CF's stance on Open Theism

[elopez]

Umm.. well.. Most OTs that I know say that God exists outside of created time and space, but does experience a chronology of His own. So, I don't think that's a valid claim.

All of OT I have actually discussed with have affirmed that God is temporal and experiences time. They say they do not believe God is timeless, and indeed He ceases to be timeless and argue against divine timelessness. This idea can even be found on OT websites.

Take for example a leading OT website:

"That God changes in some respects implies that God is temporal, working with us in time"

"Our rejection of divine timelessness.."

www.opentheism.info » Welcome to the Open Theism Information Site.

That you say OT does not sate these things is obviously incorrect. Maybe your version of OT does not state that, but the above is the general idea of OT. If you're saying God exists outside of time and experiences a chronology of His own, what type of chronology would that be exactly? Timelessness means there is no change, so I don't see how there could be a chronology of any sort.

This really has nothing to do with Open Theism.

Either you have no idea what OT is or your idea of OT is drastically different from as it is usually stated. OT is an explanation of how God relates to humanity. What I described is how God relates to humanity. So yes, it is relevant to OT as it opposes it and argues against it by stating God is still timeless, which again is something OT denies.

 

[themuzicman]

All of OT I have actually discussed with have affirmed that God is temporal and experiences time. They say they do not believe God is timeless, and indeed He ceases to be timeless and argue against divine timelessness. This idea can even be found on OT websites.


Take for example a leading OT website:

"That God changes in some respects implies that God is temporal, working with us in time"

"Our rejection of divine timelessness.."

www.opentheism.info » Welcome to the Open Theism Information Site.

I think you're creating a false dichotomy by saying that "working with us in our time" automatically means that God is subject to created time.

That you say OT does not sate these things is obviously incorrect.

Again, I think you're misunderstanding them.

Maybe your version of OT does not state that, but the above is the general idea of OT. If you're saying God exists outside of time and experiences a chronology of His own, what type of chronology would that be exactly? Timelessness means there is no change, so I don't see how there could be a chronology of any sort.

Well, if God acts (as in creating), then God must experience "before" and "after", as there has to be a "time" when creation doesn't exist before God creates it. That's some kind of Chronology. Not sure we can describe it. I happen to think that God controls His chronology, but that's just conjecture.

Either you have no idea what OT is or your idea of OT is drastically different from as it is usually stated.

Or you misunderstand it.

OT is an explanation of how God relates to humanity. What I described is how God relates to humanity. So yes, it is relevant to OT as it opposes it and argues against it by stating God is still timeless, which again is something OT denies.

OK, but timelessness isn't part of Nicea or the trinity.

And I haven't said that God is timeless. I've said that God isn't subject to created time. Those are two different things, and I think most Open Theists agree with me.

From that same link:

It is not essential for open theists to take a stand on whether or not God was temporal prior to creation. Even if God was eternally temporal God did not experience metric (measured) time until the creation. See Nicholas Wolterstorff’s discussion in God and Time: Four Views, ed. Gregory Ganssle (Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p. 233.

 

[hedrick]

Well, if God acts (as in creating), then God must experience "before" and "after", as there has to be a "time" when creation doesn't exist before God creates it. That's some kind of Chronology. Not sure we can describe it. I happen to think that God controls His chronology, but that's just conjecture.

Technically that's not true. Creation could certainly refer to something that happens in our timeline. God doesn't have to be within time himself to be the cause of things that happen for us in a timeline. He could manipulate events within tine from outside time, just as we can draw thing in 2 dimensions even though we're not limited to 2 dimensions ourselves.

The bigger issue is various Biblical passages talking about God changing his mind. However I think the majority view is that this is "accommodation," God speaking in terms we can understand, like statements about God's powerful right arm.

A more interesting question to think about is what we can conclude from knowing that we are made in the image of God. Can a timeless God who is never surprised and (at least in classical theology) never truly feels emotions be considered the pattern for us?

I don't think these are questions to which there is a black and white answer. I can make credible argument both for and against OT. About all I can say is that a straightforward reading of the Bible does seem to imply OT. But the moment God is within time, we have problems with creation. The problem is that time itself is part of space-time, and that was created at the big bang. So it's hard to see how an entity that's within time could be the creator. Perhaps the best answer is something like panentheism (NB: *not* pantheism), which is the idea that God is both within and beyond the universe.

