So, first of all, I just want to say that it did not go unnoticed that you threw in the little ad hominem/guilt by association jab with the mention of Mormons. It's just another pathetic example of you throwing stones at a caricature of Open Theism.
Intent is 3/4. A 'little' isn't even on the docket, but rather a difference and specifically who. If you believe 'like' a Mormon, that sir, is no ad hominem. It is rather a classification, like 'Calvinist' that draws the line in a marker again so it is understood that when you make an argument, at times, it is a minority view, hence it is important whenever anyone says 'Calvinist' to clarify. I'll do so again in the future, as a slam? No sir, just to remark the lines as 'not just Calvinists' by what I drew as what I deemed a necessity. If someone compares me to a Mormon in, lets say, my evangelism endeavors, I'm guilty by association. Let's note rather the commonality and move on? Sanders, for instance, frequents Mormon conventions and correspondence for a reason. It cannot be an ad hominem when the object of comparison is the same, and it is on this front. There are those who would use 'cultists' as a slam, that wasn't where I was headed, but rather to show the larger bin categories of who and who does not accept omnis.
Open Theists do not reject the Omni's per se, we simply modify them from what Classical theists, including both Calvinists and Arminians teach.
Omni means 'all.' A 'classification' to most, means 'not all, but nearly all.' Scripture gives us several omnis (omnipotent = 'almighty'; omniscient = "Lord you know all things"; omnipresent = "where can I go from your presence?). Because there is an unequivocal meaning to 'almighty' there is not modification. Logical argument: Since God says He is almighty, omnipotence requires a full knowledge of all potential powers (omniscience). Since God is 'everywhere' according to David's argument "where can I flee from your presence?", this also indicates logically, that God knows all as well. Another: I argued in Open Theism 2 that foreknowledge isn't like a doctor's prognosis (best guess). The terms literally mean 'knows - beforehand' and indicates EDF. Okay, 'people' have what appears to be a logical problem with 'freedom' and so they rewrite theology (study of God) to reflect
their logical misgiving. It begs a man-centered start to building a theological perspective. That be like me trying to do a study on gorillas by relating how they best interact with and reflect men (evolution?). Depending what our goal is, we will develop ideas based on our egocentrism unless it is checked at the door, and essentially that is the problem of Mormon theology (man-centered before theo-centered). Scripture says the man without the Spirit cannot grasp the things of the Spirit. The first rule of theology is "Spiritually discerned" or we will be using fleshly understanding and logic from that perspective and we will short God by not conceiving of Him on His terms, He uses. The main difference between Open Theism and the majority of other theologians is based on "how do we understand the omnis."
You know all this, but for the posterity of thread and any following along (if they are).
Open Theists believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent in the follow sense of these terms....
Omnipotent: God is the Creator of all things that exist besides Himself. As such, all power comes from Him. He has delegated real power and the real ability and authority to use that power to others. He retains both the ability and the absolute right to recall that power and authority at His sole discretion and is, therefore, not merely all powerful but is the sovereign power of existence.
Colossians 1:16-20 KJV
for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Not that we disagree on lots, but what we believe affects our concurrent theology perspectives. Above, 'all things consist' means there can be no delegated power unattached though I agree with you on a basic level (I'm not wholly against Open Theism, just very much disagree on our clarifications): John 15:5 "Without Me you can do nothing (no one thing). In a very real sense, I can agree with your statements above, but we take something a bit different on emphasis. Because a lot of disagreement is over 'emphasis' I read "Adam where art thou?" not as God looking for information He doesn't have, else I'd have to read David as "I can flee from your presence" to be consistent. It is and either/or interpretation and we respectively come to the text causing us to either question whether God knows where Adam is, the Open presumption, or rather see Adam as needing to respond, thus it was more of a "Adam, come here" for the rest of us. It is worth noting that the text, and not Greeks, is what influences the rest of Christendom the most. We simply are 'logicking' between two texts and interpreting scripture based on what we are drawing in an over-arching manner. It has little to do with Greeks, but rather what is driven in an overarching interpretation of key scriptures and what we deem respectively as key.
