Open Theism in Medieval Judaism

[Mark Quayle]

I don't see that at all. The question of the existence of the future arises out of whether God knows it or not. The only way that God can know all things and still be able to change the future is if it is not already set in stone, i.e. if it is not already pre-existent.

Therefore the future does not exist.

Why should God change the future?

 

[Mark Quayle]

What is the point of praying, then? If the outcome is fixed, then whether we pray or not the outcome is going to happen. We might as well not pray for an outcome since it is going to happen anyway. Use the time to do something else such as play video games.

Because God uses our prayers to accomplish the outcome he predetermined.

If instead of praying, we play video games, we are still being used to accomplish the outcome he predetermined, but we will find out it is a different outcome from what we had supposed.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Why should God change the future?

Because he wants things to happen. Are you saying he can't change the future?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Because God uses our prayers to accomplish the outcome he predetermined.

If instead of praying, we play video games, we are still being used to accomplish the outcome he predetermined, but we will find out it is a different outcome from what we had supposed.

How does he use our prayers to accomplish the outcome he predetermined. If he predetermined it, then our prayers make no difference.

Your second comment now appears to be saying that by not praying what God has predetermined will occur regardless, but by playing video games what happens won't be what we expect. But if what we expect is what God has predetermined then it will occur whether we pray or not.

 

[Bobber]

So what do you believe?

I don't have an absolute position on this but I do ponder about it.

So choices. Choice 1 : God knows the future for he's somehow there but doesn't force decisions and merely reports what he sees. The is how many view foreknowledge. They would claim he's ABOVE TIME or outside of it but really what that really can mean....nobody knows.

Another choice, Choice 2 : some believe God makes everything happen so therefore he knows what will occur. He knows because he makes everything happen to which I can't believe. Such would against his character.

But maybe a Third choice 3 ? The time travel of information. God doesn't know things THAT IS from one standpoint or vantage point as time was rolling out....but from another standpoint he does and could be said....always did. Yeah I know that sounds crazy by we do know perception on time is a strange unusual thing when it comes to speed of light and things above it. We could ask the question why should time do these peculiar things when going at high speeds.

Not saying I believe the third choice but it does provide the answer how God could have things by foreknowledge without having made by force a person to do something. (As open theists claim about Peter rejecting Christ three times and that God orchestrated it for a reason, but sorry ...can't buy it) The other option Choice 1 is to believe in a future that hasn't occurred. God.....saw my choices? A future does exist right now as I'm speaking? Bobber (that is I) am physically walking around in a future I haven't yet arrived at? That would mean my physical body is two places at once? I have a hard time believing that would be true.

Choice Three I think would work albeit...WOW it staggers the mind to envision it. Choice Three would mean there's a process involved that is for God to KNOW the future but it'd still work and one could rightly say he always DID KNOW IT and yet it also allows for God to say to Abraham, NOW I KNOW or now I've come into the realization of something. That is basically what he said to Abraham in Gen 22:12 and no one can deny it. And yet God....KNOWS the future.....and I believe he does and it rightly could be said always did.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

But maybe a Third choice 3 ? The time travel of information. God doesn't know things THAT IS from one standpoint or vantage point as time was rolling out....but from another standpoint he does and could be said....always did. Yeah I know that sounds crazy by we do know perception on time is a strange unusual thing when it comes to speed of light and things above it. We could ask the question why should time do these peculiar things when going at high speeds.

This is way too complex and still suffers from the problem that God can know the future but is powerless to alter it any way.

For the Peter issue I prefer a mixture of wisdom (that Peter would betray Jesus) and omnipotence (to ensure it happened the correct number of times).

I think the character of Peter was such that he would naturally deny Jesus in the way he did at least once, possibly twice and maybe three times. The Holy Spirit just ensured it happened and opened his eyes at the right time by having the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crow.

It's a lot neater and doesn't suffer from the problems your choice 3 does when applied to other future situations.

 

[Bobber]

This is way too complex and still suffers from the problem that God can know the future but is powerless to alter it any way.

