|
|
Post by robin on Apr 25, 2008 10:56:11 GMT -8
Hi Douglas,
I have to disagree with this assessment of open theism. If open theism limits God's power or knowledge, then you might have an argument. However, open theism does not do this.
Let me share with you what Greg Boyd says on the subject. He responds to some of the most common objections to open theism.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Apr 29, 2008 8:56:13 GMT -8
Ok, I've been thinking about this and I have a question for those who adhere to the traditional view of Gods foreknowledge (Josh, Douglas, sonlyte, or anyone else).
When I consider the implications of this view I have come up with an analogy that I think fits well. If God, by being outside of time, is able to see the future in its entirety without effecting free will choices, is this not like you or I reading a book and knowing the story from begining to end? What power would I have in changing the outcome of the book if I already know the story in its entirety?
My thoughts go further than this. It seems apparent to me that God is constantly involved in all aspects of His creation, including drawing the world to Himself. If God does know the future, and see His involvement in future events, is He free to do anything outside of what He sees in the future? Does this not limit God's power and ability to work freely within His creation?
I have to cut this short for now, but I hope to get back to it soon and post more thoughts and questions.
God bless,
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 29, 2008 11:06:27 GMT -8
I think that is one of Open Theisms greatest strengths, the unsolveable philosophical mystery of the Armenian view of absolute foreknowledge.
I think it's greatest weakness, however, is how God knows (or seems to know) in advance the free will decisions of certain people (Like Peter, Judas, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.).
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Apr 29, 2008 15:09:15 GMT -8
Thanks Chris,
Of course that is why this is such a difficult topic for me. However, I must ask the question. Do fulfilled prophecies indicate that God has a exhaustive knowledge of all things future, or are they a display of his power and ability to bring into reality what he determines (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus), or His intimate knowledge of the hearts of men (Judas, and Peter)?
By the way, what is it specifically about Cyrus that you were referring to. I skimmed Daniel and Ezra and found prophecies during the reign of Cyrus. Is this what you were referring to, or am I missing something?
God bless,
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 29, 2008 16:42:18 GMT -8
Robin,
Your point about God being powerful enough to guarantee certain outcomes in a future which don't yet exist is noted, but doesn't it undermine the whole reason for the open theist position in the first place?
For if God is powerful enough to bring anything about if He wills it (such as prophecy that a certain man Cyrus will allow the Jews back to the promised land, or that the Messiah will make himself known after 69 7s), whether he "sees it" ahead of time or not, then in effect he can "see it" ahead because it is a certainty that it will happen.
Furthermore, if all things are brought about by cause and effect, and God understands all things completely, then if he understands all things at any current moment, doesn't he also know perfectly how current things will cause effects ad infinitum?
And if you suggest that there are truly random, unpredictable events in the universe that can't be determined by their causes, then one doesn't need to use the future not existing as a way to explain free will anyway.
So, to me, from what I understand of it so far, Open Theism seems unnecessary.
I'm not sure I'm communicating this clearly but must go down for dinner now. That's the best you're getting for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 29, 2008 20:43:41 GMT -8
Robin, I was speaking of the Isaiah's prophesy about Cyrus (Isa 44 and 45). Certainly he had to make some decisions to go up against Babylon and then at some point free the Jews. Yet God gave prophesy that he would. This is highly significant in that Isaiah gave his prophecy about 150 years before Cyrus was even born. This means that the decisions of not only Cyrus, but about four generations that led up to his birth had to be known in advance by God. That's at least 30 some people at minimum, even down to what they would choose to name him. It's mind boggling when you think about it. So, I would agree with Josh that it (prophesy) undermines Open Theism (at least on the surface...and to some degree). On the other hand, I agree with you the bible indicates that God can, and sometimes does, move the heart and mind of man (the true originator of the Jedi mind trick) to fulfill His purposes. Pharoah is perhaps the greatest example of that we see in the OT. Hardening the hearts of the Jews in both Isaiah's and Jesus' day is another. But I still say you make a great point and analogy about the book. Arminian-like foreknowledge has its own set of problems. This is what gives fuel to a lot of Calvinist arguments (and I'm not by any means a Calvinist...far from it). Perhaps we will find in the end some truth in all 3 of those views (Universalism?  ).  |
|
|
|
Post by sonlyte on Apr 29, 2008 20:52:32 GMT -8
If I know myself well, and am confident of the necessary circumstances I can plan to pursue a bachelors degree and follow a four year plan to do so.
I know it takes four years.
I know there will be a ceremony at the end.
I know there will be a variety of difficult papers.
I know many more things about this pursuit.
But whether or not it works out like I planned depends on not only wisdom to forsee possible ends, but also diligence to hold to the line that I feel is the way to go.
