Greetings in Christ.

If any of my fellow open-theists here (those who are well-read in Scripture, Boyd's works, and open-theism in general) have time and might be interested, I'd like to get your input on an email conversation that took place between my friend Jeff (who isn't an open-theist, but also isn't a Calvinist, but is sort of an "Arminian-by-default", www.myspace.com/torturedconscience ), and his friend Christopher (a Calvinist, www.myspace.com/neiswonger ). I'm presently attempting to address Christopher's objections, for Jeff's sake, but I certainly feel as though I could use some input. [By the way, this message should have the word "end" at the end; if it doesn't, the discussion-board cut it short and I would have to re-post the second half].

I appreciate any help any of you may be able to offer. Take care and God bless.

Ricco, www.myspace.com/christdisciple7

 Jeff - I don't know if you've been reading the other posts and whatnot, but with all this talk about Open Theism, I was wondering if you've ever considered having Greg Boyd on your show to discuss it. From what I've read on the theory, it seems pretty solid, and the only refutation I've heard of it was based on a misunderstanding of it. I'd also be interested to hear your thoughts on it.
 
Chris - Gregory Boyd is not taken very seriously by the larger evangelical community as you can see by the fact that no one is really rushing to write anything to refute him. As far as its solidity I personally don't see that. There is no church, denomination, historical creed or confession that agrees with him. That means zero support in terms of orthodoxy in two thousand years of Christian theology. You may not take this as "proof" per se but as a call for pause and slow consideration in taking a side so out of step with our predecessors in the faith, it seems only wise.

 Jeff - Its a shame that nobody is taking it seriously because I have no word from the other side on the issue to compare it to. Silence is only going to bring people that don't know any better (like myself) to accept Open Theism as legit. I know you're busy, but if you find the time, can you possibly start refuting it so I can see the other side of the argument? I don't want to believe anything that is wrong.

 Chris - Well, its that even Arminians don't think this way. Molinists don't think this way. Even the early Pelagians didn't think this way. I'm sure its the same with yourself but there are only so many hours in a day so I have to choose what arguments to get in to :).
This is "process philosophy" (Alfred North Whitehead, et al) with a thin veneer of Christianish theology painted over it. Its an answer to the question "If I were to interpret Christian theology as if Process Metaphysics were true, what would it look like?" But really you should need to show that Process Philosophy is true, or at least presuppose it, before you should say that the scriptures teach it, as, if the scriptures teach it, no one has figured that out for 2000 years.
It would not be appropriate for me to do a quick post or two and then need to ignore every ones responses but that is what I would be compelled to do. That would probably look like I was ducking peoples responses when I just don't have a spare minute to think about anything I'm not already thinking about. I've actually started writing something on this topic (last year actually) that I expect to have finished pretty soon and I'm sure that will open the field. Maybe next month or so.
But if you want my two cents, the idea that God has become an effect of the universe is just not a place that Christians will be willing to go. It makes their god a mere greek revision of the very Hebrew God of Abraham Issac and Jacob. Its a little bitty god for little bitty godlings. A god that is finite, ignorant of the future, tentative, dependant upon man for the nature of his being, changeable, reactionary, learning, growing, and as mystified as the rest of us about the way all of this will turn out has little to do with the God we meet in Jesus Christ.

 Jeff - I'm glad you're writing on the subject of Open Theism and look forward to reading it. But I have to admit that it seems that you might be looking at the view not directly but through the distorted glasses of a misunderstanding of the idea. The reason I say this is that your objections (though I understand you were just giving me a quick response to my question and not trying to give me a full scope of your viewpoint) have already been answered (as far as my limited understanding goes) and might end up being pushed aside as yet another nay-sayer who doesn't understand the position fully. That's why I was hoping you'd go straight to the source, or at least the most recognized proponent of the theory, namely Greg Boyd.
But like I said, I'm looking forward to reading your ideas on it.

