ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[sentientsynth]

I don't see her missing the mark at all. She's already implemented a guard against eating by saying that she shouldn't even touch it. That's wise in any case.

Ahh...yes. Adding to God's law is A-OK. Not just OK. But "wise in ANY case." :thumb:

De 4:2 - You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Yes: the wrong direction. You're saying that Adam and Eve sinned because God commanded them not to eat of the tree, thus making God the cause of sin through the law.

Paul's point is building upon chapters 1-3, where Paul makes the case that we are all under the law. In this case, Paul is saying that if we don't have any law, then there cannot be sin, but because we act sinfully in the presence of the law, we are guilty as charged.

Wow. That was totally lost on you. Nevermind.

 

[Poly]

Let's say I have a rough day. My temper flares, I say things to my wife and kids I shouldn't say. I ask their forgiveness and say, with God's help, I'll do better. When I'm alone, I thank God that I experienced that, knowing that He decrees all things for the good of the Called Ones. I thank God that I belong to Him, and knowing that it's for that reason He has motivated me to pray, according to His decrees. I know my prayer to change is as much decreed as the circumstances that prompted my prayer.

So my prayer is: "Lord, please work in my life to make me a better father and husband. Please cause your Word to work in my heart and mind so that I can do better. Open my mind and heart, make me more receptive and aware. Change me so that I'm less selfish and put them and their needs ahead of my own." Etc. God's "reaction" (in my view, a condescension and figurative way of describing the infinite God's interaction with finite man) is according to His decrees, and He will answer my prayer "yes." He hears and and answers yes because He decreed the commands in His word (His prescriptive will), He decreed the circumstances that would drive me to pray (His decretive will), He decreed the content of my prayer and He decreed the outcome of it.

But I wonder why it is that if God can motivate you to a heart of repentance, why wouldn't He motivate you to a heart of patience and kindness toward your wife and kids? If for His glory, could He not recieve the same glory by giving you a soft heart towards them to begin with? I guess what I'm asking is, since the end result of your exampe is that you now have a tender heart towards God and your family, why was the circumstance that brought it about needed for God to change your heart? If God is sovereign as you view Him, He could have softened your heart to kindness toward your family with no negative circumstances and received the exact same glory but instead He decreed that it would involve having your temper flare and you speaking harsh words.

What God does in "response" (again, I view that as a linguistic accommodation) is work in my life, bringing about, according to His decrees, the circumstances that will bring that prayer to fruition. It might even involve yet another temper flare, but it will be different, because He is using it to change me.

Could He not change you without the temper flare? If not, why? And if so, why then would He choose to go about negatively?

I can ask Him to teach me so that I can learn.

How would He actually teach you? What would He do that you couldn't do yourself?

... And I can know that this is a real possibility because He says He desires to do so and He delights in us learning from Him.

I agree completely. On my view it makes sense. I'm interested to know how it make sense on your view. What would God actually do that would not be confused with mere human effort?

... And knowing that when I thank Him, it's real out of what I have learned of Him in His word concerning His righteousness and His goodness.

Why thank Him for what you've learned in His Word? Can't you do that without Him? What does He actually DO to help you learn His Word?

My biggest appreciation is that He's made it available to me to study, giving me a chance to understand who He is, what His desires are, what He expects from us and be encouraged while I'm in this world. And I'm thankful that He's given me the human effort and faculties I need to study and learn.

But there's no reason why He wouldn't also guide me, possibly bringing a passage to mind or a thought that might help in remembering certain passages either for myself or for somebody else who would profit from hearing it in a given circumstance.

A group might get together to have a bible study and pray that God would help them understand and know Him better and He might do the same for them, bringing passages or thoughts to mind and the Holy Spirit could bring about comfort to their hearts so that they could reason together and be more receptive to the word and each other.


