Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, talks briefly about Open Theism with @MikeWinger. View the full interview here: • Mike Winger on Soterio...
It seems strange that one would more readily call someone a heretic regarding what they believe about God’s ability than they are regarding what someone believes about His character.
It's clear God has the ability. Period. Limitless. However to say that God has preordained the salvation of everyone is just doing scripture an injustice. It's clear that some people aren't going to make it. It's God's prescriptive will that none should perish that all should come to repentance but many won't because of the hardness of their own hearts. Did God harden their hearts? Or do they have a role to play in their own demise?
Just to be clear, Open Theism is NOT calling in to question God's ability to know future events - it says that there is no future for God to know (it is open) and that God knows that. In other words God knows absolutely everything to do with the future that it is possible to know (and actually that is not really nothing at all, since God can know things that he wills to happen.
@@wayneburchell6346 --- I guess I really wasn't disagreeing with you; its just that you kind of contradicted yourself briefly. GOD knows the future of all material that hasn't been acted upon by free-willed decisions *PERFECTLY.* But then HE knows the future of that material until its randomly acted upon again by free-willed actions. Rinse and repeat.
@William Wallis Is. 46; 48 the context shows how God knows some vs all of the future: ABILITY, not supposed prescience (cannot extrapolate some to all from this proof text either).
@@godrulz37 Excuse my ignorance here, but could you explain the proof text, and point out what verse exactly I should be looking at? I'm a little lost, but really want to understand your point.
I believe OPEN THEISM is an inescapable presupposition to prayer, that we might CHANGE the actions of GOD to intervene in the LIVES of men, YES even a Calvinist prays like an OPEN THEISM, keep up the OPEN THEISM prayers.
So I was raised a loose non-calvinist baptist, and I had never heard of open theism. I did struggle with the idea of free choice and God's foreknowledge, and so I almost came to what probably is an open theist conclusion. I was still not settled on it when I started going to a heavily Calvinist church. It almost convinced me but I could never really accept it, and in further searching a Biblical studies I mostly agree with Dr. Flowers on the issue. I listen to Mike Winger a lot too and he's very helpful on so many topics. I want to say to him that I do think you can be a Christian and open theist (at least the version I kind of was). This is how; all Christians agree that there are things God cannot do; besides the obvious of evil, God also cannot do nonsense, for example He cannot create a rock heavier than He can lift. He's not a God of chaos and nonsense, so there are things in that nonsense category that He "cannot" do, and this does NOT take away from the omnis. I came to open theism by concluding that knowing a free choice before it was made is nonsensical, and therefore actually impossible, the same way 2 cannot equal 3, or a circle be a square, and therefore God does not know our individual choices before we make them. I don't believe that anymore, and appeal to mystery sort of like Dr. Flowers does, but I understand and sympathize with the open theist position that takes the same approach that I did.
Why not just have open theists on, and let them speak for themselves? Will Duffy would be an ideal representative to interview. He is knowledgeable, amiable, and well-spoken.
@@craigmayberry1147 I wouldn’t say that, though perhaps others who hold to an open view of the future would. The open view is less about the nature of God and more about the nature of reality as Scripture teaches, along with a coherent philosophy of time/ space. God knows everything that can be known.
@@Terrestrial_Dan so the "open" part is referring to mans perspective? That I agree. But to say that something might exist that God is unaware of is heretical
@@craigmayberry1147 Open Theism affirms that God is not ignorant of any thing knowable. Since the future consists of possibilities, He knows this reality as it is. Open can refer to the nature of creation, God's openness to creation, nature of the future, etc.
I honestly go back and forth with open theism. It does help explain some passages in scripture. Ex. Gods response before the Flood, Gods response to sacrificing children, and other places where God adjusts his plan to fit. God is all powerful. That would mean that if wanted to make something happen on a certain date to fit a prophecy (Christs birth), then it will happen no matter what. I don't come at it thinking about the problem of evil and placing God at blame. I seek to understand the narrative of scripture and how it all fits together. I understand and believe the Gospel of Christ. If God doesn't know the future, I don't look at it as an impairment. It actually helps me realize that he is walking with me in real time and knowing far better than me about how I should go about my day. I can trust that he is powerful enough to know what is best for me. That being said I go back and forth with it.
EDF offers no providential advantage (and is impossible with LFW) since God could not change the foreknown future even if He wanted to (would make FK false). The illustrations of God knowing you will die in a car accident and then having you take a different path to not die is sci-fi nonsense, not biblical, not coherent.
@@godrulz37 Exactly. There are only two logically consistent positions: 1 - God has complete foreknowledge and everything is determined (the future is set in stone, even for God) 2 - Foreknowledge doesn't exist (because the future is unwritten and not determined) the Biblical narrative makes way more sense with assumption 2
@@thealexmarriott I think youre wrong. There are many things that God brought to pass irrevocably so. Christ being the prime example. Question did the fall have to happen? Did God foreknow it would and already have a plan in motion to fix it? Or was he shocked and had to come up with a contingency plan? Better yet it you affirm a literal devil that was supposedly a fallen angel did God allow that? Or was he just taken by surprise? I think it more likely that we're free to choose our way to follow the instruction of the Bible and live a godly life by faith. And likewise others will choose the opposite and serve themselves according to their lusts and perish and ultimately God will win in the end. To think that God doesn't see every possible outcome from every single angle is ridiculous and not biblical. And no I'm not saying he determines what will happen only that he knows what can happen and he knows humanity so well that he ultimately knows what we will do given any set of circumstances
@@godrulz37 How does your illustration make any sense. That example is the story of the Bible in a sense God warns we are heading down a path to death and wants us to listen to Him so He can save us. They're the exact same thing.
Love both of you and my Calvinistic brothers. The question Mike raised is a powerful one. If Calvin had it right, babies are “doomed from the womb” not just foreknowledge but by divine decree and he destroys those not elected for his glory, he would be evil. As Christians we are called to judge by God’s standards and the fruits of behavior. That god would be depraved. My alcoholic brother, who had led a life of depravity, finally came to the end of himself and looked toward God. Ministered to by some selfless Calvinistic brothers he called me to discuss his decision. He said he always thought God was a God of love - something he learned as a child, but if God elects some and not others, he wondered how he could be loving. This added doctrine the Calvinists brought was a deal breaker for him. After explaining the errors of their theology he accepted Christ. The point is, my brother, could tell good from evil, the true God from an error. I love God because of his love for me. His feet washing humility, desire for all men, patience and long suffering, willingness to die for me, etc. I would not love any powerful god, simply because he is strong and creative. It is God’s kindness that leads me to repentance. We’re god to pick a child of mine to be doomed from the womb for his glory I would stand against him like God stood against pagan gods that believed in child sacrifice. I think as God lovers we should be proud of that.
I appreciate Mike's position on this, but I think your point is a really powerful one. By the way, that's awesome news about how you were able to witness to your brother. I'm so glad you were able to bring him the truth of the gospel, and stop the confusion and despair that Calvinism can cause! We love God because he first loved us, not because He is incredibly powerful. Sure, we might worship and seek to appease such a god, but what would there even be to love? I have had the same line from a Calvinist "be careful because when you find out you're wrong..." but surely the same holds true for them. Maligning God's character and withholding His love from countless lost souls, and themselves! Is it really so much worse to say that he is indeed loving, and isn't unloving and unjust? Aren't we just defending God's charictar? If we say "God does not lie" does anyone advise caution just in case we eventually find out He is a liar?
@@samuelbarns118 If were wrong there’s literally nothing we can do about it so it’s a pointless warning. Only he has anything to concern himself with, he who told you that and he does have that to be concerned about.
@@jordandthornburg Yeah, I agree. I'd far rather live my life in a relationship with a loving God and find out at the end that I'm wrong but I was actually a mindless robot and had no choice, than live with that assumption only to find that all the while a loving God had been holding out his arms to me and asking me to come and find peace.
I had John Sanders as a professor back in the 90’. He believed, at least at that time, that God chose to create a world where He limited Himself because He wanted to give man free will. So most of His future knowledge is open because God doesn’t know with certainty how we will respond, it is not determined.
Father please make sure that whatever you know will happen, actually happens, even thou there is no chance it can happen otherwise. In Jesus name, Amen.
Both of you are awesome and I thank God for your ministries but I believe that you are both mischaracterizing Open Theism in a very fundamental way. I’m not an expert on open theism but from what I have heard, open theists’ view does not concern any supposed limitation on God, rather it is merely a view of the nature of time and reality and they argue that their view is more biblical. From what I have heard, they do not affirm God’s inability to do anything that is possible. In their view, there is no limitation on God’s ability do do anything possible. They believe that knowing the future perfectly is not a possible thing. They believe the future is open to different possibilities. God knows all those possibilities and probabilities perfectly, so nothing takes him by surprise, but because possibilities are real, the future, technically speaking, is not actually 100% knowable, even to an all knowing God. Therefore, in the same way it would not be fair to say that God is not all powerful because He could not make a round square, a married bachelor, or make a rock too heavy to lift, it would not be fair to accuse open theists of denying God’s ability because He does not know the future with total certainty. So, if this is their position, there should be no discussion about God’s ability or inability when discussing open theism, rather we should be discussing the nature of time and how this dynamic is treated biblically.
