John Sanders

Clear as Day: Metaphorical and Literal Readings of Scripture in the Open Theism Debate

by Brian Martin in John Sanders

by John Sanders
Hendrix College, Conway, Arkansas.

A few years ago the Evangelical Theological Society debated open theism and passed the following resolution: “We believe the Bible clearly teaches that God has complete, accurate and infallible knowledge of all past, present and future including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents.” In this paper I will focus on the claim that the Bible “clearly teaches” that God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge. I will begin with a brief overview of the open theist position and the sorts of biblical texts commonly cited in its support. Then I will examine two key issues underlying the debate: the nature of metaphor and the nature of prototypes. This will show that what one takes to be “clear as day” biblical teaching depends upon the stance one takes on these issues.

Open theism is a model of the God-world relationship that views God in dynamic give-and-take relationships with creatures. The emphasis is on relationality rather than control. In this respect, it is a member of what I call the “freewill tradition” that includes: the early church fathers, Arminians, Wesleyans and others. Open theists, however, seek to modify the freewill tradition on two points: (1) God is temporal rather than atemporal and (2) God has dynamic omniscience rather than exhaustive definite foreknowledge. The term “dynamic omniscience” (which I believe I coined) means that God knows the past and present with exhaustive definite knowledge and knows the future as partly definite (closed) and partly indefinite (open). God, together with creatures, creates the future as history goes along. Hence, God’s omniscience is dynamic in nature. God knows all that can possibly happen at any one time and through his foresight and wisdom God is never caught off-guard.

Proponents of dynamic omniscience find support for their view in a number of different types of biblical texts; a few of which will now be surveyed.

1. The Bible portrays God as authentically responding to His people’s petitions.

God had the prophet Isaiah announce to King Hezekiah that he would not recover from his illness. However, Hezekiah prayed and God responded by sending Isaiah back to announce that God had changed his mind, Hezekiah would recover and not die (2 kings 20).

In the New Testament, Jesus is said to heal a paralyzed man because of the faith of his friends (Mark 2:5). He responded to the faith of this small community by granting their request. People’s faith, or lack of it, deeply affected Jesus and his ministry. Mark says that Jesus could not perform many miracles in Nazareth due to the lack of faith by the people in the community (6:5-6). Oftentimes, what God decides to do is conditioned upon the faith or unbelief of people. As James says, we have not because we ask not (4:2).

2. The Bible portrays God as being affected by creatures and as sometimes being grieved by what they do.

Genesis 6:6 says that God was grieved because humans continually sinned. Why would God grieve if God always knew exactly what humans were going to do? God is portrayed as saying “perhaps” the people will listen to my prophet and “maybe” they will turn from their idols (e. g. Ezek. 12:1-3; Jer. 26:2-3). Furthermore, God makes utterances like, “if you repent then I will let you remain in the land” (Jer. 7:5). Such “if” language–the invitation to change—seems ingenuine if God already knew they would not repent.

Moreover, God says, “I thought Israel would return to me but she has not” (Jer. 3:7; cf. 32:35) and that God planted cultivated vines and did not expect that they would produce “wild grapes” (Isa. 5:1-4). In these texts God is explicitly depicted as not knowing the specific future.

3. The Bible portrays God as testing people in order to discover what they will do.

God puts Abraham to the test and says, “now I know that you fear me” (Gen. 22:12). God puts the people of Israel to the test to find out what they will do (Ex. 15:25; Deut. 13:3). Why test them if God eternally knew with certainty exactly how the people would respond? One could say the testing was only for the benefit of the people since it added nothing to God’s knowledge but that is not what the texts themselves say.

4. The Bible portrays God as changing his mind—altering his plans—as he relates to his creatures.

God announced his intention to destroy the people of Israel and start over again with Moses but Moses said that he did not want to do that and so God did not do what he had said he was going to do (Ex 32). Sometimes God made promises that were stated in unconditional terms but God changed his mind due to human rebellion. For instance, 1 Samuel 13:13 states that God’s original plan was to have Saul and his descendants as kings forever in Israel. In other words, there would have been no “Davidic” kingship. Latter, however, due to Saul’s sin, God changes his mind and rejects Saul and his line (1 Sam. 15:11, 35). Though Samuel and Saul plead with God to change his mind back to the original plan and go with Saul and his son’s God declares that he will not change his mind again on this matter (1 Sam. 15:29). If God always knew that he was never going to have Saul’s line be kings, was God deceitful?

Did the authors of the Hebrew Bible espouse dynamic omniscience? Ask Jewish scholars and they look at you with a puzzled expression and reply: “Of course, how could anyone think otherwise?” Among Hebrew Bible scholars in the Christian community, luminaries such as Terence Fretheim, Patrick Miller and Walter Brueggemann affirm that the Hebrew Bible teaches dynamic omniscience. Recently, a major work by John Goldingay, an evangelical Hebrew Bible scholar at Fuller Theological Seminary, claimed that dynamic omniscience is a major theme in the Hebrew Bible.

Naturally, others disagree. Evangelical Calvinists have taken the lead in arguing that the Bible “clearly teaches” God’s exhaustive definite foreknowledge. Steven Roy claims that there are 4,017 texts that clearly and explicitly teach exhaustive foreknowledge. For example, Psalm 139: 4, 16 where God is said to know what we will say before we utter it and that God knows all of our days before they existed. Isaiah chapters 41-8 are interpreted as Yahweh basing his claim to be a real god on his ability to declare beforehand what will happen. He takes this to mean that if Yahweh does not have foreknowledge, then he cannot be divine. In 1 Kings 13: 1-3 a prophet predicts long in advance that a king named Josiah will desecrate an idolatrous altar. Isaiah 44:28 says that Cyrus will allow the temple in Jerusalem to be rebuilt. Proponents of exhaustive definite foreknowledge ask how such predictions could be made unless God knows the future as completely definite. Hence, it seems clear as day that the Bible teaches exhaustive foreknowledge.

In part, the disagreement concerning what the Bible teaches about divine foreknowledge arises out of a debate about which texts of scripture are literal and which are metaphorical. Open theists have sometimes claimed that they read the Bible literally or in a straightforward fashion. Calvinist critics have claimed that open theists are inconsistent when they interpret the God changed his mind texts literally but do not take the texts about God’s body parts literally.

Millard Erickson and Bruce Ware put forth the following criterion: we should take all the biblical texts literally unless there are compelling reasons that the biblical author did not intend the text to be taken literally. Ware concedes that the texts used by open theists “when interpreted in a straightforward manner yield the conclusion that God lacks exhaustive knowledge of the future.” But, he adds, “the issue is whether the authorially intended meaning is the straightforward meaning.” According to Ware’s hermeneutical principle, if the individual biblical writer intended his remarks to be taken literally, then we should take them literally and if he intended them metaphorically, then we should read them metaphorically. Ware immediately proceeds to examine several texts used by open theists such as Genesis 22:12 where God is depicted as saying “now I know.” Ware concludes that such texts cannot be taken literally for two reasons. First, he says open theists are inconsistent for they maintain that God knows all the present. But if God says he now knows Abraham’s heart then God would not even have exhaustive knowledge of what is going on at present. Ware’s second reason is that if we took Genesis 22:12 literally then it would, in his opinion, conflict with other biblical texts such as 1 Chronicles 28:9 which Ware interprets to mean that God knows what is in human hearts before he tests people.

We should note here that the two reasons Ware gives for not taking Genesis 22:12 literally have nothing to do with the authorial intention of Genesis 22. In other words, Ware is not following his stated hermeneutical criterion. Instead, his reasons are: (1) if open theists took this text literally then it would conflict with another belief of open theism and (2) if we took the text literally then it would contradict, in his opinion, other biblical texts. Ware has given us no reason to believe that the author of Genesis 22:12 did not intend us to take the “now I know” in a straightforward sense. His real reason for not taking the text literally is that he thinks that other biblical texts clearly teach that God knows the human heart. Hence, Genesis 22:12 cannot mean what it says despite the fact that everything in the text itself would lead one to conclude that the biblical writer meant that God did not know Abraham’s heart until then.

Note that Ware’s first criterion does not conflict with God knowing the present. Ware assumes that Abraham’s heart is stable and consistent so God would know the present state of Abraham’s heart without the test. However, the problem God has with Abraham is that he has been inconsistent in his trust in God. That is why God put him to a test to see if he would follow God even though it meant for Abraham to give up his most cherished possession (Isaac) since “now I know” means “you have passed the test and are indeed willing to follow me even at great personal cost to you.

Other evangelical Calvinists make this same move. Paul Helm, for example, follows the lead of John Calvin when he asserts that we must take the texts that say that “God does not change” (Num. 23:19, 1 Sam. 15:29) as the clear teaching of Scripture and read the “God changed his mind” texts as anthropomorphic. He reasons that we must allow the “stronger” (the literally true) passages of Scripture to control the reading of the “weaker” passages. Elsewhere Helm distinguishes between what he calls the “all things” texts where God is said to know all things and what he calls the “dialogue” texts in which God is portrayed as interacting with his people in very humanlike ways. Helm claims that we must take the all things texts as the literal truth about God and render the dialogue texts as anthropomorphic expressions lest we reduce God to human proportions and fail to exalt the divine glory. Thomas Weinandy, a Roman Catholic theologian, arrives at the same conclusion: “Undeniably the Old Testament speaks of God as though He did undergo. . . emotional changes of state. . . . However, I believe that such passages must be understood and interpreted within the deeper and broader revelation of who God is.” Weinandy proceeds to cite what he takes to be “deeper” biblical texts which he believes teach that God is strongly immutable and impassible. Note that Weinandy never cites biblical scholars in support of his “deeper” texts. This is because biblical scholars (Jewish and Christian) do not support his handling of the texts.

Historically, this has been a common maneuver put forth by notable figures such as Philo of Alexandria and Augustine who claim that the biblical texts that say God changed are for the “duller folk” and “babes” who cannot grasp what God is really like.

However, I will argue that open theists are neither stupid nor infantile in their reading of the Bible. Though there are many reasons that account for the different approaches to the biblical texts by open theists and classical theists, I want to focus on two key ones.

Different Understandings of the Nature of Language.

Evangelical Calvinists claim that the “didactic” (descriptive) texts are a better guide for discerning scriptural truth than the “narrative” or poetic texts. Erickson says we should stick with “the more traditional approach of giving primacy to the didactic statements of Scripture and interpreting the narratives in light of these.” “I would contend that the didactic portions, not the narrative passages, should be determinative of the meaning.” For Erickson and others, we should seek the universal timeless propositional truths taught in the didactic passages. Open theists, according to these critics, take the metaphorical texts literally because they rely heavily on the narrative texts instead of the didactic texts.

I have a number of responses to this charge. To begin, it seems to me that our critics want to “get past” or “behind” the metaphorical to see the literal truth. For them, truth is only propositional so the various forms of divine revelation such as narrative and poetry must be transposed into literal language in order to state the truth. Keven Vanhoozer, an evangelical theologian, criticizes this approach for relying solely on the informative function of language and the picture theory of meaning. He calls it the “’heresy’ of propositional paraphrase.” In general, open theists have a different approach to language that acknowledges its many functions and they value the metaphorical nature of language. My proposal is that language is better understood as a vehicle for conceptual understanding rather than as a descriptive devise.

Several years ago when I was speaking on open theism at Brigham Young University I was asked why I took the God has emotions texts literally but not the God has a body texts literally. I replied that I did not take either of these texts literally. My approach is shaped by the theory of conceptual metaphor. A central claim of this theory is that the traditional way of understanding language involves a number of false assumptions: (1) That metaphors are figurative ways of stating what could otherwise better be said literally; (2) Definitions and conventional everyday language are literal; and (3) Only literal language can be true or false.

That these longstanding assumptions are erroneous may be illustrated in the following way. We commonly speak of our relationships in the following ways: “Our relationship hit a dead end” and “Our love broke down.” The traditional view of language says these are literal statements when, in actuality, they are metaphorical ways of conceiving our experience. Such statements “map” our experience of love in terms of our experience of going on a journey and driving into a dead end street or having our car stop working. We are conceptualizing our love relationship in terms of a journey where the lovers are the travelers, the relationship is the vehicle and their common goals correspond to the destination on a journey. Hence, “our relationship hit a dead end” is a conceptual metaphor.

When the critics speak about the “strong and clear” texts of Scripture they fail to realize that they are using conceptual metaphors. In this case, “clear” utilizes the “knowing is seeing” metaphor. The source domain of seeing an object is mapped onto the target domain of knowing. Just as a clear window makes it easier to see an object on the other side, so we “see” certain texts as easier to comprehend than others. “Strong” refers to the ability of one object to support another. Again, we see that we cannot “escape” using conceptual metaphors since it is through these that we understand abstractions. Also, though windows may be literally clear and steel beams strong, texts are not literally clear and strong. If the language about “clear and strong” texts is itself metaphorical rather than “literal” then the very dichotomy, figurative-literal, upon which the critics rely, is false.

Broadly speaking, conceptual metaphors have three characteristics. (1) They are vehicles for understanding our world—they structure the way we think about life experiences. (2) They only partially map reality for they do not say everything that can be said and consequently they constrain our understanding. For instance, the apostle Paul speaks about the Christian community as a body but since this conceptual metaphor does not communicate all aspects of the community he also speaks of believers as a building and as a farmer’s field. (3) They are culturally constrained since not all cultures use the same conceptual metaphors to give meaning to our experiences of love, anger, success, failure or truth.

This means that the traditional way of understanding metaphors used by the critics of open theism is wrong headed. The assumptions made by the traditional theory are false because we erroneously think we are speaking literally when we are often using conceptual metaphors. Cognitive linguists have discovered a huge system of such metaphors by which we give meaning to our life experiences. In the words of George Lakoff, a preeminent proponent of conceptual metaphor theory: “It is a system of metaphor that structures our everyday conceptual system, including most abstract concepts, and that lies behind much of everyday language. The discovery of the enormous metaphor system has destroyed the traditional literal-figurative distinction, since the term ‘literal,’ as used in defining the traditional distinction, carries with it all those false assumptions.”

B. Prototypes of Sovereignty.

The second main reason for the different approaches to the biblical texts by open theists and Calvinist evangelicals is that they have different “prototypes” of sovereignty. Why are certain texts strong and others weak? Why do some biblical texts tell us the literal truth about God while others are anthropomorphic? They do so because the person making this judgment has a particular understanding of the nature of God. Cognitive linguists speak of “idealized cognitive models” or “prototypes.” We have ideal notions of events, emotions, relations and virtues. For example, we have ideal conceptions of what a wedding is like and if we attend one that fits our idealized cognitive model we say “Now that was a wedding!” We have idealized cognitive models of parenting, love, government, friendship, and care for the elderly. However, though every culture will have idealized cognitive models the content of the model might differ from one group of people to the next. For example, someone from another culture might claim that children in the United States do not love their elderly parents since the parents usually live in nursing homes instead of with the children. It does not fit their idealized cognitive model.

In terms of the debate over open theism, theologians have different ideal cognitive models of God’s relationship to the world. Bruce Ware speaks of the “diminished God” of open theism and Paul Helm accuses open theists of “reducing God to human proportions. Ware and Helm have very specific ideal prototypes of what they consider sovereignty to be. For them, an exalted conception of deity entails total control over human affairs and no risk taking. What is their source for this lofty understanding of God? Ware and Erickson say that it is what the Bible clearly teaches. Erickson claims there are 143 biblical texts which affirm God’s meticulous sovereignty. This claim is suspect, however, because freewill theists and theological determinists have been disputing the interpretation of those 143 biblical texts for nearly two millennia.

There are values that lie behind the different ideal models of sovereignty. Historically, natural theology has played a significant role in this debate. Philo of Alexandria, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and many others argued that a perfect being could only change for the worse so God must be strongly immutable, impassible and atemporal. It was considered inappropriate for God to have changing emotions, switch to Plan B, or be influenced by human prayers. These theologians readily acknowledge that there are many biblical passages depicting God doing these very things but they claim that the Bible only “appears” to teach this. When the divine nature is properly understood, then we must interpret these in a way different from their plain sense. Consequently, natural theology determines what these biblical texts are allowed to mean. Our prototype of divinity is one means by which we decide which texts teach the literal truth about God and which texts are figurative.

Yet, it may be asked why total control is a “better” and more exalted view of sovereignty than sovereignty understood as faithful, resourceful, wise and competent. The prototype of sovereignty affirmed by evangelical Calvinists does not allow them to consider any other view as genuine sovereignty. After delivering a paper at an Evangelical Philosophical meeting, a Calvinist challenged me: “You used the word sovereignty, but your God is not really sovereign.” For such folks God is a particular type of king: one who always gets his way even in the least details. After all God is the omnipotent potter shaping every human action as he wants it.

My response to this returns us again to the understanding of metaphor. First, God relates to us in ways that are conceptualized through multiple metaphors: father, mother, rock, vulture, shepherd, king, advocate, judge, husband and many more. No single metaphor is adequate to understand all aspects of God’s relations to us so we need multiple metaphors.

Another crucial point is the “blending” that takes place between source domains and target domains. For example, take the statement: “George Bush and Dick Cheney are on the deck of the ship of state which is why it is listing to the right.” When we say this we are mapping from our experience of a ship veering to the right (source domain) to understand what is happening in our national government (target domain). However, not all aspects of the source domain actually apply since it simply is not possible for two people to stand on the right side of a ship and cause it to list to the right. Yet, our minds have no difficulty understanding the point of the metaphor even though it is physically impossible because we selectively consruct an image from the web of underlying connections. Within a single conceptual metaphor, such as “God is Israel’s husband,” not all aspects of the source domain (human husband) apply to the target domain (God). Though God can be a husband who loves Israel, God cannot be a sexual partner with Israel.

That all aspects of the source domain do not map onto the target domain is vital for understanding the conceptual metaphor of the potter and clay in Jeremiah 18. The potter image might lead us to conclude that everything turns out exactly as the divine potter fashions it. Jeremiah, however, rejects that conclusion. In this passage God is the potter and Israel is the clay. God has produced a piece of pottery but it has turned out to have flaws. Our experience with potters and clay would lead us to conclude that either the potter (God) is not very skilled or the pottery turned out flawed because the potter wanted it flawed. One would presume that a tremendously skilled potter would be able to create exactly what the potter wanted. Yet, Jeremiah makes it clear that God wanted the pottery to be different from what it is so it seems that God is an incompetent potter. However, we need not draw this conclusion because there is another option.

In this instance we are mapping from a source domain (e. g. potters and clay) onto a target domain (e. g. God and Israel). In doing this we utilize some aspects, but not necessarily all aspects, of the source domain. Just as some, but not all, elements of a ship listing to the right apply to our national government, so God is like a potter in only some respects and Israel is like clay in only some respects. Hence, when Jeremiah says the flaws are due to Israel’s unfaithfulness, not God’s lack of skill, we have no difficulty grasping that God is not an incompetent potter even though the clay did not do what he wanted it to do because only some aspects of the potter-clay domain map onto the God-Israel domain. We selectively blend information from the two domains so that we construct a meaningful image even though it is technically inconsistent with the source domain.

In his detailed study of divine kingship in the Hebrew Bible, Marc Brettler applies this same approach to the metaphors regarding God as king. He concludes that the Israelites drew upon the source domain of human kingship in order to conceptualize (understand) the target domain of God’s relationship to them. However, they were highly selective and did not apply all aspects of the source domain to the target domain. Though some aspects are used in the same sense, most aspects are qualified such that God is king in a special way that either surpasses or is contrary to human kings. Furthermore, some aspects of earthly kingship are not applied to God. For example, human kings and God are both called shepherds but only God uses his staff beneficially rather than for punishment. Also, though both have “power,” God can use his power for peace and justice. Finally, God uses his strength to forgive and his right hand for righteousness whereas human kings often use their right hand for bloodshed.

For open theists, God is indeed a king and potter but not every aspect of human kingship or pottery making is applied to God. God is not exercising meticulous control over human affairs. Instead, God initiates and then humans respond and this is followed by innumerable responses from both sides as God works in human history to produce a peculiar kind of people.

It may be asked what sorts of values lie behind the open theist prototype of sovereignty. Open theists appropriate the Cappadocian teaching on divine relationality in the trinity. Moreover, they also readily accept the modern emphasis on relationality in Western culture. Hence, their understandings of what ideal fathers, husbands, and kings are is shaped by the value of nurture rather than control. It is not surprising then when Millard Erickson says that the open theist conception of God contains “feminine” elements. Perhaps he believes a God full of testosterone is a better prototype. At any rate, open theists are shaped by tradition and cultural trends just as much as their Calvinist counterparts have been.

Conclusion

Is open theism biblical? If we mean by this whether or not a case can be made for it from the biblical texts, the answer is yes. If, however, we mean whether or not biblical passages demonstrably affirm it then we have those who say yes and those who say no. The reasons for this different assessment are, in part, due to divergent understandings of the nature of language and prototypes of sovereignty. This should not surprise us since it is the same situation we find ourselves in concerning numerous other doctrines. Take the atonement, for example. All can agree that the Bible teaches that Jesus atones for our sins but there will be disagreement about the nature of that atonement. In the same way, all can affirm that the Bible teaches that God is wise and omniscient, but they will disagree on the content of omniscience. Given that the different readings of the biblical texts results from alternative conceptions of language as well as sundry underlying values, I see no way to bring it about that everyone will read the Bible in a way that is clear as day.

Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1 (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003), pp. 60, 136-7.
Roy, How Much Does God Foreknow? A Comprehensive Biblical Study (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 312. See also, Millard Erickson, What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004), 39-57. Roy claims that a “straightforward reading of the omniscience texts” requires exhaustive definite foreknowledge whereas the openness type texts do not require a rejection of foreknowledge (220-1).
See, for example, Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2000), pp. 14, 118.
Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2000), pp. 67, 85.
Ware, God’s Lesser Glory, p. 85. Emphasis is his. Steven Roy disagrees with Ware on this. He claims that open theists read their views into the Bible. Open theists do not have any “clear, explicit statements [read literal] of God’s lack of certain and infallible foreknowledge. Rather this limitation on God’s knowledge of the future is inferred from biblical statements about God’s repentance, his surprise, his disappointment and so forth….But inferential evidence does differ from clear and explicit teaching.” Roy, How Much Does God Foreknow? 220-1.
Ware uses the same reasons in the other “openness” passages he examines.
According to his criterion Ware is obligated to show reasons in each of the texts such as Genesis 22 that the authors did not intend the meaning open theists ascribe to them. Ware might respond by saying that God is the author of both Genesis 22:12 and 1 Chronicles 28:9. So the author’s intended meaning in Genesis could not be literal. But this will not resolve the issue since we have to decide which texts God intended us to take literally and one could simply say that God intended us to take Genesis 22:12 literally and read 1 Chronicles 28:9 in light of it.
See his The Providence of God, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994) 51-4. See also Erickson, What Does God Know? pp. 79-81.
A significant problem with the claim that exhaustive definite foreknowledge is the “clear teaching” of the Bible is that in the past certain “clear” passages of scripture were used to justify a geocentric solar system, deny women any relief from the pain of childbirth, sanction persecution of the Jews, and legitimize slavery of blacks. In fact, until the 1800′s the majority of Christians, including well-known conservative pastors and theologians, used the Bible to sanction slavery. In America, many southern clergy took up arms against the “infidel” northern clergy because they believed the Yankee Christians were rejecting the clear truth of the Bible. See Mark Noll, America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 388-9 and Kevin Giles, “The Biblical Argument for Slavery: Can the Bible Mislead? A Case Study in Hermeneutics,” Evangelical Quarterly 66, no. 1 (Jan. 1994): 3-17.
Paul Helm, “An Augustinian-Calvinist Response” in James Beilby and Paul Eddy, editors, Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001), pp. 61-64.
Weinandy, “Does God Suffer?” First Things, 117 (Nov. 2001): 37.
The Works of Philo, edited C. D. Yonge (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), p. 386. Augustine, On the Trinity. 1.1.2. Also, this distinction is found in several religious traditions such as Hinduism where some distinguish between saguna and nirguna Brahman and the Buddhist doctrine of the double truth. Al-Ghazali in Islam and Maimonides in Judaism both use the via negativa to arrive at the same conclusion as Philo and Augustine.
For a helpful discussion of the hermeneutical, theological and philosophical presuppositions underlying the debate see Amos Yong, “Divine Omniscience and Future Contingents: Weighing the Presuppositional Issues in the Contemporary Debate,” Evangelical Review of Theology 26.3 (2002): 240-264.
Erickson, What Does God Know? pp. 73, 75.
Erickson, What Does God Know? p.76. See also Roy, How Much Does God Foreknow? 173, 221.
Vanhoozer, “The Semantics of Biblical Literature: Truth and Scripture’s Diverse Literary Forms,” in Donald A. Carson ed., Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1995), pp.67.
George Lakoff, “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor” in Metaphor and Thought, second edition, Andrew Ortony ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 204-5.
Ken McElhanon pointed out to me that this can lead to significant misunderstandings of Scripture. For instance, Westerners commonly conceptualize truth as an object so we speak of “discovering,” “exposing,” “covering up,” “twisting,” and “stretching” the truth. Though it is legitimate to understand truth in this way, if we ignore other ways of conceiving truth we may miss important insights. For instance, John and Paul often speak of truth as a journey on a path signifying a way of life. Jesus is the path we are to follow (Jn. 14:6). We are to walk in the truth (3 Jn. 1:4) and the Spirit will guide us in the truth (Jn. 16:13). Paul warns us not to wander away from the truth (2 Tim. 2:18). All of these conceptual metaphors conceive truth as a path on which we are to walk (just as the Rabbis spoke of the halakah). Hence, it makes sense for Paul to instruct us to “truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). Paul’s point is that we are to live in loving ways, following the way of Jesus, so that we grow up to become like him. Unfortunately, in English we tend not to think of truth as a journey but as an object that we possess so it is not surprising that most English translations read “speaking the truth in love” even though there is no verb “to speak” in the Greek text. The focus then becomes propositional beliefs rather than a way of living which has led many Western Christians to over emphasize correct doctrinal formulations rather than proper living. For a more extensive treatment, see Kenneth A. McElhanon “Mired in the Basic Level: the Quagmire of Cultural Relativism.” Paper presented to a symposium on Christian Perspectives on Anthropological Theory, Biola University – School of Intercultural Studies, La Mirada, CA. 6-8 April, 2000. ms. and “From Word to Scenario: the influence of linguistic theories upon models of translation.” Paper presented to Bible Translation 2001 Conference: International Conference on Bible Translation and Practice. 45 pp. Published electronically on a CDROM in Acrobat PDF format. Dallas, TX: SIL International.
Lakoff, “Contemporary Theory of Metaphor,” 204.
Yong, “Divine Omniscience,” pp. 249-250, discusses this in different terms.
For discussion see my “On Reducing God to Human Proportions” in Semper Reformandum: Studies in Honour of Clark Pinnock, eds. Anthony Cross and Stanley Porter (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 111-125.
Erickson, What Does God Know? p.81.
The same problem applies to Roy’s claim that 4,017 biblical texts that teach God’s exhaustive foreknowledge. Proponents of dynamic omniscience sincerely believe that these texts do not teach this
This raises serious problems for those evangelicals who insist that we stick with what the Bible teaches. If, in fact, some texts teach that God has changing emotions then these evangelicals are rejecting the teaching of the Bible in favor of philosophical arguments. If there are texts that teach God is strongly immutable and other texts that teach God changes in some respects, then there are contradictions in the Bible and the doctrine of inerrancy is false. If it is claimed that these biblical texts only “seem” to teach divine passibility then why does the Bible contain so many misleading texts? Are they for the “duller folk” who cannot understand what God is really like? If so, then perspicuity of scripture has evaporated. It seems to me that these evangelicals are using sachkritik but this undermines their stated methodology. See the article by I. H. Marshall.
See Vincent Brümmer, “Metaphorical Thinking and Systematic Theology,” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 43 (July 1998): 222.
Technically, this is called “conceptual blending” or “conceptual integration.” On blending theory see Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities (New York: Basic Books, 2002). Fauconnier and Turner, “Metonymy and Conceptual Integration.” 77-90 and Seana Coulson and Todd Oakley, “Blending Basics,” Cognitive Linguistics 11-3/4 (2000), 175-196.
Some evangelical Calvinists critics of open theism affirm something close to this when they argue from the doctrine of analogy that only some aspects of the analogy actually apply to God. However, they fail to acknowledge that they interpret the analogies in light of their prototypical understanding of the divine nature. They claim they are only reading the Bible. See Michael Horton, “Hellenistic or Hebrew? Open Theism and Reformed Theological Method,” pp. 209ff. and Ardel Caneday, “Veiled Glory: God’s Self-Revelation in Human Likeness—A Biblical Theology of God’s Anthropomorphic Self-Discloure,” pp. 172, 192 both in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianisty, editors John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Helseth (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2003).
Marc Zvi Brettler, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 76 (Sheffiled, England: JSOT Press, 1989).
George Lakoff distinguishes two main types of thinking about authority in our culture: the strict father and the nurturing parent. In many respects the characteristics he identifies that distinguish these types correspond to differences between evangelical Calvinists and open theists. The strict father prototype tends to emphasize firm boundaries, tight control, hierarchical structures, male over female, conceptual absolutism, and that the father initiates suffering in order to produce obedience. The nurturing parent prototype tends to emphasize learning as process, a centered set of values, guidance, reciprocal relations, equality of male and female, critical realism, and that the parent seeks to instill empathy as a key value. See Lakoff, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).
Erickson, God the Father Almighty, p. 161.
There are other linguistic and hermeneutical issues that need to be addressed such as, the distinction between universal and historical truths and whether or not the biblical language portrays God as he actually is, but I cannot do so here. Ardel Caneday and Michael Horton, for example, claim that the Bible does not disclose God “as he truly is in himself.” See Caneday, “Veiled Glory,” 168, 198 and Horton, “Hellenistic or Hebrew? 208-211.
For elaboration see my “How Do We Decide What God is Like?” in And God saw that it was good: Essays on Creation and God in Honor of Terence E. Fretheim, ed. Fred Gaiser, (Word & World supplement series 5, April, 2006), 154-162.

