Does open theism imply that God could ultimately lose the cosmic struggle?

timewerx

the village i--o--t--
Aug 31, 2012
15,202
5,877
✟296,775.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
If God experiences time in much the same way we do, and if he doesn't have complete foreknowledge of all that will come to pass, and if the enemy's machinations can take him by surprise, doesn't it follow that in the end he may not be victorious?

This is under the assumption that everyone experiences time in an infinitely thin frame of reference in time we call the "present".

If that is so, then nothing is real, not even you, not even God. Everything is just like a drawing on paper.
 
Upvote 0

Greenham

Saint and Sinner
Sep 11, 2013
48
3
✟8,657.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
So the criticism may turn out to be misplaced if the semblance of "evil" ultimately turns out to be turned to fulfill the greatest of God's good purposes in creation.

That's what any standard theodicy would posit, I think. But one thing that aroused these questions in me is hearing an open theist pastor say that for many years she parroted the standard theodicies while finding no real comfort in the face of tragedies like genocide, until she came to the realization that "God doesn't always get what he wants." (Direct quote.) That's what she now believes about the relationship between evil in the world and God. That he has constrained himself from always intervening and that therefore he doesn't always get what he wants. Hence my "outmaneuvered" language. I suppose she might go on to claim that one day God will make it all aright, but that doesn't seem concordant with what I remember of her lecture.
 
Upvote 0

alexandriaisburning

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
670
192
✟16,819.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's what any standard theodicy would posit, I think. But one thing that aroused these questions in me is hearing an open theist pastor say that for many years she parroted the standard theodicies while finding no real comfort in the face of tragedies like genocide, until she came to the realization that "God doesn't always get what he wants." (Direct quote.) That's what she now believes about the relationship between evil in the world and God. That he has constrained himself from always intervening and that therefore he doesn't always get what he wants. Hence my "outmaneuvered" language. I suppose she might go on to claim that one day God will make it all aright, but that doesn't seem concordant with what I remember of her lecture.

Well, like I said before, there are a lot of voices within OT, not all of them as articulate as others.

For example, this particular pastor is self-contradictory in the "direct quote" that you provided. After all, if God self-constrains involvement within creation in order to allow human freedom, then this self-constraint is (logically) consistent with that which God desires. Therefore, even if certain unsavory events unfold within creation, one could still technically affirm that God "gets what he wants", for the possibility of freedom is itself a realization of divine desire. So far from "not always getting what God wants", theodicy (in such a framework) would be PRECISELY the ultimate expression of God getting exactly what God wants, and that infallibly.
 
Upvote 0

VanillaSunflowers

Black Lives Don't Matter More Than Any Other Life
Jul 26, 2016
3,741
1,733
DE
✟18,570.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
If God experiences time in much the same way we do, and if he doesn't have complete foreknowledge of all that will come to pass, and if the enemy's machinations can take him by surprise, doesn't it follow that in the end he may not be victorious?
Where are those passages that say those things ? That God experiences time as we do? And does not have foreknowledge? Or all knowledge?
 
Upvote 0

Greenham

Saint and Sinner
Sep 11, 2013
48
3
✟8,657.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Where are those passages that say those things ? That God experiences time as we do? And does not have foreknowledge? Or all knowledge?

If by "passages" you mean Bible verses, I don't think they're anywhere. That was my summary of open theism. If you're unfamiliar, look it up.
 
Upvote 0

Greenham

Saint and Sinner
Sep 11, 2013
48
3
✟8,657.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Well, like I said before, there are a lot of voices within OT, not all of them as articulate as others.

For example, this particular pastor is self-contradictory in the "direct quote" that you provided. After all, if God self-constrains involvement within creation in order to allow human freedom, then this self-constraint is (logically) consistent with that which God desires. Therefore, even if certain unsavory events unfold within creation, one could still technically affirm that God "gets what he wants", for the possibility of freedom is itself a realization of divine desire. So far from "not always getting what God wants", theodicy (in such a framework) would be PRECISELY the ultimate expression of God getting exactly what God wants, and that infallibly.

The part about self-constraint was a paraphrase from a member of her congregation that I had afterward. What I most remember him saying was that under open theism "God is still sovereign." But I think he'd affirm that because God has constrained himself from acting he "doesn't always get what he wants" (present tense) but that because he is sovereign and powerful he will in the end.

