Wesley & Open Theism? [Archive]

Thomas Oord

7th July 2008, 09:22 AM (09:22)

Brian,

Good question!

If open theism is defined primarily by the idea that the future is open such that God cannot know now with absolute certainty all that free creatures will someday choose, Wesley was not open theist. You can find passages here and there that suggest that Wesley may have been sympathetic to the idea of an open future had it been presented to him clearly. But most often, Wesley's words are supportive of the traditional notion of divine foreknowledge and against divine foreordination. He followed James Arminius in this.

Broadly speaking, however, I think Wesley is an open theist. That is, open theism's main ideas about divine love, creaturely response, freedom, responsibility, etc. are congruent with main ideas in Wesley's thought. A good number of contemporary Wesleyan theologians follow Wesley in these affirmations, while taking the next step to saying that God does not currently know all that will actually happen in the future. God knows all possibilities but cannot know what will actually happen until it occurs. And I can't find any Wesleyan-oriented biblical scholar who will defend that God knows the future exhaustively.

Hoping this helps...

Tom

Brian Hammons

7th July 2008, 10:26 AM (10:26)

Tom

Thank you so much for your response. It is a tremendous help and assists in answering several underlying questions of mine.

brian

Garth Lahana

7th July 2008, 03:47 PM (15:47)

Barbara Moulton

7th July 2008, 03:55 PM (15:55)

Here is a question I have, and I'm curious how you guys can answer this...

If God created space, mater and time, surely He is out-side of all of this looking in, so to speak? Wouldn't that then say that God sees all things without being in time, and wouldn't that then also say that an open theistic view of God is incorrect? How can God be governed by something He created?

Carm.org (http://www.carm.org/open.htm) has a very good article on the subject, one that makes sense to me.

"One assertion at this point is often that, since God is infinite, he exists outside of our time and space. Because of that, he can see the past and the future all at once; in other words, there is no time for God since he exists in the eternal "now" apart from any restrictions of time and space. This begins moving into areas that range far beyond what we can really discuss here. But this objection continues to illustrate how thoroughly the metaphysical categories have permeated our thinking about God. All of this assertion is built on logical inferences about the nature of ultimate reality based on the assumption that the Greek philosophical models represent ontological reality (the way things really are). " ~ Dr. Dennis Bratcher

http://www.crivoice.org/freedom.html

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

7th July 2008, 04:44 PM (16:44)

Do we have any reason to believe time is a created commodity? It seems to me that it is simply the measure of the flow of events. I've never seen any reference in the Word that suggested God made "time."

In that case, the future can't be seen because there is nothing to be seen. Being the Almighty, He can declare he will do something in the future and that makes it as good as done, but that doesn't mean he has already seen himself doing it.

And, if we believe God already has seen it or been there, then, he, more than all his Creation is bound by what is already so.

Finally, can it even be possible for creatures of time and space to comprehend a Being that is beyond them? The only God we know is the One who has entered into time and space and declared himself and then became one of us. We can conjecture what more there might be, but since we know only what we have been told and have seen, how can we possibly go farther?

Here is a question I have, and I'm curious how you guys can answer this...

If God created space, mater and time, surely He is out-side of all of this looking in, so to speak? Wouldn't that then say that God sees all things without being in time, and wouldn't that then also say that an open theistic view of God is incorrect? How can God be governed by something He created?

Carm.org (http://www.carm.org/open.htm) has a very good article on the subject, one that makes sense to me.

Crystal Lutton

7th July 2008, 04:57 PM (16:57)

For a brief time in seminary I was fascinated with the writings about Open Theism and appreciated how they challenged traditional views of God and doctrine and I felt they were wrestling with things that I'm still not always comfortable with the patent answers offered by any doctrine. In the end, though, I found the answers the put forth created more problems than they sought to address. I do not believe that God is bound inside of time and therefore do not need God to be limited in what he knows in order to accept that Free Will is truly ours. I believe Scripture reveals God to be willing to allow us to do things that he knows will break his heart and that these small and large choices on our part will not thwart his plan for mankind. I don't need God to be limited more than I believe Scripture reveals him to have limited himself willingly. If he knows we will make a wrong choice that doesn't take away from it being our free will to do so. To me, that makes the idea of free will even more of a gift from the Lord that bears heavy responsibility.

Thomas Oord

7th July 2008, 05:35 PM (17:35)

Garth and others...

You've struck upon an important question: is time something created?

In one sense, time is not a thing that could be created. But in another sense, we cannot fathom time without the existence of something. Physicists are fond of talking about space and time together -- space-time -- for instance.

Most open theists would argue that we best think of time as a feature of God's everlasting essence. It is, therefore, uncreated. Because God's essence is uncreated.

For Trinitarian theologians of a certain ilk, this means that God has been related intra-trinitarianally (if that's a word!) forever. Because all relationships involve giving and receiving, and giving and receiving requires an element of time (a before and after), time has always been in a relational God. Time, then, is an aspect of God's eternal essence that subsequently finds expression in the creaturely world God created.

Hoping that helps...

Tom

Crystal Lutton

7th July 2008, 05:43 PM (17:43)

And the evening and the morning were the first day. Gen 1:5b

Whether you want to argue for literal understanding of Genesis or not I've always taken this to be a revelation that God created time as part of his creation. It is with the evening and the morning and each day that we track time and if there was a first day from which time is tracked . . . there is also a verse I'd have to dig up the address for that speaks to the effects of the cross being outside of time. I forget exactly how it's worded.

Hans Deventer

8th July 2008, 01:12 AM (01:12)

Whether you want to argue for literal understanding of Genesis or not I've always taken this to be a revelation that God created time as part of his creation. It is with the evening and the morning and each day that we track time and if there was a first day from which time is tracked . . . there is also a verse I'd have to dig up the address for that speaks to the effects of the cross being outside of time. I forget exactly how it's worded.

The Lamb slain before the foundation of the World?

Anyway, if we read the first verses of Genesis it says:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Should we now assume that before God created light, He lived in a timeless darkness? I don't think so. As I read these verses, He set about a system that created day and night on earth, light and darkness.

Hans Deventer

8th July 2008, 01:29 AM (01:29)

Carm.org (http://www.carm.org/open.htm) has a very good article on the subject, one that makes sense to me.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Garth, at one point they say regarding God changing His mind: "This is an example of anthropomorphic expression."

Now in order to declare this, you have to have some knowledge of God that goes beyond what the Scriptures say about Him. But there isn't. God reveals Himself in the Scriptures and we simply don't have a higher authority. Now I do some suspicion what higher authority the writers of this article have: their concept of what a god must be like, derived from pagan philosophy. So they have to say that is part of Scripture can't be taken for what it clearly says, for it doesn't fit the philosophy with which they decide who God is in the first place, notwithstanding what the Bible says.

Jamie Wayne

8th July 2008, 09:49 AM (09:49)

For Trinitarian theologians of a certain ilk, this means that God has been related intra-trinitarianally (if that's a word!) forever. Because all relationships involve giving and receiving, and giving and receiving requires an element of time (a before and after), time has always been in a relational God. Time, then, is an aspect of God's eternal essence that subsequently finds expression in the creaturely world God created.

I affirm that wholeheartedly, Tom, but at the same time, I would affirm that God so lives in the present moment, that despite time there is that eternal now that is truly present with a completely mindful awareness.

T.S. Eliot in Burnt Norton:

At the still point of the turning world. Neither flesh nor fleshless;

Neither from nor towards; at the still point, there the dance is,

But neither arrest nor movement. And do not call it fixity,

Where past and future are gathered. Neither movement from nor towards,

Neither ascent nor decline. Except for the point, the still point,

There would be no dance, and there is only the dance.

Garth Lahana

8th July 2008, 11:05 AM (11:05)

I has composed a lengthy post, but lost it AAARG! Here goes again...

One thing that stuck with me after loosing my post, is that ones view of how God lives, in or out of time, would also justify your belief in open theism or not. If you believe in open theism, your view of God (how I understand it), would be of Him being in time, and therefore "limited" in how He sees all things. Lining in the moment as Jamie mentioned. Seeing God as living out of time, and having created time, to me makes it more logical that He sees all things, without the constraints of time, and makes open theism more illogical in my opinion.

Another can of worms...

Jamie Wayne

8th July 2008, 11:15 AM (11:15)

I understand what you're saying, Garth, but I really do like how Tom brought up the notion that time must be intrinsic to God, so to speak, if there is movement within the Godhead - and, since I'm such a big supporter of the Trinity seen as a "love dance," I think that time necessarily exists in the inner life of God. Maybe I can't see it otherwise because I don't know how to conceive of time any other way than linearly, but, by the way, I'm not necessarily advocating Open Theism by supporting the idea that movement (love) requires time.

To see God outside of time, in my mind, makes it difficult to affirm that the Triune God is a living community of being, as Life itself (God) requires animation.

Otherwise we have the impassable God of Hellenism.

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

8th July 2008, 11:25 AM (11:25)

On NazNet, this topic has been called the "thread that will not die" and has been discussed many times through the years. Yet, each time it resurfaces I enjoy the give and take which has ranged from dealing with Bible incidents which which future knowledge appears apparent to more philosophical discussions.

To me, saying God created "time" is similar to saying God created "thought." For God not to "think" would mean he was not God. He didn't have to create for it to be.

Again, the thing, in my opinion that would diminish God the most would be for him to be chained to a future he has already seen. If he truly gave us free will, then, surely, he, himself has free will. A theology that allows him to act and interact with creatures of free will is the one that best declares his sovereignty.

I has composed a lengthy post, but lost it AAARG! Here goes again...

