Posts tagged Divine Foreknowledge

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.

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

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

Who has held this view in history?

by Brian Martin in Questions

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

Updated April 2013

By John Sanders

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

[1] Brümmer, What Are We Doing When We Pray? A Philosophical Inquiry (London: SCP, 1984), p. 44.

[2] Cicero, De Divinatione (On Divination), 2.5-8. See my “Historical Considerations,” p. 68. On Alexander see R. T. Wallis “Divine Omniscience in Plotinus, Proclus, and Aquinas” in H. J. Blumenthal and R. A. Markus eds. Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought (London: Variorum Pub., 1981), pp. 223-5 and J. Den Boeft, Calcidius On Fate: His Doctrines and Sources (Leiden: Brill, 1970), p. 54. On Porphyry see ibid., p. 56.

[3] Amonius came close in that he distinguished between definite and indefinite truths about the future. However, he seems to claim that the indefinite truths are only so for humans. Hence, they are indefinite only in an epistemic sense, not ontologically. Greg Boyd has suggested to me that Proclus emphasized the idea that God’s knowledge must be defined by the nature of divinity rather than by the nature of what is known (this allows God to know future contingents as necessities). Those after him, such as Augustine, presume that divinity must have exhaustive definite foreknowledge. Also, they assume that if one denies exhaustive definite foreknowledge then bivalence is denied. But there are ways to affirm bivalence without affirming exhaustive definite foreknowledge (see my The God Who Risks, revised edition, pages 335-6 note 133).

[4] Gregory Boyd argues that both non-Christian and Christian thinkers on this issue were shaped by widely held assumptions about the nature of truth and divination. See his “Two Ancient (and Modern) Motivations for Ascribing Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge to God: A Historic Overview and Critical Assessment.” Religious Studies 45 (2009): 1-19.

[5] Erickson, What Does God Know?, pp. 111-2, claims that Celsus, a Greek philosophical critic of Christianity, and the Christian heretic Marcion held to dynamic omniscience. This is not the case, however. Erickson cites Origen’s book, Against Celsus, 2.20, to prove that Celus rejected foreknowledge. In this text Celsus critiques what he considers to be an incoherence in Christian teaching. He argues that Jesus was not able to turn Judas and Peter from their wicked acts by forecasting what they were about to do. Surely, a true God could accomplish that. Elsewhere Celsus asks why God became a human. “Does he want to know what is going on among men? If he does’t know, then he does not know everything. If he does know, why does he not simply correct men by his divine power?” In Celsus on the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians, R. Joseph Hoffmann trans. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 76. His point is that a true God would both know and be in control. Celsus believes in providence, but not the sort that interacts with creation. Rather, God orders the universe for the good of the whole (Celsus, p. 85). He says (p. 103) that a true God is strongly immutable in all respects (that would include no change in knowledge), impassible (no sorrow or change of mind as the Christians hold), and is anonymous, beyond predication and human knowing. Celsus was a Middle Platonist for whom God was beyond being. For him, the Christian assertions regarding God’s involvement in history are grossly anthropomorphic. He rejects Origen’s notion that God “sees ahead” what we will do and then takes appropriate action not because he rejects foreknowledge, as Erickson claims, but because that way of thinking is beneath the grandeur of God. As for Marcion, Erickson cites Tertullian’s Five Books Against Marcion (2.5). Tertullian says that Marcion raised the traditional problem of evil: Can God be good, omnipotent and omniscient if evil exists? Tertullian then proceeds to argue that God is indeed completely good, prescient, and all powerful even though evil exists due to the freewill of humans. God, prior to creation, saw that humans would sin and so God made preparations in response. In this and the following chapters Tertullian argues against Marcion’s claim that God cannot be involved in the world the way the Old Testament describes. Marcion said that Yahweh (the God of the Jews) was a screwed up deity who was either capricious or lacked foreknowledge (2.23). For Marcion, a true God has prescience but Yahweh lacks it. Tertullian seeks to explain biblical texts where God is said to change his mind in a way that avoids Marcion’s criticism and thus affirm that Yahweh is the true God. Also, note that the Gnostic text, The Testimony of Truth, argues that the God of the Old Testament lacks foreknowledge and so cannot be fully divine. The Nag Hammadi Library, ed. James Robinson (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), p. 412.

[6] See Boeft, Calcidius, pp. 52-6. Calcidius’ works did not become well known until the twelfth century.

[7] See Michael Lodahl, “The (Brief) Openness Debate in Islamic Theology” in Thomas J. Oord ed., Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science (Pickwick, 2009), 55, 59.

[8] On Ibn Ezra see his Commentary on Genesis 22:1 (I am grateful to Marc Brettler for his translation). On Gersonides see Feldman, Seymour. “The Binding of Isaac: A Test-Case of Divine Foreknowledge.” Ed. Tamar Rudavsky. Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosophy: Islamic, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (Boston: D. Reidel, 1985), p. 114. See also, Richard Purtill, “Foreknowledge and Fatalism” Religious Studies 10 (1974): 319.

[9] Miley, Systematic Theology (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1892), vol. 1 p. 181.

[10] On Socinus see Charles Hartshorne and William Reese, eds. Philosophers Speak of God (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 225-227; and Joshua Toulmin, Memoirs of the Life, Character, Sentiments and Writings of Faustus Socinus (London: J. Brown, 1777), pp. 230-1. Some evangelical critics of open theism attempt to smear us by calling our view “Socinianism.” There is no historical linkage between open theists and Socinus. A more likely historical link is with McCabe.

[11] Andrew Ramsay, The Philosophical Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion (Glasgow: Robert Foulis, 1748).

[12] See Randy Maddox “Seeking a Response-able God: The Wesleyan Tradition and Process Theology” Bryan Stone and Thomas Oord eds., Thy Nature and Thy Name is Love: Wesleyan and Process Theologians in Dialogue (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), pp. 111-142.

[13] Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes (London: J & T. Clarke, 1810), his comment on Acts 2:47 is in his Christian Theology, Arranged, with A Life of the Author by Samuel Dunn, (New York: Lane and Scott, 1885), 69-74; and “Some Observations on the Being and Providence of God,” in Discourses on Various Subjects Relative to the Being and Attributes of God, and His Works in Creation, Providence, and Grace, (New York: B. Waugh and T. Mason, 1832), 298. In his survey, Erickson fails to mention any of these passages from Clarke and so erroneously concludes that Clarke did not affirm dynamic omniscience. See Maddox, “Seeking a Respond-able God,” for a discussion of the controversy surrounding Clarke’s views in Methodism. Billy Hibbard, Memoirs of the Life and Travels of B. Hibbard, second edition (New York: Pierchy & Reed, 1843), pp. 373-5. Erickson chides open theists for mentioning little known figures such as Hibbard. Erickson scoffs that he was unable to locate the book. I had no trouble finding it. The point in listing these people is to show that there has been a minority tradition among even orthodox Christians on this topic.

[14] McCabe, Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies a Necessity (New York: Phillips and Hunt, 1882) and The Foreknowledge of God (Cincinnati: Cranston and Stowe, 1887). For reprints of these works see http://www.eeminc.org/prodserv.html). For a summary of McCabe’s arguments see William McGuire King, “God’s Nescience of Future Contingents: A Nineteenth-Century Theory,” Process Studies9 (Fall, 1979): 105-115 and Tiessen, David Alstad. “The Openness of Model of God: An Evangelical Paradigm in Light of Its Nineteenth-Century Wesleyan Precedent.” Didaskalia (Spring, 2000):77-101. The most thorough study of McCabe and the discussion in latter nineteenth Methodism is the, as of yet, unpublished paper by George Porter, “Things That May Be Only? Lorenzo Dow McCabe and Some Neglected Nineteenth Century Roots of Open Theism in North America” (available online: https://opentheism.info/pages/information/porter/things_only.php

McCabe says that Isaak Dorner wrote him a letter affirming McCabe’s thesis. Divine Nescience, p. 29.

[15] See Maddox, “Seeking a Respond-able God.”

[16] See his Systematic Theology, vol. 1 pp. 180-193.

[17] Dorner, Divine Immutability: A Critical Reconsideration, Robert Williams and Claude Welch trans. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), pp. 149-153. Dorner also set forth this position in several other publications. Lengthy quotes from several of Dorner’s other publications appear in Lornzo McCabe, Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies a Necessity (New York: Phillips and Hunt, 1882), pp. 27-29, 285-7.

[18] Joel S. Hayes, The Foreknowledge of God (Nashville: Publishing House of the M[ethodist] E[piscopal] Church, South, 1890).

[19] T. W. Brents, The Gospel Plan of Salvation first edition (Cincinnati: Chase & Hall, 1874), pp. 92-108.

[20] Rowland G. Hazard, Freedom of Mind in Willing (New York: Appleton, 1865), chapter 12. On Jules Lequyer (name is sometimes spelled differently) see Donald Wayne Viney, “Jules Lequyer and the Openness of God,” Faith and Philosophy 14, no. 2 (April, 1997): 212-235 and Hartshorne and Reese, Philosophers Speak of God, pp. 227-230.

[21] See Hartshorne and Reese, Philosophers Speak of God, for Fechner (243-254), Pfleiderer (269-270), James (335-350), and Brightman (358-362). Brightman, The Problem of God (New York: Abingdon, 1930), pp. 101-3. Brightman belonged to the school of thought known as “Boston personalism,” which tended to affirm dynamic omniscience.

[22] On these scholars see their chapters in The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis, John Polkinghorne ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001). Though most of the contributors in this volume endorse dynamic omniscience I have not listed those from a process theology persuasion. Fiddes’, The Creative Suffering of God (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) is a first rate work discussing passibility and conditionality in God.

[23]Brümmer, What Are We Doing When We Pray?, pp. 43-5; Berkhof, Christian Faith, trans. Sierd Woudstra (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1979); König, Here Am I (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982); Wolterstorff, “Unqualified Divine Temporality,” Gregory Ganssle ed. God & Time: Four Views (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press), p. 188; and Boer, An Ember Still Glowing (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990).

[24] Finger, Christian Theology: An Eschatological Approach, 2 vols. (Scottsdale, PA: Herald, 1989), 2.481-508; Hebblethwaite, “Some Reflections on Predestination, Providence and Divine Foreknowledge,” Religious Studies 15.4 (Dec. 1979): 433-448; Clarke, God Knowable and Unknowable, p. 65; Ellis, Answering God: Towards a Theology of Intercession (Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster, 2005), pp. 187-9; Archer, “Open Theism View: Prayer Changes Things,” The Pneuma Review 5.2 (Spring 2002): 32-53; Callen, Discerning the Divine :God in Christian Theology, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004). Though Callen does not fully endorse the view in his book, he has informed in me in a letter that he does affirm it. Heinzpeter Hempelmann, Wir haben den Horizont weggewischt Die Herausforderung: Postmoderner Wahrheitspluralismus und christliches Wahrheitszeugnis (Wuppertal 2008). Albert Truesdale speaks approvingly of the view though it is not clear if he himself affirms it. See his “The Eternal, Personal, Creative God,” Charles Carter ed., A Contemporary Wesleyan Theology: Biblical, Systematic and Practical (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1983), 1.126.

[25] Jones, The Color of God: The Concept of God in Afro‑American Thought, (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987), p. 95.

[26]Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977); Hasker has published an enormous amount on the subject, see Providence, Evil and the Openness of God (New York: Routledge, 2004) and God, Time, and Knowledge (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989); Hasker and Basinger have chapters in The Openness of God; Basinger has collected a number of his essays in The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment (Downers Grove, Ill.: 1996); Van Inwagen, “The Place of Chance in a World Sustained by God.” Ed. Thomas Morris. Divine and Human Action: Essays in the Metaphysics of Theism. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988); A. N. Prior (“The Formalities of Omniscience,” Philosophy 32 (1962), pp. 119-29); J. R. Lucas (The Freedom of the Will, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970, and The Future: An Essay on God, Temporality, and Truth, London: Basil Blackwell, 1989); Peter Geach (Providence and Evil, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Richard Purtill (“Fatalism and the Omnitemporality of Truth,” Faith and Philosophy 5 (1988), pp. 185-192); and Keith Ward Divine Action (San Francisco: Torch, 1991). Frederick Sontag also affirms the view though he is significantly less orthodox than the other philosophers in this list. See his “Does Omnipotence Necessarily Entail Omniscience? Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34 (1991): 505-8.

[27] Wolterstorff, see his essay in God & Time: Four Views, p. 188 and his “God Everlasting.” Brümmer see Speaking of a Personal God (Cambridge University Press, 1992) and What are We Doing When We Pray? A Philosophical Inquiry (London: SCM, 1984).

[28] Each of these persons has an essay in God In an Open Universe: Science, Metaphysics, and Open Theism, eds. William Hasker, Thomas Jay Oord, and Dean Zimmerman (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011).

[29] Timothy O’Connor, Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012).

[30]Polkinghorne, Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Realilty (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), pp. 108-9; Barholomew, God of Chance (London: SCM, 1984), chap. 7.

[31] Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. (Abindon, 2005), The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (Fortress, 1984), The Book of Genesis in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Abingdon, 1994), Exodus (John Knox, 1991), “Divine Foreknowledge, Divine Constancy, and the Rejection of Saul’s Kingship.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 47, no. 4 (Oct. 1985): 595-602, “The Repentance of God: A Key to Evaluating Old Testament God-Talk.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 10, no. 1 (June 1988): 47-70, and “The Repentance of God: A Study of Jeremiah 18:7-10. Hebrew Annual Review 11 (1987): 81-92.

[32] See vol. 1 pages 136-8, 60-4, 168 and 98.

[33] Their key works are: Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2001); The Openness of God; Boyd, God of the Possible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2000) and God at War: The Bible & Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997), Rice, God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Freewill (Eugene, Ore.: WipfandStock, 2005), Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence, revised ed. (IVP, 2007).

[34] Willard, The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering our Hidden Life in God (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), pp. 244-253. Willard does not elaborate on whether he means (1) that God could have determined all future events (no libertarian freedom) and thus had exhaustive foreknowledge of them (what proponents of dynamic omniscience believe) or (2) that God could know the future actions of creatures with libertarian freedom but somehow chooses not to. Fackre, The Christian Story, rev. ed. in three volumes (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984), 1.257-8; Abraham, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985); Borgman, Genesis the Story We’ve Never Heard (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001); Knight, A Future for Truth: Evangelical Theology in a Postmodern World (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), pp. 168-179; Padget, God, Eternity and the Nature of Time, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992), and Tom Oord, The Nature of Love (chalice, 2010) .

