical, has already pre-interpreted all the facts of the universe and provided their coherence. Another good excercise that your proff will find contradictory is a sound treatment of Psalm 139--begins with David crying out for God to search him, followed by God's complete knowledge of him, and ends with David appealing to God to search him. Your prof will want to say something to the effect, "If God already knows, then why appeal to be searched?" That's the difference between a Biblical world-view and humanism, however it manifests itself.

Another area to go after is the libertine notion of the will. John Frame in his critique of open-theism (No Other God) does a wonderful job demonstrating the folly of their notion of the will. His piece on "Free Will and Moral Responsibilty" can be found  here, assuming I put the url in correctly.

Now, here is where some would disagree, but I believe is one of the best ways to deal with this and many other heresies. How do we know God? We know Him via covenant. Due to the nature of our knowledge, which is not of eternal decrees, we can readily acknowledge that God changes His mind. In fact, I would say that God changes His mind every day a sinner repents. God planned on that persons destruction, but when they repent and believe the Gospel they cross over from death to life, so God's wrath no longer abides on them. I think his reading of Exodus is rather a-historical, treating the Scriptures as a timeless system of truth, rather than the unfolding story of God's redemption of His creation. Ninevah is a class A example of God changing his mind. One of the problems, I believe, is that we are often shoe-horned in wanting to argue from God's position, which we don't have, but limited by what we actually possess, God's revelation to us and our finite selves.

When the Bible isn't treated as a philosophical book, although philosophy can definitely be deduced from it, and tales of moralism, then I don't believe these problems confront us. However, when approach the text through the lens of the enlightenment, then we will wreak havoc on it. So it has often been for the past several years. Seriously, run through Scripture with the "plain reading" (crass literalism) of the "open-theists", who are quite fundamentalist, and see what you come up with. God didn't know where Adam was, he "came down", "he smells", has eyes, etc., this is just the "plain reading" of the text. It is a little humorous to watch them deny the "plain reading" when God's exhaustive foreknowledge is clearly shown. I can't think of the verses off the top of my head and I need to go to bed, but one of my favorite "plain readings" is when I was debating an open theist guy and he quoted from Jer. 19(????) about Israel doing things that didn't "come to [God's] mind", but these were all violations of His commandments in Lev. Man, not only does "god" not know the future, but he quickly forgets the past. After all, God needs the rainbow to "remember" his covenant with Noah and all of creation. Welcome to the "plain reading" of the text.

Now, you are responsible to present the truth to him clearly and with great gentleness and respect. How do you do that? I realize this is rather stock, but cry out to God. Ask God to vindicate Himself through you, demonstrating that He is righteouss and good in all of His ways. If, as Paul went to the Thessalonians, you go to him not with word only, but a demonstration of the Spirit's power, then you and he can rejoice in his election.

sdg, openairboy


----------



## openairboy (Oct 16, 2004)

soladogg,

Any updates?

openairboy


----------



## Puritanhead (Dec 16, 2004)

As Jacob more or less pointed out, you should bait him with the cold logic of a Calvinist, but in the spirit of 2 Tim 2:24. Also, get transfered to a Reformed school at end of semester.


----------