One thing that stuck with me after loosing my post, is that ones view of how God lives, in or out of time, would also justify your belief in open theism or not. If you believe in open theism, your view of God (how I understand it), would be of Him being in time, and therefore "limited" in how He sees all things. Lining in the moment as Jamie mentioned. Seeing God as living out of time, and having created time, to me makes it more logical that He sees all things, without the constraints of time, and makes open theism more illogical in my opinion.

Another can of worms...

Randy McRoberts

8th July 2008, 11:29 AM (11:29)

Wesley Anderson

8th July 2008, 02:50 PM (14:50)

I believe that the main concern that led to the idea of open theism is not whether or not God created or is bound by "time." Instead, it is a reconciling of the traits that we flippantly attribute to God.

We most likely all agree that at His core, our God is the essence of perfect love.

We also most likely all agree that God is infinitely powerful- that is to say, He has the ability to do whatever He desires in Heaven or on earth.

Thirdly, we believe in the omniscience of God- or His perfect knowledge of everything. This is where things tend to get hairy. Does perfect knowledge of everything HAVE to include things that do not exist yet. Can't omniscience survive without having theoretical knowledge of things yet to come?

Here is my issue. Let's say a 17 year old Christian girl is struck by a drunk motorist and dies a terrible death. With God being all powerful and all loving, wouldn't a God that sees the future prevent that from happening? (For the sake of this conversation, let's exclude the preposterous idea that God would do this to teach others a lesson or to bring others to Him). Imagine that you are the father of this girl- if you knew it was going to happen, wouldn't you have stopped her? Of course you would- because you LOVE her.

I cannot reconcile a loving God who is all powerful AND who knows the future when so many things like this happen in the world. My sincere belief is that God knows all that "is", and that THAT makes him perfectly omniscient.

Gary Creely

8th July 2008, 02:52 PM (14:52)

Garth Lahana

8th July 2008, 04:14 PM (16:14)

What is time? Is it a thing that had to be created to exist? Or is it simply the measure of the course of events?

I believe Thomas Oord mentioned this earlier. To me, it is the crux of the matter. The way I see it, there is no "inside" or "outside" of time. Time simply passes, if you wish to think of time as doing something.

So, God is neither inside nor outside of time. We are neither inside nor outside of time. It is perfectly understandable that God does not know the future, since it does not yet exist.

To think of it in another way is to partake too much of science fiction and Plato.

If God does not know the future, how does one explain books like Daniel and Revelations? They are predictions of the future that God HAS seen, before we have seen them happen? Things like the predictions that Jesus Himself predicted about His own death and resurection? Many other examples come to mind... That tells me that God can at least see into the future, and then the tough question... from what point in time does He see into the future, if He is in time???

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

8th July 2008, 04:18 PM (16:18)

Open theism to me seems to limit God to our current understanding of time and space. I am convinced God works well out-side of those limitations.

I do appreciate the fact that it does tackle some real issues that can be a little murky in terms of how God functions, and seeks to explain free will. As a sorta post modern guy I do not feel compelled to have a logical answers for the parts of God that are mysterious.

Is it possible for us to have any understanding whatsoever of God outside of "time and space?"

If I were to ask you what a fifth dimension might look like what would your answer be? I assume it would be that all of our experience as human beings is within 4 dimensions and there is no way possible for us to explain something so beyond our experience.

If you decide "time" is a "thing" and not simply a measure of the passing of events, you have hit a brick wall so far as understanding goes. No one has been outside of the thing you call "time" and come back to describe it to us, so we haven't a clue as to what that even means. To say God is "outside time" is really talking nonsense (this isn't an insult, it is a description of what it means to say something that actually has no meaning.)

The only God we know is the one who has revealed himself to us in time. We know nothing about him except what he has told or shown us. The only direct contact we have had with him is when he put on human flesh and became one of us. During his time with us he never once, so far as we know, exited out some invisible door to a place we could never fathom outside of time. Instead, he lived with us and showed us how to live and how to die -- all within time.

Again, time is merely a measure of the flow of events as "length" is a measurement. God didn't create "length" because "length" is not a thing.

"Outside of time" is a fun science fiction concept, but that's about it.

Gary Creely

8th July 2008, 04:45 PM (16:45)

No one has been outside of the thing you call "time" and come back to describe it to us, so we haven't a clue as to what that even means. To say God is "outside time" is really talking nonsense (this isn't an insult, it is a description of what it means to say something that actually has no meaning.)

The only God we know is the one who has revealed himself to us in time. We know nothing about him except what he has told or shown us.

I believe God operates is outside of our understanding of time. I can not prove it, however you can not disprove it. Humans can slow time down, so why would I think that system and understanding of time would apply at all to God.

Eric Vail

8th July 2008, 04:51 PM (16:51)

Is it possible for us to have any understanding whatsoever of God outside of "time and space?"

If I were to ask you what a fifth dimension might look like what would your answer be? I assume it would be that all of our experience as human beings is within 4 dimensions and there is no way possible for us to explain something so beyond our experience.

If you decide "time" is a "thing" and not simply a measure of the passing of events, you have hit a brick wall so far as understanding goes. No one has been outside of the thing you call "time" and come back to describe it to us, so we haven't a clue as to what that even means. To say God is "outside time" is really talking nonsense (this isn't an insult, it is a description of what it means to say something that actually has no meaning.)

The only God we know is the one who has revealed himself to us in time. We know nothing about him except what he has told or shown us. The only direct contact we have had with him is when he put on human flesh and became one of us. During his time with us he never once, so far as we know, exited out some invisible door to a place we could never fathom outside of time. Instead, he lived with us and showed us how to live and how to die -- all within time.

Again, time is merely a measure of the flow of events as "length" is a measurement. God didn't create "length" because "length" is not a thing.

"Outside of time" is a fun science fiction concept, but that's about it.

Last week I picked up the most recent copy of Discovery magazine off of someone else's coffee-table (yes, I put it back--unfortunately). It had an interesting article about three current theories within physics of time. The one that caught my attention was from a physicist who has been working the past 40 years to show that the idea of 'time' is a myth. What we have called "time" is really only something we've constructed based on our perspective of reality. It doesn't exist. He has been trying to rewrite physics equations by eliminating time in them. He's actually making progress and starting to gain more notice in respected journals. He at least has my attention enough to look a bit further into his ideas (once I get back to the article to find out his name).

Wesley Anderson

8th July 2008, 04:55 PM (16:55)

If God does not know the future, how does one explain books like Daniel and Revelations? They are predictions of the future that God HAS seen, before we have seen them happen? Things like the predictions that Jesus Himself predicted about His own death and resurection? Many other examples come to mind... That tells me that God can at least see into the future, and then the tough question... from what point in time does He see into the future, if He is in time???

The easiest way for me to answer this would be to quote the famous verse from Jeremiah: "For I know the plans I have for you...."

As is the case with all of us, we all know to a certain extent what our future plans are. I plan on eating dinner with my wife later tonight. As I look into the future, I plan on providing my unborn children with protection and care.

When we read of prophecy, we are reading the promises and the plans of God. It is not written in stone yet, however we serve a God of fulfilled promises and we can bank on any glimpse of the future He has given us through His Word.

Jamie Wayne

8th July 2008, 05:03 PM (17:03)

Time does seem to be relational, though, doesn't it? I mean, we can talk about 6 minutes in the future, starting from now, or we can talk about 6 minutes in the past, starting from now, but only NOW really exists, right?

God, we can say, exists in the eternal NOW; however, isn't there another sense in which time is relative? For example, motion occurs within the framework of time because it takes time for something (anything, really) to happen.

At least we can say that God entered time when God created the heavens and the earth (time being relational), and we can say that God entered time in the Incarnation (time being relational). However, both of these examples refer to, just as prophecy and the like, to the actions of God within, can I say, created time, meaning time in reference to creation, and, since there was a time when creation was not, time actually does exist - yet again, as a relational concept. In more theological terms, this relational construct of God creating and interacting with creation is a matter of God as the "economic" Trinity.

On a much deeper level, though, I think there's the issue of the relations "within" the Godhead (doesn't that sort of language imply spatial relations?), and that's a matter of the "immanent" Trinity, or the relations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit among themselves - without regard for God creating and interacting with creation.

That is the real issue, I think, when it comes to time. Time, I can agree, is a construct, but it's a relational construct. Unless we deny the relations of the divine Persons, we cannot call time a myth, unless we are also calling the divine life of God as God is immanently a myth, also, in which case, we are not truly trinitarian, and Article I of the CotN must go, because it says that God is essentially Triune...and the reasoning behind that is because God cannot be love, in an ontological sense, if God is not a community of being, and love is void if there are no "loving" things about it - love cannot simply be a noun, but must, necessarily, be a verb. God cannot be love if God does not do loving things. If God's love depends upon a creation to love, then God, in God's self, is not love, and His love is contingent upon a created thing.

Again, I don't say any of this to support Open Theism, because I'm not convinced that view is the correct one, but speaking about time as a mythical construct seems quite destructive to me.

Thomas Oord

8th July 2008, 07:03 PM (19:03)

Gary,

I understand your hesitancy to talk about God in ways that seem to place limits on God. At it's worst, this practice might be called taking the Lord's name in vain.

But I think we are all "stuck" with language and concepts that place limits on God. Unless we choose silence, we must do the best we can to speak about God. And no matter what position we take on God's relation to time, our language will inevitably seem to limit God in some way.

Given this, I think it makes more sense to me to think of the living God as timefull instead of timeless. And I find it helps me make sense of biblical passages that are important to me. For instance, John says that we love because God first loved us. But if God is "outside time" and therefore sees all time as an eternal now, it makes little sense to say God first loves us.

To mention my main point again, however, I don't think our conversation will make much headway if we continue to think that some language or concepts limit God and others do not. Rather, I think the best we can do is try to demonstrate -- biblically, analogically, experientially, traditionally, etc. -- that one way of talking about God should be preferred. Personally, I think there are more advantages to thinking about God in open and relational language. But I realize that not everyone agrees.