I'd love to hear a better answer.

 

[elopez]

I think you're creating a false dichotomy by saying that "working with us in our time" automatically means that God is subject to created time.

I think you're ignoring the obvious.

Certainly the article does not say God is subjected to a God time that is of His own. It says working with us in our time. The article is talking about created time.

Even a lead proponent of OT, William Lane Craig, claims that God's creating is "a temporal action and therefore in creating the universe must be temporal." He means time in the 'created' sense. And like I said this is coming from other OT that have told me this what they believe, that God is literally in our time frame.

Again, I think you're misunderstanding them.

And again I think you're ignoring the obvious.

Well, if God acts (as in creating), then God must experience "before" and "after", as there has to be a "time" when creation doesn't exist before God creates it. That's some kind of Chronology. Not sure we can describe it. I happen to think that God controls His chronology, but that's just conjecture.

There would be no point in even calling this 'god time' as having a before or after. Would it not just be all the same? You see, you are ascribing our time relations (before, after) to something you're saying is not our time, and it just doesn't work, logically or theologically.

Even then, that view begs the question of what type of chronology was God experiencing 'before' creation? And that answer could lead to all sorts of disastrous conclusions.

Or you misunderstand it.

Or you're ignoring the obvious.

OK, but timelessness isn't part of Nicea or the trinity.

I didn't say it was. In fact, if you would have even read any of your own thread you would have seen many times I do not think OT are not Christian, non - trinitarian, not following the Creed, etc. I said I think they are, they just have a different view of omniscience, free will, perhaps time, etc.

What I am saying is that OT neglects the Trinity. I say this for the reasons I did and you may want to read that again because if you don't think God is within 'created time' it doesn't apply to you. When I say God is timeless I mean He is outside of our experience of time. I mean that as our time equates to change, God without our experience of time, therefore experiences no change.

And I haven't said that God is timeless. I've said that God isn't subject to created time. Those are two different things, and I think most Open Theists agree with me.

Well, I don't know about that, at least about the whole agreeing with you about God isn't subject to created time. What would be interesting, and not even for sake of argument but curiosity, is to do a poll to see what OT really believe. Though like I said, all I have encountered here claimed they believe God is literally in our time when they mean God is temporal.

And again like I said if you don't believe that okay, cool, I am not saying you have to. I am saying this is what I have been told OT means by many discussions and articles and other readings.

 

[themuzicman]

Technically that's not true. Creation could certainly refer to something that happens in our timeline. God doesn't have to be within time himself to be the cause of things that happen for us in a timeline. He could manipulate events within tine from outside time, just as we can draw thing in 2 dimensions even though we're not limited to 2 dimensions ourselves.

I agree. But God would still have to experience some kind of Chronology. If there is no "before" and "after" for God, then He cannot act.

The bigger issue is various Biblical passages talking about God changing his mind. However I think the majority view is that this is "accommodation," God speaking in terms we can understand, like statements about God's powerful right arm.

Well, context should define these things for us. There isn't anything in Num 14 or Exo 32 to suggest that this is an anthropomorphism.

A more interesting question to think about is what we can conclude from knowing that we are made in the image of God. Can a timeless God who is never surprised and (at least in classical theology) never truly feels emotions be considered the pattern for us?

Well, the "image of God" is described for us, and it has more to do with what theologians call the "creative mandate", or at least having dominion. If you read the verses that surround the image of God text, it's pretty clear.

I don't think these are questions to which there is a black and white answer. I can make credible argument both for and against OT. About all I can say is that a straightforward reading of the Bible does seem to imply OT. But the moment God is within time, we have problems with creation.

Agree. And it isn't necessary to say that God is within our time. It is clear that God experiences "before" and "after" in however He experiences a chronology, and thus He is able to observe the development of creation through the passage of time and interact with us.

The problem is that time itself is part of space-time, and that was created at the big bang. So it's hard to see how an entity that's within time could be the creator. Perhaps the best answer is something like panentheism (NB: *not* pantheism), which is the idea that God is both within and beyond the universe.

