Barely-Vangelical: My Journey Through Open Theism

[@robertb3336]

Your exposition here is really helpful, thanks.

[@dqan7372]

Foresters unite! I was stopping in to mention John Sanders, but I see there's no need. Turns out our we were at HC/U for at least one semester together. I graduated in '94 and sporadically took classes thereafter. Taught a semester of English as well. I always wondered how well Open Theism was understood by those complaining about it, or how many people in their pews had come to similar vague theological positions without realizing there was a name for it.

[@ThatBibleStudyChannel2023]

As someone who has went from opentheism back to a more classical understanding of Gods omniscience and being.. How do you weigh out God being surprised, shocked, changing his mind, etc. as well as our free will? Just curious. Thank you, God bless.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

Hi, Joel. I'm very interested in the topics you were discussing, and I have quite a few questions about what you said. But I'll limit my comments here to what I consider to be most essential: (1) You really didn't say enough, in my opinion, about how you're using the concept of immutability. (Not that other people who align with classical theists are usually any clearer about this.) If it means that God has a stable, constant character with regard to morality and metaphysics-sure, of course. But if it means anything like what it meant in Greek thought, it simply cannot apply to the Biblical God. This is a point that Process Theology makes very well, I believe: Did God decide and move willingly into becoming a creator? That's change. Does God hear and take account of prayer? That's change. Does God interact in any way, shape, or form with human beings? That's change. One of the greatest of possible expressions of divine mutability, from a classical Greek perspective, would be something like the Christian incarnation. How would this not involve change? The Christian heresy of "docetism" is precisely the belief that what Christians scandalously assert happened to God cannot happen to God. (And of course Jews like me traditionally agree with this critique.) The fact that classical Christians, among all monotheistic faiths, have piled onto the Immutability Train is deeply surprising. (2) It seemed that you referred a couple of times to problems with "divine personalism," or "theistic personalism," and yet you conclude with a strong affirmation of God as love or loving. What is the "personalist" view you dissent from, if you contend that God is a God of relationship and love? Perhaps what you're departing from is more about a believer's individual understanding of God (as opposed to a rigorous philosophic definition of God), but it's all left rather opaque, particularly given the way it's framed in the video as an important, rejected alternative.

[@MrSeedi76]

Absolutely agree! Incarnation is change. I think when simply reading the Bible - one cannot come to any other conclusion than that God is constantly changing (even when excluding the new testament scriptures). That's why I like Jack Miles's "God - a biography". It was a huge influence on me when studying theology. Also - if God is almighty He should be able to change, right? Another point is omniscience. God seems to be surprised by what humans are doing in the Bible all the time. They don't behave as He thought they would. So God might know what HE is doing in the future but not what we are doing because we haven't done it yet.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

@@MrSeedi76 Thanks for your reply to me. The last part about omniscience and God's apparent lack of foreknowledge regarding human action isn't straightforward. The Bible could have reasons for presenting it that way, even if it's not literally true. And it's not only the question of God's FOREknowledge which is related to the question of change in God, it's the question of ANY knowledge in God at all of outside events. If God knows what's happening on earth, then His awareness (and therefore He) is constantly changing as reality changes. This is why some medieval rationalist philosophers denied that God "knows particulars." They only wanted God to know, at most, the general, unchanging laws of the physical universe. So God could "act" surprised by things that happen, but we WANT God to care about what happens. And genuine caring is clearly a kind of change in God's being. Aristotle's God literally only thinks about itself.

[@halfvisual]

I was intrigued by Thomas Oord when I was agnostic. He may have actually been a factor that got me into Christianity. His open-relational framework reminded me a lot of ideas that were near and dear to my heart in Taoism. However, once I had an experience of God and began practicing a more trinitarian form of Christianity, open theism seemed terribly underwhelming. At times I almost felt like the god presented was so limited that it was hardly worthy of true worship and adoration.

[@IdolKiller]

24:08 God is free to change in non-essential ways, meaning He is free and His holy character and standard are constant. Fear of God's freedom is a frequent trigger for folks to deny His freedom.

[@IdolKiller]

28:25 God knows the future, but as a realm of both will-be's and might-be's. You're headed into fatalism, perhaps not knowingly, but as an entailment. Take a step back and consider Dynamic Omniscience in conjunction with the distinction in His essence and energies. Additionally the incarnation is proof of God changing in non-essential ways, which demands a denial of absolute Classical Theism

[@brianwagner3651]

Wow... The three strong reasons you gave for accepting open theism as true seem to be completely thrown out the window to make you feel more connected a classical scholarship and perhaps feel a mystical humility in acceptance of simplicity. You should feel a great tension your return to classical theism has created concerning the doctrines of the perspicuity of Scripture, theodicy, and prayer! I hope you do. Have you read through the whole Bible at least 5 times yet?

