Open Theism - Why is it a problem?

[Kyle Borger]

What are all of the definitions?

I have been searching for a thread that deals with this, so feel free to move if I missed it.

This definition pretty much sums up what I think it means.
Practically, open theism makes the case for a personal God who is open to influence through the prayers, decisions, and actions of people. Although many specific outcomes of the future are unknowable, God's foreknowledge of the future includes that which is determined as time progresses often in light of free decisions that have been made and what has been sociologically determined. So God knows everything that has been determined as well as what has not yet been determined but remains open. As such, God is able to anticipate the future, yet remains fluid to respond and react to prayer and decisions made either contrary or advantageous to God's plan or presuppositions.(Wikipedia)

I have discovered that I have been teaching this for a while now without knowing that it was not traditional.

To me it is very basic.

God is love. Love requires a choice. God gives us a choice. If God knew exactly what that choice would be, it is no choice. If God determines everything we do, it is no choice. How does that work? God limits his knowledge in that instant of choice. Could he know? Absolutely, if He wanted to destroy that which he created. Does God know what is likely to happen with his limitation in place? Yes.

Why would God do this? Because if God knew everything that was going to happen in every instance there would be no reason for our existence. God's knowledge of every action, every word, every movement would in fact simply make us an extension of God and that would mean that everything we see and know is God and if there were no true choice without God knowing that exact choice then that means that God is evil and not love because that means that God is responsible for everything that happens.

The next is relationship. Any true relationship means that each party can impact or change the other party. If we have a true relationship with God it means that we change God! If God can't be changed by us then there is no relationship other than us as a pawn.

Love requires choice and relationship and both require a God that responds to us and even changes with us. Yes, I know that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. But that is describing God's unchanging love. Not that God responds to us exactly the same way that he responded to Adam.

So am I way off here? Does this make me a heretic destined for Hell because I believe that God loves me so much he allows me to participate in his creation and be involved in an intimate and loving relationship?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Here on NazNet the issues surrounding the foreknowledge of God have been called "the thread that will not die." It comes up fairly often here. I find the topic of great interest and love the discussion surrounding it.

The heart of the issue actually has little to do with God and a lot to do with one's philosophy of the nature of time.

If one's philosophy is that all time, including the future already exists, then most all Christians conclude that God already knows all that will happen.

If one's philosophy is that the future does not yet exist, then most Christians conclude that while God has predetermined that he will do some specific things in the future, that he can't see that which doesn't yet exist.

Either way, supporters of both views agree that God knows all there is to know - no one in the discussion is diminishing God because both sides agree that God sees all that can be seen and knows all that can be known.

That, then, takes discussions about God out of the equation and leaves us discussing our philosophies concerning the nature of time.

The only "unchristian" approach here is for someone to declare that people who don't agree with them aren't good Christians. That's an indication, I think, of either ignorance as to the actual nature of the discussion or of ego that needs to be sanctified.

[Dana Grant]

Scott -- You handled that much better than my "ok, brace yourselves, here we go again" comment would have. So I won't even mention it. :smilies1722::smilies1722::smilies1722:

[Paul DeBaufer]

Scott -- You handled that much better than my "ok, brace yourselves, here we go again" comment would have. So I won't even mention it. :smilies1722::smilies1722::smilies1722:

If this weren't the post traditional forum then this really could be an, "Oh no here we go again" thread, but as its here I think it might just be different this time around.

[Charles W Christian]

Scott -
Well said. "Thanks" wasn't enough....

CWC

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Scott -
Well said. "Thanks" wasn't enough....

CWC

Thanks for the thanks. After seeing the topic come up many times over the past that I'd like to think I finally have a handle on it.

Here's a NazNet archive from 1997 - you'll note a discussion related to this topic there: http://web.archive.org/web/19970321235824/http://www.naznet.com/wwwboard2/

Let me quickly add, that I love this topic and don't mind seeing it come up again - posts like Kyle's add a new dimension to this important topic.

[Steven Burton]

There are some theologians I have read that make an argument that this was around with the early fathers. It was just not explained to the extent we can today because of philosophical and scientific restraints of the time.

[Kyle Borger]

Thanks for the patience. I keep trying to read past posts as I know that I am new to the family, but that is what happens each time someone new joins. It changes the group and in some ways you start over unless you have a way to impart all of your past shared experiences to everyone in a quick and effecient way.

I hadn't thought of it terms of time. I figured everyone was upset because it somehow made God weaker than He is. To me the more powerful creator is one who can allow something to exist outside of his control rather than one that must know and control every action. Note that by outside of His control I am refering to him choosing to allow it. I am all too aware of God's power and ability to do whatever He wanted. Wait, I suppose that is an argument as well. Because God can't be that which He is not!

At any rate I didn't know there were other views on this and I am curious as to what those are. I know many of you will suggest books and I will try but I have quite a few on the docket as it is.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Thanks for the patience. I keep trying to read past posts as I know that I am new to the family, but that is what happens each time someone new joins. It changes the group and in some ways you start over unless you have a way to impart all of your past shared experiences to everyone in a quick and effecient way.

I hadn't thought of it terms of time. I figured everyone was upset because it somehow made God weaker than He is. To me the more powerful creator is one who can allow something to exist outside of his control rather than one that must know and control every action. Note that by outside of His control I am refering to him choosing to allow it. I am all too aware of God's power and ability to do whatever He wanted. Wait, I suppose that is an argument as well. Because God can't be that which He is not!

At any rate I didn't know there were other views on this and I am curious as to what those are. I know many of you will suggest books and I will try but I have quite a few on the docket as it is.

I think it's totally acceptable to have a fresh discussion on the topic. Clearly, it's one that people enjoy thinking about.

Here's another approach you might like, I've nicknamed it the "time big bang" theory. In this one, we envision God, pre-creation. He is planning his Creation, and being the Master Planner, he's able to envision how all dominoes will fall based on how the first one falls. His plan is to put Creation in place in such a way that he gets the desired result at the end (the conclusion of Revelation).

He runs through scenarios, perfectly forecasting how human beings will decide every decision they will ever make. Then, he finds the perfect scenario - the one that brings Creation to the conclusion of the Book of Revelation. He'll put everything in place, and then watch the dominoes fall - not because he's manipulating them, but because he's already ran the simulation in his perfect knowledge.

It's not an easy route - it includes the cross, but its the one that works.

He's ready: "Let there be light."

(This isn't original with me - and, in fact, it's not my view - but it's an effort to accommodate free will and complete foreknowledge in one theory)

Again, I love this topic but I'll try to not play the "we've discussed this before" card.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Thanks for the patience. I keep trying to read past posts as I know that I am new to the family, but that is what happens each time someone new joins. It changes the group and in some ways you start over unless you have a way to impart all of your past shared experiences to everyone in a quick and effecient way.

I hadn't thought of it terms of time. I figured everyone was upset because it somehow made God weaker than He is. To me the more powerful creator is one who can allow something to exist outside of his control rather than one that must know and control every action. Note that by outside of His control I am refering to him choosing to allow it. I am all too aware of God's power and ability to do whatever He wanted. Wait, I suppose that is an argument as well. Because God can't be that which He is not!

At any rate I didn't know there were other views on this and I am curious as to what those are. I know many of you will suggest books and I will try but I have quite a few on the docket as it is.

I have always found Tom Oord helpful in his books and his blog (http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/category/open_and_relational_theology/) on Open and Relational Theology.

Like Scott I don't mind repeating a topic, especially this one, maybe on this forum it will actually be a discussion.

[Marian Schwaller Carney]

Scott, I am grateful for your explanation. This is the first time I have heard any mention the 'time' factor, and it sounds like a major one. I admit to having an allergic reaction to what I have heard of open theism up to this point, so I will find this thread very interesting to follow. The articles in whichever Naz magazine it was - Grace and Peace? Preacher/ing? - a few years ago kind of left me with a dull thud in my chest and, in my head, I dismissed the topic altogether as 'not my issue'.

Kyle, I am very glad you raised this question at this time and expressed it as you have.

[Rich Schmidt]

I hadn't thought of it terms of time. I figured everyone was upset because it somehow made God weaker than He is.

Well, according to the people who are upset about it, that is exactly what the Open Theists are doing!

But I agree with Scott about what's at the heart of the disagreement.

The website I've found most helpful is that of Greg Boyd: http://www.gregboyd.org/ ... though now that I'm linking to it, I see that it's been taken down for some reason. :( His Q&A section was excellent.

[Dan Henderson]

Why is it considered not a choice if God knows what choice will be made?

[Steven Burton]

Mainly because it has to come to pass. And if it has to come to pass then it is not really a choice, it is determined. Open theism tries to handle that concept in giving us options that God sees and not choices that God sees. It does in some trains thought provide certain things already set in time/future but not everything.

[Dan Henderson]

Steve,I used "will be" as in has not come to pass. Why cannot God know what has not yet come to pass?

[Steven Burton]

To me the use of "will be" implies that it will happen.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

The one that got me to thinking was the nature of prayer. If God has already seen the future what, exactly, is the value of my praying concerning issues in my life? Can my prayers influence God or has he already seen it all and my prayer is just another part of a pre-known scenario?

Years ago as I hungered to be a person of prayer I wrestled with these issues. If I believe the future is happening, second by second, I come to prayer believing the Lord is, indeed, willing to allow me to influence him, or better put, he allows me to partner with him as time advances.

Praying, for instance, for a friend to be healed becomes intimate, powerful, and purposeful. Otherwise, I'm left thinking, "Well, the Lord already knows whether or not my friend will be healed and my prayer is just part of the whole, pre-known drama." If, though, I think of the future as "open" my praying can potentially make a real difference - amazingly, the Lord invites me to partner with him in what happens next.

If the future can be known, God knows it. I'm pleased to play a small part in doing what the Lord already knows I'll do.

If the future is "happening" minute by minute, God is never at a loss as to what to do, no matter what happens. I'll honored to imagine that he is willing to hear and respond to my prayers, prayed in faith.

Either way, he's God and he's in complete authority.

[Steven Burton]

The one that got me to thinking was the nature of prayer. If God has already seen the future what, exactly, is the value of my praying concerning issues in my life? Can my prayers influence God or has he already seen it all and my prayer is just another part of a pre-known scenario?

Years ago as I hungered to be a person of prayer I wrestled with these issues. If I believe the future is happening, second by second, I come to prayer believing the Lord is, indeed, willing to allow me to influence him, or better put, he allows me to partner with him as time advances.

Praying, for instance, for a friend to be healed becomes intimate, powerful, and purposeful. Otherwise, I'm left thinking, "Well, the Lord already knows whether or not my friend will be healed and my prayer is just part of the whole, pre-known drama." If, though, I think of the future as "open" my praying can potentially make a real difference - amazingly, the Lord invites me to partner with him in what happens next.

If the future can be known, God knows it. I'm pleased to play a small part in doing what the Lord already knows I'll do.

If the future is "happening" minute by minute, God is never at a loss as to what to do, no matter what happens. I'll honored to imagine that he is willing to hear and respond to my prayers, prayed in faith.

Either way, he's God and he's in complete authority.

That is what got me thinking as well.

[Dan Henderson]

To me the use of "will be" implies that it will happen.

Yes, a decision will be made. God knows what the decision will be. Why is it not a decision in your opinion?So far you have only andwered What? I am asking Why? I keep re-stating the question because even though you are answering a question, you are not answering my question. As an example, Scott answered the why, at least from his perspective.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

By the way, I have to admit that I love time travel fiction. It's always fun to think about people traveling back in time - "be sure you don't step on that butterfly - you might change the future." I still remember HG Wells' Time Machine and his journey into the future: good stuff!

I have a friend who makes his living in the aerospace industry. He tells me he thinks time is flexible. When he's telling me, I can almost grasp it, but it doesn't stick. Still, I admit that there just might be something to it.

If the scifi writers and my friend have it right - then, I'm convinced God is right there, in absolute authority.

For now, though, I'm just sticking with my simple "the past is over and the future doesn't yet exist" approach. It helps me pray better - and I believe God is big enough that he'll still be God no matter what tomorrow brings.

PS - can you see I was telling the truth when I said I love this topic!

[Steven Burton]

I see it like this. If God sees what I choose then I really didn't choose it in the first place because God had already seen it. And if God has already seen it then it must come to pass. Because if it does not come to pass then God is fallible and that is not something that I will say. I see this as the why and not just the how.

You know Scott you would love the science shows "Through the worm hole with Morgan Freeman". They have episodes on the idea and theories of time. In one of them they talk about the grandfather paradox and one guy comes on and says that it can not happen, because time moves forward. It is also interesting in that they can not see a way in which we can go back in time because time moves forward as we know it right now. They have not found any way in which time can move backwards. I think it is interesting about time only moving forward.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think that God could know the detailed future and every individuals every choice, but, and this goes right into Scott's relating open and non-open to time. If time, as has been suggested by at least one physicist/mathematician, Rudy Rucker (whose dad was a minister or theologian), and exists all simultaneously and we experience it linearly, and God is totally transcendent and exists outside of time, then He could see all our decisions and because He is outside the closed system our decisions would not be predetermined. However, this is not how the biblical authors, acting under inspiration, seem to view either time or God. The biblical God is immanent, He walks within His creation with His creatures. For one within the closed system to know with certitude the outcome of all future acts and decisions would mean that those acts and decisions are predetermined, if they are predetermined then they are no choices, even if they appear to be to the creature seemingly making the choice.

My biggest issue with God knowing the details of every act and decision that will ever be just doesn't fit the biblical narrative. God regrets. He regrets His own decisions because they turned out poorly. When offering Israel chance after chance I get a feel of a God who desperately desires His people to make different choices than the ones they have made, hoping against hope. Sure God is the master statistician and can reasonably predict the outcome, but I get the sense that even when He has made His prediction that He still hopes that they will choose differently.

[Michael Flowers]

Because if God knows the choice absolutely then that means that our lives are predetermined and thus we really have no choice in the matter because what is going to happen will happen.

