Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/27/2002 8:58 AM (GMT -6)

Is the question "Is God sovereign?" (whatEVER you might think that means) or is it "Do you trust God?"

Tom

"When you mix things up they get messy" Fred

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 12/27/2002 9:39 AM (GMT -6)

Hmm! Perhaps we can ask (in view that sovereign is whatEVER we might think it is) "Do you trust in the sovereign God?"

Starkman

SIM
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90

Posted 12/27/2002 10:13 AM (GMT -6)

My question is, "Can I trust in a less than Sovereign God?"

SIM

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 12/27/2002 11:51 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Is the question "Is God sovereign?" (whatEVER you might think that means) or is it "Do you trust God?"

Why the either-or?

I think it is plausible that God must be sovereign in SOME sense in order for there to be a sound basis for placing COMPLETE and ABSOLUTE trust in God, but God doesn't need to be SOVEREIGN in order for us to trust in him AT ALL (I trust my mom, and she's not sovereign), nor does ABSOLUTE trust require that God be sovereign in the sense of exercizing meticulous providence (what is necessary is that God have an absolutely trust-worthy character and the power to guarantee that good will ultimately and completely triumph over evil).

God bless,
Alan

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 12/27/2002 5:58 PM (GMT -6)

Well, Tom, you're going to have to--or we're all going to have to--define sovereignty!

Starkman

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/27/2002 10:46 PM (GMT -6)

I could have been a little clearer. I should have titled this, "Views of Sovereignty or Trust?" or something like that. But your responses all, I think, reinforce my thought.

With SIM, I agree that nobody who believes God is "less" than sovereign will trust him completely. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the fact that we do have people who trust God on the basis of an understanding of sovereignty that other people feel is less than inadequate for trusting God completely. Case in point would be all the anti-openness authors who uniformly argue that a God who faces a partly open future cannot be trusted completely. Obviously THEY couldn’t trust such a God. But open theists themselves DO trust such a God (and completely too). Conversely, I have a difficult time understanding how genuine “trust” is possible if I also believe that whether or not I trust is unconditionally predetermined by God. So, the determinist declares that she can’t trust God on my view of sovereignty, and I admit that I can’t trust God on her view of sovereignty. Does the difference in doctrine mean one of us is really trusting God and one of us isn't? No. We each are trusting God in the trenches, in suffering, and continue to rejoice and obey God in all things. How should this impact the debate?

Thus my question: How fruitful is it to keep hammering on any one view of sovereignty if both of us trust God? The question we ought to be asking then, is, Do you trust God? That's it. If someone is trusting God, even for reasons that would fail to lead me to trust God, then I ought to leave it there.

So, instead of railing against open theism as undermining trust in God, anti-openness authors ought to be talking to open theists and asking them, Do you trust God? If open theists are trusting God (if they can testify to real life experiences in which they have and are trusting God--just like the determinst), then isn’t THAT proof enough that open theism doesn’t undermine trust in God? Arguments that a particular belief will affect behavior for the better or worse are proven or disproven by noting the behavior, not by academic arguments in books. Anti-openness authors may believe open theism undermines THEIR ability to trust God. Fine. Then don’t embrace the open view. I’d never encourage somebody to embrace a view of God which THEY were not convinced gave THEM the greatest possible basis upon which to trust God. If sovereignty as a doctrine exists to engender faith and trust, and if two people with different understandings of sovereignty both sincerely trust God (and have both had that trust tested), then the issue is no longer ‘Which view of sovereignty is right?’ but rather ‘Which view of sovereignty is right for you?’ I don’t like saying it this way, but that’s what it all seems to boil down to for me.

So, this is why (to Starkman) defining sovereignty is not important (to anybody except the person herself).

This is all on a personal level of course. Sometimes, however, the "community" is called to trust God through hard times. Leadership will doubtless argue it's own view of sovereignty in such times in an attempt to encourage faith and trust in the community. Local churches can iron out their differences however they wish. My point is that nobody can accuse another person of undermining faith and trust in God simply because they adhere to a different understanding of sovereignty than someone else. Look at the life. Is there trust? Is there faithful endurance and integirty in suffering? If there is, then that person's understanding of sovereignty does NOT undermine her faith. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting.

