ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Lon]

Let's start here:

Genesis 6:5The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

No one can argue that God foreknew this would happen. We have nothing stated in scripture that this was going to happen. When God predicts that the world will be flooded it is because he will cause it to happen.

Is there any text in Genesis that someone would like to use to show that God has foreknowledge of future events that he, himself, simply did not cause?

You can't take an apple out and say 'this is not a pear.' I mean you can, but it doesn't prove that there are no pears. Here is a verse that you believe teaches limited foreknowledge, but it is suggestive, not theological. It is deductive, not inductive.

I know of no theological position that would suggest God isn't emotionally involved with His people, and grief is what we see here. In fact, even when we see repent, or relent, it is most often translated from this same word for grief. This doesn't deny exhaustive foreknowledge, nor simple foreknowledge. Have you ever watched a movie over again? I have, my wife has. She still cries at exactly the same spots. Interesting. The mere fact that we watch things over again after we've already seen them gives us a basal understanding of how God could be emotionally involved in our plight. So I'm seeing more of a discussion concerning God's relational ability in this text, which is indeed a point of discussion between us, but I'm not catching your drift concerning foreknowledge.
Going along the same train of thought:

Gen 8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle which were with him in the ark. And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided.

Did God literally remember here? If not what do we make of it? Do we understand this the same way God tells Abraham "Now I know your heart...?"

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.

This is a prophecy concerning Christ future, certainly He causes this, but your question is from an OV perspective. Does anything happen without His involvement? Some would say your question was too narrowly confining and that we'd not be able to find anything that "that He, Himself, simply did not cause."

Gen 11:6 And Jehovah said, Behold! The people is one and they all have one language. And this they begin to do. And now nothing which they have imagined to do will be restrained from them.

Is this a predictive contigency or a known contingency?

Gen 16:11 Then the LORD's angel said to her,
"You are now pregnant
and are about to give birth to a son.
You are to name him Ishmael,
for the LORD has heard your painful groans.
Gen 16:12 He will be a wild donkey of a man.
He will be hostile to everyone,
and everyone will be hostile to him.
He will live away from39 his brothers."

I think this will suffice for now. I don't want these to become too long so as to not lend to readability or time constraints.

In Him

Lon

 

[godrulz]

Eternal now simultaneity is incoherent. Using spatial analogies like God being above a timeline is not analagous. Time is not a line, thing, space, place. The future is not here yet. The past is memory. Only the present is real.

In technical terms, the A-theory (duration, sequence, succession) of time is logical, not the B-theory (simultaneity). Presentism, not eternalism, is true.

 

[Chileice]

Eternal now simultaneity is incoherent. Using spatial analogies like God being above a timeline is not analagous. Time is not a line, thing, space, place. The future is not here yet. The past is memory. Only the present is real.

In technical terms, the A-theory (duration, sequence, succession) of time is logical, not the B-theory (simultaneity). Presentism, not eternalism, is true.

I can't believe that after more than 6600 posts I finally couldn't resist wading into this pool, but I have to ask a question. Must God be coherent? I mean, you would think so, but why did he aske Hosea to marry Gomer? That would seem rather inconsistent. Do I, as a finite human being, have to understand God?

Another question: if, as you say, only now exists, are our relatives in heaven "missing us"? Or are we already there, "in Christ" (Col. 3.1-4)? And I know you have probably rehashed this one before, but just so I don't have to search through the 6600 posts, what about Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was, I AM. Doesn't that seem to present an eternal now concept of God?

 

[elected4ever]

Eternal now simultaneity is incoherent. Using spatial analogies like God being above a timeline is not analagous. Time is not a line, thing, space, place. The future is not here yet. The past is memory. Only the present is real.

In technical terms, the A-theory (duration, sequence, succession) of time is logical, not the B-theory (simultaneity). Presentism, not eternalism, is true.

This is true for us and I am willing to accept that for us. We have no way of telling that what we perceive to be true for us in our limited universe is also true for God. We can assume so but assumptions are notoriously wrong. What we are doing here is speculating on what time is to God. I think, and it is my opinion, we should not limit god to our perception of reality. Whether that is time of anything else. To do so i think is insane. Maybe it is not me who needs a psychiatrist.

 

[baloney]

Godrulz, weve been through this. Our modern understanding is that time is unseperable from space, gravity, energy and matter. If God created matter, he created time.

God could not be confined to any spatial frame as we can only actualize space through th use of shapes with finite borders and God is infinite. Also that is why God has to know the future because there is nowhere is power can be confined to.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Godrulz, weve been through this. Our modern understanding is that time is unseperable from space, gravity, energy and matter. If God created matter, he created time.

That is irrational.