[Dan Henderson]

A good buddy of mine offered an equally plausable theory. He asked me "How old was Adam immediately after God created him?" His point was that Adam never grew up from childhood, God created him already aged. He then said, tongue firmly in cheek, that dinasour bones was God's practical joke, he watches us and laughs while we try to put together His puzzles.

I truly do not understand how God (Creator) can be bound by that which he created (the universe and everything in it), to include the man-made measurement we call "time."

Now as for choice, I am better than average at predicting outcomes. The art of the "Con" and a savvy business decision are strikingly similar. Because of my ability to predict outcomes, I am rarely surprised. Let me be more specific, if I have heard you speak for one hour (give or take), I can provide you with two or three options, and predict with reasonable certainty, which one you willchose. Now you don't have to believe I can do this to understand my logic. However, given that I can do what I just said with one hour of listening to you talk, God, who has known you since before you were in the womb, AND much smarter than I, can know what decision you are going to make. In both cases, I say it is free choice.

Go ...

[Steven Burton]

And now the talking past each other and assumptions begins......

[Paul DeBaufer]

A good buddy of mine offered an equally plausable theory. He asked me "How old was Adam immediately after God created him?" His point was that Adam never grew up from childhood, God created him already aged. He then said, tongue firmly in cheek, that dinasour bones was God's practical joke, he watches us and laughs while we try to put together His puzzles.

I truly do not understand how God (Creator) can be bound by that which he created (the universe and everything in it), to include the man-made measurement we call "time."

Now as for choice, I am better than average at predicting outcomes. The art of the "Con" and a savvy business decision are strikingly similar. Because of my ability to predict outcomes, I am rarely surprised. Let me be more specific, if I have heard you speak for one hour (give or take), I can provide you with two or three options, and predict with reasonable certainty, which one you willchose. Now you don't have to believe I can do this to understand my logic. However, given that I can do what I just said with one hour of listening to you talk, God, who has known you since before you were in the womb, AND much smarter than I, can know what decision you are going to make. In both cases, I say it is free choice.

Go ...

I don't doubt your ability to guess, with a certain degree of accuracy. And guess work it is, educated and studied, but guessing none the less. I am pretty good at it myself. And as I stated above I give God credit for being the best at it. But that's a far cry from knowing with certitude every decision someone will make, because that requires knowing every choice that they will face which means knowing with certitude the choices of others and on and on, and that certitude that absolute knowing means things were predetermined.

[Dan Henderson]

I don't doubt your ability to guess, with a certain degree of accuracy. And guess work it is, educated and studied, but guessing none the less. I am pretty good at it myself. And as I stated above I give God credit for being the best at it. But that's a far cry from knowing with certitude every decision someone will make, because that requires knowing every choice that they will face which means knowing with certitude the choices of others and on and on, and that certitude that absolute knowing means things were predetermined.

Yet neither of us are Creator-God, both of us are bound by the creation (well, maybe I should just speak for myself). So though you pointed out the weakness of my example, you did not point out any weakness in my logic, nor did you counter adequately, the conclusion of my logic that the Creator-God can give you a real choice, and yet still know what choice you are going to make.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Yet neither of us are Creator-God, both of us are bound by the creation (well, maybe I should just speak for myself). So though you pointed out the weakness of my example, you did not point out any weakness in my logic, nor did you counter adequately, the conclusion of my logic that the Creator-God can give you a real choice, and yet still know what choice you are going to make.

Ah but you provide no logic for your statement, which seems emotionally based. You seem to think your statement is a tautology, yet it isn't. It has not been reasonably deduced, matter of fact it seems to be circular reasoning restating the single premise as conclusion.

[Dan Henderson]

Ah but you provide no logic for your statement, which seems emotionally based. You seem to think your statement is a tautology, yet it isn't. It has not been reasonably deduced, matter of fact it seems to be circular reasoning restating the single premise as conclusion.

Are you using the definition for logic for Tautoligy, A universal statement, always true? That is my read from your useage. It might be emotionaly based - I am personally vested in the idea of Creator-God. I don't get your reference to circular reasoning. This is a light debate and would get too long and boring if we didn't bring in some of our Logic from previous reasoniong-logic. Do you remember that old Hymn :I settled the question long ago? Its something like that. It may be that its less circular-reasoning and more that I have made too much of an assumption on us having a common body of knowledge from which to draw. Having to follow each logic path or explain would, in my estimation be really boring for everyone. I'd rather stick to the high points for now and not worry about proving sub-points.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Are you using the definition for logic for Tautoligy, A universal statement, always true? That is my read from your useage. It might be emotionaly based - I am personally vested in the idea of Creator-God. I don't get your reference to circular reasoning. This is a light debate and would get too long and boring if we didn't bring in some of our Logic from previous reasoniong-logic. Do you remember that old Hymn :I settled the question long ago? Its something like that. It may be that its less circular-reasoning and more that I have made too much of an assumption on us having a common body of knowledge from which to draw. Having to follow each logic path or explain would, in my estimation be really boring for everyone. I'd rather stick to the high points for now and not worry about proving sub-points.


You are the one who mentioned flawed logic. But you are correct that that would bog down the discussion, then we'd have to agree on symbols, because we'd want precision and would go for the meta language. And to be honest, my symbolic mathematical logic is a little rusty, 'though my books are at hand. Oh I just don't really have the energy.

No, haven't heard that old hymn but get the gist of what you are saying. I am saying that knowing the future in all its detail, including every choice made by everyone with out said choices being predetermined does not necessarily follow from Creator-God, who created the Heavens and the earth and all that is in them. Seems that predetermination follows better. Yet that does not flow from the biblical witness, not from my reading anyway.

[Dan Henderson]

You are the one who mentioned flawed logic. But you are correct that that would bog down the discussion, then we'd have to agree on symbols, because we'd want precision and would go for the meta language. And to be honest, my symbolic mathematical logic is a little rusty, 'though my books are at hand. Oh I just don't really have the energy.

No, haven't heard that old hymn but get the gist of what you are saying. I am saying that knowing the future in all its detail, including every choice made by everyone with out said choices being predetermined does not necessarily follow from Creator-God, who created the Heavens and the earth and all that is in them. Seems that predetermination follows better. Yet that does not flow from the biblical witness, not from my reading anyway.

I'll cede that to you, Also, I think that old song was recorded by Johnny Cash.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I'll cede that to you, Also, I think that old song was recorded by Johnny Cash.

Then I might have heard it, I generally don't care for country music, but I like Johnny Cash, Hank Williams

[Dan Henderson]

New statement:

Given that my logic was not flawed and I could perfectly execute my flow: God is not subject to my logic.

[Paul DeBaufer]

New statement:

Given that my logic was not flawed and I could perfectly execute my flow: God is not subject to my logic.

Neither is He constrained by mine

[Hans Deventer]

I am perhaps somewhat odd in this respect. The philosophical discussions about time and God and free choice don't really matter to me. I don't know anything about God but what He has revealed in the Scriptures anyway. I agree with Dan, if God knows what I will do but I don't, I'm still free.

What brought me in is reading the Bible on where God changes his mind in response to prayer, to people. Any plain reading of the Scriptures makes it abundantly clear that He does change his mind. So far, Open Theism is the best explanation of that phenomenon I have heard. But, I see there are also texts that would cause problems. So there's a choice to be made. Weighing the various explanations, Open Theism still seems most consistent with the way God deals with us.

[Dan Henderson]

The problem I have with theology in general is that theology in and of itself is an academic disclipline, not a divine revelation. I personally think that we have way more theologist than we need and not near enough preachers, prophets, and teachers. I get annoyed when someone says "I'm not a teacher, I'm an educator." Really? Does any english translation of the Bible use the term educator instead of teacher. There's probably one. Even so, I don't see theologist or educator on the list of things we are called to be. I'm told Rabbi means teacher.

I didn't personally come to know Jesus through theology, open or otherwise. I came to Christ through the witness and life of Christian parents and came to my decision point through a compelling sermon that convinced me I needed to make a choice and I needed to make it now. I chose, I am choosing, and will continue to choose daily to die to the world and live to Christ.

I dunno, just sayin...

[Hans Deventer]

The problem I have with theology in general is that theology in and of itself is an academic disclipline, not a divine revelation.

Well, the very moment you or I start to think about divine revelation, we're doing theology. Now there is obviously bad theology, good theology, layman's theology, academic theology etc.. But all thinking about God is theology. No idea how we could avoid it.

[Dan Henderson]

Well, the very moment you or I start to think about divine revelation, we're doing theology. Now there is obviously bad theology, good theology, layman's theology, academic theology etc.. But all thinking about God is theology. No idea how we could avoid it.

Concede to your point

[Dennis M. Scott]

Theology is in part, man's attempt to from limited, human perspective, describe God, who is beyond that perspective. We often attribute to God human limitations, and we use weak concepts to do so. Our "through a glass darkly" conversations are pretty much all circular. Our intent - and ability - is to start from the human perspective and end up back there. Even when God chose to reveal Himself in the best way, he took the "form" of man, and a new wave of theologs have been working ever since to describe his Revelation. Could we use concepts beyond man's capacity to understand, the whole thing would be rather meaningless anyway. Seems like the limitations we use to describe God are man's, and not His.

96 year old retired pastor, Francis Crandall, - one of my parishioners and mentors - , often points out that when he gets to heaven his first word will be, "Oh, . . .!", as in, "Now I get it!"

It's kinda like fifteen men sitting around the table trying to describe what it's like to give birth. They can't even remember the single incident that might give them just a hint. Then one of them mentions that he one time had a kidney stone. Really? Passing a kidney stone and birthing a child are somehow comparable? Yeah, except for all the ways they are absolutely not comparable. Those birthing theologs will never completely get it, yet they feel compelled to try. A few of them will get PhDs in childbirthing, and become experts. They will do their best, but they're always going to fall a little short.

[Rich Schmidt]

Now as for choice, I am better than average at predicting outcomes. The art of the "Con" and a savvy business decision are strikingly similar. Because of my ability to predict outcomes, I am rarely surprised. Let me be more specific, if I have heard you speak for one hour (give or take), I can provide you with two or three options, and predict with reasonable certainty, which one you willchose. Now you don't have to believe I can do this to understand my logic. However, given that I can do what I just said with one hour of listening to you talk, God, who has known you since before you were in the womb, AND much smarter than I, can know what decision you are going to make. In both cases, I say it is free choice.

Go ...
What you describe here fits the Open Theism view of God very well. God knows us so well that he can very accurately anticipate what we will do in any situation. But he doesn't KNOW what choice we will make as one might know a settled fact, because the outcome of our choice is still future and unsettled.

So if what you described here is your view of how God "knows" the future choices of creatures to whom he has given free will... Congratulations! You're an Open Theist! :)

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I truly do not understand how God (Creator) can be bound by that which he created (the universe and everything in it), to include the man-made measurement we call "time."

This is a lot more about the nature of time than it is about the nature of God.

Could God change the length of an inch? If he did, he'd just be changing the definition of "inch" - the original length would still be the same.

If we decide that God did, indeed, create "a minute" and "a year" then we all agree that he has complete authority over them. If we decide that they are merely ways to measure relationships between events, then we see that saying God doesn't exist "outside time" doesn't "bind" God at all.

[Doug Ward]

This is a lot more about the nature of time than it is about the nature of God.

Could God change the length of an inch? If he did, he'd just be changing the definition of "inch" - the original length would still be the same.

If we decide that God did, indeed, create "a minute" and "a year" then we all agree that he has complete authority over them. If we decide that they are merely ways to measure relationships between events, then we see that saying God doesn't exist "outside time" doesn't "bind" God at all.

Of course, we are all aware that this thing called time, even as created by God is not unchangeable - even in our created existence. Others far more knowledgeable than me can explain this better, but astronauts, who have spent a week in the space shuttle, travelling at vast speeds, return to Earth several seconds younger than they would have been had they remained on Earth. As speed increases, time slows down. I do not know the formula, and cannot write the equation, as I am a few credits shy of my degree in Astrophysics.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Of course, we are all aware that this thing called time, even as created by God is not unchangeable - even in our created existence. Others far more knowledgeable than me can explain this better, but astronauts, who have spent a week in the space shuttle, travelling at vast speeds, return to Earth several seconds younger than they would have been had they remained on Earth. As speed increases, time slows down. I do not know the formula, and cannot write the equation, as I am a few credits shy of my degree in Astrophysics.

I can't quite grasp it - the "few seconds younger" - how can we tell that? Anyway, that's what I was talking about here: http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php/7942-Open-Theism-Why-is-it-a-problem?p=131784&viewfull=1#post131784

[Doug Ward]

The problem I have with theology in general is that theology in and of itself is an academic disclipline, not a divine revelation. I personally think that we have way more theologist than we need and not near enough preachers, prophets, and teachers. I get annoyed when someone says "I'm not a teacher, I'm an educator." Really? Does any english translation of the Bible use the term educator instead of teacher. There's probably one. Even so, I don't see theologist or educator on the list of things we are called to be. I'm told Rabbi means teacher.

I didn't personally come to know Jesus through theology, open or otherwise. I came to Christ through the witness and life of Christian parents and came to my decision point through a compelling sermon that convinced me I needed to make a choice and I needed to make it now. I chose, I am choosing, and will continue to choose daily to die to the world and live to Christ.

I dunno, just sayin...

Dan, this is a sloppy, ill-considered post. I have heard a number of great preachers in my lifetime, and many in our own denomination. However, good theologians are few and far between. A great preacher, who moves people and communicates well, if that person expresses bad theology - all their communication skills have gone for naught.

Our world suffers from a lack of solid theology. Our church lacks good theology. We express a God who predetermines the future of individuals, and a collective world. We express a God who is responsible for evil. We communicate that Baptism is a celebration of a person's choice. We say Infant Baptism is not what Christians do. We tell people that babies dying are part of "God's will." We tell the people that salvation is reciting words of a "sinners prayer." We tell people that Jesus is coming again, but only after a 7 year bad period, initiated by a secret removal of all the Christians - even if that scenario directly contradicts Scripture. We have even had great preachers in our church predict the date - October of 1981, then 1988.

