 |
| 
ChadD
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 1/5/2002 9:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | 1. My understanding is that Open Theism says God has perfect knowledge of both the past and the present.
: If God does have perfect knowledge of the past and present (disregarding the Biblical concerns at the moment), does not simple logic dictate that God then also has perfect knowledge of the future, excepting that we posit the existence of some variable that God is at least at present, subject to?
2. I have also heard it said that should God wish it, He could control everything.
: Is this intended to mean that God would at every moment cause whatsoever He wished to come about in all of creation while yet being subject to the variable spoken of in the previous question, or does this variable exist only as a result of God choosing not to control everything?
3. To me it seems that much of the suggested Biblical support for Open Theism is found in reading the passages normally presented as evidence for Classical Theism and crediting God as knowing only the bare minimum needed for a particular passage to not be an untruth.
: Is this comparable to a similar method that we can imagine might be taken regarding God's power; claiming that we need merely attribute to God the power necessary to do enough so that the recorder of a particular passage would, in his conception of the task requiring this power, not be stating an untruth?
4. If it is accepted that God currently exists in time with us (rather than "everything happens all at once for God"), what prevents one from still claiming exhaustive foreknowledge?
: In Biblical situations claimed to be best viewed as supportive of Open Theism, could it not then simply be said that these are descriptions of God experiencing time with us, and reacting to our expierences, both sorrow and joy? God may not be actively grieved or well-pleased with something until it actually happens.
If any of you reading this have time to respond to a question or two, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thank you.
(edit: formatting)
Edited by - Chadd on 01/05/2002 2:28:22 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
ChadD
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 1/5/2002 4:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Ah! Well, I had made up my mind to read "God of the Possible" this evening, but had made the previous post prior to doing so.
I would then like to, respectfully, ask that you please disregard question #4, and perhaps #3 in the above post! I shall then leave the previous post unedited, that anyone who has not yet read the book and who may have been themselves thinking such things, will feel compelled to read it. Thank you!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/6/2002 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | HI Chad, welcome to the site:
Chad: . If God does have perfect knowledge of the past and present (disregarding the Biblical concerns at the moment), does not simple logic dictate that God then also has perfect knowledge of the future, excepting that we posit the existence of some variable that God is at least at present, subject to?
Doc: God DOES have perfect knowledge of the future, Chad. There's nothing he does not know. The question is, IS the future exhaustively decided by the past and present. If it is, then God's knowledge of the future must be exhaustively definite, and Open Theism wrong. If it is not, however, then God's perfect knowledge of the future would include possibilities that are NOT yet decided.
Note, if you assume that the future is exhaustively settled by present circumstances, it becomes impossible to affirm that humans are genuinely free. Indeed, one must accept absolute determinism, since ever present moment was a previous "future" rendered certain by that present.
Chad: I have also heard it said that should God wish it, He could control everything. Is this intended to mean that God would at every moment cause whatsoever He wished to come about in all of creation while yet being subject to the variable spoken of in the previous question, or does this variable exist only as a result of God choosing not to control everything?
Doc: I'm not sure what you mean by "the variable," but I think it must mean something like "freedom of agents other than God." If so, then a contradiction is created if we suppose a) that God controls everything and yet b) that agents other than God have free will. God COULD have controlled everything, but there is a metaphysical price he'd pay to do so -- namely, the world would be devoid of morally significant freedom.
Blessings as you continue to read on.
Greg
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
JoeMoore
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 25
| Posted 1/7/2002 5:54 AM (GMT -6) | |
[quote]
[Doc]
...
Note, if you assume that the future is exhaustively settled by present circumstances, it becomes impossible to affirm that humans are genuinely free. Indeed, one must accept absolute determinism, since ever present moment was a previous "future" rendered certain by that present.
...
[Joe]
A quick question: By 'absolute determinism' here in your argument (not in open theism), can I assume you are allowing for either Armenian-style determinism (something like 'God knew and knows exactly what decisions truly free agents will make and co-determined the outcomes from eternity past) or Calvinistic determinism that says (to varying degrees) God made all decisions for the 'free' agents?