For what it's worth...

Tom

Crystal Lutton

8th July 2008, 07:27 PM (19:27)

The Lamb slain before the foundation of the World? I do believe that is the one I was thinking of. Thank you, Hans.

Anyway, if we read the first verses of Genesis it says:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Should we now assume that before God created light, He lived in a timeless darkness? I don't think so. As I read these verses, He set about a system that created day and night on earth, light and darkness.I think that we are at a disadvantage when it comes to trying to guess what existence God was in or is in . . . that's where I'm trying to go. It's arrogant to think that our limited understanding of time based on what we know of life because it is what God put in place for us is enough to claim we have a firm grasp of God or who he is outside of our experience of him.

IMO from what I've read of Open Theism this is the greatest fault I have with it--limitations are placed on God because man can't reconcile ideas outside of our reality. "I can't have real free will if God knows what I'll do so God must not know what I'll do." I do not need to elevate my own self-importance and limit God's to accept free will.

Susan Unger

8th July 2008, 07:48 PM (19:48)

The easiest way for me to answer this would be to quote the famous verse from Jeremiah: "For I know the plans I have for you...."

As is the case with all of us, we all know to a certain extent what our future plans are. I plan on eating dinner with my wife later tonight. As I look into the future, I plan on providing my unborn children with protection and care.

When we read of prophecy, we are reading the promises and the plans of God. It is not written in stone yet, however we serve a God of fulfilled promises and we can bank on any glimpse of the future He has given us through His Word.

I've been reading in Jeremiah where God has Judah's punishment all lined out for them. But at the end of the list of calamities, God says if they repent it won't happen. They didn't repent so the list of calamities all came true. So, I would say that God knows the future but we still have a say in our future.

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

8th July 2008, 08:11 PM (20:11)

I've been reading in Jeremiah where God has Judah's punishment all lined out for them. But at the end of the list of calamities, God says if they repent it won't happen. They didn't repent so the list of calamities all came true. So, I would say that God knows the future but we still have a say in our future.

It is interesting that Ted Dekker has a book named "Blink" in which the main character suddenly begins seeing the future. The thing is, he doesn't see just one future but, as some points, thousands. The story is an adventure, but one of the conclusions of the main character is that he is seeing what God sees: not one future, but all the possibilities.

With that in mind, what you describe from Jeremiah (and about all the prophets) fits right in. The Lord says, "Here's what's going to happen....this, and this, and this." Then he says, "However, if you do thus...then it's going to go like this....."

Susan Unger

8th July 2008, 09:17 PM (21:17)

It is interesting that Ted Dekker has a book named "Blink" in which the main character suddenly begins seeing the future. The thing is, he doesn't see just one future but, as some points, thousands. The story is an adventure, but one of the conclusions of the main character is that he is seeing what God sees: not one future, but all the possibilities.

With that in mind, what you describe from Jeremiah (and about all the prophets) fits right in. The Lord says, "Here's what's going to happen....this, and this, and this." Then he says, "However, if you do thus...then it's going to go like this....."

When I was a kid, there was a series of books for upper elementary aged kids along this theme. One would read a scenario and would decided that one was going to do act a or act b. If you did a, then you turned to page 3 if you did act b you turned to page 4 and so on. For someone who had to read the last page of a book first, this annoyed me a little but the general idea stuck with me.

Wesley Anderson

8th July 2008, 09:19 PM (21:19)

I've been reading in Jeremiah where God has Judah's punishment all lined out for them. But at the end of the list of calamities, God says if they repent it won't happen. They didn't repent so the list of calamities all came true. So, I would say that God knows the future but we still have a say in our future.

I think we may be using the same idea to illustrate completely different points here! If God absolutely knew that Judah either would or would not be punished, why would he spell out both options so clearly to them?

Once again, I think this is simply a case of God having a plan for his own course of action. "If (A), then I will (B). However, if (C), then I will (D)." This sounds like someone who is waiting on the concept of time to pass by along with the rest of us.

Susan Unger

9th July 2008, 01:54 AM (01:54)

If God absolutely knew that Judah either would or would not be punished, why would he spell out both options so clearly to them?

What I got out of reading Jeremiah these last few days is not that God knew which path Judah was going to take. I saw it as a Parent telling a rebellious kid the consequences for his or her actions. Stay on the path you're going and you're going to get punished. Obey me and you won't be punished.

[I don't know if I have addressed what you meant here. My brain is tired from a migraine and I am getting ready to travel to a funeral...if I missed your point, I'll get back to it eventually :cool:]

Hans Deventer

9th July 2008, 03:17 AM (03:17)

I see open theism as a human attempt to make God more explainable. It seems very much a modern style theology. It seems like it seeks to give an objective, plausible explanation of things based on our understanding. I agree with Crystal when she says it creates more problems than it solves.

Apparently, I haven't seen those "more problems" yet. But I don't see it as a human attempt to make God more explainable. For me, it is trying to do justice to what the Scriptures teach. It doesn't perfectly fit in a system, but the other day I found out I agree with Nietzsche on one thing: "the will to system is a lack of integrity" because it forces unity on something that isn't there or not achievable by us.

So I am certainly not supporting Open Theism because it makes God more explainable, as if that were my goal. I very much agree with your last statement:

As a sorta post modern guy I do not feel compelled to have a logical answers for the parts of God that are mysterious.

Neither do I.

Open theism to me seems to limit God to our current understanding of time and space. I am convinced God works well out-side of those limitations.

You may be, but on what grounds would be the next question. I'm always interested where our thoughts about God come from. In my view, our only (or at least, most determinative) source are the Scriptures.

Hans Deventer

9th July 2008, 03:25 AM (03:25)

If God does not know the future, how does one explain books like Daniel and Revelations? They are predictions of the future that God HAS seen, before we have seen them happen? Things like the predictions that Jesus Himself predicted about His own death and resurection? Many other examples come to mind... That tells me that God can at least see into the future, and then the tough question... from what point in time does He see into the future, if He is in time???

Garth, as to prophecy, Jeremiah 18 has a very important message:

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

The prophecies are apparently conditional, both the blessings and the curses.

Hans Deventer

9th July 2008, 03:40 AM (03:40)

I think that we are at a disadvantage when it comes to trying to guess what existence God was in or is in . . . that's where I'm trying to go.

Yes. That's why I'd rather not state He was in darkness before He said "Let there be light".

It's arrogant to think that our limited understanding of time based on what we know of life because it is what God put in place for us is enough to claim we have a firm grasp of God or who he is outside of our experience of him.

Agreed.

IMO from what I've read of Open Theism this is the greatest fault I have with it--limitations are placed on God because man can't reconcile ideas outside of our reality. "I can't have real free will if God knows what I'll do so God must not know what I'll do." I do not need to elevate my own self-importance and limit God's to accept free will.

I don't see it as limitations being put on God. I see it as, "this is what reading the Scriptures teaches me about Him." I don't have to conclude that God has revealed everything about Himself there is to know in the Scriptures. I have a strong suspicion that in fact He hasn't. But I am unwilling to go beyond the Scriptures in making statements about Him. That's really all.
If the Scriptures say that He can and does at times change His mind, then that very concept is mind boggling but I have to accept it as truth. I mean, who is man that we could actually argue with God and convince Him to change His plans? But I have to accept that apparently, this is how He has wanted to reveal Himself to us so it does say something about Him.

To me, Open Theism is an attempt to move away from all the (mainly pagan) philosophical concepts that are actually founded on something else than the Scriptures. That has not produced a new system that neatly fits all the data. Well, it doesn't have to. It may indeed create more problems. But as long as it is closer to the Biblical witness, I'm happy.

Gary Creely

9th July 2008, 09:41 AM (09:41)

Apparently, I haven't seen those "more problems" yet. But I don't see it as a human attempt to make God more explainable. For me, it is trying to do justice to what the Scriptures teach.

The big problem I see in open theism is the idea of saying God only kinda knows the future. To me that seems very fabricated, that is why I say it feels like a human explanation. If God only kinda knows the future why would we want to trust him? Heck, I kinda know the future.

I know the theology books don't phrase "kinda know the future", but if you really take it at face value that is what they mean. I don't think you need to have a God who does not entirely know the future in order to have free will.

In the end I am not comfortable limiting Gods knowledge of the future, because it creates far reaching ramifications.

Jamie Wayne

9th July 2008, 09:47 AM (09:47)

...I'd rather not state He was in darkness before He said "Let there be light".

Good one, Hans. :)

Wesley Anderson

9th July 2008, 10:16 AM (10:16)

T
In the end I am not comfortable limiting Gods knowledge of the future, because it creates far reaching ramifications.

Can you explain further what these ramifications would be?

Randy McRoberts

9th July 2008, 10:30 AM (10:30)

In the end I am not comfortable limiting Gods knowledge of the future, because it creates far reaching ramifications.

What if you replaced "limiting God's knowledge of the future" with "God is smart enough to anticipate the various possibilities and have contigency plans in place for whatever happens" and "God is smart enough to react properly to whatever happens"?

You aren't limiting God's knowledge of the future. The future is unknowable and not knowing the unknowable is not a limitation. If we truly have free will, we affect the future by every decision we make in the present. I don't find it a difficulty to say that God does not know what I will decide, but that he can anticipate and adjust to what I decide.

Hans Deventer

9th July 2008, 10:32 AM (10:32)

The big problem I see in open theism is the idea of saying God only kinda knows the future.

Right. You tell me you see it as a big problem. Can you also tell me why? For I don't see a problem here.

The best parable I have been able to come up with (though any parable falls short at some point) is that of the chess grandmaster. God, to me, is like the chess grandmaster who knows each and every possible move I can make. And knows what to do with it to reach His goal. That, in my view, creates an image of God who is much bigger than one who merely knows how to react because He already knows what will happen.

