What is Open Theism? What does it mean?

ANTHONY ROGERS CLAIMS OPEN THEISM IS ATHEISM.

There are a lot of bad claims about what Open Theism is and what it entails. @Ousias1 is a perfect example of false claims and bad arguments against the position.

In this brief video, some of Anthony's claims are addressed while also providing a concise summary of what Open Theism is contrasted with Closed Theism. Anthony put forward several claims, begging the question for fatalism and the settled future, arguing this IS the Christian view and all views entailing an Open premise are damnable heresy... and in doing so, he condemned his own tradition, Calvinism.

In this episode you'll hear from ACTUAL Open Theists like Greg Boyd, William Hasker and Alan Rhoda as well as respected Molinist philosopher Ryan Mullins as they lay out the unique claims of Open Theism.

This response intends to correct some really, REALLY, no good, super bad, terrible, odious and downright faulty criticism of the open position. For more in depth responses where Early Church Fathers and the Biblical arguments are considered, check out Idol Killer's 2 Part Response to Anthony:

Part 1:

Part 2:

#Omniscience #OpenTheism #LivingGod

You can also watch the original interview between Anthony Rogers and Al Fadi here:

Resources w/ affiliate links:

--------

☝️ About:
Idol Killer is committed to spreading the Gospel and making disciples of Christ. We are dedicated to promoting classic orthodox Christian doctrine (pre-Augustinian) and in doing so exposing extra-Biblical corrupt philosophies and presuppositions.

👍 Support Idol Killer

🏪 Idol Killer Merch & Apparel

🤝 Visit us online:

--------

FAIR USE NOTICE

[BigGuyed]

I was called an open thiest in a Bible study lead by a reformed individual. I said thank you, I believe God thoughts are greater than ours.. :)

[DanielApologetics]

I was SO hoping for that debate to happen..!

[Aidanrvb]

Good. I’m glad he said that. Now his lies should be obvious to everyone.

[heyman]

Calvinism and atheism are two sides to the same coin of idealism. Neither of them can believe in God unless He's extraordinary. They scoff at the idea of God having relatable, knowable, similar characteristics.

[roddyk]

Can God even be considered to be Omniscient in Calvinism? I mean, according to Calvinism God only knows what the future is because He predetermined it. That's kind of an indirect omniscience, isn't it? Seems more like really good memorization...

[solochristo]

People will, for whatever reason or motivation, defend traditionalism, i.e. theistic determinism or complete foreknowledge. I am a solid Bible reader and devout Christian, and I have accepted both open theism and the passibility of God.

[kevinkleinhenz]

I teach a Foundations of Christianity class, when we begin in Genesis I try to fairly represent the three main views of God’s Omniscience. (Determinism, Eternity Now and the Dynamic view) I have been surprised how many people are surprised to hear the Open view and how many people gravitate towards it when it is explained. I truly believe God put within all humans the idea that choices are real and have real effect on the future. I personally believe you have to indoctrinate this inherent feeling out of people to get them to embrace determinism.

[BMK]

Hey Warren, do you have a video of you personally explaining your position of open theism / dynamic omniscience?

[KodyCrimson]

How to discredit those who disagree in religion, just say their faith is REALLY just atheism, despite all they say and do. Discredit their side to make yours look right.

[wayneburchell]

It seems completely odd for anyone to think that given that the whole point of open theism is that God is active in the present and being involved.

[JohnQPublic]

For Christmas this coming year I'm going ask Santa to invent a program that gives the correct start time in the YouTube notification for the upcoming event.

[MrJimMac]

Nice beats! Which artist did they come from?

[lancesteinke]

You know… I think some people have done us a disservice by belittling these sorts of perspectives so that we rarely hear them. It doesn’t help us to grow in our understanding of God.

[ivylagrone]

This is so interesting 🤔
I guess anyone who has thought about how much God "knows" about the future, etc has done some deciding regarding how they think that works. But, I find this really enlightening.
Not sure I hold to all the explained points but most make quite a bit of sense and explain more specifically how, and more importantly why, complete determinism in particular simply cannot work.
Thanks 😊

[TheOtherCaleb]

I’d take a hybrid view which focuses on the nature of time and knowledge, mainly the presentist theory of time in relation to knowledge. And this is coming from a moderate/semi-Augustinian.

[ShowCat]

Shut up, get out, heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out devils, preach the good news that sounds too good to be true (the gospel), love one another, rejoice, and worship God in spirit and truth! I was in a Calvinistic/Augustinian hell for 23 years, but Jesus set me free!