[35] Saia, Does God Know the Future? A Biblical Investigation of Foreknowledge and Free Will (Fairfax, Virginia: Xulon Press, 2002); Pratney,The Nature and Character of God (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998); Elseth, Did God Know?: A Study of the Nature of God (St. Paul, Calvary United Church, 1977); Gordon Olson, The Foreknowledge of God and The Omniscience of the Godhead (Arlington Heights, IL: The Bible Research Corporation); L’Engle, Bright Evening Star: Mystery of the Incarnation (28-30).

and Brother Andrew And God Changed His Mind (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Chosen Books, 1999).

[36] See the Pentecostal, Kenneth J. Archer, “Open Theism View: ‘Prayer Changes Things’,” The Pneuma Review vol. 5 no. 2 (Spring 2002), 32-53).

[37] Millard Erickson (What Does God Know? p. 131) claims that the dynamic omniscience view stems from “the tradition of Celsus, Marcion and Socinus” (a non Christian and two heretics) rather than from the “orthodox” tradition. However, Erickson misreads Celsus and Marcion since they did not affirm dynamic omniscience. Even if they did, however, the position could just as well stem from the tradition of Cicero, Calcidius, and McCabe (a respected non Christian and two orthodox Christians). Several articles have been written giving evidence that McCabe is the main historical source for the contemporary openness movement (see the paper by George Porter on this website’s Information page). The dynamic omniscience view is a minority tradition among orthodox Christians and is widely accepted today. It is disappointing that Erickson fails to mention the contemporary theologians and philosophers cited above and that in his chapters on the biblical material fails to engage the detailed biblical studies of Terence Fretheim. Instead of dealing with the evidence Fretheim amasses Erickson simply casts aspersions on Fretheim’s credibility. He casts proponents of dynamic omniscience alongside “heretics” and “liberals” in order to claim they are outside “the mainstream of orthodox Christian thought” (131). Does he really want to say this about people such as Dallas Willard, Jürgen Moltmann, John Polkinghorne, Peter Van Inwagen and Barry Callen? Why does he not mention these and other proponents of dynamic omniscience? Does he want to make it seem that only a few people, from a suspect heritage, affirm it? Erickson ignores the connections between open theism and the freewill tradition. For him, “the God of traditional theism” is the Calvinist God who exercises meticulous control. Hence, “traditional Christian theism” means the no risk tradition of Augustine and Calvin. That is indeed a tradition in Christian thought but so is the older freewill tradition.

Biblical Theology Divine Foreknowledge EDF God Who Risks Hebrew Annual Review John Polkinghorne Old Testament Second Kings

Bibliography on Open Theism

by Brian Martin in John Sanders

by John Sanders

Updated 4/2013

This bibliography is arranged in five categories: (1) multi-views works, (2) works supporting open theism, (3) works engaging open theism, (4) works against open theism, and (5) doctoral dissertations and masters theses engaging open theism.

Open Theism and the Assemblies of God: A Personal Account of My Views on Open Theism

by Brian Martin in Tom Belt

by Thomas Belt
Assembly of God Missionary
Beirut, Lebanon
Summer 2002

Forward

To the esteemed members of the Commission on Doctrinal Purity…

As a missionary to the Middle East, I’ve spent countless hours observing the way indigenous Arabic speaking peoples discuss the issues of the day over tea and coffee in sidewalk cafes. The passion with which they discuss matters important to them is evident in their body language. Hands waving, eyes intent, voice inflections and volume all betray an intense love for lively debate and interaction. Rarely do people in this part of the world adopt a neutral position about anything! I find this curiously similar to the discussion presently underway among Evangelicals over what has come to be labeled “open theism.” Walk into any local Bible Study group, Sunday School class, or ministers conference and say the words “open theism” and you’ll not likely need to change the topic of discussion for lack of interest or boredom. Open theism has people talking and doing so quite passionately.

It’s a pleasure and a challenge to present on my own initiative this account of my views to the members of the Commission on Doctrinal Purity. This paper is a reworking of comments previously submitted to my home district, the Potomac District, in January 2002. My aim is to provide an account of the claims of open theism and to argue that this view, though it runs contrary to the historical consensus of believers, does not in fact compromise our fundamental truths, nor does it pose a threat to the essential unity of our Fellowship, our Pentecostal experience and theology of the Spirit, or our passion and vision as a missionary movement.

I read Dr. Edgar Lee’s recent article in the August 2002 issue of Enrichment Journal with great interest. I’d like to express appreciation to the Board of Directors for addressing this issue and special thanks to Dr. Lee for his thought-provoking comments and kind personal correspondence. Though I as an open theist disagree with Dr. Lee on several key points regarding his appraisal of the open view, I was challenged by his arguments. In light of his article, then, as well as the increasing popularity of the open view and the intensity of the opposition it faces, I offer this account of my views in the hope of furthering discussion and research as well as securing our Fellowship’s acceptance of the open view as one of several possible views on how God is believed to possess exhaustive foreknowledge of all things and what is the nature of the sovereignty which God exercises over creation in the fulfilling of his purposes.

One might inquire why, when the Assemblies of God has no official position regarding open theism, I feel it necessary to address my views to the Commission on Doctrinal Purity. I do so precisely because the Assemblies of God has no official position at this time and in the sincere desire to be one influence among many for encouraging our Fellowship to come out on the side of continuing dialogue, loving tolerance, and diversity in non-essentials.

Tom Belt
Beirut, Lebanon
Summer 2002

“Mr. Belt has written a clear summary of the openness position, articulated some of the main criticisms leveled against it, and provided cogent responses to these criticisms. He presents what ‘mainstream’ open theists affirm. He has done a fine job of articulating a statement with which I concur. As one of the leading scholars of the open model I’m delighted to recommend it to you.”

John Sanders

Professor of Philosophy & Religion, Huntington College, and author of The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence.

“Tom Belt has done an excellent job in summarizing open theism. He has stated the view accurately and has corrected numerous misinterpretations and distortions by critics of the view. Where open theists differ among themselves on some points, he has noted this and has made a responsible choice among the differing interpretations. His work should be of great assistance to the Assemblies of God as they seek to understand and assess this movement.”

William Hasker

Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Huntington College, author of God, Time, and Knowledge , and editor of Faith and Philosophy .

“This essay by Belt is on target as far as I’m concerned and will help to explain what openness theism is about….”

Clark Pinnock

Professor of Systematic Theology, McMaster Divinity College, author of

A Wideness in God’s Mercy , Flame of Love , and coauthor of The Openness of God .

“What an excellent article: well-written, well-informed, and gracious in spirit.”

David Basinger

Professor of Philosophy, Roberts Wesleyan College, author of Divine Power in Process Theism: A Philosophical Critique , and coauthor of The Openness of God .

“Over the last several years I have read or heard that we open theists deny God’s omniscience and sovereignty. I’ve read we believe in a ‘nail biting god’ who can only hope for the best in the future. I’ve read we don’t affirm inerrancy, we deny miracles, and we supposedly hold to a ‘process’ view of God. For an open theist such as myself, these charges are disconcerting. For, in point of fact, they have nothing to do with what open theists actually believe.

“Tom Belt’s essay is a refreshing contrast to all of this. Mr. Belt understands open theism accurately – indeed, profoundly. With admirable clarity he shows that the uniqueness of the open view is not about the nature of God’s foreknowledge, but about its understanding of reality as containing possibilities. He succinctly demonstrates that the open view is deeply rooted in Scripture and that it views God as having at least as much providential control in the world as classical Arminianism.”

Gregory A. Boyd

Professor of Theology, Bethel College, and author of God of the Possible , God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict , and Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Worldview.

Open Theism and the Assemblies of God

Thomas Belt
Assembly of God Missionary
Beirut, Lebanon, Summer 2002

What the open view is ^[1]

Open theism attempts to articulate an understanding of God’s relationship to creation that is biblically sound, philosophically convincing, and existentially fulfilling. In the simplest terms, the open view claims that the future is partly settled (that is, partly composed of certainties) and partly open (that is, partly composed of possibilities) and that God, being omniscient, knows it as such.

Traditional, or classical, theism has understood God’s omniscience to mean God knows from eternity all that shall ever come to pass. In such a view the future is from eternity exhaustively definite ( settled or certain ) from God’s point of view. He knows all of history as one definite story line. Calvinists have argued that the future is exhaustively settled in the will of God, i.e., God knows all that shall come to pass because he determines all that comes to pass. Arminians, on the other hand, have argued that the future is exhaustively settled in the mind of God, i.e., God does not predetermine all things but rather is eternally informed of all that will come to pass (either by virtue of timeless existence, some argue, or by virtue of middle knowledge, as argued by Molinists). Traditional Arminians argue that such foreknowledge provides God a providential advantage in ruling the world and achieving his purposes since it enables him to determine what his own actions are to be and so guarantee the desired outcomes. One such model of foreknowledge popular among Arminians, known as simple-foreknowledge, will be addressed later in this paper.

What is important to note for now, however, is that though Calvinists and Arminians disagree about how much of the future may be determined by God, both agree that God possesses “exhaustively definite foreknowledge” of the future (EDF). That is, God faces only “certainties” about what will happen as the future unfolds. He does not face any of the future as “possibly this may happen” or “possibly that may happen,” for all of history eternally exists in his mind as “definitely this” and “definitely not that.”

The open view suggests another model for understanding how and in what sense God knows the future exhaustively. [2] Though it agrees with Calvinists that God can and does unconditionally predetermine future events, it disagrees that God has decided to determine all the future in this way. It also disagrees with Arminians that God simply foreknows past, present, and future. Open theists agree that the future is as determined and settled as Scripture claims it is [3] and as open and unresolved as Scripture claims it is. A fully biblical understanding of this issue, then, would affirm both motifs. The future is composed of both “certainties” and “possibilities,” and God, being omniscient, knows it as such. The heart of the open view, then, is this belief that God faces genuine possibilities . Possibilities possess ontological status with God as possibilities .

What the open view is not

Does the belief that God faces possibilities as well as certainties mean God is less than omniscient? Some have insisted that this is exactly what the open view essentially amounts to, the denial of omniscience and the undermining of divine sovereignty. [4]

Allow me the opportunity to argue that this is not the case. The open view agrees with the orthodox belief that it is impossible that God should either fail to believe anything that is true or that he should believe any falsehood. In its scope God’s knowledge is exhaustive, encompassing the totality of reality, and in its nature it is infallible. To doubt that open theists maintain this is to not understand the open view. Open theists insist that God is omniscient, meaning he knows all of reality exactly as it is. Is there any other way to know it? Certainly not. God’s knowledge, in other words, is co-terminous with reality. Whatever reality is, God necessarily knows it perfectly. Whatever truths exist, God knows them perfectly. Whatever the future is, God knows it perfectly.

The question is not whether or not God is omniscient, the question is, What is the nature of the reality which God omnisciently knows? The point has nothing to do with the scope or perfection of God’s knowledge, but rather with the ontological status of the future . [5] Are possibilities real? Traditional theism (whether in its Calvinistic or Arminian form) denies that possibilities are real for God, for he eternally knows the future exhaustively as what shall come to pass and eternally possesses this knowledge as an immutable attribute. Open theists on the other hand insist (primarily on biblical grounds) that possibilities are real for God, not because God is other than omniscient, but because creation is other than exhaustively definite . Because creation is dynamic and not static , God is seen as dynamically omniscient . His knowledge of the universe changes as the universe changes. [6] Besides being widely confirmed by science, such an understanding of creation, I believe, leads to an understanding of God and his relationship to us that is more exalted and awe-inspiring than the traditional view.

However, if the future already exists “out there” somewhere in some unknown dimension of time [7] , open theists agree of course that God would know it in that sense. On the other hand, if the future is unformed as such [8] , then our future free choices simply aren’t there to view, and to suggest that such choices are not eternally known by God as what will certainly be is in no way a denial of his omniscience. Open theists might justifiably ask, presuming that creation is dynamic and possibilities are ontologically real, whether or not it is the traditional view that limits the scope and perfection of God’s knowledge by denying that he knows creation as comprising both certainties and possibilities. This all underscores the open view contention that this debate is essentially not about the doctrine of God’s knowledge but about the doctrine of creation. The open view argues that God is temporally eternal and not absolutely timeless [9] and that our future free choices do not yet exist in any objective sense of the word for an omniscient being to know. Hence, God does not eternally know such choices as what “will” come to pass but as what “might and might not come to pass.” [10] We deny God knows such choices as definite only because we deny they exist as definite. Again, the argument is not related to differing definitions of omniscience, but to different understandings of the reality which God infallibly knows.

As for the claim that the open view entails the denial of divine sovereignty, open theists happily disagree (as do all Arminians) with the Calvinistic model that views God as all-determining and sovereignty as absolute and exhaustively meticulous control of the details of history. The Bible does not lead one to conclude that God exercises this kind of control over the world. On the open model, God exercises a general sovereignty over creation, allowing us freedom to say “no” as well as “yes” to his will. [11] This entails the fact that God might not always get what he wants (e.g., Lk 7.30; 13.34; 2Pt 3.9). True, God’s ultimate purposes for creation cannot be jeopardized by any one individual (because our freedom, though real, is finite), but God’s purposes for individuals can fail to come to pass if those individuals choose not to cooperate with God. With this much Arminians would agree. The open view continues, however, in insisting that human choices to cooperate or not cooperate cannot exist as a foregone conclusion in the mind of God (though they are eternally known to God as possible outcomes).

Along these lines, in my view Dr. Ed Lee fundamentally misunderstands the open view when he claims “…to suggest that God’s providence is only general in nature, or that God is reduced to changing His plans when His creatures act, or that there are events in the future that God does not know is a major departure from the classical theology of both Calvinism and Arminianism.” [12] This would indeed be a major fault if it open theists believed it. But open theists do not argue that God’s providence is “only” general in nature, or that God is “reduced” to changing his plans when creatures act, or that there “are” (that is, “there exist”) events in the future that God does not know. Arminianism has always believed God exercises a general rather than a meticulous sovereignty, and open theists agree with this. We also agree that God is not limited to exercising such general sovereignty. He is perfectly free to intervene miraculously on occasion in highly specific ways, controlling whatever minutia he wishes to control. We only disagree that this is the only, or even the characteristic way, God has chosen to relate to us.