 Chris - I've read I think everything that Boyd has produced specifically on the subject, as well as Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, Richard Rice, and William Hasker, not to mention the responses. My Views of their views are based upon their presentation of their views and their presentation of their views alone, as varied as they are. To feel the need to imply that if someone disagrees they must not have done their homework implies to me that you might be watering at a very shallow trough. This groups interpretation of the history of Christian theology and philosophy in general is often the very opposite of historical fact.
Boyd himself gives the credit to Process Philosophy in his writings. If I am reading in I am certainly not reading much farther than the printed page.
Their exegetical arguments are often innane.
The problems of God in relation to time are not solved by any of them, they simply create possible answers. Alternative answers are in no sense proof of anything, and the fact that they are alternative shows their innovation. (newness) God and time are tough stuff, but their (Openess) answers seem to create more questions that the other versions with no possible answers.
To say that the traditional theology is somehow influenced by greek thought while replacing it by a smaller finite deity with no knowledge of the future free decisions of men and a limited power is not an almost direct plagiarism of the greek gods is not, is just silly. That is the greek gods. And because it is so obvious not many take it seriously enough to deal with it. And as it is such a small group with such small influence, just a handful, of churches usually non-denominational, it is just not that important and there are bigger fish to fry.
Finding a thing unanswered in a view and implying that because view A' cannot answer question B' we must abandon view A' for view C' is an old trick of rhetoric, but we shouldn't fall for such things. There are difficult problems in every view, philosophical or theological. We need to be more patient than that.
Right now I'm focused on the international aspects of radicalized Islam and that is where my head will be for the foreseeable future.
All the best, Christopher
 
Jeff - Christopher:"To feel the need to imply that if someone disagrees they must not have done their homework implies to me that you might be watering at a very shallow trough."
Jeff: No, no...you misunderstand me. You sound insulted and I didn't mean that in any way. I wasn't implying that if you disagreed with him that you misunderstood. I meant only that I've heard the arguments and heard counter arguments. For instance:

 Christopher - A god that is finite,

 Jeff - They would argue that they are in agreement that God is infinite. They are saying that their position heightens that in that God has the power to choose whether to know the specific future or just every possible future.

 Christopher - ignorant of the future

 Jeff - They would argue that God has the ability to choose or not choose to know the specific future.

 Christopher - changeable

 Jeff - The O.T.s would say that the incarnation of Christ is an example of God "changing." They would also point out examples like God "changing" His mind about destroying Ninevah.
That's all I'm saying. I didn't mean to sound insulting and if I came across that way I apologize.

 Chris - Don't worry Jeff, as you might guess I'm pretty think skinned. I'm accustomed to being disagreed with :). That the objections have proposed answer is true. Whether the proposed answer are actually answers is where the debate is. Is their definition if infinite really just a change in the definition of infinite to include finitude? Is part of the definition of infinite that one can choose to do things contrary to one's metaphysical nature, like becoming finite? They would not all say that god has the ability to know or not know the future. The ones that would are actually stranger than those that argue that no one can know what does not yet exist and that god only knows everything that exists.
But let me give you an example:

 Christopher - ignorant of the future

 Jeff - They would argue that God has the ability to choose or not choose to know the specific future.

 Christopher - Your answer says that god is ignorant of the future. Your only caveat is WHY he is ignorant of the future. You do not argue that he is not ignorant of the future. So you agree with my premise but you propose an explanation. But what I wrote was true, and you agree with it. So your proposed response is to state an alternate theology which is neither an answer nor a disagreement.
There are absolute and relative relations. God's are absolute. Everything else is relative. If God is made relative, then nothing is absolute. And if nothing is absolute, there is no God.
Time, or better time/space, is an attribute of the universe. We all understand that the universe was created. Therefore if time is an attribute of God, he shares attributes with the created universe. If time is an attribute of God, he cannot extend beyond the boundaries of the known universe, because by definition, time is an attribute of existing matter in space. Thus either God is an aspect of the physical universe, pantheism, or we are an aspect of God, panentheism, or God though beyond the created contours of the mere physicality of the creation, can and does work within time and space while being subject to neither, which is traditional Christian theism.
What is time? Is God a material? Since the rate of time is related to gravitation and mass, how much does He weigh and what is His density so He can know what time it is? Time flows at different rates at different locations, so, is God younger at some places than He is at others? Can God create things other than Himself? Can something come to exist from nothing apart from His action? How do you quantify Him? What are His qualities? What is the nature of the continuity of existence apart from Providence? If God is now a mere function and reaction to the created universe itself then what keeps Him in existence? If God can change His nature from all-knowing to ignorant, can he change it from Good to Evil? Why would His moral nature be somehow unchangable while His epistemological nature is able to be turned on and off like a light switch? Doesn't His metaphysical nature come into play here also? Isn't a change in His knowledge a change in his being? How then can even He know what he will end up being like? Since what He thinks is dependent upon future event that He does not know, he cannot know what he will be like anymore than he can know what He will think or do, and is this a problem for a specifically Christian theism, that believes that God has actually revealed Himself as He really is in the Bible, and that they are not just analogies or fanciful communications of how men interpret their religious experiences with God?