Eternal Now and Theological Suicide: A Reply to Laurence Wood

by Brian Martin in John Sanders

by John Sanders
Wesleyan Theological Journal. Volume 45, Number 2, Fall 2010

Although it may not seem so from his article, Laurence Wood’s position has many points of agreement with open theism. Both views are part of what I call the free-will Christian family of theology. Hence, both agree on matters such as: God loves creatures and seeks their highest good; God grants humans libertarian freedom; God does not exercise meticulous providence; and thus, God takes some risks since not everything goes the way God would like it to go. Both positions agree that the watershed divide between free-will Christianity and theological determinism is whether or not any of God’s decisions are responses to what creatures do. Free-will Christians believe that God enters into genuine give-and-receive relations with us, our prayers can affect some of God’s decisions, and, in many areas of life, God takes risks. Hence, God is open to what creatures do.

Additionally, open theism affirms a second element of openness: history is open in that it contains multiple possible futures rather than just one actual future. These two senses of openness motivate open theists to diverge from traditional free-will Christianity on two issues, God’s relationship to time and whether God has exhaustive-definite knowledge of future contingent events.1 Though some traditional Wesleyans have held that God is temporal, the majority have affirmed that God is atemporal. The lightning rod issue surrounding open theism has been the claim that God does not know with certainty what creatures with libertarian freedom will do in the future. In his article, Wood links these two issues in order to argue, as many Wesleyans have done in the past, that, if God experiences all time at once (the “eternal now”), then God bas knowledge, not merely beliefs, of what we will do in the future.

For open theism, God has dynamic omniscience. God has definite knowledge of all the past and present and God knows the future as partly definite (closed) and partly indefinite (open). God’s knowledge of the future contains knowledge of those events that are determined to occur (e.g., natural events and anything God has decreed), as well as knowledge of what may possibly happen, and which of those possibilities are most probable. Though the future is partly open, God is not caught off-guard since divine foresight anticipates what we will do.

Wood implies that open theists affirm a limited omniscience when he repeatedly says that we reject “full omniscience” or “exhaustive omniscience.” This makes it sound as though there are things that God could know that open theists deny that God knows. Wood’s rhetoric suggests that 1 00-proof omniscience includes exhaustive-definite knowledge of the future, with any view which denies this being a watered-down omniscience. This would be like claiming that only transubstantiation is 1 00-proof Eucharist-any other view is watered-down communion. However, both Wood and open theists agree that God is omniscient. The debate is about the content of omniscience (e.g., does omniscience include middle knowledge?). The real focus of Wood’s article is not whether God is omniscient but whether God has definite knowledge of future contingents. In ordinary parlance, the disagreement is about divine foreknowledge.

Traditionally, free-will Christians have affirmed that God knows what we will do in the future. Two different theories have been used to explain how God has such knowledge. Perhaps the most common view has been “simple foreknowledge” in which God “looks ahead” and “sees” what we will do in the future. The second option uses divine atemporality (whether thought of as timelessness or the experience of all time at once) to say that God “sees” all of history at once (the eternal now). This is often accompanied by the illustration of God standing on a mountain which allows God to see everything in the valley of history below. In the second view, God does not have “fore” knowledge since there is no past or future for God. 2

Wood accuses me of “equivocation” when I say that God “looks ahead” because a being with an eternal now does not “look ahead.” Open theists are quite well aware that that, according to divine atemporality, God has knowledge, not “fore” knowledge.3 Perhaps I should have been clearer about the reason why “looks ahead” and “sees” are in quotation marks in my book, even when discussing simple foreknowledge. The language of God knowing and deciding things in succession concerns the “logical” or “explanatory order” of events, not a temporal order. For example, God’s decision to liberate the Hebrews from Egypt is logically subsequent to the divine knowledge that they are in bondage. Reversing the explanatory order leads to the nonsensical: God knew they were in bondage because of his decision to liberate them.

Wood goes with the second option of divine atemporality (understood as the possession of all time at once). He uses the notion of an eternal now/present to explain how God knows what we call our “future” actions. It seems to me that Wood’s key claim is that a Boethian account of divine atemporality gives free-will Christians everything they believe is important for the God~human relationship, libertarian freedom and divine responsiveness to creatures, while also affirming exhaustive-definite knowledge of future contingent events. His arguments in support of this claim, though not clearly stated in his paper, seem to be the following:

1. The Bible supports the claim that God has knowledge of our future.
2. Theological tradition affirms that God has knowledge of our future.
3. If relativity theory is correct, then the future is real. Since God knows all of reality, God must know the future.
4. A God with dynamic omniscience is not trustworthy.

The astute reader will notice that few (if any) of these arguments support the claim that the eternal now supports a responsive God. Rather, the bulk of Wood’s article is spent peppering open theism with criticisms. The strategy seems to be to criticize open theism so that readers will conclude that the eternal now position is correct. Wood repeatedly claims that a “Boethian” conception of eternity allows God to experience before and after, such that God can enter into genuine give-and-receive relations with us, avoiding determinism. However, he never explains how this can occur. He simply repeats the claim over and over in the paper without providing evidence for this claim. Moreover, he fails to address the lengthy discussion in my The God Who Risks of the contradictions between the eternal now position and the core doctrines of free-will Christianity.4

In the remainder of this article I will comment on each of the four arguments of Wood in an attempt to show why the eternal now view is problematic for free-will Christians. Also, I want to respond to a number of his criticisms of open theism. Wood’s article contains many factual errors and misrepresentations of what we have said. Therefore, the reader should be cautious about accepting his word as to what particular open theists believe, or what we believe as a group.5 Now to his main arguments.

First Argument: The Bible affirms that God has knowledge of our future.

Though he could have given more texts, Wood cites only one text from Isaiah with the authority of Von Rad in support of this claim. He says, “Sanders attempts to soften this statement that God knows the “end from the beginning” in Isaiah by saying that it refers to the deliverance from exile …. “Well, it would be softening if it were certain that Wood’s interpretation is the correct one. However, my discussion follows the detailed exegetical work of Fredrik Lindstrom who notes that Isaiah’s use of light and darkness is connected to the beginning and the end of the exile, such that Isaiah is talking about a specific event and not the entire history of the world. 6

The God Who Risks contains a hundred pages discussing biblical texts in support of dynamic omniscience and that God experiences time. Here I can only highlight the types of texts used in support of open theism. The Bible portrays God as:

1. Authentically responding to petitions (Ex. 4, 32; 2 Kings 20; Mk. 2; Lk. 8:48).
2. Grieving over sin (Gen. 6:6; 1 Sam. 15:11; Mt. 23:37; Jn. 11 :35).
3. Expecting something to happen but it does not (Jer. 3:6-7, 19-20; Isaiah 5: 1-4; Mk. 6:5-6).
4. Testing individuals and Israel “to find out what they will do” (Gen. 22; Ex. 15:25; Deut. 13:3).
5. Refusing to change his mind (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29).
6. Changing his mind (Ex. 32:14; 1 Sam. 15:11-35; Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:13-14; Mt. 15:21-28) and reconsidering what God had previously promised (1 Sam. 2:30-31; 13:13).
7. Having knowledge of some future events but not others. There are two types of texts about the future in scripture.
7.1 Predicting specific events that do come to pass (2 Kings 20:17-18; Jer. 29:10).
7.2 Predicting specific events that either do not come to pass at all or not in the precise way they were predicted (Ezek. 26:17ff; 29:17-20; Amos 9:11-12 & Acts 15:15-18; Acts 21:11).

Wood correctly says that a God with an eternal now “knows all things instantly.” If so, then how can grief, change of mind, and testing be attributed to such a being? How can God expect something to happen and it not happen? How can a God who knows all events of history simultaneously be said to predict that the city of Tyre will be totally destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezek. 26) and then later admit that the prediction failed (Ezek. 29: 17 -20)?7 What does Wood do with these texts? He claims his eternal now view can handle them, but he never once shows how this can be done. Wood claims to take the biblical portrayal of God seriously, yet he makes no attempt to explain the meaning of these texts if the eternal now is true. Open theists have developed a view which seeks to explain all the types of biblical texts mentioned above.8

It is part of the core piety and beliefs of free-will Christians that God is responsive. In the book I explained why it is contradictory to say that a God who experiences an eternal now also experiences changing emotions and changing decisions. On several occasions Wood supports his case with the classic article on eternity by Stump and Kretzmann. They are proponents of the eternal now and acknowledged experts on what the position entails. In this article, they say that an atemporal being “has no past or future, no earlier or later. “9 They point out that, if God experiences an eternal now, then “God cannot deliberate, anticipate, remember, or plan ahead.”10 The experts on divine atemporality admit that grief, expectation, and change of mind cannot be attributed to God. Wood, however, says both that God experiences all time at once and also that God has “before and after.” Stump and Kretzmann say that this is contradictory, but Wood makes both claims without acknowledging that there is a problem here, let alone furnish us with a solution to it.

Nicholas Wolterstorff points out that for the eternal now “none of God’s actions is a response to what we human beings do; indeed, not only is none of God actions a response to what we do, but nothing at all in God’s life is a response to what occurs among God’s creatures.”11 This is precisely the reason why the influential Methodist theologian John Miley rejected divine atemporality.12 He understood that it undermined essential Wesleyan piety, such as God responding to prayers.

Wood admits that “outright logical contradictions cannot be affirmed without committing theological suicide,” yet it is precisely at this point that he fails to demonstrate why his own authorities are wrong to claim that it is logically contradictory to affirm both that God is atemporal and also that God grieves. Instead, Wood simply claims that his position contains “tensions” and “mystery.” If there is a contradiction at the heart of his claims, then it is not mystery, but nonsense. If Wood and other Wesleyans do not believe that this position is contradictory, then they need to show why it is not and why the expert proponents of divine temporality are wrong. Wood and I agree that human language is stretched when applied to God, but contradictions do not stretch our language, they snap it in half.

Second Argument: Theological tradition affirms that God has knowledge of our future.

In my own work I have documented that the early church fathers and Wesley affl.rmed divine atemporality and that God possesses exhaustive definite knowledge of future contingent events. Also, I have explained the theological work that they intended for this doctrine to accomplish (e.g., how God could elect people for salvation prior to creation based on “foreseen” faith). So, I agree that the dynamic omniscience view is going against the mainstream of theological tradition. However, dynamic omniscience agrees with the free-will tradition that God does not determine the events because it is our actions which cause God to have the knowledge of what we do.13 That is, God “sees” what we will do in the future but God does not ordain that we do them, as with Calvin.

Though the dynamic omniscience view cannot claim the early church fathers, it has had a few proponents as far back as the fifth century. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the view began to gain a wider following, particularly in Methodist circles.14 On the contemporary scene, Wood lists Barth and Pannenberg on his side, while proponents of dynamic omniscience include Moltmann, Pinnock, Paul Fiddes, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Henry Knight, and Barry Callen. Also, the strong majority of contemporary Christian philosophers reject Wood’s view of divine atemporality, though there are a few distinguished exceptions such as Leftow and Stump.15

Third Argument: If relativity theory is correct then the future is real. Since God knows all of reality, God must know the future.

Wood does not actually formulate the argument as I have stated it, but I am trying to be charitable by developing an argument that would support his key claim that an eternal now is the best solution to the problem. It is unfortunate that the bulk of his article does not actually give evidence in support of his claim. Instead, he concentrates on the accusation that divine temporalists reject relativity physics and thus parallel the fundamentalists at the Scopes Monkey Trial. Space limitations permit only three areas of response.

A. Wood’s statements about contemporary physics. Professor Wood is to be commended for his extensive research into relativity theory. He is much more informed on the topic than am I. However, his statements on this subject are not always up-to-date or as settled as he suggests. For example, he castigates me for separating space and time into different categories. Apparently, what Einstein hath joined no one must put asunder. But a recent development has the physics world abuzz about a new theory of gravity which requires that space and time be separated, at least for high energy events. The December, 2009, issue of Scientific American has an article titled “Splitting Time from Space” in which the new theory, called Horava gravity, is discussed. The creator of this theory says, “I’m going back to Newton’s idea that time and space are not equivalent.”16 Though it is being widely discussed, the theory has not been established as the correct one. Also, this does not imply that everything in physics is in dispute, but it does show that physicists are not as dogmatic as Wood is that time and space are inseparable.

B. Why divine temporalists cannot accept the dominant interpretation of special relativity theory. It seems that the dominant interpretation of the special theory of relativity (STR) entails that all of time exists because there is no privileged present moment; all times are on a par ontologically.17 Hence, “now” is only a word expressing the speaker’s own temporal perspective. The idea of the present has no special status. This implies the “block theory” of time. Think of time as an extended block that includes what we call the past, present, and future. The entire space-time block exists together, and the “future” (from some temporal perceiver’s point of view) is just as much “fixed” and “there” as is the past. In other words, the future is real-it exists ontologically. Open theists agree with the third argument that, if the future exists, then God must know it. We just deny that the future is real.

Why do open theists have a problem with this majority interpretation of STR? For two reasons. First, because if the block of time is real then everything you and I will do in the future already exists on the block, which means that there are no “alternative possibilities” of the sort that are required for libertarian free will. Recorded on the block is a fact of the matter as to what each of us will do tomorrow. There is no possibility that these facts of the matter can be changed. In other words, the standard interpretation of STR is deterministic and that is why not only open theists but all libertarians must look for some other interpretation of the data. Second, as was stated above, the biblical portrait of God and the piety of free-will Christianity require divine responsiveness-which is excluded by the eternal now position. If the block theory is correct, then we do not see how it is possible to maintain these core beliefs.

I and other open theists may indeed be wrong to go with the minority interpretation of STR, but we do so because we want to affirm libertarian freedom and divine responsiveness. Hence, proponents of libertarian freedom should reject the block theory in favor of the dynamic theory of time in which the present has a special status and the future is not ontologically real. According to the dynamic theory, time is actually changing and is not, as Einstein said, a stubborn illusion. There is an interpretation of STR that is compatible with the dynamic theory.18 It is called the neo-Lorentzian interpretation. Though some prominent physicists affirm it, it is not popular among physicists.19 It is empirically equivalent to the standard interpretation of STR and has not been refuted empirically. Wood is wrong when he claims that we do not accept the empirical confirmation of relativity theory.20

C. Wood has a fundamental problem with four-dimensionalism. Wood affirms that, according to the standard interpretation of STR, four-dimensionalism is correct. It entails that the future is just as ontologically real as the past. Wood also acknowledges that Einstein held to the block theory because of STR. However, Wood rejects the block theory in favor of the dynamic theory.21 He does so without even a hint that there is any sort of problem here. The problem is that the block theory is the view that that there is no ontological distinction between past, present and future. Four-dimensionalism and the block theory are one and the same thing. The dynamic theory of time is logically incompatible with four-dimensionalism because, according to the dynamic theory, the future is not ontologically real. Hence, Wood’s position is logically contradictory in that he affirms both that the future is ontologically real and that the future is not ontologically real.

Wood does say that God is infinite and transcends time, but such remarks do not address this fundamental contradiction in his position. Also, Wood accuses me of “dictating to God what sort of world is possible” because I assert that the future is not ontologically real.22 This is unfair because on the very paragraph of The God Who Risks which Wood uses to justify his claim I say, “God could have created a world in which he knew exactly what we would do in the future if God had decided to create a deterministic world.”23 The point is that, if the block theory is correct and the future is an ontological reality, then God would know it, but then we would not have libertarian freedom. I am not dictating to God, I am only claiming that our theological statements cannot contain logical contradictions. Since Wood affirms this very principle, he must either demonstrate that this is not, in fact, a logical contradiction or he must modify his position. Appeals to divine infinity do not remove the logical contradiction at the heart of Wood’s view.

Finally, Wood’s attempt to combine the dynamic theory of time with the eternal now entails a serious theological problem.24 If God experiences all of time at once in an eternal now, then God knows all events that ever occur as well as the order in which they occur. Since there is no before or after in God’s experience, what is “now” for us is simply a set of events which God knows occur in history. However, if the dynamic theory of time is correct, then the God of an eternal now does not know what is happening in history right now because God’s now does not correspond to our now. In order for God to know what is happening right now, God must change, because a few moments ago these events were not happening but other events were happening instead. But, according to the eternal now theory, God cannot change. This means that Christ’s death, resurrection, and second coming are all simultaneous for God. So, when Jesus died, God did not know the event was happening then. God eternally knows that it happens, but at our moment in history when Jesus rose from the dead God did not know it was happening (a very strange idea and certainly not one the biblical writers endorse). The God of the eternal now does not know that Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Fourth Argument: A God with dynamic omniscience is not trustworthy

Towards the end of his article, Wood says that a God without exhaustive knowledge of the future “may weaken one’s capacity to trust in the Lord.” He suggests that such a God may “lead us wrongly” and thus be in need of atonement.25 Several responses are in order. According to dynamic omniscience, divine guidance is given on the basis of God’s perfect understanding of all that is possible to happen and perfect understanding of the probabilities of each of those possibilities. God knows what each of us is likely to do but, because we have libertarian freedom, we can, at times, act out of character and do what was unlikely. For example, God says he expected Israel to put away her idols and return to him but they did not (Jer. 3 :7). In this case God knew it was more likely that they would repent, but he also knew the lesser possibility that they would not repent. God did not say that they would definitely repent because God will not definitely believe that something will occur unless it is certain to occur. If an event is not certain to occur, then God knows the degree of probability that something will happen in a particular way. But God will not hold that belief as absolutely certain if human freedom is involved because our decisions, though somewhat predictable, are not absolutely so. When God expresses surprise, it is evidence that the less likely event came to pass, but this is not a “mistake.”

Second, let us say that I advise a friend to accept a job offer because I know the supervisor and that this individual is a wonderful boss. However, a couple of months into the job, the supervisor dies in an accident and is replaced by a horrible person. Is it legitimate to say that I sinned in the guidance I gave to my friend? I do not see any need of atonement in such as case. Gregory Boyd tells the story of “Suzanne,” a woman in his congregation, who was very angry with God because she believed God had intentionally guided her into an abusive marriage.26 From a young age she wanted to be a missionary in Taiwan. When she went to college she met a young man who shared that same goal. For three years they attended church together and prayed together. They consulted with their parents, pastor and friends, all of whom thought they should marry. After college, they married and then attended a missionary training school together. However, at this time her husband had an affair with another student. When confronted, he repented, but then the affair resumed. After a while he became physically abusive to his wife and then divorced her. Several of her friends told her what Job’s friends had told him-that God intended this horrible set of events to teach her a lesson.

Open theists give a different interpretation. At the time of their engagement her fiancée was a godly person with a passion for ministry, so the prospects were good that they would have a healthy marriage and ministry. However, because of free will, he gave in to temptation and resisted the promptings of the Spirit, even after he was found out. Through a series of choices he became what he had not been when they were dating. God’s guidance had not been wrong. What was wrong was the husband’s misuse of his free will.

How would Wood explain Suzanne’s story? Perhaps he believes that a God who possessed exhaustive knowledge of future contingent events would guide her away from marrying the fellow because God “eternally saw” that he would abuse her. That is, a God with knowledge of the actual future would be in a position to guide her so that she would not marry him. This is a common belief among free will Christians. It is also a common belief among critics of Christianity who say that a God who eternally knew Hitler would carry out the Holocaust should have prevented Hitler from doing so. Unfortunately, both sides are mistaken because the eternal now is useless for guidance. To understand why this is so, it must be kept in mind that what a God with an eternal now knows is what actually happens in history, not what might happen. If what God eternally knows is that Suzanne marries him and is abused, then it is not within God’s power to bring it about that she not marry him because that would mean that God’s knowledge of what actually occurs is wrong. By definition, God’s eternal knowledge of the actual future is always correct.

A God with an eternal now knows that Suzanne will be abused and thus cannot use that knowledge to either bring about the abuse or to prevent the abuse from occurring. What God knows is not some antecedent events which, unless hindered in some way, will lead to her abuse. Rather, what God knows is the actual abuse. It is contradictory to suppose that God knows an event will occur and also to hold that God prevents that event from occurring. That is, God knows that Suzanne will be abused and God knows that Suzanne will not be abused. It is logically impossible for God to know that an event will actually happen and that God will prevent that event from happening.

In The God Who Risks and elsewhere I have explained in detail why both simple foreknowledge and the eternal now positions are useless for divine providence.27 It does God no good to have either simple foreknowledge or the eternal now because God cannot change what God knows for a fact will happen. God cannot use knowledge of what we call the future to guide us in the best ways, or to prevent horrible events from happening, or to give predictions about the future to the prophets. Suppose that Tom asks God for guidance about whether or not to accept a job offer. Tom believes that God knows for a fact what will happen to Tom in that job (whether good things or bad), so Tom believes that God is in perfect position to lead him. The problem is that, if God knows only truths about the future and God knows for a fact that Tom accepts the job and endures years of misery while thus employed, then God cannot change that from happening. Once God knows it as a fact that Tom works there, then it is useless for God to give Tom guidance to reject the job offer. It is incoherent to claim that God knows the actual future and on the basis of this knowledge changes it so that it will not be the actual future. A God who eternally knows the actual future cannot answer such prayers.

Philosopher David Hunt, a proponent of the simple foreknowledge view, believes that the “uselessness problem” is one of the most serious objections and needs to be rebutted. If the eternal now and simple fore· knowledge views are useless for providence, then they are worthless for our theology. That is why Hunt has attempted to construct a way in which eternal knowledge could be somewhat more useful for providence than if God has dynamic omniscience.28 To date, I am aware only of the attempts by Hunt and another philosopher to solve the uselessness problem. William Hasker and I have explained in print why these two attempts fail.29 It is disappointing that Wesleyan theologians, including Wood, do not address the problem of uselessness. Wesleyans have sought to argue against the claim that, if God knows the future, then the future is determined but they have not taken seriously this new problem (uselessness) which is devastating to the simple foreknowledge and eternal now positions. Wood claims that his eternal now position is useful for providence, but he provides neither any evidence that this is so or any explanation of why it is not a logical contradiction to believe that God eternally knows that an event will occur and yet it is in God’s power to bring it about that it not occur.

Summary and Conclusion

I have argued that Professor Wood’s position entails three significant contradictions. (1) It is logically contradictory to affirm both that God is atemporal and also that God grieves and responds. (2) It is logically contradictory to say that the future is ontologically real and that the dynamic theory of time is correct (the future is not onto logically real). (3) It is contradictory to suppose that God knows an event will occur and also to hold that God prevents that event from occurring.

Wood says that “outright logical contradictions cannot be affirmed without committing theological suicide.” Appeals to “infinity” and “mystery” can be quite legitimate, but they cannot transform a genuine contradiction into an attempted suicide. Perhaps someone will figure out a solution to these problems, but until this happens the only views of omniscience that are useful for providence, and which are not logically contradictory, are theological determinism, middle knowledge, and dynamic omniscience. The only one of these three which affirms the biblical portrayal of divine responsiveness, grief, change of mind, and is compatible with the core tenets of Wesleyan piety and belief, is dynamic omniscience. If Wood and other Wesleyans are to avoid theological suicide then they must either solve these contradictions or accept open theism.30

Creation Care Environmental Threats Evangelical Theological Society Four Views Laurence Wood New Testament Sinful Creatures Third Argument

Divine Reciprocity and Epistemic Openness in Clark Pinnock’s Theology

by Brian Martin in John Sanders

John Sanders, Hendrix College

This paper was given at a session honoring the work of Clark Pinnock at the American Academy of Religion in San Francisco, November 18,2011.

Canadian theologian Clark Pinnock was once a renowned defender of the doctrine of meticulous providence (where God tightly controls each and every event that transpires). He caused quite a stir when he rejected evangelical Calvinism and crossed the theological divide for freewill theism. In the final years of his life he caused an even greater controversy when he helped develop a particular theological model within freewill theism known as open theism. The lightning rod issue in this view is the affirmation of “dynamic omniscience” (God knows all the past and present exhaustively and the future as possibilities). This paper argues that the key motivation which led Pinnock to make these moves was his belief that God freely entered into reciprocal relations with creatures. This paper also claims that another factor was at work as well: he rejected an evangelical form of strong foundationalism which led to an epistemic openness to others. These two factors, divine relationality and epistemic openness coalesced for him in the openness of God model.

It began, he says, in 1970, when he was teaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School that he questioned his affirmation of strong Calvinism. He rethought his interpretation of particular biblical texts and he inquired about whether our prayers of petition really had an affect on God.1 In 1975 he wrote that with what he calls “the insight of reciprocity in hand” he is now able to understand more of the implications of reciprocal relations between God and humans which led to his conclusion that strong Calvinism was inconsistent with.2

I suggest that there was an additional vital change in Pinnock’s epistemological approach at this point. His early work was apologetic in nature and the particular approach to apologetics he took is what Donald Bloesch criticized as “evangelical rationalism”. Pinnock was committed to the quest for epistemic certainty and he seemed to read divergent viewpoints only in order to show them wrong. At this juncture, however, he readily acknowledges that theologians are “fallible and historically situated creatures” (Grace of God, 16) and, importantly, he actually applies these ideas to himself and begins to see how much he needs to learn from others.3 He speaks of himself changing from possessing a “fortress mentality” to one of going on a “theological pilgrimage”. He rejected the strong foundationalism of conservative evangelical theology: “It took me decades to get free of the shackles of old Princeton, but this is a diminishing problem for younger people.”4 Pinnock begins to manifest some epistemic virtues that, he notes, are lacking in many evangelical theologians. Specifically, he becomes open to the other. He read widely among Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and other theological traditions and made use of what he found of value in them in order to rethink evangelical theology.5

In the 1980′s he says he began to rethink the divine attributes. He rejected strong immutability, strong impassibility, and divine timelessness since they were incompatible with the biblical portrayal of divine reciprocity as well as with his own experience of prayer (Grace of God, 24). In 1986 he wrote a chapter in Predestination and Freewill: Four Views which lays out the key elements of his approach. He mentions that he had read Richard Rice’s The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will (1985). Yet, Pinnock’s focus here is on the type of sovereignty God practices, not the issue of omniscience and freewill. He rejects meticulous providence in favor of”omnicompetence” (146), claims that God acts “temporally and not timelessly” (146), and has chosen to be interdependent with creatures (146, 151). God operates this way because God wants relationships of love to form (148). If meticulous providence is correct then the relationship with God is closed, not open, and if it is closed then Pinnock does not know how to make sense of the idea that our prayers have an affect on God. He then argues that if the divine-human relationship is open, then the future must also be open which implies that the future actions of free beings cannot be known with certainty by God. He realized that divine timelessness, strong immutability, strong impassibility, and exhaustive definite foreknowledge were a package deal and their attempted harmonization with biblical teachings simply fell apart.

In 1994 he contributed the seminal book The Openness of God. At the beginning of his chapter he stresses that God is approachable and interactive. He also says that “humility is essential” for this topic since our understandings of God are always partial and in need of revision. Once again, we see divine openness and human openness placed side by side (102). He concludes by saying that “God is the best learner of all because he is completely open to all the input of an unfolding world, whereas we are finite and slow to react, reluctant to learn and inclined to distort reality in our own interest” (124).

The book received a great deal of attention and Christianity Today was generous enough to ask Roger Olson to write a review of the book. After receiving Olson’s review someone at the magazine decided it was too positive and so four other reviewers were hurriedly added and each them trashed the book. Tom Oden’s review called the dynamic omniscience view a “heresy” because it was not part of his fabled “consensus of the first eight centuries.” At the end of his review Roger Olson asked whether American evangelicals have “come of age enough to avoid heresy charges and breast-beating jeremiads in response to a new doctrinal proposal that is so conscientiously based on biblical reflection rather than on rebellious accommodation to modern thought? This may be the test.”

In the decade which followed the publication of The Openness of God a founding member of the Evangelical Theological Society, Roger Nicole, charged that Pinnock should be expelled from the Society because the openness of God was incompatible the inerrancy statement of the ETS.6 The theme of one annual meeting of the ETS was on whether or not open theism was legitimate for evangelicals and a formal vote on his membership failed to garner the 2/3 majority needed to evict him. At this time several evangelical seminaries, led by the Southern Baptists, along with some denominations altered their statements of faith so that open theists could not be members.7

Pinnock responded to the controversy in his Most Moved Mover (181) where he suggests that the rancour surrounding the open theism debate could be lessened if: (1) We respect one another as believing scholars, (2) We always keep in mind that we know only in part, (3) Refrain from caricaturing what the other says, and (4) Refrain from politicizing the issue by declaring who is in and who is outside the boundaries of evangelicalism.

Pinnock believed that theological determinism coupled with strong foundationalism among evangelicals fosters a “pathology” of closed-mindedness with a fondness for gatekeeping in order to exclude others with theological differences from evangelicalism. I once asked him why he continued to attend the ETS and he replied that he needed to hear what they were saying and he believed that they needed to hear what he had to say. In his better moments Pinnock lived out his notion that we should emulate God as the best learner of all who listens to the other.

For Pinnock, the openness of God model was an attempt to render coherent the God he read about in the Bible and experienced in prayer. Understanding that God was open to, and affected by, creatures encouraged him to be open to learning from others and thus revising his own beliefs. From the beginning of his development of open theism he understood that that there are epistemic virtues endemic to the openness of God model.

Pinnock’s understandings of gracious divine reciprocity and the human need to listen to the other were both significant factors that motivated his embrace of open theism.

Christianity Today Divine Foreknowledge Hendrix College John Sanders

Divine Relationality and Theodicy in The Shack

by Brian Martin in John Sanders

by Dr. John Sanders, Hendrix College, Conway, Arkansas

Presented at the American Academy of Religion in Montreal Canada, November 7, 2009

I was asked to give this paper because some readers see a number of themes in the The Shack by William Paul Young that correspond well with open theism. That is certainly correct though the author explicitly rejects two key elements of open theism and so remains squarely in what many call Arminianism and I refer to as free will theism. First, I will mention a number of teachings in the book that open theists heartily agree with. Then I will discuss the two areas where open theists must disagree. The questions I raise along the way all pertain to whether the author is logically consistent in what he says throughout the book. However, I wish to acknowledge that the author is not a professional theologian and is writing a piece of fiction so I want to cut him some slack. Mr. Young is present at this meeting and I look forward to any responses he may make to my comments. It is my hope that the questions raised in this paper will promote helpful dialogue on the important topics he addresses in The Shack.

Points of agreement:

1. It is wonderful that a book which portrays God as deeply relational, loving, and gracious has become so popular, especially among evangelicals.

