ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[epistemaniac]

My wife has MS. May I ask about your disability?

http://www.gregboyd.org/oldcvm/gbfront/index.html

(this is Boyd's old site with helpful Q and A, etc. I would google more).

His new site is underconstruction (? Fall),

I would google hoping to find free articles.

This is a very good article linked in an earlier post:

http://www.opentheism.info/pdf/belt/summary_aog.pdf

sure... you may ask.... I have had many back operations, eventually culminating in a neck fusion, a fusion of the low back, a near fatal staph infection that spread into my spinal column, the reinjury of my low back, a "decompression" which is when they go in and remove all the old hardware, then they refused that area, using larger hardware -- bolts and titanium cages so that I have to carry a card re the implants as I can set off metal detectors--- and extended the previous older fusion both above and below the previous fusion so that now it extends into my tailbone and up to my midback. One of the biggest problems is the ongoing severe sciatic pain radiating into my left leg, and occasionally, into my rt leg.

thanks for the links, I have been downloading artcles from all sides of the issue as I have been able of the past few days...

blessings

 

[godrulz]

Back problems and sciatica are terrible things to live with. You have my sympathy and prayers. Was it an injury initially or degeneration? Do chiropractors or physiotherapists help you? Do you set off metal detectors at airports?

 

[epistemaniac]

Contingencies are essential to genuine freedom, which is essential for reciprocal love relationships. Contingencies are correctly known as possible/probable until they become certain/actual after a present choice. The exhaustive foreknowledge of free will contingencies (they are not determinate by definition) is a logical contradiction/absurdity.

so far as you are conderned then, views like that of Bob Hill's does not remove the problem that open theism set out to resolve... that is, if God knows with certainity all future contingencies, then He still knows at least a possible course of action a given human might carry out, and thus, in the end, God still knows with certainity one of the options a given human might have... since this is the case, then doesn't God still know future free acts, albeit as a subset of many other sets of possibilities? the point being then, that in reality, Bob's view doesn't really speak of contingencies as such, Bob believes that God knows exhaustively all possible courses of action, God may not know which exact course of action that a person would take ahead of time, but he knows all possible courses of future action, and included in that group is in fact the action the person will eventually take... then God's knowledge still contains knowledge of the future free actions of man, albeit as a set of all possible courses of action?

Bob, would you consider your view as being molinism?

blessings to both of you

 

[godrulz]

This sounds confusing and needs clarification from Bob.

I do not think Molinism's 'middle knowledge' is coherent. It sounds like definite, exhaustive foreknowledge. William Lane Craig espouses this view.

Discussion become very technical with 'counterfactuals of freedom', etc.

I think saying God knows all possibilities and implying that He would know which possibility would be actualized is problematic and not much different than EDF (exhaustive definite foreknowledge).

As new factors become objects of knowledge, the possibilities would also grow exponentially (that may not have been self-evident from all eternity).

God would certainly know it is possible that I could chose vanilla or chocolate, but He technically would not even know that I would exist or not get aborted from trillions of years ago.

God knows everything that is knowable. He correctly knows much of the future as possible vs actual/settled. He knows possible outcomes of contingent choices, but would not be able to extrapolate as a certainty which choice would be made from trillions of years ago. This certain knowledge would negate contingency (equal possibility of being or not being). Contingency involves may/might or may not/might not, not will or will not.

 

[epistemaniac]

Back problems and sciatica are terrible things to live with. You have my sympathy and prayers. Was it an injury initially or degeneration? Do chiropractors or physiotherapists help you? Do you set off metal detectors at airports?

I appreciate your prayers!!

