Open Theism

[John the Baptist]

An extract from something written by John Sanders in Christianity Today:

God does grieve over our sinful rebellion (Gen. 6:6; Eph. 4:30). Though God originally planned to have Saul and his lineage be kings over Israel, because of Saul's sin, God changed his mind and selected David instead (1 Sam. 13:13, 15:11).

The prophet Isaiah says to King Hezekiah, "Thus says the Lord," you will die and not recover from this illness. Hezekiah prays to God, asking him to change his mind. God does and sends Isaiah back to announce, "Thus says the Lord," you will recover from this illness (2 Kings 20:1-6).

Our prayers can have an effect on God's plans. It makes no sense to say God grieves, changes his mind, and is influenced by our prayers, and also claim that God tightly controls everything so that everything that occurs is what God desired to happen! Furthermore, on several occasions God expected Israel to repent but they did not do what God expected (Isa. 5:2; Jer. 3:6-7, 19-20). Also, God uses words such as might, if, and perhaps (Exod. 4:8-9; Jer. 26:3; Ezek. 12:3), indicating that some of the future is open, but such words make no sense in your viewâ€â€in fact, God seems less than genuine to offer forgiveness when he already knows they will not repent.

****
Hi, God does answer prayer as He wills!! Change His mind? It all depends what you are talking about. Put it this way, God knows in eternity what the future held & holds! He knew before/hand what we would request in prayer, & also if certain ones would or would not repent.

And if they would repent, & then again do as did some others did who are documented in scripture, (King Saul for one) and then have the Holy Spirit removed from them? This did not catch the Godhead off guard either, for they knew this in eternity as well! (or His own as in Matthew 23:38, compare Revelation 2:5)

But to change His mind? I don't agree with that! No, the Godhead does not change!

John

 

[Drew]

The premiss "If God knows that I will do X, then I must do X" is essentially flawed. When properly restated as "It must be that (if God knows that I am going to do X, then I will do X), the problem seems to disappear (you may have to think on this a while - I know that I did)

You seem to be stating that the following is true in some cases:

If God knows that I will do X, then I can choose to not do X.

If this were the case, then God's knowledge was incorrect, and therefore God was wrong - otherwise he would have known you would not have done X in the first place.

I do not believe that I am saying this.

I struggled with this issue for a long time. Although this may seem like a cop-out, I suggest that you go to the link I provided in an earlier post and work through the argument. When I did, I indeed have a "eureka" moment - I realized how a very subtle error of logic causes us to think that foreknowledge and freewill are incompatible.

 

[Guest]

I do not believe that I am saying this.

I struggled with this issue for a long time. Although this may seem like a cop-out, I suggest that you go to the link I provided in an earlier post and work through the argument. When I did, I indeed have a "eureka" moment - I realized how a very subtle error of logic causes us to think that foreknowledge and freewill are incompatible.

You are rejecting this premise:

"If God knows that I will do X, then I must do X."

Therefore, we can logically conclude that you support its alternative:

"If God knows that I will do X, then I may choose to not do X."

I don't really see any other possibilities. If you reject the former, you must be advocating the latter.

 

[Drew]

But to change His mind? I don't agree with that! No, the Godhead does not change!

Hi John:

How do you deal with texts like the following from Jeremiah 18:

if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.

"Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it;

if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.
To me, this clearly describes a God who is willing to change his mind.

 

[Drew]

Hi Cosmo:

I really think that the best way for me to respond is to ask you to read the material at the website. I fully understand that you may see this as a cop-out. However, I would ask you to be open to the possiblity that some of us Christians do think rigourously and logically about things. If it seems that referring you a site is a way of avoiding a direct response to your question, please consider the possibilty that the matter may contain some subtleties that you are not aware of, and that the best explanation is provided by the professor at the site in question - I would not be able to do as good a job as he does.