If events didn't happen sequentially prior to creation God could never have got to the event of creation.

Asserting that time was created is irrational and unbiblical. God is a rational living God which means He experiences one event, or one thought after another and so on.

 

[godrulz]

Must God be coherent? I mean, you would think so, but why did he aske Hosea to marry Gomer? That would seem rather inconsistent. Do I, as a finite human being, have to understand God?

Another question: if, as you say, only now exists, are our relatives in heaven "missing us"? Or are we already there, "in Christ" (Col. 3.1-4)? And I know you have probably rehashed this one before, but just so I don't have to search through the 6600 posts, what about Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was, I AM. Doesn't that seem to present an eternal now concept of God?

Theism is coherent. Unbiblical theism or atheism is incoherent. Revelation > reason alone. Truth sets free (coherence), while lies/error (incoherence) leads to bondage and dishonors the God of truth. We cannot understand God exhaustively, but we can know truthful propositions based on revelation apprehended through reason. He invites us to reason with Him (Is.). It is the glory of a king to search out a matter (Prov.). Anti-intellectualism leads to heresy and fatal cults.

Our relatives in heaven await our arrival. This does not mean we are there in reality. Jesus went to heaven, but that does not mean we were there before we were born. He tells us He will come back and to look forward to this reunion, not invent science fiction ideas about space and time.

John 8:58 This is a tensed expression (before). It affirms the preexistence of Christ on one hand (before Abraham existed, Christ was already existing...cf. Jn. 1:1). On the other hand, 'I AM' links back to Exodus as a name of YHWH. Jesus was claiming to be God in this statement. He was not a mere man in the first century. He existed as the Word/Logos before Abraham's time. His identity is the great 'I AM', a term of Jehovahistic identity.

Eternity does not have to mean timelessness (pagan Platonic concept). Eternity (Hebraic) means endless time (cf. Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:4). God is from everlasting to everlasting, the Eternal One. He has no beginning and no end. He is self-existent. This does not mean He is timeless since a personal being thinks, acts, feels (all presuppose time which is simply a measure of duration, sequence, succession). God has a history (His Story) of endless time. He is not presented as an eternal now simultaneity. That is a weak philosophical assumption uncritically foisted on a few proof texts.

 

[Philetus]

I can't believe that after more than 6600 posts I finally couldn't resist wading into this pool, but I have to ask a question. Must God be coherent? I mean, you would think so, but why did he aske Hosea to marry Gomer? That would seem rather inconsistent. Do I, as a finite human being, have to understand God?

Another question: if, as you say, only now exists, are our relatives in heaven "missing us"? Or are we already there, "in Christ" (Col. 3.1-4)? And I know you have probably rehashed this one before, but just so I don't have to search through the 6600 posts, what about Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was, I AM. Doesn't that seem to present an eternal now concept of God?

Why would scripture refer to the church as the bride of Christ? Was it Luther who said, "The church may be a whore, but she is my mother"? Sounds like him, anyway.

If you have any inclination that God in anyway whatsoever relates to creation, then yes, God is coherent! If you want to relate to God on God's term, Yes, God's terms are coherent.

People in heaven don't "miss" anything. (I'm not sure I have any relatives in 'heaven' right now. It's not something I worry about. I know I have relatives who have died in Christ.) WE are in Christ and Christ in us is the HOPE of glory. Are you joshing? Us ... you and me? ... already in Heaven? Hey, heaven has wireless now. Sleep .... sleeeeep ....... sleeeeeeeeep!

The preexistent Christ/Logos has nothing to do with an eternal now. The Word became flesh.

See ya in another 66000 posts.
Read ... reeeeead ... reeeeeaaaaad.


I don't blame you. However, I would recommend that if you really want answers to the questions raised by Open Theism, read Open Theists. (I'm not sure I would go back and read all 6600 post. But, this thread is a real phenomenon if not always coherent.:chuckle:

 

[Philetus]

Theism is coherent. Unbiblical theism or atheism is incoherent. Revelation > reason alone. Truth sets free (coherence), while lies/error (incoherence) leads to bondage and dishonors the God of truth. We cannot understand God exhaustively, but we can know truthful propositions based on revelation apprehended through reason. He invites us to reason with Him (Is.). It is the glory of a king to search out a matter (Prov.). Anti-intellectualism leads to heresy and fatal cults.

Our relatives in heaven await our arrival. This does not mean we are there in reality. Jesus went to heaven, but that does not mean we were there before we were born. He tells us He will come back and to look forward to this reunion, not invent science fiction ideas about space and time.