[@DorotheaJacob-c5s]

Hall Melissa Brown Donna Thomas Shirley

[@mikeschaller9233]

You seem to be using a non-philosophical definition of immutability which is that God is incapable of change, any change, not just His characteristics. Your definition sounds like the definition given by the Eastern Orthodox. Your reformed view of immutability would be more like the Neoplatonic view, which is where the tensions come in. Open theism, saying that the future is unknowable, is not the only form and in itself causes you to disregard the simple reading of the text and causes its own tensions. Dynamic omniscience is another form saying that God know all future possibilities, much like middle knowledge, but differs in that the future is not set, though some things are, like the end times, the coming of Jesus, the rise and fall of empires, etc. all through the working of God. This view is a grand view of Gods omniscience in my opinion and is awe inspiring. The East does it well, using philosophy in a pared down version to suit scripture. They read philosophy through a scriptural lens, rather than reading scripture through a philosophical lens. Best of all, they can find beauty, and use it, while rejecting the evil that comes with it. A very balanced approach which is the best way. Having a philosophical view of immutability makes God unknowingly, unapproachable, cold, distant. Paring it down by saying it is his character that is immutable rejects that ugliness. Same could be said about omniscience , which is why you struggled with it, pre it down and it releases the tension, thinking of it more dynamically helped me. It’s not classical theism though.

[@mikeschaller9233]

You could argue though that Gods foreknowledge, is really a knowledge of a person, or a culture, more than a knowledge of the future. I would love to hear the issues you came across with open theism in more detail. Always good to have an open ear, and an open heart.

[@glennie1946]

Do you part with DBH on universalism? Also do you have a source and exposition for "God is Trinity" that makes sense to you? Appreciate your journey, I've been there myself.

[@cdlahm7571]

7:02 Funny how high school me going to evangelical school came up with the same idea

[@BessieOscar-e6b]

Jones Carol Jones Jennifer Jones Anthony

I was an open theist for about 24 hrs. 😂

[@rogersacco4624]

If God sees the future He sees 100 billion people dead resurrected judged and in the afteroife and he sees everything everyone will say and do including Christ for infinity. How does he see that all TODAY?!

[@hellofranky99]

I'm only half-way through your video but really hope you will go on to bridge the gap between Open Theology and God's prophecy and plan of salvation. If Open Theism is true, then why would God pre-plan salvation because it was possible that humanity after Noah could have lived entirely abiding by God's will.

[@Hambone3773]

Open Theism says God is the most active will in the universe... knowing all things and having plans for all possibilities with the ability to enforce certain things but choosing not to enforce other things. So a general will makes perfect sense but with variability built into it. The alternative is a static God since all things are determined. God doesn't think...he Just knows.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

.Molinism is very interesting and the best explanation. Open theism makes God impotent.

[@c.m.granger6870]

Anyone who truly knows God rejects open theism out of hand. I hope your profession of faith is genuine.

[@aPLOTTERnamedKARL]

Joel, I appreciate this series and hope you'll continue with it. I imagine it's challenging to share very personal stuff without somehow making it only about yourself and thus limiting the impact. Your content strikes such a solid balance of graceful relatability but without feeling toothless. And you've helped give a name to the journey I'm currently on-- I especially liked your phrasing in a prior video of "naivety, questioning, then 2nd naivety". The fact I'm fortunate enough to be unpacking my inheritance along with my 76 yr old mom, the very person who instilled my original 80s-era fundamentalism, is quite a blessing... but also double overwhelming. She's not quite as far along and is working through the earliest stages: "Wait, am I even allowed to even think about this and how is it I never wondered about any of this before?!". With social media currently chock full of deconstruction stories, your brand of re--ordering seems more necessary than ever. Offering a kind of pastoral 'permission', to ask questions, explore, and slowly rearrange or reverse is a tonic for me. Some deconstructors just automatically package their experiences with the suggestion that you, too, should walk away from the faith tradition (even if it's from, in my case, merely exposure to a less than ideal version of it). Also, am excited to discover "Kierkegaard and the Changelessness of God", looks intriguing. Anyway, way too many words to say: thank you.

[@JoelWentz]

Wow, this comment is so encouraging to me. This is exactly why I am doing these videos. To know it's genuinely helpful to real people out there is humbling! Thank you for sharing, genuinely.