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

[Winken]

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?

If, if, if........

 

[Toneri Otsutsuki]

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.

Well that would lead us to define the word "omniscience".

Some would define it as infinite knowledge, leaving no space for such speculations.

Others would define it as "knowledge of all there is"

If you (impersonal) tend towards the second definition, and assume presentism denying the actual existence of future in this right moment, then the objection Open Theists make about foreknowledge is understandable.

Sorry I'm too sleepy for debating now

 

[Berean777]

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?

How could the Creator experience time/space amnesia?

After all is it not declared.....

"This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself, (Isaiah 44:24)

4He determines the number of the stars

and calls them each by name. (Psalm 147:4

For the Creator to name all the stars in heaven whilst some are dying and others are forming in the vastness of space and time, where distance is much greater than the speed of light and events unfold quickly in comparison to a being knowning that something has happened, if his knowledge is dictated by time and space, then he would miss events. This would be a god with time space amnesia.

We know from scripture that God is all knowing and does in fact surpass the limitations of time and space. Let me give you an example, in space light behaves differently and time relative to ours can be slower or faster. In some parts of space, time is almost at a stand still. So you can imagine how God can number all the stars and also is responsible for stretching out the heavens, meaning time.

Your suppositions are in error. The God of the Bible is all knowing.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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?

But God doesn't experience time like we do. Thank God

 

[Deadworm]

I'm not an open theist, but consider these 3 points:
(1) Ancient Hebrew word usage is often less precise than its modern English equivalents. So precise modern philosophical concepts of omniscience and omnipotence are not biblically grounded. So we are not biblically entitled to postulate unlimited possibilities for God.

(2) The OT frequently implies that God changes His mind and regrets what happens. These texts implicitly limit the omni-omni God.

(3) In creation God brings order out of chaos, but the OT often implies that God never fully controls the forces of chaos. In that sense, His sovereign control of events is voluntarily or involuntarily limited. E. g. "All are victims of time and chance (Ecclesiastes 9:11)."

 

[Berean777]

Time is relative. God is consciousness who is immaterial and doesn't need a reference point to compare time and space to. He declared himself the I Am. This strongly suggests a declaration of being the source of all light/life.

When you shine a light onto an object you have already determined the result, that is the object will be litup. Now God stretching out the heavens in his declaration is highly suggestive of a determined or at least expected outcome.

When God starts naming the stars this also suggests predetermined knowledge of events unfolding that have yet to happen from a far away observer say on earth.

This is how scripture supporrs this claim....

As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the presence of God, in whom he believed, the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being what does not yet exist. (Romans 4:17)

From the above versus we are informed that God shines his light with the calculated expectation of what is to happen. We can look at the flood event and see that the result that God expected did not go down well and he intervened.

So God is the system overseer and if he allows things to unfold with expectation, yet on a few occassions we see the expected outcome was not met and he delt with those disturbances within his created domain. For God to do this he must know what is going on throughout the vastness of space as the system administrator.

The reason why God doesn't program humanity the way he programs stars is the concept of free will. God didn't make us robots or slaves.

 

[Berean777]

I'm not an open theist, but consider these 3 points:
(1) Ancient Hebrew word usage is often less precise than its modern English equivalents. So precise modern philosophical concepts of omniscience and omnipotence are not biblically grounded. So we are not biblically entitled to postulate unlimited possibilities for God.

(2) The OT frequently implies that God changes His mind and regrets what happens. These texts implicitly limit the omni-omni God.

(3) In creation God brings order out of chaos, but the OT often implies that God never fully controls the forces of chaos. In that sense, His sovereign control of events is voluntarily or involuntarily limited. E. g. "All are victims of time and chance (Ecclesiastes 9:11)."

I believe that I have covered point 2 in my previous post. God deals with inanimate objects differently to those living who have souls.

 

[Berean777]

The concept of free will and events unfolding that are unfavourable to God such as the flood event or Sodom and Gomorrah were anticipated but not interfered with until God saw no choice but to do so. That is why the conversation with Abraham was along the lines that he had no choice in this matter and that man's free will trumped God's expectation, that he would even find 10 good people in those cities. It seems there is a difference between knowing something isn't functioning as it should and regretting that he allowed it. In fact there is evidence in OT where God makes himself accountable to man's failure, yet it didn't suggest that he never expected it. In fact God would regret making man before flooding the world because he knew what would happen eventually.

 

[Berean777]

It is evident that God's love is ever enduring even when expected outcome isn't met, yet the experience of having a relationship with his creation is one that trumpts his better judgement. God doesn't see failure as we do, but is motivated by love so extreme that failure is anticipated in order to establish the impossible. Man is God's greatest challenge that he has endured and this is compared to labor pains of a pregnant women who sees through the pain until the child is born, that is the pain before the joy.

