explain why God was sorry he made man?

[EricH]

Would it be PLAUSIBLE (obviously there are so many oposing views on here) then, to believe that God is all-knowing of the past, present, and future, BUT when it comes to the future he knows all the POSSIBILITIES of what COULD happen, depending upon the decisions that man makes, and therefore makes the wisest decision to respond to whatever man chooses to do? It seems the bible most supports this theory, as it clearly states in some passages that God changes his mind, BUT other passages clearly state that He knows ALL. Therefore, the most plausible assumption, I would think, is that because he cannot affect free will, and must wait for the human to make a choice, he therefore knows everything that COULD happen, and simply has to hope that man chooses correctly so he dosn't have to do A instead of B?

I'm not saying this is definately correct, I'm just asking if my conclusion I have drawn is something that is PLAUSIBLE?

This sounds like a view called Molinism that talks about 'middle knowledge' and counterfactuals of freedom. It is a confusing, convoluted view that ultimately fails (one issue is that it is not just what would or would not obtain/happen, but might/might not counterfactuals that are overlooked).

I disagree with Eric's assessment of Open Theism and believe that a resolution of sovereignty and free will is possible if we have biblical concepts of each (which hyper-Calvinism does not, as pointed out). Moderate Calvinism still defaults to mystery, paradox, antimony, despite a reasonable, biblical resolution being available in Open Theism (which most detractors do not understand).

Theologians understand the claims of Open Theism very well. It is certainly possible for us to attempt to resolve it logically. The problem is the scriptures simply to not support (an in many cases directly contradict) the places that Open Theism has had to go to get there. Molinism does address middle knowledge, but what I summarized is not molinistic.

An excellent ciritiqu of Open Theism may be found in:

God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism by Bruce Ware

Open Theism is Arminianism gone to seed

[BrotherDavid]

With all of the discussion that has taken place, has all of God's Word been considered? For,

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

(Isaiah 55:8)

For my thoughts are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

(Isaiah 55:9)

not all things are revealed to mankind and that's perfect for this God's servant...

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

(St. Matthew 11:27)

Nice posts, Brother Joe, maybe one should read Brother Joe's posts again,

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

(I John 4:7)

Love, David

[godrulz]

Would it be PLAUSIBLE (obviously there are so many oposing views on here) then, to believe that God is all-knowing of the past, present, and future, BUT when it comes to the future he knows all the POSSIBILITIES of what COULD happen, depending upon the decisions that man makes, and therefore makes the wisest decision to respond to whatever man chooses to do? It seems the bible most supports this theory, as it clearly states in some passages that God changes his mind, BUT other passages clearly state that He knows ALL. Therefore, the most plausible assumption, I would think, is that because he cannot affect free will, and must wait for the human to make a choice, he therefore knows everything that COULD happen, and simply has to hope that man chooses correctly so he dosn't have to do A instead of B?

I'm not saying this is definately correct, I'm just asking if my conclusion I have drawn is something that is PLAUSIBLE?

This sounds like a view called Molinism that talks about 'middle knowledge' and counterfactuals of freedom. It is a confusing, convoluted view that ultimately fails (one issue is that it is not just what would or would not obtain/happen, but might/might not counterfactuals that are overlooked).

I disagree with Eric's assessment of Open Theism and believe that a resolution of sovereignty and free will is possible if we have biblical concepts of each (which hyper-Calvinism does not, as pointed out). Moderate Calvinism still defaults to mystery, paradox, antimony, despite a reasonable, biblical resolution being available in Open Theism (which most detractors do not understand).

Theologians understand the claims of Open Theism very well. It is certainly possible for us to attempt to resolve it logically. The problem is the scriptures simply to not support (an in many cases directly contradict) the places that Open Theism has had to go to get there. Molinism does address middle knowledge, but what I summarized is not molinistic.

An excellent ciritiqu of Open Theism may be found in:

God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism by Bruce Ware

Open Theism is Arminianism gone to seed

Many anti-Open Theism books are simply polemics for Calvinism. They also go after Arminianism since it contradicts much of Calvinism. Bruce Ware happens to reject eternal now and believes that God experiences endless time (like Open Theists). If he would follow this through logically, he would not be a moderate Calvinist (at least he gets one thing right). Calvinists also misrepresent Arminianism as Pelagianism, which it is not (see a book by Olson on myths Calvinists hold about Arminianism). Anti-open theists sometimes misrepresent the view as Process Thought, which it is not.

So, there is some begging the question going on. Calvinism is true (not really), so anything different than Calvinism must be false. God cannot be God if He does not know the future or if His sovereignty is not meticulous control or if He is not timeless (these are all wrong assumptions showing lack of depth in understanding the issues of the debate). Even classical theologians (Richards, etc.) are re-thinking traditional impassibility, strong immutability, etc.

Saying there is no biblical evidence is also not true. The problem is that Open Theists can read all relevant passages and take them at face value (while recognizing obvious figurative verses), while Calvinists take one motif literally (predestination passages which I also agree with), but that the other motif figuratively, without warrant, to retain a preconceived view (passages about the future being partially open, God changing His mind, etc.). So, it comes down to interpretation in context vs eisegesis, not that either side is not using Bible verses for support. Some issues are not dealt with in proof texts, so there is room for godly philosophy, modal logic, etc. (many classical beliefs about God's attributes were philosophically tainted and perpetuated by Augustine, etc.).

