7:45 - Arminian Opening 23:25 - Open Theist Opening Subtopic Discussions 40:38 - Prophecies in which God details specific future free decisions of humans 57:14 - What does the Bible tell us as to how God gains information? 1:14:31 - Foreknowledge of free human actions as a defining attribute of Deity (John 13:19) 1:30:27 - According to the Bible, has God ever had the ability to change what would happen? 1:47:22 - Foreknowledge in Election 2:03:07 - Exodus 32 - God changing His mind due to outside input 2:21:00 - Closing Statements Q&A - 2:29:55
Will and Christopher you honestly have planted something deep within me to want to know God more on a deeper level of intimacy, thank you so much for this debate it was so rich
What has been planted in your heart? That God makes mistakes like Will believes? Do you believe God makes mistakes? No Christian I've ever known believes that.
After watching a lot of open theism debates, there's something that I think everyone is missing. If your position applies to every item in a data set, your position is very easy to falsify. If I say "every fish in the ocean has 4 fins" and I show that 10 quadrillion fish actually have 4 fins, it still only takes a single fish that doesn't have 4 fins to falsify my position. In Open Theism debates, Open Theists already agree that sometimes, in the Bible, some things happen according to the foreknowledge of God. The problem is, it only takes a single event that was not in God's foreknowledge to falsify the idea that God's foreknowledge is exhaustive.
I’m not sure that they ever said- they say things that are determined are foreknown, and God can and does determine certain things in that he will bring them to pass.
@@HJM0409God Knowing the future simply because he brings it to pass is the Calvinistic way of teaching it. That's not the same as God predicting the future. Predicting the future and determining the future are very different.
@@bobbyadkins6983 oh I completely agree. Predictions -ALLL of them carry a degree of certainty and uncertainty. Predicting actually means the future is not settled or known with 100 💯 percent certainty
But also that does not mean that there are no things God hasn’t determined to do and will bring to pass. The difference is the Calvinist says “all things” are determined and this known with certainty
This was an absolute massacre of the Arminians. The Open Theist position, though it may have flaws, is the most biblically tenable position I have come across. Respect to all of the panel members for a great and cordial discussion.
When God asked, What more could I have done? He wasn't looking for an answer. He wasn't expressing ignorance on His behalf. He was making it plain that as good as He had been to Israel and all He had done for them, that they had no excuse for turning away from Him.
Even though i'm not a christian, i have a lot of respect for both Chris and Will. They are the ones taking the text seriously. Unless one approaches the text assuming classical theism, it's impossible to deny that God repents, gains knowledge and etc. And as an agnostic, i can't help myself but wonder how interesting it's that, at the end of the day, most christians don't worship the God of the Bible, but rather the "god of the philosophers".
If you don't mind me asking, what is it exactly that makes you an agnostic? What is it that maybe is holding you back? As you've obviously noted, there are a lot of false teachings from the texts not being taken seriously. So I wonder if there is a misinterpreted view in the Bible that you've heard that is holding you back. You sound like a smart guy, maybe there is something you could look at froma different perspective.
At least twice in this debate it was stated that God was “giving Moses an opportunity” to intercede in Exodus 32. In the story, God told Moses to back off “so that my (God’s) wrath may wax hot.” That is the opposite of an invitation.
Very interesting debate. Thank you for hosting it. I confess, it opened me up to the possibility of Open Theism being true. But God not knowing the future is a hard pill to swallow.
Yeah, it can be. But God does know for certain many things that will come to pass. He has decreed certain things, and will make certain things come to pass. He is powerful and sovereign enough to do so. For example, Jesus is coming back. Believers will be sanctified and conformed to His image. We will have places prepared for us in heaven. Open Theism is just the affirmation of the Living God of Scripture who created free-will image bearers in front of whom He placed real choices. God is omniscient in that He knows all knowable things, but the future doesn't have truth value because it doesn't exist yet. Hope this helps, cheers and God bless.
@@bobbyfischersays1262saying he decreed only certain things just makes it hard to trust. I’d rather their be actual purpose to All the evil in the world and not just because he let it happen for some potential good that may or may not happen because the future is open.
Open Theism doesn't mean God doesn't know the future, only that the future isn't certain. To me, God is way smarter than I am. I know the future a little bit, and so do you. God is mathematically infinite and so intelligent that He doesn't need magical future knowledge to know things. He knows them because He is all knowing, and can calculate with accuracy any possibilities or certainties with real knowledge. I find it more comforting that magical time travel.
The Arminians don’t like that Moses convinced God to change His plan. But even the pagan King Abimelech convinced God not to kill him after God said He would.
Dane said that our relationship to God is one of "master to servant." Exodus 33:11, "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend."
His statement is true in certain aspects, but in others is just a completely disjointed understanding than what the scriptures wish to teach. (Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions use their authority over them. 26 It must not be this way among you! Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave- 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” )
Well there is of course a sense in which we relate to God as a friend, as a Bride, as a child, and through Christ as a brother. But this doesn't diminish that our relationship to him is also one of a Master to a servant and a Lord to a subject. Consider the following Bible verses: 7 “Suppose one of you has a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Will he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come along now and sit down to eat’? 8 Won’t he rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’? 9 Will he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? 10 So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’” (Luke 17:7-10) “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am." (John 13:13) "Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28) "On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: king of kings and lord of lords." (Revelation 19:16) “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ (Matthew 25:23) "The LORD said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make all your enemies a footstool for your feet" (Psalm 110:1) "Yet you, LORD, are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand." (Isaiah 64:8) Think about it this way, even if you are best friends with a King...you never lose the respect and honor for his office...in fact, your friendship with him makes you respect his title all the more. You can call Jesus friend, amen! He invites us to do that...but as his friends, we respect his office as King and Lord even MORE than those who are not his friends. We prove our love for him by OBEYING HIM (John 14:15).
@@danevaneys5881 Like I said, in some certain aspects it's true. Of course you cherry picked the parables that reflect that. Jesus also compared God to loving fathers, caring husbands in other parables, neighbors, bosses, ranch owners, etc. It makes it a little ironic when one side of the debate has a conniption fit whenever someone uses a personal relationship as a metaphor for God. It's like they have never heard a parable by Jesus.
@@briancross9571 I didn't "cherry pick" It's biblical teaching that supports my case, and I simply highlighted it. And I agree with you that there are many metaphors for God and our relationship to him...I qualified my statement above (and in the debate) by saying God is a Father, husband, Friend, and Brother to us... In the context of the debate, I was trying to defend the biblical truth that God is not counseled by men (Romans 11:33-34). Will was insisting that God must be persuaded sometimes by our wisdom/counsel in order for our relationship with him to be genuine. I think he is wrong. Our relationship to God is genuine, but it is creature to Creator, not creature to creature, and in that distinction there is a world of difference. We don't counsel God or give him wisdom external to himself, he is "all-wise" according to Paul (1 Timothy 1:17). We can have a strong, loving, genuine relationship with God and yet never teach him anything. In fact, this is the case.
@@danevaneys5881 I think everyone understands how you were trying to create a unilateral and metaphysical principle out of Romans 11. Being "persuaded" and "teaching" or giving counsel are not necessarily the same thing. The gist of Romans 11 would not be held untrue if Moses' argument persuaded God.
According to the Apostle Paul, the Holy Spirit does not even know the Father's thought until he searches his mind to find out. I know that sounds crazy but that is what Paul frankly said (1 Cor. 2:10-12) This, to me, means that "knowledge" and omniscience as Christians traditionally understand it is way overrated!
I'm a classical theist, I'm about an hour into this debate and the Arminians are getting slaughtered. They don't employ basic categories from the tradition they're supposedly trying to defend which is depressing.
That’s because closed theism which is what it actually is not “classical” can’t be defended with scripture or rationally within Gods revealed reality. It’s pure made up theory about God predetermining eternity in the future.
Exactly. People are not taught that God IS the Truth. As the Truth, everything about Him takes on the attributes and characteristics of truth. That goes very deep.
Open Theism is a legit heresy, it's wish washy, no solid doctor especially that can shift. It's a theology that caters to those who want to sit in the fence of atheism and liberalism.
@Fireking285 It's never been condemned except by the Roman Catholics and some radical later sectoral Christians. The Eastern Orthodox has condemned all of Protestantism including non Denominational Christians as Anathema and heretical, the Roman Catholic Church has condemned those outside of the Roman Catholic Church as heretics, lately they've softened on the Protestants but have mostly kept that energy towards the less historical groups (and can't blame them there really) some psychotic Provisionist "Baptists" condemned Calvinism, amd TVs and women wearing jeans and having more than one hairstyle, the Open Theist condemn anything classic theist as being heresy, which means everyone but themselves, So to say that "some have condemned Calvinism as heresy" would be more accurate, and to say "some low IQ heretics that historically would never have been seen as anything but pelagian and outside of the church as major heretics have condemned Calvinism" is the most accurate. And to that: What do heretics have to do with the saints?, Nothing, nothing at all.
Regarding the topic of conditional promises, Genesis 22:16-18 and Genesis 26:4-5 prove that Yah makes promises before later revealing that they're conditional. The promise of Abraham was given on multiple occasions until it was revealed that the promise was given to him and Isaac because Abraham feared God. The promise was founded on Abraham's obedience.
Why is foreknowledge necessary for God to tell people what He plans to do? Why would I need to have exhaustive foreknowledge to say where I will be at a certain time tomorrow?
You don't say that tho. In the every day sense, you can say such things. But in the literal sense, you don't know where you'll be tomorrow. In a very real sense, you hope to know. God doesn't say something, hoping it'll come true. He says it with certainty. Why that certainty? Because He knows the future.
Kamil, often it's bad theology that turns people off to the truth, because it sounds so stupid. God is real, Jesus is the Savior, we've all sinned, and Jesus paid our debt. That's about as simple as it gets. The details, able to be filled in later, always make sense to our logical minds, since God created our minds.
@@PlanetRockJesus Unfortunately, it's not that simple and the "details" include e.g. what one must and must not do or believe to be saved. I personally know Roman Catholics who believe Protestants go to Hell because there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church and Protestants who believe Roman Catholics go to Hell for practicing idolatry. And I know Christians who believe that differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are not salvific issues, but then I also know both Roman Catholics and Protestants who believe that *those* Christians go to Hell for believing that. And the same is true about a myriad of other issues dividing Christians, including the question of Open Theism (it's not difficult to find Open Theists who believe that for example Calvinists absolutely do go to Hell for worshipping a false idol and vice versa).
This is my point exactly! This is why I’m an open theist! It makes sense and it doesn’t make God an evil liar. It’s evil to put the snake into the garden if he knew the kind of rapes and murders it would lead to. God also changes his mind, but that would be a lie if he knew the future. Two of my sisters became atheists for this reason. And I think there’s a basis for that. They are logical thinkers.
@kamilgregor I was an Open Theist before becoming an atheist (as I now am) and, to me, it’s definitely the most honest take when one reads the books of the bible, apocrypha, etc, and doesn’t import assumptions, really. I still think it has holes, but the most *honest* for sure.
On the question of if God has the ability to change what would happen, the Arminianists completely didn’t get the point. Will’s assertion that if God has the ability to change what He foreknowledge would happen then the future must be open is spot on. If the future is settled, it can’t be changed. The foreknowledge isn’t the issue, but the future being settled. The point is it can only be fore known as settled if it really is settled. If it is settled, them it can or be changed, so God no more has the ability to change the future than to create a square circle.