But that only deals with the question if the image of God I have lives up to my expectations. I'll be as bold as to say that my (or your) expectations are totally unrelated to who God really is, and should be totally unrelated to what we learn from the Scriptures that He is.

I don't think you need to have a God who does not entirely know the future in order to have free will.

Agreed.

In the end I am not comfortable limiting Gods knowledge of the future, because it creates far reaching ramifications.

You and I don't need to be comfortable with a specific image of God. That's not the goal.

My fear in these discussions (not saying you are doing that) is that we first decide what God must be like in order to merit the title "God", and from that point on reject any reading of the Scriptures that collides with the image we have initially created. I won't say I'm already free of it. But I seek to live with the fragmented, sometimes contradictory images of God that I find in the Scriptures rather than the philosophical "omni's".

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

9th July 2008, 10:34 AM (10:34)

I'd see it to mean that:

God has actually given us free will and not the illusion of it -- because he is God he knows the outcomes of any possible use we might make of that free will. That doesn't make him smaller, it makes him larger.
God has declared certain things to be absolute. Because he is the Almighty and because he always keeps his word, those things are sure. He doesn't have to have moved "out of time" to be certain he will do what he has declared he will do.
The more "human explanation" is, to me, one that denies God freedom to interact with his Creation. As a human, if I want to assure an outcome I have to micromanage all events to bring it to pass. Only an Almighty God can take the risk of creating beings with free will and promise certain outcomes.

The big problem I see in open theism is the idea of saying God only kinda knows the future. To me that seems very fabricated, that is why I say it feels like a human explanation. If God only kinda knows the future why would we want to trust him? Heck, I kinda know the future.

I know the theology books don't phrase "kinda know the future", but if you really take it at face value that is what they mean. I don't think you need to have a God who does not entirely know the future in order to have free will.

In the end I am not comfortable limiting Gods knowledge of the future, because it creates far reaching ramifications.

Eric Vail

9th July 2008, 10:54 AM (10:54)

Last week I picked up the most recent copy of Discovery magazine off of someone else's coffee-table (yes, I put it back--unfortunately). It had an interesting article about three current theories within physics of time. The one that caught my attention was from a physicist who has been working the past 40 years to show that the idea of 'time' is a myth. What we have called "time" is really only something we've constructed based on our perspective of reality. It doesn't exist. He has been trying to rewrite physics equations by eliminating time in them. He's actually making progress and starting to gain more notice in respected journals. He at least has my attention enough to look a bit further into his ideas (once I get back to the article to find out his name).

Correction: the article, "The Day Before Genesis: three radical theories revise everything we thought we knew abou the history of the universe," apeared in the April 2008 edition of Discover Magazine, 54-60.

The physicist's name is Julian Barbour. He's been wrestling with the question of time since 1963 (a funny sentence to write given that he thinks time is an illusion). His manifesto is entitled The End of Time. Please let me know what you think if any of you read it before I get to it (which may be quite some time).

Ken Pell

9th July 2008, 11:06 AM (11:06)

There are many good books on this. The easiest introductory book I have found is God of the Possible by Gregory Boyd. He also uses Hans' image of a grand chess master so you know Boyd must also be a genius!:laughing

Other books of note are:
> The God Who Risks by John Sanders
> The Most Moved Mover by Clark Pinnock
> The Openness of God by Pinnock, Rice, Hasker, and Sanders

Ryan Scott

9th July 2008, 05:04 PM (17:04)

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

9th July 2008, 06:05 PM (18:05)

The big problem I see in open theism is...

Gary, I just wanted to post a word of thanks to you for taking a position and being able to discuss it. You are in the minority in this thread, but you sure aren't in a minority across the denomination!

The best discussions on NazNet happen when people can respectfully disagree - it brings out the best of everyone involved.

So thanks for your positive involvement!

Billy Cox

9th July 2008, 08:54 PM (20:54)

"One assertion at this point is often that, since God is infinite, he exists outside of our time and space. Because of that, he can see the past and the future all at once; in other words, there is no time for God since he exists in the eternal "now" apart from any restrictions of time and space. This begins moving into areas that range far beyond what we can really discuss here. But this objection continues to illustrate how thoroughly the metaphysical categories have permeated our thinking about God. All of this assertion is built on logical inferences about the nature of ultimate reality based on the assumption that the Greek philosophical models represent ontological reality (the way things really are). " ~ Dr. Dennis Bratcher

http://www.crivoice.org/freedom.html

I was about to congratulate you on your profound insights, but then I saw that you were quoting Dennis Bratcher. :rolleyes:

Well, congratulations anyway. :basic05

Gina Stevenson

9th July 2008, 09:29 PM (21:29)

I was about to congratulate you on your profound insights, but then I saw that you were quoting Dennis Bratcher. :rolleyes:

Well, congratulations anyway. :basic05

Glad you added your congratulations, anyway ... after all, she was smart enough to know who to quote :cool: ... where to go to find it, eh! :rolleyes:

Roy Richardson

11th July 2008, 12:08 AM (00:08)

It is interesting that Ted Dekker has a book named "Blink" in which the main character suddenly begins seeing the future. The thing is, he doesn't see just one future but, as some points, thousands. The story is an adventure, but one of the conclusions of the main character is that he is seeing what God sees: not one future, but all the possibilities.

With that in mind, what you describe from Jeremiah (and about all the prophets) fits right in. The Lord says, "Here's what's going to happen....this, and this, and this." Then he says, "However, if you do thus...then it's going to go like this....."

In a class I took at Asbury Seminary, we had to read "God of the Possible" by Greg Boyd, which deals with what you are digging at. In essence, God knows all of the choices or decision points we will face. But He has self-limited to allow us the freedom to make the choices.

I found his argument about the efficacy of prayer to be compelling. If the future is completely settled, why do we pray for healing or change? To teach us a lesson? If we want circumstances changed, we have to have some belief that there is a possibility of that happening. Boyd hammers this hard.

It is an interesting read.

Thomas Oord

11th July 2008, 11:12 AM (11:12)

Roy,

I recommend GOD OF THE POSSIBLE to my students who are wondering what Open Theology is all about. I think the book is especially convincing to those who want a biblical argument for why God does not know the actual future. In fact, I've encountered students who want to convince me that Open Theology is wrong but who read the book and changed their minds. It's that powerful.

Tom

Ken Pell

11th July 2008, 02:13 PM (14:13)

Gary Creely

11th July 2008, 04:44 PM (16:44)

Gary, I just wanted to post a word of thanks to you for taking a position and being able to discuss it. You are in the minority in this thread, but you sure aren't in a minority across the denomination!

The best discussions on NazNet happen when people can respectfully disagree - it brings out the best of everyone involved.

So thanks for your positive involvement!

I am indeed the minority report on this one, but I am interested in the conversation. I took a day or so do a little reading, thinking, and talking about the topic and remain at my minority position. Logically open theism works rather well. There are two main reasons it does not work for my world view.

1. It stinks of modernity. Not that all things modern are bad, just this particular theology strikes me as clinical solution to a spiritual paradox. Its timing certainly coincides with modernity. In my reading I came across some thing called "middle knowledge" which seems to be similar in some regards.

2. It also strikes me as suspicious that only as of the last few hundred years we have figured out that God doesn't entirly know the future because we deem it an impossibility. Maybe this is a little startrecky of me, but I don't believe God plays by the same space-time playbook we do. If he does than open theism would to me seem like the sensible possibility.

I will however be conferring with my goto smart guy- a certain nts professor who shall remain nameless for now. And I would like to check out God of the possible.

Thomas Oord

11th July 2008, 05:03 PM (17:03)

Gary,

I want to join Scott in thanking you for your part of the discussion. It's great when people can disagree agreeably!

I thought I'd make a couple comments on your statement in point 1. Not being a trekky, I can't comment on point 2. : )

First, whether Open Theology is modernist, postmodernist, or something else probably depends on the definitions being used. I can see good arguments on all sides. It typically doesn't play much role, however, in the debates over postmodernism, premodernism, modernism, late modernism, antimodernism, etc.

But second, and more importantly, middle knowledge and open theism are opponents, not allies, in the debate over God's knowledge of the future. In fact, James Arminius was influenced by the initiator of middle knowledge, Luis Molina, and his views on omniscience probably fit best in that tradition. Molina and his advocates argue that God can know the future and yet humans be free, because God knows all the counterfactuals of freedom present in any given event. Open theology rejects that view.

Probably the most vocal and important contemporary advocates of middle knowledge today are these three individuals: Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and Thomas Flint. Plantinga and Craig are Reformed thinkers, Flint is a Roman Catholic.

Most open theists are from Wesleyan and Arminian traditions. That doesn't mean that middle knowledge is wrong or open theology is right. It doesn't mean that Nazarenes should automatically accept open theology and reject middle knowledge.

But I do think it suggests that there is a certain logic to open theology that fits well within our theological tradition's emphasis upon free will. And I think whomever your NTS contact may be would probably agree, even if she or he doesn't affirm open theology.

For what it's worth...

Tom

Jeremy D. Scott

11th July 2008, 05:12 PM (17:12)

1. It stinks of modernity.

You've said this a couple of times now, and I'm still not sure how you make the conclusion that open theology is in line with modern thinking. Let me try and explain (perhaps I have a different notion of philosophical modernity than you do):

One of the main premises of open theology that resonates with my understanding of God is the idea that God does not know the future in specificity. This would challenge the notion of an omniscient God, or at least one's understanding of omniscience. I see "omniscient God" as a category, an explanation, and a very simplistic and "understandable" way of describing God, indeed placing God within a certain, logical box (much like the other categorizational omni's).