We tell people that Sanctification eradicates any residue of sin, and then explain how people do immoral acts afterwards. We tell people that holiness is characterized by a time stamp of secondness, far more than a quality of Christlikeness. We tell people that holiness is a personal, moral crusade instead of a purity of relational love between we and God, and each other. We tell people about holiness and then have church splits over carpet color. We talk about holiness, and then have email campaigns against our colleges, and District Superintendents launch screeds against schools other churches, and this evil, shadowy, emergent movement. We talk about holiness, and have denominational leaders at headquarters act to undermine local churches, and local pastors.

Dan our theology is not fine. It needs to be expressed well at all times and in every generation. The world is not lost becuase they have not heard our message - they are lost because they have heard us, then watched how we live.

[Dwayne Petry]

"Our GOD is an awesome GOD"!

Before the foundation of the world He looked forward, as only He could do, and saw every choice every human would make, (good, bad, and otherwise). Because He desired a relationship with you and I, He created mankind, knowing the price would include Calvary.

Because He knew every choice that would be made, does not mean that He predestined any of the choices. He knew the outcome of those of faith, as well as the outcome of the choices of the unbeliever, yet this awesome GOD allows us to make our own choices, while His desire is "whosoever believes in Him"!

My problem with this was that GOD must be "bored" foreknowing everything, just waiting for it to happen. Because my "simple" mind needed a "simple" example to help me deal with this "complex" issue, the Holy Spirit gave me this "simple" example.

Because we humans cannot really foreknow anything, I struggled with how GOD could foreknow and still get "excited" or feel "disappointment" about something He knew would happen. Here's the example.

If our child or grandchild has no physical handicap, we "know" that they will learn to walk. Though we "know " they will walk, we to a person, are "excited" and look forward to our child or grandchild taking that first step. Why, we crawl around on the floor to the point of making a "fool" of ourselves, wanting that baby to take the first step toward us. If they fall and begin to cry, we encourage them to get up and try again. When those first steps are taken we celebrate the occasion with "hugs and kisses" and tell everyone we know. If we can get that excited about something we "knew" was going to happen, how much more does our Heavenly Father get excited (or disappointed) about something He "knew" was going to happen.

How awesome is our GOD, that He would allow me to "see" in a way that puts to rest the struggle I had with His foreknowing all things.

[Dan Henderson]

What you describe here fits the Open Theism view of God very well. God knows us so well that he can very accurately anticipate what we will do in any situation. But he doesn't KNOW what choice we will make as one might know a settled fact, because the outcome of our choice is still future and unsettled.

So if what you described here is your view of how God "knows" the future choices of creatures to whom he has given free will... Congratulations! You're an Open Theist! :)

Except in my little "fundie" world, God does know and is not guessing anything. Yet he still lets me make my own choices even though he has the power to do otherwise.

[Hans Deventer]

Except in my little "fundie" world, God does know and is not guessing anything. Yet he still lets me make my own choices even though he has the power to do otherwise.

One does not have to be a "fundie" to believe so. I actually also believe God knows everything there is to know.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Except in my little "fundie" world, God does know and is not guessing anything. Yet he still lets me make my own choices even though he has the power to do otherwise.

Hmmmm, a closet open theist trying to clothe it in "fundie" clothing? :smile: Don't worry Dan, we won't tell, won't give you away.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

"Our GOD is an awesome GOD"!

Before the foundation of the world He looked forward, as only He could do, and saw every choice every human would make, (good, bad, and otherwise). Because He desired a relationship with you and I, He created mankind, knowing the price would include Calvary.

Dwayne, if time works as you believe it does, I'm with you all the way. I'm not sure it works that way, but if it does, God can see it with perfect clarity.

[Doug Ward]

Scott, here is a link that explains time dilation and space travel. My basic premise was right, although I overstated the effect.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/crew/exp7/luletters/lu_letter13.html

[Rich Schmidt]

Except in my little "fundie" world, God does know and is not guessing anything. Yet he still lets me make my own choices even though he has the power to do otherwise.

First, like others have said, you don't have to be a fundamentalist to believe that's how time & God's foreknowledge work.

Second, if that's how you view things... then what was the point of your open-theism-like example? I don't get it.

[Dan Henderson]

Dan, this is a sloppy, ill-considered post. I have heard a number of great preachers in my lifetime, and many in our own denomination. However, good theologians are few and far between. A great preacher, who moves people and communicates well, if that person expresses bad theology - all their communication skills have gone for naught.

Our world suffers from a lack of solid theology. Our church lacks good theology. We express a God who predetermines the future of individuals, and a collective world. We express a God who is responsible for evil. We communicate that Baptism is a celebration of a person's choice. We say Infant Baptism is not what Christians do. We tell people that babies dying are part of "God's will." We tell the people that salvation is reciting words of a "sinners prayer." We tell people that Jesus is coming again, but only after a 7 year bad period, initiated by a secret removal of all the Christians - even if that scenario directly contradicts Scripture. We have even had great preachers in our church predict the date - October of 1981, then 1988.

We tell people that Sanctification eradicates any residue of sin, and then explain how people do immoral acts afterwards. We tell people that holiness is characterized by a time stamp of secondness, far more than a quality of Christlikeness. We tell people that holiness is a personal, moral crusade instead of a purity of relational love between we and God, and each other. We tell people about holiness and then have church splits over carpet color. We talk about holiness, and then have email campaigns against our colleges, and District Superintendents launch screeds against schools other churches, and this evil, shadowy, emergent movement. We talk about holiness, and have denominational leaders at headquarters act to undermine local churches, and local pastors.

Dan our theology is not fine. It needs to be expressed well at all times and in every generation. The world is not lost becuase they have not heard our message - they are lost because they have heard us, then watched how we live.

Hi Doug, Slpooy, I'll agree. I should never post after midnight. Ill considered, not on your life. I have a right to my opinion. And my opnion is that we need less "Study of God" and more proclaimation of God's message of salvation. This is Good News, and we're talking about time dilation and if it affects God. We can die to the world with Christ and live with him now and for eternity. This is Good News. Yet we talk about innerrancy, ad nausium, and confuse our general population and distract them from the Good News.

[Doug Ward]

Hi Doug, Slpooy, I'll agree. I should never post after midnight. Ill considered, not on your life. I have a right to my opinion. And my opnion is that we need less "Study of God" and more proclaimation of God's message of salvation. This is Good News, and we're talking about time dilation and if it affects God. We can die to the world with Christ and live with him now and for eternity. This is Good News. Yet we talk about innerrancy, ad nausium, and confuse our general population and distract them from the Good News.

Any expression of the good news is theology. Whether we do it well, or do it poorly will determine how effective we are.

No one denies your right to an opinion - even if it is ill-considered.

Certainly you are not suggesting that people discussing what interests them is somehow distracting to the proclamation of the gospel. I hope you are not suggesting we ignore philosophical questions, or scientific theory, as we exist in our world. There are a host of people out there, I would like to think we have good thinkers within the church that can converse with them on a range of topics - even if it is not your topic. By I do not want to go on ad naseum.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

In spite of the fact that I think this topic is more about one's philosophy of the nature of time than it is about the nature of God, I do think it matters. I've seen fine Christian people who, in great pain, wondered why God, who they believe saw into the future, allowed them to innocently follow a path to absolute disaster in their lives. I've heard other Christians try to comfort them with platitudes that "It's all for the best" and "God knows what he's doing." The pain is multiplied by the sense that God has misled them and forsaken them.

At such times I've gently tried to change their focus to the fact that the Lord walks with us even in the midst of disaster, that he promises to never forsake us, and that he is no stranger to pain and loss.

There's something powerful about changing the focus from "Why did God, who knew from the creation of the world that this would happen let it happen?" to "He is Lord of my life and he is with me whatever happens...even when life brings unexpected and unwelcome things to me."

The first fits more the "he looked ahead in time" approach and the second fits the "he's God whatever comes" approach. A person can be a Christian using either one, but I prefer the second and believe it's more helpful when the chips are down.

[Dan Henderson]

Any expression of the good news is theology. Whether we do it well, or do it poorly will determine how effective we are.

No one denies your right to an opinion - even if it is ill-considered.

Certainly you are not suggesting that people discussing what interests them is somehow distracting to the proclamation of the gospel. I hope you are not suggesting we ignore philosophical questions, or scientific theory, as we exist in our world. There are a host of people out there, I would like to think we have good thinkers within the church that can converse with them on a range of topics - even if it is not your topic. By I do not want to go on ad naseum.

No intent of insult, I am a direct communicator, so I use few words. My most frequent error is using too few words. As I posted earlier I often call on a common body of knowledge that is, well, not common. What I am trying to convey here is best described in a credo from another profession, the physician. "First, do no harm". I think the world of Academic Theology does considerable harm to the Gospel message, even when it might be correct. Consider, for example, the Greathouse/Dunning statement: "If God is our Father, the Church is our mother". I am not discussing the merits of the statement here, but its impact as it adds confusion to the masses. I wil grant you for the purposes of this post the possiblilty that this statement is sound theologically. But consider this. If the Bible chararterizes the Church as the Body of Christ, the former charateration of the Church as our mother serves to confuse. If the Bible characterizes the Church as the Bride of Christ, the former consideration of the Church as our mother serves to confuse. This is just and example, I am not able to debate the merit of the statements from an Academic Theological standpoint, only from the point of commincations.

[Doug Ward]

No intent of insult, I am a direct communicator, so I use few words. My most frequent error is using too few words. As I posted earlier I often call on a common body of knowledge that is, well, not common. What I am trying to convey here is best described in a credo from another profession, the physician. "First, do no harm". I think the world of Academic Theology does considerable harm to the Gospel message, even when it might be correct. Consider, for example, the Greathouse/Dunning statement: "If God is our Father, the Church is our mother". I am not discussing the merits of the statement here, but its impact as it adds confusion to the masses. I wil grant you for the purposes of this post the possiblilty that this statement is sound theologically. But consider this. If the Bible chararterizes the Church as the Body of Christ, the former charateration of the Church as our mother serves to confuse. If the Bible characterizes the Church as the Bride of Christ, the former consideration of the Church as our mother serves to confuse. This is just and example, I am not able to debate the merit of the statements from an Academic Theological standpoint, only from the point of commincations.

Not to press a point too far, but why is that confusing. Given that Jesus describes Himself using "mother" language in the gospels, and the direct reference to the church as "mother" in Revelation 12, it would we seem we have solid ground for such a description. When considering that I never once considered abandoning my mother due to the color of her blouse, why do we have so many people willing to abandon a church because of the color of the carpeting. Perhaps this talk os the church as mother has more benefit than we might originally think.

[Kyle Borger]

If the future is fully known is it the future or the present? I would concur that if my future is fully known, every action and every breath I take then there is no choice on my part to be made. I am simply an actor in a play.

I suggest that if God knows every action, every thought, that every person will ever make or take that we are not separate from God. This whole thing we call life would just be a dream or something happening in God's imagination.

A man who is put into sensory deprivation will go insane. I can't imagine God before creation but maybe God needs us to be complete. We know that God is love. If there was nothing else in existence except for God then He could only love himself. It seems to me that in order to complete God's existence as love that He had to create something outside of himself.

Let's imagine that you create a robot. You program it to do all sorts of amazing things and you program that robot to make choices. But because you programmed it, you know every decision that will be made in every situation that robot encounters. Is the robot really making a choice or just following a predetermined course? You aren't there telling the robot what to do, but it is following your built in instructions. How long would your interest in that robot last? Now imagine that you create a robot who following some of that initial programming is actually able to start writing its own programming and begins making choices that you could not have predicted? Would your fascination and interest in the robot increase? Would the fact that this robot can make its own choices that you did not predict make you less of a programmer or more of a programmer?

Why is that in order for God to be powerful and mighty He has to be in charge of every thought we have and know every choice we will make? Could it be that God is more powerful and mighty because He is able to live with us in relationship and work with a creation that is not always under his control? Which is the more loving creator?

I am suggesting that perhaps God is able to love us more because He doesn't know our choices. I am suggesting that perhaps we are more interesting because God doesn't know. Perhaps God could not be love if the future is known.

What about the prophesies and predictions? What about Jesus and how He answered every one of them?

How about miracles? We define a miracle as God intervening. I would be remiss if I didn't accept that at times God breaks the rules He put in motion to get us where we need to be.

So quite simply while playing by the rules with His creation there were times and events and some events into the future that God determined must happen for the welfare of His creation, but as a whole God plays by the rules He created when He created all that we know. In fact there continue to events every day where God most likely intervenes and breaks the rules to protect His children or to push us in a direction we need to take to properly serve Him.

How mighty and powerful is God that God is in every instant living in personal relationship with over 7 billion people. Many of those may be ignoring God, but that doesn't mean He is not aware of them and working in their lives. Yes, every instant God is aware of us and our thoughts, but somehow limits his knowledge of the choices we will make out of a necessity to allow us to complete Him. And in some instances God knowing what is happening across the world steps in and puts things in our paths to steer us in a different direction. Sometimes the Holy Spirit speaks to us to encourage us go a certain direction. Sometimes God causes a car to speed up or slow down to spare our life. Sometimes God touches a part of our body and heals us and other times in great pain and sorrow He doesn't.

To me a God that knows every choice that will be made is a distant God who just created things and is letting them run the way He planned it. But a God that chooses to limit his knowledge of what I will do in a given circumstance loves me so much that He is willing to get into the mix of things and has to work with me and everything He has created and interact with us on a second by second basis in order to respond and react to what we do.

The way my mind works it just makes God so much more impressive and loving.

[Dan Henderson]

The way my mind works it just makes God so much more impressive and loving.

I thin it is wonderful, that we can have so many different opinions of the nature of God, yet I am fully convinced that he loves everyone of us outright and unconditionally. That is what is impressive to me. John in his Revelations, is largy trying to describe what I believe was beyond description. Streets of gold .. I doubt they will be so cheap. In describing what he saw, he was limited to his language and by the capacity of his understanding. Someone will no doubt post that I am declaring God as unknowable. Maybe so. What I do know is that we believe in prevenient grace (the grace that goes before). That being that I cannot know that I am apart from God unless I am told by God. To extend that, we only know God to the extent that God has revealed himself. I have often stated sarcastically to people who think they know me "You only know what I choose to let you know." I know that statement is overly cocky and I don't use it anymore. I think if God were to speak directly to me, he would say somethng like, "Where were you when I formed the foundations of the Earth?" or he might say "You only know what I choose to let you know about my nature?"