Open Theists rocked. Arminians on the ropes ever asserting philosophical reasoning ignoring both logic & avoiding narrative thru appeal to allegorical interpretation. The whole panel was weak on the cross. Lucifer fell without God’s foreknowledge according to Exek 28.15. Thus, the lamb was slain figuratively before material Creation. It was not plan B. Jesus did not pray to remove it or if it be thy will. That was a prayer of consecration crying out His feelings saying: Your will be done, not if it be. Also, the church was not an afterthought but the central mystery Christ was effecting. Israel was the covenant and seed bearer to bring Messiah that would found the Church for all Adamites. God did not need cross justification to appease Himself; He implemented it to administer righteous justice in a universe He populated with innumerable beings possessing free agency & will. In spite of omnipotence: He rules by justice, not by tyranny. People tend to overlook the importance of innumerable hosts of freewill angels witnessing God’s dealings with rebellious men & Luciferian angels. The incarnation, cross, death & resurrection righteously justifies rebellious sons of man without justifying rebellious sons of God. If you don’t grasp the sheer brilliance & benevolence of concluding all guilty by Adam; so, God could come down & justify by taking the beating & death as Adam 2.0, then conquer death by resurrection promising the same for us, your theology may have blinded you from the gospel. Our God, by the gospel demonstrated Wisdom, Power, & Love! Brilliant legal justification; Resurrection trumping death; Love came down!!!! Worthy King!! Reign Forever!! Let every man & angel be in awe!! Our God saves!!! Our God is not just the legal strategist that out- witted Satan, nor the resurrector that out- played the Satanic deception leading to death: He also demonstrated love by becoming the second Adam that would lay down His life first in humble service; then, in ultimate sacrifice! Our God is not just the legal mind of unmatched wisdom that humiliated Satan’s march of all men to death with only one man, one tree & one nail (in the heel) that He announced in advance at Genesis 3.15: He is also the God whose power of resurrection defeated Satan’s only weapon. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”(Gal. 3:13) Again: As part of a legal strategy, our brilliant God, had the cunning to slip into the Law a phrase about tree hanging cursing a man. Whose guilt was atoned: Adam’s or our own? This misses the point of biblical original sin. God “concluded” all sinners by Adam’s one sin because He was THE brilliant legal mind devising a justification that could be fulfilled by ONE Savior’s sacrifice out of love! God is for us! If I could choose just one verse, it would be this cuz it is the legal foundation of the cross. “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.” (Ro 5:18) If I could choose a 2nd, it would be this cuz it is also part of the legal underpinning of substitutional justification: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:” (Ga 3:13)
2:23. Very well articulated. It is indeed clear that God thinks, considers alternatives, makes decisions, etc., and there’s so many examples of this it strikes me as quite odd to think these are simply anthropomorphic. I can’t imagine that any contemporary of Moses through the following centuries would read, or heard being read, the scriptures recounting a story, where God is described as considering an alternative and think “This is just anthropomorphic. God doesn’t really consider alternatives.”
I will go downtown tomorrow. How do I know this? Because it is something I plan to do. It is not because I know all the future. I'm merely communicating what I am going to do. There is no magic or TARDIS pixie powder needed to be invoked to explain.
2:40 I love Will here. He slays in debates when dealing with the question whether God the Son gained experiential knowledge of what change is. God gained knowledge of what it is like to become a man and to die. This is something God had not experienced before. He saves the good wine until everyone has already drunk. This is Will at his absolute finest in every debate.
Would you say God knows more about His creation than we do? He knows the name of every one of the stars in the universe and knows intracately how they work as He is the designer who fashioned them together and made them work. God knows you better than you do, He knows every hair on your head and every cell in your body. He knows your innermost thoughts. He knew, before the creation, what it would be like for us to live and die. Job asked the question, "can anyone teach God?" and he made it clear that the answer is No.
@@douggibson5245 14But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear; do not be shaken.”b 15But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord.c Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope that is in you. But respond with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who slander you may be put to shame by your good behavior in Christ. I didn't ask to find an answer, only to remind you of the God that knows you better than you know yourself. God didn't gain the knowledge of what it's like to be a man, He lowered himself, taking on the form of a man.
To say that since the Bible doesn’t teach divine exhaustive knowledge that doesn’t infer that he doesn’t have it. That would be a negative inference fallacy.
"God is a spirit, he does not have flesh and bones" People assume wrongly that God does not have a body. Why does a body have to be composed of flesh and bones? Our bodies are designed to function in THIS realm. This does not mean that God doesn't have a body that is fit for the realm we cannot see. Yes, God is spirit. Those who wish are free to prove that this means incorporeal. A being can conceivably be corporeal without being composed of flesh and bones.
Proverbs 21:1 "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Psalms 119:89 "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven."
The debate was about Is Open Theism in the Bible. But then Trinitarianism was introduced to the subject and that it's not a doctrine found in the Bible. So it muddied the debate a little bit. It's clear that there is one God, and One Mediator 1 Cor 8:6 and 1 Timothy 2:5. Other than that I loved it. Too many mic drop moments to count.
Trinitarians gonna trinitarian. They gotta talk about it at some point. Because it's the "most important" doctrine. You just gotta roll your eyes and move on.
@2:18:00 Open theist: Does God have hot anger? Arminian:....yes, but, but, but he's so... transcendent Debate over. Platonism is not biblical. God has emotions. God is not Impassible. God is a living God. His emotions change. His mind changes. Idol worship actually changed God's emotions. Moses actually changed God's mind.
A MUST READ.....AFTER DEATH...WHAT??? Dear Reader: You know we’re just passing through this world to get to The next, whether it be Heaven or Hell. “YES!” There is a Hell!!! Most people do not want to know this BUT IT’S TRUE. Like it or not, there is a HELL! And “YOU” make the choice. You may be thinking to yourself: I’ve lived a good life. I’ve never hurt anyone. I am no different than anyone else. I do good things for people. Heaven and Hell are on Earth. “Nice try!” I’ve heard them all! But the bible says “THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO GET TO HEAVEN! But there are many ways that lead to HELL! Oh, and yes! You can try to say that no one ever warned you about Hell, BUT YOU HAVE JUST BEEN WARNED WHEN YOU READ THIS AND NOW YOU ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. Now it’s too late to act dumb. And when you see God face to face (and you will…. because everyone gets judged by God when they die!) You will be held responsible for knowing this and for being warned about Hell!! WE ARE ALL SINNERS….sin is anything that separates us from God. The bible tells us that any form of idolatry, witchcraft, murder or murderous thoughts, stealing, lying, adultery (sex outside of marriage), same sex marriage, hatred, unforgiveness, etc…. are all sin. God has seen every sin we have ever committed. Yes, EVERY sin. Now you CAN’T get up to God and say, “Hey I didn’t know the consequences, let’s make a DEAL.” God has already said in the bible “This is the deal!” You Must accept Jesus Christ for your sins or else... HELL!! I know you may not like it, but it’s true. You ask yourself, “How do I stay out of Hell? THIS and ONLY this...! Admit that you are a sinner because we all are. Every one of us. Be willing to turn from sin and REPENT. Believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead as the ONLY atonement. He took your punishment for your sins. Through prayer invite Jesus Christ into your life. “What to pray?” “Dear God, I am a sinner and I need your forgiveness. I believe that Jesus Christ shed His blood and died for our sins. I am willing to turn from sin and invite Jesus Christ into my heart and my life as my personal savior.” THAT’S IT! Now your off to a good start surrender your life to Jesus…. get a bible and read it every day and do what its says, to get to know God better, also tell others about what Jesus Christ has done for you. Don’t just take my word for it! Look this stuff up in the bible for yourself. 1. Revelation 20: 10 2. Revelation 21: 7 3. Luke 16: 19….Through...16: 31 4. John 3: 35 5. Acts 2: 38 6. 2nd Peter 2: 21 Please don’t go to Hell. You won’t like it. You can’t just try it for a weekend...ITS FOREVER! You are not promised another day on Earth. Tomorrow might be too late. Heaven and Hell are both F O R E V E R!!! And it’s up to you which one you’ll choose. I tell you this not because it’s my law, but because it’s God’s law and it’s that simple. In Hell you are awake and there is no rest. You get to feel continual torment FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER!! Sorry there’s no sugar coating this! “But” the truth will set you free. I’m not asking you to go to my church or give me one thin dime, I’m just asking you to turn to God..... JESUS
th-cam.com/video/c9HUC_92GPg/w-d-xo.html ☝☝☝ THE REACTION VIDEO☝☝☝ w/ special guests Dane van Eys & Dan Chapa! Chris Fisher even joined us in the comment section!!!
Open theism doesn't say that the cross of Christ was 'one of many potential plans'. See, that is the kind of nonsense that gets said by people who are not open theists. By the way a 'plan B' is a contingency plan. It is protocol that is engaged in response to an emergency. The Arminian suddenly becomes a Calvinist by denying that God responds to situations or intervenes in His wisdom. Was God expelling our first parents from the garden part of plan A? No. It was a contingency response that became necessary.
*Isaiah 55:8-9* _“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, ”declares the _*_Lord._* _“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts._
This was good. Both sides made good points, and while I believe the OT guys made a better cause than the Arminian/divine simplicity guys I think the Arminians have a better perspective on Gods overall majesty and power and it seems like the OT guys have a better grasp on the tenses of time in creation.
Does Dane also deny that God received any counsel in that little thing called the divine council? Like maybe first kings 22 when another Council member suggested how to kill king Ahab?
I don't deny that God has a divine council, obviously it is in the Bible...but I would deny that there is any greater wisdom outside of God. He is "all-wise" (1 Timothy 1:17) and "infinite in understanding (Psalm 147:5). Yes God has conversations with humans and angels, but God is not being instructed, taught, or made more wise by their council. We should agree on that. The Open theist's problem is that they are teaching that God is being given wisdom above his own, from outside himself...that Moses had to give God wisdom to maintain his covenant faithfulness is a huge problem that stretches far beyond the question of does God know the future, it goes into is God all wise, is God faithful, is God good...Open Theism leads to a lot of issues. God is all-wise, all-good, always faithful. Therefore the way Open Theists interpret the Exodus 32 passage cannot work.
W. Scott Taylor in the comments is correct here. One point I disagree with my friend Chris on about Jesus in the garden. Jesus wasn't praying AGAINST the cross when he prayed 'let this cup pass from me, but your will be done, not mine'. He was praying against dying in the garden. And God heard him and that cup passed from him so that he could accomplish the cross. We ALL know this because Jesus said his soul was grieved to the point of DEATH. In Hebrews Paul wrote that Jesus cried greatly to the Father and he was HEARD. We are informed in the gospel that an angel came to strengthen Jesus. Question: When was the last time we read that Jesus had angels attend to him? A: after his fasting and temptation in the wilderness. Why? The fasting put him close to the point of death. I wish to God that preachers would stop making the Lord Jesus into a COWARD. The cross was Christ's lifelong plan to accomplish the greatest purpose conceivable. He never shrunk from the cross. But the standard interpretation by many makes Christ out to do that.
The reason why Genesis 18:21 is misinterpreted by open theists is because they limit the semantic range of Yada, which is translated into Know. Yada refers to personal experience. God can be aware of something without experiencing it bodily. In that verse, Yah was referring to a bodily experience with Sodom.
@@PracticalFaith if one affirms the Trinity, they must acknowledge God experienced pure relationship, pure love within the Godhead prior to creation. Even many CTs recognize impassibility in the early Church was often understood to mean not lacking emotion or experience but rather lacking negative emotions such as lust, greed, etc.
@@PracticalFaith I'm not saying that Yah doesn't have experiences. I'm saying that Yah has new experiences. It's not logically possible for Yah to experience something that hasn't happened yet.
Hebrews 4:13 [13]Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. God didn't have to go to Sodom to see what had happened and what was still happening. That would give us a lot to worry about if He did.
Maybe the question should be, CAN God know the future exhaustively or choose not to know it exhaustively instead of DOES God know the future exhaustively? God can do anything He pleases right? Wasn't God able to know that Abraham would obey Him in offering his son Isaac on the altar if He wanted to, but chose not to, but to see if he would? This verse has been complexing to me, being not an open theist.
The question "If God knows with certainty that an event will take place, is it possible for it to happen otherwise?" is a non-sensical question. It is like asking "Can God create a rock so big He can't move it?" It is assuming that God's foreknowledge is what determines what will happen. God's foreknowledge is determined by the what actually happens in time. The events in time are not determined by God's foreknowledge. That would be Theistic Determinism (which I don't support). It is ironic that the Open Theists would use a presupposition of Determinism to prove Open Theism!
