Open Theism

[OzSpen]

I simply don’t see how you can argue that:

“You can do A or B” (free will)
And
“You WILL (therefore MUST) do A” (perfect foreknowledge)

Can coexist and both be true

I disagree.

 

[Tetra]

God is limited to human logic?

Yes, God is very much limited by logic, just as God is limited by his own character.

There is no such thing as "human" logic, logic like math was discovered not invented, and is objective. It's part of the doctrine of Common Grace.

He foreknew all the events and people.

He foreknew ALL events AND people isn't what Acts 2:23 says. You're attempting to add to Scripture to make your worldview coherent.

 

[Tetra]

Open theism questions these fundamentals of orthodox theology:

• God’s omniscience (all knowledge);
• God’s immutability (unchanging);
• God’s eternity;
• God’s omnipresence;
• God’s unity;
• God’s omnipotence (all-powerful).

See the article, “An examination of open theism“.
Also see, “The doctrine of open theism“.

No, the article in question is purposefully misrepresenting the view. Open theists aren't homogeneous in their views, and so just because one open theist questions God's eternity doesn't mean they all do.

We would question things like God's omniscience ONLY if people want to suggest that His omniscience can somehow extend beyond the perimeters of logic.

I'd consider myself a form of open theist, and I mainly take issue with people suggesting God can know events which don't exist.

 

[DZoolander]

I disagree.

If the perfect foreknowledge that you will do action A is true, then when the event occurs, you must do A. True?

And if not - and B could happen — how can the foreknowledge be perfect?

 

[Tetra]

If the perfect foreknowledge that you will do action A is true, then when the event occurs, you must do A. True?

And if not - and B could happen — how can the foreknowledge be perfect?

The answer is, you can freely choose action A, and it was perfectly foreknown you would choose action A. This isn't a contradiction.

 

[DZoolander]

lol isn’t free will predicated on the idea that more than one option is legitimately available to be chosen from?

 

[Tetra]

lol isn’t free will predicated on the idea that more than one option is legitimately available to be chosen from?

Maybe. Philosophy on the subject has a hard time determining a strict definition.

 

[DZoolander]

Yeah, if we're defining free will as something different than "the freedom to truly choose from a variety of options" - then that's a different discussion. But within the confines of what I'm talking about - that's what I'm assuming we're meaning. "Free will = the ability to truly choose between different options. When presented with options A and B, it legitimately could be A or could be B."

That's what I was always taught "free will" to mean. Man legitimately COULD do the right thing, but he by his own volition chooses the sinful thing in the moment.

 

[Tetra]

Yeah, if we're defining free will as something different than "the freedom to truly choose from a variety of options" - then that's a different discussion. But within the confines of what I'm talking about - that's what I'm assuming we're meaning. "Free will = the ability to truly choose between different options. When presented with options A and B, it legitimately could be A or could be B."

That's what I was always taught "free will" to mean. Man legitimately COULD do the right thing, but he by his own volition chooses the sinful thing in the moment.

Even if we presume your definition, it's not contradictory.

 

[HTacianas]

Yeah, like the other day I was involved in a discussion on here and was told that my point of view was espousing open theism.

The discussion was about free will, and how that can be reconciled with a God that knows the future with 100% certainty? My position was that you can't have both. If free will is real, you truly can choose between options A or B. If both options are possible, then the future must be indeterminate.

However, if you have an omniscient God that knows with 100% certainty what you will do ahead of time (in fact before you're born) - then you truly do not have choice. If God has foreknowledge that you WILL choose B beforehand, then A was truly never an option. Sure, you may be aware of other choices, but what you will choose is predetermined...and that certainly is not free will.

My position was that those two ideas are conflicting. If one is true, then the other cannot be.

I then said that personally, I believe in the idea of free will. If that means that there is a boundary to God's knowledge, I'm perfectly happy accepting that.

It was that position I was told was "open theism"

That there might be a limit to God's knowledge, in and of itself, is not open theism but I see the point.

I personally do not hold to strict predestination, nor to open theism. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[DZoolander]

Even if we presume your definition, it's not contradictory.