Originally, I got hurt playing a pick up game of basketball... a truly weird thing... I had played fairly rough street ball many times and never had anything other then the typical broken nose, busted out teeth, and random bumps and bruises lol. had physical construction jobs etc etc and never had any back problems.. then one day a guy was mad at me re the play before, and as we went down to the other end of the court, I went up for a rebound and he pushed me at just below hip level while I was in the air, causing me to cartwheel and land in a really awkward way... that was it, my life was never the same.... at the risk of incurring snide remarks, the constant pain is debilitating and I have to take vicodin, morphine and flexiril every day to try and deal with it, and there are many times when they don't seem to help all the much... of course, I can't know what it would be like to be without the meds at all during those times, I can say it is hard to imagine it being worse lol... anyway.. yeah.. at this point I have severe arthritis in my low back, degenerative disc disease, and scar tissue built up on the sciatic nerve... there are times when I can barely begin to stoop over... say to a chair where my coat was laying across it and then zap.... its like getting struck by lightning or getting shocked... my legs go out and down I go... numerous times even while laying on my side on the floor I have not been able to extend my arm out to grab a drink of water or something.... my wife or kids have to get me a cup with a straw and I have to lay as perfectly still as possible until things let up.... I have a 16 yr old son and it seems to be especially hard on him.... I mean, he rarely shows emotion as many teenage guys, so when he cries because of the pain I am in, and he has to help me get to bed, well I know it is really hard on him... of course my 2 younger boys (10 and 6) and my older daughters (24 and 19) are affected as well, he just seems to take it the hardest.

so anyway, at this point, with this much hardware in, chiropractors are not something I'd really want risk... and even if I decided to risk it, I am one of the millions of uninsured Americans, I am applying for Social Security Disability, and until if and when I ever get it, I have no coverage, so anything I might need short of life saving intervention just won't/can't happen ... which also means the meds I take cut directly into the family budget.... so its really a catch 22... I probably would rarely even be able to get in and out of bed without the meds, but if I take them, then it has severe ramifications on the budget, either way way, its not good... so if you would, pray that I am assigned my hearing to appear before the Administrative Law Judge SOON! lol.... and that I will be approved..... its been really tough going for me because of my education, thus they (Social Security) think that I could do a desk job or something... even though the highly repsected neorosurgeon (Dr Jeffery Kachman at Ft Wayne Nuerological) who did my back and neck this last round of operations says that in his opinion I am totally and permanantly disabled, and from what the nurses in his office said, he almost never grants total disability for back problems..... so the nurses said I must really be screwed up! lol...

I have met people with MS and I will pray for you and your wife... chronic disability has such a radical effect on the whole family, not just the one suffering from the immediate disability itself...

blessings

 

[epistemaniac]

This sounds confusing and needs clarification from Bob.

I do not think Molinism's 'middle knowledge' is coherent. It sounds like definite, exhaustive foreknowledge. William Lane Craig espouses this view.

Discussion become very technical with 'counterfactuals of freedom', etc.

I think saying God knows all possibilities and implying that He would know which possibility would be actualized is problematic and not much different than EDF (exhaustive definite foreknowledge).

As new factors become objects of knowledge, the possibilities would also grow exponentially (that may not have been self-evident from all eternity).

God would certainly know it is possible that I could chose vanilla or chocolate, but He technically would not even know that I would exist or not get aborted from trillions of years ago.

God knows everything that is knowable. He correctly knows much of the future as possible vs actual/settled. He knows possible outcomes of contingent choices, but would not be able to extrapolate as a certainty which choice would be made from trillions of years ago. This certain knowledge would negate contingency (equal possibility of being or not being). Contingency involves may/might or may not/might not, not will or will not.

lol... you said

think saying God knows all possibilities and implying that He would know which possibility would be actualized is problematic and not much different than EDF (exhaustive definite foreknowledge).

this is what I was trying, in a very convoluted way, to say.... this is what it sounds to me that Bob is saying....

blessings

 

[epistemaniac]

I should have added that if God knows all possibilities, including the one that is eventually actualized, then God still seems to know the future.... even though He might not know which set of possibilities is eventually actualized until it becomes reality.... it seems to me most open theists say that God cannot even know all the possible sets of circumstances and possibilities in their entirety because He would then be knowing the future which is not there to know, according to the OT's I have read.....

blessings

 

[godrulz]

Believers will have glorified bodies someday with no more pain, tears, sorrow, etc.

His presence is with us giving us strength. This seems academic in light of what you and my wife go through daily.

