Open theism in light of the Incarnation

squirrelyguy

Well-known member
I've been amusing myself watching this thread from a poster named @Jewjitzu who is apparently a non-Christian Jew. The amusement for me is in noting how this unbelieving Jew uses the exact same prooftexts that classical theologians use to disprove open theism, but he uses them to disprove the Incarnation.

My point is this: I don't see how open theism can be so controversial among people who believe that God literally took on flesh, became a man, walked among us (in time), and died and had to be resurrected. If God can choose to take on those limitations, and yet remain fully God, why can't He choose to take on this limitation (namely, the scope of His foreknowledge), while remaining fully God?
 
I've been amusing myself watching this thread from a poster named @Jewjitzu who is apparently a non-Christian Jew. The amusement for me is in noting how this unbelieving Jew uses the exact same prooftexts that classical theologians use to disprove open theism, but he uses them to disprove the Incarnation.
Yep, I ain't a Christian. I'm glad you're enjoying my OP.

My point is this: I don't see how open theism can be so controversial among people who believe that God literally took on flesh, became a man, walked among us (in time), and died and had to be resurrected. If God can choose to take on those limitations, and yet remain fully God, why can't He choose to take on this limitation (namely, the scope of His foreknowledge), while remaining fully God?
For my part, I don't see that God can take on flesh and remain God. Even the example of Jesus in the NT shows he was limited in the flesh.
 
For my part, I don't see that God can take on flesh and remain God. Even the example of Jesus in the NT shows he was limited in the flesh.
Do you believe that God would remain God even if He didn't know with certainty what you were going to do tomorrow?
 
I've been amusing myself watching this thread from a poster named @Jewjitzu who is apparently a non-Christian Jew. The amusement for me is in noting how this unbelieving Jew uses the exact same prooftexts that classical theologians use to disprove open theism, but he uses them to disprove the Incarnation.

My point is this: I don't see how open theism can be so controversial among people who believe that God literally took on flesh, became a man, walked among us (in time), and died and had to be resurrected. If God can choose to take on those limitations, and yet remain fully God, why can't He choose to take on this limitation (namely, the scope of His foreknowledge), while remaining fully God?

Put this into your equation:

God wanted to get out of dying on a cross. God wasn't sure if it was possible to get out of dying on the cross for our sins, or not, but no harm in trying eh?

And so God prayed to his God...

"And he went a little farther and fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me yet not as I will, but as You will." Matthew 26:39

And Almighty God's request to his God was denied.
 
Put this into your equation:

God wanted to get out of dying on a cross. God wasn't sure if it was possible to get out of dying on the cross for our sins, or not, but no harm in trying eh?

And so God prayed to his God...

"And he went a little farther and fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me yet not as I will, but as You will." Matthew 26:39

And Almighty God's request to his God was denied.
Yep, all knees will bow and tongues confess the true God.
 
Back
Top