[Kyle Borger]

I get that. I don't know if I am right. But as I read scripture and as I see God as He interacted with His children, what I said makes sense. What if God doesn't work this way? Will I lose my faith? No. God is God and I know He exists and as such my failure to understand is not going to change my love and devotion towards God. In fact God could do all sorts of things that I consider disagreeable and I would still love and be devoted to God because that is what I am created to do.

But in some way I think God is ok with me trying to understand just how his love for me works. God knows my heart and He knows my intentions.

In a way that is what I have been wondering. Is God giving me an insight? Is God allowing me to use my limited human knowledge and placing some of our limited human behaviors upon God in order to gain a better understanding of who God is? I certainly don't think I can fully understand God. But as I have been reading scripture I see a God interacting and changing course with His people. So it makes sense to me. I welcome dialogue that helps me challenge that thought so that I can have a better understanding.

[Dan Henderson]

Just for the record since I didn't post earlier I am not an Open Theist, I am a born again Christian, which, according to popular pseudo-science means I have a smaller hippocampus then the rest of you guys :o http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-05-25-brain24_ST_N.htm

[Doug Ward]

Just for the record since I didn't post earlier I am not an Open Theist, I am a born again Christian, which, according to popular pseudo-science means I have a smaller hippocampus then the rest of you guys :o http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-05-25-brain24_ST_N.htm

OK, but why are you camping with hippos? I have heard they are dangerous, so I hope you are with a small group.

[Dan Henderson]

OK, but why are you camping with hippos? I have heard they are dangerous, so I hope you are with a small group.

Because they are narrowminded and backwards just like me. It's more fun being narrowminded, you don't have to think as much.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

A man who is put into sensory deprivation will go insane. I can't imagine God before creation but maybe God needs us to be complete. We know that God is love. If there was nothing else in existence except for God then He could only love himself. It seems to me that in order to complete God's existence as love that He had to create something outside of himself.


I think Keith Drury agrees and disagrees with you in his book "Common Ground." He writes:


God...does not need human beings because he is lonely or bored. There was perfect and complete love and fellowship in the Trinity itself long before creation....God created out of love. Creation resulted from God's sheer fatherly kindness....God is love. God loves. God created. He chose to make you and everything else because of his love...Creation gives God more to love. Creation is a loving act of grace.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

One of my concerns about a "closed future" is that it feels to me as though God is a slave to the future. Since he already knows all that is going to happen he's left to helplessly watch history unfold. He can't intervene because he already has seen what is going to happen. He's trapped by destiny.

In the "open" approach, he's dynamic - interacting with his Creation, in absolute authority, able to intervene, responding to our prayers.

To me, it's a more powerful picture of God than that "he already knows everything" approach.

[Kyle Borger]

I think Keith Drury agrees and disagrees with you in his book "Common Ground." He writes:

I can certainly accept that. I clearly have no idea what God needs or doesn't need, but I can certainly be appreciative enough that He chose to create me to love.

[Rich Schmidt]

I think Keith Drury agrees and disagrees with you in his book "Common Ground." He writes:

Christian theologians through the ages have been clear that God didn't "need" to create humanity. Your quote is dead-on: Before creating us, God already existed as Triune, with the Father, Son, and Spirit in loving relationship.

[Dwayne Petry]

To me, it's a more powerful picture of God than the "he already knows everything" approach.

Scott, I'm just the opposite. Even though He foreknew, not predetermined, how things were going to turn out, He still desired a relationship with you and I enough to create mankind, "warts and all" (He did not create or cause the "warts", that came with giving mankind the choice to love Him or reject Him). As I see it, If GOD is omniscient, He is "OMNISCIENT". He looked fore ward and saw the choices that would be made, He saw who would believe, who would be evil, who would cry out to Him for guidance, how that person would respond to GOD's guidance, who would answer the call to full time ministry, song evangelism, teaching, etc. For example, He foreknew that Saul would be a persecutor of the Church, and He also foreknew that when brought to his knees before the Cross of Jesus Christ, he would respond as the Apostle Paul, and preach the Gospel to a lost world. GOD did not determine this outcome, He foreknew how Paul would react to the "call". He foreknew this and so much more that we cannot understand, and because of His Love, He STILL created us. I believe He is interacting with His Creation, He just has foreknowledge of all things.

To me, THAT is a more powerful picture of GOD!

This I do know. GOD so loved this poor lost sinner, that He gave His only Son, that by my believing in Him, I have forgiveness of sin and am a new creation. That the Holy Spirit working in me, allows for me to give testimony to the life changing power of our awesome GOD.

How He could Love me so, I do not know!

Scott, I enjoy the posts all of the "deep thinking" theological minds. As a layman, I do not have the theological training of many of you, but your posts cause me to research (google, read, etc.) the different views on NazNet.

THANKS!:smilies0295:

[Rich Schmidt]

I just ran across this 2010 blog post/article by Roger Olson & thought some of you might be interested: "Why open theism doesn't even matter (very much)" - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/08/why-open-theism-doesnt-even-matter-very-much/

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

This I do know. GOD so loved this poor lost sinner, that He gave His only Son, that by my believing in Him, I have forgiveness of sin and am a new creation. That the Holy Spirit working in me, allows for me to give testimony to the life changing power of our awesome GOD.

How He could Love me so, I do not know!

Scott, I enjoy the posts all of the "deep thinking" theological minds. As a layman, I do not have the theological training of many of you, but your posts cause me to research (google, read, etc.) the different views on NazNet.

THANKS!

Thank you for such an uplifting post! I also enjoy "thinking" exchanges like this. I learn new things and have fun trying to express my own thoughts better.

I know that some beliefs are precious to us and need our defense. I also know that many are more personal preference than "right" or "wrong." This Open Theism business is one of the latter. So long as both sides agree that God is God, no matter what the nature of time, we can enjoy thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of both sides of the discussion. It bothers me when I see some who act as though unless everyone agrees with them about stuff like this that they're bad people.

I'm so glad that one doesn't need to pass a theology exam to get into heaven.

[Hans Deventer]

Scott, I'm just the opposite.

Dwayne, I guess experiences differ. I vividly remember the first time I read "The God Who Risks" by John Sanders. At one point I literally got tears in my eyes. It was so amazing, so overwhelming to realise that the God who created the universe, who is so beyond anything I can comprehend, actually listens to his people and, would you believe it, even changes His mind at times, out of compassion for His creation.

I can never read 2 Kings 20 the same anymore. This was no God who was merely playing with his prophet and this king of Judah to show his sovereign will. This was for real.



In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, ‘Thus says the Lord: Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover.’ Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord: ‘Remember now, O Lord, I implore you, how I have walked before you in faithfulness with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight.’ Hezekiah wept bitterly. Before Isaiah had gone out of the middle court, the word of the Lord came to him: ‘Turn back, and say to Hezekiah prince of my people, Thus says the Lord, the God of your ancestor David: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; indeed, I will heal you; on the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. I will add fifteen years to your life. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; I will defend this city for my own sake and for my servant David’s sake.’

This is my God, and I stand in awe for His majesty.

Now, I'm not asking you to believe as I do. I am asking to accept that one can believe this way, deeply respect God and in fact, think of Him more highly now.

[Hans Deventer]

I just ran across this 2010 blog post/article by Roger Olson & thought some of you might be interested: "Why open theism doesn't even matter (very much)" - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/08/why-open-theism-doesnt-even-matter-very-much/

Thanks, Rich. I agree that it matters little for being evangelical. In a more private way, I think it does matter. At least, it does to me. It both brought God closer to me and gave me more respect for Him. I love Him more, and I would consider that to be a good thing, and not entirely irrelevant.

[Larry Parsons]

One does not have to be a "fundie" to believe so. I actually also believe God knows everything there is to know.
Couldn't God choose not to know everything?
Thanks
Larry

[Dan Henderson]

Couldn't God choose not to know everything?
Thanks
Larry

All of these Open Theology questions reminds me of the grade school question (because I was first asked the question in grade school by a peer) Can God make an immoveable object, and if so, can He move it? To which me, the 5th grade PK responded, almost immediately, Why does that matter?

[Larry Parsons]

Some of you have been talking about Time. there are people who believe that God doesn’t keep time as we do. They say that God is above time. A day is like thousand years and thousand years is like day to God if that is true then God can’t tell time as we do. But if God want communicate with with us then has the same calendar. Right? If God doesn't keep time as we do then the statement “at Hand” doesn’t mean a thing. This post my not fit here but as read through this thread about time I thought of this idea.
Thanks
Larry

[Larry Parsons]

All of these Open Theology questions reminds me of the grade school question (because I was first asked the question in grade school by a peer) Can God make an immoveable object, and if so, can He move it? To which me, the 5th grade PK responded, almost immediately, Why does that matter?
I don't think God real care what I will be eating to tomorow for lunch or how many time I will use the bathroom. Detail like these I believe God choose not to know them. I do believe that God has a certain goal that he has his eye on and one day it will be accomplish.
Thanks
Larry

[Steven Martinez]

My biggest problem with process theology and open theology is the need to start with theodicy (the existence of evil/suffering). My main problem with this approach is that it starts with the middle of the story with little consideration with the beginning and end of the story. God created a good creation and God will recreate a good creation. God wins, love wins and those with God wins. At the same time process has given us the concept of the God who suffers with us which, as Hans has said, has greatly drawn me closer to God. I guess I am more fascinated with how much of the future God reveals to God's people rather than how much of the future God knows. Because at the end of the day, I will only know what God knows by how much God reveals to me. So if God does not know something, I have no way of knowing it anyway.

As far as theologians, I think every church would benefit having a resident theologian. A wise preacher should never fear theology nor should a wise Christian. I am reminded that Paul went away for a period of time to learn about the faith before he journeyed around the world. At the same time, a solid preacher should never do his/her homework from the pulpit nor should they declare that "good preaching" as a cure all for inept study. Benny Hinn and the TBN preachers can draw in crowds with their personal charisma and speaking styles but I think we can all agree that what they preach is something completely different than the Gospel of Christ. I believe that if preaching by itself was more important than a correct discourse on God than God would have had Paul write more sermons and less theology in his letters. How many actual sermons do we have recorded in the Bible?

[Dan Henderson]

3 words -- Uncle Buddy Robinson

[Dan Henderson]

Doug, I just realized that we agree on a statement: "good theologians are few and far between." I just want to point out the plethora of persons we have purporting to be phelologians, uh, I mean, Theologians.

[Gina Stevenson]

I can certainly accept that. I clearly have no idea what God needs or doesn't need, but I can certainly be appreciative enough that He chose to create me to love.

Have to get some more lyrics up somewhere, as we have some related to this {God "needing" tho' only by His choice}, Kyle.


3 words -- Uncle Buddy Robinson

3 more -- Grandma's 33-1/3RPM LP ;)

{have yet to hear it tho' have had it for years}

[Steven Martinez]

3 words -- Uncle Buddy Robinson

Uncle Buddy did go to college for 4 years and while he was not known as an intellectual that does not mean that he was not a theologian. Often the greatest theologians in the church are never seen working on their gift. It is often the gift that goes unnoticed, is highly criticized and yet the vast majority of our greatest preachers are indebted to their work while they do their weekly sermon preps.

[Steven Burton]

My biggest problem with process theology and open theology is the need to start with theodicy (the existence of evil/suffering). My main problem with this approach is that it starts with the middle of the story with little consideration with the beginning and end of the story. God created a good creation and God will recreate a good creation. God wins, love wins and those with God wins. At the same time process has given us the concept of the God who suffers with us which, as Hans has said, has greatly drawn me closer to God. I guess I am more fascinated with how much of the future God reveals to God's people rather than how much of the future God knows. Because at the end of the day, I will only know what God knows by how much God reveals to me. So if God does not know something, I have no way of knowing it anyway.

As far as theologians, I think every church would benefit having a resident theologian. A wise preacher should never fear theology nor should a wise Christian. I am reminded that Paul went away for a period of time to learn about the faith before he journeyed around the world. At the same time, a solid preacher should never do his/her homework from the pulpit nor should they declare that "good preaching" as a cure all for inept study. Benny Hinn and the TBN preachers can draw in crowds with their personal charisma and speaking styles but I think we can all agree that what they preach is something completely different than the Gospel of Christ. I believe that if preaching by itself was more important than a correct discourse on God than God would have had Paul write more sermons and less theology in his letters. How many actual sermons do we have recorded in the Bible?

Sometimes I wonder if this is the case because it seems to come up so often. I know when I have had discussion on God with nonbelievers this seems to be one of the strongest things they argue. They seem to have an issue with a loving God and allowing evil.

[Kevin Rector]

The problem I have with theology in general is that theology in and of itself is an academic disclipline, not a divine revelation. I personally think that we have way more theologist than we need and not near enough preachers, prophets, and teachers.

[splitting hair]The word is "theologian" not "theologist"[/splitting hair] :)


I didn't personally come to know Jesus through theology, open or otherwise. I came to Christ through the witness and life of Christian parents and came to my decision point through a compelling sermon that convinced me I needed to make a choice and I needed to make it now. I chose, I am choosing, and will continue to choose daily to die to the world and live to Christ.

I dunno, just sayin...

Theology is logos (words) about theos (God). So when you speak of God you're doing theology and are therefore a theologian (whether you are a good theologian is another question entirely). That compelling sermon that led you to knowing of your need to make a choice was words about God, it was theology. Without theology, you wouldn't be a Christian today.

Just sayin...