There is no doubt that He is capable of doing whatever I ask if it's "doable" assuming I don't ask for the absurd like wanting 2+2 to equal 7. But just because He can doesn't mean that it's His will to do it. If I asked him to miraculously heal somebody who's dying of caner, I don't believe He would do it, not because He couldn't but because He has a better way for us today in this dispensation and His grace is sufficient. And we now have the Holy Spirit which plays a huge role in prayer when we ask for comfort or peace. And when we have those things we are more able to focus on Him, having clearer minds to learn and respond in the right manner to Him and others.

Btw, good post. Sorry for the delay in responding.

 

[godrulz]

God foreknows all possible courses of the future and each outcome. Nice to see that you've embraced OVT foreknowledge.

Muz

This sounds like Molinism.

Open Theism says that God foreknows some vs all things (that which He intends to unilaterally bring about by His ability...e.g. First and Second Coming of Christ).

 

[Clete]

God foreknows all possible courses of the future and each outcome. Nice to see that you've embraced OVT foreknowledge.

Muz

No open theist that I know of believes this.

 

[godrulz]

No open theist that I know of believes this.

Does he mean knows all possible courses AND all POSSIBLE outcomes, or is he saying that the outcome is known as certain? If the latter, then it is Molinistic, not Open Theistic.

(I think Boyd is neo-Molinism/Open Theism by his own self-label).

 

[Clete]

The following quote is from "Summary of Christian Doctrine" by Louis Berkhof and I think portrays the typical Calvinist understanding of the doctrine of immutability.

"God and His perfections are one. Simplicity is one of the fundamental characteristics of God. This means that He is not composed of different parts, and also that His being and attributes are one. It may be said that God's perfections are God Himself as He has revealed Himself to man. They are simply so many manifestations of the divine Being. Hence the Bible says that God is truth, life, light, love, righteousness, and so on."​

Later in the same work Berkhof writes...

"The immutability of God. Scripture teaches that God is unchangeable. He is forever the same in His divine Being and perfections, and also in His purposes and promises, Num. 23:19; Pa 33:11; 102:27; Mal. 3:6; Heb. 6:17; Jas. 1:17. This does not mean, however, that there is no movement in God. The Bible speaks of Him as coming and going, hiding and revealing Himself. He is also said to repent, but this is evidently only a human way of speaking of God, Ex. 32:14; Jonah 3:10, and really indicates a change in man's relation to God."​

Now it is clear that the two are contradictory. If the statement concerning God's simplicity is correct then there is no need for the caveat the statement concerning His immutability. This is what the Reformed theologian would call an antinomy since he cannot bring himself to acknowledge that there is an error in the theology.

Further the caveat given in Berkhof's statement concerning God's immutability says "This does not mean, however, that there is no movement in God. The Bible speaks of Him as coming and going, hiding and revealing Himself.", which is in direct contradiction to his stated beliefs concerning God's immensity...

The infinity of God. This means that God is not subject. to limitations. We can speak of His infinity in more than one sense. Viewed in relation to His being, it may be called His absolute perfection. He is unlimited in His knowledge and wisdom, in His goodness and love, in His righteousness and holiness, Job 11:7-10; Psa. 145:3. Seen in relation to time, it is called His eternity. While this is usually represented in Scripture as endless duration, Ps. 90:2; 102:12, it really means that He is above time and therefore not subject to its limitations. For Him there is only an eternal present, and no past or future. Viewed with reference to space, it is called His immensity. He is everywhere present, dwells in all His creatures, filling every point of space, but is in no way bounded by space, I Kings 8:27; Ps. 139:7-10; Isa. 66;1; Jer. 23:23, 24; Acts 17:27, 28.​

Simply put, in what sense can God "come and go" if He is everywhere at once?

The doctrine of immutability is derived from Plato's teachings which is clearly seen in the following quotation from A.W. Pink, another very well known Calvinist...