2. The focus of the book is to explain what God is like and to counter many common stereotypes people have of God’s intentions, plans, and actions. In particular, the book addresses the problem of moral evil and what responsibility God bears for it. Along the way sin, grace, and redemption are discussed in ways that bear striking resemblance to what Clark Pinnock and Robert Brow say in Unbounded Love. A number of proponents of theological determinism on the internet rip the book for failing to emphasize God’s judgment on and anger at sinners. As with the debate on open theism, the Calvinists typically fail to realize that divine judgment is present but is handled in the context of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. He does emphasize the God as parent metaphor over the God as judge metaphor (119). God is more like a parent trying to get rebellious children to accept his reconciliation than a legal authority attempting to get us to feel guilty about what we have done (223).

3. The nature of God.

3.1 The author affirms a social trinitarian model which emphasizes the intra- trinitarian relationships as the ontological framework for God’s relationships to creatures (89).

3.2 God is “wholly other” and he is critical of overly anthropomorphizing God (98).

Yet he says God is self-limiting, gets angry (119), and serves others (which seems quite anthropomorphic to me).

3.3 Rejects divine strong impassibility (95-96,). God’ character does not change but God has changing emotional states. Yet, the author also says that God always lives in a state of fullness, of perpetual satisfaction (98). How does this square with creation gone awry?

4. God creates out of love and for love (97). The purpose of creation is for love so God took the risk of love.

5. Humans have libertarian freedom within limits (94-95). Love does not force its will on the other (145, 190)

6. God allows Mack to be angry and even to challenge God (81). God does not tell him to shut up but, rather, allows him to vent. God is extremely dialogical. This is a more Jewish understanding of God (e. g. Abraham, Moses, Habakkuk, etc.).

7. The problem of evil.

7.1 Creation has miscarried (123, 125). Evil was not part of God’s plan (165). He affirms the free will defense (190-1) so God exercises general providential control rather than the meticulous providence of theological determinism.

7.2 What are the ways in which God works with humans? Did God orchestrate his daughter’s death as a judgment upon what he did to his father? (71) No. “Papa is not like that” (164). Did she have to die so that Mack would be changed? This is what some Christian friends told me was the purpose of the death of my older brother. But again, Young says, that is not how God works (185). Hence, he rejects meticulous providence. For Young, there are genuine tragedies. God works to bring good out of “unspeakable tragedies” but God does not “orchestrate the tragedies” (185). Much of what the author says about the problem of evil resonates well with what open theists have written (William Hasker’s The Triumph of Good Over Evil, IVP, 2008 and Gregory Boyd, Is God to Blame? Baker, 2003).

7.3 The basis for evil originates in our separation from God—our declaration of independence from God (136). Sin originates from improper relations (147). He thinks of sin primarily in relational terms rather than as a substance in humans.

7.4 On natural evil he seems to affirm a “natural-order” theodicy rather than the view which ascribes all mosquitoes, poisonous snakes, etc. as results of human sin. (133)

7.5 God does not want people to go to hell and God takes no pleasure in punishing people. Rather, God wants to cure us (119-120, 162-3). He points out that the gates to the heavenly city are always open (177). This sounds a bit like George MacDonald. If Young has the eschaton in mind here (he may be speaking metaphorically), is he hinting at the possibility of postmortem evangelization? However, on 182 he sounds more like an inclusivist in that God travels all roads (religions and political philosophies) to transform humans into those who love one another.

7.6 God will be victorious in the end (125) and “There has never been a question that what I wanted from the beginning, I will get” (192). In what sense will God get what she wanted? Does the author mean that ultimately each and every human being will be redeemed and eternally enjoy the presence of God in the eschaton? He says “I will use every choice you make for the ultimate good and the most loving outcome” (125). This sounds as though God can guarantee that each and every one of our acts results in ultimate good. But that would require theological determinism which Mr. Young clearly rejects. In the next paragraph he says, “If you could only see how all of this ends and what we will achieve without the violation of one human will…” Again, I’m not sure what is meant by this. Does this mean that the eschaton is the justification for each and every instance of evil? I agree that God will be vindicated in the eschaton but if the author means that every instance of evil will be made good then I disagree. However, Young does end this particular conversation by saying “We’re not justifying it. We are redeeming it” (127). Perhaps what Young has in mind is not that each and every act of evil will be justified. Rather, God is working to bring good out of it. But on this point, can God guarantee that each and every instance of moral evil will be redeemed and that, in the end, there will be no pointless evil that is pure loss? If God cannot guarantee how we humans react to instances of evil or even to divine grace, for that matter, then how can God guarantee that each and every instance will be redeemed? I affirm most of what the author has to say about the problem of evil but I would like some clarification on this point.

Two crucial points of divergence from open theism:

1. God and time. Mr. Young says that time, as humans experience it, presents no boundaries for the creator (172). The author seems to affirm divine atemporality. If so, then there is a significant logical contradiction to the major theme of the book—divine relationality. Young is similar to Phil Yancey on this point. Divine timelessness plays no real role in his theology. The book portrays the divine- human relations as temporal (before and after) in nature. But then it seems the author feels compelled to say, “Oh, I better say something about divine timelessness.” It has become customary to mention divine atemporality but it performs no significant theological work. Now I can’t be too harsh on Young for this since a great many theologians commit the same error. The problem is that a timeless being is strongly impassible (which the author rejects) and it is impossible for an atemporal being to experience grief or any changing emotional state (which the author affirms) since changing states require a before and an after—something an atemporal being simply does not have. Though I agree that God is not bound by time as we are, I fail to understand how an atemporal being has the types of experiences and relationships portrayed in the book. It is the type of logical contradiction that Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin avoided because they affirmed both divine atemporality and strong immutability (God has no changing emotional states or responses to creatures).

2. Mr. Young affirms that God has EDF (exhaustive definite foreknowledge) (90, 106, 161, 186-7, 206, 222). Yet, the author also says that God limits herself to facilitate a genuine give-and-receive relationship (106). While speaking with Mack God does not bring “to mind, as it were” the divine knowledge of all facts. Can God have selective ignorance in the sense that God is temporally unaware of what God knows to be the case? On 206 he says that because of God’s EDF God has no expectations. How does this square with his other statements that God is grieved by the evil that takes place? On 123 he says that creation went down a path that God did not desire. So God has no expectations but does have unfulfilled desires? It seems to me that Mr. Young is here trying to say that he has no idea how to reconcile EDF with God having genuine give-and-receive relations with us. This seems to be logical contradiction.

3. The author’s emphasis on divine responsiveness runs headlong into the brick wall of divine atemporality and exhaustive definite foreknowledge. One way out of these two logical contradictions would be for him to return to his statement that God is “wholly other” and therefore is beyond the limits of human logic. But if he takes that route then he undermines the entire project of his book which is to present a logically consistent understanding of God and God’s relationship with us—particularly on the problem of evil. After all, throughout the book God is very adept at catching Mack in contradictory thoughts. Hence, I don’t believe this is the route the author can take. Again, it seems to me that neither divine atemporality nor EDF help him make his case for the way God relates to us. In fact, he seems aware that these doctrines are genuine problems for his theology yet he feels compelled to affirm them. I think that is why he throws them in and then has to give undeveloped explanations as to why they don’t contradict his main thesis.

In closing I want to say that I welcome the book and believe it has much good to offer. Finally, this sort of theological analysis of a book of fiction is why my wife says that I know how to ruin a good book!

EDF Hendrix College John Sanders Mack God

1994-2004, an Overview of the Debate on Open Theism in Evangelicalism

by Brian Martin in John Sanders

John Sanders

Let me provide a brief overview of the history of the debate within evangelicalism. For many years the core ideas of openness had been buried in academic journals and I thought it was time to bring them to the attention of a broader public so I organized a team and we published The Openness of God. That the book had immediate impact is indicated by the fact that it placed eighth in the Christianity Today book of the year awards and that in January of 1995, Christianity Today reviewed the book with not just one but four reviewers.1 The lead review asked some good questions and was generally favorable but the other three absolutely trashed the book. In a February 1998 article in Christianity Today, Tom Oden wrote: “The fantasy that God is ignorant of the future is a heresy that must be rejected. . . .”2 John Piper, a prominent pastor in the Baptist General Conference, used Oden’s hersey comment to argue that Greg Boyd, a professor of theology at Bethel College in Saint Paul and pastor in the BGC, should be fired from the college and his pastoral credentials revoked. A great deal of time and energy was spent in this attempt. A board of inquiry was formed that ultimately found Boyd within the boundaries of BGC doctrine. At the1999 and 2000 annual meetings of the BGC resolutions were introduced to remove Boyd but they failed.

The Calvinist critics of openness had some success in the Southern Baptist Convention. In 1999 they introduced a resolution on divine foreknowledge that the delegates approved to include as a revision to the Baptist Faith and Standard. In 2000 the SBC approved the following: God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things,past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures. However, these changes were not ratified by a number of state conventions, most notably the Texas convention, which is the largest. After the 1999 resolution in the SBC a February 7, 2000 editorial in Christianity Today titled “God vs. God” exhorted the critics of open theism to continue to debate rather than seek political means to squelch it. Evangelical critics of open theism were outraged at the editorial, questioning whether Christianity Today could be trusted any longer.

When the evangelical publishers, Baker and InterVarsity Presses, decided to publish more books by open theists, accusations were made that such presses could no longer be trusted to produce only works fit for evangelical consumption. One high-profile critic, who has several books published with Baker, threatened to withdraw all his books if Baker went ahead with its plans to publish a book by an open theist. They published the book. This provoked the neo-fundamentalist magazine, World, to publish a scathing attack on open theism and Baker Books. Virulent and inaccurate critiques of openness appeared in the September 1999 issue of Modern Reformation with the theme: “God in Our Image” and in the March 2001 issue of Christianity Today titled “God at Risk.”

However, in May and June of 2001 Christianity Today published a series of e-mail exchanges on openness between Chris Hall and me titled “Does God Know Your Next Move?” This finally allowed a proponent of openness to explain the position to a large evangelical readership. The editors at the magazine must be given credit for allowing this theological debate to continue in the face of intense pressure to cut it off at the knees.

Other critiques of openness appeared in the winter 2002 edition of Contact, the news magazine of Gordon-Conwell Seminary and in the March 2003 issue of Moody magazine.

In 2001 some pastors in the denomination that owns Huntington College organized an attempt to have me removed from the college. Over a two year period I faced a board of inquiry and expended a tremendous amount of energy coping with the numerous political maneuvers of my opponents.

During this time opponents of openness worked to get open theists expelled from membership in the Evangelical Theological Society (a predominately Calvinistic, conservative evangelical, group that desires to speak for all evangelicalism). At the 2000 annual meeting the Executive Committee announced that the theme for the following year, “Defining Evangelicalism’s Boundaries” would include an examination of open theism. At the 2001 meeting over three dozen papers were read on openness. At an ad hoc business meeting the majority of the membership endorsed the following resolution: “We believe the Bible clearly teaches (emphasis mine) that God has complete, accurate and infallible knowledge of all events past, present and future, including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents.” The June 2002 issue of the journal of the society was dedicated to a discussion of open theism.

At the 2002 meeting Roger Nicole, one of the founding members of the society, formally charged Clark Pinnock and me with violating the doctrinal statement of the society by our denial that God possessed exhaustive definite foreknowledge. He charged that this implied that we denied the truth of scripture. The members voted to have the Executive Committee hold a formal hearing, which was done in October of 2003. The Committee decided that Pinnock was not guilty of the charge but that I was. The reason centered on the truth value of statements about the future actions of free creatures. I said they are only probabilities, not certainties. For them, any biblical statement about the future must be true in the sense that it is a certain fact to occur. It seems to me that such a view presupposes the stasis theory of time which open theists reject. Pinnock was exonerated because when asked about his stand on this matter he replied that he did not know much about such philosophical intricacies. Shortly before the 2003 annual meeting the faculty of the Southern Baptist seminaries passed resolutions against open theism. At the November ETS meeting a lengthy special business meeting was held. The “heavy hitters” of the Southern Baptists showed up and spoke strongly against open theism. The vote of the membership was 67% to retain Pinnock while 63% voted to remove me. However, this fell short of the required two-thirds needed for expulsion. I think the vote represents the fact that Executive Committee voted for Pinnock and against me due to the philosophical issues. One way to read this vote is that 1/3 of the members voted to expel us no matter what the recommendation of the Executive Committee was, another third voted to keep us no matter what the recommendation of the Executive Committee was, and the final third were swing votes that went with the recommendation of the Executive Committee. Hence, the ETS is very split on the matter.

Clearly, open theism has become a hot topic within evangelicalism. I am aware of nineteen books from evangelical publishers alone, dozens of journal articles, and over seventy conference papers. That open theism has struck a raw nerve with neoevangelical Calvinists can be seen in the titles of the books against open theism: God Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents God, The Battle for God, Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, God’s Lesser Glory: the Diminished God of Open Theism, No Other God, and, from one of my former professors, Creating God in the Image of Man.

At the end of his 1995 review of The Openness of God in Christianity Today, Roger Olson asked whether American evangelicals have “come of age enough to avoid heresy charges and breast-beating jeremiads in response to a new doctrinal proposal that is so conscientiously based on biblical reflection rather than on rebellious accommodation to modern thought? This may be the test.” Ten years later, I wonder how Professor Olson would score the test.

Why is OT so threatening to some evangelicals?

1. Why have Calvinist evangelicals reacted so strongly? Why the brouhaha?

1.1 Open theists have presented the most acute criticism of, and alternative to, meticulous providence (theological determinism) in quite some time. Open theism has raised some extremely important points about Classical theism such as the inability of the God of Classical theism to respond to what we do or be affected

by our prayers. Open theists have exposed these drawbacks and the proponents of meticulous providence know that their model simply will not sell in, for instance, many evangelical circles. It is no surprise that virtually all of the railing accusations and virulent rhetoric have come from proponents of meticulous providence.

1.2 The hermeneutical issues raised in the debate have undermined the sense of certainty that some evangelicals desire to obtain in handling scripture. This leads to a crisis of authority. Who is right? How do we settle what is correct? Who has the right to determine what is acceptable for evangelicals to believe? This is the issue of “control” over institutions and whose theological legacy will be continued. This is why, in my opinion, this theological discussion is so politicized.

1.3 For some, it seems to undermine their confidence in divine providence.

BGC Christianity Today Executive Committee Open Theism

Mapping the Terrain of Divine Providence

by Brian Martin in John Sanders

John Sanders
Plenary address, 47′th annual Wheaton Philosophy Conference. Chicago. October 26-28, 2000.

Introduction

Since 1994 a view of God and divine providence known as the openness of God has caused a storm of controversy in conservative North American Christianity.1 This has lead to the production of a host of books and articles on the topic, some with ominous titles such as The Battle for God.2 A tendency in this debate has been to speak as though there are only two views of providence on the market. Hence, it may be helpful at this juncture to by-pass the vitriolic rhetoric and take a look at some of the main views, showing areas of agreement and disagreement regarding the key issues. To date, there has not existed a concise summary of the primary positions in this debate to inform those who do not have the time to read all the literature. This paper will map the terrain of divine providence paying particular attention to the role different understandings of omniscience play in the contemporary discussion.

There are quite a number of perspectives on divine providence, unfortunately, so I have decided to focus on what I shall call “traditionalist” views that affirm strong understandings of omnipotence and divine involvement in the world. Before getting to these, however, I will briefly mention a number of views, which have been quite influential among scholars. Process theology affirms that God is concerned about and involved in the affairs of the world, but denies that God creates ex nihilo and holds that divine actions are limited to persuasion. Boston Personalism affirms creatio ex nihilo as well as God’s ongoing work with finite persons but posits a nonrational “given” in the nature of God such that the power of God is limited in overcoming evil by the divine nature itself. Both process theology and Boston Personalism hold that God does not foreknow the future actions of beings with libertarian freedom. Gordon Kaufman and Maurice Wiles are even more drastic in their revising of divine providence. For them God is the “master act” but does not “intervene” in the affairs of the world since such a deity would be a “spook” or a “magician.” Finally, there is the anti-realist perspective of D. Z. Phillips, Don Cupitt, and Gareth Moore for whom “God” is a lifestyle, a way of life such that God “exists” for the religious believer but does not exist as distinct being. All of the views mentioned so far take a strong stand for human freedom but put forth an understanding of the divine nature or divine providence which traditional theists find neither rationally or spiritually satisfying.

Before listing the major traditionalist models, let me point out that there is no single understanding of providence which may lay claim to the title “the traditional” notion of providence. Unfortunately, I have sometimes helped foster this error in my own writings by speaking of “the traditional view of God.”3 A survey of the history of Christian thought, however, reveals that numerous views have been in vogue at one time or another competing for preeminence in Christendom. Two other qualifications need to be made. First, though we tend to focus on differences it should not be forgotten that these views share more in common with one another regarding the nature of God and God’s redemptive acts in history than they differ. They all affirm what may be termed theism simpliciter: God is a personal being, worthy of worship, self-existent, the free creator (ex nihilo) of all that is not God, is distinct from the world, who sustains the world, is continually active in it, and who is perfectly good, all-powerful, all-knowing, and eternal. Moreover, they each affirm what may be called “basic Christianity” as defined, for instance, in the Apostles’ Creed. Finally, please remember that these are general summaries and that each view has varieties since their proponents do not agree on all details.

Traditionalist Views

1. Augustinian-Calvinism
This long-standing tradition affirms that the divine will, which is absolutely unconditioned or influenced by creatures, efficaciously micromanages everything that
happens down to the smallest detail.4 God does not take risks in governing his creation and his will is never thwarted in any respect. As Augustine put it, “The will of the Omnipotent is always undefeated” and “God is the necessity of things.” By foreordaining all that comes to pass, God has eternally known all that will happen (i. e. God knows the future because God determines it). Though God is in complete control, humans are responsible for their actions. In order to keep God from being the author of moral evil, proponents usually affirm what is called compatibilistic freedom whereby humans are free so long as they act on what they desire. In order for God to meticulously control humans God ensures that we have the desires he decrees and then we freely act on those desires. Election to salvation is based solely on God’s decree and petitionary prayer is a means by which we serve to bring about God’s plans. Our prayers never affect God.

2. Thomism
Although some key interpreters of Aquinas will disagree with my assessment, I believe Thomism arrives at many of the same conclusions as the Augustinian-Calvinist perspective, though it does so via a different route. “God’s knowledge is the cause of things” according to Thomas. Moreover, by one act of will God wills everything in his goodness and since the divine will is never caused or motivated by anything external to God, nothing happens except that which God explicitly desires to happen. As pure act God is never passive or reactive to anything humans do. Consequently, God’s providential control and predestinating power extend over every detail of the universe such that God never takes risks. This does not mean that God is the sole actor, however, since God works through intermediaries. Nor does it imply that God is responsible for human moral evil since God works concurrently with our good actions while withholding his concurrent activity from our evil actions. Election to salvation is based solely on the divine will, not on any foreknowledge of human actions. Petionary prayer is a means by which God brings about what he desires. As actus purus our prayers never affect God.

3. Molinism
Molinism (also called middle knowledge), along with the Augustinian and Thomistic models, affirms a risk free and meticulous providence in which everything that happens does so expressly because God wants it to happen. However, Molinists support a libertarian understanding of human freedom in which a person is free if the agent could have done otherwise than she did (i. e. it was within the agents power to perform or to refrain from the action). In order to harmonize these seemingly incompatible beliefs, Molinists appeal to what they call counterfactuals of freedom whereby God knows what any free agent would choose to do in any possible set of circumstances. For instance, God knows what you would do if you found a bag containing $1,000 and your family was starving and what you would do if you found the same money but were financially well off. Furthermore, they distinguish between “possible” and “feasible” worlds. Possible worlds are those containing the various logically possible events while feasible worlds are those that contain what free creatures actually would do in various possible situations. For example, there are possible worlds in which free creatures never sin, but there may be no feasible worlds in which creatures are left free to sin but sin does not arise. Humans may suffer from “transworld depravity” in that we would actually choose to sin in all the worlds in which humans are created and left free to sin or to refrain from sinning.

Prior to God’s decision to create, God utilized his knowledge of all the feasible worlds— what would happen in each of these worlds—and selected the world which best suited his purposes. William Lane Craig writes: “Since God knows what any free creature would do in any situation, he can, by creating the appropriate situations, bring it about that creatures will achieve his ends and purposes and that they will do so freely.”5 Another key difference between the Molinists and the other two traditional risk free models is that, according to the Molinists, the counterfactuals are not under God’s control. That is, what we freely decide to do in any specific situation is up to us, not God. This raises questions about God’s absolute independence since it seems to imply that God is, for some things, passive and dependent—an idea Augustinians and Thomists reject. Moreover, though Molinists hold that God takes no risks, the fact that God is not in control of the counterfactuals means that God may be lucky or unlucky regarding which feasible worlds are available for him to create. More will be said on this latter. In the past several years Molinists have applied their theory to issues of providence such as prayer, prophecy, and the destiny of those who die never hearing the gospel of Christ.6

4. Calvinistic-Molinism
Recently, Terrance Tiessen has published a book on providence in which he combines Molinism and Calvinism in the hopes of overcoming some, of what he considers to be, problems in Calvinism.7 However, unlike other molinists he rejects libertarian freedom in favor of compatibilistic freedom and affirms that the counterfactuals are fully under God’s control. Since the counterfactuals are under God’s control, not ours, it seems that middle knowledge is a superfluous element, adding nothing of importance to traditional Calvinism.

5. Freewill Theism
Freewill theists believe that God can and does unilaterally intervene in human affairs but they deny that God controls every detail since he has granted humans libertarian freedom. It was God’s sovereign decision to exercise general, rather than meticulous, providence. God has chosen to macromanage or be in general control. God set up the framework in which he would interact with human and there is considerable freedom within this framework. Thus what God would like to happen in some specific situations is not done—certain aspects of God’s will can be thwarted. This is the basis for the freewill defense to the problem of evil: God cannot prevent us from doing evil without removing the very framework he established for the divine-human relationship. Freewill theism may be divided into two types.

5. 1 Traditional Freewill Theism
Pertaining to providence this view is variously known as simple foreknowledge, the eternity solution, or Arminianism.8 It is probably the oldest Christian understanding of how omniscience applies to providence and it has remained popular through the centuries. It was the predominant view of the church fathers prior to Augustine and is represented today in the Eastern Orthodox, Arminian, Wesleyan, and Pentecostal traditions, to name but a few. According to this model God grants humans libertarian freedom and with it the possibility of going against the divine will. God timelessly previsioned our fall into sin and thus based his decision to provide redemption through Christ Jesus on this foreknowledge. In other words, God timelessly reacted to what he foresaw would come to be by formulating a plan to overcome our sinfulness. Moreover, God has elected individuals to salvation “before the foundations of the earth” by previsioning who would come to faith in Jesus (i. e. election is based on foreknowledge rather than foreordination). Hence, proponents of this view clearly believe that some of God’s knowledge is dependent upon the creatures. God is a responsive and reacting being, who, for some of his decisions, is conditioned by the decisions of his creatures.

5.2 Open freewill theism
The openness of God position is the “new kid on the block.” 9 Though it was promulgated as early as the fifth century by Calcidius and sporadically from 1550-1899 (primarily in Methodist circles), it was not until the latter part of the twentieth century that analytic philosophers, biblical scholars and theologians began to affirm it in significant numbers.10 Openness agrees with traditional freewill theism regarding libertarian freedom, the rejection of meticulous providence, that some of God’s decisions are conditioned by what the creatures decide (e. g. conditional election), and that, at times, God’s will is thwarted. Proponents of openness emphasize that God has chosen to establish reciprocal relationships with us based upon the eternal love shared by the Holy Trinity. There is genuine give-and-take with God. In love God takes risks that we will not respond appropriately to the divine love. Open theism agrees with traditional freewill theism on all but two points: the nature of the divine eternity and omniscience.11 For open theism God is everlasting through time rather than timeless. This does not mean that God is “confined” by time, as if time was the container in which God exists. That God is temporal is simply to say that God experiences sequence—one thing after another. The divine consciousness experiences duration (before and after). Physical time, the measurement between objects, did not exist prior to creation. For open theists God’s omniscience consists of knowledge of all necessary truths, all the past, present, and that which God has unilaterally decided to bring about in the future, but God does not have exhaustive definite knowledge of future contingent events.12 God may have beliefs about what you will be doing a year from now, but God does not know with absolute certainty what you will be doing. Some of the future is definite and some of it is indefinite and God knows the indefinite future as it really is (i. e. indefinitely). The future is not a play already written but one that God co-creates with us. God is flexible, adaptable and wise enough to handle whatever we do. However, this does not mean that the being of God changes. God remains unchanging in his essence—his love, wisdom, faithful-freedom, and power—but God can and does change in his relationship towards us in regard to his thoughts, actions, and emotions.

6. Mystery/Antinomy
There is a venerable tradition that simply says that divine sovereignty and human freedom are both true, but that we are unable to rationally comprehend how this can be.13 Though it is an antinomy (a contradiction) for us, it is not so for God. Proponents of this view tend to favor meticulous providence—God is in complete control—but it is not always clear which understanding of human freedom they espouse. In order to have a genuine contradiction they have to affirm both meticulous providence (God is in complete control, takes no risks) and libertarian freedom (God is not in complete control, takes risks). But if proponents of antinomy affirm compatibilistic freedom there is no mystery for it is quite understandable how God can be in total control while humans are compatibilistically free (see the Augustianian-Calvlinist position). While I may have just settled that mystery, another one immediately arises when freewill theists ask why this does not render God responsible for moral evil—to which Calvinists typically appeal to mystery.14

Key Areas of Agreement and Disagreement

Before delving into this subject, a reminder that all of these traditionalist views share both theism simpliciter and basic Christianity in common. Of course, these positions wrangle over some key issues and to these I now turn.

1. The nature of God15
A wide array of questions arise regarding the divine nature and the stand one takes on them directly affects which views one finds plausible. Is God timeless? Does God respond or react to creatures? Does God grieve? Suffer? Can God change in any respect? The age-old discussions of divine impassibility, immutability, pure actuality, and simplicity all come into play. In my opinion, the watershed constellation of issues in the debate over divine providence is: (1) whether God has chosen to be, for some things, affected or conditioned by creatures; (2) whether God takes the risk that humans may do things that God does not want done; (3) whether God exercises meticulous or general providential control; and (4) whether God has granted human beings libertarian or compatibilistic freedom.

Augustinian-Calvinism and Thomism have both traditionally affirmed “classical theism” which involves the doctrines of timelessness, impassibility, immutability and pure actuality, and simplicity.16 For these views, God is unaffected by and absolutely independent of creatures. On the other side of the fence lie both traditional and openness freewill theisms which either reject or seriously qualify these doctrines. Freewill theists believe that God is affected by creatures in that God grieves and that some of God’s decisions are conditioned by creatures. Open theism, however, goes further than traditional freewill theism by rejecting divine timelessness. It is not easy to decide where to place Molinism in this spectrum since it denies God’s absolute independence (the counterfacactuals are not under God’s control), yet many (all?) Molinists also affirm impassibility and immutability, seeming to reject any conditionality in God. I do wonder whether some Molinists, especially those in the evangelical tradition, would want to hold that God is affected by, for instance, our prayers. If humans have libertarian freedom is it consistent to also affirm robust understandings of impassibility and pure actuality? Is it possible that Molinists will need to modify more of the classical attributes than has hitherto been the case in order to avoid arriving at the same conclusions as Augustinianism and Thomism?

2. Divine foreknowledge
Does God have beliefs or only knowledge? Can God change his mind? Does divine omniscience include exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF) of future contingent events or does it only include present knowledge? That is, does God know with certainty all that you will do next year? If God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge, does God possess this knowledge because God foreordains all that will come to pass or because God simply “foresees” what will come to pass in some sort of timeless vision or because God simply knows his own essence or by middle knowledge?

All but one of the traditionalist views hold that God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge, but they do so for different reasons. According to the Augustinian- Calvinist, God knows the future because God foreordains what will come to pass. God’s knowledge of our future is not contingent on creatures or passive in any respect. Thomism holds that God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge because God knows his own essence and the natures of all things reside in the divine mind. In Molinism God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge by knowledge of the counterfactuals of freedom together with God’s knowledge of his own creative actions. Traditional freewill theists claim that God possesses exhaustive definite foreknowledge by simple foreknowledge or timeless knowledge whereby God “previsions” the actions of contingent beings. Hence, God’s exhaustive definite foreknowledge is caused by and dependent upon the creatures. The openness of God view rejects exhaustive definite foreknowledge in favor of presentism. God has exhaustive knowledge of the past, present, and those future events that are causally determined to occur, but God does not know with absolute certainty the future decisions of beings with libertarian freedom. That God can change his mind, though not in a vacillating way, is affirmed by most proponents of openness as well as by some traditional freewill theists (though I do not see how a timeless being can be said to change his mind). However, it should be noted that, for openness, God can know in advance with certainty what he would do under certain conditions and it is consistent with openness, though not necessary, that God has already decided what he would do in all possible circumstances in which he might act.17

3. Types of sovereignty
Does God get precisely everything God desires? Can any of God’s desires be thwarted in the least detail by creatures? Does God permit events to occur which he would rather not occur? Is providence risky or risk free? Does God have a definite will or intention for every specific event in human history? Does God sometimes alter his plans in light of what humans do? Is there ever a “plan B” with God?

The Augustinian-Calvinist position upholds specific sovereignty or meticulous providence whereby every detail that happens does so because God ordains it. Consequently, none of God’s desires are ever thwarted in the least detail, God never alters his plans, and providence is completely risk free. Traditional and openness freewill theisms take the opposite positions. For them, God exercises general sovereignty whereby God permits certain events to happen which God would rather not happen (e. g. moral evil) and so God takes risks. God definitely reacts to what humans do, altering his plans accordingly.