Neither is God “reduced” to changing his mind when we act, as Lee suggests is the case with the open view. On the contrary, open theists only insist that God is free to change his mind if he wishes to. He is not bound or “reduced” to having to do so. Examples of this would include God changing his mind regarding his declared intention to destroy Israel in response to Moses’ intercession (Ex. 32.14), God’s decision to change his mind regarding Hezekiah’s fatal illness, “adding” fifteen years to his life in response to Hezekiah’s plea (1Ki 20.1-6), and God’s own declaration of his willingness to change previously declared plans and intentions in response to people (Jer. 18.1-10). See also Joel 2.12-13 which celebrates God’s willingness to change previously declared intentions in response to us as an attribute worthy of worship.

Lastly, Dr. Lee’s comment, “God knows every detail of the future…and does not have to change His plans with every human decision” again misunderstands the claims of the open view. No open theist claims that God “has” to change his plans with “every” human decision. The question is, Has God created the sort of world in which he is free to change his mind if he wishes, and secondly, what is implied about God’s knowledge of the future if God is believed to possess this freedom and described in Scripture as exercising it? No one is suggesting God has created the sort of world in which he “has” to change his mind with “every” human decision.

Let me offer an analogy of the present disagreement. Suppose you and I are standing in a large room full of several hundred people. You study the room and say that there are two hundred fifty people in attendance. I say there are only two hundred people present. What are we disagreeing about? We’re disagreeing about how many people are in the room. But we both agree that God knows the exact number of people in the room. You believe God knows there are two hundred fifty people present while I believe God knows there are only two hundred people present. You believe God knows there are more people present than I do. Does this mean you believe God is omniscient and I do not? Does it mean you believe God is greater than I do because you believe he knows there are more people in the room than I do? Wouldn’t it be silly of you to accuse me of taking away from God’s glory and greatness because I disagree with you about how many people God knows are in the room?

This is analogous to the debate over omniscience. Despite claims to the contrary, it is not about whether God is God or whether or not God’s omniscience is exhaustive in its scope or infallible in its operation. It is about the “everything” which we both agree God knows. It is about the “contents” of the room. Let’s imagine the room is called “reality” and let’s imagine that all past, present, and future realities are in the room. We may disagree about what future “reality” is or about the specific nature of these realities (are they contingent or not?), but we do not disagree that omniscience means God knows exactly what is there even if we may disagree. (This whole dialogue would be catapulted forward if opponents of the open view would grant that open theists believe what open theists themselves insist is the case, that God’s omniscience is exhaustive in scope and perfect in its nature. This is not likely to happen, though, since branding open theists as “deniers of omniscience” helps discredit open theists among people who don’t know better, which I fear is what the more vocal opponents of the open view are interested in.)

So what about the future? Does all that will ever come to pass exist in the room? Does the future in this definite sense exist “out there” in some dimension of time unknown to us? Does God see the future in a way analogous to how we see the past, as already definite? Most of us grew up believing this. But there are good reasons for us to reconsider whether or not this is really true. The important thing to remember, however, is that both those who say the future (viz., all that will come to pass) is in the room and those who say it’s not in the room in this sense (for the future is at least partly comprised of what “may and may not” come to pass) agree that since God is omniscient he knows exactly what’s in the room. Thus, in terms of the definition of “omniscience,” including its exhaustive scope and its infallible nature, open theists are perfectly orthodox. The debate is about the nature and scope of creation and not about God’s knowledge . [13]

The God-world relationship has “integrity”

God speaks of the future in terms of what “may” and “may not” happen. He “regrets,” “grieves,” and “changes his mind.” He speaks conditionally of the future and experiences unfulfilled expectations. [14] He can be prevailed upon in prayer and is open to (not “reduced” to) adopting new courses of action in response to changing circumstances. What are we to make of such descriptions of God? Admittedly, God does not “change like shifting shadows.” His character is unchanging and holy , but Scripture certainly attests to his being virtuously flexible and open to change in his relations to creation and his response to us.

Among the most common arguments used against the open view is the claim that descriptions of God “changing his mind” and speaking of the future in terms of what “may” and “may not” happen are anthropomorphic or phenomenological and therefore describe God not as he is but only as he appears to us to be. Lee represents this approach:

The first group of texts cited [ those that suggest the future is to some extent open to possibilities ] that seem to show God dumbfounded before His creatures is most easily understood in the sense of God’s accommodating himself to limited human understanding. These texts employ gripping anthropomorphisms in which God is presented as though He was a human person in face-to-face relationships. In so doing, they also dramatically demonstrate that God wonderfully and personally relates to human beings in real time and space.

Allow me a couple of comments. First, the open view does not claim that openness passages ever portray God as “dumbfounded.” “Dumbfounded” means “so shocked that you cannot speak.” No open theist I have read or dialogue with has suggested such behavior may ever be appropriately attributed of God. In fact, such a belief is expressly ruled out by the open view. Secondly, open theists argue that the descriptions in question are not anthropomorphic in the strict literary sense as are descriptions of God’s “eyes,” “arms,” or “face.” But even if we grant that the descriptions in question are anthropomorphic in this sense, they nonetheless remain, as all anthropomorphisms do, “reality-depicting” [15] descriptions of God.

Thus, even as a literary anthropomorphism, “God changes his mind” communicates some truth about the divine side of the God-world relationship. [16] This relatedness possesses an integrity to it that is difficult if not impossible to account for if it is also true that God is incapable of changing his mind, experiencing unfulfilled expectations, or facing a partly open future as Scripture describes him. Such descriptions, whether strictly anthropomorphic or not, possess a two-way contingency that accounts for their revelatory character. Granted, God’s transcendence may certainly mean he is more than these descriptions reveal him to be (that is, God is not reduced to what these passages reveal), but neither is God less than or contrary to what these passages reveal him to be. The question is, What do these descriptions reveal about God?

Thirdly, I don’t see at all how the openness passages are, as Lee contends, “most easily” understood as literary anthropomorphisms. This seems to me to be a most difficult option to embrace. As anthropomorphisms, Lee suggests, such passages are existentially “gripping” (which I agree they are) and that God is “accommodating himself to our limited understanding.” But Lee immediately discredits this by claiming to possess an understanding of God that is sufficiently free from the limitations which, he admits, require God to use metaphorical speech in the first place. [17] What then remains “gripping” about the Bible’s description of God as experiencing unfulfilled expectations (Is. 5.1-4; Jer. 3.6-7, 19-20) or of genuinely changing his mind? Once I claim to know the truth that these passages portray God as relating and acting in ways not possible for him, they no longer function to bring me into “wonderful and personal relationship.” I of course agree that such passages are gripping, but only if they are believed to be true. For relating personally requires that personal self-disclosures genuinely reveal what they claim to reveal about a person, otherwise the relationship is predicated on mere appearances and not on truth. Thus, the intimacy with God which Lee correctly believes such passages invite us into is to be predicated upon their truthfully communicating something about the divine as well as the human side of the relationship.

More work needs to be done in the area of anthropomorphic language. The only concluding point which space allows me to mention here is that calling the Bible’s open motif “anthropomorphic” doesn’t really say anything to dismiss the open view. On the contrary, it creates its own set of problems for the traditional view.

What about simple-foreknowledge? ^[18]

What of the popular claim made by many Arminians that God simply “previews” (as it were) all of history? He doesn’t determine or cause all that happens, he simply “sees” it timelessly. On this view, our choices are free in the libertarian sense (viz., we could do other than we do), but God sees them timelessly and so eternally knows all that will ever come to pass. This view of God’s foreknowledge (rather than the Calvinistic view of an unconditional and all-determining divine decree) is that view most prominent among Assemblies of God ministers and laypersons. I’m personally unable to hold to such a view of God’s foreknowledge for several reasons:

First, it is incompatible with libertarian free will. Though there are those who argue that no contradiction exists in the claim that God eternally foreknows as definite our free choices, I’m inclined to side with those who argue otherwise. [19]

Secondly, I believe it to be unscriptural. Scripture portrays God as sometimes “changing his mind” in response to human actions, expecting what does not come to pass (e.g., Isa. 5.1-4; Jer. 3.6-7, 19-20), speaking conditionally about the future (e.g., Ex. 13.17; Jer. 26), and testing people “to know” what is in their hearts. However, if the future is eternally settled in the mind of God, it becomes impossible, in my view, to understand such descriptions as truthful depictions of God’s relatedness to us and we are left with no option but to view God’s speaking in such ways as disingenuous.

Thirdly, the simple-foreknowledge model affords no providential value whatsoever. If God timelessly knows all of history in the sense argued by advocates of simple-foreknowledge, then he knows his own as well as our choices, and he knows them in one single, timeless sweep. He does not acquire this knowledge in stages; he timelessly possesses it as an attribute. In this case, simple-foreknowledge provides God no providential advantage in governing the universe for the simple reason that God cannot intervene into the story line of history on the basis of such knowledge or access such knowledge in an attempt to determine what his own actions are to be. This includes attempting to prevent undesired events or to bring about what he does desire, warning and guiding people, and prophesying future events. What is foreknown, according to this view, is what actually happens and by definition is already the result of whatever has or has not been done to influence it. Such knowledge cannot then also be the basis of such interaction for the simple reason that this knowledge comes to God too late (logically speaking) for God to use in influencing outcomes. [20]

For example, let us say God timelessly knows that Susan will be in a fatal car accident on her 21 ^st birthday. Granted, this knowledge does not cause her death or determine her choice to go driving with her friends. We’re only talking here about whether or not timelessly definite foreknowledge provides God a basis upon which he is able to act providentially. Can God use his knowledge of Susan’s death to warn Susan not to go driving? Can God act in a miraculous way to prevent this accident? In fact, can God do anything on the basis of his knowledge that Susan will die to prevent her from dying? The answer to these questions is, of course, that God cannot intervene on the basis of simple-foreknowledge in order to prevent this event from happening. Since God’s foreknowledge is infallible, what he foreknows will happen will indeed happen . Not even God can act in order to change what he infallibly knows will come to pass. Simple-foreknowledge, if it existed, would be useless to God in preventing foreknown evil and other undesired events .

The same thing applies to God’s acting to bring about some event he wishes should happen. Why? Because by the time God foreknows what will happen, it’s logically too late to make use of this knowledge in order to bring about this event. The foreknown event is already the result of whatever divine influence contributed to bringing it about. It cannot also be the basis of that influence. On the simple-foreknowledge view, everything that God knows he knows timelessly. He doesn’t gain his knowledge of the future in stages. Therefore, if God were to timelessly possess exhaustively definite knowledge of past, present, and future, such knowledge could not provide him a basis upon which to determine how to act in ways not also timelessly foreknown by him. Thus, there is nothing a God who possesses simple-foreknowledge can do that a God who does not possess such foreknowledge cannot also do. [21] In truth, whatever might be the reciprocal nature of the relationship between God’s actions and ours within the foreknowledge of God, the simple-foreknowledge model offers us no help whatsoever in understanding it. In my exposure to advocates of simple-foreknowledge, it appears the chief reason they hold to this model is because of the perceived providential advantage they believe it gives God and the perceived basis for trust in God they believe it gives them. But once the providential uselessness of simple-foreknowledge is faced, and the providential advantage of infinite intelligence (to be discussed immediately) is understood, one can continue trusting God with the added benefit of not having to embrace beliefs which explain nothing.

Lastly, the integrity of divine-human relations and God’s knowledge of tensed facts require, in my view, the abandonment of the timeless view of God in favor of temporal eternity. [22] God engages in real relations with a changing temporal world and so has perfect knowledge of tensed facts. These entail his being temporal. I would also argue, though the open view does not require it, that the integrity of God’s triune personhood suggests there is in some sense of the words a “before” and an “after” that characterize God’s own inner triune life irrespective of his relating to creation [23] —the eternal, loving fellowship that exists between Father, Son, and Spirit and that constitutes God’s own experience and enjoyment of himself. God is not an “eternal, unblinking, cosmic stare” [24] ; he is from eternity actively self-related and personal.

Who is really limiting God in this debate? God’s “Infinite Intelligence”

Is not a God who faces “possibilities” as well as “certainties” less able to achieve what he wants? Is not such a God weakened in his ability to deal with his enemies and to overcome opposition? Is not such a God less great and glorious than one who faces only certainties about the future? Not at all. God’s ability to deal with what happens is not in the least affected by the fact that he faces a future comprised of “possibilities” and “certainties” as opposed to one comprised exclusively of “certainties.”

The answer lies in appreciating how very intelligent God is. God is infinitely intelligent . And if we dwell on this a bit we’ll see how powerful an idea it is and appreciate its explanatory force. As an infinitely intelligent person, God would eternally foreknow all possibilities, all the possible story lines and trajectories, including all the possible responses he might give and all the possible counter-responses of people. Being infinitely intelligent, God is able to attend to a trillion such possibilities as if each possibility was the only thing that could happen . [25] When an event which was only possible becomes actual, open theists insist that God was perfectly and eternally aware that things might happen this way and so was perfectly and eternally prepared for this , no less prepared than if this was the only thing God had to contemplate from all eternity.

We humans possess finite intelligence. This means that our ability to think, plan, and prepare for the future is limited if we face possibilities as opposed to certainties. For example, if we have only one certainty to prepare for, that certainty receives 100% of our intelligence and attention. But suppose we have ten, fifty, or a hundred possibilities to contemplate. We are necessarily less prepared for them, for our intelligence is divided by ten, fifty, or a hundred. It becomes more difficult for us to attend to possibilities the greater their number because of our finiteness.