Tom

"When you mix things up they get messy" Fred

Edited by - TGB on 12/28/2002 04:06:50 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/29/2002 10:57 AM (GMT -6)

I find your analysis and question insight TGB. There is also THIS question that factors into the discussion: WHAT are we TRUSTING GOD FOR? Many who think one can only trust a meticulously sovereign God mean by this "trust that everything that happens has a divine reason for it." And they're right. Yet I don't see that THAT is something we should "trust God" for. Indeed, if I was trusting God for THAT, I couldn't trust God for what I think we should trust God for: namely, to always fight for good AGAINST evil, to always act consistent with his perfect character, and to ultimately triumph over evil.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

SIM
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90

Posted 1/2/2003 5:43 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
TOM: If sovereignty as a doctrine exists to engender faith and trust, and if two people with different understandings of sovereignty both sincerely trust God (and have both had that trust tested), then the issue is no longer ‘Which view of sovereignty is right?’ but rather ‘Which view of sovereignty is right for you?'

SIM: Sovereign: Definition: Supreme; greatest in status or authority or power.
It doesn't sound like to me that the word "sovereign" is a relative term. Your last sentence sounds exactly like the current "moral relativistic - my truth - your truth" belief. Did you really mean what you typed?

I think Theologian E. L. Mascall comments on this very well:

When we are in trouble what really helps us is not
sympathy, in the sense of an imaginative or even actual
participation in our sufferings, but concrete practical
help. And from this point of view there is real
consolation in the knowledge that...the God who can meet
our deepest needs will not be one who is himself
entangled in its contingencies...but one who, while his
loving care extends even to the least of his creatures
and while he knows them in their weakness and need better
than they know themselves, is himself unchanged and
unchangeable, the strength and stay upholding all
creation who ever doth himself unmoved abide, a God in
whom compassion and impassibility are reconciled in the
union of omnipotence and love. "I the Lord change not;
therefore ye, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed" [Mal. 3:6]

SIM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/2/2003 11:55 PM (GMT -6)

Doc-

Good point. So there are two reasons that make trusting a meticulously sovereign God difficult: 1) the believe that whether I trust God or not is logically entailed in this meticulous sovereignty (this really messes my head up), and 2) as you said, it makes opposing evil by default difficult.

SIM-

Seems to me that the idea of “sovereignty” can be understood as other than absolute, meticulous, control of the minutia of history. That’s certainly one sort of sovereignty. I don’t see that it’s the most admirable, praiseworthy, or exalted notion of sovereignty. Now, I don’t mean to suggest that whatever anybody wants to believe is fine by me, that there aren’t some clearly wrong views (even about sovereignty). I was rather focusing on two views of sovereignty (the one meticulous and other general) held by evangelicals who base their beliefs on Scripture and who do not relativize truth. I was just wondering, since those who hold to both these views actually do trust God in ways THEY feel is quite adequate for a vibrant faith-filled life, whether or not the academic debate surrounding sovereignty (again, between these two evangelical groups) isn’t somewhat pointless.

For example, let’s assume you believe sovereignty means God exhaustively determines all things via an unconditional decree. Let’s assume also that you believe this is the only basis upon which God can be trusted. What do you do with me, an evangelical believer (forget Muslims and Buddhists—we’re not relativizing truth for them) who doesn’t believe in your model of sovereignty but who nonetheless trusts God completely? You could do one of two things. You could say that since I don’t agree that sovereignty means what YOU think it means that I must not really trust God with my life. In other words, I’m self-deceived. I really don’t trust God. Or you could say, “Hey, Tom and I both trust God. Maybe it’s existentially possible for me and Tom both to trust God and disagree over the precise nature of God’s sovereignty.” I vote for the second option.

More on Mascall’s quote later. Some interesting stuff there.

