Open Theism Stirs Controversy on College Campuses

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston

Then God is not infinite in your view.

If infinity is real then it does not extend beyond reality, that would be a contradiction and irrational. All I am saying in that God is real and thus is within reality, by definition.
God cannot transcend reality and remain real; to say that He does transcend reality doesn't make any sense at all.
If you say that God transcends reality, then I ask, "Does He really do that?" If you answer 'yes', then you contradict yourself, and if you answer 'no', then you still contradict yourself. It's totally incoherent.

How does the infinite God remove Himself from finite reality? It's a contradiction.

Only if reality is finite, which it is not or else God could not really be infinite.

There is nowhere in the created universe that God is not looking. An infinite God cannot "look away" from finite reality. It's a contradiction.

Again, this is only true if reality is finite which I do not believe you can establish without destroying the infinity of God.
Further, it seems the Bible has plenty of examples where God does indeed look away or is not present. The Lake of Fire is probably the most obvious example. God is not now, nor will He ever be present in the Lake of Fire.

The Second Person of the Godhead did not let go of His hold upon the universe when He became incarnate. The Lord as the ancient of Days was still governing the universe even whilst the Lord as the incarnate Son of Man was walking around in Palestine. The Word of God, the Second Person, the Voice of God, the only member of the Godhead Who speaks, verbally and audibly spoke out of the heavens in behalf of the Father, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased", even while the Word of God, Jesus of Nazareth, was being baptized in the River Jordan.

Well this gets off the topic but it sure seems to be to a lot easier to simply say the Father is the one who said "This is MY Son..."
This statement reeks of one reading their theology into the text. There is certainly nothing in the text itself that suggests that anyone but the Father was speaking here.
Be that as it may, your comment does not speak to the point, which is that God is able to limit Himself in at least some meaningful ways or else the incarnation could not have happened.

If the future doesn't exist as a part of creation, then it exists outside of creation, which is impossible. If the future isn't created, then it is uncreated, a term that only applies to God Himself.

You've forgot one major option, that option being that the future does not exist at all. Neither does the past, by the way. All of exists is now. Everything else exists only in our minds as either memories or as potentialities but not in reality with their own independent existence.

Could God create such a universe where all actions were locked in place and the future was "closed" and still be just (i.e. righteous)?

Same question, same answer. Yes, IF He weren't to punish or reward those locked in actions.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by SOTK

The Open View theology does seem to place limits on God's power. You many not want to admit it, but it does. The Open View states that God can't know the future. .

No it doesn't ! You are making a "can God make a rock so big he can't lift it argument". God can and does know the future every time decides what the future is going to be!

 

[Christine]

Originally posted by Sozo

How do you figure?

The following verse (that you used) says otherwise...

Isaiah 46:10: "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure"


If God is privy to the future, then they have already been done.

"Not yet done" as in man has yet to commit the acts. This doesn't mean God is privy to these acts. The verse said that God "declared the end from the beginning," so God must know the end and the beginning in order to declare them.

 

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Sozo

Is it possible for God to deny Himself? Lie?

In order for God to have exhaustive knowledge of future events, He would have to lie.

No, God does not lie and I fail to see anywhere in the Bible where God lied about being able to have knowledge of future events. For example, every prophecy about the Messiah in the OT came true in Jesus Christ. Did they not?

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Christine

"Not yet done" as in man has yet to commit the acts. This doesn't mean God is privy to these acts. The verse said that God "declared the end from the beginning," so God must know the end and the beginning in order to declare them.

No, God brings to pass the end and the beginning. If God knows every detail in the future then they have been done.

 

[Hilston]

Sozo,

I've responded to two of your posts with no rejoinder from you. Do I rightly assume that your lack of response intimates your wholehearted agreement with my posts?

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Sozo

No, God brings to pass the end and the beginning. If God knows every detail in the future then they have been done.

An architect knows every detail of a building he has designed, but that doesn't mean the building is built. :kookoo:

 

[Christine]

Originally posted by Sozo

No, God brings to pass the end and the beginning. If God knows every detail in the future then they have been done.

