Open Theism

[themuzicman]

Yes, I understand you believe that. However, I fail to see how knowledge requires determination. Just saying it doesn't make it so. Determinism doesn't have to do with knowledge, but who does the determining.

Correct. However, knowledge that is unalterably accurate requires either pure necessity (such as 2+2=4) now-necessity (prior determination) at the time it becomes known.

Perhaps a question to flush this out:

From an OVT point of view...do you believe that God knowing for sure, your past decisions makes it so that your decisions were determined by God?

Since I haven't claimed that knowledge or the knower determine a decision, this is an irrelevant question. The past is now-necessary, as I've stated. In this case, it was made now-necessary when I made the choice. The question isn't whether past decisions are now-necessary, but whether future ones are.

The first one is begging the question. You are assuming your premise to be true (that certain knowledge = determinism)

Again, false. Here's the proof:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fr...reknowledge/#1

Foreknowledge is incompatible with free will. (Yes, I know Aristotle called it the proof of divine fatalism, but Aristotle assumed foreknowledge.)

The second one has to do with how faith, free will and acts come together. Faith is not just a mysterious belief or feeling - but rather, it is where the rubber meets the road (faith is something that is seen and completed through works - see James 2). Faith meets opportunity to become reality.

Except that God says, "Now I know that ...." It's a temporal reference to when God learned about Abraham from Abraham's present decisions. And nowhere in this passage does it say anything about Abraham applying his faith. It does, however, state that God was testing Abraham, and that God, as a result of the test, learned something about Abraham. So, we need to stick to the text and not our imposition on it.

The third one, IMO has more to do with the literary genre. It is a prophetic message through an illustration. I don't see the purpose of that verse to be giving a doctrinal thesis about how God interacts with our time or the a way in which He changes his mind.

You mean other than the text saying that God relented/repented, and didn't do what He declared he was going to do? Or are you ignoring that part, too?

[Pentecost]

My biggest issue with Open Theism is that it makes God a liar. That sounds horribly offensive and as though I must be misunderstanding the position, but if God has made a promise, let us call it a prophecy, and He does not know if He can come through on it doesn't that make Him a liar? Are we not told that He is not a mortal to lie, and is the Truth? But what if He directly interceded in a prophecy involving persons making a decision, does that not violate their free will? The alternative is that He relies upon people doing as he foretold without Him actually knowing anyone would, which makes the Creator reliant upon His creation. In Open Theism I see either a stupid and evil deity, or a stupid and weak one.

Determinism is necessary for God to have knowledge of the future, which is the implication of (ALL) prophecies.

If I am obviously wrong in my understanding of what Open Theism claims, (that God does not know the future) is wrong please correct me, but my above conclusion appears rational and it therefore appears to me that Open Theism is a heresy. I am young and hasty. I hope my conclusion is false the way I hope exclusivism is false.

[themuzicman]

My biggest issue with Open Theism is that it makes God a liar. That sounds horribly offensive and as though I must be misunderstanding the position, but if God has made a promise, let us call it a prophecy, and He does not know if He can come through on it doesn't that make Him a liar?

Are you suggesting that God is not powerful and wise enough to bring about His prophecies without fixing everything beforehand?

Do you hold to omnipotence and omniwisdom?

Are we not told that He is not a mortal to lie, and is the Truth? But what if He directly interceded in a prophecy involving persons making a decision, does that not violate their free will?

Do you think this is the only way God could bring about His prophecies?

The alternative is that He relies upon people doing as he foretold without Him actually knowing anyone would, which makes the Creator reliant upon His creation. In Open Theism I see either a stupid and evil deity, or a stupid and weak one.

Actually, it's the deity you apparently hold to that is evil, stupid and weak. The Open Theist says that God is wise and powerful enough to bring about His prophecies without needing to fix everything beforehand.

Determinism is necessary for God to have knowledge of the future, which is the implication of (ALL) prophecies.

Only if your God is impotent.

If I am obviously wrong in my understanding of what Open Theism claims, (that God does not know the future) is wrong please correct me, but my above conclusion appears rational and it therefore appears to me that Open Theism is a heresy. I am young and hasty. I hope my conclusion is false the way I hope exclusivism is false.

I think your God is too small.

[phat8594]

Correct. However, knowledge that is unalterably accurate requires either pure necessity (such as 2+2=4) now-necessity (prior determination) at the time it becomes known.

And so once again we go back to your premise on how God experiences time (He is not atemporal). Although I can appreciate your viewpoint, I simply do not hold to that premise.

I hold to the premise that God is atemporal, so that He can hold a 'now-necessity' knowledge of future (in our perspective) events.

