Eastern Orthodoxy & Open Theism

[SavedSinner777]

The actual points made by Bulgakov are worth discussing:

Gavrilyuk writes:

"In addition, Bulgakov maintains that God also limits his knowledge of the future in order to enable genuinely free human choices. In his eternal being God is and remains omniscient, knowing himself and all things in eternity in one supratemporal act. This eternal and perfect knowledge must not be confused with foreknowledge. Bulgakov criticises the claim that God knows all things ‘before’ they come to pass for providing a misleading idea of the relationship between eternity and temporality. Eternity, Bulgakov rightly points out, cannot be ‘before’ time in a temporal sense, as the prefix ‘pre’ seems to suggest, but rather eternity is the very foundation of temporality.

God knows all things in eternity and all future possibilities. For example, God foreknew the possibility of the fall, but God did not know that the fall was bound to happen, for this would entail that God caused the fall. God chooses not to know what exactly will come to pass in any temporal sequence ahead of time, because this would entail, Bulgakov believes, a strong doctrine of the divine causation of all things, which in turn would undo human freedom. To put it briefly, God chooses not to know future contingents in order not to determine the future and take away human freedom."

...There is more. For example, Bulgakov addresses the question of prophetic prevision and the conditional nature of prophetic fulfillment, appealing to Jer. 18.7-10; 26. 3, 13 in precisely the way open theists have; that is, the conditionality described in Jer. 18 entails divine epistemic openness with respect to future contingencies.
Bulgakov: Open Orthodoxy?

If I'm not mistaken, Bulgakov is saying that God's experience of eternity, of never-beginning and never-ending, rather than being apart from time, is the very foundation of time. What he's also saying is that it would negate free will if God were capable of exactly predicting the future, rather than simply being aware of all the possible choices that free willed beings might make in any given situation.

 

[rusmeister]

So far, I have presented medieval Jewish philosophers, Sergei Bulgavov, and an exhaustive list of Bible verses in support of open theism. None of the evidences or arguments so far have been directly addressed.

Are you able to quote the church fathers against open theism? If so, please share.

I know I am, but you’ll have to wait a month or so. The trouble is more that there is too much evidence, rather than too little.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So far, I have presented medieval Jewish philosophers, Sergei Bulgavov, and an exhaustive list of Bible verses in support of open theism. None of the evidences or arguments so far have been directly addressed.

none of this is patristic support. and every heretic could quote the Bible to defend their heresy, so just saying Bible quotes doesn’t mean much if the interpretation is off. JW’s often throw out a lot of Scripture.

Are you able to quote the church fathers against open theism? If so, please share.

I will when you quote some who support it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The actual points made by Bulgakov are worth discussing:

If I'm not mistaken, Bulgakov is saying that God's experience of eternity, of never-beginning and never-ending, rather than being apart from time, is the very foundation of time. What he's also saying is that it would negate free will if God were capable of exactly predicting the future, rather than simply being aware of all the possible choices that free willed beings might make in any given situation.

why should I listen to Bulgakov here? just because a smart priest says something doesn’t make it true.

 

[SavedSinner777]

and every heretic could quote the Bible to defend their heresy...

So if I told my parish priest that I believe in open theism, would that be grounds for refusing communion?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So if I told my parish priest that I believe in open theism, would that be grounds for refusing communion?

I would if it were one of my parishioners, and then I would inform the bishop.

 

[gzt]

When you find some quotes that seem to jive with or even support a position which is contrary to Orthodoxy, you should probably read it as something like this:

There is some truth that this position is reaching toward, but the Orthodox way to express it is here [in accordance with actual Orthodox doctrine].

OR in this specific case of Bulgakov, because this is not a position I see in other theologians and which is vehemently disagreed with by pretty much the entirety of Christian history (who typically take a more Boethian approach to this problem):

Sometimes individual Orthodox authors have weird opinions.

I mean, you can certainly disagree with Orthodoxy, you're not an Orthodox Christian and we're not holding a gun to your head. We're not saying everything you like about open theism is 100% contradictory to Orthodoxy and isn't expressed at all here. But what specifically do you find appealing about open theism, which truth do you think it is trying to express?

 

[SavedSinner777]

When you find some quotes that seem to jive with or even support a position which is contrary to Orthodoxy, you should probably read it as something like this:

There is some truth that this position is reaching toward, but the Orthodox way to express it is here [in accordance with actual Orthodox doctrine].

