A problem with open theism (HOF thread)

[justchristian]

God knew (being all knowing like He is) that if He were going to create humans with a REAL ability to make their own decisions without His coercion through ordination or foreknowledge that He would have to create them in a way without dictating their future through direct ordination or through foreknowledge.

His not knowing all of our future choices is by His design.

Thankyou Knight this makes a lot more sense. This is probably what godrulz has been screaming at me but I've been unable to hear. I am not saying I agree yet but I am closer to understanding how it would work. Thanks again.

A thought. You say God could have exaustive foreknowledge but doesnt as this would inhibit free will. Its part of his creation. Could he still have exaustive foreknowledge but choose not to implement it in his interaction with creation? Would this be the same difference?

 

[drbrumley]

I had posted this earlier and got some bizarre comments.

To all you closed view thiests out there, is this a good reflection of your view? If not, why not?

A) God is perfect and He cannot ever be wrong...
B) Then God's knowledge about the future is never wrong...
Then Necessarily C...
C) We can do nothing other than what God knows we will do.
Then Necessarily D...
D) We have no choice between two or more options, No Free-will.

Docrob, you said in dealing with this:

Not at all, I have dealt with this extensively on my OV thread, and would refer you there.

Well Mr. Doc, I don't see it. If you agree with the first two premises (A and B) as Jermiah does, how can C be said to be false. Help explain it to me. Thanks.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, I for one am glad your back on the thread. Godrulz and myself kept it going, even though Godrulz had more clarity in his posts describing our view. Thank you Godrulz.

Thanks for the kinds words, I am short on time lately but any spare time I have I am investing into this thread. And yes, I agree godrulz posts are outstanding!

While I think I have a handle on Open Theism, my explanations of it might need some work. As someone I respect in this field of study, is there anything that stands out in my posts that might need some attention?

Well first let me state I am not a trained theologian. I am not even really well versed on what other trained theologians might think on this topic. Earlier in the thread Robin took a shot at "Boydism" and mocked it in comparison to Calvinism (which is most bizarre since she rejects Calvinism) yet I have never read a book by Boyd. I am not a "Boydist".

I believe the future is open because that is how the Bible best describes it.

I am not a polished writer, which I am guessing is painfully obvious.

So, Doc, I am in the same boat you are, fudging along the best I can using God's word as my guide and the logic and understanding He has given me the best that I am able.

 

[drbrumley]

Thanks for the kinds words, I am short on time lately but any spare time I have I am investing into this thread. And yes, I agree godrulz posts are outstanding!

Well first let me state I am not a trained theologian. I am not even really well versed on what other trained theologians might think on this topic. Earlier in the thread Robin took a shot at "Boydism" and mocked it in comparison to Calvinism (which is most bizarre since she rejects Calvinism) yet I have never read a book by Boyd. I am not a "Boydist".

I believe the future is open because that is how the Bible best describes it.

I am not a polished writer, which I am guessing is painfully obvious.

So, Doc, I am in the same boat you are, fudging along the best I can using God's word as my guide and the logic and understanding He has given me the best that I am able.

:up:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Thankyou Knight this makes a lot more sense. This is probably what godrulz has been screaming at me but I've been unable to hear. I am not saying I agree yet but I am closer to understanding how it would work. Thanks again.

Cool, I am glad my explanation was understandable to you.

A thought. You say God could have exaustive foreknowledge but doesnt as this would inhibit free will. Its part of his creation. Could he still have exaustive foreknowledge but choose not to implement it in his interaction with creation? Would this be the same difference?

Foreknowledge not implemented would be nothing more than a notion not acted upon.

If God did not implement His foreknowledge it certainly wouldn't be perfect nor exhaustive.

That is . . . if I understand your question correctly.

 

[docrob57]

OK, doc what Bible story is Paul referencing here in Romans 9?

It is important we take this step by step.

And if you go with me (step by step) you will see how your theology is reading more into this verse than is actually there.