Again, Molinism is an odd duck since it leans towards the specific sovereignty, no risk side, yet, it affirms libertarian freedom and contains the element of God being lucky or unlucky (fortunate or unfortunate) since God is not in control of the counterfactuals of freedom. That is, when God examined the warehouse of feasible worlds to create, though God is in control of which, if any, world he will bring into existence, God is dependent upon what the creatures do in those worlds. Hence, God may be lucky in that there is a feasible world in the warehouse in which God gets most of what he wants, say 90%. Or God may, like Old Mother Hubbard, find the cupboard quite bare and have to settle for creating a world in which God is satisfied with only 51% of what occurs. It all depends upon what humans do in those worlds and God is either lucky that much of what he wants does occur or unlucky in that much of what he wants does not occur. If transworld sin is exceedingly robust, then God may be quite unfortunate that the only feasible worlds he can create are ones with which he has a low degree of satisfaction. However, Molinists often give the impression that God gets pretty much everything he desires until it comes to questions such as the eternal destiny of those who have never heard the gospel of Jesus. Since God desires all to benefit from the redemption in Jesus, why did God create a world in which the vast majority of those who have lived on this planet have died never hearing the gospel? The answer of William Craig is that all those who die unevangelized suffer from transworld anti-gospel depravity—in every feasible world such people always reject Jesus.18 In which case, God is quite unfortunate that, though he desires all to be saved, the best world available for God to create was one in which the vast majority of people are damned. If this is the case, then Molinists need to tone down their degree of confidence regarding God’s ability to use his knowledge of the counterfactuals to obtain most of what God wants. However, nothing in Molinism requires following Craig’s pessimism regarding salvation for other leading Molinists, such as Alvin Plantinga and Thomas Flint, take a more optimistic stance.19

4. The nature of human freedom:
The primary division here is between those who affirm libertarian freedom and those who maintain compatibilistic freedom. The Augustinian-Calvinists typically utilize compatibilism while Molinists, traditional freewill theists, and open theists affirm libertarianism.

5. Our knowledge of God
From whence do we derive our knowledge of God? Do we use scripture or natural theology or both? If both, what role should natural theology play in our reading of scripture? Do biblical metaphors really describe the way God is? Is the distinction between metaphorical and literal language about God in scripture useful? If so, how do we identify what is literal language in scripture? What are anthropomorphisms? From what source of knowledge of God do we know what God is really like so that we can identify anthropomorphic language? What role should church tradition play in our determination of the divine nature and providence?

Generally speaking, there is no easy way to distinguish the views on these topics and there is much work yet to be done regarding these questions. Nevertheless, I shall hazard to suggest that Augustinian-Calvinists find it relatively straight-forward to distinguish the metaphorical and anthropomorphic depictions of God in scripture from the literal or exact descriptions.20 Proponents of openness, on the other hand, believe that many traditional readings of scripture have miscategorized some important biblical texts and thus missed some significant teachings about the nature of God and the divine-human relationship. As for the place natural theology and church tradition should play in our thinking, I see nothing in the positions themselves that necessitates a particular stance. One’s views on these matters will be decided by one’s epistemology, church affiliation and view of revelation.

5. Life applications
How are we to understand the functioning of divine providence in our lives? How do we explain the work of salvation? Election? What approach do we take to the problems of evil and suffering? What counsel do we give grieving parents when a young child dies? What sort of wisdom do we dispense regarding divine guidance? Does God have a “blueprint” for out lives? What is the nature of petitionary prayer? Do our prayers ever have an affect on or influence God? Are any of God’s actions ever dependent on our prayers? What do we mean by a “personal relationship” with God? Is our relationship with God a genuinely reciprocal one? Not only will our views on the nature of God shape our lives of piety, but our piety will also shape our understanding of the nature of God. The Fifth century Pope Celestine I put it thus: lex orandi est lex crendendi (the rule of prayer is the rule of belief).

The Augustinian-Calvinist will typically assert belief in unconditional election, irresistible (efficacious) grace, and that each instance of suffering has been specifically ordained for the benefit of God’s glory. In fact, everything in our lives is working out precisely as God’s blueprint has ordained. If my child is raped, murdered and discarded in a dumpster, it is because God will bring about a greater good—for someone, not necessarily me. There is no pointless evil. God has a blueprint for my life and divine guidance guarantees that I follow whatever God has eternally ordained for me. Petitionary prayer is seen as a means to accomplish what God has already ordained—God is never dependent upon or influenced by our prayers. However, contemporary Calvinists like to say that God “responds” to our prayers but they do not mean this in its usual sense. Rather, God had foreordained that we would pray a specific request at a particular time and God “responds” to that request by bringing about whatever he foreordained to do after the request. Our request is simply the divine instrument whereby God brings about whatever he eternally ordained—our request never influences what God decides to do.

Both traditional and open freewill theists, on the other hand, affirm some form of conditional election (whether one is saved depends, in part, on the human decision) and grace that enables us to exercise faith, but is resistible. Most freewill theists also believe that, for some things, God has sovereignly decided to be dependent upon our prayers of petition such that God may not do something God would like to do because we have not prayed. Our prayers may influence what God decides to do—you have not because you ask not (James 4:2). Hence, they understand a personal relationship with God to be genuinely reciprocal or give-and-take. Many traditional Arminians accept, while open theists reject, the notion that God has a blueprint for our lives that we are to follow. Though open theists believe that God may have specific intentions for us at specific times, generally, there is no single “best” way to go. Rather, God invites us to collaborate with God in determining what the future will be. Many Arminians believe that any suffering we endure is for our benefit because God knows what will happen to us in the future. In this case, it is doubtful that there is pointless evil. Proponents of openness disagree. For them, there is gratuitous evil: evil that does not lead to a greater good. God does not intend for my child to be raped and murdered. God is absolutely opposed to such sin and is grieved by it. However, God is not passive in the face of evil for God works to redeem it—attempting to bring something good even out of evil. But since we have libertarian freedom God cannot guarantee that we will actually benefit from our suffering for we may refuse his help. God takes genuine risks.

When it comes to Molinism things are not so clear. It seems its proponents would adhere to conditional election and enabling grace, but at least some would also wish to say that every instance of suffering is specifically intended by God for our benefit. God uses his middle knowledge to place us in situations of suffering which he knows we will respond appropriately and grow in faith. Of course, this all depends upon how lucky God is that there is a feasible world in which we respond in faith rather than turning away from God. I am not sure whether Molinists accept or reject the idea that our prayers affect God— that God is any respect dependent upon our asking. It seems to me that those Molinists in the Roman Catholic tradition would reject this, but those in the evangelical tradition might be inclined to affirm it.

Conclusion

It is my hope that this brief survey of traditionalist views of providence has clarified the main perspectives as well as highlighted key areas of agreement and disagreement. In particular, I hope that the role foreknowledge plays in divine providence has been elucidated. Again, all the traditionalist models agree on theism simplicter respecting the divine nature and they agree on basic Christianity. Although the majority of Christians have agreed on these important points, the history of thought on divine providence reveals that we should be cautious of speaking of “the tradition” as though it was singular. Regarding the divine nature and the type of providence God exercises, traditionalist Christians continue to disagree.

Augustinian Calvinist Boston Personalism Clark Pinnock Divine Providence Does God Freewill Theism John Sanders Traditionalist Views William Hasker

Who has affirmed dynamic omniscience and the open future in history?

by Brian Martin in John Sanders

John Sanders

Updated April 2013

Briefly, the position is that God has exhaustive knowledge of the past and the present and knows as possibilities and probabilities those events which might happen in the future. God could have created a world in which he knew exactly what we would do in the future if God had decided to create a deterministic world. Consequently, God cannot know as definite what we will do unless he destroys the very freedom he granted us. Vincent Brümmer writes: “God knows everything which it is logically possible to know. But God knows all things as they are, and not as they are not. Thus he knows the future as future (and not as present, which it is not). He knows the possible as possible (and not as actual, which it is not).”1 God does not possess exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF) of future contingent events.

Aristotle put forth the problem of the truth value of future contingent propositions (De Interprtatione 9), claiming that they could be neither true nor false. There were questions about how to interpret Aristotle’s remarks which led to lively debate among those who discussed this question. The issues involved in divine foreknowledge were much discussed by philosophers after Aristotle.

The dynamic omniscience view was affirmed by several non-Christian writers such as Cicero (first century B.C.E.) Alexander of Aphrodisias (second century C.E.) and Porphyry (third century).2 Cicero argued that if God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF) then humans cannot have libertarian freedom so Cicero denied EDF.3

For the reasons used to support belief in an exhaustively definite future in both secular Greco-Roman thought and in Christianity see “Motivations for Ascribing Foreknowledge to God” by Gregory Boyd on this website.

Commenting on the work of Aristotle, Boethius and several medieval theologians held that statements about the future lack truth value yet they also held that God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF).4 Also, Boethius (see Consolations, 5.4), Augustine (City of God, 5.9.37-9), Bonaventure and Aquinas are familiar with the dynamic omniscience position of Cicero (see W. Craig, Problem of Divine Forekowledge, 59). Boethius also knows about Alexander of Aphrodisias who produced an argument similar to Cicero’s. Boethius and other Christians were more concerned to deflect the charge that Christianity implied fatalism rather than about Aristotle’s question regarding the truth value of future propositions. It was charged that if the God of the Bible predicts some future events, then the future must be determined.

These authors produce an array of solutions to the problem and those after them critique these answers and either modify them or offer new proposals. Most seem aware of the dynamic omniscience view but think that it either (1) fails to explain biblical predictions or (2) would imply that God has changing knowledge which would undermine their understanding of divine immutability. The great Aquinas (thirteen century) argues that if God is temporal (experiences changes of any kind) then the only options are determinism or dynamic omniscience. He says that a temporal God can only have EDF (exhaustive definite foreknowledge) if all is determined from prior causes. This is why he rejects the simple foreknowledge view because he thinks it removes human freedom. Another factor, for Aquinas, is that “the future does not exist and is therefore not knowable in itself” because it lacks being (Summa Theologica 1.89.7.3). For Aquinas, the simple foreknowledge view of the church fathers (the same view what will become dominant in Arminian and Wesleyan circles) is deterministic. He believes that if God is temporal and humans have freedom then one should affirm the dynamic omniscience view. However, Thomas argues that since God is timelessness God can know an exhaustive definite future without it being determined. The important point here is that Aquinas thought the dynamic omniscience view was a legitimate option and he thought it should be affirmed if God is temporal and humans are free.

After Boethius, the mighty river of EDF followed the channel of divine timelessness though there were a few other channels such as divine determinism. However, in recent Christian philosophy the flow in the channel of timelessness has been seriously reduced in favor of dynamic omniscience and middle knowledge

The earliest Christian proponent thus far found is Calcidius (late fourth century).5 He wrote several books one of which is against fatalism and determinism (this work did not become well known until the middle ages). In it he says that since God knows reality as it is he knows necessary truths necessarily and future contingent truths contingently.6 Some Medieval Christian writers anticipate and seem to affirm an open future: Peter Auriol (thirteenth century) and Peter de Rivo (fifteenth century).

Some Islamic scholars affirmed dynamic omniscience: some in the Qadarite school (eighth century) and Abd al-Jabbar, an important figure of the Mu’tazilite school (tenth century).7 In Judaism the view has been widely held. God’s statement to Abraham “Now I know that you fear me” (Gen 22:12) was much discussed by Medieval Jewish theologians, a number of whom affirmed dynamic omniscience and the open future including the renowned Ibn Ezra in the twelfth century and Gersonides (Levi ben Gerson) in the fourteenth.8

John Miley claims that some of the Remonstrants (Dutch followers of Arminius) advocated it in the sixteenth century.9 The Anabaptist Fausto Socinus affirmed it though he, unfortunately, also denied many traditional Christian beliefs such as the deity of Christ and the trinity.10 If one tries to discredit open theism because a heretic affirmed the same view of omniscience then should the Reformation be discredited because this same heretic affirmed several of the key tenets of Calvin?

In the early eighteenth century, Samuel Fancourt published several works defending the dynamic omniscience view including Liberty, Grace and Prescience and latter, in 1730, What Will Be Must Be. He argues that the issue is not about the scope of God’s knowledge but about the nature of reality: are contingencies real or not? Andrew Ramsay (1748) put forth a variant of this position, claiming that though the future is knowable and so God could know it, God has chosen not to exercise this ability in order to preserve human freedom. John Wesley (1785) reprinted Ramsay’s material on this in Wesley’s Arminian Magazine.11

The position became much discussed in Methodism from the latter eighteenth into the twentieth century.12 In the early nineteenth century the well known Methodist biblical commentator, Adam Clarke (1831), defended it as did the well-known circuit preacher Billy Hibbard (1843).13

Hibbard says that he learned of the view from an article in a Methodist magazine but he develops the position much more than the Methodists before him. In the latter nineteenth century Lorenzo D. McCabe, a Methodist theologian, wrote two large, detailed works covering every biblical text relevant to foreknowledge (for example, Peter’s denial) as well as numerous theological arguments.14 According to McCabe, dynamic omniscience was widely affirmed by British and German theologians of his day and he cites other Methodists who held the view. In America, McCabe’s publications sparked a significant discussion in Methodist circles that lasted several decades.15 John Miley, an influential Methodist and contemporary of McCabe, speaks highly of McCabe’s work in his Systematic Theology (which was widely used well past the middle of the twentieth century). Though Miley affirmed prescience (foreknowledge) he recognizes a key problem that he does not know how to answer: How can God interact with us in reciprocal relationships if God has prescience? He says that if belief in an interactive God is contradictory to prescience then he will give up prescience. He goes on to say that belief in dynamic omniscience would not undermine any vital Methodist doctrines and would, in fact, free Methodism from the perplexity of divine foreknowledge and human freedom.16

Quite a number of articles and books affirming open theism from people in various denominations appeared in the nineteenth century (see the “Open Theism Timeline” chart). These folks affirmed traditional Christian orthodoxy and were generally evangelical in orientation. Edward Pearson (1811). Verax (1818), James Bromley (1820), John Briggs (1825), James Jones (two books 1828, 1829), Onesimus (1828), John Bonsall (1830), Richard Dillon (1834), Robert Bartley (1839), Joseph Barken (1846), William Robinson (1866), James Morison (1867), William Taylor (1868), Hans Martinsen (1874), J. P. LaCroix (1876), J. J. Smith (1885), Thomas Crompton (1879), Isaiah Kephart (1883), B. F. White (1884), J. J. Miles (1885), Joseph Lee (1889), J. S. Brecinridge (1890), W. G. Williams (1891), H. C. Burr (1893), William Major (1894), S. Hubbard (1894), J. Wallace Webb (1896), D. W. Simon (1898), and H. J. Zelley (1900).

In the mid nineteenth century, the great German theologian, Isaak Dorner, argued that “the classical doctrine of immutability” is inconsistent with Scripture, sound reason, and spiritual living because it rules out reciprocal relations between God and creatures. He argues for dynamic omniscience saying that a consistent view of God working with us in history requires that God knows future free acts of creatures as possibilities, not actualities.17

In 1890 Joel S. Hayes published The Foreknowledge of God, a lengthy volume examining the scriptural evidence and theological arguments for foreknowledge and concluded that dynamic omniscience was a superior explanation.18 In the opening chapter, he writes “The design of this treatise is to deny and disprove the commonly received doctrine that God, from all eternity, foreknew whatsoever has come to pass. This doctrine, it seems to me, is contrary to reason and Scripture, and is in the highest degree dishonoring to the high and holy One that inhabiteth eternity.” T. W. Brents of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement dedicated a chapter of his “biblical” theology to the defense of dynamic omniscience. His book was influential in the Churches of Christ for many decades.19

In the latter nineteenth century many people defended the view including Rowland G. Hazard and the Catholic writer Jules Lequyer.20 Proponents also include less orthodox thinkers such as Gustave. T. Fechner, Otto Pfleiderer, William James, and Edgar S. Brightman.21

Theologians include Jürgen Moltmann, Paul Fides, and Michael Welker.22 Contemporary Dutch Reformed theologians such as Vincent Brümmer, Hendrikus Berkhof and Adrio König affirm it as do the American Reformed thinkers Nicholas Wolterstorff and Harry Boer.23 Other theologians include Thomas Finger (Mennonite), W. Norris Clarke (Roman Catholic), Brian Hebblethwaite, Robert Ellis, Kenneth Archer (Pentecostal) Barry Callen (Church of God), German theologian Heinzpeter Hempelmann and perhaps Albert Truesdale (Nazarene).24 Major Jones claims that the position is well known in the African-American tradition.25

The dynamic omniscience view is exceedingly popular among analytic philosophers who affirm orthodox Christianity. Quite a number of the luminaries among Christian philosophers assert it: Richard Swinburne (Oxford), William Hasker, David Basinger, Peter Van Inwagen (Notre Dame), J. R. Lucas, Peter Geach, Richard Purtill, A. N. Prior, and Keith Ward.26 It is also affirmed by Nicholas Wolterstorff (formerly of Calvin and Yale) and Vincent Brümmer (Dutch Reformed).27 Several philosophers contributed to a book on open theism and science: Dean Zimmerman, Robin Collins, Alan Rhoda, David Woodruff, and Jeffrey Koperski.28 Timothy O’Connor (Indiana University) also affirms the openness model.29 Though there remain defenders of both theological determinism and simple foreknowledge, it seems that the majority of Christian philosophers who publish on the subject today believe that the main options are middle knowledge and dynamic omniscience.

Acclaimed physicist and theologian, John Polkinghorne, holds it as does mathematician D. J. Barholomew and physicist Arthur Peacocke.30

For those interested in biblical support for the dynamic omniscience view, the most important work is by Hebrew Bible scholar, Terrence Fretheim, who has over a dozen publications that document in detail the biblical support for this view of omniscience.31

John Goldingay, professor of Old Testament at Fuller Seminary, has defended it in his Old Testament Theology.32 The work of Boyd and Sanders also contains biblical support.

A number of theologians, philosophers and writers have affirmed the position. Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd, Richard Rice, and John Sanders have produced several volumes on the topic.33

Other notable scholars include Dallas Willard, Gabriel Fackre, William Abraham, Paul Borgman, Henry Knight III, Alan Padgett, Tom Oord, and Peter Wagner.34 Researchers and popular writers include Michael Saia, William Pratney, H. Roy Elseth, Gordon C. Olson, Madelline L’Engle, and Brother Andrew.35

The position is affirmed by many YWAM leaders and leaders of the Ichthus church movement in England. Many Pentecostals are supporting it.36 Some leaders in a couple of denominations have spoken in favor of it: the Evangelical Covenant Church and Independent Christian Churches. The organization, Evangelical Educational Ministries, publishes copies of the works of L. D. McCabe and Gordon Olson: http://www.eeminc.org/prodserv.html.

In sum, the dynamic omniscience view was held by a smattering of people until the nineteenth century when serious scholarship begins to be published on it.37

In the latter twentieth century the number of proponents and the amount of quality works setting forth the position has grown exponentially. In part, the view is increasing in popularity in the freewill tradition due to its ability to better explain the biblical texts and give greater intellectual coherence as to how God relates to us.

Some evangelicals do not embrace the open view of omniscience but do arrive at views that have great similarity to it. Gilbert Bilezekian, professor of theology at Wheaton and theological pastor at Willow Creek (he has been Hybels mentor since college) puts forward a view similar to the open view. He claims that God can know what we will do in the future but decides not to know. See his Christianity 101 (Zondervan). Arminian theologian, John Tal Murphy (Taccoa Falls College), interacts with open theism and suggests that though God knows all that will occur in the future God has the ability to “block out of his consciousness” knowledge of what will happen. God can, in effect, “forget” what he knows is going to happen. God does this in order to enter into genuine dialog and interpersonal relations with us. See his, Divine Paradoxes: A Finite View of an Infinite God (Christian Publications, Camp Hill, PA 1998), pp. 49-56. Though I see problems with the views expressed by Bilezekian and Murphy, I am pleased that they understand the problems with simple foreknowledge and, as evangelical Arminians, attempt to find a plausible solution that arrives, for all practical purposes, at a position quite similar to the open view.

In addition, the evangelical Arminian theologian, Jack Cottrell has recently affirmed a temporal version of incremental simple foreknowledge. This view, in my opinion, arrives at precisely the same practical implications for divine providence as the open view. See John Sanders “Is Open Theism a Radical Revision or Miniscule Modification of Arminianism?” Wesleyan Theological Journal 38.2 (Fall 2003): 69-102.

Alan Rhoda Divine Foreknowledge Divine Nescience EDF Grand Rapids Gregory Boyd John Polkinghorne New Testament North America Old Testament Open Theism P2 God Religious Studies Thomas Belt United States Vincent Br

Open Creation and the Redemption of the Environment

by Brian Martin in John Sanders

by John Sanders
Wesleyan Theological Journal. Vol. 47 Number 1 Spring 2012

At a conference in Chicago in 2004, and after I had presented a paper on open theism, a Lutheran theologian asked, “What about rocks and trees in open theism?” My response was that the proponents of this model of God would love to apply open theism to such topics, but to date had been preoccupied with gaining a place at the theological table. That was then. Circumstances have changed. The time has come for the application.

The Open Theistic Perspective

Open theism as a theological movement now is sufficiently established that its proponents do not have to spend all their energies defending it. They can now explore the implications of the model for various topics. This is what this essay proposes to do. I will first summarize the open theistic perspective, then examine the nature of creation, the nature of redemption, and conclude with a discussion of the relationship between creation and redemption, with special attention to environmental concerns. Open theism is a model of God which affirms that God, in an act of self-Limitation, created beings ex nihilo with the intention that creatures would come to experience the love inherent in the Trinity.1 Though omnipotent, God exercises a type of sovereignty which grants considerable independence to creatures. God is “open” in two important senses. First, God is open to what creatures bring about-God is affected by creatures. Second, God is open to the future in that, even for God, there is more than one possible future. God has “dynamic omniscience,” meaning that God knows all the past and present as definite and God knows the future as possibilities. Also, God has chosen to rely upon creatures for many aspects of life and history. Consequently, God takes risks because not everything in creation goes the way God specifically wants it to go. God has often had to adjust divine plans and implement flexible strategies in light of what creatures have done with their freedom.

The Nature of Creation and God

With this basic understanding in mind, we can now proceed to a discussion of the nature of creation. Though open theism upholds creation ex nihilo, I want to point out that creation is more than simply the production of matter. In fact, creation should not be understood as a one-time event in the past which God preserves, but also as a beginning with a dynamic structure that enables the creation itself to produce new beings, events, and relations. In the Genesis accounts, the original creation contained some structure and was reliable, but it was not static or complete because God did not desire that it remain as it was.2 That creation is ongoing is seen in the divine can for plants and animals to multiply. With this shaping of the world in ways that are not predetermined, the earth will be different than it was at the beginning. God empowers creatures to bring about states of affairs that did not exist at the beginning. When humans, for instance, begin to occupy .. the land (Genesis 1 :28) that will take on characteristics it did not have on the seventh day. God chooses to bring about a world in which God is not the only one who makes things new and different. In this respect, creation is “open” because God instantiated a reliable but not fixed or static creation, which in some significant respects is open-ended. The empowerment of creatures implies that God is a “power-sharing” deity. God calls upon the waters and the land to produce that which did not exist. Next, God cans upon the plants and animals to procreate. That God does not do the procreating for the creatures suggests that the creatures have now become creators, resembling God in that they also bring forth new beings. Humans in particular are given a vocation to be God’s regents to tend the earth in God’s stead. In this respect, human vocation is necessary for the continuance of at least some aspects of creation.3 God entered upon a journey with creatures, one for which the outcome was neither predetermined nor foreknown. God works with creatures to bring about new realities.

An aspect of divine creation often overlooked is that God is not simply creator in the sense of producing matter. The story of God’s activity in the Bible depicts God working to produce new social, religious, political, and economic realities. That God is creator in these important areas of life will be useful later in this paper to connect the doctrines of creation and redemption. Having discussed the nature of creation we now move to an open theist understanding of redemption.

The Nature of Redemption

God took a risk in granting relative independence to creatures, and the risk has brought negative results. Creation has miscarried. Sin mars all the spheres of divine creativity just mentioned: our relationship to God, to the physical world as well as our relations with other humans.4 Each of the areas harmed by sin requires reconciliation and healing, which is why the New Testament contains a plethora of images regarding redemption and atonement5 Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection are the touchstones by which Christians align their life stories with that of Jesus. Jesus models loving ways of relating to others, overcomes hate with forgiveness, and is the ground of hope that destruction and death can be overcome. The incarnation and resurrection are creative acts of God by which new possibilities for the world arise. The resurrection of Jesus and the sending of the Holy Spirit are indications of an inaugurated eschatology in which the “new creation” has already begun but is not yet completed. The eschatological future has broken in to the present. The renewal of the heavens and the earth and the various aspects of life contained therein are granted the possibility of redemption. Accordingly, I will briefly explore elements of this redemption.

1. Reconciliation of Sinful Creatures. First, redemption involves a reconciliation of sinful creatures to God (not God to creatures) as well as the reconciliation of creatures to one another. Second, redemption is addressed to whole persons and this includes bodies and minds rather than simply “souls.” The New Testament writers did not concentrate on getting immaterial substances to heaven after death. Rather, they were concerned with the welfare of embodied persons as seen by their discussions of such things as food, clothing, and employment Third, sin has infected all of the relationships in which we find ourselves, but God is working to heal the diseased relations by creating communities who work to overcome sinful racial, socio-economic, and gendered structures (Galatians 3:28). Fourth, the renewal which began in the resurrection of Jesus continues to spread and one day will culminate in a renewed heaven and earth in which there is no sin to fracture our relationships. The new creation has been inaugurated and God calls us to cooperate with the mission of God. One day the mission will be completed.

If salvation involves bodies, then it involves the physical order. However, many Christians believe that, although the “new” creation involves resurrected human bodies, it means the destruction of the physical world as it presently exists. Such a view can lead to a lack of concern for the environment. Two points should be made in response to this view. First, redemption is not the annihilation of creation but rather its renewal. Just as human bodies are not annihilated when they experience salvation in Jesus. so the present heaven and earth will not be annihilated but renewed. It is common for biblical scholars to point out that, in the passages about the new creation, “new” means new in quality in contrast to the old. Evangelicals in North America typically believe that ”the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up” (2 Peter 3:10). That is, God is going to annihilate the present physical creation. However, this understanding is based on a mistranslation because the text should read: ”the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.”6 The Greek word for what is translated “burned up” or “disclosed” is heureskein, which means to find out.7 God is going to reveal the truth about what has happened by refining creation, not destroying it.

2. Don’t Contribute to Creation’s Destruction. The second element of redemption is that, even if one remains convinced that the present world is going to be destroyed by God, there are reasons why Christians should not contribute to the destruction of the environment now. To begin, even if God is going to destroy it, there is no biblical warrant for anyone but God doing so. There is no biblical call to collaborate with God in destroying the planet, but there is biblical warrant for caring for the environment. Also, wanton contamination of the environment conflicts with the mission of Jesus. If Jesus is the model for the Christian life and Jesus healed the sick, then we ought to be involved in healing fractured relationships as well as broken bodies. Contamination of the environment fosters sickness rather than healing. If our discarded electronic devices end up in areas where poor people live and the heavy metals seep into the water supply poisoning the people who live there, then we are helping to make them sick. In the United States, cases of asthma are sharply increasing because of high levels of particles in the air. Coal-fired power plants in the northern United States produce acid rain which pollutes the lakes with high levels of mercury, and this eventually makes its way to humans via fish. Thus, we are slowly making our neighbors sick instead of helping to heal them. With this summary of an openness understanding of creation and redemption in hand, we can now address some specific issues. First, how should the relationship between creation and salvation be understood? Several items come into play here. To begin, creation is not a one time event but is an ongoing process. The history of evolution manifests the ongoing and unfinished nature of divine creation. As mentioned above, God’s original creation included a dynamic infrastructure with its own autonomy that allows for the creation of new beings, events, and types of relations. Next, the freedom of the creation entailed divine risk. The creation has taken some bad turns and now is deeply defaced by sin. Creation is the framework within which sin arises and it also is the framework in which redemption is carried out.

Furthermore, God is creator, not just of original matter, but also in the social, religious, and other areas of human existence. Sin has also distorted these aspects of divine creation. Consequently, redemption is understood as a particular dimension of God’s creative work in order to bring about a renewed creation transforming all of its dimensions, physical and social. Also, according to Paul, the Son of God, the redeemer, is also the one through whom God created the universe (Colossians 2: 16). The trinitarian God who worked to create us is the same God who works to redeem us. God has not given up on his creation but desires to renew it. The spoiled creation is the subject of God’s redemptive work, so creation and salvation cannot be isolated from one another. But neither can they be collapsed into each other because God did not create in order to redeem it. Sin was not part of God’s original design. God has had to adjust the divine plan to include redemption as a means to a new creation.

3. Refuse An Escapist Eschatology. Another issue is how to avoid an escapist eschatology which obliterates hope for this earth. Openness theology affirms the majority of traditional Christian teachings, including the resurrection of bodies to new life. Salvation is understood to include both the redemption of all spheres of life on earth as well as continued life with God after death in the new heavens and earth. Many proponents of open theism are evangelicals and many evangelicals believe that God is going to destroy the earth. Some interpret this to mean that, if God is going to destroy the earth, then it is not within our power to destroy it. Hence, they believe we can pollute and use up the natural resources because God will not allow the planet to be destroyed before the time set for its destruction.

It was mentioned above that this idea of God’s coming destruction of the creation is based on a mistranslation of a biblical text. An additional problem is that this false idea leads many evangelicals to conclude that God will take care of everything, so we need not do anything. God will miraculously overcome any problem we develop. One student voiced this sentiment when he said, “If we run out of oil, God will just make more.” The Calvinist theologian Calvin Beisner defends this notion by appeal to the Old Testament story of how God miraculously created more oil for a widow in order to pay off her debts (2 Kings 4: l-7).8 Because, says Beisner, nature is not a closed system for God, we can rest assured that God will not let us run out of natural resources. I reject such an idea as unbiblical.

4. Polarities To Be Avoided. Open theism seeks to avoid two polarities in this regard. They are the evangelical belief that God will take care of everything and the process theology belief that God will take care of nothing.9 Against the notion that God will resolve all of the problems unilaterally, openness affirms that God has granted a great deal of independence to creatures. Above, it was said that God decided to rely on humans by giving us a vocation that is necessary for the continuance of creation. God bas given us a task and we are failing God in some significant respects. We have seriously damaged God’s work and failed to achieve the mission entrusted to us by God. Yet, God has not thrown in the towel but has chosen to work to redeem creation.

Just as God elected to rely on creatures to continue the work of creation, God has decided to work through us rather than alone (e. g., to evangelize and feed the hungry). This means that God has chosen to be dependent upon our actions for a great many aspects of life. Does this mean that we could contaminate the environment to such an extent as to make life untenable? Since God has not prevented us from wreaking horrible wars, draughts, and the like, this seems a reasonable conclusion. It seems that God has chosen to solicit our cooperation in the divine work of redemption rather than simply doing it by God’s own self.10 Since God decided to make some important features of the continuance of creation dependent upon human vocation, the view that God is in total control and what humans do is irrelevant must be rejected.