1:37 hit the nail on the head. If God can change what He knows will happen, then Open Theism is true. The point that was missed is that there’s a logical contradiction involved in asserting that God can change something He knows will happen, from the Arminianism perspective, because from that perspective if God knows a thing will happen, it’s 100% that it will happen. It’s not a question of what God has the power or desire or ability to do, but of simple logic. A think can’t logically be true and false. If God knows a thing will happen, no one can change things such that that thing won’t happen, not even God, because if the thing could possibly not happen, then God could not have known that it would, at least not in a settled way, only conditional, which is the open theist position, not the Arminian one.
God is like Ron Swanson at Lowe’s. Ask him if there is a project or concept you can help him with, and God’s reply will be,”I know more more than you”. ✝️😇
Right out of the gate the 1st fallacy appeared. The bro asserted foreknowledge of the future as a divine attribute and then defended his assertion by claiming Isaiah says God predicts the future. In reality, what the verses say is that God says what He intends to do and then does it. This proves nothing of foreknowledge of what others will do which is the central issue of foreknowledge. Ezek 28.15 states plainly that God did not foreknow but rather found Lucifer’s iniquity. Further, as early as Genesis 2.19, bible states plainly God did not foreknow what Adam would name the animals till Adam actually made the choice bringing those choices into reality as knowable facts.
The statements from the Arminianist on the bottom left regarding covenants were displaying a misunderstanding of the covenants. The new covenant is the only covenant under which anyone has ever been saved. The new covenant involves faith in Christ. That’s the only way of salvation for anyone regardless of when they lived. In it the law is written in the heart and mind, which is to be converted, which is to be born again, which happens when one believes in Christ.
In regards to God learning, it’s not only that cannot learn, but He cannot think (in the sense of reasoning, of thinking things through), if God has always known exactly what He would do or think at any given time. He would have always known everything, so He could not reason (accept after the fact, to explain to someone else why something He did was logical), but He couldn’t use logic to make a decision.
"The kingship had been given to Judah, so that it is not really an option for God to wipe out everyone except Moses" 21:50 So God made an INSINCERE OFFER, Dan? There are many places where God said one thing and changed his mind. In fact, the whole generation which came out of Egypt was PROMISED to enter the land. Two people entered. Why? People do stuff that provokes God to change his mind. God said he would destroy Nineveh in 40 days. Was there no option to do otherwise? Why not? God gave his word, right? So why was there 'no option for God to wipe out everyone except Moses'? Such exegesis that suggests that because of foreknowledge God can make insincere promises or just be 'rhetorically speaking' is really to make God a liar. That is really shabby treatment of the text. So Dan, you are saying because God KNEW Cain was going to kill Abel that he intentionally gave the false impression that Cain could master temptation?
Around 1:56 the discussion involved covenants and what one needs to believe to be saved with the idea that things had changed or that people were saved in a different way. There’s only ever been one way of salvation, which is under the new covenant, which is simply faith in Christ. There’s no other way of being saved than to believe in Him. Under the new covenant the law is written in the heart and mind, as opposed to tablets of stone. This indicates conversion, or being born again, as Jesus put it. This wasn’t a new requirement. The flesh is flesh. All fallen human beings have to be born again to be saved regardless of when they lived. In Isaiah 51:6,7 it says that the righteous are those who have the law in their heat. That’s the new covenant! If you look in Hebrews 11, it makes clear that those who lived before Christ came believed in the resurrection. One could go on forever regarding this, but the point is, there’s only one covenant under which people are saved, and this is the cornerstone of Pauline theology, which is why he used Abraham as the example, arguing that he was declared righteous (was justified by faith) *before* he was circumcised, proving that one is saved by faith in Christ (aka the new covenant) and not by the works of the law (aka the old covenant).
1 Sam 10:1-7 Samuel prophesies that God anointed Saul over Israel as King. To confirm this God gave Saul THREE prophetic signs "because God is with you" . Dane stopped too soon. Saul was also given ONE COMMAND by God through Samuel. He was to wait for Samuel to offer sacrifice. So Dane, why didn't Samuel tell him FOUR signs...and tell Saul that he will disobey the command and that God will disown Saul as a result? Why didn't God tell Saul that he would disobey the command of the Lord and be rejected by God? We are told the purpose of the three signs "because God is with you". Why wasn't Saul's disobedience also revealed? Why didn't God say he was going to reject Saul anyways although He made it clear that the signs were to confirm that God had CHOSEN Saul? That one command you missed, Dane, overthrows your argument about foretelling specific actions. When a command is given here, why didn't God say that Saul would disobey it leading to Saul being rejected as king?
I really think Open Theism makes a lot of sense but I have some verses that I don’t know how to properly understand from an Open view theology “Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: FOR I KNEW that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.” Isaiah 48:8 KJV This verse is saying that God knew Israel would “deal treacherously” and would be a “transgressor from the womb” if God doesn’t know the future and according to open theism that “he learns about the state of man by what he sees” how did He know Israel would be a “transgressor from the womb”? Also I understand the concept that God can accurately guess the future because He can “do His pleasure” and will work through His creation to accomplish His will and different verses from Isaiah chapter 40-49 imply that but I’m stuck on these verses in Isaiah 41 “Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and SHEW US WHAT WILL HAPPEN: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. SHEW THE THINGS THAT ARE TO COME HEREAFTER, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.” Isaiah 41:21-23 KJV These verses are showing that the false gods cannot “show the things that are to come” because if these false gods were true gods than the true God would know if they are “true gods” or not. These versus seem to suggest that the true litmus test to see if you are really God is to know what is going to happen in the future how could you explain these verses with an open view theology? That’s what confuses me
In your first reference God tells us the mechanism by which He knows. We see this often in "omniscience" prooftexts. The word actually denies omniscience. In this case God knows based on their character from their "birth". I have a debate on Isaiah, th-cam.com/video/lMiFzKsd4Tw/w-d-xo.html
Around 2:00, I generally agree with much that Duffy says but here strongly disagree with the idea that man sinning was inevitable or “realistic”. Why in the world would God create beings He thought would sin? There seems to be the presupposition that free will implies rejecting God, but that’s literally irrational. There’s no reason to reject God, and while free will makes that a possibility, it’s certainly not an expectation. It’s like an Isaiah when God said He expected good grapes but got wild ones instead. If he could expect good grapes from a group that had already sinned, He could certainly have expected such from one’s that were sinless.
Overall, I think the open thiests are doing better (I haven't finished), but quoting about God needing to go down from Sodom was a bad move, and they would have done well just to concede the problems with it.
@@willcd Firstly, that doesn't solve the problem of God lacking knowledge of the past (the evil actions committed in Sodom and Gamorah were already in the past at that point). 2ndly,, are you implying that because he was in human form, he temporarily lacked knowledge of what was going on everywhere else in the universe?
No, it showed that they care about what the Bible actually says and not what makes them feel bad. They take the Bible seriously, they don't bend it to fit their perfect being theology.
Grace and Peace to you. I find it interesting that the church affiliations of the non Open Theists are mentioned, but the church affiliations of the Open Theists aren't mentioned.
No, the churches are not mentioned, the denominations are mentions. That the open theists are not affiliated with a major denomination infers that they are non-denomination, or put another way, less beholden to the precepts of a group of human beings.
@@garyh2100 Grace and Peace to you. We're both right and wrong. The denominations of both non Open Theists are mentioned, but the church of only 1 of them is mentioned.
Objectively the open theists make a strong scriptural point while the theists maintain strong theological points. I've studied theology and I was not aware how it made me read precepts into the text until now.
Arminians fall into the danger that Calvinists do in trying to distance God from man-like qualities they end up with an impersonal abstraction that is not personal or relational, living, loving or good. 15:50
Both men present an imperfect position that doesn't accurately depict what the scriptures teach. God has the ability to know and understand all truth past, present, and future but He does not utilize this attribute at all times. For example we recognize God has all power but He doesn't always exercise that power. This recognizes an intentional restraint in how God utilizes his omniscience and omnipotence. This concept is exemplified in Jesus who was fully God but did not operate through His divinity.
That's an Open Theist position. If God can choose to know all truth, then he doesn't have all truth at some point. Because he would have to choose at some point to learn that knowledge. Now as an Open Theist myself, I find this position somewhat silly. It assumes there are true facts to be known about the future. Which is just determinism. In this idea, God is fated by a future he chooses not to know.
@@TavishCaryMusic I think you misunderstand my position sir. You have knowledge in your head that you do not access unless the situation calls for it. God can do the same thing. Also I think their is a confusion between foreknowledge and fate. I would add that the idea that God is fated by the future that He chooses not to know is over simplification of my stance. Im simply saying that we do not know how God interacts with His omniscience. We don't know how God operates in relation to what He knows and we are unsure if God can partition knowledge within His mind. For example Jesus (as God on earth) did not know certain things but the Father (as God in heaven) knew everything Jesus didn't. God is shown here in one sense knowing and in another not knowing. Of coarse this is just discussion. Im not saying this is the absolute position I hold. Im actually interested to hear your critiques.
@@tyronedawson8553 My point is that if you hold that God can exhaustively know the future, then the future is sure. There is nothing that can change that future, the knowledge of it is set in stone. Yes, we can have knowledge that we're not actively thinking, but that knowledge is of real things. Set things that have happened. Those things cannot be changed.
Also Jesus not knowing something and God knowing something is not an example of God knowing and not knowing something. First, that's a flat out contradiction. Second, God and Jesus are not the same.
@@TavishCaryMusic Traditional Christian thought recognized that Jesus and the Father are God (Trinitarian thought). Oneness theology also acknowledges that Jesus and the Father are both God. We have scripture that states the Father knew things the son did not know. Therefore, it can be argued that God can partition His knowledge and interact with His omniscience in a way we have not accounted for. Thanks for your response, brother.
Saying something is a anthropomorphism explains nothing. It says nothing about what it's meant to communicate. Classical Theists use it as a way of dismissing everything they don't like in the biblical portrayal of God.
It's something I've never heard explained by the settled view. I currently hold to a simple foreknowledge view, but this charge alone is giving me pause. When the Bible says that "God is patient" and that is simply an anthropomorphism or figure of speech, then what is the referent? When I say this computer cost me an arm and a leg, the referent is "a lot of money". What is the referent for God's patience? What is the referent for God's searching? What is the referent for something "not entering God's mind".
@@TKK0812 Hi Tronkoop. Exactly. Good points! Let me say it upfront: i'm not (no longer) a christian. But i have a lot of respect for and interest in Judaism and Christianiny. Just as you probably do too, i believe we should as much as possible try to understand what the individual authors were trying to communicate - without imposing our preconceived notions on the text. Therefore, i also believe we can find in the bible what you would call "simple foreknowledge". But, in my opinion, most of the biblical authors were clearly not classical theists. Just as assuming classical theism when approaching the text gets in the way of properly understanding the text, i believe assuming that the biblical authors were all in agreement with each other has the same problem. Of course, if it's God's word we would expect it to be consistent. But should we start from there? Or should we approach the text open to the possibility that the biblical authors don't agree with each other sometimes?
@@piano9433 I think sometimes perspective and emphasis of writing may make it appear as though the authors disagreed about God, but I wouldn't hold to a contradictory view in that some authors presented contradictory views or truths about God. I find the tensions in scripture fascinating. For instance as you probably know, many passages emphasis the grace of God while just as many passages emphasize obedience. How do we parse these out and reconcile them? Do we need to or are they just to be held in tension?
@@TKK0812 I agree that perspective and emphasis have to be taken into account. Not all theological debates are due to ambiguity in the text. Let me give you an example though. Do you think the old and new testament present a consistent view of afterlife? What i have in mind is the fact that, in the OT, people went to she'ol after death. Whether it was symbolic or a physical place in the underworld, it's disputed. But everybody went there, the righteous (like Jacob and Joseph, Genesis 37:5) and the unrighteous (like the king of Babylon, in Isaiah 14, or the Pharaoh in Ezekiel 31). How do you see this?
@@piano9433 Absolutely consistent, though not equally clear. Most Christians hold to the idea of progressive revelation. I can give very small amounts of information at one time and then large amounts at another and obviously still be consistent. The idea of a final judgement or resurrection was likely largely unknown. However, I believe the Bible, in both the old and new testament, clearly detail the idea that God will destroy His enemies and show blessing to those He remains in covenant with, and I believe that is the consistency. Jeremiah 7:30-34, Isaiah 66:24, Daniel 12:2, Matthew 10:28, Jude 1:7 to name just a few. I hold to a view that the intermediate state (sheol, hades) is distinct from Ghenna or the lake of fire and Heaven. I would also hold to, as one of the more clear doctrines in scripture, that the unbelieving wicked will not be tormented forever and ever "in hell", rather that God will destroy them, that the eternal punishment is everlasting death or annihilationism..