But God is infinitely intelligent, meaning his intelligence doesn’t get “spread thin” or “divided among” all the possibilities he attends to. He can bring all his attention and preparation to bear on each one of any number of possibilities and not be any less prepared than if he were to anticipate only one certain outcome. Whether God eternally knows X as one certain outcome or whether he eternally foreknows that X is one of a million possible outcomes only one of which will happen, it makes no difference. God is equally prepared for X either way. Though we would be placed at a great disadvantage in such a circumstance, God is not. In the open view [26] , then, God does not under- know the future, he over- knows it, quite contrary to what opponents of the open view argue. This is a crucial supporting argument open theists claim helps account for God’s providential care of the world, but it is almost entirely overlooked by opponents of the open view. [27]

Consider the game of chess as an analogy. Suppose I challenge Kasparov to a match. Kasparov doesn’t possess definite foreknowledge of my moves, but he does possess knowledge of the possible moves I may make (and in certain circumstances throughout the match he will be able to predict with certainty some of my moves). Because he is far more intelligent than I am, he is able to anticipate and prepare ahead of time adequate responses to any move I may make. Is there then any question about who is in control of the game? Is there any question about who will win? None whatsoever. Kasparov is not put at any disadvantage whatsoever by having to consider possibilities as opposed to certainties. How much more would this be the case if, for example, I were challenging God to a chess match? Who fears that God might lose the match if he were asked to attend to possible moves and responses in addition to certain moves and responses? Who is really limiting God in this debate?

Let us grant for the sake of argument, however, that Kasparov does possess a printout of the entire match, including all of my and his moves, in a manner analogous to simple-foreknowledge. Would this knowledge give Kasparov any advantage? Would he be able to make use of this knowledge in order to determine his moves ahead of time? The answer, of course, is no. There’s absolutely no advantage to be gained by Kasparov (and some problems created) by his having definite foreknowledge of every move in the game. On the contrary, such knowledge could not at all explain how it is that Kasparov is able to prepare for the game or how he is able to interact during the game.

Does God play chess? There are three reasons for believing this is a good analogy of the way God relates to us:

First, as we’ve already seen, if God possessed timeless knowledge of every move I make in life, it would do him no good. He could not use this knowledge to strategize, plan, or respond to any of my moves, for every move he ever makes is equally foreknown in the one timeless act of knowing. Timeless knowledge is providentially useless.

Secondly, in the open view, possibilities give God room to move and act, room which timeless knowledge cannot provide. It accounts for how we actually live our lives and relate to God as well as for how God is able to act providentially in the world.

Thirdly, God’s glory and greatness are increased if we understand him as infinitely intelligent and facing a partly open future. Who is more glorious—a God who timelessly faces a future he can do nothing about, or a God who achieves his purposes by perfectly knowing and preparing for all possible futures? Who do we admire more—a chess player who plays you with a computer printout of all the moves you will make, or a chess player who, facing genuine novelty as the game proceeds, and perfectly attending to every possible move and the constantly changing probabilities, is nevertheless creative and resourceful enough to guarantee the final victory? I’m genuinely surprised that anyone, Pentecostals especially, would call into question the orthodoxy of somebody who chooses to believe the latter describes the greater God.

Lastly, as amazing as it may seem, the simple-foreknowledge model seems to me to be nothing more than pre-recorded open theism. Consider, the simple-foreknowledge model believes that we live in a world where God really responds to us, where we are really free to choose, where our prayers really make a difference to God, and where things might sometimes really be different than they are. Open theists also believe we live in this kind of world. The only difference is that advocates of simple-foreknowledge believe that everything about this world exists eternally in God’s mind, and their trust in God’s providential care rests in this being the case. But I ask, what difference would such knowledge make to God? What difference would it make to the world? What providential advantage would God gain by possessing this kind of foreknowledge as opposed to knowledge of all possible story lines? None whatsoever. And if such knowledge is of no practical value to God, believing that he possesses such knowledge is of no practical value to us.

God created us for loving relationship

The open view follows rather naturally from the belief that God created humankind for loving relationship. By definition, love must be freely chosen. Thus, creating us with the capacity for saying “yes” to loving God also meant creating us with the capacity for saying “no” to God. If we can’t say “no” to God, we can’t love God either. Creating a world capable of genuine love and intimacy, therefore, involved a risk on God’s part, the risk that we might choose not to love him. On the open model, the choice to love or not to love God responsibly and with integrity cannot be predetermined by God ( contra Calvin) nor can it be eternally foreknown as certain by God ( contra Arminius).

Does God take risks? If freely chosen love is even part of why he chose to create, then by definition risk cannot be avoided. Is such love worth risking the eternal consequence of rejecting this love? We certainly believe the experience of our love worth this risk. Every day parents decide to have children in spite of the possibility that they won’t turn out as hoped and in so doing declare that they believe love is worth the risk. We have children in spite of knowing they “may” be raped, murdered, or worse still, become rapists or murderers. We have them in spite of the possibility they “may” refuse our and God’s love and suffer eternally for it. What right do we have to bring a life into the world facing such risks? Yet we have children. Why? We have them because we deem the possibility of genuine love worth the risk, and because of the possibilities of their bringing about good in the world. On what basis are we to declare God incapable of taking similar risks? Does his perfection demand it? Certainly not. Does simple-foreknowledge require or even make sense of it? Hardly. The only risk-free world for God is that posited by Calvin, one which is exhaustively and unconditionally determined by God’s will alone. In that world everything goes as planned.

The open view rejects the belief that God chose to create the sort of world posited by Calvin and argues instead that God faces a partly settled and a partly open future, in which our choices make a real difference (i.e., an undetermined difference) from God’s point of view to why events are sometimes not what they might otherwise have been, and in which our relationship of freely chosen love is a relationship of integrity and genuine give-and-take. Bottom line—God isn’t the only one deciding what happens. He sovereignly determined to create a world in which some of what happens would be left up to us and is put at no disadvantage whatsoever by foreknowing much, even the vast majority, of our contribution as possible outcomes rather than certain outcomes. Thus, we coauthor history with God, although in limited ways sovereignly determined by God, yet as real for him as for us . This is open theism.

What’s it matter? The practical implications of believing in a partly open future

I suppose it is the perceived practical implications of believing the future to be partly open which in the end tip the scale for or against the open view in many people’s minds. Can a God who ever faces possibilities, whose expectations sometimes do not come to pass, be trusted to guide us? Can such a God be trusted to achieve his ultimate purposes? I think so. It was the practical implications of the open view which ultimately led me to adopt it. Space doesn’t permit a thorough treatment of the practical implications of the open view, but I’d like to mention three.

First, consider the place and urgency of prayer. It is precisely here where God invites us to participate with him through petitionary prayer and obedience in accomplishing his purposes. For such prayer to have integrity to it, I believe, it must be the case that we genuinely influence the outcome of events. That is, many times the future God intends to actualize through us fails to come about as desired because we fail to respond as we might. The point is that things might genuinely have been different from God’s point of view had people made different choices. But if the potential difference which prayer makes is as real for God as we believe it is for us, then God faces a future that is in some respects open and unresolved and has freely decided to allow us a part in resolving it. Open theists simply point out that it is not resolved until we resolve it and hence cannot be eternally foreknown in its resolved state. [28] Our lives make a difference to God and the world, and this difference possesses integrity for both God and us. In my view the open view makes best theological sense of this difference.

Secondly, consider how most, if not all, of us already live our lives. Christians universally live as though the open view were true. We believe that when we deliberate between two options we face genuine possibilities either of which “may” come to pass. We believe that when we fail to pray events God wishes to bring to pass sometimes do not come to pass (e.g., Ezek 22). This in itself is an admission of the intuitive belief that the future is partly open, that our choices many times bring about events that might just as easily not have come about. We believe that some events could have been other than they were and that our choices to cooperate with God or not through prayer and obedience are at least sometimes the ultimate explanation of why these events were not what they could have been, or of why they were what they might not have been. Our prayers and obedience to God are his means for transitioning such possibilities into realities. [29] The open view simply seeks to articulate a theology and an understanding of the future that accounts for what Christians universally experience and believe intuitively to be the case. [30]

Thirdly, consider the important issue of guidance. What are we doing when we seek God for guidance? If we believe in a blueprint model of guidance, then we believe guidance is essentially an attempt to discover the contents of a “classified divine blueprint.” [31] Who we will marry, how many children we will have, what direction our education is to take, our vocation, where we take our vacations, whether we believe in open theism or not (!), all these and more are eternally mapped out, either by God’s will (Calvinism) or in God’s mind (Arminianism), on one divine blueprint. Guidance then amounts to asking God to reveal parts of this blueprint to us so that we stay on course. For Calvinists, in the end whatever course our lives take, guidance or no, that course reflects in every detail God’s decreed will for us. Guidance (or the lack of it) is viewed as God’s predetermined means for achieving predetermined ends. I’m aware there are Calvinists who claim to find this a meaningful model for relating to God and I am happy for them. I personally can’t pretend to imagine relating to God or seeking his guidance on such grounds.

For Arminians who advocate a form of simple-foreknowledge, as most Assemblies of God ministers do, guidance is rendered incoherent on different grounds. Arminians concede that God’s will is not always done. Some grant that gratuitous evil exists. All would insist that guidance plays a determinate role in bringing about events that might otherwise not have been. Still, the entirety of our lives in every detail is eternally known to God. Those advocating the simple-foreknowledge model insist that guidance be sought and that God be trusted precisely because he is believed to possess such knowledge. God, it is argued, can use this foreknowledge to guide us if we seek it. But as we’ve already seen, such a belief is misguided. No such guidance based on simple-foreknowledge is possible.

Mary seeks God’s direction regarding a proposal of marriage. Should she marry Sam? Sam is a believer and, like Mary, wants to enter the ministry. Together they attend counseling. They pray and fast, desiring God’s guidance. In the end, together with concerned friends and spiritual leaders, they come to the conviction that God’s will is that they marry. Within a few years, however, Sam is unfaithful and abusive. Soon they divorce and Mary is left with a young baby to bring up on her own. What happened? For the consistent Calvinist, it cannot be possible that Mary missed God’s decreed will for her life. Calvinists would tell Mary that God decreed this tragedy for a greater purpose, perhaps to teach her patience or to provided an opportunity for God to be glorified as just and holy when Sam is judged for doing this. [32] Mary can take comfort in knowing that God guided her into this marriage for good reasons, even if she never knows what those reasons are.

For the Arminian advocate of simple-foreknowledge, things do not fare much better, for this outcome was eternally foreknown by God. This is the future God infallibly knows will happen. God knows Sam will backslide, become abusive to Mary, and eventually betray her. Can God advise Mary not to take Sam as her husband on the basis of this knowledge? He cannot. What are we then to expect in terms of guidance, that is, wisdom in choosing between options, if we believe God possesses only knowledge of what shall happen and deny that he possesses knowledge of what might and might not happen? As we have already seen, simple-foreknowledge is providentially useless. God cannot lead Mary not to marry Sam on the basis of his foreknowledge that she will marry Sam and that Sam will become abusive and unfaithful. It is equally impossible to claim that God “permitted” this marriage to go through on the basis of foreknowing it. Guidance on the Arminian/simple-foreknowledge model then is reduced to believing that God uses foreknowledge of we shall and shall not do, of what shall and shall not happen, to lead us to do or not to do that which is foreknown. Besides being incoherent, there is no room for actual guidance.

An advocate of simple-foreknowledge can counsel Mary to take consolation in the fact that God eternally knew this would happen. We can hold her hand and support her now, but we cannot meaningfully explain to her that God genuinely believed things could have turned out differently. Some may suggest that there exists some reason, perhaps the service of some higher “ultimate good,” for God’s specifically allowing this to happen. If she thinks things through, however, Mary will discover that simple-foreknowledge provides her little consolation. Why? Because if simple-foreknowledge were true, the question of God’s specifically “allowing” this tragedy (as if he could have “prevented” it) cannot meaningfully be asked. On this model of foreknowledge, God neither allows nor prevents on the basis of what is foreknown; he simply “knows.” [33]

What would an open theist tell Mary? He would tell her that real possibilities exist from God’s point of view. One possibility God foreknew, presumably by far the most probable outcome, was that San would continue to grow in his faith and become a godly partner. The other possibility known to God was that Sam would regress in his spiritual life and become an abusive and unfaithful husband. Both were genuine possibilities known to God (and should have been recognized as such by Mary). God’s advice to Mary and Sam at the time was most wise because it had the greatest possibility of producing the greatest possible good in the world. But possibilities are, after all, possibilities even for God. An open theist would suggest to Mary that her divorce does not mean God’s guidance was mistaken [34] , neither should she assume that God’s giving her the green light to marry Sam was either his guarantee that all would go smoothly or God’s way of bringing about whatever greater good he believed her certain divorce would serve. Just because we sometimes interpret God’s guidance as indicating a risk-free future doesn’t mean God’s “yes” is confirmation of this.

An open theist would tell Mary that God always knew Sam was free to follow the path of self-destruction. That Sam chose this path over faithfulness to his wife grieves God as much as it does Mary. The divorce did not have to happen, neither did God foresee it as definite . Nor did God allow her marriage to crash and burn in order to teach her patience or to contribute to some hidden higher purpose. God hates divorce, and we have every biblical reason for believing God did everything he could to lead Sam away from this sinful choice. An open theist would then tell Mary that God is loving, creative, and resourceful enough to recast from the wreckage of her pain and suffering a new future, a plan B, a latter temple more glorious than the first, if she cooperates with him. God is at work in her circumstance for good. God can do this because there is no eternal blueprint which describes in every detail the path Mary’s life must or even will take.

In the open view, guidance is not an attempt to peer into the crystal ball of an exhaustively definite future, or to pry into a divine blueprint containing the details of our every move. Such a view of foreknowledge actually precludes genuine guidance, guidance that presents us with real options each one of which holds out to us genuinely alternative futures. This sort of guidance by definition requires that the future be open at least with respect to that regarding which we seek guidance. Open theists ask us to reconsider what biblical guidance is and what we may and may not legitimately seek guidance for. If we believe guidance amounts to seeking absolute assurances that our marriages will not end in divorce, that the children we’re considering having will not go to prison or turn their backs on God, or that our retirement investments will not dry up, then we’re in for disappointments. Such guarantees are not to be had in the real world. We ought to develop an understanding of God’s relationship with us and guidance of our lives that at least attempts to account for the risk-filled world in which we actually live. God did not create a risk-free world, the sort of world in which guarantees regarding our future are always possible.