God is good. God is great. We are not immune from suffering in this fallen world.

This is Pentecost Sunday. Sounds like you need a book of Acts miracle...silver and gold we do not have...but in the name of Jesus, rise up and walk.

God is sovereign and is not manipulated by formulas. He is able to heal us even now, bringing wholeness in every area of our lives. Other times healing is progressive. Sometimes His grace is sufficient and our bodily wholeness awaits the resurrection.

He knows and cares. I trust you have a church family in addition to your supportive family who are able to be of help.

The book of Job must be of interest to you.

 

[godrulz]

I should have added that if God knows all possibilities, including the one that is eventually actualized, then God still seems to know the future.... even though He might not know which set of possibilities is eventually actualized until it becomes reality.... it seems to me most open theists say that God cannot even know all the possible sets of circumstances and possibilities in their entirety because He would then be knowing the future which is not there to know, according to the OT's I have read.....

blessings

Uh...yah...

I like Gregory Boyd's clarity, but I think he calls His view neo-Molinism. He would not agree with William Craig's Molinism. Modal logic is the science that sorts through these isses.

I agree that it is a premise of OT that the future is not there yet to know and much of it is known as possible until it becomes actual/certain through the present. The potential future becomes the fixed past through present choices.

As a chess game is being played, the parameters of possible are dynamic and fluctuate depending on each move and counter-moves.

You bring up an interesting point that is no doubt disagreed upon and debated, even in OT circles. Perhaps some examples and illustrations would help us think through this.

I like to distinguish remote from proximal knowledge. Probabilities increase based on perfect past and present knowledge. Possibilities would be more inherent the closer one becomes to the actual choice since more variables would be knowable (as opposed to objects of knowledge trillions of years ago...e.g. God could imagine the types of inventions humans could make, but human history and creativity could introduce a myriad of interrelated variables that may not have been contemplated, even by an omniscient God...would He really have seen detailed pornographic images of specific individuals and acts before the people and history unfolded in space-time? Could various sports or games have developed differently? Adam gave names to the animals. How much did God contemplate as possible as to the game of Monopoly and the final names of the squares? Was Star Wars in its final form contemplated by God in eternity or was it a creative, unique new thing that intrigued God? Some Scriptures seem to express that God is surprised at times...He also said it did not even enter His heart or mind that something would happen. Can God express novelty? This seems unlikely if He mathematically contemplates an infinite number of possibilities...sure it is possible that a car like a Honda or Ford model could be made, but did He really envision the VW Beetle trillions of years ago as a possibility? There is no deficiency in God or omniscience if He does not know zillions of possibilities that never could or would be actualized).

:noid: :dizzy: :help: :dunce: atrol: :sigh: :beanboy: :freak: CleverDan :blabla: :idunno:

 

[epistemaniac]

Uh...yah...

I like Gregory Boyd's clarity, but I think he calls His view neo-Molinism. He would not agree with William Craig's Molinism. Modal logic is the science that sorts through these isses.

I agree that it is a premise of OT that the future is not there yet to know and much of it is known as possible until it becomes actual/certain through the present. The potential future becomes the fixed past through present choices.

As a chess game is being played, the parameters of possible are dynamic and fluctuate depending on each move and counter-moves.

You bring up an interesting point that is no doubt disagreed upon and debated, even in OT circles. Perhaps some examples and illustrations would help us think through this.

I like to distinguish remote from proximal knowledge. Probabilities increase based on perfect past and present knowledge. Possibilities would be more inherent the closer one becomes to the actual choice since more variables would be knowable (as opposed to objects of knowledge trillions of years ago...e.g. God could imagine the types of inventions humans could make, but human history and creativity could introduce a myriad of interrelated variables that may not have been contemplated, even by an omniscient God...would He really have seen detailed pornographic images of specific individuals and acts before the people and history unfolded in space-time? Could various sports or games have developed differently? Adam gave names to the animals. How much did God contemplate as possible as to the game of Monopoly and the final names of the squares? Was Star Wars in its final form contemplated by God in eternity or was it a creative, unique new thing that intrigued God? Some Scriptures seem to express that God is surprised at times...He also said it did not even enter His heart or mind that something would happen. Can God express novelty? This seems unlikely if He mathematically contemplates an infinite number of possibilities...sure it is possible that a car like a Honda or Ford model could be made, but did He really envision the VW Beetle trillions of years ago as a possibility? There is no deficiency in God or omniscience if He does not know zillions of possibilities that never could or would be actualized).

