Posts tagged Divine Providence

Why Simple Foreknowledge is Still Useless (In Spite of David Hunt and Alex Pruss)

by Brian Martin in William Hasker

William Hasker*
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52/3 (September 2007): 534-544
Original PDF may be downloaded here: Why foreknowledge is still useless.

I. INTRODUCTION : THE FIRST ARGUMENT

The doctrine of simple divine foreknowledge (SF) is probably the most common way of understanding divine knowledge of the future among non-Calvinist evangelicals. Simple foreknowledge means that God has complete, exact, and certain knowledge of the actual future, including the future free actions of human beings, in contrast with the probabilistic knowledge of the future postulated by open theism. Simple foreknowledge is “simple” in that it affirms merely that God knows the future, but not that he predetermines it as is held by theological determinism (Calvinism). And simple foreknowledge implies that God knows the actual future, but not (as is asserted by the theory of divine middle knowledge, or Molinism) that he knows hypothetical futures, such as what actions would be chosen by free creatures under possible circumstances that never in fact occur.

Recently, however, simple foreknowledge has been criticized by arguing that it does not, in fact, afford the theological benefits it is commonly thought to offer.1 Foreknowledge is often thought to be important because of its benefits for God’s providential government of the world. For instance, by knowing what is going to happen in the future, God is able to inspire prophets to foretell the future. He can also prearrange events and circumstances in the light of a foreknown future occurrence, so as better to achieve God’s purposes in the world. (An example: by foreknowing Saul’s disobedience and unfitness for the kingship, God was able to prearrange circumstances so as to facilitate the eventual elevation of David, such as by arranging David’s spectacular victory over Goliath.) The arguments mentioned above, however, claim to show that simple foreknowledge offers no such benefits: if God has simple foreknowledge, he is no better off in these respects than if he had only complete knowledge of past and present. To the extent that these arguments are successful, simple foreknowledge tends to be eliminated as a serious contender, and the debate about divine providence becomes a three-way discussion between Calvinists, Molinists, and open theists.2

The main objections to date against the arguments in question are those raised by philosopher David Hunt.3 Hunt does not deny that both Calvinism and Molinism afford God more providential control than can be provided by simple foreknowledge. However, he has serious reservations about both of those doctrines, and he argues that simple foreknowledge does indeed allow God greater providential control than is possible with merely probabilistic knowledge of the future. In this paper I address the most recent article in which Hunt defends his claims.4 I will show not only that he has not succeeded in demonstrating how simple foreknowledge is providentially useful, but that he cannot possibly succeed in showing this, given the understanding of divine foreknowledge with which he is working.5

My case against Hunt can be stated in the form of a simple, three-step argument:

(1) Simple foreknowledge is providentially useful if and only if God can determine, on the basis of his simple foreknowledge, how he shall act providentially in the world.

(2) If Hunt’s view of foreknowledge is correct, God cannot determine, on the basis of his simple foreknowledge, how he shall act providentially in the world.

(3) Therefore, if Hunt’s view of foreknowledge is correct, simple foreknowledge is not providentially useful.

These points, however, require further comment. Step (1) merely clarifies what is meant by the claim that foreknowledge is providentially useful. In order to be useful, it must enable God to act in the world, on the basis of his foreknowledge, in ways such as those described above–enabling prophets to predict the future, prearranging circumstances in the light of foreknown events, and the like. It should be particularly noted that simple foreknowledge needs to be of use to God in ways that go beyond what is possible for God on the basis of knowledge of the past and the present, plus probabilistic knowledge of the future such as is postulated by open theism.6 So understood, I do not think (1) is open to serious challenge.

The remaining task, then, is to justify premise (2). In order to do this we need to explain a distinction, first made by John Sanders, between two ways of understanding simple foreknowledge. The first of these is termed “Complete Simple Foreknowledge” (CSF) and is explained by Sanders as follows: “even though he knows things will occur in sequence God does not acquire the knowledge in sequence. God simply sees the whole at once.”7 The other way of understanding simple foreknowledge is termed “Incremental Simple Foreknowledge” (ISF) in which God “timelessly accesses the future in sequence or incrementally.”8 (Here as elsewhere in this article, references to God knowing or deciding things sequentially should be understood as referring, not to temporal succession–which according to SF does not exist in God’s knowing and deciding–but to the logical or explanatory order between different events. The key idea here is that events that are “later” in the explanatory order can happen because of events earlier in the order, but not vice versa.) The potential benefit of ISF is that after accessing one segment of the future God could then, on the basis of what he has accessed, make some decision concerning his own future actions before going on to access additional parts of the future.

