ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[spaz]

I'm not sure what is the point of bringing up Plato etc. We are all dealing with philosophy here. predestination is from the Greek word prooridtz which mean God delcalres through foreknowledge. It is not causal.

 

[godrulz]

I'm not sure what is the point of bringing up Plato etc. We are all dealing with philosophy here. predestination is from the Greek word prooridtz which mean God delcalres through foreknowledge. It is not causal.

Differing views understand predestination differently (simple foreknowledge, determinism, intention, etc.).

 

[RobE]

Consider the conversation of the two thieves on the crosses adjacent to the cross of Jesus. Their brief exchange determined where they spent the rest of the day and all eternity. “Today, you will be with me in paradise” was addressed to only one. No mention is made as to the color of their clothing. It just didn’t matter in the divine scheme of things. Yet, the clothing of Jesus is mentioned and it is a reminder that God is meticulous in orchestrating and bringing His plans to actuality. But, to make the leap that every detail of our lives is meticulously determined by persnickety divine intervention or ‘interference’ (meticulous control and exhaustive foreknowledge) is not Biblical.

Great post overall, but declaring that exhaustive foreknowledge is not Biblical without any proofs is contradictory to your cause. I would say that meticulous control is not Biblical and shouldn't be confused with knowledge and is a distinction that is universally rejected by those of the O.V.

The Two theives are of great pertinence to this discussion since they parallel the two disciples Peter and Judas when considering how Grace interacts with mankind. How is it that Judas and the 'bad' thief did not seem to have sufficient Grace to overcome their own natures and aquire salvation when Peter and the Good 'thief' had exactly the same environments as their counterparts had and came to salvation?

The answer lies within different modes of Grace, specifically sufficient and effecacious. We've discussed this before when speaking of what part does free will play in the salvation of man. Principally its effect is to change sufficient into effecacious. Cooperation is what it requires.

In response to your overall point. God may very well not want to know the mundane choices that we make everyday including sock color, etc. It however does not preclude Him from knowing it if that is His wish. He does however wish to know the outcomes of His overall plan for creation and salvation is not a mundane choice. So why wouldn't He want to know the outcomes of those choices?

Rob

 

[ApologeticJedi]

My use is correct. If someone puts a gun to your head they are attempting to coerce you through threat of violence. If you capitulate then you were coerced. If you don't capitulate you remain uncoerced.

Rather than quibble, let's use your definition for coerced, because your argument breaks down quickly with that definition.

So you believe that free will depends on the outcome? If you give in to threats, then you didn't have free will because you were coerced. However, if you didn't give in, then you have free will. Clearly you can do better. That's a very shaky definition for free will.

Foreknowledge is always a probability until the knowledge is proven to be accurate by the outcome.

So you don’t believe that God knows exactly which outcome will come about, but only knows probabilities? … thus the future is not "settled" in how it will play out, but is open? … If so, let me say “Awesome”!! I’d like to be the first to welcome you to the Open View. Perhaps you’ve had this belief for sometime and did not realize what it was called.

To believe that the true outcome of the future is undecided is the root behind a group of various views that are grouped together under the label of Open View (as opposed to the Settled View which believes that the exact course of the future is already determined).

Rob: The challenge for the O.V. is to prove that God is willing to change the future in such a way that it will impact all of eternity and must also be a change that wasn't planned from the beginning(such a the Christ).

AJ: Please explain why either of these must be true for the open position to be true. I am not saying I doubt you, but why must it be a change that wasn’t planned for, in order for Open Theism to be true?​

Your last question first. If it was a 'planned' change then it was considered and therefore known.

But in that case, the future wasn’t settled .. therefore it was open. You are affirming that God didn’t know which future would play out … that is an Open View – whether it was planned or unplanned it was open.

I'm glad I asked these questions as it uncovered your confusion as to what we Open Viewers believe. Now some in the Open camp will say that God planned for every contingency in the past, however, some like me will maintain that such was unnecessary, and that God only planned for major shifts and knew He could work ou the minor details as He went ... but both views hold that the future is open and not settled.