Modern thinking, as I have known it, seeks to reduce, to break down to simplest parts, for easy consumption in logical thinking. Saying God is omniscient is an easy under-taking, and a conclusion swallowed by the masses because "it makes sense." After all, God must know the future, because God knows everything! (Can you hear the logical, "Duh!"?)

For me, it's way more dangerous (and for me personally, freeing!) to conclude that God just doesn't know the future. It opens way more discussion than omniscience. And I arrive there biblically (narratively) rather than by logic.

Help me out...

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

11th July 2008, 05:50 PM (17:50)

1. It stinks of modernity. Not that all things modern are bad, just this particular theology strikes me as clinical solution to a spiritual paradox. Its timing certainly coincides with modernity. In my reading I came across some thing called "middle knowledge" which seems to be similar in some regards.

Post-Modern thought stresses relationships. An open view of God is all about relationships. God allows me to partner with him in shaping the future. I am not living to a foreknown conclusion because God is working in my life to do something better. The future isn't fully known, but, through faith, I can optimistically work with God to see his purposes accomplished in the world and in my life.

Now that "stinks of post-modernity." :)

Hans Deventer

12th July 2008, 02:17 AM (02:17)

Ok. So the answers to what is really the problem with open theism for you are:

1. It stinks of modernity. Not that all things modern are bad, just this particular theology strikes me as clinical solution to a spiritual paradox. Its timing certainly coincides with modernity. In my reading I came across some thing called "middle knowledge" which seems to be similar in some regards.

2. It also strikes me as suspicious that only as of the last few hundred years we have figured out that God doesn't entirly know the future because we deem it an impossibility. Maybe this is a little startrecky of me, but I don't believe God plays by the same space-time playbook we do. If he does than open theism would to me seem like the sensible possibility.

Now becoming quite post-modern myself, I can somewhat relate to the idea that modernity stinks. However, I agree with McLaren that "post" doesn't mean "anti" so I try to keep that emotion down and decide on more rational grounds. As has been explained, open theism doesn't have a lot to do with modernity anyway.

As to theological discoveries in recent years, that is a more interesting point. It seems to me that much (if not all) of classic Christian theology took shape in the discussions with a Hellenistic world view. We've come to read the Jewish Scriptures and Messiah with a pair of Greek glasses, so to speak. That world view is rapidly disappearing and also, we've come to see its pagan influences more clearly. Of course, we still talk theology only in concepts and phrases that make sense to OUR world views which no doubt in 500 years will be clearly seen for the limited view that they are. But that is what theology is and does. It's nothing more or less than talking about God in words and concepts that resonate with the cultures we live in. For if it didn't, we'd communicate nothing. God Himself went to the ultimate extreme here in becoming a 1st century Jew. Talk about cultural adaptation of the message..........

That is why I am not at all surprised we look at God differently than Augustine did. Or Thomas Aquinas. Or Luther. Or Wesley.

Again, I think the issue isn't modernity or different ways of talking theology that should not be. The issue is, how do we, 21st century Christians, read the Scriptures and how does the timeless messages makes sense to us? Become incarnated, so to speak, in us Westeners?

And reading them, open theism makes sense to me. I'm not so stupid as to suppose that my words about God in any way define Him who transcends heaven and earth. But the goal of theology is more modest. It is helping one to think about God, based on the Scriptures, in today's world and culture. As such, open theism is something I found helpful.

Crystal Lutton

13th July 2008, 03:24 PM (15:24)

Hans, I agree with much of what you are saying. And, as I said, I was briefly attracted to Open Theism until I started looking forward at the conclusions of much of the thoughts being presented. I'm all for understanding the Hellenistic influence on traditional Christian theology. That is much of what we do in our congregation . . . working to restore the Hebraic roots that would have been understood by the original authors of the New Testament Scriptures and not necessarily understood by the Hellenistically influenced Church Fathers like Augustine. IMO the danger of deconstructing God is that we risk reconstructing him in our own image. The questions asked by Open Theists do not bother me . . . the answers offered are ones I find concerning. The Post-modern world doesn't offer any more solid answers than the Hellenistic world did.

Hans Deventer

14th July 2008, 01:25 AM (01:25)

The Post-modern world doesn't offer any more solid answers than the Hellenistic world did.

True. But as the early fathers sought to communicate the gospel in their day, so do we. God adapted the gospel to 1st century Jews by becoming one. Even the very "Jewishness of the Gospel" (David Stern) is also a cultural adaptation.

Being aware of that, our task is to communicate it in a increasingly post modern world. Not because it provides us with "solid answers" (it certainly doesn't) but because it is the world we live in. We should not give yesterday's answers to today's questions.

Crystal Lutton

14th July 2008, 02:16 AM (02:16)

hmmm I hear what you are saying. We need to be relevant. Maybe part of the issue is that I believe God meant something specific when he gave Scripture to man and we should always be striving to understand what that is. Application may change (which is where I see all sorts of application for relevance) but content does not. I appreciate what it is trying to do and agree that it offers some challenges to bad doctrine from other areas. I just don't find that enough to throw my support behind it.

Even the very "Jewishness of the Gospel" (David Stern) is also a cultural adaptation.
I would say that Stern is going into the history of the early church and explaining the context in which the readers of those letters now compiled into the NT would have read them. Since it was originally written to them I find this a very valuable bit of information for seeking to understand God's message to us. I agree that his version of Scripture is an effort to make the Bible culturally relevant to the Jewish community in that it's not a solid translation. But the studies he does in other works and the commentary he provides as a companion to the Complete Jewish Bible is very helpful for understanding things like phrases that meant something specific to the disciples but we don't understand today.

Where yesterday's answers are offering culturally relevant application to yesterday I'm fine with today's answers offering culturally relevant application to today. I see Open Theism moving into challenging the very Truth we're supposed to be making culturally relevant. Where it moves into that place it concerns me.

So maybe it comes down to whether those who support Open Theism are supporting the challenges it offers to "Traditional" teachings that were once culturally relevant but may not be today OR if they actually support the answers offered to those challenges. I hear some people supporting the challenges only and others supporting the answers. To me that's two very different things.

Jamie Wayne

14th July 2008, 03:48 PM (15:48)

Alvin Plantinga

Does God Have A Nature? is probably the hardest book that I've ever read in terms of following the argument.

Plantinga sure ain't no joke, I'll say that much!

Garth Lahana

25th July 2008, 06:33 AM (06:33)

We just returned from a wonderful vacation, and while I enjoyed the sun and water, one of the books I read was 90 Minutes in Heaven by Pastor Don Piper. For those of you who haven't read the book, it's about Pastor Piper's death in a nasty car accident, his experience in heaven, his return to life, his road to recovery, and how God has used this experience in his life, to touch the unsaved and give hope to Christians who are loosing hope. Enough of my synopsis...

My point being, something that really hit home for me what how Don experienced time whilst being in Heaven, and I quote from page 24 of his book:
Time had no meaning. However, for clarity, I'll relate this experience in terms that refer to time. and on page 27: Age expresses time passing, and there is no time there.To me this only confirms at least that there is no time in Heaven, and from this you can deduce my conclusions. How can this all be explained in Open Theism?

Randy McRoberts

25th July 2008, 06:39 AM (06:39)

Well, that takes care of that, then.

There is no time in heaven. Open Theism is wrong.

Don Piper proved it. We are done here. I'm glad we got resolution.

Hans Deventer

25th July 2008, 07:34 AM (07:34)

How can this all be explained in Open Theism?

Garth, Open Theism only deals with the Scriptures as revelation of God. It doesn't deal with extra biblical visions. Personally, I prefer to put my faith in the Scriptures rather than in those NDE's, as interesting as they are.

If you really want to trust NDE's, you're heading for more problems in harmonizing them with the Scriptures than the concept of time alone.

Check this site out, for instance: http://www.near-death.com/.

Garth Lahana

25th July 2008, 09:04 AM (09:04)

I had no intention of seeking a book that would debunk Open Theism when I read that book, but when reading it, that stuff about time did make me think. To me, it was just a uplifting relaxing book, something positive, and uplifting for a holiday.

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

25th July 2008, 09:10 AM (09:10)

We just returned from a wonderful vacation, and while I enjoyed the sun and water, one of the books I read was 90 Minutes in Heaven by Pastor Don Piper.

Garth, I live just a few minutes from the church he pastored when all that happened, but I haven't read the book.

The other night in a Bible study we were talking about Lazarus and wishing John had taken time to include what Lazarus had to say about his time in death.

My suggestion was that Lazarus' experience probably wasn't typical. Before he had died Jesus had stated his intentions. I don't know what, if anything, Lazarus knew during his 4 days, but what he experienced was possibly totally unique to him and not what others, who aren't scheduled to be resurrected by Jesus in a few days, experience.

In other words, Lazarus may not have been much of an expert on heaven at all. I wonder if it is the same for the writer of the book you read.

Garth Lahana

25th July 2008, 06:31 PM (18:31)

Garth, I live just a few minutes from the church he pastored when all that happened, but I haven't read the book.
I actually had to think of you when I read the book, you also living in Alvin.

In other words, Lazarus may not have been much of an expert on heaven at all. I wonder if it is the same for the writer of the book you read.
I appreciate your comments Scott, and they are also very interesting. This could also very well be the case. I can't explain it either. I'm just glad that because of his account in Heaven that many people's lives have been touched and many have come to Christ.

Ken Pell

25th July 2008, 07:52 PM (19:52)

Sorry Garth but I have a hard time thinking anyone's experience in heaven is factual or normal or evidence of a theological perspective. We will leave the apostle John's acount out of this.

I once heard Gary Buesy speak at a Promise Keepers event in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He spoke of the three lights he saw while dead from his motorcycle accident in 1988. He had names for each light and messages from each light. He also went to hell and saw the devil in that experience (it was a very confusing "sermon").