Maybe a traditional Arminian can describe whether or not he/she is comfortable with the term 'absolute determinism' as the Doc would use the term (or not, if I'm missing something).
Thanks.
Joe Moore
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ChadD
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 1/7/2002 3:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Considering as a whole the passages dealt with and referenced in the book, I can not in good conscience read into them, determinism. To do so I woulld be forced to take what seems to me a very awkward and dishonest (to myself!) stance on the inspiration and intent of Scripture.
However, and despite what has been said, I am really struggling with this. I am at a complete loss to understand how perfect knowledge of the past and present does not result in perfect knowledge as to the exact unfolding of events for all time (not just of all possibilities) unless qualifiers as below are appended to the claim. Specifically, regarding how could such a state of uncertainty have originated:
I will simply state the conclusions that I am (incorrectly, I presume) seeing as implied by Open Theism. Let "the variable" be free will, and/or perhaps the uncertainty proposed by modern physics:
- There is an inherent uncertainty (the variable) in all things. If God does not predetermine to cause something to occur (or not occur), the 'decision' as to what does occur falls upon this underlying unknowable uncertainty (the variable).
: Therefore, since God could not create something without knowing it perfectly, this variable is either an uncreated property of the environment in which God exists (subject to it), or there has never been a moment at which God had perfect knowledge of Himself (God IS the uncertainty)."
Does anyone understand the error that is causing me to arrive at such a thing? If so, or if you know of a particularly insightful (but readable!) article or book dealing with this issue, I would certainly appreciate it. Of course I will make an effort to search on my own as well.
Thanks.
(edit: readability)
Edited by - Chadd on 01/07/2002 9:42:17 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/7/2002 5:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Chad: : since God could not create something without knowing it perfectly, this variable is either an uncreated property of the environment in which God exists (subject to it), or there has never been a moment at which God had perfect knowledge of Himself (God IS the uncertainty)."
Does anyone understand the error that is causing me to arrive at such a thing?
Doc: Yes. You are presupposing that "to know x perfectly" is to "know the exhaustive future of x." Since Open Theists deny that God has exhaustively definite knowledge of the future, you think this implies that "God doesn't know anything perfectly." But if God created "x" free, then to "know x perfectly" does not entail "knowing the future of x with exhaustive definitness." It only entails "knowing all the possiblities of what x may choose."
So, I suggest that God DOES know x -- and all things -- perfectly. But "perfect" here means "according to their nature," and insofar as it lies in the nature of agents to be self-determining, it lies in their nature to choose between possibilities. Thus, God perfectly knows these possibilities, but NOT which possibilities they will choose, for this is up to them to decide.
Do you understand the perspective?
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
ChadD
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 1/7/2002 8:08 PM (GMT -6) | | What is being said then (I believe), is that:
- God can create a being (us) such that a perfect/exhaustive definition of that being and what it interacts with (the Universe limited by God's future plans at that instant) contains fully at any moment its past/present state, and all possible future states.
- These beings in their Universe perfectly fufill God's definition of: Universe containing free agents, and God knows them/it perfectly according to His definition (not my definition) of their type.
This then is the definition of perfectly knowing that is required by Scripture apart from compromising drastically my beliefs regarding the inspriation and intent of God's Word. I still do not feel satisfied (perhaps at a 'gut-level') that it is logically possible for God to create a free agent ("free" according to the Open View), but until I can demonstrate otherwise ...such a feeling is unwarranted.
Thanks.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/8/2002 3:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Chad,
Hey there, and welcome, welcome, welcome(!) to the debate, a debate we open theists have also struggled with to find peace in the concept! But, I believe it's very, very real and VERY important to understand in view of a personal walk with God.
First, I've noted this before here on this board but I'd like to reiterate it:
Consider God the master chess player. No, not just any master, THE Master player. By master I mean He knows EVERY POSSIBLE move that can be made...every one! It makes no difference what the opponent's move is, God knows EVERY possible combination of moves that can ever be made. So, no matter what move one makes, God already knows every move that can be made (both before and after that move has been made) and wins the game regardless.
