Why has Open Theism become popular?

[MoreCoffee]

I was one of those kids and it turns out that they were too busy telling there own stories instead of encouraging one to read the bible, they would recite a few lines and then go on a humourous and often made up parable involving themselves which did sound 'nice' at the time but it just didn't have any impact on me because I had yet to actually read the Word myself.
You can't just grab unlearned people and sit them down in a church, read a few lines from the bible that relates to their personal experience and expect people to become believers. Laying on of hands and praying over people had more of an impact for me at a Pentecostal but I had already been absorbing the Word for years by then, the church did wake up the Spirit in me and opened my eyes so I thank God for sending his saints for me...
Now I can go to any church and it all makes better sense after having read the Bible, but as I said before the opposite doesn't really impact too many people.
I would have found it humbling if before, a preacher were to have said "please don't take my word for it, I encourage all young and old to read the Word for yourselves because I cannot possibility explain it all in all it's glory so please, families, hold bible studies with your kids and encourage them to read it in their spare time"
IMO it would have possibly helped rather than sitting in a pew and doing all that stuff that confused me.
Once I went to confession and I didn't know what sin was and he said "have you stolen anything?" and I lied and said that I stole a pencil :/ I think that's also the time I got locked inside the confessional and I couldnt open the door and the priest had to open it up for me and I was like "your not suppose to see me dont look!" lol

I think that maybe "Open Theism" is popular for many reasons but one reason may be to avoid the doctrine of double predestination.

 

[Andrew]

I think that maybe "Open Theism" is popular for many reasons but one reason may be to avoid the doctrine of double predestination.

Double predestination, is that the one where God made certain people who can not be saved and were specially created specifically for eternal hell fire?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Double predestination, is that the one where God made certain people who can not be saved and were specially created specifically for eternal hell fire?

Yes, something like that is part of it.

Wikipedia says: John Calvin held a view on predestination sometimes referred to as "double predestination." This is the view that God has actively chosen some people for damnation as well as for salvation. It is not the view of any of the Reformed confessions, which speak of God passing over rather than actively reprobating the damned.

 

[tango]

Jesus prayer in John 17 reveals that Jesus never prayed for the unsaved, but only for the elect (those whom the Father has chosen). Note: God does not choose every person.
John 17:6-10,12,20-22,24-26
[6]“I have revealed you to the ones you gave me from this world. They were always yours. You gave them to me, and they have kept your word.
[7]Now they know that everything I have is a gift from you,
[8]for I have passed on to them the message you gave me. They accepted it and know that I came from you, and they believe you sent me.
[9]“My prayer is not for the world, but for those you have given me, because they belong to you.
[10]All who are mine belong to you, and you have given them to me, so they bring me glory.
[12]During my time here, I protected them by the power of the name you gave me. I guarded them so that not one was lost, except the one headed for destruction, as the Scriptures foretold.
[20]“I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message.
[21]I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.
[22]“I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one.
[24]Father, I want these whom you have given me to be with me where I am. Then they can see all the glory you gave me because you loved me even before the world began!
[25]“O*righteous Father, the world doesn’t know you, but I do; and these disciples know you sent me.
[26]I have revealed you to them, and I will continue to do so. Then your love for me will be in them, and I will be in them.”

If you assume that "those you gave to me" only refers to some.

Just out of interest, in your worldview how would you know whether you are one of the elect or not? Do you just guess, and hope you don't get to judgment day and find you're one of the ones who hears "I never knew you"?

 

[tango]

Except that God has the absolute authority to stop you dead in your tracks and you cannot do anything about it.
We MUST acknowledge that we reside in one of two camps. We are either slaves to sin or we are slaves to righteousness. What is the common factor about both camps? That common factor is we are slaves. We are not free. Either sin has us in bondage or God has us as a bond-slave.
No slave is free to act outside of the parameters of his position. Any attempt to do so will result in reprimand. The slave can make choices within his limited position, but he is never free to act upon his own will. To make such a claim would be an act of rebellion that would bring swift retribution.
So...no...there is no "free-will." There is only freedom of choice within the parameters God gives you.

So let's go back to my example.

I'm sitting in my recliner, flicking through channels and stumble across something raunchy. For the sake of the example let's say that due to a computer error I ended up with someone else's subscription to an XXX-rated channel. So I'm expecting to flick between a few movies and some news or music or whatever, and find myself watching something raunchy.

What do I do? Do I change the channel and call the TV company to ask why I'm getting the channels I didn't want? Do I sit and watch for a while? Do I even have a choice? If I have a choice then I have free will. If I have no choice then I can't be held responsible for my actions because I never chose them.

Frankly you comment trying to differentiate between "free will" and "freedom of choice within... parameters" is little more than semantic gymnastics. Perhaps God would stop someone dead in their tracks (maybe literally) if they were doing something particularly horrendous. But God didn't do that to the likes of Pol Pot or Stalin so we shouldn't assume it's the normal course of events. Maybe God would use the scenario of the porn movie and intervene by causing the TV to fail, maybe fail spectacularly. But somehow I suspect he would simply allow the person to watch the movie if they so chose, even if he did seek to convict them that they should change the channel or turn the TV off.

