After a long and inexcusable absence, I have the privilege of posting the “tri-weekly” topic. My apologies to all, especially underachiever, for missing out on dozens of good questions and thoughts with the last topic. Here’s hoping I at least beat Tuna to the punch with this post…
I wrestled between 2 topics for our discussion this time around, but after more than a few blank stares and uncertain replies, I’ve left my more ambiguous one for a later date, and have chosen instead, Open Theism. This is by far the one issue from my seminary classes that left me with the greatest uncertainty and possible paradigm-altering ideas. I thought at first this might be too similar to the God’s Guidance discussion from the fall, which took place before I joined HC. However, as I perused the comments, I noticed that the discussion never really took this turn, so I’m going to go ahead with it.
First, a few brief thoughts I found online that can get us thinking about what Open Theism is, from those who support it and those who oppose it:
“Open Theism is a foundational theology that attempts to explain the practical relationship between the free will of man and the sovereignty of God. Based on traditional Arminian theology, Open Theism expounds on the idea of free will.” (wikipedia)
“Open Theism makes the case for a personal God who is able to be influenced through prayer, decisions, and actions of people. Although unknowing of the future, God has predictive (anticipatory) foreknowledge of the future through his intimate knowledge of each individual. As such, he is able to anticipate the future, yet remains fluid to respond and react to prayer and decisions made either contrary or advantageous to His plan or presuppositions.” (wikipedia)
“Open Theism is a theological position that attempts to explain the concept of God’s foreknowledge. The essential question of Open Theism is, “Does God know the future?” For nearly 2000 years of church history, the answer has been almost universally, “Yes.” Open Theists today, however, claim that this view of God’s foreknowledge is based more on philosophy than the actual teaching of Scripture.” (allaboutgod.com)
“Open theism, also known as free will theism and openness, is the teaching that God does not know all things. That is, He does not know the free will choices that people will make in the future because God either chooses not to know or because the future isn't knowable.” (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry)
Questions for us to talk about: What do you think about Open Theism? Is it Scriptural? Does God know the future? If God knows the future, do we really have free will? Does God change his mind? What implications does our answer have in the area of prayer? Did God risk when he created humanity and does he still risk today? Could we trust the God of Open Theism? Does Open Theism diminish who God is?
I will personally appreciate your thoughts and opinions on this, as I’m still trying to figure out where I land on this issue.
52 comments:
I thought you were raptured.
This is a good topic. I just read a book which ripped open theism to shreds adn basically called for it to be banned from Christian bookstores (yes, those same bookstores which publish the atrociously escapist Left Behind series along with the Bible Cure for Alzhemiers and the health and wealth gospel and so on and so on)
I have to admit my happiness with openness, or free-will theism has taken a bit of a hit. But I am not happy with Calvinism either. With Calvinism there is very little reason to pray for anything. I guess I'd be okay with that but the Calvinists seem to be huge prayer warriors and I've never understood why.
This book left me very confused. I don't know if I can say God is so limited as to not be able to know the future. How can he not know the future? And if he's limited is he constrained or is he just holding back? And if he's holding back then can his plans not be thwarted? OR is he constantly juggling plan Bs and plan Cs and somehow still maintaining plan A? How does this work exactly?
I used to like the idea of God not knowing the future, but I'm finding the idea sort of disconcerting now.
I think open theism is on the right track, but hasn't arrive yet. Trouble is, I have no idea where it needs to arrive. Hopefully not back at Calvinism, but where?
Wow, great topic. Because of a belief in God's power the furthest I've ever been able to let myself go on this one is to think that maybe God chooses to not know the future. I mean he know THE future, the destruction of the devil and the 2nd coming etc... but as for what I will eat for breakfast tomorrow why would God need to know that? For me I guess believing God knows everything inevitibely leads me to the fact that he must will everything and I don't care what you tell me about the "big picture" I have a real problem believing in a God who wills the rape of children and genocide.
I'm prepared to have this challenged though as I rarely hear scriptural arguments for either view but usually philosophical ones.
One thing I will say, open theism or something close to it, makes me far more prone to praying. When you believe that your relatives cancer made God as mad as it did you and maybe he didn't even see it coming, that makes me feel like He's with me in a way far more powerful than believing God knew it was coming.
Here is a quote from "The Openness of God" listing the tenets which most directly affect practical concerns such as prayer and evangelism.
The words in bold are those I have problems with. The italicized are those which I think are right on the money and unique to open theism.
1. God not only created this world ex nihilo but can (and at times does) intervene unilaterallly in earthly affairs.
2. God chose to create us with incompatibilistic (libertarian) freedom--freedom over which he cannot exercise total control.
3. God so values freedom--the moral integrity of free creatures and a world in which such integrity is possible--that he does not normally over-ride such freedom, even if he sees that it is producing undesirable results.
4. God always desires our highest good, both individually and corporately, and thus is affected by what happens in our lives.
5. God does not possess exhaustive knowledge of exactly how we will utilize our freedom, although he may well at times be able to predict with great accuracy the choices we will freely make.
So yeah, I think if there is something to this it is that freedom is a gift, and part of that gift means God restraining himself from knowing and deciding much of what we will freely decide. However, once someone has made a decision that that person cannot even sustain on their own (to follow Christ) I believe you see God intervening to make that decision stick. Likewise, if someone decides to deny God you may see God hand that person over to Satan.
I am uncomfortable with saying GOd can or cannot do certain things, but I see in the creation account such a huge priority of human freedom to follow God or not that predestination just makes very very very little sense to me.
Great topic, TheHansen. Nice to have you back and congratulations on beating Tuna to the post. God only knows when Tuna will post next (or, according to this topic, maybe He doesn't! hahahahaha)
Okay here are my initial thoughts on open theism:
Waaaay back when I first heard the concept (in college) I took offense to it. "Of course God knows the future. We all know he does!"
