Can someone explain Open Theism to me?

[atpollard]

B.A.M. (you all know the site) ... and that is the sound my head makes as it hits the keyboard when I try to have a discussion at "Free Will Central".

I THOUGHT that I understood the definition of basic terms ... like "Double Predestination" or "Open Theism" ... until someone describes something that sounds EXACTLY like Open Theism, and I say "So you believe in Open Theism and God has to adjust His plan based on the free will decisions of people."

Then comes a denial of Open Theism, a wall of text about salvation that seems completely unrelated and a diatribe on Calvin and Piper and Nazis and Rwanda.

So, just to clarify whether they or I have gone "bonkers" ... could someone please explain Open Theism to me?

 

[makesends]

Per Wikipedia: Open theism claims to believe in God’s omniscience by redefining it as God’s knowledge of everything that it is possible to know.

That's pretty much what I have understood it to say, which comes around to mean that God cannot know the future because it hasn't happened yet. To me, the whole notion tries to submit God under the authority of chance, renaming it, "what is possible".

It implies that there is a reality to which God is subject. —That's bad enough, but the 'reality' they imply is ontologically self-contradictory. There can be no such thing as "chance", and what is possible is all that is possible —God's decree.

But I'm preaching to the choir. Oh well.

 

[ReverendRV]

B.A.M. (you all know the site) ... and that is the sound my head makes as it hits the keyboard when I try to have a discussion at "Free Will Central".

I THOUGHT that I understood the definition of basic terms ... like "Double Predestination" or "Open Theism" ... until someone describes something that sounds EXACTLY like Open Theism, and I say "So you believe in Open Theism and God has to adjust His plan based on the free will decisions of people."

Then comes a denial of Open Theism, a wall of text about salvation that seems completely unrelated and a diatribe on Calvin and Piper and Nazis and Rwanda.

So, just to clarify whether they or I have gone "bonkers" ... could someone please explain Open Theism to me?

Nope, can't explain it...

It's easier to explain it away...

 

[fastfredy0]

could someone please explain Open Theism to me?

I read some of the following site: http://drjohnsanders.com/is-open-theism-a-radical-revision-or-miniscule-modification-of-arminianism/
The author seems to be an open theist. I sort of like him in that he accurately (IMO) described the theology of Calvinists and said where Free Willies and Open Theists differ.

I THOUGHT that I understood the definition of basic terms

Seems lots of people have varying definitions of terms ... I often ask for their definition to save time. Some definition are fluid and broad like, "What is a Christian"? Depends on who you ask.... or what must one do to be saved .... you won't get a unique answer to that, even from experts of the same denomination IMO.

 

[JIM]

Open Theism is basically a theology that limits God's foreknowledge to that which He has specifically and directly caused.

Thus, for example, since what you will eat for breakfast tomorrow is something you, not God, will choose, God cannot know what that will be.

 

[Josheb]

@atpollard,

Per Wikipedia: Open theism claims to believe in God’s omniscience by redefining it as God’s knowledge of everything that it is possible to know.

Wiki hasn't done the theology justice because ALL Christian doctrines of divine omniscience hold God knows all that can be known and not that He knows anything unknowable. A classic example of something "unknowable," would be a logical contradiction like how to make a spherical cube. No one thinks God knows how to contradict Himself.

That's pretty much what I have understood it to say, which comes around to mean that God cannot know the future because it hasn't happened yet. To me, the whole notion tries to submit God under the authority of chance, renaming it, "what is possible".