Be glad to but have to wait til tomorrow, good night all

 

[justchristian]

How would knowing something but not acting on it make that knowlege imperfect/nonexaustive?

 

[Jeremiah85]

Drbrumley, I am by no means a theologian and so I also have a hard time expressing myself fluently about theological issues. Perhaps this will help clarify my position. I do not believe that what we choose is limited by God's knowledge but that God's knowledge is limited to what we choose. By this I mean that God's knowledge is limited to what will be not what can be. Perhaps you and Knight can explain to me more clearly what you mean by the statement that God can be wrong. If God can be wrong can He still be perfect and why? I have no real problem with any other point that you have made. Thank you for your patience.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Drbrumley, I am by no means a theologian and so I also have a hard time expressing myself fluently about theological issues. Perhaps this will help clarify my position. I do not believe that what we choose is limited by God's knowledge but that God's knowledge is limited to what we choose. By this I mean that God's knowledge is limited to what will be not what can be.

I think the Bible can effectively put the above notion to rest beyond any doubt.

Isaiah 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. 2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

In the above example we clearly see that God's foreknowledge of Israel was an expectation of "good grapes" yet the actual outcome was wild grapes. This one Bible passage eliminates the idea that God's foreknowledge is limited the actual resulting future.

You continue...

Perhaps you and Knight can explain to me more clearly what you mean by the statement that God can be wrong. If God can be wrong can He still be perfect and why? I have no real problem with any other point that you have made. Thank you for your patience.

I do not have a fragile view of God's character like you do.

God Himself explains that He "regrets", "repents" and "relents".

People that think these things make God any less powerful have a fragile view of God which I do not share.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

How would knowing something but not acting on it make that knowlege imperfect/nonexaustive?

Hmmm... maybe I am not getting what you are saying.

 

[Jeremiah85]

You continue...I do not have a fragile view of God's character like you do.

God Himself explains that He "regrets", "repents" and "relents".

People that think these things make God any less powerful have a fragile view of God which I do not share.

Umm... I was asking for more information, not attacking you. I thought that perhaps that I had misunderstood what you were saying and wanted more clarification. You will also notice that I said that this was my only sticking point. I see the points that you are making and they do make sense. I do not see what I said to deserve this response. I am geniuinely curious about what you believe and why. You will not convince me or anyone else by attacking them. Please continue to lay out your points well as you have before instead of pushing away those who truly wish to learn.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Umm... I was asking for more information, not attacking you.

I wasn't attacking you either... did my post sound that way? If it did I apologize!

All I was saying is some people think that the very hint of God being innaccurate, or relenting, repenting, makes Him somewhow less divine. I assert that is a fragile view of the most powerful being in all existence.

I thought that perhaps that I had misunderstood what you were saying and wanted more clarification. You will also notice that I said that this was my only sticking point. I see the points that you are making and they do make sense. I do not see what I said to deserve this response. I am geniuinely curious about what you believe and why. You will not convince me or anyone else by attacking them. Please continue to lay out your points well as you have before instead of pushing away those who truly wish to learn.

That's one thing I hate about the internet, sometimes it seems like I am saying something in a tone that I am not.

I apologize for sounding as if I was snapping back at you. Trust me, that I wasn't.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Maybe it's my creepy avatar? :think:

 

[Jeremiah85]

I wasn't attacking you either... did my post sound that way? If it did I apologize!

"I do not have a fragile view of God's character like you do." Apology accepted

All I was saying is some people think that the very hint of God being innaccurate, or relenting, repenting, makes Him somewhow less divine. I assert that is a fragile view of the most powerful being in all existence.

I have no problem with God changing His mind, but the innaccurate part kinda bothers me. The question that I am asking, and I am asking it seriously, is: Can God be wrong and innaccurate and still be perfect, and why?

That's one thing I hate about the internet, sometimes it seems like I am saying something in a tone that I am not.

I apologize for sounding as if I was snapping back at you. Trust me, that I wasn't.

I probably overreacted.

Maybe it's my creepy avatar?