The second polarity is process theology’s lack of eschatological hope that God will bring about the new heavens and new earth. The God of process theology cannot unilaterally cause an electron to move, so the preservation of the planet is decidedly on our shoulders, not God’s. The openness of God model affirms divine omnipotence and insists that God can work unilaterally within creation.11 The biblical record testifies that God has historically bought about that which did not exist on a number of occasions. Hence, we are not totally on our own. Proponents of open theism live in the tension between the two polarities of evangelical escapist theology and the lack of hope in process theology.

Salvation and Environmental Threats

How we understand salvation in the context of environmental threats is critical. For open theism, salvation entails both vertical and horizontal aspects. Redemption involves both our incorporation into the divine life and as our relations with other creatures. Again, two polarities need to be avoided: that salvation is only about getting to heaven or it is only about healing the planet. The “Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation” says: “We resist both ideologies which would presume the Gospel has nothing to do with the care of non-human creation and also ideologies which would reduce the Gospel to nothing more than the care of that creation.”12 Open theists believe that redemption is about both this life and the next because the salvation already begun will not be complete until God resurrects us to a renewed bodily life in the new heavens and earth. Open theists go beyond the process ideas of ”objective immortality” (God has eternal memories of what we were) or “subjective immortality” (the survival of a disembodied soul). Jesus was raised bodily from the dead confirming both that death has not the final word and that God continues to value physical existence.

ln addition to this eschatological embodiment, open theists affirm that salvation requires the transformation of embodied existence, not just the salvation of “souls.” Salvation engages every sphere of life affected by sin: economic, political, and environmental. James says that true religion is caring for widows and orphans (1:27) as well as feeding and clothing the poor (2:15). Paraphrasing James, we might ask how one can claim to love one’s neighbor while at the same time acting in ways that necessarily pollute the air and water supplies of our neighbors. The redemption of creation includes both salvation of individuals and healing of the environment because God wants to redeem every sphere of life affected by sin. God works to redeem whole persons, and the way we treat the environment affects our embodied neighbors. The renewed heavens and earth means the continuation of God’s physical creation, but in a transformed state in which we, as embodied beings, live appropriately with all other embodied beings. If God cares for embodied existence on this planet and will not give up on it, then neither should we. If divine dominion is enacted not by exploiting the land but by caring for it, then human dominion, which should image God’s dominion, should also care for it.13

Alan Rhoda Calvin Beisner Creation Care Environmental Threats Laurence Wood New Testament North America Open Theism P2 God Paraphrasing James Philosophia Christi SANDERS Sinful Creatures STR Theological Pilgrimage Thomas Belt United States WOOD

Is Open Theism Christian Theism?

by Brian Martin in John Sanders

Dr. John Sanders

Introduction: Overview of the issues and summary of Open Theism.

Currently, in North American evangelicalism, there is a controversy regarding the nature of God and divine providence. The 1970’s witnessed the beginning of a prolonged reassessment of certain traditional divine attributes by some prominent evangelical philosophers. They reformulated, or even rejected, attributes such as impassibility and timelessness. In the 1980’s Clark Pinnock and a few evangelical theologians began to publicly criticize some of these same attributes of God. Since the publication of The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God in 1994, the debate has increased in intensity. Some defenders of “evangelical orthodoxy” have sought to discredit this position through the use of caustic rhetoric, labeling the view “Socinianism,” making charges of “heresy,” accusations that we are “creating God in the image of man,” and even a crusade in the Southern Baptist Convention and the Baptist General Conference to rewrite the doctrinal statement of the denominations in order to exclude this position. ¹ Why this strong reaction? What is so dangerous and threatening about this view of the divine nature? A recent editorial in Christianity Today highlighted this controversy and requested that classical theists and open theists begin a constructive dialogue.

To explore these issues and engage in dialogue I will first summarize the nature of God according to the openness perspective. Following this, the accusations against the view will be examined; particularly the charge that it is not “classical theism.” This will lead to a discussion clarifying the definition of classical theism, distinguishing it from other varieties of theism. It is hoped that this will provide a consistent nomenclature for the discussion surrounding the different versions of theism. Finally, I will conclude with a number of observations regarding the debate, most importantly, that Openness is Christian Theism. Hopefully, this paper will help clarify the terminology and the categories so that this debate can move forward in a constructive way.
Click Next Page to Continue

Christian God Christianity Simpliciter Holy Spirit Open Theism

The Early Church Fathers on Hellenism and Impassibility

by Brian Martin in John Sanders

John Sanders

Some misunderstanding has arisen regarding my view of the relationship between the church fathers and Hellenism and I would like to clarify my stance. In my chapter in the Openness of God (1994) I was more negative than I was when I covered the same material in The God Who Risks (1998), yet, even in the earlier work did not say that the early fathers were uncritical of Hellenistic philosophy. Rather, I said that they needed to be more critical on some issues pertaining to the divine attributes. I said that the fathers did not sell out to Hellenism and want to repeat that here. It was legitimate for them to work with the best Greek philosophical thinking of the day just as theologians today attempt to utilize the best learning in fields such as linguistics, psychology and philosophy. They desired to distinguish the Christian God from the gods of polytheism and though they found ideas in the philosophical discussions of deity useful for this end, they were also critical of various philosophical conceptions of divinity. However, I have changed my mind even more since 1998 concerning the degree to which the early church fathers were negatively influenced by Hellenistic philosophy.

One of the main obstacles for me had been the affirmation of divine impassibility by the fathers. From the middle ages to today, impassibility has generally meant that God is not affected by creatures. This had baffled me because these same fathers also said that God responded to our prayers, was compassionate, and even experienced changing emotions. It seemed to me that they contradicted themselves. I was not alone in reading the fathers in this way since this is the way the predominance of the secondary literature has interpreted them. However, Paul Gavrilyuk’s The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought (Oxford, 2004) has helped me a great deal on this matter. According to Gavrilyuk, most of the early fathers did not have the stronger definition of impassibility in mind. Though there is no single definition of impassibility in the fathers, generally speaking they meant only that God could not suffer physically since God was not embodied or that God could not be forced to suffer or that God is not overcome by emotions as we are apt to do.

From the second through fourth centuries there was no standard definition of divine “impassibility.” ⁱ For Christian writers it did not mean that God was apathetic, distant, or lacked compassion. God did experience mercy and love. Christians disagreed with one another whether God experienced anger depending on whether or not they thought this emotion “fitting” for God. The word functioned in a couple of ways. First, it was a way of qualifying the distinction between creator and creatures. God is incorruptible while we are not. But we will be made impassible (incorruptible) in the eschaton. Also, we are prone to be overwhelmed by emotions, particularly negative ones, but God is not. Hence, it was used to safeguard divine transcendence (aseity) rather than deny psychological emotions to God. Second, it functioned to distance the Christian God from the gods of polytheism. They were passible in the sense that acted capriciously and lost control of themselves. In contrast, the Christian God faithfully loved, was patient, and acted consistently. ⁱⁱ Hence, it is clear that when the fathers said God was impassible they did not intend to rule out that he has emotions or that he is affected by and responds to us.

The Council of Nicea in 325 took up the matter and declared that the divinity of the Son was immutable. In its historical context this does not mean that God cannot change in any respect. Rather, the pronouncement occurs at the end of lengthy list of Arian statements including the famous “There was once when he was not.” The statement regarding divine immutability is there to safeguard the full divinity of the Son, not to rule out reciprocal relations between God and humans. After Nicea the question was raised as to the precise way in which Jesus is both human and divine. Apollinaris, Eutyches, Nestorius, Cyril and others tried to answer this and, once again, divine impassibility was a key issue. ⁱⁱⁱ Cyril, whose view carried the day, seems to claim that only physical bodies can suffer and since God is not physical God cannot suffer. No one can stick a spear in God’s side. Consequently, the Son took on a complete human nature by which his humanity suffered while his divine nature did not. Cyril is not excluding emotions to God (though he does not think it appropriate to predicate “grief” or “sorrow” of God). ^iv Cyril’s position was endorsed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The preamble to the statement produced by the Council lists a number of views that are rejected: Nestorius, Arius, Eutyches, and Apollinaris. Of interest to this study is the condemnation of those who say the “Godhead of the only-begotten is passible.” In context, divine impassibility is used to safeguard the full divinity of the Son from Arianism and perhaps also monophysitism. ^v Overall, it seems they thought that anyone who said the divinity of the Son suffered implied that the Son was corporeal before the incarnation and therefore a creature. In conclusion, these Councils declare heretical those who say God is mutable and passible only if these doctrines are used to undermine the full divinity of Jesus.

This development is good news for it enhances the degree to which the openness model agrees with more of the tradition. Some have criticized openness for departing from “the” tradition and a few even called it “heresy.” A few responses are in order. First, “the” tradition is not singular for there are multiple streams. Those who accuse us of rejecting “the” tradition usually enshrine their own particular tradition as “the” tradition. Second, it is true that the vast majority of theologians have affirmed that God is timeless and has exhaustive definite foreknowledge. However, it is also true that the vast majority of theologians until about 1750 believed that all young children that died unbaptized (or without Christian parents) were damned to hell. Few believe that anymore. As was discussed earlier (2.3), traditions have erred and do change. Though there were few in the past who affirmed dynamic omniscience, today many orthodox Christian scholars hold it. Also, typically overlooked is how the doctrine of exhaustive foreknowledge has been used. I will seek to show that dynamic omniscience finds agreement with the purpose of the doctrine of exhaustive foreknowledge in the freewill tradition. Finally, regarding the charge of heresy it should be noted that no ecumenical council discussed this issue and a theory of omniscience has never been a test of orthodoxy. ^vi

ⁱ See Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God , pp. 15-16, 48, 58, and 70.

ⁱⁱ For citations of the fathers on these meanings see ibid., Prestige, God in Patristic Thought , pp. 6-11 and Chris Hall, “The Church Fathers on Impassibility,” in John Sanders and Chris Hall Does God Have a Future? (Baker, 2003), pp. 109-112. Prestige (p. 7) seems to suggest that the fathers also meant that God was not affected by us, that our prayers do not affect God and that God never does anything in response to us. If so, then he goes too far.

ⁱⁱⁱ See Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God , chapter 6.

^iv See Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God , p. 162. Cyril says this would imply impotence in God.

^v Those who said God suffered as a “mixed” being undermined the homoousios (one substance) of the Son with the Father who is impassible.

^vi It is conservative evangelicals, usually Calvinists, who accuse open theists of “heresy.” Evangelicals are prone to use the H-bomb on each other. B. B. Warfield called the holiness view of providence heretical because it led to faith-healing movements. Machen called premillennialism “a very serious heresy.” Cornelius Van Til called Gordon Clark a heretic and Clark was tried for heresy at Wheaton College. E. J. Carnell called Fundamentalists “cultic,” “sectarian,” and “heretics.” Evangelicals have demonized other evangelicals over evolution, charismata, mega churches, worship styles, women in ministry, inerrancy, the millennium and, dialoging with Catholics to name but a few instances. See Clark H. Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), pp. 104-111 and my “On Heffalumps and Heresies: Responses to Accusations Against Open Theism” Journal of Biblical Studies [http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org] 2, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 1-44.

First Cause First Efficient Cause Thomas Aquinas William Hasker

Links
- Open Theism - TheopediaOpen 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
- Open Theism - WIkipediaOpen theism is a recent theological movement that has developed within evangelical and post-evangelical Protestant Christianity as a response to certain ideas that are related to the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology.
- ReKnewThis is where Greg is temporarily blogging until the official site, ReKnew.org, is launched in June.
- TheologyWebWe Debate Theology...Seriously!
- Thomas Jay OordFOR THE LOVE OF WISDOM and the wisdom of Love.
Tags

Alan Rhoda Baptist General Conference Christianity Today Clark Pinnock Divine Foreknowledge Divine Providence Does God Eastern Orthodox EDF Egypt Evangelical Theological Society First Efficient Cause Four Views Greg Boyd Holy Spirit Israel Jesus Christ John Sanders Jurgen Moltmann Larry Lacy LORD New Testament Old Testament Open Theism Open Theist Open View P2 God Process Studies Prodigal Son Religious Studies Rhodes College Richard Rice Thomas Aquinas Thomas Belt United States William Hasker
Open Theist’s Facebook Group

Facebook Status

Jesse Ward

July 29, 2013 at 1:24 pm

History will ultimately fulfill God's objectives for humanity. But this does not mean that His will is realized in the case of every human being. On the individual level God's designs are often thwarted. The Bible says that God desires the salvation of all men (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). But not all men accept salvation. Many will eventually be lost (see Matt. 25:41; Rev. 19:12-15). Consequently, while a person may not prevent the realization of God's overall purposes, he may certainly interfere with God's intentions for his own life - Richard Rice

Thomas Jay Oord I understand what Rick is getting at, but I don't think I buy it. How can God's objectives be fulfilled and yet individuals be lost forever? I'd say one of God's main objectives is that all will be saved. To put it another way, it would be a real shame if God has objectives that don't include the redemption of all creation. It would be kind of like the shepherd saying, "Hey, I've got 99 sheep, why go looking for the lost one?"

July 29, 2013 at 1:29 pm

Nathan Greeley But Tom, one of the main tenets of free will theism is that God doesn't always get what God wants, and this nonetheless does not make God a failure. If God always gets what he wants in the end, the importance of free will starts to seem trivial.

July 29, 2013 at 1:59 pm

Thomas Jay Oord I'm agreeing with you, Nathan. As I understand the quote above, you and I would disagree with Rick Rice.

July 29, 2013 at 2:13 pm

Nathan Greeley But I would say obstinate refusal to submit to God's will would make it impossible for fellowship with God, and at least in principle, it is possible that there will be people that do so refuse and so will never enter the kingdom. Isn't that essentially what Richard is saying?

July 29, 2013 at 2:17 pm

Nathan Greeley I see better what you mean now. Sorry for the confusion. I thought you were arguing for universalism, but I see now you were making a point about what God's objectives are. And yes, I agree.

July 29, 2013 at 2:23 pm

Joe Garratt I expect Richard Rice would agree with you two too! People often say things that can be read in a few different ways and sometimes come at things from angles they wouldn't always prefer in order to try to focus in on particular issues :)

July 29, 2013 at 2:50 pm

Thomas Jay Oord Perhaps, Joe. But Rick thinks God COULD override creaturely freedom, should God decide to do so. He believes God is voluntarily self-limited. I don't think God can override creaturely freedom, because I think God's love requires that God give freedom.

July 29, 2013 at 4:52 pm

Nathan Greeley I have a question about that idea, Tom. Take the following scenario: God incarnates himself in Jesus of Nazareth and then someone somehow prevents Jesus from either beginning, continuing, or finishing his ministry on the cross. His message never is sufficiently heard, and Christianity never happens. Would your reply be that God, as soon as he came to know of such possibilities, would warn Jesus? And that he would heal or rescue Jesus if, for some reason, his warning came too late? Thus God would not override people's wills, but he would foil their plans?

July 29, 2013 at 5:26 pm

Rick Farwell I guess this might go along with Dr. Rice being an annihilationist, Who's to say that given enough time the lake of fire would eventually be emptied of its denizens. Rev. 22:14-17 seems to offer the possibility of drinking from the river of life freely, washing their robes, and having a right to the tree of life, in close context to those outside the city.

July 29, 2013 at 6:07 pm

Thomas Jay Oord Great question, Nathan! I don't have a ready, nice and neat answer. I want to affirm that free creatures could thwart God's plans in Jesus. But I also want to affirm that God would never quit seeking to offer as full a revelation as possible. I do think God can warn us (and Jesus), and I think those especially in tune with God can "hear" God's voice better (which Jesus would have been able to do well, although not inerrantly). I'll keep thinking about this great set of questions!

July 29, 2013 at 6:09 pm

Thomas Jay Oord Rick - I'm not sure what Rick Rice's position on the afterlife might be.

July 29, 2013 at 6:20 pm

Rick Farwell Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe he is a Seventh Day Adventist.

July 29, 2013 at 6:30 pm

Thomas Jay Oord Yes, Rick is definitely SDA.

July 29, 2013 at 7:09 pm

Rick Farwell SDA is conditional immortality, IOW annihilation.

July 29, 2013 at 7:14 pm

Thomas Jay Oord IOW?

July 29, 2013 at 7:19 pm

Rick Farwell Sorry, in other words.

July 29, 2013 at 7:20 pm

Keith Noren I certainly hope all will be saved from eternal torment in hell and in fact that God will get his way eventually (all will be “saved” to an eternal bliss). Perhaps some will simply be annihilated (never to be conscious again after earthly death). But that is well above my pay grade and I find no crying need to be certain about any afterlife matters.

For now, I’ll live to please God (as events unfold) with a responsible sense of using my free will to increased my peace in this life and my chances in any future; and encourage others to do the same.

July 29, 2013 at 10:42 pm

Keith Noren Not as it stands today; but I’ve got my eye on it.

July 29, 2013 at 10:48 pm

W Scott Taylor Yes Keith, that was a sensible thing to say. God being who He is, and we being what we are it just makes sense to expect, that He at least knows what He's about. There is a certain psychosis evident when one loses sight of what he can do and focuses on what he will never be able to do. Or be believed that he has an independent answer.

Though it does go a long way to being influential if one is able to maintain rational consistency in one's affirmations.

July 30, 2013 at 1:32 am

Joe Garratt That's fair Tom I just meant that with respect to that post I wasn't sure it was clear enough whether Richard would disagree with what you and Nathan were saying- I didn't realise you were speaking more broadly :)

July 30, 2013 at 2:44 am

W Scott Taylor Good grief, the op is plain enough on the surface and I'd be more persuaded if Rice weighted in to tell us that he meant the logical opposite of what he did write.

"A salient feature of conditional prophecy needs to be applied to prophecy in general. Conditional prophecy summons people to a relationship with God. It vividly reminds them that the future depends on their response to Him. The primary purpose of all prophecy is to evoke a positive response to God. God seeks to establish a saving relationship with human beings in all His communications. Biblical prophecy is never presented merely as a source of information for the detached or disinterested observer. It always involves a decision. It is alway an invitation to respond to God in the present" "God's Foreknowledge & Man's Free Will" 1980 (Originally entitled 'The Openness Of God") Richard Rice.

Man must respond to God's overtures. Wait, that's what he said to begin with. Or not depending on who's reading evidently.

July 30, 2013 at 3:05 am

Eric Maggard Tom... I don't agree with this section and would like clarification: "I do think God can warn us (and Jesus), and I think those especially in tune with God can "hear" God's voice better (which Jesus would have been able to do well, although not inerrantly)."

"not inerrantly".... Are you are saying that Jesus could probably hear God's voice or the Spirit, but either not clearly enough or there might be miscommunication leading to misunderstanding or errors?

For that part of the discussion, I think that if there were plots on Jesus' life before God's plan was fully developed, God could easily have guided Jesus to thwart their plans, or could have put roadblocks in their way to frustrate their plans.

Now, how do I know Jesus could be lead by God away from enemies? Matt 5:19 "Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever [a]the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." I think that if there was any miscommunication or Jesus could not hear God's voice clearly enough, He would have stopped and prayed until the communication was restored.

We know that Jesus didn't always want to do the Father's will, and at least once prayed for it to be changed. I believe Jesus remained sinless in a way and manner that is available for every Christian and believer to follow and do.... ie hear God's voice and do what He is leading us to do. That is why He gave us the Holy Spirit.

July 30, 2013 at 10:49 am

Thomas Jay Oord Great questions, Eric! I suppose the tension here is between Jesus being fully human and fully divine. As divine, I don't see how there can be miscommunication within Godself. But as a human, I think miscommunication is part of the finite condition. And as you point out, we have biblical passages that suggest Jesus isn't quite sure what God is doing (e.g., "My God, why have you forsaken me" or "know one knows the day or hour, not even the Son").

July 30, 2013 at 11:16 am

Thomas Jay Oord Two other things, Eric: I also think Jesus was sinless. And I also think we have the HS to guide us. But having the HS to guide isn't the same as getting crystal-clear, entirely unambiguous guidance from the HS. I think our inherently limited capacities as humans prevent us from such entirely unambiguous access. We do see some things, but we see "as if looking through a dim glass."

July 30, 2013 at 11:18 am

Eric Maggard Thanks Tom... yes, I agree that we see "as if looking through a dim glass." and also God definitely doesn't revel His whole plan to us.

July 30, 2013 at 11:22 am

7 Comment

Dan Baker

July 27, 2013 at 6:22 pm

I'm pretty certain that this post fits with Open Theism.
http://defrostingwindows.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/would-our-god-create-lucifer-knowing-he-becomes-satan/

Would Our God Create Lucifer Knowing He Becomes Satan?

defrostingwindows.wordpress.com

It is time to take a stab at answering some questions. Would our God with all-comprehensive, constant foreknowledge create Lucifer who He absolutely knew would become the devil? First of all, we ne...

Stewart Pepper Here's a great sermon on the topic of open theism. Hope you enjoy. http://www.boulevardsda.org/site/1/podcast/02_16_13_The_Love_of_God_Is_Greater_Still.mp3

July 28, 2013 at 10:02 am

W Scott Taylor No

July 28, 2013 at 11:40 am

Dan Baker Is that "No" to the question "Would Our God Create Lucifer Knowing He Becomes Satan?", or "No" to "this post fits with Open Theism"?

July 28, 2013 at 12:19 pm

W Scott Taylor Your question fits Open Theism, to the question would God Create Lucifer knowing He become Satan, that is an unqualified NO.

July 28, 2013 at 12:26 pm

Guy Abernathy Of course He would have calculated the risk, don't you think? Isn't that the double edged sword of freedom? I don't know a whole lot about open theism, but it interests me because why would God, a relational Being create without any element of mystery for Himself. It seems you could not have a relationship with Your creation if you removed any mystery at all. I am so saddened by the determinism Calvinists cling to... it is no surprise many of them cannot love as we are called to.

July 28, 2013 at 1:51 pm

W Scott Taylor Guy, the op reference has "Would our God with all comprehensive, constant foreknowledge create Lucifer who He absolutely knew would become the devil?"

The question presumes that possession of foreknowledge, in and of itself is able to ascertain absolute knowledge of contingent future free choices .

The question can only be hypothetical and stated with the present assumed conditions the only answer that can be given is NO.

July 28, 2013 at 2:51 pm

Guy Abernathy I agree, not sure what you are getting at I'm just saying God has common sense. He did know the possibility that giving free will to a created being can go either way.

July 28, 2013 at 2:54 pm

W Scott Taylor Guy, I'm merely answeing his question as stated. That's all he asked. I presume that he'll qualify his interest as we go.

July 28, 2013 at 2:56 pm

Guy Abernathy It's all good I was just thinking out loud

July 28, 2013 at 2:58 pm

Eric Maggard Yes

July 28, 2013 at 8:11 pm

W Scott Taylor Now I can speak for Eriks "yes". He means to affirm the opposite of what I said. Not that he's contrary but in this case I suspect he believes the affirmative.

July 28, 2013 at 8:24 pm

W Scott Taylor While we're at being 'complimentary' I haven't heard back from you on Pilot Wave or the latest from Bohr. Eric Maggard

July 28, 2013 at 8:26 pm

Eric Maggard http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Niels-Bohr.htm

July 28, 2013 at 8:34 pm

Eric Maggard http://www.livescience.com/8869-8-shocking-learned-stephen-hawking-book.html

July 28, 2013 at 8:35 pm

Eric Maggard I haven't been thinking much of wave theory and qm... I have been busy doing programming and image analysis. But these are a couple of sites I stumbled across...

July 28, 2013 at 8:35 pm

W Scott Taylor That's it? Like Einstein said 'if you can't explain it yourself in simple terms you don't understand it.

July 28, 2013 at 8:36 pm

Eric Maggard About my "yes"... If God wanted to give people and angles free will.... and a choice... then yes, God probably foreknew that someone, at sometime would choose B.

July 28, 2013 at 8:37 pm

Eric Maggard Then I guess that is why you quote others?

July 28, 2013 at 8:38 pm

W Scott Taylor The expression lacks precision and generalities don't say anything.

July 28, 2013 at 8:39 pm

W Scott Taylor I don't quote what I don't understand. Big difference.

July 28, 2013 at 8:39 pm

W Scott Taylor The incipiency of the will as an intrinsic attribute of God, and an essential element or endowment of personality for man (Imago dei) then by your reasoning God expects that He might sin sometime in the future. Or at least He should expect it.

July 28, 2013 at 8:43 pm

Eric Maggard No... because He is the only one that is good. Matthew 19:17

July 28, 2013 at 9:51 pm

W Scott Taylor Goodness is no guarantee against future possibilities. Goodness is a moral attribute. When He created all other moral beings (angels) they were originally good as well. There is no probabalistic link between moral attributes and sin.

July 28, 2013 at 9:53 pm

Eric Maggard What is sin? How did Jesus remain sinless?

July 28, 2013 at 9:58 pm

Stewart Pepper Interesting argument W Scott Taylor. Here's the deal. There is no Scripture that consistently implies that God is all-knowing. But the core of God is that He is a God of love. Everything must be seen in that context. If people don't have free choice because all of their decisions have been decided from eternity, then God cannot be love. Neither can He learn or choose because all of His thoughts have been known from eternity. Love requires free choice. The Bible does say God cannot sin. That would be true because He is love. He can't be love unless He has choice. If everything He will ever do has been known for all eternity past, then He has no choice but to do what He knows.

Conclusion: God's knowledge must be limited by free choice. His as well as ours.

July 28, 2013 at 10:00 pm

2 Comment

W Scott Taylor

July 28, 2013 at 1:37 am

"Causality & Complementary" by Niels Bohr - Delivered at the Second International Congress for the Unity of Science, Copenhagen, June 1936

[ or: " How The New Physics Rebukes anti-Trinitarianism" ] :)

At the foremost platform to speak as spokesman for the 'new physics' Niels Bohr explains complementary to the greatest assemblage of Scientists the world over.

"In order to give as clear an idea as possible of the new epistemological situation which we meet in atomic physics, we may briefly consider those measurements designed to obtain an account of the space-time course of some physical event. The account consists in the last analysis in the establishment of a series of unambiguous connections ...which define the system of reference involved in the space-time description. [(i.e. limit variable set of phenomena)] ... In case, however-as in the region of quantum phenomena - this interaction plays an essential role for the appearance of the phenomena themselves, the situation is completely changed, and we are in particular forced to renounce the combination, characteristic of classical physical description, of the space-time coordination of the event with the general conservation theorems of dynamics."

If that is not perfectly clear to you then you are in very large company. So let me cut to the chase and try to simplify the discussion which of course you can verify later by reading the address for you self.

The famous double slit experiment where electrons were teased off a source in a magnetic field and 'fired' at a curved rectangular strip that had two slits closely spaced is our demonstrator. The electrons were aimed at the slits but came singly in succession and some didn't go through either slit but a percentage did, in single succession. The experiment took longer than one might first imagine but as "dots" appeared at first randomly on the backing plate an over all shape that looked like wave interference patterns formed over time. The were very similar to the kind of wave-wave interference patterns that are generated when water goes through a similar device that has regularly space slots. Problem was there were only dots on the backing plate. Compare that with the photoelectric effect and you realize that the two are evidence of very different interactions of light with matter. The first appears wave like in behavior and the later is corpuscular, i.e. ball-ball collision. Remember, we are talking about measurements in the Planck scale. To track the position of a subatomic particle involves interfering with with either its position or momentum, the very things desired to ascertain.

Schroedinger's wave equation describes the time history of such phenomena and Heisenberg relations took into account the probabilistic nature of predicting where a thing will be at any given time based on the description of its initial position and momentum. All that to point out the problem of describing the space-time relation of subatomic phenomenal with other known causal based space-time objects. The impossibility of doing so led Bohr to the conclusion that the wave-particle duality, though contradictory was 'complimentary'. And that there was no way to ascertain what the thing was in it self. For Bohr that meant that it was neither, but when interacting with other 'neithers' it collapses into the space-time world we know.

Just so you know what complimentary is, it is combining two apparently contradictory states that matter can be in at any given time and accepting that they are somehow complementary. It is the ultimate logical contradiction of all time and has been regarded as the zenith of man's understanding of what kind of world and universe he lives in.

Anti-Trinitarians then are the most unscientific in their approach to the phenomena of what is by a trite recitation of abstract mathematics. One is 1 and anything else is not One anymore. Hence there is only One person in the Godhead.

Now just taking the single most important life that has ever graced human existence in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and examine His teaching, personal exhortation and prayer life and you cannot say that He believed in singleness of personal identity in the Godhead. But, as long as religious people have been denying that they are logically inconsistent and that their view of reality is scientific and at the same time deny the truthfulness of Plurality of Persons in the Godhead I say such people have erred in the one place it matters most.

They are denying the possibility of a stated plurality in the Godhead in the most unscientific manner possible. Instead of synthesising facts, they selectively prefer only the one that makes their case plausible.

That they have risked insulting the plain exposition of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead in this way undermines the intellectual integrity with which they can be regarded but also demonstrates they are more concerned about being right in their own mind than honoring an unthinkably wise God by humbling themselves when there is a benefit of doubt to be granted.

In Science if the facts all point one way and you disregard the ones that are inconsistent with your view, you are out of a job and publicly disgraced. Theology, it seems ,is the only place where you can do that on a regular basis and still have a job.
-----
PS After you read Bohr's address I don't want to hear anymore about long sentences, (see symbol for tongue-in-cheek) and two somebody make sure that Tom Belt gets ahold of this. He's been asking for something like this for a long time.

http://db.tt/65W8oiNv

Annie Welch Britt "The Zenith of mans understanding of what kind of world and universe he lives in"...

July 28, 2013 at 2:13 am

Annie Welch Britt How can Tom Belt get this?

July 28, 2013 at 3:43 pm

W Scott Taylor Oh he has it.

July 28, 2013 at 3:44 pm

Annie Welch Britt good good...i was thinking on that all morning..

July 28, 2013 at 3:45 pm

W Scott Taylor Theology, it seems ,is the only place where you can do that on a regular basis and still have a job.