@makesends is spot on but the devil is in the details (literally) because what separates Open Theism from the rest of Christian thought, doctrine and practice is what Open Theism says or decides what is unknowable. In the case of Open Theism, as @makesends stated, God cannot know the future (because no one can!) or, more accurately, God cannot know certain futures. He knows only the future, or parts of the future, that He did dictate, but not the portion He did not dictate. The theology is largely built on the tension between Divine omni-attributes and human volitional agency (free will). It's untenable that everything could all already be decided, and humans also have real volitional agency (even though every culture in human history has understood their co-existence). Open Theism reads the contingency statements and conditional statements in scripture (If you do X, then I will do Y, but if you do not do X, then I will do Z,") as proof God does not know what will happen. If He did know, then either He would not assert an option, or He is being disingenuous (lying or being deceitful). You'll find the concept of libertarian free will espoused in OT, but even here discernment is necessary because they do not mean the same thing with "libertarian," as a partial-Calvinists or compatibilist would mean.

There is, imo, a very simple solution to all of it: eternity!

Because God does not live in time and space He is not bound in any way by time, space, cause-and-effect, or any other constituent element of the finite creation He created. He knows past, present, and future all at once and measures it by His self since, as the I AM, He is the reference point for all of creation for everything past, present, and future.

 

[fastfredy0]

Because God does not live in time and space He is not bound in any way by time, space, cause-and-effect, or any other constituent element of the finite creation He created. He knows past, present, and future all at once and measures it by His self since, as the I AM, He is the reference point for all of creation for everything past, present, and future.

I like the above. I keep reading that God has no succession of moments. That God is in all points of time concurrently. Maybe it's like having an old movie film with 1000s of pictures that run through a machine to create what seems to us as a logic order ... but God can create and play each picture in any order but plays it in an consistent order so we "dummies" can use consistency to aid our understanding.... not that I know what I am talking about but I am comforted that the gurus on the subject say it can't be understand as it is beyond us.
Interesting to contemplate though.

 

[Josheb]

I like the above. I keep reading that God has no succession of moments. That God is in all points of time concurrently. Maybe it's like having an old movie film with 1000s of pictures that run through a machine to create what seems to us as a logic order ... but God can create and play each picture in any order but plays it in an consistent order so we "dummies" can use consistency to aid our understanding.... not that I know what I am talking about but I am comforted that the gurus on the subject say it can't be understand as it is beyond us.
Interesting to contemplate though.

I did not mention this before and the post has timed out, but Open Theism also has an inherent problem with God entering creation and intervening. The Creator does not "live" inside that which He created. That's prima facie nonsensical. Scripture is filled with occasions when the omnipresent God "entered" creation (how could God be everywhere at once and not know the future? ) and made things happen. It's preposterous to think God made something happen without know it would have an effect, without know it would have a specific effect, a specified effect, and..... He does not know what it is! The unavoidable logical consequence of Open Theism's assumptions is that God does not yet know when He will next make something happen, why He would do so, or what effect it might have. This makes Him dependent upon the creature and His own creation, not the other way around. For these reasons OTers usually try to qualify God's omniscience in some way (He can and does know A, B and C, but not L, Q, or W).

 

[fastfredy0]

This makes Him dependent upon the creature and His own creation, not the other way around.

Agreed.
Some how we are the First Cause and God's response is the Second Cause in some situations.
In Him we live and breathe and have our being (Acts 17:28) and I suppose according to Open Theism we could have the verse... In man to a degree God has His being. hmmmm ...

Two beliefs have been singled out as hallmarks of open theism branch of Arminianism: divine temporality and the denial of exhaustive definite foreknowledge. Many Establishment Arminians believe God is a temporal while others believe God is temporal.
Open Theism, also called free will theism and openness theology, is the belief that God does not exercise meticulous control of the universe but leaves it "open" for humans to make significant choices (free will) that impact their relationships with God and others. A corollary of this is that God has not predetermined the future. Open Theists further believe that this would imply that God does not know the future exhaustively. Proponents affirm that God is omniscient, but deny that this means that God knows everything that will happen.

Second definition: Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future. It is an attempt to explain the foreknowledge of God in relationship to the free will of man. The argument of open theism is essentially this: human beings are truly free; if God absolutely knew the future, human beings could not truly be free. Therefore, God does not know absolutely everything about the future. Open theism holds that the future is not knowable. Therefore, God knows everything that can be known, but He does not know the future.

