Open Theism

[zelosravioli]

O LORD God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant.” And the LORD said, “He will come down.” 12 Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the LORD said, “They will surrender you” 1 Samuel 23

So is God 'predicting' a future possibility, or actually 'seeing' the future?

Is God looking at a string of multiple Universes and sees a 'future' where “He will come down and They will surrender you”?

Does God see a future where this happened, and then in our Universe it doesn't happen?

I do not hold to a view that says 'these events actually already happen (happened)' or that multiple outcomes exist in parallel Universes. I don't believe OpenTheism holds this view either, because OpenTheism seems to state that the 'future' events have not happened, thus they cannot be known.

But 'future' events can all be predicted by God without fail; thus God knows the future.

OpenTheism seems to say God can predict, because He has such Omniscient 'knowledge' He can predict 'all possible' outcomes. And, we believe God can think all possible outcomes in zero time, or faster than time can move. And, combined with His Omnipotence God can cause or manipulate the outcome of 'any' event (in zero time, or no time at all). Thus God is in total control if He wishes, and can perfectly predict the outcome of anything (without 'determining' everything in the past or 'seeing' the future).

(By saying 'no time at all' and 'zero time', we are not saying God is 'outside' of time. Rather God can do all His thinking 'in time' and God exists in time as we know it - yet, because God is so much infinitely faster than created things - God is unaffected by the speed or motion of created things)

Therefore, again, God has no need to 'see' the future or need to see the outcome of future scenarios, He only needs to be able to predict them - which makes sense because, again;
The future can't have already happened.

 

[Radagast]

yet that is what open theist state. God is the God of all possibilities.

Open theists talk about that in a very different sense: God not knowing which possibility will take place.

Yet David did not ask if it was safe to stay.

Well, why do you think he was asking God a question?

 

[Radagast]

OpenTheism seems to say God can predict, because He has such Omniscient 'knowledge' He can predict 'all possible' outcomes.

According to Open Theism, God cannot predict with certainty.

Thus God is in total control if He wishes, and can perfectly predict the outcome of anything

Not according to Open Theism. To quote Greg Boyd (in God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God), "He does not control and/or foreknow exactly what is going to happen."

 

[ghtan]

O LORD God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant.” And the LORD said, “He will come down.” 12 Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the LORD said, “They will surrender you” 1 Samuel 23

So is God 'predicting' a future possibility, or actually 'seeing' the future?

I think God simply read the minds of Saul and the people of Keilah. Saul had decided he would go to Keilah to get David. So God knew what Saul would do and told David. Now if David heard that Saul was coming to Keilah, it is likely the people of Keilah heard that too. They would not want to rebel against Saul and so in their minds they had already decided to betray David to Saul when the latter arrived. God read their minds and so he could tell David what the people of Keilah would do. So I don't think there is need for any form of foreknowledge here.

 

[Pneuma3]

I think God simply read the minds of Saul and the people of Keilah. Saul had decided he would go to Keilah to get David. So God knew what Saul would do and told David. Now if David heard that Saul was coming to Keilah, it is likely the people of Keilah heard that too. They would not want to rebel against Saul and so in their minds they had already decided to betray David to Saul when the latter arrived. God read their minds and so he could tell David what the people of Keilah would do. So I don't think there is need for any form of foreknowledge here.

which shows God knew because he searched these things out not because He foeknew they would happen from eternity past.

 

[Bobber]

Therefore, again, God has no need to 'see' the future or need to see the outcome of future scenarios, He only needs to be able to predict them - which makes sense because, again;
The future can't have already happened.

I have kind of a problem with that for I think there are some things one couldn't know by mere prediction. For example one might believe with a sports team, Team A will beat Team B before the game. But there are so many variables of things that can happen. Some times a best team in the league is beat by the weakest.

Or even if a game could be somewhat predicted....could they cite (let's say in baseball) that player 1 will strike out 3 times in a 9 inning game. Or how many foul balls they'd hit. Or that one player would get hurt in the games sliding into second base?

I think some of the revealings (predictions) in the Bible are similar. Very exact declarations of things. Granted sometimes God gives an exactly prediction because in his sovereignty he is going to make A, B or C happen but I believe there are various things that are just not that way.

 

[zelosravioli]

I am trying to simply make one point 'first' or get a definition of 'future'. Sports are a great example.
'How' then does God know the outcome of a baseball game?
Does God see the game from the future?
Would that be saying the future has happened?
Or does God know because... how?

 

[Radagast]

Would that be saying the future has happened?

Foreknowledge implies that the future is written, and will take place exactly as foreseen. That's why Open Theists reject it.