Then, I thought about it and decided, "well, maybe God doesn't have to know the future and that doesn't make him any less God."
Finally I decided that I like God knowing the future. And that's where I am today.
Each decision was based mostly on my opinion of how I liked God to be. I haven't heard many arguments on either side of the debate so I'm interested in this discussion. At this point in my life I'm not ashamed to err on the side of God knowing the future but I'm glad that there are open theists out there who are pushing the topic because every tenet of our faith needs to be hammered out continually.
I know that many Christians can be offended by the thought of a God who doesn't know the future and although I think he does know it, I don't think that his not knowing diminishes his godlikeness: I would suggest that it takes a powerful deity to not know how each moment will unfold and to still move in a way so that the whole story will turn out in his favor at the end.
As usual, I've got more to write; this is not a full summation of my thoughts. But, oddly enough, I'm in Regina celebrating a belated Christmas (or, perhaps, Epiphany) so when I'm back home I'll have more time to collect my thoughts and write them down.
Merry Epiphany everyone!
Testing....
Excellent, I have succesfully regained the ability to post on this wonderful site. Sorry for the long absence, its tough to sign up for a google account when using second rate libyan dial up ether access. But here am.
Kudos to TheHansen on the great topic.
Some first thoughts:
I've always like the idea of God choosing not to know the future. The fatalism of the Calvinists has always rubbed me the wrong way (not that this is a good test of right/wrong), not based on my study of scripture but just intuitively.
However, I do believe our activities as humans are allowed to influence the Divine, i.e. prayer. I remember in my OT502 class we talked at length about this text somewhere in the OT where the language used seemed to indicate that God changed his mind as a result of the prayer of his people. I will look this up in my notes when I get home in a couple weeks. Some may say this is just figurative language but I would rather believe in powerful prayer, prayer that can change things.
I like where this is heading. I look forward to seeing what sort of scripture there is to give some weight to both sides of the argument.
I think one of the major debates on this issue is exactly that: that it is less Scriptural and more us trying to make God make sense to our human modes of thought. the debate raged in an article I read recently as the Calvinist rebutted the Opennist's argument that the traditional stance was heavily influenced by Greek thought. the issue was apparently one of anthropomorphism. when it says God repented, or changed his mind, is it anthropomorphism, or real?
whether either side is over-affected by human philosophy or not, it is entirely proper to reconsider our concept of "the perfections of God", especially when we are still, after thousands of years, trying to come to grips with omniscience and human free will. I am gravely disturbed and disappointed at evangelical theological attempts to silence the open theologians well before the dialogue has had the opportunity to run its course.
I also reject the rhetoric that opennists have a "low view" of God. As someone already said, to me one could just as easily say the same about the apparent "marionette" God of Calvinism in contrast to the powerfully efficient GOd of opennesss.
When I first heard the Openness view presented, it was from a pro-open theism guy and I found something about it struck a chord with me. Something about it did make God seem more personable to me. As if our relationship were more of a responsive, two-way kind of thing as opposed to me just figuring out what He was doing and getting on board with that. Maybe God could be influenced by me.
Even as I write it though, the Calvinist doctrine, which I was first taught, makes me cringe a little. Maybe prayer is just supposed to change me, not God. How on earth can I claim to have some affect on God?
Another big point for me is that it does seem scary to believe that God doesn't know the future in it's entirety. Isn't that where we are supposed to find comfort for our fears? In knowing that God has ordained all our days, He's a good God, and all that happens is already part of His bigger plan? I'm not saying it makes God safer, but it does make me feel safer knowing He's already seen all that lies ahead for me. Maybe I'm just not supposed to feel "safe." But I am commanded many times not to fear. How can I not feel afraid when even God doesn't know what's coming?
Anyway, all this is just sort of "big-picture-based-on-what-we-think-Scripture-says-about-God" kind of stuff. Anyone heard any biblical arguments either way on this one?
How about the basic Jeremiah 29 passage? I know it's directed at the community and not individuals, but it does say that God knows the plans he has for his people. Is this just sort of a vague idea He has of where He's going, or is this specific?
How about the Psalm 139 passage about God's intimate knowledge of us, including our future, it would seem? "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (v. 16) Hyperbole?
Isaiah 37:26 "Have you not heard? Long ago I ordained it. In days of old I planned it; now I have brought it to pass, that you have turned fortified cities into piles of stone."
Isaiah 46:9-10 "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please."
Acts 4:28 "They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen."
These are just a few verses with this kind of language suggesting God does indeed know the future. Does He maybe just have a general plan and we've been reading these verses too specifically?
I don't know the biblical arguments for open theism? Anyone? I have way more questions than concrete thoughts on this topic.
I would say that in those passages, God knows his plans, not necessarily each person's detailed future. Even then though, he knows his plans, and you can either take them or leave them. If you leave them, you will experience what it is to be "on the outs" but will still be used in the plan of redemption, albeit unwittingly, and perhaps at some point will change your mind and enter the plan as a willing participant. If you take God up on his plan for you, you enter his sufficiency and his providence and by way of your continued submission you will experience the unfolding of those plans.
Are those plans detailed to the letter? Mayhaps not. In fact, I think maybe God leaves you various options within that plan, and together you go forward. And even if you falter, he holds your hand, and you are enfolded in the plan somehow no matter what.
Every day written in his book beforehand, as in he will not lose you nor fail to redeem your every day. The unfolding of those days may or may not be prescribed completely before.
I guess I'm saying I see room in those verses for God to leave a give-and-take dynamic between he and his creatures. We experience his will as we submit.
And here's the thing. Our fear or our peace does not rely on God knowing the future but upon His character as Holy and Mighty and Loving. Whether he has decided to peer ahead and decide every element of our future or not, we can be confident in who He is and what He has promised because He is sufficent in his efficacy.
We trust him not as we'd trust a reliable gypsy, but as we trust the Creator and Redeemer.