I think you have built a strawman argument for the Open view because you are unfamiliar with what is being discussed. We do not deny, for instance, that God had a plan to have Jesus save mankind should Adam sin … the disagreement is not that God had a plan for every contingency, but that God did not know which contingency He would need to use.

Your first question last. If the change which God makes doesn't have eternal ramifications then it doesn't change the future at all.

If God changed the winds so that there would be more rain in Oklahoma tomorrow , then He changed the future. ("Tomorrow" is still in the future, right?) It doesn’t matter that the ramifications were not eternal.

Or it proves the sovereignty of God. It depends on which pair of goggles you wear.

I’ve never disagreed with the Sovereignty of God, I just don’t view it as meaning that every detail of the universe happens as God worked it out. It is the difference in General and Specific Sovereignty.

Rob: The challenge for the O.V. is to prove that God never intended to interfere with man.

AJ: Most OVers believe that God always planned to “interfere with man”, so it is pointless for us to need to prove something we don’t hold to. God always planned to interfere with man by communication, fellowship, love, and interaction. God always planned that if man broke fellowship He would send his son as a means to reconnect that fellowship. However, that God knew exactly which course would come about is where our burden of proof lies … and I think that the OV position does a good job with that burden of proof.​

No. Adam's actions HAD to surprise God in the O.V. If God always 'planned' to interfere with man then His plans were foreknown because they became the outcome.

"Openness" does not require that God didn’t have a backup plan.

Where we differ from the Settled view is that the Settled View believes that God knew that Adam would sin and that He would need to use his backup plan. The Open view says that God was prepared with his backup plan but didn’t absolutely know that he would need to use itbut knew it only as one possibility. That's the difference between the two camps.

If you believe as I understand you to mean, then you’re beliefs are closer to the open view, you just didn’t know what the open view was so you thought you were against it.

Your assertion, "However, that God knew exactly which course would come about is where our burden of proof lies...." is foreknowledge proven.

Yet that raises the question "Who would God have gotten to accomplish the task of Judas which was foretold and how would God have manipulated the man into doing it?"

The Old Testament prophecies attributed to Judas are usually speaking about something very different. If Judas had not betrayed Christ, no one would have looked to any ancient prophecy and said “This failed to be fulfilled!”. It is like the prophecy that Matthew quotes when Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt. The prophecy that he quotes had nothing to do with Jesus’ parents. Its primary meaning was to an Israel under bondage … Matthew points out a second meaning that had Joseph and Mary not escaped to Egypt would not have been considered “unfulfilled” if they had chosen not to go.

 

[Philetus]

Great post overall, but declaring that exhaustive foreknowledge is not Biblical without any proofs is contradictory to your cause. I would say that meticulous control is not Biblical and shouldn't be confused with knowledge and is a distinction that is universally rejected by those of the O.V.

The Two theives are of great pertinence to this discussion since they parallel the two disciples Peter and Judas when considering how Grace interacts with mankind. How is it that Judas and the 'bad' thief did not seem to have sufficient Grace to overcome their own natures and aquire salvation when Peter and the Good 'thief' had exactly the same environments as their counterparts had and came to salvation?

The answer lies within different modes of Grace, specifically sufficient and effecacious. We've discussed this before when speaking of what part does free will play in the salvation of man. Principally its effect is to change sufficient into effecacious. Cooperation is what it requires.

In response to your overall point. God may very well not want to know the mundane choices that we make everyday including sock color, etc. It however does not preclude Him from knowing it if that is His wish. He does however wish to know the outcomes of His overall plan for creation and salvation is not a mundane choice. So why wouldn't He want to know the outcomes of those choices?

Rob

Thanks Rob,

Would you be so kind as to prove that “meticulous control is not Biblical.” Otherwise it is contrary to your cause.

It is God who interacts with mankind, not grace. By appropriately responding to God’s grace one begins and maintains a relationship with God on God’s terms.

I’m with others in that I see exhaustive foreknowledge as meticulous control. (How can one know something that is subject to change?) I’m not sure what you mean when you say: “I would say that meticulous control is not Biblical and shouldn't be confused with knowledge and is a distinction that is universally rejected by those of the O.V.”

