A problem with open theism (HOF thread)

[godrulz]

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

I probably overreacted.

No, but it is creepy. :shocked:

God knows truth and reality as it is at the moment. Future, contingent/conditional things may or may not happen. God correctly knows them as possible, not actual. This should sidestep the issue about God being wrong. It is not that He is wrong. It is just that He knows it as possible/probable vs certain. It is not wrong to not know for sure what we will chose before we were born. He knows, but the knowledge is not certain and may change. Then He correctly knows it as certain vs possible. This does not detract from His perfection or omniscience. When the conditional becomes actual, His knowledge changes. This is perfection, not imperfection. He always knows things accurately and true, but that does not negate the difference between possible and certain.

 

[godrulz]

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?

Hezekiah? God made a truth statement that he would die. At that moment, this was the intent and probable outcome. In response to prayer, God changed His mind and added years to his life. Now He said that he would live. It is not that he was wrong. It is just that He changed His mind in response to changing circumstances. cf. Jonah/Nineveh.

 

[godrulz]

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

Nice summary, Knight, to be sure. Do not underestimate your helpful insights either, drb. After all, you are a doctor, are you not?

If I could remind us that sovereignty does not have to mean meticulous control and exhaustive foreknowledge. It can mean providential control with limited risk and resistance. The end is assured, but there may be bumps along the way.

 

[drbrumley]

Nice summary, Knight, to be sure. Do not underestimate your helpful insights either, drb. After all, you are a doctor, are you not?

Godrulz, If I had a quarter for everytime I read that. No, I am no Dr. The D and the R are my first and middle intials. I just love God with all my heart and study God and His ways. I am proud to say that I am hoping to be Dr of something someday, Lord Willing under the guidance of Bob Hill, my teacher.

If I could remind us that sovereignty does not have to mean meticulous control and exhaustive foreknowledge. It can mean providential control with limited risk and resistance. The end is assured, but there may be bumps along the way.

So true.

 

[Jeremiah85]

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

God wanted it this way.

God wanted to be able to be incorrect?
I am not trying to be obtuse, but I have always been taught that to be wrong or incorrect is to be imperfect. I do not believe that God is anything other than perfect. Am I defining these term incorrectly (or wrongly)?

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.

I completely agree.

 

[godrulz]

Perhaps there is a better way than 'wrong' or 'incorrect' to describe changing knowledge.

I made an attempt at this in post #601. Perhaps someone could say it in another clearer way?

God is not strongly wrong in an erroneous way. He is simply correct to know things as they are distinguishing past, present, future, possible/uncertain, and certain. He is correct at any given moment, but as things change, what is correct may change. The only technical way to say He was wrong is to wrongly assume He believes possible things as certain (closed view). We need a paradigm shift and have to watch semantical issues. A formal logician may be able to resolve our communication issues. Perhaps we need to be more precise in how we define things.

 

[Agape4Robin]

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.’

"And they built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin," (Jer. 32:35).

This verse is simply a recounting of an earlier account of Judah's sinfulness. See Jer. 7:31.

Good evening fellas! I saw the Jeremiah verse and naturally had to chime in!

Is the Lord actually saying that He did not think of something? :think: Even in open theism, God knows all things actual as well as potential. Yes? :think: That means that God can know all things in the present tense as well as all possibilities of things that could exist. Certainly God who knew the past sins of Israel would have thought about them doing such sin -- as horrible as it was. So, it doesn't make sense to interpret this as God admitting that He had never thought of something. :nono:
Furthermore, the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, RSV, 1901 ASV, all translate this as "and it did not come into My mind," What is interesting is that the LXX uses the Greek word "kardia", "heart" instead of the Greek word for mind. Since we can conclude that God can contemplate all potential forms of rebellion, we can then also conclude that God is addressing the issue of human moral behavior instead of expressing ignorance since that is what God is talking about. In other words, their sin did not enter the intention of God's heart in His plans for Judah.

P.S. The NASB has a marginal note of "heart." and The LXX, or Septuagint, is the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. It was translated by Jews around 200 B.C.