Its unclear what would have happened if Adam and Eve would have ruled over the serpent and resisted his persuasion....At that point i surmise that would have been the end of Satan. He would not have gained dominion over the earth....Things may have worked out entirely different after that...................JMO Willie
Using the Bible like open theists do requires that we believe God had to travel from where he was down to the earth to see what was going on with the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). The Old Testament is full of accounts which, if taken literally, would divest God of all of his divine attributes, not just knowledge of the future. Old Testament writers were describing the indescribable. I'm at a loss as to why anyone finds open theism persuasive. We do not even know for a fact that time is linear, and we are going to pontificate about what God can know and when?
I don't think it REQUIRES that we believe what you're saying. Open theists aren't required to take everything woodenly literal. The passage you mentioned is difficult to interpret for any side.
@@PracticalFaith Understood, but I think you need a solid rationale for why you are choosing to take literally verses which clearly describe God reacting in human-like terms in certain instances, but choose not to do so in other instances. Particularly when we have straightforward biblical statements about God's knowledge and attributes with are completely removed from the human experience.
I am sympathetic to OT but I think there's enough scripture to counter that shows that God does know the future. I don't know. It's a tough thing I do not think God is like a stone Just locked and not able to interact with us however on a very personal level
@@woepill well it may be contradictory but I do not think God is frozen and he does interact with us in real time I just have a problem with saying that God doesn't know the future. But I guess if the future technically or physically doesn't exist yet, God would know every single possibility and what the most likely outcome would be of any given situation. That's probably why I say I'm sympathetic to open-theism I'm uncomfortable saying that God does not know everything there is to know.
Jesus' prayer was not that he might possibly evade the cross, but that the sufferings might be mitigated. In dying for us, it was not absolutely necessary that he undergo all the tortures, physical, mental and spiritual, leading up to the cross and on the cross itself. God could have eased the sufferings to some extent, while he would still have solidarity with human suffering and die the atoning death. It was a question whether he would have to drink the full cup of suffering.
Literally thousands upon thousands of examples showing God exhaustively knows the future? Even if you accept the premise, there’s literally at most dozens upon dozens. “Thousands” is a really big number. It’s not even true that the word “Jesus” is literally used thousands upon thousands of times.
Well objectively, the arminians did not show open theism is unbiblical, their open theism based on this debate seems to remain a viable view.... Tho open theism is new to me and I don't quite understand all of it claims and perspectives
Painful to watch the "Arminians" bumble through this debate with no logical reasoning. Even when faced with plain textual proof, they can't let magical thinking go. It's almost embarrassing to watch. Chris and Will were very impressive and thorough. Arminianism is nothing more than soft Calvinism. While they claim that God is the "most free" being, He is apparently not free to change what He knows will happen in the future. That actually makes God paralyzed in the present. That is the definition of "not free at all". A prisoner of His own knowledge where real action isn't possible. Reformed theology is stupid, and it's also responsible for making Christianity rejected by many who seek a dynamic relationship with a higher power. And let's not forget prayer - if prayer doesn't change anything, it is nothing, including changing your heart. In Jeremiah 23, God hates the modes of determinism, and calls those that preach it sodomites, and tells their people to mock them. Excellent video and I'm glad I watched it.
Oh my gosh open theist do not know why God gave his creatures his words in the Bible it's not for him to learn anything new but for us to learn who he is . And know God's purposes and intentions and control over his creatures and his creation... How he will begin it conducted and concluded.
The Atminians are acting as if the only way that God could know something for sure without foreknowledge. For example, He could know for sure that the crucifixion would take place because he knew what was in the hearts of Judas, the pharisees, and Pilate.
The guys on the left (arguing against Open Theism) were not sufficiently studied. I cringed through most of the video. So many passages and arguments they should have offered. Too bad.
These arguments are not logically sound. Just because God knows the future, doesn’t mean all you have concluded. You’re arguing like your statements are absolutely the only way of understanding God’s knowledge.
@@rogersacco4624 Well, to start off, you’re begging the question. Either God is like you say He is, or He is limited in the way you say He would be. Do you see the logical fallacy with your argument? Moreover, if God’s knowledge is based on all that He has determined, there is no reason to believe that He is limited by anything, because what He has determined to do, He will do.
2:39 Dane says 'we wouldn't think that God can die but Jesus dies right? So...I don't think the Godhead in its fulness dies but the human nature of Jesus dies." Problem: first, it is NONSENSE to speak of a being that does not possess FLESH AND BLOOD as being capable of DEATH. But GOD possessed flesh and blood THROUGH the Incarnation. Death is, according to James 'the body without the spirit'. Jesus experienced the separation of the flesh from the spirit. He is God, so God died. By DEFINITION. God DIED. How do we know this? Because His physical body was separated from His Spirit. That is the BIBLICAL definition of death. But Dane says God did not die, but Jesus' physical nature died. Everyone by definition DIES when their flesh becomes separated from their spirit. Jesus Christ manifested in the flesh. God became ALIVE in a biological definition via the Incarnation. In the same way, the spirits of the departed are incapable of DEATH in the sense which Dane defines death when He says God cannot die. Thus, in the same sense, departed spirits are incapable of 'dying'. But one DIES by James' definition when their spirit (which cannot 'die') becomes separated from the biological body. So, when Dane says God cannot die, does Dane mean EXTINCTION/Annihilation?
Obviously, God can and does turn the hearts of kings and providentially turn events to bring to pass things He foretells or decides to do. He works in all things providentially ≠ causes all things. This is not foreknowledge in the reality or time violating sense nor determinism that is so pervasive it makes God culpable of men’s fall or sins. Knowing at conception or foreplanning or knowing a word as a thought before spoken do not violate time. The cross was fore- odained cuz iniquity was already in play thru Lucifer thus necessitating a plan of salvation in advance of material Creation.
The classical thiests are simply assuming their conclusion with the Isaiah 41 passage. They never address the ipen thiests' explanation of *how* he knows the future (by doing it.) Just saying your interpretation again and again doesn't make you right.
@@PracticalFaith would it be that I have a high view of God's sovereignty, the fact that I pointed out that one side believes God is not in control and learns (as man does) what will happen while the other believes that God's determination depends on our choices (man centered), or the fact that I believe this is disheartening (sad) for the future of Christianity, that caused you to label me in this way? Those are the three things I implied in my statement.
Apparently you believe God determined them to have this debate and believe exactly as they do. They couldn't have chosen to do anything else so why are you complaining?
@@PracticalFaith complaining or pointing out inconsistency? No response to my question I see, but to respond to you, I also believe that God determined to enter the world in flesh and be murdered on a cross, that doesn't change the level of responsibility for those who were guilty of this atrocious act. This was a debate, and hence the comment section cannot be expected to be free of dissenting opinions. Does me expressing my opinion bother you because it differs from yours? Or is there some other reason why you chose to insult my character based on my expression of a different opinion? I don't believe my comment expressed a hypocritical view of my own virtue, it actually expressed the very well established fact of God's virtue. Therefore 'pious' doesn't seem to fit as a description of my attitude expressed in my comment.
Sovereignty and determinism aren’t the same thing. An all powerful God can choose to create whatever he wants including free creatures he can interact with. God can even condescend into Human form because he loves his creation so much he gave his only begotten son. You people turn God into a robotic formula to fulfill your systematic. You don’t like what the Bible says so you take the plain meaning and reinterpret and call everyone else man centered.
If Jesus is the PROPITIATION (God satisfying sacrifice) for every individual without exception, then UNIVERSALISM HAS TO BE TRUE,but since we know that UNIVERSALISM IS FALSE, THEN THIS MEANS THAT Jesus' propitiation was made for a limited number of people...God DOES NOT LEARN,God is the author of History in advance.
@@CBALLEN If God has predetermined all your false beliefs and he is glorified in giving them to you, then you are powerless to correct them right? How then do you justify your interpretation of scripture or even your own sanity?
Ive had a few questions on spesific doctrines like "sin nature" but the more a thought about it, the more i realised....everything is a question in my mind. I think i have been going through an existential crisis because i study everything there is to know, and came to the conclusion, you cant know anything for sure because you first have to question everything you do know or believe as true and then consider the many diff possibilities for truth on any given doctrine and you have to question all of them and none of them are without error and can be called absolute truth.
As the saying goes, the more you know, the more you realise you dont know and that whatever you will come to know, will make you more aware of what you still dont know. So in a way i feel people who dont seek the truth, are so much happier now and also in the life to come because they can just claim: we did not know.
What Christians keep forgetting about relationships is that they require consent on both sides. And "be in a relationship with me or suffer excruciating torture for all eternity" does not lead to meaningful consent. Somebody should metoo God's a$$. Also, what about people who don't have a degradation and humiliation kink? I see a lot of Christians get off on being told how they are wretched sinners who deserve eternal suffering, but I think most actually don't, in which case the effects on their mental health are dire. We would consider that abuse.
I do not believe you understand the theme of scripture. You present it as "do this or else!" We've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. God is holy and perfect. Sinning against Him incurs a serious penalty. In love He gave His son so that we can be reconciled to God by grace through faith.
Dane, repeat after me: there's nothing wrong with God knowing every possible future, while letting the Future options play out his way, or how he wants Its literally not a contradiction to say that God wanted X to happen but was thrilled that Y did
open theism is becoming popular because the Open theist. knows that if God knows the end from the very beginning,then that means Calvinism is true,that God actually created people for Hell,as Romans 9 :22-23 teach.
7:45 - Arminian Opening
23:25 - Open Theist Opening
Subtopic Discussions
40:38 - Prophecies in which God details specific future free decisions of humans
57:14 - What does the Bible tell us as to how God gains information?
1:14:31 - Foreknowledge of free human actions as a defining attribute of Deity (John 13:19)
1:30:27 - According to the Bible, has God ever had the ability to change what would happen?
1:47:22 - Foreknowledge in Election
2:03:07 - Exodus 32 - God changing His mind due to outside input
2:21:00 - Closing Statements
Q&A - 2:29:55
Put these time stamps in your description and they’ll show as chapters you can skip to in the video.
I think the Bible is an honest Open Theism book and God's anger makes sense when he knows something preventable or inexcusable happens.
Will and Christopher you honestly have planted something deep within me to want to know God more on a deeper level of intimacy, thank you so much for this debate it was so rich
What has been planted in your heart? That God makes mistakes like Will believes? Do you believe God makes mistakes? No Christian I've ever known believes that.
@@bobbyadkins6983Weird that our other conversation just disappeared?
@@bobbyadkins6983Do you have a time stamp for when he said that?
After watching a lot of open theism debates, there's something that I think everyone is missing. If your position applies to every item in a data set, your position is very easy to falsify. If I say "every fish in the ocean has 4 fins" and I show that 10 quadrillion fish actually have 4 fins, it still only takes a single fish that doesn't have 4 fins to falsify my position. In Open Theism debates, Open Theists already agree that sometimes, in the Bible, some things happen according to the foreknowledge of God. The problem is, it only takes a single event that was not in God's foreknowledge to falsify the idea that God's foreknowledge is exhaustive.
I’m not sure that they ever said- they say things that are determined are foreknown, and God can and does determine certain things in that he will bring them to pass.
@@HJM0409God Knowing the future simply because he brings it to pass is the Calvinistic way of teaching it. That's not the same as God predicting the future. Predicting the future and determining the future are very different.
@@bobbyadkins6983 oh I completely agree. Predictions -ALLL of them carry a degree of certainty and uncertainty. Predicting actually means the future is not settled or known with 100 💯 percent certainty
But also that does not mean that there are no things God hasn’t determined to do and will bring to pass. The difference is the Calvinist says “all things” are determined and this known with certainty
This was an absolute massacre of the Arminians. The Open Theist position, though it may have flaws, is the most biblically tenable position I have come across. Respect to all of the panel members for a great and cordial discussion.