Knowledge of a pre-conceived future event is control if that event is not subject to change. If God has perfect knowledge of ALL future events then the future is closed and that is meticulous control regardless how one might redefine ‘freedom to choose’.

Four individuals, two thieves and Judas and Peter. And God interacts on a personal level with each of them as individuals. Their reaction or response does not define God’s grace. It only determines how they relate or fail to relate to God’s grace.

Judas is a unique case. Peter’s story has much to teach us. The case of the two thieves are the broadest examples of opposite responses to Christ juxtaposed in scripture. But to begin universalizing and making detailed arguments based on each case is just not right.

God’s grace is always sufficient. What is needed is response. If as you say, cooperation changes the grace of God from “sufficient to effecacious” who makes the choice to cooperate? Who is changing the future?


God will know the OVERALL OUTCOME of his eternal plan IN DETAIL when it happens.

Until then, I’ll add my welcome to the OV position.

Philetus​

 

[godrulz]

In response to your overall point. God may very well not want to know the mundane choices that we make everyday including sock color, etc. It however does not preclude Him from knowing it if that is His wish. He does however wish to know the outcomes of His overall plan for creation and salvation is not a mundane choice. So why wouldn't He want to know the outcomes of those choices?

Rob

There is no strategic advantage to know the outcome of mundane choices from eternity past. Since they are not possible objects of knowledge, God correctly knows them when they are made (actual vs possible/potential). God knows reality as it is. Simple foreknowledge is an assumption, but not a self-evident one. God either knows possible objects of knowledge or not. He cannot not want to know something knowable. His knowledge of the ultimate consummation of human history is based on His ability to intervene as much as necessary. It also does not necessitate that every molecule do exactly what He wants it to. Likewise, He is not set back by not knowing who will win lotteries, sports events, what we all will eat at any given moment, etc. These things have no effect on His plan/project (Second Coming issues are not enhanced or thwarted by my choice of chocolate vs vanilla....if my parents did not come together I would not exist....it was not foreseeable before I was born whether my parents would mate or with someone else...I would then not exist and someone else would have existed...if we are free to marry one of thousands, the procreation outcomes are not certain...predestination or coercion might account for certain knowledge, but at the expense of self-evident freedom).

 

[spaz]

It doesn't say in scripture that God has exhaustive forekonwledge just knowledge pertaining to our moral choices.

 

[godrulz]

It doesn't say in scripture that God has exhaustive forekonwledge just knowledge pertaining to our moral choices.

Really? Chapter/verse?

Are you saying God knew every sinful choice of every individual from eternity past?

He has perfect past and present knowledge. He knows our moral choices as certain when they are made, not centuries before.

God knows all that is knowable and correctly differentiates possible from actual.

 

[spaz]

God is eternity the simultaneous possesion of limitless life. As such he is outside time.

 

[godrulz]

God is eternity the simultaneous possesion of limitless life. As such he is outside time.

Simultaneity would negate personality (will, intellect, emotions require sequence, duration, succession= time). Timelessness is incoherent. The simple reading of Scripture shows God experiencing endless time (eternity). Time is not a thing or place that one can be 'outside' of (spatial words do not apply). Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:4, 8= tensed (time) expressions in relationship to eternity (+ several other verses about time in heaven/eternity).

 

[Clete]

God is eternity the simultaneous possesion of limitless life. As such he is outside time.