From there, I'm not sure either of us can do much more than just going back and forth asserting that open theism either is or isn't consistent with God's sovereignty. You're welcome to continue responding, and I'll probably keep this up as long as you do, but if not, I thank you for the discussion.
 
Upvote 0

alexandriaisburning

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
670
192
✟16,819.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
From there, I'm not sure either of us can do much more than just going back and forth asserting that open theism either is or isn't consistent with God's sovereignty. You're welcome to continue responding, and I'll probably keep this up as long as you do, but if not, I thank you for the discussion.

I'm happy to continue with the conversation, but I'm not sure how useful it is for me to play the defendant for a strain of OT that is (mostly) based on second-hand conversations. I'm not suggesting that you are misrepresenting what you heard, but I feel at a bit of loss to try to reconcile what's being said without more context of the pastor's thinking.
 
Upvote 0

Greenham

Saint and Sinner
Sep 11, 2013
48
3
✟8,657.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I'm happy to continue with the conversation, but I'm not sure how useful it is for me to play the defendant for a strain of OT that is (mostly) based on second-hand conversations. I'm not suggesting that you are misrepresenting what you heard, but I feel at a bit of loss to try to reconcile what's being said without more context of the pastor's thinking.

I probably should have been more up-front about the fact that I have done little reading and have little knowledge of open theism. The summary statements at the beginning of the thread were based on the conversations I've mentioned and on my readings of the Wikipedia pages on open theism and Greg Boyd, and some articles by John Piper, and probably a few other internet discussions. That's about the sum of my knowledge about the doctrine.

So it's totally fair to say that more context may be necessary, or even that I should learn more about the doctrine before debating it. The lecture and ensuing conversation that I referenced were years ago, so there's not much more I can do to dredge up the memories of them.
 
Upvote 0

VanillaSunflowers

Black Lives Don't Matter More Than Any Other Life
Jul 26, 2016
3,741
1,733
DE
✟18,570.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
If by "passages" you mean Bible verses, I don't think they're anywhere. That was my summary of open theism. If you're unfamiliar, look it up.
I did as you suggest.
Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future.

Open Theism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

www.iep.utm.edu/o-theism/
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy


None of that is Biblical. Yes, by passages I am referring to the passages in the Bible. It's nonsense. God is eternally knowledgeable. So much so that he knew us before we were even in our mothers womb. If he does not know what we will freely do in the future, as the open theism description states, then he wouldn't have known us before the womb. Because he wouldn't have known our mother would become pregnant so as to have his spirit give us life in the womb.

Be careful of "new and improved" Christian theism. The designer choose what you want to believe and make it your own unique faith, type stuff as pertains to Christ and God.
 
Upvote 0

KarlX

Active Member
Aug 1, 2016
105
24
67
USA , Tennessee
✟8,517.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If God experiences time in much the same way we do, and if he doesn't have complete foreknowledge of all that will come to pass, and if the enemy's machinations can take him by surprise, doesn't it follow that in the end he may not be victorious?

Well he will be OK as long as they have no Iron Chariots.


“And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.”

—Judges 1:19

LOL!

Sorry I just couldn't resist .

No I think God will always come out on top because all things that are possible , are possible for him. :)
 
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

alexandriaisburning

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
670
192
✟16,819.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
God is eternally knowledgeable.

I'm not sure anyone--including OT's--disagrees with that. The question is what the domain of possible knowledge actually entails. From an OT's perspective, the future does not exist, therefore it is not an object of knowledge. After all, we wouldn't say that God has knowledge of those things that don't exist...it would be akin to saying that God has knowledge of no-thing, which is absurd. So let's not misrepresent positions just for the sake of sound bites and easy rhetorical wins.

So much so that he knew us before we were even in our mothers womb. If he does not know what we will freely do in the future, as the open theism description states, then he wouldn't have known us before the womb. Because he wouldn't have known our mother would become pregnant so as to have his spirit give us life in the womb.

