Open Theism, (cont'd from earlier)

[RickC]

Hi Rick,

On another thread you posted a link to an interview with Roger Olson. (link)

In your review of the interview, you mentioned one negative:

My only 'negative critique' of this discussion would be on some things Olson says about Greg Boyd and/or Open Theism. (What he says about Boyd in particular isn't how I've 'heard' Boyd myself. His critiques of Boyd/ Open Theism are almost the same as the critiques in a discussion on the forum we had, here while back. Be that as it may: Olson and the "Non-Open Theists" on this forum are Arminians of a more Classical variety---thus, the critiques "are to be expected").

Could you briefly say what you've heard from Boyd that you've 'heard' differently from what Olson stated?

Hi Michelle -

At 32:30 in Roger Olson's Interview he defined an Open Theist as:

“An open theist is someone who believes that God has limited Himself in relation to creation, so that He's in time with us. So the future is open for God, as well as for us” (and Olson went on to say God does not know everything, in the open theist view). “As my friend Greg Boyd says: 'He might know 99% of the future'. But He only knows that part of it that is already settled by something. Either by His decision, that He's going to do such and such, or by something in the environment, or whatever. 'So we don't really know', open theists say, 'how much of the future is known to God, and how much of it isn't'. But there's one category of things they say God doesn't know, and that is our future genuinely free decision, that are not yet settled, that we will settle by decisions we haven't made yet.”
======================================================================

Boyd and Open Theism (and/or Boyd's version of it) was discussed here under the topic:
Verse That Refutes Calvinism and Open Theism

From the above (my July 27, 2010 post) ---
Excerpted from Boyd's second vid (power point) with slight amendment for clarity -

An Alternative Perspective
God's Sovereignty Incorporates Flexibility
The Open View of the Future (note Boyd doesn't say "of God")
1. God knows all things
2. All things includes future possibilities (Note: Possibilities are Ontologically Real)
--> Some of reality (past, present, and future) is definite and perfectly known by God as such
--> Some of reality (some of the future) is indefinite (possibly this and possibly that) and perfectly known by God as such
3. God Settles Whatever He Chooses Ahead of Time and Opens Up Possibilities Ahead of Time to Whatever Extent He Chooses
4. God is Infinitely Intelligent and Can Therefore Anticipate Each Possibility as Perfectly As If It Was a Certainty
===================================================================

So from Boyd's video (April 2008), there are significant differences from what Boyd stated in it, and what Olson said about Greg Boyd/ Open Theism in his recent interview at AG.

Hope this helps/ clears things up, Thanks

[RickC]

Another add-on from Olson's blog (that should help) --
Why open theism doesn't even matter (that much)

Greg Boyd says:
August 27, 2010 at 7:38 am

Thanks for the (typically) balanced assessment Roger.

In response to Terry’s post: I wholly agree with W.L. Craig that God knows all true propositions. Where I and some other Open Theists disagree with Craig concerns the assumption that propositions asserting what “will” and “will not” exhaust the field of future tensed propositions. We rather hold that propositions asserting what “might and might not” come to pass also have a truth value that an omniscient God must know. If it’s true at a given point in time that “x will” or “x will not” come to pass, it is false that “x might and might not” come to pass. Conversely, if its true at a given point of time that “x might and might not ” come to pass, it is false both that “x will” or “x will not” come to pass.

GB
========================================================

RC

[Michelle]

Thank you, Rick. If I understand correctly (and who knows, I misunderstand so much...) Roger Olson gave a quick summation of what he believes open theists teach in which he leaves the impression that open theism diminishes God omniscience, something Greg Boyd points out is not true at all.

[Paidion]

I would like to have participated in the discussion on open theism, but having been away for 14 months, I was unable to do so.

I came to certain conclusions about God's knowledge many years ago, and when I expressed them on this forum, Steve Gregg indicated that I was expressing the view of open theism. I had never heard the term before, and so looked it up on the internet, and so discovered Greg Boyd. I bought two of his books God of the Possible and Is God to blame? Another outstanding well-researched book is The God Who Risks, A Theology of Providence by John Sanders. After having read these books, I realized I have been an "open theist" for years and didn't know it.

In the original thread George wrote:

Out of curiosity, how can God be all powerful, but not all knowing?

It is a common view that open theists do not believe that God is omniscient. That is not the case. To the best of my knowledge all open theists believe that God is omniscient. The difference lies in the fact that open theists believe that God does not know the logically unknowable, but He does know all that is possible to know. Surely we would not say a man disbelieves in God's omnipotence just because he believes that Got cannot create a rock so large that He can't lift it! Contradictions are not objects of power. Nor are they objects of knowledge.

