"The Open View of God" or "Open Theis

[Guest]

I think stephen hawking's position along with other physicists, is that time did not always exist. this is beyond my comprehension so obviously i cannot explain it here.

What Stephen Hawking actually said was that time had a beginning. That has been my own position for the last twenty years. There are ramifications of this position which are difficult to comprehend, but those associated with the concept of "eternity past" as well as the concept of existence "outside of time" are much more incomprehensible.

But several posts back, i quoted CS Lewis on how he deals with this issue. his position, greatly summarized, is that God is not in our "time stream," so that the problem of foreknowledge, as viewed from our persective, does not apply to him. in other words, since God is outside of time, He simply sees things as they occur, even things that are future to us. Per Lewis, from God's perspective, its 1642, 2006 and 3012 all at the same time. He doesn't have to "wait" for the future-- it's already there, for Him.

Yes, I am well aware of Lewis's concept of time. I own many of his books. He tried to put his time concept into his fictional novels, especially in the Narnian Chronicles. This is the concept that I find incomprehensible. To me, it just doesn't make sense. If all events occur simultaneously from God's persective, then would this be true of Jesus? If so, He would know when His is coming back again, but He said that only the Father knows that. Also, the first words of the book of Revelation are:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John...

Why would it be necessary for God to give a revelation to Jesus Christ to show his servants what must soon take place? Surely, after His ascension, Jesus should have been able to "see" those events simultaneously with all other events.

can i establish this from scripture (i.e. that God is outside time)? nope. however, God's eternality may require this conclusion. i'm not sure. but if Lewis' view is correct, it provides an alternative explanation to Open Theism.

I never heard of "open theism" until Steve Gregg mentioned it to me in his post a few weeks ago. For many years, I have held the views I have expressed in this thread. I arrived at them from my study of the scriptures.

[Guest]

Paidon--

if God is in our "time stream," do you see any problem with His ability to govern the universe? this may be a ridiculous question, but it would seem that God has to deal with nearly an infinite number of concerns at any given moment. he's ruling the universe, after all. prayer is the common and easiest example-- let's say than at a particularly good global "prayer time" that there are 10 millions prayers being offered up simultaneously. would it be your position that because God is God, he can spend an infinitesimally small amount of time on each request, thereby enabling him to handle the "prayer load," or would you provide another explanation?

if you say that God can do anything (except know in advance what a free-will agent will choose to do and create rocks so heavy he cant lift them) I don't have a problem with that.

by the way-- you are defending your position excellently and i am almost convinced you are likely correct.

TK

[Guest]

if God is in our "time stream," do you see any problem with His ability to govern the universe? this may be a ridiculous question, but it would seem that God has to deal with nearly an infinite number of concerns at any given moment. he's ruling the universe, after all. prayer is the common and easiest example-- let's say than at a particularly good global "prayer time" that there are 10 millions prayers being offered up simultaneously. would it be your position that because God is God, he can spend an infinitesimally small amount of time on each request, thereby enabling him to handle the "prayer load," or would you provide another explanation?

It's not a ridiculous question. Actually, it's quite meaningful. But no, I don't see any problem with God being able to deal with a large number of concerns or to deal with ten million prayer requests simultaneously. After all, He is omnicient and omnipotent. To believe in His ability to do so, is not logically contradictory. It would be physically and mentally impossible for any human being, or any number of human beings to do so, but not for God.

In this discussion, it is important to differentiate between what is physically and mentally impossible (to us), and what is logically impossible. The former is meaningful even if beyond our experience or ability to understand; the latter is meaningless.

By the way, here is a scripture that seems to indicate that until God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son, He did not know how far Abraham would go in the matter of commitment and obedience.

He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." Genesis 22:12

From the text, it appears that God wasn't merely playing games; this was a real test. Not just a test of Abraham's obedience for Abraham's sake, but a test for God so that He would know just how far Abraham would go in the matter of obedience.

[Guest]

This is a really interesting topic and one that many of my friends simply don't want to discuss. Yes I've read those scriptures that talk abouit God testing to know what is a person or nations state and I'm challenged to look at my long held church taught belief that God knows everything.

Recently I thought this through a little and asked myself the question - which is more mind blowing 1. that God knows whats going to happen next or 2. that He knows the mutiplied consequences of each choice that we might make and the resulting effect on the multiple choices of others!!

I find 2 mind blowing and any mathamatician will agree that the computation of all these different choices and their multiplied effects if known by a single being would make that being of massive in fact awesome intelligence.

Think of this - God knows the 3 million or more different free will choices I might make today and as a result He knows how each of those choices will effect a further related million or more choices. This means He can react and formulate a plan for every eventuality even if an action goes against His plan or will. The scriptures are abundant with successful rebellion against the will of God. But with intelligent ability like this - who can prevent Him from His purposes


Just thinking aloud! Mark

[Guest]

mark said: But with intelligent ability like this - who can prevent Him from His purposes

uh- let me think.. nobody?

Mark-- your post made me think of something that Paidion mentioned regarding Abraham, namely, what was God's will regarding the testing of Abraham? Was His will merely to test him, or was His will that Abraham pass the test (and spare Isaac)? if the latter, then He had to have a lot of confidence that Abraham would heed the voice telling him to stop what he was doing. i call it "confidence" because if Paidion is correct God was not sure WHAT abraham would actually do. what if Abraham had plunged in the knife? would that still have been considered passing the test? would God have physically prevented abraham from doing so? like you, i am simply thinking out loud, well actually, on a keyboard.