Tom

"When you mix things up they get messy" Fred

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/3/2003 12:24 AM (GMT -6)

SIM-

Mascall I think posits a false either/or. Either God is immutable and “unmoved” (think of Aristotle’s “unmoved mover”) or God is “entangled in the world’s contingencies.” How about God being involved in the world’s contingencies (contingencies HE is ultimately responsible for since he created a world open to such possibilities) but also being wise, resourceful, loving, and intelligent enough to achieve “the good” in whatever situation we find ourselves in (Rm. 8.28)? Doc has on several occasions argued for God’s “infinite intelligence.” I don’t know if you’re familiar with it, but you might find it provides an alternative way of viewing God’s involvement in our lives and his ability to be prepared for any contingency. God can be involved in our contingencies without being “entangled” in them. Infinite intelligence explains how. There are a couple of threads on it here if you try the search machine.

More specifically:

Mascall: When we are in trouble what really helps us is not sympathy, in the sense of an imaginative or even actual participation in our sufferings, but concrete practical help.

Tom: See the false either/or? Either God “concretely helps us” or he “participates in our sufferings.” Totally off if you ask me. The writer of Hebrews argues that knowing Christ suffered and was tempted is itself concrete help. That’s just one example.

Mascall: …there is real consolation in the knowledge that...the God who can meet our deepest needs will not be one who is himself entangled in its contingencies…

Tom: Fine, as long as one doesn’t argue that the only God who is not “entangled” in the world’s contingencies is the all-determining God of meticulous sovereignty. I deny meticulous sovereignty, affirm that God is very much involved in the contingencies of life, but deny that he’s “entangled” in them.

Mascall: ...but one who, while his loving care extends even to the least of his creatures and while he knows them in their weakness and need better than they know themselves, is himself unchanged and unchangeable, the strength and stay upholding all creation who ever doth himself unmoved abide, a God in whom compassion and impassibility are reconciled in the union of omnipotence and love. "I the Lord change not; therefore ye, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.”

Tom: No problem here. All depends on what you mean by “unchangeable” and “unmoved.” These concepts can be defined in a way that makes it very difficult if not impossible to believe that God also “lovingly cares” for us and “knows our weaknesses better than we do.” Personally, I think the OV accounts for both better than meticulous control, but again my point in this thread is, as long as you feel meticulous control is the only belief-basis upon which you can trust God, then hold on to that belief. It’s trusting God that’s the point. Just realize that other believers find it impossible to trust God on the basis of this belief.

There are a very few verses which outright claim that God does not change. I think the context of these verses can be understood so as to reconcile them to the (what is now, 45 passages?) many more passages that clearly claim God changes his mind.

Good stuff!

Tom

"When you mix things up they get messy" Fred

SIM
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90

Posted 1/3/2003 3:24 PM (GMT -6)

Tom, I believe that you do trust God. I appreciate, though can't quite understand, that you can trust God when He does not know for sure any more than you do about what will happen to you.

I'm trying to figure out how Romans 8:28 ("And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose...")CAN be true with a God who does not know what is going to happen, and (in the open future belief) usually does not interfere in human choice.

How can He be working in my life today to ensure that what happens can truly be used for good? If I pray in God's will for a particular outcome, I do so believing that He knows how to orchestrate events, past, present, and future, in order to answer that prayer. In fact, I have experienced over and over again prayers that are answered by events that require orchestration of events prior to the event's happening. I don't know how I could pray in faith without the belief that God does know for sure what will happen. Is it too personal to explain to me your thinking when you pray? This is to try to more deeply understand your (and hopefully all of those who embrace OV) beliefs.

quote:
TOM: I deny meticulous sovereignty, affirm that God is very much involved in the contingencies of life, but deny that he’s “entangled” in them.

Maybe "entangled" is not the right word? But is God not contingent in some way on Man's choices, and therefore affected by them (which is what I believe Mascall is saying)?

SIM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/3/2003 7:52 PM (GMT -6)

SIM-

Appreciate you SIM! Good thinker.

SIM: I can't quite understand, that you can trust God when He does not know for sure any more than you do about what will happen to you.

Tom: God’s knowledge of the future isn’t the same as mine. God's is perfect. Mine isn’t. So it's not true that God doesn't know for sure "any more than I do" what tomorrow holds. Whatever certainties there are about tomorrow, God knows them perfectly. Whatever possibilities there are about tomorrow, God knows them perfectly too. I don’t. So he does know far better than I do what tomorrow holds.