When God asked, What more could I have done? He wasn't looking for an answer. He wasn't expressing ignorance on His behalf. He was making it plain that as good as He had been to Israel and all He had done for them, that they had no excuse for turning away from Him.
This debate made it so plain. Every argument from the Arminian side could be summarized as “my presupposition.”
Not biased at all.
Even though i'm not a christian, i have a lot of respect for both Chris and Will. They are the ones taking the text seriously.
Unless one approaches the text assuming classical theism, it's impossible to deny that God repents, gains knowledge and etc.
And as an agnostic, i can't help myself but wonder how interesting it's that, at the end of the day, most christians don't worship the God of the Bible, but rather the "god of the philosophers".
If you don't mind me asking, what is it exactly that makes you an agnostic? What is it that maybe is holding you back? As you've obviously noted, there are a lot of false teachings from the texts not being taken seriously. So I wonder if there is a misinterpreted view in the Bible that you've heard that is holding you back. You sound like a smart guy, maybe there is something you could look at froma different perspective.
You're an agnostic non Christian, watching a Christian in-house debate about God's knowledge? That's unexpected. 😅
At least twice in this debate it was stated that God was “giving Moses an opportunity” to intercede in Exodus 32. In the story, God told Moses to back off “so that my (God’s) wrath may wax hot.” That is the opposite of an invitation.
My favorite thing about this debate is that it was both rigorous and cordial.
No it was not during Q and A the questioner cannot preach example 1:01:06
The way this debate went, I can't call it a debate, it was a loving discution and very informative, and this is what it's needed.
The open theists made many strong arguments for their position . Our first introduction to God does not indicate that he knows all things inherently.
Close theists get trounced EVERY time in any fair fight.
Very interesting debate. Thank you for hosting it. I confess, it opened me up to the possibility of Open Theism being true. But God not knowing the future is a hard pill to swallow.
Yeah, it can be. But God does know for certain many things that will come to pass. He has decreed certain things, and will make certain things come to pass. He is powerful and sovereign enough to do so. For example, Jesus is coming back. Believers will be sanctified and conformed to His image. We will have places prepared for us in heaven.
Open Theism is just the affirmation of the Living God of Scripture who created free-will image bearers in front of whom He placed real choices. God is omniscient in that He knows all knowable things, but the future doesn't have truth value because it doesn't exist yet. Hope this helps, cheers and God bless.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 Ten months later I now affirm open theism.
@@magepunk2376amen!
@@bobbyfischersays1262saying he decreed only certain things just makes it hard to trust. I’d rather their be actual purpose to All the evil in the world and not just because he let it happen for some potential good that may or may not happen because the future is open.
Open Theism doesn't mean God doesn't know the future, only that the future isn't certain. To me, God is way smarter than I am. I know the future a little bit, and so do you. God is mathematically infinite and so intelligent that He doesn't need magical future knowledge to know things. He knows them because He is all knowing, and can calculate with accuracy any possibilities or certainties with real knowledge. I find it more comforting that magical time travel.
The Arminians don’t like that Moses convinced God to change His plan. But even the pagan King Abimelech convinced God not to kill him after God said He would.
Dane said that our relationship to God is one of "master to servant." Exodus 33:11, "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend."
His statement is true in certain aspects, but in others is just a completely disjointed understanding than what the scriptures wish to teach. (Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions use their authority over them. 26 It must not be this way among you! Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave- 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” )
Well there is of course a sense in which we relate to God as a friend, as a Bride, as a child, and through Christ as a brother. But this doesn't diminish that our relationship to him is also one of a Master to a servant and a Lord to a subject. Consider the following Bible verses:
7 “Suppose one of you has a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Will he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come along now and sit down to eat’? 8 Won’t he rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’? 9 Will he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? 10 So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’” (Luke 17:7-10)
“You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am." (John 13:13)
"Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)
"On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: king of kings and lord of lords." (Revelation 19:16)
“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ (Matthew 25:23)
"The LORD said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make all your enemies a footstool for your feet" (Psalm 110:1)
"Yet you, LORD, are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand." (Isaiah 64:8)
Think about it this way, even if you are best friends with a King...you never lose the respect and honor for his office...in fact, your friendship with him makes you respect his title all the more. You can call Jesus friend, amen! He invites us to do that...but as his friends, we respect his office as King and Lord even MORE than those who are not his friends.
We prove our love for him by OBEYING HIM (John 14:15).
@@danevaneys5881 Like I said, in some certain aspects it's true. Of course you cherry picked the parables that reflect that. Jesus also compared God to loving fathers, caring husbands in other parables, neighbors, bosses, ranch owners, etc. It makes it a little ironic when one side of the debate has a conniption fit whenever someone uses a personal relationship as a metaphor for God. It's like they have never heard a parable by Jesus.
@@briancross9571 I didn't "cherry pick" It's biblical teaching that supports my case, and I simply highlighted it. And I agree with you that there are many metaphors for God and our relationship to him...I qualified my statement above (and in the debate) by saying God is a Father, husband, Friend, and Brother to us...
In the context of the debate, I was trying to defend the biblical truth that God is not counseled by men (Romans 11:33-34). Will was insisting that God must be persuaded sometimes by our wisdom/counsel in order for our relationship with him to be genuine. I think he is wrong. Our relationship to God is genuine, but it is creature to Creator, not creature to creature, and in that distinction there is a world of difference. We don't counsel God or give him wisdom external to himself, he is "all-wise" according to Paul (1 Timothy 1:17). We can have a strong, loving, genuine relationship with God and yet never teach him anything. In fact, this is the case.
@@danevaneys5881 I think everyone understands how you were trying to create a unilateral and metaphysical principle out of Romans 11. Being "persuaded" and "teaching" or giving counsel are not necessarily the same thing. The gist of Romans 11 would not be held untrue if Moses' argument persuaded God.
According to the Apostle Paul, the Holy Spirit does not even know the Father's thought until he searches his mind to find out. I know that sounds crazy but that is what Paul frankly said (1 Cor. 2:10-12) This, to me, means that "knowledge" and omniscience as Christians traditionally understand it is way overrated!
I'm a classical theist, I'm about an hour into this debate and the Arminians are getting slaughtered. They don't employ basic categories from the tradition they're supposedly trying to defend which is depressing.
That’s because closed theism which is what it actually is not “classical” can’t be defended with scripture or rationally within Gods revealed reality. It’s pure made up theory about God predetermining eternity in the future.
its so bionically simple, what does not change about God is His principles..........Willie
Exactly. People are not taught that God IS the Truth. As the Truth, everything about Him takes on the attributes and characteristics of truth. That goes very deep.
Open theists won hands down! Arminians were consistently inconsistent in their reasoning. 🤦🏾♂️
Yessss!
Closed theists, classical theism and calvinism was absolutely destroyed in this debate. A total and rightful slaghter of their heresies.
Open Theism is a legit heresy, it's wish washy, no solid doctor especially that can shift. It's a theology that caters to those who want to sit in the fence of atheism and liberalism.
@@BrianRich1689calvinism is a condemned heresy. What's your point?
@Fireking285 It's never been condemned except by the Roman Catholics and some radical later sectoral Christians. The Eastern Orthodox has condemned all of Protestantism including non Denominational Christians as Anathema and heretical, the Roman Catholic Church has condemned those outside of the Roman Catholic Church as heretics, lately they've softened on the Protestants but have mostly kept that energy towards the less historical groups (and can't blame them there really) some psychotic Provisionist "Baptists" condemned Calvinism, amd TVs and women wearing jeans and having more than one hairstyle, the Open Theist condemn anything classic theist as being heresy, which means everyone but themselves, So to say that "some have condemned Calvinism as heresy" would be more accurate, and to say "some low IQ heretics that historically would never have been seen as anything but pelagian and outside of the church as major heretics have condemned Calvinism" is the most accurate. And to that: What do heretics have to do with the saints?, Nothing, nothing at all.
Great job, Chris and Will!
Regarding the topic of conditional promises, Genesis 22:16-18 and Genesis 26:4-5 prove that Yah makes promises before later revealing that they're conditional. The promise of Abraham was given on multiple occasions until it was revealed that the promise was given to him and Isaac because Abraham feared God. The promise was founded on Abraham's obedience.
Why is foreknowledge necessary for God to tell people what He plans to do? Why would I need to have exhaustive foreknowledge to say where I will be at a certain time tomorrow?
You don't say that tho.
In the every day sense, you can say such things. But in the literal sense, you don't know where you'll be tomorrow.
In a very real sense, you hope to know.
God doesn't say something, hoping it'll come true. He says it with certainty.
Why that certainty? Because He knows the future.
Regardless of what side of the debate you land on, I think it’s fair to say the Open Theists came much more prepared than the Arminians.
I'm an atheist but I have to say that if Christianity is true, open theism is true.
Kamil, often it's bad theology that turns people off to the truth, because it sounds so stupid. God is real, Jesus is the Savior, we've all sinned, and Jesus paid our debt. That's about as simple as it gets. The details, able to be filled in later, always make sense to our logical minds, since God created our minds.
@@PlanetRockJesus Unfortunately, it's not that simple and the "details" include e.g. what one must and must not do or believe to be saved. I personally know Roman Catholics who believe Protestants go to Hell because there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church and Protestants who believe Roman Catholics go to Hell for practicing idolatry. And I know Christians who believe that differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are not salvific issues, but then I also know both Roman Catholics and Protestants who believe that *those* Christians go to Hell for believing that. And the same is true about a myriad of other issues dividing Christians, including the question of Open Theism (it's not difficult to find Open Theists who believe that for example Calvinists absolutely do go to Hell for worshipping a false idol and vice versa).
This is my point exactly! This is why I’m an open theist! It makes sense and it doesn’t make God an evil liar. It’s evil to put the snake into the garden if he knew the kind of rapes and murders it would lead to. God also changes his mind, but that would be a lie if he knew the future. Two of my sisters became atheists for this reason. And I think there’s a basis for that. They are logical thinkers.
@kamilgregor
I was an Open Theist before becoming an atheist (as I now am) and, to me, it’s definitely the most honest take when one reads the books of the bible, apocrypha, etc, and doesn’t import assumptions, really.
I still think it has holes, but the most *honest* for sure.
@@timbertome2443 I agree
On the question of if God has the ability to change what would happen, the Arminianists completely didn’t get the point. Will’s assertion that if God has the ability to change what He foreknowledge would happen then the future must be open is spot on. If the future is settled, it can’t be changed. The foreknowledge isn’t the issue, but the future being settled. The point is it can only be fore known as settled if it really is settled. If it is settled, them it can or be changed, so God no more has the ability to change the future than to create a square circle.
Open Theists rocked. Arminians on the ropes ever asserting philosophical reasoning ignoring both logic & avoiding narrative thru appeal to allegorical interpretation. The whole panel was weak on the cross. Lucifer fell without God’s foreknowledge according to Exek 28.15. Thus, the lamb was slain figuratively before material Creation. It was not plan B. Jesus did not pray to remove it or if it be thy will. That was a prayer of consecration crying out His feelings saying: Your will be done, not if it be.
Also, the church was not an afterthought but the central mystery Christ was effecting. Israel was the covenant and seed bearer to bring Messiah that would found the Church for all Adamites.
God did not need cross justification to appease Himself; He implemented it to administer righteous justice in a universe He populated with innumerable beings possessing free agency & will. In spite of omnipotence: He rules by justice, not by tyranny.
People tend to overlook the importance of innumerable hosts of freewill angels witnessing God’s dealings with rebellious men & Luciferian angels. The incarnation, cross, death & resurrection righteously justifies rebellious sons of man without justifying rebellious sons of God.
If you don’t grasp the sheer brilliance & benevolence of concluding all guilty by Adam; so, God could come down & justify by taking the beating & death as Adam 2.0, then conquer death by resurrection promising the same for us, your theology may have blinded you from the gospel.
Our God, by the gospel demonstrated Wisdom, Power, & Love! Brilliant legal justification; Resurrection trumping death; Love came down!!!! Worthy King!! Reign Forever!! Let every man & angel be in awe!! Our God saves!!!
