Open Theism

[redleghunter]

However, if you have an omniscient God that knows with 100% certainty what you will do ahead of time (in fact before you're born) - then you truly do not have choice. If God has foreknowledge that you WILL choose B beforehand, then A was truly never an option. Sure, you may be aware of other choices, but what you will choose is predetermined...and that certainly is not free will.

Why does having an omniscient God determine your choices. Or better put why do you think an omniscient God coerces you to act?

Is it possible an omniscient God and for people to still make choices according to their nature?

 

[Tetra]

Prophecy is more about telling the people God's intention than predicting the future.

Some says that God is in the process of bringing in something to punish Israel. That's God's intention for the near future.

Some talks about what God intends to bring about in the end.

Open theism certainly assumes that God is capable of bringing about his goals. However how he does it specifically depends upon what happens.

No disagreement from me.

 

[redleghunter]

As I said earlier, prophecy (predeterminism) doesn't imply foreknowledge, it's irrelevant.

Before the foundation of the earth sure does. That is out of, removed from the created time space.

 

[redleghunter]

You don't give an exegesis, but most likely you're trying to prove Calvinism. So this isn't specific to the question of open theism. The typical response is that choosing us in Christ did not mean having a list from eternity of people God wanted to save and damn.

Maybe I missed your exegesis...don't think I did as you just made philosophical statements.

Before the foundations of the earth has meaning. Which is outside of God's creation of time, space and matter.

This is a moderately odd citation, since it only says that God knows us (and from context, it's specifically his followers) well.

See verse 4.

Acts 2: NASB
This claims that God planned from the beginning to send Christ. This doesn't require detailed knowledge of the future, only knowledge of how God himself intended to deal with us. Indeed it doesn't really say that this plan was from eternity.

Yet the very verse 23 says not only foreknowledge but predetermined.

We see it again in Acts 4:

27“For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

Put before the foundations of the earth along with the words of Peter in Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:28 and the open theism house of cards comes down. Unless one wants to claim partial open theism. That God only knows the future of events He chooses to know. But that would just about violate every other attribute of God revealed. This is what happens when we try to apply post modern sensibilities of materialism on the uncreated Creator.

 

[tdidymas]

It's generally not a good idea to learn about something from an opponent. A better source would be

https://www.amazon.com/Openness-God...F8&qid=1545510452&sr=1-8&keywords=open+theism

Note that this book distinguishes between open theism and process theology. Not everyone is clear on this. Some arguments against open theism really only apply to process theology. The difference is that in open theism God knows and can do anything that it is logically possible to know and do. He creates and is responsible for the world. In process theology God's activity is not so determinative. He acts in what one might call a persuasive manner.

I appreciate your attempt at correction, but I read "God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will" by Richard Rice. If he is of the same opinion today as he was, then I stand by my assessment.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

I don't think open theism implies this, unless Arminianism does. Open theism isn't deism. It doesn't imply that God starts the world and then sits back and watches. God is still active with us, and acts graciously. However he doesn't know the way everything will work out in detail.

Here's part of the definition from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future. Though omnipotent, He has chosen to invite us to freely collaborate with Him in governing and developing His creation, thereby also allowing us the freedom to thwart His hopes for us. God desires that each of us freely enter into a loving and dynamic personal relationship with Him, and He has therefore left it open to us to choose for or against His will."

In terms of the Calvinism - Pelagianism spectrum, this is pretty much the same position taken by classic Arminianism. God has taken the initiative, which is grace. One of the descriptions above was of deism, not open theism. It said that God created the universe and then left us alone. That's *not* open theism. Open theists believe that God works with us. But he also depends upon our response. This is Arminianism.

Open theism takes seriously the Biblical description of how God acts. The Bible speaks of God as trying things and changing his mind. To get standard Christian theology you have to dismiss the way the Bible talks of God.

