What About Open Theism? with @MikeWinger

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, talks briefly about Open Theism with @MikeWinger.

View the full interview here:

[wayneburchell]

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.

[BrotherDave]

My prayer is that everyone reading this comment understands the Gospel and believes it.

[everlearning]

Thank God the Gospel isn't this complicated!

[PixelsofLight]

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.

[IdolKiller]

I feel a 15 part response series is due, lol

[FTBYoutube]

Please invite Will Duffy for a discussion, he is an Open Theist that I've found to be clear in his presentation of Open Theism

[JonathanGrandt]

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.

[zachhall]

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.

[jordandthornburg]

Amen on the character thing Leighton. I agree totally on that.

[donmiles]

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.

[All-shall-say-Jesus-is-Lord]

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.

[nancystorm]

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.

[aforderhase]

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.

[yeshuaislord]

This is why i love and respect Mike winger, he doesn't just sit and agree like Leighton had hoped and instead asked the difficult question Leighton doesn't like too think about. The fact is no matter what Yhwh is holy righteous and just and our understanding honestly doesn't matter, I'm not a full blown Calvinist but i often see them mischaracterized by non Calvinist. My view is i trust the Lord no matter what and i know in this life i may not fully understand but i will praise the Lord every day because he is worthy

[SacredAllegiance]

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.

[RuslanKD]

My IQ definitely increased after watching this.

[Eloign]

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.

[craigfisher]

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.

[brianwagner]

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.

[paullaymon]

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.