I really need to brush up on this stuff but I was under the impression that Calvinism was all about God SHAPING the future, not just God KNOWING the future.
I don't consider myself a strict Calvinist (because I don't think that God moves us around like puppets) but I do think that God intimately knows the future.
Have I misunderstood earlier posts or some of the basics of Calvinism? Are these two SHAPING/KNOWING ideas too similar?
I totally agree that we should trust God because of who he is. But here's the thing that I think the Openness view calls into question. It's great if I know God is good and holy and loving, but if he isn't completely sovereign, then what good is that? It feels to me like this view puts God's sovereignty on the line.
On the other hand, I totally agree that God created us with freedom over which he has no control. And I trust that despite the possible and likely disobedience of many people to God's plans, he is prepared for that and is moving us toward the end he has in mind.
My understanding of the Calvinist doctrine is that God's plan is all-inclusive, eternal, efficacious, unconditional, and unchangeable. It asserts that the elect have been chosen and everyone else is pretty much out of luck. If you're one of the chosen then you ultimately won't be able to resist God's grace and if you're not one of the chosen, then God already knows you won't accept Christ. God knows who will choose him and who won't and he's just working things out for that to fall into place. This view bothers me to no end.
If it seems like I'm confused and not arguing for either side completely, I am. Or am not. Whatever.
TheHansen, thanks for the Calvinism summary.
I guess I wanted some clarification because earlier posters on this blog seem to equate God knowing the future with God shaping the future. (Unless I misread what was written earlier by CSU and Fear).
For further clarification:
Would you say that the debate between God shaping the future and not shaping the future is the Calvinist/Armenian disagreement while the debate between God knowing the future and not knowing the future is a Calvinist/Openness disagreement?
It seems to me that there is a difference in these disagreements that is not being delineated here on the blog. Or maybe I'm way off... I'm just trying to understand the debate a little better.
I guess I'm looking for clarification because I tend to think (and am quite comfortable with the view) that God knows the future completely but gives us free will.
So Trembling, you take the Calvinist view in Calvinist v. Openness debate and the Armenian view in the Calvinist v. Armenian debate? =) (I'm certain I didn't give a fair or thorough assessment of Calvinist theology- only what I remembered off the top of my head.)
If we were breaking down the views as listed above, I would agree with Trembling that I think God does know the future but gives us free will, thereby having various routes to get to his desired end. (ie. plan a, b, c, d, etc. contingent upon human choices.)
trembling: i'm not the authority on this but i think as far as this argument goes there is no distinction between knowing and shaping the future. I recall reading several times that what God knows, is, therefore for him to know it is for it to be. so shaping and knowing the future for God are synonymous.
however, maybe there is something in your distinction that could take the debate further. i'm not sure. i'm not sure i've heard it before. i like the way you laid out the Cal/Arm and Cal/Open distinctions but I don't think they're scholars would agree with it.
hansens (making up for a month away, nice work!) i'm with you in all of this. that last paragraph sounds most like free will theism (or openness) to me. could be armenian I guess. I have to confess I've never understood armenianism. it basically is a paradox far as i can tell.
i don't think God's sovereignty is in question if he wills to not shape/know the future, or certain aspects of it. the definition of sovereignty is the debate: marionette, or all-efficient (and condescending) collaborator?
the other day at soup lunch in the seminary i told a few guys i'm an open theist at heart, an armenian by default, and a functional calvinist. some of them said they were the opposite. one of them suggested "middle knowledge", which far as i can tell is a form of armenianism which says God knows what we'll do and so he structures everything accordingly.
for instance, he prayes for $200 and it comes in the mail from a relative the next day, postmarked a few days earlier.
i don't know.
we're saying those three words alot here. which brings up another point, that there is going to be mystery here, the question is where?
for calvinists the mystery is in the why? why me and not so and so? why this and not that? which seems arrogant, but is a real thing in face of things like evil and hell.
for arminianists the mystery is in the paradox of foreknowledge & predestination.
for opennists i think the mystery is in God's power and his self-limitations.
i don't know.
i'm in a reading group about Karl Barth's doctrine of election. I'll try to think how to summarize his view, for next time.
I'm enjoying reading this discussion so much I haven't commented a lot. Sorry about that.
Trembling, I don't think I agree with your distinction here. God's knowing and shaping need to be linked to me. He is God, if He is not shaping the future I guess he could still know it, and if he is shaping the future then he must know it. So the only one that's possible to me is the knowing and not shaping and that brings me to a strange kind of belief in God's power doesn't it? If God knows the future then He cannot claim to have nothing to do with it's shaping because even no action when the future is known is shaping by absence of changing the shape isn't it?
I've never known where to fall here, I don't like the idea of a God who CAN'T know the future, some open theists do go that far. I also don't like the idea of a God who knows and shapes all details of everything that happens. Some go that far on the other side.
Somewhere inbetween is a God who gives us choice and free will and is able to have His mind changed. This God also may or may not know every detail and may or may not affect every detail.
I lean toward a lot of free will and a God who chooses to not know everything, like if I'm going to have whole wheat or white bread for my sandwich at lunch today.
Believing in God to be all powerful leaves me with a belief that He must be able to know all so if I believe He doesn't I find myself having to believe He chooses not to know it all. I'm ok with that.
Good points tanti. this is really interesting hearing what everyone has to say. i wonder if we can rally around a particular biblical view point or if on this one we have to hold several views at once? functionally i find that difficult since the way i view this really affects how i pray, among other things.
by the way, i'm officially declaring the topol award for January will go to whoever can correctly predict Tuna's return. I say we'll hear from him on Sunday, January 28. (Yes this is tomorrow. I think the absence of football will jar him into reality again)
Thanks for the insight guys; I don't think we're that far off in general. I particularly liked Tanti's paragraph: "God's knowing and shaping need to be linked to me. He is God, if He is not shaping the future I guess he could still know it, and if he is shaping the future then he must know it. So the only one that's possible to me is the knowing and not shaping and that brings me to a strange kind of belief in God's power doesn't it? If God knows the future then He cannot claim to have nothing to do with it's shaping because even no action when the future is known is shaping by absence of changing the shape isn't it?"