Now, the most important two words in your response are "for sure." God knows "for sure" all that will happen to me. What I've been trying to show previously is that if God does not "for sure" what will happen to me, then there's nothing he can do about it. If God knows "for sure" then it's for sure and not even God can change it. So what good would it do for God to know ONLY what will happen to me "for sure"? Can he change it? No. Can he use that knowledge to change something else he also knows "for sure"? No. It's pretty clear, SIM. This kind of knowledge is useless. But if God also knows some things as "what might happen" then God has room to act, room to influence things.

Go to this thread: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=865&ARCHIVE=&whichpage=1

We had a talk about "Infinite Intelligence" some time ago. I think it'll fill in the blanks.

SIM: I'm trying to figure out how Romans 8:28 ("And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose...") CAN be true with a God who does not know what is going to happen, and (in the open future belief) usually does not interfere in human choice.

Tom: The question is, How can Rom. 8.28 be true if God possesses timeless, simple foreknowledge? How is it true that unless God knows for sure all that will happen in the future he can’t bring good out of what happens? How does knowing for sure that bad event X will certainly happen enable God to bring good out of it whereas knowing the bad event X might happen means God can’t be just as prepared to bring good out of it? For a God of infitite intelligence, there's really no difference between knowing certainties and knowing possibilities in terms of being prepared for the future.

In the open view we often say God doesn't UNDERknow the future, he OVERknows it. Again, this is infinite intelligence. God faces both certainties and possibilities about the future. But facing possible outcomes doesn't mean he is any less prepared. Check out the thread on inf. intell. and see what ya think.

SIM: How can He be working in my life today to ensure that what happens can truly be used for good?

Tom: If God eternally knows only "certainties" about what will happen, then the question of "insuring" that what happens can be used for good doesn't even arise, for a God who knows only certainties about the future can't use knowledge of what will "certainly" happen to insure anything. He just waits for what he knows will happen to happen.

SIM: If I pray in God's will for a particular outcome, I do so believing that He knows how to orchestrate events, past, present, and future, in order to answer that prayer.

Tom: Well, I wouldn't include the past in that 'cause you can't "orchestrate" (if you mean by this "change") the past. But I pray that God orchestrates the present and future. That's just the point. He can 'orchestrate' what CAN be orchestrated. The future can be orchestrated if it's open to being orchestrated. But if it's eternally "for sure" one way, then it's not open to being orchestrated into anything else or being used as a basis for orchestrating anything else that's also eternally known "for sure."

SIM: Is it too personal to explain to me your thinking when you pray? This is to try to more deeply understand your (and hopefully all of those who embrace OV) beliefs.

Tom: Not at all. I'll post something I wrote elsewhere on this.

SIM: Maybe "entangled" is not the right word? But is God not contingent in some way on Man's choices, and therefore affected by them...?

Tom: Yes, he is. God isn't the only one deciding what happens in the world. He isn't metaphysically contingent upon us in any way, of course. He is self-sufficient. But what happens in the world is partly contingent on us by God's own choice. He wanted us to coauthor history with him. He's that secure. But remember, God eternally foreknows all possibilities. So he's perfectly prepared for however we resolve contingencies into certainties. He's never caught off guard.

Love the discussion SIM!

Tom

Love never ends

Edited by - TGB on 01/04/2003 03:57:17 AM

Edited by - TGB on 01/04/2003 04:01:08 AM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/3/2003 8:07 PM (GMT -6)

SIM-

Here are some thoughts on prayer and guidance that I wrote elsewhere. Sorry for the length! There are some footnotes in it that I’ve removed, so credit doesn’t appear where it should (though it does in my copy!).

Tom

----------------------------------

What’s it matter? The practical implications of believing in a partly open future

I suppose it is the perceived practical implications of believing the future to be partly open which in the end tips the scales for or against the open view in many people’s minds. Can a God who ever faces possibilities, whose expectations sometimes do not come to pass, be trusted to guide us? Can such a God be trusted to achieve his ultimate purposes? I think so. It was the practical implications of the open view which ultimately lead me to adopt it. Space doesn’t permit a thorough treatment of the practical implications of the open view, but I’d like to mention three.