Consider now that you are playing God in a game of chess. God sees that the rook should be moved, but you suddenly move the pawn. God could say to Himself (so to speak), "Hmm, I wouldn't have moved the pawn" I'd have moved the rook". God goes on to win. On the other hand, if you did move the rook, God says "Good move. Guess I'll win the game now". See, it makes no difference what we choose, God is never caught off guard!
This analogy falls short (in that it's pretty crude, I know), but I hope it conveys something of the omniscience of God.
And too, if YOU were to know your past perfectly, and you know your present perfectly, there's no reason to think you know your future perfectly. Now God does know all the past and present perfectly. He knows all the choices that are available (consider He IS God and all knowing in a far, far larger outreach than we really know!). He knows, too, the human heart and can read the thoughts of man's heart. So, He not only knows all absolute choices available, but He has that great "advantage" (and I use that word carefully here) of knowing what you're thinking, of seeing our heart's leanings.
A future of what you will do in the next two hours has not happened. Note that, Chad, it HASN'T happened yet! How do we expect God to know a freewill's agent's move in the next 2 hours (much less next twenty five years) if it hasn't even happened? Now, that part of the future God has ordianed and determined to happen is known by Him.
Consider this: Jesus appears before you and says, "Chad, I know what you're going to do in the next thirty seconds; you're going to scratch your head". You scratch your feet! Jesus says, "Oh, I knew you were going to do that". You'd be able to say "Well, why didn't you tell me that"? And there lay the catch of all this as I see it!
You see, where's the point in time that it's finally determined (and thus robbing you of your freewill, because you could never change a thing)? When can it be that God says "This is exactly what you'll do in such and such a time" without it stopping your choice cold in its tracks? (I myself asked Doc Boyd this as I was working through this, and then it dawned on me!) ONLY if God determines something Himself do we see this happening. Also ONLY when God knows something about someone so well that He can say "I know your heart (as He did with rebellious Israel); you'll leave my precepts and walk away from me", for example. See what I'm saying here?
I think it is a far bigger God to appreciate (though, that's no reason to embrace the open view) when we understand all those attributes of God in view of a God who can even give freewill and stay in control!
Hope this helps a little, Chad.
For the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
(o)
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 1/31/2002 7:49 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/31/2002 7:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman, Got an answer to his question? I'd like to see what you have to say on the subject.
Thanks,
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/31/2002 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey (o),
quote:
Does that make God a chesspiece?
No, it makes him the master chess player.
The world, for about as much of a cliche statement there is, is the chess game.
And we are not pieces either (that's just too darned cliche!). We are players.
Remember I said that the analogy is crude - and it's believed that all analogies, when talking and describing God fall short one way or another - but it first conveys the point that God is never caught off guard; surprised? Yes. But caught off Guard? Never!
And second, it allows us to live freely, within those created freedoms we were given, without the insecurity of a God somehow being unable to control matters without knowing all of the future.
Hey POW,
Hope that addresses the question! Was that the right question I addresses???
For the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/31/2002 12:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Yep. Thanks Starkman.
PoW, "the Postmillenialist amillenialist." | | Back to Top | | |
|
B. Winningham
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/5/2002 3:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Hello Everyone,
I am brand new to this forum (my 1st post). I have also been fairly recently introduced to Open Theism. I guess I have always believed in the philosophy and theology of Open Theism without even realizing that such theology existed in the minds of others. Thus, we share something in common. :-)
I am wanting to learn as much as I can about this subject in order to see just how compatable Open Theism is with my own beliefs in Christianity. Would it be safe to say that Open Theism is kinda like Arminianism minus the foreknowledge? Also, what churches include Open Theism in their docrines please?
TIA,
Bruce
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 2/5/2002 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Bruce,
Your question is exactly what I've been trying to get a handle on. It seems to be exactly Arminianism without Exhaustive Definitive Foreknowledge (and thus, of course, no predestination).
At it's core, OV highlights the value of human free will which requires a denial of EDF.
Now the ramifications of a God-without-foreknowledge are huge, and most of the writings on the topic address this (God risks, God persuades, God is open to and responds to human actions and feels genuine emotions, etc.).
