Open Theism

[themuzicman]

Not ultimately. God could not have known that Judas would betray him, or that Pilate would have him crucified. It was a matter of probability, albeit a high probability, yet still took a risk of failing the mission of redemption.

False. That these things would be freely chosen is a matter of the heart. The problem is those who INSIST that things MUST happen as they did. Judas could have betrayed Christ a week earlier or a week later. He just happened to do it when he did.

Is the problem your having that foreknowledge necessitates exhaustive determinism? That's true if you view things in a purely deductive way. However, Scripture sets limits and should work to restrain logical extremes. Revelation is not a product of logic, and reason should always freely rationalize within the confines of Scripture. This sometimes requires us to relegate difficult tensions to mystery.

There is nothing in the revelation that says that this deductive reasoning is wrong. Open Theism is the place where the biblical, theological and philosophical meet.

The very last thing anyone should do is make God contingent on his own experience.

So, we should ignore the bible, then?

The temptation to view things that way is strikingly similar to the arian heresy that cannot logically reconcile Jesus the man as fully divine, and the docetic heresy that cannot logically reconcile Jesus the divine as fully man. To strip God of an essential attribute is dangerous.

There is a difference between a paradox and a logical contradiction. We do need to accept paradox, such as the trinity or incarnation, because they are Scriptural. We do NOT need accept the logical contradiction of closed theism, because it is neither necessary from Scripture, nor logically consistent.

[themuzicman]

I never said that. -- and neither would I affirm that.

So, do we have free will or not? You said before that it was a matter of perspective.

Firstly, when we discuss how God 'knows' or 'experiences our chronology' we are dealing with God's nature.

But we aren't discussing "how God knows." We're discussing what is knowable in the context of this creation.

We are dealing with whether God experiences chronology because Scripture demands that we accept that He does.

Furthermore, just stating 'apples and oranges' doesn't make it so. Just as saying 'guilt by assocation' doesn't make it so.

But proposing guilt by association does make it so.

I wasn't saying that what you believe is false because of JW's, but rather I was giving an example of how trying to 'prove' something about God (in this case, how He knows / experiences our chronology) from our experience or from creation CAN be dangerous. AND it definitely is NOT reliable.

Oh, so then you make no claims at all about God, then?

So the issue was with the method. If the method was reliable, then the JW's might be onto something. But as that example shows: trying to understand the complexities of God by our experience of creation is unreliable at the least.

Oh, so "retranslating" the bible to fit their theology had nothing to do with it. LOL... nothing like ignoring important facts to try to make guilt by association.

I suppose you claim that you don't attempt to use any experience of creation to understand the complexities of God. (Go ahead, claim that you don't so we can all laugh at you.)

We are discussing how He experiences OUR chronology. Remember, you are the one saying that He experiences our chronology differently -- and yet you have yet to show how that is so, in any meaningful way.

And I've already said that the bible doesn't tell us how God experiences a different chronology, only that He does. So, if you're looking for speculation on that, hold your breath until you're blue.

So, having Scriptural basis for God experiencing a chronology, a sequence of events, it is evidence that God then can observe time in creation unfold as a series of events, too.

If that is all you can conclude, then you believe no more than I do! (that is if you do not believe that God experiences our chronology the same way we do [with regards to time])

You'll have to define what 'experiences' means. Certainly our chronologies have to be compatible for Jesus to be fully God and fully man

Of course, from our discussion so far it seems you are saying that God observes our chronology from the same perspective as we do (with regards to time).

Seeing as I've said that God isn't constrained by our time, your powers of basic logic seem to have failed you.

To clarify, I agree that God observes (and interacts) with our chronology. But the issue at hand is HOW God views / experiences our chronology.

Actually, that's incorrect. The issue at hand is the nature of our creation, specifically the nature of time, and whether in this context free will can be compatible with foreknowledge.

And it can't.

[themuzicman]

Do you perceive God to be logically impaired as men are.

You'll have to define what you mean by "logically impaired." You talk about logic like it is a disease or dysfunction.

I shudder in my tracks when I hear men saying, "God can do this, but he cannot do that, because of this. Do you perceive your 1 through 10 scenario listed above really has the power to determine what God can and cannot do?

It has no power at all. It is a perception of truth. For you to claim that somehow a logical proof can have power over God is stunning. Your God is too small.

The proof is about the nature of creation. In this creation with time as we know it, foreknowledge and free will are incompatible.

"Why can't the doctrine of freewill and the concept of God's exhaustive foreknowledge peacefully exist?"

Because the doctrine of free will requires choices that have alternate possibilities, and foreknowledge of said choices eliminate the alternate possibilities. Read the proof.

Why do we conclude that freewill and foreknowledge negate each other?

We don't. That is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that they are incompatible

Why can't he know simply because the will is free?"

Because that's a logical contradiction. Again, see the proof.