I think we have to allow for the limitations of language when we read statements like this. By saying that God knows something "before" it happens, we have to implant God within the contingency and temporality of the universe. While God can certainly participate within the same, God is fundamentally other-than, and transcendent of, the universe in which tensed language has any reference. So when we read in the Scriptures that God "knows" things "before" they happen, I think we need to temper the literalness that we apply in order to avoid imposing our limited, contingent epistemologies upon the infinite, unfettered knowledge of God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: graceandpeace
Upvote 0

VanillaSunflowers

Black Lives Don't Matter More Than Any Other Life
Jul 26, 2016
3,741
1,733
DE
✟18,570.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure anyone--including OT's--disagrees with that. The question is what the domain of possible knowledge actually entails. From an OT's perspective, the future does not exist, therefore it is not an object of knowledge. After all, we wouldn't say that God has knowledge of those things that don't exist...it would be akin to saying that God has knowledge of no-thing, which is absurd. So let's not misrepresent positions just for the sake of sound bites and easy rhetorical wins.
I've not read anyone launch into the absurd as yet.
And there is no such thing as sound bites and easy rhetorical wins in this domain of those in the body of Christ. If you seek that to criticize perhaps seek elsewhere.



I think we have to allow for the limitations of language when we read statements like this. By saying that God knows something "before" it happens, we have to implant God within the contingency and temporality of the universe. While God can certainly participate within the same, God is fundamentally other-than, and transcendent of, the universe in which tensed language has any reference. So when we read in the Scriptures that God "knows" things "before" they happen, I think we need to temper the literalness that we apply in order to avoid imposing our limited, contingent epistemologies upon the infinite, unfettered knowledge of God.
I think you would do better in this discussion if you didn't limit God with your own belief system that contradicts itself using haughty language.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If God experiences time in much the same way we do, and if he doesn't have complete foreknowledge of all that will come to pass, and if the enemy's machinations can take him by surprise, doesn't it follow that in the end he may not be victorious?

God doesn't fit that definition.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
If God experiences time in much the same way we do, and if he doesn't have complete foreknowledge of all that will come to pass, and if the enemy's machinations can take him by surprise, doesn't it follow that in the end he may not be victorious?

According to the best known version of open theism, yes, I think that would be the conclusion. There are more nuanced versions, however, that don't lead to that end. I've been accused of supporting open theism, but I don't consider myself such. I'm closer to Alan Padgett.
 
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

Greenham

Saint and Sinner
Sep 11, 2013
48
3
✟8,657.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
According to the best known version of open theism, yes, I think that would be the conclusion.

It doesn't seem to be the conclusion of Alexandriaisburning, however. Do you feel he's advocating a unique strand of the doctrine?
 
Upvote 0
Jul 28, 2016
23
8
27
Italy
✟8,490.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
How could God lose if he's omnipotent? Or does open theism deny omnipotence as well?

If Open Theism denies omniscience, it must deny omnipotence as well, after all.

Unless they postulate a virtual omnipotence of God, meaning that God could be able to do anything but is limited by His own imagination.

I reject such a concept for God, but it would be awesome for a comic character ;)
 
Upvote 0

alexandriaisburning

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
670
192
✟16,819.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I think you would do better in this discussion if you didn't limit God with your own belief system that contradicts itself using haughty language.

I'm not limiting God. If you had read what I had posted, you'd understand that what I suggested is an attempt to do precisely the opposite, and remove the epistemological constraints that we foist upon God when we talk about God's "knowledge" of the universe.
 
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

alexandriaisburning

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
670
192
✟16,819.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If Open Theism denies omniscience, it must deny omnipotence as well, after all.

No OT proponent would suggest that God is *not* omniscient. As I pointed out in a previous post, this is a misrepresentation of OT by its antagonists, partly due to rhetorical posturing, partly due to ignorance of the OT position (whether intentional or otherwise).

Open Theism only "denies" God's knowledge of the future because such denials are necessary due to the entrenchment of "foreknowledge" language within alternative theologies. To the OT, "foreknowledge" is an irrelevant concept, as the future does not exist to be known, and is therefore not an object of knowledge. It is a no-thing, lacking any ontological weight (whether in idea or actuality, or both), and as such cannot be known by anyone or anything, not even God. This, of course, does not represent a "lack" or "inability" within God, as the referent of the "inability" (e.g., the future, e.g., that which does not exist, e.g., "no-thing") is no referent at all. Asking whether God "knows" the future is like asking whether God "knows" what it's like to not exist. The questions are irrelevant and absurd because they misunderstand the most elementary concepts regarding the nature of God's eternal self-existence and knowledge.

But again, these "inabilities" of God are *only* ever brought up by virtue of their contrast to the entrenched language of "tensed divine knowledge" present in other popular theologies; if OT were able to be articulated in a vacuum, apart from the rhetorical dead-weight of these alternative theologies, these "denials" would be completely unnecessary.
 
Upvote 0