 

[ghtan]

I am trying to simply make one point 'first' or get a definition of 'future'. Sports are a great example.
'How' then does God know the outcome of a baseball game?
Does God see the game from the future?
Would that be saying the future has happened?
Or does God know because... how?

I think God does not know the outcome of a sports game with absolute certainty unless he ensures one side wins. But why would God want to take sides in such matters? He wouldn't. His plans for the world do not hinge on the outcome of such games. So he does not interfere. That makes a lot more sense to me than suggesting God predetermines the outcome of all sports games, especially from eternity past.

 

[zelosravioli]

Agreed ghtan, I do not believe God causes the outcome of baseball games, of course, because that would be very unsportsmanlike. I believe God gave us freewill so He could enjoy a good baseball game as well, and enjoys the fact that we can do such freewill things, otherwise it would not be fun at all.

I do believe God 'could' intervene if He needed to, He could cause the Sun to stand still or such, but more often than that I believe satan puts blinders on the umpires.

But as an analogy of intervening or knowing the outcome, it is a good example of variables...

Radagast says: "Foreknowledge implies that the future is written, and will take place exactly as foreseen"

I guess then that some must believe that the baseball game "... is written, and will take place exactly as foreseen"

So Radagast, is that what you believe, that the baseball game "... is written, and will take place exactly as foreseen" ?

 

[Radagast]

So Radagast, is that what you believe, that the baseball game "... is written, and will take place exactly as foreseen" ?

Of course. As the Bible teaches.

Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. (Matthew 10:29)

But we don't know how the game will turn out. Which is why it's fun to watch a replay of a game that's already taken place, if you don't know the outcome.

Now you and @ghtan deny the foreknowledge of God, but the foreknowledge of God was actually a key tenet of Christianity until the Open Theists came along (and some people would even deny that Open Theists are Christians).

 

[Pneuma3]

Foreknowledge implies that the future is written, and will take place exactly as foreseen. That's why Open Theists reject it.

This is why I am a semi open theist. I agree that foreknowledge, to use your words, is something written.but as scripture shows God also searches and test things so that He will know.

Scripture tells me God knows the beginning and the end. thus because all things begin in Him all things will end in Him and that is just what the scriptures tell us will come about. These are things God will do and nothing can stay His had. it is written.

However all the in between stuff that happens is not written because God searches and test us so He will know whether we will keep his commandments or not. Thus if God must test and search us so that He knows what we will do that implies what we will do is not written and thus open.

So for me I can agree with both views in part.

 

[zelosravioli]

Just like the verse you quoted about The Sparrows - the verse is in total agreement with open theism - because God is in time - God knows the events that are going to happen.
God is so smart He doesn't necessarily 'need' to foresee all events 'far' into the future because He has the power to change them in the now.
He will bring what's important to Him to pass and 'that' cannot be thwarted.
Like a great coach and the other a great screenwriter, the screenwriter has to have the actors do just as He has written, the coach trains and coachs his players to win, Neither 'have' to step into the event and both can achieve what they want.
But the great coach can work with the constant variables and make the desisions to make plays in real time.
This seems to be what we observe and it makes more sense than a world being completely scripted.
The coach works with constant variables, which seems much more admirable than a screenwriter who simply couldn't work with variables.

There are comments and interpretations by some Open Theism proponents that I wouldn't agree with, but the major premise is that the future as a whole is not scripted --- and it seems to me most hold that God has a scrpt but that His script allows for variables and His plans are not upset by any of them. Call that semiopentheism if we must, but I don't find that necessary since the definitions of OT seem varied among their original thinkers. Open Theism proponents I have known say God can intervene in events, and like prayer God is free to respond or not to what we ask.

The OpenTheisms main agreement and objection is; that God wrote the world/ system with very limited variables - or that God has us all scripted - that seems to deny reality. Scripture certainly allows for God 'bringing things to pass', despite our actions, sin and all the variables of life.

Scripture demands freewill if we are to make sense of choosing, believing, faith, warnings, and baseball games.

 

[zelosravioli]

(Repeat of above, sorry the WIFi here seems very slow and unpredictable)

Just like the verse you quoted about The Sparrows - the verse is in total agreement with open theism - because God is in time - God knows the events that are going to happen.
God is so smart He doesn't necessarily 'need' to foresee all events 'far' into the future because He has the power to change them in the now.
He will bring what's important to Him to pass and 'that' cannot be thwarted.
Like a great coach and the other a great screenwriter, the screenwriter has to have the actors do just as He has written, the coach trains and coachs his players to win, Neither 'have' to step into the event and both can achieve what they want.
But the great coach can work with the constant variables and make the desisions to make plays in real time.
This seems to be what we observe and it makes more sense than a world being completely scripted.
The coach works with constant variables, which seems much more admirable than a screenwriter who simply couldn't work with variables.