I'd love to hear a better answer.

And I think the answer is two different chronologies. One for us, as we understand our time, and one for God, and however He experiences "before" and "after".

 

[themuzicman]

I think you're ignoring the obvious.

What's obvious is that you're taking a quote to mean something it doesn't say.

Certainly the article does not say God is subjected to a God time that is of His own. It says working with us in our time. The article is talking about created time.

And in "working in" our time, God could still be outside of time.

Even a lead proponent of OT, William Lane Craig, claims that God's creating is "a temporal action and therefore in creating the universe must be temporal." He means time in the 'created' sense. And like I said this is coming from other OT that have told me this what they believe, that God is literally in our time frame.

Craig is a Molinist. He's not an OT.

There would be no point in even calling this 'god time' as having a before or after. Would it not just be all the same?

NO. And that's the point. Created time appears to be tied up with space and the rest, suggesting that creation initiated this time. Since God created our universe, He is necessarily outside of how we experience time. OTOH, in order for God to create, He has to experience some kind of before and after, which means He has some kind of experience of time of His own, but we do not know what the nature of that time is at all.

You see, you are ascribing our time relations (before, after) to something you're saying is not our time, and it just doesn't work, logically or theologically.

Actually, it fits perfectly. If God is observing the unfolding of creation as our time moves forward, then He would be able to interact with us. That works on every level.

Even then, that view begs the question of what type of chronology was God experiencing 'before' creation? And that answer could lead to all sorts of disastrous conclusions.

And other than we know that God experiences before and after, we have no clue as to what that would be like. It would be pure conjecture.

I didn't say it was. In fact, if you would have even read any of your own thread you would have seen many times I do not think OT are not Christian, non - trinitarian, not following the Creed, etc. I said I think they are, they just have a different view of omniscience, free will, perhaps time, etc.

What I am saying is that OT neglects the Trinity. I say this for the reasons I did and you may want to read that again because if you don't think God is within 'created time' it doesn't apply to you. When I say God is timeless I mean He is outside of our experience of time. I mean that as our time equates to change, God without our experience of time, therefore experiences no change.

I think you'll find most OTs agree with me in principle about God and time.

Well, I don't know about that, at least about the whole agreeing with you about God isn't subject to created time. What would be interesting, and not even for sake of argument but curiosity, is to do a poll to see what OT really believe. Though like I said, all I have encountered here claimed they believe God is literally in our time when they mean God is temporal.

OK, well, I can't blame you for forming an opinion based upon your experiences.

And again like I said if you don't believe that okay, cool, I am not saying you have to. I am saying this is what I have been told OT means by many discussions and articles and other readings.

I do think you're making more out of that quote that is really there, especially given the footnote about OTs not having to embrace a particular view of God and time.

 

[hedrick]

I agree. But God would still have to experience some kind of Chronology. If there is no "before" and "after" for God, then He cannot act.

Are you sure? Suppose God has laid out in front of him all of our history. Because he's outside of time he can see it all "at once." So he can see changes, because he can see what was before and after. Presumably creating the world for him would mean creating the whole world-line, i.e. all of history. For people inside it there are before and after. God can see it. But God himself is not subject to it.

Again, I'm not asserting that I know things are like this. I don't. In fact Biblically it doesn't seem likely. But I think it's logically possible.

I do see your point that if God does discrete actions, then he has to have something like a timeline, even if it's not the same as ours. But is that necessary? Obviously he acts in our timeline, but are we certain that he acts in his?

 

[elopez]

What's obvious is that you're taking a quote to mean something it doesn't say.

That is not obvious. In fact, for this statement to even be valid you would have to show that this OT website doesn't mean "time" in the sense of 'created time.' And again, the article is talking about created time. It is not talking about a 'god time.'

It would actually be taking the quote to mean something it doesn't only if you say it is referring to a 'god time.'

And in "working in" our time, God could still be outside of time.

None of this makes sense until you define "time." If God is working in our time, He is not outside of our time, especially if the OT claims God is temporal, which they do.

Craig is a Molinist. He's not an OT.

