Open Theists believe in the Omniscience of God

[Guest]

bshow1:

You cant deal with Paidion's argument by simply stating it's not biblical. it's a little bit more complex than that.

What is Paidon's argument? I agree that Open Theists do not deny that God is omniscient; I've never accused them of that. They deny the historical, orthodox, and biblical doctrine of God's foreknowledge, as apparently you do as well.

You'll have to explain how, if God knows in advance every thing that will ever happen, how 1) that affords us any dignity; 2) how we have free choice(especially since the Bible seems to give men free choice, e.g. Deut. 28 ), 3) how God is not the most supremely bored entity in the universe, and 4) How God is any different from a brat pulling the wings off of helpless butterflies.

Of course I do not believe any of the above propositions, But if God has set up everything like a long line of dominoes, i dont see how you escape those conclusions.

TK

Perhaps the others on this forum that hold to exhaustive divine foreknowlege as well as libertarian freedom would like to tackle those issues.

They don't have anything to do with whether Open Theism is biblical, which is what I'm interested in. If your commitment to Open Theism is philosophical and not biblical, I'll leave you to it.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

They don't have anything to do with whether Open Theism is biblical, which is what I'm interested in. If your commitment to Open Theism is philosophical and not biblical, I'll leave you to it.

Can't knock you for that!

[Guest]

Bshow1:

your position is that Open Theism is anti-biblical; of course Paidion's position is that it is certainly biblical. Maybe i should have asked "why do you think it is not biblical?"

For what it's worth, we've debated open theism here at length in the past, and personally I keep waivering. I find it very difficult to refute Paidion's arguments. It may be that they can't be refuted, or that I'm too dumb.

TK

[Guest]

They [the Open Theists] deny the historical, orthodox, and biblical doctrine of God's foreknowledge ...

The onus is on Bshow to back up that statement.

At this time, I just want to share one of the many biblical illustrations that God's words about the future are not hard and fast statements about what will happen but rather predictions based on His knowledge of people's hearts and actions in the past. Here is God's word which came to Micah, seemingly in a vision, and which Micah spoke in prophecy:

The word of Yahweh that came to Micah of Moresheth in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem. Hear, you peoples, all of you; hearken, O earth, and all that is in it; and let the Lord GOD be a witness against you, the Lord from his holy temple. Micah 1:1,2

After a number of prophetic words, Micah gave the following prophecy that Jerusalem would be destroyed:

Hear this, you heads of the house of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel, who abhor justice and pervert all equity, who build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with wrong. Its heads give judgment for a bribe, its priests teach for hire, its prophets divine for money; yet they lean upon the LORD and say, "Is not the LORD in the midst of us? No evil shall come upon us." Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the house a wooded height. Micah 3:9-12

If we had only the Book of Micah at our disposal, we might believe that this word against Jerusalem was fulfilled. However, it would seem that God gave this word to Micah based on the then-present condition of the people's hearts, and their past actions: abhoring justice, perverting equity, bribery, priests teaching for hire, prophets divining for money, etc. But when people cry out to God and truly repent, God has often changed his mind about what He had intended to do. Notice the prophecy seems to be unconditional. Yet we find from the book of Jeremiah that God did not carry out his intention, but changed his mind about the judgment he had intended to bring.

The priests and prophets of Judah wanted to put Jeremiah to death because he had "prophesied against this city". But some of the elders gave them this argument:

Then some of the elders of the land rose up and spoke to all the assembly of the people, saying, "Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah; and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, ‘Thus the LORD of hosts has said, "Zion will be plowed as a field, And Jerusalem will become ruins, And the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest."’

"Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves." Jeremiah 26:17-19

The idea was that if the people would repent and submit to Yahweh, he might change his mind again and spare them.

One more example.

Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And Yahweh was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. Genesis 5:6

If Yahweh already knew that man would become this wicked, why would he be grieved, and regret that he had created humanity? It would have come as no surprise at all! Why did he not think, "Man is becoming very wicked as I knew he would!"