This does not mean God doesn’t have plans, doesn’t intend us to do certain things or go certain places, or that he is sitting quietly on the sidelines of world history waiting for us to tell him what to do (as some have incorrectly understood the open view). Indeed, we do seek to know God’s heart and mind for our lives. God is not without preferences or plans. It only means that his plans and intentions about a great many things are not eternally present in blueprint form and that they are not always fulfilled. Guidance, therefore, should not necessarily be understood “before the fact” as guaranteeing particular outcomes if only God’s directions are followed, nor should such guidance be understood “after the fact” as necessarily indicating that the tragic way things sometimes turn out is “God’s will” after all.

Abandoning the blueprint method of guidance also means that sometimes we may face equally workable options, any one of which God would be happy for us to take because he’s equally capable of bringing about his purposes for us regardless of which we choose. Such freedom is sometimes available. If I wish to drive from my home to my office I have several equally good ways of getting there. I doubt that God has one avenue eternally mapped out in his mind as the one I shall take. Likewise, God’s purposes for our lives may sometimes permit any number of avenues to fulfillment. God is secure and resourceful enough to leave some things open to us.

Of course, open theists do indeed celebrate the fact that God is great enough to guarantee particular outcomes when he wishes to do so (not because he eternally foreknows them via simple-foreknowledge, but because he’s decided not to countenance objections to his will in such cases). The question is, Does God relate to us exclusively, or even characteristically, in such deterministic ways? Not if love is even part of the reason why he created us. Love requires freedom, and freedom entails risk, even for God. Our seeking guidance from and trust in God rest on his loving and faithful character demonstrated throughout history, chiefly in Christ’s death for us, and not in particular theories of foreknowledge about which any of us may be mistaken. I look at God on the cross for me, God pursuing me, God’s infinite love for me, and I say to myself, “I can trust a God like this .” I don’t need to know that such a God possesses exhaustively definite foreknowledge in order to trust him.

Regardless of whether one rejects the open view or not, tragedies such as Mary’s are experienced by people every day, even by those who faithfully follow God’s guidance. So what’s this tell us? It tells us that God’s guidance, even if perfectly followed for a lifetime, would not prevent such tragedies. The question is how we deal with such disappointment and suffering. And here, in my view, neither Calvinism nor classical Arminianism offers any more consolation than the open view. In fact, the simple-foreknowledge (Arminian) view provides the weakest basis upon which believers may find consolation and be encouraged to trust God for two reasons. First, God cannot guide us on the basis of simple-foreknowledge. On this model, what is foreknown is by definition already the result of whatever guidance was or was not sought. Secondly, it leaves God foreknowing evil he does not will but which he can do nothing to prevent.

The appeal to antinomy

Some today encourage us simply to affirm, without attempting to resolve, the contradiction that God eternally foreknows as certain (or as some would argue, as unconditionally determined) all that comes to pass but that humans are nevertheless free and morally responsible for what they do. Some openly affirm that Calvinism and Arminianism are both equally true and we should affirm the claims of both. God eternally knows all that shall come to pass but also genuinely regrets, changes his mind, and experiences unfulfilled expectations. Open theists are sometimes accused of having sold out to rationalism, of having reduced God to the categories of human logic, and of being unwilling to look into the mirror and embrace their own limitations.

The doctrine of the Trinity is often appealed to as an example of a case in which we already affirm a self-contradictory belief. On this view, claiming that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons who nevertheless eternally possess one undivided nature thus constituting one God is thought to be self-contradictory; that is, the Trinity constitutes an antinomy. It’s then argued that since we affirm antinomy in the doctrine of the Trinity, why insist that antinomy be avoided with regard to divine sovereignty and human freedom? Let’s admit both are true: God eternally knows as certain all history, human choices included, and we are also free and morally responsible for our actions. It is admitted that this presents us with a contradiction, but it makes perfect sense to God. There it is. We must deal with it.

Whether or not we should affirm self-contradictory beliefs is a crucial question. I submit that mystery is one thing and self-contradiction is quite another, and that the latter has no place in Christian theology. [35] Scripture nowhere encourages us to affirm or bow our knee to self-contradictory claims. I can think of several reasons why dismissing with logical coherence is a fatal step to take. First, the logically impossible cannot be meaningfully embraced by us or attributed to God. God cannot make a square circle or a married bachelor, and we do not make God greater or more glorious by insisting that he can perform such actions. More importantly, we cannot meaningfully relate to such claims. They have no meaning for us. Thus, there is no cash value to be had, existentially speaking, in embracing such claims. The doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, for example, are meaningful doctrines. Though they are indeed mysterious, they are not self-contradictory. They are not the logical equivalent of square circles or married bachelors. In order for the Trinity to constitute an antinomy of this sort, what would need to be asserted is belief in “one God and three Gods.” Such a belief would then provide an antinomy that logically parallels the Calvinist’s claim that “God unconditionally determines our choices and we are justly held responsible for them” and the Arminian claim that “God eternally foreknows as certain the free choices we will make.” The doctrine of the Trinity, however, does not claim this and thus does not provide us with an example of the sort of thing some urge us to affirm with respect to God’s sovereignty and human freedom.

Secondly, if we seek to speak meaningfully of God and to meaningfully articulate God’s self-revelation, logical coherence must be maintained. The alternative is agnosticism. If we admit logically self-contradictory claims, then we abandon one of the necessary criteria of meaning. We also would have little basis upon which to combat false teachings (like open theism!) on the basis that they don’t make sense. [36]

Therefore, thirdly, as I argued earlier, God’s transcendence may certainly mean he is more than the openness passages reveal him to be, but if we are to maintain that Scripture “reveals” God to us it must also be that God is not less than or contrary to what these passages reveal him to be. Open theists don’t claim to possess an exhaustive understanding of the Triune nature of God or the incarnation. God is certainly beyond our comprehension. What is claimed is only that what God has chosen to reveal to us cannot meaningfully be embraced or expressed by us in self-contradictory terms.

Lastly, open theists don’t doubt that life is full of mystery or that the complexities of our world are often incomprehensible to us. Often times we are left with no explanation for our circumstances and simply have to trust God. The open view is not an attempt to remove such mystery from life or a refusal to embrace our limitations. It is rather an attempt to seek to define and live with that mystery more biblically.

CONCLUSION

To briefly summarize, then:

Open theism understands the future as partly settled and partly open . Both the genuinely determinate and the genuinely indeterminate exist and God knows them as such. Both motifs are described in Scripture and together constitute the dynamic sort of future which God perfectly knows.

Open theism insists that God is omniscient, meaning his knowledge is co-terminus with reality. It is neither the nature nor scope of God’s omniscience which the open view questions. It is rather the nature and scope of creation itself, the object of God’s omniscient knowledge, which open theists seek to understand more accurately.

Open theism affirms God’s sovereign rule over creation but understands this not as meticulous control of every detail of history. God can and does determine minutia, but does not do so exclusively. His ultimate purposes for creation are settled and non-negotiable, but the routes to fulfilling these purposes are sometimes open. God is confident, wise, and resourceful enough to accomplish his ultimate ends without having to determine the minutia of history. Some routes to accomplishing these ends are open precisely because it is God’s wish that they be determined through our choosing to partner with him.

Open theism believes that God has sovereignly chosen to create a world in which human beings are granted libertarian free will. This means that God may not always get what he wants, for we may choose not to realize his purposes for us. Such a world, however, is the only kind of world in which love is possible. In addition, God’s relationship to us possesses an integrity to it which is impossible to account for on the belief that he either causes all things or eternally foreknows them as certain.

Open theism denies that God is absolutely timeless, immutable, and impassible. God experiences the flow of time, undergoes changing states of mind and emotion, interacts with us in genuine give-and-take relationships, and is open to change (not in his essential nature, but in his relationship to creation).

Open theism argues that self-determining free choices cannot be eternally foreknown as certain, though God, being infinitely intelligent, eternally knows all possibilities and thus all possible choices we may ever make. As such, God is able to attend to an infinite number of possible story lines, perfectly anticipating each possibility as if it were the only thing that could have happened. God is not so insecure and unintelligent a Sovereign that the accomplishing of his ultimate purposes requires that he be limited to having to attend to only one certain route to the fulfillment of these purposes as opposed to several possible routes to their fulfillment.

Evangelical leaders sign joint statement

Some evangelical leaders have become convinced that some “ultra-conversative” evangelical scholars want to exclude open theists from the wider evangelical family. In response, Baylor University’s theologian Roger Olson, Jonathan Wilson of Westmont College, and Stanley Grenz of Regent College have together drafted “The Word Made Fresh: A Call For a Renewal of the Evangelical Spirit.” Some 110 evangelical scholars have signed the document, calling upon evangelicals everywhere to reaffirm their core beliefs in the Lordship of Christ, the authority of the Scriptures, and the reality of the new birth. [37]

Has the open view been historically popular? Not at all. But why should this bother Pentecostals who are already familiar with embracing positions and experiences which ran contrary to the prevailing consensus? Our theological tradition is extremely important, but it is not infallible. We only ascribe to Scripture itself such authority. Our systematic formulations are not above error and must be open to reform. For this reason alone we must at least grant the possibility that tradition could be wrong on this matter.

Is the open view a new creation of Clark Pinnock or motivated by process theology? This can hardly be maintained. Neither Pinnock nor Whitehead were even born when the well-known Methodist Rev. Lorenzo McCabe advocated the open view in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and engaged Methodists on this question, or when the evangelist Billy Hibbard or the Bible commentator Adam Clarke advocated a partly open future. Nor did anyone accuse Calcidius, the fifth-century Christian theologian, of being a heretic when he advocated the open view in precisely the same terms as is being argued by open theists today. [38]

How much weight should we give, for example, to the creeds of the seven ecumenical councils on this matter? What do they say regarding the Church’s understanding of God’s knowledge of the future? Do they establish any one view as “the” traditional view? They do not. Neither the Apostles’, Nicean, Revised Nicean, Chalcedonian, nor Athanasian creeds, indeed not one of all the affirmations of the seven councils have a single word regarding God’s foreknowledge or the nature of his omniscience. [39] It is impossible to argue that the ancient creeds of the church establish as “the” orthodox position any one particular view on the precise manner in which God was believed to possess knowledge of all things. [40]

What should the Assemblies of God do?

Open theism is apparently here to stay. It is becoming increasingly popular, especially among Pentecostals and Charismatics. What should the Assemblies of God do? What we should not do is immediately ban the open view, ask open theists to keep their views to themselves, or dismiss open theists from our Fellowship. Let’s talk, pray, and research. If there are ministers among us who are deeply offended by any in our constituency or any of our credentialed ministers embracing the open view on the grounds that it is inconsistent with our fundamental truths, it is incumbent upon these persons to show how the open view transgresses our Statement of Faith. Can this be demonstrated? My voice is only one, but I believe the open view is perfectly consistent with our Statement of Fundament Truths, which neither states nor implies anything about “how” God must be believed to know all things, though that God knows all things is certainly entailed in the Statement. The precise nature of the “all things” (whether exhaustively definite or not) is an issue neither our Statement nor the ecumenical creeds speaks to. We should leave this matter to the good consciences of our ministers and encourage rather than forbid lively discussion. As for me, I believe that in embracing the open view I have settled into a view of God, life, and ministry that is liberating, empowering, intellectually credible, and at least as biblically plausible as that based on either the Calvinistic or classical Arminian understanding of divine foreknowledge and providence.

I don’t entertain the fantasy that the Assemblies of God will officially advocate the open view, but l do hope that we will at least allow it alongside other existing views [41] as a permissible explanation of how God may be believed to possess exhaustive foreknowledge of all things and to exercise sovereignty over creation, a sovereignty that is loving, creative, just, all-encompassing and infinitely intelligent, resourceful beyond measure, and more than adequate to guarantee the ultimate fulfillment of his purposes and the final victory of his kingdom. Such a God is certainly worthy of our worship and our deepest devotion and I commend him without reservation to the leadership of the Assemblies of God as well as to my colleagues in ministry.

Postscript

Since the summer of 2000 it has been my pleasure to discuss the open view on a regular basis with friends, pastors, missionaries, and students both in and outside my own denominational fellowship. My convictions have only become more settled. Though I have not essentially changed my views from those expressed in this paper, I have attempted to refine certain arguments and definitions. My most recent thoughts appear in “Open Theism, Omniscience, and the Nature of the Future” (co-authored with Alan Rhoda and Greg Boyd, forthcoming in Faith and Philosophy ) at http://www.alanrhoda.net/papers/opentheism.pdf .

Tom Belt

Minneapolis, MN

Christmas, 2005

[1] The scope of this paper is necessarily limited. I provide no discussion of specific “openness” passages, choosing instead to deal with overarching issues. Immediately following this paper I’ve included five appendices [not included with online versions of this paper] which include material covering many of the biblical passages and responses written by open theists. I have also avoided here engaging specific arguments posed by Calvinists in this debate since deterministic explanations are not widely believed by Assemblies of God members anyhow. I take into account the fact that the Assemblies of God has traditionally held to the simple-foreknowledge, or Arminian, model of divine foreknowledge. I have also not dealt with issues of theodicy and only briefly comment on scientific evidence which suggests that created order is itself partly deterministic and partly indeterministic. I’d also like to acknowledge the influence Greg Boyd has had in my understanding the open view. Much of my argumentation comes from dialoguing with him over the past two years.

[2] Open theism does not deny that God possesses “exhaustive foreknowledge” of the future. What is denied is that such foreknowledge is exhaustively definite , that is, that it consists exclusively of knowledge of what “shall” happen. The open view adds to this the belief that God’s foreknowledge also comprises knowledge of what “may” happen. This is crucial to keep in mind. Dr. Edgar Lee’s comment, “The Openness of God from a Pentecostal Perspective,” in Enrichment Journal (Volume VII, No. III: August 2002), that the open view “sweep[s] away God’s comprehensive foreknowledge with a few hard-to-interpret texts” [italics mine] is inaccurate. Not only does the open view not deny “comprehensive foreknowledge,” but the number of passages in Scripture suggesting a partly open future is hardly “few,” as the emerging literature clearly shows. For example, John Sanders’ The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998) has nearly 100 pages of biblical support for the open view. See also Appendix 5.

