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.

Open Theism

Or, "Flirting with heresy"

Well, here it is. This is my confession to the world. I've gone and done it. I've sided with one of the most controversial and hotly debated views about God that Christians have.

I've become an Open View Theist.

Most people who read that probably went, "Huh? What's Open View Theism?" Others, who knew what it was beforehand, probably frowned. So what is Open Theism?

1) There is no truth about future contingents (A contingent truth is something that is true but didn't have to be). Only the present exists.
2) We have complete free will.
3) God knows everything that is true.
4) Since there is no truth about future contingents, God essentially doesn't know the future, or what choices we will make. He does know all possible counterfactuals*, but not what choice we will make.

*Counterfactual - I'll explain this in simple terms. There are hundreds of possible counterfactuals for any given situation. If you saw a peanut butter jar sitting on a table, you could a) pick it up, b) knock it down, c) eat it without picking it up, etc. Those are all counterfactuals.

"That doesn't sound Biblical. Is this supported by the Bible?"

Sure. There are many examples:

• "The Lord frequently changes his mind in the light of changing circumstances or in the light of prayer (Exod. 32:14; Num. 14:12-20; Deut. 9:13-14, 18-20, 25; 1 Sam. 2:27-36; 2 Kings 20:1-7; 1 Chron. 21:15; Jer. 26:19; Ezek. 20:5-22; Amos 7:1-6; Jon. 1:2; 3:2, 4-10). Other times he explicitly tells us he will change his mind if circumstances change (Jer. 18:7-11; 26:2-3; Ezek. 33:13-15). This willingness to change is portrayed as one of God's attributes of greatness (Joel 2:13-14; Jon. 4:2).
• A number of times he expresses regret and disappointment over how things have turned out - even over previous decisions he has made which went array because of human free will (Gen. 6:5-6; 1 Sam 15:10,35; Ezek. 22:29-31).
• Other times he tells us he's surprised at how things turned out, for he expected a different outcome (Isa. 5:3-7; Jer. 3:6-7; 19-20).
• In several passages the Lord explicitly tells us that he did not know that humans would behave the way they did (Jer. 7:3 1; 19:5; 3 2:3 5).
• The Lord frequently tests his people to find out whether or not they'll remain faithful to him (Gen. 22:12; Exod. 16:4; Deut. 8:2; 13:1-3; Judg. 2:20-3:5; 2 Chron. 3 2:3 1).
• The Lord sometimes asks non-rhetorical questions about the future (Num. 14:11; Hos. 8:5) and speaks to people in terms of what may or may not happen (Exod. 3:18-4:9; 13:17; Jer. 3 8:17-18, 20-21, 23; Ezek. 12:1-3)." (Boyd)

Also, I'd ask you this. Does it make any sense for God to be sad or angry about something he knew was going to occur? Like, for example, killing Onan because he "spilt his seed?" If God knew the future, he knew that Onan would have spilt his seed on the ground.

"But wait, hold up! You're diminishing God's power by saying that!"

I don't see that I am. I fully contend that God is omniscient, knowing all that can be known. I don't believe the future can be known. In the same way that I think God is all powerful but can't create a rock so big that he cannot lift it, I believe that God is omniscient but can't know what choices free beings will make. I think that knowing the future actions of a free being is logically impossible.

"The Bible says that God knows all things!"

You're right. It does.

"But what about prophesy? How can that be possible if God doesn't know the future?"

I'd say that, to some extent, God predicts/plans the future when it suits him to do so. In these situations, it does. You'd surely that God is much, much wiser than we are? Surely he's wise enough to acheive his purposes while still allowing full freedom.

"What about prayer?"

What about it? It makes the concept make a LOT more sense. If God knew what you were going to pray to begin with, there's no point in praying; of course, I'd argue that you wouldn't have a choice to pray or not if God knew the future.

"So how did you come to this descision?"

It took a very, very long time. The Free Will Argument for the Non-Existence of God struck me when I first heard it (probably...hmm, ten months ago now) and caused very serious doubts in me about it. This is it:

1. God knows the future.
2. God's knowledge is perfect and can't be wrong.
3. God knows that P-Dunn will be typing these words at 3:49 PM on Saturday, September 2nd.
4. Since God's knowledge cannot be wrong, P-Dunn MUST type those words at the given time. There is no choice.
5. God is not omniscient, or he doesn't exist.

I was determined that we have free will. To me, the world and all the evil doesn't make one bit of sense if God predetermines all of our actions. Why would any loving God predetermine that a two planes were going to crash into huge buildings and kill several thousand people? Or why would God predetermine that a man was going to rape a 9 year old girl and bury her alive? He wouldn't have any choice, we can't condemn him for what he's done. This is, of course, ridiculous.

But what about the Free Will Argument? How is it possible that we still have free will, yet God knows our every action? It seems contradictory.

Open Theism makes this problem evaporate immediately. Since I've decided to become an Open Theist, I'm no longer trying to figure this problem out, because Premise 1 is immediately false. In addition, most of the atheistic arguments like The Problem of Evil become much less effective.

I'm going to be checking out God of the Possible by open theist Gregory Boyd, a scholar interviewed by Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ. Maybe you should too.

======================

Boyd, Gregory. "God and the Future." Open Theism Information. <http://www.opentheism.info/pages/information/boyd/god_future.php>

======================

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