Fear wrote, "trembling: i'm not the authority on this but i think as far as this argument goes there is no distinction between knowing and shaping the future. I recall reading several times that what God knows, is, therefore for him to know it is for it to be. so shaping and knowing the future for God are synonymous." I think it's anthropomorphistic to say that God's knowledge of the future automatically means he's shaping it. As humans WE'D do that! But God is able to do so much more... such as knowing each moment without shaping each moment: I'm fine with either of these two things:
1. God knows the single line that the future will take, including the moments when he'll change his mind and we'll change ours.
2. God knows every possible future as a result of every possible thing we do (or don't do).
Option 1 doesn't diminish God's godliness even though he knows that he will change his mind. And just because he knew, before even creating the earth, that I'd be sitting at my computer today typing, doesn't mean that he's necessarily shaping every moment: just that he knows exactly what's going to happen.
Option 2 requires a God who is incomprehensibly powerful... and God fits the bill on that one. (And, if I read correctly, this is the viewpoint that TheHansen holds to).
Fear wrote, "maybe there is something in your distinction that could take the debate further. i'm not sure. i'm not sure i've heard it before. i like the way you laid out the Cal/Arm and Cal/Open distinctions but I don't think they're scholars would agree with it." That's the story of my life, Fear!
I'm just typing this to clarify my thoughts; these things aren't set in stone nor are they based on hours of biblical research. They're based on my personal dissatisfaction with nearly all views out there and trying to find (ahem) some middle ground.
I can't believe we have our moments dictated by a puppetmaster God, but I can't believe that God doesn't know the future. I have to believe that prayer changes things but I can't believe that God is ever taken by surprise.
I'm not against the thought that God purposely limits his ability to know the future in order to give us freewill but it seems to me that God's omnipotence and omniscience would automatically deduce the future implications every time he interacts with us.
Tuna's next post will be on February 15th... 3 days after he is supposed to post a new topic.
I am interested to follow this idea of yours that knowing doesn't equal shaping, but I'm not sure it is merely anthropomorphic for me and many others to say that. Isn't it logical that if God knows something then we can consider it done? So to know something ahead of time is to shape it?
Then again, I guess if he knows all the possiblities and yet intends to shape it as it goes, in relation to humans, that is possible. I'm not sure its possible, but it seems possible. But am I being anthropomorphic by saying its possible. For a human it might be possible to know certain possibilities and then to shape one in particular, but for GOd is it possible to know something and then have it not happen?
I'm currently sending vibes of hatred to Tuna that will compel him to fulfill my prediction of posting today.
By the way, shameless plug, but in regard to our October topic (women) I just read the most amazing book. Finally Feminist by John Stackhouse. A MUST READ.
Hey Fear,
You wrote, "Isn't it logical that if God knows something then we can consider it done? So to know something ahead of time is to shape it?"
I'd say that's not necessarily the case: Here's an example to (hopefully) clarify my thinking:
God wants to be worshiped and wants to interact with creation, so he decides to create humankind. Long before he creates them he sighs deeply, knowing that after he gives them freewill they will turn their back and he'll have to send his son to redeem them. Compelled by his character, he creates humankind anyway... and gives them freewill anyway... and it all plays out exactly as he knew. Not that he couldn't control how it played out but rather that he knew and chose not to control it.
I don't think God is bound by what the future holds, but rather that he lets it play out as he knows it will happen.
I guess I'm trying to say that I think God knows the future exactly and can shape it but limits his ability to shape it so that we have freewill. But even though we have freewill, he knows long in advance exactly how things will play out.
As well, you write: "for God is it possible to know something and then have it not happen?" My response to this is: I don't think that it's any less possible than for the omnipotent creator of the universe to not know the future.
Apologies on hijacking the conversation as I clarify my muddled thinking on the matter.
Yes, the more I think about it, the more I agree with your option #2, Trembling. (Which apparently I was already saying.) "God knows every possible future as a result of every possible thing we do (or don't do)...which requires a God who is incomprehensibly powerful." This is actually how a certain professor who held to open theism first described it to me. "Knowing the future" is not limited to knowing one specific path of events, but instead is knowing all the possibile paths and is an even greater feat than the first option. It's kind of mind-boggling to me to think that God knows the possible choices of billions of people at any given time and all the ramifications of those choices moment by moment- and is still working it all toward the consummation of history which he has in mind. Awesome.
I think Tuna will post on Feb 12th. Partly to post his topic and partly to send out happy birthday wishes to himself. (If I'm wrong about his birthday, he can darn well get on this site and post something about it.)
I see what you both are saying about knowing and shaping, but I think you are both closet open theists (that sounds like an oxymoron but probably isn't).
I think for God to know something makes it solid. Otherwise if it doesn't happen God was wrong. I think you are both talking about God knowing the possible futures. But perhaps a word other than "know" is necessary at that point. God precisely sees all possible outcomes perhaps and intervenes accordingly.
And I think if you are going to go that far, open theists will say why does God need to see ahead of time anyway? Is his power not great enough to be able to instantaneously react to every single human action and inaction as it happens and work his plans and his grace out accordingly and assuredly? Or his his ability to make his plans succeed dependent upon a crystal ball type ability? Open theists are pushing us in a good way to realize that it is precisely God in his character of Might and Love on whom we depend, not on some superpower we can't understand.
I don't know if we need to label ourselves, but I can't tell if you (hansens and trembling) are agreeing or disagreeing with open theism. You certainly aren't Calvinists, but other than that I don't know what you are.
But I don't know what I am either (besides chief of sinners of course)!