Perhaps you can expand on what you mean too complex.

This is way too complex and still suffers from the problem that God can know the future but is powerless to alter it any way.

So what if he couldn't alter it? I'm not convinced he couldn't but why would that would be a problem anyway if he couldn't. Still wouldn't mean what I called Choice 3 couldn't be true.

For the Peter issue I prefer a mixture of wisdom (that Peter would betray Jesus) and omnipotence (to ensure it happened the correct number of times).

But that would mean he set him up to fall and wanted him to fall and I don't see anywhere in scripture where God wants a man to fall into sin. Then there's the guilt and condemnation that weighed on Peter for a period of time so no....I see Jesus attitude and way of thinking as having to be, No it was never my will for you to have done this BUT I forgive you!

I think the character of Peter was such that he would naturally deny Jesus in the way he did at least once, possibly twice and maybe three times. The Holy Spirit just ensured it happened and opened his eyes at the right time by having the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crow.

But this also would mean God forced Peter to even go to the courtyard to make him fall on purpose. He could have right scattered with the others and not have went to the courtyard. And to say the Spirit just wanted to have him do it three times....wanted to have him do it? Even the sound of God wanting one of his beloved servants to deny him just doesn't feel right. And not only once you'd say but three times?

It's a lot neater....

I don't think it could be any neater to say God works to cause a beloved disciple to do something dishonorable.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Perhaps you can expand on what you mean too complex.

You involve time travel as part of the description, which adds a level of complexity and is not backed up by scripture.

So what if he couldn't alter it? I'm not convinced he couldn't but why would that would be a problem anyway if he couldn't. Still wouldn't mean what I called Choice 3 couldn't be true.

The problem is that if he cannot change the future then he is as powerless as us. So if he has preknowledge of event X then event X WILL happen whatever he or anyone else wants. We are all powerless to prevent event X - God and man equally, because if it is changed then his knowledge of the event X was false and therefore his omniscience is diminished.

This is why Open Theism basically says that there is no future to know (it is open).

But that would mean he set him up to fall and wanted him to fall and I don't see anywhere in scripture where God wants a man to fall into sin. Then there's the guilt and condemnation that weighed on Peter for a period of time so no....I see Jesus attitude and way of thinking as having to be, No it was never my will for you to have done this BUT I forgive you!

But this also would mean God forced Peter to even go to the courtyard to make him fall on purpose. He could have right scattered with the others and not have went to the courtyard. And to say the Spirit just wanted to have him do it three times....wanted to have him do it? Even the sound of God wanting one of his beloved servants to deny him just doesn't feel right. And not only once you'd say but three times?

I don't think it could be any neater to say God works to cause a beloved disciple to do something dishonorable.

I don't see that at all. It is a case of knowing intimately Peter's character and also knowing something of human nature. So God in his wisdom knew that Peter would come back. Knew that he would be fearful for his own life and knew that he would deny knowing Jesus probably more than once. All he needed to do was engineer situations where that would happen and ensure that a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] would crow at the appropriate moment.

The there is no dishonour in being human. And God could have been pleasantly surprised by his actions - as he was in the case of other changes of character.

 

[Bobber]

You involve time travel as part of the description, which adds a level of complexity and is not backed up by scripture.

Who says everything that is true and a reality has to be in the actual scriptures? Deut 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever....

God says there are mysterious contained within reality that do exist but for certain reasons he hasn't actually revealed in scripture and for good reasons. He always spoke in simple ways and used illustrations that even a child could understand. The message of the gospel good news Paul states to keep it in simplicity. 2 Cor 11:3 You should consider though many things about the universe and how it functions are true or can be true and not found in scripture doesn't make it any less true.

eg : DNA, black holes, quantum mechanics , subatomic particles and the list can go on and on.

The problem is that if he cannot change the future then he is as powerless as us.

But you know this same criticism has been leveled towards those believing in open theism. If God is not above time that would be the future too then he'd be as powerless as men.

The problem is that if he cannot change the future then he is as powerless as us.