Sentences about the future choices of people are not "statements" in the philosophical sense of the word, where "statement" is defined as a sentence which is either true or false. But sentences about future choices and their resulting actions have no truth value, for they are contingent on the future choices of free will agents. For example, if the sentence "Jim Schlim will begin to mow his lawn at 2 P.M. tomorrow" (hereafter referred to as "M") were either true or false, then Jim could not be a free will agent. For if M were a true statement, then at 2 P.M. tomorrow Jim would be unable to refrain from mowing his lawn. Similarly if M were a false statement, then Jim would be unable to mow his lawn at 2 P.M. tomorrow. So one can only conclude that M is not a statement at all --- has no truth value --- is neither true nor false. In order for someone to "know" that Jim will mow his lawn tomorrow then M must be true now. But if Jim's choice has not yet been made, there is nothing to know. On the other hand, if Jim has made the decision already, then M is a sentence expressing Jim's intention (he may change his mind by tomorrow), or it may be a prediction by the person who uttered it.

Thus sentences about future intentional acts of free will agents are logically unknowable. Surely no one, including God, can know the unknowable. But He does know all that is possible to know, and thus we open theists agree that He is omniscient.

[RickC]

Thank you, Rick. If I understand correctly (and who knows, I misunderstand so much...) Roger Olson gave a quick summation of what he believes open theists teach in which he leaves the impression that open theism diminishes God omniscience, something Greg Boyd points out is not true at all.

You're welcome, Michelle.
Yes, you got it, yeah, like-that (from Boyd's POV, anyway).
(more below)

Surely no one, including God, can know the unknowable. But He does know all that is possible to know, and thus we open theists agree that He is omniscient.

Though I haven't read any open theists' books, Greg Boyd's ideas have evolved. But of course, open theism has changed over the years (and open theists have differences among themselves, etc.).

At one time Boyd may have agreed with what you posted, Paidion.
However, he no longer does (if he ever did).
Other open theists, such as yourself, agree with your post (etc.).

Btw, I gave tons of quotes & links & IMOs on the thread where we discussed/debated this.
(Verses That Refute Calvinism and Open Theism thread, linked to above).

Anyways, thanks!

[RickC]

Add-On (brief explanation) ---

From Page 6, Verse That Refutes Calvinism and Open Theism (I posted) --

Excerpted from Boyd's A Brief Outline and Defense of the the Open View -
Common Objections

1: The Open view undermines God’s omniscience

Response: I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God is absolutely all knowing. There is no difference in my understanding of God’s omniscience and that of any other classical theologian, but I hold that part of the reality which God perfectly knows consists of possibilities as well as actualities. The difference lies in our understanding of the nature of the future, not in our understanding of God’s omniscience.
================================================================

One Somewhat Annoying Factoid! ---
As I recall, some or most of Greg Boyd's blog and other articles aren't dated.
(Why don't people put dates on stuff they write??? Grrrrr...)!!!!
In any event, I was able to 'roughly guess' when they were written, but I had to dig to find it. From what else I've been able to gather, some time around 2006 was when Boyd began moving toward and/or was 'honing out' the views he expressed in the 2008 video.

See links @ bottom of page 4
Open Theism, Omniscience, and the Nature of the Future:
by Alan R. Rhoda, Gregory A. Boyd, Thomas G. Belt (2006)

(Sorry, I'm just sort of consolidating some stuff on this thread for convenience)!

[benstenson]

This is one of my favorite topics. I've been studying it for 2-3 years. One of the more common objections I've heard is "God is outside of time."

[RickC]

Greetings, Ben, et al --

I found a site this weekend named Closer To Truth (which examines stuff like) --
-- God
-- Creation
-- Consicousness
-- Immoratality
-- Free Will
-- Other (related)
It isn't a Christian site, but has Christian thinkers such as J.P. Moreland and Greg Boyd.

Link to Closer to Truth: Greg Boyd Page

Here Greg talks about Open Theism (or Open Future View) and Conditional Immortality.
I didn't hear much 'new' from the youtube playlist I posted, but Greg elaborates a bit further.
Each interview is approx. 12 minutes.
These would serve as a 'quicker intro' to Open Theism (Boyd's version) as opposed to the playlist.

Thanks,

[Homer]

Hello Bro Rick,

You might find Jack Cottrell's article "Understanding God: God and Time" interesting. His view is that God is both in our time and outside in His own time:

http://internal.ccuniversity.edu/seminary/Cottrell.pdf

May God bless you ion the coming year!

Homer

[Paidion]

At one time Boyd may have agreed with what you posted, Paidion.
However, he no longer does (if he ever did).

Rick, what did I post with which you believe Gregory Boyd does not agree? I have read his book God of the Possible and it's clear that we are on the same side of the fence.