 

[fastfredy0]

It's preposterous to think God made something happen without know it would have an effect, without know it would have a specific effect, a specified effect, and..... He does not know what it is!

I heard it suggested that God recreates everything every moment.

God is perpetually creating the universe from moment to moment, otherwise it would return to non-existence. Thus, sustentation is a perpetual re-creation. The argument for this is as follows:
God alone is self-existent, thus creation has no ground of existence or of continuance in itself.
All creatures exist in successive instances of time, which have no connection. Thus "successive existence is momentarily returning to nothing, and is only kept from it by a perpetual recreation."

The following Scriptures are cited as teaching this: (author unknown)

1. Nehemiah 9:6 [And Ezra said], You are the Lord, You alone; You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and You preserve them all, and the hosts of heaven worship You.
2. Job 10:12 ‘You have granted me life and lovingkindness; And Your providence (divine care, supervision) has preserved my spirit.
3. Job 34:14 “If He should determine to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, 15 All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.
4. Psalm 36:6 O Jehovah, thou preserves man and beast
5. Psalm 104:27 They all wait for You To give them their food in its appointed season. 28 You give it to them, they gather it up; You open Your hand, they are filled and satisfied with good [things]. 29 You hide Your face, they are dismayed; You take away their breath, they die And return to their dust. 30 You send out Your Spirit, they are created; You renew the face of the ground.
6. Job 37 – 38; Psalm 148
7. Isaiah 10:15 Is the axe able to lift itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw able to magnify itself over the one who wields it? That would be like a club moving those who lift it, Or like a staff raising him who is not [made of] wood [like itself]! Hence man is compared to an axe
8. Matthew 10:29 Are not two little sparrows sold for a copper coin? And yet not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.
9. John 10:28 And I give them eternal life, and they will never, ever [by any means] perish; and no one will ever snatch them out of My hand.
10. Acts 17:28 For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being], as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’
11. Romans 11:36 For from Him [all things originate] and through Him [all things live and exist] and to Him are all things [directed]. To Him be glory and honor forever! Amen.
12. Colossians 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together
13. Hebrews 1:3a And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.
14. 2 Peter 3:7 But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been stored up (reserved) for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly people.
15. 1 Timothy 6:13a; Genesis 8:22; Psalm 104:10-12, 19-22
16. God’s sovereignty requires a belief in his special preserving agency; since this sovereignty would not be absolute, if anything occurred or existed independent of his will.

 

[Tambora]

I heard a chess game analogy once that describes Open Theism.

Which would be the most powerful master of chess?

• The one who says I will win because I have the answer in advance to every move you will make.
• The one who says I will win no matter which move you choose to make.

 

[fastfredy0]

Which would be the most powerful master of chess?

• The one who says I will win because I have the answer in advance to every move you will make.
• The one who says I will win no matter which move you choose to make.

Which would be the most powerful master of chess?

• The one who says I will win because I have the answer in advance to every move you will make.
• The one who says I will win no matter which move you choose to make.
• Reformed answer IMO: The one who says I will win because I have determined what moves you will choose to make.

 

[makesends]

Which would be the most powerful master of chess?

• The one who says I will win because I have the answer in advance to every move you will make.
• The one who says I will win no matter which move you choose to make.
• Reformed answer IMO: The one who says I will win because I have determined what moves you will choose to make.

In other words, "Who says?"

Anybody can say they will win, for whatever reasons. But saying so doesn't make it so.

 

[makesends]

I like the above. I keep reading that God has no succession of moments. That God is in all points of time concurrently. Maybe it's like having an old movie film with 1000s of pictures that run through a machine to create what seems to us as a logic order ... but God can create and play each picture in any order but plays it in an consistent order so we "dummies" can use consistency to aid our understanding.... not that I know what I am talking about but I am comforted that the gurus on the subject say it can't be understand as it is beyond us.
Interesting to contemplate though.