And I still don't get why you feel he'd need to change the future anyway. For what reason. In TIME God set's forth his word and covenants and as men pass through time and it unfolds God is doing whatever he wishes in that process. He's encouraging people, exhorting them, giving them warnings everything you could possibly imagine. So when time finally has unrolled itself why is it you'd think he'd need to change it?

Still wouldn't mean that there couldn't be let's call it an overlap on information going back to him to the time before the creation of the world thus YES God knowing the past, present and future like an open book. Would this be mind boggling? Yes but there's a lot of things in physics that are just this way. It does leave one with knowing...NOTHING, NOTING takes God by surprise for it can be argued YES he always knew. That would mean too who would be saved...or the elect.... without him forcing men to be such. Free will in tact.

So if he has preknowledge of event X then event X WILL happen whatever he or anyone else wants. We are all powerless to prevent event X - God and man equally, because if it is changed then his knowledge of the event X was false and therefore his omniscience is diminished.

Why would his omniscience be diminished? I don't get your reasoning. So if we imagine TIME like a river but God is above it all....why is it you think he can't tweak just where it will go.

It is a case of knowing intimately Peter's character and also knowing something of human nature. So God in his wisdom knew that Peter would come back.

This would still have God making a guess as to Peter's actions. And questions to you could be could anyone regardless of how wise know exactly that Peter would go to the courtyard. People in his agitated state could have done anything. Scattered with all the other disciples, even went to the courtyard, got halfway there and changed his mind. Could just being wise mean it would constitute a guarantee unstable humans will do certain things. I'd think not.

As one reads the gospel accounts the main impression one gets is Peter is operating totally in free will and never does God work against any will of men to be honorable thus I think a weakness in your open theism view.....you're claiming God orchestrated Peter to deny him three times. This would mean you're thinking Jesus wanted Peter to be dishonorable. Now this would even raise this question. Peter in the next world would be able to say to the Lord I wouldn't have denied you those three times if you didn't set it up for me to do so! So maybe that's something you might think about. Do you actually believe Peter would ever be able to say that without the Lord saying that's not true?

 

[Bobber]

Because God uses our prayers to accomplish the outcome he predetermined.

So why would he need prayers to do this? If something is predetermined or it's going to be forced to happen wouldn't it seem to you that prayers wouldn't make any difference?

Let's unravel this. Let's imagine God is baking a cake. A lot of things are mixing in the bowl. He's according to you is determining the absolute end result and there will be no question as to how it'll end up. So God is doing A, B, C and D.....but he needs people to come by the bowl to ask him, solicit him to put in ingredients' E, F and G? So why wouldn't he just put in E, F and G regardless. Would he need mere mortal men to make meaningless requests for remember...he's already going to do it? Why couldn't they rightly say, "If you're going to do it anyway why not just leave me alone to play with my kids.....do good for other people.....work some overtime or spend time volunteering. It doesn't seem like God and Jesus to do this. Scripture reveals he's not one who favors waste and doing things that are meaningless.

eg. When he multiplied the loaves and the fish he told the disciples not to waste any of the left overs. Safe them and don't let anything be wasted! He also states for us to redeem our time....make good use of it for a meaningful purpose. So God has determined everything anyway? So what would our prayers matter anyway?

 

[Bobber]

All he needed to do was engineer situations where that would happen and ensure that a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] would crow at the appropriate moment.

To move Peter to do a dishonorable thing? Scripture says when God looks upon the weak he seeks to do one thing. Strengthen them. Matt 12: 20 says, "...and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out" What it seems you're suggesting is God takes the smoldering wick and put's it under water. You're saying God needed Peter to deny him there times. I think a fair look at scriptures though would conclude God from the Spirit merely saw Peter do this and reported it back to him.

The there is no dishonour in being human.

Denying the Lord has always been reported as being a dishonorable thing and Jesus said so. Matt 10:33 So no I can't let you scoot around this. You're suggesting Jesus motivated Peter to dishonor him and he set him up with the desire that he would. Perhaps thinking through on this now you'll now change your mind as I'm sure you love the Lord.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So why would he need prayers to do this? If something is predetermined or it's going to be forced to happen wouldn't it seem to you that prayers wouldn't make any difference?

