I viewed the You Tube clip you mentioned (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV_zZ6YWfNQ)

It is a good discussion that touches on much that we have been talking about.

He spends a fair bit of time noting that “all men” in 1Tim. 2:4 must mean the same as “all men” in 1Tim. 2:2 and notes that it clearly means all categories of men there because of the reference to “kings and those in authority”. But, of course, there are other possible views. The “all men” off 2:2 could mean every single individual, and the reference to “kings and those in authority” could have been given as an example, or in the sense of “yes, including those in authority who persecute you.”

I do find an error in Oakley’s thinking when it comes to foreknowledge. He holds that if God knows it, then it is foreordained and therefore there is no free will. I don’t think that these are the only possible positions. God can know that something will happen not just because He has decreed it, but because He knows it. (He may know it because He exists in all three dimensions of time, or He may know it because He can logically deduce all possible human choices in advance, or by some other mechanism that we don’t understand.) The fact that He knows it, does NOT mean that it isn’t a free will choice.

Lets’ give one example as to how this MIGHT work. I video tape you getting breakfast in the morning, and you freely choose coffee as your morning beverage. I then play that tape back and point out to my friend that I know, with 100% certainty what you will drink. Sure enough, you drink the coffee! My foreknowledge of what would happen on the video has nothing to do with your choosing to do it. If God “sees” all events in human history into eternity future, that in no way negates human freedom and responsibility for choices that are made as mankind progresses from the past into the future.

(It’s been a few days since I reviewed this blog; I don’t seem to be getting any alerts about posts to this blog….)

In your last post, you said, “If one declares that God has foreordained everything and and that that declaration nullifies the exhortation to pray, then one must see the implications of that conclusion. That is, not only is prayer, and the exhortation thereof, needless, so is everything else, including God.”

I fail to see the logic of this on a couple of grounds. First, I didn’t say that it nullified the exhortation to pray, simply that it made such exhortations logically inconsistent. It is, I think all should agree, a weakness in the Calvinist position.

Second, simply because this one particular element is inconsistent does not mean that everything else is. It is possible (and this would be the Arminian view as I understand it) to believe that God foreordains many things, but not all things. Because something is foreordained doesn’t make it meaningless. However, anything which is foreordained makes any exhortation to do that thing needless since it was foreordained. That is simply a matter of logic. To exhort someone to do something implies two things: 1) That such exhortation might actually move someone to respond, and 2) That a person can actually respond. I suppose it also implies the negatives of these; that is, the failure to exhort might mean that the person failed to act in a certain way.

You also said that, “… foreordination gives it meaning. Because God foreordained it, He gets the glory for it.”

I couldn’t agree more. God will be glorified for what He does. But will He get glory for what He doesn’t do? He cannot sin and does not cause people to sin; He gets no glory from our sin. (He gets glory for forgiving sin, but that is a different matter.) All I am saying here is that it is possible for God to be glorified in any number of ways without seeing Him as the one who foreordains everything.

Finally, you said, “I get the feeling from your last comment (2nd paragraph) to me that we should take a certain theological position based on the way people will respond to it and not based on whether or not it is scriptural. Please tell me I’m wrong.”

Yes, you are wrong. :) My point is simply to recognize that there are weaknesses in every theological system, and that reasonable people can come to the Scriptures believing them to be God’s infallible, inerrant, and authoritative word and come to different conclusions. When we try to understand that Word, we must use reason, logic, principles of grammar, accurate definitions, context, culture, and the like. A position which is either logically inconsistent or contrary to statements made elsewhere in Scripture (or violates rules of grammar, or is based on faulty texts, etc., etc.) should rightfully be challenged.

I can’t see how that demonstrates a picture of God that is omniscient. It sounds more like we’re making God into our image.

And BTW, what have you got against Greek thinking? :)

I may be wrong – in fact, I probably am wrong – but the best explanation I can come up with is this: To God there is no past, present or future. It simply is.

To us, life passes by in a linear fashion. We speak to God, and He hears us. He knows our thoughts, words, deeds…everything. God chooses to reveal Himself to us according to His will and His plan.

The interaction happens, but not in the way you describe. I agree, God is with us, but He is not like us. He cannot be.

I think that this is true of God. He doesn’t change in who He is. His character and nature are still the same. But He does change in the small sense of having experienced something new. Whether He knew it would happen for sure or not, He hadn’t experienced it until it happened.

The idea that God never changes in even this way is a result of Greek thinking from the smart guys (Aristotle, Plato, Socrates). They introduced this idea to counteract the wickedly quick changing greek gods who were led by their emotions. It was these Greek philosophers who came up with a stoic God. It was just a pendulum swing too far.

So, I can’t speak for Mike or every open theist, but I can speak for me. I think this is how it works. It is actually one of the coolest things about God – that He is able to interact in real relationship with real people. As people change things (whether they repent or start sinning) He can alter what needs to happen to fix the actions in the earth – be it good or bad consequences. He really is “God with us.”

A kid walks into geometry class at 10 a.m. and listens. The teacher presents the pythagorean theorem. The kid tests it and understands it. Kid walks out of the class at 10:50 a.m.

My question: other than the fact that time has passed, and factoring out any other input the kid received in class, is the kid different from the time he arrives and the time he departs? In the strict sense, he simply knows something at 10:50 that he did not know at 10 a.m. Does knowledge change a person?

If it does, what does it say about open theism, since we hold that God cannot change? The unchangeable One is learning?

If God has no knowledge of future, He didn’t know, in 1962, that I would be born in 1964.

I am not satisfied with your answer.

Please explain whether or not God is transcendent. If so, to what degree?

Also, please explain whether or not God is immanent. If so, to what degree?

These may seem like petty questions at first, but I have deep concern for your doctrine of God. One’s doctrine of God has a profound impact on how one develops and views other doctrine.

I think that you gave me a quick short answer of “yes” because you think my question was absurd. Of course you aren’t a Pantheist, right? The point I am making is that the Open Theism view of transcendence/immanence is dangerously close to that of Pantheism. Maybe you disagree. I hope so. If so, I would like you to make that distinction – which can be done by answering the two questions at the beginning of this comment.

As an aside, I have studied Open Theism apart from what you have explained here. You have not misrepresented Open Theism as far as I can tell. What I have done is taken the premises of Open Theism and applied them to other doctrine to come up with a conclusion. My conclusion was that Open Theism’s doctrine of God and Pantheism’s doctrine of God have similarities, particularly with how they view immanence.

Alex,

In regards to free will. Yes, I believe that humans are free in ways that God is not free. We can act in opposition to our nature, God cannot. He cannot sin, humans can. We are free in ways that He is not and will never be. Humans are free to do things that God is not free to do. Would you not agree?

Danny,

The fact that you are comparing open theism with pantheism completely baffles me. Either I have seriously miscommunicated what open theism is about, or I seriously misunderstand what pantheism is about. I dunno, man. Honestly have no idea how you came up with the comparison. Is there anything I have said that led you to think that I believe that there are many gods, or that the sun and moon and stars and trees are gods, or that everything is god?

The short answer to your question: “Is the god of Open Theism allotted enough transcendence to distinguish itself from the deity of Pantheism?”

is “yes”.

Handshake warmly accepted.

[I edited this response]

The sense I was conveying was not a charge but a question. Note the word “perhaps”. You might note the irony here; I find McLaren annoying because he has a tendency to say things that can be easily interpreted two different ways. I want to be clear.

Your professor’s statement strikes me as exactly the sense in which I intended to be understood. We’re using words, inflections, interpretations, etc. to convey something about the most high and holy God. The line between profound and profane gets pretty narrow sometimes.

Now, regarding your comment, my disagreement is this: the atonement is exactly the opposite of injustice. In fact, justice is required for those guily of sin. If God does something unjust, He no longer is consistent with His character. Jesus, by the will of God, stood in the place of those God has chosen, to receive the punishment due them for their sin. If you were saying that God was unjust to punish His Son, then, yes, I would say your comment borders on blasphemy. But…were you really saying that God was unjust? I don’t think so.

How does substitutionary atonement work, and why did God choose to do that? I don’t know, but I am grateful. On this we do agree, I would hope.

It was coincidental that I heard McLaren on a podcast yesterday, and his point was that God was no different from man if he has to resort to violence to get His way. My jaw dropped. McLaren looks with contempt on substutionary atonement and seems to have rejected the existence of hell.

Handshake extended. Didn’t mean to cause a stir.

Danny…we gotta plan our night at Matty’s. And Mike, you gotta be there.