I excused myself from that rally and went home (that was my last PK event). NDE is waaay to subjective for me and just because someone (s) follow Christ because of it is no validation. It might very well just show the spiritual hunger (or emotional instability, etc.) of the seeker.

So unless I am really missing something here, that book you're talking about in no way supports or refutes absolutely anything.

If you want to a talk about genuine criticisms of openness theology it can be done, but, wow! from a book about a NDE!?

+++++++++++++

Sorry everyone.

I am trying to be nicer (more polite in my posts) but ... :gen03

Kevin Rector

3rd August 2008, 12:29 AM (00:29)

Here's a ball to lob into the fray...

How is a God that knows all possibility substantively different from a God that know the future?

Hans Deventer

3rd August 2008, 03:14 AM (03:14)

Here's a ball to lob into the fray...

How is a God that knows all possibility substantively different from a God that know the future?

Kevin, you need to help me out here. I can give an obvious answer but that probably won't be what you are looking for. What do you mean with "substantively different"? (I don't even know the difference between "substantially" and "substantively", so I really do need some explanation here.)

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

3rd August 2008, 09:07 AM (09:07)

Here's a ball to lob into the fray...

How is a God that knows all possibility substantively different from a God that know the future?

I say not different at all. The issue is more one of the nature of time than it is the nature of God.

1. If the future already exists and can be known, then an All Knowing God knows it.
2. If the future does not already exist and therefore can't be known, then an All Knowing God knows all the possibilities.

Either way, God is All Knowing.

Kevin Rector

3rd August 2008, 09:58 AM (09:58)

Kevin, you need to help me out here. I can give an obvious answer but that probably won't be what you are looking for. What do you mean with "substantively different"? (I don't even know the difference between "substantially" and "substantively", so I really do need some explanation here.)

There is very little difference if any between "substantially" and "substantively" - both words have overlapping definitions in the dictionary. However, in common usage substantially has come to mean "a great deal" while substantively (to my mind) still speaks to the essence (or "realness") of something.

So what I mean is what "real" difference is there between the two? I think that perhaps Scott has answered this for me.

The reason I ask is because that most objections that I hear to open theology stem from a fear that we are making God "too small" and yet, there is no real difference in a God who knows what "will" happen and a God who know all that can happen. I would even venture a guess to say that God is so smart that in general he knows exactly what will happen (probably with an optimism - hoping that he's wrong).

Thomas Oord

3rd August 2008, 10:54 AM (10:54)

I agree with what Scott says in his post above.

Probably what makes more of a difference is what one thinks each vision of God's knowledge and the nature of time implies for Christian thought and practice. Although even here, Christians who disagree about divine omniscience and what it entails can still do many of the same practices.

For example, I can't see how petitionary prayer makes much sense if God knows the actual future because that future is settled. After all, why pray for God to do something different in the future if God already knows what will be done. But my friends who believe that God has such knowledge still engage in petitionary prayer. They still pray for God to heal their sick grandmothers.

I have noticed, however, that our motives for petitionary prayer differ. I pray thinking that my prayers may influence God to act differently than had I not prayed. I think the future is undetermined and open, and my prayers can influence God. My friends who think God knows the actual future and that God sees all of history in an eternal now, however, typically pray petitionary prayers out of their sense that they must obey God's commands to pray such prayers. They seek to obey despite not understanding why they are asked to pray. To use the philosophical language: my prayers are teleologically oriented, while my friend's prayers are deontologically oriented.

Tom

Hans Deventer

3rd August 2008, 12:23 PM (12:23)

The reason I ask is because that most objections that I hear to open theology stem from a fear that we are making God "too small" and yet, there is no real difference in a God who knows what "will" happen and a God who know all that can happen. I would even venture a guess to say that God is so smart that in general he knows exactly what will happen (probably with an optimism - hoping that he's wrong).

I never understood that. A God who is able to achieve His goals not knowing how we act, is bigger than one who planned every detail at forehand and merely watches the "play" unfold, in my view.

Jamie Wayne

3rd August 2008, 09:14 PM (21:14)

Here's a ball to lob into the fray...

How is a God that knows all possibility substantively different from a God that know the future?

Bobby Fischer may have known all of the possible moves, but he still didn't know which move Boris Spassky would actually make.

That's the difference, isn't it?

When Spassky made a move, one of the known possibilities was actualized.

Knowing all of the possibilities is different than knowing which possibilities will be actualized.

In God's case, getting away from chess, God knows that we can either love Him or not (to narrow it down to two options) - knowing what our actual choice will be doesn't entail the same sort of risk on God's part as merely knowing the possibilities does.

Getting back to chess, if Fischer knew what move Spassky would make, then the element of risk, having been removed, would make the match much more boring.

Sometimes, when I play chess, I'll make a risky move simply to see whether my opponent catches it. If I knew that my opponent would catch it, it wouldn't be a risky move.

I would say that giving love is risky if one doesn't know if that love will be returned...

The question, in my mind, becomes whether a God that doesn't know the actual future - only possible futures - is that than which nothing greater can be conceived or not. If we begin with the premiss that God's nature is loving and that He constantly gives us the power and freedom to love Him, then it seems that the greater is that which gives love without knowing whether love will be returned. To risk nothing is to gain nothing, I suppose, even when it comes to God Almighty.

What's the point of a chess match if the outcome is already known? That's why I don't like playing opponents who are greatly below me in level; matches against superior opponents are much more exciting because the outcome isn't already known.

Jamie Wayne

4th August 2008, 12:34 PM (12:34)

...my prayers are teleologically oriented, while my friend's prayers are deontologically oriented.

Tom

That's a great distinction, Tom, and I think that many do pray from a deontological perspective rather than a teleological one.

However, I wonder whether worship is deontological or teleological?

I suppose worship could be both, in a sense, if it is our duty to worship God and if it is our goal to worship God forever.

Thomas Oord

4th August 2008, 12:41 PM (12:41)

That's a great distinction, Tom, and I think that many do pray from a deontological perspective rather than a teleological one.

However, I wonder whether worship is deontological or teleological?

I suppose worship could be both, in a sense, if it is our duty to worship God and if it is our goal to worship God forever.

Great question, Jamie. I hadn't thought about that. You are probably right that both teleological and deontological aspects should be present.

Maybe it would be more interesting to ask which of the two should be primary. On that question, I think I'd lean toward the teleological. But my guess is that most folk worship out of deontological convictions.

Tom

Jamie Wayne

4th August 2008, 12:50 PM (12:50)

Great question, Jamie. I hadn't thought about that. You are probably right that both teleological and deontological aspects should be present.

Maybe it would be more interesting to ask which of the two should be primary. On that question, I think I'd lean toward the teleological. But my guess is that most folk worship out of deontological convictions.

Tom

I suspect that you're right, Tom, that most worship out of deontological convictions, but it seems to me, agreeing with you, that, using the logic that a vessel is "perfect" if it does what it's made for, that the teleological dimension is more important, as the teleological dimension is what we're been created for.

In other words, we were created to worship God forever; we weren't created to be bound by that duty.

The deontological dimension only seems relevant to remind us, if necessary, of our true purpose, which is teleological.

There'll be no less days to sing His praise than when we first begun...

I hope that's not out of a sense of duty or obligation, but a sense of joyful purpose.

Thomas Oord

4th August 2008, 01:00 PM (13:00)

Jamie,

This is a great discussion! Thanks! I doubt anyone else cares, but it's great thinking about this with you.

I agree with your last post. And I'd like to add yet another dimension of teleology. In addition to teleology in the Aristotelean sense that you note, I think there is a teleological element to worship in the consequentialist sense of teleology.

That is, I think we should worship God for the positive consequences that will likely come to God, others, and ourselves. I think the common good increases when we worship.

When I worship in the sanctuary with other saints or "alone" riding my bike or jogging through the countryside, I actually think the world becomes a slightly better place and God's experience of the world is slightly improved. My worship has positive consequences.

Of course, I'm presupposing a particular understanding of God. And I'm presupposing that the worship that occurs is "healthy" in a particular sense. There have been plenty of times when worshipping in community that I have thought that overall wellbeing was decreased because of the images of God proposed by worship leaders. And I've thought that particular practices undermined the movement of the Spirit to promote abundant life.

Tom

Eric Vail

4th August 2008, 01:04 PM (13:04)

I doubt anyone else cares...

What?! I care that you are enjoying your conversation with Jayme.

Jamie Wayne

4th August 2008, 01:08 PM (13:08)

Jamie,

This is a great discussion! Thanks! I doubt anyone else cares, but it's great thinking about this with you.

Thanks, Tom.

I agree with your last post. And I'd like to add yet another dimension of teleology. In addition to teleology in the Aristotelean sense that you note, I think there is a teleological element to worship in the consequentialist sense of teleology.

That is, I think we should worship God for the positive consequences that will likely come to God, others, and ourselves. I think the common good increases when we worship. Perhaps there is, then, a deontological sense that I had overlooked! Perhaps it's somewhat of a utilitarian ethic, then, too?

When I worship in the sanctuary with other saints or "alone" riding my bike or jogging through the countryside, I actually think the world becomes a slightly better place and God's experience of the world is slightly improved. My worship has positive consequences.I agree with that, Tom.

Of course, I'm presupposing a particular understanding of God. And I'm presupposing that the worship that occurs is "healthy" in a particular sense. There have been plenty of times when worshipping in community that I have thought that overall wellbeing was decreased because of the images of God proposed by worship leaders. And I've thought that particular practices undermined the movement of the Spirit to promote abundant life.

TomYeah, I think that you're right about that, too.

How would you suggest that worship leaders do a better job? Would you suppose that it would be more helpful if more worship leaders had even a modicum of theological training, too, to help avoid unhealthy worship?

Hans Deventer

4th August 2008, 01:48 PM (13:48)

Would anyone care to explain what a "deontological convictions to worship" are? I know that ontological has to do with the true being. But that doesn't help me a lot.