Anyway, I don't think it is a rabbit trail, trembling. knowing and shaping is at the heart of this discussion (at least as well as I see it through a glass darkly right now).
I think I'm more confused than when this started. Trembling I still don't see the logic in your position. This statement especially:
"1. God knows the single line that the future will take, including the moments when he'll change his mind and we'll change ours."
This would require God to have a totally different definition of a "changed mind" than we humans and I don't buy that. The writers of the Bible who tell us that God changed his mind must have used that phrase on purpose. In your line of thinking they would have been better saying "then God altered the events in a pre-ordained way" but certainly what you are saying is not God changing his mind.
I think I believe that God could know all possible choices we could make and chooses not to spend his time knowing them. For me this is a great comfort in two ways: 1) it greatly increases me desire to pray and 2) it gives me a picture of a God who is just as sad and disappointed and surprised by my family members cancer as I am. That is a God I want to pray to and be in relationship with.
Would it shake my faith to find out God did know about Hitler and did nothing to stop him? No, but I would enjoy chatting with God about how that works.
Since I was a wee lad I've struggled with the message that I'm to give all credit to God for the good in my life and no blame to God for the bad. Even if God knows the future and doesn't stop the bad then isn't he implicit? And if he knows the future but doesn't shape it then why is he 100% responsible for all good but no bad?
I realize these are borderline blaspemous questions but I know God is big enough to handle it and I think I'm humble enough to be wrong and be okay with it. But they're questions I have none the less.
trembling is often the voice of clarity in my life, but on this occasion i too am confused, but i think it is semantics.
these are good honest question tanti, and i share them, but let me offer an answer to this part:
"And if he knows the future but doesn't shape it then why is he 100% responsible for all good but no bad?"
Whether God shapes the future or not, all good came with creation and is attributed to God's post-Fall redemptive remains (they call this general or prevenient grace) and even to Spirit at work within the world. Bad is the perversion or twisting of good to ungodly ends. It is not of God, even if everything utilized to do it is good to begin with. In this way God could be responsible for good, but only responsible for bad because he gave free will.
If God is on the dock, it is for giving freedom. This was a fateful decision on his part, because of the decisions he had to know (or imagine) we might make with that freedom. However, if we are to hold God on trial for giving us freedom, we must also acknowledge that we couldn't have the trial without the freedom in the first place.
Having said all that, you are right that for God to allow evil, or not intervene against evil in all cases, does seem to make him implicit in it. This is a theodicy problem, but is related nonetheless.
i'll say two more things.
1) Often it is the other way around in the world, isn't it tanti? God is blamed for bad, and given no credit for good.
2) This discussion alone is restoring a sense of my awe before God. Even as we try to speak of him in anthropomorphic terms, the inability to do so overwhelms.
fear, great point. Likely more times God is blamed for bad and given no credit for good. I guess I am speaking from my ethnocentric evangelical upbringing.
Even more troubling is when God is given credit for a perceived good thing (wealth in America) which to me implies that those who don't have this same thing (most of the rest of the world) are somehow not blessed and are outside of God's blessing.
Rabbit trails aside though, I still have no problem believing in a God who chooses not to know everything that will happen. I was thinking that in my previous line of thinking this also makes him implicit, whether He chooses not to know something or He knows it doesn't change the fact that both imply he could shape it. Like I said earlier this topic getting more muddied for me before it gets clearer.
Hey Tanti,
You wrote, "This would require God to have a totally different definition of a "changed mind" than we humans and I don't buy that. The writers of the Bible who tell us that God changed his mind must have used that phrase on purpose. In your line of thinking they would have been better saying "then God altered the events in a pre-ordained way" but certainly what you are saying is not God changing his mind."
No, my line of thinking doesn't make logical sense and I kind of enjoyed that... it gives me a sense of puzzlement that I find humbling. It's not strange at all, in my opinion, for God to know in advance when he will change his mind. The reason I'm fine with it is because he's not changing his mind like we fickle humans would; in all cases his decisions will be completely in line with his character, just a different way in how his actions play out.
As for the writers choosing one way to write over another, I think we all wish Scripture were clearer on a number of points.
Okay, folks, I'm done on this sub-topic: Apologies to everyone that I caused so much confusion. I was hoping to clarify in my mind what seemed (to me) to be some problem-causing definitions... but the discussion didn't clarify anything and, in fact, dragged everyone else down with me.
Okay, I don't think it was that bad a rabbit trail, but here I'll maybe try to get back to main questions:
i still think it comes down to where you prefer to place the mystery.
Calvinists say its all preplanned, and so the mystery is WHY this or that? Arminians say its preplanned according to foreknowledge (clearly this is trembling's view, and probably most of our default views), and so the mystery is WHAT the heck, how does that work? Free will theists (of the variety we seem to be describing) say God limits his own specific foreknowledge and works out his plans of redemption accordingly as we make our free will decisions, and so the question is HOW can he do that?
So, what is more biblical? (I think they all have their pros and cons)
And does any make more or less sense of prayer? (I think Calvinists pray for their own good, Arminians too except they see themselves as participating in forming the preordained plan somehow, and Openers (nice name eh?) actually pray to affect God, even while submitting to his will).
And does any easily explain the problem of evil? (No, except Calvinists have a much much harder time of making this make sense)
I think these are questions similar to what Hansens was driving at, if not feel free to steer us back Hansens.
(incidentally, I actually feel like this conversation is clarifying the question for me quite well. Maybe not the answer so much, but the issue is clearing in my mind)
Another thought: Just to be clear there is one more major theory we haven't been talking about, and that is Process Theology. I think it is avoidable because it is less biblically sound, but it basically says that God is still in the state of becoming and it is through the human experiment that He will become all that He is, and in the process as we participate so do we.
This one is pretty whacked. But I mention it to point out that the Free Will Theists are not at the far end of a spectrum on this issue, they are actually way more moderate and biblical than some other alternative views.