I don't see how it wouldn't be.

 

[Tetra]

I don't see how it wouldn't be.

So in your view, any time in life where only "action A" is your only available option, freewill ceases to exist?

Or is it only the foreknowledge of action A that causes freewill to no longer exist?

 

[DZoolander]

So in your view, any time in life where only "action A" is your only available option, freewill ceases to exist?

I think we may be getting fuzzy in how we're defining things with that question.

There are plenty of times in life where I may *feel* like I legitimately only have one option. Like say I were to suddenly find myself faced with a head-on collision...I may feel that slamming on the lbrakes and turning is my only available option (option A) - but I could conceivably just go for the gusto and hit the gas and slam straight into it.

Or there are a myriad of other scenarios where I may feel like the number of available options may be limited...and I react accordingly. At least in reading your question - that seems to be where I feel you're going with it.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the idea that you are truly presented with options - and freely choose between them of your own accord. Once again, presented with a situation you could do A or you could do B.

If God has perfect foreknowledge that in such a scenario you will do A, when the time eventually comes and the situation presents itself, can you truly choose B? If you did choose B, wouldn't God be then wrong?

 

[Tetra]

I think we may be getting fuzzy in how we're defining things with that question.

There are plenty of times in life where I may *feel* like I legitimately only have one option. Like say I were to suddenly find myself faced with a head-on collision...I may feel that slamming on the lbrakes and turning is my only available option (option A) - but I could conceivably just go for the gusto and hit the gas and slam straight into it.

Or there are a myriad of other scenarios where I may feel like the number of available options may be limited...and I react accordingly. At least in reading your question - that seems to be where I feel you're going with it.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the idea that you are truly presented with options - and freely choose between them of your own accord. Once again, presented with a situation you could do A or you could do B.

If God has perfect foreknowledge that in such a scenario you will do A, when the time eventually comes and the situation presents itself, can you truly choose B? If you did choose B, wouldn't God be then wrong?

No, when the time comes you could only choose B, but I fail to see how that means you didn't do so of your own free will.

 

[hedrick]

Open theism questions these fundamentals of orthodox theology:

• God’s omniscience (all knowledge);
• God’s immutability (unchanging);
• God’s eternity;
• God’s omnipresence;
• God’s unity;
• God’s omnipotence (all-powerful).

Not really.

• If something hasn't happened, it's not a limit on God's knowledge to say that he doesn't know it.
• Immutability is too complex for this discussion, because defining it is difficult. Under the most obvious definitions of immutability, God can't interact with us at all, and certainly can't become incarnate. So everyone has to weaken it somewhat.
• Eternity? huh? Eternity means God has always existed and will always exist. That has nothing to do with open theism.
• Omnipresence means he's everywhere that exists. It makes no sense to say that he's somewhere that doesn't exists.
• Unity? Huh?
• Omnipotence means he can do anything possible. He can't make square circles. Similarly, he can't change the past or the future. (Well, he can change the future by taking actions that affect it. I mean he can't directly act on it.)

 

[hedrick]

If God has perfect foreknowledge that in such a scenario you will do A, when the time eventually comes and the situation presents itself, can you truly choose B? If you did choose B, wouldn't God be then wrong?

You need to define your terms carefully. What does freedom mean? I believe in common use it speaks of the ability to do anything you decide to do. You're unfree if you're tied up or someone is holding a gun on you. It's not a restriction on your freedom that you're psychologically incapable of murdering someone.

This is related to the question of what it means to be responsible for a choice. I would say you're responsible if the choice actually reflects your character and goals. If someone made you do it, then it doesn't reflect your actual decision, so it makes no sense to hold you responsible. Does it count for or against responsibility if your choice is so clearly based on your character and goals that it was obvious you were going to make it? I'd say it counts in favor of responsibility. When your reasoning is clouded, we normally say that you are less responsible. E.g. people who are insane are generally not considered responsible for their choices.

If being unpredictable is what you need for freedom and responsibility, a madman would be the most truly free, and God would be completely unfree. I assume that God's reasoning is so clear and transparent that what he does is always the exact best thing given his goals. There was never any other possibility.