July 28, 2013 at 3:47 pm

Annie Welch Britt I caught that statement yesterday...interesting..u said something like ..in science if u were proven wrong u would be outa a job...........lol

July 28, 2013 at 3:48 pm

Annie Welch Britt i am not laughing at the overall importance of this...just merely that statement.

July 28, 2013 at 3:53 pm

W Scott Taylor There are no targets that I can see, other than those it will do good.,

July 28, 2013 at 3:55 pm

Annie Welch Britt I am so thankful for the trinity.I see no issue with accepting this as a truism. It only becomes a problem,if,like you said, they are more concerned about being right in their own mind ,then they are about honoring God.That can be problematic.Big Time.....js

July 31, 2013 at 9:00 pm

4 Comment

Jesse Morrell

July 31, 2013 at 7:45 pm

Does God Blind The Eyes and Harden the Hearts of Unbelievers? Is this Predestination instead of free will? A Calvinist posted this on my facebook: "John 12:40 says that God hardens some mens hearts, and blinds their eyes so they can’t understand and be converted and healed. John12:39 says that they could not believe because of this. So did these men have a free will to believe in God."

I posted my response here: http://biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/does-god-blind-the-eyes-and-harden-the-hearts-of-unbelievers-is-this-predestination/

Does God Blind The Eyes and Harden the Hearts of Unbelievers? Is this Predestination?

biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com

A Calvinist posted this on My Facebook: John 12:40 says that God hardens some mens hearts, and blinds their eyes so they can't understand and be converted and healed. John12:39 says that ...

1 Comment

Jesse Ward

July 29, 2013 at 5:41 pm

Anyone coming to this?
http://reknew.org/resource/upcoming-conference/

Upcoming Conference

reknew.org

Let's come together for another ReKnew Conference. Our last event was a delight as we hosted Open 2013. This time we'll focus our time on Faith and Doubt at a conference we're calling Faith, Doubt & the Idol of Certainty. Do you have doubts and questions about God, the Bible and ...

Thomas Jay Oord The topic looks great, and I really like Greg's promo video. But I've got other plans that conflict with my attending.

July 29, 2013 at 6:12 pm

Michael Faber Sheesh, is there anything that isn't an "idol" these days? Does anyone know what an actual idol is?

July 29, 2013 at 7:12 pm

Annie Welch Britt an Idol is a god..a false god.

July 30, 2013 at 1:20 am

W Scott Taylor Michael, isn't an idol and externalized hand wrought object that is a representative for one's God? And as such is placed in an area of veneration and bowed down to in adoring compliance?

July 30, 2013 at 1:22 am

W Scott Taylor The implication being? If you do have certainty then your faith is in doubt? Hmm, sure that isn't a mix-up at the printers office?

July 30, 2013 at 1:37 am

Comment

Jason Amato

July 29, 2013 at 5:11 pm

Join Team Nehemiah!! http://eepurl.com/CZ4K5

Weekly Newsletter- Join Team Nehemiah!!

us4.campaign-archive1.com

One minute, 6-year-old Nathan Woessner was scampering up a massive dune in northern Indiana with his dad and a friend. He was gone the next, without a warning or sound.

Comment

Jesse Morrell

July 29, 2013 at 2:36 pm

This is my response to an email I received relating to the issue of original sin, sinful nature, total depravity, omniscience, etc. This person has been reading Calvinistic theology and articles from Calvinists against Moral Government Theology, so he is confused.

http://biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/moral-government-theology-on-free-will-sin-nature-original-sin-total-depravity-etc/

Moral Government Theology on Free Will, Sin Nature, Original Sin, Total Depravity, etc...

biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com

This was an email dialog I [Jesse Morrell] was having with a man over the topic of Moral Government Theology as it relates to free will, sinful nature, original sin, total depravity, spiritual deat...

Jesse Morrell I posted this here because of the section dealing with Open Theism or the doctrine of Omniscience within the Moral Government theological camp.

July 29, 2013 at 2:38 pm

Comment

Jason Amato

July 22, 2013 at 4:37 pm

Nehemiah asks for a favor! http://eepurl.com/CGwMj

Weekly Newsletter- Nehemiah asks for a favor!

us4.campaign-archive1.com

One minute, 6-year-old Nathan Woessner was scampering up a massive dune in northern Indiana with his dad and a friend. He was gone the next, without a warning or sound.

1 Comment

Drew Gasaway

July 14, 2013 at 3:31 am

I thought this might be interesting because when you study Jewish view of God and sin its very open theist. It goes back at least 3000 years or even to creation.

Does Judaism Believe in Original Sin?

http://www.outreachjudaism.org

Does Judaism Believe in Original Sin?

William Lance Huget I imagine many Open Theists believe in original sin (tradition vs truth). It is Moral Government Theology that specifically denies Augustinian original sin. The Open Theism emphasis on free will is more in line with denying original sin than Calvinism/TULIP. Most free will Arminians also embrace original sin. Some of us Open Theists also embrace MGT, so there may be guilt by association on that point (but I think it is MGT vs Open Theism that is the bigger denier of orig. sin).

July 14, 2013 at 4:25 pm

W Scott Taylor Drew, I've seen your previous post on this series and am just not sure you can go from anthropology to divine nescience or 'openness' from there. Can you give some concrete examples?

July 18, 2013 at 8:10 pm

Drew Gasaway Well, the new testament sources used by Augustine and later theologians don't really support the notion in context. There is a difference between being tempted by an evil element and being drawn to sin. The notion of being drawn to sin is problematic because it insists God created man in way that could cause evil. This requires mans evil nature to be created hence God creating Evil. Now in Isaiah, I think Ezekiel, Ephesians 2 it explains both the Devils creation in his free will hence the origin of evil and mans choice to follow evil. The problem with original sin is its a giant leap in logic that no recorded person thought of prior to Augustine. The Jews have traditions that don't impact the messiah that show they never believed in original sin. For Augustine it was a gold mine for the RCC and majesty it opened the door of the church atoning for sin. Later this was extrapolated to buy and sell for a ticket to heaven from papal authority.

July 20, 2013 at 2:21 pm

Drew Gasaway You see original sin means your not solely in control of your choice to sin. That creates the ability to have offerings of atonement. Buying $1000 candles, $500 masses and even pardons. It's the foundation to lots of papal authority and support of majesty.

July 20, 2013 at 2:25 pm

Drew Gasaway If people can atone for sin of their free will with repentance there is no need for father confessor. If people can choose to live a life and "sin no more" as Jesus said there is no need for blessings.

July 20, 2013 at 2:28 pm

Drew Gasaway I agree once we become aware we have sinned but it does not require a sinful nature. Were surrounded by temptation that is not pre set in our mind. How many times does a sin start with a friend introducing it like the serpent did?

July 20, 2013 at 2:30 pm

Drew Gasaway Even with the destruction of Sodom her sin was caused by the temptation of those she was thinking of. Sin is often environmental if you can't see the theological evidence. People tend to do what their friends do.

July 20, 2013 at 2:32 pm

Drew Gasaway I see this is God leaving a challenge for us to over come the evil in the world with our good nature.

July 20, 2013 at 2:33 pm

Annie Welch Britt People do what their friends do, that is why I try to pick good friends...lol

July 20, 2013 at 3:25 pm

Eric Maggard My Observations: First, this Rabbi doesn't seem to believe that Jesus is the OT Messiah... so that affects his reading of the NT. Second, the verse from Deut he uses is from the KJV... the section "that you may do it" is translated "so you may obey it" in the NIV, and "that you may observe it" in the NASB... personally I like the NASB translation the best. Third, from the Deut verse he quotes, the key section is "if you turn unto the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul; for this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you neither is it too far off." What is that? Faith... it has always been Faith. Abraham was justified by it, not by works. So... can we save ourselves on our own? NO... only by Faith.

July 20, 2013 at 6:45 pm

Annie Welch Britt Faith without works is dead though...just saying ..and not that works saves us, but repentance accompanied with faith does have a part to play.

July 20, 2013 at 7:01 pm

Eric Maggard Works is a result OF Faith, works doesn't save us, it is an outpouring of the Faith we have. Kind of like the Chicken and Egg... but Faith comes first, then works.

July 20, 2013 at 7:23 pm

Annie Welch Britt i first had to repent (turn from my wicked ways) and change my mind before I experienced any kind of real faith....so ya, the chicken and the egg.( but the chicken really did come first....lol)

July 20, 2013 at 7:26 pm

Eric Maggard If you want to get technical, you needed to be convicted of your sin and have Faith that repenting would make a difference. But, we could go around and around... it is just semantics. Bottom line... works alone will not save... hence, the OT law just convicts and does not save.

July 20, 2013 at 8:00 pm

W Scott Taylor I don't see a theological connection to 'open theism' via anthropology. That is, 'open theology' does not have a core view on the sin nature question.

July 20, 2013 at 8:01 pm

Drew Gasaway Well, actually it should because you can't really have true free will without denying original sin. Original sin implies a lack of control over sin. Hence being designed by God to sin.

July 20, 2013 at 8:18 pm

Drew Gasaway This goes back to my point at Augustine's motives. He needed to create a tool for the RCC to atone for sin rather than just our choice of Christ. That is paramount in majesty doctrine. The issue of the Rabbi and his reading of the new testament sources he got from supporters of original sin are cleared up when you read the chapters. In context they don't support original sin as Augustine claimed. Genesis to does not support it because each sin involved demonic temptation of some sort. This is the problem Augustine's Gnostic views he got from the book of Thomas dictate God controls the actions of satan and planned them. This creates a problem of owning up to the issue of demonic temptation. Augustine can't or his house of cards collapses that's why he had so many contradictions.

July 20, 2013 at 8:25 pm

Drew Gasaway I was reading the wrong article from another source. In his case in this article he is denying solid Rabbinical theology of fulfilling a covenant. Not many Jews look at covenant like he does because of the covenants of Adam, Noah and so on. Most Jews get that I am not sure what his point is from a jewish stand point. I had Jewish relatives and they understand covenants.

July 20, 2013 at 8:41 pm

Drew Gasaway The problem with trying to mix covenants even from a Jewish stand point is you can't be righteous under an old covenant. The laws do change for example after Adam more law existed and after Noah less law did.

July 20, 2013 at 8:47 pm

Drew Gasaway It would be like saying I will live under the one law of Adam and still be righteous.

July 20, 2013 at 8:49 pm

David Cole It's always been about listening to the word and doing what is right and the power to do so is ours though difficult it may be.

"The word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it."

"If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.”

"The words I say to you are spirit and are life"

July 20, 2013 at 8:49 pm

Drew Gasaway I know but from a covenant stand point Rabbi Singer is smoking dope. By his Moses argument one could live under the law of Adam. Every Rabbi I talk to knows the law changes with covenants.

July 20, 2013 at 8:52 pm

David Cole Some aspects of the law changed with each covenant but the core aspect of "righteousness" and "doing what is right" has remained the same in all of God's covenants. I believe Christlikeness was what God intended as "righteousness" in all covenants.

July 20, 2013 at 8:58 pm

Drew Gasaway I agree I was referring to the written law for example Leviticus. The written law was an agreement for each covenant. The 10 commandments were reintroduced in the new covenant by Christ and clarified in Matthew 5 if I remember right.

July 20, 2013 at 9:01 pm

David Cole The 10 Commandments are based on "eye for eye, tooth for tooth". In Matthew 5 Jesus contrasts Law and Grace. Grace forgives instead of demanding repayment. Grace repays more for wrongs done to others. Grace goes the second mile. Grace offers help to anyone, even one's enemy. What Jesus taught went far beyond the 10 Commandments in righteousness. Christ's love goes beyond justice to sacrificial love.

I think one of the biggest differences between the Law and Grace might be motivation. The Law could not offer forgiveness of sins only condemnation for them but a forgiven person loves more and is therefore more motivated to not only live lawfully but practice sacrificial love. We love because he loved us.

July 20, 2013 at 9:15 pm

5 Comment

Drew Gasaway

July 20, 2013 at 6:32 am

The trinity is God responding to a need after taking a peak? We know each covenant was a corrective course for man by God. So is it an example of when God is not pleasantly surprised? So many ways to describe the same God and what he does. Jehovah, Yahweh, Elohim, Emanuel, Yeshua, Messiah, Christ and Jesus. That is why I describe the trinity as 3 functions of God rather than 3 persons.

W Scott Taylor The function metaphor makes me think of the Fourier Series, where the single function is expanded as a series of, in this case, three 'terms'. Each one being orthogonal to the other...hmm orthogonality would be problematic ... sigh. where to go or end with 'functional equivalence? jk

July 20, 2013 at 6:53 am

Drew Gasaway The doxology of 3 persons is even more problematic. It implies 3 God's. You would be surprised how many Jews I make progress with once I explain I don't believe in 3 God's. Emanuel is a good place to start. If Jesus was with man like God was shown through a burning bush he was leading the nation. So the son is God with us. The 3 personage term sounds pagan. I don't like to accuse anyone but lots doctrines were made based on pagan ideas. I don't want to start rumors I believe in the trinity but also believe in one God. You actually can find 3 words used to describe God in rabbinical writings and that's helpful.

July 20, 2013 at 7:00 am

Dennis Murphy I think I agree with you, Drew, about the difficulty of discussing the trinity. The more detail and description there is in theological writings about it just seem to make it all the more like three Gods, as you wrote. I believe in God as a trinity, but it's something I seldom try to describe. It works best for me to simply pray to and worship God as our Creator and heavenly Father, to realize I can do that in the name and authority of Jesus, and that God's Spirit gives us power to live the kind of life to which He calls us. I use the terminology and I realize the Bible gives divine descriptions of each of those names, but I don't try to describe or explain how I worship one God. I think it's best to leave it as mostly mystery.

July 20, 2013 at 8:09 am

Jane E Clark The fact that God is not just three aspects but three persons is evident at the Cross. How could the Father turn away from the Son, otherwise?

July 20, 2013 at 8:54 am

Jane E Clark Trinity as Tri-unity. Jesus prayed that we would be one as He and the Father are one, in John 17.

July 20, 2013 at 8:55 am

David Cole I think God had Christ and the New Covenant in mind when he made Adam so I'm not sure each covenant other than the Noahic Covenant was "corrective" in nature.

July 20, 2013 at 9:49 am

Drew Gasaway I think John 17 disproves that there are 3 Gods Jane. In Los Angeles Dennis I work with lots of Jews and agnostics who know more about the bible than lots of professors. Lots of the agnostics come from a reformed or catholic background. The trinity, Augustine and politics are all common reservations. The biggest threat to churches here was Augustine. They take parts of his teachings and other theologians and translate his flaws into contradictions. I worked almost a year on an agnostic who graduated from the Masters. Jews tend to bring up "our pagan three God's." Most people though cut to the chase and get down to the political nature of most churches. I make friends with people its the only way to make a real connection. David Cole it was meant as a theoretical question.

July 20, 2013 at 10:33 am

David Cole I like the way Francis Schaffer described it. In order for God to create a universe that displays so much unity and diversity, he had to be both perfect unity and perfect diversity at the same time, hence the philosophical necessity of the trinity. He didn't elaborate as much as I would have liked on the subject but it made sense to me.

July 20, 2013 at 11:22 am

William Lance Huget Drew, your view sounds modalistic (Oneness/Sabellian). The biblical, historical, orthodox view is trinitarian. It is more than 3 functions, but 3 personal distinctions/conscious centers. We cannot make sense of Scripture otherwise. Since there is only one nature/substance/essence/being, there are NOT 3 gods (straw man argument against God's triune nature). http://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Look-Oneness-Theology-Defending/dp/076182992X/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=1FB5V5O53QPQN&coliid=I2X8RRFYLGDS2Q

July 20, 2013 at 11:26 am

William Lance Huget http://www.amazon.com/dp/0801010195

July 20, 2013 at 11:26 am

Drew Gasaway I am triniitarian because I believe God has three functions. Now these can take different forms but its one God. Now I do reject most orthodox stances. For example I don't accept almost anything written by Augustine. Lots of false orthodox doctrines originated from the Gnostic gospels and I encourage you to read Thomas you will never see Augustine the same again.

July 20, 2013 at 11:30 am

Drew Gasaway I deny he is three separate God's like the Greeks had. Explaining God is like Swiss army knife he has more than one blade but its still the same God.

July 20, 2013 at 11:31 am

Drew Gasaway For example when he appeared in the burning bush he was in a form. When the angels appeared in human form instead of spirit form they were the same angels.

July 20, 2013 at 11:33 am

William Lance Huget Modalists are not trinitarian. Your language is unorthodox/imprecise. You continue to attack a straw man of 3 gods vs 3 personal distinctions in one God. Some people who claim to believe the Deity of Christ actually deny it, but they co-opt the term to sound orthodox by redefining it. I disagree with much of Augustine, but trinity is biblical, not Augustinian/Catholic/pagan.

July 20, 2013 at 11:33 am

William Lance Huget Theophany and incarnation are consistent with a triune understanding. God is compound unity, not solitary.

July 20, 2013 at 11:34 am

Drew Gasaway I proud to be unorthodox. Most open theist are. I am trinitarian I believe in God in three forms. The idea of three God's is unbiblical. They even describe themselves as being connected. Now do you believe Augustine was correct? Your orthodox line suggests your not an open theist?

July 20, 2013 at 11:36 am

Drew Gasaway I don't deny the trinity I just don't view it in the pagan Augustinian way. Saying there are 3 God's is pagan. We have one God with three functions.

July 20, 2013 at 11:38 am

William Lance Huget I am Open Theist. Gregory Boyd is one of the most prominent Open Theists. The book I linked is his refutation of Oneness (formerly embraced) and defense of the trinity. Most Open Theists are trinitarian. Arianism and Sabellianism are condemned heresies. You are not trinitarian if you deny 3 personal distinctions and reduce them to forms of one person. You are also deaf. Trinity does NOT teach 3 gods. You are attacking a straw man out of your ignorance of the trinity. Read the creeds and theology books. They explicitly reject 3 god polytheism. You are arguing like a JW, not a Christian.

July 20, 2013 at 11:39 am

Drew Gasaway The father form, the son form and the spirit form. So I am trinitarian. I think saying otherwise is a straw man argument. Do you believe there are three separate Gods? No think about that carefully. This is where theologians confuse people.

July 20, 2013 at 11:41 am

Drew Gasaway There is one God he just has three forms. That is the trinitarian triune God.

July 20, 2013 at 11:41 am

Drew Gasaway Now lots of Pagans tried to write about there being more than one God in Greece and the Celtic christian cult.

July 20, 2013 at 11:42 am

Drew Gasaway Define the meaning of alpha and omega?

July 20, 2013 at 11:44 am

Drew Gasaway You quoted John Calvin on your wall?

July 20, 2013 at 11:45 am

Drew Gasaway If they are not all the same God then God was lying by decreeing himself Alpha and Omega.

July 20, 2013 at 11:46 am

Drew Gasaway The first thing a Calvinist does when the want to attack your position is they say its unorthodox. They call you a heretic and if they get around to it they accuse you of denying the trinity. There are many problems with their apologetics including contradictions in the their sources and even their theologians views. Generally someone has to be indoctrinated to believe this God. I used to be a 5 point Calvinist and I almost lost my faith after finding contradictions in the theology and the bible. There was also some legalism involved. So I know your apologetic's very well.

July 20, 2013 at 11:54 am

2 Comment

Jesse Morrell

July 19, 2013 at 1:40 pm

A Calvinist recently posted this verse on my wall: “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained [ἦσαν τεταγμένοι] to eternal life believed.” Acts 13:48.

Does this verse teach predestination and refute free will, as Calvinists allege? No, I posted my response here:

http://biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/a-greek-exposition-of-acts-1348-as-many-as-were-ordained-to-eternal-life-believed-jesse-morrell/

A Greek Exposition of Acts 13:48 - "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Jesse...

biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com

A GREEK EXPOSITION OF ACTS 13:48 By Jesse Morrell A Calvinist recently posted Acts 13:48 on my My Facebook to try to refute the idea that believing is man’s choice. The verse reads: “And when the G...

David Cole 46 And speaking boldly, Paul and Barnabas said, ‘To you it was necessary that first the word of God be spoken, and seeing ye do thrust it away, and do not judge yourselves worthy of the life age-during, lo, we do turn to the nations; 47 for so hath the Lord commanded us: I have set thee for a light of nations — for thy being for salvation unto the end of the earth.’ 48 And the nations hearing were glad, and were glorifying the word of the Lord, and did believe — as many as (did) were appointed to life age-during; YNG

You can also consider word order. Young did.

July 19, 2013 at 9:50 pm

Drew Gasaway Jesse I loved your documentary BTW but I simply deal with reformed apologetic's like this. Do you have a criticism that's not based in pejoratives or name calling? I also like to point out St. Calvin was called a heretic by the same source and slavery was once orthodoxy. I liked your response. Chuck Smith talked about this same verse once. Context and Calvinism don't exist.

July 20, 2013 at 6:43 am

3 Comment

Timothy Fisher

July 17, 2013 at 11:40 am

What is the best book on Open Theism that you've read?

Daniel Mininger I think there is a trifecta that leads to a deep understanding of Open Theism and some of its philosophical cousins:

1. Process and Reality - Whitehead
2. Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes - Hartshorne
3. Trinity and Process - Boyd

I know process is something of a dirty word in some Open Theism circles, but the inter-connectivity between the open view, and process thought can bring about some interesting fruit.

Disclaimer: None of these books are for the faint of heart, they are all very technical. But you asked for the best, not the easiest read :)

July 17, 2013 at 12:05 pm

Chase Green The God Who Risks- Dr. John Sanders

July 17, 2013 at 12:29 pm

Luke DeLong Most moved mover by Pinnock

July 17, 2013 at 1:36 pm

David Ricci hopeful imagination: voices in exile - walter brueggemann

July 17, 2013 at 1:50 pm

Jacob Matthew Hunt Satan and the Problem of Evil.

July 17, 2013 at 1:56 pm

W Scott Taylor One must keep in mind that Christian's who already believed in that which was the precursor to the 'Openness of God', that is Divine Nescience were mislead into thinking it was a continuation of that work by Historically Biblical Theology was in fact more of a justification of the philosophical viability of 'openness thinking' in general. As a result it is to be though of as a Philosophical Construct independent of the Bible per se and is metaphysically germane to the notion of God.

July 17, 2013 at 2:51 pm

Luke DeLong ...big and complicated words to not answer a simple question about a book

July 17, 2013 at 2:59 pm

W Scott Taylor Well, after the announcement of the 'trifecta' it seemed some kind of clarification was called for. If things were a bit more clearly stated when the book was originally published we would not have the issue at all.

July 17, 2013 at 3:15 pm

Paul Laughlin The Openness of God by late great Pinnock & friends, followed by Greg Boyd's God of the Possible

July 17, 2013 at 3:18 pm

William Lance Huget The Process stuff sounds complicated. I think the best books would allow opponents or unsophisticated people to grasp the simplicity of the view as well as be challenged. I would include possible introductory books such as 'The Openness of God' (original, Pinnock, etc.); Boyd's 'God of the Possible'; Sander's 'The God who Risks'; Pinnock's 'Most Moved Mover'; Boyd's 'Satan and the problem of evil'; various 4 views books on time, foreknowledge, predestination, etc. https://opentheism.info is a quick, valuable resource (Sanders).

July 17, 2013 at 3:19 pm

Paul Laughlin Agreed William Lance Huget, agreed.

July 17, 2013 at 3:21 pm

Michael Faber I liked most moved mover

July 17, 2013 at 3:21 pm

Robert Boylan Hasker, God, Time, and Knowledge.

July 17, 2013 at 3:24 pm

W Scott Taylor "The Openness of God" 5*

July 17, 2013 at 4:03 pm

John Sanders Mr. Fisher, there are several outstanding works on open theism that have different audiences, academic levels, and specific question in mind. To me, it depends upon what your needs and questions are. for general overviews, the Openness of God, and God of the Possible are both good. Most Moved Mover responds to a number of crticisms but also introduces the topic. for those with analytic philosophy background Hasker's God, Time and KNowledge and more specifically his Providence, Evil, and the Openness of God responds to many philosophical criticisms. Fretheims, The Suffering of God and his God and the World in the Old Testameant provide excellent studies of the Old TEstament support for open theism. The God Who Risks, second edition,also responds to many criticisms. For a list of books supporting open theism see my website: opentheism.info Dr. Sanders

July 17, 2013 at 4:47 pm

Glen Balmer The Bible.

July 17, 2013 at 5:53 pm

Marcio Polheim Unfortunately, it's extremely difficult to find some good book about open theism not written in english. Why these books are not translated to portuguese? I only read a very old article by Clark Pinnock and because of that I discovered open theism. However, I try to develop my knowledge by myself, because I don´t speak english fluently. So, I don't have books to read! So, I believe my knowledge on open theism is not good...

July 17, 2013 at 10:01 pm

W Scott Taylor This may be the very word that sets the wheels in motion for the need you spoken of. Thank you for saying so.

July 17, 2013 at 10:20 pm

Jenny Page God's Strategy in Human History by Roger Forster (now reprinting)

July 18, 2013 at 5:54 am

W Scott Taylor Hmmm, it was originally bundled on the Bible Research Fellowship CD from Gordon Olson's Library. Jenny, how did you come across it?

http://ywamambassadors.com/media/gods-strategy.pdf

July 18, 2013 at 6:08 am

Jenny Page I am part of Ichthus Christian Fellowship. The book will be on Amazon soon, or you can buy it from ichthus.org.uk

July 18, 2013 at 8:02 am

Annie Welch Britt I love Gods Strategy in human history.......! It was one of my first.....lol

July 18, 2013 at 5:17 pm

David Cole The book I like is What the Bible Says About Covenant by Mont Smith. It's not on "open theism", it's on "covenant" and the "restrained power" of God. Open theology is a natural implication of restrained power and necessary for covenant.

July 18, 2013 at 6:06 pm

Paul Laughlin Yes Forster's book is good too - I corresponded with Roger for a couple of years on Open Theism and learned a lot from him. In fact Roger introduced me to my favourite author, Greg Boyd.

July 19, 2013 at 12:04 pm

1 Comment

Drew Gasaway

July 14, 2013 at 2:21 am

What caused you to become an open theist?

Christian Boehm Good question. I read Boyd's Letter from a Skeptic, which briefly explained Open Theism. Then, I read his God of War and Satan and the Problem of Evil; these books convinced me fully. Also these were the first theology books I read. Been loving theology since

July 14, 2013 at 2:26 am

Christian Samuel Hering The fact that there was nothing that caused me to be an open theist. :)

July 14, 2013 at 2:29 am

William Lance Huget I freely chose to be an Open Theist based on research as a new believer. YWAM/Winkie Pratney/Gordon Olson/McCabe, Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders, Hasker, etc.

July 14, 2013 at 2:39 am

Drew Gasaway I used to be a 5 point Calvinist but I started studying the Jewish view of God in my roots. It's interesting how the origins in the Torah teach both concepts taught by Pelagius and open theism. Jewish doctrine has taught for thousands of years that God would not create laws he did not believe they could follow. It also has never taught the concept of original sin. I really think its important to read how Rabbi's look at Genesis. They actually can substantiate this way of looking at God long before Christ. The main issue they have is God being in the form of man and what Isaiah was actually saying.

July 14, 2013 at 2:45 am

Drew Gasaway I don't think God knew people would keep breaking all the covenants. I think he did some of the time but not all the time.

July 14, 2013 at 2:47 am

Rod Roguedemonhunter An online fallout with calvinists & going back to reading the Bible.

July 14, 2013 at 2:52 am

Jennifer Hauserman Lehman God knew ----OT is truth

July 14, 2013 at 2:52 am

Drew Gasaway Have any of you seen The Adjustment Bureau? It was written by a Calvinist and produced my one. What is interesting is he gets very close to addressing many of the areas Augustine missed without realizing it. The idea that God changes the plan. When we read the old testament its quiet clear that it was not God's will for man to disobey. Jewish understanding of the Torah has matched this for over 3000 years that we have record of. This alters the truth away from what Augustine taught.

July 14, 2013 at 3:00 am

Brutus Balan Since 1975, I have always read the Bible in its natural understanding as I fought off Calvinism. Openness as a word or a theological position was never heard off at that time and only of recent I associated with this label. I am now more inclined to move away from this position since Openness is moving to the errantist position and its liberal tendencies. I am considering calling my position as the 'Conservative Openness Theist'.

July 14, 2013 at 3:02 am

Drew Gasaway I think rather than look at it like the modern open theist have its more helpful to look at it like the Rabbi's do. The view is man making choices that God allows and changing the law in accordance with the current covenant. It's clear that when God made the earth perfect that it was not his intention to see man mess it up. It is also clear that he did not will originally to destroy the earth. The nature of God is progressive. I think God's ability to foresee the future is much more complex than what most think. Free will means the course of ones future actions can change. Hence making it less clear. Its just a thought.

July 14, 2013 at 3:07 am

Brutus Balan I don't think anyone can claim an ownership of "Open Theism'. It was the natural understanding of those who read it without the Calvinistic or Armenian bias. Sure, God is more complex than trying to fit Him in our neat little theological box without a lid.

July 14, 2013 at 3:12 am

Drew Gasaway That is my point exactly and looking at God from an older Jewish perspective takes us away from the invented doctrines. I think Augustine promoted doctrines that promoted the early stages of majesty. The reason orthodox view attacks anyone who questions Augustine is his doctrines give the foundation of their authority. If you believe the church and king are ordained by God their is no limit to their power and in fact they can speak for him like popes and kings have.

July 14, 2013 at 3:19 am

W Scott Taylor Historically 'Open Theism' is too young to be other than a new branch on an existing theological plant. Before the construct of 'Open Theism' (circa 1990) was coined Arminianism began a major articulation of a new category called "Divine Nescience." That is that the fullest ramifications of the incipiency of the will in man and God necessitated the logical corollary that to speak of conclusive knowledge of future moral decisions was a logical absurdity. That's just history.

July 14, 2013 at 3:21 am

W Scott Taylor I know of no present day academic who hails as an 'Open Theist' who ties their own entry into the construct from that older historical lineage.

July 14, 2013 at 3:25 am

Drew Gasaway Arminianism and open theism are very different. There is a much older view point that matches open theism. Read about how Jews view sin. Its interesting and is essentially open theism. Lots of their views on the nature of God are identical. Arminianism and Calvinism both rely on Augustine's doctrines but don't agree on all doctrines. Its interesting that none of his views existed before him and how they fit into majesty doctrine.