If it was God's will that this be true, what in creation that we know of could prevent him from making it so.

Actually, it would be God in declaring that this is what creation would be like that would "prevent" him from making it so.

This is not an appropriate argument for the truth of it, but if the God of Genesis 1 is on the job, then truly all things are possible.

Then it is possible that God created a world where the future is logically unknowable. Thanks for making my point.

Or do you think that isn't possible?

[themuzicman]

Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all. (Psalm 139:4, NASB)

This is knowledge of the future because there are different ways the tongue can express what is one's heart.
Before these words are spoken God already knows what a person is going to say.

But the intent to speak in a given way always comes before speaking.

[foudroyant]

But the intent to speak in a given way always comes before speaking.

But to know EXACTLY what words will be used to convey this intention requires future knowledge.

[nico]

False. That these things would be freely chosen is a matter of the heart. The problem is those who INSIST that things MUST happen as they did. Judas could have betrayed Christ a week earlier or a week later. He just happened to do it when he did.

The statement you made here is not immediately relevant to the charge of being false, unless you and I are talking about different things. Also, I think a bigger problem are things happening otherwise to God's eternal plan, but I suppose that's a moot point to you. Finally, the last two sentences suggest that Judas had to betray Christ, making it inevitable yet free only in regards to when, which doesn't seem to fit your paradigm of freedom.

There is nothing in the revelation that says that this deductive reasoning is wrong. Open Theism is the place where the biblical, theological and philosophical meet.

I said purely deductive, not generally deductive. I can see where you think they meet, but OT undercuts the biblical attributes of God in favor of philosophical cogency.

So, we should ignore the bible, then?

That's silly, and not very charitable on your part. So, I'll assume you mean the passages relating God in anthropomorphic terms such as God "repenting" after the fall of man and "now knowing" Abraham's faithfulness. Why would you build theology using anthropomorphic passages as the precedence for God's being? There are more worthy passages with explicit and robust descriptions of God's nature.

Is 46:10-11:
I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.’
From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that I will bring about;
what I have planned, that I will do.

Not to mention the entire enterprise of prophecy is nonsense on the OT model, however you choose to redefine it. It's nothing more than heightened predictions.

There is a difference between a paradox and a logical contradiction. We do need to accept paradox, such as the trinity or incarnation, because they are Scriptural. We do NOT need accept the logical contradiction of closed theism, because it is neither necessary from Scripture, nor logically consistent.

The Trinity and the incarnation are far more logically difficult to justify, yet you stand on those? That's arbitrary. Why you've chosen to make your battle on the denial of divine omniscience in favor of limited Divinity is difficult to understand.

It's less about "closed theism" as you put it, and more about the nearly two thousand years of orthodox theology, affirmed by both the authors of Scripture and the thinkers and movers of the Church since their passing. Your views on this are not in good company from either the historical Catholic or Protestant side of theology.

[dacristoy]

You'll have to define what you mean by "logically impaired." You talk about logic like it is a disease or dysfunction.

Logically impaired: His power is insufficient to overcome man’s concept of what is logical or illogical. Was the walls of Jericho tumbling down because the Jews marched around them logical? Was Jesus walking on water a logical occurrence? Logic hinders men, not God.

It has no power at all. It is a perception of truth. For you to claim that somehow a logical proof can have power over God is stunning. Your God is too small.

You just stated my case, a logical proof has no power over God…

The proof is about the nature of creation. In this creation with time as we know it, foreknowledge and free will are incompatible.

God is not bound by the nature of this creation in which we live. Neither is God bound by your conclusion. Freewill and foreknowledge are both scriptural concepts. Apparently God has the means to exercise both concepts independently..

Because the doctrine of free will requires choices that have alternate possibilities, and foreknowledge of said choices eliminate the alternate possibilities. Read the proof.

The doctrine of freewill requires a will that is not efficaciously dictated to. Alternate possibilities can be represented by something as simple as; do I choose the apple or the orange: And no power greater than your ability to resist can be exercised against you. Then the will is free…

We don't. That is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that they are incompatible

Possibly, but I choose to believe it only when definitively stated by God; as it pertains to God. (Scripture}. Men’s opinions are logically debated from both sides of an equation each day on these boards. Nothing is settled, nothing is accomplished.

Then it is possible that God created a world where the future is logically unknowable. Thanks for making my point.
Or do you think that isn't possible?

Possibly unknowable, yes: Logically unknowable, not before God. The proof is not in yet. But I believe that as scripture so clearly states; “all things are possible with God.

It has no power at all. It is a perception of truth. For you to claim that somehow a logical proof can have power over God is stunning. Your God is too small.