Another helpful thread is the very one where you can see me "get talked out of" my former view that foreknowledge and free will are incompatible. Here is the link:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=16341

If you do not find this material addresses your concerns, please indicate this and I will personally attempt to engage your concerns directly.

 

[John the Baptist]

But to change His mind? I don't agree with that! No, the Godhead does not change!

Hi John:

How do you deal with texts like the following from Jeremiah 18:

if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.

"Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it;

if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.
To me, this clearly describes a God who is willing to change his mind.

**
John here: Did I not make that clear? I thought that I did. :

The previous post is short! Try it again, ok?
We know that mankind was lost, right? (all mankind) That is a biblical fact. Also there was a [CONDITIONAL] way out provided! Did the Godhead change its mind?

No, most everything in the Word of God is ETERNALLY Covenanted (CONDITIONAL). Revelation 14:6 & Hebrews 13:20.

One surely recognizes the Forbidden Tree right there in the Midst of the Garden that was for the testing of 'perfectly created' Adam who was still a 'babe' as in being safe to save, he lacked full mature Character development, which is total MATURITY. This is what the Everlasting Gospel is & was all about! See Nahum 1:9

When one reads the Word Everlasting Gospel what does that mean? To me, I see it as IMMORTAL in all directions! :fadein:
---John

 

[Drew]

You are rejecting this premise:

"If God knows that I will do X, then I must do X."

Therefore, we can logically conclude that you support its alternative:

"If God knows that I will do X, then I may choose to not do X."

I don't really see any other possibilities. If you reject the former, you must be advocating the latter.

I think I may have found the problem with this. You seem to be arguing as follows (if I may abstract out the principle that underlies your argument):

If someone ("Fred") rejects the following:

If A then B

then Fred must support the following

If A then [the alternative to B (in a situation where there is an alternative that exhaust all possibilities)]

In the specific matter under issue there is indeed an alternative to "I must do X". As Cosmo correcltly points out, the alternative is "I may choose to not do X". I agree with Cosmo that these 2 exhaust all the possibilities in respect to the question of whether I am obliged to do X - either I am or I am not.

Consider the following:

IF Fred does not study, he will fail. (1)

Using the above form of argument, it would seems that a rejection of the above premise necessitates acceptance of the following:

IF Fred does not study, he will pass. (2)

Clearly this cannot be right. A reasonable person might reject (1) - after all some people pass without studying. This does not oblige that person to accept (2). Just because a lack of studying does not guarantee failing, this does not mean that it guarantees passing.

I am not 100 % sure of the above counter-argument - you may be able to show that the analogy to studying is not correct for some reason.

 

[DivineNames]

Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free- ... knowledge/

The article considers a version of the argument which is dependent on the notion of the necessity of the past. Prima facie, I can't see why the kind of necessity we attribute to the past is going to cause a problem with regard to divine foreknowledge/free will, but anyway...

 

[Guest]

Consider the following:

IF Fred does not study, he will fail. (1)

Using the above form of argument, it would seems that a rejection of the above premise necessitates acceptance of the following:

IF Fred does not study, he will pass. (2)

Clearly this cannot be right. A reasonable person might reject (1) - after all some people pass without studying. This does not oblige that person to accept (2). Just because a lack of studying does not guarantee failing, this does not mean that it guarantees passing.

I am not 100 % sure of the above counter-argument - you may be able to show that the analogy to studying is not correct for some reason.

Your counter-argument isn't addressing all the possibilities - namely, you are only examining the possibilities in which Fred does not study. Clearly, there are other options as well.

Let's put some premises forth and see where it gets us.

1] Fred will either pass or fail the test.
2] Fred can choose to either study or not study for the test.

3a] If Fred does not study, he will fail the test.
3b] If Fred does not study, he will pass the test.

4a] If Fred studies, he will fail the test.
4b] If Fred studies, he will pass the test.

In this case, each of these four (3a, 3b, 4a, 4b) possibilities are mutually exclusive. Only one of them can feasibly and logically occur.

 

[Guest]

Hi Cosmo:

I really think that the best way for me to respond is to ask you to read the material at the website. I fully understand that you may see this as a cop-out. However, I would ask you to be open to the possiblity that some of us Christians do think rigourously and logically about things. If it seems that referring you a site is a way of avoiding a direct response to your question, please consider the possibilty that the matter may contain some subtleties that you are not aware of, and that the best explanation is provided by the professor at the site in question - I would not be able to do as good a job as he does.

Another helpful thread is the very one where you can see me "get talked out of" my former view that foreknowledge and free will are incompatible. Here is the link:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=16341

If you do not find this material addresses your concerns, please indicate this and I will personally attempt to engage your concerns directly.

I find the material on that site to be rather logically questionable.

For the statement If Paul has two sons and a daughter, then he has at least two children, the author of the site states:

Something is clearly amiss. While it is true that Paul does (in fact) have at least two children (he has three), it is false that he has to have three. He doesn't have to have any. He doesn't have to have one. He doesn't have to have two. He doesn't have to have three. He doesn't have to have four. Etc., etc. Put another way: There is no necessity in Paul's having any children, let alone having three. There is no necessity for Paul (just as there is no necessity for anyone else) to have at least two children.

No, it is true that he has to have three. How do we know? Because it is given that he has two sons and a daughter. Humans as a whole do not have to have children because they might remain abstinent, or perhaps never marry. But Paul does have to have children. It is defined as such.

The author tries to get around this supposed problem by rewriting the sentence:

"It has to be that (if Paul has two sons and a daughter, then he has at least two children)."

I think he's splitting hairs where there are none to be split. This statement is logically equivalent to the above statement that he had such issue with.

I cannot accept his semantic wordplay as anything substantive, and therefore I must reject the conclusion of his argument.

Furthermore, and more interestingly, the conclusion of his argument does not address the problem of epistemic determinism. Even in his 'corrected version', he still concludes that

If x knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A.

How does this at all solve the issue of epistemic determinism? There is much waffling about and handwaving, but it's rather clear from the start that this guy has an agenda and is willing to form whatever semantics are necessary to ensure he reaches his goal. But he doesn't address the issue.

 

[Solo]

Consider the following:

IF Fred does not study, he will fail. (1)

Using the above form of argument, it would seems that a rejection of the above premise necessitates acceptance of the following:

IF Fred does not study, he will pass. (2)

Clearly this cannot be right. A reasonable person might reject (1) - after all some people pass without studying. This does not oblige that person to accept (2). Just because a lack of studying does not guarantee failing, this does not mean that it guarantees passing.

I am not 100 % sure of the above counter-argument - you may be able to show that the analogy to studying is not correct for some reason.

Your counter-argument isn't addressing all the possibilities - namely, you are only examining the possibilities in which Fred does not study. Clearly, there are other options as well.

Let's put some premises forth and see where it gets us.

1] Fred will either pass or fail the test.
2] Fred can choose to either study or not study for the test.

3a] If Fred does not study, he will fail the test.
3b] If Fred does not study, he will pass the test.

4a] If Fred studies, he will fail the test.
4b] If Fred studies, he will pass the test.

In this case, each of these four (3a, 3b, 4a, 4b) possibilities are mutually exclusive. Only one of them can feasibly and logically occur.

God knows which one will occur from before the foundation of the world, as he exists apart from the created time. Fred is governed by time and so are we. God is not governed by time. God deals with mankind within the created dimension of time, but exists outside of time not governed by its limitations.

 

[Guest]

God knows which one will occur from before the foundation of the world, as he exists apart from the created time. Fred is governed by time and so are we. God is not governed by time. God deals with mankind within the created dimension of time, but exists outside of time not governed by its limitations.

None of this, Solo, has a thing to do with what we're discussing. Go play in the sandbox with the other kids, we're having a non-fundamentalist discussion. Failing that, try to stay on topic - mmkay? :roll:

 

[Solo]

God knows which one will occur from before the foundation of the world, as he exists apart from the created time. Fred is governed by time and so are we. God is not governed by time. God deals with mankind within the created dimension of time, but exists outside of time not governed by its limitations.

None of this, Solo, has a thing to do with what we're discussing. Go play in the sandbox with the other kids, we're having a non-fundamentalist discussion. Failing that, try to stay on topic - mmkay? :roll:

Being ignorant is not one of your greater traits but is becoming the most pronounced.

This topic is about Open Theism. If you are ignorant as to what Open Theism is, let me help you.

What is Open Theism?

Open theism, also called openness and the open view, is a theological position dealing with human free will and its relationship to God and the nature of the future. It is the teaching that God has granted to humanity free will and that in order for the free will to be truly free, the future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God. They hold that if God knows what we are going to choose, then how can we be truly free when it is time to make those choices since a counter choice cannot then be made by us because it is already "known" what we are going to do.1 In other words, we would not actually be able to make a contrary choice to what God "knows" we will choose thus implying that we would not then be free.
In open theism, the future is either knowable or not knowable. For the open theists who hold that the future is knowable by God, they maintain that God voluntarily limits His knowledge of free will choices so that they can remain truly free.2 Other open theists maintain that the future, being non existent, is not knowable, even by God.3 Gregory Boyd, a well know advocate of Open Theism says,

"Much of it [the future], open theists will concede, is settled ahead of time, either by God's predestining will or by existing earthly causes, but it is not exhaustively settled ahead of time. To whatever degree the future is yet open to be decided by free agents, it is unsettled."4

But open theists would not say that God is weak or powerless. They say that God is capable of predicting and ordaining certain future events because He is capable of working in the world and bringing certain events to pass when the time is needed. Therefore, God could inspire the Old Testament writers to prophecy certain events and then He could simply ensure that those events occur at the right time.
Furthermore, open theists claim that they do not deny the omniscience of God. They, like classical theologians, state that God is indeed all knowing. But the differ in that the God can only know that which is knowable and since the future has not yet happened, it can not be exhaustively known by God. Instead, God only knows the present exhaustively, including the inclinations, desires, thoughts, and hopes of all people.
In open theism God can make mistakes because He does not know all things that will occur in the future. According to them God also takes risks and adapts to the free will choices of people. They claim biblical support for their position by citing scripture where God changes His mind (Exodus 32:14), is surprised (Isaiah 5:3–7), and tests people to see what they will do (Genesis 22:12).
Finally, open theism tends to portray the God of orthodoxy as distant, controlling, and unyielding while promoting the God of openness as involved, adapting, loving, interacting, and caring for humanity.

Orthodox Christianity

Historic Orthodox Christianity states that God knows all things, even the entirety of the future, exhaustively. 1 John 3:20 it says, "...for God is greater than our heart, and knows all things." Likewise, Peter said to Jesus in John 21:17, "...You know all things; You know that I love You..." God's sovereignty is clearly taught in scripture and His sovereignty is tied to His omniscience. Orthodox Christianity teaches that God is very loving, very involved, and even condescends to our level and interacts with us in a manner that we can understand. This means that we will see what appears to be instances of God changing His mind, testing, and adapting. But, this is all due to God's working with creatures who have limited vision, short life spans, and are sinners. God must work on our level since we cannot work on His.

God and time

The question about God's knowledge of the future is very important because it deals with the actual definition of God's nature in relation to the nature of the future. Is God all knowing about the future or not? Is God existing in the future or not? Is God limited to the present or not? The answers to these questions reflect the very nature and scope of God's existence. The open theists are pushing a description of God that reduces God from knowing all things, past, present, and future, to not knowing all things in the future. God's omnipresence is also in jeopardy in open theism, since some open theists deny the existence of the future and thereby deny the omnipresence of God in the future.