 

[tango]

Free choice is a synonym for free will. Choice and will being essentially the same thing in the locus of conversation.

No it is not.

The whole concept of man thwarting God's will implies God has a specific will for every little aspect of history. If it is God's will that I wear my green pants tomorrow morning but I use my free will to wear my blue pants then arguably I have thwarted God's will. Of course this example starts from the assumption that God actually cares what color pants I wear tomorrow.

If God has predestined every single detail of the whole of history from before the dawn of time then clearly I cannot have a free choice as to what color pants I wear tomorrow - I am nothing more than a robot in this instance. But perhaps God doesn't work that way. Perhaps God doesn't particularly require me to wear a particular pair of pants tomorrow and leaves it to me to decide. Perhaps the concept of omniscience doesn't mean that God knows every single decision I will ever make in my life, thereby effectively making every decision a predetermined matter rather than an actual decision.

This whole concept of predestination to the kind of level you're talking seems like something you can force into the text of Scripture in all sorts of ways but however you do it you have to break something else. What kind of putz would God have to be to "not will that any should perish" while at the same time predestining some to perish? Seriously, government ineptitude has nothing on that.

 

[MennoSota]

If you assume that "those you gave to me" only refers to some.

Just out of interest, in your worldview how would you know whether you are one of the elect or not? Do you just guess, and hope you don't get to judgment day and find you're one of the ones who hears "I never knew you"?

What is the gift that God gives his elect, Tango?

 

[MennoSota]

So let's go back to my example.

I'm sitting in my recliner, flicking through channels and stumble across something raunchy. For the sake of the example let's say that due to a computer error I ended up with someone else's subscription to an XXX-rated channel. So I'm expecting to flick between a few movies and some news or music or whatever, and find myself watching something raunchy.

What do I do? Do I change the channel and call the TV company to ask why I'm getting the channels I didn't want? Do I sit and watch for a while? Do I even have a choice? If I have a choice then I have free will. If I have no choice then I can't be held responsible for my actions because I never chose them.

Frankly you comment trying to differentiate between "free will" and "freedom of choice within... parameters" is little more than semantic gymnastics. Perhaps God would stop someone dead in their tracks (maybe literally) if they were doing something particularly horrendous. But God didn't do that to the likes of Pol Pot or Stalin so we shouldn't assume it's the normal course of events. Maybe God would use the scenario of the porn movie and intervene by causing the TV to fail, maybe fail spectacularly. But somehow I suspect he would simply allow the person to watch the movie if they so chose, even if he did seek to convict them that they should change the channel or turn the TV off.

Having a choice is not equal to having free will. They are not synonymous.

 

[MennoSota]

The whole concept of man thwarting God's will implies God has a specific will for every little aspect of history. If it is God's will that I wear my green pants tomorrow morning but I use my free will to wear my blue pants then arguably I have thwarted God's will. Of course this example starts from the assumption that God actually cares what color pants I wear tomorrow.

If God has predestined every single detail of the whole of history from before the dawn of time then clearly I cannot have a free choice as to what color pants I wear tomorrow - I am nothing more than a robot in this instance. But perhaps God doesn't work that way. Perhaps God doesn't particularly require me to wear a particular pair of pants tomorrow and leaves it to me to decide. Perhaps the concept of omniscience doesn't mean that God knows every single decision I will ever make in my life, thereby effectively making every decision a predetermined matter rather than an actual decision.

This whole concept of predestination to the kind of level you're talking seems like something you can force into the text of Scripture in all sorts of ways but however you do it you have to break something else. What kind of putz would God have to be to "not will that any should perish" while at the same time predestining some to perish? Seriously, government ineptitude has nothing on that.

Predestination: God has chosen the elect unto adoption.

 

[psalms 91]

We are predestined beacuse of Gods foreknowledge.

 

[tango]

What is the gift that God gives his elect, Tango?

That's not the point. The point is that if you have no freedom to choose anything how would you know whether you have it or not?

 

[tango]

Having a choice is not equal to having free will. They are not synonymous.

So you keep saying yet without a single word to explain why you believe this way. All you're doing is making endless assertions and not backing them with anything at all. You don't even bother to answer questions.

 

[MennoSota]

That's not the point. The point is that if you have no freedom to choose anything how would you know whether you have it or not?

The Holy Spirit as the counselor. Do you imagine God is not active in revealing himself to His children?
You mistakenly think all the onus is on humans to determine or dictate their position with God. That is flawed thinking. God is very active in the lives of his children. He guides and counsels. There is no need to try prove anything. One just walks with God and rests with him. For me, only the person who is blind, yet claims to see, is the one desperately trying to prove his adoption.
Faith is enough when that faith is a gift from God. If you cannot understand what I am saying, that should be a red flag to your own claims.

 

[MennoSota]

So you keep saying yet without a single word to explain why you believe this way. All you're doing is making endless assertions and not backing them with anything at all. You don't even bother to answer questions.

What don't you understand about God's election, choosing and predestination of the saints?