Personally, I haven't decided. A lot depends upon whether God is outside time. From a scientific point of view that seems the most likely. If so, then I think he would see all of history "at the same time." That makes open theism hard. However Scripture seems pretty clearly to imply open theism.

Do you believe in open theism then?
TD

 

[Tetra]

Maybe I missed your exegesis...don't think I did as you just made philosophical statements.

Before the foundations of the earth has meaning. Which is outside of God's creation of time, space and matter.



See verse 4.


Yet the very verse 23 says not only foreknowledge but predetermined.

We see it again in Acts 4:

27“For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

Put before the foundations of the earth along with the words of Peter in Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:28 and the open theism house of cards comes down. Unless one wants to claim partial open theism. That God only knows the future of events He chooses to know. But that would just about violate every other attribute of God revealed. This is what happens when we try to apply post modern sensibilities of materialism on the uncreated Creator.

God cannot have foreknowledge of events which don't exist, that doesn't even make sense.

Simply saying "Before the foundations of the earth has meaning" isn't sufficient. What exactly do you think that means which would be antithetical to open theism?

God "foreknows" and predestines certain events in that He has the ability to carry them out at a certain time as He wishes. That is different than saying He knows the future.

 

[tdidymas]

I know prayer is more for us. I know that we're supposed to pray within God's will. However, we're taught that sometimes God will change His mind about something or other and maybe even heal someone. We do attribute some healing to God (although all good things come from God).

I don't know why it's irrelevant however. IF God doesn't know the future, then He conceivably could answer a prayer. I haven't thought this through well.

I did order the book you recommended.

I do believe in man-centered salvation. Don't know if centered is the right term...it's a cooperation. I don't think I'm an arminian but I know I have no calvinist tendencies except that I do believe in obedience to God like they do.

Man-centered means it's all about what man is and does. God-centered means it is all about what God is and does. The way I read the Bible is that salvation is God-centered, not man-centered. God initiates our condition, and we respond to His "first cause."

What people fail to understand is that the teaching we see in the Bible about salvation has two dimensions, the spiritual and the natural. Many people confuse the two dimensions, and thus we get the "predestination vs. free will" controversy. What God initiates in us is in the spiritual dimension, and our response to what He initiates is in the natural dimension. For example, we pray about a concern we have, and God answers. But it is not God responding to us, it is rather us responding to Him. He is the one who put that concern in us from the beginning. "Love comes from God" - therefore God doesn't respond to our love, but rather our love is a response to His.

It might appear that God responds to us, if we take some statements of scripture by themselves, excluding the wider context of scripture. But such things (like "God repented," or "now I know...") are accommodations, because man's natural reasoning and experience hinders faith that God is in control.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

God cannot have foreknowledge of events which don't exist, that doesn't even make sense.

Simply saying "Before the foundations of the earth has meaning" isn't sufficient. What exactly do you think that means which would be antithetical to open theism?

God "foreknows" and predestines certain events in that He has the ability to carry them out at a certain time as He wishes. That is different than saying He knows the future.

Isa 46:9-10 "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure"

To say that "God cannot have foreknowledge of events which don't exist," isn't this actually a denial of open theism, since it theorizes that God is so wise that He has all possible outcomes figured out? So then, if that is so, then He has knowledge of every possible future event that doesn't exist!

Two things are wrong with open theism in this regard. First, that God is removed from creation to the extent that He doesn't actually know what His creation will do. And second, that God doesn't transcend time, that the future in creation is also God's future.

So it begs the question: does open theism teach that God transcends time (IOW God created it), or does it teach that time is an attribute of God (in which He is subject to it as His nature)?
TD

 

[Tetra]

To say that "God cannot have foreknowledge of events which don't exist," isn't this actually a denial of open theism, since it theorizes that God is so wise that He has all possible outcomes figured out? So then, if that is so, then He has knowledge of every possible future event that doesn't exist!

No. I can know every possible move left in a chess game, that doesn't mean I know which move you're going to make. I only know the move you made once you chose to make it.