(The following is speculation, and a little off-topic. Deal with it, Haha! I present it to suggest things that may come full circle in one's thinking concerning the power of God and his wisdom and our admiration of him, in how he has made all he has, and how he governs all his works.)​

Perhaps corollary to the idea @fastfredy0 mentioned, (that God is in all moments concurrently) is the notion I keep thinking, that every detail down to the smallest particle or force of matter and energy or even whatever comprises metaphysical/spiritual fact, is made of something from God —perhaps of his love, which may well be a very physical thing. It is not beyond the realm of possibility —in my estimation, anyway. (Disclaimer: This in no way means he is comprised of his creation, nor that his creation is not other than he himself.)

In my logic concerning First Cause, which logic has to apply to all things, God is the source of all things subsequent to himself, "subsequent" meaning resulting from him, and in no way preceding or causing or even impinging on him. If I am right about him at least abiding or inhabiting or sustaining every most basic or miniscule detail, then moments (of time) are only "result of" and not "cause of" the motions of these details of matter/energy. Time passage is only what God makes it, and not what governs what God sustains.

In a separate thread, I'm thinking on another site, notions were floated about concerning the age of the universe, one being that if God created the universe "last Thursday" nobody could tell the difference between that and if he was to make it 6000 years ago, (or even, I think, 15 billion years ago). Time is God's plaything, or, at its most dignified assessment, a mere tool.

 

[Josheb]

I heard it suggested that God recreates everything every moment..................

Interesting idea, but I reject it as unnecessary and, based on the post, a misuse or biased reading of scripture. Source?

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: I heard it suggested that God recreates everything every moment..................

Interesting idea, but I reject it as unnecessary and, based on the post, a misuse or biased reading of scripture. Source

I gave many biblical verses to support (though not prove) the possibility.
The human source of the idea I did not write down at the time I copied it into my notes. I googled "God is perpetually creating the universe from moment to moment" and found:
https://www.apuritansmind.com/the-c...-continuous-creation-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/

https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1000004/jewish/The-Doctrine-of-Perpetual-Creation.htm

I agree the idea is speculative. I don't think matter has the ability to sustain itself; that the verses I gave imply that if God disappeared so would all matter/creation which implies that if God disappeared at any moment on a timeline of infinite moments that creation would also disappear which seems to lend itself to the idea that God is "recreating creation moment by moment" and possibly for our sake He does so in a physical sequence though He is not limited to a physical sequences.
Job 34:14 “If He should determine to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, 15 All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.

Hey, I can't intellectually give strong arguments to support the idea. It may be a fantasy (giggle). I think it is possible.
Aside: I'm still confused as to how God make something from nothing though God is something to make things out of ... also, I'd like to know when Bitcoin will go up and by how much. (giggle)

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: God is perpetually creating the universe from moment to moment

Matthew McMahon quotes Johnathan Edwards
First question: do created “things” (and things can be anything, but for our purposes “things” are going to be apple trees) have power in and of themselves to exist? The answer to this is “no.” If that is true, then this next proposition comes into play: apples trees exist either by an antecedent existence or by the power of a Creator. This seems to be obvious and just a more sophisticated way of saying the former but keeping with the line of thought. Edwards states, “It is plain, nothing can exert itself, or operate, when and where it is not existing [because] what is past entirely ceases when present existence begins…it does no more co-exist with it, than it does any other moment that had ceased twenty years ago.” What Edwards is saying is that the past has no power to sustain that which is in the present or that which is in the future. If this is true, and no thinking person could say otherwise, then each successive moment must be the effect of God’s power. God, then, is continuously upholding the apple tree upon every moment of its existence. Edwards then says, “God’s upholding created substance, or causing its existence in each successive moment, is altogether equivalent to an immediate production out of nothing, at each moment, because its existence at this moment is not merely in part from God, but wholly from him; and not in any part, or degree, from its antecedent existence.” God, then, continually recreates the apple tree in each moment that it exists. Its existence hinges on the reality that God continues to create it in that manner. Its past existence does not hold the existence of the tree in its present state, thus God must recreate the tree instantaneously moment to moment. Edwards explains this “philosophically” in this way, “If the existence of created substance, in each successive moment, be wholly the effect of God’s immediate power, in that moment, without any dependence on prior existence, as much as the first creation out of nothing, then what exists at this moment, by this power, is a new effect; and simply and absolutely considered, not the same with any past existence, though it be like it, and follows it according to a certain established method. And there is no identity or oneness in the case, but what depends on the arbitrary constitution of the Creator; who by his wise sovereign establishment so unites these successive new effects, that he treats them as one, by communicating to them like properties, relations, and circumstances; and so, leads us to regard and treat them as one.” I agree.