While I don't have enough wisdom or diligence or inner strength and I fall back on praying for God's strength God doesn't pray to anyone. He knows he is wise and powerful and patient enough to bring about the ends which he has determined.
Sometimes I have a feeling that he provides for a variety of possibilities for fulfillment of his ends, and is short circuited in his efforts by this free will for a time, but his abilities bring success in the end.
I personally think that God would have us (at least partially ) see him as a super human; facing the future just as we would, but always able to eventually make his plan occur.
The End
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Apr 30, 2008 7:45:12 GMT -8
Hi Josh,
I would have to disagree that God "sees it" in the way arminians and Calvinist would understand seeing. From our discussions in the past, it seemed that you understood God's foreknowledge as a result of his ability to manipulate time, being that he is outside of time. I may be determined to carry out an activity at a certain time, but my knowledge of it rests only on my determined will, not any ability to see the events prior to them taking place.
Are all things brought about by cause and effect? I would say no. In the scientific realm, and in nature of course this is true, but what about mixing in free will beings who most of the time act illogically. Mans rebellion against a good and loving God is illogical. I think for this reason we see God surprised reaction in scripture, and his sorrow.
Chris,
Thanks for the reference. I knew I was missing something. It is funny that you mentioned universalism. I wasn't going to bring it up, but as you know it is one of the arguments that Thomas Talbot makes in his book The inescapable love of God.
God bless,
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 30, 2008 8:39:28 GMT -8
Yes, I did like Talbott's analogy of the master chess player knowing that he'll defeat his inferior opponent without making his moves for him. This strongly speaks of both God's will and his ability to accomplish it. Certainly makes one ponder. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 30, 2008 8:40:16 GMT -8
What I'm saying is that it's almost a moot point then whether the future yet exists or not if there is absolute certainty that God can bring something He wills about, especially soemthing quite specific.
As to your second point, that's why I wrote this caveat:
If there are truly random, free choice events (as I am inclined to believe simultaneously with the belief that God is absolutely sovereign over everything) then why the need to establish that the future doesn't exist yet?
Presumably open theists were trying to find a way in which God could be said to not absolutely know the future, and therefore not be able to absolutely determine it. So they came up with the idea that, "hey, maybe the future doesn't exist yet".
But if one accepts that there are truly free choices in the universe, then one doesn't have to believe that the future doesn't yet exist. That actually doesn't help the equation at all, because if God is truly omnipotent, then He can bring about what He wills perfectly anyway.
Robin wrote:
I'd say if God is outside of time, then he isn't "looking forward" at all, robin. He's not 'limited' because "His work" is His eternal, immutable, present free choice. Even our free will predicated on the determination of His choice.
Here's a stab: We can only perceive of Him as being in time, so when God "changes His mind" we are seeing his immutable present free choice in a moment of time, so being in a moment of time it is subject to change to respond to events. But from a perspective outside of time, the "change of mind" always was and always will be.
This stuff strains a whole lot of conceptual and mental boundaries.
The think I dislike about "open theism" as I can see it so far is that it attempts to take a paradox and give it a rational explanation that a human can fully understand. Yet it doesn't deliver and actually introduces new conundrums.
Better IMO to simply say, as I think Scripture indicates, that
a) God is absolutely sovereign over everything in the universe
and
b) True free will exists for humans
And believe that this paradox is explanable but inaccessible to our reason
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Apr 30, 2008 11:42:25 GMT -8
This last sentence is what bothers me about the traditional view of God and time. If the change of mind "always was and always will be" is it not simply and illusion that God did change his mind? Does God want us to believe he was changing his mind, but knew all along that he was following a predetermined pattern that always was?
You see Josh, this can go on forever. My question would be, why is it important to believe that God knows the future exhaustively? When I consider both sides of the argument I'm led to believe that the arminian view leaves more questions than answers. If you can explain how God can know before I was born, every decision i would make, and at the same time say I wasn't predestined (Calvinism) to make those decisions, I would like to hear it. Like I've said in prior conversations. You can't have square circles, and 2+2 cannot =3.
God bless,
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 30, 2008 16:03:04 GMT -8
Not, I am not saying that it's an illusion. I'm arguing that since God is outside of time (at least as far as we know it) he can be simultaneously present at two points on a timeline. He can be at point A feeling one way and point B feeling another way at the same time and both expressions of his will or emotions can be equally valid.
Imagine our experience of time is like the line of the equator. Let's say we start a journey on point A on the equator (somewhere over south america) and end at point B (somewhere over africa. Those are two very different places to us.