"First, God is immutable in His essence. His nature and being are infinite, and so, subject to no mutations. There never was a time when He was not; there never will come a time when He shall cease to be. God has neither evolved, grown, nor improved. All that He is today, He has ever been, and ever will be. "I am the Lord, I change not" (Mal. 3:6) is His own unqualified affirmation. He cannot change for the better, for He is already perfect; and being perfect, He cannot change for the worse. Altogether unaffected by anything outside Himself, improvement or deterioration is impossible. He is perpetually the same. He only can say, "I am that I am" (Ex. 3:14). He is altogether uninfluenced by the flight of time. There is no wrinkle upon the brow of eternity. Therefore His power can never diminish nor His glory ever fade."​

The same logic is presented in the Westminster Confession and many other Calvinist writings which I will hapily quote if the need arrises.



Jim, if God is simple, as you affirm, and He changes in some manner, as you have also affirmed, then which part of Him changes? Which part of Him is imperfect and thus subject to change?


And yes, you are free to both read and respond to this post. It is offered as an honest question and challenge to your stated beliefs as well as an opportunity to "bury the hatchet", if you will. The length of our discourse will depend entirely upon the honesty and respectfulness of your response, assuming of course that you offer one.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[patman]

The Day I repented of the Settled View

The Day I repented of the Settled View

Before I found TOL, I posted on biblicalanswers.com and learned so much from those there.

While I was well on my way to being an Open Theist, I still had some bad ideas left over from Settled Theism. After a study in the Book of Daniel with Bob Hill, I began to see that the S.V. was still in me. And I repented of all S.V. then and there.

Here is my repentance:

http://bibleconcordances.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000175.html
After some careful consideration, and much soul searching, I believe I have found much rest on this issue.

In the Garden of Eden, the devil’s words sounded very wise to Eve. Eve liked what she was hearing, that she could be like God. It made since to her, surely if this snake can eat of the tree and not die, she can too. But the decision turned out to be a bad one. She allowed herself to be deceived.

I am guilty of being deceived, trying to hold on to an old view while looking on to the new. I was allowing myself to question the integrity of God. I believed that in some cases, God might cause a sin in order to fulfill his plans.

I asked, "Would God cause bad things to happen to the innocent?" as if there was any other answer. I did this by wondering if God would cause an evil king to reign over innocent people and make them follow false gods. What was wrong with me? God would never cause people to worship a man as if he were a god. Therefore, if any theology leads you to think that God will do such a thing, it is one full of lies. RUN from it. It might sound good, it might even promise good things for you... but in the end there is nothing.

Eve thought eating the tree would make her wise. Likewise, some think destiny will bring you good things because of "God's will”. They think all things happen for a reason and were planned by God for that reason. However, that puts God in the place of the devil, causing evil to happen in all sorts of places, making Him being the author of sin.

While I did not think God planned everything, I did ponder the thought, "What about causing a man to be evil to fulfill a prophecy?" No. A thousand times no. God will not do such a thing.

He is wise enough to know the direction of things. That is a good enough answer for me. It does not mean he knows the entire future. It simply means God can use his resources to predict an event. On occasion he can cause something to happen, but God does not cause evil. This does not go to say that God will not use an evil man for a righteous cause (as he did when evil men captured Israel and made them captive in Babylon as punishment for their sins).

Daniel 11 and the history of the world events of that day paint a very powerful picture of how God understands man. He can even intervene to put certain people in power, but he would not cause evil to happen.

Daniel's prediction that the world would end after the last king in his book didn't come to pass; therefore we can know that God's plan changed. I am glad for this reason: it allows people like me to see that our lives are not written in stone. We can truly be free to love God, each other, and have freedom to enjoy life. We can rejoice that God does not cause sin. Amen.

Thank you Bob, for your help then and now.

 

[patman]

Now that we're communicating, I would like to know HOW you think this presents a problem for those of us who believe God foreknows outcomes of His own acts.