What people are claiming here is that God knows the exact move you make prior to it even occurring, which is different than knowing possible outcomes.

 

[hedrick]

Before the foundations of the earth has meaning. Which is outside of God's creation of time, space and matter.

The passage is Eph 1:4 "just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love."

As noted, I think the issue here is more Calvinism than open theism. The usual non-Calvinist understanding is that God intended from the beginning to send Christ and through him to call a people. This need not indicate predestination of individuals.

We see it again in Acts 4:
27“For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

Acts 2:23 and this passage don't talk about God having determined the specifics from the beginning. Obviously God intended Christ to be crucified and resurrected, in those circumstances. But this passage lacks what Eph says, from the beginning. It's perfectly plausible to say, with Eph, that God intended from the beginning to send Christ, but that the specific way he was to die depending upon the historical situation.

Put before the foundations of the earth along with the words of Peter in Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:28 and the open theism house of cards comes down. Unless one wants to claim partial open theism. That God only knows the future of events He chooses to know. But that would just about violate every other attribute of God revealed. This is what happens when we try to apply post modern sensibilities of materialism on the uncreated Creator.

You can't take a phrase from Ephesians and tack it onto a passage from Acts. I think Ephesians does in fact say that God intended to send Christ from the beginning, and God intended to call a people through him. That doesn't establish detailed predetermination.

This isn't post-modernism. It's taking seriously the many Biblical passages about God responding to people.

 

[redleghunter]

God cannot have foreknowledge of events which don't exist, that doesn't even make sense.

Why?

Simply saying "Before the foundations of the earth has meaning" isn't sufficient.

It's a concrete statement and truth. Before the foundations of the earth God predestined. Why is that confusing?

It states God is immutable and Sovereign over His creation and He is not a created being.

What exactly do you think that means which would be antithetical to open theism?

God's Sovereignty where he says:

Isaiah 46: NASB
8“Remember this, and be assured;
Recall it to mind, you transgressors.

9“Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,

10Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, ‘My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

11Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man of My purpose from a far country.
Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass.
I have planned it, surely I will do it.
In the above both foreknowledge and predetermined are affirmed.

God "foreknows" and predestines certain events in that He has the ability to carry them out at a certain time as He wishes. That is different than saying He knows the future

Foreknows means knowing beforehand.

 

[Tetra]

Why?

Because God's knowledge can only work within the parameters of logic. God cannot know things which do not exist, just as He doesn't know how high superman can fly, He doesn't know the specifics of the future.

It's a concrete statement and truth. Before the foundations of the earth God predestined. Why is that confusing?

I never said this is confusing, I said I don't see how this is antithetical to open theism.

It states God is immutable and Sovereign over His creation and He is not a created being.


God's Sovereignty where he says:

Isaiah 46: NASB
8“Remember this, and be assured;
Recall it to mind, you transgressors.

9“Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,

10Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, ‘My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

11Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man of My purpose from a far country.
Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass.
I have planned it, surely I will do it.
In the above both foreknowledge and predetermined are affirmed.


Foreknows means knowing beforehand.

Pretty much every verse of Scripture you have quoted I don't see in opposition to open theism.

Yes in Acts 2:23, He knew beforehand He would send Christ. Who is denying that??

 

[hedrick]

Isa 46:9-10 "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure"

I think you're using this passage for a different purpose than it was intended. Isaiah was reassuring Israel about his commitment to his covenant people. The whole verse is

declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, “My purpose shall stand,
and I will fulfill my intention,”​

Pretty clearly the reference to ancient times is the beginning of the covenant, and God is saying that he will fulfill it. This is not a philosophical statement about the knowability of the future, but rather of the constancy of God's purpose.

To say that "God cannot have foreknowledge of events which don't exist," isn't this actually a denial of open theism, since it theorizes that God is so wise that He has all possible outcomes figured out?