:noid: :dizzy: :help: :dunce: atrol: :sigh: :beanboy: :freak: CleverDan :blabla: :idunno:

yeah... either way, proximital or remote.... it all comes down to the same thing, that the future is not there for God to know, in an exhaustive infallible sense, according to most Open Theists.

blessings

 

[epistemaniac]

Bob... you said

As an Open Thiest, I would not say God is learning. He knows all that is knowable. I also think He also knows every possible thing that will happen in the future. But, from Scripture, we see that He is surprised at the things that man actually does, at times.

no offence, but this strikes me as being incoherent... God must in fact be "learning" if He can be surprised, for what is it to be surprised but to have something unexpected happen, that one does not know will happen? Otherwise, what is there to be surprised about?? …. and if it was unexpected, then God must not have known that it was going to happen, He had to learn what happened as it unfolded in order to be surprised.... for if God perfectly knows every possibility, then whatever happens ought notand could not surprise God... whatever happened was just one out of numerous possibilities He already knew ahead of time as possibilities, thus, when it does or did happen, what was there to be surprised at? The very definition of "surprised” contains the idea that something unexpected happens, and if God already knew all possibilities, then manifestly,whichever one happens could not be totally unexpected..... . If God perfectly knows all possibilities, then whichever of the possibilities becomes actualized was already known to God, and therefore could not surprise Him.

surprised:
To encounter suddenly or unexpectedly; take or catch unawares.
To attack or capture suddenly and without warning.
To cause to feel wonder, astonishment, or amazement, as at something unanticipated.
To cause (someone) to do or say something unintended.
To elicit or detect through surprise.
n.
The act of surprising or the condition of being surprised.
Something, such as an unexpected encounter, event, or gift, that surprises. (answers.com)

So what I see you doing is still being “plagued” by the inconsistency that traditional Arminians have been laboring under for a long time, that if God knows what will happen in the future, even if it is simply one outcome out of many others, then manifestly, man was not free, for whatever happened was already “there” in God’s mind’s eye so to speak, even if it existed as a possibility. The difference between you and the traditional Arminian is simply that for them, one single future is fixed, while for you, there are a fixed finite number of futures which God perfectly knows could be actualized at any given time, every one of those possibilities exists as a blueprint in His mind as one possibility out of many others. It seems as if you must make a radical break and say that the future is such that God really does not have any certainty regarding what will happen, not even one possibility out of many, in order to be genuinely surprised.

blessings

 

[epistemaniac]

godrulz, you said

.sure it is possible that a car like a Honda or Ford model could be made, but did He really envision the VW Beetle trillions of years ago as a possibility?

the only problem with this is that God's having "guessed" there might have been Fords or Chevys is really no more trivial then God's knowing about VW Beetles....

would He really have seen detailed pornographic images of specific individuals and acts before the people and history unfolded in space-time?

I see no reason why not.... if, from trillions of years ago He could envision Ford's and Chevys, what is to stop Him from knowing about individual sex acts? Surely the creation of the Edsel is no more of a sin then pornography. If He knew He would create Adam and Eve, presumably He would have thought out that there would have to be ways for humans to procreate. Its not such a step from knowing this to knowing that people would violate His divine ordinances regarding procreation. I guess the problem I see is that Open Theism really has God ignorant of most of reality until it happens, for, outside of the actions of free will (which God can't know about until they enter the person's mind), what is the most significant thing to know about in this great big world of ours? If He can't know about the thoughts of tHis most significant creatures, then Him knowing.... say... the route of a given comet trillions of years ago is trivial and minimal... but perhaps Open Theists will not even grant God the power to even know about those sorts of things? Either way, God seems to be an irresponsible creator for flying by the seat of His pants so much of the time. Sort of like a mad scientist who has the power to create but then Who's creation seems wholly out of His control most of the time, with God always having to "make due", trying to keep up with His creation gone seriously awry.