As Godrulz has pointed out this is irrational but since that's never stopped any Catholic I've ever known from believing anything I would like for you to try to prove that God is outside of time with Scripture. Not that an inability to do so will be any more convincing than a rational argument but just for the sake of keeping people at least a little bit interested in what you have to say and to show that you are presenting something other than your mere opinion.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

There is no strategic advantage to know the outcome of mundane choices from eternity past. Since they are not possible objects of knowledge, God correctly knows them when they are made (actual vs possible/potential). God knows reality as it is. Simple foreknowledge is an assumption, but not a self-evident one. God either knows possible objects of knowledge or not. He cannot not want to know something knowable. His knowledge of the ultimate consummation of human history is based on His ability to intervene as much as necessary. It also does not necessitate that every molecule do exactly what He wants it to. Likewise, He is not set back by not knowing who will win lotteries, sports events, what we all will eat at any given moment, etc. These things have no effect on His plan/project (Second Coming issues are not enhanced or thwarted by my choice of chocolate vs vanilla....if my parents did not come together I would not exist....it was not foreseeable before I was born whether my parents would mate or with someone else...I would then not exist and someone else would have existed...if we are free to marry one of thousands, the procreation outcomes are not certain...predestination or coercion might account for certain knowledge, but at the expense of self-evident freedom).

Your position is that God didn't plan you or help bring you into existence then?

Rob

 

[RobE]

Rather than quibble, let's use your definition for coerced, because your argument breaks down quickly with that definition.

So you believe that free will depends on the outcome? If you give in to threats, then you didn't have free will because you were coerced. However, if you didn't give in, then you have free will. Clearly you can do better. That's a very shaky definition for free will.

In what way? Will isn't the word being debated it is the word 'free' in front of it. On the other hand people arguing for the O.V. position often define 'free' as having choices available. My definition defines it as making the one choice that you want. This choice would be the outcome I keep speaking of and no O.V.er seems to be able to differentiate outcome from ability. Hence the never ending argument "If God knows the outcome then I had no choices!". And my response "Knowledge doesn't take your abilities away!".

So you don’t believe that God knows exactly which outcome will come about, but only knows probabilities? … thus the future is not "settled" in how it will play out, but is open? … If so, let me say “Awesome”!! I’d like to be the first to welcome you to the Open View. Perhaps you’ve had this belief for sometime and did not realize what it was called.

As I have said, according to the argument on causality from a linear perspective, foreknowledge must be a probability. If I think something will happen then the probability isn't as well defined as it is when God thinks something will happen. Maybe for me it is a probability of 90 to 1 for/against. In the same situation the same probability for God's knowledge is infinity to 1 or greater! Whatever number is closest to no chance that anything will happen except what God thinks will happen.

To believe that the true outcome of the future is undecided is the root behind a group of various views that are grouped together under the label of Open View (as opposed to the Settled View which believes that the exact course of the future is already determined.

But in that case, the future wasn’t settled .. therefore it was open. You are affirming that God didn’t know which future would play out … that is an Open View – whether it was planned or unplanned it was open.

That 'root' which has been argued for centuries has caused many heresies including Pelagianism, Calvinism, Semi-Pelagianism, etc... It seems to be rearing its ugly head once more. The Thomists, Augustinians, and Molinists have debated the point without surrendering free will or diminishing God's abilities. The others have accused them of being illogical and unreasonable and by their own admission they simply can't rationalize how it's done. Thomas Aquinas submitted that God exists in all times at once which would solve the problem. It doesn't however disprove the Molinist's position that God foreknows because of cause and effect which is what we are discussing here. A probability of infinity to infinitesmal is in reality zero.

I'm glad I asked these questions as it uncovered your confusion as to what we Open Viewers believe. Now some in the Open camp will say that God planned for every contingency in the past, however, some like me will maintain that such was unnecessary, and that God only planned for major shifts and knew He could work ou the minor details as He went ... but both views hold that the future is open and not settled.

Both would be plausible if God foreknew/foreplanned involvement within creation. Exaustive foreknowledge wouldn't be neccesary for the operation within creation, but would be neccessary for the development and implimentation of a plan to produce a desired outcome(s).

I think you have built a strawman argument for the Open view because you are unfamiliar with what is being discussed. We do not deny, for instance, that God had a plan to have Jesus save mankind should Adam sin … the disagreement is not that God had a plan for every contingency, but that God did not know which contingency He would need to use.

This I vehemently disagree with. I believe Jesus was the Plan for creation, not a fail-safe if man couldn't pull it off himself. This is more like Pelagianism where man is able to save himself. Because after all, if man can fall he can get back up without a saviour.