It seems that God being remorseful of destroying all mankind except Noah, might be sorry He created man altogether. In the next few verses He continued with the foreknown plan of creation and destroyed them anyway letting Noah survive. Was He able to do otherwise. Of course. Yet His Logos is higher than His emotions and He kept His decree to Abraham.

Moses would be a another good example of this:

God in a moment of anger offered to make a people from Moses and destroy the Israelites. He then remembered His decree and kept His word. Impassible doesn't mean unemotional. It simply means that He is in control of His emotions and will keep His word despite them.

Hope this clears it up,
Rob

Rob, when you said "Yet His Logos is higher than His emotions and He kept His decree to Abraham," you did realize Abraham came after Noah, right? Well, to the Open View he did anyway.

Which brings up a really good point. If God is "outside of time" and "knows the future" is he bound by promises he "hasn't made yet?" So All those people who were told they were under the law before the law happened really weren't because in God's mind everything exists at once... So we are under the law because we exist with Moses in God's timeframe. Yikes. lain:

BUT ANYWAY

The problem presented by God's sorrow is that God is the one who made man.

Gen 6
5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

If God foresaw that he would be sorry he made man, would he really have made man? Or is it that he really wasn't sorry he made man.

You must take into consideration that being sorry is both wishing you didn't do something and not doing something.

So which is it for the S.V. in your case? God doesn't act on sorrow, or he isn't really sorry? The S.V. can't simply say "God was really sorry" as both the Bible says and the O.V. agrees to. You have to twist it somehow.

How do you do it? and how do you live with it.

 

[Hilston]

Hi Clete,

I've had a long day and my brain is quite sapped at this point, but I thought I'd offer a response to your post, especially in light of the excellent and revealing quotes you've offered herein.

The following quote is from "Summary of Christian Doctrine" by Louis Berkhof and I think portrays the typical Calvinist understanding of the doctrine of immutability.

"God and His perfections are one. Simplicity is one of the fundamental characteristics of God. This means that He is not composed of different parts, and also that His being and attributes are one. It may be said that God's perfections are God Himself as He has revealed Himself to man. They are simply so many manifestations of the divine Being. Hence the Bible says that God is truth, life, light, love, righteousness, and so on."​

For the record, I will say that, from what I can tell in my tired state of mind, if Berkhof is referring to God's essential being and perfections, i.e. His essence, and the language/context appear to indicate this, then I am in agreement with Berkof's paragraph that you've cited.

Later in the same work Berkhof writes...

"The immutability of God. Scripture teaches that God is unchangeable. He is forever the same in His divine Being and perfections, and also in His purposes and promises, Num. 23:19; Pa 33:11; 102:27; Mal. 3:6; Heb. 6:17; Jas. 1:17. This does not mean, however, that there is no movement in God. The Bible speaks of Him as coming and going, hiding and revealing Himself. He is also said to repent, but this is evidently only a human way of speaking of God, Ex. 32:14; Jonah 3:10, and really indicates a change in man's relation to God."​

I also agree with that paragraph, given the same specifications I indicated above. The phrase you've bolded and underlined is the qualifier that specifies God's essence as being immutable and simple. The phrase that follows, "purpose and promises," are also immutable by extension, because God has sworn by His own essence, i.e. He made an oath on the basis of the immutability of His being and perfections that His decrees and promises are immutable [Heb 6:13-18].

Now it is clear that the two are contradictory.

Not if Berkhof is referring to God's essence. Simplicity only regards God's essence in theological parlance, and not, for example, His actions, which change frequently, or His manifestations, which although infrequent, nonetheless constitute change ~ just not in His divine essence (substance).

If the statement concerning God's simplicity is correct then there is no need for the caveat the statement concerning His immutability.

The statement concerning God simplicity is understood as referring to His being and perfections (i.e., His essence/substance and nature; not His manifestations or actions). The caveat affirms the scope of God's simplicity. Unfortunately, as we've seen here on TOL, there has been a staunch refusal to read these writings and similar historical documents in context. I hope that will change. There has been a seemingly perpetual and aggressive determination to foist upon historic writings a weight of meaning they were never intended to bear. I hope the careful language of the Reformers will be recognized and that the distortions will cease, so that, if for no other reason, we can agree and critique these men for what they actually believe, rather than arguing about what they did not believe.