The things you are describing God as not knowing is even one step further removed from deism. Not only doesn't God interevene to stop sins from happening when He could, He creates a situation where He doesn't even knowfor sure what is going to happen when He does create.

Also, it seems no more beneath God to know about detailed pornographic images as they happen then before they happen. He was aware of Sodom and Gomorrah when that happened, and even according to Open Theism, God knows perfectly what is happening now and in the past, so God must also know that illicit sexual acts are taking place all over the world at this very moment, thousands upon thousands of them... surely God was smart enough to know that these abuses of His creation would not stop at Sodom and Gomorrah. Either way, God is no more responsible, or even less responsible, for knowing about such sinful acts moments before they are acted out then if He knew about them trillions of years ago. He has the power and knowledge to stop any act from happening that He wanted to, and, again, presumably, He is smart enought to do so without violating human (libertarian) free will if that was His one sacred cow.

You have mentioned modal logic several times, earlier I had said that the definition of this type of logic is fairly broad, so I was wondering if you could let me know of an article that explains which of the differing definitions Open Theism appeals to, and exactly how it is supposed to work from within this system.



thanks again for the respectful conversation..... even though we are obviously worlds apart on this issue, and neither of us is likely to change much in our views....

blessings

 

[Lighthouse]

open theism fails to take into account exactly how the universe was created and how it operates. God himself not only created space but also time. Therefore, He would be beyond both the confines of space and time. Now, even though it is rather hard to explain (though einstein's theory of reletivity would help), when he made the universe he gave everyone the right to chose, but being that He exists outside time, he has the knowledge of that choice even before you made it. Now this does not mean that he made you chose what you chose (free will) but that He made the universe complete, all at once, from beginning to end. The real problem with open theism is that one trys to take someone like God and place him into thier way of thinking. But again, just because he is aware of the choice you will make does not mean he made it for you.

What's up C-Man?!

Before I go on, I must tell you one thing, you are wrong. Now, if you are wondering what you are wrong about, it is this: The open view knows exactly how the universe was created, and how it operates. We know how God operates. And those who are Settled View do not.:nono: Also, God existis within a space. To deny that is to deny logic altogether. And time is not a created thing. Time is not a tangible thing. It is merely duration. God experiences duration the same way we do, and therefore He experiences time the same way we do. And can you show me anything in the Bible to support your view? Anything? Is there a verse that states exactly that what you believe is how it works?

 

[epistemaniac]

to whom it may concern...

given all my negative rep points, I must be doing something right!!

Joh 17:14 esv I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.

Luk 6:22-23 esv Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!
(23) Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.

Joh 15:18-19 esv If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.
(19) If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

2Th 3:3-5 esv But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one.
(4) And we have confidence in the Lord about you, that you are doing and will do the things that we command.
(5) May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the steadfastness of Christ.



blessings

 

[epistemaniac]

lighthouse, you said

We know how God operates.

wow... you must be really really smart, or perhaps God is not altogether very sharp?

the only problem is, the Bible says differently, of course we can understand many things about God, but there are many things we do not....

Deu 29:29 esv The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Job 9:10-12 esv who does great things beyond searching out, and marvelous things beyond number.
(11) Behold, he passes by me, and I see him not; he moves on, but I do not perceive him.
(12) Behold, he snatches away; who can turn him back? Who will say to him, What are you doing?