That's how it is with man. I can't know the future until it happens. So, you're limiting God to man's mind, even though the Bible is full of countless prophicies God has fulfilled.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by SOTK

I don't compare my relationship with my wife to my relationship with God. It's completely different. One of the problems I have with Open View so far is the Open Viewers apparent willingness to compare humanistic ideas, relationships, etc. with our ideas and relationship with God. I think they are two different things.

what do you think it was like for the disciples of Jesus? what about moses? what about Paul? that all had personal relationships with God that existed with real interaction, real voices and real words.

 

[SOTK]

Originally posted by philosophizer

Okay, you question Calvinism because of Freewill, but also question the OV because of God's limited foreknowledge.

It sounds like the argument underneath the ideas that you're moving back and forth is the nature of time itself.

There's a few different ways of looking at this:

1) God is outside of Time.

This means that the universe exists as kind of a 4-dimensional sculpture that God has created. He views it as all of space-time in one instant. It is a singularity. Time, in this view, is part of the structure of the universe, or the medium through which existence passes.

This brings up some problems, though. That 4D sculpture that represents the universe-- it had to be created. That means it has a beginning. So how does something get created when part of that creation IS Time? It doesn't really make sense for something in a non-linear environment to have a starting point.

Creation is a type of change. Change is dependent upon Time. How then can something be created when Time itself is a part of that creation?




2) God is "in" Time, but can time travel when He wants to in order to see the future.

Well, if you can't see the problems inherent in that theological view, I don't know what to tell you. God cheats?



3) God is neither outside or inside Time because time is not a thing.

In this view, Time is NOT an element of Creation. It is not a medium through which existence passes. It is not a "thing." It is merely a concept. It's a name that we've given to an idea.

Things change. That's one of the truest things that we witness. "Time" is simply how we describe the universe's constant state of change-- or what we could otherwise call "Life."



Now, is it limiting of God's power to say that He does not know the future in its entirety? Only if one subscribes to #1 or #2. For someone with the 3rd view, the future is not something that exists. It is a non-thing because time is simply a word describing an idea.

So, I guess you might want to examine your concept of time and figure out which makes most sense to you. Then you'll be able to figure out if that view limits God's power or not.

I have always leaned to #1. My thinking is that because we (humans) are so limited in what we know and we are so linear, it is hard for us to imagine God not being held to the same things we are held to. It's hard for us to comprehend. Just because it's hard to comprehend and doesn't make sense, doesn't mean it isn't so. When we start comparing what we know to God and what we percieve to be the truth, I think we are going to be wrong every time. There is so much we don't know and understand about God. He is so much more than us that it's incredible!

I appreciate your thinking, philo, and have thought similar things. I just keep going back to the idea of God being all powerful and myself a mere human being.

SOTK

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

If infinity is real then it does not extend beyond reality, that would be a contradiction and irrational. All I am saying in that God is real and thus is within reality, by definition.

There is finite reality, and then there is God, who is the ultimate and infinite Reality.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
God cannot transcend reality and remain real; ...

God (infinite and uncreated Reality) can and does transcend finite reality (creation).

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If you say that God transcends reality, then I ask, "Does He really do that?" If you answer 'yes', then you contradict yourself, and if you answer 'no', then you still contradict yourself. It's totally incoherent.

First, this is equivocation. "Really", as you've used it, is equivalent to "actually" or "truly" as opposed to "not really" or "falsely." Second, there is no logical necessity that says the infinite and transcendent God cannot do things within finite reality.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Only if reality is finite, which it is not or else God could not really be infinite.

I'm surprised that you're making this argument, Clete.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Again, this is only true if reality is finite which I do not believe you can establish without destroying the infinity of God.

So you're arguing for something being infinite besides God?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Further, it seems the Bible has plenty of examples where God does indeed look away or is not present. The Lake of Fire is probably the most obvious example. God is not now, nor will He ever be present in the Lake of Fire.