Now, Sanders quickly dismisses CSF, and spends most of his article arguing that ISF is providentially useless. Hunt does not challenge the latter claim, but he thinks Sanders made a serious mistake in dismissing CSF. On the contrary, Hunt urges, CSF provides precisely the resources for divine providential action we have been looking for. I think it is not difficult to see that Hunt is mistaken about this. For consider: according to CSF, God “sees” the entire future all at once, in a single glance as it were, including God’s own future actions and the reasons for which God will perform those actions.9 Now, can we make any sense at all of the notion that God, on the basis of this knowledge of the future which already contains his own actions, determines what those actions shall be? I submit that we cannot. Those future actions are all already determined; they are spread out before him in his complete knowledge of the future. At this point, there is no “determining” left to be done! This can be stated as a formal argument, as follows:

(1) In order for God’s decisions to be made on the basis of his foreknowledge they must be subsequent, in the logical and explanatory order, to that foreknowledge.

(2) In order for God’s decisions to be included in God’s foreknowledge th decisions must be prior, in the logical and explanatory order, to that foreknowledge.

(3) Therefore, if God’s decisions are included in God’s foreknowledge (as they are according to CSF), those decisions cannot be made on the basis of his foreknowledge.

Once we have seen this, it is crystal clear that premise (2) of the argument given above is correct: God cannot determine, on the basis of his simple foreknowledge, how he shall act providentially in the world.
Hunt, however, wants to resist this conclusion. He writes, “Certainly God couldn’t make foreknowledge of his own action A the ‘basis’ for that very action A; but there’s no reason why he couldn’t use foreknowledge of other events as the basis for A” (p. 378). Now, the first part of what Hunt says here is undoubtedly correct. It makes no sense to picture God as saying to himself, “I know that I will arrange for David to defeat Goliath, and for that reason, I now decide that I will arrange for David to defeat Goliath.” But what is the alternative? According to Hunt, what we should suppose is that God, while fully aware that he is going to arrange for David to defeat Goliath, ignores that fact and reasons thus: “I desire the eventual elevation of David to the kingship, and for that reason I now decide that I will arrange for David to defeat Goliath.” But this makes no sense either! The only reasonable conclusion is that because God already knows all about the fact that he will arrange for David to defeat Goliath, as well as the reasons for which he will do that, there is no more decision to be made concerning that matter. But this conclusion is fatal to Hunt’s argument.

Hunt, however, still wants to resist, and in order to do this he argues that God’s knowing what he is going to do does not preclude his subsequently (in the explanatory order) deciding to do that very thing. He invokes a subtle distinction here, roughly the distinction between knowing that one will perform a certain action, and willing to do that thing–or, one might say, endorsing the action in question. He gives the example of a time traveler who, traveling into the future, sees himself committing suicide.10 He knows that he will perform this act, but he may not (at this point) will or endorse the action in question. (He may actually be horrified to see what his future self is doing.) So, Hunt reasons, God’s knowing that he will perform some providential action in no way precludes God’s subsequently deciding to do that very thing.

There are at least two reasons why this example does not help to save Hunt’s position. First of all, the time traveler knows the fact about what he will do, but be may not understand the reasons why he will do it. And even if he does know the reasons he may not yet appreciate the reasons in such a way that they lead him to endorse the decision. In order to fully appreciate them, he may need to live through the intervening life history up to the moment of suicide. But it is out of the question that God, in contemplating his own future actions, should be unaware of his reasons for those actions or should fail to fully appreciate those reasons. So the example, even if successful on its own terms, fails to throw any light on the alleged providential usefulness of simple foreknowledge.

But the example does not even succeed on its own terms. The time traveler does not, after seeing himself commit suicide, determine that he is going to perform this action. He may “decide” to perform it, in the sense that he decides to “go along with the inevitable” and do what it is already unavoidable that he should do. But the determination has “already”11 been made, by his future self; at most he can decide to ratify that already-made determination.

Given CSF, the conclusion is clear: God cannot determine, on the basis of his simple foreknowledge, how he shall act providentially. The determination in question has already been made prior to God’s accessing his foreknowledge, which already contains the actions in question. God is no more able to determine what action he will take than the time traveler is able to determine that he will commit suicide.12 Premise (2) is secure, and simple foreknowledge as conceived by Hunt is useless.

II. A SECOND ARGUMENT

At this point we turn to the somewhat different argument put forward by Alexander Pruss.13 Pruss’s specific concern is with prophecy, and his goal is to show that simple foreknowledge does indeed provide resources for divine prophecy–something that we have argued is not the case on David Hunt’s view of foreknowledge. Can Pruss succeed where Hunt has failed?