I would never make that assertion. I advocate the exact opposite…

[foudroyant]

The Lord Jesus specifically knew the future concerning the following events:
a. "However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me." (Matthew 17:27, NASB)
a. And He said to them, "When you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house that he enters. "And you shall say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, "Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?"' "And he will show you a large, furnished upper room; prepare it there." And they left and found everything just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover. (Luke 22:10-12, NASB)
b. "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." But he said to Him, "Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!" And He said, "I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me." (Luke 22:31-34, NASB)
c. "Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go." (John 21:18, NASB)

[dacristoy]

The Lord Jesus specifically knew the future concerning the following events:
a. "However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me." (Matthew 17:27, NASB)
a. And He said to them, "When you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house that he enters. "And you shall say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, "Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?"' "And he will show you a large, furnished upper room; prepare it there." And they left and found everything just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover. (Luke 22:10-12, NASB)
b. "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." But he said to Him, "Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!" And He said, "I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me." (Luke 22:31-34, NASB)
c. "Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go." (John 21:18, NASB)

Foreknowledge is definitely indicated and supported here, still there is not even a hint of determinism. That leap of faith is left entirely to mans strong desire to support a system of theology that is unbiblical. (Find a way, or make one.)

[The Remonstrant]

Foreknowledge is definitely indicated and supported here, still there is not even a hint of determinism. That leap of faith is left entirely to mans strong desire to support a system of theology that is unbiblical. (Find a way, or make one.)

dacristoy:

I am curious to know if you have read any of the major openness treatments. Have you read any of Gregory Boyd's or John Sanders' works in support of open theism?

[phat8594]

So, do we have free will or not? You said before that it was a matter of perspective.

Actually, I never said 'free will' was a matter of perspective. Just that how time is viewed matters on perspective. It seems to me that you see time / chronology as constant.

But we aren't discussing "how God knows." We're discussing what is knowable in the context of this creation.

We are dealing with whether God experiences chronology because Scripture demands that we accept that He does.

Actually, it is HOW God experiences our chronology. Remember, you have already said that God experiences a DIFFERENT CHRONOLOGY. And yet you keep saying that He experiences our chronology.

So which is it? Does He experience a separate, different chronology, or ours?

Oh, so then you make no claims at all about God, then?

You should know better. No need to throw out ridiculous claims. I mentioned trying to understand and prove our views the complexities of God through our creation. Not knowing anything at all about God, or making any claims at all. That's just ridiculous and you should know better than to resort to this sort of tactic.

Oh, so "retranslating" the bible to fit their theology had nothing to do with it. LOL... nothing like ignoring important facts to try to make guilt by association.

I am guessing that you have never actually dealt with JW's in any sort of prolonged matter...because I have, and this one of their big arguments against the trinity has to do with it being logically impossible. (They see the only options being tri-theism, or modalism)

Furthermore, the NWT translation came AFTER the fact, not before. Furthermore, the translation has been changed multiple times.

I suppose you claim that you don't attempt to use any experience of creation to understand the complexities of God. (Go ahead, claim that you don't so we can all laugh at you.)

Mockery isn't helping your point my friend. My point is that there are certain things about God that are beyond our comprehension. The complexities of God (trinity, eternality, etc.) cannot be fully understood through the limits of creation. We might be able to understand that they are true (by recognizing the limits of creation), but we really can't fathom the reality of it. So no, I don't try to limit the revelation given through the Bible by the constraints of our creation.

And I've already said that the bible doesn't tell us how God experiences a different chronology, only that He does. So, if you're looking for speculation on that, hold your breath until you're blue.

And yet we are talking about how He experiences our chronology. For some reason, it seems that you believe that His chronology is limited by our chronology.

So, having Scriptural basis for God experiencing a chronology, a sequence of events, it is evidence that God then can observe time in creation unfold as a series of events, too.

Two different chronologies. Time isn't constant.

You'll have to define what 'experiences' means. Certainly our chronologies have to be compatible for Jesus to be fully God and fully man

Compatible doesn't have to mean same. It seems that you think of it as same. I already explained how light experiences time and space differently than we do. Yet we see light, in our perspective in a distinct place and time. The two perspectives are compatible, but time is experienced differently.

Seeing as I've said that God isn't constrained by our time, your powers of basic logic seem to have failed you.

Ok. So how is He not contrained by our time if He can't know the future (from our perspective)?

Actually, that's incorrect. The issue at hand is the nature of our creation, specifically the nature of time, and whether in this context free will can be compatible with foreknowledge.

And it can't.

Well that's begging the question. You are assuming that God created a timeline that He can't know until after we have experienced it.

So it has not only to do with the nature of time, but the nature of God. IOW, how does the nature of God affect the nature of time / creation?

Some people might say that believing God can create a time that is unknowable to Him is like God creating a rock to heavy for Him to lift. They see it as absurd. (this of course assumes certain things about God and His nature)

[themuzicman]

But to know EXACTLY what words will be used to convey this intention requires future knowledge.