If God changed the winds so that there would be more rain in Oklahoma tomorrow , then He changed the future. ("Tomorrow" is still in the future, right?) It doesn’t matter that the ramifications were not eternal.

Then it doesn't matter at all.

Where we differ from the Settled view is that the Settled View believes that God knew that Adam would sin and that He would need to use his backup plan. The Open view says that God was prepared with his backup plan but didn’t absolutely know that he would need to use itbut knew it only as one possibility. That's the difference between the two camps.

A chasm from my perspective. In one view 'Jesus is the Plan' and in the other 'Man is the Plan'.

If you believe as I understand you to mean, then you’re beliefs are closer to the open view, you just didn’t know what the open view was so you thought you were against it.

Maybe it is helping to find out why I'm against it. My arguments on this thread have been from the position of Molina.

The Old Testament prophecies attributed to Judas are usually speaking about something very different. If Judas had not betrayed Christ, no one would have looked to any ancient prophecy and said “This failed to be fulfilled!”. It is like the prophecy that Matthew quotes when Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt. The prophecy that he quotes had nothing to do with Jesus’ parents. Its primary meaning was to an Israel under bondage … Matthew points out a second meaning that had Joseph and Mary not escaped to Egypt would not have been considered “unfulfilled” if they had chosen not to go.

I was speaking to Jesus' own words....

John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

Thanks for the reply,
Rob

 

[spaz]

All these arguments for open theism are from uninformed reason or warped interpretation of Scripture.

 

[spaz]

You can find may verses that speak of an all knowing, all powerfull, limitless God. nowhere does it mentioned "corporate elect" which was some idea cooked up to try to get around serious problems with open theism.

 

[godrulz]

Your position is that God didn't plan you or help bring you into existence then?

Rob

I reject a blueprint model that says every molecule and day was ordained without possibility of deviation. God planned for man to be fruitful and multiply. He did not cause my parents to come together nor the exact sperm and egg to meet to produce me. Just as man gave names to all the animals (God did not give him a list, but he did give us a mind and creative ability), so man can procreate or not (birth control). God macro vs micromanages. I could have been aborted by my parent's choice and God might not have intervened. My parents could have not come together, but could come together with someone else. If so, I would not have existed (same could be said of Einstein, etc.). Meticulous control is not defensible, but providential control is. God has had his hand on my life and has intervened at times, but that does not mean He is the cause of every detail or choice. Self-determination, self-reproduction, the body healing, self-locomotion, etc. are under our control. They may ultimately be a gift of God (as is our existence), but that does not mean God controls everything.

God has intentions for us, but we can reject His will (Lk. 7:30). He also gives us significant freedom within His moral will, rather than a bulls-eye model of God's will (not every detail is in or out of his will...e.g. if you marry a believer, you could marry person A or B and be equally in His will).

 

[godrulz]

All these arguments for open theism are from uninformed reason or warped interpretation of Scripture.

Simplistic. You show your ignorance of the depth of debate and academic articles relating to the subject. OT takes Scripture at face value. It does not have to make it figurative to support tradition.

 

[godrulz]

You can find may verses that speak of an all knowing, all powerfull, limitless God. nowhere does it mentioned "corporate elect" which was some idea cooked up to try to get around serious problems with open theism.

The Church and Israel are corporate by nature. They are made up of individuals, but Scripture primarily talks about God's intentions for these groups, not for millions of individuals by name (the few in Scripture like Jeremiah or Paul were for specific purposes and the individuals could have dropped the ball like Judas did).

OT believes that God is all-knowing, all-powerful (but this does not mean He does illogical things or always does all He could do), and infinite/limitless. You are rejecting a straw man caricature of OT.

 

[spaz]

I told you that you cannot separate the group from the individuals who compose it and Paul mentions that an elect few will reach destination and be saved and the means specific individuals.

If OT says God id all knowing, all powerful and limitless, then he cannot be limited by foreknowledge.

