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.

[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.

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/199703212...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 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!