Our God is not just the legal strategist that out- witted Satan, nor the resurrector that out- played the Satanic deception leading to death: He also demonstrated love by becoming the second Adam that would lay down His life first in humble service; then, in ultimate sacrifice!
Our God is not just the legal mind of unmatched wisdom that humiliated Satan’s march of all men to death with only one man, one tree & one nail (in the heel) that He announced in advance at Genesis 3.15: He is also the God whose power of resurrection defeated Satan’s only weapon.
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”(Gal. 3:13)
Again: As part of a legal strategy, our brilliant God, had the cunning to slip into the Law a phrase about tree hanging cursing a man.
Whose guilt was atoned: Adam’s or our own? This misses the point of biblical original sin. God “concluded” all sinners by Adam’s one sin because He was THE brilliant legal mind devising a justification that could be fulfilled by ONE Savior’s sacrifice out of love! God is for us!
If I could choose just one verse, it would be this cuz it is the legal foundation of the cross. “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.” (Ro 5:18)
If I could choose a 2nd, it would be this cuz it is also part of the legal underpinning of substitutional justification:
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:” (Ga 3:13)
2:23. Very well articulated. It is indeed clear that God thinks, considers alternatives, makes decisions, etc., and there’s so many examples of this it strikes me as quite odd to think these are simply anthropomorphic. I can’t imagine that any contemporary of Moses through the following centuries would read, or heard being read, the scriptures recounting a story, where God is described as considering an alternative and think “This is just anthropomorphic. God doesn’t really consider alternatives.”
Good debate. Thanks
Dane's closing remark about the cross depend on a PSA understanding of the atonement, which is not clesrly taught in the scriptures.
I will go downtown tomorrow. How do I know this? Because it is something I plan to do. It is not because I know all the future. I'm merely communicating what I am going to do. There is no magic or TARDIS pixie powder needed to be invoked to explain.
Good Debate
Good Moderation
2:40 I love Will here. He slays in debates when dealing with the question whether God the Son gained experiential knowledge of what change is. God gained knowledge of what it is like to become a man and to die. This is something God had not experienced before. He saves the good wine until everyone has already drunk. This is Will at his absolute finest in every debate.
Would you say God knows more about His creation than we do? He knows the name of every one of the stars in the universe and knows intracately how they work as He is the designer who fashioned them together and made them work. God knows you better than you do, He knows every hair on your head and every cell in your body. He knows your innermost thoughts. He knew, before the creation, what it would be like for us to live and die.
Job asked the question, "can anyone teach God?" and he made it clear that the answer is No.
@@ChristisLord2023 don't ask questions. Read to learn, not to reply.
@@douggibson5245 14But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear; do not be shaken.”b 15But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord.c Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope that is in you. But respond with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who slander you may be put to shame by your good behavior in Christ.
I didn't ask to find an answer, only to remind you of the God that knows you better than you know yourself. God didn't gain the knowledge of what it's like to be a man, He lowered himself, taking on the form of a man.
To say that since the Bible doesn’t teach divine exhaustive knowledge that doesn’t infer that he doesn’t have it. That would be a negative inference fallacy.
"God is a spirit, he does not have flesh and bones" People assume wrongly that God does not have a body. Why does a body have to be composed of flesh and bones? Our bodies are designed to function in THIS realm. This does not mean that God doesn't have a body that is fit for the realm we cannot see. Yes, God is spirit. Those who wish are free to prove that this means incorporeal. A being can conceivably be corporeal without being composed of flesh and bones.
Proverbs 21:1 "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will."
Psalms 119:89 "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven."
The debate was about Is Open Theism in the Bible. But then Trinitarianism was introduced to the subject and that it's not a doctrine found in the Bible. So it muddied the debate a little bit. It's clear that there is one God, and One Mediator 1 Cor 8:6 and 1 Timothy 2:5. Other than that I loved it. Too many mic drop moments to count.
Trinitarians gonna trinitarian. They gotta talk about it at some point. Because it's the "most important" doctrine. You just gotta roll your eyes and move on.
Wow great debate!
@2:18:00 Open theist: Does God have hot anger?
Arminian:....yes, but, but, but he's so... transcendent
Debate over. Platonism is not biblical. God has emotions. God is not Impassible. God is a living God. His emotions change. His mind changes. Idol worship actually changed God's emotions. Moses actually changed God's mind.
A MUST READ.....AFTER DEATH...WHAT???
Dear Reader:
You know we’re just passing through this world to get
to The next, whether it be Heaven or Hell. “YES!”
There is a Hell!!!
Most people do not want to know this
BUT IT’S TRUE. Like it or not, there is a HELL!
And “YOU” make the choice.
You may be thinking to yourself:
I’ve lived a good life.
I’ve never hurt anyone.
I am no different than anyone else.
I do good things for people.
Heaven and Hell are on Earth.
“Nice try!” I’ve heard them all!
But the bible says “THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO
GET TO HEAVEN!
But there are many ways that lead to HELL!
Oh, and yes!
You can try to say that no one ever warned you about
Hell, BUT YOU HAVE JUST BEEN WARNED
WHEN YOU READ THIS AND NOW YOU ARE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
Now it’s too late to act dumb.
And when you see God face to face (and you will….
because everyone gets judged by God when they die!)
You will be held responsible for knowing this and for
being warned about Hell!!
WE ARE ALL SINNERS….sin is anything that
separates us from God. The bible tells us that any form
of idolatry, witchcraft, murder or murderous thoughts,
stealing, lying, adultery (sex outside of marriage), same
sex marriage, hatred, unforgiveness, etc…. are all sin.
God has seen every sin we have ever committed.
Yes, EVERY sin.
Now you CAN’T get up to God and say,
“Hey I didn’t know the consequences, let’s make a
DEAL.”
God has already said in the bible “This is the deal!”
You Must accept Jesus Christ for your sins or
else...
HELL!!
I know you may not like it, but it’s true.
You ask yourself, “How do I stay out of Hell?
THIS and ONLY this...!
Admit that you are a sinner because we all are.
Every one of us.
Be willing to turn from sin and REPENT.
Believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and
rose from the dead as the ONLY atonement.
He took your punishment for your sins.
Through prayer invite Jesus Christ into your
life.
“What to pray?”
“Dear God, I am a sinner and I need your
forgiveness. I believe that Jesus Christ shed His
blood and died for our sins. I am willing to turn
from sin and invite Jesus Christ into my heart and
my life as my personal savior.”
THAT’S IT! Now your off to a good start
surrender your life to Jesus…. get a bible and read
it every day and do what its says, to get to know God
better, also tell others about what Jesus Christ has
done for you.
Don’t just take my word for it! Look this stuff up in
the bible for yourself.
1. Revelation 20: 10
2. Revelation 21: 7
3. Luke 16: 19….Through...16: 31
4. John 3: 35
5. Acts 2: 38
6. 2nd Peter 2: 21
Please don’t go to Hell. You won’t like it. You
can’t just try it for a weekend...ITS FOREVER!
You are not promised another day on Earth.
Tomorrow might be too late. Heaven and Hell are
both F O R E V E R!!!
And it’s up to you which one you’ll choose. I tell
you this not because it’s my law, but because it’s
God’s law and it’s that simple.
In Hell you are awake and there is no rest. You get
to feel continual torment FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER!!
Sorry there’s no sugar coating this!
“But” the truth will set you free.
I’m not asking you to go to my church or give me one
thin dime, I’m just asking you to turn to God..... JESUS
Great debate..
th-cam.com/video/c9HUC_92GPg/w-d-xo.html
☝☝☝ THE REACTION VIDEO☝☝☝
w/ special guests Dane van Eys & Dan Chapa! Chris Fisher even joined us in the comment section!!!
Open theism doesn't say that the cross of Christ was 'one of many potential plans'. See, that is the kind of nonsense that gets said by people who are not open theists. By the way a 'plan B' is a contingency plan. It is protocol that is engaged in response to an emergency. The Arminian suddenly becomes a Calvinist by denying that God responds to situations or intervenes in His wisdom. Was God expelling our first parents from the garden part of plan A? No. It was a contingency response that became necessary.
*Isaiah 55:8-9*
_“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, ”declares the _*_Lord._*
_“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts._
Yep, and in context, what do those statements mean?
@@tedfordhyde Can a human understand what God does and why?
This was good. Both sides made good points, and while I believe the OT guys made a better cause than the Arminian/divine simplicity guys I think the Arminians have a better perspective on Gods overall majesty and power and it seems like the OT guys have a better grasp on the tenses of time in creation.
Does Dane also deny that God received any counsel in that little thing called the divine council? Like maybe first kings 22 when another Council member suggested how to kill king Ahab?
I don't deny that God has a divine council, obviously it is in the Bible...but I would deny that there is any greater wisdom outside of God. He is "all-wise" (1 Timothy 1:17) and "infinite in understanding (Psalm 147:5). Yes God has conversations with humans and angels, but God is not being instructed, taught, or made more wise by their council. We should agree on that.
The Open theist's problem is that they are teaching that God is being given wisdom above his own, from outside himself...that Moses had to give God wisdom to maintain his covenant faithfulness is a huge problem that stretches far beyond the question of does God know the future, it goes into is God all wise, is God faithful, is God good...Open Theism leads to a lot of issues.
God is all-wise, all-good, always faithful. Therefore the way Open Theists interpret the Exodus 32 passage cannot work.
The open throats are the ones presenting all the scriptures at this point.
W. Scott Taylor in the comments is correct here. One point I disagree with my friend Chris on about Jesus in the garden. Jesus wasn't praying AGAINST the cross when he prayed 'let this cup pass from me, but your will be done, not mine'. He was praying against dying in the garden. And God heard him and that cup passed from him so that he could accomplish the cross. We ALL know this because Jesus said his soul was grieved to the point of DEATH. In Hebrews Paul wrote that Jesus cried greatly to the Father and he was HEARD. We are informed in the gospel that an angel came to strengthen Jesus. Question: When was the last time we read that Jesus had angels attend to him? A: after his fasting and temptation in the wilderness. Why? The fasting put him close to the point of death. I wish to God that preachers would stop making the Lord Jesus into a COWARD. The cross was Christ's lifelong plan to accomplish the greatest purpose conceivable. He never shrunk from the cross. But the standard interpretation by many makes Christ out to do that.
The reason why Genesis 18:21 is misinterpreted by open theists is because they limit the semantic range of Yada, which is translated into Know. Yada refers to personal experience. God can be aware of something without experiencing it bodily. In that verse, Yah was referring to a bodily experience with Sodom.
That's interesting. I'll have to look into that.
If God has experiences this further undermines CT in favor of OT.
@@IdolKiller I agree. I doesn't make sense to me that God doesn't experience things... Like, before creation was God ever angry or grieved?
@@PracticalFaith if one affirms the Trinity, they must acknowledge God experienced pure relationship, pure love within the Godhead prior to creation. Even many CTs recognize impassibility in the early Church was often understood to mean not lacking emotion or experience but rather lacking negative emotions such as lust, greed, etc.
@@PracticalFaith I'm not saying that Yah doesn't have experiences. I'm saying that Yah has new experiences. It's not logically possible for Yah to experience something that hasn't happened yet.
Hebrews 4:13
[13]Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
God didn't have to go to Sodom to see what had happened and what was still happening. That would give us a lot to worry about if He did.
Maybe the question should be, CAN God know the future exhaustively or choose not to know it exhaustively instead of DOES God know the future exhaustively? God can do anything He pleases right? Wasn't God able to know that Abraham would obey Him in offering his son Isaac on the altar if He wanted to, but chose not to, but to see if he would? This verse has been complexing to me, being not an open theist.
The question "If God knows with certainty that an event will take place, is it possible for it to happen otherwise?" is a non-sensical question. It is like asking "Can God create a rock so big He can't move it?" It is assuming that God's foreknowledge is what determines what will happen.
God's foreknowledge is determined by the what actually happens in time. The events in time are not determined by God's foreknowledge. That would be Theistic Determinism (which I don't support). It is ironic that the Open Theists would use a presupposition of Determinism to prove Open Theism!