It is initially encouraging to see that Pruss is aware of some of the logical problems that are inherent in such an endeavor. He recognizes that were he to have complete knowledge of the future, including his own future actions, “then not only this knowledge would not help me make a free decision but, it seems, would undercut the very possibility of my making a free decision” (p. 435). We have seen exactly this problem in Hunt’s view of foreknowledge, so we will need to see how Pruss avoids it. Again, in speaking of Christ’s
prophecy that Peter will deny him, he says,

God’s belief that Peter will deny him must be responsive to Peter’s choice. What explains why God believes that Peter will deny him is God’s omniscience together with Peter’s actual future denial. But God’s belief is explanatorily prior to God’s decision to speak to Peter.14 And God’s speaking to Peter is explanatorily prior to Peter’s decision, it seems, since it is a part of what formed the character that Peter had while making the decision. This means that we have a vicious circularity in the order of explanation.15

Once again, it is encouraging to see that Pruss is aware of the problem. Furthermore, he lays out his strategy–or rather, two possible strategies–for avoiding these problems when he says the response must be “that God is in effect bracketing this categorical knowledge [of the future] when making the decision or that God’s knowledge of the future is posterior in the order of explanation, but not in the temporal order, to the decision about what future to actualize” (435; emphasis original). So we need to see how Pruss implements these strategies.

In order to solve these problems, Pruss needs to find something God’s decision can be based on, other than merely God’s foreknowledge of what will actually happen. In order to do this, he postulates, as a necessary truth, a “relevant similarity principle” which states that differences in circumstances do not matter for what Peter will do, so long as these differences are “invisible to the agent”-that is, they make no difference in the situation that the agent is able to detect. Pruss, however, is not fully satisfied with this, so he stakes a claim for an even broader relevant similarity principle:

The principle that invisible differences between circumstances do not matter might be part of a wider principle that all that matters in the circumstances is the time, the character of the agent, the subjective mental state, external causal influence on the agent, and maybe the history of previous choices.16

We might wonder what benefit is derived from these principles. Here is the answer: Pruss sees that it will not do to picture God as reasoning thus: “I know by my foreknowledge that I will tell Peter he will deny Jesus. Therefore, I decide that I will tell Peter that he will deny Jesus.” As he rightly sees, that sort of divine thought process would undercut the possibility of God’s making a genuine decision to say this to Peter. So, there must be some other reason, other than the mere fact that God knows he will say this to Peter, which is reason for his saying this. And the relevant similarity principles give him a way of getting this other reason. For example, very possibly, God knows that, at the time when he is questioned by various persons in the high priest’s courtyard, Peter will have forgotten (temporarily) what Jesus said to him. And this means (according to Pruss) that Peter’s character, his subjective mental state, the external causal influences on him, and so on would be exactly the same, whether or not Jesus told Peter that Peter would deny him. So God knows the following concerning Peter:

(PD) If Peter is in such-and-such circumstances in the courtyard, then, regardless of whether or not Jesus tells Peter that Peter will deny him, Peter will in fact deny Jesus.

Based on this knowledge, God issues the prophecy to Peter. And since the reason for the prophecy is not the fact that God knows that he will issue the prophecy, God’s ability to make a free choice is not impeded and circularity of explanation is avoided. Or so Pruss supposes.

By this time, however, things have gone seriously wrong. First of all, Pruss’s relevant similarity principle, which he posits as a necessary truth, is very likely false. Notice that the principle makes no mention of the subject’s neurological state: it does not matter what that may be, so long as the difference is not introspectively perceptible to the agent. Now, in the light of contemporary neuroscience, this is highly implausible. One need not be a materialist, nor need one embrace neurological determinism, to think it very likely that one’s neurological state can have a major influence on one’s decisions, even in cases where the differences in neurological state are subjectively indetectible. (Note that Peter’s neurological state was certainly affected in a significant way by what Jesus had said; this is shown by the fact that, immediately after the threefold denial, he remembered Jesus’ words to him.)

But this is really a secondary point. For, even given the relevant similarity principle, how is it that God is able to know (PD)? The answer Pruss gives is, because of his foreknowledge. That is to say, God knows that Peter will deny Jesus in the actual circumstances, in which Jesus has said to Peter that Peter will betray him. And by combining this knowledge with the (supposedly) necessarily true relevant similarity principle, God arrives at the truth of (PD). And by using (PD) instead of his foreknowledge as the reason for telling Peter that he will betray Jesus, this account avoids the problems noted by Pruss and referenced above.

