Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?

[Jeff]

Hello Bro Rick!

So if the grandkids may visit on Sunday, and we fry chicken and make potato salad on Saturday, we are prepared whether they come or not. We got chicken if they show up, and we eat chicken if they don't; we are ready either way. And we still do not know what they will decide to do.

But God knowing every possible outcome would not enable Him to foresee which outcome would actually occur. He would not be foreseeing the future; he would just be infinitely ready for whatever free agents decide to do.

Now if Boyd had said God knows every possible outcome, knows all possible variables that might affect the outcome and exactly how a free agent will respond to the sum total input of those variables, perhaps Boyd might be onto something. And maybe not.

God bless, Homer

I like Rick's chess match analogy, but it sounds like open theology makes God out to be a cosmic boy scout (no irreverence intended, just lame humor). Is there any scriptural support for open theology? To me it seems like a strictly philosophical doctrine to try to get rid of the natural uneasiness we finite creatures feel when we consider the possibility of a) a God who determined everything or b) a God who didn't determine everything, but already knows what the end result is. I will admit, I sometimes struggle with b) in regards to the idea of God asking a sinner to turn to Him, even though He already knows that the person will not.

[Jeff]

Hello Bro Rick!

So if the grandkids may visit on Sunday, and we fry chicken and make potato salad on Saturday, we are prepared whether they come or not. We got chicken if they show up, and we eat chicken if they don't; we are ready either way. And we still do not know what they will decide to do.

But God knowing every possible outcome would not enable Him to foresee which outcome would actually occur. He would not be foreseeing the future; he would just be infinitely ready for whatever free agents decide to do.

Now if Boyd had said God knows every possible outcome, knows all possible variables that might affect the outcome and exactly how a free agent will respond to the sum total input of those variables, perhaps Boyd might be onto something. And maybe not.

God bless, Homer

Agreed!

[Jeff]

I was under the impression that open theism states that God cannot know the future because of the variable of free will choices





God can't know (according to OT) but he can intervene and cause things to happen. There are a couple of verses in Isaiah that say that, sorry i don't have it handy right now.

I would love to know what those verses are, if you run across them. I'll try to look for them as well.

[RickC]

I like Rick's chess match analogy, but it sounds like open theology makes God out to be a cosmic boy scout (no irreverence intended, just lame humor). Is there any scriptural support for open theology? To me it seems like a strictly philosophical doctrine to try to get rid of the natural uneasiness we finite creatures feel when we consider the possibility of a) a God who determined everything or b) a God who didn't determine everything, but already knows what the end result is. I will admit, I sometimes struggle with b) in regards to the idea of God asking a sinner to turn to Him, even though He already knows that the person will not.

First, (Jeff), check out Boyd's lecture some time.
(In 13 vids, but my link is a playlist, you can put it on autoplay all).
Highly recommended by me, anyways.

I don't "get" your joke about how Openness Theology makes God out to be a cosmic boy scout....('Not asking you to explain, it simply makes no sense).....

As to scriptural support for Openness Theology -
I think there's more for it than the alternatives (Calvinism and Arminianism). Boyd explains how these begin with a Platonic definition of God's Immutability, which Boyd doesn't see as correct or "biblical" (and I agree).

Re: "philosophical doctrine" -
Calvinism's determinism stems from Augustinianism, which stems from Manicheanism, which stems from Platonism. Arminianism is a reaction to Calvinism, with its modified determinism.

I see Opennesss Theology as basically independent from Calvinism and Arminianism, though it answers some of the same questions. I agree with Greg Boyd that it best addresses "What the Bible says on these topics" (God's sovereignty, free will v. determinism).

All three systems can be seen as types of philosophical theology. But Openness Theology's starting point(s) and conclusions are pretty radically different from the other two. Not just in areas of disagreement(s), but in basic orientation and/or presupposition(s).

'Just wanted to reply, not to hijack your thread. Thanks!

[Jeff]

Hi Rick,

I told you it was a lame attempt at humor. The boy scout motto is "be prepared", and I was pointing out how it sounds like open theology teaches that God is simply prepared for all possible situations. I agree with you on the origins of Calvinism - Augustine's Manichean background. I also agree on Arminianism being simply a reaction to Calvinism. I believe Arminianism - like all ultimately man-made attempts to explain something of this nature - falls short. However, at least at this present time, Arminianism most closely represents the relationship between God and man as represented in the Bible. I will definitely check the videos out though!

[Homer]

Hi Rick,

Earlier you wrote:

"Imagine you're playing chess with God. In this scenario, God, according to Arminianism, has a blueprint wherein He knows every move that will happen during the game. He doesn't make you make your moves. He just knows what they will be. In this same scenario, God, according to Calvinism, not only knows every move in advance, but makes-you-make your every move. Open theism in such a chess game, sees God as knowing-in-advance all possible moves and has a ready made response for each move that could potentially be taken. In other words, God's knowledge is much more highly exhaustive than in Arminian or Calvinistic models."

That last underlined sentence stumped me for a bit but upon further thought seems to be a non-sequitur. In an Arminian view God could know all that will occur in the future, plus all that would (or would not) occur if people made different choices (such as accepting the gospel instead of rejecting it, thus He would know Jerusalem would not have been destroyed - even we know that), plus all that would occur if He made different choices. The outcome is the same in this system or Boyd's. God knows stuff that will not occur either way, but He knows more that will occur in the Arminian system.