[Dan Henderson]

Been playing with word usage Stew - Teacher vs Educator, Preacher Vs Theologian - I'll take Teacher and Preacher. Uncle Buddy was a preacher, but don't take my word for it, ask him yourself :smilies1722:

[Steven Martinez]

Been playing with word usage Stew - Teacher vs Educator, Preacher Vs Theologian - I'll take Teacher and Preacher. Uncle Buddy was a preacher, but don't take my word for it, ask him yourself :smilies1722:

I would but then I would be in serious problem with divining from spirits and then I would have to kick myself out of the Church. :smilies1390:

[Dan Henderson]

I would but then I would be in serious problem with divining from spirits and then I would have to kick myself out of the Church. :smilies1390:

There you go ... :smilies1722:

[Dan Henderson]

Inerrant vs infallable vs imutable

Interesting, I decided to check these words to ensure that they mean what I think they mean. They do, however I found one dictionary, reliability unknown, World English Dictionary that defines Inerrant as: less common word for infallable. Just sharing here. I think I will check the etymology to see if the meanings have changed significantly over time. My guess before I check, is probably not.

[Dan Henderson]

Immutable = Unchanging as in Heb 6:17 (Unchanging in most translations, immutable in KJV, ASV, and a couple of others)
Infallible = not liable to error as in the Pope, seems to be for what the word was intended
Inerrant = not wandering as in reference to fixed stars vs wandering planets

[Hans Deventer]

Couldn't God choose not to know everything?
Thanks
Larry

Yes. In fact, He does at least regarding our sins: "Isaiah 43:25 - “I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more."

[Hans Deventer]

My biggest problem with process theology and open theology is the need to start with theodicy (the existence of evil/suffering)

I feel a little stupid here, but that was never how I got there. I remember discussing foreknowledge with Dennis B, ages ago, and him talking about our freedom of choice, which would be gone if God knew at forehand what choice I would make. The reasoning was that if God knows something to happen, it therefore must happen and hence, I am no longer free to make a choice. That reasoning never convinced me.

What did convince me was what John Sanders wrote. He said that all knowledge of God we have, comes from what He has revealed to us. We have no "higher" knowledge. All our philosophies that say what God can or cannot do, have to be considered in the light of His revelations, and not the other way around. Point in case, people say that God changing his mind is an anthropomorphism. But we actually have no ground from which we can judge God's revelation. If it says He changed His mind, then He did.

So I got to the point that Open Theism started to make sense to me, because of my high view of the Scriptures. BTW, Mike Lodahl wrote a very interesting book on how both the later Jewish traditions AND the Quran reject exactly these points ("Claiming Abraham: Reading the Bible and the Qur'an Side by Side").

Open Theism doesn't solve the problem of theodicy for me. I still ask "How long, LORD, will the wicked, how long will the wicked be jubilant?" (Psalm 94:3). And I don't have an answer. But it does bring me closer to the heart of God, and takes more seriously the Scriptures, without having them create an image of God as mankind would like it (see Greek philosophy, Jewish traditions and Islam, for instance).

Of course process theology goes further down this road, too far, in my view, and if you go there, it does solve the problem of theodicy. But the price is high: there is no more hope in God, just in man. And that, as far as I can tell, does not align with the Scriptures.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

3 words -- Uncle Buddy Robinson

He inspires me...and I'd love to see him inspire all those who think God has called them to attack fellow believers. Uncle Buddy's famous prayer is one that needs to be prayed for us all today:

“My prayer is now that the Lord will turn a hogshead of honey over in your soul and just let it ooze out between your ribs until you will be so sweet that every bumblebee and honeybee in the settlement will be abuzzing around your doorstep.”

Lord, let us be known for our sweetness - our love for you, for one another, and for our lost world.

[Dennis M. Scott]

“My prayer is now that the Lord will turn a hogshead of honey over in your soul and just let it ooze out between your ribs until you will be so sweet that every bumblebee and honeybee in the settlement will be abuzzing around your doorstep.”

Lord, let us be known for our sweetness - our love for you, for one another, and for our lost world.

Pretty good theology.

[Kyle Borger]

Inerrant vs infallable vs imutable

Interesting, I decided to check these words to ensure that they mean what I think they mean. They do, however I found one dictionary, reliability unknown, World English Dictionary that defines Inerrant as: less common word for infallable. Just sharing here. I think I will check the etymology to see if the meanings have changed significantly over time. My guess before I check, is probably not.

I am struggling to figure out how this appliess to the discussion at hand. Just a reminder that this specific forum is meant to allow one to throw out ideas and have dialogue without getting tied to a stake. I know that i am not firm in all of the statements I have made. Some i simply want to know what others think. The suggested links are great information, but please share what you got from that resource.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am interested in learning about this topic and why it is a problem. What are some positives; what are some negatives. Please avoid providing quick answers that show that you simply think it is wrong. What is it to you and why can't it be right. Also keep in mind that this forum is not a statement of faith but is rather a process of discovery.

[Rich Schmidt]

I feel a little stupid here, but that was never how I got there. I remember discussing foreknowledge with Dennis B, ages ago, and him talking about our freedom of choice, which would be gone if God knew at forehand what choice I would make. The reasoning was that if God knows something to happen, it therefore must happen and hence, I am no longer free to make a choice. That reasoning never convinced me.

What did convince me was what John Sanders wrote. He said that all knowledge of God we have, comes from what He has revealed to us. We have no "higher" knowledge. All our philosophies that say what God can or cannot do, have to be considered in the light of His revelations, and not the other way around. Point in case, people say that God changing his mind is an anthropomorphism. But we actually have no ground from which we can judge God's revelation. If it says He changed His mind, then He did.

So I got to the point that Open Theism started to make sense to me, because of my high view of the Scriptures. BTW, Mike Lodahl wrote a very interesting book on how both the later Jewish traditions AND the Quran reject exactly these points ("Claiming Abraham: Reading the Bible and the Qur'an Side by Side").

Open Theism doesn't solve the problem of theodicy for me. I still ask "How long, LORD, will the wicked, how long will the wicked be jubilant?" (Psalm 94:3). And I don't have an answer. But it does bring me closer to the heart of God, and takes more seriously the Scriptures, without having them create an image of God as mankind would like it (see Greek philosophy, Jewish traditions and Islam, for instance).

Of course process theology goes further down this road, too far, in my view, and if you go there, it does solve the problem of theodicy. But the price is high: there is no more hope in God, just in man. And that, as far as I can tell, does not align with the Scriptures.

I was going to write something similar, but you beat me to it... and said it better than I would have.

1. My first encounters with the Openness view of God and what led me to like that perspective had nothing to do with theodicy. It was the fact that the Open view seems to put Scripture above philosophy, instead of the other way around.

2. Process seems to put philosophy first and then try to make the theology & Scripture fit... and in my opinion, it doesn't manage to do so. But this is mainly based on the various process views of the trinity that I read about 15-20 years ago in seminary.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Part of the challenge is that once a person has identified with a side of the issue, one tends to attribute to the other side things that side doesn't even maintain. In this case, those opposed to open theism frequently say that open theists maintain that God is sometimes surprised, and caught off guard. I don't know any open theists that maintain either of those. Many who are sympathetic to open theism don't go a whole lot farther than to observe that God apparently sometimes changes his mind, and that He is influenced by prayer.

While I personally am sympathetic to open theism, I wouldn't describe myself as a card carrying member, with "Open Theism" tattooed to my forehead. I also would also identify as a Wesleyan, but that doesn't mean I buy into every thought John Wesley ever had. I tend to be Arminian, but happen to think that Calvinists have some points, too. Must I check my spiritual brain at the door when I identify with a particular theological understanding? :praying:

[Jon Bemis]

I just ran across this 2010 blog post/article by Roger Olson & thought some of you might be interested: "Why open theism doesn't even matter (very much)" - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/08/why-open-theism-doesnt-even-matter-very-much/

I think Olson is on to something. IMO this part is pertinent regardless the topic:



Years ago one of my favorite evangelical authors, Joe Bayly, published a column in Eternity magazine entitled “Why the absolute absolutists always win.” He pointed out way back in the 1970s that in too many controversies among evangelicals (the case he had in mind was over women’s roles in church, home and society) loud mouthed extremists tend to win by creating fear of controversy. They move among the untutored lay people (and unfortunately too many untutored pastors!) and create fear that some view with which they disagree MIGHT be heretical and, as we all know from youth group talk illustrations, it is ALWAYS best to err on the side of safety.

[Dan Henderson]

I am struggling to figure out how this appliess to the discussion at hand. Just a reminder that this specific forum is meant to allow one to throw out ideas and have dialogue without getting tied to a stake. I know that i am not firm in all of the statements I have made. Some i simply want to know what others think. The suggested links are great information, but please share what you got from that resource.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am interested in learning about this topic and why it is a problem. What are some positives; what are some negatives. Please avoid providing quick answers that show that you simply think it is wrong. What is it to you and why can't it be right. Also keep in mind that this forum is not a statement of faith but is rather a process of discovery.

Those definitions are core to the discussions. How you view those concepts are part of the filters you use to determine the viability of Open Theology or virtually any other religious conversation on this site. And calling me out for being off-tipic on a thread, really? Look around.

[Charles W Christian]

If we are Wesleyans at all, then it seems that there must be at least a degree of "openness" in our theology in regard to God. Whether or not God already "knows the future", which is an in-house debate among Arminian/Wesleyan types, it seems that if you are not a strict Calvinist, you read the Bible as saying that God leaves room for actual decisions: accept or reject, etc. Therefore, there is a sense of openness in regard to God and God's approach to humanity.

So, sometimes these debates are not as clear cut as they seem. It is hard to say that someone is "Open" and someone is "not" in the Wesleyan tradition. Really, the question seems to be in regard to degrees of openness (as Scott explains rather well in an early post above).

Charles

[Steven Martinez]

I was going to write something similar, but you beat me to it... and said it better than I would have.

1. My first encounters with the Openness view of God and what led me to like that perspective had nothing to do with theodicy. It was the fact that the Open view seems to put Scripture above philosophy, instead of the other way around.

2. Process seems to put philosophy first and then try to make the theology & Scripture fit... and in my opinion, it doesn't manage to do so. But this is mainly based on the various process views of the trinity that I read about 15-20 years ago in seminary.

Rich and Hans,
I am sorry if I did not clarify my statement. I was implying that the history of the movements, especially process, seem to begin with the issue of theodicy. I did not mean to imply that anyone who finds themselves getting there begins the same way. I strongly deny the validity of process as an orthodox theology for myself but open theology seems to be an ever shifting movement looking for a God who is constantly revealing Godself to us. I might perhaps be a closet open theologian as I would say that I agree with the two of you in theology as much as anyone on NazNet.
I am sorry if my post seemed to degrade your spiritual journey, for that I would like to apologize.

[Kyle Borger]

Those definitions are core to the discussions. How you view those concepts are part of the filters you use to determine the viability of Open Theology or virtually any other religious conversation on this site. And calling me out for being off-tipic on a thread, really? Look around.

Then please share how those definitions impact the discussion. Your post was

Inerrant vs infallable vs imutable

Interesting, I decided to check these words to ensure that they mean what I think they mean. They do, however I found one dictionary, reliability unknown, World English Dictionary that defines Inerrant as: less common word for infallable. Just sharing here. I think I will check the etymology to see if the meanings have changed significantly over time. My guess before I check, is probably not.

I'm just not making the connection and need your help showing me how they fit the discussion. I can make assumptions regarding what you might be trying to say, but I would rather not.

[Benjamin Burch]

I was going to write something similar, but you beat me to it... and said it better than I would have.

1. My first encounters with the Openness view of God and what led me to like that perspective had nothing to do with theodicy. It was the fact that the Open view seems to put Scripture above philosophy, instead of the other way around.

2. Process seems to put philosophy first and then try to make the theology & Scripture fit... and in my opinion, it doesn't manage to do so. But this is mainly based on the various process views of the trinity that I read about 15-20 years ago in seminary.

I hope to, soon, read Joseph Bracken's most recent contribution to the discussion - God: Three Who Are One (http://www.amazon.com/God-Engaging-Theology-Catholic-Perspectives/dp/081465990X)

[Doug Ward]

Kyle, the problem with Open Theism is not that it is not traditional - the problem is that it is not Calvinistic. Most of the heat and fire from this discussion comes from within Calvinistic circles - just ask Rob Bell. I would hope and expect that most Nazarene pastors would have the same thought that you expressed - hey, I have been teaching this my whole ministerial life - Amen.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Kyle, the problem with Open Theism is not that it is not traditional - the problem is that it is not Calvinistic. Most of the heat and fire from this discussion comes from within Calvinistic circles - just ask Rob Bell. I would hope and expect that most Nazarene pastors would have the same thought that you expressed - hey, I have been teaching this my whole ministerial life - Amen.

At least in our doctrinal neck of the woods I think the problem is that people think it's about the nature of God when it's actually about the nature of time. I know that, from my point of view, if someone showed up at church on Wednesday night and told me that they thought God couldn't know some things I'd set out to correct them. However, if they showed up and told me that they don't think the future exists yet I'd nod my head and wonder why they think anyone thinks otherwise.

[Doug Ward]

At least in our doctrinal neck of the woods I think the problem is that people think it's about the nature of God when it's actually about the nature of time. I know that, from my point of view, if someone showed up at church on Wednesday night and told me that they thought God couldn't know some things I'd set out to correct them. However, if they showed up and told me that they don't think the future exists yet I'd nod my head and wonder why they think anyone thinks otherwise.

Scott, I think the nature of time is extremely important when we talk about the experience of death. Of course, in pop-theology, Aunt Margaret is looking down on us right now from heaven. We all smile at the funeral, but we have just fallen prey to a variety of problems from a Scriptural perspective. Simply put, how do we reconcile "to be absent the body is to be present with the Lord" with "then the dead in Christ will rise?"

While I wholeheartedly reject the idea that my Spirit will float away when I die, since we embrace a bodily resurrection, I also want to leave room for an immediate experience of eternity. I think our experience of time is the answer to this tension.

[Kyle Borger]

At least in our doctrinal neck of the woods I think the problem is that people think it's about the nature of God when it's actually about the nature of time. I know that, from my point of view, if someone showed up at church on Wednesday night and told me that they thought God couldn't know some things I'd set out to correct them. However, if they showed up and told me that they don't think the future exists yet I'd nod my head and wonder why they think anyone thinks otherwise.