I've tried to push the borders of Arminianism & OV, as well as some of the "absoluteness" of the human Free Will in the thread 'Openness and Salavation'.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 2/8/2002 5:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
No, it makes him the master chess player.
The world, for about as much of a cliche statement there is, is the chess game.
Except the pieces can move however they want within certain natural laws of creation. And also, since the master chess player is the creator of the game and the ultimate player, then he can't lose.
Chad, one of the most important aspects, in my mind, is that only in open theism do you have a God who is going through time and existence with you and is able to calculate the future possibilities, and step in to help you out. Calvinism doesn't allow for this because God is put in a box. God is bound by his blueprint for creation. Experience tells us that man is free, otherwise we have a sick God who glories himself in watching humanity suffer, for some "greater good."
I am free to do as I please and even though God can know every aspect of me that is real, I could still do something irrational. Since mankind has a free will but limited knowledge, we can do things that make no sense to the grand scheme of things, but may make sense in the present. As I understand it (which is a pretty shallow understanding), open theism shows that God knew me so well that he saw both the possibilities of the rational and the irrational decisions that I could have made. God is therefore ready to help out regardless of the choice I make. In a way, it seems like God knows MORE in Open Theism, because he is not bound to a blueprint, but knows all of the possibilities. It's pretty cool to think about.
Kyle Essary | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 2/8/2002 5:45 AM (GMT -6) | | The more I think about it, the less I like the chess analogy. Because, on one side of the board you have a creation which is bound by laws, but can be affected by human free will. So that side is partially controlled, partially affected. On the other side, you have the human aspect of creation which since human free will is independent of God, or other men, but bound by certain constants, I get the vision of pieces moving randomly with no sense of strategy, etc. They only ocassionally come together socially to work for the greater good, but for the most part move separately from the other pieces. It would be a very odd chess game, and one like none I have ever seen, hehe. No consistent openings, no strategy, God can only move certain pieces since he freely chose to limit his power, so I don't think I like the analogy anymore, hehe.
Maybe I'll get beat up on this one.
Kyle Essary | | Back to Top | | |
|
B. Winningham
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/8/2002 6:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
And also, since the master chess player is the creator of the game and the ultimate player, then he can't lose. ... ...
Experience tells us that man is free, otherwise we have a sick God who glories himself in watching humanity suffer, for some "greater good."
Kyle, I do not mean to sound heretical here but given God's Sovereignty and Providence over His creation, do you suppose man may have a little more free will than God in some areas?
For instance: God cannot and will not lie, man can and often times does. God cannot die while every man "will" die (or at least experience an earthly/physical death). God cannot and will not break his promise; man can and often does (thus the reason Jesus discouraged making oaths in the N.T.). God cannot do evil; man can and often does do evil things.
There is no doubt my mind that our Almighty God has given man free will just like the Constitution of the United States (God being the many, many times superior of the two) has given American citizens certain freedoms. Some of us may be better off if we did not have certain rights, freedoms and priveleges.
For instance, some will say "I have the right to smoke cigarettes if I want to". I will reply "Yeah, but you would be better off if you did not exercize that particular right for your own health's sake." Man has the free will to worship God or not to worship God. Like the cigarette smoker, this same man has the free will from God and the freedom from our government's constitution to make the wrong decision(s). Hopefully, the man will make the "right" decisions. Sadly, many of us don't. This saddens our God but it can sometimes make our government happy by recieving additional revenue from us in the form of "sin taxes" as well as fines, fees and penalities when we make an error in our decisions.
For the Christians, the most important thing of our lives is how we love and accept the Godhead of the Trinity and receive our salvation. All else in life is trivial.
B. Winningham
| | Back to Top | | |
|
B. Winningham
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 2/8/2002 7:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Your question is exactly what I've been trying to get a handle on. It seems to be exactly Arminianism without Exhaustive Definitive Foreknowledge (and thus, of course, no predestination).
Hi Terry,
I am very glad to meet you in this very helpful forum. Seems like Yourself and I share some similar ideologies in our theologies. I wish some of the veterans of the Open View would jump in and help us out by letting us know if we are on the right track or not (Open View = Arminianism minus Foreknowledge ??).