Openness authors have not always articulated their views clearly. In his first book on the subject, for example, Clark Pinnock appears to deny “exhaustive foreknowledge” and suggests that God is often ignorant of what will happen (“Systematic Theology” in Pinnock, et. al., The Openness of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), pp. 121-124, when in fact neither is true of open theism. In his latest book, The Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), Pinnock qualifies this; God is never ignorant. However, at places Pinnock is still less than careful. He concedes, for example, that open theists deny “exhaustive divine foreknowledge.” Granted, in context Pinnock is referring to the classical understanding of this as exhaustively definite foreknowledge, but the lack of consistency of terms doesn’t help. John Frame chides John Sanders for claiming in The God Who Risks (Downers Grove: InterVaristy, 1998), p. 132, that God makes “mistakes”. Actually, Sanders immediately qualified what he meant by this statement (something Frame decided not to tell his readers). Still, I wonder if it’s best to use terms that require constant qualification in order to avoid both the ideas most commonly associated with such terms and the inability of some opponents of the open view to objectively articulate an opposing view to the satisfaction of those who hold it (something usually assumed in academic dialogue).

It’s not surprising that open theists will need some time to refine their articulation of the view. Calvinists and Arminians have had a several hundred years’ head start! What remains true, however, is that readers who care to form an accurate understanding of the open view certainly have enough opportunity to do so, which makes anti-openness books like Bound Only Once: The Failure of Open Theism , ed. Douglas Wilson (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001) truly disappointing to read. The contributors of this volume seem to have gone out of their way to misunderstand and misconstrue the open view. The most careful articulation of the open view and its implications by an open theist is that of Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000) and Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Worldview (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001). From the start Boyd has been careful to distinguish “exhaustive foreknowledge” (which is affirmed by the open view) and “exhaustively definite foreknowledge” (which is denied). Boyd also points out that “mistakes” are not attributable to God’s infallible knowledge when this knowledge is correctly understood as encompassing possible as well as certain outcomes. See Boyd’s reply to Bruce Ware in “Response to Bruce Ware’s ‘Defining Evangelicalism’s Boundaries: Is Open Theism Evangelical?’” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society , Summer 2002 which appears in Appendix 2 following this paper. The most careful and objective evaluation of the open view by a one who disagrees with the view is that of Calvinist Terrance Tiessen, Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000). Tiessen’s objectivity proves that it is possible to understand the open view and still disagree with it.

[3] Either by God or by already existing factors.

[4] This appears to include Dr. Edgar Lee’s Enrichment Journal article as well.

[5] It has been suggested that I am redefining creation in order to get at redefining omniscience and that dispensing with omniscience is really what open theism is after. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

[6] Does the belief that God’s knowledge changes with a changing universe entail that God “discovers” or “learns”? Open theists answer this differently. All agree that God cannot “learn” in the sense of moving from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge. Applied to God, this would amount to a denial that his knowledge is co-terminous with reality. Hence, I deny that God either discovers or learns, although I affirm the belief that God’s knowledge changes with a changing universe. Being perfectly omniscient, God knows possibilities for what they are. As these possibilities are resolved into settled realities in the course of time, God keeps infallible , unmediated , and co-terminous account of the state of reality. Omniscience is not sacrificed or even compromised.

The question is, What kind of universe did God choose to create? One which is genuinely open to change and true becoming (e.g., the dynamic or tensed theory of time, known also as the A-theory of time), or one which precludes genuine novelty and indeterministic openness (e.g., the static or tenseless theory of time, also known as the B-theory of time)? Open theists agree God was free to create either kind of world but that the Bible, reason, and experience combine to strongly suggest he chose the former. Lee’s suggestion that the open view is “guided by a particular modern philosophy of time” is misleading. Fist, it is the B-theory of time (rejected by the open view) which is the more modern. Though the dynamic theory of time has certainly found fresh expression (and confirmation) in recent times with the advent of modern chaos theory and quantum mechanics, it is hardly new. Secondly, for open theists the line of reasoning runs from the biblical to the scientific, not the other way around. That is, open theists are not “guided” by a commitment to a particular scientific view to interpret Scripture in openness fashion. Rather, having found the biblical reasons for open theism independently convincing, the A-theory of time and the insights of chaos theory and quantum mechanics are believed to confirm this. See William Lane Craig’s (not an open theist) excellent discussion of the Special and General theories of relativity and his defence of the dynamic theory of time in Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2001). Craig’s discussion of Relativity and its implications for God’s relationship to time is truly insightful. See also God & Time, Four Views , ed. Gregory Ganssle (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001) for differing theological views.

Regarding the scientific evidence, Greg Boyd, cf. his Christus Victor website ( www.gregboyd.org ), summarizes: “Quantum physics suggests that Einstein was mistaken in his classical-philosophical conclusion that the distinction between the past, present and future is an illusion. Nothing short of an empirically groundless, metaphysically mechanistic assumption kept him, and some other physicists, from affirming that the apparent indeterminacy of reality at a quantum level is in fact real (viz. ontological).

“But this means that time is real and thus that the ‘apparent’ distinction between the past as a realm of definite realities and the future as a realm of indefinite probabilities is real. Prior to a ‘quantum event’ (viz. the observed behavior of a quantum particle in an experimental situation) there is only a range (‘wave packet’) of possibilities: during the quantum event the wave packet collapses down to one. After ‘the event’ there is one definite outcome which could not have been predicted with certainty ahead of time.

“If this is true of reality, it must be true of God’s knowledge of reality as well, for God’s omniscience is by definition exhaustive and perfectly accurate. In this view, the unpredictability of the future and the unchangeability of the past constitute two sides of the same metaphysical coin: they are both necessary facts. Scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne summarizes this well in his book Science and Providence when he notes that considerations of the role of indeterminacy in quantum physics ‘…emphasize how different time is from space [and] how seriously we must take its unfolding as a process of genuine becoming. The future is not already formed ahead of us, waiting to reveal itself to our exploration, as the fixed contours of a valley reveal themselves to the traveller who makes his ways through them. The future is in part our creation: its shape is responsive to our molding, as the clay is formed by the sculptor to create his irreducibly new thing, which is his work of art. If even the omnipotent God cannot act to change the past, it does not seem any more conceivable that the omniscient God can know with certainty the unformed future.’

“It could be argued that science is forever changing and thus what seems like a certain conclusion today might be revised by new discoveries tomorrow. True enough. Too much should not be wagered on the vicissitudes of scientific discovery. At the same time, we can’t ignore the findings of science on this account. At the very least, any who would want to continue to hold to the eternal definiteness of the future (in the mind of God) and thus to the non-ontological nature of quantum indeterminacy must now bear the scientific burden of proof.”

See also John Polkinghorne, “The Quantum World,” in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology (University of Notre Dame Press, 1988); I. Prigogine and M.Sanglier, The Laws of Nature and Human Conduct (Brussels: Task Force of Research Information and the Study of Science, 1985); I. Prigogine, From Being to Becoming (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1980); I. Stewart, Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989); and D. J. Bartholemew, God of Chance (London: SCM Press, 1984); P. Coveney and R. Highfield, The Arrow of Time (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1990); L. Glass and M. Mackey, From Clocks to Chaos: The Rhythms of Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988); Giuseppe Del Re, The Cosmic Dance: Science Discovers the Mysterious Harmony of the Universe (Temple Foundation Press, 2000).

[7] See Hugh Ross in Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1986). Ross argues that God exists in a form of hyper-time in which our past, present, and future exist simultaneously in equal definiteness and so are available for viewing by a being (God) not limited to our time dimension, a view argued by William Lane Craig to be both scientifically and philosophically problematic; see Craig’s Time and Eternity (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2001). But as we shall see later in this paper, even if Ross were correct, such extra-dimensionality would not provide God a basis upon which he could act providentially in the world. Ross’ views do nothing to explain the reciprocal nature of the relationship between God’s actions and our own.

[8] Or if the future is not exhaustively determined by God.

[9] A view in which open theists are joined by several moderate Calvinists and many Arminians. Traditional theism, following Aquinas and others, has held that God is absolutely timeless, entailing the belief that he cannot experience changing states of mind or emotion. God is both immutable and impassible. This timeless view of God has come under heavy attack in recent years however by both Calvinists and Arminians (i.e., on the Calvinist side by John Feinberg and on the Arminian-Molinist side by William Lane Craig, both of whom disagree with the open view though both believe that God is temporally eternal). Thus, the denial that God is timeless has existed for some time among evangelicals and is not unique to the open view. Also see footnotes 22 and 23. This is not an open view issue.

[10] Though God is, as is argued below, infinitely intelligent and thus eternally foreknows all possible choices we may make. Such infinite intelligence greatly contributes to our understanding of God’s providential rule.

[11] Some have pointed out that the entire debate surrounding the open view turns very little on the kind of knowledge God is believed to possess and almost entirely on the kind of sovereignty God is believed to exercise. I concur with Boyd’s comment, “It is difficult to imagine a weaker view of God’s sovereignty than that which views him as capable only of deterministic ways of relating to creation,” in Satan and the Problem of Evil (Downers Grove: InterVaristy Press, 2001). A good teacher may be “in control” of her class without causally determining everything students do (contra theological determinism) or knowing ahead of time everything they will do (contra Arminianism). There is no reason for supposing God’s providence requires exhaustively definite foreknowledge as opposed to exhaustive knowledge of both certainties and possibilities. If I were to challenge Kasparov in a game of chess, my being free to move in ways not foreknown as certain by Kasparov would hardly call into question his being in control of the game. Kasparov is in control by virtue of his superior knowledge of all possible moves I may make and his ability to be open to more than one route to victory.

[12] “The Openness of God from a Pentecostal Perspective,” Enrichment Journal (Volume VII, No. III: August 2002).

[13] Heated debate over this issue in history, for example between Thomism and Molinism, focused not on whether or not God was omniscient but on what the nature of reality was. Of what did reality, future reality, consist? The precedent already exists for the present debate. Why should open theists be singled out now and accused of undermining “omniscience” by questioning whether or not the reality which God knows is exhaustively definite or partly definite and partly contingent?

This is as good a place as any to insert a comment about open theists’ belief that Greek philosophy is largely responsible for the classical doctrines of God’s immutability, simplicity, impassibility, etc.. Lee writes: “Then, on these assumptions [i.e., that the Western classical theological tradition was influenced for the worse by Greek philosophy; italics mine], the openness project gathers a number of passages from the Bible that show God relating to people in ways that seem to contradict classical theological categories.” Permit me three comments. First, it is not “on the assumption” that the Western theological tradition has been influenced for the worse by Greek philosophy that open theism then proceeds with anything. The influence of Greek philosophy upon the classical theological tradition is nowhere “assumed” by open theists. It is everywhere “argued” by open theists. They may be wrong about history at this point. The evidence is there to interact with. But one cannot claim that open theists simply “assume” anything along these lines.

Secondly, Lee argues that open theists start with the belief that Greek philosophical notions of perfection influenced Christian theology and only then move on in search of biblical arguments in an attempt to confirm this belief. That is, open theists are believed to be motivated by assumptions regarding Greek philosophy to reinterpret Scripture. But the line of argument runs in quite the opposite direction, namely, from the conviction (on purely biblical grounds and quite independent of historical questions) that the Bible and certain classical doctrines of God are at odds to the historical question of what might account for classical theism’s having arrived at this place. The historical follows rather than precedes the biblical and is only an attempt to account for how the Church came to view God in such terms, not an attempt to prove open theism’s reading of the Bible. Actually, whether or not classical theology was adversely influenced as is argued by open theists is an interesting point of history (or not), but it ultimately says nothing about whether or not open theism itself is biblical.

Thirdly, open theists are often thought to be arguing for the wholesale corruption of theology by Greek philosophy. But this is not the case. All theologies interact with their environment. In the case of early Christian theologians, Greek philosophy was both a blessing and a curse. It provided them with an avenue for articulating the gospel in already understandable terms. Nobody questions this was legitimate. But in the give-and-take of this relationship, Christian theology was also influenced in adopting the Hellenistic notion of perfection as timeless, unchanging, and impassible. These are not biblical notions of perfection.

Open theists are also accused of following the lead of unbiblical philosophical assumptions. Open theist John Sanders, “Is Open Theism Evangelical?” (Plenary address at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, November 15, 2001), responds, “Our critics repeatedly accuse us of capitulating to non-biblical thought forms. The implication is that our critics are free from philosophical and cultural influences. Though many evangelical works on hermeneutics and theology cautiously admit that all of us are conditioned by our social locations and traditions, this notion plays no substantive role in our theology or handling of scripture. In my writings I have emphasized the influence of Greek philosophy upon Christian thinking about God because it is either ignored or even outright denied by evangelical theologians. Millard Erickson is one of the few who openly admits the significant role Greek philosophy has had in shaping our views of God and that these views, he says, may contain a large amount of Greek thought read into the biblical text. Erickson, however, goes on to chastise me for not admitting that I am influenced by philosophical forces as well. This is fair and I do admit that this is the case. If we will all admit to philosophical and cultural influences in our theologizing, then we can proceed to productive dialog about which ones are better than others. It simply will not do to have one side claiming that their opponents are no longer virgins when it comes to cultural conditioning. Nobody in the entire history of Christian theology is a virgin when it comes to cultural and philosophical influence on our theology.”

[14] See Appendixes 1 and 5 for examples of these.

[15] A phrase coined by J. Martin, “The Use of Metaphor as a Conceptual Vehicle in Religious Language,” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford, 1982).

[16] Anthropomorphism is a form a metaphorical speech that attributes human physical characteristics to God or depicts God in roles obviously not literally possible for him (e.g., as a father, husband, and shepherd). As such it is a non-literal way of communicating something real or truthful about God. For example, “God’s eyes roam to and fro” is anthropomorphic language. Does God have literal (i.e., physical) eyes? Open theists agree he does not. But the truth to which this non-literal form of speech refers is, all agree, very much literally true . It is literally true that God possesses intimate and exhaustive knowledge of all things and (I would add) that we are incapable of escaping the notice of such knowledge. This is what Scripture means when it speaks of God’s “eyes.”