OR in this specific case of Bulgakov, because this is not a position I see in other theologians and which is vehemently disagreed with by pretty much the entirety of Christian history (who typically take a more Boethian approach to this problem):

Sometimes individual Orthodox authors have weird opinions.

I mean, you can certainly disagree with Orthodoxy, you're not an Orthodox Christian and we're not holding a gun to your head. We're not saying everything you like about open theism is 100% contradictory to Orthodoxy and isn't expressed at all here. But what specifically do you find appealing about open theism, which truth do you think it is trying to express?

Since I was baptized and christmated as an infant and spent years as an altar server in the Orthodox Church, that should mean something. It's not like I'm entirely an outsider. As far as what I find appealing about open theism, there's the overwhelming Biblical support, the affirmation of free will, and the plain logic of it. Would you like me to elaborate? In terms of plain logic, the future is unknowable simply because, by definition, it doesn't yet exist. This doesn't place a limitation on God any more than His incapability of creating a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it. As far as Biblical support, here's an example: Genesis 22:12

 

[SavedSinner777]

I would if it were one of my parishioners, and then I would inform the bishop.

Your knowledge or understanding of open theism might not be deep enough to make a fair decision. If Bulgakov were alive today, I bet he could run circles around you.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Your knowledge or understanding of open theism might not be deep enough to make a fair decision. If Bulgakov were alive today, I bet he could run circles around you.

he most definitely would. from the stuff that I have read he was ridiculously smart.

however, that doesn’t change the fact that the Church rejects open theism. it’s pretty clear from our anaphora prayers that open theism isn’t correct.

 

[SavedSinner777]

it’s pretty clear from our anaphora prayers that open theism isn’t correct.

Please elaborate.

 

[SavedSinner777]

Please also keep in mind that contemporary open theism is largely a response to Calvinism. Are there historical examples of Orthodox theologians and philosophers responding to Calvinism? According to Calvinism, God's foreknowledge necessitates divine causation.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Please elaborate.

read them, especially St Basil’s. they both go into detail about what God is not. one thing they say is God is eternal, and eternal doesn’t just mean no beginning or end, but does mean that God has no beginning or end because He is outside of time.

 

[SavedSinner777]

read them, especially St Basil’s. they both go into detail about what God is not. one thing they say is God is eternal, and eternal doesn’t just mean no beginning or end, but does mean that God has no beginning or end because He is outside of time.

I agree, as do all open theists, that God has no beginning and no end. God can exist within time and yet have no beginning and no end. This is simply because God's experience of time is never-beginning and never-ending. I believe I've already explained this, as did Bulgakov decades ago.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I agree, as do all open theists, that God has no beginning and no end. God can exist within time and yet have no beginning and no end. This is simply because God's experience of time is never-beginning and never-ending. I believe I've already explained this, as did Bulgakov decades ago.

except that eternal doesn’t mean just no beginning and no end. you have explained this, but you have not given any reason why I should listen to Bulgakov instead of the saints who say otherwise.

 

[SavedSinner777]

except that eternal doesn’t mean just no beginning and no end.

Is that true from a Biblical perspective or from the influence of Greek philosophy that may have later crept into the church?

Genesis 22:12, for example, makes a great deal more sense from the perspective of open theism.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Is that true from a Biblical perspective or from the influence of Greek philosophy that may have later crept into the church?

Biblical perspective. Greek philosophy only clarified the articulation.

Genesis 22:12, for example, makes a great deal more sense from the perspective of open theism.

that’s how you read it, but not the Church. we read it through the Church’s lense.

 

[SavedSinner777]

Biblical perspective. Greek philosophy only clarified the articulation.


that’s how you read it, but not the Church. we read it through the Church’s lense.

Why would God say "NOW I know" something if He already knew previously the decision Abraham would make?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why would God say "NOW I know" something if He already knew previously the decision Abraham would make?

the same reason parents say the same thing to their kids when they test them.

 

[Not David]

Your knowledge or understanding of open theism might not be deep enough to make a fair decision. If Bulgakov were alive today, I bet he could run circles around you.

Who cares what Bulgakov would think? We base our religion on the Tradition of the Fathers, not on one priest.