 

[drbrumley]

You know Robin, I have been wondering, WHY is it so impossible to take God at His word.

And Good evening to you as well

 

[godrulz]

God knew the possibility of Israel disobeying. It did not enter His heart/mind in that He did not expect them to disobey. He desired and hoped that they would obey and was genuinely grieved when they did not. This shows that God's disposition changes as the possible becomes actual, for the good or bad.

cf. He had great joy and delight with His creation pronouncing it 'very good'. He knew of the possibility vs certainty of the Fall and had a potential plan of redemption to be implemented IF the Fall took place. When the possible became actual, God's disposition changed. NOW He was grieved that He made man and was going to wipe us out. The plan of redemption was implemented, but did not become actual for centuries. His heart was broken. "But Noah..." God's disposition again changed from justice to mercy as He restarted the human race with a righteous core. The rest of the OT and history shows cycles of obedience and disobedience. God responds to the changing circumstances as the warfare continues. The classic blueprint model does not square with God's responsive, providential interactings with the world and His people.

 

[drbrumley]

"And they built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin," (Jer. 32:35).

This verse is simply a recounting of an earlier account of Judah's sinfulness. See Jer. 7:31.

Good evening fellas! I saw the Jeremiah verse and naturally had to chime in!

Is the Lord actually saying that He did not think of something? :think: Even in open theism, God knows all things actual as well as potential. Yes? :think: That means that God can know all things in the present tense as well as all possibilities of things that could exist. Certainly God who knew the past sins of Israel would have thought about them doing such sin -- as horrible as it was. So, it doesn't make sense to interpret this as God admitting that He had never thought of something. :nono:
Furthermore, the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, RSV, 1901 ASV, all translate this as "and it did not come into My mind," What is interesting is that the LXX uses the Greek word "kardia", "heart" instead of the Greek word for mind. Since we can conclude that God can contemplate all potential forms of rebellion, we can then also conclude that God is addressing the issue of human moral behavior instead of expressing ignorance since that is what God is talking about. In other words, their sin did not enter the intention of God's heart in His plans for Judah.

P.S. The NASB has a marginal note of "heart." and The LXX, or Septuagint, is the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. It was translated by Jews around 200 B.C.

So God has a heart now? :think: Is this a figure of speech or a real heart.?

I'm sorry, but this is sad. Christians who hold closed view will STOP at nothing to disregard the plain meaning of the text. Why is that?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

"And they built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin," (Jer. 32:35).

This verse is simply a recounting of an earlier account of Judah's sinfulness. See Jer. 7:31.

And this would change things how? That distinction only affirms the the original point.

Is the Lord actually saying that He did not think of something? Even in open theism, God knows all things actual as well as potential. Yes? That means that God can know all things in the present tense as well as all possibilities of things that could exist. Certainly God who knew the past sins of Israel would have thought about them doing such sin -- as horrible as it was. So, it doesn't make sense to interpret this as God admitting that He had never thought of something.
Furthermore, the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, RSV, 1901 ASV, all translate this as "and it did not come into My mind," What is interesting is that the LXX uses the Greek word "kardia", "heart" instead of the Greek word for mind. Since we can conclude that God can contemplate all potential forms of rebellion, we can then also conclude that God is addressing the issue of human moral behavior instead of expressing ignorance since that is what God is talking about. In other words, their sin did not enter the intention of God's heart in His plans for Judah.

God is saying that there was a point in the past in which He didn't imagine mankind would do such a horrible thing.

Certainly as man grew more and more wicked there came a point in time when God COULD imagine that man would do something so wicked but apparently there was a time when it hadn't entered God's mind . . . otherwise the verse simply is a lie.

Changing the word "heart" for "mind" makes no difference at all since God hasn't a physical mind nor heart and therefore we can understand it's a figure of speech to describe God's knowledge and or feelings about their actions.

 

[Clete]

Robin,

Not all Open Theist believe what Boyd taught about God knowing the future as possibilities. I for one think that it doesn't even make sense to say such a thing although I have never thought it to be an important enough distinction to argue about. I believe that God only knows things that fall into two very distinct and very clear categories. If the information is not in BOTH of these categories then God does not know it.