Carry this over to the description of God as “changing his mind,” of speaking of the future as what “may” or “may not” be, or of experiencing the disappointment of unfulfilled expectations. Open theists deny that these are anthropomorphic in the strict literary sense. There’s certainly nothing in the relevant contexts that suggests they are. And if it be granted that such language is anthropomorphic, problems arise and we are still delivered, albeit by a different route, to the open view. For what is “God changes his mind” an anthropomorphism of? To what does it refer? What truth about God does it reveal ? If God’s “eyes” reveals to us his intimate and unmediated knowledge of all things, and if his “right arm” reveals his incomparable power to accomplish what he wills, what does Scripture’s claim that “God changed his mind” reveal about God if it is also true that God cannot change his mind? I submit that no meaning is possible in such a case. At least no one to date has managed to offer a convincing argument for what such passages reveal about God if God does not in fact ever change his intentions, will, or mind.

Opponents of the open view are quick to dismiss our understanding of such passages, but none seem to feel it necessary to say precisely what these passages do mean other than to claim, “They are obviously anthropomorphic.” Yes, but what do they mean ? What truths regarding the divine side of the God-world relationship are revealed in such passages? In my view, opponents of the open view mistakenly take “non-literal” (i.e., anthropomorphic) to mean “untrue” when the anthropomorphism in question betokens an open future or introduces contingency into God. The classical view’s inability to account meaningfully for Scripture’s open motif on the supposition that it is anthropomorphic can be seen in Douglas M. Jones’ chapter “Metaphor in Exile,” in Bound Only Once (Moscow, Id: Canon Press, 2001), pp. 31-51. In the end, Jones and the classical view simply do not know what these passages reveal about God. For excellent discussions of metaphor and the limitations of God-talk, see Vincent Brummer’s chapter “Can we speak about God?” in his Speaking of a Personal God: An Essay in Philosophical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) and Terence Fretheim’s excellent discussion of metaphor in The Suffering of God (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). In my view, one’s approach to metaphor is more fundamental than anything else in determining where one comes out on this issue.

[17] Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion , ed. J. T. McNeill, trans. F. L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, n.d.), 1.17.13, argued the same approach. In treating passages which describe God as changing his mind, Calvin explains that the Bible speaks this way “because our weakness does not attain to his exalted state.” Such descriptions are accommodations to our limited understanding. God “represent[s] himself to us not as he is in himself, but as he seems to us.” God seems to change his mind, regret decisions, and experience unfulfilled expectations, but “neither his plan nor his will is reversed, nor his volition altered.” Greg Boyd, “The Open-Theism View,” Divine Foreknowledge, eds. James Beilby and Paul Eddy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p. 38, responds:

“Calvin’s argument is inconsistent, however. He apparently believes that his ‘weakness’ does not preclude him from ‘attaining to’ God’s ‘exalted state.’ In other words, Calvin exempts himself from his explanation of why God must use anthropomorphic language (viz., that our weaknesses cannot attain to God’s exalted state). And from this exempt position he then represents God to us as he truly is as opposed to the way God represents himself in Scripture (viz., ‘according to our weakness’ and as he ‘seems to us’).”

Boyd’s response is decisive. Let me add three responses of my own. First, relegating openness passages to the category of anthropomorphic and phenomenological language simply begs the question. One must still say what these anthropomorphisms reveal about God. It will not do to claim that as anthropomorphisms openness passages all reveal God as “relating intimately to us in time and space as if ” changing his mind, regretting previous decisions, etc., while qualifying these by affirming the contrary. One could argue that this locates the meaning of such passages entirely in the mere fact of their being anthropomorphic and not in what the words themselves actually say, in which case there would be no difference whatsoever in meaning between any two openness passages whether God is described as changing his mind or experiencing unfulfilled expectations. Neither one of these two reveals something about God which the other does not also equally reveal, for the meaning is not in the words but in the mere fact that God is described “anthropomorphically.” This reveals a weakness in the claim that the openness passages all anthropomorphically mean the same thing: They are all equally permitted to say God is personally related to us in time and space but forbidden to say anything individually unique about “how” God is related to us. This is the problem. If we claim that such passages depict God as acting and relating in ways not possible for him, by what hermeneutic then can we still claim that they reveal anything about God, much less that they reveal him as intimately and personally related to us? I’m still developing this argument and so can’t pursue it here, but this weakness of the anthropomorphic approach is clear and needs to be addressed.

Secondly, the whole approach to Scripture’s open motif as anthropomorphic can be turned on itself and shown to prove too much. How does one know, for example, that “God loves” is not equally as anthropomorphic as “God regrets”? Both are straightforward descriptions of God. On what basis does one distinguish “God loves” as literal and “God regrets” as anthropomorphic if not presuppositions about what is and is not appropriate for God? Perhaps “God loves us” is also an accommodation to our limited understanding designed to depict God “as if” he loved us when in fact he is as incapable of loving as he is of regretting decisions he made. In reply, open theists point out that we rightly understand “God loves” to mean something analogous to what we mean when we humans love (without the attending imperfections of course). Otherwise we have no basis upon which to ascribe meaning to the Bible’s claim that God loves us. Open theists simply argue that “God regrets” and “God expected what did not come to pass” are also to be understood as meaning something analogous to what we mean when we claim to regret decisions and experience the disappointment of unfulfilled expectations (without the attending imperfections of course). Otherwise we have no basis upon which to ascribe meaning to the Bible’s claim that God regrets or expects what does not come to pass. If, however, God is believed to be incapable of facing the sort of open future implied by Scripture’s descriptions of him as regretting decisions, expecting to come to pass what does not in fact come to pass, etc., then the concepts of “unfulfilled expectations,” “changes of mind,” and “genuine regret” do not in the least apply to God, at least not in a way that we can understand. And if such categories do not apply to God in a way we can understand, it is impossible to argue that they “reveal” God to us.

Lastly, such an approach is particularly damaging to Pentecostal spirituality which has always believed God is both experienced and affected by us, something difficult to account for if we also maintain that the openness passages describe God as acting and relating to us in ways not possible for him.

[18] For a presentation of the simple-foreknowledge view of the future, see David Hunt’s chapter “The Simple-Foreknowledge View” in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001).

[19] See footnote 28 and Appendix 3. The best arguments for the incompatibility of exhaustively definite foreknowledge and libertarian free will have historically come from Calvinists, who simply respond to this incompatibility differently than open theists. Calvinists maintain exhaustively definite foreknowledge and deny libertarian free will, while open theists maintain libertarian free will and deny exhaustively definite foreknowledge (though not exhaustive foreknowledge ).

[20] Hunt articulates this objection to simple-foreknowledge clearly but then attempts (unsuccessfully) to deflect it, cf. Hunt, “The Simple-Foreknowledge View,” Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001).

[21] For an argument for the uselessness of simple-foreknowledge based on God’s work with Old Testament prophets, see John Sanders, “Why Simple Foreknowledge Offers No More Providential Control than the Openness of God,” Faith and Philosophy 14, no. 1 (Jan. 1997): 26-40, the main arguments of which are summarized in his The God Who Risks , pp. 200-206. See also William Hasker, God, Time, and Knowledge (1989).

If we conclude (against Calvin) that God has not causally determined all history and (with Arminians) that God timelessly possesses simple-foreknowledge of the future, then we are left with a God who is prisoner to his own knowledge, like the fabled Cassandra, condemned to know the future but unable to do anything about it (or with it).

[22] For an excellent presentation of various views on God’s relationship to time, see God and Time: Four Views , (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001) and William Craig’s Time and Eternity (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2001). For a philosophical treatment of God’s temporal vs. atemporal eternity as well as arguments for the incompatibility of libertarian free will and exhaustively definite foreknowledge, see Hasker, God, Time, and Knowledge (1989). The belief in God’s temporally eternal existence is not unique to open theism. There exist both moderate Calvinists and Arminian-Molinists who hold to this view of God’s existence.

[23] It is often objected that since “time” was created along with the physical universe and God existed before creation, God must be absolutely timeless and immutable. The question of God’s relationship to time is still being discussed among open theists. Bill Craig, not an open theist, has an excellent survey of the issues (see previous footnote). Craig argues that “timelessness” and “temporality” are both contingent attributes of God and that God is timeless in the absence of creation but temporal since creation. He also argues (as do open theists and some Calvinists) that the claim that God is both timeless and temporally involved in the world is incoherent and self-contradictory and so meaningless.

Open theists grant that “time” as we measure it is an attribute of creation. Some open theists prefer instead to employ the notions of “pure duration” or “sequence” to describe God’s eternal experience of his own life as Father, Son, and Spirit in the absence of creation. Other open theists prefer to use the word “time” but qualify it nonetheless. All open theists, however, and some who are not open theists, deny the possibility of atemporal personhood and thus the claim that God (the most maximally personal being in the universe) is absolutely timeless and immutable even in the absence of creation.

In the end it matters not what God is in the absence of a created world. It remains the case that since creation God experiences the flow of time, undergoes changing states of mind and emotion, and relates to us from within time. If opponents of the open view want to insist that there remains a sense in which God is timeless by virtue of his transcending creation (a question many open theists continue to discuss), this should not be understood as undermining the integrity of the sense in which God is revealed in Scripture as relating to us now, as genuinely open to change, and as facing a partly open future .

[24] Dallas Willard’s poignant phrase in The Divine Conspiracy (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1998), p. 244.

[25] I’m indebted to Greg Boyd for the Infinite Intelligence argument.

[26] As well as Molinism, but not the classical tradition.

[27] Not only does Lee’s Enrichment Journal article entirely overlook this crucial aspect of the open view, but as I understand him, he incorrectly denies that the open view affirms God’s knowledge of all we may “possibly” do or decide. He writes, “It is further assumed [by the open view] that God cannot know all the contingent, or potential decisions and actions of human beings and angels.” But of course the open view does affirm God’s knowledge of “potential decisions and actions” (both human and angelic). This is what the entire debate is about! It is rather Lee, along with the entire classical tradition, who assumes God cannot possess knowledge of “possibilities” and thus denies that God ever knows future decisions and actions as what may “potentially” or “possibly” be . In classical theism no contingency attaches to God’s knowledge of future choices. He knows only what “shall” happen as the future unfolds. Of course, we may believe our choices to be genuinely contingent, but if reality is what God believes it to be (which is most certainly entailed in his being omniscient!), and if God’s beliefs regarding the future are exhaustively definite (viz., defined exclusively in terms of what “shall” and “shall not” happen as opposed to encompassing in addition what “may” and “may not” happen), then we are simply mistaken in believing our choices to be genuinely (viz., ontologically) contingent, in which case our sense of freedom is a mere illusion. It exists only because of human epistemological limitations and possesses no ontological status with God.

If, however, Lee means to say that the open view denies that God knows as definite “all the future contingent, or potential decisions and actions of human beings and angels,” then he’s certainly correct. We do deny this. But it remains the case that the “contingency” Lee speaks of attaches not to God’s knowledge of these choices but rather to our (mistaken) belief that we are free to do other than we do. If no contingency attaches to God’s knowledge of our choices then those choices are not contingent. This goes without saying. God’s knowledge and beliefs, not ours, are infallible and accord with what is real . That is, reality (including our choices) is what God believes it to be, not necessarily what we believe it to be. In order for our sense of freedom to do other than we do to reflect reality, then, God must believe us free to do other than we do, i.e., God must face genuine possibilities.

[28] Self-determining freedom means, obviously enough, that the “self” determines those choices that flow from it and for which it is held accountable. In other words, the determinateness of our actions rests in us. But if the determinateness of our choices is known to God from eternity (which is the classical view), then it eternally precedes us, in which case it does not originate with us (since we are not eternal) and we are not free in the libertarian sense. This does not mean that libertarian choices are not influenced by factors outside the self or are completely random. It means only that the self is the final arbiter in choosing. It is the self which gives definiteness to its choices. It is often objected, e.g., Bill Craig in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), that exhaustively definite foreknowledge and self-determining free will are compatible. Craig, p. 126, argues: “So what is the argument that allegedly demonstrates the incompatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom? Letting x stand for any event, the basic form of the argument is as follows:

(1) Necessarily, if God foreknows x , then x will happen.

(2) God foreknows x .

(3) Therefore, x will necessarily happen.

Since x happens necessarily, it is not a contingent event…The problem with the above form of the argument is that it is just logically fallacious.”

Craig is absolutely correct. God’s knowledge of the future does not cause the future to be. But open theists have never argued that it does. In the same volume, p. 191, Greg Boyd responds: “[But]…exposing the fallacy of this argument doesn’t go far in proving that libertarian freedom is compatible with exhaustively definite foreknowledge. For the ‘necessity’ that renders [exhaustively definite foreknowledge] problematic is not a logical necessity, but an ‘accidental’ or ‘historical’ necessity. This is the kind of necessity possessed by past events. Though past events are logically contingent, they are historically necessary, for they cannot now be other than they are. …If God eternally foreknows future free acts, then future free acts are ‘historically’ or ‘accidentally’ necessary. Among all the unalterable facts of the past is the content of what God infallibly believes shall come to pass in the future . The definiteness of the future is part of the (now necessary) definiteness of the past. Hence…if God possesses exhaustively definite foreknowledge, we can exercise no more libertarian freedom with regard to our future acts than we can with regard to any past fact. Both are ‘accidentally necessary’.”

The point which open theists make, then, is not that exhaustively definite foreknowledge of future free acts entails that those acts are determined by God . All we seek to argue is that such knowledge shows that WE are not the ones determining those choices . That’s all that’s needed to demonstrate incompatibility. Whether God or some other force unknown to us is responsible for rendering our choices determinate/definite in the mind of God is beside the point. It remains true that if our choices are eternally foreknown as definite , we are not the authors of those choices. See also Boyd’s philosophical arguments for the incompatibility of exhaustively definite foreknowledge (EDF) and self-determining free will in Appendix 3 following this paper.

[29] As opposed to the Calvinistic claim that our prayers are merely God’s “predetermined means to predetermined ends.” How meaningful and reassuring is that?

[30] Tagging onto the previous footnote—Calvinists in fact deny that our lack of prayer is ever responsible for things being other than they might have been. Indeed, in a deterministic world there can be no such thing as a “failure” to pray. On the other hand, on the view that God simply foreknows as certain all that happens without determining it (i.e., Arminianism) it can never be the case from God’s point of view that events may genuinely be other than they are.

[31] Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), p. 175.

[32] This was Jonathan Edwards’ view.