But this just will not work. Explanation is a transitive relation: If A explains B, and B explains C, then A explains C. (That is to say, A is part of the explanation why C is the case; at each step, the factor indicated may not be the complete explanation.) If God’s knowledge that Peter will deny Jesus is the explanation for God’s knowledge of (PD), and God’s knowledge of (PD) is the explanation for God’s issuing the prophecy, then God’s knowledge of Peter’s denial is the explanation for God’s issuing the prophecy. So far, Pruss would not disagree. But here is the key point: Does the prophecy not constitute a part of the explanation for Peter’s denial? Pruss, I think, wants to answer the question “No,” because (by hypothesis) Peter would have denied Christ with or without the prophecy. But that, I contend, is a mistake. God’s knowledge of Peter’s denial is not to be thought of as knowledge of the bare proposition “Peter will deny Jesus.” It must, rather, be understood as a complete grasp of the concrete event of Peter’s denial, including all relevant facts about Peter at the time of the denial. And these facts will undoubtedly be different in many details as a result of Jesus’ prophetic words to Peter. (Again, recall that just moments after his denial, Peter is able to recall what Jesus had said to him.) So the prophecy is (in part) the explanation for Peter’s state when he denies Christ, and the explanatory circle has not been avoided. It is still the case that the prophecy to Peter is explained (in part) by Peter’s total state in denying Christ, and Peter’s state in denying Christ is explained (in part) by the prophecy. None of Pruss’s elaborate and ingenious maneuvering has succeeded in avoiding this explanatory circle. But as Pruss agrees, such explanatory circles are unacceptable; therefore his account fails.

Nor does Pruss escape the difficulty that God’s foreknowledge of how Peter acts under the circumstances in which he has been told by Jesus that he will betray Jesus actually prevents God from making a free decision to issue the prophecy. Admittedly, Pruss is less explicit than David Hunt on the question of Complete Simple Foreknowledge vs. Incremental Simple Foreknowledge. Matters are clarified, however, if we recall Pruss’s proposal that “God is in effect bracketing this categorical knowledge [of the future] when making the decision.” If the knowledge is bracketed, then it is “there” in his foreknowledge, even if it is not, as such, being used to make the decision. So we are in the same situation we imagined in Hunt’s case where, as we saw, “God, while fully aware that he is going to arrange for David to defeat Goliath, ignores that fact and reasons thus: ‘I desire the eventual elevation of David to the kingship, and for that reason I now decide that I will arrange for David to defeat Goliath.’” And as we observed before, this makes no sense. If the knowledge the God will issue the prophecy is included in God’s foreknowledge, then the decision to issue the prophecy is explanatorily prior to that foreknowledge. But if the decision is made on the basis of the foreknowledge (which we have seen is the case on Pruss’s scenario), then the foreknowledge is explanatorily prior to the decision. The contradiction is palpable, and it has not been avoided by all of Pruss’s skillful maneuvering.

I am afraid that for some readers the more technical nature of this discussion of Pruss’s work may pose a problem. I can only say in extenuation that Pruss’s actual discussion is a great deal longer and more technical than anything I have said about it here! What is striking, however, is that in spite of his admirable ingenuity he has not, in the end, succeeded in evading the same problems that we found in Hunt’s simpler and more straightforward presentation. To be sure, the discussion of this topic is still relatively young, and it may be premature to conclude that there will be no further twists and turns in the debate. But the fact that two extremely capable philosophers, working independently and using different approaches, still leave us with the same intractable problems should caution us against undue optimism. For now, the most reasonable conclusion to draw is that simple foreknowledge is still useless.17

Mapping the Terrain of Divine Providence

by Brian Martin in John Sanders

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Traditionalist Views

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Areas of Agreement and Disagreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Examining Problems and Assumptions: An Update on Criticisms of Open Theism

by Brian Martin in David M. Woodruff

David M. Woodruff 1
Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 47, Number 1 • Spring 2008

Abstract: Open theism, a form of relational theology, has generated a host of criticisms. I examine some of the recent criticisms by analyzing several that center around biblical, doctrinal and philosophical problems. I show how many criticisms miss the mark by failing to recognize and address the underlying assumptions held by open theists.

Key Terms: open theism, atemporal, foreknowledge, molinism.

Open theism is a form of relational theology.2 Relational theologies start with the belief that God desires to be in relationship with creation, and use that belief as a basis for interpretation and explanation of other aspects of the divine nature. I would like to offer an update on criticisms of open theism.3 My approach to these criticisms is rooted in my belief that some form of relational theology is accurate in that it properly represents relationship as a divine value, and then interprets the divine nature and other theological concepts based on this value.4 Thus, open theism makes sense of a wide array of views about God’s nature including God’s purpose, actions, and intentions throughout all creation along with other features of a systematic theology, by locating as central the belief that God values the relationships that the created order offers.5

Because of this, open theists believe creation history is not uniquely determined by the divine creative act. It is “open” in the sense that there is more than one possible outcome in creation. The two most contentious consequences of this are: first, not everything that happens in creation was ordained (or foreordained) by God; and second, God lacks exhaustive definite foreknowledge. According to open theists, God takes risks in achieving the ends or purposes of creation. Furthermore, to some degree, God cannot know the outcome in its totality.6 I would like to present here an update of some additional points of contention. Although there are numerous criticisms I will only examine several typical criticisms organized into three categories: biblical interpretation, doctrine and philosophy.