That helps. I don't ever wish to imply that God is unable to do something or know something. But as I contemplate, read, & pray I just continues to make sense that God is active with me in a personal relationship right now. That within the context of that relationship God impresses upon me and I impress upon God. Somehow, someway, the Master of the Universe, the Almighty Creator, is different because I exist and is different because of all 7 billion of us and all of the billions of people before us. I see God moving and changing course with His children. I see a God who has reacted in anger. Why would He be angry if we were just some experiment he started and He has no relational attachment to us? I see a God who is pleased with us. How is that God experiences different things based on what we do if we do not impact God?

Why are so many people determined to see a rigid God that just made some rules that we have to follow? Why aren't more people willing to give up everything they have just for the smallest of opportunities to serve a God who loves us so much that He was willing to become one of us and suffer more than we have ever suffered?

[Craig Laughlin]

Kyle, the problem with Open Theism is not that it is not traditional - the problem is that it is not Calvinistic. Most of the heat and fire from this discussion comes from within Calvinistic circles - just ask Rob Bell. I would hope and expect that most Nazarene pastors would have the same thought that you expressed - hey, I have been teaching this my whole ministerial life - Amen.

I think this needs to be said a lot more. Awhile back I contacted Dr. Oord and asked for some direction in understanding the debate. He pointed me to a video that was very very good. I walked away saying "That is just updated and more thoroughly thought out Arminianism. What is the big deal?" - In fact I remember discussing a much more simplified version of this with Dr. AE Sanner in Sr. Theology at NNC. - The thought of someone accusing Dr. Sanner of being emergent... now that is funny.

I don't have a dog in this fight because I think scripture in light of Einstein teaches that God exist both inside and outside of time at the same time. (Sorry can't get away from time words) I also believe that I/we have no idea what that means. (yet - sorry more time words) It is all pure speculation to my mind. - Open Theism, given what we have to work with, seems to be the most logical of that speculation but like I said, I don't have a dog in the fight.

[Kevin Jackson]

I don't hold to open theism, but do agree with it's goals. It's an honest attempt to explain the problem of evil, to affirm the goodness of God, and to deal with the nature of time.

What troubles me about the open view is that by holding foreknowledge and free will as incompatible, it results in God being coercive when it comes to prophesy and other settled matters. On those issues open theism actually sounds Calvinistic. Take Judas' betrayal and Peter's denial for example. Jesus stated that Judas would betray him, and that Peter would deny him three times. Does that mean that Jesus coercively caused what Judas and Peter did? I hope not! But I don't see a way around this with the open view. But if Jesus simply had knowledge of the future, and Judas and Peter still made their own choices, then they are responsible for what they did.

I think that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future AND we still make free choices. God passively knowing the future makes it certain, but it doesn't make it caused by him. Just like God knows what I did yesterday, but I still made the choices, I think God knows what I will do tomorrow, but I still make the choices. Foreknowledge in and of itself is passive. It's possible for us to have certain knowledge of future events without having caused them. If that's the case with us, it can be with God too.

So the question to be asked is, does God's foreknowledge necessarily take away our free will? If it doesn't then the traditional view of God's foreknowledge is adequate. If it does, then open theism falls short on the theodicy issue whenever the future is settled.

[Charles W Christian]

I don't hold to open theism, but do agree with it's goals. It's an honest attempt to explain the problem of evil, to affirm the goodness of God, and to deal with the nature of time.

What troubles me about the open view is that by holding foreknowledge and free will as incompatible, it results in God being coercive when it comes to prophesy and other settled matters. On those issues open theism actually sounds Calvinistic. Take Judas' betrayal and Peter's denial for example. Jesus stated that Judas would betray him, and that Peter would deny him three times. Does that mean that Jesus coercively caused what Judas and Peter did? I hope not! But I don't see a way around this with the open view. But if Jesus simply had knowledge of the future, and Judas and Peter still made their own choices, then they are responsible for what they did.

I think that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future AND we still make free choices. God passively knowing the future makes it certain, but it doesn't make it caused by him. Just like God knows what I did yesterday, but I still made the choices, I think God knows what I will do tomorrow, but I still make the choices. Foreknowledge in and of itself is passive. It's possible for us to have certain knowledge of future events without having caused them. If that's the case with us, it can be with God too.

So the question to be asked is, does God's foreknowledge necessarily take away our free will? If it doesn't then the traditional view of God's foreknowledge is adequate. If it does, then open theism falls short on the theodicy issue whenever the future is settled.

Well, not quite, but I see your points here.

First, if you believe that God knows the future but does not cause it, then you are certainly within the camp of many Arminian/Wesleyans. However, you are expressing a degree of openness, too. You are saying that God gives us freedom, yet knows what we are going to choose. You are thus arguing that God does not cause the future, but the way God and time are related makes it possible for God to know something before our way of knowing, yet without causing it. In the view you express (which I have just described, I think, based upon what you said), there is a degree of Open Theism involved. The future is indeed "open" to some degree even in your view, but God knows it.

Many Open Theists see the future as open with God knowing every possibility or contingency that will happen. Either way, in BOTH of these views, God is not caught off guard in some way. In your view, God is not off guard because due to His special relationship to time, He knows what will happen exactly. In the other view, God is not caught off guard because in His infinite wisdom He is completely prepared for every possibility (even though He doesn't know the exact possibility that will occur, since He has granted freedom).

So, both are open views (even yours).

Thanks,
Charles

[Paul DeBaufer]

I don't hold to open theism, but do agree with it's goals. It's an honest attempt to explain the problem of evil, to affirm the goodness of God, and to deal with the nature of time.

What troubles me about the open view is that by holding foreknowledge and free will as incompatible, it results in God being coercive when it comes to prophesy and other settled matters. On those issues open theism actually sounds Calvinistic. Take Judas' betrayal and Peter's denial for example. Jesus stated that Judas would betray him, and that Peter would deny him three times. Does that mean that Jesus coercively caused what Judas and Peter did? I hope not! But I don't see a way around this with the open view. But if Jesus simply had knowledge of the future, and Judas and Peter still made their own choices, then they are responsible for what they did.

I think that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future AND we still make free choices. God passively knowing the future makes it certain, but it doesn't make it caused by him. Just like God knows what I did yesterday, but I still made the choices, I think God knows what I will do tomorrow, but I still make the choices. Foreknowledge in and of itself is passive. It's possible for us to have certain knowledge of future events without having caused them. If that's the case with us, it can be with God too.

So the question to be asked is, does God's foreknowledge necessarily take away our free will? If it doesn't then the traditional view of God's foreknowledge is adequate. If it does, then open theism falls short on the theodicy issue whenever the future is settled.

How about Jesus knew his disciples. In a discussion earlier in the thread Dan Henderson and I were talking about being observant and getting to know people and that we both beat the odds at predicting what certain people would do in a given situation. It isn't foreknowledge. So no, Jesus doesn't cause the act, yet he makes a rather well informed prediction. Although with Peter, maybe he planted a seed in his subconscious. I have a friend facing some criminal charges, I said this this and that are going to happen. This and that happened exactly as I said they would. Not foreknowledge, knowledge and experience with the same system and knowing my friend and his reaction to that system. If I can do it, certainly Jesus, who knows hearts, can.

[Paul DeBaufer]

So the question to be asked is, does God's foreknowledge necessarily take away our free will? If it doesn't then the traditional view of God's foreknowledge is adequate. If it does, then open theism falls short on the theodicy issue whenever the future is settled.

If it is known absolutely what I am going to do at a certain junction, then that decision has been made in advance. If I did not know that I was fated to do X at that junction and it is set in stone, then I have not made a choice, did not exercise my will, because I had no choice.

I really do not understand how you came to your conclusion concerning theodicy if God does not have foreknowledge and the future becomes the present. Would you please explain, show how you reach this conclusion?

[Dan Henderson]

How about Jesus knew his disciples. In a discussion earlier in the thread Dan Henderson and I were talking about being observant and getting to know people and that we both beat the odds at predicting what certain people would do in a given situation. It isn't foreknowledge. So no, Jesus doesn't cause the act, yet he makes a rather well informed prediction. Although with Peter, maybe he planted a seed in his subconscious. I have a friend facing some criminal charges, I said this this and that are going to happen. This and that happened exactly as I said they would. Not foreknowledge, knowledge and experience with the same system and knowing my friend and his reaction to that system. If I can do it, certainly Jesus, who knows hearts, can.

So, Paul, you certainly did not misquote or mis-represent me here. I want to commend you for accurately portrayiing our discussion. Even still, I think God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have the leg-up on me because they do have foreknowledge. I would like to move the conversation this way, What does the Bible say about it. I will admit up-front that I will use a version of the Wesleyan Quad: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. From my argument base, these are not co-equals in the quad. They are ranked in the order I listed them. So if Scripture speaks on the topic, the question is settled, if the topic is not clear, then how have those who have gone before dealt with the issue, then the Rule of Reason, and lastly my own experience. Now this is not the only way I use the quad. I might alternatively accpet Tradition, Reason, and Experience as Pillars with Scrpture as their over arching roof and base. I might even use this tool in other constructs, but in all my constructs, Scripture will have pre-eminence and all others must be in agreement with Scripture to have validity.

[Paul DeBaufer]

So, Paul, you certainly did not misquote or mis-represent me here. I want to commend you for accurately portrayiing our discussion. Even still, I think God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have the leg-up on me because they do have foreknowledge. I would like to move the conversation this way, What does the Bible say about it. I will admit up-front that I will use a version of the Wesleyan Quad: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. From my argument base, these are not co-equals in the quad. They are ranked in the order I listed them. So if Scripture speaks on the topic, the question is settled, if the topic is not clear, then how have those who have gone before dealt with the issue, then the Rule of Reason, and lastly my own experience. Now this is not the only way I use the quad. I might alternatively accpet Tradition, Reason, and Experience as Pillars with Scrpture as their over arching roof and base. I might even use this tool in other constructs, but in all my constructs, Scripture will have pre-eminence and all others must be in agreement with Scripture to have validity.

Why thank you Dan, I tried to get our little exchange right, would not want to misrepresent you, your words or your thoughts and beliefs, if I ever do it is unintentional. And I just may because sometimes I unintentionally misrepresent my own, or have had new information come in and changed my opinion since last stated.

I know that we are in the vast minority, but I kind of sympathize with a growing number of people who see Scripture as arising within tradition and not wholly separate from it. But this distinction is difficult to pin down. The creeds, e.g., Apostles, Nicene, etc., arise out of tradition but are not equal to the scriptures. So we are not far apart.

That said can you think of any scriptures that speak to God having exhaustive foreknowledge? I think of the three omni statements the only one that might be biblically addressed (directly) is omnipresent (Proverbs 15:3 "The eyes of God are everywhere," and 2 Chronicles 16:9 "the eyes of the Lord range throughout the entire earth," come to mind.)

[Dan Henderson]

Why thank you Dan, I tried to get our little exchange right, would not want to misrepresent you, your words or your thoughts and beliefs, if I ever do it is unintentional. And I just may because sometimes I unintentionally misrepresent my own, or have had new information come in and changed my opinion since last stated.

I know that we are in the vast minority, but I kind of sympathize with a growing number of people who see Scripture as arising within tradition and not wholly separate from it. But this distinction is difficult to pin down. The creeds, e.g., Apostles, Nicene, etc., arise out of tradition but are not equal to the scriptures. So we are not far apart.

That said can you think of any scriptures that speak to God having exhaustive foreknowledge? I think of the three omni statements the only one that might be biblically addressed (directly) is omnipresent (Proverbs 15:3 "The eyes of God are everywhere," and 2 Chronicles 16:9 "the eyes of the Lord range throughout the entire earth," come to mind.)


God's Response to Job comes to mind right off the bat. Job 37 ??

[Dan Henderson]

Oh and Heb 4:13 (why did I forget that one, our TBQ material this year)

[Dan Henderson]

I will get called out for being off topic again (but why should I be different from anyone else) but our Wed night Bible study, led by a Lutheran trained scholar, former Lutheran Pastor before he became Nazarene, is Covering Ephesians. Our teacher takes exception to the translation of the phrase in Eph 1:5, "adoption to sonship" He stated that this has been so ingrained since the Council of Nicea that it is difficult to shake. His premis is that this is more actuatly phrased "made a son" or literally birthed by God. The Jesus as "Son of God" describes his full humanity, not his Divinity (which he is also fully Divine). He gave John 1:12b as the more accurate comment "right to become children of God." I thought this was interesting, the concept of being adopted as Children of God, being inferior as a translation to "birthed as Children of God."

[Paul DeBaufer]

God's Response to Job comes to mind right off the bat. Job 37 ??

Read from 37-41 or 2 and saw nothing concerning omniscience.

I believe that God knows all things knowable. I also believe that God can do all things doable. Not everything we can conceive of doing is actually doable. "Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?" No. Or Yes. Or it's a stupid nonsensical question, an undoable conception.

Read the Hebrews passage, all that exists stands before God, nothing that exists is hidden from Him. The future, while existing as an idea, does not exist, IMHO.

[Dan Henderson]

Read from 37-41 or 2 and saw nothing concerning omniscience.

I believe that God knows all things knowable. I also believe that God can do all things doable. Not everything we can conceive of doing is actually doable. "Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?" No. Or Yes. Or it's a stupid nonsensical question, an undoable conception.

Read the Hebrews passage, all that exists stands before God, nothing that exists is hidden from Him. The future, while existing as an idea, does not exist, IMHO.

14 “Listen to this, Job;
stop and consider God’s wonders.
15 Do you know how God controls the clouds
and makes his lightning flash?
16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge?

23 The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power;
in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress.

I cannot debate your comment on the Heb portion because it it an opinion. Everybody has one. If you hold "ownership" of any opinion, then no debate is possible on that opinion

[Hans Deventer]

14 “Listen to this, Job;
stop and consider God’s wonders.
15 Do you know how God controls the clouds
and makes his lightning flash?
16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge?

23 The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power;
in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress.