 Jeff- You brought up a lot of good points. You've given me a lot to think about. Even if God knows all the possible future outcomes, He still doesn't know the actual outcome, thus He'd be ignorant. And even if this ignorance comes from His choosing to be ignorant, how can we say that He can't also "choose" to be evil?
But one question you asked: "What is time?" ... can it not also be answered beyond the time/space argument that you laid out and be answered that time can also be based on experience? There was a time before creation of angels and after it. There was a time before the fall of Lucifer and after it. If there is a before/after, isn't there also time? (I'm not trying to argue with you but am trying to get as much info as I can.) Thanks for being patient with me, Jeff

 Chris - Well that’s the thing with time. There is a lot of equivocation, or, using the same term with an entirely different meaning. If by time you mean the relationship of objects in space, or the curvature of space, or the motion of objects in space relative to their velocity, then traditional theologians have denied that God is within or dependent upon time. If by time you mean consciousness of your own persistent personal existence, which we usually call personal consciousness, no one has ever denied that to God. But they would also say that the Physical time is dependent upon the personal time of God and not the opposite (Which might be interpreted an eternal existing moment). Thus God knows time but is not dependent upon it or subject to it. He did not become subject to it by creating it.
God is a Spirit; therefore He is not a massive object in space.
Now if by there being time before the creation you mean by the term time the same thing that existed after the creation, then that would be taken as false. That "time" and what it means could not exist without a creation. Otherwise, there WAS NO CREATION; just a change in an already existing something (i.e. Process). If there was an "in the beginning" there was a beginning to the universe and there was a beginning to the time of the universe. And if there is a difference in the times, then one should really be called something else to avoid the obvious confusion.
Now here is an important point. If God transcends, or exists beyond, the existing created universe, by even one millimeter, He transcends time, because time as properly conceived and defined, is determinatively limited to this existence. That He is within the universe and works within it is true, and this is what we call His "Immanence". That He transcends and is greater than the created universe is true, and this we call His "Transcendence". Both of these have been taken by the traditional theologians to be true and non contradictory.
But this means that God necessarily transcends time. Other wise, you either have two gods, one with the properties of physical time dependence and one with the properties of extra universal time, or one god that is only extra universal (Deism), or one god that is wholly physical time dependent (Finite theism). God can be greater than time and still act within it but it would seem that He cannot be subject to time and transcend it. And since it is different times at different places in the universe this could be a very dangerous doctrine indeed. The rate of time changes, over time (black hole theory, relativity, etc.).
If by time you mean consciousness of your personal existence though time, then by the very use of the concepts you are distinguishing between personal consciousness of your existence and something called "time" in which this personal consciousness "exists". So now you have a time and a super-time that have neither the same attributes nor the same definitions.
So, what do you mean by time? And can God be in it, or in some way possibly beyond our current understanding, must He be greater than it, when you read about who He is and what He does in the Bible? Because in a Christian understanding of these things that is the primary source. He says He knows the future free decisions of men and even nations and tells his people to plan their own free decision on the basis of His knowledge of those future free decisions. Tricky? Oh yeah. Tricky. So we need to move carefully. And nether deny what He says nor allow it to be dismissed. Are there other difficult statements to be dealt with that say other things? Whatever we say about those things cannot contradict these things, and visa versa. Eh? Christopher

 Jeff - See, THIS is the stuff that needs to be put into the conversation. I really wish you'd re-consider at least adding what we've talked about to it.