TK

[Guest]

Thank you, Mark, for expressing your thoughts!

What you said about God knowing all possible choices we may make, and how this would affect other choices and events, is exactly the way I see it.
Thanks again for sharing that.

[Guest]

Paidion,

I was hoping to hear your comments regarding the issue I raised in my July 27 post about Jesus' ability to predict Peter's martyrdom, in particular because of the many variables that would be involved. Thanks

[Guest]

Calvinists like to use Romans 9 which refers to Jeremiah 18 as a prooftext but actually they once again miss the big "IF" word.

In Jeremiah 18.12 the Israelites assumed that since God prophesied against them there was nothing that could change this. They said "It is of no use, we will continue with our own plans."

But God had said "Oh house of Israel, can i not do with you as this potter does? declares the Lord. Like clay in the hand of the potter so are you in my hand. Oh house of Israel IF AT ANYTIME I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted , torn down and destroyed , and IF THE NATION I warned repents of its evil , then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I HAD PLANNED. And IF it does evil in my sight and does not obey me , then I WILL RECONSIDER the good I HAD INTENDED to do for it."

As the potter was willing to revise his vessel once the first plan was spoiled so God IS WILLING to revise his plan when circumstances call for it.
God is a flexible ruler who is willing to change his mind.
How can God truly change his mind if his mind is eternally made up?

[Guest]

Genesis 22:12
"For now I know that you fear God..."


"And he said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me," (Gen. 22:12).

Open Theists say that we should look at the Bible and take verses like Gen. 22:12 strictly for what they say. Of course, there are times when we should do that and others when we should not. Nevertheless, they Open Theists conclude that God had to learn what Abraham would do; God had to learn. But, if we just assume that God had to learn, then other problems arise when we examine this text in that light. Let's take a look.

The words of God in Gen. 22:12 are spoken after Abraham was about to sacrifice his Son Isaac on the altar. Abraham had raised the knife by which he would slay Isaac and that is when God tells Abraham to stop. God says, "...for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." Does this mean that God did not know for sure what Abraham would do until He saw the raised knife? Does it also mean that God did not know whether or not Abraham feared Him as the verse states? But, the Open theist is presented with a problem because in Openness, God knows all the present completely and totally. If God knows all present things exhaustively, then did God not know the state of Abraham's heart regarding Abraham's reverent fear for God? How could He not? 1 Chron. 28:9 says, "...for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts..." Since God knows even the intent of the heart, then He knows what the intent of Abraham's heart was during the three day journey to the place of sacrifice as well as whether or not Abraham feared Him. Again, He would have known that Abraham feared Him and the test was unnecessary to establish this fact.

We might note that Gen. 22:5 says: "And Abraham said to his young men, 'Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go yonder; and we will worship and return to you.'" Abraham was ready to sacrifice his son and he expected the Lord to resurrect Isaac. This is what it says in Heb. 11:19, "He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type." So, God knew that Abraham was completely trusting in the Lord. Why then did God still need to test in Abraham? It doesn't make any sense from the Openness position.

Then what does it mean?

Since we can see that it is not consistent with scripture and logic to say that God did not know what was in Abraham's heart and that God did not know what Abraham would do, we can conclude that God was speaking to Abraham in terms that Abraham was familiar with. This is not at all foreign to scripture. In Gen. 3:9, after Adam's sin, God calls to Adam and asks "Where are you?" Are we to say that God did not know where Adam was in the garden? Of course not. God makes statements often designed to reveal to us a truth that needs to be presented. In fact, God often asks questions He already knows the answer to. In Adam's case, the "where" is dealing with spiritual condition, not physical location. In Abraham's case, God is simply relating to Abraham in terms consistent what Abraham would understand, particularly, after the actual event with Isaac on the altar.

Also, Gen. 22 is full of types and representations of the gospel. The Son, Isaac, is offered on wood, on a hill after a three day journey. Jesus, the Son, was offered on wood, on a hill, and was in the grave for three days. In fact, Jesus said in John 8:56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." The day that Jesus is speaking of is the day of Christ's sacrificial death. God ordained that the gospel be revealed in the Old Testament just as it says in Amos 3:7, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets."

God is doing two things: First, God is revealing the gospel in hidden form. Second, God is is speaking for Abraham's benefit; that is, it was Abraham who needed to hear that God was acknowledging that Abraham feared Him. The test was not for God, but for Abraham and the words "Now I know" were not for God, but for the man who needed to hear God affirm his faithfulness. Abraham is a man locked in time. The act of sacrificing Isaac was important prophetically. But it was also important to us as a testimony of faithfulness to God.

Summary

The Open Theist position on Gen. 22:12 raises more questions than it answers.

Did God not know the then present condition of Abraham's heart since God knows all present things exhaustively?

Did God not already know that Abraham feared Him?

God already knew, according to Gen. 22:5, that Abraham expected that God would resurrect Isaac. Did God forget this as He tested Abraham?

Since the Open Theists states that people have free will, then what guarantee does God have that Abraham will not become unfaithful in the future?

If God doesn't know for sure that Abraham will be faithful in the future then it means that if Abraham becomes unfaithful, God would have made a mistake. Can we trust a God that makes mistakes?

By Matt Slick

[Guest]

gee, thanks SE-- now you have me wavering all over the place. i suppose after Paidion's next post i'll be agreeing with him.

i never thought i was so wishy-washy.

TK