There are comments and interpretations by some Open Theism proponents that I wouldn't agree with, but the major premise is that the future as a whole is not scripted --- and it seems to me most hold that God has a scrpt but that His script allows for variables and His plans are not upset by any of them. Call that semiopentheism if we must, but I don't find that necessary since the definitions of OT seem varied among their original thinkers. Open Theism proponents I have known say God can intervene in events, and like prayer God is free to respond or not to what we ask.

The OpenTheisms main agreement and objection is; that God wrote the world/ system with very limited variables - or that God has us all scripted - that seems to deny reality. Scripture certainly allows for God 'bringing things to pass', despite our actions, sin and all the variables of life.

Scripture demands freewill if we are to make sense of choosing, believing, faith, warnings, and baseball games.

 

[Radagast]

God is so smart He doesn't necessarily 'need' to foresee all events 'far' into the future because He has the power to change them in the now.

Well, Open Theists deny that too.

Scripture demands freewill if we are to make sense of choosing, believing, faith, warnings, and baseball games.

Sigh.

But Scripture doesn't demand libertarian free will. Some would say that compatibilist free will fits Scripture better.

 

[zelosravioli]

Some would say that the combatibilist position is not freewill at all. I defined what I meant by 'freewill' by the context of my previous arguments, and the natural meanings of the words; choose believe faith.

But as I said; 'I' am not approaching this topic, or thread, from the doctrine/defense of 'freewill' or trying to solve the problem of evil, or what not. Nor was I trying to provide the scriptural case for either, I was making a philosophical and physics/metaphysics case to explain how Open Theism is reasonable.

I have read that Boyd, Pinnock, Sanders believe God responds to prayer. In fact answered prayer is one of the major points of their case. So the Open Theist believes God can and does intervene if He wishes in our lives. But I do not necessarily agree 'all' with 'their' reasoning and such, as for why and how God knows our choices, or doesn't. I would completely disagree with any that state; God does not know our actions until we do them. And that is 'why' I have reasoned here that God 'does' know what we will do before we do them.

I don't believe its necessary to accept every thought 'Boyd' has on the matter, in order to agree with 'some' of the Open Theist definitions and reasoning. I was explaining how in 'general' Open Theism can offer a more reasonable understanding of Omniscience and future predictions than previous arguments for a scripted, determined or a 'closed' future.

 

[Radagast]

I have read that Boyd, Pinnock, Sanders believe God responds to prayer. In fact answered prayer is one of the major points of their case.

Within Open Theist doctrine, I can't see that God has the power to answer prayer.

And that is 'why' I have reasoned here that God 'does' know what we will do before we do them.

I was explaining how in 'general' Open Theism can offer a more reasonable understanding of Omniscience and future predictions than previous arguments for a scripted, determined or a 'closed' future.

That seems completely contradictory. Either you believe in foreknowledge, or you don't.

I defined what I meant by 'freewill' by the context of my previous arguments, and the natural meanings of the words; choose believe faith.

I'm not sure what these "natural meanings" are. In philosophy, these words have been interpreted in several ways, including the libertarian and compatibilist senses. And it doesn't seem to me that you have defined free will at all. You seem to have assumed the libertarian definition, but it's far from obvious why that should be the correct one, as opposed to, say, freedom from constraint.

 

[Bobber]

nil

 

[Radagast]

So two people could right be arguing that God doesn't know the future and the other saying he does....and BOTH can be correct. It all depends on the vantage point of the observer in the time, space continuum.

Well, that doesn't quite seem to make sense.

However, if you express yourself in terms of the vantage point of God (outside time), then you get Boethius's explanation.

 

[zelosravioli]

That God responds 'in our time' 'when' we pray is a major position of OT, in contract to having either, or both, our prayers and God's response predetermined or scripted.

Within Open Theist doctrine, I can't see that God has the power to answer prayer.




That seems completely contradictory. Either you believe in foreknowledge, or you don't.

I explained this already in detail in this thread... knowledge of what can or will happen before it happens. God can because God can predict all actions, and He can read the minds of all beings, read their biological conditions, knows the physics of everything that exists, and He is not limited by time in the sense that He can create, do, act, stop, anything in less than a micro-second.

In contract to a universe that has most all the variables of human choice for all eternity prescribed, scripted, and determined before creatures with freewill choices ever were born and made any freewill choices.