Indeed, if Augustinian/Calvinist thought is correct, then when Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great, he might have said, "Ah, man is becoming very wicked. Fitting right into my plan!"

[Guest]

They [the Open Theists] deny the historical, orthodox, and biblical doctrine of God's foreknowledge ...

The onus is on Bshow to back up that statement.

Well, okay, but it's not a very controversial statement. The classical position is that God possesses exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, including the future free decisions of men. Open Theists deny that future free decisions of men have no truth value and thus cannot be known even to God.

Open Theists claim that their doctrine is supported by exegesis, but they've not succeeded in making the case, as Paidion demonstrates below:

At this time, I just want to share one of the many biblical illustrations that God's words about the future are not hard and fast statements about what will happen but rather predictions based on His knowledge of people's hearts and actions in the past. Here is God's word which came to Micah, seemingly in a vision, and which Micah spoke in prophecy:

The word of Yahweh that came to Micah of Moresheth in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem. Hear, you peoples, all of you; hearken, O earth, and all that is in it; and let the Lord GOD be a witness against you, the Lord from his holy temple. Micah 1:1,2

After a number of prophetic words, Micah gave the following prophecy that Jerusalem would be destroyed:

Hear this, you heads of the house of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel, who abhor justice and pervert all equity, who build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with wrong. Its heads give judgment for a bribe, its priests teach for hire, its prophets divine for money; yet they lean upon the LORD and say, "Is not the LORD in the midst of us? No evil shall come upon us." Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the house a wooded height. Micah 3:9-12

If we had only the Book of Micah at our disposal, we might believe that this word against Jerusalem was fulfilled. However, it would seem that God gave this word to Micah based on the then-present condition of the people's hearts, and their past actions: abhoring justice, perverting equity, bribery, priests teaching for hire, prophets divining for money, etc. But when people cry out to God and truly repent, God has often changed his mind about what He had intended to do. Notice the prophecy seems to be unconditional. Yet we find from the book of Jeremiah that God did not carry out his intention, but changed his mind about the judgment he had intended to bring.

The priests and prophets of Judah wanted to put Jeremiah to death because he had "prophesied against this city". But some of the elders gave them this argument:

Then some of the elders of the land rose up and spoke to all the assembly of the people, saying, "Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah; and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, ‘Thus the LORD of hosts has said, "Zion will be plowed as a field, And Jerusalem will become ruins, And the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest."’

"Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves." Jeremiah 26:17-19

The idea was that if the people would repent and submit to Yahweh, he might change his mind again and spare them.

Please forgive me, but this supports your thesis exactly how? You've made no argument whatsoever. I'm assuming you expect us to draw some conclusion from the statement the "the LORD changed His mind". How this bears on God's knowledge of the future is left unexplained.

Unless you have some strong exegesis here to show how the language demonstrates God's ignorance of Israel's future behavior, this is just wishful thinking on your part.

One more example.

Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And Yahweh was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. Genesis 5:6

I assume you mean Gen. 6:5-6. (By the way, have you discussed this passage with those on this board who reject total depravity? 6:5 seems like a slam dunk for t.d.)

If Yahweh already knew that man would become this wicked, why would he be grieved, and regret that he had created humanity? It would have come as no surprise at all! Why did he not think, "Man is becoming very wicked as I knew he would!"

Only if you have an extremely simplistic notion of God. You draw an inference (God's expression of regret is perfectly analogous to human feelings of regret), assume that is the only possible inference (without argument), and then use that inference to derive a statement about the extent of God's knowledge (God cannot have known that man would become wicked.)

A simple illustration from our own experience shows this assumption to be too simplistic. For example, my parents are in their 60's now. I know that they will die someday. When that day arrives (If God permits me to live that long), will I feel grief and sorrow? Of course, but why? Wouldn't I just shrug my shoulders and say "oh well, I knew this was going to happen?"