For the second time again, today, as in many days prior, the false notion of what God predetermines as occurring 'automatically' shows its face.

The Reformed teaching of the two wills of God —the 'hidden will' of God is called that, as opposed to the 'revealed will' (usually the command), is called 'hidden' for a reason. We often, maybe usually, don't know why he does what he does. But we have his commands, such as to pray. The fact is, we do have revealed in Scripture much about prayer and how he uses it. Note the example in Exodus, where God would have wiped out Israel, had not Moses interceded on their behalf. Yet, obviously he had put Moses there for that very purpose.

The dynamics behind what happens in God's doings goes far beyond what we can comprehend. We can't even begin to write the formula for how a butterfly wing-stroke is instrumental in causing a hurricane on the other side of the earth. God uses MEANS to accomplish his ends. And he even predetermines those means. He needn't fly by the seat of his pants in mere reaction to whatever by chance comes to pass.

Let's unravel this. Let's imagine God is baking a cake. A lot of things are mixing in the bowl. He's according to you is determining the absolute end result and there will be no question as to how it'll end up. So God is doing A, B, C and D.....but he needs people to come by the bowl to ask him, solicit him to put in ingredients' E, F and G? So why wouldn't he just put in E, F and G regardless. Would he need mere mortal men to make meaningless requests for remember...he's already going to do it? Why couldn't they rightly say, "If you're going to do it anyway why not just leave me alone to play with my kids.....do good for other people.....work some overtime or spend time volunteering. It doesn't seem like God and Jesus to do this. Scripture reveals he's not one who favors waste and doing things that are meaningless.

Your description is faulty. God is also doing the E, F and G. We are involved. This is how he "puts in" the E, F and G. You in framing your own point, say, "It doesn't seem like God and Jesus to do this." —You are right, HE does this.

eg. When he multiplied the loaves and the fish he told the disciples not to waste any of the left overs. Safe them and don't let anything be wasted! He also states for us to redeem our time....make good use of it for a meaningful purpose. So God has determined everything anyway? So what would our prayers matter anyway?

Your logical jump from his efficiency to 'not needing' (whatever 'need' means, when describing God,) our prayers to accomplish his purposes, is answered in part by what I said above about his hidden will and his command. But also, we know a little about the 'end' he is purposing: the Bride of Christ.

The arguments with atheists are often about this —they want to know, "why does God do things so pedantically, and why must we go through all this —why even bother with sin and salvation and freewill —after all, isn't he omnipotent? Wouldn't it be more efficient to simply speak the end result into existence?". Even my answer to them, (that from his point of view, maybe he did exactly that, having produced through these many thousand years in time, what to him was merely said and done), doesn't answer the question: Why all this? Freewill does not answer the question. Neither does predestination. They may answer how, but not why. Why all this?

But freewill'ers and predestination'ers both know that the production of the Bride of Christ (the Dwelling Place of God, the Church universal, the Body of Christ, the Sons of God etc) is the end, and that 'all this' is what it takes to produce those members of the Bride. We believe in many concepts —walking with God, spiritual growth and maturity, even the individual differences and personalities produced between the members, knowledge of God from our present point of view to be fulfilled when we see him as he is— and so many other things that to us are what he is doing during this temporal, that will not only be completed in Heaven, but overwhelmed (death 'swallowed up' in life) there. Because of this here, we can, there, understand in what he has done here, how great his love for us is.

I say all that to point out that you have the same thing to answer the atheists that you require of Calvinists: If it is all going to happen anyway, why bother with all the details?

Calvinists, at least, have an explanation for what appears to you as inefficiency, which it seems you might be unwilling to use to answer to the atheists: that all this apparent excess of inefficiency is not inefficiency, and (at least) shows what a detailed, specific, beautiful thing and worthy, the Bride of Christ is, because of Christ; this demonstrated by the work and trouble and pain and patience and forgiveness God has gone through on our behalf, for his own glory.