You have it backward. The Lake of Fire is within God. There is nowhere in creation that is outside of God. If God is infinite, then the passages in scripture that describe God as looking away or not being present cannot be taken literally. If you wish to assert that God is not finite, then you can have the literal interpretation. If you agree that God is infinite, then you cannot have the literal interpretation and be logically consistent.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Well this gets off the topic but it sure seems to be to a lot easier to simply say the Father is the one who said "This is MY Son..."

Sure it seems easier, but that doesn't make it true. The Father is not the speaking aspect of the Godhead. The Logos is.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Be that as it may, your comment does not speak to the point, which is that God is able to limit Himself in at least some meaningful ways or else the incarnation could not have happened.

The Godhead, the Logos included, has never been less than infinite. The second Person, in His humanity, willingly submitted Himself to the finite parameters of creation. But He did not, in His Deity, ever let go of the atoms that He has held together since the creation.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You've forgot one major option, that option being that the future does not exist at all.

If the future does not exist, it must be created.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Neither does the past, by the way. All of exists is now. Everything else exists only in our minds as either memories or as potentialities but not in reality with their own independent existence.

Then nothing exists, Clete. There is no "now." Before you say the word "now," the word to be uttered is future and doesn't exist. As soon as you say "now", the uttered word is past, and doesn't exist. Memories have existence, so does true and accurate history, which often belies memories.

Hilston asked: Could God create such a universe where all actions were locked in place and the future was "closed" and still be just (i.e. righteous)?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Same question, same answer. Yes, IF He weren't to punish or reward those locked in actions.

So if God created a world of evil humans in which all their actions were locked in place and the future was "closed", God would still be righteous as long as He didn't punish any of them for doing evil? Is that your view?

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by SOTK

No, God does not lie and I fail to see anywhere in the Bible where God lied about being able to have knowledge of future events. For example, every prophecy about the Messiah in the OT came true in Jesus Christ. Did they not?

Every prophecy came true, because God brought it to pass, not because He lives outside of time and views the future in advance. Even if God could see the "future" before it happened, He would still need to bring it to pass.


(btw... does anyone have know the Hebrew word for future0

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Hilston

An architect knows every detail of a building he has designed, but that doesn't mean the building is built.

This is true, but we are not talking about God simply having foreknowledge (which I believe He does), we are talking about God seeing something that has already taken place before we experience it. That is what I object to.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Sozo
btw... does anyone have know the Hebrew word for future

Here's a better question, Sozo. Is there a future tense parsing of verbs in the Hebrew language?

:freak:

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Hilston

Here's a better question, Sozo. Is there a future tense parsing of verbs in the Hebrew language?

:freak:

I guess I "changed" my mind in the middle of a sentence. :doh:

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Sozo

This is true, but we are not talking about God simply having foreknowledge (which I believe He does), we are talking about God seeing something that has already taken place before we experience it. That is what I object to.

Sozo, you're arguing against a claim that no one has made (unless I missed it). Who is saying that "God is seeing something that has already taken place before we experience it"?

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Hilston

Sozo, these words were spoken by the incarnate, pre-glorified Christ upon the earth to the regenerate of the nation of Israel. At the point where these words were uttered, Jesus Himself did not know about the Body of Christ, which was at that point a Mystery, held in silence from the foundation of the world. Before His incarnation, Christ certainly knew His own plan. After His glorification, Christ certainly knew His own plan.

I agree... He had absolute foreknowledge of His plan!

 

[Hilston]

You just contradicted yourself. You first quoted that Jesus didn't know what the Father had planned. Now you're saying He had absolute knowledge of it. You can't seem to sit still long enough to understand your own argument.

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Hilston

Sozo, you're arguing against a claim that no one has made (unless I missed it). Who is saying that "God is seeing something that has already taken place before we experience it"?

Not you. But, that is a common train of thought among Christians, and what some are saying here.

It is a common belief that God is outside of time and He sees the history of the world like a movie from beginning to end, even though it has not yet happened.

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Hilston

You just contradicted yourself. You first quoted that Jesus didn't know what the Father had planned. Now you're saying He had absolute knowledge of it. You can't seem to sit still long enough to understand your own argument.

No Jim, slow down. Christine asked if there was a verse where Jesus did not know a future event. I simply provided one.