Rom 11:33-36 esv Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
(34) For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?
(35) Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?
(36) For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Also, God exists within a space. To deny that is to deny logic altogether.

so how does God not existing in space violate "logic altogether"?For instance, I do not see how this statement "God exists outside of space and time" violates the law of non contradiction, or the law od the excluded middle.... I mean, you may disagree with the statement "God exists outside of time and space", but that proposition does not itself seem to violate all or even any of the rules of logic.

blessings

 

[epistemaniac]

btw... godrulz... it is interesting that Mark Talbot uses the same terminology you do, albeit in his case it is in regard to humans as being proximate in discussing human responsibility eg in the case of Joseph being sold into slavery, he says;

"What Genesis 45:4-8 does is to assert God's activity of sending Joseph to Egypt in order to accomplish His own good purposes as often and as strongly --- indeed more often and more strongly --- as it asserts Joseph's brother's activity of selling Joseph into Egypt in order to harm him. Scripture place's Josephs' brother's agency ("you sold") and God's agency ("God sent") and Joseph's brothers' intention ("you meant") and God's intention ("God meant") in precise parallel when explaining how Joseph's being sold into Egypt came about. No doubt what God wills is the ultimate explanation for whatever happens Psa 115:3 esv Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases." ---but this does not mean that human choice cannot be the appropriate proximate--- that is, "close" or "near" --- explanation for whatever happens is never taken in Scripture as a reason to deny that human beings are responsible for their choices and what those choices bring about." ( emphasis in the original; "True Freedom: The Liberty That Scripture Portrays as Worth Having", p 93-94 in "Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity edited by John Piper, Justin Taylor and Paul Kjoss Helseth)

it is interesting to me that what you think of God's knowledge as it pertains (or rather, can't pertain) to the future, Talbot uses as a means of locating human responsibility in the larger picture of God's eternal decree....

oh well, perhaps this mifght be interesting to the non-OT folks... anyways... back to your regularly scheduled programming.... and I will go back to my studying...

blessings

 

[B1sh0p]

..................Trustees of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, passed a resolution saying, "Open theism's denial of God's exhaustive definitive foreknowledge constitutes an egregious biblical and theological departure from orthodoxy and poses a serious threat to evangelical integrity.".........The Evangelical Theological Society approved a resolution rejecting open theism and supporting the position that "God has complete, accurate and infallible knowledge of all events past, present and future, including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents."I agree with Ron Nash, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Evangelical Theological Society. What do you think?

A good book to consider also........"No Other God- A response To Open Theism" by John M. Frame

Open Theism is like many winds of doctrine that come and go.

 

[godrulz]

A good book to consider also........"No Other God- A response To Open Theism" by John M. Frame

Open Theism is like many winds of doctrine that come and go.

An anti-Open Theism book I have read misrepresents or misunderstands the view. They often confuse it with the heresy of Process Thought or wrongly assume that Calvinism is true and any free will theism (Open, Wesleyan, Arminian, etc.) must be false. I am not familiar with Frame's work, but have not been impressed with more prominent author's attempts to refute OT.


http://www.monergismbooks.com/noothergod1851.html

Frame is from a Reformed perspective. He would also have to write against Arminianism. The issues will come back to the nature of God's sovereignty, the nature of free will, predestination, etc. He will likely beg the question and assume Calvinism is true while any alternate understanding of Scripture is false.

 

[B1sh0p]

An anti-Open Theism book I have read misrepresents or misunderstands the view. They often confuse it with the heresy of Process Thought or wrongly assume that Calvinism is true and any free will theism (Open, Wesleyan, Arminian, etc.) must be false. I am not familiar with Frame's work, but have not been impressed with more prominent author's attempts to refute OT.
http://www.monergismbooks.com/noothergod1851.html
Frame is from a Reformed perspective. He would also have to write against Arminianism. The issues will come back to the nature of God's sovereignty, the nature of free will, predestination, etc. He will likely beg the question and assume Calvinism is true while any alternate understanding of Scripture is false.

I don't think Frame comes out specifically in the book as anti-Weslyan but I don't know anything about Weslyianism modern theology or past other than he(they) wrote some very very good hymns. I think he only mentions Wesley once

True, Frame is reformed but that doesn't automatically mean he's not objective or out to get non-calvinists. Although I have never met him I assume he approached this topic with a desire to read the scriptures faithfully and engage in the debate fairly namely addressing the issue of Socinianism(An older view that has similarities to present views). I think it could be agreed that the book is at least very thorough and covers the main points well..

 

[godrulz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frame

Interesting background...