[Andrew_the_Worthy_Shield]

I have decided that because of the constant belittling of one view from another view within Christianity, I would adopt a more simplistic view: Adonai is one yet is also Father, Son, and Spirit; Adonai is truth, the Word, and the word is true; the word as written by those inspired by the Word have written the Scriptures and New Testament in a way to be anywhere from 20% to 95% literal (90-95 for the five books of Moses, 80-85 for the history books, 20-50% for the poetry/wisdom/prophetic books, 80-90 for the gospel accounts and Acts, 75-80 for the epistles due mostly to examples and analogies, and back to 20-50 for Revelation); everyone is born in the image of their parents, they in the image of their parents, and goes all the way back to Adam who was made in the image of God; if you will put your faith/trust in Yeshua as if you were going to step on an old bridge believing it will not collapse under you, and believe in Him, you shall be saved. Notice I did not mention any doctrines; though I said ideas that are stated in doctrines, I take what I said (exrpt for the literal percentages for the various books) from what I read.

I know everyone and their grandparents say, "My theology came from God/God's Word.", but I am saying that because that IS how I developed. I may have gone to church in my youth, but I either was too young to care/understand or I was just going through the motions without understanding. 2-3 years after not attending a church service due to my schedule, I read the Scriptures and New Testament for myself, and reading was how I developed my faith. Dad tried to get me to listen to R.C. and MacArthur, but they never stuck to me because I knew something, though not sure what, didn't line up with scripture, as if it were a puzzle piece that didn't belong (and this was just after doing some research into Islam).

Didn't expect to give a testimony, but let me say something that is a surefire way to get some people to call me either a heretic or blasphemous: in my pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, I am willing to learn from sources outside of the Bible to better myself and grow so long as it does not contradict or goes against God or his Word. An example would be how Buddhist monks would keep themselves from adultery and sexual immortality by envisioning someone as a corpse, meditation near a corpse, or meditation on an image of a corpse to remind themselves that things in this life are temporary.

[caseymcpherson]

The error of Calvinism is in assuming that "if everything G-d decrees comes to pass, then everything that comes to pass must be/is by His decree" the potential error in Open Theism (at least as it is likely to be understood when being passed from one person to the next) is the counter error of "G-d decreeing something may not guarantee it will come to pass" I don't think either end of that is Biblical (again, I specify the latter of those as a way in which open theism could be understood if not otherwise clarified)
I believe G-d has fixed certain events in time, such as the birth, death, and resurrection of Yeshua/Jesus, but on the same token, when I think of pilot (as an example) that role could have been filled by anyone, the two criteria required were 1. Have enough comprehension of morality to recognize His innocents, and 2. Care more about popularity / career success than about conscience, so as to give in to the demands of the crowd. I believe G-d prospered Pilot's career as a people pleaser in order to put him in that position, knowing that he would fill that role in the necessary capacity, hence the statement "You would have no authority over Me if it had not been given to you from above." in John 19:11. He didn't say "You have no authority over me" but He does make it clear that Pilot didn't gain that authority by his own efforts.
The simplest summary I can conclude from reading scripture is that we (mankind) have the freedom to make any choice we want to (including the choice of choices regarding morality) but G-d then decides the consequences of those choices (be the consequences, pleasant, unpleasant, or seemingly meaningless)
We are bound by physical laws in a manner that we do not have freedom to choose, yet we have moral freedom exceeding that of the Angels (who, as far as I know do not seem to be bound by the laws of physics in the ways that we are)

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think we're meant to know how G-d knows what He knows.
That said, Calvinism/Fatalism undermines the Holiness of G-d by ultimately making Him the author of sin, which is blasphemy (whether they do so indirectly without realizing that to be a consequence of their system, or fully intentionally, is what separates the ones who are mistaken but still saved, from those who are actively working on behalf of Satan to deceive the church.) So from the perspective of someone who has been on the receiving end of that false teaching and had to reset my entire understanding of scripture to remove blasphemy from my head so I could learn to actually trust G-d, keep up the good work. (On any other matters, disagreement may be acceptable, but on the goodness of G-d, and sufficiency of Messiah's blood, there can be no compromise)

[Ancient_Man_In_Modern_World]

Anything to avoid a moral standard.... Like the rest of creation, going by a law, a standard, an order. Strictly.

[magepunk]

A minority position that is much more biblically and logically consistent than its alternatives. Calvinists and others must fight to keep it a minority, lest the bold-faced logic of it convince Christians everywhere of its truthfulness.