Openness Theology
- Thread starter SinFull
- Start date
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,
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.
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."4
But 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.
Upvote
0
elopez
Well-Known Member
[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.
[/FONT][FONT="]This idea, however, is contrary to what Scripture suggests of Gods nature. Malachi 3:6 reads, For I am the Lord, I change not. James 1:17 says, Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning. The shadow of turning denotes the sun which eclipses and casts it shadow or the sun rising and setting. But with God there is no change as such, not in His nature, will, or promises. This is known as God's immutability, which means that God's attributes have never changed and will never change because they are perfect.
Open theism therefore contradicts the notion of a perfect, immutable God that is derived from scripture.
[/FONT]
Upvote
0
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 can’t ride a bicycle. If one had started with a religious notion of omnipotence, who would have talked of God in that way in the first place? 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 wouldn’t talk in that way either, with its picture of countless propositions lying about inert in the divine mind. 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.
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 can’t ride a bicycle. If one had started with a religious notion of omnipotence, who would have talked of God in that way in the first place? 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 wouldn’t talk in that way either, with its picture of countless propositions lying about inert in the divine mind. 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.
Upvote
0
Mr Dave
God Save The Queen!
Subscribing.
Need to read on this more, as I don't have a lot of time right now. Running contrary to Predestination, how does this differ to either Classical Arminianism or Wesleyan Arminianism (Wiki says OpTh is a section of 'Arminianism'). Is it responding to different questions to 'normal' Arminianism?
Need to read on this more, as I don't have a lot of time right now. Running contrary to Predestination, how does this differ to either Classical Arminianism or Wesleyan Arminianism (Wiki says OpTh is a section of 'Arminianism'). Is it responding to different questions to 'normal' Arminianism?
Upvote
0
I agree 100% that the view is not orthodox.
It is simply a position that just as God set aside some of his powers when became a man, so it is that he choose to not know all choices that we are to make. This is not a direct violation of omniscience.
A much better paradigm is to consider that God exists outside of time, so for God, there is no past, present and future. So, of course, God knows what is happening at all points in time. So, we do have free will within our time/space. Alternatively, some choose toa ct as if they have free will, since there is no way to prove whether we truly possess free will.
It is simply a position that just as God set aside some of his powers when became a man, so it is that he choose to not know all choices that we are to make. This is not a direct violation of omniscience.
A much better paradigm is to consider that God exists outside of time, so for God, there is no past, present and future. So, of course, God knows what is happening at all points in time. So, we do have free will within our time/space. Alternatively, some choose toa ct as if they have free will, since there is no way to prove whether we truly possess free will.
Upvote
0
It basically sets a limit on God by denying that He has absolute foreknowledge and misinterprets Scripture that shows Him changing His mind.
God changing His mind either means:
delayal of plans (consider Jonah 3:10 and Isaiah 55:11. Ninevah was eventually wiped out. Jonah's preaching was only for delayal).
or
change of plans (consider Saul)
or
canceling of plans.
Open Theism interprets the Scriptures to mean that He doesn't have absolute foreknowledge.
Gen. 6:6 is probably the only proof for Open Theism, but anyone can tell that God already knew that creation would be very sinful. Since He foreknew His Son (Gen. 3:15, 1 Peter 1:20), then this wouldn't have been a surprise to Him at all. It's obvious that He did not send the Flood to eradicate humanity or to stop the spread of sin (Gen. 8:21) but:
1. to demonstrate His love for the righteous and His desire to keep them clean and undefiled
2. as a demonstration of His power
3. testament to His authority, to embellish this act of God into history
For if God truly regretted creating mankind, then He could have done it in a instant (Job 34:14-15).
Also, we must consider the parallels between this and the epic of Gligamesh. A worldwide Flood could have been plausible, but such a supposed lack of foresight is nonsense.
However, God changing His mind about something is perfectly biblical. Job 34:14-15 even implies it. Jeremiah 18:7-10 indicates that He can do so.