[Sean]

Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." (Matthew 11:21)

Any thoughts on this? It appears Jesus is saying that, had Tyre and Sidon seen the things that those in Chorazin and Bethsaida saw, they would have repented... no?

I assume most would agree that God did not invade anyone's freewill in Chorazin and Bethsaida.

What is your take on this? It appears that God knew how to get those in Tyre and Sidon to repent without invading their freewill. But it also appears that He chose not to show them the things that would cause them to repent.

Any thoughts?

That's to you Jeff... or whoever else.

I agree with your observation.

[Sean]

Hi Rick,

Earlier you wrote:

"Imagine you're playing chess with God. In this scenario, God, according to Arminianism, has a blueprint wherein He knows every move that will happen during the game. He doesn't make you make your moves. He just knows what they will be. In this same scenario, God, according to Calvinism, not only knows every move in advance, but makes-you-make your every move. Open theism in such a chess game, sees God as knowing-in-advance all possible moves and has a ready made response for each move that could potentially be taken. In other words, God's knowledge is much more highly exhaustive than in Arminian or Calvinistic models."

That last underlined sentence stumped me for a bit but upon further thought seems to be a non-sequitur. In an Arminian view God could know all that will occur in the future, plus all that would (or would not) occur if people made different choices (such as accepting the gospel instead of rejecting it, thus He would know Jerusalem would not have been destroyed - even we know that), plus all that would occur if He made different choices. The outcome is the same in this system or Boyd's. God knows stuff that will not occur either way, but He knows more that will occur in the Arminian system.

I also agree with you Homer. The Arminian view of what God knows seems to be one tiny step ahead of the Openness view in that God not only knows all possible outcomes but He also know which outcome with be the actual one.

[RickC]

Hi Rick,

I told you it was a lame attempt at humor. The boy scout motto is "be prepared", and I was pointing out how it sounds like open theology teaches that God is simply prepared for all possible situations. I agree with you on the origins of Calvinism - Augustine's Manichean background. I also agree on Arminianism being simply a reaction to Calvinism. I believe Arminianism - like all ultimately man-made attempts to explain something of this nature - falls short. However, at least at this present time, Arminianism most closely represents the relationship between God and man as represented in the Bible. I will definitely check the videos out though!

Thanks for your reply (it's your thread).

If I "had" to choose between Calvinism and Arminianism (which I don't), I suppose I'd "have" to go with Arminianism. It's the least wrong of the two, imo. I used to be Arminian because I thought you had to be one or the other! I think Openness Theology better addresses the Bible's overall teaching. Probably most notably with its rejection of the Platonic concept of God's immutability. This is where Openness parts paths from both Calvinism and Arminianism and is what I find most appealing about it.

Btw, the chess illustration is Greg Boyd's (and he probably says it better than I did). And I'll watch the vids again too (I have several times and get something new each).

============================================================

In an Arminian view God could know all that will occur in the future, plus all that would (or would not) occur if people made different choices (such as accepting the gospel instead of rejecting it, thus He would know Jerusalem would not have been destroyed - even we know that), plus all that would occur if He made different choices.

My understanding of the Arminian view is that God simply does know all choices people will make. It's the same as Calvinism on that point (though the two differ on what "choice" means or how it works). Otherwise, what you're saying about God's "options" resembles what Boyd calls "God's flexible sovereignty."

The outcome is the same in this system or Boyd's. God knows stuff that will not occur either way, but He knows more that will occur in the Arminian system.

In Boyd's system God knows all things. Thus, I disagree.

===========================================================

I also agree with you Homer. The Arminian view of what God knows seems to be one tiny step ahead of the Openness view in that God not only knows all possible outcomes but He also know which outcome with be the actual one.
(I'm adding in) -
I think you meant "...God not only knows all possible outcomes but He also knows which outcome will be the actual one."
(But in reply) -

Unlike Arminians, Boyd says God sees all future possibilities perfectly, as if they are certainties. This includes the possibilities that will, indeed, actually happen. (Keeping in mind that future possibilities have ontological reality in the Openness view).

As Boyd says in the lecture, Openness Theology is really more directly and precisely about the nature of reality than the nature of God, though the former is reflected in the latter.

======================================================

Summing up -

To my mind, a God who can see trillions of future possibilities perfectly, as if they were certainties, as well as having a ready-made response for each and every one of them, is infinitely a lot SMARTER - and a whole bunch more PERSONAL - than a God who merely knows what will happen, whether He gives people a free will to do what "He already knows they're going to do anyway" or "makes them do what He planned for them to do."

========================================================

I'm wondering if Homer and Sean see the differences Openness has from both Arminianism and Calvinism. (In my last paragraph I tried to sum them up).

Think about it....

Thanks!

[darinhouston]

Speaking of platonic concepts -- even if God characterizes all of the "omni-s" and immutability, etc. in his natural state, the only way I see God working all this out for any real purpose for Himself is to see Him as having veiled His abilities in any variety of circumstances, so pretty much any system is on the table for me in that respect without diminishing God. To have any real sort of personal relationship, and to derive any real joy from Creation, any all-knowing God MUST have needed to choose not to know certain things, etc. He shows when He needs to that He can "open that squinted eye" when it serves His purposes. That doesn't mean His eye isn't squinted or even closed sometimes. We experience the same thing when we play "hide and seek" with our kids. Sure, I can open my eyes and listen closely and know where they're hiding, but where't the fun in that?