 Chris - Well the only thing about it is that to post something like this I would need to provide references and documentation from a long series of books and articles, basically to give substantial support to premises and argument. You can't really say "I think this and this and this..." and then not provide that kind of thing and I don't have time to do it right now. :)
I'm really just trying to give you things to think about as you navigate the arguments. There are a lot of things in Openess that seem to make sense until you push them a little. The value in the movement is in getting us to think more clearly about squishy aspects of traditional theology that tend to go unanalyzed. That’s always healthy. Augustine and Aquinas did not answer every question. (But they answered a lot of them :) )  Christopher
 
[Jeff - And here is the last question I just posed to him a few minutes ago, and I'll let you know what he says:]
 
Jeff -I was re-reading our correspondence, and I felt compelled to ask this question:

 Christopher - If God can change His nature from all-knowing to ignorant, can he change it from Good to Evil? Why would His moral nature be somehow unchangeable while His epistemological nature is able to be turned on and off like a light switch? Doesn't His metaphysical nature come into play here also? Isn't a change in His knowledge a change in his being?

 Jeff - How does the incarnation of Christ come into play? In it God adds a finite nature to Himself (flesh and bones). The same question you posed can be asked: if God can change His nature and still maintain His definition of infinite, can't He also change His knowledge and still maintain His infiniteness?

 [Jeff -This is the latest after I asked that last question:]
 
Christopher - I need to ask a preliminary question before answering because you seem so knowledgeable about theology in general.  Have you read the historic creeds and confessions of the Church and the historical dialogue within the Church as to how these formulations came about?  I ask because what you are saying has never been held by any Christian Church or denomination in history, so I want to know if you haven't studied that, or if you have studied that but are positing something that you think is a problem in historic orthodoxy which you already understand.
 What you seem to be positing is the "confusion of the natures".  I wouldn't think that you would think that but maybe you do. But the short answer is, that no Christian group has ever said that God adds a finite nature to himself, and that is because he didn't.  That has always been considered false.
 I'll give a brief example from a section of the Athanasian Creed from about 500 AD. All of the earlier creeds carry the same content.
 "...Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.
 It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.
For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and man.
 He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother -- existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body;
equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.
 Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.
 He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.
 He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.
 For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.
 He suffered death for our salvation.
 He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.
 He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
 He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
 At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
 Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
 those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
 This is the catholic faith.
 One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully."
 And here is another more recent Confession with a little more depth of content.  In earlier times this kind of information was very common, today it is very uncommon.  This Confession has been used by hundreds of denominations and tens of millions of Christians in the last four hundred years.
 "The Westminster Confession of Faith
CHAPTER VIII.
 Of Christ the Mediator.
I. It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only-begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and men, the prophet, priest, and king; the head and Savior of the Church, the heir or all things, and judge of the world; unto whom he did, from all eternity, give a people to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.
 II. The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof; yet without sin: being conceived by he power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
 III. The Lord Jesus in his human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure; having in him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell: to the end that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, he might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety. Which office he took not unto himself, but was thereunto called by his Father; who put all power and judgment into his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.
 IV. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which, that he might discharge, he was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it; endured most grievous torments immediately in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body; was crucified and died; was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day he arose from the dead, with the same body in which he suffered; with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father, making intercession; and shall return to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.
 V. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.
 VI. Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated into the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman, which should bruise the serpent's head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same and for ever.
 VII. Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes, in Scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.
 VIII. To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey; and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation."

 Jeff - Christopher - I need to ask a preliminary question before answering because you seem so knowledgeable about theology in general.
Jeff - Sarcasm? Hehe.
Christopher - Have you read the historic creeds and confessions of the Church and the historical dialogue within the Church as to how these formulations came about?
Jeff - Very briefly. Admittedly its something I need to learn more about

Christopher - I ask because what you are saying has never been held by any Christian Church or denomination in history, so I want to know if you haven't studied that, or if you have studied that but are positing something that you think is a problem in historic orthodoxy which you already understand.
 