First, consider the place and urgency of prayer. It is precisely here where God invites us to participate with him through petitionary prayer and obedience in accomplishing his purposes. For such prayer to have integrity to it, I believe, it must be the case that we genuinely influence the outcome of events. That is, many times the future God intends to actualize through us fails to come about as desired because we fail to respond as we might. The point is that things might genuinely have been different from God’s point of view had people made different choices. But if the potential difference which prayer makes is as real for God as we believe it is for us, then God faces a future that is in some respects open and unresolved and has freely decided to allow us a part in resolving it. Open theists simply point out that it is not resolved until we resolve it and hence cannot be eternally foreknown in its resolved state. Our lives make a difference to God and the world, this difference possesses integrity for both God and us, and in my view the open view makes best theological sense of this difference.

Secondly, consider how most, if not all, of us already live our lives. Christians universally live as though the open view were true. We believe that when we deliberate between two options we face genuine possibilities either of which “may” come to pass. We believe that when we fail to pray events God wishes to bring to pass sometimes do not come to pass (e.g., Ezek 22). This in itself is an admission of the intuitive belief that the future is partly open, that our choices many times bring about events that might just as easily not have come about. We believe that some events could have been other than they were and that our choices to cooperate with God or not through prayer and obedience are at least sometimes the ultimate explanation of why these events were not what they could have been (or of why they were what they might not have been). Our prayers and obedience to God are his means for transitioning such possibilities into realities. The open view simply seeks to articulate a theology and an understanding of the future that accounts for what Christians universally experience and believe intuitively to be the case.

Thirdly, consider the important issue of guidance. What are we doing when we seek God for guidance? If we believe in the blueprint model of guidance, then we believe guidance is essentially an attempt to discover the contents of a “classified divine blueprint.” Who we are to marry, how many children we are to have, what direction our education is to take, our vocation, the clothes we wear, where we take our vacations, whether we believe in open theism or not (!), all these and more are eternally mapped out, either by God’s will (Calvinism) or in God’s mind (Arminianism), on the one divine blueprint. Guidance then amounts to asking God to reveal parts of this blueprint to us so that we stay on course. Of course, for Calvinists, it remains true that in the end whatever course our lives take, guidance or no, that course reflects in every detail God’s predetermined will for us. Guidance (or the lack of it!) is viewed as God’s predetermined means for achieving his predetermined ends.

For those who advocate simple-foreknowledge, guidance is rendered unintelligible on different grounds. Many Arminians concede that God’s will is not always done. Some grant that gratuitous evil exists. All would insist that guidance plays a determinate role in bringing about events that might otherwise not have been. Still, the entirety of our lives in every detail is eternally known to God. Those advocating the simple-foreknowledge model insist that guidance be sought and that God be trusted precisely because he is believed to possess exhaustively definite foreknowledge of all that shall happen. God, it is argued, can use this foreknowledge to guide us if we seek it. But as we’ve already seen, such a belief is misguided. No such guidance based on simple-foreknowledge is possible.

Mary seeks God’s direction regarding a proposal of marriage. Should she marry Joe? Joe is a believer and, like Mary, wants to enter the ministry. Together they attend counseling. They pray and fast, desiring God’s guidance. In the end, together with concerned friends and spiritual leaders, they come to the conviction that God’s will is that they marry. Within a few years, however, Joe is unfaithful and abusive. Soon they divorce and Mary is left with a young baby to bring up on her own. What happened? For the consistent Calvinist, it cannot be possible that Mary missed God’s decreed will for her life. Calvinists would tell Mary that God decreed this tragedy for a greater purpose, perhaps to teach her patience or to provided an opportunity for God to be glorified as just and holy when Joe is judged for doing this. Mary can take comfort in knowing that God guided her into this marriage for good reasons, even if she never knows what those reasons are.

For the Arminian advocate of simple-foreknowledge, things do not fare much better, for this outcome was eternally foreknown by God. This is the future God infallibly knows will happen. God knows Joe will backslide, become abusive to Mary, and eventually betray her. Can God advise Mary not to take Joe as her husband on the basis of this knowledge? He cannot. What are we then to expect in terms of guidance, that is, wisdom in choosing between options, if we believe God possesses only knowledge of what shall happen and deny that he possesses knowledge of what may happen? As we have already seen, simple-foreknowledge is providentially useless. God cannot lead Mary not to marry Joe on the basis of his foreknowledge that she will marry Joe. It is equally impossible to claim that God “permitted” this marriage to go through on the basis of foreknowing it. Guidance on the Arminian/simple-foreknowledge model then is reduced to believing that God uses foreknowledge of we shall and shall not do, of what shall and shall not happen, to lead us to do or not to do that which is foreknown. Besides being incoherent, where’s the room for guidance?

