A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Post by Singalphile » Sun Dec 21, 2014 8:47 pm

Paidion wrote:No. If "You are going to eat pizza tomorrow" is true, then you CANNOT refrain from eating pizza tomorrow. Where, then, is your free will?
Be that as it may (dizerner most recently addressed that itt, I think), my main point was that it seems like, "You are going to eat pizza tomorrow," is in fact either true or false even though we don't currently know which. It doesn't seem correct to say that the statement is "neither true nor false".
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Post by Paidion » Sun Dec 21, 2014 9:32 pm

Be that as it may (dizerner most recently addressed that itt, I think), my main point was that it seems like, "You are going to eat pizza tomorrow," is in fact either true or false even though we don't currently know which. It doesn't seem correct to say that the statement is "neither true nor false".
No. It's not just a matter of us not knowing whether it's true or false. For if it is EITHER true of false now, then your free will is gone.

For if it's true now, then you cannot refrain from eating pizza tomorrow. If it's false now, then it's impossible for you to eat pizza tomorrow. So either way, you don't have the ability to eat or not eat by choice.

When you say, "I am going to eat pizza tomorrow," you are not making logical statement (logical statements are either true or false); you are making a statement of intention. What you really mean is, "I intend to eat pizza tomorrow." (now THAT sentence is a logical statement which is either true or false).

When you say, "The Winnipeg jets will win the hockey game tomorrow", you are not making a logical statement; what you really mean is, "I predict that the Winnipeg jets will win the hockey game tomorrow. (and THAT sentence is a logical statement which is either true or false).
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Post by Singalphile » Sun Dec 21, 2014 10:31 pm

Okay. Well, I don't want to belabor the point but ...

I think this is your reasoning:

A) You are free to eat or not eat pizza tomorrow.
B) IF it is true or false today that you will eat pizza tomorrow, then A is false.
C) Therefore, "You will eat pizza tomorrow," is neither true nor false.

I understand that. But it seems too obvious to me that you either will eat pizza tomorrow or you won't. Therefore, "You will eat pizza tomorrow," is in fact either true or false, I think. So I would tweak it like this:

A) You are free to eat or not eat pizza tomorrow.
B) IF anyone knows whether it is true or false today that you will eat pizza tomorrow, then A is false.
C) Therefore, "You will eat pizza tomorrow," is not known by anyone to be either true or false.

Of course A and B could be false, but I didn't really mean to get into that.

Just food for thought (ha, ha ... 'cause of the pizza).
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
remade
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:53 pm
Location: Idaho
Contact:

Re: A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Post by remade » Thu May 05, 2016 12:55 pm

To try and put it as simple logical, and void of Scriptural assistance as you started (void of scriptural assistance after the first two of your points):

I believe that a God who does not know the future, is a God who cannot deliver. What would be the difference in serving a God bound by space and time, or serving a very good leader whom we trust will always make the right decisions though He is just as clueless as we are if there IS light at the end of the tunnel?

I understand a general discomfort for those who have experienced dark tragedies and have concluded, "A loving God wouldn't have wanted me to experience this, therefore He must not know the future and therefore I can still serve and love Him back believing that if He DID know, He would've stopped this incident before occurring."

I guess what is more discomforting for me though is the idea that God cannot or does not see what is coming, and thus He is as lost as I am when it comes to decisions I make.

I take comfort in the fact that though God might foresee the storms that come in my life, He is able to take any and all bad circumstances and use Him for His good purposes (See the story of Joseph, Romans 8; etc.) This does not put the blame on God for our tragedies. We can sin and enter into depravity without any help from God, or from the enemy from that matter. It puts the glory on God who can take our broken puzzles in life and say, "If you'd just give it to me, I can put you back together again." That's the God who delivers, that's the God who entrusted two people to keep the world together, and they broke that promise (Adam and Eve), and even then God looked into the future and knew that His Seed would crush the serpent. That's the God who delivers, and a the God that I think is unapologetically presented throughout the Bible.
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
- II CORINTHIANS 5:21 ESV

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Post by mattrose » Thu May 05, 2016 7:09 pm

remade wrote:I believe that a God who does not know the future, is a God who cannot deliver.
Just to be clear, I (along with other Open Theists) do believe that God knows the future. God knows the future, exactly as it is. In some cases the future is known as a certainty. In other cases (in cases involving free creatures and their decisions), the future is known as a possibility. God's knowledge of the future is perfectly aligned with reality.
What would be the difference in serving a God bound by space and time, or serving a very good leader whom we trust will always make the right decisions though He is just as clueless as we are if there IS light at the end of the tunnel?
The difference would be gigantic. First of all, if Open Theism is true, it wouldn't make much sense to say God is 'bound by time' as if Time is some sort of entity that could be navigated but has decided to trap God inside it. God is not 'bound by time' so much as time is just a reality of existence. Second of all, there would be a gigantic difference between a flawed human leader who is clueless about the future and a perfect God who knows every possible future!
I understand a general discomfort for those who have experienced dark tragedies and have concluded, "A loving God wouldn't have wanted me to experience this, therefore He must not know the future and therefore I can still serve and love Him back believing that if He DID know, He would've stopped this incident before occurring."
I've actually lived a pretty easy life compared to most people. I do not come at Open Theism from a place of pain. I just think it fits best with the biblical narrative and common sense. I actually think God does want us to experience some pain in our fallen condition because that is often the only way we'll become what we were designed to be.
I guess what is more discomforting for me though is the idea that God cannot or does not see what is coming, and thus He is as lost as I am when it comes to decisions I make.
Though God doesn't always know what possibility will come to pass (in the case of free will creatures), God does know every possibility and what is likely based on current trajectory. So to say God would be 'as lost as I am' would be a severe overstatement and not a fair critique of genuine Open Theism.
I take comfort in the fact that though God might foresee the storms that come in my life, He is able to take any and all bad circumstances and use Him for His good purposes (See the story of Joseph, Romans 8; etc.) This does not put the blame on God for our tragedies. We can sin and enter into depravity without any help from God, or from the enemy from that matter. It puts the glory on God who can take our broken puzzles in life and say, "If you'd just give it to me, I can put you back together again." That's the God who delivers, that's the God who entrusted two people to keep the world together, and they broke that promise (Adam and Eve), and even then God looked into the future and knew that His Seed would crush the serpent. That's the God who delivers, and a the God that I think is unapologetically presented throughout the Bible.
I actually agree with all of this... so maybe you're not far from Open Theism after all. Maybe it's just been misrepresented to you. Open Theism is very much about God taking a broken reality and turning it into something beautiful. Open Theism agrees with you that God is not to blame for tragedies. Open Theism agrees that God entrusted creation to two people who broke their bond with Him. Open Theism even agrees that God looked into the future and knew what He was going to do through His Son to defeat the devil.

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”