Yes. That is we should always realise that our little theologies are exactly that: human words about One we cannnot fully comprehend. That's why to me, open theism is a theory. It is helpful to the extent that it explains some parts of Scripture and helps to align my thinking with the way God has revealed Himself. But I should always remember that it is a mere human description of God, we should not think it is anything more than that. And we do know at least one day it will be replaced by better knowledge, when we see Him face to face.

[Paul DeBaufer]

14 “Listen to this, Job;
stop and consider God’s wonders.
15 Do you know how God controls the clouds
and makes his lightning flash?
16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge?

23 The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power;
in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress.

I cannot debate your comment on the Heb portion because it it an opinion. Everybody has one. If you hold "ownership" of any opinion, then no debate is possible on that opinion

Yes, we all have opinions. Aren't our interpretations, doctrines, theologies all opinions? Maybe well researched, well studied and considered opinions, but opinions none the less. This isn't mathematics where we can add 2 + 2 and get 4 as a fact.

[Dan Henderson]

Yes, we all have opinions. Aren't our interpretations, doctrines, theologies all opinions? Maybe well researched, well studied and considered opinions, but opinions none the less. This isn't mathematics where we can add 2 + 2 and get 4 as a fact.

My point is that if you hold your opinion as personal, it becomes for you a Truth or a Principal. Once it is so engrained, it will not be changed by debate. My suggestion is to put our opinions on the table (don't "own" them or make them a part of your persona) and let them duke it out. The person is never under attack, the persons opinion is fair game. Any opinion that can be shredded, probably should be shredded.

[Paul DeBaufer]

My point is that if you hold your opinion as personal, it becomes for you a Truth or a Principal. Once it is so engrained, it will not be changed by debate. My suggestion is to put our opinions on the table (don't "own" them or make them a part of your persona) and let them duke it out. The person is never under attack, the persons opinion is fair game. Any opinion that can be shredded, probably should be shredded.

Yeah, my opinions reflect my current understanding. You are right ad hominems are never appropriate. I was a neo-atheist, scientist for a long, long time, yet changed religions: from neo-atheism (which is very neo-fundamentalist in nature) to Christian. I went kicking a screaming, but I was won over through a mystical experience. Reason prepared the way but was unable to get me to actual belief.

[Kevin Jackson]

Well, not quite, but I see your points here.

First, if you believe that God knows the future but does not cause it, then you are certainly within the camp of many Arminian/Wesleyans. However, you are expressing a degree of openness, too. You are saying that God gives us freedom, yet knows what we are going to choose. You are thus arguing that God does not cause the future, but the way God and time are related makes it possible for God to know something before our way of knowing, yet without causing it. In the view you express (which I have just described, I think, based upon what you said), there is a degree of Open Theism involved. The future is indeed "open" to some degree even in your view, but God knows it.

Many Open Theists see the future as open with God knowing every possibility or contingency that will happen. Either way, in BOTH of these views, God is not caught off guard in some way. In your view, God is not off guard because due to His special relationship to time, He knows what will happen exactly. In the other view, God is not caught off guard because in His infinite wisdom He is completely prepared for every possibility (even though He doesn't know the exact possibility that will occur, since He has granted freedom).

So, both are open views (even yours).

Thanks,
Charles

Well stated Charles, you represented well what I believe. :) The primary issue is whether or not God is coercive, and we agree that he is not. The secondary issue is whether or not there is such a thing as exhaustive foreknowledge for God. I think there is. But as you state, either in the open view or the traditional Wesleyan view God is completely prepared for the future.

[Kevin Jackson]

How about Jesus knew his disciples. In a discussion earlier in the thread Dan Henderson and I were talking about being observant and getting to know people and that we both beat the odds at predicting what certain people would do in a given situation. It isn't foreknowledge. So no, Jesus doesn't cause the act, yet he makes a rather well informed prediction. Although with Peter, maybe he planted a seed in his subconscious. I have a friend facing some criminal charges, I said this this and that are going to happen. This and that happened exactly as I said they would. Not foreknowledge, knowledge and experience with the same system and knowing my friend and his reaction to that system. If I can do it, certainly Jesus, who knows hearts, can.

Hi Paul, I think the specifics of Jesus prophesies regarding Judas and Peter make them unlikely to be based on a prediction. First, Jesus says “you will” not “I predict that you will”. Second, Jesus quotes prophesy that was written before the disciples were born: “This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written…” Third, the nature of Jesus foreknowledge was very specific: Peter will deny Jesus three times before the rooster crows. This involves knowing exactly where Peter would be and at what time, and also exactly where the three people who asked him question would be, and what questions they would ask him, and also that only three people would ask the questions. The prediction required more than an intimate knowledge of Peter.

I think the most reasonable reading of this passage is that Jesus had genuine foreknowledge of his disciples actions (and the actions of others) before they made them. Jesus knew that his disciples would do these things, but he did not cause their actions. His knowledge was certain, but it was also based on the free will actions of the disciples themselves.


If it is known absolutely what I am going to do at a certain junction, then that decision has been made in advance. If I did not know that I was fated to do X at that junction and it is set in stone, then I have not made a choice, did not exercise my will, because I had no choice.

Passive knowledge does not equal causation. People know things with certainty all the time, and their knowledge doesn't by necessity cause the event. This can be the case with God too. There is a difference between certainty and necessity. The first involves passive knowledge of what someone else will do, the second involves actively causing the actions of another. I think God's passive knowledge is something that exists in his mind, and that knowledge in and of itself is incapable of causing anything. Sometimes we have glimpses of God's knowledge in prophesies. Even in those cases his knowledge is ultimately based on what people who make free decisions will do. Our doing is the cause of his knowing.


I really do not understand how you came to your conclusion concerning theodicy if God does not have foreknowledge and the future becomes the present. Would you please explain, show how you reach this conclusion?

What I meant by the theodicy issue is that if certain knowledge does in fact cause future events (as open theists hold), then God is coercive whenever the future is settled. Open theists also believe that God can pre-settle the future when he wants to to bring about specific prophecies. Dr. Oord has criticized open theism along these lines before, and it's why he holds to process theology instead of open theism.

So I think there are only two reasonable options: 1) Classical foreknowledge with free will - God has passive knowledge of the future, but we still have free will and make the decisions. or 2) Process theology. For me, option #1 creates the least amount of tension, but I also prefer #2 over open theism, because I don't think God is ever coercive.

[Rich Schmidt]

What I meant by the theodicy issue is that if certain knowledge does in fact cause future events (as open theists hold), then God is coercive whenever the future is settled. Open theists also believe that God can pre-settle the future when he wants to to bring about specific prophecies. Dr. Oord has criticized open theism along these lines before, and it's why he holds to process theology instead of open theism.

I haven't kept up with the literature on open theism, but I don't recall anything I'd read ever saying that certain knowledge of the future = causation. It may mean that it's settled, and therefore no longer free. But that's not the same as God "actively causing the actions of another."

I also don't recall open theists saying that God can "pre-settle the future." I remember them saying that God can determine beforehand what he himself will do (just like any of us can, though we can be limited and hindered by outside forces). But I don't remember them saying that God ever "pre-settled" the future choices of free agents.

Have I missed something that Open Theists themselves have said? Or have I just missed the arguments made by those arguing against it in favor of some other alternative?

[Paul DeBaufer]

Passive knowledge does not equal causation. People know things with certainty all the time, and their knowledge doesn't by necessity cause the event. This can be the case with God too. There is a difference between certainty and necessity. The first involves passive knowledge of what someone else will do, the second involves actively causing the actions of another. I think God's passive knowledge is something that exists in his mind, and that knowledge in and of itself is incapable of causing anything. Sometimes we have glimpses of God's knowledge in prophesies. Even in those cases his knowledge is ultimately based on what people who make free decisions will do. Our doing is the cause of his knowing.

First no one has suggested that knowledge is causative. Necessity is not causative. Yet, it remains that if a decision of another is known with absolute certitude before the person encounters the situation and that person has no prior knowledge it appears to her to be a choice, but because it was firmly decided before hand then there is no choice, no real decision. Knowing this does not cause it. The knowledge is, as you say, passive, neutral. Whatever set that incident in stone prior to it actually occurring is the causative agent. It is that causative agent that made the decision that the puppet/person thinks she makes, yet does not.



What I meant by the theodicy issue is that if certain knowledge does in fact cause future events (as open theists hold), then God is coercive whenever the future is settled. Open theists also believe that God can pre-settle the future when he wants to to bring about specific prophecies. Dr. Oord has criticized open theism along these lines before, and it's why he holds to process theology instead of open theism.

So I think there are only two reasonable options: 1) Classical foreknowledge with free will - God has passive knowledge of the future, but we still have free will and make the decisions. or 2) Process theology. For me, option #1 creates the least amount of tension, but I also prefer #2 over open theism, because I don't think God is ever coercive.

I have yet to encounter an open theology that suggests that knowledge is causative. Knowledge may be deterministic, as in the collapse of the wave function in the theory of quantum mechanics, but it is not causative.

I do not believe God is coercive either.

For me classical foreknowledge precludes free will. If God is not coercive then another force has made the decision and made immutable the apparent choice. So, it is problematic, that's why I tend to lean towards process.

[Susan Unger]

Why are so many people determined to see a rigid God that just made some rules that we have to follow? Why aren't more people willing to give up everything they have just for the smallest of opportunities to serve a God who loves us so much that He was willing to become one of us and suffer more than we have ever suffered?

Maybe because grace, mercy and love are not a part of their religious backgrounds?

[Kyle Borger]

Let me know what you think about this. It seems that no one would want to claim that God is unable to do or know anything. We don't want to say that God is weak, but that God is capable of doing whatever He pleases. But then we begin to have some conversations that begin to sound like we are limiting what God can do, and that becomes a problem for some. Is that correct?

We know that God can't send a flood to destroy the world again. Because He promised He wouldn't and God doesn't break promises.
We know that God can't kill himself. (At least I hope not.)
We know that God can't be something that He is not. Many would say that God can't be evil. But then we debate how evil exists if God created.
Then we get back to how can something exist that is outside of God's control if we are indeed saying that evil is outside of God.
How about if God knows of evil and knows that it will happen and does nothing to prevent it, then God is responsible for the evil action. So if God is aware of evil but does nothing does that make God evil or simply ambivalent.
Is it possible for God to limit himself in some ways so that His creation works as intended and sometimes breaks his rules to fix things or make specific things happen as intended for the future?
Are miracles God's response to mistakes? If God knew it was going to happen, and God didn't want it to happen why didn't God change something to make sure it didn't happen in the first place?
Does God operate within our concept of time? Does God know that which has not happened yet? If you say no, does that mean that God doesn't know everything there is to know?
Is it possible that God knows every possible scenario that can happen based on every single movement or decision made by every living and physical object in the universe but not the choice that is being made?
If God knows every possible scenario and knows our heart and our thoughts how can God not really know what our choice will be? So is that the same as already knowing the future which would mean there is no choice or is it different because God hasn't seen the future but simply knows what we will do and has planned for it?

How does God have emotional response to us if He already knows everything we are going to do? Does that mean we can surprise God? Why would God be angry if He knew a thousand years ago that we were going to do that? Has God been angry at that action ever since he created us because he knew when he created us that we would do that and if he knew that we would do something that would make him angry why would he create us?

I just kind of went with it, so just pick one that jumps out to you.

Ok, one rule. In your response don't act like I own these. I'm not claiming all of them or any of them for that matter. I simply want to see how some of you would respond. I want to know where you are coming from and how you work out your ideas.

My inclination is that although we know the nature of God, there are still many things about God that puzzle us. It would seem that so called open theism may be an attempt to give God latitude to operate outside of our understanding and outside of rules that we may have created for God in an attempt to understand God.

It has been 20 years since I jumped in deep in some of these discussions so I am a little rusty and some of the concepts remain in the foggy recesses of my mind. I plan on reading some of the links you have included here. If you have more, be sure to share.

If some of the thoughts expressed here freak you out. That's ok. Just tell us why and how you come to your conclusions and remember our purpose here is to not dismiss God or limit God in any way. If anything it is an attempt to somehow describe just how wonderful and powerful God is. Sometimes when we start of with a certain thought it takes us to a very bad and un-scriptural conclusion. The important thing is to recognize that and learn from it. Some people continue to hold to such thoughts because they never take the time to question it or compare it to scripture or have other people help them figure out if Jesus would ever support it.

[Hans Deventer]

For everyone who likes to discuss this further, IRL, there's a conference coming! : The Future Of Openness , April 4-6, 2013 http://theopenview.org/

Quoting Tom Oord:

Open Theology for the Church — The Future of Openness

To date, most organized events exploring Open theology have been designed for scholars in the academy. This conference is different. As its subtitle indicates, the Open Theology Conference is aimed at the wider church. It’s the very first event of its kind!

With this wider church perspective, the open theology conversation will be freed to take new forms. At this conference, new voices—you!—are invited to discuss issues that matter most. Together, we can all express the hope and insight that comes from affirming a God of love in relationship with creation whose future is open.

The 2013 Open Theology Conference is meant for Christian leaders of all types. Lectures, table discussions, and “dreaming of the future” sessions will explore theological issues and practical concerns with an eye toward relevance for contemporary Christians.


I'd love to be there! Not likely to happen but it sounds very good.

[Kyle Borger]

For everyone who likes to discuss this further, IRL, there's a conference coming! : The Future Of Openness , April 4-6, 2013 http://theopenview.org/

Quoting Tom Oord:

Open Theology for the Church — The Future of Openness

To date, most organized events exploring Open theology have been designed for scholars in the academy. This conference is different. As its subtitle indicates, the Open Theology Conference is aimed at the wider church. It’s the very first event of its kind!

With this wider church perspective, the open theology conversation will be freed to take new forms. At this conference, new voices—you!—are invited to discuss issues that matter most. Together, we can all express the hope and insight that comes from affirming a God of love in relationship with creation whose future is open.

The 2013 Open Theology Conference is meant for Christian leaders of all types. Lectures, table discussions, and “dreaming of the future” sessions will explore theological issues and practical concerns with an eye toward relevance for contemporary Christians.


I'd love to be there! Not likely to happen but it sounds very good.

The link didn't work. It might be temporary. I hope to be there.