Category 1:
That which is knowable.

Category 2:
That portion of Category 1 that God desires to know.

This position is entirely Biblical, totally logical and also removes your objection which you expressed in your last post. This position is in complete keeping with the plain reading of not only that passage in Jeremiah but also all other relevant passages.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'm sorry, but this is sad. Christians who hold closed view will STOP at nothing to disregard the plain meaning of the text. Why is that?

Because with one verse their entire foundation crumbles. And then obfuscation kicks in.

 

[godrulz]

Robin,

Not all Open Theist believe what Boyd taught about God knowing the future as possibilities. I for one think that it doesn't even make sense to say such a thing although I have never thought it to be an important enough distinction to argue about. I believe that God only knows things that fall into two very distinct and very clear categories. If the information is not in BOTH of these categories then God does not know it.

Category 1:
That which is knowable.

Category 2:
That portion of Category 1 that God desires to know.

This position is entirely Biblical, totally logical and also removes your objection which you expressed in your last post. This position is in complete keeping with the plain reading of not only that passage in Jeremiah but also all other relevant passages.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I still have problems with category 2. If it is a possible object of knowledge, an omniscient God will know it. The way some of the future is not knowable is to create free moral agents capable of contingent, unknowable choices.

Boyd uses normative Open Theist language to distinguish possibilities from certainties. I think you practically agree with this, if not academically. He leans toward middle knowledge (Molinism) views of William Lane Craig though not identically. He calls his own view neo-molinism (historical figure). There are nuances along the spectrum of Open Theism. I wonder if the idea of knowing what He wants to know is unique to Enyart. I have not run across this idea in most Open Theist literature. They tend to express it as what God can logically know (I think you agree with this also).

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Chat mode still! Well, I can't keep up, if anyone makes a response to a comment I might make, and don't respond to, PM me! Not that I think my comments are especially important, but I just can't fish through pages of posts to look for any responses...

Knight: God wanted to be able to allow us freedom from a closed future.

I agree, but only for believers, and God may know even free choices. Does God know how he would choose in any completely described situation?

Knight: 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.

But giving away power means God is then not omnipotent. "Omnipotent" means having (present tense) all power.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

Not "all the authority I choose to have"! All authority.

Knight: 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!

Then maybe we should not take God's counsel every time, when he might (by his own estimate) be mistaken?

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.’

But God was in control even of this, we read:

Ezekiel 20:25-26 Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the Lord.

"I defiled them," he "did it" for a purpose for good, even here.

Drbrumley: Is this a figure of speech or a real heart.?

I'm sorry, but this is sad. Christians who hold closed view will STOP at nothing to disregard the plain meaning of the text. Why is that?

How is this inappropriate, though? Certainly this is a figure of speech, everyone agrees with that. And the word is "heart," which can mean like the English word "heart," and indicates that God was not delighting in this evil in any way, why is that a bad interpretation, and not a plain meaning here?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

I still have problems with category 2. If it is a possible object of knowledge, an omniscient God will know it. The way some of the future is not knowable is to create free moral agents capable of contingent, unknowable choices.

Boyd uses normative Open Theist language to distinguish possibilities from certainties. I think you practically agree with this, if not academically. He leans toward middle knowledge (Molinism) views of William Lane Craig though not identically. He calls his own view neo-molinism (historical figure). There are nuances along the spectrum of Open Theism. I wonder if the idea of knowing what He wants to know is unique to Enyart. I have not run across this idea in most Open Theist literature. They tend to express it as what God can logically know (I think you agree with this also).

Not to be too blunt with you (I know that you and I generally agree) but it makes no difference to me what Boyd says or how he says it, and while I have grown to trust Bob Enyart the same is true of him as well. If Bob (or Boyd or anyone) isn't able to defend what they say Biblically then I would be suspect of it at a minimum, if I didn't just outright reject it altogether.