 

[Derf]

I disagree with open theism because I don't think it's strong enough on the fulfillment of prophecy, but I could be wrong, and it has nothing to do with the essentials of salvation anyway.

You repeated this in several of your early posts. I’d like to point out one instance where closed theism has its problems.
Isaiah prophesied that Hezekiah would not survive his illness and would die right away, then, less than an hour later, he prophesied that he would survive the illness and would live an extra 15 years.

Both are prophesies. They contradict each other. Both can’t be true if they were determined before the world began. If it was long before decided that Hezekiah would have those “extra” 15 years, then they weren’t “extra”.

 

[Derf]

To move Peter to do a dishonorable thing?

No, to give time for Peter to show his weakness to himself.

I think a fair look at scriptures though would conclude God from the Spirit merely saw Peter do this and reported it back to him.

If Christ through the Spirit merely saw Peter doing this, could He have stopped him from doing it?

 

[Mark Quayle]

You repeated this in several of your early posts. I’d like to point out one instance where closed theism has its problems.
Isaiah prophesied that Hezekiah would not survive his illness and would die right away, then, less than an hour later, he prophesied that he would survive the illness and would live an extra 15 years.

Both are prophesies. They contradict each other. Both can’t be true if they were determined before the world began. If it was long before decided that Hezekiah would have those “extra” 15 years, then they weren’t “extra”.

I ask this rhetorically: Are you saying that then, that, according to God, the first wasn't a prophecy, since it didn't come true? God has decided several times to punish, then when repentance came he relented. What makes you think that wasn't the plan all along? He was not originally lying —if they had not repented, all he said concerning them would have happened.

This is no problem for closed Theism. (Nor, btw, is 'middle knowledge' necessary here.) God's ways are not our ways.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Because he wants things to happen. Are you saying he can't change the future?

No, I'm saying he needn't change the future. What happens, happens by his will and his causing. Since he 'wants' (whatever that means, when applied to The Omnipotent), things to happen, they will happen.

God has no need to fly by the seat of his pants. He is not like us.

 

[Derf]

I ask this rhetorically: Are you saying that then, that, according to God, the first wasn't a prophecy, since it didn't come true?

Not at all. Prophecies of this type are contingent prophecies. They are contingent on something a person will either do or not do. They aren’t “true” or “not true”. If they don’t come to pass, then the contingency has not occurred, therefore the outcome is no longer applicable.

The closed theist can’t say that, because There are no contingencies with his version of God. God knows all outcomes, and therefore will never make up his mind about it later—there’s no need, since the outcome is known, to have contingent prophecies.

Unless God is incapable of getting the message across in any other way than pretending the outcome is contingent. Is that what you are suggesting?

God has decided several times to punish, then when repentance came he relented. What makes you think that wasn't the plan all along? He was not originally lying —if they had not repented, all he said concerning them would have happened.

If the final one is the plan, then God was telling them a fake plan at first. If God tells a fake plan—one that’s not going to happen and He knows it— as if it’s the true plan, that’s called a lie.

This is no problem for closed Theism. (Nor, btw, is 'middle knowledge' necessary here.) God's ways are not our ways.

You’re saying God’s ways, which you have described as including lying, are not our ways. But God tells us that lying is of man, and not of God.

You’ve made God out to be both incapable and dishonest, and that last to a degree worse than man is, since lying is “not our ways”, but it is God’s ways.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The closed theist can’t say that, because There are no contingencies with his version of God. God knows all outcomes, and therefore will never make up his mind about it later—there’s no need, since the outcome is known, to have contingent prophecies.

Wrong. Such as in 1 John 1:9, where the forgiveness, (which is a done deal, in the past), has already happened, yet it is still contingent on confessing the sins in the present, God uses means to accomplish his ends. If the supposed means does not do what it takes, God never intended that particular means to accomplish his ends. The closed theist need not pretend anything is automatic. That is YOUR extrapolation of what the closed theist believes.

If the final one is the plan, then God was telling them a fake plan at first. If God tells a fake plan—one that’s not going to happen and He knows it— as if it’s the true plan, that’s called a lie.

