Comments on my Open Theism blog

Or, "An example of thoughtful, intelligent discussion."

Here we have Jimmie Jarvis, a thoughtful and intelligent young gentlemen who's also a blog co-contributer, asking me questions about my Open Theism blog that was just before this. I'll admit it: He asked me these questions two weeks ago and I forgot. I blew it, yes. I'm normally really good about responding to people's comments, but maybe it's because I'm used to getting comments on my other blog, not this one.

Anyway, this is his first post:

Oh boy. You've done it now. But wait a second.......time for me to drop a bombshell......I have actually changed my semi-Calvinist position since our beating sessions at the beach. I'm now (and the world gasps in horror) entertaining the notion of Open Theism. Yes, I know. I'm a flip-flopper. But I've come to this semi-conclusion in the last couple of weeks. What has converted me to this heretical mindstyle? God changing His mind. I can't deny that God has changed His mind, most often in the Old Testament. God openly changing His mind (and deeming it necesarry to record it) is pretty heavy stuff. Now, I beleive in a totaly consistent God. I beleive that His nature never changes, nor does His ultimate plan. The way I see it, God is like a chess
master. He knows every possible reaction to every possible action, and how to let Himself be reflected in that. God does, essentially know the future. He can't be suprised. In fact, you could go and say that God authored the concept of action and reaction, and surprise, and therefore is above all of them. What are your thoughts on that semi-logical explanation of a semi-problem, Patrick?

I have very little to disagree with here. His chess master analogy, I think, was a good way to portray it, as long as we're clear that this is a chess master who literally knows all the possible moves and all of the possible consequences, up to the end of the game, that result from each move.

However, I'm not sure I completely agree with, "God does, essentially know the future. He can't be surprised." That, however, depends on what you actually meant.

1. He can't be surprised in the way that he knows all the possibilities of what you can do. You'll never hear God say, "I never thought of that choce." If that's what you meant, then we are in agreement.
2. He can be surprised by the actual choice the person takes. God knows all the possibilites, but doesn't know which one we will actually take.

I think you meant number 1, but just in case...

Now, let's continue to an even better question.

More specifically, do you beleive God is subject to the laws and concepts He created (logic, truth, morality, knowledge, etc.)?

There are several aspects of this question, so let's address each one specifically.

1. Does God transcend logic? Well, define "logic." When I read that, I took it to mean, "Can God do logically impossible things?" or at least, things that are logically impossible for us. There seems to be an issue here, because if you say "Yes," then you must also answer yes to such a question as, "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?" But if you say "No," some might say you're limiting the powers of God. My answer to this question is "No." However, I don't see that I'm limiting the powers of God, because we shouldn't expect God to go beyond the realm of the true meaning of omnipotence.
2. Does God transcend truth? Well, I wouldn't say God is above truth...I'd probably say something like "He is truth, just as John 14:6 says." I'd argue that the only reason we have a sense of truth and fiction is because there is a God, and it's by his very nature that this occurs. One of the properties of God is, of course, existence. Since truth is determined by God's nature, any lie is about something that essentially doesn't exist. What exists as truth goes with God's property of existence and what doesn't exist as lies goes against God's nature. I hope that makes a little bit of sense...It makes sense to me, anyway. If it doesn't, I'll try to rephrase it.
3. Does God transcend morality? This is the same issue. The only reason we have a sense of morality at all is because of God's very nature. It's not because God says things are good that things are good, or they were good apart from God (as the Euthyphro dilemma suggests) but good things are good because they, like truth, coincide with God's nature. God cannot contradict his own nature, so I wouldn't say he is "above morality."
4. Does God transcend knowledge? Well, I suppose not. God is the sense of knowledge we have who guides us in our descisions. But I don't fully understand this question. Knowledge doesn't seem to be something one can "transcend." Jimmie, if you don't mind and if you still want a better answer, would you mind elaborating on this?

And now, perhaps the most important question of all:

I would say be careful to examine your motives for adopting this position. Is it JUST to render atheist arguments void? Or is it to further understand our Lord? Not that I'm implying you AREN'T adopting this view for that purpose, but wanted to stimulate some thought.

It would be a lie for me to say, "The only reason I did this was to further my understanding of the Lord." But it would also be a lie for me to say, "I did this to render atheist arguments useless." I found that after I adopted Open Theism, I realized that things like the Problem of Evil weren't real problems anymore, so the rendering of atheist's arguments void came after conversion. However, I converted out of, if you will, a lack of choice. It seemed to be the only viable option to me due to atheistic (and Open Theistic) arguments against free will being compatible with foreknowledge. So it's really both, but I feel like it's more of the "understanding of the Lord," answer. If I did indeed adopt it to combat atheistic arguments, I only did it to combat one, and it has greatly increased my understanding of the Lord.

I hope these questions helped you out Jimmie, as well as anyone else who might be reading along.

© Copyright P-Dunn's Apologetics. All rights reserved.