An advocate of simple-foreknowledge can counsel Mary to take consolation in the fact that God eternally knew this would happen. We can hold her hand and support her now, but we cannot meaningfully explain to her that God genuinely believed things could have turned out differently. Some may suggest that there exists some reason, perhaps the service of some higher “ultimate good,” for God’s allowing this to happen. If she thinks things through, however, Mary will discover that simple-foreknowledge provides her little consolation. Why? Because if simple-foreknowledge were true, the question of God’s specifically “allowing” this tragedy (as if he could have “prevented” it) cannot meaningfully be asked. On this model of foreknowledge, God neither allows nor prevents on the basis of what is foreknown; he simply “knows.”

What would an open theist tell Mary? He would tell her that real possibilities exist from God’s point of view. One possibility God foreknew, presumably by far the most probable outcome, was that Joe would continue to grow in his faith and become a godly partner. The other possibility known to God was that Joe would regress in his spiritual life and become an abusive and unfaithful husband. Both were genuine possibilities known to God (and should have been recognized as such by Mary). God’s advice to Mary and Joe at the time was most wise because it had the greatest possibility of producing the greatest possible good in the world. But possibilities are, after all, possibilities even for God. An open theist would suggest to Mary that her divorce does not mean God’s guidance was mistaken, neither should she assume that God’s giving her the “green light” to marry Joe was either his guarantee that all would go smoothly or God’s way of bringing about whatever greater good he believed her divorce would serve. Just because we sometimes interpret God’s guidance as indicating a risk-free future doesn’t mean God’s “yes” is confirmation of this.

An open theist would tell Mary that God always knew Joe was free to follow the path of self-destruction. That Joe chose this path over faithfulness to his wife grieves God as much as it does Mary. The divorce did not have to happen, neither did God foresee it as definite. Nor did God “allow” her marriage to crash and burn in order to teach her patience or to contribute to some hidden higher purpose. God hates divorce, and we have every biblical reason for believing God did everything he could to lead Joe away from this sinful choice. An open theist would then tell Mary that God is loving, creative, and resourceful enough to recast from the wreckage of her pain and suffering a new future, a plan B, a latter temple more glorious than the first if she cooperates with him. God is at work in her circumstance for good. God can do this because there is no eternal blueprint which describes in every detail the path Mary’s life must or even will take.

In the open view, guidance is not an attempt to peer into the crystal ball of an exhaustively definite future, or to pry into a divine blueprint containing the details of our every move. Such a view of foreknowledge actually precludes genuine guidance, guidance that presents us with real options each one of which holds out to us genuinely alternative futures. This sort of guidance by definition requires that the future be open at least with respect to that regarding which we seek guidance. Open theists ask us to reconsider what biblical guidance is and what we may and may not legitimately seek guidance for. If we believe guidance amounts to seeking absolute assurances that our marriages will not end in divorce, that the children we’re considering having will not go to prison or turn their backs on God, or that our retirement investments will not dry up, then we’re in for disappointments. Such guarantees are not to be had in the real world. We ought to develop an understanding of God’s relationship with us and guidance of our lives that at least attempts to account for the risk-filled world in which we actually live. God did not create a risk-free world, the sort of world in which guarantees regarding our future are always possible.

---------------------------------------------

Hope it helps.

Tom

Love never ends

SIM
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90

Posted 1/4/2003 4:58 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
TGB: If God knows "for sure" then it's for sure and not even God can change it. So what good would it do for God to know ONLY what will happen to me "for sure"? Can he change it? No. Can he use that knowledge to change something else he also knows "for sure"? No. It's pretty clear, SIM. This kind of knowledge is useless. But if God also knows some things as "what might happen" then God has room to act, room to influence things.