Craig is a Molinist, though he advocates OT. His view is really a hybrid of Molinism and OT as again Craig maintains that God is temporal and in time in the sense of within and subjected to our created time. He definitely does not reject OT, just OT who argue timelessness is not an attribute of God at all.

NO. And that's the point. Created time appears to be tied up with space and the rest, suggesting that creation initiated this time. Since God created our universe, He is necessarily outside of how we experience time.

This is exactly what I mean by saying God is timeless.

OTOH, in order for God to create, He has to experience some kind of before and after, which means He has some kind of experience of time of His own, but we do not know what the nature of that time is at all.

I don't see any reason to posit a type of 'god time' that requires before and after. Especially considering that you've already said our sense of time which does require a before and after does not apply to this 'god time.' That would really just make ascribing before and after to 'god time' illogical. And you say you don't know what the nature of that 'god time' is at all, yet here you are describing it as having "some kind of before and after," which is claiming to have knowledge of this 'god time.'

Actually, it fits perfectly. If God is observing the unfolding of creation as our time moves forward, then He would be able to interact with us. That works on every level.

"Observing" is a tempooral action. We as temporal beings observe what happens, whereas in classical theology we say God has eternal knowledge of all creation.

This is the heart of the OT view. They claim classical theology is wrong because according to it God is incapable of interacting with the world. That is why they say they reject God as timeless and say He is in time, and not a 'god time' but 'created time.' I have only met one other OT that has argued for the 'god time,' while most others I have met said God is timeless sans creation and in time after creation. Those OT, like myself, believe there can be no such thing as 'before' creation since there is no time without the universe.

And other than we know that God experiences before and after, we have no clue as to what that would be like. It would be pure conjecture.

Saying God experiences before and after, when before and after are temporal connotations we humans use to describe created time, then saying God is not within created time, is wholly inconsistent. I mean, before and after would not even mean the same thing in 'god time' as it wold in 'created time,' for if it did the two could not be differentiated in any significant way. Saying God must experience a before and after is nothing more then conjecture anyway.

I think you'll find most OTs agree with me in principle about God and time.

All of the OT I have talked to on here, with the exception of one I can recall, say God is temporal in the sense of God is within created time. They would even go to that OT website and read that one quote exactly as I have, and in fact I was pointed to that website by another OT who made this exact claim.

I do think you're making more out of that quote that is really there, especially given the footnote about OTs not having to embrace a particular view of God and time.

I don't think I'm making any more of the quote than what the website implies, and based off of what I've heard from other OT. And again, I've never said OT has embrace a certain view of God and time in order to be Christian, Trintarian, etc.

 

[hedrick]

most others I have met said God is timeless sans creation and in time after creation.

But it's not clear what "after creation" means in this context. Are you really talking about panentheism? God is both timeless and outside creation and within creation in time?

 

[elopez]

But it's not clear what "after creation" means in this context. Are you really talking about panentheism? God is both timeless and outside creation and within creation in time?

"After creation" means the moment that resulted from God's first creative act. And no, this is not panentheism for as I know it they tend to argue against the classical Christian idea of atemporality.

Saying God is timeless and in time is simply correct theology according to the Trinity. Omnipresence also requires God to be present both without and within time.

 

[St_Worm2]

I would submit that it is a denial of omnipotence to say that God MUST control everything in order to accomplish His purpose. It seems to me that if one does not control everything and still accomplishes one's purpose, then one's power is far greater.

I find it unclear as to why "control of all things" is equated to being "God of all things." Are you saying that someone who isn't under God's meticulous control can't be "of God"?

This really sounds like a denial of omnipotence to me. Are you saying that unless God has meticulous control of all things that He isn't capable of keeping His word and accomplishing His purpses?

Who said that He isn't Lord of all? Is meticulous control of everything required to be "Lord"?

Hi Muzicman, when I said that God must be "in control", I mean by that both active and/or passive control. IOW, God is in control when He either "causes" something to happen, or when He "allows" something to happen.

If God is not in control of everything (either directly or indirectly), then whatever is outside the scope of His control is, by its very nature, in control of Him (and any plans He may have).

--David