This is what the Reformed theologian would call an antinomy since he cannot bring himself to acknowledge that there is an error in the theology.

There is no error and no contradiction if one takes their words, in context, according to the normative understanding of language and vocabularly they employed. The qualifiers they provided bring clarity to their statements. Recognizing the specificity of their language avoids confusion and contradiction. Refusing to acknowledge the qualifiers and the specificity of their language not only ends in confusion, but it spawns a caricature of Reformed theology that no duly studied Reformed theologian would agree with.

Further the caveat given in Berkhof's statement concerning God's immutability says "This does not mean, however, that there is no movement in God. The Bible speaks of Him as coming and going, hiding and revealing Himself.", which is in direct contradiction to his stated beliefs concerning God's immensity ...

It only appears to be a contradiction if one fails or refuses to acknowledge what he means by "being and perfections". By acknowledging those qualifiers, the contradictions (and the misunderstandings of the Reformed doctrine of immutability) go away.

The infinity of God. This means that God is not subject to limitations. We can speak of His infinity in more than one sense. Viewed in relation to His being, it may be called His absolute perfection. He is unlimited in His knowledge and wisdom, in His goodness and love, in His righteousness and holiness, Job 11:7-10; Psa. 145:3. Seen in relation to time, it is called His eternity. While this is usually represented in Scripture as endless duration, Ps. 90:2; 102:12, it really means that He is above time and therefore not subject to its limitations. For Him there is only an eternal present, and no past or future. Viewed with reference to space, it is called His immensity. He is everywhere present, dwells in all His creatures, filling every point of space, but is in no way bounded by space, I Kings 8:27; Ps. 139:7-10; Isa. 66;1; Jer. 23:23, 24; Acts 17:27, 28.​

Simply put, in what sense can God "come and go" if He is everywhere at once?

In the above paragraph, Berkhof is discussing the infinitude of God. The infinitude of God pertains to His transcendent essence and existence (being everywhere at once), not His immanent manifestations and actions (coming and going). When one recognizes that God's "coming and going" do not refer to His transcendence, but to His immanence, it all makes sense and there is no contradiction.

The doctrine of immutability is derived from Plato's teachings which is clearly seen in the following quotation from A.W. Pink, another very well known Calvinist...

"First, God is immutable IN HIS ESSENCE. His NATURE and BEING are INFINITE [emphases added by Hilston]​

Note the consistency between Pink and Berkhof. Both men qualify their statements regarding immutability, simplicity and infinitude as pertaining to God's ESSENCE, NATURE and BEING.

and so, subject to no mutations.​

Again, no mutations (i.e. immutability) in His Nature, Being and Infinitude ~ in other words: His ESSENCE.

There never was a time when He was not; there never will come a time when He shall cease to be. God has neither evolved, grown, nor improved.​

Again, this pertains to His Nature, Being and Infinitude ~ in other words: His ESSENCE.

All that He is today, He has ever been, and ever will be. "I am the Lord, I change not" (Mal. 3:6) is His own unqualified affirmation. He cannot change for the better, for He is already perfect; and being perfect, He cannot change for the worse. Altogether unaffected by anything outside Himself, improvement or deterioration is impossible. He is perpetually the same. He only can say, "I am that I am" (Ex. 3:14). He is altogether uninfluenced by the flight of time. There is no wrinkle upon the brow of eternity. Therefore His power can never diminish nor His glory ever fade."​

Again, this unqualified affirmation pertains to His nature, being and infinitude, God's essence. He unchangeable, perfect, impassible, simple and perpetually the same in His nature, being and infinitude; His essence (which Augustine called His "substance").