1:37 hit the nail on the head. If God can change what He knows will happen, then Open Theism is true. The point that was missed is that there’s a logical contradiction involved in asserting that God can change something He knows will happen, from the Arminianism perspective, because from that perspective if God knows a thing will happen, it’s 100% that it will happen. It’s not a question of what God has the power or desire or ability to do, but of simple logic. A think can’t logically be true and false. If God knows a thing will happen, no one can change things such that that thing won’t happen, not even God, because if the thing could possibly not happen, then God could not have known that it would, at least not in a settled way, only conditional, which is the open theist position, not the Arminian one.
God is like Ron Swanson at Lowe’s. Ask him if there is a project or concept you can help him with, and God’s reply will be,”I know more more than you”. ✝️😇
since all the churches are corrupt I think that God will raise up the open theism as His true church
Yeah! God will raise you the new heretical crypto theological agnosticism as true Christianity bro!
The Bible says that God doesn't change. Chris says He does. Which one are you going to believe?
@@davidswiger3324 That's not the same as God changing, which anyone does who has to learn anything.
Right out of the gate the 1st fallacy appeared. The bro asserted foreknowledge of the future as a divine attribute and then defended his assertion by claiming Isaiah says God predicts the future. In reality, what the verses say is that God says what He intends to do and then does it. This proves nothing of foreknowledge of what others will do which is the central issue of foreknowledge. Ezek 28.15 states plainly that God did not foreknow but rather found Lucifer’s iniquity. Further, as early as Genesis 2.19, bible states plainly God did not foreknow what Adam would name the animals till Adam actually made the choice bringing those choices into reality as knowable facts.
The statements from the Arminianist on the bottom left regarding covenants were displaying a misunderstanding of the covenants. The new covenant is the only covenant under which anyone has ever been saved. The new covenant involves faith in Christ. That’s the only way of salvation for anyone regardless of when they lived. In it the law is written in the heart and mind, which is to be converted, which is to be born again, which happens when one believes in Christ.
In regards to God learning, it’s not only that cannot learn, but He cannot think (in the sense of reasoning, of thinking things through), if God has always known exactly what He would do or think at any given time. He would have always known everything, so He could not reason (accept after the fact, to explain to someone else why something He did was logical), but He couldn’t use logic to make a decision.
"The kingship had been given to Judah, so that it is not really an option for God to wipe out everyone except Moses" 21:50 So God made an INSINCERE OFFER, Dan? There are many places where God said one thing and changed his mind. In fact, the whole generation which came out of Egypt was PROMISED to enter the land. Two people entered. Why? People do stuff that provokes God to change his mind. God said he would destroy Nineveh in 40 days. Was there no option to do otherwise? Why not? God gave his word, right? So why was there 'no option for God to wipe out everyone except Moses'? Such exegesis that suggests that because of foreknowledge God can make insincere promises or just be 'rhetorically speaking' is really to make God a liar. That is really shabby treatment of the text. So Dan, you are saying because God KNEW Cain was going to kill Abel that he intentionally gave the false impression that Cain could master temptation?
Around 1:56 the discussion involved covenants and what one needs to believe to be saved with the idea that things had changed or that people were saved in a different way. There’s only ever been one way of salvation, which is under the new covenant, which is simply faith in Christ. There’s no other way of being saved than to believe in Him. Under the new covenant the law is written in the heart and mind, as opposed to tablets of stone. This indicates conversion, or being born again, as Jesus put it. This wasn’t a new requirement. The flesh is flesh. All fallen human beings have to be born again to be saved regardless of when they lived. In Isaiah 51:6,7 it says that the righteous are those who have the law in their heat. That’s the new covenant! If you look in Hebrews 11, it makes clear that those who lived before Christ came believed in the resurrection. One could go on forever regarding this, but the point is, there’s only one covenant under which people are saved, and this is the cornerstone of Pauline theology, which is why he used Abraham as the example, arguing that he was declared righteous (was justified by faith) *before* he was circumcised, proving that one is saved by faith in Christ (aka the new covenant) and not by the works of the law (aka the old covenant).
1 Sam 10:1-7 Samuel prophesies that God anointed Saul over Israel as King. To confirm this God gave Saul THREE prophetic signs "because God is with you" . Dane stopped too soon. Saul was also given ONE COMMAND by God through Samuel. He was to wait for Samuel to offer sacrifice. So Dane, why didn't Samuel tell him FOUR signs...and tell Saul that he will disobey the command and that God will disown Saul as a result? Why didn't God tell Saul that he would disobey the command of the Lord and be rejected by God? We are told the purpose of the three signs "because God is with you". Why wasn't Saul's disobedience also revealed? Why didn't God say he was going to reject Saul anyways although He made it clear that the signs were to confirm that God had CHOSEN Saul? That one command you missed, Dane, overthrows your argument about foretelling specific actions. When a command is given here, why didn't God say that Saul would disobey it leading to Saul being rejected as king?
I really think Open Theism makes a lot of sense but I have some verses that I don’t know how to properly understand from an Open view theology
“Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: FOR I KNEW that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.”
Isaiah 48:8 KJV
This verse is saying that God knew Israel would “deal treacherously” and would be a “transgressor from the womb” if God doesn’t know the future and according to open theism that “he learns about the state of man by what he sees” how did He know Israel would be a “transgressor from the womb”?
Also I understand the concept that God can accurately guess the future because He can “do His pleasure” and will work through His creation to accomplish His will and different verses from Isaiah chapter 40-49 imply that but I’m stuck on these verses in Isaiah 41
“Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and SHEW US WHAT WILL HAPPEN: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. SHEW THE THINGS THAT ARE TO COME HEREAFTER, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.”
Isaiah 41:21-23 KJV
These verses are showing that the false gods cannot “show the things that are to come” because if these false gods were true gods than the true God would know if they are “true gods” or not.
These versus seem to suggest that the true litmus test to see if you are really God is to know what is going to happen in the future how could you explain these verses with an open view theology? That’s what confuses me
In your first reference God tells us the mechanism by which He knows. We see this often in "omniscience" prooftexts. The word actually denies omniscience. In this case God knows based on their character from their "birth".
I have a debate on Isaiah, th-cam.com/video/lMiFzKsd4Tw/w-d-xo.html
Around 2:00, I generally agree with much that Duffy says but here strongly disagree with the idea that man sinning was inevitable or “realistic”. Why in the world would God create beings He thought would sin? There seems to be the presupposition that free will implies rejecting God, but that’s literally irrational. There’s no reason to reject God, and while free will makes that a possibility, it’s certainly not an expectation. It’s like an Isaiah when God said He expected good grapes but got wild ones instead. If he could expect good grapes from a group that had already sinned, He could certainly have expected such from one’s that were sinless.
Overall, I think the open thiests are doing better (I haven't finished), but quoting about God needing to go down from Sodom was a bad move, and they would have done well just to concede the problems with it.
God was in a human form in Genesis 18. Check it out.
@@willcd Firstly, that doesn't solve the problem of God lacking knowledge of the past (the evil actions committed in Sodom and Gamorah were already in the past at that point).
2ndly,, are you implying that because he was in human form, he temporarily lacked knowledge of what was going on everywhere else in the universe?
@@danielcartwright8868 I'm fine with it. If God does not have past knowledge, Open Theism is true.
No, it showed that they care about what the Bible actually says and not what makes them feel bad. They take the Bible seriously, they don't bend it to fit their perfect being theology.
So in John 7:6-10 what was Jesus doing here? Was He being dishonest or was He changing His mind?
Grace and Peace to you. I find it interesting that the church affiliations of the non Open Theists are mentioned, but the church affiliations of the Open Theists aren't mentioned.
No, the churches are not mentioned, the denominations are mentions. That the open theists are not affiliated with a major denomination infers that they are non-denomination, or put another way, less beholden to the precepts of a group of human beings.
@@garyh2100 Grace and Peace to you. We're both right and wrong. The denominations of both non Open Theists are mentioned, but the church of only 1 of them is mentioned.
Objectively the open theists make a strong scriptural point while the theists maintain strong theological points. I've studied theology and I was not aware how it made me read precepts into the text until now.
Arminians fall into the danger that Calvinists do in trying to distance God from man-like qualities they end up with an impersonal abstraction that is not personal or relational, living, loving or good. 15:50
And open theists make God more manlike than He is.
Grace and Peace to you. I reject Open Theism, but I agree that scripture teaches that Yah had a body before the incarnation
Sounds like he doesn't even understand why God sent Jonah to Nineveh.
Both men present an imperfect position that doesn't accurately depict what the scriptures teach. God has the ability to know and understand all truth past, present, and future but He does not utilize this attribute at all times. For example we recognize God has all power but He doesn't always exercise that power. This recognizes an intentional restraint in how God utilizes his omniscience and omnipotence. This concept is exemplified in Jesus who was fully God but did not operate through His divinity.
That's an Open Theist position. If God can choose to know all truth, then he doesn't have all truth at some point. Because he would have to choose at some point to learn that knowledge.
Now as an Open Theist myself, I find this position somewhat silly. It assumes there are true facts to be known about the future. Which is just determinism. In this idea, God is fated by a future he chooses not to know.
@@TavishCaryMusic I think you misunderstand my position sir. You have knowledge in your head that you do not access unless the situation calls for it. God can do the same thing. Also I think their is a confusion between foreknowledge and fate. I would add that the idea that God is fated by the future that He chooses not to know is over simplification of my stance. Im simply saying that we do not know how God interacts with His omniscience. We don't know how God operates in relation to what He knows and we are unsure if God can partition knowledge within His mind. For example Jesus (as God on earth) did not know certain things but the Father (as God in heaven) knew everything Jesus didn't. God is shown here in one sense knowing and in another not knowing. Of coarse this is just discussion. Im not saying this is the absolute position I hold. Im actually interested to hear your critiques.
@@tyronedawson8553 My point is that if you hold that God can exhaustively know the future, then the future is sure. There is nothing that can change that future, the knowledge of it is set in stone.
Yes, we can have knowledge that we're not actively thinking, but that knowledge is of real things. Set things that have happened. Those things cannot be changed.
Also Jesus not knowing something and God knowing something is not an example of God knowing and not knowing something. First, that's a flat out contradiction. Second, God and Jesus are not the same.
@@TavishCaryMusic Traditional Christian thought recognized that Jesus and the Father are God (Trinitarian thought). Oneness theology also acknowledges that Jesus and the Father are both God. We have scripture that states the Father knew things the son did not know. Therefore, it can be argued that God can partition His knowledge and interact with His omniscience in a way we have not accounted for. Thanks for your response, brother.
Saying something is a anthropomorphism explains nothing. It says nothing about what it's meant to communicate. Classical Theists use it as a way of dismissing everything they don't like in the biblical portrayal of God.
It's something I've never heard explained by the settled view. I currently hold to a simple foreknowledge view, but this charge alone is giving me pause. When the Bible says that "God is patient" and that is simply an anthropomorphism or figure of speech, then what is the referent? When I say this computer cost me an arm and a leg, the referent is "a lot of money". What is the referent for God's patience? What is the referent for God's searching? What is the referent for something "not entering God's mind".
@@TKK0812 Hi Tronkoop. Exactly. Good points!
Let me say it upfront: i'm not (no longer) a christian. But i have a lot of respect for and interest in Judaism and Christianiny.
Just as you probably do too, i believe we should as much as possible try to understand what the individual authors were trying to communicate - without imposing our preconceived notions on the text.
Therefore, i also believe we can find in the bible what you would call "simple foreknowledge". But, in my opinion, most of the biblical authors were clearly not classical theists.
Just as assuming classical theism when approaching the text gets in the way of properly understanding the text, i believe assuming that the biblical authors were all in agreement with each other has the same problem. Of course, if it's God's word we would expect it to be consistent. But should we start from there? Or should we approach the text open to the possibility that the biblical authors don't agree with each other sometimes?
@@piano9433 I think sometimes perspective and emphasis of writing may make it appear as though the authors disagreed about God, but I wouldn't hold to a contradictory view in that some authors presented contradictory views or truths about God. I find the tensions in scripture fascinating. For instance as you probably know, many passages emphasis the grace of God while just as many passages emphasize obedience. How do we parse these out and reconcile them? Do we need to or are they just to be held in tension?
@@TKK0812 I agree that perspective and emphasis have to be taken into account. Not all theological debates are due to ambiguity in the text.