Biblical Interpretation and Open Theism

There are a number of different criticisms of open theism that claim open theism is unbiblical. Using a verse by verse approach, critics amass a host of verses claiming each one shows that open theism is wrong. One possible response is to provide a verse by verse reply to these criticisms. What an analysis of these criticisms and the respective replies show is that little progress can be made without an independent guide to how we approach such texts.7 The interpretative assumptions we bring to the texts determine how we interpret the texts. Verses offered by critics against open theists are given Openness Friendly Interpretations (OFI) by open theists.8 All this seems to show is that there is not a single universally accepted interpretation of biblical texts. However, when we accept that the meaning of the text is pliable, this does not entail that it will be infinitely pliable.9 What then will guide us in deciding which meanings are acceptable and which are not?

The response critics usually offer is that we should interpret difficult texts using clear or obvious texts. Paul Helm has offered a solution that distinguished weak texts and strong texts.10 Yet critics argue that open theists wrongly elevate weak texts and use them as the basis for incorrectly interpreting strong texts. There is something to be said for the principle offered here, but I do not think it gets the critics what they ultimately want. All of us do interpret texts based on the assumption that some are more basic and fundamental than others, although often enough we do this without consciously being aware of it. We understand difficult texts in light of those that seem to be more clear and basic; what counts as a ‘difficult’ text is determined by what we accept as clear and basic. The problem that critics fail to address is that there are no independent grounds for establishing which texts are to be treated as clear and basic. We cannot approach the text in a perfectly neutral way, and then following some neutral pattern of interpretation, derive from strictly textual grounds the clear and basic texts.11 Instead, what we bring to the texts guides us.

One criterion we use to decide which texts are foundational is the longstanding interpretation of the church, and critics point out that the church tradition does not favor open theism. Notice this is an admission that there is not a single interpretation that we can obtain from the text if we are diligent and honest enough to let the text speak for itself. This rejects the criticism as it was originally given; it is a big shift to which few critics own up. Taken to the extreme, critics argue that open theism was not the view of the biblical writers. One critic recently

quipped that he doubted that Paul was an open theist. His point appeared to be that if we properly understand Paul, we will understand his view of the divine nature; and since Scripture is inspired, we must accept it as correct. While this criticism has significant rhetorical weight, it is actually no better positioned than the earlier criticisms I noted. In short, we must interpret Paul ourselves, and that puts us right back in the position of lacking an independent interpretive key to his texts.

Furthermore, I do think that there are a number of additional problems not being addressed. I am not so sure I agree with the above mentioned critic that it is at all obvious Paul was not an open theist,12 but for the sake of argument, suppose we accept that he was not. The inference from what Paul believed to what we should believe appears to rely on the following principle: “biblical writer X viewed the divine nature to be Y, therefore the divine nature is (obviously) Y.” This is much more problematic than many critics seem to realize. For example, it is not at all clear that Paul or other New Testament writers believed what we do about the structure of the Trinity. I accept a trinitarian view of God’s nature, and I do think there are biblical passages that support this doctrine. However, while Paul had a distinct take on the divine nature compared to his contemporary Jewish thinkers, it is not at all obvious Paul believed the divine trinitarian nature was to be understood in terms the church has accepted since it was worked out at the council of Nicea.13

Considering the Old Testament

Things only get more difficult when we look to the Old Testament. Is there any evidence that Amos was a trinitarian, or that if he were, he thought about it in the concepts defended at Nicea? If not, should we reject the Nicean formulation based on the principle cited above? Furthermore, some scholars have claimed that Moses was a henotheist.14 Yet if this is correct, it does not seem to me that I should be a henotheist as well. The underlying problem with the interpretive principle above is that it is based on a problematic view of inspiration, a view where inspiration so guided the words of the writers that we must attribute to them beliefs that it seems extremely unlikely they would have held.15 If we reject the principle, we face a difficulty, one which it seems critics of open theism are unwilling to address. As we think carefully about God, how do we come to understand new things about God, things that the original writers may not themselves have recognized?16 Perhaps this is as much a point of division as open theism’s view of exhaustive definite foreknowledge or specific sovereignty.

A crucial example of this issue is the question of what constitutes the ‘biblical’ notion of free will? Critics of open theism argue that open theology gets doctrine wrong because it does not utilize the biblical notion of free will. One criticism points out that in Old Testament law, people were held accountable for things over which they had no control.17 Here we find the open theists again appealing to larger themes. A fundamental assumption of moral responsibility is that ought implies can.18 Even if we can read some biblical passages in such a way that they would conflict with this interpretation, there seems to be a prevalent assumption that “ought does imply can.”19 Furthermore, there does not seem to be specific denial of this injunction. Finally, passages which can be read as denying the injunction can also be interpreted to be consistent with this moral principle.20

So, how can we agree upon an understanding of the biblical notion of free will? One thing we can start with is an agreement that humans are morally responsible for what they do. Those affirming compatibilism and those affirming libertarian free will each assert that a minimal constraint for a meaningful notion of free will is that it is a basis for moral responsibility. This assists us in seeing the two sides of the issue. Open theists want to look for an open-friendly interpretation of those biblical texts that seem to imply that someone could be morally responsible for their actions when they could not have done otherwise. Compatibilists want to convince us that we can understand our conception of moral responsibility apart from the ability to have done otherwise. That is, they need a good reason to reject the moral principle that “ought implies can.”