There are passages in the Bible that seem to come right out and say that there are things that are going on (in the present) that God is not immediately aware of, like the condition of Sodom and Gomorrah for one example. There are several reasons to believe that God literally forgets our sin. And from a simply logical point of view it makes intuitive sense as well. Are you going to tell God that He must be a first person witness to every vile act that men commit? If He chooses not to be such a witness, are you going to be the one to demote God from His thrown? I know I'm sure not, and I very much doubt you would want to either.

Boyd, I'm sure does a fine job of defending his view and I know Bob does but the fact remains that with Boyd's view there are several problems which still crop up like the one Robin has pointed out. I know of no such difficulties with the view which I have articulated above. Perhaps you could point some out, if you know of any.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Hi everyone,




But giving away power means God is then not omnipotent. "Omnipotent" means having (present tense) all power.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

Not "all the authority I choose to have"! All authority.


Blessings,
Lee

All power does not mean God exercises His power all the time or in every circumstance. Clearly, Satan and man have limited power that conflicts with God's purposes for the universe. If God always exercised His 'all-power' and authority, we would have been wiped out long ago. Omnipotent does not mean meticulous control. He lets us procreate. He does not procreate for us. He could create many more universes and planets than there are. Just because He does not does not mean that He could not. He is still omnipotent whether He choses to exercise His all power all the time. I could lift a weight, but I do not do it while I am sleeping. This does not mean I do not have the ability if I wanted to.

The classic example is the incarnation/kenosis/humiliation of Christ who did not cling to His right to be all-powerful, but humbled Himself and became a man taking the form of a servant while retaining the form of God. He voluntarily laid aside the exercise of his power, not the power itself. It was veiled, not negated.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

There are passages in the Bible that seem to come right out and say that there are things that are going on (in the present) that God is not immediately aware of, like the condition of Sodom and Gomorrah for one example. There are several reasons to believe that God literally forgets our sin. And from a simply logical point of view it makes intuitive sense as well. Are you going to tell God that He must be a first person witness to every vile act that men commit? If He chooses not to be such a witness, are you going to be the one to demote God from His thrown? I know I'm sure not, and I very much doubt you would want to either.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I agree with this 100% which is why I almost always state... God knows everything knowable which He chooses to know.

It's seems rather reasonable that God would not want to monitor every homo rendezvous in gay bar bathroom stalls throughout the world. :shocked:

 

[godrulz]

Clete: Most of what I was saying is my own opinion and speculation. I do not know how Boyd would answer your views.

I think the idiom of forgetting our sins means that He choses to not bring them up again. If I say 'forget it' if you owe me money, it does not mean our memories are blank. It means I am dropping things and treating you as if you do not owe me money. God forgives and treats us as if we never sinned. It does not mean His mind is blank. If Satan, my wife, and my self can recall a sin, so can an omniscient God. If He literally forgot the sins, everytime I contemplated them, He would know them again.

Like us, I assume God can divert His focus and attention where He wants to. Practically, He does not have to dwell on every boring detail in the universe (watching "Friends" reruns constantly on every channel), but I do not think He literally is not aware or does not know these things. Omniscience means knowing all that is knowable. Our past sins, unfortunately are knowable. Fortunately, they are not held against us and are practically vs literally 'forgotten'.

Attention or lack thereof is not the same thing as a blank memory.

 

[godrulz]

I agree with this 100% which is why I almost always state... God knows everything knowable which He chooses to know.

It's seems rather reasonable that God would not want to monitor every homo rendezvous in gay bar bathroom stalls throughout the world. :shocked:

Is this inattention/lack of dwelling on or inability/unawareness?

If God is not aware of every vile thought and act, He is not a fair Judge. He is a perfect Judge because He is impartial, omniscient, and omnipresent.

Is it fair for God to miss some acts of evil and not judge them, while He happens to catch me all the time because His love is always directed towards me? God is not like a speed trap that catches some, but not others. His radar is always on. I wonder if my idea of inattention vs inability is a better perspective than chosing to not know something that is knowable? Interesting ideas, but something just does not sit right with your definition. I prefer simply to say that He knows all that is logically knowable while recognizing He can focus on what He wants to at any given time without losing total awareness of possible objects of knowledge.