Well, my son is back from skiing, and so I ran the above post by him, discussing whether God CAN use infinite "fore"knowledge to change events. His response is that the view that says God cannot change something He knows "for sure", is putting God in a stasis, or a slice of time, that in a sense is nullifying and trapping His attributes into a time slice. Dan says that this thinking puts God back into time, but in an inactive stasis. However, God is not at all in time, and Dan says that God can be thought of a little like an author or composer who can create outside his creation. A composer doesn't have to compose to the time signature of his own composition. He can compose as quickly or as slowly as he wants to. (I can understand that since I've composed music.)

I haven't had the time to do more than glance at most of your posts. I will hopefully be able to next week.

Thanks,
SIM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/4/2003 5:10 PM (GMT -6)

THIS IS FOR TOM ONLY.

Tom, you said: The practical implications of believing in a partly open future

I began to laugh. Now, mind you...I did not read the thing. I was just surfing past quickly. But here's what made me laugh.

HOW CAN THE FUTURE--WHICH ISN'T YET--"BEEEE" ANYTHING. IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET. SO HOW CAN IT BE. IT WON'T "BE" UNTIL WE MAKE IS SOMETHING. AND WHEN WE DO, THEN, IT IS THEN THAT WE CAN NOTICE JUST HOW DETERMINED SOME THINGS ARE AN OTHERS NOT; AND HOW "FREE" SOME THINGS ARE AND HOW "SURVILE" SOME OTHER THINGS ARE.

IT SEEMS COMPLETELY BACKWARDS TO THINK OF THE FUTURE AS IF IT IS A PREEXISTING TUPPERWARE WAITING TO BE FILLED. SEEMS MORE APPROPRIATE TO USE THE MENTAL IMAGE OF A BALLOON THAT IS YET TO BE BLOWN UP, THAT WILL TAKE THE SHAPE OF "HOW" IT IS BLOWN UP.

I'M DONE LAUGHING NOW.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/4/2003 8:21 PM (GMT -6)

Al-

You're joking right?

First, after all our discussing, I’m glad to see that you really are an open theist.

Secondly, of course the future does not yet exist “out there” somewhere (which by the way makes SIM’s arguments null and void—even IF God were as absolutely timeless as he argues it still wouldn’t give God access to “the future”). But what the future “will be” is “now” in “some” respects settled and in “some” respects open. Though you and I will have to wait until it happens to find out what about tomorrow is “now” settled and “now” open (as we resolve those possibilities into certainties), God knows “now” what is settled and open about tomorrow. And when in a couple hours time “what is settled and what is open about tomorrow” changes, God will know that perfectly too.

Now, whether one believes that everything about tomorrow is eternally and unconditionally determined by God or party determined (party by God and partly by existing factors) and partly open has important practical implications. Well, at least I believe it has practical implications.

Is this still funny?

Tom

Love never ends

Edited by - TGB on 01/05/2003 01:22:25 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/5/2003 5:19 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
But what the future “will be” is “now” in “some” respects settled and in “some” respects open.

Is this still funny?

Tom

STILL JUST AS FUNNY!

You didn't escape that AT ALL!

Actually, you Open Theisists "inch" your own way towards the "timeless" God that you shun. Like someone trying top scrape gum off his shoes by using the other shoe. You has settled for "defacto-partiallytimeless."

Get rid of the Gum.

LOL

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 1/5/2003 8:40 AM (GMT -6)

Al, meet SIM. SIM, meet Al. SIM, Al likes to laugh. Al, SIM believes God is timeless too. Enjoy the thread.

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 01/05/2003 2:07:19 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/5/2003 11:18 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Tom: But what the future “will be” is “now” in “some” respects settled and in “some” respects open.

quote:
Al: You has settled for "defacto-partiallytimeless."

This just all seems like the "orange you glad I didn't say banana joke. It seems that inside the non-timeless shell (of the OpenTheist newbrand) is yet another little timeless element, which then begs for another non-timeless shell to be inside of it, etc,. etc,. etc,. (Also like those triple mirrors at the department stores.)

Based in a nominalist shell. And so time-bound. (Makes me notice that lots of its major voices are ex-Calvinists. Calvinism's "Covenant Theology also strikes me as being heavily history-"bound." Hmmmm.)

====================================================

Blessings on you and your family, Tom. AND your neighborhood!

Al

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:50 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual