Open Theism

[Guest]

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.

...and logically contradictory. :roll:

 

[John the Baptist]

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.

*******
Good grief, here we go again!
--John

 

[Solo]

A logical refutation of open theism

Following is an attempt to provide a logical proof that God knows all future events exhaustively and that the open theism view that God does not know the future free will choices of creatures is false.

• 1. God is the only eternal, uncaused, and self-existent being who was before all things.[list:8fc6a]
  A. God has always existed and is eternal by nature.
  
  B. God has always been eternally self existent with nothing needed or implied to be necessary for God's existence other than His own nature and essence.
  
  C. Note: Saying that God is before all things, i.e., before time, can be problematic since the word "before" implies time and since we are trying to describe a "time" when "time" did not exist. There are natural difficulties with this approach. But, suffice it to say that God was before all things and that there was a "time" when God was all that existed.

2. Time is that non-spatial, continuous succession of events from the past, through the present, and into the future.

• 
  A. Time exists as a function, as a relationship to things that change. If nothing exists, then nothing changes, and time is non-existent.

3. Since God is eternal by nature, God is not restricted by nor contained within time, nor is He restricted by a continuous succession of events from the past, through the present, and into the future, nor is time an attribute of God's nature.

• 
  A. If you say that time is a property of God's existence, then in order to arrive at the present, this mean that an infinite amount of time must have passed in order for us to arrive in the present. But, an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed. Therefore, time must have had a beginning. Since God did not have a beginning, time is not a part of God and God is not restricted by time.[list:8fc6a]
  i. If the person affirms that time is a property of God's existence, then that means we have traversed an infinite amount of time in order to get to the present. But that is impossible, so time can not be a property of God's existence and nature.

B. If the response is that the future does not exist, how does anyone know that? It is at best a guess. If the future does not exist then how can God perfectly predict or known anything future for sure?

C. Time is that non-spatial, continuous succession of events from the past, through the present, and into the future. Working with this, we can see that God cannot be restricted by time and is outside of it. This is why...

• 
  i. All "events" occur in time.
  
  ii. An event that occurs in time is an event that came into existence at its occurrence.
  
  iii. Any event that comes into existence has a beginning.
  
  iv. Any event that has a beginning was caused to occur by something else[list:8fc6a]
  a. This is so since something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence and must be brought into existence by something else.

v. If we stated that God exists relative to time, then God exists as a sequence of events.

vi. If God exists as a sequence of events, then the events in God's existence all have causes.

vii. However, there cannot be an infinite regression of causes.

• 
  a. This is because all things that are caused to exist must have been caused to exist by something else.

viii. Since there cannot be an infinite regression of causes, there must be an initial uncaused cause. But, since time is a sequence of events, and all events have causes, then time must have an initial uncaused cause to it. This means that time had a beginning.

ix. If time is a property of God's nature, and time is a series of consecutive events, then God's nature requires a beginning.

x. This would mean that God had a beginning. But, this is not possible since something that has a beginning cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, God could not have brought Himself into existence.

• 
  a. For something to perform an act, it must exist. Something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not exist by which it can then perform an action by which it can bring itself into existence.

xi. Since God cannot have had a beginning, God cannot be restricted by time, and time cannot be an attribute of God's existence.

xii. Therefore, the past, present, and future are irrelevant to God's nature, not part of God's nature, and God exists independent of them which means that the future is knowable by God.[/list:u:8fc6a][/list:u:8fc6a]
4. God is the Creator of the universe and is independent of it.

5. The universe exists in relationship to time which is a consecutive series of events that relate to change and sequence.

6. God is not subject to, or limited by the constraints of the universe which includes the constraints or limits of time or any properties of time that may limit us as humans.

7. Since God created the universe, and since God is not subject to time, and since the universe operates in time, God also created time when He created the universe.

• 
  A. To say that God did not create time and that time has always existed, even before the universe existed, would imply two things:[list:8fc6a]
  i. First, that time is a part of God's nature. If time is a part of God's nature, then God is subject to its constraints. But this is problematic because God is timelessly infinite by definition (Psalm 90:2) and has no initial event where He was brought into existence. Since something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not exist, God must have always existed and has no initial event. Furthermore, if God is infinite and without beginning, then God is timeless -- since the concept of beginning is not applicable to God. Therefore, time is not a property of God's existence since He is not subject to its constraints and has no initial event connected with Him by which time "moves."
  
  ii. Second, that time has a quality that has an independent existence from God and is separate from the creative work of God. This is problematic because it would mean that time is its own eternally existing thing which would imply that time is in some way equal to God in its eternal nature as well as be outside of God's creative work.

B. To say that God did not create time and that time has always existed, even before the universe existed, would be a non-sequitor statement since time is a relation of sequential events and if the universe did not exist, there is no ability for sequential events to occur. Therefore, there cannot be a time when time did not exist. But we must realize that the difficulties of our conceptual language in relation to time prevents us from accurately describing its relationship to the universe as well as the "time" before the universe. Therefore, when referencing a period before something, the concept of time is automatically included. How then can there be a period (which denotes time) before the time when time didn't exist? I do not believe that this syntactical/logical paradox can be surmounted.
Therefore, due to the limits of our syntactical/logical descriptions, I will refer to a "time before time existed" to describe the condition of all existence to mean God's existence alone and apart from time and apart from the existence of the universe.

C. Comment: If it is true that time is a function of matter and space, as science has proclaimed, and since there was a "time" when God was the only thing in existence, then matter and space had no existence. Therefore, time did not exist. God created the universe giving space and matter their properties which included the property of having a beginning. Therefore, time is a property of the universe which was created. This means that God created time and is not subject to it.
[/list:u:8fc6a]
8. Since God created time, God has always existed and continues to exist outside of time and is not subject to its properties.

• 
  A. This means that God is not subject to a succession of events that moves from the past, through the present, and into the future.
  
  B. Furthermore, past, present, and future (which are aspects of time in a consecutive continuum) are irrelevant to God's nature and existence since He exists outside of time.
  
  C. Note: Again, the term "always" is used here in a reference before time. But, "always" denotes time and I am using it in a sense to describe a state of "non-always." I am aware of this difficulty in description and request that the reader bear with me as I attempt to describe the indescribable.

9. God is omnipresent. This means that He exists in all places in the universe as well as outside of it (as far as can be described to exist outside of existence).

10. God's omnipresence is not restricted by time because God, by nature, is not restricted by time.

• 
  A. If God's omnipresence were restricted by time, then God would be subject to time and not be omnipresent. Since the future is an existence relative to creation, but not to God, He can exist in the future.
  
  B. If it is said that God can only be omnipresent in the present sense, then He is constrained by time. But this cannot be since He created time and is not limited by it.

11. Since God is not restricted by time, and since He is omnipresent, then the future is a present reality with God.

• A. Remember, since God created the universe and time, He is not restricted to time or by time.
  
  B. Also, time is irrelevant to God's nature and existence since God has existed before time existed.

12. Therefore, because God is in all places at all times, God knows all things, even the future free will choices of free creatures. This means that the open theism view that God does not know all future events of free will creatures is false.

• 
  A. The future free will choices of man held by the open theist position is a libertarian free will. This means that people are completely free to be able to make choices equally for good and equally for evil based upon their free will ability -- even in contradiction to the biblical references declaring man's depravity. See Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Rom. 3:10-12; 6:14-20; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3, etc., for biblical descriptions demonstrating man's enslavement to sin and his inability to be completely free in this sense.
  
  B. Compabitilistic freedom is the position that a person is only as free as his nature permits him to be free. If he is a slave of sin, for example, then he is not free to be free from sin but must act in accordance with his nature; otherwise, he is violating his own nature which is self contradictory
  
  C. Furthermore, this free will, the open theists say, is something God chooses to not know in the future. But, a problem arises. If God knows that in the future someone will make a choice, how can He then decide to NOT know it since He must know in the future that a free will choice is to be made? In other words, God knows a choice will be made yet chooses to not know it? How would he know a free will choice is going to be made in the first place if He doesn't know what the choice is?
  Also, does God look past that person's free will choice to something else in the future? Countless choices will be made in the future. For God to be able to ordain future events, He has to be able to know the future. If so, then it is possible that God can easily deduce what the outcome of that free will choice was since God can see the effects of it upon others and see the effects of it upon His divine plan -- otherwise, God cannot be sovereignly in control. This means that God can indeed deduce all free will choices by simply looking past the future choice to see what choices were made. If He does NOT do this, then God must NOT look into the future regarding anything and everything related to human freedom. God would be largely ignorant and incapable of governing the world since He cannot know what the outcome of things will be. The open theist position is illogical and self contradictory.

[/list:u:8fc6a]

 

[Guest]

• 1. God is the only eternal, uncaused, and self-existent being who was before all things.[list:04e41]
  A. God has always existed and is eternal by nature.
  
  B. God has always been eternally self existent with nothing needed or implied to be necessary for God's existence other than His own nature and essence.
  
  C. Note: Saying that God is before all things, i.e., before time, can be problematic since the word "before" implies time and since we are trying to describe a "time" when "time" did not exist. There are natural difficulties with this approach. But, suffice it to say that God was before all things and that there was a "time" when God was all that existed.

Sure, the word 'God' can be all of these things, because you're simply defining the word to mean them. We can also define 'God' to mean "a three-sided geometrical figure".

Other than that, this is a standard cosmological argument for god. It's been refuted thousands of times before, nothing new here.

2. Time is that non-spatial, continuous succession of events from the past, through the present, and into the future.

• 
  A. Time exists as a function, as a relationship to things that change. If nothing exists, then nothing changes, and time is non-existent.

Sounds good.

3. Since God is eternal by nature, God is not restricted by nor contained within time, nor is He restricted by a continuous succession of events from the past, through the present, and into the future, nor is time an attribute of God's nature.

• 
  
  Evidence?
  
  

  A. If you say that time is a property of God's existence, then in order to arrive at the present, this mean that an infinite amount of time must have passed in order for us to arrive in the present. But, an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed. Therefore, time must have had a beginning. Since God did not have a beginning, time is not a part of God and God is not restricted by time.[list:04e41]

  
  All kinds of non-sequitur here.
  
  

  i. If the person affirms that time is a property of God's existence, then that means we have traversed an infinite amount of time in order to get to the present. But that is impossible, so time can not be a property of God's existence and nature.

B. If the response is that the future does not exist, how does anyone know that? It is at best a guess. If the future does not exist then how can God perfectly predict or known anything future for sure?

C. Time is that non-spatial, continuous succession of events from the past, through the present, and into the future. Working with this, we can see that God cannot be restricted by time and is outside of it. This is why...

• 
  i. All "events" occur in time.

• 
  
  Except for the events that occur because of your god if he's outside time. Therefore, we must reject the claim that "all events occur in time".
  
  

  ii. An event that occurs in time is an event that came into existence at its occurrence.
  
  iii. Any event that comes into existence has a beginning.
  
  iv. Any event that has a beginning was caused to occur by something else[list:04e41]

  
  No. Quantum mechanics details several different kinds of phenomena that have no cause. Therefore, not all events have causes.
  
  

  a. This is so since something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence and must be brought into existence by something else.

Again, this is false. We can directly observe QM (quantum mechanics) events that disprove this.

v. If we stated that God exists relative to time, then God exists as a sequence of events.

vi. If God exists as a sequence of events, then the events in God's existence all have causes.

Evidence?

vii. However, there cannot be an infinite regression of causes.

• 
  a. This is because all things that are caused to exist must have been caused to exist by something else.

Nope. See QM.

viii. Since there cannot be an infinite regression of causes, there must be an initial uncaused cause. But, since time is a sequence of events, and all events have causes, then time must have an initial uncaused cause to it. This means that time had a beginning.

Bad logic makes baby jesus cry.

ix. If time is a property of God's nature, and time is a series of consecutive events, then God's nature requires a beginning.

x. This would mean that God had a beginning. But, this is not possible since something that has a beginning cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, God could not have brought Himself into existence.

• 
  a. For something to perform an act, it must exist. Something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not exist by which it can then perform an action by which it can bring itself into existence.

xi. Since God cannot have had a beginning, God cannot be restricted by time, and time cannot be an attribute of God's existence.

xii. Therefore, the past, present, and future are irrelevant to God's nature, not part of God's nature, and God exists independent of them which means that the future is knowable by God.[/list:u:04e41][/list:u:04e41][/list:u:04e41]

Blah, blah, blah, non-sequitur after non-sequitur.

4. God is the Creator of the universe and is independent of it.

BIG non-sequitur. Any evidence for this?

5. The universe exists in relationship to time which is a consecutive series of events that relate to change and sequence.

6. God is not subject to, or limited by the constraints of the universe which includes the constraints or limits of time or any properties of time that may limit us as humans.

The author of this piece rather likes to repeat himself.

I think I'll stop here. I've lost count of the logical fallacies in this proof. :roll:

 

[Solo]

Open Theism and Libertarian Free Will

Open Theism states that God has granted to people free will and that in order for this free will to remain free, God cannot know ahead of time what the choices of people will be. They reason that if God knew a future choice of a person, then that person would not be truly free to choose anything different when the time comes to make that choice. Therefore, they say, if God knows the future free will choices of people, then it means that free will doesn't really exist.
Furthermore, they hold to a view of free will known as libertarian free will. This is the position that a person is equally able to make choices between options independent of pressures or constraints from external or internal causes. In other words, the person is able to equal choose between any set of options. By contrast, compatibilist free will holds that a person can choose only that which is consistent with his nature and that there are constraints and influences upon his ability to choose. In libertarian free will, a sinner is equally able to choose God or reject God regardless of his sinful condition. In compatibilist free will, a sinner can only choose to do that which is consistent with his sinful nature.

Libertarian free will
Free will is affected by human nature but retains ability to choose contrary to our nature and desires

Compatibilist free will
Free will is affected by human nature but cannot choose contrary to our nature and desires

In the compatibilism a person who is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20) and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14) would not be able to choose God of his own free will because his free will doesn't have the capacity to contradict his nature and his nature is against God, dead, and incapable of choosing God. Libertarianism would maintain that regardless of the nature of a person, his free will allows him to choose God in spite of being a slave to sin and not being able to understand spiritual things. I believe that the singularly most important aspect of Open Theism is the libertarian view of free will and that the Bible, human sinfulness, human freedom, God's nature, and time itself are all viewed through its filter. In fact, I further believe that the Bible is reinterpreted in light of this truth.
The difference between definitions has a profound affect on Open Theism because Open Theism must hold to Libertarian view of free will, not compatibilism. Why? Because Open Theists hold to the absolute sovereign free will of the individual, regardless of that person's sinful nature. But, compatibilism teaches that the will is only as free as its nature permits it to be free. If the latter position is true, then how could the God of Open Theism save anyone without intervening in their wills? But since Open Theism maintains that God not only is ignorant of the free will choices of people, He will not interfere with the free will of anyone.
Nevertheless, the Bible teaches us that God indeed does intervene in people's free choices. Please consider Prov. 21:1 which says, "The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes." If libertarian free will is true and if God does not interfere with a persons' free will at all, then how can Prov. 21:1 be true? Furthermore, consider how God even hardens people's hearts in order to accomplish His will: "But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today," (Deut. 2:30). Also, "For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the Lord had commanded Moses," (Joshua 11:20). As difficult as some of these verses might be, the fact is that God definitely influences the hearts of individuals. If that is so, then what happens to the Open Theist's position that God will not interfere, in anyway, the free will choices of people?

Free Will

The Bible says the unbeliever is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20), has a heart that is desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), that he is dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). Do these facts influence the human will? Both Libertarianism and compatibilism say yes, but libertarianism says that the fallen nature of man does not constrain the free will sufficiently to limit choice. Compatibilism, on the other hand, states that we cannot violate our own natures and that our will is part of our nature, and that our will is directly related to and affected by our nature which, the Bible says, is in pretty bad shape. Therefore, in compatibilism, if someone is a slave of sin, is dead, does not seek for God, is full of evil, and does not understand spiritual things, it makes sense to say that his choices are limited to the scope allowed by the description set forth in the Bible. But the libertarian would say that the will is somehow independent of the nature since it is able to choose contrary to its nature. This, of course, is illogical.
Free will is the ability for a person to make choices that determine some or all of his actions. I propose that free will involves three aspects: awareness, desire, and choice. Awareness leads to desire, which leads to choice. Please consider the following:

Awareness, Desire, and Choice

Before we can make a choice about anything, we must first desire to choose it. But before we can desire to choose something we must be aware of it. So, we cannot choose what we are not aware of. Furthermore, we cannot be aware of something beyond our ability or nature to aware. Fore example, there are things in the universe that we are not aware of either in dimension, or scope, or place, or time, that are simply beyond our ability to comprehend given our limited human nature. Therefore, these unknown realities, cannot be things we are aware of (and comprehend) since we cannot know of them. This means that we are not free to make choices about them because we are not aware of them. Our lack of awareness is logically restricted by our nature.
Likewise if our nature affects our ability to choose, then what the Bible says about our nature will effect our ability to choose. As I said above, the unbeliever is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20), has a heart that is desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), is dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). We must ask the question how a sinful will is able to choose contrary to what the Bible clearly states concerning its nature.

Libertarian free will

The Libertarians would, I hope, agree that we are limited by our natures to be able to make choices only between options of which we are aware. From what I have read of Open theists, they easily concede this reality. But, given the scriptures about the unbelievers nature above, they still maintain that the human free will is not constrained by our sinfulness and is still able to make equal choices between equal options -- say, for example, the ability to choose or reject God in spite of the Bible's declaration of the constraints of our sinful nature.
But what seems to be happening is that the Open Theists want it both ways. They want to say that we are affected by our nature, and even though we are sinners by nature, our ability to choose is not constrained by that sinful nature. But, how can this be given the clear direction of scripture about our sinful condition which sates the unbeliever is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14)? At this point, the open theists simply states that human free will is still somehow able to make such choices. To this I ask, "How can this be so, given the scriptures that speak to the contrary?"

 

[Guest]

If Solo were replaced by an internet bot that copied and pasted text from other websites, would anyone know...or care?

 

[Solo]

Genesis 6:6 And the Lord was sorry He had made man on the earthhttp://www.carm.org/open/Gen6_6.htmhttp://www.carm.org/open/Gen6_6.htm


"And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart," (Gen. 6:6, NASB).


The above verse is not a problem for Classical Christian Theism nor is it a proof text for Open Theism. The verse simply tells us that the Lord was grieved and had sorrow in His heart for making man. Why? Because mankind had fallen into great sin and this grieved the Lord. Does it mean that God didn't know that mankind would fall and become sinful? Of course not. Cannot God know that they would become sinners and also be grieved when it happens? Of course. Let me illustrate.
I have children. I love them and provide for them. But, they have grieved me in their various sins -- as any child will do to his parents. I knew they would grieve me when they were born because I know they are sinners by nature. This doesn't mean I was surprised and didn't know they would rebel when it happened. Quite the contrary, and knowing they would sin doesn't mean I won't be grieved when their rebellion and sin is finally manifested.
The open theist would have us believe that God was grieved because He was surprised or didn't know the depths of sin to which the world would fall. But surely, even in Open Theism, God knew that people would sin. So, this verse can't be claimed to demonstrate that God didn't know the future choices of people.

 

[Drew]

Hi Cosmo:

I believe that the issue of whether foreknowledge is incompatible with free will is a difficult one - there is no "one post" solution. I was a hardcore believer that foreknowledge indeed is incompatible with free will. I now hold the opposite view. I do not presently have the time to do "leg work" to revisit this whole issue, but if you still want to discuss it, I am willing to take it up again, but I probably won't be able to do so for at least 5 or 6 days. Have you considered looking at contents of the thread I referred you to?

One thought for the present. I think that there is indeed a conceptual distinction between certainty on the one hand and necessity on the other, and I think that thinking otherwise is part of the problem.

 

[Drew]

Genesis 6:6 And the Lord was sorry He had made man on the earthhttp://www.carm.org/open/Gen6_6.htmhttp://www.carm.org/open/Gen6_6.htm


"And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart," (Gen. 6:6, NASB).


The above verse is not a problem for Classical Christian Theism nor is it a proof text for Open Theism. The verse simply tells us that the Lord was grieved and had sorrow in His heart for making man. Why? Because mankind had fallen into great sin and this grieved the Lord. Does it mean that God didn't know that mankind would fall and become sinful? Of course not. Cannot God know that they would become sinners and also be grieved when it happens? Of course. Let me illustrate.
I have children. I love them and provide for them. But, they have grieved me in their various sins -- as any child will do to his parents. I knew they would grieve me when they were born because I know they are sinners by nature. This doesn't mean I was surprised and didn't know they would rebel when it happened. Quite the contrary, and knowing they would sin doesn't mean I won't be grieved when their rebellion and sin is finally manifested.
The open theist would have us believe that God was grieved because He was surprised or didn't know the depths of sin to which the world would fall. But surely, even in Open Theism, God knew that people would sin. So, this verse can't be claimed to demonstrate that God didn't know the future choices of people.

This text says that God was sorry that he had made man. I think that to be true to what this means, we must acknowledge that God did not know what would happen. Solo's argument quoted above is true in what it says - that God can know the future and still be grieved when it happens. But the text really says something more than this - it basically says that God regretted his decision to make man. There is a subtle but critical difference between the implications of this and the content of Solo's argument.

Regretting, or being sorry, has a connotation of "I wish it had turned out otherwise". It is more than simply experiencing grief. I can know that my grandmother is going to die and still be grieved. But for the creator of man to be sorry that he made man is to suggest that his plan has not turned out the way he was hoping that it would. Presumably, we agree that God did not regret his actions because they were morally wrong (in the same way someone might regret a choice to cheat on their wife) or "dumb".

If we agree that God did not commit a moral error or an error of "wisdom" in making man, what can be the source of his being sorry? I suggest that it is most likely the fact that man, through free will actions, decided to take the wrong path. If God knew that man would sink so low, he certainly would not experience regret - grief maybe, but not regret. In order for God to experience regret (in a situation where He has not committed a moral or widsom error), he must, to be true to the meaning of the word "regret" (or the meaning of the phrase "be sorry"), be wishing that He had not done what He did. This, in turn, only makes sense if He did not know, in advance, exactly how everything would turn out.

It is just not sensible for God (in particular) to specifically regret a course of action whose outcome he knows with certainty. Fred can regret taking up smoking even if he knows for sure that this will be bad for him. But God, unlike Fred, will not make a "bad" decision. The only way that God could regret something is if he did not know the outcome of an otherwise good decision.

The above quote claims that "surely, even in Open Theism, God knew that people would sin". To keep this post short enough, I plan to address this challenge in another post.

 

[DivineNames]

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.

If you deny the existence of parallel universes, then you deny the omnipresence of God in those parallel universes. Is this really a threat to the omnipresence of God?

If God isn't present, in a place or time which doesn't exist is that really a limitation on God?

 

[Drew]

The following is a snippet of Solo's post "A Logical Refutation of Open Theism":

9. God is omnipresent. This means that He exists in all places in the universe as well as outside of it (as far as can be described to exist outside of existence).

10. God's omnipresence is not restricted by time because God, by nature, is not restricted by time.

A. If God's omnipresence were restricted by time, then God would be subject to time and not be omnipresent. Since the future is an existence relative to creation, but not to God, He can exist in the future.

B. If it is said that God can only be omnipresent in the present sense, then He is constrained by time. But this cannot be since He created time and is not limited by it.

11. Since God is not restricted by time, and since He is omnipresent, then the future is a present reality with God.
A. Remember, since God created the universe and time, He is not restricted to time or by time.

B. Also, time is irrelevant to God's nature and existence since God has existed before time existed.

12. Therefore, because God is in all places at all times, God knows all things, even the future free will choices of free creatures. This means that the open theism view that God does not know all future events of free will creatures is false.

I think that the above is open to the criticism that it assumes that "the future" is some kind of "thing" that God can be "restricted in respect to". I think that the argument gets its force from the compelling (but ultimately questionable) assumption that time is an axis that God can freely move about on, but we (of course) cannot. I suggest that it is possible that items 10 and 11 (at least) include this assumption. More specifically, I suggest that "the future" is really just an artifact (human creation) to help us make sense of the world, but not a "thing" at all, and therefore not an object of possible knowledge, even for God.

I propose an alternative way to think about the future and God's alleged knowledge of it. Instead of thinking of the future as a fully (or even partially) settled timeline of event that has real "existence", perhaps it really a mental construction - not a "thing" at all. I think we take our own mental models too seriously- we use a "timeline" model to think about what is to come and then get trapped into thinking it possesses a kind of reality that it may not.

Imagine thinking about God as a God who plans, rather than a God who knows "the" future. Adopting this view, we can claim that a wise God can effectively ensure that all his plans are fulfilled through a combination of knowing the "present" and simple "good planning".

It is true that the Bible makes predictions about "the future". However, I suggest that when the Bible says:

"X shall come to pass" or "X will happen", etc.

it might really mean something like the following:

God will plan and act in the world to ensure that "X" will happen.

It does not have to be the case that there is "a future" enjoying the property of existence.

 

[TanNinety]

Classical foreknowledge only exists as long as God is able to protect this knowledge. For example if I am set on doing the opposite of what God says.

Me: Can you create two colored pens?
God: Here’s a red one and a blue one.
Me: Can I pick only one?
God: Sure, which one do you want?
Me: You tell me which pen I pick up, you already know.
God: You pick up the red one
Me: I am picking the blue one.

I am not quite sure about the above scenario because if God’s foreknowledge was completely set, He should have already known I picked the blue one acting contrary to what He told me according to His foreknowledge. So His answer should have been “you pick blue†at which point I would have actually picked red.

Only two options out of this predicament are:
1. God knows I pick red ..and knows I will pick the opposite of what He tells me ..so He deliberately tells me that I pick blue in order to make me pick red at which point He has to lie.
2. God will not let me know His foreknowledge of what I will pick.

1 is not possible because God doesn’t lie. 2 gives me a picture of God sitting in a corner holding on to His “foreknowledge†and going “preeeecccious …my preeeeciooousss†at which point Gods foreknowledge becomes His only strength?

If fallen angels understood Gods foreknowledge according to the classical definition and knowing that they are incapable of doing anything against Gods foreknowledge and being certain of their failure, why did they rebel?

If God transcends time is He still flooding the earth in the past and grieving about it and at the present dealing with us and in the future already established the new earth and already living with us?

Once we are in new earth will God since He is able to exist in the past simultaneously be dealing with adam and eve in the garden and noah and the flood? IS GOD TRAPPED IN HIS OWN CREATION OF TIME??????

We need a lesson in RELATIVITY. Does distance exist? Dallas is at 1200miles. Does that make sense? 1200 miles from WHAT? Dallas is 1200 miles form El Paso. Now that’s what relativity is. Distance does not exist unless there is an initial point of reference. So is time. Time doesn’t exist by itself. It wasn’t CREATED. It is only measured relative to a reference point. So past doesn’t really exist. Future doesn’t exist. They can only be spoken of relative to a particular point of reference whether it be NOW or an event in history. So something that is just relative to NOW and doesn’t exist doesn’t need to be known. It can be predicted however. This extreme predictability becomes Gods foreknowledge. Not because God transcends time so exists in the future so He knows it all.

Then I can say God exists in the past and He is right now walking Israel out of Egypt or that Jesus is still going through the pain and agony on the cross or wait latest news He is just flooding the earth all over again in the past. Open theism diminishes God? You diminish Him trapping God in a box of time.

 

[TanNinety]

Transcend: To exist above and independent of.

<-------------------------Infinite God---------------------->
---------Eternity----Past----Present---Futureâ€â€--Eternity----

Surely you see that God to transcend time He has to be beyond the point of reference of time like you guys suggested at which point it becomes clear that He has to exist at all past, present and future times throughout eternity.

Or are you suggesting

<------No God-------------- God Exists ------No God----------->
---------Eternity----Past---- Present ---Futureâ€â€--Eternity----

If God only exists in the present and knows all the future and past then you are restricing God to time and He does NOT transcend time in this scenario.

If God is stuck with this limitation of time because we exist in time then after resurrection is He still stuck in time because we exist? ..or do you say there is no time after resurrection. If so, show me the scripture that says "death and TIME were thrown in the lake of fire".

 

[Solo]

God is not governed or limited by time. God created time. God exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously. He transcends time. Those with a lessor God and more selfish need him to exist within their timeframe only, and deem Him unable to exist apart from time.

Therefore, those that want to believe that Open Theism is true, knock yourself out, and those that know Open Theism to be false and heretical, God bless you, you have been shown truth by God almighty.

 

[TanNinety]

So predictable.

 

[JM]

Nice work solo!

 

[Drew]

Nice work solo!

Perhaps you can point us to which of Solo's posts contained a sound refutation of open theism?

 

[TanNinety]

You guys make as much sense as a terrorist leader saying "you have been shown that you go to heaven killing infidels by god almighty and everyone else you are heretics you are infidels you just dont see".

If evolution were a fact you guys would be an antithesis for it.

Before you can pat eachother on the back please show the flaw in our posts. Pulling a "you are a heretic" card is not a refutation.

I will pose the simple questions one more time:

If God transcends time and exists in the past present and future, is He still flooding the earth right now in the past? ..Because if God exists in the past then certainly He is not hanging out in a different past where things are normal. Its the same past that we have come through. So is noah still building the ark right now or is israel wiping out cananites right now? Surely if God transcends time we can talk about past as His present ..so tell me is Jesus still hanging on the cross right now?

 

[Drew]

Again from 2 Kings 1

1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."

2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD,

3 "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.

4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him:

5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD.

I think this text is powerful evidence that God does indeed "change his plan" in response to human actions.

I am interested to know what argument an opponent of open theism would produce in order to allow for an interpretation of this passage that involves God knowing the future of Hezekiah as fully settled from the beginning of time.

An argument that contains the assertion "God knew all along that Hezekiah would live" seems to make Isaiah (or worse, God) a liar in verse 1 when Isaiah says "This is what the LORD says:..... you are going to die; you will not recover". The very fact of this statement would seem to be highly problematic - if God knew that He would allow Hezekiah to live, why would He intentionally misrepresent his intentions to Hezekiah? This smacks of "bearing false witness", presumably a claim that no one will be willing to make.

 

[JM]

To the Open Theists:

Quote: How could anyone trust a god who makes mistakes, who learns, who can't control the hearts of His people, who must wait to see what happens? Is this the stuff of confidence?

Questions for open theists

Open theism teaches that God does not know the future either because He chooses to, or because the future is unknowable.
Following are questions to ask open theists.


Do you believe that God learns?
According to Open theism, God does not know the future free will choices of people, though He knows all possible choices they could make. Therefore, when people finally make those choices, God then learns what those choices are. Therefore, the God of open theism learns; that is, he learns what becomes the choices of his created beings.

If God is learning, then isn't He growing in understanding and gaining in knowledge?

Do you believe that God can make mistakes? For example, can God believe one thing will happen and it does not?

If God learns what people will do only after they have done it, then is it possible for God to expect someone to do one thing and yet he doesn't do it? Is it possible?

If yes, then you propose a god who makes mistakes and learns from his mistakes. Can such a god be trusted? Is such a god biblical?

If no, are you saying he guesses the future properly every time? If so, then he is knowing the future free will choices of all people.
If God can make mistakes, then how do you know that the atonement isn't a mistake?

How do you know that His making you isn't a mistake?

The Bible says that Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). If this is so, then how did God know which sins to place on Christ since we hadn't committed them yet when Jesus was crucified?

If you say that God put all possible sins that could be committed on Jesus, then how would God know which sins would actually be committed? If He put all potential sin on Jesus, then there might be sins placed on Christ that were never committed by anyone.

If you say that God put every kind of sin on Christ, then Jesus didn't bear our sins in His body, did He since your position would mean that individual sins were not born by Christ.

If you say that God does not need to know every sin we will commit, on what basis do you say he does not have to know? Just saying He doesn't proves nothing. If you answer that it is because the future is unknowable, then you beg the question; that is, you assume the thing to be true which you are trying to prove and that is not proof.

VERSES:
1 Pet. 2:24 says, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."
2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

You god is a false god of your own creation.