No, it requires knowledge of what one has chosen to say. Present knowledge.

[themuzicman]

Actually, I never said 'free will' was a matter of perspective. Just that how time is viewed matters on perspective. It seems to me that you see time / chronology as constant.

Created time, yes. God's chronology? No idea.

Actually, it is HOW God experiences our chronology. Remember, you have already said that God experiences a DIFFERENT CHRONOLOGY. And yet you keep saying that He experiences our chronology.

Nice word play. Unfortunately, you're getting called out on it, right now.

If you mean "experiences" as in God is subject to created time, then I've already said that's not the case. Repeatedly.

IF you mean "experiences" as in God observes time in the context of creation as it unfolds, then that is necessarily the case.

So which is it? Does He experience a separate, different chronology, or ours?

Hopefully I've straightened out your word game, now.

You should know better. No need to throw out ridiculous claims.

I asked a question. You said that God is unknowable. So, how can you make any claims about God?

I mentioned trying to understand and prove our views the complexities of God through our creation.

And the bible, of course. What God does and says about Himself is kinda important, too. I've actually proven from the bible that God cannot be timeless, thus we have to conclude that God experiences some kind of chronology.

Not knowing anything at all about God, or making any claims at all. That's just ridiculous and you should know better than to resort to this sort of tactic.

Then you probably shouldn't say that if you don't want to be called out on it.

I am guessing that you have never actually dealt with JW's in any sort of prolonged matter...because I have, and this one of their big arguments against the trinity has to do with it being logically impossible. (They see the only options being tri-theism, or modalism)

Except that it is a failed argument. Yes, I've had that discussion. They claim it, but they cannot form a logical proof that demonstrates it.

Furthermore, the NWT translation came AFTER the fact, not before. Furthermore, the translation has been changed multiple times.

Just more evidence that their "translation" is really driven by their theology rather than vice versa.

Mockery isn't helping your point my friend. My point is that there are certain things about God that are beyond our comprehension. The complexities of God (trinity, eternality, etc.) cannot be fully understood through the limits of creation.

And that's fine. But whether is timeless, whether foreknowledge is compatible with free will or not, whether the future exists is not among these.

We might be able to understand that they are true (by recognizing the limits of creation), but we really can't fathom the reality of it. So no, I don't try to limit the revelation given through the Bible by the constraints of our creation.

Oh, so you agree with me, then, since I've proven most of what I've claimed from the bible.

And yet we are talking about how He experiences our chronology. For some reason, it seems that you believe that His chronology is limited by our chronology.

Really? So, if God wants to make a creation for which the future doesn't yet exist, and comes into existence as time within that framework moves forward, you claim that God is limiting His Own Chronology?

I'd call that worshiping a truly omnipotent God.

Two different chronologies. Time isn't constant.

That's fine.

Compatible doesn't have to mean same.

Never said "same", never meant same.

It seems that you think of it as same. I already explained how light experiences time and space differently than we do. Yet we see light, in our perspective in a distinct place and time. The two perspectives are compatible, but time is experienced differently.

Which is pointless, if the future within the context of our creation doesn't exist.

Ok. So how is He not contrained by our time if He can't know the future (from our perspective)?

It doesn't exist yet. We haven't made those choices, yet. Time within the context of this creation hasn't extended to that point yet. There is nothing to know.

The same way that God can't know how large a rock to make such that He cannot lift it. It's a logical absurdity to claim that God knows it.

Well that's begging the question. You are assuming that God created a timeline that He can't know until after we have experienced it.

Not just experienced it. Made it. Our choices determine part of the timeline.

So it has not only to do with the nature of time, but the nature of God. IOW, how does the nature of God affect the nature of time / creation?

It doesn't. God's choice in what to create affects the nature of time/creation. If God chooses to make a universe where the future doesn't exist, and thus isn't knowable, then God doesn't know it. It isn't a hard concept to grasp.

Some people might say that believing God can create a time that is unknowable to Him is like God creating a rock to heavy for Him to lift. They see it as absurd. (this of course assumes certain things about God and His nature)

Exactly. And those things aren't supportable from Scripture. Mainly timelessness.

[The Remonstrant]

Exactly. And those things aren't supportable from Scripture. Mainly timelessness.

I would agree that a strict doctrine of divine atemporality or timelessness is absent from Scripture.

[dacristoy]

dacristoy:

I am curious to know if you have read any of the major openness treatments. Have you read any of Gregory Boyd's or John Sanders' works in support of open theism?

I am familiar with Boyd, started reading one of his books, and lost interest. Still I am familiar with many of his Open Theism positions from internet excerpts. Why do you ask?

Let me add that I am not a hard core anti Open Theism advocate, I just think that as with many doctrines that are not enunciated in the bible, the tendency to exaggerate seems all to common. I am much more comfortable with Open Theism’s exaggerations than I am John Calvin’s.