God changing His mind either means:
delayal of plans (consider Jonah 3:10 and Isaiah 55:11. Ninevah was eventually wiped out. Jonah's preaching was only for delayal).
or
change of plans (consider Saul)
or
canceling of plans.
Open Theism interprets the Scriptures to mean that He doesn't have absolute foreknowledge.
Gen. 6:6 is probably the only proof for Open Theism, but anyone can tell that God already knew that creation would be very sinful. Since He foreknew His Son (Gen. 3:15, 1 Peter 1:20), then this wouldn't have been a surprise to Him at all. It's obvious that He did not send the Flood to eradicate humanity or to stop the spread of sin (Gen. 8:21) but:
1. to demonstrate His love for the righteous and His desire to keep them clean and undefiled
2. as a demonstration of His power
3. testament to His authority, to embellish this act of God into history
For if God truly regretted creating mankind, then He could have done it in a instant (Job 34:14-15).
Also, we must consider the parallels between this and the epic of Gligamesh. A worldwide Flood could have been plausible, but such a supposed lack of foresight is nonsense.
However, God changing His mind about something is perfectly biblical. Job 34:14-15 even implies it. Jeremiah 18:7-10 indicates that He can do so.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
## In that case, God is impotent, because creatures have no being that God does not give them.
That last couple of details was a blunder and a half - IOW: rubbish in, rubbish out. A mentally-defective sausage would have more sense. Sometimes, philosophers can be unspeakably dense
That's what comes of such an inane definition.
That is one of the silliest remarks a philosopher can make - for:
- to speak of a "religious notion of omnipotence" is equivocal
- there is no distinction in reality between a religious notion of omnipotence, and any other: God is omnipotent, or not omnipotent at all. He is as omnipotent in the lives of Nero, Lenin & Mao, as in the lives of the Saints & other Christians. A God who is not omnipotent in the life of Pablo Picasso or Karl Marx, is equally impotent in the life of Mother Teresa.
- God's attributes are neither "religious" nor "secular", because God is the God of all life, all lives, all that lives, & all that is potential. There are no gaps or loopholes, for God is prior to all His creatures.
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.
The author's picture, maybe. Brian Davies, O.P., would rip this to pieces.
## 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.
William James, Varieties of Religious Experience:
W. James: The Varieties of Religious Experience (Table of Contents)
From chapter 18:
Primacy of feeling in religion, philosophy being a secondary function;
Intellectualism professes to escape subjective standards in her theological constructions;
'Dogmatic theology';
Criticism of its account of God's attributes;
'Pragmatism' as a test of the value of conceptions;
God's metaphysical attributes have no practical significance;
His moral attributes are proved by bad arguments; collapse of systematic theology;
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
razeontherock
Well-Known Member
Notice the way I emphasized an if / then statement. I'm not sure that if then hypothesis really holds true.
Upvote
0
elopez
Well-Known Member
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.
Upvote
0
wayseer
Well-Known Member
- Jun 10, 2008
- 8,226
- 504
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
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.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
wayseer
Well-Known Member
- Jun 10, 2008
- 8,226
- 504
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
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.
Upvote
0
Process theology solves what you say. However, in this paradigm, Jesus is not of the same essense as God. And God is not omniscient or omnipotent.
Upvote
0
elopez
Well-Known Member
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?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I believe that both concepts would encompass what you have said. I also think that both paradigms have many more compnenents and ideas.
Jesus chose to becaome a man and chose not to use all of his powers while he was a man.
So, is it so unorthodox to believe that God decides not to know what we will choose?
As wayseer indicates, this is a solution to the problem of evil and to issue of free will.
Jesus chose to becaome a man and chose not to use all of his powers while he was a man.
So, is it so unorthodox to believe that God decides not to know what we will choose?
As wayseer indicates, this is a solution to the problem of evil and to issue of free will.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
