Open Theism and Determinism

[Homer]

It seems to me that if open theism is true, then in every prophetic statement regarding what men will do in the future, the event is determined by God and caused by His action, and men thus have lost their free will to the extent necessary for that which is predicted to come true. Then, just as seems true with Calvinism, God is the author of sin.

If God foretells the destruction of people by other people then God necessarily must act to cause the event, otherwise God is no more than a good guesser.

[steve7150]

It seems to me that if open theism is true, then in every prophetic statement regarding what men will do in the future, the event is determined by God and caused by His action, and men thus have lost their free will to the extent necessary for that which is predicted to come true. Then, just as seems true with Calvinism, God is the author of sin.








Good thought Homer but then again if God created Satan and Satan seduces us into evil what really is the difference. In fact even if Satan changed from good to evil and God just allows him to seduce us, again what really is the difference.
I think there is a difference when humans use evil it is for sinful purposes, but God can use temporal evil for a greater good and in that case "evil" would be a tool
used to fashion the finished product.

[dwilkins]

Homer,

Boyd has denied strongly that God causes any man to make a given decision (I think he recognizes the dilemma you've proposed). He has said that other Open Theists aren't as concerned about this (I think he might have been referring to Sanders). I don't see how Open Theism can work aside from forcing some decisions and actions on people. However, there are two possible caveats that make Open Theism a different beast than traditional meticulous determinism. First, if God doesn't hold the people accountable for the things he makes them do then he is free to manipulate their actions without causing injustice to them. If in Psalm 22 we see people gambling for clothes, and then see a fulfillment of this at the foot of the cross, as long as God doesn't punish the soldiers for doing so he would be free to cause them to do so in order to guarantee fulfillment. Second, there is no implication that regular people are saved as a result of prophecy (there is some implication that prophets are forced into service for God, but regular people don't show this throughout scripture). So, since one of the major problems with meticulous determinism is that it describes God dooming most of the population in the history of the world to infinite torture, this is avoided if normal people make their own free decision about whether or not to follow God.

The problem is that when it comes to God forcing a sinful decision on someone we don't have any way of understanding that other than for him to become the author of that sin. There might be a layer of deniability built in when we look at passages like 1 Kings 22, where God uses a demon to put the thought of an evil deed into Ahab's mind. This is a strange dynamic that I seldom see talked about. The answer that seems least plausible to me is "if God does it, it's not a sin." That seems a bit too Nixonian (and in future generations it might be known as an Obamaism).

Doug

[mattrose]

It seems to me that if open theism is true, then in every prophetic statement regarding what men will do in the future, the event is determined by God and caused by His action, and men thus have lost their free will to the extent necessary for that which is predicted to come true. Then, just as seems true with Calvinism, God is the author of sin.

If God foretells the destruction of people by other people then God necessarily must act to cause the event, otherwise God is no more than a good guesser.

I think there are actually dealing with a lot less passages than you may realize

A lot of prophecies are simply conditional (so no accusation of determination sticks)

Other so called prophecies weren't really prophecies at all. They are types, which Christ fulfilled.

Surely there is more work to be done in this area for open theists, but I don't think there are many passages that pose a problem to be honest. Could you possibly list the ones you find most difficult for open theists to handle.... and maybe an estimate of how many we might be dealing with in total?

[steve]

I agree with you, Matt, that the list is probably a short one. I still can't see a good Openness explanation of Jesus' prediction of Peter's three denials. However, I am open to hearing it.

[Paidion]

It seems to me that if open theism is true, then in every prophetic statement regarding what men will do in the future, the event is determined by God and caused by His action, and men thus have lost their free will to the extent necessary for that which is predicted to come true. Then, just as seems true with Calvinism, God is the author of sin.

Why does it seem to you that these are the implications of open theism? The belief that the future is not settled, but open to the choices of free will agents is the diametrically opposite of the determinism of Calvinism. What other choice is there, but Arminianism, which in reality is just as deterministic as Calvinism? For if the future now exists, so that God can see all future events, then the future is just as inevitable. If God can look into the future and see that you will perform action A tomorrow, then you WILL perform action A tomorrow. You cannot refrain from performing action A, for if you did, this would imply that God DID NOT see that you would perform it. Contradiction! Our assumption was that God DID look into the future and see you perform action A! Thus Arminianism is just as deterministic as Calvinism.

Only open theism consistently recognizes libertarian free will.

If God foretells the destruction of people by other people then God necessarily must act to cause the event, otherwise God is no more than a good guesser.

This idea seems to be the source of your difficulty. God is not merely a good "guesser"; He is a good predictor—indeed a perfect predictor given His perfect knowledge of all events, past and present. He cannot know future events, since future events have not yet happened, so that there is nothing to know.

Even we frail human beings can successfully predict many future events based on our limited knowledge. We can correctly predict how our spouse or even our friends will respond in a given situation—how much more our God who has complete knowledge of all events and of all our thoughts! Yet even God with His total knowledge has made predictions which didn't turn out to be the case. Here is one example:

Then the LORD said to me in the days of Josiah the king, "Have you seen what faithless Israel did? she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. I thought, ‘after she has done all these things she will return to me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it." (Jeremiah 3:6,7 NASB)

This is just one example of Yahweh thinking one thing would happen, and the opposite happened. Or even it is "I said" instead of "I thought", this doesn't alter the import. In that case, God said that one thing would happen (and God doesn't lie) but the opposite happened.