The same logic is presented in the Westminster Confession and many other Calvinist writings which I will hapily quote if the need arrises.

From the WCF 2.1:

I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; [emphasis added]​

Note the remarkable similarity and consistency between Berkhof, Pink, and now the Westminster Confession of Faith. These attributes collectively describe His being and perfection, obviously not His actions or manifestations, for surely "without body" and "invisible" do not apply to God's manifestations.

Jim, if God is simple, as you affirm, and He changes in some manner, as you have also affirmed, then which part of Him changes?

God changes in His actions and manifestations. These are not "parts" of God's essence, but flow from it. God, in His being, perfection, nature, substance and essence is simple and unchanging.

Which part of Him is imperfect and thus subject to change?

He has no parts in His essence, so if the question is directed toward God's essence, it is non sequitur. Christ took on imperfect flesh and was subject to change, but Christ in His essence is and has ever been perfect and is not ever subject to change.

Thanks for sharing those quotes. I've never seen them before and I will add them to my collection of Calvinist quotes that explicitly define the scope of divine immutability. I hope everyone is starting to see how the qualifiers I've been talking about all along are in these men's writings, just as they are in Augustine's and Calvin's.

 

[RobE]

Rob, when you said "Yet His Logos is higher than His emotions and He kept His decree to Abraham," you did realize Abraham came after Noah, right? Well, to the Open View he did anyway.

His knowledge of Abraham came before Noah. However, I was already thinking about Moses when I wrote that sentence and it should have been combined with the following statement instead of this one.

It should have read:

Moses would be a another good example of this:

God in a moment of anger offered to make a people from Moses and destroy the Israelites. He then remembered His decree and kept His word. Impassible doesn't mean unemotional. It simply means that He is in control of His emotions and will keep His word despite them. Was He able to do otherwise. Of course. Yet His Logos is higher than His emotions and He kept His decree to Abraham.​

The problem presented by God's sorrow is that God is the one who made man.

Have you ever met a parent who's love of their own children made them repent of creation?

Gen 6
5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”​

If God foresaw that he would be sorry he made man, would he really have made man? Or is it that he really wasn't sorry he made man.​

Yes, to achieve a greater, glorious purpose.

You must take into consideration that being sorry is both wishing you didn't do something and not doing something.

I don't understand this definition. If you are stating that God's emotions overpower His reason as yours does, then you are mistaken.

So which is it for the S.V. in your case? God doesn't act on sorrow, or he isn't really sorry? The S.V. can't simply say "God was really sorry" as both the Bible says and the O.V. agrees to. You have to twist it somehow.

God was really sorry. What 'twist' are you speaking of?

How do you do it? and how do you live with it.

Maybe you are able to show me what I don't see as occuring.

Rob

 

[RobE]

This sounds like Molinism.

Open Theism says that God foreknows some vs all things (that which He intends to unilaterally bring about by His ability...e.g. First and Second Coming of Christ).

It sounds like Muz understands that God is more intelligent than open theism believes Him to be. :thumb:

Rob

 

[RobE]

God foreknows all possible courses of the future and each outcome. Nice to see that you've embraced OVT foreknowledge.

Muz

You should read Molina extensively and come to your own conclusions. Your post creates a couple of questions in me.

If God knows all possible outcomes then does God indeed know the future when it gets here?

How vast of an intelligence would it take to know ALL things simultaneously?

Would this mean that God is omniscient by Molina's, yours, and my standards?

Rob

 

[Clete]

Jim,

I have no time for a detailed response at this time but what you are suggesting is that Calvinists and Open Theists are in agreement in regards to God's immutability. It is the Open Theist that insists that it is God's righteous character and loving personality that are immutable and that God was not always flesh nor was He always a man, nor has He always been dead or resurrected. If what you are suggesting is the truth, why do Calvinist freak out when we say that the incarnation and the death and resurrection of God were real changes in God?