Jeff - When learning about Open Theism, I had brought up the objection that O.T would mean that there was change in God (He at one moment doesn't know something then, by His power, knows something). The rebuttal to that was the incarnation. I thought it was an interesting answer and I wanted to find out what the rebuttal to it was. Thats as far I've taken it.
 
Christopher - What you seem to be positing is the "confusion of the natures". I wouldn't think that you would think that but maybe you do.
 
Jeff - In other words you didn't expect me to be so stupid? Haha.
 
Christopher - But the short answer is, that no Christian group has ever said that God adds a finite nature to himself, and that is because he didn't. That has always been considered false.
 
Jeff - By calling His human nature "finite," I might've been overstepping my bounds and saying something that Open Theism doesn't say. But if Jesus' body can die, isn't that an attibute of finite? How can the infinite die?
 
Christopher - I'll give a brief example from a section of the Athanasian Creed from about 500 AD. All of the earlier creeds carry the same content. 
 

Jeff - But this still does not address the question at hand: Jesus did not always have a human body, correct? If not, there was a change in God.

 Christopher - VI. Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated into the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman, which should bruise the serpent's head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same and for ever.
 
Jeff - There is nothing in these confessions and creeds that I disagree with. But this is the part of confusion for me. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. I have no problem with that. But my question is the incarnation itself. Did Jesus always have a human body? If not, isn't that a change?
 
Christopher - Sometimes tone isn't well communicated in letters on a screen.  I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, just asking the questions.  Perhaps you do hold that there is a confusion of the natures and I wouldn't know without asking.  The questions you are asking are equivocal and therefore cannot be answered.  Jesus, was born in bethlehem twothousand years ago.  As to His human nature, He has no divine properties, came to exist at a point in time and space, was not all knowing, was not infinite, and so did not change in His nature either during His earthly life nor now at the right hand of the father, nor will He ever in the future.  As to the Jesus in the Divine nature, the eternal Son of God, was never finite, never ceased to know all things, never ceased to be at all places, nor to have all power.
 This seems to be the thing you are having a hard time with, "the hypostatic union".  That the Christian doctrine is that Jesus Christ is one Person with two natures.  The natures are neither mixed nor confused and neither nature loses its peculiar qualities, what makes it what it is, by the relation.  Almost every great heresy in the history of the Christian Church has been some kind of perversion of this doctrine, and no one that is a Christian has held to another one.
 The doctrines that define orthodox Christianity are the doctrines of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and the doctrine of Scripture.  Without these there is really very little left.
 So no one has held that there was actually a change in God by His creating a human nature, and it could not make the divinity a humanity nor the humanity a divinity.  The divinity did not get smaller and the humanity did not get larger.  One person with two distinct natures.
 If His human nature was not human even as ours is human he could not have been a man to die in our place.  If His divine nature were not divine even as the Father is divine His value to the Father would not have been sufficient to provide for the righteousness of all who believe in Him, because the value of one man is only the value of one man.
 If He truly became finite by taking on our humanity as a robe, then his value was merely a human value, and the imputed righteousness of Christ and his atonement for sin were hardly credible as the sources of our salvation.
 
Jeff - Christopher - Jesus, was born in bethlehem twothousand years ago. As to His human nature, He has no divine properties, came to exist at a point in time and space, was not all knowing, was not infinite, and so did not change in His nature either during His earthly life nor now at the right hand of the father, nor will He ever in the future. As to the Jesus in the Divine nature, the eternal Son of God, was never finite, never ceased to know all things, never ceased to be at all places, nor to have all power.
 
Jeff - I think I've got it, and tell me if I'm on the right path:
         1. Jesus' human nature, which did have a beginning, is finite. That nature has never changed.
         2. Jesus' divine nature, which never had a beginning, is infinite. That nature has never changed.
         3. Therefore Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
 
If I understand you correctly, then you have answered my question and the confusion is lifted. Thank you sir!!
End

The cat belongs to my girlfriend; she chose to put her favorite pet as her profile photo on her myspace page :)

 

I like that.