Your corporate elect is not mentioned in Scripture and is similar to the Arian mistake of saying Christ was more than man but less than God because it didn't fit Arian reasoning.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

In what way? Will isn't the word being debated it is the word 'free' in front of it.

Wrong. It was the whole thing "free will" that we were debating. You defined free will as doing anything you desired so long as you weren't coerced. I then posed the example of someone having a gun held to their head and you said that would be coercion only if the victim was persauded by the threat, but if they were not persuaded then it was free will.

Now how silly is that. The same situation, according to you, is "free will" if you choose one way, but is not free will if you choose another. My point was that free will can exist even when coercion is present.

This choice would be the outcome I keep speaking of and no O.V.er seems to be able to differentiate outcome from ability. Hence the never ending argument "If God knows the outcome then I had no choices!". And my response "Knowledge doesn't take your abilities away!".

Thats another strawman. The open view doesn't insist that the knowledge itself takes it away, but only if the choice is an ultimately illusion. Then it becomes the pagan Fatalism (Manichaeism) that Augustine brought into Christianity and was a disciple in prior to becoming a Christian.

BTW - now you are shifting the debate back to man ... but you haven't figured out how God can even make free choices in your system.

I

As I have said, according to the argument on causality from a linear perspective, foreknowledge must be a probability. If I think something will happen then the probability isn't as well defined as it is when God thinks something will happen. Maybe for me it is a probability of 90 to 1 for/against. In the same situation the same probability for God's knowledge is infinity to 1 or greater! Whatever number is closest to no chance that anything will happen except what God thinks will happen.

Ah .. so whatever probability allows you to have your cake and eat it too?

There is no such thing as a probability of infinity-to-one, and since the Bible records such times that God does not know the outcome, I would say that the odds are no so unlikely as that they never occur. Even you had previously admitted that Hezekiah having 15 years added was an example that it happens.

That 'root' which has been argued for centuries has caused many heresies including Pelagianism, Calvinism, Semi-Pelagianism, etc...

The “root” of the future not being open has not been argued for centuries, Pelagius knew nothing of it, and Calvin absolutely would have denied it. It is a relatively new concept. (That you would confuse Calvinism with the Open View shows some desperation in your position.)

Of course every group in history has claimed that the group they disagree with is following Pelagian teachings. The Roman Catholics accused the Protestants of it, and the Protestants accused the Roman Catholics. Historically, if your debated opponent is failing to make his case, then likely you will shortly be accused of following Pelagius in some way.

Both would be plausible if God foreknew/foreplanned involvement within creation. Exaustive foreknowledge wouldn't be neccesary for the operation within creation, but would be neccessary for the development and implimentation of a plan to produce a desired outcome(s).

If the plan itself is considered “foreknowledge”, then that alone would be what is needed. There is no requirement that the foreknowledge be exhaustive. You’ve failed to prove that. It’s a circular argument when you assume the conclusion you are trying to prove.

I said: “I think you have built a strawman argument for the Open view because you are unfamiliar with what is being discussed. We do not deny, for instance, that God had a plan to have Jesus save mankind should Adam sin … the disagreement is not that God had a plan for every contingency, but that God did not know which contingency He would need to use.”

RobE responded: “This I vehemently disagree with. I believe Jesus was the Plan for creation, not a fail-safe if man couldn't pull it off himself. This is more like Pelagianism where man is able to save himself. Because after all, if man can fall he can get back up without a saviour.”

That’s just a wild accusation on your part. That God created a backup plan to have Christ dies on a cross in the case that salvation would be needed, does not suggest that man is able to do so without a savior.

Maybe it is helping to find out why I'm against it. My arguments on this thread have been from the position of Molina.

Not exactly. Molina did not believe that the known true result could change, but you confirmed that it could. Also, Molina believed that God knew all of the possibilities of a situation, which is critical to middle knowledge, yet you have not argued from that position.

I was speaking to Jesus' own words....

John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

That scripture would be fulfilled that the Messiah would be cut off. There is no scripture that said that one would be lost to destruction. And that Judas was doomed to destructions was a temporal state that he was in. If he repented that moment, he likely could have escaped that destruction.