But God, being transcendent is like latitudinal lines which, coming from one place (the north pole) intersect both point A and B. From God's perspective he can access both points simultaneously and even perhaps have different experiences with us at different points, all the while remaining in the "timeless north" so to speak.
Given extra dimensions such certainties can look very different.
Here's a mathematical paradox, as Dr. Hugh Ross explains in his book Beyond the Cosmos:
"Triangles cannot be circles, and triangles can be circles.
Given two dimensions of space, we take it as an obvious fact that triangles are never circles, and circles are never triangles. After all, triangles always have corners and circles never do. From this perspective, the second of the two statements seems blatantly incorrect, if not crazy. But in reality- three-dimensional reality- the second statement is as correct and rational as the first. In three space dimensions we cna stand a triangle up on its base, bringing its length into the height dimension, spin the triangle around on its height axis, and thereby transcribe a cone. Since a cone is a series of concentric circles with progressively smaller diameters rising from the base of the vertex, a triangle can be equal to a circle in a three-dimensional context. There, the truth of both statements about triangles and circles can be recognized."
Paradoxical things can occur in higher dimensions.
Another more complicated example: one can see in our space-time dimensions that it would be impossible to turn a basketball inside out without ripping a seam, yet one can prove mathematically that it would be possible if another dimension was introduced.
Dr. Ross argues in his "Beyond the Cosmos" that it's quite possible that the reason we have difficulty with the paradoxical statements in the bible on all sorts of issues (predestination, free will, the Trinity, the Incarnation, God's proximity, and many other topics) is because we are interacting and learning about a being (God) who can operate infinitely beyond our space-time dimensions.
I'd highly recommend the book. Though it doesn't claim to be an open-shut case on these issues (and is more solid on some paradoxical issues than others), it definitely demonstrates how humble our rationality is, being confined in our dimensionality.
To me, if the Scriptural evidence is good for God's absolute sovereignty and the existence of true free will, then the paradox must be explained by God's uber-dimensionality.
Perhaps we need to talk more about the Scriptural evidence.
Lastly, I'd say that my view (the paradoxical view of free will and predestination) is the only one that doesn't have to "explain away" texts- either ones where God changes His mind and ones where God says all our days are in his book even before we're born.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 30, 2008 16:20:04 GMT -8
bump
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Apr 30, 2008 17:50:34 GMT -8
I would love to engage you on this further, perhaps its better done in person. I'm starting to think that our main disconnect is in our view of how God created time. You see, I believe that when God created our universe, He created it to work in time, and what actually exists is not a line, but rather a dot. What I'm trying to say is that the only thing that actually exists in the present. If we are to assume that When God spoke us into creation that at the same time all time existed for God, I don't know how you get around predestination.
By the way, I would love to see the mathematical equation that allows a basketball to be turned inside out, without tearing a seam.
You are correct. It is a paradox, however this is Websters definition.
Also, you may have seemingly found a way to avoid explaining away passages, but you have to rely on the existence of dimensions of which you have no evidence of existing, or that it is even possible for them to exist. I would prefer not to rely on such speculation when nothing in scripture requires it.
God bless,
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 30, 2008 19:44:50 GMT -8
My point in saying that it's a paradox is that I don't believe the two are ultimately contradictory, though I cannot prove to you that they aren't contradictary. The basis for this belief is the argument that what appears to be contradictory in 2 dimensions doesn't have to be in 3. Likewise, what appears contradictory in 3 dimensions isn't necessarily in 4 space dimensions. Whether such dimensions actually exist or whether they exist only in the mathematical abstract, such theorems do demonstrate that apparent contradictions can turn out to be merely paradoxes. Furthermore, if such dimensions exist (even if in the abstract) then God has access to them. And therefore he might do all sorts of things that seem impossible without ever really breaking a "law of the universe". BTW I don't think miracles break the laws of the universe, I just think there are many laws we are unaware of. I totally understand that this is your viewpoint. I've just been simultaneously arguing for mine  Perhaps we should take a look at some more passages of Scripture- it might be a bit easier for us lay-scientists ;D |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 25, 2008 8:59:14 GMT -8
Per Josh's request, I copied this post from universalism and moved it here.
OK, it seems that from this point we may be on the path of talking past each other. It is well established that we (you and I) view God's relationship to time differently. I don't want to side track the discussion but I simply want to make a quick observation.
You said:
and,
If you are correct, how do you understand the meaning of the following passage from Hebrews?
Hebrews 8:6-13
6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." 13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
How can anything vanish or be remembered no more by a God who is eternally present in all moments?
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 24, 2008 21:20:56 GMT -8
So, Robin, I would see God as describing at one time and place for us, what He will be doing at another time and place for us (what we call the future).
I see statements like this on God's part as relative to our vantage point.
|
|
). 