Also, I do not believe your post is responsive to the point I was trying to make. I'll explain as soon as time allows.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

It sounds like Muz understands that God is more intelligent than open theism believes Him to be. :thumb:

Rob

Open Theism affirms God's perfect wisdom, intelligence, and knowledge. The issue is the nature of the future and whether it is open or closed. If closed (determinism), then it is knowable as certain exhaustively. If partially open, then it is correctly known as possible/probable since this is the nature of the object of knowledge. To not know a nothing (the future does not exist in reality yet) is not a deficiency in omniscience (open theism affirms that God knows all that is knowable...some things are not logically knowable...likewise, it is not a deficiency in omnipotence to not be able to make a square circle...a logical absurdity, even for the rational God).

 

[godrulz]

You should read Molina extensively and come to your own conclusions. Your post creates a couple of questions in me.

If God knows all possible outcomes then does God indeed know the future when it gets here?

How vast of an intelligence would it take to know ALL things simultaneously?

Would this mean that God is omniscient by Molina's, yours, and my standards?

Rob

The issue is not God's intelligence. It is infinite and perfect. The issue is the nature of possible objects of knowledge (whether they exist as certain or possible...to not know where Batman is does not affect intelligence or omniscience...batman is not real so cannot be known as real).

In other words, you are attacking a straw man and display ignorance of the intricacies of this academic debate.

 

[Hilston]

Hi Clete,

Thanks for your message.

Jim,

I have no time for a detailed response at this time but what you are suggesting is that Calvinists and Open Theists are in agreement in regards to God's immutability.

There was a time that I might have thought, and I know I've made the argument, that there is agreement between Open Theists and Calvinists regarding qualified immutability. I am no longer of that opinion after talking to Bob Enyart on the air and re-evaluating Open Theist arguments. It seems to me that Open Theists do not actually acknowledge God's essence, so the biblical distinctions that the Reformers were careful to make appear to be lost on Open Theists. Open Theists use terms like "nature" and "character," but they do so inconsistently and with an apparent disregard for what these terms do NOT refer to (e.g. the incarnation and resurrection). This is probably the reason why you believe my post was unresponsive, when in fact I was careful to give a clear response to every line in your post. I was tired when I replied, so I might have failed in my effort, but reading it again this morning, I think my meaning is accessible, if inelegant.

It is the Open Theist that insists that it is God's righteous character and loving personality that are immutable and that God was not always flesh nor was He always a man, nor has He always been dead or resurrected.

This is what I'm talking about regarding the Open View's apparent rejection of the following distinction: God's nature and character (His essence) are immutable. Whereas His actions and manifestations (e.g. incarnation and resurrection) are mutable. This distinction is consistent with the excerpts you cited. I will make the effort to clarify this only if you express further interest and request further explanation.

If what you are suggesting is the truth, why do Calvinist freak out when we say that the incarnation and the death and resurrection of God were real changes in God?

Probably for one of two reasons, or both: (a) They're not careful students of their own belief system; which, if this really happens, is probably the most common reason (which is why I will make every effort to set them straight should I encounter such a person ~ I've never met one; not on TOL, not anywhere); and/or (b) They're zealous to defend God's essential attributes, which are immutable, and Open Theists confuse God essential attributes with His mutable actions and manifestations. Since Open Theists do not acknowledge the difference, Calvinists freak out.

The Calvinist comes away from the discussion shaking his his head and saying "Those Open Theists quote the Reformers out of context and completely miss the significance of 'substance', 'essence', 'perfections' and 'being.'"

The Open Theist comes away from the same discussion and shakes his head saying, "Those Calvinists don't believe the incarnation and resurrection were real changes in God."

Calvinists and Open Theists speak different languages, have different conceptions of reality and can't even see each other's position clearly. I, however, being neither a Calvinist nor an Open Theist, believe I have the advantage of seeing both positions and their errors more clearly than they themselves do.

Also, I do not believe your post is responsive to the point I was trying to make.