Why should God be so simplistic that He cannot communicate to us His experience of things that He knows will happen? He communicates His reaction to the wickedness and sinfulness of mankind so we see His holiness reflected in His anger and wrath toward sin, even as we see His grace and mercy in the preservation of a remnant through Noah.

Indeed, if Augustinian/Calvinist thought is correct, then when Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great, he might have said, "Ah, man is becoming very wicked. Fitting right into my plan!"

Come to the dark side Dilbert!

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Bshow1:

your position is that Open Theism is anti-biblical; of course Paidion's position is that it is certainly biblical. Maybe i should have asked "why do you think it is not biblical?"

For what it's worth, we've debated open theism here at length in the past, and personally I keep waivering. I find it very difficult to refute Paidion's arguments. It may be that they can't be refuted, or that I'm too dumb.

TK

Hi TK,

The Open Theist arguments have been ably refuted. Numerous books have been written to respond to the claims of the Open Theists. I'm partial to those by John Frame and Bruce Ware for example.

Also, take a look at a book like "Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views" (James Beilby and Paul Eddy, eds.) Looking at the different responses to Greg Boyd's presentation (this is the early Greg Boyd, not the newer versions of Boyd's arguments) shows how important it is to know where you stand on this.

Open Theism has found a foothold, sadly, by exploiting serious philosophical weaknesses in the classical Arminian position combined with postmodern anti-intellectualism. There's nothing new under the sun however, so it's really warmed-over Socinianism and process theology dressed up to look like evangelicalism. God becomes just one of us, doing the best He can to get through...

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

bshow1-

God can't make a perfect sphere with sharp corners;

God can't make the value of pi be something other than 3.145 et seq.

God can't make 1 + 1 = something other than 2.

Open theists posit that a person cannot have true free will if they are "locked in" by perfect foreknowledge, and therefore this would fall into the same categories as the above statements.

I used to respond to the open theist argument by stating that somehow God can know what we will do AND we ALSO have free will. I appealed to arguments like "God is outside time" or the like. However, I am not so sure about the strength of this argument. Paidion deals with this one quite nicely.

Surely, our minds cannot wrap around what God is really and truly like, and I certainly don't believe that God is just like one of us. But neither can I believe that God sentences someone to eternal punishment (perhaps) for choices they made (or failed to make) that they were not free to make because He predestined them to make them. That wouldn't be very loving, and God is love.

TK

[Guest]

bshow1-

God can't make a perfect sphere with sharp corners;

God can't make the value of pi be something other than 3.145 et seq.

God can't make 1 + 1 = something other than 2.

Open theists posit that a person cannot have true free will if they are "locked in" by perfect foreknowledge, and therefore this would fall into the same categories as the above statements.

Hi TK,

Right, but this hinges on the definition of "true free will". Incompatibilists (like Open Theists, Arminians, etc.) assume a particular definition of free will.

I completely agree with the Open Theist that his definition of free will cannot coexist with exhaustive divine foreknowledge ("locked in" as you say.) Where is disagree is whether his definition of free will is the only possible definition or whether it is the biblical definition.

I used to respond to the open theist argument by stating that somehow God can know what we will do AND we ALSO have free will. I appealed to arguments like "God is outside time" or the like. However, I am not so sure about the strength of this argument. Paidion deals with this one quite nicely.

I used to be an Arminian, and so I tried using those kinds of arguments as well (the Boethian argument is the "God is outside of time" argument), although I was arguing with atheists instead of Open Thiests. I have since seen as you have that those arguments just don't hold up. (cf. my discussions with Sean on this issue.)

Surely, our minds cannot wrap around what God is really and truly like, and I certainly don't believe that God is just like one of us.

Good, and I hope you will look into Socinianism and process theology and see how Open Theism joins with these in doing just that, in bringing God down to our level.

But neither can I believe that God sentences someone to eternal punishment (perhaps) for choices they made (or failed to make) that they were not free to make because He predestined them to make them. That wouldn't be very loving, and God is love.