Of necessity, this requires interpretation. And until interpretations which affirm this principle are conclusively ruled out, the conclusion that open theism uses a non-biblical conception of free will inevitably lacks support.

Open Theism and Christian Doctrine

Other criticisms of open theism attempt to show that it is contrary to accepted Christian doctrine. Many such criticisms seem to presuppose implicitly that we are clear on doctrinal matters. A careful look at Church history makes it obvious that this presupposition is unwarranted.21 A look at the process of elucidating even the most central doctrines of Christian faith shows that it was not exactly an even-handed, loving activity handled by docile, peace-loving monks.22 A broader look at the development of any doctrine cannot fail to show that the interpretation of the Christian faith is far from being a historically closed matter.

The Example of Omniscience

What would an adequate criticism of open theism based on doctrine look like? Far too often, doctrinal criticisms merely assume that the doctrine being offered, say omniscience, is clearly defined and unambiguously necessitated by Christian faith. Few such doctrines exist. One criticism of open theism is that it rejects exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF).23 While widespread acceptance of EDF is a relevant criterion, to show EDF is an essential doctrine of Christianity requires that it be both unambiguously accepted and a necessity for an accurate explanation of the Christian faith.24 The doctrinally grounded arguments for example, God would be less than perfect if God lacked EDF, or that God would lack omniscience without EDF make significant assumptions. Notice that the claim without EDF God would lack omniscience—assumes that we have a precise concept of omniscience and that it includes knowledge of the future. Open theists question both of these assumptions. If a critic of open theism can establish that there is some fact, rather than simply a range of possibilities about the future, we might think that an omniscient being would need to know that fact.25 Open theists, because of their commitment to libertarian free will, question whether the future exists in a way that grounds present exhaustive facts about it. If open theists are right, the future lacks sufficient facts for God to have EDF. This is not inconsistent with omniscience.

On the other hand, some open theists have granted that while there are facts about the future, these facts are not knowable by God or by any other being. If this were the case, then it would not be a limit of God’s knowledge for God to fail know what no being could possibly know. Some have criticized this as tampering with the definition of omniscience, but until there is some independent ground for granting one view of the nature of omniscience over another, this hardly seems to be a sustainable criticism. Much already has been said by others about this topic, so I will refer the reader to some other discussions of the matter.26

The Example of God’s Sovereignty

Similar arguments have been presented against the sovereignty of God. As discussed above, many critics of open theism appear to think that there is an unquestionable concept of sovereignty that is universally accepted by Christians, with the exception of open theists. I doubt a careful look at what Christians believe will support this assumption. Even if there were no open theists around today there would not be a universally accepted concept of sovereignty. Some hold that divine sovereignty simply means that nothing happens that is not divinely ordained. This position is divided by others to distinguish those things that God wills from those things that God does not wish to happen but allows in order to bring about what is willed.27 Open theists reject specific divine sovereignty,28 but this is not the same as the rejection of the doctrine of divine sovereignty. According to open theists, God’s exercise of sovereignty is broad. This is based on the open theist belief that broad sovereignty fits better with God’s goal to enter into loving relationship with beings who are able to reciprocate that love. A good deal of both the liturgy and the practice of Christians, especially prayer, shows that specific divine sovereignty is neither unambiguously held nor necessitated by the Christian faith.29

Philosophical justifications of specific divine sovereignty are no better off. For a philosophical argument to work, there would need to be either unquestionable premises to work from, or one would need to show that rejections of specific sovereignty are necessarily self-contradictory. Either of these tasks is notoriously difficult. Even if one or more open theists has a contradictory conception of divine sovereignty, this would not prove that there is not a consistent concept that open theists could embrace.

Tom Flint has offered a different approach to doctrinal disputes. Flint argues that the way to approach these issues is not to try to come up with a cut and dried argument, but instead to look at how various doctrines work together, as a whole.30 Flint makes two important points in his arguments. First, he recognizes that doctrines are supposed to do things. So we might well ask of the open theist’s notion of sovereignty whether it does what we expect and need the doctrine to do. Second, Flint recognizes that doctrines do not operate in a conceptual vacuum. Flint asks us to consider whether a particular doctrine fits well or poorly with other beliefs. Let us consider an application of Flint’s approach to the question of divine providence: I argue that molinism (Flint’s chosen doctrine of divine foreknowledge) does not handle the notion of divine providence as well as open theism does.