Since I haven't claimed that knowledge or the knower determine a decision, this is an irrelevant question. The past is now-necessary, as I've stated. In this case, it was made now-necessary when I made the choice. The question isn't whether past decisions are now-necessary, but whether future ones are.

It is completely relevant, because it shows how you believe God experiences time. You see God as temporal, I see Him as atemporal. The idea that God is unable to hold now-necessary knowledge of future events a premise/assumption that you are basing your system upon.

It is fine that you hold that premise, but you need to at least acknowledge it.

Again, false. Here's the proof:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fr...reknowledge/#1

Foreknowledge is incompatible with free will. (Yes, I know Aristotle called it the proof of divine fatalism, but Aristotle assumed foreknowledge.)

As noted earlier, I disagree with your premises. Also, I should note, that at least previously, argument by weblink was against forum rules. If you want to prove it, you should be able to explain it yourself...on the forum...and without a long dissertation by someone else through a web link.

Except that God says, "Now I know that ...." It's a temporal reference to when God learned about Abraham from Abraham's present decisions. And nowhere in this passage does it say anything about Abraham applying his faith. It does, however, state that God was testing Abraham, and that God, as a result of the test, learned something about Abraham. So, we need to stick to the text and not our imposition on it.

God knows because Abraham did. I do not dispute that. Yet this doesn't rule out 'foreknowledge'. God cannot foreknow something that does not happen (or exist).

As for Abraham 'appying his faith' or this being seen as an example of faith being completed or fulfilled, all we have to is look at the NT exposition of said text. I am assuming that you do hold that James is part of inspired scripture, do you not?

However, I do see claiming this text as a 'proof-text' for only the OVT perspective as an imposition. Can this text be seen as consistent with OVT? Sure! But does it prove it? Hardly.

You mean other than the text saying that God relented/repented, and didn't do what He declared he was going to do? Or are you ignoring that part, too?

Ahhhhh...I thought you were talking about Jeremiah. My bad.

But no, I do not see 'relenting from disaster' as something that only fits within OVT theology. Although I see God as atemporal Himself, He interacts with man in man's temporality.

Furthermore, since I see man as possessing a free will, and I affirm that God's interactions with man depend on man's response to Him. And this is done by God's choice:


Jeremiah 18:7-10

7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.

[phat8594]

Determinism is necessary for God to have knowledge of the future, which is the implication of (ALL) prophecies.

Determinism is not necessary for God to have knowledge of the future. God can know for certain without being the one to determine that something happens. A lot of this gets back to presuppositions on all sides of the coin:

Like how God interacts with time, how God knows, etc.

[hedrick]

Actually, that just means that 2015 doesn't exist, yet. It doesn't mean that God is inside of time. God may simply be outside of time, but observing as the universe expands along the dimension of time.

What it means to be inside time is to experience events one by one, with the future ones not accessible yet. If 2015 doesn't exist yet in God's frame of reference, he is within time.

God being outside of time means that this limitation is not in effect for him, that he can see all times.

The theological issue I see is that as far as physics can tell, the time and space axes are the same kind of thing. In fact in different frames of reference, the distinction between time and space is different. Events can be simultaneous in one frame of reference and not in another. So if God experiences before and after, he isn't just within time, but he is existing in one specific frame of reference, meaning that in theory we could determine how he is moving with respect to us. Current models say that there is no time before the big bang. It was created together with space. Admittedly, this understanding could change. But I the properties Ive been taking about seem unlikely to change. Physics and cosmology seem to say that if you are in time you are in the created universe.

[themuzicman]

And so once again we go back to your premise on how God experiences time (He is not atemporal). Although I can appreciate your viewpoint, I simply do not hold to that premise.

I hold to the premise that God is atemporal, so that He can hold a 'now-necessity' knowledge of future (in our perspective) events.

If God is atemporal, how does He create ex nihilo?

It is completely relevant, because it shows how you believe God experiences time. You see God as temporal, I see Him as atemporal. The idea that God is unable to hold now-necessary knowledge of future events a premise/assumption that you are basing your system upon.

It is fine that you hold that premise, but you need to at least acknowledge it.

It's a conclusion from Scripture, namely how God interacts with creation after creating it.

As noted earlier, I disagree with your premises. Also, I should note, that at least previously, argument by weblink was against forum rules. If you want to prove it, you should be able to explain it yourself...on the forum...and without a long dissertation by someone else through a web link.

(1) Argument by weblink would entail me responding to your entire post with a weblink. I was referring to a specific technical argument that is posted there.

If you want me to cut and paste it, I can:

Using the example of the proposition T, the argument that infallible foreknowledge of T entails that you do not answer the telephone freely can be formulated as follows:

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fr...reknowledge/#1

God knows because Abraham did. I do not dispute that. Yet this doesn't rule out 'foreknowledge'. God cannot foreknow something that does not happen (or exist).