I've always our reality and terms of existence to be similar to God's. We were made in His image and to me that means our appearance, our intellect, our feelings. I believe God is incapable of evil and so this is where we veer from His image in that in our free will we commit sins He wouldn't or couldn't commit.
Why do I say all this? Because to me being made in God's image not only gives me an idea of what I'm about but it gives me an idea of what God's existence is like based on mine. His thoughts are higher I know but all this to say that if an OT writer says God changed his mind I believe that means the same thing it does for me. God had every intention of doing something and was convinced to completely alter his plan at that moment.
I guess that means I believe He didn't know that He would alter his plan but that He can change His mind within the framework of his overall plan and mission for the world and for each of us. I have trouble believing He can't know what will happen so I guess that leaves me believing that he chooses not to know everything.
Am I an open theist?
ps: my Tuna prediction, he will never post again. I hope I'm wrong.
tanti: i think that makes you a full-blown open theist. and i'm jealous in a way with where you are at since it seems a great motivator for you to pray. still in my calvinist default i sadly find intercession difficult to muster up.
at the risk of over-posting, another thought: reading a commentary on Jonah this morning the guy said a central motif was the "irrevocable call" of God.
certainly God's call pursues Jonah like a dog but can we read Calvinistic kind of election out of it like that. Maybe that wasn't the authors point, but my thought was actually how concerned God seemed to be with having Jonah WITH him in the mission. Certainly God did his thing almost despite Jonah, but so much of the focus of the book seems to be God's interaction with the free will of his servant, and God seems to so badly want a COMPLICENT rather than a COMPLACENT servant, even if God will still do his thing whether we are with him or not.
I guess so much of interpretation depends what you are looking for.
I'm just jealous, Tanti, that now you seem to know what camp you belong in. Not that it's a fixed state or anything, but I wish I could figure out what I really think about all this. As soon as I think I'm leaning one way, something leans me the other way, and then again...
I think you could read Openness into the Jonah story as well, Fear. Just because God doggedly pursued Jonah, doesn't mean that he knew what Jonah would eventually choose in the end. Perhaps God just knew Jonah was a stubborn bloke and he was going to give him ample opportunity to be obedient.
One question that has come up in my Open Theism discussions lately: What do "Openers" say about prophecy? How would open theism reconcile both biblical prophecy and present day prophecy, where a revelation of the future is concerned? If the future is unknown to God, how can it be prophecied?
It has been great to read all the wisdom you all have been bringing to this discussion. I've enjoyed just sitting back and reading it, however I do not want to get raked over the coals ala Tuna and so I will venture to post again.
If I was to try to pin down my current ideas on this topic they would likely turn out to be quite similar to Tanti's thoughts a couple posts back. The idea of God changing his mind (whatever that means) poses no problems to me and gives a potency to human prayer that Calvinism cannot supply. I don't see anyway to explain away this clear departure from the original plan. Granted this is messy semantic territory, i.e. whether changing one's plan can be part of the plan, yadayadayada....
And for God to legimitately change his mind I don't think he can know about it in advance, in practice to me this means choosing not to know, not an inability.
Before I declare myself, they aren't still burning Openers at the stake these days are they?
Very interesting question about Prophecy from the Hansens too. If we to believe in a God who chooses not know the future, how can he be revealing something he does not yet know to humans. Not that prophecy is strictly fortune tellin or something. And again, maybe we are talking about situational problems again. Maybe God chooses to know somethings and not others, but then how do you distinguish between the two without foreknowledge. Nuts, this is messy. I'm understanding more about what fear was saying about our anthropomorphisms and how limiting they can be.
I wonder what Chesterton would have to say about all this?
"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." - GKC: Broadcast talk 6-11-35
Is Chesterton an open theist?
Good to hear from CSU, happy birthday by the way. (Jan. 30 I think)
Prophecy, interesting question. Though I am one who believes the vast majority of prophecy has nothing to do with telling the future, none the less some of it does. So how does that work?
For me it's not an issue, I've never said I believe God chooses to not know anything in the future, just that I could believe He chooses not to know it all or even most of it.
God would have known Jesus was gonna die, He would have known Jesus was going to be born in Bethlehem, Jesus knew Peter would betray...
This line of thinking might seem like the ultimate cop out, the ultimate middle ground, but I don't care. Believing God knows some of the future and chooses not to know the rest, and believing that His mind can be changed, put this together and I am inspired to pray. Yet I still don't pray enough. If I were a Calvinist I don't know that I would pray more than once a year just to say Hi.
i fully agree tanti. happy about your birth coldstorage.
here i feel like briefly encapsulating Karl Barth's doctrine of election as I understand it and then offering my own (or perhaps it is his) idea.
Barth basically says that all our questions of who is in and who is out are besides the whole point of the doctrine of election. it is not an individual election in that sense. if there is an individual elected from before the creation of the world it is Christ. but more than that the point is that God elected a people for Himself in Christ. Jesus Christ is both the Electing God and the Elected Human. The Seed of Jesse AND the Root of Jesse!
When God said "let us make human" he knew what he was doing and might just as well have been saying "let us make Christ Jesus".
(now here is where I try to apply that to the present discussion.)
So what we have is an elected people, and it is left up to us to decide whether to be in that people or not, and this is all decided freely by us, but not on a merited sort of decision but a submission to divine will. FAITH. Within the outworking of a genuine faith will be a life befitting a creature in relationship with their Creator, but it is our acceptance of the gift, of election in Christ, that allows us in to that redeemed people.
Certainly it would seem that for God to have his people (and not just be left standing in the cold with Jesus) he would have Certain (in both sense of the word) Plans and would even Call certain people in ways which almost seem to overwhelm their free will (i.e. Paul). Leaders who God asks us to follow as they follow Christ. (even then it is remarkable how much God coaxes and woos rather than forcing the hands of leaders such as Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, etc...)