Let me give you an example though. Do you think the old and new testament present a consistent view of afterlife?
What i have in mind is the fact that, in the OT, people went to she'ol after death. Whether it was symbolic or a physical place in the underworld, it's disputed. But everybody went there, the righteous (like Jacob and Joseph, Genesis 37:5) and the unrighteous (like the king of Babylon, in Isaiah 14, or the Pharaoh in Ezekiel 31).
How do you see this?
@@piano9433 Absolutely consistent, though not equally clear. Most Christians hold to the idea of progressive revelation. I can give very small amounts of information at one time and then large amounts at another and obviously still be consistent. The idea of a final judgement or resurrection was likely largely unknown. However, I believe the Bible, in both the old and new testament, clearly detail the idea that God will destroy His enemies and show blessing to those He remains in covenant with, and I believe that is the consistency. Jeremiah 7:30-34, Isaiah 66:24, Daniel 12:2, Matthew 10:28, Jude 1:7 to name just a few. I hold to a view that the intermediate state (sheol, hades) is distinct from Ghenna or the lake of fire and Heaven. I would also hold to, as one of the more clear doctrines in scripture, that the unbelieving wicked will not be tormented forever and ever "in hell", rather that God will destroy them, that the eternal punishment is everlasting death or annihilationism..
Its unclear what would have happened if Adam and Eve would have ruled over the serpent and resisted his persuasion....At that point i surmise that would have been the end of Satan. He would not have gained dominion over the earth....Things may have worked out entirely different after that...................JMO Willie
Using the Bible like open theists do requires that we believe God had to travel from where he was down to the earth to see what was going on with the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). The Old Testament is full of accounts which, if taken literally, would divest God of all of his divine attributes, not just knowledge of the future. Old Testament writers were describing the indescribable. I'm at a loss as to why anyone finds open theism persuasive. We do not even know for a fact that time is linear, and we are going to pontificate about what God can know and when?
I don't think it REQUIRES that we believe what you're saying. Open theists aren't required to take everything woodenly literal. The passage you mentioned is difficult to interpret for any side.
@@PracticalFaith Understood, but I think you need a solid rationale for why you are choosing to take literally verses which clearly describe God reacting in human-like terms in certain instances, but choose not to do so in other instances. Particularly when we have straightforward biblical statements about God's knowledge and attributes with are completely removed from the human experience.
I am sympathetic to OT but I think there's enough scripture to counter that shows that God does know the future. I don't know. It's a tough thing I do not think God is like a stone Just locked and not able to interact with us however on a very personal level
@@woepill well it may be contradictory but I do not think God is frozen and he does interact with us in real time I just have a problem with saying that God doesn't know the future. But I guess if the future technically or physically doesn't exist yet, God would know every single possibility and what the most likely outcome would be of any given situation. That's probably why I say I'm sympathetic to open-theism I'm uncomfortable saying that God does not know everything there is to know.
@@woepill you can understand why people have objections however right?
"Jesus Himself thought the cross could be subverted as evidenced by his prayer in Gethsemane" No, Chris, neither.
Jesus' prayer was not that he might possibly evade the cross, but that the sufferings might be mitigated. In dying for us, it was not absolutely necessary that he undergo all the tortures, physical, mental and spiritual, leading up to the cross and on the cross itself. God could have eased the sufferings to some extent, while he would still have solidarity with human suffering and die the atoning death. It was a question whether he would have to drink the full cup of suffering.
He used the word Can at 1:33:23
Literally thousands upon thousands of examples showing God exhaustively knows the future? Even if you accept the premise, there’s literally at most dozens upon dozens. “Thousands” is a really big number. It’s not even true that the word “Jesus” is literally used thousands upon thousands of times.
Well objectively, the arminians did not show open theism is unbiblical, their open theism based on this debate seems to remain a viable view.... Tho open theism is new to me and I don't quite understand all of it claims and perspectives
God never lies it was a threat
Painful to watch the "Arminians" bumble through this debate with no logical reasoning. Even when faced with plain textual proof, they can't let magical thinking go. It's almost embarrassing to watch. Chris and Will were very impressive and thorough.
Arminianism is nothing more than soft Calvinism. While they claim that God is the "most free" being, He is apparently not free to change what He knows will happen in the future. That actually makes God paralyzed in the present. That is the definition of "not free at all". A prisoner of His own knowledge where real action isn't possible. Reformed theology is stupid, and it's also responsible for making Christianity rejected by many who seek a dynamic relationship with a higher power. And let's not forget prayer - if prayer doesn't change anything, it is nothing, including changing your heart. In Jeremiah 23, God hates the modes of determinism, and calls those that preach it sodomites, and tells their people to mock them.
Excellent video and I'm glad I watched it.
Oh my gosh open theist do not know why God gave his creatures his words in the Bible it's not for him to learn anything new but for us to learn who he is . And know God's purposes and intentions and control over his creatures and his creation... How he will begin it conducted and concluded.
The Atminians are acting as if the only way that God could know something for sure without foreknowledge. For example, He could know for sure that the crucifixion would take place because he knew what was in the hearts of Judas, the pharisees, and Pilate.
The guys on the left (arguing against Open Theism) were not sufficiently studied.
I cringed through most of the video. So many passages and arguments they should have offered.
Too bad.
If God knows the future he is bound by time and he sees you already dead and beyond that and nothing he can do about it.
These arguments are not logically sound. Just because God knows the future, doesn’t mean all you have concluded. You’re arguing like your statements are absolutely the only way of understanding God’s knowledge.
point out where it's wrong .I'm open.
@@rogersacco4624 Well, to start off, you’re begging the question. Either God is like you say He is, or He is limited in the way you say He would be. Do you see the logical fallacy with your argument?
Moreover, if God’s knowledge is based on all that He has determined, there is no reason to believe that He is limited by anything, because what He has determined to do, He will do.
@@JRey-re9rl can Change the future ?
@@lauromartinez8948 Are you asking if God can change the future?
The open theist dig themselves into some deep holes the more they talk.
They also have some IFB combined with SDA vibes
2:39 Dane says 'we wouldn't think that God can die but Jesus dies right? So...I don't think the Godhead in its fulness dies but the human nature of Jesus dies." Problem: first, it is NONSENSE to speak of a being that does not possess FLESH AND BLOOD as being capable of DEATH. But GOD possessed flesh and blood THROUGH the Incarnation. Death is, according to James 'the body without the spirit'. Jesus experienced the separation of the flesh from the spirit. He is God, so God died. By DEFINITION. God DIED. How do we know this? Because His physical body was separated from His Spirit. That is the BIBLICAL definition of death. But Dane says God did not die, but Jesus' physical nature died. Everyone by definition DIES when their flesh becomes separated from their spirit. Jesus Christ manifested in the flesh. God became ALIVE in a biological definition via the Incarnation. In the same way, the spirits of the departed are incapable of DEATH in the sense which Dane defines death when He says God cannot die. Thus, in the same sense, departed spirits are incapable of 'dying'. But one DIES by James' definition when their spirit (which cannot 'die') becomes separated from the biological body. So, when Dane says God cannot die, does Dane mean EXTINCTION/Annihilation?
Obviously, God can and does turn the hearts of kings and providentially turn events to bring to pass things He foretells or decides to do. He works in all things providentially ≠ causes all things. This is not foreknowledge in the reality or time violating sense nor determinism that is so pervasive it makes God culpable of men’s fall or sins. Knowing at conception or foreplanning or knowing a word as a thought before spoken do not violate time. The cross was fore- odained cuz iniquity was already in play thru Lucifer thus necessitating a plan of salvation in advance of material Creation.
Jesus had infinite wisdom/understanding on earth while he did not have omniscience on earth.
The classical thiests are simply assuming their conclusion with the Isaiah 41 passage. They never address the ipen thiests' explanation of *how* he knows the future (by doing it.) Just saying your interpretation again and again doesn't make you right.
It's not interesting if they read and talk fast.
This debate, and the comment section, is an attack on the sovereign nature of God. Two sides debating thier man centered ideas about God. Truly sad.
How very pious of you
@@PracticalFaith would it be that I have a high view of God's sovereignty, the fact that I pointed out that one side believes God is not in control and learns (as man does) what will happen while the other believes that God's determination depends on our choices (man centered), or the fact that I believe this is disheartening (sad) for the future of Christianity, that caused you to label me in this way? Those are the three things I implied in my statement.
Apparently you believe God determined them to have this debate and believe exactly as they do. They couldn't have chosen to do anything else so why are you complaining?
@@PracticalFaith complaining or pointing out inconsistency? No response to my question I see, but to respond to you, I also believe that God determined to enter the world in flesh and be murdered on a cross, that doesn't change the level of responsibility for those who were guilty of this atrocious act. This was a debate, and hence the comment section cannot be expected to be free of dissenting opinions. Does me expressing my opinion bother you because it differs from yours? Or is there some other reason why you chose to insult my character based on my expression of a different opinion? I don't believe my comment expressed a hypocritical view of my own virtue, it actually expressed the very well established fact of God's virtue. Therefore 'pious' doesn't seem to fit as a description of my attitude expressed in my comment.
Sovereignty and determinism aren’t the same thing.
An all powerful God can choose to create whatever he wants including free creatures he can interact with. God can even condescend into Human form because he loves his creation so much he gave his only begotten son.
You people turn God into a robotic formula to fulfill your systematic. You don’t like what the Bible says so you take the plain meaning and reinterpret and call everyone else man centered.
If Jesus is the PROPITIATION (God satisfying sacrifice) for every individual without exception, then UNIVERSALISM HAS TO BE TRUE,but since we know that UNIVERSALISM IS FALSE, THEN THIS MEANS THAT Jesus' propitiation was made for a limited number of people...God DOES NOT LEARN,God is the author of History in advance.
How do you know that? What is your grounding for reason?
@@coreylapinas1000 Scripture and a Bible dictionary.
@@CBALLEN If God has predetermined all your false beliefs and he is glorified in giving them to you, then you are powerless to correct them right? How then do you justify your interpretation of scripture or even your own sanity?
Calvinists can't discuss, argue, or debate honestly.
...? There are no calvinists in this debate. But good point
@@PracticalFaith 😉👍
Do you still make videos?
I've had to put the videos on hold for a while, but I do plan on continuing them at some point. Thanks for asking!!
@@PracticalFaith thank you. I understand. If its currently possible to send or ask questions, please let me know.
@@hannavanderberg1673 absolutely. Feel free to ask right here in the comments
Ive had a few questions on spesific doctrines like "sin nature" but the more a thought about it, the more i realised....everything is a question in my mind. I think i have been going through an existential crisis because i study everything there is to know, and came to the conclusion, you cant know anything for sure because you first have to question everything you do know or believe as true and then consider the many diff possibilities for truth on any given doctrine and you have to question all of them and none of them are without error and can be called absolute truth.
As the saying goes, the more you know, the more you realise you dont know and that whatever you will come to know, will make you more aware of what you still dont know. So in a way i feel people who dont seek the truth, are so much happier now and also in the life to come because they can just claim: we did not know.
And the open theists lost the debate
What Christians keep forgetting about relationships is that they require consent on both sides. And "be in a relationship with me or suffer excruciating torture for all eternity" does not lead to meaningful consent. Somebody should metoo God's a$$.
Also, what about people who don't have a degradation and humiliation kink? I see a lot of Christians get off on being told how they are wretched sinners who deserve eternal suffering, but I think most actually don't, in which case the effects on their mental health are dire. We would consider that abuse.
I do not believe you understand the theme of scripture. You present it as "do this or else!"
We've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. God is holy and perfect. Sinning against Him incurs a serious penalty. In love He gave His son so that we can be reconciled to God by grace through faith.
Dane, repeat after me: there's nothing wrong with God knowing every possible future, while letting the Future options play out his way, or how he wants
Its literally not a contradiction to say that God wanted X to happen but was thrilled that Y did
🥱
open theism is becoming popular because the Open theist. knows that if God knows the end from the very beginning,then that means Calvinism is true,that God actually created people for Hell,as Romans 9 :22-23 teach.
Rom 11:33 your trying to understand quantum physics with a 2nd grade math brain
You're*