July 14, 2013 at 3:26 am

Drew Gasaway You guys might find this interesting. Jews believe God thought they would always obey, believe righteousness is of our own free will and that there is no original sin. http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/original-sin.html

July 14, 2013 at 3:28 am

Drew Gasaway I actual did not know reading about Jewish view of righteous choice and God changing his plan was open theism at first. God clearly did not know or intend for man to break the law.

July 14, 2013 at 3:45 am

W Scott Taylor Yes, Drew, on anthropology western Christendom id squarely in the Augustinian lineage (comp neo-platonism) but the Palestinian Church history's don't even have Augustin in the index! And it is true that Judaism doesn't have much by way of deterministic anthropology prior to Jamnia (60 AD).

But Judaistic anthropology and divine nescience are not coupled ontologically. I would say your source has more of a presumption of fatalistic observance in the ethos of the expectation of the perpetuity of faith. And present history wouldn't be terribly supportive of that being historically significant.

Tom Lukashow who also hails from the Divine Nescience lineage has documented an important history of concrete influences for the affirmation of divine nescience and has made that research available in a PDF file (presented at the 2013 OTCON.

A definitive historical work on the Augustinian vs Pelagian controversy from the original sources shows that none of the the early fathers held to original sense prior to Augustine ( see Gustav Wiggers).

Some Catholic sources actually cite Aquinas as having written in favor of nescience of future contingencies. But by far and away the best history of nescience come via the sources previously cited.

July 14, 2013 at 4:34 am

Jacques More As I read my bible, prayed and thought about the God of the bible whom I knew, the concept of God making new plans not held before, made it impossible to see God as knowing all things future.

July 14, 2013 at 6:13 am

W Scott Taylor From time to time I hear testimonies like that Jacques and it just goes to show that the God of the Bible, is not the God of Theology or Philosophy.

You reminded of an incident in my past when I was about 8 years old. I was brought up in the Catholic Church and got catechism on a regular basis. On the way to the neighborhood school bus stop one day I distinctly remember thinking 'if God knows everything, even what we're going to do in the future (as per catechism) then He knows what I'm about to think. So I decided to test that out. I decided I was going to 'sort of spin around mentally' and then just think something randomly. So I remember blanking my mind of any thoughts and then just randomly thinking of something. I don't remember what it was, but it was unrelated to the previous thoughts I was having. I knew that I couldn't predict the outcome and didn't feel any different when the new thought came. I was doubtful that God knew it before hand either. That ended my experience in applied theology.

July 14, 2013 at 6:32 am

Michael Faber For me, it was biblical and philosophical consistency. Between seeing how God is portrayed both in the Old and New Testaments, and the incompatibility between free will and foreknowledge, Open Theism was the only way to go. (FYI, I was Open Theist before I knew there was such a thing.()

July 14, 2013 at 7:22 am

Jacques More Yes, whatever name is given to the belief whether divine nescience or OT for me too it was the fact that God did not know everything future - more than everybody else put together, yes, but not everything - as revealed in the bible (which is his book of Him revealing what he is like to us) which was seen as true before I knew there was a title to that belief.

July 14, 2013 at 7:38 am

Karl Oehling It was an argument by a Rabbi that was an Old Testament Hebrew scholar. His argument that "now I know" was a good translation was far better than the scholars arguing "now I know" meant "I've always known." That was the first crack in my settled view armor.

July 14, 2013 at 8:16 am

Warren Christianson I did not what it was until some one saidthat you are one. So I looked into the group.

July 14, 2013 at 9:24 am

David Cole Probably came to an OT view in 1976 from the teaching of my professors in Bible College. Didn't know it's name until a couple years ago.

July 14, 2013 at 9:44 am

1 Comment

Jason Amato

July 15, 2013 at 10:00 pm

Getting yourself committed - http://eepurl.com/CmgCz

Weekly Newsletter-Getting yourself committed

us4.campaign-archive1.com

A mother took her little boy to church.While in church the little boy said, “Mommy, I have to pee.”The mother said to the little boy, “It’s not appropriate to say the word ‘pee’ in church. So, from now on whenever you have to ‘pee’ just tell me that you have to ‘whisper’.”The following Sunday, the l...

Comment

W Scott Taylor

July 14, 2013 at 4:40 am

Hey shout out to Maddey Hopkins, Structural Engineer with the United States Air Force. Engineers make the best Theologians! Welcome.

Michael Faber A friend of mine says that there are two kinds of engineers.. those who design weapons and those who design targets... which are you, Maddey?

July 14, 2013 at 8:23 am

Tom Lukashow Hey what about Finney? He was a lawyer!

July 14, 2013 at 10:37 am

W Scott Taylor Tom! :) Well, it wasn't for very long.

July 14, 2013 at 11:11 am

3 Comment

Jim Gilles

July 10, 2013 at 12:05 pm

Joshua Tom,
Have you ever met Jesus Christ with the resulting awareness that you were set free from any and all desire for sin? If so, do you have any family or friends that would attest to a sudden change in lifestyles by you from that point in time?

Joshua Tom This is an odd question, asked in an odd forum, that I am disinclined to answer.

July 10, 2013 at 12:23 pm

Jim Gilles Res Ipsa Loquitur.

July 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm

David Ricci Jim this post is rather immature and an amateur way of manipulation. are you fishing for some tactic or wanting josh to feel bad or look bad? if he is a christian than this post is very disrespectful to another brother just because he disagrees with you on a subject. however, if he WASN'T a christian how much worse does this make you look? is that really how you would approach someone who doesn't know god? by asking them a personal question on a public forum with zero degree of respect or actual care? i feel that if you genuinely were curious about his 'status' with god, you would send a private message. but sadly this just shows you trying to ask an immature pointed question in an impersonal way which shows you care little for the actual answer or josh. love one and other.

July 10, 2013 at 8:01 pm

Jim Gilles David Ricci,
In every Christian circle that I have conversed with for the last 33 years, such a question is commonplace. Why, ask it of me and see if I refuse to answer it. Every Christian that I know can not wait to tell their testimony.

July 11, 2013 at 12:17 am

Adam Butts This is definitely the wrong forum. Maybe try growing up, Jim.

July 11, 2013 at 2:38 am

Matt Parkins He wouldn't have gotten away with this question in BOT ;)

July 11, 2013 at 2:48 am

W Scott Taylor I know Jim. He's grown up.

July 11, 2013 at 9:39 am

Jim Gilles I am sorry, but, when I read the rules of this group I found the following:
1) God and creatures enjoy mutually-influencing relations
- God experiences others in some way analogous to how creatures experience others.
- Both creatures and God are relational beings, which means that both God and creatures are affected by others in give-and-take relationships.
- Creatures are called to act in loving ways that please God and make the world a better place.

R - Responsibility (Libertarian Freewill)

God has granted free agents significant freedom and responsibility to make moral choices for which they are culpable and upon which at least part of the future hangs. The choices of free agents effect others, the future, and God.

E - Emotion

God is Love. God is affected by the choices of free agents. God responds to free agents. God changes God's mind and plans in response to free agents. God is the most moved mover. It is God's desire to extend the intense love that God has always shared in the Trinity to the creatures God created forever.

I did not know, that to some herein, this group exists entirely for academic purposes and not for practical ones.

I am an individual who has personally "enjoyed mutually-influencing relations" with God and it is my desire for each and every person to "enjoy mutually-influencing relations" with God.

July 11, 2013 at 9:45 am

T. C. Moore No Jim, that is the group description. The Group Rules are posted in a document that spent many weeks penned to the top of the group's wall. It now lives in the "Files" tab. Here is the link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/opentheism/doc/10152898155330372/

Your question of Joshua Tom doesn't directly break any rule, but I do think it is disrespectful. If we you are truly concerned about the authenticity of Josh's faith (even though faith is not required for participation in this group), that sort of concern is best expressed in a private venue. From this point on, I ask that you refrain from such comments. Thank you.

July 11, 2013 at 11:49 am

Rod Roguedemonhunter Hi Jim! This is Rod, a moderator for this group, and also someone who has met Josh IRL. Please refrain from repeating posts like this. They are insulting, and suggestive by way of innuendo. This post has been left up by moderators as an example of fundamentalist concern trolling.you have been warned.

July 11, 2013 at 12:36 pm

Jim Gilles T. C. Moore & Rod Roguedemonhunter,
One of your rules forbids "Rude, insulting, condescending or belittling comments and insinuations."

Are you not impugning my character by alleging that I had but the purest of motives for my above question?

Would not David Ricci's accusatory usage of the words "immature," "amateur," "manipulation," "fishing for some tactic or wanting josh to feel bad or look bad?," "this post is very disrespectful," "zero degree of respect or actual care?," "but sadly this just shows you trying to ask an immature pointed question in an impersonal way which shows you care little for the actual answer or josh" fall within the purview of the above rule?

Would not Adam Butts', accusatory usage of the following, "Maybe try growing up, Jim." fall within the purview of the above rule.

July 11, 2013 at 12:56 pm

Rod Roguedemonhunter Jim, no but now i believe you are insulting our intelligence.

July 11, 2013 at 12:58 pm

Jim Gilles Rod Roguedemonhunter,
The world that you live in only has one way streets.

July 11, 2013 at 1:49 pm

Rod Roguedemonhunter Thanks for letting me know how smart i am jim. I'll forever treasure your concerntrolling words!

July 11, 2013 at 1:50 pm

Adam Butts I would say that my comment was not rude, insulting, condescending, or belittling. Rather, I was making reference to one of the greatest phrases I have ever heard: "Stop worrying about being born again and just grow up."

July 11, 2013 at 1:58 pm

W Scott Taylor Actually it is the all that you deny that it is, and presumes you know whether of not he has.

July 11, 2013 at 4:15 pm

Rod Roguedemonhunter screen capped this convo, obvious ex. of concern trolling. also a failed attempt at a personal insult.

July 11, 2013 at 4:43 pm

Jim Gilles I wish that I had a dollar for every time that I was asked my question by someone and I gladly answered it.

July 12, 2013 at 12:08 am

Annie Welch Britt Amen JIm....

July 12, 2013 at 1:04 am

John Moore Based on what I am reading, am I to assume that being "born again" is not as important as "growing up" to this group? As I have seen no objections to Adam's comment. Or is it Jim's direct approach in his question to Joshua Tom that is your problem?

July 12, 2013 at 1:10 am

Annie Welch Britt That particular quote was a BIG red flag to me..disturbing in my spirit to say the least..idk..that could be just me though. Adam..for clarification..u don't really mean that do u?

July 12, 2013 at 1:15 am

Rod Roguedemonhunter Obviously John & Annie dont recognize an inquisition when they see one. This is clearly a personal attack, and Joshua has every right not to dignify the "question" with a response.

July 12, 2013 at 8:28 am

Rod Roguedemonhunter To Jim: I wish I had a dollar for everytime I was on a facebook group about theology, and concern-trolls start personal attacks. I'd be a rich man. Like Bill Gates rich.

July 12, 2013 at 8:30 am

John Moore Rod, in my many years I have seen men who were very versed in the mechanics of open theism. Some had even written books. Many even had letters after their name signifying their importance to some. But the first letters we need after our name is BA... Born Again!

What would it profit a man if he was correct about the foreknowledge of God but he didn't "know" God?

You may disagree with Jim's methods but based on Joshua's previous comments Jim's question is valid. I cannot imagine any forum that has taken the name of Christ, being a forum where the basic tenets of Christianity is out of place.

July 12, 2013 at 12:40 pm

Rod Roguedemonhunter John, if you Jim, or Annie have any questions about Joshua Tom's salvation, the best person to take it up with is God, you know, the Author of salvation as Scripture says. That means Christian evangelists and pastors who make themselves gatekeepers of the kingdom, need to find a chair & take many seats. Yes I mean Jim.

July 12, 2013 at 3:01 pm

Comment

W Scott Taylor

July 13, 2013 at 6:34 am

~ ❦ To Write Upon The Sky ❦ ~

If God could write it on the sky, the hearts of men could never understand the depths of benevolence that has lived aeons before the darkness began to be.

The Apostle John gave *the* witness to that life that is the light of men also said that darkness never comprehended the light has left to the rest of Scripture to tell that The Light has never understood the darkness either.

At the heart of every campaign that Heaven promotes against the spread of darkness there lies a question mark and remonstrance on the Heart of the Ancient of Days:

"Cast away from you all your transgressions that *you* have sinned and make for yourselves a new purpose of life and new mind to live it; for WHY WILL YOU DIE?" ... I have no blessing or happiness in the death of any man say's the Lord God; {STOP!} Turn yourselves, now and live! " (based on Ezekiel 18:31,32)

That such a passage lies inert in the hearts of men and women every where is an indictment on the face of it. And while the ethos behind a part time theology is in truth so much a 'pact with death' in thinking 'it will not come nigh to us', a more bitter lament comes in the silence of scandal of indinancy for actually being called to believe in it.

5 Comment

Kurt Johnson

July 12, 2013 at 7:34 pm

Weighing in (in short form) on inspiration...

http://kurtkjohnson.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/on-inspiration/

On Inspiration

kurtkjohnson.wordpress.com

Christian scripture is a rich and complex compilation of writings from many authors over many centuries. Scripture is considered an authoritative source for faith and practice by the Church primar...

W Scott Taylor Kurt, I like your post, thought it was well crafted to bring a side of the discussion concerning 'Scripture' that is usually not heard with out the analog of synchrotron radiation. IOW well done.

The passages that you've chosen to give commentary about are, in my view, central to the overall message of κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας, that Jesus had as his charge every where he went.

It is propositional at core, with narrative and other idiomatic flourish but all subsumed in the Message. But it also contains objective information on questions of metaphysics that can be discussed according to discipline.

No matter how it is approached Scripture above all should not be used to demean or harm others. That goes for the 'schools of thought' that invariably tend to collect in 'herds' of shared opinion. And I wish it was more so as shared community across various interests.

The kingdom of God that Jesus went every where heralding was essentially the announcement of the 'Favorable Year of the Lord' where grace upon grace has come to the world.

"Open Theism' should be able to accommodate the ardor of varied interests with the same elevated regard for other participants that the Scriptures themselves speak to whether one receives the kingdom in to their own lives or not.

July 12, 2013 at 11:43 pm

2 Comment

Rod Roguedemonhunter

July 11, 2013 at 10:56 pm

Greene's post on Wesleyanism, free will, and the inerrancy debate: http://unsettledchristianity.com/2013/07/so-i-am-uncharitable-maybe-you-should-grow-a-pair/

So I am uncharitable? Maybe you should grow a pair...

unsettledchristianity.com

Catchy title huh? But it arises out of a really disappointing experience that I had recently. I am a theology junkie. I am committed to Orthodox Christian faith but I am not a fundamentalist. I am ...

Thomas Jay Oord I may have made a mistake. I don't recall blocking Jason (although I do recall blocking someone making ad hominen attacks; but I forgot his name). I apologize, Jason.

July 12, 2013 at 10:56 am

Keith Noren That did seem out of character for you.

BTW, my son a UMC minister read your Relational Theology book and found it good - he says it is consistent with his Integral Theology Ken Wilbur that he is trying to make me read.

July 12, 2013 at 7:20 pm

Thomas Jay Oord Thanks, Keith. I remember reading excerpts from Wilbur's book, but your comment makes me want to take a second, closer look!

July 12, 2013 at 7:24 pm

Jason Douglas Greene Thanks for the correction. It certainly made no sense to me. I love your work and I was totally baffled. I am also far from perfect and I think that many of us "moderates" being nice to "fundamentalists and liberals" are deeply ingrained in our nature, yet sometimes we are harsh on our best allies. I truly love your work and am glad that we cleared up our misunderstanding...

July 12, 2013 at 10:20 pm

Jason Douglas Greene blessings :)

July 12, 2013 at 10:20 pm

2 Comment

Adam Hersberger

July 9, 2013 at 7:40 am

Many of the discussions here seem to be evaluating or defending OT in a Christian context. What other religions allow or even promote open future and/or open theism?

Warren Christianson It would not make any difference if the religion is not God's.

July 9, 2013 at 8:08 am

Alan Rhoda As I define open theism, it is neutral between *monotheistic* traditions. The most explicit proponent of open theism during the middle ages was the 14th century Jewish thinker Gersonides.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gersonides/

July 9, 2013 at 9:05 am

Jonathan Mark Tillotson Theism makes sense only in a particular context, be it Abrahamic: and within that Christian, Jewish or Islamic; or be it Oriental: Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist ( although these are hardly theistic, though they are both religious); or be it more animistically or paganly multi-theistic; or be it a 20th century syncretistic conflation, such as New Age Theism. After choosing the context, the Open bit then concerns, within those contexts, the relationship to be adopted towards established tradition on the one hand and innovative thought on the other. If a context is not first chosen we just have a vague spiritual speculativeness. Is this group Open Christian Theism, or what?

July 9, 2013 at 9:44 am

Alan Rhoda Hi Jonathan,
Regarding whether "theism makes sense only in a particular context," I think that's probably true when we're viewing theism *religiously* as, roughly, a concrete way of life oriented toward matters of ultimate concern. But it's not true of theism considered purely *theoretically*. In that sense one can be a theist without being either a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or what have you.

July 9, 2013 at 10:06 am

Adam Hersberger Alan, you've described the source of my question exactly. I'm not implying anything against Christianity. I'm just wondering where Open theories may lead to or emanate from if you don't start by assuming Christianity. Maybe there is something to be learned from other perspectives.

July 9, 2013 at 10:30 am

Alan Rhoda Hi Adam,
As to where open theories "emanate from", I think it has to do with the (apparent and arguably genuine) tension between the ideas of free will, moral responsibility, and future contingency and the idea that the future is somehow already *settled*, either in the mind or will of God. Since those concerns arise in all theistic traditions, I don't think of open theism *per se* as a uniquely Christian or sectarian position.

July 9, 2013 at 10:43 am

Adam Hersberger So, let me rephrase: When I Google "Open Theism", I get a bunch of Christian apologists telling me it's heresy. Under what religious/spiritual heading would I find people saying, "Yeah, that's no problem"? I'm just looking for a list so that I can go do some reading.

July 9, 2013 at 10:50 am

Jonathan Mark Tillotson I agree Alan but the question then is what kind of a God is it that we are addressing when we call God Christian or jewish etc. If these Gods are all the same then why bother calling them either Christian or Jewish etc...call God something else....or just be honest and ditch God as an objective external referent and keep religion and religiours morality for its functional societal efficacy and aestetic value (like Don Cupitt etc). But, against non-realism, if we keep a Real God, the problem then is still, call God what? And on what authority other than the 'anarchy of individual or trans-individual or even quasi-collective (ie tribal) but never universally collective experience' (God is no longer a Public Empirical Event after all, as he presurmably was at Sinai). As for heresy, I think any kind of Open Theism, of whatever tradition, should be prourd of being heretical. Jesus was obviously a Heretic, as was Paul, as was Luther...as is anyone who thinks for himself...which is presumably what being open means.

July 9, 2013 at 11:48 am

Jonathan Mark Tillotson Ok I should have written unashamed as opposed to proud, given pride's justifiably bad reputation in religious discourse. Btw, I'm not a non-realist myself, I believe very much in an independently existing God, a theity as opposed to a deity- given deisms impersonal associations. Just sceptical about what humans on a tiny planet in one small solar system can authoritatively say objectively about this personable objectivity. Far from this justifying defensive dogma to counteract this objective uncertainty, I'd favour precisely open theism as a humble and receptive mode of approaching the mystery. Nor do I dispute the notion of revelation and I personally do believe Christianity is a unique revelation. Problem is many people disagree, and even amongst those who agree there Is so much diasagreement about meaning and interpretation. This situation can either be dealt with by mere assertion of I am right u r wrong, which gets everyone nowhere, though it gratifies the ego, or we can generously, charitably and with curiosity proclaim our positions, openly, and see what happens.

July 9, 2013 at 12:15 pm

John Sanders Dear Mr. Hersberger, As Alan mentioned Gersonides a Jewish thinker. There were other proponents of open future and a God who is affected by creatures in both Jewish and Muslim thinking in the middle ages. Marc Brettler, a well known Hebrew Bible scholar gave me lots of quotes of ancient Rabbis in second temple Judaism who made remarks that seem to promote open theism. Brettler was surprised by evangelicals callilng the view a heresy. He said that in Judaism it is a well known position. In Islam the view was held by a number of Mutazelites in the middle ages. on the contemporary scene I am in contact with three Muslim scholars who are investigating open theism (one in Turkey and two in Iran). Bill Hasker told me that he met Muslim philosophers in Turkey who loved his presentation on open theism and claimed that the view is held by a number of Muslims. I know that the issue of free will and divine determinism has long been discussed in theistic Hinduism but I've not come across any discussion of openness.

July 9, 2013 at 12:30 pm

William Lance Huget Creation Made Free (Thomas Jay Oord) has a chapter on the Openness debate in Islamic Theology by Michael Lodahl. Jehovah's Witnesses (cult) deny that their Jehovah has exhaustive foreknowledge (they limit God in too many ways, though). Mormons/LDS (cult) also have dialogue with Open Theists (makes sense that it could fit their finite godism/polytheism, but Open Theism is NOT finite godism). Other religions can be right about Open Theism principles. I have had atheists grasp it quicker than traditional Christians, in theory.

July 9, 2013 at 2:46 pm

Adam Hersberger Thanks, John and William. That's the kind of stuff I was looking for.

July 9, 2013 at 3:06 pm

William Lance Huget I also imagine there are philosophers who are not theists or Christians who could argue intellectually against determinism, for free will, against settled, knowable future, etc. They can use modal logic to show this apart from the Bible.

July 9, 2013 at 3:45 pm

David Cole Ancient Judaism promotes OT. I know of no other religions that do. Most are pantheistic/deterministic.

July 11, 2013 at 8:11 am

2 Comment

W Scott Taylor

July 7, 2013 at 3:03 am

⌦ The Danger of Selective Use of Science as Biblical Hermeneutic ⌫

The presumption of the truth value of the conclusions of science persists with out normal verification practices among people of faith in God. This is true in general and of particular interest to this group those in academic and para-academic careers. The irony for proponents of Open Theism accrues from pronounced efforts to "Engage Science" as evidenced in a number of publications over the last few years.

The presumption of the reliability or permanence of the characterization of fundamental 'discoveries' of the behavior and nature of matter is the most serious case in point. It has lead to challenges of the veracity of certain parts of Scripture in relation to cosmology and biological origin and history of human development.

In "Quantum Aspects of Life: Relating Evolutionary Biology With Theology Via Modern Physics" (Zygon, vol 48, no. 1, March 2013) Anna Ijjas argues for the structural similarities between quantum mechanics and evolutionary theory and creation theory. Quantum theory is also fundamental to Big Bang Cosmologies in that the Copenhagen Interpretation of the famous 'double slit' experiment is the basis for String Theory as well.

It may be helpful as the last point of the opening thread on the implications of premature adoption of fundamental propositions of Science as Biblical Hermeneutic is to draw attention to a National Geographic Daily News feature entitled "Biggest Thing In Universe Found - Defies Scientific Theory" (see link). It is stated: "Quasar cluster is 'challenge to our current understanding,' astronomer says."

As the first concret example of why our vetting process of the veracity of Scientific pronouncements should remain ever vigilant is the conflict that has existed in the Astrophysics Community concerning the importance of redshift as a key metric in establishing the Big Bang Cosmology. Since 1969 and the publication of Halton Arp's 'Encyclopedia of Peculiar Galaxy's'. Since that time Arp has been arguing that those plates contain the evidence against Big Bang Cosmology for the discovery of an alternate cause of red shift that is non-velocity recessional. If true, that would fundamentally undermine Big Bang Cosmology.

The clear upshot is that no doctrine of a Biblically propositional nature or inferable therefrom should be countermanded by the tenants of Science, merely because of its source.

Biggest Thing in Universe Found—Defies Scientific Theory

news.nationalgeographic.com

Talk about a whopper—astronomers have discovered a structure in the universe so large that science says it should not exist.

Tom Belt Scott, could you please tell me what outdated science has or is being used by open theists (don't name them if you don't want to) to criticize inerrancy?

July 7, 2013 at 7:05 am

W Scott Taylor Tom, I've posted here before on the expose of the political nature of Bohr's success of getting 'complimentary' adopted at the 1927 Solvay Conference. It has been widely published, and even admitted by Polkinghorne that 'the Copenhagen Interpretation' is a metaphysical conclusion and not one of science. You understand the implication of that ,I trust. Consequently, if Bohr's view is incorrect, then the phenomena of causality is intuitively apprehended in every realm of 'mechanics'. String Theory and every variation of supposed quantum fluctuation prior to the Big Bang is baseless.

The article I cited by Ijjas represents THE attempt by open thinking with which to "Engage Science" . The failure to responsibly and credibly 'vet' quantum cosmology has laid the whole 'open' community to the scorn of those in the Scientific community (and the public at large) who have uncovered the history of Bohr's bane and seen that the de Broglie - Bohm Pilot Wave theory 'makes more sense.' How does it feel to have nearly 75 years of fundamental doctrine in quantum theory dissolved in the space of an hour.

It is this very penchant to acquiesce to 'Scientific Knowledge' or theory's thereof by theologians that has been the neuralgic for 'errancy' thinking for a long time. The combined 'revisions' that are happening in fundamental statements of how the universe works in ever area that Quantum Mechanics touches should be 'life changing'.

July 7, 2013 at 7:46 am

Tom Belt Can you give me an example of an open theist using any interpretation of quantum science to falsify inerrancy?

July 7, 2013 at 7:57 am

W Scott Taylor In your angst to resolve the tension (so it seems) you just now made the discussion a witch hunt by implication that there are some who think there are 'Open Theists' hiding out in the bell tower waiting for a 'high view' motorcade to pass by within sniper range. The truth is that the bifurcation in Biblical Hermeneutics has come about over a long period of time and for complex reasons. The present state of fracture is based in part on a dialog and its nomenclature that it self is dated and inaccurate but has remained in stasis ever since.

I think you need take some time to consider what's been pointed out here. If, just if, there has been the kind of systemic perpetuation of 'metaphyiscal bias' pushing supposed 'proven' Science in an area as far reaching as the one involved in the theory of Quantum Mechanics, then one must consider how far back might that go.

The real problem that should be surfacing is how do we know who's correct? If there are problems with biological evolutionary 'science' then what is the implication for Biblical Heremenutics? This is about problem resolution, not eradication of information.

July 7, 2013 at 8:27 am

Tom Belt No Scott. I don't have any angst. And I'm not on a witch hunt. I'm trying to understand your specific claim so I could enter this conversation, assuming you're interested in conversation.

- I could say you don't make much sense when you write.
- I could say some of your sentences and paragraphs are so poorly worded and so obviously trying to exceed that they hardly make sense.
- I could say that when in public you discuss things like the "pronounced efforts of proponents of open theism" or "as evidenced in a number of recent publications" you make statements that are open to question and you have to be prepared to substantiate your claims and explain yourself.
- I could say being prepared to substantiate one's claims is standard policy for public forms like this.
- I could say that using the site as your own personal billboard is not what we're here for, and that you don't get to post stuff like this and then dismiss people when they ask you to substantiate what you say.
- I could say such bill-boarding deserves to be removed from the site when you make claims that you won't explain...

...but I prefer to try again. It's YOUR post, Scott. That means you WANT questions and conversation. I really want to understand how open theists are wrongly using quantum science to try to falsify biblical inerrancy. You should WANT to explain this, Scott.

July 7, 2013 at 8:59 am

Tom Belt So, again my friend. Please share with us an example or two of what YOU claim, that is, an example or two of these "pronounced efforts" of open theists who have "in a number of recent publications" used any interpretation of quantum science in an effort to falsify inerrancy. If you will not enlighten us, then we can only conclude you're not interested in conversation but instead just want to use this site as a billboard to publicize your own personal agenda.

July 7, 2013 at 9:10 am

Eric Maggard Scott... it seems to me that "the de Broglie - Bohm Pilot Wave theory 'makes more sense.' " doesn't throw out completely Quantum Mechanics, but the there might be a slightly better theory... even you state: "How does it feel to have nearly 75 years of fundamental doctrine in quantum theory dissolved in the space of an hour. " It seems you saying Quantum is completely wrong, should be thrown out and everything since then should also be thrown out and started back at the beginning with the better de Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave theory. is that correct?

To me... I don't take the Bible as authorative for science or even history. It is a document to help us understand God and as 2 Timothy 3 states: "16 All Scripture is [h]inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for [i]training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

The Catholic church was wrong in pushing science based on the Bible's "Authority". It is not the purpose of the Bible.

July 7, 2013 at 11:52 am

Eric Maggard BTW... I think you have written too many technical papers and need to review your word selection and break it down to simpler words so 1) you don't have to define their means based on your context, and 2) make it easier for readers to clearly understand your meaning. It is not just you.... I have noticed that others have a tendency to do that when talking theology... when you are immersed in the terminology so much... you don't know others don't know the application of the words you are using, or the very words themselves.

July 7, 2013 at 12:02 pm

W Scott Taylor Eric for your last two posts, the last especially, i have to congratulate you for your conscious effort to move past the initial disturbance of the facts themselves, and your ability to analyze the issue of 'style' in a way that shows you do understand that 'specialist subject matter' is non-ideal for others.

That in it self is demonstrative of a willingness to engage the subject matter, and that has an impact on me.

On the 'de Broglie-Bohm' Pilot Wave Theory (PWT) discussion I do want to point out that the equations of motion used to formulate Quantum Mechanics remain and have never been the subject of disagreement. Unfortunately, the 'mechanics' in this case leave what the quantum is in it self undefined. It has been through testing (ie. double slit experiment) that the distribution of electron impacts on the recording plate on the other side of the double slit panel looked like wave interference patterns.

From that data, Bohr et. al. concluded that after the electron was emitted form a source it became a wave just infront of the double slit panel and passed through both openings at the same time! and immediately collapsed back to a single particle and then collided with the recording panel. Remember that the recording panel shows a wave like distribution of a collection of circular impacts.

July 7, 2013 at 4:21 pm

W Scott Taylor Part II follows...

July 7, 2013 at 4:22 pm

Annie Welch Britt does this hint toward science proving that God exists, rather than disproving as some may say?