Wrong again. The first would have been his final plan, had they not repented, but they did repent, just as he planned and purposed that they would do, in reaction to the threat. God's hidden will stands, whether his revealed will is followed or not.

You’re saying God’s ways, which you have described as including lying, are not our ways. But God tells us that lying is of man, and not of God.

You’ve made God out to be both incapable and dishonest, and that last to a degree worse than man is, since lying is “not our ways”, but it is God’s ways.

You probably should back up just a wee bit. I described God's ways as lying? No, man, that is your take of what I said. It is you making God out to be dishonest and incapable. God, who says he knows the end from the beginning, the first cause of all else that is, promises he will destroy Ninevah, contingent on their continued disobedience. They repent and he relents. HOW, exactly, is that lying?

 

[Derf]

Wrong. Such as in 1 John 1:9, where the forgiveness, (which is a done deal, in the past), has already happened, yet it is still contingent on confessing the sins in the present, God uses means to accomplish his ends.

God uses means--of course. God can even use the means of someone lying. But when a prophet comes in saying "This is the word of the Lord", and he is a true and faithful prophet, like Isaiah, then the words spoken are God's. Do you agree?

So if God is foretelling 2 opposing outcomes in 2 prophecies, both before the event(s) take place and God knows which one is really going to happen, that "means" is outside of God's character. That "means" is lying, and God is the only one culpable in the lie, since it is a word from the Lord.

Here are the verses:
[Isa 38:1 KJV] In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live.
[Isa 38:5 KJV] Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.

You can't add 15 years to a life that was predetermined.

If the supposed means does not do what it takes, God never intended that particular means to accomplish his ends. The closed theist need not pretend anything is automatic. That is YOUR extrapolation of what the closed theist believes.

Well, I didn't use the word "automatic", and I'm not sure what you mean by that. But if God doesn't intend a particular means to have the particular effect, then it's not really a "means" is it? But that doesn't matter. If the "means" is lying, then it is not in God's character, whether it is an effective "means" or not.

God won't act outside of His character. Do you agree?
Lying is outside of God's character. Do you agree?

You probably should back up just a wee bit. I described God's ways as lying? No, man, that is your take of what I said. It is you making God out to be dishonest and incapable. God, who says he knows the end from the beginning, the first cause of all else that is, promises he will destroy Ninevah, contingent on their continued disobedience. They repent and he relents. HOW, exactly, is that lying?

In Nineveh, the words of the prophecy, just like those to Hezekiah, do not contain a contingency. But Jonah recognizes an implied contingency. So I agree with you in that.

Now, I haven't read all the way through the thread before posting--just the early and later posts. I appreciate the reference to Nineveh, but didn't make it myself. You seem to intimate that I said you were lying about Nineveh. I'll just proceed as if I had already made that argument--but I really don't know anything you've said about Nineveh and God's pronouncement.

The principle is the same--that God is telling the people of Nineveh something He knows is NOT going to happen, in the closed theist view. Why don't you explain to me why that is not lying.

These are the questions I asked for agreement on. Please answer them separate from each other in your mind, if you can.

1. When a true prophet (like Isaiah) says "Thus says the Lord", the words are God's.
2. God will not act outside His character.
3. Lying is not in God's character.
4. Saying something is going to happen that one knows is not going to happen is lying.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God uses means--of course. God can even use the means of someone lying. But when a prophet comes in saying "This is the word of the Lord", and he is a true and faithful prophet, like Isaiah, then the words spoken are God's. Do you agree?

So if God is foretelling 2 opposing outcomes in 2 prophecies, both before the event(s) take place and God knows which one is really going to happen, that "means" is outside of God's character. That "means" is lying, and God is the only one culpable in the lie, since it is a word from the Lord.

No. It means the first one was the threat, and it was true (that if there was no repentance, it would have happened), but because of repentance, he relented.

Prophecy (it seems to me —I haven't done a study on the question) has always been more often correction, warning or instruction, than forecasting.