It rules out foreknowledge because the test resulted in new knowledge. That's the entire point of the test. If God knows the outcome, then the test is nothing more than a cruel joke

As for Abraham 'appying his faith' or this being seen as an example of faith being completed or fulfilled, all we have to is look at the NT exposition of said text. I am assuming that you do hold that James is part of inspired scripture, do you not?

The question isn't whether James is part of Scripture, but rather on what basis you slap James 2 into Genesis 22. There is NOTHING in Genesis 22 about the application of Abraham's faith. It is called a test at the beginning, and God learns at the end. That's the narrative.

However, I do see claiming this text as a 'proof-text' for only the OVT perspective as an imposition. Can this text be seen as consistent with OVT? Sure! But does it prove it? Hardly.

It refutes the idea of exhaustive definite foreknowledge because God gains knowledge.

Ahhhhh...I thought you were talking about Jeremiah. My bad.

But no, I do not see 'relenting from disaster' as something that only fits within OVT theology. Although I see God as atemporal Himself, He interacts with man in man's temporality.

How can God relent if He is atemporal?

Furthermore, since I see man as possessing a free will, and I affirm that God's interactions with man depend on man's response to Him.

Not possible if God is atemporal. IF God is atemporal, then all things are determined eternally. Thus, there cannot be any "response" to man, or free will.

And this is done by God's choice:


Jeremiah 18:7-10

You'll have to explain, then, how God, who is atemporal, and has exhaustive, definite foreknowledge, both of which require hard determinism, can even say "If they do X, then I will do Y." Neither allows for a contingent response.

Scripture Verse: Jer 18

7 At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. 9 Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; 10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.

© Copyright Original Source

[themuzicman]

What it means to be inside time is to experience events one by one, with the future ones not accessible yet. If 2015 doesn't exist yet in God's frame of reference, he is within time.

God being outside of time means that this limitation is not in effect for him, that he can see all times.

The theological issue I see is that as far as physics can tell, the time and space axes are the same kind of thing. In fact in different frames of reference, the distinction between time and space is different. Events can be simultaneous in one frame of reference and not in another. So if God experiences before and after, he isn't just within time, but he is existing in one specific frame of reference, meaning that in theory we could determine how he is moving with respect to us. Current models say that there is no time before the big bang. It was created together with space. Admittedly, this understanding could change. But I the properties Ive been taking about seem unlikely to change. Physics and cosmology seem to say that if you are in time you are in the created universe.

You're making the assumption that created time is the only system of chronology that can exist. God can be outside of creation and created time and still experience events in sequence.

[RBerman]

No, expansion along the axis of time. One can expand along a single dimension.

To "expand" is to grow over time. What does it mean for time to grow over time? X/X=1.

[themuzicman]

To "expand" is to grow over time. What does it mean for time to grow over time? X/X=1.

That's all you have? Word games on "over"?

[RBerman]

That's all you have? Word games on "over"?

Not a word game; a serious question. Ridicule is not a response. When you speak of something expanding, you're talking about a change in some variable with respect to time. But a change in time with respect to time is no change at all. You'd have to say that one time frame is changing with respect to another, maybe like a relativistic effect for instance. Then you could talk about Time1 and Time2, but then God would be external to one of the timeframes and not the other.

[themuzicman]

Not a word game; a serious question. Ridicule is not a response.

Ridicule is almost required when someone puts forth such an obvious word play.

When you speak of something expanding, you're talking about a change in some variable with respect to time.

Oh, and you couldn't figure out that God observes time expand in creation from His perspective? So you just picked time over time and came up with 1?

And on what basis did you then apply math to something that isn't mathematical? (Thus engaging the word play.)

But a change in time with respect to time is no change at all.

LOL... Again, not sure if you just couldn't think through what was being said, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

You'd have to say that one time frame is changing with respect to another, maybe like a relativistic effect for instance. Then you could talk about Time1 and Time2, but then God would be external to one of the timeframes and not the other.

Oh, so you DID get it, but decided not to explore that possibility?

If we actually study Scripture without making pagan Greek theological assumptions, we can see that it is necessary for God to experience before and after:

If God creates "ex hihilo", then there must be a period before creation exists when it did not exist so that God could bring it into being from nothing. If God is atemporal, then creation is either co-eternal with God (which creates questions about how God has sovereignty over something that is co-equal with Him), or creation is a part of God, in which case Christianity would be panentheism.

But Christianity creates an ontological distinction, and God rules over the earth. Therefore, God CANNOT be atemporal, and MUST experience events in sequence.

Thus you arrive (finally) at the correct solution: God experiences events in sequence that are not related to nor are they dependent upon time as God created it within the context of our universe.