July 7, 2013 at 4:48 pm

W Scott Taylor From that experiment Bohr concluded not only that the quantum or electron in transit is not just in a probabilistically determined phase between particle and wave, but rather it was neither! Most 'Open Theists' don't know that. Most of those familiar with the double slit experiment don't know that either!

Bohr's 'Copenhagen Interpretation' grew from that and as such it has become the 'paradigm' for matter as non-intuitively non-causal. That is 'A can be non-A' and from that Quantum Cosmologies have been predicated upon non creation (see non causal) origin. String theory, the fluctuation in the primordial quantum field that resulted in this universe. A non-creation origins cosmology was reintroduced.

PWT consisted of a model of the electron as basically a spherical glob surrounded by a wave field. The significance of that model presented at the 1927 Solvay conference was shouted down by Bohr's faction, and yet if explains the wave like distribution of the particle impacts without resorting to a strange postulate that had no correlation man's causal based intuitive reason. It wasn't until 1952 that Bohm revitalized the PWT as 'de Broglie-Bohm PWT and the Scientific community is being similarly revitalized and rejecting Bohr's model. Einstein never bought off on Complimentary notions and neither did Schrödinger.

The import of this resurgence of PWT has called into question every cosmology based on the old view and that is certainly 'life changing'.

The impact for Open Theists? The upshot, in very general terms is that if we could have been mislead on this important topic, what does that portent for the Biological Evolutionary view of origins?

And it has been here where Science has been cited as corrective to Biblical range on its propositions to be exegeted with Scientific as exegetically superior.

July 7, 2013 at 5:05 pm

Annie Welch Britt Science is the authority now for truth? Not the bible? that is not true..how and why would anyone want to think that...? Science interpreting bible instead of the other way around?....That could be dangerous,if I am reading that correctly.No?

July 7, 2013 at 5:23 pm

Tom Belt Scott: The impact for Open Theists?...And it has been here where Science has been cited as corrective to Biblical range on its propositions to be exegeted with Scientific as exegetically superior.

Tom: Wait a second. Your point--that some open theists are using bad science to criticize inerrancy--is all about evolution? You think a Christian has to be an errantist in order to believe in evolution?

July 7, 2013 at 7:20 pm

W Scott Taylor No Tom, and I was just now answering your questions after taking up some of Eric's comments/question. I'm coming back to your concerns - now

July 7, 2013 at 7:23 pm

W Scott Taylor Tom, which post am I supposed to answer?

July 8, 2013 at 7:48 pm

Tom Belt Never mind Scott. We're done.

July 8, 2013 at 8:36 pm

Eric Maggard Scott... from my review of Bohm's Pilot-Wave Theory, here are my thoughts:

1) One nice thing about the theory is that it simpler and more compact.
2) The pilot waves cannot be confirmed experimentally or with any type of observer. So, when you try to take measurements, it changes the waveform and you have to change the waveform equation.
3) The waveforms are not localized, so you have to use a modified Schrodinger equation.
4) The Pilot-Wave theory also suffers, if you want to call it that, the multi-dimensional/universe problem, but they call it empty waves.

I really don't see the benefits of the Bohm theory, and as you say, the quantum model does fit all experimental results up to this point. I don't mean that it is complete, but I don't see how it should be thrown out and replaced.

BTW, I also looked at CERN, and their "Standard Model" was developed in the '70's which was way after the '27 and even the '52 events that you posted. I don't think that we are close to fully understanding the particles and universe, but the current models with General Relativity and such is proving to be a pretty good model... but as you say, we need to keep asking questions and looking for new ideas.

Link: http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model

BTW, wonder why Steven on RelativityChallenge hasn't posted that the "faster than light" particles were caused by measurement error?

July 9, 2013 at 2:26 pm

W Scott Taylor Eric ^^^ Finally somebody engaged! I was beginning to think that most 'Open Theists' (academics included) would flounder to explain 'half life' of radioactive isotopes. Forgive me. But I'm just going to savor the moment for a bit. I'll be back shortly. Just to make sure no one is unduly embarrassed at being slow in science I've included this little visual nemonic

http://tinyurl.com/lwcqno6

July 9, 2013 at 3:01 pm

W Scott Taylor One correction on my assessment of known OT here and that is for Keith Noran. He is a six sigma in that regard and has my respect as an honest 'theologiser' and competent person of science. If there's a chink in a scientific theory I was advocating I'd expect Keith to sus it out.

July 10, 2013 at 3:34 am

W Scott Taylor Eric, I appreciate that you are conversant with the dialog on the implications of the metaphysics of quantum theory.

There is a fairly important aspect that goes with Bohr's Complementarity Interpretation that many see as just so categorically different that the rest of physics that it constitutes a paradigm shift (if true) in the way reality is perceived period. In every other area in which phenomena is apprehended it is via the fundamental intuition of causal relations.

And as Polkinghorne points out, what we're talking about is not science in this interpretation of what's 'underneath' the physics (Wave Equation etc.). It metaphysical and that, is personal preference, not science.

Why would Bohr opt for an interpretation that is defies rational categorization. We know that Schrodinger and Einstein both were appalled the Bohr's hermeneutic was accepted when learning of de Broglie's alternative view that is consistent with the rest of the 'causally apprehended' physics of modern science.

What is not generally, if at all, understood is what Bohr really meant by the complimentary statement:

“In contrast to ordinary mechanics, the new quantum mechanics does not deal with a space-time description of the motion of atomic particles. . . The diﬃculties · · · seem to require just that renunciation of mechanical models in space and time which is so characteristic a feature in the new
quantum mechanics.” [Bohr 1934]"

“ [The quantum postulate] implies a renunciation of the causal space-time coordinates.” [Bohr 1934]

Is it clear now what he's saying? The quantum is not in a probabilistic state of wave-particle duality, or anything like that. He is saying that the quantum is *neither* until an event precipitates either collapse or distributed (wave) state.

Top Level link to the TOC of: "Pilot-wave theory, Bohmian metaphysics, and the foundations of quantum mechanics"

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

And to the Lecture notes from which the quotes were taken above:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/PWT/lectures/bohm7.pdf

July 10, 2013 at 5:16 am

Keith Noren That was kind words Scott. And you are right these days I am more a “theologizer” (and political animal) than a physicist despite my work title “Chief Scientist MDA Targets and Countermeasures”. None of that work “science” has to do with cosmology, quantum mechanics, biological origins, brain function, the nature of time, or wave/particles optics. I am too busy (home, work, church, and golf) to delve into them at all adequately for these discussions to “sus(?) it out”. Sorry maybe after retirement which I’m hoping is soon.

W/o a thorough defense, I will say I do not find any old or new science as providing support or non-support to the debate over Open Theism. But perhaps I do not know the new science that well.

July 10, 2013 at 8:57 pm

4 Comment

W Scott Taylor

July 10, 2013 at 6:26 am

Open Theism: A Generous Theology - A place where different ideas about how we got to this place 'theologically & philosophically' are sometimes discussed with surprise and incredulity.
-----
W Scott Taylor 4:19pm Jul 8
Tom, I've said it a number of times, but by far and away the neuralgic point of the divide between a 'critical view' and lets call it something not so inflammatory: 'non-critical view', and that is the assertion of single cell biological origin of species and the perpetuation thereof by the putative means of natural selection.

Tom Belt 5:30pm Jul 8
Scott, I'm done trying to get straight answers from you. I will never take you seriously ever again--period.
-----

Look, we all have stuff in our presuppositional cedar chest that might do well to see the light of day. I know that to some, to question biological evolutionary origins of our species may seem silly, but you really ought to see how it looks from the other side once in awhile. :)

A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?

phys.org

(Phys.org) —These days, getting a Ph.D. is probably the last thing you want to do if you are out to revolutionize the world. If, however, what you propose is an idea, rather than a technology, it can still be a valuable asset to have. Dr. Eugene McCarthy is a Ph.D. geneticist who has made a career ....

Troy McGehee Maybe I'm just not smart enough to see this, but are pigs being observed mating with chimps anywhere in the world today?

July 10, 2013 at 6:50 am

W Scott Taylor Troy, I hope that to get that Ph.D it doesn't require simulation studies. :(

July 10, 2013 at 6:51 am

W Scott Taylor Wow Chad ...

July 10, 2013 at 7:23 am

W Scott Taylor Right in between where phased quantum collapse occurs while thinking - wow this is all about YEC

July 10, 2013 at 7:29 am

Joshua Tom W Scott Since in the other thread you were claiming that we all needed to be able to understand the mathematics and physics of quantum theory, can I take you are claiming to be literate in the biological and chemical sciences when it comes to this issue?

July 10, 2013 at 8:13 am

W Scott Taylor Actually, Joshua, I said early on, that if a person is going to argue for cosmological interpretations based upon 'the vicissitudes of scientific discovery' (to quote Boyd) it would behove a person to get informed and in a hurry. The Einstein Lorentz teaser was a challenge to a perceived lethargy in doing the basic ground work of vetting for oneself. Yet you can often hear the terminology in discussion of Quantum cosmologies of every stripe.

It should be worth knowing that Einstein himself felt the implications of relativity he believed that the distinctions between past present and the future was only illusory. So the Spherical Wave Proof was a key formulation to understand.

The implications for metaphysics where quantum theory is invoked the forefront where 'open theology is seeing to engage science. That's sound relevant for someone who also wants to engage others with and honestly determined perspective.

And the answer to your final question is yes. The issue here is something like the question posed by Robin Ford in a song : How Deep in the Blues Do You Want To Go.

July 10, 2013 at 8:32 am

Joshua Tom Informed is better than uninformed, I'll grant you that. On the other hand, given that an informed opinion is functionally impossible for the majority of us, the best we can do is go with the expert consensus, which seems to run against you on the issue of quantum theory (and on the issue of evolution), best as I can tell. Why shouldn't Open Theists engage science on the level of the current consensus, in the language and concepts that are widely accepted? It's not a mark against us if in the future the consensus turns out to be wrong. It just means that we were making do with our best understanding of the field at the time.

In fact, the only irrational choice to make for the uniformed layperson is to go *against* the scientific consensus.

July 10, 2013 at 9:38 am

Karl Oehling Huh... I thought I would never post in this forum despite being an Open Theist. Joshua Tom; The learning requirement to show that Common Descent is wrong is very minimal. It doesn't require any knowledge of quantum mechanics. It requires a simple understanding of math and common sense. The rest of what you need to know to show that Common Descent is wrong comes entirely from scientists who believe Common Descent is correct.

July 10, 2013 at 9:52 am

Jim Gilles Modern expert scientific consensus? Am I in the National Atheists fb group? As if "science," in many circles, is not and has not been politicized, bought and paid for?

Pardon my plebeian attempt below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=12rgtN0pCMQ

July 10, 2013 at 10:10 am

Joshua Tom Karl I suppose the question then becomes, why do the overwhelming majority of experts think common descent is true? "Math and common sense" are most assuredly not enough to debunk a decades-long consensus across multiple scientific disciplines.

July 10, 2013 at 10:10 am

Joshua Tom Jim So your stance is that the scientific community is engaged in a widespread conspiracy whereby they are paid off, in monetary or social capital, to support evolution? Surely we can give the millions of people working in the sciences the benefit of the doubt as to their actions and motivations.

July 10, 2013 at 10:13 am

Karl Oehling Joshua Tom; They think it's true because they like to eat. But, yes, it only takes math and common sense. If you'd like, we can go over the numbers. It begins with knowing how many nucleotides it takes to make a protein. I know it varies, but if we take a survey of the ones we know, can we come up with a rough average?

July 10, 2013 at 10:15 am

Joshua Tom So "math and common sense" really means "this is really really complicated and I can't conceive of how it could have occurred except by special creation". If we were ever satisfied with that argument we would still be trying to control the weather with fancy dances.

July 10, 2013 at 10:19 am

Jim Gilles Joshua Tom,
In many circles it is called "Tenure."

July 10, 2013 at 10:19 am

Joshua Tom I think you have a funny conception of how academia operates. Most people don't do work on evolution qua evolution, they do research on tangential and small-scale questions. As it turns out, this research builds a body of literature that supports the broader theory of evolution. If this research ever started poking holes in the theory of evolution people would notice, but that hasn't happened. So again, I have to ask, are you suggesting that scientists are suppressing evidence, deliberately misinterpreting evidence or offering false evidence?

July 10, 2013 at 10:28 am

Karl Oehling Joshua Tom; Huh? Your response does not follow. No, it has to do with being simple enough and common sensical that anyone not invested in keeping Common Descent as a paradigm can understand. And, BTW, "they like to eat" is a little more involved, but I can explain that, too, if you'd like.

July 10, 2013 at 10:30 am

Joshua Tom Karl Could you expand on your argument against common descent then?

July 10, 2013 at 10:31 am

Joshua Tom Jim It occurs to me that we might would expect to find creationists coming out of the closet post-tenure, if tenure indeed was deterring creationist research. Can you cite any examples of this ?

July 10, 2013 at 10:32 am

Karl Oehling Joshua Tom; I can expand on my argument against Common Descent. We begin with a survey of the number of nucleotides it takes to make a protein. Why proteins? Because we have information on a number of them.

Michael Behe is one off the top of my head. There are others but not many. The reason the paradigm is upheld is because evolution is so completely useless as a framework that there is no cost to including it in any research. But there is a cost to denying it, even if one is tenured.

July 10, 2013 at 10:46 am

Joshua Tom Behe's argument from irreducible complexity isn't a good scientific argument though. It really does come down to what I said previously: "It's too complicated to happen except by God". Until people keep digging and figure out how it could have happened naturalistically, and then Behe has to keep pushing his argument farther down. It may be that at some point God's interference was required, but arbitrarily stating "It had to happen here" simply hamstrings the scientific enterprise. Besides, unless things have changed Behe doesn't deny common descent, he advocates irreducible complexity.

July 10, 2013 at 10:50 am

Jim Gilles Joshua Tom,
Please see the below documentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEvq4xIHmH4

July 10, 2013 at 10:53 am

Karl Oehling Joshua Tom; So you asked for a tenured professor knowing I would mention Behe... just so you could argue against him? I'm not using Behe's argument.

Kudos, that is a slick debate tactic.

July 10, 2013 at 10:54 am

Joshua Tom Behe isn't a creationist. He doesn't argue against the evolutionary history of humanity or common descent. I don't see how he helps the anti-evolutionist camp in this regard

July 10, 2013 at 10:55 am

Joshua Tom Jim I've seen Expelled, I was not impressed. It's essentially a Michael Moore documentary for evangelicals, much too shady to be taken seriously. Stein misrepresents and manipulates hte interviews to a disappointing degree

July 10, 2013 at 10:56 am

Jim Gilles Joshua Tom,
I do know by personal observation that back in the 80's there were a slew of Creation Science v Evolution debates on college campi across this country. As the evolutionists were soundly defeated the debates waned to almost non existent now. Dr. Duane Gish and Dr. John Morris personally told me that the debates were decreasing as it was increasingly hard to find an evolutionist who would enter into a public debate on a college campus. One of the last ones that I attended was at Florida State.

My all time favorite was A.E. Wilder-Smith. He was such a gifted speaker, that is, if you could break through his deep German accent. He had such a grasp of his subject matter that he could make the complex simple. For example, he was the first that I knew of to state that God told us the formula for life way back in Gen 2:7 " And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." A.E. taught that for life it takes four essential elements, time, matter, energy and one of his favorite words "teleonomy." The dust was your matter, the breath of life was your energy, a nano second was your time, while God was your teleonomy.

July 10, 2013 at 11:02 am

1 Comment

W Scott Taylor

July 1, 2013 at 1:32 am

"Failure of the Einstein-Lorentz Spherical Wave Proof"
-----

I have been mildly entertained by the creative ways some 'Open Theists' parley the 'Science' card in trying to show cause against 'inerrancy'. Most couldn't whip their way out of a wet bag of linear algebra never mind critique intelligently Einstein's entry level material on Relativity. But boy can they wax seemingly knowledgable.

I'm including a link to the four page publication above that claims the failure of said 'proof.' I'd like to know how qualified these critics are to validate what they use in arguments. Any one care to check the numbers?

http://db.tt/eXrLbIkg

Warren Christianson It is beyound my ability to check. Concept fine, but playing at this level not for me.

July 1, 2013 at 4:59 am

W Scott Taylor "While the findings of science cannot be ignored, if a particular interpretation of a theory fundamentally conflicts with Scripture, Christians are obliged to stick with Scripture and judge that the interpretation of the theory is misguided." Greg Boyd - "Satan And The Problem Of Evil" pg 140.

Yes indeed.

July 1, 2013 at 5:09 am

Warren Christianson Stick with scripture is good, the problem is how one interpretates that scripture along with how one interpretates the findings of science.

July 1, 2013 at 5:46 am

Brent Henderson Bryant's math and ideas have been checked all over the Internet and found wanting. No idea what this could have to do with open theism, though. I don't think Bryant is religiously motivated, certainly not by some desire to prove Open Theism.

July 1, 2013 at 9:23 am

Brent Henderson Also note Boyd does not say in that quote that the scientific theory is misguided, but that it's interpretation is. He's referring to the sorts of infantile arguments one sees today (often from very smart people) that evolution properly interpreted entails atheism. The problem is not evolution, but it's interpretation.

July 1, 2013 at 9:26 am

W Scott Taylor Brent, thank you and I do appreciate enthused dialog. In your zeal to respond you made some pretty fundamental blunders. One, you obviously did not think through the equations closely enough before you announced that

"Bryant's math ... [has] been found wanting."

In fact I'm hard pressed to believe that you actually took 'pencil in hand'. If one goes through the derivations and discussion of where Einstein's proof amounted to a 'false positive' it can be readily seen that the author has identified an error that invalidates Einstein's assumptions of proof.

You made some pretty positive statements in order to invalidate the author's claim without having demonstrated to your self, at least, that the author was wrong and where. That is exactly what I wanted to determine and that is how knowledgeable you think one has to be about Science to make categorical statements against other views. Not pretty.

July 1, 2013 at 11:00 am

W Scott Taylor Brent [cont]: Actually, Brent you are projecting your own animus into Boyd's quote. In fact the section the quote I supplied came from had nothing to do with Evolution and was purely concerning 'Physics and the Open Future.' It's going to be pretty much like like shooting fish in a barrel if more responses like this show up. You were warned.

July 1, 2013 at 11:22 am

Brent Henderson Thanks for confirming my suspicions about you, Scott. I won't be engaging you again. In my experience (as a professor and in life), people who get life from winning arguments are never worth arguing with. If you will google "Steven Bryant relativity" you will find no shortage of well-qualified physicists who point out Bryant's mistakes.

July 1, 2013 at 11:36 am

W Scott Taylor I'm afraid 'Open Theists' will need to be made of sterner and more multi-disciplined stuff to rise above their erstwhile bumbling counterparts. If you cant 'do the math yourself' then you ought to be a bit less condescending to those who can.

July 1, 2013 at 11:44 am

W Scott Taylor I am astounded by those in academia who are influential among 'Open Theists' that are so dated in their 'proofs' that the Bible has errors that cannot be 'patched' they reveal that they've been resting on their laurels. They think they've done a masterful job by defeating the arguments of men who have been dead for nearly 100 years!

Do yourself a favor - pedal to the curb quickly. Otherwise you will be run over by a younger generation who has long ago peeked behind the curtain of the old Scientific status quo and have found that you were also deceived. ijs

July 2, 2013 at 1:34 am

Eric Maggard Scott... yes, here is my review:

1) Errors in his calculations in Table 2.
2) I didn't work through the equations, but I think there is an error in his equation 11.

I have a couple of other issues with him and his "proof"

1) In his presentation in video 22, he doesn't include time in his "Brute-Force" method... which is necessary for the calculations
2) If he wants dialog, why are all of the comments disabled on his "relativitychallenge" website?
3) He posts the preliminary results from CERN about "faster than light" particles as "proof", but then doesn't post that they were in error. See title: "CERN Faster Than Light Experiment Proves Relativity Theory is Wrong"

I also did a cursory look on the internet and found a couple of posts about his paper, but they were shot down pretty readily. It seems he is also not applying the time and distance transform correctly, but didn't go into it. From this short review, I can see that he has some issues and don't want to waste my time with it.

I am curious as to why you are posting this on Open Theism, when most of the people here are probably Religion/Theology people with no background in Math?

July 3, 2013 at 11:46 am

Tom Belt My popcorn bowl is full and I'm enjoying the show.

July 3, 2013 at 12:05 pm

W Scott Taylor Eric, thanks for taking the time to personally look at the authors publication. The analysis of Einstein's Spherical Wave Proof showed that he did not recognize that his condition of the the proof of the theory allowed for a false-positive conclusion.

Equation 11, that you cited follows the method of verification of the solution of equations of assumed displacements by evaluating the derivative of the equation at known boundary's. In the case where values are known to be zero derivative of the equation must of course be zero. That's about as fundamental as one gets. You must have made a mistake there.

The supposed error you claim exist in Table II, since you did not run the numbers you are essentially 'wishing it were so'.

In short your effort was 'cursory' with a mild bias. The main point of my post and the article it self was to determine what kind of critics are using Science as the ground for marginalizing the 'inerrancy' of the Bible.

This article presents in a simple and direct manner what the Spherical Wave Proof consists of and uncovers a 'claimed' false positive by Einstein. While the claim is portentous for SRT and GRT, the check is relatively (no pun) simple to accomplish.

The rest of your effort was outside the main intent of the post. It seems that you didn't take to seriously. I am not surprised as that is the model or pattern of various 'Open Theists

July 3, 2013 at 12:28 pm

W Scott Taylor Eric, your response further reveal the typical response of those are accustomed to 'taking the word' of others for important Scientific postulates and theories. How easily the Bible can be marginalized these days.

You said "It seems he is also not applying the time and distance transform correctly, but [I] didn't go into it." Indeed.

Further, you asked:

"I am curious as to why you are posting this on Open Theism, when most of the people here are probably Religion/Theology people with no background in Math?"

The contention of many 'Open Theists' in academia is that Science is an important discipline for its influence in not just pure science, but in Cosmology as well, and there have been numerous conferences and books written by 'Open Theists' that indicated active participation in dialog with Science is a very high level of importance effort. And its no secrete that many Open Theists in academia use the 'supposed' finding in science to militate against the 'high view' of Scripture. I would think that at least they were availing themselves of this kind of exercise so that their own influence in this regard would be authentic and honorable.

July 3, 2013 at 12:38 pm

W Scott Taylor Tom Belt, you will surely need to refill you bowl, it get's better from here on out.

July 3, 2013 at 12:41 pm

Eric Maggard So, Scott... tell me why on the lines he highlights in Table 2, the time values are different than the others? I have to go to a meeting, but it seems to me the differences he is seeing is because of the time difference he is applying to the equation on those two lines. If you are going to calculate a circle or sphere... you need apply the same time to all points.

July 3, 2013 at 12:57 pm

Eric Maggard Scott: "While the claim is portentous for SRT and GRT, the check is relatively (no pun) simple to accomplish." Since it is so easy to accomplish, why didn't Bohr, Planck, or even Hawking refute it?

Scott: "You said "It seems he is also not applying the time and distance transform correctly, but [I] didn't go into it." Indeed." When you do translations like that, you need to do time AND space transforms like the Lorentz.

If you are going to correct my grammar... how about: "And its no secrete that many Open Theists in academia use the 'supposed' finding in science to militate against the 'high view' of Scripture." It is no secrete? Really? The really only way for someone to prove the "Open View" either true or false is to know the nature of God. Since we can't know that... then we can't prove or disprove Open Theism.

So how about Steven not updating his site and remove that "CERN Faster Than Light Experiment Proves Relativity Theory is Wrong"? He has been trying to "disprove" SR for 9 or 10 years now... SR has stood for over 100... don't see it being disproved yet.

July 3, 2013 at 1:41 pm

Eric Maggard How's the popcorn so far, Tom? :-)

July 3, 2013 at 2:33 pm

Tom Belt I keep waiting for a specific application of any of this to open theism. And I still have the same problem (sorry Scott) with Scott's...approach? attitude? categorical dismissal of those who disagree? It's easy to promote your view on a subject that requires a competency (math/physics in this case) that nobody among those you're promoting your view shares. One can always just say, "Well, if you could do the math, then I'd listen to you." Then why are you having this conversation here at all? Just to alert us to these cool articles we could read if you were interested? But we don't do the math, so...? And round and round we go.

I could post articles and debates on Arabic literature and grammar that none of you could participate in because you don't know Arabic, but what's the point of doing that HERE?

What I can do is notice that when it comes to the interpretation of quantum physics, there certainly seem to be competent physicists who can do the math and who disagree. So if I can't do the math, why should I believe Scott? Or that person? Or this person? I have to do the best I can to adjudicate the disagreements among experts who debate in a language I don't speak. And to the extent I can do THAT I'm inclined to think Scott is overly confident.

July 3, 2013 at 3:00 pm

Brent Henderson Peer review isn't perfect, but it is pretty effective. Much more trustworthy than 'doing the math ourselves.'

July 3, 2013 at 3:04 pm

Eric Maggard Tom... I guess the application for open theism is that if GTR or STR is debunked... then there would be no possibility for wormholes. If there is STR, then there is a possibility for God to create wormholes and travel through space/time and know what the actions/results would be for free will beings... How's that? So can God create and use these wormholes?

July 3, 2013 at 3:51 pm

Tom Belt Wow. God using wormholes! More popcorn. Told ya I liked Science-fiction!

July 3, 2013 at 4:15 pm

Brent Henderson Or is it that relativity is a threat to an exhaustively pre-determined future and therefore has to go? I thought maybe that was the reason.

July 3, 2013 at 4:17 pm

W Scott Taylor Now that you fellas have had your say, and complain that I'm really just brow beating others (gasp, wouldnt that be awful) or trying to suggest that your mode of thinking is really an expression of hubris all its own in marginalizing the Bible, I'll answer. :) Watch the butter Tom, it has a way of narrowing the old blood vessels.

July 3, 2013 at 5:59 pm

W Scott Taylor You guys are focusing on the minutia and obsesses in analyzing presumed psychological factor of why I'm making a big deal out of the apparent dearth of real exposure to that which Open Theism is seeking in the numerous seminars and dialogs between theologians and materialistic evolutionary scientific cosmology. And my don't we bristle at the hint of the pedantic in 'others'.

Arabic, Tom? Really? what in the hills of hot sand does Arabic have to do with:

"Open Theology Engaging Science" ?

I'm not sure but I think I have achieved part of my intended purpose in this OP and thread. In part that is to make the point, that so many who have majored in philosophy and theology and stress the importance of understanding the history and foundational concepts of discipline and spend endless hours of debate and censure of the schools that still languish in apparent ignorance of the the importance of proper vetting of various steps and conclusions in their discipline are themselves seemingly bereft of basic practical experience or a credible theoretical critique of that which they are sure invalidates a 'high view of scripture'.

The hubris of those who should know better by virtue of their profession who blindly 'go with the flow' of the latest views of 'Science' concerning Cosmology and the biological and geological facts of the planet we live on, is more than mildly appalling.

I cannot respect the criticism of those affirm a ''critical view' of Scripture based upon the naive adoption of the affirmations of a metaphysically materialist scientific community and its cosmology.

The incongruity of claiming a higher level of enlightenment and yet be so lopsided, in the main, in interdisciplinary experience across the cosmological divide offends me.

July 3, 2013 at 7:21 pm

1 Comment

Jason Amato

July 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm

Weekly Newsletter- Don Chamberlain "Not REALLY Love Ballads Of The OT" http://eepurl.com/B3JAr

Weekly Newsletter- Don Chamberlain- "Songs Of The Night" or "Not REALLY Love Ballads Of The OT"

us4.campaign-archive2.com

“The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.” ― Gloria Steinem *** Patient: My tongue tingles when I touch it to a cracked walnut wrapped in aluminum foil, what's wrong with me? Doctor: You have far too much free time! ***Freedom of speech is wonderful - right up there with the fre...

Comment

geebob - "I'm geebob and I approve this website".This website created and maintained by: © 2005-2012 Brian Martin ℅ theologyweb.com | image credit: The Thinker by Vit Kovalcik
Powered by WordPress and Mystique theme by digitalnature |RSS Feeds

%d bloggers like this:

Go to Top

John Sanders

1. The Bible portrays God as authentically responding to His people’s petitions.

2. The Bible portrays God as being affected by creatures and as sometimes being grieved by what they do.

3. The Bible portrays God as testing people in order to discover what they will do.

4. The Bible portrays God as changing his mind—altering his plans—as he relates to his creatures.

Different Understandings of the Nature of Language.

B. Prototypes of Sovereignty.

Conclusion

Share this:

Like this:

First Argument: The Bible affirms that God has knowledge of our future.

Second Argument: Theological tradition affirms that God has knowledge of our future.

Third Argument: If relativity theory is correct then the future is real. Since God knows all of reality, God must know the future.

Fourth Argument: A God with dynamic omniscience is not trustworthy

Summary and Conclusion

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Introduction

Traditionalist Views

Key Areas of Agreement and Disagreement

Conclusion

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

The Open Theistic Perspective

The Nature of Creation and God

The Nature of Redemption

Salvation and Environmental Threats

Share this:

Like this:

Introduction: Overview of the issues and summary of Open Theism.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Links

Tags

Open Theist’s Facebook Group

Facebook Status

Jesse Ward

Dan Baker

Would Our God Create Lucifer Knowing He Becomes Satan?

W Scott Taylor

Jesse Morrell

Does God Blind The Eyes and Harden the Hearts of Unbelievers? Is this Predestination?

Jesse Ward

Upcoming Conference

Jason Amato

Weekly Newsletter- Join Team Nehemiah!!

Jesse Morrell

Moral Government Theology on Free Will, Sin Nature, Original Sin, Total Depravity, etc...

Jason Amato

Weekly Newsletter- Nehemiah asks for a favor!

Drew Gasaway

Does Judaism Believe in Original Sin?

Drew Gasaway

Jesse Morrell

A Greek Exposition of Acts 13:48 - "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Jesse...

Timothy Fisher

Drew Gasaway

Jason Amato

Weekly Newsletter-Getting yourself committed

W Scott Taylor

Jim Gilles

W Scott Taylor

Kurt Johnson

On Inspiration

Rod Roguedemonhunter

So I am uncharitable? Maybe you should grow a pair...

Adam Hersberger

W Scott Taylor

Biggest Thing in Universe Found—Defies Scientific Theory

W Scott Taylor