Molinism: One Version of Divine Providence

Molinism attempts to show how God can have EDF, and at the same time, humans can have libertarian free will. It does this by attributing middle knowledge to God. Middle knowledge is the knowledge that God has between knowledge of what is necessarily the case, should God choose to create, and the contingent facts that would be true if God creates a particular world. The middle knowledge that God has is comprised of all of the ways things would be in the whole range of possibilities. The main point of interest is subjunctive conditionals concerning what a free creature would do in a particular circumstance: truths of the form, “if Bob were in circumstance C he would freely choose to do action A.” Based on knowledge of what a libertarian free creature would do in every possible circumstance, God chooses to create a particular world which would bring about what God desires.

Several things are relevant to the discussion of divine providence. First, God’s act of providence consists in the choice God makes to create the particular contingent world. Second, if God decides to intervene in creation,31 that intervention is a part of the particular creation that God has brought about. In other words, the action is part of the plan of creation prior to the act of creation. God’s response comes in the form of perfect anticipation of what we will do and say, including what we will request.32 Finally, God does not have control over what subjunctive conditionals will be true. If God did exercise control over such things, then we would not be free.33 Recall that the molinist is attempting to preserve both libertarian free will and exhaustive definite foreknowledge. It is because the truths of the subjunctive conditionals are not up to God, but are up to creatures that the libertarian free will of creatures is maintained. One might summarize this with the following: necessary truths of creation + subjunctive conditionals + divine selection of contingent conditions = human history, past present and future, including the providential acts of God.

The basic notion of providence is that God works to the good of all creation. Providence is a relational concept in that it tells us something about how God relates to us, specifically that God acts for our good and/or our overall long-term wellbeing.34 The molinist construal of providence seems to be offering us the possibility for a meaningful relationship with God. Suppose I had perfect knowledge, including knowledge of the free acts my children would choose in any possible circumstances and complete knowledge of those circumstances. I might well prepare a future that would meet their needs in a way that maximized their well-being. For example, if I knew I were going to die next week and I had such foreknowledge as described, I might make recordings of advice, support, and congratulations. I am sure under the circumstances this would help my children. However, suppose I have the choice between two options: either I could record my congratulations ahead of time for what I know my child will achieve, or I could be there when it happens to congratulate my child in person. I think that were I able to do either, it would be substantially less meaningful to my children if I chose the first option. Recording the congratulatory message would serve the same purpose as my actual interaction. I might initiate the exchange with something like, ‘Congratulations I know you worked hard for this.’ Given my perfect knowledge, I would know what my son or daughter would then say and wait the appropriate time and record the appropriate response. But this seems to me clearly to be a diminished relationship. The molinist is not denying that God seeks to be in a relationship; as a matter of fact, s/he views middle knowledge as a means of affirming divine providential action. My contention is that open theism has the potential for a richer sense of the providential divine-human relationship. So by Flint’s criterion we should prefer the open theist’s doctrine of providence.35

Finally, it might seem at first that the molinist doctrine of providence necessarily implies that God must choose the best of all possible worlds. Flint rejects this idea based on similar arguments, seen in the literature, dealing with the problem of evil; namely that there may be no best possible world, either because there is no upper limit or because there is a tie. Suppose we choose the later possibility.36 Given our understanding of providence for the molinist—as describing the divine choice of creating the world God did create based on the necessary and subjunctive truths—we now appear to be committed to one of two options. On the one hand, God could see that if anything were made better for any creature, in any particular circumstance, then it would result in either overall less well-being for that creature or less overall well-being for other creatures with which God was equally concerned. On the other hand, God chooses not to act as well as God knew was possible providentially. Each of these strains our sense of the doctrine of providence.37

For the open theist, God’s knowledge of the free actions of individual creatures is limited to the probability that the creature would act in a given way in a given situation. This is often expressed thusly: God knows future possibilities as possible. God acts, based on principles that guide the application of divine providential actions as a direct response to personal interaction with creatures. Perhaps it is only a reflection of already deep open theist tendencies in my own thinking, but as I look at the two approaches, the open theist’s view of providence seems to do a much better job of capturing what I think about as divine providence.38

Open Theism and Philosophy

The most significant type of criticism that open theism faces has to do with the assumptions and philosophical framework open theism endorses, some of which is the basis for replies given above. Do we actually have libertarian free will? Is divinity fundamentally concerned with relationship? Is it impossible for an atemporal being to enter into personal relationships with temporal beings? How is time best understood? Of these, I believe the issue surrounding the nature of time, and the implication this has on divine and human nature, is the most significant issue that open theists face.