No, but it is creepy. :shocked:

 

[drbrumley]

I have no problem with God changing His mind, but the innaccurate part kinda bothers me.

I understand what you are asking, but let me just add here that even God changing His mind implies some sort of hint of God being wrong or is somehow imperfect by most who hold the closed view. The question was posed to me by friends when we talk God at work that why does God need to change His mind if He is perfect. If He changes His mind, then by default, God is wrong cause He changed His mind. Freak champions this belief. At least it is my understanding He does. Maybe he can shed some light on this.

 

[drbrumley]

So my question to you is this, if you don't mind.

Of all prophecies in the bible, are thier any prophecies that God indeed said was to pass, but then never passed?

 

[Jeremiah85]

So my question to you is this, if you don't mind.

Of all prophecies in the bible, are thier any prophecies that God indeed said was to pass, but then never passed?

Jonah 3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried and said, Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown!

Emphasis mine.
If God changed His mind it seems that He disproved His own prophecy.

I assume that we agree that God is perfect.
So, the two options seem to be:
1. God cannot be wrong.
2. Wrong does not equal imperfect.

You seem to believe #2 so I would like to know how you come to this conclusion.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I have no problem with God changing His mind, but the innaccurate part kinda bothers me. The question that I am asking, and I am asking it seriously, is: Can God be wrong and innaccurate and still be perfect, and why?

Here is the part that maybe you haven't fully considered.

God wanted it this way.

God wanted to be able to allow us freedom from a closed future. Therefore God created us in this manner even at the expense that some might question Him years later.

In other words...
God is sovereign. God is even sovereign over His own sovereignity. He has control over His power and is able to give some of it away if He so desires. He is indeed THAT powerful.

Therefore... God works with us, and through us, instead of simply working us. God wanted to allow us a true freewill even at the expense of occasionally being disappointed, regretful, upset, jealous and even inaccurate about the stupid things we might do!

Jeremiah 32:35 ‘And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’

 

[godrulz]

Thankyou Knight this makes a lot more sense. This is probably what godrulz has been screaming at me but I've been unable to hear. I am not saying I agree yet but I am closer to understanding how it would work. Thanks again.

A thought. You say God could have exaustive foreknowledge but doesnt as this would inhibit free will. Its part of his creation. Could he still have exaustive foreknowledge but choose not to implement it in his interaction with creation? Would this be the same difference?

God either has this knowledge or He does not. He cannot chose to not have it (apart from creating robots) if it is possible to know. He does not always have to exercise His omnipotence, but He cannot know something that is a possible object of knowledge for the rest of us. The issue is a logical issue, not a limitation on omniscience. It is simply impossible to exhaustively know future free will contingencies as a certainty. We must give up exhaustive foreknowledge or libertarian free will. The Calvinistic solution is to retain foreknowledge through decree while redefining freedom. The Arminian solution is to attempt to retain free will and suggesting God has simple foreknowledge, whatever that is (the future is not a place and it is not there to 'see' before it exists). The Open Theism solution is to recognize that there is genuine freedom (self-evident) and affirm that God knows all that is logically knowable. i.e. He knows the past/present exhaustively, but correctly knows some of the future as possible/probable vs certain/actual. Other aspects of the future are knowable because He determines to bring them to pass by His ability, regardless of free will contingencies (2 motifs explains both sets of proof texts).

 

[drbrumley]

Here is the part that maybe you haven't fully considered.

God wanted it this way.

God wanted to be able to allow us freedom from a closed future. Therefore God created us in this manner even at the expense that some might question Him years later.

In other words...
God is sovereign. God is even sovereign over His own sovereignity. He has control over His power and is able to give some of it away if He so desires. He is indeed THAT powerful.

Therefore... God works with us, and through us, instead of simply working us. God wanted to allow us a true freewill even at the expense of occasionally being disappointed, regretful, upset, jealous and even inaccurate about the stupid things we might do!

Jeremiah 32:35 ‘And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’

That is perhaps the best way it has been explained in this thread. That was great