[Hans Deventer]

The link didn't work. It might be temporary. I hope to be there.

You're right. I now got:

"Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later. "

edited:

Kyle, the link is working right now, 16:22 CEST, that's 09:22 CDST

[Paul DeBaufer]

Is it possible that God knows every possible scenario that can happen based on every single movement or decision made by every living and physical object in the universe but not the choice that is being made?

I am still thinking about your entire post, but chose to address this question, because I have thought about this before.

I, personally, think that He can know all possible choices every creature faces, know the most likely choice that will be made, yet not know definitely. I further think that God may know the most likely choice and hope that another will be made. In this scenario God has foreknowledge, yet not of the type that requires the future to be solidified, therefore allowing full freedom of choice for creatures. This way of knowing also accounts for God regretting decisions He made, allows for the emotion you speak of in another question. The future remains open.

[Dan Henderson]

We know that God can't send a flood to destroy the world again. Because He promised He wouldn't and God doesn't break promises.


Can't is not the same as won't

[Paul DeBaufer]

Can't is not the same as won't

By implication God is NOT bound by His covenants and promises IF He can at will break them. No, I believe God bound Himself and cannot unbreak that covenantal bond. I believe that God voluntarily limited His available choices when He made the covenant with Noah and all living things. It goes to God's Nature. God remains true to God's nature of necessity.

[Dan Henderson]

By implication God is NOT bound by His covenants and promises IF He can at will break them. No, I believe God bound Himself and cannot unbreak that covenantal bond. I believe that God voluntarily limited His available choices when He made the covenant with Noah and all living things. It goes to God's Nature. God remains true to God's nature of necessity.

I'm not getting your logic here. I do not see any logic to the argument that a covenant cannot be broken just because it isn't I think that is called argument from silence, but I may be misapplying that logic jump here.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I'm not getting your logic here. I do not see any logic to the argument that a covenant cannot be broken just because it isn't I think that is called argument from silence, but I may be misapplying that logic jump here.

For one that is not my argument. I won't argue that because God hasn't broken covenant He cannot, that would be nonsensical. I do argue that God cannot break His covenant, that when He made the covenant He knew that He would be bound by it and would limit His future choices, in this case He covenanted with all of creation, all living creation that He would never destroy all life with a flood again.

God by His very nature, as testified to in the biblical witness, is one of Love and Truth. It is antiLove and antiTruth to break the covenant. God cannot act against His nature. If He can then we really need to reconsider what we think about His nature. To break the covenant of Genesis 9 God would have to act opposite to His nature. The Bible tells us that God's nature is unchanging.

Further IF God can break His promises and covenants what's to say He won't? How are we to have faith in His promises? (I've avoided these because they feel as though they contain some informal fallacies). How do we know anything God says is true

[Dan Henderson]

For one that is not my argument. I won't argue that because God hasn't broken covenant He cannot, that would be nonsensical. I do argue that God cannot break His covenant, that when He made the covenant He knew that He would be bound by it and would limit His future choices, in this case He covenanted with all of creation, all living creation that He would never destroy all life with a flood again.

God by His very nature, as testified to in the biblical witness, is one of Love and Truth. It is antiLove and antiTruth to break the covenant. God cannot act against His nature. If He can then we really need to reconsider what we think about His nature. To break the covenant of Genesis 9 God would have to act opposite to His nature. The Bible tells us that God's nature is unchanging.

Further IF God can break His promises and covenants what's to say He won't? How are we to have faith in His promises? (I've avoided these because they feel as though they contain some informal fallacies). How do we know anything God says is true

One explaination that I have heard about the covenant God made with Abraham is that God agreed to keep both sides of the covenent (His and Abraham's) because he was the only one capable of keeping the covenant. That God cannot break his promise does not flow. A promise that cannot be broken seems to make the promise of no import. The strength in keeping a promise comes from the keeping of the promise. The inability to break a promise would make the promise nothing special. I do not accept your logic in this matter.

[Paul DeBaufer]

One explaination that I have heard about the covenant God made with Abraham is that God agreed to keep both sides of the covenent (His and Abraham's) because he was the only one capable of keeping the covenant. That God cannot break his promise does not flow. A promise that cannot be broken seems to make the promise of no import. The strength in keeping a promise comes from the keeping of the promise. The inability to break a promise would make the promise nothing special. I do not accept your logic in this matter.

You don't have to, doesn't change a thing. The thing about the covenant with Abraham and God keeping both sides is senseless, but makes no difference to me, you're going to hold to what you are going to hold to.

Oh what you mean is you either do not accept my premises, conclusion or both, the logic is fine. And you do not have to accept either my premises or my conclusion. Didn't really think you would. In the same vein I do not accept your premises concerning promises and therefore cannot accept the conclusion.

[Dan Henderson]

You don't have to, doesn't change a thing. The thing about the covenant with Abraham and God keeping both sides is senseless, but makes no difference to me, you're going to hold to what you are going to hold to.

Oh what you mean is you either do not accept my premises, conclusion or both, the logic is fine. And you do not have to accept either my premises or my conclusion. Didn't really think you would. In the same vein I do not accept your premises concerning promises and therefore cannot accept the conclusion.

You would be debating your own peers on this. Sorry clicked post too soon. If I accepted your logic, I would accept your conclusion. I do accept you.

[Paul DeBaufer]

You would be debating your own peers on this.

Guess I don't understand what you are saying here

[Dan Henderson]

Guess I don't understand what you are saying here

I'm saying that my concept of God agreeing to keep both sides of the covenant comes from a Nazarene written and published lesson plan -- same subject. Your peers, assuming you are a theologian, of course, which may be an incorrect assumption on my part.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I'm saying that my concept of God agreeing to keep both sides of the covenant comes from a Nazarene written and published lesson plan -- same subject. Your peers, assuming you are a theologian, of course, which may be an incorrect assumption on my part.

Haven't read the argument. And I argue with myself 'cause I don't always agree with me. I didn't think it was your concept when I said it was nonsensical and should've included, "Without hearing the rationale." Did Abraham break covenant? Seems that covenant was pretty much one sided, God covenanting with Abraham to make him the father of many nations.

Kind of a slide: God's covenant with Israel was conditional. "IF you do this I will make you...." Israel breached their side. God would be in His rights to walk away from the deal. Yet He doesn't.

[Dan Henderson]

Haven't read the argument. And I argue with myself 'cause I don't always agree with me. I didn't think it was your concept when I said it was nonsensical and should've included, "Without hearing the rationale." Did Abraham break covenant? Seems that covenant was pretty much one sided, God covenanting with Abraham to make him the father of many nations.

Kind of a slide: God's covenant with Israel was conditional. "IF you do this I will make you...." Israel breached their side. God would be in His rights to walk away from the deal. Yet He doesn't.

I argue with myself also, occasionally, I win. I'm moving soon, so when I go through stuff, if I happen to find the lesson plain, and if I can remember the conversation, I'll post it to you.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I argue with myself also, occasionally, I win. I'm moving soon, so when I go through stuff, if I happen to find the lesson plain, and if I can remember the conversation, I'll post it to you.

You win when arguing with yourself? Oh man, I'm jealous. I don't always win :smilies1722:

[Dan Henderson]

You win when arguing with yourself? Oh man, I'm jealous. I don't always win :smilies1722:

you ignored my qualifier: "occasionally" :smilies1722:

[Kyle Borger]

Thank you Paul and Dan for your debate. Although it appears neither quite got where the other was coming from, it was civil and interesting to see how you approached the questions.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Thank you Paul and Dan for your debate. Although it appears neither quite got where the other was coming from, it was civil and interesting to see how you approached the questions.

You're welcome Kyle. I have a suspicion that Dan and I understand the other's position but simply disagree.

I'm not all that interested in defending God's omnipotence. I'd rather defend His nature as love.

[Kyle Borger]

Ok, I may have scared a few off with the shot gun approach. Let's take one main topic.

Does God know the future?

Please provide some scripture to support your position.

Here are some thoughts.

A Calvinist has no problem with the question. God knows the future because God pre-determines the future.

An Armenian would suggest that God does not predetermine the future, but gives us a choice. But God knows what that choice will be and knows the future.

(This is a "Am I right statement"?)
The open theist would suggest that God doesn't know the future because it hasn't happened. It isn't a matter of knowledge it is a matter of time. God can't know that which doesn't exist. (Is that right?)

I have looked for scripture to suggest that God knows the future. Scripture does support God knowing everything, but is the future a part of that? If so, please provide.

Can a choice be a choice if that choice is known. An argument I read suggested that it can be. If I provide my son a piece of ham or a chunk of hairy rat, my son will choose ham and I know that. (I'm not sure if that is a fair argument, but it is the one given.) I might argue that the choice was made by me not him because no reasonable person where we live would eat a piece of raw rat with hair on it over a piece of ham. It kind of seems like an unfair argument. I could equally argue that if I offer my son a ham sandwich with all of the fixings or a hamburger with all of the fixings, I'm not sure what he will choose. The counter argument would be that God knows our thoughts, so God would know what we are choosing. Could one also argue that God can't know that which hasn't been thought? In other words does God know our thoughts before we have the thoughts?

Is it possible that in real time as the event unfolds and God is hearing or understanding our thoughts that God knows what we are choosing to do? Is it necessary to claim that God knows what I am going to do 10 years from now? If so how does that allow God to interact and live in relationship with 7 billion people? Do we allow that in relationship we impact God? That in prayer we at times encourage God to intercede on our behalf? If so did we not just change the future for 7 billion people in some way?

What about the prophesies? God worked through the history of the Israelites to prepare the time for Jesus so that Jesus would answer the prophesies. Jesus knew where the donkey was going to be tied. Jesus knew that he would be crucified.

Is it possible for God to have a plan for the future and adapt with us to make it happen. Is it possible that at times God performs miracles to step in and force things to happen that He needs to have happen.

It does seem to suggest that if we remove God's power over the future that the resurrection of Jesus Christ would be impossible. Is it possible that we simply don't understand how God interacts with time and that while God knows the exact thoughts of 7 billion people and knows all the possible choices that those 7 billion people are likely to make that God restricts himself from knowing the exact future so that He can live in relationship with all 7 billion of us and respond and react to us as we interact with God. Is it possible that God knows his plan for the future but that it changes or is adjusted each time someone says no to God?

I could keep going on. I think you get the point. I have been reading scripture to find a determination for this and it kind of leaves me scratching my head. Quite often what someone uses to support their argument means nothing to me. So when supplying your scripture please explain why.

[Ryan Scott]

I think in terms of capability over power. Certainly God has full capability over the future - and God has determined what the end result is: the full establishment of God's Kingdom, a joining of heaven and earth so that in all places that are, God reigns.

Between creation and fulfillment, God has chosen to unite with human beings in a relational way that allows for our free will and participation. Basically, God has made things more difficult for God (having to adjust and adapt the specifics to reach the ultimate goal) because of the value of truly free relationships with humanity.

For me, an open view of God helps explain God more fully as a complex being.

If we're going to go back to the child analogy - it could be like a hike from the car to the lake through the woods. I can let a kid out of the car and point him in the general direction, but he might just traipse off into the woods rather than following the path. From there, I can either pick him up and put him back on the path (a predestined direction) or perhaps not even allow him to leave the path. The other option would be to continue to change and adapt my instructions to encourage him back on the path. Those directions and instructions would be constantly changing because of the kid's choices. I would still have the whole picture in my mind and be entirely capable of making the kid go to the lake if I were so inclined.

God doesn't force us onto a specific path and God doesn't even have to know which specific steps we'll take. God knows what the end result is and God's sight is always on the end.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I could keep going on. I think you get the point. I have been reading scripture to find a determination for this and it kind of leaves me scratching my head. Quite often what someone uses to support their argument means nothing to me. So when supplying your scripture please explain why.

First, believing God knows something that can't be known is, I think, something akin to gibberish. The topic almost begs that we start with an agreement as to what exists as knowable and what doesn't. Once we agree (even if just in theory) we'll all probably land on the same side of the issue - if it's knowable, God knows it.

Second, I find plenty of evidence in the Bible that God doesn't pre-know human decisions (like Adam naming the animals or Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son). On these matters, he didn't know before hand.

Third, I find plenty of evidence in the Bible that God pre-knows human decisions (like Peter's coming denial or Daniel's roadmap to the future). On these matters, he knows before hand.

So....my conclusion is that this issue can't be proven one way or another Biblically.

[Doug Ward]

Third, I find plenty of evidence in the Bible that God pre-knows human decisions (like Peter's coming denial or Daniel's roadmap to the future). On these matters, he knows before hand.

So....my conclusion is that this issue can't be proven one way or another Biblically.

Scott, here is my place to throw a Biblical monkey wrench into the discussion. I hate to do it, but it must be done if we are to evaluate the evidence in this argument. We cannot say that Peter's denial is an example of God knowing the future. We cannot because when those words were written, Peter's denial was 30 - 55 years in the past. maybe those words are an exact retelling of the verbal story, but we must admit those words might also be a way to tell the story in a manner that emphasizes something about the character of Christ.
Even Daniel operates in the same manner. Daniel is not a foretelling of kingdoms to be, but more likely, a later work that puts words in the mouth of these past characters to reflect present day realities, and tell a theological story in doing so. It just makes it hard to say, "The Bible proves that God knows the future."

[Randy Wise]

Third, I find plenty of evidence in the Bible that God pre-knows human decisions (like Peter's coming denial or Daniel's roadmap to the future). On these matters, he knows before hand.

So....my conclusion is that this issue can't be proven one way or another Biblically.

I think the Lord knows peoples hearts and that Peter did Love Jesus but under the temptation of his very life Peter would be so afraid he stated what he stated out of fear for his life. I would like to think that God allowed this for Peters growth, that is Peter would never make that mistake again no matter if it cost his life to hold firm. Maybe others to this very day also learn from Peters mistake as well?

I see God predicting outcomes well in advance by His own sight and by His own plans that He puts in motion such as our salvation. God also knows how the one He cast to earth rages against Him and how that one also operates. I don't see such a thing as seeing through time. Like you I agree if such a gift exists then God has it.

Randy