I think that the Open View Doctrine (Can we call it a doctrine?) is the most helpfull theism I have came across in explaing why certain things happen. For instance: why does God allow evil things happen to a so-called righteous person? Why do certain evil people get all the glory while Christians are abused? God does not predestine this. Don't you think many evil acts would have been prevented by God if he truly knew it by foreknowledge before it happened?
I have a lady friend (not girl friend) that has her own weird (at least to me) theology of God. She thinks that God was bored and got lonely before He created His creation. Therefore God created man and the rest of the creation to break this boredom and entertain himself. Just like children may jump out of bed on Saturday mornings to watch cartoons, God sits back and laughs at us (his children) when we make mistakes in our daily lives just like we were the cartoon characters. I cannor accept this! Why would a loving Heavenly Father laugh when his children make a mistake and/or suffer? If predestination had any merit, why would God want to predetermine our destiny just like we were puppets on a puppet string and He was the puppeteer? If inexhaustive forknowledge has merit, why would God want to sit back and watch his children suffer all over again just as if He was watching us on an old rerun movie?
The Open View Theism seems to make the most sense to me but I could be wrong. I am wanting to look at and compare Arminianism, NeoArminianism and Calvinism very closely and thoroughly with the Bible.
Thanks For Listening,
B. Winningham
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 2/8/2002 7:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Yeah, we may be heretics, but I have wondered that many times. I think that God binds himself though. God cannot lie because he chooses not to lie, not because he doesn't have the ability to. God doesn't control man, not because he can't, but because he chooses not to, and follows through with his purposes. God doesn't break promises, but that is based on his choices in response to his nature, not by his ability to break them. See what I am saying?
Kyle Essary | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/8/2002 9:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Kyle,
You noted:
The more I think about it, the less I like the chess analogy. Because, on one side of the board you have a creation which is bound by laws, but can be affected by human free will. So that side is partially controlled, partially affected. On the other side, you have the human aspect of creation which since human free will is independent of God, or other men, but bound by certain constants,
You couldn't have said it any better and any more accurate. What is it about what you said that bothers you? The facts are God has limited Himself (obviously by choice) in some areas to have a meaningful relationship with us. And human freedom is, too, bound by certain limitations; physically, spiritually. I mean, when's the last time you saw a human create something out of complete nothing? Ain't gonna!
No, you're quite accurate in what you said, but not unorthodox and not unbiblical!
Then you noted:
I get the vision of pieces moving randomly with no sense of strategy, etc. They only ocassionally come together socially to work for the greater good, but for the most part move separately from the other pieces. It would be a very odd chess game, and one like none I have ever seen, hehe. No consistent openings, no strategy, God can only move certain pieces since he freely chose to limit his power,
Okay, here's where the chess analogy breaks down a lot (as does any analogy - and I noted that as such; the analogy has its shortcomings).
No, the pieces NEVER move randomly. God certainly doesn't move randomly as God, and I certainly try not to move randomly in my life. But this has no bearing to the open view other than God and us are having a relationship. Nothing random about it. Limitations? Yes. Randomness? Nope!
Well, gotta go here.
Wife's seeing the Bone Crusher...ahem...chiopractor!
For the conversation!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 2/8/2002 11:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Personally I prefer the "Choose Your Own Story" analogy to the "Chess" analogy. I don't know if they are still around, but at one point in time there was a series of books by the name of "Choose Your Own Story". You would start reading the story, then you would be presented with a series of choices. "If you want to go left turn to page 37; If you want to go right turn to page 104." As you make your choices, the story evolves around those choices. I see it as God cheating and reading ahead and seeing all the various possibilities that the reader can choose. Not wanting to spoil the ending, He doesn't tell you what choices to make to achieve a particular ending, but on occasion He will edge someone in the right direction.
BTW...
The Chess analogy works better if you look at it as playing against something obscure like luck, destiny, or death. God on the other hand is you Chess coach. We are not supposed to be playing against God. Calvinistic theology would see it more as playing against God. I think at least.
MrI. :|
________________________________________
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.
Karl Marx Theses on Feuerbach
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:47 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|