@@reynaldodavid2913Jo My brother.... Your claim about any supposed blasphemy on the part of Open atheists is misplaced because you have misunderstood what Open Theists are saying. They are NOT denying that God is all knowing. Rather their claim is about the nature of Time and events. To illustrate this point, if we were to follow the same logic you used, we would have to conclude that anyone’s view of God is heretical unless he/she affirms that God can make a square shaped circle or a married bachelor. The presumption of Open Theists is that knowing the future with certainty is an abstract idea that is not metaphysically possible. Therefore on that view there can be no claim that Open Theists are in any way diminishing God’s omniscience or omnipotence. Obviously, it would not be reasonable, much less heretical, to expect God to do something metaphysically impossible. So this means, if anyone wants to debate against Open Theism, they should find and leverage scriptural support that the future is fixed and/or that possibilities are not real. That’s where the debate properly resides.
@@aforderhase Hey man! I was into Open Theism for a short while as God's foreknowledge seems to me the biggest philosophical hurdle as a Christian. My view was essentially the same as what you've described here. I also would add that God sometimes works explicitly towards a certain end (to fulfill certain prophecies about Jesus being born in Bethlehem for example). A big breaking point for me was two-fold: -Everyone is always ultimately capable of choosing between two really hard choices. It is never impossible to pick the harder one (although they might be 99% likely to pick the easier one) -God will never cause anyone to do evil. He is not a tempter (James 1) and he does not cause people to do evil/sin. Someone brought Peter to my attention. How Jesus knew beforehand that he would betray Him. I just couldn't square that reality with my Open Theist-view. The only way I could fathom that situation was through foreknowledge. And so, in order to stay humble before the Bible's words, I had to abandon Open Theism for a more traditionalist view. Any thoughts?
@@dantombs5697 Bob is overall good about Open Theism, but wrong about Mid-Acts dispensationalism. He is also wrong to say God could choose to not know things that are knowable (like what happens in a gay bar, etc.).
Love the fork in the road analogy Mike uses at the beginning... That God's goodness and omniscience are in no way incompatible with free will isn't complicated. What complicates it is an anthropomorphic construction of the Divine that imagines Him as constrained by the arrow of time in the same way that we are.
I found this really encouraging after spending last week listening to good ol James White telling open theists they're heretics, and then listening to the open theists say exactly what I've believed for years. I'm so glad there are those who will still call me brother even if I use this new label.
James White is pretty aggressive and often times attacks his version of a theology. As a Molinist I have watched him do the same thing with us while not understanding what it even is
With respect to Mike, that final question is a contradiction. He's asking if God were evil would you serve Him. It's like asking if God weren't God would you serve Him. No, of course not because then He wouldnt BE the God of the Bible especially as shown most clearly in Christ.
Exactly!! Absolute nonsense. It would be like devil worship! A god who decrees evil, and predetermines sin and people to do evil, how is it the same God of the Bible? Even worse, that god not only thought of evil, decreed it, and caused it, but then he also turned around and blamed man for it! He damns people when they are still in their mother's womb and after they are born he teases them telling them to turn to him to be saved but he never allows them to actually come.... and sent his son only to die for some of his creation leaving all the rest to die, giving the chance to be redeemed only to some and not to others. If that is not the supreme definition of evil, I don't know what is!
@@Franci0242 Denying Calvinistic sovereignty, determinism, omniscience is not tantamount to denying the triune God. Affirming dynamic vs static creation/omniscience is also not tantamount to a false god like Allah. Differing views on the nature of creation, attributes of God, etc. held by equally capable, godly believers is not denying the triune God (just a wrong or right understanding of the debatable details).
@@godrulz37 Sorry but I don't think you read what I wrote as your comment seems completely unrelated to mine... The things I stated in my comment are clearly not debatable details... And just because someone believes in a triune god, it doesn't mean that it's the Triune God. Calvinism clearly has another triune god. And their triune god is worse than any other false god of human conception I know.
Blessings to you both! Question that many others are in here asking, why not have an open theist on and have them explain their view? What both of you did here was paint an almost comedic picture of a particular framework of beliefs rather then letting someone who holds to that view speak on that, and then critiquing/ following up with questions on that. Ps- the mention of Greg Boyd has nothing to do with open theism in here... if you don’t like his perspective on the OT, cool, but dishonest to throw the open view out without addressing it. If it’s as “embarrassing” as advertised, then it will fall on its face and your perspective will be clearly seen as biblical.
I still didn’t understand how open theism does the same thing Calvinist do. It’s all over the New Testament that God has shown times where he is surprised, he has been wrong about his projections, he gets mad, he changes his mind, he test man to see what they do, etc....
Sorry you missed it but they did discuss what open Theist believe. They did mention that the God of open theism cannot tell what the future holds or what men will do with future free-will acts. A God who cannot determine the future is no God at all and not worthy of our worship. How can the god of open theism guarantee eternal salvation to you if he is not sure something may change somewhere down the line?
@@Notacalvinist_24 where in the Bible does it say God knows the future? He obviously didn’t know if Abraham’s would sacrifice Isaac and also didn’t know wild grapes were gonna be produced in Isaiah 5. God’s foreknowledge comes from Plato not the Bible
@@eugene3484 Isaiah 46:9-10. Regarding the Messiah, Isaiah 53 and 54, Genesis 3:15. Also, predicting that pharaoh would reject Moses‘ command to let us people go. He told Peter that he would deny him three times before the rooster crowed. Deuteronomy 16 where the Lord told Moses that the people would prostitute themselves with foreign gods when they entered the land. I am sure I can find a bunch more
As for the Bible saying that God displays human emotions and acts in what appears to be human ways , those are all considered to be anthropomorphisms. God doesn’t literally have a hand but the Bible uses that imagery so we can relate to him. In other words, he is condescending to our finite limited minds.
If I was an open theist I think my position would be “God is supreme creator, naturally he has power over all things and therefore the ability to reconcile everything back unto himself, and so he will exhaust all sin before it would ever be able to exhaust Him, so it is in that way that God knows his Will prevails in the long run, and along the way human free will is at play and essentially determining how long it will take for the reconciliation, but God makes calculated interjections into our affairs, as any good father does, but does not necessarily always know which decisions we will make”… Not eloquently stated by any means but you get the point…
That's why the issue is first accepting the presupposition that Scripture gives the true definitions of God's nature and clearly reveals His actions. Thus determinism and an all encompassing decree before creation that sets everything to work out only one way is a false premise, that Calvinism, Molinism, and Arminianism all buy into. Only dynamic omniscience and a future defined as partly open in God's mind reflects Scripture.
I see this so differently from Mike. C. S. Lewis writes about this conundrum. If God causes evil to happen, how then do we call Him good? If we say that God causes children to be abused and exploited, while saying that He is holy, we have made language useless. Our words mean nothing. Good no longer means good. Holy means nothing. I agree with Lewis.
Yes, morally, Open Theism makes GOD look as GOOD as GOOD gets and Calvinism makes God look as Bad, as Bad can be, ya and you would have to feel sorry for Satan because God made him that bad
@@jonathanchaney5896 Christ GAVE Himself. He wasn't forced. He said so, Himself. It was the ultimate expression of God's love for us. God's love and God's holiness met at the cross.
@@jonathanchaney5896 He did not make it happen. He orchestrates MAN'S evil intents to His own good purposes: Gen 50:20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive. (NKJV) This is a much more glorious way of looking at God's sovereignty. He's so powerful that He doesn't need for us to be mere puppets. No matter what we decide to do God will still accomplish His purpose. He cannot be thwarted. The wicked Haman built a scaffold to hang the innocent Mordecai on. God didn't MAKE Haman do such an evil thing, but God did use Haman's wicked actions against him. Haman was hanged on the very scaffold he built for an innocent man of God. God is awesome!
@@dfischer5878 not sure, if you mean, you want God's will to be done..... ex. cause "HE would have NONE perish", but unfortunately FREEWILL in people lets in room for our will. The part of prayer I'm saying is OPEN, is asking GOD to do something amazing, touch His garment and be whole, ask for healing when your hurt, grant opportunity... why ask if it's already determined? right
Dr Flowers thanks for this. However, You should have Warren McGrew on to discuss DYNAMIC OMNISCIENCE. Personally, I don't see any scriptural verses that would be contrary to the dynamic omniscience view (when correctly understood).
Yes, dynamic and static omniscience affirms that God knows all that is knowable. In dynamic, it recognizes that reality is dynamic and not settled, so God knows contingencies vs certainties (the speaker is right that modal logic is relevant, but did not go into it yet).
@@godrulz37 So: How did He know when the Babylonian captivity would end (Dan 9)? How did He know how long the children of Israel would be in Egypt (Gen 15)? Shall I go on?
If you acknowledge calvinists as your brothers, you need to tell the moderators on your livestreams to stop saying calvinism is another Gospel and we're not brothers in Christ.
The true gospel of Christ is God genuinely loves all, genuinely died for all, genuinely seeks to save all, genuinely calls all to salvation, and states all can be saved. To believe or preach anything else is to believe and preach a different gospel is it not?
@@JStevensdk7 Differing doctrinal views on the details held by equally capable, godly, Jesus-trusting believers is not tantamount to a different gospel like JW, Mormon, Muslim. Don't turn our views into a sect or cult or vilify fellow believers for not being theologically infallible/astute.
Isaiah 52 He dug it all around, removed its stones, And planted it with [b]the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it And also hewed out a [c]wine vat in it; Then He expected it to produce good grapes, But it produced only [d]worthless ones.
@@reynaldodavid2913Jo It illustrates a divine principle from Is. 46 and 48 where God can make a declaration and bring it to pass by His power/ability (vs supposed exhaustive prescience). It also illustrates how God expected good grapes/things from Israel or Adam/Eve, but was disappointed when they rebelled contrary to expectation and contrary to necessity (was possible, but no good reason/excuse they disobeyed God). God was genuinely grieved and regretted in Gen. 3, a change of disposition with changing contingencies. The future is at least partially open for God and us (you must make things figurative without warrant to deny this revelation; as well, how else could God say things like He changed His mind other than what was said? What does it mean if not the face value meaning? Change your theology, not the Bible).
Winger falsely states that “open theists believe that God cannot be charged with negative events because God didn’t know it was going to happen”. Open theists believe that God knows ALL things. God knows the future exhaustively. However, how does he know the future? We believe that he knows the future as both possibilities and as certainties. God knows ALL the possibilities and is prepared to interact with the event as if it was the only possibility. The major open theists believe that the future is “partially” open. God can make deterministic choices if he so chooses, ie. the incarnation, second coming, etc.
Boyd used to talk about neo-Molinism. Not all Open Theists agree that God knows all possibilities and contemplates them in eternity past to be better at providence (we should emphasize His knowledge and power, not computational crunching of possibilities).
@@godrulz37 Why would you assume that God has to “computationally crunch possibilities”? He simply knows all things. He knows all certainties and he knows all possibilities.
@@paullaymon5746 There are infinite possibilities that God could think about without knowing them inherently. He does not have to know or contemplate endless trivialities that will never obtain/happen nor every possible permutation of sin and perversity possible. His intelligence and knowledge is sufficient to respond providentially. Crystal ball foreknowledge or having to think about incoherent possibilities is simply not necessary for an omnicompetent, providential God. It is more Molinism to have the need for exhaustive possibility (Boyd disagrees with me).
Some 'Open Theists' deny God knows 'all possibilities', or to be define the word know, has thought or envisioned them. As a holy Moral Being there is no value in imagining all different evils in minute detail. God would have better control over His mind than that, just as He expects us to have control over our own imaginations.
I'd say that theistic determinism is far worse than open theism. (they might both be equally wrong of course) That God's somehow in a mystery transcends time and is also present and active within it - upholding all reality, is Scriptural. We know that there are certain things God cannot do. Not things he simply won't do, but can't do. This does not diminish His sovereign divinity or any one of His outflowing attributes. And because, to a point we must all be agnostic about the mystery of the relationship between God's eternity and time, we cannot from Scripture alone definitively rule out the possibility that, to some degree, the future, even to the mind of God, is open and full of possibilities. I would say that our reaction against open theism stems more from philosophical presupposition / tradition / indoctrination than from Scriptural revelation. Scripture can be used to both support the "open" view of God, or oppose it; but aspects of Platonic philosophy as an interpretive "lens" will only ever be against it.
@Ruslan KD one emoji... 🤯.. with you on the brain ache. BTW I thought your ditty said Kings Stream! I swore it said that!! Ha I was convinced lol . Just read King's Dream comment below/above.... I'm so thick lol.. but do have a degree! Trying to understand Calvanism, that's enough!
These guys haven’t read the Bible enough. Open theism is not truth Determinism isn’t even a thing God is Sovereign and causes all things to work together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. He IS the standard so you must not think a thing is good therefore God does it but rather God does it so it is good. Relax
Keep in Mind OMNISCIENCE means knowing everything that can be known. Is the future the same in category (substance) as the present and the past? In other words, is the future real ("factual") in the same sense/category that the present and the past are real (factual)? Another thought: One definition of OMNIPOTENT can mean able to anything that can possibly be done without constraint or limit. If God does know all future events and what he will do in the future, is He then contained by the future, a slave to the future so to speak?
"If God does know all future events and what he will do in the future, is He then contained by the future, a slave to the future so to speak?" Exactly. If God cannot be wrong about the future He cannot do anything that He doesn't foreknow he will do. He cannot change his mind or be creative, the plan was already set from eternity past. This is actually a smaller view of God than the Open Theist view.
Why is it hard to say the Calvinist god is evil. Same as Baal or any other lesser god mentioned in the Bible. Why is okay to say it’s evil for Moloch to have you sacrifice your baby on a melting hot pan alive but not okay to say if the Calvinistic god is true, and he determined for you to burn your baby on an altar it’s somehow not okay to say that god is evil?
I agree with you that it's the same thing . Curses to burn is cursed to burn isn't it . Calvinism doesn't even need a satan for the same amount of people to go to hell just like in Islam and Gnosticism . Calvinism is blasphemy against our SAVIOR .
@@matthewashman1406 it's the truth and the fact that calvinis blasphemes our SAVIOR you dang right it causes emotion and that emotion is called anger . Your calivinist claims portray CHRIST as a deceiving hypocrite and yes that causes me to have anger and also worry for you and others who are blindly taking part in the distortion of the gospel of CHRIST and HIS RIGHTEOUS DEITY Matthew.
I completely agree with everything you just said Thomas. Leighton doesn’t want to say the Calvinist is wrong, to the extent that he has to decouple himself from them. This is akin to the person who has a friend who is an abject racist, but the person continues to be his friend and downplays how grievous the racists friends mindset and actions are. That’s what Leighton is doing, and it makes him just as culpable,when he says “the Calvinist is so wrong, but still my loving brother in Christ”.
@@jordandthornburg You can start with explaining that GOD's intentions with Nineveh, Did the all KNOWING GOD who knows people's choices already, A. lie to the Ninevites or B. Fake Threaten them ???? or maybe explain simply, why GOD only knows, AFTER Abraham offered his son Issac as a sacrifice that "lay not a hand on the lad....now I KNOW thou feareth GOD"
@@jordandthornburg The GREAT JORDAN THORNBURG sorry, do I need to conform to your view or are you going to shaft me at night while I'm sleeping? You best response was "re-examine who you're talking to", buddy you are headed to a dirt nap just like me and where you go after that is based on what GOD thinks of you, if I'm trying to help you get to the wonderful place He wants you to go, let me say you "BUDDY RE-EXAMINE WHO YOU'RE TALKING TO"
For my Masters dissertation I attempted an analogy to describe the different viewpoints: Imagine a line being drawn on a paper by a pen - as you look back the line already drawn is the past as you look forward, you can see the future. 1) Determinism - there is a pre-drawn line in the future, the pen is merely tracing that line. 2) Arminianism - there is a series of dots indicating the path of the future, but it hasn't yet been traced 3) Molinism - there are lots and lots of dots that are possible futures, but there are specific dots that have been numbered to show a path through the possibilities 4) Open Theism - there is a blank page for the pen to move on, it's destination not yet decided 5) Neo Molinism - there are lots and lots of dots that are possible futures, but the next dot has yet to be decided Molinism & Neo-Molinism set out the most knowledgeable God - God knows what will happen and what could happen. The issue I have with the first three is that all have laid out the future in some way. This leaves no room for manoeuvre. In other words God cannot change things because this is how they have been set up to happen (even if in Arminianism/Molinism they have not yet been actualised). In Open Theism and Neo-Molinism God is involved in the actualising of the future, just as we are. We may never know how he has manipulated things to allow us some freedom while still ensuring that the things he wants to happen continue to happen. Like all analogies, this is limited (and perhaps, unfair in its representation). But it is a starting point.
Let's say your life is a book. In Classical (Closed) Theism, the book is already written from beginning to end before you were born, everything you will ever say and do is already written out and settled and there's nothing you can or will do differently than what you do in the book. In Open Theism, your book began to be written the moment you existed and it's still be written out as you read this comment. Your future is not determined because it has not yet been written. Therefore, your future choices and decisions have not been settled.
@@jasonwatkins7767 I'm not sure all of classical theism is closed and from experience it is only the calvanist that are really closed. In terms of your book, you might consider Monism to be closer to a choose-your-own adventure. The future paths are known and possibly mapped out but the actual path to get to the end is less certain.
Now see, What you are calling Neo Molinism is what I am understanding to be Open Theism. Molinism as I understand it (which I have only been looking at for less than 48 hours so..) Is God, before the foundation of the world, looks ahead at all possible worlds He could create, and all the 'free will choices' people will make in those potential worlds, and then He creates the world that fits His plan. From that point, it basically looks like Arminian Foreknowledge.
@@wayneburchell6346 Continuing with the book analogy, how do you interpret a passage like, “Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.” ~Psalms 139:16 And how that plays into the rest of the Bible context, including other such famous passages on God’s omniscience and foreknowledge as, “ ‘Remember this, and show yourselves men; Recall to mind, O you transgressors. Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, ****Declaring the end from the beginning,* *And from ancient times things that are not yet done,**** Saying, “My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,” Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.’ “ ~Isaiah 46:8-11 (emphasis added) I’m curious because the meaning of Psalms 139:16 seems very plain. Is it not meant to be taken at face value? Is it rather some metaphor? Does God actually have those books or does He not?
The reason I'm an open theist is because the Bible is very explicit that God can have a change of plans, which is completely impossible in Classical Theism
God changing His mind motif in many verses can be taken at face value if we reject tradition that is not truth (it makes it figurative without warrant). Open Theism has a stronger hermeneutic.
I am not sure if I am an open theist, I believe that God knows what would happen, but there is no determinism: in the Bible we see that God could decide to change what will happen, like in *I will repent of the evil that I thought to do to them* (Jer 18:8) or *The LORD relented concerning this. “It shall not be,” says the LORD.* (Amos 7:3) or *God relented of the disaster which he said he would do to them, and he didn’t do it.* (Jonas 3:10), so God said something would happen and decided after not to do it. The future has not happened yet so nothing is fixed and God could change his decisions because he is gracious and merciful. This is all over the Bible and a fundamental aspect of the character of our God.
I find it plausible, that God could have libertarian freedom, and therefore be able to have a plan for the future, that involves actions that he might do, but that, as those events unfold, he could make different choices than he had planned to make. I find that this idea is the only way that would make sense of a passage such as in Genesis 6 where God regrets making mankind. In order to regret a choice, you must have the ability to have had competing options and have chosen one that you were not happy with afterwards. But if there is already a determined plan in eternity that God could alter to be precisely to his liking, then regret would not make very much sense at all since that regret could have been avoided in eternity past. Instead God seems to be working out all things in real time and making choices in real time right along with us. He had a plan for the Cross in eternity past but other than that, we know of no other events that he decreed eternally to take place.
@@mattd3600 you guys misunderstand Calvinism, there is a continual denial to recognize the distinction that is made between primary and secondary causes that Leighton refuses to recognize as he straw mans Calvinism day after day.
Winger must believe that determinism is true to some extent. Or he thinks it may be true. It’s a stupid question he asked because you might as well say, “what you you think if it turned out God is actually the devil? Would that effect your idea of Him?” It’s a stupid question. Yeah and what if the ground was water and the ocean was a rock?
@@solideogloria3962 In a deterministic framework secondary causes are still just dominoes falling in sequence. God being both onmicient and omnipotent could have made any future He desired. When He created the starting conditions for the universe He wasn't just setting up the first domino, but His foreknowledge means He also architected every event through all of history. He could have shifted an atom 2 microns to the left and things would have turned out differently. (This is of course all moot, because the only universe God could have constructed was the one He forwknew He would create from eternity past, so if God has complete foreknowledge even God is bound by determinism)
@@jnau8196 there is no "unknown" in open theology. Seeing all possibility means being intimately aware of every detail of what will be and being aware of the probability of any actual future and having pre-planned responses for any given actuality that arises. It's total intimate knowledge. And it gives God something to do. In a foreknowledge of a single determined actual timeline God would literally have no decisions to make. It would be like watching the same movie 1000 times with no possibility of any variation in what would be said or done. The God of open Theism is necessarily more active, and "bigger" than the God of predeterminism.
@@jnau8196 God's nature and abilities are not knowable by man. He reveals a portion of His nature and abilities, but to "KNOW" everything is a vain philosophy.
@@FutureNotFixed doesn't have to be that complex. God is sovreign and man is free. He knows all possible outcomes and just because those outcomes are known doesn't mean he ultimately brings to pass that which he knows can happen. We know God has a prescriptive will and a decrective will. There's a difference. He can decree we all are saved but that's not what the Bible tells us is the case. The Bible shows God's prescriptive will that all should come to repentance and that none should perish. But many through the hardness of their own hearts would indeed perish. Did God determine they would be hard hearted or did they harden themselves against Him?
The discussion started out saying that God's exhaustive foreknowledge of future events does not mean that future events are determined. I wish they would have unpacked this a bit and explained this point. It makes no sense to me. If God knows exactly what I will do at 2:17pm on 8/23/2032, then that is exactly what I will do at that moment. Whether God makes it happen or just knows it will happen, either way the future is settled and determinism is true.
Let me explain it to you this way friend. :) Let's say I record a football game for my friend. He's at work. He gets home and watches the recorded game. The game is tied and I pause it right before the last pass of the game that determines the victor. There are three perspectives happening here. I have seen the game and I know who wins. I have 100% knowledge, but 0% control. My friend hasn't see the game. He has 0% knowledge AND 0% control. The quarterback who is in the game has 0% knowledge but 100% control. God is like the person watching. He has 100% knowledge but chooses to have 0% control. And we are able to have control AND the knowledge of some things that will happen. But those are few. God sometimes exerts His power on our universe, but almost entirely has given us freedom to choose out of His great love for us. And love makes itself vulnerable, able to be hurt, or else it is not love. This is why we are given the choice to love Him and believe on His Son for salvation. We are free to reject the free gift, whether it be by denying it or trusting on our own works instead of in Christ alone. Have rest today my friend. May The Lord bless you and keep you. Know that nothing you can ever do or don't do will make you saved or unsaved. You are saved by your trust in Christ and what He did for you, nothing else. JESUS PAID IT ALL! Hallelujah! God bless you! :)
@@nicholas3073 I appreciate the comment, but it doesn't address the dilemma. In the scenario you gave, when we sit down to watch the recorded game, the outcome is already settled because it has already happened, and thus there is no possibility of it unfolding otherwise. If the future is like that, then the future is already determined. There is no way to embrace an exhaustively settled future that doesn't ultimately lead to determinism. And that is the crux of the matter regarding open theism as the main claim and basic definition of open theism is that the future is not 100% exhaustively settled. (Underlying this is a different understanding of time - namely presentism instead of eternalism.)
@@nicholas3073 so do you think God at some point learned what would happen and that’s why He knows it ? Like, in your analogy, Did you know the result of the game before recording it ??
Making a theodicy is simple, it's hard but simple. God uses every bad thing to bring about an ultimate good for His glory, and often it looks mysterious to us because we are temporal beings. We have roughly an 80 year window by which we observe the world and even in that timespan we're limited by geographical location, while God sees everything everywhere and at all times. While we have no idea how a certain event that occurs in Texas in 2023 might impact a random guy in Nevada in 2030, God DOES know the impacts of those events and constructs them by His will and for His purpose.
@@edmundoftheangles7977 we gotta conform to the word not the other way around But we are in the famine of Amos no matter how much a said "teacher" has right You know your scripture well enough and listen long enough and you'll always here something that not only is to be disagreed with but utterly refuted with other scripture Precept upon precept Famine of Amos Nobody really has sound doctrine the best we can do is be contrite in heart in repentance and love our neighbors and enemies that's about really all besides believing upon Christ and his sacrifice for our salvation that we can bring to the table and even then its filthy rags But it's the best we have to offer filthy rags
If you mean "Platonised" as an idea that there is no possibility of alternatives, and associate this lack of possibilities due to an idea of something being foreknown, then you are making an assumption that if God can truly foreknow the future then there is no alternate possibility. If what will happen, which is a truth, is a subset of all the possibilities of what could happen, then knowing what will happen does not erase all the possibilities of what could happen, it just makes them improbable.
@@davidtrue4255 you assume i am assuming. Im simple saying that the so called attributes of God come DIRECTLY from Plato via Augustine and a few other philosopher Christians. You can either believe the simple meaning of scripture or not. Why yall have to Platonise every verse so that it means the opposite of what it says, i will never know
@@djohnz8793 Who came up with the idea means nothing in regards to whether the idea is true or not. If the idea originally came from Plato, I'm not going to condemn or praise the idea because of a person that it can be associated with. What I care about is how the idea conforms with scripture. As for what I was "assuming," I will admit that I did assume a topic regarding foreknowledge, since that seemed to be a main theme of the video. However, I was not assuming your meaning of the word "Platonised," nor the point of your comment. Your comment seemed similar to an argument I have heard before, which was touched on in this video. Not knowing exactly what you were alluding to, I made a comment merely addressing the possibility that your comment was similar to the arguments I've encountered in the past. This is why I presented my argument as an if/then statement. It does seem, however, that you are assuming that I have somehow "Platonised" scripture, considering the last sentence in your response. This seems very much like a boogeyman argument, similar to the Pelagian label that I have also been called. If this is your intent, it does not present a good light on any other point or argument you may try to present.
I really like Mike Winger and believe he is a great fellow christian, we have to understand we all have weak areas and grow at different rates, God makes us believers the best, patient, kind, people filled with wisdom and reason. We can use these attributes to show Mike the Philosophical Omni Attributes are likely less important (in our understanding) than understanding God is Living and Loving and Relational more than all the Omni's could ever explain, maybe that's why Open Theism treats God with beauty.
He seemed surprised at the child sacrifices to Molech, and, for some reason, Flavius Josephus says in his "Antiquities of the Jews", that God was surprised by Adam's behavior in the Garden.
To make the claim: "If God knows the future, God has determined the future." I would agree is a modal fallacy. However to claim: "If God knows the future, the future is settled, fixed and determined." is not a modal fallacy. As best as I can understand Leighton and Mike's teaching of God's knowledge, it yield to a settled or determined future, one exhaustively known to God but one which he has allowed for man's choices to play a part in. This does not portray the horrific God of Calvinism where God decrees all evil, yet their teaching is still determinism. For them the future as God knows it is settled and cannot be altered, not even by God. This is not how the bible speaks of the future.
Jeremiah 18:7 At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will [b]relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. 9 Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; 10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will [c]think better of the good with which I had promised to [d]bless it.
I am not familiar with open theism and have no desire to be but her is an observation: Mike said that from his studies when he talks with open theists that say he misrepresents them, he responds that they do not know what they believe (paraphrase). This tells me that both parties have a different perception and definition of what open theism is. Apples and oranges. I hold to a version of ultimate universal reconciliation, but what I actually believe is probably different than what either of you would define as universalism in broad, sweeping terms. Again, apples and oranges.
You may be twisting this clearly unfairly, to be on a perceived better side.... Here's my take 1). Calvinist - stink meat 2).Armanianist -Bolonga 3). Open Theism -Aged Right Beef Hey there might be something better out there, just show it to the Church.
No, God is not morally wrong, which is how we know Determinism is wrong. If Determinism was correct, the world would not look *anything* like it does right now.
If EDD is true there is no "you." God would be the only self aware being in existence since all thoughts, words and deeds would originate from Him on exhaustive divine determinism.
my problem is with open-theism how can Biblical prophecy can even be a thing if there is absolutely no way God can know the future at all seeing how God has to constantly adapt and change his mind all the time according to them
Also, there are many flavors of open theism that say God knows the future in a similar (but different) way that he knows middle knowledge. The open theist often critiques Molinism as being determinism with extra steps, usually based on arguments about theories of time and philosophy of time, but the difference with an open theist version of middle knowledge is that God knows it in a probabilistic sense, and he is still omnipotent and sovereign to bring any version of reality to pass that he wants, but based on their theory of time and philosophy of time, the future doesn't exist in any sense, which means God can directly intervene to guide and direct everything, and probabilistically know all outcomes, but choosing one outcome to work towards. Open theists are going to use different terms than what I've used, but I'm trying to make it accessible to people who might be more familiar with Molinism. Not saying that these takes are right or wrong, but I am saying that the critique that open theism thinks that God doesn't know something is incorrect. He still knows all things, it's just the mode of how he knows is different than some of the other proposed systems out there. And I'm saying this is someone who is not an open theist.
One major concern here is that when people like Mike and Leighton talk they really take this perspective that they arbitrate who is or isn't Christian which is potentially worse than any theological error an OT or even a Calvinist may take. Many comments have said this already but until Mike or Leighton have a discussion with an actual OT person and go through the texts their opinion of the view and their opinion of it that view makes someone a Christian or not is nothing more than self righteous pontificating.
I’m at the point where I hold to open theism, and it seems to me they make a mistake when they label us determinists. If a thing is foreknown it IS fixed but not determined
@@reynaldodavid2913Jo Can I help, 1. God repents(Noah, Saul) 2. God Changes His Mind(Abraham, David) 3. God is Surprised(Israel) 4. God waits and tries to effectual change nations, but they resist 5. God Changes and grows in different ways(Jesus) Ok, first Omniscience comes with baggage. God seems to know and change events for future outcomes but FREEWILL individual have surprised a ALL KNOWING GOD, couple of examples.... Abraham and Issac "now I Know thou feareth". Jonah "three days I'm going to destroy Nineveh" Now when God deals with us, He hopes and waits for us to change.... silly if HE knows we aren't going to "Jer 19:5 ... burnt offering unto Baal, ....neither came it into my mind" God didn't expect Israel to go this way at all, but they did, weird hey??? OPEN THEISM has your back
Open Theism has 2 motifs (takes Scripture at face value vs making one motif figurative without warrant) of some of the future is known, while other aspects are not (other views=all of the future is foreknown whether by determinism, middle knowledge, eternal now, etc.).
@@reynaldodavid2913Jo Iron does sharpen iron, and christians need to spar with each other to get sharper and wiser. Love the Wonderful Knowledge GOD has over this realm, from this psalm, comforting and very true, thanks. True "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one came to be" is troublesome like, not theology shattering, like "GOD repented" in Jonah 3:1-8.... they repented and GOD repented of HIS prophecy, that's theology shattering, why - GOD didn't know forsure they were going to change.
@@reynaldodavid2913Jo e.g. Ps. 139 is poetic vs didactic and it is also talking about present and past knowable things. It is not a proof text for exhaustive definite foreknowledge of LFW contingencies (not logically possible and not supported by many other openness verses).
God was ready to end King Hezekiah's life at a particular moment, and told him so. Hezekiah prayed to God, and God ADDED 15 years to his life in response to his prayer. Evidently, God had not determined the exact date of Hezekiah's death before Hezekiah was even born. Nor did God foreknow the exact date of Hezekiah's death, as it was to some extent dependent on how Hezekiah related to God. The Bible shows God's readiness to change the course of events depending on how people respond to Him during their lives. He changed His mind about Saul's kingship, for example.
Open Theism is such a fundamentally divergent view of reality and God that it would be impossible for it to not affect every part of ones scriptural interpretation of God’s character and motivation.
@@kelvyquayo There are many flavours of open theism. However ths basic tenet of open theism is that the future is open (I.e not determined). Would you disagree with this?
Ironically it is the question Winger asks toward the end that is the reason so many people turn away from Christianity. Because they believe that Determinism is true and it reveals God as morally wicked. They cannot accept this and so they abandon this twisted religion. The problem is that they don’t understand that Calvinism is not The Way.
I'd like to hear what biblical evidence exists that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. I haven't seen any. It is always just an *assumption.*
Because God exists outside of time. There is no such thing as "future" where God exists. He created time, so its a good bet He knows whats gonna happen. Besides, if He didn't have exhaustive foreknowledge of actual, possible, potential, imagined, perceived, contrived outcomes, then He is no longer omniscient.
@@craigmayberry1147 -- You are making another unsupported assertion/assumption. God does NOT exist outside of time. God is ETERNAL. Eternity is not *outside* of time; it is *infinite* time. God is not subject to time; time is a PROPERTY of God. Human beings measure time by measuring relative *motion* (swinging pendulum, vibrating quartz crystal, falling sand, etc.) Without space, motion cannot exist. So until God created the universe, there was no way for HUMANS to measure time...but of course, there were no humans. BEFORE God created the universe, He could still think, plan, etc., because there was time for Him to do so...an unlimited amount of time. If God was outside of time -- meaning that there was no time -- then there could be no change...including thoughts. God doesn't transcend time because He doesn't transcend Himself, but God *does* transcend His creation...which is transcending the limitations of space. God is definitely omniscience -- that is, He knows everything real. God knows the past because He was there; it was real. God knows the present because He is here; it is real. The future does not exist; it isn't yet real -- there are an infinite number of potential outcomes. It is true that God knows many things *about* the future, because God has made *plans* for the future. But those plans exist in the *present.* My plans for the future also exist in the present. So do yours. Therefore, God's foreknowledge of the future isn't based on what "would" happen, but what God actively brings about because it is part of His plan. Like a guided missile, God makes course adjustments to make sure He hits His target. That doesn't mean that he knows -- or even cares -- about the motion of each particle in the universe for all of the future.
@@craigmayberry1147 It is a wrong assumption leading to a wrong conclusion (assertion is not argumentation; not all tradition is truth) that God is outside of time (confusing time and space error). God did not create time (duration/sequence/succession....He experiences endless time). He did create unique measures of time (which are not time itself). There is no such thing as the future for God or man to be in. It is possible, not yet. It is not a place one can go to (same with no longer past). Omniscience is qualified by the knowable. God is not ignorant of anything. The future is dynamic and consists of possibilities. So, God's omniscience reflects this reality. Modal logic is relevant in this debate.
@@enonknives5449 "Eternity is not outside of time;" Um...that seems to contradict everything that is known about modern-day cosmology as well as straight forward reading of Genesis 1. Time had a finite beginning along with space matter and energy. "The future doesn't exist; it isn't real yet" For us, you are correct, for God you are not. "God makes course adjustments to make sure He hits His target".That almost makes it sound like God needs a plan B or C to accomplish something. To follow that logic means that God didn't know that Adam and Eve would sin, and now He has to change his plans and send a savior to bail us out. I guess my biggest problem with this whole open theism stuff is creating the idea that its possible to knowingly or unknowingly pull the wool over God's eyes
@@craigmayberry1147 -- Nothing about cosmology is outside of time. There is no contradiction. There is nothing about Genesis 1 that contradicts eternity. Genesis 1 just presents a set of events that occur *in* time. Again, you are making an unsupported assumption/assertion that the future exists for God. How could you possibly know that? You aren't God, and the bible doesn't say it. God doesn't need a plan B or plan C because He *always* gets plan A. Think about the Exodus. God told Israel to occupy the land He was giving them. They refused. God took them on a 40-year detour through the wilderness...and brought Israel into the land He promised them. God Got His plan A. He adapted to the circumstance of Israel's rebellion. You are making another unsupported assertion to claim that God had to know that Adam and Eve would sin. Why? What evidence do you have? God certainly knew that they were *capable* of sin. He gave Adam and Eve a test of their trust in Him by putting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil within their reach and giving them a warning. He may even have anticipated that they *would* sin. That seems entirely likely to me. People can make predictions about how their children will behave in given circumstances without the perfect foreknowledge of God. You are also making another unsupported assertion when you claim that Adam's sin required God to change His plan. No it didn't; you just don't know what that plan was. We can see God's plan by what He created: mankind living in harmony with his world and in communion with a loving God for eternity. That was *always* the plan. Guess what? That is STILL the plan. The plan didn't change. Jesus was ALWAYS intended to be king over people of faith. If mankind never sinned -- which I admit was never likely -- then Jesus would have been king over people of faith...without every becoming the sacrifice for sin. Jesus didn't NEED to be the sacrifice for sin until sin occurred. God's end goal hasn't changed: people of faith living with Him forever in paradise. We know that Adam and Eve COULD have lived forever if they hadn't sinned, because God also put the tree of life within their reach. They chose poorly. No one can pull the wool over God's eye, and no Open Theist would make that claim (I hope). But I do not ascribe to Open Theism as a theology -- although I thing they get certain points right. The people who espouse Open Theism also seem to reject the clear biblical principle of eternal security. They think that their sin is more powerful than the gospel, and that they can "walk away" from God. No Christian can do that, because we have the indwelling Holy Spirit and are sealed by Him. No one is more powerful than God. However, if you are uncomfortable with the thought that God might not know every detail of what is going to happen in the future, then I offer this solution: God is infinite. He can know *every* detail of *every* conceivable future -- and how He will respond to it. God isn't required to know *which* future will happen. But the real reason people seem to latch onto determinism (or their incorrect understanding of "foreknowledge") is that they don't TRUST God to act appropriately in the moment. They want God to have a "cheat sheet" so that He won't make a bad decision. I don't have that worry because I know that God is perfect, and every choice He makes is good -- even when there are multiple good options for Him to choose. And by forcing God to act in a scripted manner, those who ascribe to determinism or perfect foreknowledge of all future events end up calling God a liar. When God told Moses that He would destroy Israel and make Moses into a great nation, Moses intervened and God changed His mind. Did God originally lie to Moses? Of course not. God really would have destroyed Israel. He would have been just and good to do so. But He changed His mind and spared Israel because of Moses' intercession. And God was just and good to do so. God isn't locked into a single linear script.
Brother Leighton! When are you going to have Brian Wagner back on so he can properly represent a prominent open perspective, the dynamic view? Seemed like a few straw men and guilt by association arguments happening here 😉
@@TheProvisionistPerspective Have you removed the conditional prophecies? Is. 46 and 48 shows how God can know unconditional ones....He brings them to pass by His ability/power (vs prescience ). As well, somethings are predictable based on perfect past/present knowledge.
Here's what gets me: Jesus was not omniscient. There were things He didn't know (such as the day or the hour), yet He was fully God, so at the very least, God is partially open (or temporarily partially open?). On top of that, Jesus seemed to deal with outside human influence easy breezy, so if He could accomplish all He needed to accomplish based on what He was able to observe, then how much more could God in His full power accomplish His work despite having to work in real time to do it? I don't think insinuating that God experiences time with us cheapens His power. I think we try to give Him crutches (omniscience) to explain His power, which can ironically end up cheapening His power.
I am an Open Theist. I see evidence for Open Theism in the word of God. God's foreknowledge about individual choices would be Determinism. It is absurd to call an Open Theist a non Christian.
If God is All powerful, can He make himself forget? How can He know all things and yet not Know you, as he tells you depart from him? I'm not saying he isn't those things either.
I sort of think that's what happened at the incarnation. Of course, the Man Jesus was only one Person on the Trinity. But He seems to have had only one consciousness, and that consciousness wasn't aware of all things at all times.
Power and knowledge are not identical. Is. 46 and 48 do show that God knows some vs all of the future by His ABILITY (vs prescience) to bring things to pass. An omniscient God (Open Theist view or not) means that God cannot be ignorant of the knowable. He knows the past/present exhaustively and cannot make Himself forget (forgiveness is not divine amnesia, but choosing to not bring it up again). He knows some of the future (predictable; what He brings to pass unilaterally, etc.), but other aspects are known as possible until the potential, anticipatory future becomes the fixed past (memory) through the actual present.
I think the “I never knew you” is not that he doesn’t know who you are, its that he didn’t have an intimate relationship with you through the Holy Spirit that is given to those who accept Christ as their saviour. When God Judges the dead at the last resurrection, they will all be judged based upon their works. That’s all humans of all time. So he knows who we are and what we do. However, if you choose to not have a relationship with him and his son, he can say this in a more intimate sense. Love is a two way street.
@@Soulja4ChristWeAreAtWar I think you’re still looking at this wrong. In the context of the verse, these people are saying “Lord Lord”. Even though they say this, their hearts are far from him and they never truly took Jesus as Lord of their life. God knows the hearts and minds of each individual. So when he says “ I never knew you depart from me”, all he is saying is that he never knew them as his servants, even though they claim they are with their mouth and seem to demonstrate it with their outward actions. It actually shows that God knows us more deeply and intimately than our mere words and outward actions. I think this verse can be used to show how God IS all knowing.
I really want someone to address dynamic omniscience. It doesn’t immune God’s omniscience at all. It seems like everyone is running from debating on this. Warren McGrew is great on the subject.
@@beowulf.reborn The belief that God can know things as future possibilities and that knowledge still be of factual content. That’s a summary. There’s more to it though.
@@TheOtherCaleb By "know[ing] things as future possibilities" do you mean that God would know with 100% accuracy the future thoughts, words, feelings, emotions, desires, and actions of men? So tomorrow it is possible that I drink a glass of water, but it is also possible that I drink only Coffee, Juice, Milk, and Softdrink. And God would know not only those two possibilities but would know with 100% accuracy which one I will do? And not only my action, but all my thoughts, feelings, emotions, desires, etc. pertaining to those actions?
@@beowulf.reborn We think man is so complex but still usually [might do] predictable (read Asimov Foundation trilogy), but God is so more powerful (loving, just etc) that he just knows what we [Will ] do yet that doesnt mean he imposes his will to denigrate our FW.
@@DickBakerSql I agree, God knows us so intimately, being our maker that He knows what we will/would do in any given circumstance. He also knows time intimately, being the creator of spacetime, and knows all events that will happen. He is also free to act in time however He sees fit to bring about the situations and circumstances He desires, whilst simultaneously knowing how that will affect every single freewill decision of present, and future humans.
only human being is affected by "the future" God is always in present tense God is so perfect that nothing can take Him by surprise, He never learn new things. God do not need to pre determined things because there is NO " PRE" in Him .
Thank you Brother for the video. I just watched Dr. White on what he had to say about you in this video and it’s pretty pathetic. Can you please respond to him. I’m not sure why these guys won’t come on your show even though you invite them all the time. Do you think they’re scared? Much love Doc 💪🏼🙏🏻
I think there’s truth and falsehood to the first argument. God knowing something ahead of time does not mean he determined it to occur, that is blatantly fallacious. But I do think if God knows all events of all time before anyone else exists with absolute certainty, I think we are forced to say those events are fixed or determined. I don’t see how they could be known as certain without being fixed just logically. It doesn’t mean fixed by God necessarily, but fixed by something. So one of the issues is, fixed by what (or who)? It’s hard to see the answer if God didn’t do it and no one else exists, so this is one reason, among many, why I don’t think these complete facts about the future exist and because they don’t exist God knows that and knows the future has both some certainties and some possibilities.
@ Jordan --- Yes you are absolutely right. *"IF"* GOD can know unactualized thoughts and deeds *"THEN"* by definition the future is deterministically fixed. GOD deals with the world as it unfolds before HIM; and the 20,000 PhD's HE has make that task simple.
@@a.k.7840 --- That is what apetheists and evolutionary scientists believe, its called biological determinism. If that theory is true then actual sentient [original definition] people don't exist.
Idk. I feel like open theism is worse than determinism. I think God can still be morally justified determining everything. Open theism however makes God, not God.
@@contemplate-Matt.G who says we have free will? we are bound to our nature... we can accomplish next to nothing with our free will, only God has true free will Can God sin? no, it is not in His nature our nature is sinful, our "free will" actions are very limited in scope John 8:31-47
@@contemplate-Matt.G you are limiting God by your human made definition of free will, God knows everything everyone will do for all eternity, to claim "but I have free will" is saying that you can surprise God, which you can not
Exactly Leighton. That has always been my point, the character of God and if we are willing to call one heretical and not the other, there is something seriously wrong that needs to be discussed. And like you said, what false representation is worse? First, they are both wrong and compromise the perfect character and qualities of God, but Calvinism actually morally destroys them. Calvinism, without a doubt, destroys God's foundamental quality of impartiality, love for all, fairness, goodness as we know it. That god is not my God. So, why are we allowing this heresy to continue and not call it for what it is? God bless!
Exactly @franci0242. Despite what Mike said at the end and Leighton's pandering, Calvinism's "god," is not God. Calvinism presents another gospel, another spirit, and another Jesus. We should not bare with them and should boldly proclaim their heresy. Too many Christians have been and are being deceived by the Calvinist false teachers.
@@idzeroone JW, Mormon, Islam, etc. are false gospels/gods. Many Reformed/Calvinistic believers are godly, capable, born again (despite being wrong on TULIP, etc.). There is essential, salvific truth and peripheral doctrinal debates. Calvinists are also wrong to demonize Open Theists, say they are not saved, have a different god, etc. We need more wisdom and maturity vs rank amateurism in theological/philophical debates (truth, love, charity, clarity, etc.).
@@godrulz37 THE issue at hand is scriptural authority. Calvinists start with a philosophy and try to prooftext the Bible to match their philosophy. In doing so, man cannot respond to God's invitation to believe the gospel, man doesn't have a choice, their Jesus didn't die for all, etc. A jesus who didn't die for all is "another Jesus." A gospel that cannot be resisted (nor believed without God regenerating the sinner first) is a different gospel. Mat 22:29 KJV Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
@@godrulz37 something more. I don't doubt folks got saved by Jesus and then deceived by Calvinists. My point is Calvinism should be vigorously opposed and calvinistic teachers called out often and publicly as false teachers teaching falsehoods about God, the Bible, salvation, etc. Calvinism's roots are in Augustine's attempt at reconciling his former (?) gnosticism with his poor understanding of the scriptures.
@@idzeroone Calvinists and Arminians both affirm salvation by grace through faith in the person and work of Christ. Calvinistic theory is that regeneration precedes faith. Embracing that (if they even know enough about their beliefs) will not send them to hell?! Jn. 3:16; I Jn. 5:11-13; Rom. 10:9-10; Jn. 1:12, etc. JWs embrace false WT teaching, a counterfeit Christ or Muslims denying the Deity, death, resurrection of Christ IS a false gospel and salvific issue. Cmon. Don't turn Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism into a sect or cult?!
I see nothing wrong or biblically against the fact that God may respect our privacy as a Father would respect his son's privacy. God is all-knowing and all-powerful. It is therefore within his character to, despite knowing everything, choose not to know our future decisions (can if he wants). Saying this can't be done, because he knows all, consequently places a limit on his power. I see no reason whatsoever why this belief would discredit someone from being a Christian. Being a Christian relies on one thing: faith in Jesus Christ.
Love Leighton and even Mike, but their summary on the open theism position here is so trivial and superficial. The objections they presented here are so easily addressed by the open theism systematic. Leighton and Mike both seem to have a blindspot preventing them from acknowledging that open theism is a robust 100% biblical, rational, systematic hate to say it but Mike's analysis is about as deep here as a kindergarten Sunday school class. Leighton please invite Bob Enyart on your show or Will Duffy to present their perspective. They are friendly and intelligent and would be able to present a fair representation on the subject. I think if you are going to present videos on open theism it would be the fair thing to do. God Bless.
@William Wallis Well, I know open theists who believe God knows the future. :). Simply put, God knows future possibilities as possibilities and future certainties as certain. Do you understand the dynamic omniscience view? This is what I am leaning towards at the moment. Let me know if anything is unclear
I don't think it is as robust as you make out. I do think it is far more robust than they make out, however. Essentially to my mind it is the most logical view and one that makes sense of all of the omnis, rather than making one more important than another. It also does far less anthropomorphism of God's character than Calvinism. I have only ever heard one decent defence of the Arminian view of foreknowledge, which is really the only point of contention between Arminianism and Open Theism. If I had heard that earlier in life, rather than the arguments I did hear I might still be an Arminian.
@@MrFahimself Not educated well on Open Theism but did listen to Warren explain Dynamic Omniscience and that was logical and heavy. I think I was more of an “Eternity Now” person prior to hearing DO. I would say I lean DO because it focuses on HOW God reveals Himself in scripture. Our struggle as Bible students is not always to find a view that can’t be contradicted but a view that has the “least” contradictions. Its like I tell Calvinists when they show me their 15 or 20 “proof texts” I say are you ready for my 400 proof texts? I think I would like to see Leighton have a well known Open Theist to bounce questions off of.
With all due respect to Leighton and Mike for all their works against Calvinism. As a keen listener from India,I beg to differ and belive they both get Open Theist seriously wrong or they might have represent only one strand of Open Theism. Open Theism is not a one size fit all theology,different proponents of it have different views. And the opening assertion of Mike and Leighton in the beginning of this video is blatently misrepresenting and a caricature maybe even, because I haven't come across any Open Theist theologian and Philosopher who assert God's foreknowledge = determinism,rather it's more about how much did God forknew and how and can there be possibilities.
Very simple: we are finite in our knowledge of God's omniscience. If we could understand it, we would be God. We waste time trying to understand the All-knowing. I think He must smile looking down on us. Didn't He answer Job when Job couldn't understand: "Where were you when I formed the earth? Tell me if you are so smart."😊
Y’all are straw manning. Open theists are not saying that if God knows the future than it is determined by the knower. We are simply saying that your position violates the principle of cause and effect. You are putting an eternal, exhaustive, definite effect before a temporal cause made by a temporal agent and claim it had free will...that is an illogical proposition.
Flowers spends his time basically pointing out how calvinists have altered God's charater to one that is unjust and is the author of evil. Yet when he is asked if the calvinist god is true, would he say God would be unjust, he refuses to answer. You either have conviction of your beliefs or you don't. If you don't think calvinism is a blight on God's character, stop trying to suggest it is. Or if you are unwilling to do that atleast stand up and be counted and have the courage of your conviction and state it, yeah, if the calvinist god is true, he is unjust. I mean how can God not be, if the calvinists are correct? He creates people just so he can burn them in hell, what is there not to understand about that? God did give us a brain and we do have the scriptures to at least understand what good is to a sufficient extent to know when God's character is being attacked to the extent the calvinist are attacking it. What are you afraid of, if the calvinist version of God is true, your going to hell Flowers, along with me and anyone else who rejects their god. Can you actually serve a god that is unjust? I can't and I will expect to be sent to hell. When I was at carm, I came under great pressure to believe in calvinism, I could not refute it at that time, to say I was troubled by it was an understatement and simply said to God (given he knows everything that goes on in our minds and heart) I can't serve you if you are that God, you will have to send me to hell. I am sorry, but I just can't. I accepted I was going to hell, but if your born again, you simply cannot unknow God, you can't walk away and say I don't believe you anymore, because you have been given a supernatural revelation that can't be lost. I will always know who God is and that God exists, all I can do is say I won't serve you if you are like how the calvinist describe. God took me out of this unjust world, he showed me how great he was through his scarifice, how loving he was, how just he was, calvinism makes him look like a deceiver, unjust and cruel to some extent, I can't differiate him from Allah of the Qu'ran, given what the calvinist describe. Allah hates people, according to calvinists so does Jesus, the very same person who tells us in the scriptures do not hate someone, that is murder. Calvinists make Jesus look like a hypocrite, also he appears to have less ability then we do. It's just total tosh, I don't know how on earth they can believe in it. If anyone thinks, including Flowers who seems to be sitting on the fence here, thinks that proclaiming the calvinist god is unjust will get into his kingdom, better think again, because that won't happen. That would be, has Matt Slick the calvinist has said, you are at war with God, you don't believe in God's word, you don't trust him. So if calvinism is true, all those that oppose it will be on their way to hell, including me. Calvinism is a different God to the one I know and love, it's a different gospel too. I have no alternative but to reject it and face the consequences of my decision if I am wrong. Open theism don't know what that is fully. My guess is and it is a guess, God has the power to know everything or not know certain things, he can turn away and not see say cain kill abel, but he knew abel had been killed, because like he said he could hear his blood cry out. Did he actually see it take place? Did he have to see the event take place to know? Does God have to watch and see, every murder, rape, even of children? Did God the father look away when all that sin came upon Jesus at the cross? My guess is God has the power to not see everything and still know everything at the end of the day. Does God know who will be saved and can things be altered from what he first saw, don't know, but what I will say is, all things are possible with God, so I guess it's possible and at the end of the day we can't possibly know one way or the other and pondering it is pointless. I am not a person to try and restrict God's ability, because Jesus says all things are possible, if you say, no God has to determine everything to know everything, in effect you are restricting God's power. From what I have seen of Christianity it seems to spend most of it's precious time gassing and arguing over what God says or said. The moment you start accepting things that suggest God may not be good, just, loving, sovereign, holy, all powerful, you're walking off the straight and narrow pathway. Calvinists made that choice to accept a new Jesus/gospel and throw out the one they first believed in and got saved by. That is the short and tall of it, from what I can see.
Yeah I dont like that refusal from Leighton. I also dont agree with Mike's caution against calling Calvinism a different God. That god would be unjust if he existed, and it's a different god than The One revealed in scripture and through Jesus.
Do you think it was just for God to give Israel the ok to kill those found in adultery? I for sure have cringy feelings toward it but I submit that his ways are higher than mine and understand that we like to trivialize sin. This is how holy God is. We deserve death for our sin because we have sinned against a Holy God ... we like to justify our sin instead or minimize it... what I’m trying to say is, can determinism be something we don’t quite understand about God and never will? I find it more miraculous that he raised me to spiritual life because I was dead in my transgressions, and he revived me and once revived, responded positively to him. I don’t know I’m not a good debater I’m just sharing my understanding
@@keithjacoby6635 Two minds think a like, I thought the very same thing, they are frightened to say, which I find surprsing has flowers seems absolutely confident about what he is teaching. Given he believes in OSAS, I don't see what his fear is, unless he isn't really sure about that either. He clearly thinks it, maybe he thinks he can hide it from God, by not saying what he thinks.
Evangelicals LOVE to argue. What if we talked about what works? I need a God who does not kill children, start wars, cause cancer etc. Yet I can believe in a God who created a real world, with real hazards - but did not determine, plan, cause our suffering. He wants us to have meaning in life, so there is random, and human caused suffering to fix.
I didn't hear him accusing Boyd of being an atheist, though I do think he conflates Boyd's Open Theism and Cruciform Hermeneutic and therefore dismisses both.
I think we should be hard against both Determinism and Open Theism because they both have small, distorted views of God's nature and character. In the case of Open Theism, because it is so new, we have a chance to quell it before it grows too big and becomes yet another error we have to deal with on an ongoing, generational, basis.
Open theism is going to keep growing man. There’s too much support for it. It doesn’t even address Gods nature and character at all so I think you don’t know much about it. It is simply a discussion or debate about the nature of reality including what the future is or consists of. Read up on it from those who hold the view before you critique it. I find many critiques come from emotional discomfort about perceptions of open theism rather than an informed position about the view.
@@jordandthornburg Answer me this one simple question: Under Open Theism, does God have 100% perfect knowledge of everything that will happen 100 years from now? Including every thought, word, feeling, emotion, dream, desire, and deed of man? If the answer is no, then that view of God is a small, limited, and distorted view of both God and His character.
@@jordandthornburg the fact that you claim that it doesn’t address God’s nature and character tells me that you are the one with the blond spot.. if not emotional then intellectual. It does have implications as to the nature of God whether or not you choose to acknowledge it.
@@beowulf.reborn . I'm not an open theist, (leaning more toward molinism) just wondering where in scripture does it say that God must know 100% of the future? Happy if there is a verse as that will answer some questions for me. 😎
Not sure you guys fully understand open Theism. I am not sure if David Pawson is an open Theistic but I think if he is his understanding seems spot on.
Open theism is a heresy. A god who is still learning is no longer all-knowing, Almighty God. It is foolish to try to judge God by our human wisdom. He is God, and we are to fillow what he reveals about himself and not be so human-centric. Flowers fails to answer Winger's question. Instead he tries to use his usual evading tactic of "only if God determines". Flowers should be more honest and say he believes the God of the Reformers to be evil.
Agreed, why don't they simply explain what the truth is.... but it's not so easy, they'l have to get their twists and wiggles going to explain why GOD repents, changes His mind, don't know why Israel was so evil...ect. I'll like them debate a good OPEN guy, I'll say woman but I don't know any yet, in fairness, I'm sure one exists
@@kelvyquayo Well can you answer me this? Did Jesus lie or tell the truth when He said he could bring a legion of Angels to His rescue at his trial? Could He or was it already determined He wouldn't? Did He choose to tell the truth or Fake a Threat He wasn't ever going to do?
Mike and Leighton do you believe God is in control of everything that happens? My teachers say that both are true, that we have free will. It doesn’t make sense to me. Are they calvinists without knowing it? When I try to get clarification they say that we have to believe both because the Bible says it’s true and that it’s a mystery like the Trinity- beyond our comprehension. I kept pushing and they said God is outside of time and sees the choices we will make. But I just don’t see that in scripture. It feels philosophical.
Hello, I think there is a difference between God being "in control" (e.g. having His hands on the steering wheel and being able to turn left or right as He wants, but leaving it to drive on its own / being able to miraculously stop things from happening if He wants but not intervening all the time) vs the Calvinist determinism view which is "decreeing" everything that happens (e.g. steering the wheel, making all the turns / making all things happen including all evil and sin and not giving humans any real free will). The open theist view agrees with you that it sounds inconsistent, though your teachers sound like they hold to either the simple foreknowledge or timeless knowledge views (all 3 are free will views, in contrast to the Calvinist view which says that humans don't actually have free will). I watched "What is Dynamic Omniscience with Dr John Sanders" on the Idol Killer youtube channel and this helped me understand open theism (sadly Mike and Leighton as much as I love and respect them, have severely misrepresented open theism here), on that video they also recommended a book called "Divine Foreknowledge - 4 views" by James K Belby. Hope this helps :)
@@allyeatworld I don’t see how God can know the future when it doesn’t exist yet - unless he decrees something and makes it happen -like the incarnation. As far as hell and judgement it’s got to be just- not everyone has had the chance to hear the gospel presented fully and some have horrible circumstances to overcome. It can’t be that zillions are in everlasting hell. So maybe I’m leaning toward Christian Universalism, with some that refuse redemption. God would never give up on someone as long as there was hope. Those few that God sees will never repent he might leave alone and they would eventually dissolve into nothingness. Maybe we are making the gospel too complicated, and this is what makes it hard to swallow.
I don't think we have to have this particular category listed as an essential to be called a Christian. I think there are many flavors of open theism one could be and still be a Christian. The thing that makes you a Christian is what you believe about Christ and what you do with him. You don't have to have a proper understanding of all of God's attributes in order to be a Christian. You can be wrong on a lot of things and still be a Christian. We are going to see a lot of heretics in heaven, because they were branded heretics on secondary issues or issues that are important but are hard to understand. If we get two militants about whether someone's in apostate or a little h heretic, then we can be in danger of becoming like the Pharisees passing condemnation on people that will absolutely be saved and in heaven. If you push the issue too hard we can be in danger of making an intelligence test and a certain level of education a barrier to entry for salvation itself. Obviously that's wrong, and I don't think either of these gentlemen are doing that, and I don't think they want to go in that direction. I'm just pointing out the slippery slope dangers.
Leighton says; "If open theism is wrong, they are bringing into question God's attributes of His ability to know future events." I don't see why. It seems to me "they" are merely bringing into question Leighton's (and other human's) belief that God has the ability to know all future events. That He can know future events He intends to cause to happen, remains intact. (He's a God, let's not forget ; ) And we are told of abilities He has, which seem to me to be quite sufficient to allow Him to see to it, that any future events He has foretold of in the Book, come to pass. Hence, it seems to me, it is those who insist His hypothetical ability to see into a hypothetic "the future" is the only reason He can do so, are the ones calling into question His revealed abilities. (But don't worry, I still think these guys are Christians ; )
It makes a lot of sense that God knows everything we are going to do before we do it, even 120 years into the future, even though we have “Free Will” God really is that smart But it doesn’t make a lot of sense to think that God knows everything HE WILL DO before he does it If he did, he would be completely enslaved to his former foreknowledge, which he obviously isn’t. If he was, it would be because he chose that, but he probably hasn’t made that decision; and we should give him credit for that If we set the premise that God does anything he wants, he may *decide* to change what his best guess of what he himself will do in a certain situation (in the future) is And if he does … The future will then change quickly and greatly for him (and probably us too) This makes the future somewhat open, since we should expect God to do something at some point with his unlimited powers Based on many big words and feelings, God is constantly surprising himself, if you can believe that So while the future of humans is knowable by God easily, the future of God is not so easy to know… even for God himself Deep. I know. Pray about it Leighton Flowers 🌺
I'm not going to mince words. Open theists do not believe in the omnicience of God - period. Like calvinists who say that we have free will - only we don't, open theists say that God is omnicient - only he is not. Both camps are very wrong and I'm glad this was pointed out in this video.