Notice Jesus would say Father if it is your will to please pass this cup from me. This bitter cup is pain and yet Jesus doesn't say I don't want to do your will that is to die on the cross, but to make the expected pain go quickly without too much suffering.

Notice God allowed Jesus to suffer the death on the cross and Jesus said my God my God why have you foresaken me in allowing me to go through this prolonged pain of death. The death of the cross is excruciating and lengthy until the last drop of blood is poured out. Then Jesus says it is finished! thank God. We see the pain before the joy and Christianity has gone through these phases throughout the centuries.

We must therefore see God as a being who enduring pain requires us also to drink from his bitter cup. Pain and suffering is the Christian way of life.

Thank God that after the pain there is joy and if the God of the Bible never wanted to go through pain then we would not be here at all. If our mothers didn't want to go through the labour pain once twice or three times then we or our brothers and sisters would not be here.

A mother in labor pains is the epitome of God's enduring qualities that God goes through every day for each and every one of us. God is Love. Can you see the love when your mother placed you with open arms on her aching belly?

God's love is even greater!

 

[hedrick]

I think it's at least possible that God might know in general terms what's going to happen without knowing every individual's actions.

The reference already given, http://www.iep.utm.edu/o-theism/, is helpful, but it gives a presentation that's heavily philosophical. The following is probably more useful to our readers: http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-open-theist-greg-boyd-response. It deals with Scriptural support. Note particularly his comment on what omnipotence means. He thinks that for a God whose power is shown in Christ's crucifixion omnipotence means something different from the common view. I think his arguments are fairly convincing. A naive reading of Scripture actually leads to open theism. The traditional view requires taking a lot of passages non-literally, on the grounds that they couldn't have meant what they say, but must be the result of anthromophic imagery.

That posting also deals with the question asked by the OP. Boyd maintains that open theism is a result of God's decision to allow human freedom. He thinks that God does not go so far with this as to risk the final place he wants to take history. He does believe that God is omnipotent, but that he voluntarily makes a place for human freedom.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Timespace is one continuum, not two separate continua. Therefore to say God experiences time like we do is the same as saying he experiences space as we do, which is absurd.

 

[Victor E.]

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?

"Then what’s the advantage of being a Jew? Is there any value in the ceremony of circumcision? Yes, there are great benefits! First of all, the Jews were entrusted with the whole revelation of God.

True, some of them were unfaithful; but just because they were unfaithful, does that mean God will be unfaithful? Of course not! Even if everyone else is a liar, God is true. As the Scriptures say about him,

“You will be proved right in what you say,
and you will win your case in court.”

“But,” some might say, “our sinfulness serves a good purpose, for it helps people see how righteous God is. Isn’t it unfair, then, for him to punish us?” (This is merely a human point of view.) Of course not! If God were not entirely fair, how would he be qualified to judge the world? “But,” someone might still argue, “how can God condemn me as a sinner if my dishonesty highlights his truthfulness and brings him more glory?” And some people even slander us by claiming that we say, “The more we sin, the better it is!” Those who say such things deserve to be condemned." Romans 3:1-8

"Listen in silence before me, you lands beyond the sea. Bring your strongest arguments. Come now and speak. The court is ready for your case." Isaiah 41:1

 

[dqhall]

God knows if a sparrow falls from the sky (Matt 10). Jesus was resting beside a well in Samaria and asked a woman for a drink. In the course of conversation he told her how many times she had been married and that she was in a relationship without being married. She was amazed at his display of prophesy (John 4).

I think the question is not about God losing, but about people losing their chance to know God the almighty. Interpreting human failings as God's mistakes is an error. People who reject God fall short of salvation.

 

[miknik5]

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?

Why are we discussing what isn't true?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Well that would lead us to define the word "omniscience".

Some would define it as infinite knowledge, leaving no space for such speculations.

Others would define it as "knowledge of all there is"

"Infinite knowledge" and "knowledge of all there is" are one and the same. The only possible expansion of knowledge within "infinite knowledge" would be rhetorical, as the "objects" of speculative knowledge would not signify the things in themselves (as if they do or could have existence), but would rather be invalid extensions of things that do exist which we only rename to appear clever.

 

[hedrick]

Why are we discussing what isn't true?

Because Scripture speaks of God's decisions as if it is true.

 

[Resha Caner]

... 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.

I don't know where you go with it from here, but I agree with you at least this far.

 

[miknik5]

Because Scripture speaks of God's decisions as if it is true.

It's true. And this op provided a false scenario

 

[Greenham]

Why are we discussing what isn't true?

Because debate is healthy?

 

[miknik5]

Because debate is healthy?

What are we debating?
A "what if" scenario about GOD?

Is that really healthy?
Or does it simply add to the confusion before men who do not know God?

All the while coming from men who claim that they do know God?