 

[DZoolander]

No, when the time comes you could only choose B, but I fail to see how that means you didn't do so of your own free will.

Since the lack of options (A or B) doesn't seem to have any bearing in this from your point of view.

"...you could only choose B, I fail to see how that means you didn't do so of your own free will".

Part of His supposed foreknowledge is also the fact that you WILL choose that only option. It seems to be you're going in the direction of "You could choose not do do it at all - and that's where free will comes in".

But if His foreknowledge included the fact you would commit the act at all - doesn't that necessitate that you act accordingly when the time comes in the same way as what I was presenting before?

For, if you didn't choose to act, wouldn't that make Him/his foreknowledge wrong?

Once again, to me at least, free will is predicated upon your ability to make a legitimate choice. It could be one or the other.

 

[DZoolander]

You need to define your terms carefully. What does freedom mean? I believe in common use it speaks of the ability to do anything you decide to do. You're unfree if you're tied up or someone is holding a gun on you. It's not a restriction on your freedom that you're psychologically incapable of murdering someone.

This is related to the question of what it means to be responsible for a choice. I would say you're responsible if the choice actually reflects your character and goals. If someone made you do it, then it doesn't reflect your actual decision, so it makes no sense to hold you responsible. Does it count for or against responsibility if your choice is so clearly based on your character and goals that it was obvious you were going to make it? I'd say it counts in favor of responsibility. When your reasoning is clouded, we normally say that you are less responsible. E.g. people who are insane are generally not considered responsible for their choices.

If being unpredictable is what you need for freedom and responsibility, a madman would be the most truly free, and God would be completely unfree. I assume that God's reasoning is so clear and transparent that what he does is always the exact best thing given his goals. There was never any other possibility.

A madman would be the freest person in a lot of respects, yes.

 

[hedrick]

You are stretching the text. He chose us in Him before the foundations of the earth. Us chosen apart from time . The text does not support a generic corporate choosing but individual.

Confirmed later in Ephesians 1:

In Him 11also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. 13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

13 explains what is meant by 11. After listening and believing, then we were sealed in him and made part of the promise. There's no problem with the definitions of predetermined. What is determined is God's plan in Christ. We become "sharers in the promise of Christ *through the Gospel," not through God's bare predestination.

Again, this isn't really an issue of open theism. You don't have to be an open theist to reject a Calvinist reading of these passages.

Acts 4:28: to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
...
This level of God's plan (1012/boulḗ) demonstrates He is the Lord of history, i.e. always in charge!

Of course God is always in charge. Open theism doesn't dispute that. It disputes that God has detailed control, not that he has sufficient power to make things happen, and to bring his salvation finally to the world. Acts 4:28 is referring specifically to that, to God's plan to use Christ to save us.

"27 For in this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."

The point here is that Jesus was anointed to carry out God's plan. Pretty clearly it's God's plan to save us. What "your plan had predestined to take place" in this context is talking about that specific plan. It's not an abstract statement that everything that happens is predestined.

Again, you aren't objecting specifically to open theism. You're giving a Calvinist reading of this passage.

Do you have any objections to open theism that aren't also objections to Arminianism?

 

[DZoolander]

Responsibility, however, is another issue (I agree).

...and the idea of responsibility is an important one in this whole discussion.

I think that many Christians end up facing conflicting goals - at least in how they define things - which is what causes this issue IMHO.

On the one hand, free will is important because there's the (correct) desire to say that people are responsible for their fate. Man is fallen and predisposed to sin, so man freely makes the wrong choices, which necessitates his salvation/grace from God. After all - what would it really say about a God that damned people that had no choice in their actions. Free will is important, because it makes the judgment fair. Man brought it upon himself.

But at the same time you want to define God as being unbound - with no limitations. So if you say "Does God know...?" you have to say "yes". To say otherwise would define a limit to God, which is unacceptable.

So, as a consequence, here ya go. How exactly do you reconcile those two ideas then? If actions are pre-ordained, how does choice fit into the mix? If actions are not pre-ordained, how can they be known?