This is very nearly identical to what most Christians believe! Mostly, in order to depart significantly from this understanding of omnipotence requires one to be "educated" away from it. Fortunately, most churches spend very little time discussing such things in much detail. Typically, the fact that God is omnipotent is merely declared from the pulpit, everyone yells "Amen!" from the pews and the preacher moves on to his next point.
As above, I appreciate what the Open Theist is attempting. They state it simply: "God is relational" and upon that overarching paradigm is every difference in scriptural interpretation. Let's visit, for a moment again, Genesis 3:9 "Where are you, Adam?" It doesn't seem we lose much, at least at a cursory discussion, much on our difference. It is similar with Mid Acts discussions, it isn't that the other mail isn't cherished or read, it is rather what is most appropriate in applications. Functionally, a lot of churches act as Judaized, this doesn't mean 'not saved' but a lot of complications. Because we are created in God's image, there has to be overlap: what we see as anthropomorph theology in Open Theism, yet is worthy of inspection because Open Theists are correct: "God is relational." Our hold-out is that He is also very much above His creation and we believe much more than Open Theists concede.
--Is this still serving the thread? Please reel me in as needed! Respectively, prayerfully, sincerely. -Lon
Where the Open Theist departs from the Classical understanding of omnipotence is when theologians use it to introduce irrational concepts into their theology proper.
As you can see above, it isn't irrational. If you will, it 'could' (and often is) seen as irrational from the Open perspective's portrayal as well. Staying with Genesis 3:9, how 'could' it be possible that God would have to ask where Adam was? Isn't He capable of locating him instantly? Does He have to ask, literally? It seems when pressed, even the Open Theist has to acquiesce that "Where are you Adam?" is not so much about Adam being found (cannot be, if even Open logic is pressed, right?), as Adam needing to own-up to an attempt to hide. You may have a different interpretation answer, but when pressed, even Open Theism has to deal with how far logic can be pushed before it too looks 'irrational.' I hope you can appreciate the conundrum with us on point. It really does go both ways (thank you for the excellent dialogue).
We do not believe that God can go to a place that does not exist, for example.
Right, it isn't a reflection on God, but on the illogical supposition. I agree.
We do not wrestle with stupid conundrums like asking whether God can created an unmovable rock and then move it. It's a stupid question! NO! Of course God could not do any such stupid thing.
The only way I believe you or I can answer is "Your question isn't logical. The only way I can meaningfully address it is to tell you, you need to learn to ask questions that have logical answers." If we answer 'no' or 'yes' we've entered into their faulty thinking and incorrect supposition. We have to tell them clearly: You don't understand the nature of query. That should be your first question: to ask what a good question would look like."
There's a gigantic list of things that God cannot do, perhaps most important among them is the fact that God cannot make someone love Him.
It is a huge supposition. Scripture? Proof set? Where does the assertion come from? Part of this is dealing with the definition of 'love' in the first place. Let me preface: Doesn't God already make us love Him? 1 John 4:10 Now granted I'm on page with your thinking about 'force' to a degree, but sometimes declarative doesn't account for all angles and this one seems a bit too strong as yet to be 'most important' if I can question the veracity. I appreciate your above:
This is very nearly identical to what most Christians believe! Mostly, in order to depart significantly from this understanding of omnipotence requires one to be "educated" away from it.
Clete, I appreciate your teaching heart! We come from very different suppositions (not sure if you've always been an Open Theist at heart). I care to change, if God cares to change me. Discussions like this rendered to Him, can.
If TOL is on the internet for any one thing, it is for discussions like this: the truth will out.
God cannot predestine that someone desires to have a genuine two way loving reciprocal relationship with Him (or with anyone else, for that matter).
"Cannot?"
The limitations Open Theists place on the other omni's are similar....
Omniscient: God knows everything that is knowable - that He desires to know.
It is a 'cursory' definition, I believe. It isn't just 'what He wants to know' but is essential if I understand Colossians 1:16-20 clearly, that He sustains everything that exists, by His very being. This Open paradigm goes against what I know of Colossians 1:16-20 in that nothing 'can' happen apart from God's sustaining power (again, if one believes 'sustains all things' means nothing can move without Him).