Thus, God can watch the universe expand along its timeline, and remain omniscient by knowing all things as they become knowable.

[RBerman]

Ridicule is almost required when someone puts forth such an obvious word play. Oh, and you couldn't figure out that God observes time expand in creation from His perspective? So you just picked time over time and came up with 1? And on what basis did you then apply math to something that isn't mathematical? (Thus engaging the word play.)

When you say that the universe is expanding along the dimension of time, you are making a scientific claim about the structure of creation. The language of math and science is perfectly appropriate to investigate such a claim.

Oh, so you DID get it, but decided not to explore that possibility? If we actually study Scripture without making pagan Greek theological assumptions, we can see that it is necessary for God to experience before and after:

If God creates "ex hihilo", then there must be a period before creation exists when it did not exist so that God could bring it into being from nothing. If God is atemporal, then creation is either co-eternal with God (which creates questions about how God has sovereignty over something that is co-equal with Him), or creation is a part of God, in which case Christianity would be panentheism.

But Christianity creates an ontological distinction, and God rules over the earth. Therefore, God CANNOT be atemporal, and MUST experience events in sequence.

Thus you arrive (finally) at the correct solution: God experiences events in sequence that are not related to nor are they dependent upon time as God created it within the context of our universe. Thus, God can watch the universe expand along its timeline, and remain omniscient by knowing all things as they become knowable.

You appear to be saying that God is experiencing the passage of time in one timeframe while watching the universe expand along the axis of its own timeframe. Is that correct?

It is not at all obvious to me that God's rulership of the earth requires him to experience events in sequence, or that an atemporal God requires either a co-eternal creation or panentheism. Can you unpack one of those further?

[themuzicman]

You appear to be saying that God is experiencing the passage of time in one timeframe while watching the universe expand along the axis of its own timeframe. Is that correct?

Mostly. I don't think we can reasonably postulate about how God experiences a sequence of events. It is almost certainly different than created time.

I prefer to say that God has His own chronology.

It is not at all obvious to me that God's rulership of the earth requires him to experience events in sequence, or that an atemporal God requires either a co-eternal creation or panentheism. Can you unpack one of those further?

Well, if God does not experience a sequence of events, but is atemporal, (assumiung God is not part of a created context, but inhabits the fundamental condition of all things), then everything that exists must have existed eternally. God, then, cannot create ex nihilo, because there must first be a condition where nothing else exists, and then a condition where creation exists because of God's action. That requires a temporal ordering of two conditions, first no creation, and then creation. Thus, God cannot create ex nihilo AND be atemporal.

The two possible alternatives are that creation is actually co-eternal with God, and being necessary entity could be considered to be another god, and there would be no basis for God having any sovereignty over it.

The other possibility is that creation is an eternal part of God, eternally proceeding from the Father, but then creation is effectively the fourth member of the trinity (quadrinity?).

So, in order to hold to ex nihilo creation, God cannot be atemporal.

[RBerman]

Mostly. I don't think we can reasonably postulate about how God experiences a sequence of events. It is almost certainly different than created time. I prefer to say that God has His own chronology.

I can go so far as to agree that God's "experience" (if that's even the right word) is different than what we experiences within "created time." As to whether the word "chronology" is applicable to God's experience, I am not satisfied that it's a helpful term. We'll probably get into that discussing the rest here:

Well, if God does not experience a sequence of events, but is atemporal, (assumiung God is not part of a created context, but inhabits the fundamental condition of all things), then everything that exists must have existed eternally. God, then, cannot create ex nihilo, because there must first be a condition where nothing else exists, and then a condition where creation exists because of God's action. That requires a temporal ordering of two conditions, first no creation, and then creation. Thus, God cannot create ex nihilo AND be atemporal.

Our whole experience, our set of instincts about life, springs from the fact that we experience time sequentially. Our language doesn't even allow for a phrase like "before the creation of time" to be meaningful; it's self-contradictory. I can see the appeal of an appeal (hah) to a "higher time" above and beyond our time, but that doesn't mean that's actually how God really is. It just means that we can't think outside of our own frame of reference.

The two possible alternatives are that creation is actually co-eternal with God, and being necessary entity could be considered to be another god, and there would be no basis for God having any sovereignty over it. The other possibility is that creation is an eternal part of God, eternally proceeding from the Father, but then creation is effectively the fourth member of the trinity (quadrinity?). So, in order to hold to ex nihilo creation, God cannot be atemporal.

The Bible gives us good grounds to reject the idea of an eternal creation; indeed, the very term "creation" implies that which springs from an act of beginning. I don't know why the only other possibility is that creation "eternally proceeds" from God. That seems like another way of asserting the eternality of the universe, which again is what the BIble denies. And even if the universe were eternal, that would not make it a person, comparable to the persons of the Trinity.