John 8:58 This is a tensed expression (before). It affirms the preexistence of Christ on one hand (before Abraham existed, Christ was already existing...cf. Jn. 1:1). On the other hand, 'I AM' links back to Exodus as a name of YHWH. Jesus was claiming to be God in this statement. He was not a mere man in the first century. He existed as the Word/Logos before Abraham's time. His identity is the great 'I AM', a term of Jehovahistic identity.

Eternity does not have to mean timelessness (pagan Platonic concept). Eternity (Hebraic) means endless time (cf. Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:4). God is from everlasting to everlasting, the Eternal One. He has no beginning and no end. He is self-existent. This does not mean He is timeless since a personal being thinks, acts, feels (all presuppose time which is simply a measure of duration, sequence, succession). God has a history (His Story) of endless time. He is not presented as an eternal now simultaneity. That is a weak philosophical assumption uncritically foisted on a few proof texts.

Are you getting long-winded in your old age, godrulz?

Great post! BTW

 

[godrulz]

Godrulz, weve been through this. Our modern understanding is that time is unseperable from space, gravity, energy and matter. If God created matter, he created time.

God could not be confined to any spatial frame as we can only actualize space through th use of shapes with finite borders and God is infinite. Also that is why God has to know the future because there is nowhere is power can be confined to.

Time and love are aspects of the eternal God's existence. Time is more fundamental than matter, gravity, space, etc. God experienced duration in His triune relations before matter. Time is not a created thing.

Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions (circular reasoning).

 

[Yorzhik]

Well its an interesting idea but you would have to show me the syllogism.

How would causality necessarily follow from exhaustive forknowledge?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I am an Open Theist, but I am not sure I agree with this. Simple foreknowledge claims to not be causal. The issue relates to logical contradictions and absurdities. I would tackle the defense from this point of you rather than falling into determinism.

Calvinistic determinism is an explanation for exhaustive foreknowledge. It would be causal.

Arminian simple foreknowledge is problematic, but I would not say it is causal. It is just a logical contradiction.

The bottom line is that exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies in a logical absurdity or contradiction.

Exhaustive foreknowledge would be possible in an omnicausal, deterministic worldview. Free will must be compromised to retain this.

Ex. fore. with simple foreknowledge does not imply determinism, but it does seem to negate genuine freedom since the future is fixed, not contingent. At best, it is a confused, inconsistent issue (hence the strength of open theism over arminianism).

A book by Basinger on free will theism seems to allow for free will with middle knowledge, simple foreknowledge, or the open view. It is a rather technical debate. I think it was Sanders who showed that exhaustive foreknowledge would be NO advantage for running the universe since He has infinite, responsive, creative ability. Again, these arguments are fairly sophisticated at a philosophical level.

If there is a cause that causes something else, and that something causes something else, and so forth (a cascade of events), and if the outcome of each event has been established before the first event, then all the events in the cascade are determined by the first event. In other words, there is really only one event in many parts if the events were determined beforehand.

Thus, since there is a first cause (God, the uncaused cause) in either the settled view or the open view, the addition of exhaustive foreknowledge in one view (simple or not) makes all the events a single event in many parts. In other words, with a first cause and (simple or not) exhaustive foreknowledge combined, the first cause is all causes - and a cause is by definition "caused".

 

[Philetus]

I know of no theological position that would suggest God isn't emotionally involved with His people, and grief is what we see here. In fact, even when we see repent, or relent, it is most often translated from this same word for grief. This doesn't deny exhaustive foreknowledge, nor simple foreknowledge. Have you ever watched a movie over again? I have, my wife has. She still cries at exactly the same spots. Interesting. The mere fact that we watch things over again after we've already seen them gives us a basal understanding of how God could be emotionally involved in our plight. So I'm seeing more of a discussion concerning God's relational ability in this text, which is indeed a point of discussion between us, but I'm not catching your drift concerning foreknowledge.

I agree that the issue of foreknowledge overshadows the real concern between the OV and the SV. Once you get ‘past’ a pre-existent future, the old terms imposed on our discussion of the nature and relational ability of God and His creation don’t do the debate justice. The future doesn’t exist! There is nothing to know. God knows only what was and is and WHAT HE WILL DO! That isn’t to say God doesn’t know that if He destroys Washington DC next week its inhabitants will parish. But, He can’t know for certain that George will be home at that time, unless God waits until He knows for certain that George IS in fact home the moment He smites. If, not he might have to adjust his plans and go after Air Force One. (There is nothing political intended by that illustration. So don’t go off on me. I support our President and wish him NO HARM!) The point is he is as unpredictable and only as predictable as any human being.

The question isn’t how many times God has ‘watched’ humans act out their roles as if God is reading his own Closet-drama (a play written to be read rather than performed). The question is whether they perform according to a pre-written script, a blue-print model that is pre-determined, or whether they act within a limited yet very real freedom with which their creator has endowed them.