Thomas Oord

4th August 2008, 02:05 PM (14:05)

Thanks, Tom.

Perhaps there is, then, a deontological sense that I had overlooked! Perhaps it's somewhat of a utilitarian ethic, then, too?

I agree with that, Tom.

Yeah, I think that you're right about that, too.

How would you suggest that worship leaders do a better job? Would you suppose that it would be more helpful if more worship leaders had even a modicum of theological training, too, to help avoid unhealthy worship?

I tend to avoid the word "utilitarian" because of the baggage it carries. But the part of that tradition that asks the question of overall well-being I believe is crucial.

As far as theological training among worship leaders, I'd of course love to see more. But I also think that pastors who hand over the worship schedule, music, and structure to those less trained do the church a disservice. I think many pastors should be more involved in helping other leaders in the church think theologically about worship.

Tom

Jamie Wayne

4th August 2008, 02:06 PM (14:06)

Would anyone care to explain what a "deontological convictions to worship" are? I know that ontological has to do with the true being. But that doesn't help me a lot.

Deon means duty in Greek.

Jamie Wayne

4th August 2008, 02:09 PM (14:09)

I tend to avoid the word "utilitarian" because of the baggage it carries. But the part of that tradition that asks the question of overall well-being I believe is crucial.

Spock took a more logical approach, but even a logical approach to promoting well being isn't that bad. I do understand what you mean, though, yet it does seem that there is a utilitarian value to worship - at least in the way that you mean for it to promote overall well being.

As far as theological training among worship leaders, I'd of course love to see more. But I also think that pastors who hand over the worship schedule, music, and structure to those less trained do the church a disservice. I think many pastors should be more involved in helping other leaders in the church think theologically about worship.

Tom

I agree. There would probably be less problems with worship if that were the case.

Thomas Oord

4th August 2008, 02:16 PM (14:16)

Would anyone care to explain what a "deontological convictions to worship" are? I know that ontological has to do with the true being. But that doesn't help me a lot.

Hans,

Sorry about this.

Generally, a deontological approach to worship would say that we worship because it is our duty. Perhaps it is our duty because God commands it, or perhaps it is our duty because scripture teaches it, or it is our duty because the Church says so, etc. This approach doesn't ask what the outcome or consequences of worship may or may not be.

The deontological approach to life is illustrated by a freeway sign I used to see when I lived in Southern California. It read: "Drive the Speed Limit: It's the Law." In other words, do your duty.

A teleological approach to worship focuses typically on the two ways of understanding teleology that Jamie and I noted. One way is to say that we are designed or created to be worshippers. We fulfill our purpose or design when we worship. This notion of teleology is typically identified with Aristotle.

The other understanding of teleology says that we should worship because of particular positive consequences we expect. There are overlaps between the two ways, of course.

Another California freeway sign illustrates the teleological approach to life: "Drive the Speed Limit: It Saves Lives." In other words, do what fosters the best outcome.

Does that help?

To be honest, this is the first time I've thought very deeply about these two orientations as they relate to worship. I find our discussion very interesting. I find myself putting to words some intuitions that I've had for some time. Thanks be to God and to Naznet! : )

Tom

PS> In one sense, this discussion may belong to another thread. But in another sense, I think open theism tends to ask teleological questions more than other theistic traditions.

Thomas Oord

4th August 2008, 02:20 PM (14:20)

Spock took a more logical approach, but even a logical approach to promoting well being isn't that bad. I do understand what you mean, though, yet it does seem that there is a utilitarian value to worship - at least in the way that you mean for it to promote overall well being.

I agree. There would probably be less problems with worship if that were the case.

Jamie,

We seem to see the world quite similarly!

One thing about utilitarianism: the major problem with this approach as one's ultimate theory is the problem of precise calculation. If you are someone like me who believes existence is interrelated, only an omnipresent being could do the necessary calculations to know what actions will do the most good for the most people (or beings).

But the positive thing about utilitarian ethics is that it acknowledges our deep intuition that acting for the good of one or a few at the great expense of the whole is not to act lovingly. This points to the justice aspect of love.

Well, I'd better get back to my writing...

Tom

Jamie Wayne

4th August 2008, 02:44 PM (14:44)

Jamie,

We seem to see the world quite similarly!

One thing about utilitarianism: the major problem with this approach as one's ultimate theory is the problem of precise calculation. If you are someone like me who believes existence is interrelated, only an omnipresent being could do the necessary calculations to know what actions will do the most good for the most people (or beings).

I agree; that is definitely the biggest problem with utilitarianism - the calculus is impossible. Nobody can possibly know what course of action would produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

But the positive thing about utilitarian ethics is that it acknowledges our deep intuition that acting for the good of one or a few at the great expense of the whole is not to act lovingly. This points to the justice aspect of love.

Absolutely. Spock was only being logical in saying that the "good of the many outweigh the good of the few," but there is a certain altruism about that theory, too, that is commendable. Kirk, on the other hand, had more of a deontological ethic which placed more importance on the duty toward an individual than on the total well being of the society.

Thomas Oord

4th August 2008, 02:51 PM (14:51)

I agree; that is definitely the biggest problem with utilitarianism - the calculus is impossible. Nobody can possibly know what course of action would produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

Absolutely. Spock was only being logical in saying that the "good of the many outweigh the good of the few," but there is a certain altruism about that theory, too, that is commendable. Kirk, on the other hand, had more of a deontological ethic which placed more importance on the duty toward an individual than on the total well being of the society.

You should write a book on the ethical theories of Star Trek! : ) You could include a chapter on the mistreatment of the Klingons as "other!" : )

Jamie Wayne

4th August 2008, 02:57 PM (14:57)

A teleological approach to worship focuses typically on the two ways of understanding teleology that Jamie and I noted. One way is to say that we are designed or created to be worshippers. We fulfill our purpose or design when we worship. This notion of teleology is typically identified with Aristotle.

Tom,

I think that anthropology should start with that premiss, don't you?

Further, just as you suggest that "conscience" should be acknowledged as a part of the way that this actual world is, maybe we should include the deep call to worship as part of the way this actual world is, too? Our hearts are restless, after all...

Also, this presmiss further supports the idea that theologians (and Christian philosophers) must be worshippers if they are to do what they were designed to do.

Jamie Wayne

4th August 2008, 02:59 PM (14:59)

You should write a book...

That's just what I need, another person telling me that I should write a book... ;)

Thomas Oord

4th August 2008, 03:22 PM (15:22)

Tom,

I think that anthropology should start with that premiss, don't you?

Further, just as you suggest that "conscience" should be acknowledged as a part of the way that this actual world is, maybe we should include the deep call to worship as part of the way this actual world is, too? Our hearts are restless, after all...

Also, this presmiss further supports the idea that theologians (and Christian philosophers) must be worshippers if they are to do what they were designed to do.

Once again, I agree with all of this. Three comments:

1. Given that I affirm a form of theistic evolution, I think that our anthropologies should never be formulated with the premise that what it means to be human is entirely the work of God alone. This means that saying we "should be what God designed us to be" always includes the notion that God's designing is in cooperation with what is possible given an evolving world.

2. I entirely agree with the conscience comment, because I argue that there is a moral structure to the universe. In its most complex forms, it is felt most clearly in the human conscience. But I think nonhumans also feel the moral dimension, depending on their complexity.

3. And, yes, we all ought to incorporate worship into how we live and think. Of course, "worship" here extends far beyond what typically occurs on a Sunday morning. And I would also be suspicious of theologians who appeal to worship as a kind of appeal to mystery. Some Christian theologians and philosophers like "worship" talk because it allows them to sidestep difficult questions and appeal to the traditions and practices of a worshipping community. I think we need to be very leery of this way of arguing.

Tom

Hans Deventer

4th August 2008, 03:38 PM (15:38)

Does that help?

It does, thank you. As to reasons for worship, I very much liked Abraham Herschel's motif: awe.
I'm not too keen on the deontological motif, nor on the teological as in achieving results. The idea that we are made for it is better, but I still don't think it does justice to God as He relates to us, especially in Christ.

Jamie Wayne

4th August 2008, 03:57 PM (15:57)

Once again, I agree with all of this. Three comments:

1. Given that I affirm a form of theistic evolution, I think that our anthropologies should never be formulated with the premise that what it means to be human is entirely the work of God alone. This means that saying we "should be what God designed us to be" always includes the notion that God's designing is in cooperation with what is possible given an evolving world.

Sure, but participating by worshiping is our cooperative part, isn't it?

2. I entirely agree with the conscience comment, because I argue that there is a moral structure to the universe. In its most complex forms, it is felt most clearly in the human conscience. But I think nonhumans also feel the moral dimension, depending on their complexity.

I have no problem with that, since, Biblically, it is not only moral agents that can be involved in worship, e.g., the rocks will cry out, the trees of the field will clap their hands, etc... That's almost a stretch, since worship might entail love, and love entails freedom, but I would want to include something about creation having the same restless urge towards completeness in God.

3. And, yes, we all ought to incorporate worship into how we live and think. Of course, "worship" here extends far beyond what typically occurs on a Sunday morning. And I would also be suspicious of theologians who appeal to worship as a kind of appeal to mystery. Some Christian theologians and philosophers like "worship" talk because it allows them to sidestep difficult questions and appeal to the traditions and practices of a worshipping community. I think we need to be very leery of this way of arguing.

Tom

True; my point is merely that theological and Christian philosophy ought not be merely academic, but also worshipful in nature. Granted, loving God with ones mind is worshipful.

I don't see worship as an appeal to mystery, nor do I think that theologians and philosophers should sidestep anything...though I have seen that done!