Surely it's clear what I meant. I'm not sure that open theism claims God has enumerated every possible chain of events, but rather that he can always find a way to accomplish his purposes.

Two things are wrong with open theism in this regard. First, that God is removed from creation to the extent that He doesn't actually know what His creation will do. And second, that God doesn't transcend time, that the future in creation is also God's future. So it begs the question: does open theism teach that God transcends time (IOW God created it), or does it teach that time is an attribute of God (in which He is subject to it as His nature)?
TD

I already noted that open theism seems to assume that God is within time, and from a scientific point of view, it seems most likely that he's outside of time. Basically the problem is that time is an attribute of the universe. (It's one dimension of a multidimensional space that doesn't appear to exist "before" the big bang.) If God created the universe, he must exist outside it (though of course he is also within it). It's hard for me to see how someone outside the universe could be temporal.

It's just that Scripture describes God as acting as an agent within time.

The problem is that we don't have any idea what it is like to exist outside the universe. Although our time seems to be part of the universe, perhaps there is still some analog of time outside it. Or perhaps Calvinism is true, and the whole way the Bible speaks of God interacting with us is accommodation.

 

[Der Alte]

Some time ago when I first heard the Calvinist proof text about a leopard not being able to change his spots, nor the Ethiopian his skin, I needed to see the context. I found that God was speaking to the king and queen of Israel not, necessarily all of mankind, Jer 13:18. And as I read further in this chapter I found another passage, which refutes several tenets of Calvinism.
.....Does God predestine some part of humanity to salvation and another part to damnation and there is nothing either group can do about it?
.....Note this passage from Jeremiah. God said “I have caused to cleave” That word is הדבקתי/ha’dabaq’thi. It is in the perfect or completed sense. God’s will, expressly stated, for the whole house of Israel and Judah, not just an elect, predestined, chosen, few, was for all of Israel and all of Judah to cling to God as a belt clings to a man’s waist. It was done, finished, completed, in God’s sight, and, according to some arguments presented, nothing man can do will cause God’s will to not be done. But they, Israel and Judah, would not hear and obey, their will, vs. God’s will, So God destroyed them, vs. 14.
This passage very much speaks to the issue of salvation, God’s sovereign will, and man’s free will and agency. God stated very clearly what His will was, in terms that cannot be misunderstood. But, because the Israelites would not hear, and obey, God destroyed them, instead of them being unto God, “for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory, vs. 10.”

Jer 13:1 Thus saith the LORD unto me, Go and get thee a linen girdle, and put it upon thy loins, and put it not in water.
2 So I got a girdle according to the word of the LORD, and put it on my loins.
3 And the word of the LORD came unto me the second time, saying,
4 Take the girdle that thou hast got, which is upon thy loins, and arise, go to Euphrates, and hide it there in a hole of the rock.
5 So I went, and hid it by Euphrates, as the LORD commanded me.
6 And it came to pass after many days, that the LORD said unto me, Arise, go to Euphrates, and take the girdle from thence, which I commanded thee to hide there.
7 Then I went to Euphrates, and digged, and took the girdle from the place where I had hid it: and, behold, the girdle was marred, it was profitable for nothing.
8 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
9 Thus saith the LORD, After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem.
10 This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.
11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave [הדבקתי/ha’dabaq’thi] unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
· · ·
14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.​

Note, verse 14, God said He will NOT have pity, will NOT spare, and will NOT have mercy but destroy them.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

If God has foreknowledge that you WILL choose B beforehand, then A was truly never an option.

That's not an unreasonable line of thinking. The essence isn't so much in whether or not God knows what you will do, because he could be ignorant of it and the fact that you will choose B may still be just as set in stone. The fact that he knows what you will do only confirms the fact that your choice is already determined.