Is God truly grieved over the sinfulness of mankind? Has God not suffered at the hands of sinful men? Is Jesus not portrayed as a slain-lamb-standing? Does he not now identify with the poor and wretched of the world who suffer without hope because they do not realize that in Christ God is for us (ALL) and not against us? Do they not have the right to hear the Good News and respond to the divine offer of life? In Jesus the promises of God are always YES and Amen! God willingly, intentionally relates to humans as significant others who have a say-so in their own future. Sometimes their ‘say’ genuinely grieves the heart of their God. God’s response is loving self-sacrifice, not meticulous control or rampant unbridled wrath. God is patient (long-suffering) and His patience is meant to lead us to our own repentance. God’s grace is powerful, but not irresistible. In his sovereignty God has given us respond-ability making us responsible for our choices and actions. The Cross demands such a posture. It remains to be known, who will and who won’t respond to God’s unspeakable gift.​

 

[elected4ever]

Time and love are aspects of the eternal God's existence. Time is more fundamental than matter, gravity, space, etc. God experienced duration in His triune relations before matter. Time is not a created thing.

Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions (circular reasoning).

What triune relationship?

 

[elected4ever]

God knows only what was and is and WHAT HE WILL DO!

That pretty much covers everything from start to finish By the way you just contradicted the sentence before that. "The future doesn’t exist! There is nothing to know." You need to make up your mine.:rotfl:

 

[Philetus]

If there is a cause that causes something else, and that something causes something else, and so forth (a cascade of events), and if the outcome of each event has been established before the first event, then all the events in the cascade are determined by the first event. In other words, there is really only one event in many parts if the events were determined beforehand.

Thus, since there is a first cause in either the settled view or the open view, the addition of exhaustive foreknowledge in one view (simple or not) makes all the events a single event in many parts. In other words, with a first cause and (simple or not) exhaustive foreknowledge combined, the first cause is[/i] all causes - and a cause is by definition "caused".

If I'm following you ...
Then what 'caused' God to create in the first place?

The whole 'foreknowledge' thing (simple or not; exhaustive or not) rips the heart out of the Gospel. God has creative intentionality, not 'foreknowledge'. He has divine wisdom which trumps knowledge of any kind. Knowledge (limited or exhaustive) is dangerous without wisdom. Power without love is destructive not redemptive. The cross without freedom is empty and meaningless.​

 

[Philetus]

That pretty much covers everything from start to finish By the way you just contradicted the sentence before that. "The future doesn’t exist! There is nothing to know." You need to make up your mine.:rotfl:

Get a clue, E!

What God knows he will do hasn't been done yet.


How is Beavis?​

 

[Lon]

If I'm following you ...
Then what 'caused' God to create in the first place?

The whole 'foreknowledge' thing (simple or not; exhaustive or not) rips the heart out of the Gospel. God has creative intentionality, not 'foreknowledge'. He has divine wisdom which trumps knowledge of any kind. Knowledge (limited or exhaustive) is dangerous without wisdom. Power without love is destructive not redemptive. The cross without freedom is empty and meaningless.​

Untrue, prognosis is the greek word. It cannot be translated any other way but pro 'before' gnosis 'knows' (with emphasis on 'completely). Please define gnosis for me from OV. In context, you say it is pre 'determinate' but there is a word for that. You say 'guess-timate' and there is a word for that. If you can show me that gnosis can mean something else, I'm all ears, but redefining terms to fit doctrine is a big 'οὐδείς οὐδείς' in my book.

 

[elected4ever]

Get a clue, E!

What God knows he will do hasn't been done yet.​

If God knows he will do it it is a forgone conclusion that God knows it. AHHHHHH, Foreknowledge of the event regardless of who is the future cause. Strike # 2

 

[baloney]

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

Knight, irrational as in modern physics is irrational? Modern physics asserts time is inseperable from matter, energy, space and gravity.

Unbiblical? Look at the link the old Testament and early Christian believed the opposite of you.

God is not the first in the order of temporal events, but the first in the order of sufficient reasoning. And reasoning tells us God must exist outside time just as in incompleteness theorems the foundations of an axiomatic system lies outside the system.

God does not experience existence the same we we do. We experience existence through our senses as "done existence." God creating experiences as doing.

Godrulz, time is not more "fundamental." If you believe it is than explain yourself. Time is not an attribute of God like love.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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

Knight, irrational as in modern physics is irrational? Modern physics asserts time is inseperable from matter, energy, space and gravity.

You are making the common mistake of confusing our ability to measure time (which is affected by physics) with the concept of time i.e., events happen sequentially.

Unbiblical? Look at the link the old Testament and early Christian believed the opposite of you.

Give me a biblical example.