John 15:5 Philippians 2:13 Not to the point that we are no longer individual, but rather a look at a dynamic where both are true (why I can appreciate goals of Open Theism, even if not from that paradigm shift). Incidentally,
I'll start a thread:
What did you believe before you became an Open Theist? Sometimes it helps to see how one wrestled (if he/she wrestled) and what made the changes.
Omnipresent: God is everywhere that exists at once - if He wants to be there.
That isn't omnipresence, however. This definition negates the term and is rather describing unrestricted access. In Genesis 3:9, it yet presents a problem for even Open Theist theology: God did not 'have' to ask Adam where he was to find Him. Would you contend, as an Open Theist, that it is 'how' God found out where Adam was? How did God know Adam was near enough to hear? Was He going around the Garden, perhaps, repeating this until He found Adam? I need to look in the Open Theism section and see if there is a discussion on Genesis 3:9 to get a better handle on this. An Open Theism discussion on Genesis 3:9 is going to be very different than it is for the rest of us!
Everyone seems to want to freak out over the qualifications we place on those two doctrines but it is just an application of omnipotence to those doctrines.
Agree. It is a big deal of course because our suppositions carry the weight of our theology interpretations. With you, I very much appreciate getting into the details. It helps. Thank you.
All we are saying is that no one can force God to do something that He doesn't want to do. He isn't required to watch every single event that happens.
Realize your background assumptions (I'd think you do, but they are important for the difference between us). It has God aloof from His creation, a spectator rather than sustainer of this universe and us. My theology understanding is something inbetween hands-off vs complete control. God does have complete control, but I'm agreeing to an extent with you, we are individuals as evident and logically sound. So while I'm on page to a degree, there is yet a grasp for me that John 15:5 is literally true.
God does not care about which photon of light is leaving off the back side of Polaris nor is He required to sit and watch while people commit gross sin nor is He omni-voyeuristic where He is unable to give people privacy if He so chooses to do so.
Well, if within Omniscience you include exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of the future, as both the Calvinist and Arminians do then....
T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am
- Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
- If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
- It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
- Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
- If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
- So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
- If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
- Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
- If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
- Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
Source
In short, if you believe that we have a real ability to do or to do otherwise - to choose our actions - then the Classical understanding of Omniscience must be modified. Welcome to Open Theism!
Actually, it is a bit like the illogical question: The question and supposition itself is what I question. While I didn't invent philosophy or logic standards, I believe Standford has some leaky presentations. They make assumptions and while they believe they've plugged the holes, they haven't:
Premise: I get an almanac from the future (proposition). Just because I have a tiny bit of omniscience (only what an almanac holds), there is no way that it determines a thing. An almanace simply records. I posit the 'leak' here is Standford thinks of time as a solid and an actuator of events. We all do, we think we 'cannot change our past.' My suggestion is that is wrong thinking. I can undo things, fix relationships. We think of time past as stagnant and that is problematic to logic because it paints something as a black and white reality that isn't. Thanks for giving it at least a spin and test-drive.
You are trying to have it both ways.
Agree, because I don't see time as linear like most do. It becomes stagnant, and I don't believe it is (long discussion but may be worth the trail, its a neat discussion and I think I can prove a couple of my assumptions). Am I still supporting your thread, btw? Please hold me in check!
You want to propose a situation where the future is known but not determined. That is a contradiction on its face.
Not if you see 'events' as never over per say. Appreciate the longer leash on these discussions but I do want to serve your thread and not get too far. I won't always ask, but keep me on track for the thread need and ty. I can rabbit trail with the best of 'em.
If the future is only known unless someone acts to change it then isn't it also known whether that action will be taken? Is the action that changes part of the future not itself part of the future?
Not sure if the above addresses this enough. Let me know and ty.
The fact that such paradoxical nonsense is entirely unavoidable when discussing things like this is strong evidence, if not outright proof, that time does not exist. The past is what used to exist and the future does not yet exist. All that exists, exists now. Reality is perpetually in the present.
Agree, but there is a stigma to 'what has passed' in our minds that drives our ability and willingness to entertain logical parameters. Do any quantum physics/mechanics reading? Be blessed today! In Him