[33] David Basinger, The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), p. 55, says it well, “Since there can never be a time when a God who possesses complete SFK [simple-foreknowledge] does not know all that will occur, and since foreknowledge can be utilized in a providentially beneficial manner only if there is a time at which what is foreknown can influence a divine decision that is itself not also already foreknown, there can exist no conceivable context in which SFK would enable God to make providentially beneficial decisions that he would not be able to make without this knowledge.”

[34] See Greg Boyd’s response to Bruce Ware in the Summer 2002 issue of the Journal of Evangelical Theological Society found in Appendix 2 following this paper. Boyd responds to Ware’s accusation that open theism believes God makes “mistakes.”

[35] See David Basinger’s challenge to the appeal to antinomy in “Biblical Paradox: Does Revelation Challenge Logic?” JETS 30/2 (1987) pp. 206-222, John Sanders, The God Who Risks (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), pp. 34-38, and Vincent Brummer, Speaking of a Personal God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 1-32. Some suggest that science provides examples of antinomy, or self-contradictory claims. J. I. Packer, for example, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1961), pp. 20, 24, suggests that the nature of light, being both particle and wave, is a clear example of such antinomy. Reason suggests that we ought to reject either that light is wave or particle, but the evidence constrains us to affirm two incompatible truths and live with the tension. Packer suggests that we should then have no qualms about affirming mutually incompatible truths in Scripture.

Is Packer correct? Does the nature of light provide us with a scientific equivalent of a square circle or a married bachelor? Not everyone agrees. David Basinger, “Biblical Paradox,” writes, “…this [Packer’s] analogy is dubious. It is certainly true that in science (and other areas) we sometimes come to the point where the evidence appears to equally support two incompatible theories or statements. In the nature of light controversy, for example, physicists have stated that light sometimes displays wave-like properties and sometimes displays particle-like properties—that is, they have stated that some properties of light are best explained by a wave hypothesis while other properties of light are best explained by a particle hypothesis. And it is certainly true that in such cases we ought not arbitrarily reject one in favor of the other just to resolve the tension. Moreover, for instrumental reasons it may well be justifiable for scientists to assume as a working hypothesis in specific contexts that one or both are true. But theoretical scientists have never made the claim, as the theologians of paradox seem to with respect to Biblical truths, that two incompatible propositions can in fact be simultaneously true. Physicists, for example, have never claimed that light is in fact simultaneously both wholly particle and wholly wave, where ‘wave’ and ‘particle’ are defined in such a way that the terms are contradictory. The claim of the scientist, rather, is only that there is at times no good basis for considering either of two seemingly incompatible propositions false. And this is a much different, weaker claim than its alleged theological counterpart (given our current interpretation). For only the claim that two incompatible propositions are in fact simultaneously true threatens the meaning of the concepts involved.” See also A. Baez, The New College Physics (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1967), pp. 233-241, and T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1970), who with other scientists believes that “light is a self-consistent entity different from both waves and particles,” p. 114. What is interesting is that those who insist we affirm against reason the evidence of science that light is both wave and particle are themselves unwilling to accept against their reason the evidence of science (e.g., the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) that reality is both partly deterministic and partly indeterministic, partly determined by existing factors and partly open to genuine novelty and true becoming.

[36] It is difficult to understand why those who claim we should not attempt to resolve the self-contradiction present in the beliefs that a) God eternally and unconditionally predetermines all things and also justly holds us responsible for our choices (i.e., Calvinism) or that b) God eternally foreknows our free choices (i.e., classic Arminianism), object to the open view on the basis that in their view it makes self-contradictory claims! It is difficult to avoid concluding that “antinomy” (so-called “mystery” by theologians of antinomy) often becomes a dumping ground for parts of a system of belief which simply don’t work. One may wonder, assuming that God intends us to understand what he means to communicate, and assuming that God is the consummate communicator (rather than an inept one), why self-contradictory beliefs are ever made a test of fellowship or credentials. Surely the basis of fellowship and cooperative ministry ought to be what can be affirmed with reason and understanding about God, not what cannot be meaningfully affirmed about him. To make the affirmation of admittedly self-contradictory truth claims a test of one’s orthodoxy is, in my view, injurious to the unity of the Body of Christ and an abuse of leadership.

[37] The document is discussed by Timothy Morgan in Christianity Today (June 10, 2002 issue), and the document itself along with a list of the names of those who signed it can be found at www.thewordmadefresh.com . The document states:

“To be evangelical is to be committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ – the Word incarnate – in all areas of life and to the supreme authority fo the canonical Scriptures – the written Word – in all matters of faith and practice. To be evangelical also entails being characterized by an irenic, Christlike spirit of love toward those with whom we disagree and a cautious openness to the reform of tradition as the Spirit leads us to fresh understandings of the Word that are even more faithful to the entirety of God’s revelation. We oppose unfettered theological experimentation and accommodation to culture that threatens the gospel of Jesus Christ. But we also deplore a present tendency among some evangelicals to define the boundaries of evangelical faith and life too narrowly. For this reason, we call upon evangelical leaders and thinkers to make room for reverent exploration of new ideas and reconsideration of old ones without assuming too quickly that we know what Scripture clearly does and does not teach.

Throughout history, evangelicals have courageously stood against attempts to compromise biblical faith. Unfortunately, passionate resistance to error has repeatedly also led to militant, separatistic habits of mind and heart from which evangelicals in the mid-twentieth century struggled to free the movement. We are concerned that some claimants to the evangelical heritage appear to be falling back into some of the more onerous attitudes of fundamentalism. Out of this concern, we call all evangelicals to acknowledge the value of the kind of genuine diversity and fresh reflection, grounded in the written Word and centered on the incarnate Word, that has always been the hallmark of the true evangelical spirit.

To this end, we call all evangelical leaders and thinkers not to reject out of hand constructive theological proposals that are reverently rooted in biblical reflection, even when they challenge aspects of what some consider to be the ‘received evangelical tradition.’ Rather than a sign of decline, constructive theological endeavour and rigorous debate about theological issues are marks of evangelical theological vitality. Premature closure of dialogue and debate by means of condemnations and threats of exclusion, in contrast, disrupts community and often quenches the Spirit who brings new life and leads us toward an even more faithful reading of God’s Word. Therefore, we admonish all evangelicals to resist attempts to propagate rigid definitions of evangelicalism that result in unnecessary alienation and exclusion….”

[38] The open view appeared long before process theology, so the former can hardly require the latter. See Lorenzo D. McCabe, Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies a Necessity (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1882) and The Foreknowledge of God (Cincinnati: Cranston & Stowe, 1897). Besides being a theologian, McCabe was also a professor of mathematics and mechanical philosophy at Ohio Wesleyan University. In the opening chapter of The Foreknowledge of God 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 dishonouring to the high and holy One that inhabiteth eternity.”

The preacher Billy Hibbard was also an advocate of a partly open future, as was the well-known Bible commentator Dr. Adam Clarke. Clarke (1760-1832) was one of the most influential Methodists to follow John Wesley. He was of course a contemporary of Wesley. Clarke served as President of the Wesleyan Conference and his writings were particularly influential in the development of the doctrine of sanctification in the American Holiness movement. His eight-volume Bible Commentary which defined Methodist scholarship remains revered today. Clarke was an open theist. Note the following comments: In his Commentary of Hosea (chapter 14), he writes, “All this is easily accounted for on the doctrine of the contingency of events, i.e., the poising of a multitude of events on the possibility of being and not being, and leaving the will of man to turn the scale; and that God will not foreknow a thing as absolutely certain, which his will has determined to make contingent, a doctrine against which some solemn men have blasphemed, and philosophic infidels declaimed, but without which fate and dire necessity must be the universal governors, prayer be a useless meddling, and Providence nothing but the ineluctable adamantine chain of unchangeable events….” Further, in his Commentary of 1 Samuel 23, Clarke writes, “…there is such a thing as contingency in human affairs; that is, God has poised many things between a possibility of being and not being, leaving it to the will of the creature to turn the scale.” In his Commentary on Acts he adds, “God has ordained some things as absolutely certain ; these he knows as absolutely certain. He has ordained other things as contingent : these he knows as contingent. It would be absurd to say that he foreknows a thing as only contingent which he has made absolutely certain. And it would be as absurd to say that he foreknows a thing to be absolutely certain which, in his own eternal counsel, he has made contingent” [italics mine]. The open view (though not known by that name as such) was taught and discussed by Methodists without any accusations of being “deviant” or “unorthodox.” Actually, Clarke (and presumably others) would have thought those who affirmed exhaustively definite foreknowledge somewhat unorthodox. Oh how full-circle we have come!

For Calcidius’ views, see J. Den Boeft, Calcidisus on Fate: His Doctrine and Sources (New York: E. J. Brill, 1977) and Calcidius, Timaeus a Calcidio translatus Commentarioque instrucus , ed. J. H. Waszink, 2 ^nd ed., vol 4 of Plato Latinus (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975). Calcidius writes, “God knows all things…according to [their] nature….His knowledge of uncertain things is indeed necessary, [viz.] His knowledge that these things are uncertain and their course contingent…yet they are themselves possible in both directions rather than subject to necessity. So contingent things are not inflexibly arranged and determined from the beginning with the sole exception of the very fact that they must be uncertain and depend upon a contingent course.” A very popular and well-respected Evangelical author and teacher today, Dallas Willard is also an advocate of the open view, The Divine Conspiracy (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1998), pp. 244-246.

Though open theism and process theism both share a belief that the future is partly open to possibilities, they disagree on fundamental claims regarding God’s nature, creation ex nihilo , and God’s providential activity in the world. Let us not make the mistake of dismissing the open view on the basis of guilt by association. Certainly there have been persons in history believed to be heretics who held to a belief in a partly open future (e.g., Socinus). But not all persons holding to a belief in a partly open future were considered heretical. Socinus believed in other things besides an open future which may rightly be condemned. But surely we and Socinus agree on some things that do not make us heretics simply for having them in common with Socinus.

John Sanders, “Is Open Theism Evangelical?,” writes, “This same guilt by association move is made when openness is claimed to be process theology because both views share a couple of points in common.…Those who claim openness is simply process theology need to read what process theologians are saying about openness. David Ray Griffin, a prominent process theologian, says that he cannot stomach open theism any more than he can classical theism because openness is just too similar to the classical view and thus not worthy of God.” Classical theologians call advocates of open theism process theists while process theists view advocates of open theism as too like classical theists!

[39] John Sanders, “Is Open Theism Evangelical?,” writes, “The definition of the seventh ecumenical council, called Second Nicea reads: ‘Following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our holy fathers [emphasis mine] and the traditions of the Catholic Church, we define with all certitude and accuracy that the venerable and holy images are to be set up in the holy churches of God in houses, and by the roadside images of Jesus Christ, our undefiled Lady, the theotokos , of the honorable angels and of all saints and holy men. In accordance with ancient pious custom, incense and lights may be offered to images, as they are to the figure of the precious and life-giving cross, to the book of the Gospels and to other holy objects.’ There is so much for Protestants in general and Baptists in particular to choke on here as to warrant a theological Heimlich maneuver…. The Council declares that we are to perform these practices but it is clear that most of us do not. On what grounds do we reject the authority of this Council? It claims that the holy fathers were ‘divinely inspired’! Were they divinely inspired about divine immutability, impassibility and icons? If so, evangelicals are rejecting divine inspiration. Luther declared: ‘My soul abhors the homoousios .’ Is Luther therefore damned? Evangelical theologian David Wells [a vocal opponent of open theism] asserts that the Creeds are often wrong. He says, for instance, that the Nicene Creed contains Origenist concepts and that Chalcedon conferred on Mary the title ‘Mother of God.’ The council said that this teaching was to be held inviolable so Wells is rejecting the inviolable teaching of the seventh ecumenical council. Is Wells a heretic? Must we follow the canons of the seven councils? If so, then the following apply to us: we are to stand, not kneel when praying on the Lord’s day; a woman under the age of forty cannot become a deaconess and if, after becoming one, she ‘despises the grace of God’ and marries, she shall be anathematized; if you do not salute the icons you are anathematized; if you do not accept the gospels and the holy relics of the martyrs you are anathematized; Jews who convert must put away all Jewish customs including the Sabbath or they are not to be allowed to take communion. Are those who do not follow all the teachings of these seven councils heretics?”

[40] There is, of course, one council which specifically addresses these issues—Dort!

[41] I don’t mean by this permitting credentialed ministers to embrace the open view privately but forbidding them to speak, teach, or otherwise voice their beliefs publicly. This is not a workable arrangement at all. The open view is not an obscure eschatological belief about the precise timing of the bowls of wrath spoken of in Revelation which have nothing to do with impacting life and ministry now. The open view does impact one’s entire worldview, leaving its imprint on one’s discipling, counselling, and guidance of others as well as one’s understanding of the place and urgency of prayer and other matters of practical importance. We cannot expect those of our ministers who embrace the open view to put it on a shelf and keep it to themselves. We should of course expect them not to make the open view a matter of contentious debate while seeking to proselytize others. But I would say the same thing about a minister who was unable to avoid making any teaching not disapproved by the General Presbytery an issue of contentious debate. Should we counsel the minister or outlaw his belief? Counsel the minister; he’s the problem. In the end, the General Presbytery and Commission on Doctrinal Purity should know that the fires of contentious debate are far more likely to be stoked and fed by those who dislike the open view and feel themselves called of God to silence it than by open theists themselves.

Divine Foreknowledge Enrichment Journal Four Views Freewill Theism Greg Boyd Open Theism Open View

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

Posts tagged Divine Foreknowledge

Divine Reciprocity and Epistemic Openness in Clark Pinnock’s Theology

Share this:

Like this:

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

Share this:

Like this:

Who has held this view in history?

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

Share this:

Like this:

Bibliography on Open Theism

Share this:

Like this:

Open Theism and the Assemblies of God: A Personal Account of My Views on Open Theism

Forward

Open Theism and the Assemblies of God

What the open view is [1]

What the open view is not

The God-world relationship has “integrity”

What about simple-foreknowledge? [18]

Who is really limiting God in this debate? God’s “Infinite Intelligence”

God created us for loving relationship

What’s it matter? The practical implications of believing in a partly open future

The appeal to antinomy

CONCLUSION

Evangelical leaders sign joint statement

What should the Assemblies of God do?

Postscript

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

A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?

W Scott Taylor

Jason Amato

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

What the open view is ^[1]

What about simple-foreknowledge? ^[18]