Conclusion

My opinion is that openness is a dangerous teaching that undermines the sovereignty, majesty, infinitude, knowledge, existence, and glory of God and exalts the nature and condition of man's own free will. Though the open theists will undoubtedly say it does no such thing, it goes without saying that the God of open theism is not as knowledgeable or as ever present as the God of orthodoxy.

 

[Guest]

Being ignorant is not one of your greater traits but is becoming the most pronounced.

This topic is about Open Theism. If you are ignorant as to what Open Theism is, let me help you.

Take your plagiarised copy-and-paste jobs elsewhere. We're discussing epistemic determinism here, in case you haven't noticed the shift in direction in this thread. You continue to demonstrate your own ignorance.

 

[Solo]

Being ignorant is not one of your greater traits but is becoming the most pronounced.

This topic is about Open Theism. If you are ignorant as to what Open Theism is, let me help you.

Take your plagiarised copy-and-paste jobs elsewhere. We're discussing epistemic determinism here, in case you haven't noticed the shift in direction in this thread.

Start a new thread for your epistemic determination and stick to the topic, Open Theism.
Thanks bubba.

If you weren't ignorant of the manner to post URL posts you would recognize that the article origin is found when clicked on the title. Plagarism is a hope for you, the uneducated in these manners.

 

[Guest]

Start a new thread for your epistemic determination and stick to the topic, Open Theism.
Thanks bubba.

Why is it, bubba, that you're the only one who seems to care about the shift in thread direction? Might I recommend you take a valium? You sure do get uptight about the smallest things...

 

[Guest]

Edit: Double post

 

[Solo]

Start a new thread for your epistemic determination and stick to the topic, Open Theism.
Thanks bubba.

Why is it, bubba, that you're the only one who seems to care about the shift in thread direction? Might I recommend you take a valium? You sure do get uptight about the smallest things...

I like to keep the uneducated abreast of the rules and statement of faith of this forum. Please review these rules and statement of faith. It will help in keeping you from getting formal warnings.

 

[Guest]

I like to keep the uneducated abreast of the rules and statement of faith of this forum. Please review these rules and statement of faith. It will help in keeping you from getting formal warnings.

Orwell would be proud.

Edit: I didn't originally derail this thread - not by a long shot. Get your facts straight.

 

[Solo]

What are the basic tenets of open theism?

Following are the basic tenets of open theism. It is with these presuppositions that open theists approach the Bible and interpret it.

• 1. God's greatest attribute is love[list:eb9bb]A. This attribute of God is often elevated above His other attributes and used to interpret God in such a way as to be a cosmic gentleman who wants all to be saved, mourns over their loss,

2. Man's free will is truly free in the libertarian sense.

• A. Man's free will is not restricted by his sinful nature but is equally able to make choices between different options.
  B. By contrast, compatibilist free will states that a person is restricted and affected by his nature and that his nature not only affects his free will choices, but also limits his ability to equally choose among different options.

3. God does not know the future

• A. This is either because God cannot know the future because it does not exist, or...
  B. It is because God chooses to not know the future even though it can be known.

4. God takes risks

• A. Because God does not know the future exhaustively, He must take risks with people whose future free will choices are unknowable.

5. God learns

• A. Because God does not know the future exhaustively, He learns as the realities of the future occur.

6. God makes mistakes

• A. Because God does not know all things and because He is dealing with free will creatures (whose future choices He does not know), God can make mistakes in dealing with people. Therefore, God would change His plans accordingly.

7. God changes His mind

• A. God can change His mind on issues depending on what He learns and what He discovers people do. Usually, God's change of mind is due to Him being surprised by something He didn't not plan for or expect.

[/list:u:eb9bb]As you can see, open theism presents a view of God contrary to classical and historic Christianity which sees God as sovereign, all knowing, and unchanging.