So there's a Plan. It is Certain. It may even have Certain details. And like Ahaz in Isaiah we can either have faith and participate or we can have non-faith and take part unwittingly in God's Redemptive Plan. Whatever we decide will have ramifications, but it will not wreck the ultimate plan. The ramifications will be felt deeply by us and by those we effect. Life is the real thing. Choose this day who you'll serve.
I don't see a lot of Calvinism in that, even though Calvinism does hammer some important points home (such as depravity, God's power, etc...). Barth was apparently a neo-Calvinist, so I don't know if he likes me right now, sitting up there in Abraham's bosom as he is.
sorry if that is a tangent or if it makes no sense. it makes a lot of sense in my head right now. but then again so does the idea of the Colts winning the Super Bowl, and that may or may not happen, depending of course on the sum total of each team's holiness before God and his subsequent predestination of the outcome based on that foreknowledge (right Arminians?).
It is 10:36 in Regina so this might throw your poll off. Did you pick dates based on eastern standard time or Tuna time. Tuna time works out well but it is not dependable and will leave you alone and crying on the floor huddled up in a little ball.
Often in theological debates it seems wise to say that both sides are right. That Calvinist and Arminians are right. This debate though can not be judged this way. One side is right and one side is wrong. It is a good bet that whatever side I come down on will end up being the wrong side so here goes...
I like most of you was raised believing that God knew the future. When I first heard of thie debate I laughed it off but there are some good points that need to be dealt with. I do agree with what a lot of you are saying about prayer. It is hard to pray for events outside my control because I don't know if it will have any impact. If God doesn't know the future then prayer seems much more important.
I wonder though about the prophetic texts of Scripture? Most of these prophets were given visions of the future. They predicted what was going to happen. Did a open God just show them what his best guess of the future is, or did a God who knows the future show these men what was going to happen? I'm not sure if you talked about this already? I read through some of your posts.
It is important to me in these debates to think about what would change if we approached this issue differently. If the church did believe that God didn't know the future and that the future hasn't already been played out; maybe that would cause the church to pray more and live more like Christ. It seems that our lives are somewhat important but that God is going to do his thing no matter what you or I do? I don't know if I can say I belong to the open God camp but I am more open to this position then I have been in the past.
Alright, so who won the pool?
I've been thinking about the prophecy question since i think it was tanti raised it. it is a problem for open theism. i mean, look at the prophecy i alluded to with Ahaz. Isaiah told him to ask for a sign and he wouldn't. He did his own thing. Then Isaiah gave him the Immanuel prophecy, which foretold the coming Saviour but also a more immediate birth which would be the sign of Ahaz' destruction.
Who was that baby? What if that baby wasn't born? Prophecy for open theists really boils down to God deciding to make something happen and then saying so. But how far does this "meddling" (ok that isn't a good enough word sorry) go? I mean, open theists still have to try to figure out why God "meddles" ahead sometimes and not other times.
on the other hand, i'm not sure prophecy in the Bible is always so specific. I think the prophets had visions of certain things but they were mysterious. the didn't just write them down mysteriously, the actual visions themselves were mysterious. meant to be understood once they happened, not before. meant to tell us something, but not details. so there is room to move on God's part, even within the prophecies.
i wanted to say something about prayer, but i really hope i don't drag a bunch of you down with me when i say this. even for open theists, intercessory prayer is a conundrum. if God doesn't know the future maybe prayer feels more integral, but is it really? why does God need to be persuaded to do something good?
also, i think it is interesting how related this topic is to last month's. at the heart of this debate in academic circles is the argument that augustine and the like were overly affected by Hellenistic philosophy in their conceptions of what "divine perfection" was. The counter-argument is that open theists are too affected by postmodern philosophy of "freedom". history for some, speaks for itself. how can you argue with 2000 years of thought? but for others, they say, how can you argue with where 2000 years of thought has brought us?
the crazy thing is, some of the same people who tend to argue adamantly against culture, don't seem to think the culture of augustine could have adversely affected him the same way it does us.
i think both need to hear from each other, and while tuna (welcome back my prodigal son!) is right that some of the viewpoints are diametrically opposed, as long as we don't know we may have to hold a viewpoint in each hand as we walk along.
i think i win the topol award for picking tuna to post last week. no one else was even close, and as bob barker would say, they all went over.
Bob Barker would also advise us to have our pets spayed or neutered.
"I mean, open theists still have to try to figure out why God "meddles" ahead sometimes and not other times."
Fear, I think you're right that this is a conundrum, but I would say it is for all viewpoints. There is no question, regardless of your view, that God intercedes sometimes and often doesn't. If you believe he decided these things before time began then the same question applies as it does to the open theist: why some and not others?
Prayer affects God, or He sure seems to imply that it does. This leads me away from Calvininism more than anything.
Underachiever (whose firewall has prevented his posting apparently) and I were discussing this at a potluck recently and he brought up his belief that God is outside the bounds of time so he must know all. I'm not convinced the Bible makes a claim that God is outside of time but I suppose if someone could show me that He was then this would make open theism harder to adhere to. Though I also suppose that regardless of time's hold over God or lack of it He could still choose to not know all couldn't he?
i think the idea is that if God is "in" time then time itself exists on its own and then, what is God? who is God? is "time" a god alongside God? but it think there might be a way to see God creating time and then entering it, while still being outside of it.
tanti, i agree with you about that question applying to all views, i was merely pointing out the obvious, which is that openness doesn't explain everything away, even if it explains some things better.
i think we need to pray against this so called "firewall" which is keeping underachiever from our fellowship. sounds alot like the forces of hell to me.
(all sarcasm aside, what's the deal with that? can we do anything on the site?)
Romans 9:18-24
"THerefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you [probably Fear, among others] will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?' But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the rigth to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?
What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?"
Wow. A real call to theological humility.