But TK, aren't you echoing exactly the objection that Paul dealt with in Rom. 9:6: You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" (NASB) The answer must be that there is another basis for finding fault beyond an ability to resist His will. I truly believe that a compatibilist approach to human freedom resolves this issue.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Hey Bob-

From wikipedia:

In the field of Christian theology, these ideas take a more specific form: if there is a God who knows in advance how a human will choose when faced with a choice between good and evil, and this God is ultimately responsible for creating the universe which gives rise to this choice, in what sense does a human have free will, and how can the human be held responsible for a wrong choice? This is countered by the realization that a free-willed God is not constrained to realize everything, nor to consider all choices to be of equal attention.

Compatibilism in this context holds that the sovereignty of God and the free will of man are both biblical concepts and, rightly understood, are not mutually exclusive. The all-knowing God (who sees past, present, and future simultaneously from the perspective of eternity) created human beings (who have the subjective reality of making choices in the present that have consequences for themselves and others in the future) in such a way that both are true: God is ultimately sovereign and therefore must have at least permitted any choice that a human could make, but at the same time God is right to hold humans accountable because from their perspective within the confines of serial time, humans make moral choices between good and evil.

is this what you mean when you say compatibilism, in a nutshell?

TK

[Guest]

Hey Bob-

From wikipedia:

In the field of Christian theology, these ideas take a more specific form: if there is a God who knows in advance how a human will choose when faced with a choice between good and evil, and this God is ultimately responsible for creating the universe which gives rise to this choice, in what sense does a human have free will, and how can the human be held responsible for a wrong choice? This is countered by the realization that a free-willed God is not constrained to realize everything, nor to consider all choices to be of equal attention.

Compatibilism in this context holds that the sovereignty of God and the free will of man are both biblical concepts and, rightly understood, are not mutually exclusive. The all-knowing God (who sees past, present, and future simultaneously from the perspective of eternity) created human beings (who have the subjective reality of making choices in the present that have consequences for themselves and others in the future) in such a way that both are true: God is ultimately sovereign and therefore must have at least permitted any choice that a human could make, but at the same time God is right to hold humans accountable because from their perspective within the confines of serial time, humans make moral choices between good and evil.

is this what you mean when you say compatibilism, in a nutshell?

TK

Hi TK,

I don't really like that second paragraph. The first sentence is fine as far as it goes, but the rest is muddy. It doesn't sufficiently encompass God's decree. It makes it appear that God created the "set of possibilities" and that man chooses from among them. That's not my position.

It also speaks of God being "right" (i.e. just) to do something. I don't compare God against an external standard of justice. God is the source and standard of justice. All His ways are just.

It's interesting that the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) has a footnote reference on this paragraph to a page on Theopedia (http://www.theopedia.com/Compatibilism) that doesn't support the definition on Wikipedia. I think the Theopedia page is more accurate. It says:

Compatibilism, sometimes called soft determinism, is a theological term that deals with the topics of free will and predestination. It seeks to show that God's exhaustive sovereignty is compatible with human freedom, or in other words, it claims that determinism and free will are compatible. Rather than limit the exercise of God's sovereignty in order to preserve man's freedom, compatibilists say that there must be a different way to define what freedom really means.

...

Compatibilism, in contrast to Libertarian free will, teaches that people are free, but defines freedom differently. Compatibilism claims that every person chooses according to his or her greatest desire. In other words, people will always choose what they want-- and what they want is determined by (and consistent with) their moral nature. Man freely makes choices, but those choices are determined by the condition of his heart and mind (i.e. his moral nature). Libertarian free will maintains that for any choice made, one could always equally have chosen otherwise, or not chosen at all.

I agree with the above paragraphs.

Furthermore, I have said that compatibilism holds that our being the cause of our own actions in once sense is compatible with God being the cause of those same actions in another sense. I have given Gen. 50:20 and Acts 2:23 as biblical illustrations of that.

There's lots on compatibilism at http://www.monergism.com/directory/link ... atibilism/

Cheers,
Bob