Jamie Wayne

4th August 2008, 04:01 PM (16:01)

By the way, Tom, if worship, or as Bishop Wright sees it, "giving God all He's worth," means promoting well being (your terms), then worship has the deontological aspect of moral obligation, but the higher view is teleological.

A teleological ethic is at the very heart of worship, don't you think, if the highest form of worship is the love of God and of creation.

In other words, if feeding the hungry, and all else unto the "least of these" is the highest form of worship, then it's more worshipful if done with an altruistic goal in mind rather than simply fulfilling ones own obligation (which really isn't altruistic at all).

Thomas Oord

4th August 2008, 04:16 PM (16:16)

Thomas Oord

4th August 2008, 04:18 PM (16:18)

It does, thank you. As to reasons for worship, I very much liked Abraham Herschel's motif: awe.
I'm not too keen on the deontological motif, nor on the teological as in achieving results. The idea that we are made for it is better, but I still don't think it does justice to God as He relates to us, especially in Christ.

I like the notion that awe ought to be central to worship. It presupposes various theological claims that God elicits awe. And I'd like to think that often awe is not itself sufficient for Christian motivation to worship. But that probably reveals my view that God desires love of others (and ourselves) in addition to love of God.

Tom

Ken Pell

4th August 2008, 04:59 PM (16:59)

Jamie Wayne

4th August 2008, 05:11 PM (17:11)

Thomas Oord

4th August 2008, 05:23 PM (17:23)

I wonder, though, Tom, why we need motivation to worship. Does a horse need motivation to drink when it's thirsty and water is readily available? If God's nature is to love, and we are made in the image of God, then isn't it our nature to worship? All is well when we are worshiping - that should be the status quo; there's a problem when we aren't, for our natural purpose is to worship, just as it is our creative nature to worship. In other words, isn't worship really love? Worship isn't about singing praises to some most high so much as it is loving. If we speak in the tongues of men and of angels, "worthy and glory and majesty and power..." yet we have no love, then we aren't really worshiping at all, are we? What motivation do we need to love? In fact, love isn't altruistic if it has some sort of motive and is merely a means to an end. How does this fit into a teleological view? The goal is increasing the cosmic shalom, which is not merely a means to an end, but treats everyone and everything with the respect that it's due, which is giving God all God's worth. Why should we need motivation for that???

I do agree, though, that awe, in itself, is not enough...but I agree that it should be a respectable part of any informed sympathetic response on the part of moral agents.

Good questions!

I think we need to be motivated to worship God for at least two reasons.

First is the epistemic reason. We see through a glass darkly. If we were to know God in full, I think we would be fully motivated. But we know in part. And this partial knowledge leaves us wondering about the adequacy of our actions in light of this partial knowledge.

This reminds me of Aristotle's famous quip: to know the good is to do the good. That quip presupposes that we know the good fully. I don't think such knowledge exists, outside of omniscience.

Second, I think we need to be motivated to worship because the flesh is weak. I frankly don't feel like worshipping sometimes. I'm tired. I'm distracted. I'm a finite individual with both legitimate and illegitimate needs and wants. So sometimes I need to be motivated to worship God.

And, by the way, I think that worship and love are closely linked. But I don't think they are identical. Hans noted that he thinks awe is part of worship. I agree that it typically is. But I can be in awe of a hurricane's force and yet not have love for that hurricane. In my way of thinking, love is always associated with promoting well-being. But worship based upon awe sometimes does not promote well-being.

I love the way this discussion is pushing me to think creatively!

Tom

Jamie Wayne

4th August 2008, 05:55 PM (17:55)

I agree that worship and love are not tautologous; I would say that worship requires love, but love does not require worship.

I agree with your epistemic reason, but I wonder if that's not a part of the greater issue of anthropology, as is the issue of the flesh.

As to Hans and awe, I agree, worship, in that sense, isn't about love, but reverence and a healthy "fear." Is that really worship, though? If we can say that there is worship without love, then what sort of resounding gong is that?

I would love to see the day where a visitor shows up for church on Sunday morning, and nobody is there, because everyone is out worshiping God through ministry outside of the church, promoting "well being," to use your words.

I'm not saying that awe doesn't have it's place in worship, but awe alone cannot be true worship. I don't think that Hans is suggesting that it is; in fact, I know Hans better than to suspect that. However, I would agree that if one knew how much God loves us, our sense of awe would bring us, not to our knees, but prostrate.

Jamie Wayne

4th August 2008, 06:14 PM (18:14)

A thought came to mind:

Can meditation have a similar teleological dimension as worship?

For example, can Buddhist meditation similarly promote well being, even though it's not theistic worship? Remember that meditation, even in the Christian sense, is not always solitary, but often is communal meditation.

Thoughts?

Jamie Wayne

4th August 2008, 09:08 PM (21:08)

When we consider that conscience is part of the fabric of anthropic reality, couldn't we also say that the proposition of St. Augustine, that "our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee," can also find its way into our understanding of the universe? At our very core, we are passionate creatures. That reflects the imago Dei, doesn't it? If God is love, and is concerned with creation, our passion is a reflection of the divine, isn't it? Where I'm going with this is that the deep need for love is only satisfied by loving, which is creatively participating in the divine, stepping into the perichoretic dance of love, in which all participants are bound together in one dance.

But I don't know how to dance!

What if prevenient grace is akin to showing us how to dance? We love, because He first loved us. We know the dance because we all have experienced the rhythm of the dance, if only vaguely. The rhythm of the dance is surrender. Because God gave of Himself, I can give of myself. No longer can I say that I don't know how to dance. Not only that, but sin is keeping myself and others from the dance.

If we consider the dance to be a part of the very fabric of reality, then it is easier to see how the parts of creation that do not have moral agency participate in the dance. All created things are meant to be part of the dance, as the goal of all is the dance.

It is not that God is bored of dancing Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but that the music is so good that it demands to be extended.

I have long thought that God created us because He had so much love that He felt compelled to create someone to share it with.

The idea here is that God is essentially a creative God, that it is a necessary correlate to God's love that God be creative. I think of myself, for example, I'm much like my father; I love people with food. I love to cook. I love to create meals. Yet, it's not the creating, it's the giving of the time and creative energy to another that is meaningful. I'm a musician. I've almost exclusively been a "church musician" since I was 13 or so. I've played for myself to soothe various longings, but otherwise I play for God, and for the benefit of the congregation that I'm accompanying. That's a creative energy. If there were no venue to share that, I wouldn't play. I don't need a "crowd" - that's not what I mean, at all. However, creating music isn't something that I can keep to myself. I am compelled to share it. There is no point for me to play for myself, really.

I wonder if God is the same way, whether God has instilled in us a love that is creative and needs to be expressed. The hole in our hearts, that restlessness, is the ego fearing rejection, desiring to express love, but fearing that it will not be returned. Perhaps to human creatures, that than which nothing greater can be conceived isn't that which is infinitely powerful or wise, for that can't really be conceived, but that which is free to love without fear. God is such that nothing, not even death, can separate us from His love, and that love is creative, it demands expression.

When we worship God, we become an expression of divine love. When we love, we become participants in divine love. When we receive divine love and embrace it, we validate our own purpose, which can only be alive in its own expression, an expression that cannot end with our friends and family, but with our neighbor, and our neighbor's neighbor, ad infinitum.

Regardless, I think that this longing, this angst, even, is at the very core of who it is to be not participating in the expression of divine love. The purpose of our expression is to teach others to do the same, until there is nobody left outside of the dance. To love them without expecting anything until they "give in" to love and overcome their fear of rejection. This, I think, is the basis of divine risk: to risk rejection so that humanity can overcome its fear of rejection, to overcome the sin of ego and the fear of what surrender entails, for the dance takes on a life of its own, and we cannot try to control it, we must surrender to each other, like the improvisational, creative interplay of jazz and blues. There is a framework, but that framework is alive. I will be what I will be. God is alive, not static, and if we are to be who were are, we will be alive, too, and not paralyzed with fear.

Maybe I've gone a bit off the deep end, as I often tend to do, but it seems to me that the teleological aspect of prayer, worship, and love cannot be overlooked. Love is not merely a duty to one another, but is the goal of all creation, and our duty to one another is only because of this goal, it is the goal of life itself, and it is creative, demanding participation.

It might not be too far off to say that God's heart is restless until all of creation rests with Him, and then the lion will lie down with the lamb...

Chris Patton

4th August 2008, 09:46 PM (21:46)

Yeah, Jamie needs no encouragement to share his views, lol.

Jamie Wayne

4th August 2008, 09:51 PM (21:51)

It's part of my creative nature to share, Chris. ;)

Hans Deventer

5th August 2008, 01:01 AM (01:01)

I like the notion that awe ought to be central to worship. It presupposes various theological claims that God elicits awe. And I'd like to think that often awe is not itself sufficient for Christian motivation to worship. But that probably reveals my view that God desires love of others (and ourselves) in addition to love of God.

I guess I'm not in my brightest mood (don't tell me that mood is never :basic05), but I don't see how the love of others is a motivation to worship. God certainly desires love of others, there can be no doubt. The love I receive from others can also be a motivation. And I can see how the love towards others plays a role in worship, or perhaps better, is a condition to worship. But I'm missing the motivational part. Can you elaborate?

Hans Deventer

5th August 2008, 01:36 AM (01:36)

As to Hans and awe, I agree, worship, in that sense, isn't about love, but reverence and a healthy "fear." Is that really worship, though? If we can say that there is worship without love, then what sort of resounding gong is that?

Jamie, for me the awe of God is directly related to His love.

7 Let the wicked forsake his way
and the evil man his thoughts.
Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I see the God as being so much higher, so much holier, so much different exactly because of His love and grace. I stand in awe of a beautiful mountain, but that is not the same. I stand in awe for God first and foremost when I look at Calvary. So for me, there is no awe of God that isn't permeated with His love.