Does it make a difference that it says "What if"? I mean, is this promoting 5-point Calvinism or is it just reminding us that EVEN IF the 5-point Calvinists are right, we still have a God worthy of all our worship?
Furthermore, does it make a difference that there is a lot of Jew/Gentile stuff in the context?
This seems like a key passage to me. Just ran across it again today.
Okay, here are some questions that I have been struggling through thanks to this topic:
Is God beyond time? If he is Beginning and End, shouldn't He know all in between?
What about the immutablility of God? Does this doctrine just consider God's unchanging character or also His decisions?
I'd like to be "open" to this school of thought, but I don't think I can get there yet.
Good job Fear on bringing in Scripture to the debate. This passage though makes me question God's goodness. If some objects are made just to be destroyed does that take away from God's goodness? This isn't directly linked to what we are discussing but it comes to mind. Maybe this should be our next topic?
For God to be God he has to exist outside of time but God can put himself into time. Maybe the desire for God not to know the future is that it makes God to be less cold and calculating. It is important for us today to understand God as being fair,impartial, and open to suggestion. I don't know what the truth is but we need to understand who God really is and not what we imagine him to be.
I'm scared, did my return to this site cause the downfall of Holy Crap? I post a couple times and the whole thing comes apart. Maybe the best thing I can do for this blog is to be the object of ridicule and the focus of all the hate?
now you know what its like to sit around wondering, tuna...
I am somewhat at a loss with this issue. there are texts that could go either way, there are texts that seem calvinist, there are texts that seem open. i can see that augustine and the like were operating under certain assumptions of what God's perfection must entail, and that perhaps today we like a perfection that allows God to limit himself for the best possible creation of free beings that he will redeem with all efficacy.
but how can God not know the future? it does seem crazy. maybe he knows and then gets the eraser Arnold Schwarzenegger to come erase his memory or something.
i think that passage i quoted above is pretty relevant. whatever God knows, there is a lot we don't know, and so we must act like people who don't know and trust the one who holds the future.
the difficult thing I have is that its hard to know how or why to pray. philip yancey's recent book is helping me, but prayer is a perpetually tough one for me (hint hint on next month's topic Tuna) for reasons very close to what we are talking about here.
I have to say I stopped posting for about a week and was just reading comments because I really didn't know what to say. I am still at a bit of a loss with this topic. I guess this is the end of our time with it. I wonder, did anyone make any movement on this issue or come to a conclusion they're satisfied with? This may be a topic we all kind of leave as a work in progress for a while.
I've concluded that wherever you fall on this topic, you have to be okay with some exception. You can say that God knows the future, except for the times when he seems to have changed his mind, or that God doesn't know the future, except for the times when he seems to know the plan. No one really presented a biblical argument that convinced me one way or the other, but I'm sure none of us did a full-out exegesis on it either.
I keep trying to type out a brief summary of where I think I've landed for now on this topic, but then I erase it because it's different on different days. It has actually surfaced in all my prayer times over the past 3 weeks, and has at least succeeded in creating interesting dialogue in my own quiet time with God. (As usual, mostly one-sided dialogue, unfortunately. I'll try to keep listening.)
Thanks for considering this topic folks. It's been an interesting journey for me. I'm sure my view will keep forming. Any closing thoughts?
I think I remain a sort of pseudo-Arminian by default. I think God plans stuff out and yet does so in a sort of intimate foreknowledge of who we are and what we'll do. Whether he KNOWS what we'll do or just pretty much has it all guessed out within a 99% accuracy rate or something, I don't know.
I would like to be an Open Theist, way more than I'd like to be a Calvinist, but what I'd like to be doesn't make something right or wrong. I think we do have to leave a large chunk of mystery on this. I am okay with people being Calvinists as long as they aren't hard-liners. Same with the other views. Or at least if they are hard-liners they should be able to reason it out and explain it and not be arrogant about it.
That passage I quoted really kept me from going all the way with openness. I see room in it for all views, but I also see it saying that even if God is a 5-point Calvinist, he is God and he is good and there is no other and who am I to question?
The trouble is, I actually think that whether you are a Calvinist or an Open Theist actually ends up affecting how you think abotu a lot of other things too. PRobably the in/out, sacred/secular polarities spring from a Calvinist mindset do they not? Probably the watering down of the "God is just like one of us, just a stranger on the bus" idea springs from an Open mindset does it not?
In the end, the Bible tends to almost not want us to go all the way with one camp, so that by keeping several ideas in the air we can keep ourselves out of some bad ditches.
I'm repeating myself a lot because I don't know what else to say. One thing I realized: I used to think my troubles understanding prayer had to do mostly with Calvinist assumptions, but I'll have those questions with any system.
THis was a good topic, we are clearly a theological roundtable and not an exegetical panel. That's fine, but it reminds me of how little theology can do without sound exegesis.
There are too many aspects of my life that appear to be constructed or altered at midstream. To me they seem to be more than mere coincidences occurring from a God who can't see into the future. As I have related in personal conversations with Fear and with Tuna, I wouldn't be where I am today without God's very specific work at distinct intersections in my life... more than that, it's hard for me to see that various aspects of my life now are the result of chance, with God just as surprised as I am with their outcome. Quite the contrary! If I had to pick a spot I'd say I was 25% Calvinist and 75% Armenian, however, my life seems to suggest that I'm closer to 60% Calvinist and 40% Armenian. But basically not an open theist at all. However, my stance is not based on scripture -- I'll admit that (although Ephesians 1:1-15 is hard to read otherwise) -- but rather on tradition and experience... and I'm pretty happy with where I am.
By the way, I talked to Tuna tonight. He wasn't aware of the blog's publishing calendar that's been posted since the middle of January. He has a topic, and it's a good one, so hopefully he'll post it tonight when he gets back from floor hockey.
Happy Birthday Tuna. I'm amazed you've lived this long.
Post a Comment