 

[makesends]

Re: I heard it suggested that God recreates everything every moment..................

I gave many biblical verses to support (though not prove) the possibility.
The human source of the idea I did not write down at the time I copied it into my notes. I googled "God is perpetually creating the universe from moment to moment" and found:
https://www.apuritansmind.com/the-c...-continuous-creation-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/

https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1000004/jewish/The-Doctrine-of-Perpetual-Creation.htm

I agree the idea is speculative. I don't think matter has the ability to sustain itself; that the verses I gave imply that if God disappeared so would all matter/creation which implies that if God disappeared at any moment on a timeline of infinite moments that creation would also disappear which seems to lend itself to the idea that God is "recreating creation moment by moment" and possibly for our sake He does so in a physical sequence though He is not limited to a physical sequences.
Job 34:14 “If He should determine to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, 15 All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.

Hey, I can't intellectually give strong arguments to support the idea. It may be a fantasy (giggle). I think it is possible.
Aside: I'm still confused as to how God make something from nothing though God is something to make things out of ... also, I'd like to know when Bitcoin will go up and by how much. (giggle)

I don't see the difference —at least in effect— between sustain its existence and re-create it (any and all of it). But it does provoke thought and maybe even give some definition to what is involved in the sustaining of its very existence.

And, ha!, my notion of the smallest particle/component of matter/energy ("God-particle") being made of something from God, such as his love, also fits here.

 

[Josheb]

Re: I heard it suggested that God recreates everything every moment..................

I gave many biblical verses to support (though not prove) the possibility.
The human source of the idea I did not write down at the time I copied it into my notes. I googled "God is perpetually creating the universe from moment to moment" and found:
https://www.apuritansmind.com/the-c...-continuous-creation-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/

https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1000004/jewish/The-Doctrine-of-Perpetual-Creation.htm

I agree the idea is speculative. I don't think matter has the ability to sustain itself; that the verses I gave imply that if God disappeared so would all matter/creation which implies that if God disappeared at any moment on a timeline of infinite moments that creation would also disappear which seems to lend itself to the idea that God is "recreating creation moment by moment" and possibly for our sake He does so in a physical sequence though He is not limited to a physical sequences.
Job 34:14 “If He should determine to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, 15 All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.

Hey, I can't intellectually give strong arguments to support the idea. It may be a fantasy (giggle). I think it is possible.
Aside: I'm still confused as to how God make something from nothing though God is something to make things out of ... also, I'd like to know when Bitcoin will go up and by how much. (giggle)

Thank you for the sources, and the timeliness of the response. I noticed one of them is Jewish. Whenever I see that kind of source material among Christians I am concerned with the Judaization of Christianity. Tanakh is always correct. Judaism is often wrong. I'll check out the arguments later. Thx

 

[fastfredy0]

I noticed one of them is Jewish.

Good point. Post #17 is from Johnathon Edwards .... I don't think I'm supposed to argue from authority ... but, he is better than I. (giggle)