I appreciate your concern for orthodoxy, but the bottom line is biblical truth. Tradition is not always truth. Calvinism is highly problematic as a deterministic, decretal view. I trust we can be teachable and dialogue based on truly understanding other views and weighing them objectively. I have not found anti-OVT books persuasive nor fair.

[EricH]

Saying there is no biblical evidence is also not true. The problem is that Open Theists can read all relevant passages and take them at face value

I don't actually take Calvinism or Arminianism to be completely Biblical. Both are faulted. That is because both go further than scrtipture goes to make their systems work. I guess taking passages at face value is in the eyes of the beholder, as Calvinists claim the same thing (an claim the Open Theist are basing their conclusions on their own traditions). It is true that Open Theism is logically consitent internally (as a system). But it is not Biblical. Whether or not it lines up with Calvin is immaterial (except where Calvin lines up with scripture). Open Theism is recognized as heretical by people on both sides of the Calivinist / Armenian debate. It is not that you are misunderstood. You are understood.

Ware's critique of Open thesim is good because he points out the Biblical shortcomings of that system.

[EricH]

Many anti-Open Theism books are simply polemics for Calvinism. They also go after Arminianism since it contradicts much of Calvinism. Bruce Ware happens to reject eternal now and believes that God experiences endless time (like Open Theists). If he would follow this through logically, he would not be a moderate Calvinist (at least he gets one thing right). Calvinists also misrepresent Arminianism as Pelagianism, which it is not (see a book by Olson on myths Calvinists hold about Arminianism). Anti-open theists sometimes misrepresent the view as Process Thought, which it is not.

So, there is some begging the question going on. Calvinism is true (not really), so anything different than Calvinism must be false. God cannot be God if He does not know the future or if His sovereignty is not meticulous control or if He is not timeless (these are all wrong assumptions showing lack of depth in understanding the issues of the debate). Even classical theologians (Richards, etc.) are re-thinking traditional impassibility, strong immutability, etc.

Saying there is no biblical evidence is also not true. The problem is that Open Theists can read all relevant passages and take them at face value (while recognizing obvious figurative verses), while Calvinists take one motif literally (predestination passages which I also agree with), but that the other motif figuratively, without warrant, to retain a preconceived view (passages about the future being partially open, God changing His mind, etc.). So, it comes down to interpretation in context vs eisegesis, not that either side is not using Bible verses for support. Some issues are not dealt with in proof texts, so there is room for godly philosophy, modal logic, etc. (many classical beliefs about God's attributes were philosophically tainted and perpetuated by Augustine, etc.).

I appreciate your concern for orthodoxy, but the bottom line is biblical truth. Tradition is not always truth. Calvinism is highly problematic as a deterministic, decretal view. I trust we can be teachable and dialogue based on truly understanding other views and weighing them objectively. I have not found anti-OVT books persuasive nor fair.

None of this is really pertinent. Even if Calvinists wrongly identify Arminians as pelagian, even if their books are polemics, that does not make Open Theism true. Calvinists could be completely wrong, and that would not make Open Theism true. of course logic is permissible. But it cannot exceed or contradict what scripture teaches. That is the problem with Open Theism.

[wyguy]

explain why God was sorry he made man

Just look at us. Wouldn't you be sorry?

[godrulz]

The problem you are ignoring here, is that it is not just the Calvinists that disagree with Open Theism, it is pretty much everyone, be them Calvinists or Armenians. To attack Calvinism does nothing to support Open Theism. You would do well to try and support your own views instead of attacking those that even if they are wrong do nothing to help your view.

I am not ignoring this and recognize that Arminians (Armenians are an ethnic group) also are against Open Theism. What I am saying is that the majority of anti-Open Theism literature is from the Calvinist camp who also attacks Arminianism for some of the same reasons. Refuting the opposite view does support Open Theism if one is true and the other is not. Likewise, showing that Open Theism is a more biblical, coherent free will theism than Arminianism, also means contrasting the errors of Arm. with the truth of OVT.

Pointing out an observation in one post is not the end of the story. Other posts deal with the positive evidences for OVT (though I do so in more detail on other forums than here).

[EricH]

The problem you are ignoring here, is that it is not just the Calvinists that disagree with Open Theism, it is pretty much everyone, be them Calvinists or Armenians. To attack Calvinism does nothing to support Open Theism. You would do well to try and support your own views instead of attacking those that even if they are wrong do nothing to help your view.

I am not ignoring this and recognize that Arminians (Armenians are an ethnic group) also are against Open Theism. What I am saying is that the majority of anti-Open Theism literature is from the Calvinist camp who also attacks Arminianism for some of the same reasons. Refuting the opposite view does support Open Theism if one is true and the other is not. Likewise, showing that Open Theism is a more biblical, coherent free will theism than Arminianism, also means contrasting the errors of Arm. with the truth of OVT.

Pointing out an observation in one post is not the end of the story. Other posts deal with the positive evidences for OVT (though I do so in more detail on other forums than here).

Pointing out spelling errors is considered bad form on the boards. Usually I do that via PM if I feel the need to avoid embarassing someone. My point was that your observation has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The question is if OT is Biblical. it is not.

[godrulz]

Open Theism can be defended biblically. What is not biblical is Calvinism. I would agree that Open Theism is not Calvinistic. Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism are the main players (Process Thought, Hyper-Calvinism, etc. are more extreme). Are you more Calvinistic than the other possibilities?

We can point out doctrinal errors, but not spelling errors (and wrong use of a word)?

I do not get embarrassed when someone helps me publicly for my benefit and to help others. Are we that insecure?