[Paidion]

I still can't see a good Openness explanation of Jesus' prediction of Peter's three denials. However, I am open to hearing it.

All right, I will attempt to give a satisfactory explanation (at least I am satisfied with it):

First, let us acknowledge that Matthew's account of Peter's denial differs from that of Mark. Why do they differ? It seems that Peter, from whom Mark received his information for his memoir of Christ's life remembered the event slightly different from the way Matthew remembered it. Both memoirs were written many years after the event took place. We shouldn't expect their memories to be complete in every detail.

The way Matthew remembered it:

Then Jesus *said to them, "You will all fall away because of me this night, for it is written, ‘I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP OF THE FLOCK SHALL BE SCATTERED.’ but after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee." But Peter said to him, "Even though all may fall away because of you, I will never fall away." Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny me three times." Peter said to him, "Even if I have to die with you, I will not deny you." All the disciples said the same thing too. (Matthew 26:31-35 NASB)

Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a servant-girl came to him and said, "You too were with Jesus the Galilean." But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you are talking about."
When he had gone out to the gateway, another servant-girl saw him and said to those who were there, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth." And again he denied it with an oath, "I do not know the man." A little later the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away." Then he began to curse and swear, "I do not know the man!" and immediately a rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, "Before a rooster crows, you will deny me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly. (Matthew 26:69-75 NASB)

The way Peter remembered it and related it to Mark:

And Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away, because it is written, ‘I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP SHALL BE SCATTERED.’ But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee." But Peter said to him, "Even though all may fall away, yet I will not." And Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, that this very night, before a rooster crows twice, you yourself will deny me three times." But Peter kept saying insistently, "Even if I have to die with you, I will not deny you!" and they all were saying the same thing also. (Mark 14:27-31 NASB)

As Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came, and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, "You also were with Jesus the Nazarene." But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you are talking about." And he went out onto the porch, and a rooster crowed. The servant-girl saw him, and began once more to say to the bystanders, "This is one of them!" But again he denied it. and after a little while the bystanders were again saying to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean too." But he began to curse and swear, "I do not know this man you are talking about!" Immediately a rooster crowed a second time. and Peter remembered how Jesus had made the remark to him, "Before a rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times." and he began to weep. (Mark 14:66-72)

Here are three differences in the accounts:

1. In Matthew's memoir, Jesus says predicts that Peter will deny him before a rooster crows. In Mark's memoir, Jesus predicts that Peter will deny him before a rooster crows twice.

2. In Matthew's account, just one rooster crows, but in Mark's, one rooster crows after the first denial, and a second one crows after the third.

3. In Matthew's account, one servant girl makes the first accusation that Peter was with Jesus, and a different servant girl makes the second accusation, but in Mark's account, the same servant girl makes both the first and second accusation.

It is remarkable that Matthew and Peter remembered the event as accurately as they did. Yet these details do differ, and so one or both of the two did not remember the details exactly as they occurred.

I propose that Peter did deny knowing Christ three times, and because of this both Matthew and Peter THOUGHT that Christ had said, "Before the rooster crows (either once or twice), you will deny me three times, whereas, Jesus may have actually said, "Before the rooster crows, you will deny me." Or he may have simply been saying, "You will deny me before daybreak." Jesus, having walked with Peter for three years had seen several examples of his impetuous nature, understood his great desire to stand by Him even if it meant Peter's death. But knowing Peter as an impetuous, emotional man, Jesus felt quite certain that when it came down to brass tacks, he would be too cowardly to carry out his good intentions.

Having remembered that Peter denied Christ three times, both Matthew and Peter thought they remembered that Jesus had predicted that he would deny Him three times, whereas, He may have simply said, "Before daybreak (or before the rooster crows), you will deny me."

[steve]

Thanks, Paidion. The biggest problem is, even with such a reconstruction like this, Peter, if he had genuine free will, might have surprised everybody (including Jesus) and, just this once, showed sufficient courage to keep his convictions.

If there is no way Peter could possibly have done otherwise, then he was not free, and could not have been morally responsible for his denials. On the other hand, had he done otherwise, He would have made Jesus a false prophet.

[Paidion]

If there is no way Peter could possibly have done otherwise, then he was not free..

That is correct. But why is it necessary to suppose that Peter could not have done otherwise? Do we presume this because we suppose that Jesus' prediction HAD to become reality?
In Jeremiah, God's prediction was that after having done all those evil things, Israel would return to Him. But the reality was that they didn't return. We ought not to infer from this that God's prediction was "wrong" in some sense. Rather, it was the best possible prediction based on His complete knowledge of their hearts. Yet, because of their free will, they chose not to return.

I think that because of God's omniscience, His predictions usually become reality. Even with our limited knowledge or our friends, our predictions of what they would do in various circumstances often become reality. But because of our friends' free wills, they also choose contrary to our expectations. Likewise, because of man's free will, man sometimes chooses contrary to what would be expected even by an omniscient Being.

So I think it entirely possible that Peter may have chosen not to deny Christ is spite of his predilection to preserve himself.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

If God can look into the future and see that you will perform action A tomorrow, then you WILL perform action A tomorrow. You cannot refrain from performing action A, for if you did, this would imply that God DID NOT see that you would perform it. Contradiction! Our assumption was that God DID look into the future and see you perform action A!

I don't accept your reasoning. You assume that God can not foresee a person freely choosing to do something.