What are people's thoughts on the open theism as compared to predestination?
Last edited:
[FONT="]If it is said that God selectively uses His capability of knowing the future, then God does not know all of what the future holds since there are moments in which God chooses not to be aware of the future. God would then be subject to time, meaning that God is affected by time just as we humans are. For God to use this ability of foreknowledge He would have to begin to know those things through whatever process, and to not be aware of say future event x and then later to become aware of x would bring about change in God. God would be changing from atemporal to temporal, or in other words from outside of time to in time, since God cannot come to know things atemporally.What are people's thoughts on the open theism as compared to predestination?
Sounds like a pretty blatant denial of Omniscience. Definitely unorthodox.
## In that case, God is impotent, because creatures have no being that God does not give them.It certainly differs from the traditional approaches (and results) as far as I can see.
An omniscient God cannot read the future, since there is no future to be read.
Philips, D.Z. The Problem of Evil & The Problem of God [Fortress, 2004 p. 102]
The notion of omniscience that appears in the philosophical discussions of middle knowledge and the problem of evil is reminiscent of similar discussions of omnipotence [which we discussed in chapter I]. Theodicists defined omnipotence as the power to do whatever is not logically contradictory and then applied the definition to God.
The analysis was confronted with the awkward fact that God cant ride a bicycle.
That is one of the silliest remarks a philosopher can make - for:
If one had started with a religious notion of omnipotence,
God is first encountered - then reasoned about. Notions about the Person require knowing the Person before they can be put together rightly - the alternative is like putting together a jig-saw while unable to see the pieces.who would have talked of God in that way in the first place?
The author's picture, maybe. Brian Davies, O.P., would rip this to pieces.Yet, despite the acknowledgement that God cannot ride a bicycle, we are assured that God knows everything there is to know about bicycles. If we began with religion, we wouldnt talk in that way either, with its picture of countless propositions lying about inert in the divine mind.
## Nothing that pertains to God & His attributes is irrelevant to "religion" (another equivocal term, not defined (!!!), which here seems to mean "the life of the believer") for it is part of the believer's life to learn of, and come to appreciate, the God in Whom He professes to believe. If God is omniscient, that is worth knowing. If God is transcendent, that is worth knowing. If God is metaphysically simple, that is worth knowing. He's making the same mistake as William James made; of supposing that the metaphysical attributes of God were so much waste of breath, whereas the moral attributes were what mattered for us. Actually, all attributes of God matter, because they all say something about God. To know that God is omniscient can be a great consolation - it is anything but irrelevant.What has any of this to do with religion?
Philips, D.Z. The Problem of Evil & The Problem of God [Fortress, 2004 p. 105]
For what it's worth, my own view is that due to the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit God rides bicycles every day with us.
## Predestination will do, TYWhat are people's thoughts on the open theism as compared to predestination?
[FONT="] If it is said that God selectively uses His capability of knowing the future, then God does not know all of what the future holds since there are moments in which God chooses not to be aware of the future. God would then be subject to time
I'm not really sure what you're getting at? I was saying that if one is to claim that God selectively uses foreknowledge, then that is the implication of their statement. The "if" of the statement is what is called the antecedent, and the "then" is called the consequent. Such statements identify the consequence of a certain action, like "If you leave you bike out in the rain, then it will rust." If it is true that it rains and the bike if left outside, then it is also true that it will rust. The statement "If it's four o' clock, then I'm late for my appointment," says the existence of one fact (it being four o' clock) implies the existence of another (I am late). So in a hypothetical proposition we are not actually saying that p or q are true themselves, rather that the truth og p would be sufficient to guarantee the truth of q.Notice the way I emphasized an if / then statement. I'm not sure that if then hypothesis really holds true.
Open Theism, also called openness and the open view, is a theological position dealing with human free will and its relationship to God and the nature of the future. It is the teaching that God has granted to humanity free will and that in order for the free will to be truly free, the future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God. They hold that if God knows what we are going to choose, then how can we be truly free when it is time to make those choices --since a counter choice cannot then be made by us, because it is already "known" what we are going to do.1 In other words, we would not actually be able to make a contrary choice to what God "knows" we will choose thus implying that we would not then be free.
In Open Theism, the future is either knowable or not knowable. For the open theists who hold that the future is knowable by God, they maintain that God voluntarily limits His knowledge of free will choices so that they can remain truly free. 2 Other open theists maintain that the future, being non existent, is not knowable, even by God.3 Gregory Boyd, a well-known advocate of Open Theism says,
"Much of it [the future], open theists will concede, is settled ahead of time, either by God's predestining will or by existing earthly causes, but it is not exhaustively settled ahead of time. To whatever degree the future is yet open to be decided by free agents, it is unsettled."4But open theists would not say that God is weak or powerless. They say that God is capable of predicting and ordaining certain future events because He is capable of working in the world and bringing certain events to pass when the time is needed. Therefore, God could inspire the Old Testament writers to prophesy certain events and then He could simply ensure that those events occurred at the right time.
Furthermore, open theists claim that they do not deny the omniscience of God. They, like classical theologians, state that God is indeed all-knowing. But they differ in that God can only know that which is knowable and since the future has not yet happened, it can not be exhaustively known by God. Instead, God only knows the present exhaustively, including the inclinations, desires, thoughts, and hopes of all people.
In Open Theism God can make mistakes because He does not know all things that will occur in the future. According to them, God also takes risks and adapts to the free-will choices of people. They claim biblical support for their position by citing scripture where God changes His mind (Exodus 32:14), is surprised (Isaiah 5:37), and tests people to see what they will do (Genesis 22:12).
Finally, Open Theism tends to portray the God of orthodoxy as distant, controlling, and unyielding while promoting the God of openness as involved, adapting, loving, interacting, and caring for humanity.
Does process theology differ from open theism, or are the two synonymous for the same idea? I know there are writings that compare with open theism dating back to the 5th century.Sounds more like process theology - which has been around for some time.
Personally, I think process theology does solve a lot of issues, particularly human potentiality, relieves God of the burden of wet-nursing his Creation, and explains evil.
Does process theology differ from open theism, or are the two synonymous for the same idea? I know there are writings that compare with open theism dating back to the 5th century.
Sounds more like process theology - which has been around for some time.
Personally, I think process theology does solve a lot of issues, particularly human potentiality, relieves God of the burden of wet-nursing his Creation, and explains evil.
Open theism basically states that either the future is unknowable by God, in which case He comes to know of things as they happen, or God is able to know the future, yet He limits this knowledge in order to preserve human free action.I cannot provide any real answer as I have little idea of what open theology is all about. I'm basically responding to the OP.
Process theology come out of Whitehead's work and the work of John Cobb Jnr and Charles Hartshorne and others.
Open theism basically states that either the future is unknowable by God, in which case He comes to know of things as they happen, or God is able to know the future, yet He limits this knowledge in order to preserve human free action.
Does the above represent process theology?