If it's only a question of determinism, regardless of whether or not God knows, then it's really a question of whether an effect with no prior cause can exist in this universe, apart from God. Are you really introducing alterations in the chain of cause and effect that are, essentially, miraculous, being effects without a cause, leading to outcomes that would not have happened under the normal laws of nature? Otherwise, if a precise cause always leads to a precise effect, then the universe is deterministic.

I don't see God as being trapped within the confines of time, because I don't see him as being trapped within the confines of space. I don't think he can be trapped by one and not the other, being that they are merely two variables of the same thing, nor do I think that he can be trapped within the confines of his own creation, having existed before he created it. I don't think he can be confined by anything but himself. Therefore, I must reject open theism, and with that, Arminianism, because if he already knows the future, then it is set in stone, and the universe is deterministic (and I must believe that he determined it).

 

[Tetra]

I think you're using this passage for a different purpose than it was intended. Isaiah was reassuring Israel about his commitment to his covenant people. The whole verse is

declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, “My purpose shall stand,
and I will fulfill my intention,”​

Pretty clearly the reference to ancient times is the beginning of the covenant, and God is saying that he will fulfill it. This is not a philosophical statement about the knowability of the future, but rather of the constancy of God's purpose.


Surely it's clear what I meant. I'm not sure that open theism claims God has enumerated every possible chain of events, but rather that he can always find a way to accomplish his purposes.

I already noted that open theism seems to assume that God is within time, and from a scientific point of view, it seems most likely that he's outside of time. Basically the problem is that time is an attribute of the universe. (It's one dimension of a multidimensional space that doesn't appear to exist "before" the big bang.) If God created the universe, he must exist outside it (though of course he is also within it). It's hard for me to see how someone outside the universe could be temporal.

It's just that Scripture describes God as acting as an agent within time.

The problem is that we don't have any idea what it is like to exist outside the universe. Although our time seems to be part of the universe, perhaps there is still some analog of time outside it. Or perhaps Calvinism is true, and the whole way the Bible speaks of God interacting with us is accommodation.

Why do you think God being outside time necessitates knowledge of future events?

 

[hedrick]

Why do you think God being outside time necessitates knowledge of future events?

You're right. I've been thinking about it a bit more. God's time can't be precisely the same as ours. There are issues related to relativity, and the geometry in which we're living. But it can be closely enough related to make him more or less temporal. Indeed it's probably just as plausible as having him atemporal and able to see all of our history at once.

 

[Bobber]

I like how CS lewis explained this, as he saw God as living in the Eternal Now, as he knows all things at the same time as Hees all things from the perspective of right now.

Yes well I think Saints all through the years have held to that similar belief. I think when God revealed himself as, "I AM" that is a present tense forever term, or from how what you've said a "right now" vantage point.

There is another scripture which I don't really see many refer to on this theme but it seems the clearest of all.

"Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches...." Rev 1:11

"I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
Rev 22: 13

Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet and Omega the last. In other words God is saying I am the A and the Z if we thought about it in English. That is to say the end of your physical time is the same as the beginning to me and your beginning is the same as the end. From my vantage point I believe God is saying I see it all. I believe there is a way that God sees it all which is a little different than how some people might think for I believe there's a process which brings it to that conclusion but I do believe he sees it all .

 

[Bobber]

You're right. I've been thinking about it a bit more. God's time can't be precisely the same as ours. There are issues related to relativity, and the geometry in which we're living. But it can be closely enough related to make him more or less temporal. Indeed it's probably just as plausible as having him atemporal and able to see all of our history at once.

I suppose God would look upon us all talking about this as seeking to understand all mysteries. Not a sin to do so but I don't think we'll all come to understand in this life how to comprehend it all. About God's time not being precisely the same as ours I do agree that if in Heaven it's considered eternity then there seems clearly to be some type of sequencing of events which takes place in stages....which would have to be time in a certain sense.

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled. Rev 6:9-11

That would require a sequence 1) them asking 2) listening to his response 3) waiting the duration of "time" before the end result takes place.