I think it's because of the very contrast I described immediately above. If we both recognized the distinction between God's essence and His manifestations, then we would also both recognize that what you're viewing as unresponsive is the result of non sequitur reasoning in the Open View camp, viz., the charge of contradiction, which is fully dissolved when God's immutable attributes are rightly distinguished from His mutable actions, and the notion of asking "which part of God" in the context of His simplicity. It is simply non sequitur. It's like asking for someone to cut out a 3-inch-square slice of oxygen at room temperature, and then when it is explained that gases are neither solid (can't be "cut") nor retain shape, it is characterized as "unresponsive." Once both parties understand the difference between vapor and solid, the confusion is resolved.

I hope that clarifies things further,
Jim

Shatter the prism of Calvinism
A bucket of poo on the Open View
Neither is logical;
Neither is biblical;
So don't be loath to flush them both.
©2006 James Hilston​

 

[themuzicman]

This sounds like Molinism.

Open Theism says that God foreknows some vs all things (that which He intends to unilaterally bring about by His ability...e.g. First and Second Coming of Christ).

Molinism says that God knows all the free will decisions that men would make in any possible world, and that God determines what 'free will' decisions He will actualize in selecting a possible world. This is AKA middle knowledge.

I think we can embrace Molinism's natural knowledge (that God knows all possible courses of the future) without embracing middle knowledge, and still be OVT. Thus, God foreknows what He will do in any possible situation.

Muz

 

[RobE]

Open Theism affirms God's perfect wisdom, intelligence, and knowledge. The issue is the nature of the future and whether it is open or closed. If closed (determinism), then it is knowable as certain exhaustively. If partially open, then it is correctly known as possible/probable since this is the nature of the object of knowledge. To not know a nothing (the future does not exist in reality yet) is not a deficiency in omniscience (open theism affirms that God knows all that is knowable...some things are not logically knowable...likewise, it is not a deficiency in omnipotence to not be able to make a square circle...a logical absurdity, even for the rational God).

It is a matter of fact that some things which do not exist are known of before or after their existence. You insisting that they don't does create a man of straw. Further your point....

The issue is not God's intelligence. It is infinite and perfect. The issue is the nature of possible objects of knowledge (whether they exist as certain or possible...to not know where Batman is does not affect intelligence or omniscience...batman is not real so cannot be known as real).

....does not refute the point that God might plan and know of a Batman which He then creates and places Him wherever He decrees. Knowledge and actuality are different things. The future might not be certain today, but the knowledge of a future might exist because knowledge does exist today. To say that knowledge doesn't exist because the thing does not exist is_____________.

In other words, you are attacking a straw man and display ignorance of the intricacies of this academic debate.

This elementary debate has been going on for several thousand years and there is more than enough positions to attack it from. However, I'm not attacking it at all, as it has already been destroyed by Christianity in the past. I'm simply trying to define what the o.v. means with its words so that I might understand how it differs from, or is indeed different from, what Augustine and the other great theologians in history have concluded. It seems to me that the more it tries to be different the more it stays the same. Understanding the teachings of the church's fathers seems to be the biggest problem the o.v. enthusiast's have.

Rob

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Jim, did you see my response to you? It's here .

I am curious... was I way off? Or am I close to getting at what you were looking for? Not that you agree or disagree or anything I just want to know if I am understanding what you are asking correctly. :up:

 

[godrulz]

Molinism says that God knows all the free will decisions that men would make in any possible world, and that God determines what 'free will' decisions He will actualize in selecting a possible world. This is AKA middle knowledge.

I think we can embrace Molinism's natural knowledge (that God knows all possible courses of the future) without embracing middle knowledge, and still be OVT. Thus, God foreknows what He will do in any possible situation.

Muz

An extreme Molinism is not Open Theism. Some open theists have a moderate molinism that would be more acceptable. 'Middle Knowledge' is still exhaustive definite foreknowledge, a logically problematic presupposition.