The Example of Temporality

Some critics of open theism have asserted that we can maintain exhaustive definite foreknowledge and libertarian free will when we realize that God is atemporal. An atemporal God can know

the whole of the human experience without that knowledge determining human choice. This view maintains libertarian free will because it preserves the possibility that at this instant I can choose between real options. If, for example, I choose to continue typing . . . it nonetheless could have been the case that I took a break instead. Because God is outside time, God will always know what, in fact, I choose to do, but God’s knowledge is not the cause of my action.

The difficulty in the atemporalist’s approach is to avoid equivocation on the nature of time in the switch between the human perspective and the divine perspective. From the divine, atemporal perspective, the whole of time can be immediately known. Time itself must have a single nature, even if, when viewed from different perspectives, divine or human, it is seen in different ways. God is omniscient in that God knows all truths that happen at all times. From our perspective time flows or progresses. I can distinguish tomorrow from yesterday. What happened yesterday is something that is complete and I can not now do anything about it. What will happen tomorrow is, at least in some partial sense, yet to come. In so far as I exercise libertarian free will for some future event, I have the power to determine whether that event will or will not occur.39 Hence, divine atemporality avoids theological determinism and preserves libertarian free will.

It is not enough to preserve the epistemic grounds for free will; grounds that make it rational for us to believe that we have free will. For the divine atemporalist position to be worth our consideration, we want it to maintain the metaphysical ground of free will. We want a description of the structural nature of time that allows us the ability to actualize between genuine alternatives. If the divine atemporalist position does not get us this, then it fails in a significant way.40

The Role of Modern Physics

Modern physics appears to support the atemporalist position. Understanding time has been a major issue at least as far back as Einstein’s introduction of special relativity. There are a number of interrelated issues, but one of the fundamental distinctions is between the stasis or block theory and the dynamic theory of time.41 In the block view of time, the whole of time exists. What to us is past exists equally with what to us is present, and likewise the future exists in exactly the same way as what is present.42 Although some have argued that relativity theory does not commit one to a block view of time, the block view is the view most commonly associated with relativity theory.43 If space-time is understood to be a complete whole, and God—the creator of space-time—is not a part of space-time, then God would be outside of that continuum and outside time. God knows what is to me past, what is to me present and what is to me future with equal clarity and as equally real and occurring. How, exactly, God could be outside the continuum and yet have knowledge of it is difficult to work out; however, given that God could know anything of what is internal to space-time, there would seem to be no barrier to God knowing all of it and thus having what appears to me to be exhaustive definite foreknowledge.

If this is the right or only view of time which is compatible with relativity theory, open theism has significant, perhaps even fatal problems.44 Some have argued that it is not the case that the block view is the only view compatible with the best physics we have available to us. I contend that this view may not be as attractive to the open theistic divine atemporalist as it seems at first. The block or stasis view of time may well be incompatible with other things atemporalists want to affirm; in particular it may be incompatible with libertarian free will. If it is not outright incompatible, it presents such a different view of ‘change’ and ‘free will’ that it will be difficult to reconcile what atemporalists think about the temporal structure and its inhabitants.

The purpose of affirming divine atemporality is to provide a basis for avoiding theistic determinism; to avoid a conflict between God knowing what I will do and my having the ability to actualize from a range of genuine options. My free actions frequently involve a change in my state.45 First, I am one way; then, as I exercise my ability to actualize a genuine option, I come to be in a different state. Typically divine atemporalists take a traditional view of change. To understand the problem for the atemporalist we need to look at what block theory says about the nature of change.

Block Theory and the Nature of Change

According to block theory, humans, like every other thing that has any temporal duration, are spread out in time in the same way that spatial objects are spread out in space. I am not merely what is simultaneous with the typing on this keyboard, but rather, I am a four-dimensional whole that is spread out in time. When you and I interact, what you interact with is a temporal slice or part of me, but I am much more than the temporal slice before you. Here it gets a bit tricky for the divine atemporalist position. Just as the past is real and complete, the future slices of me are real and complete. In the traditional sense of ‘change,’ the four dimensional things spread out in space and time do not change. Supporters of block theory are quick to point out that they do not deny change. They want to affirm the obvious, that things undergo change. But they do not affirm the traditional view of change where I (the whole of me) am first one way and then later I am a different way. In fact, they deny that there is a meaningful referent for ‘I’ in such claims. Instead, based on their block view of spacetime, they affirm that the right way to understand change is: a temporal slice of me is one way and a different temporal slice of me is a different way. This is analogous to the way spatially extended objects change from one spatial location to the next. An aircraft carrier is one way at one spatial point and a different way at another spatial point.

I do not find the preceding description a particularly compelling view of change; however, there is no denying that it does account for much of what we want to say about change in a way consistent with the block or stasis view of time.46 However, it does not account for the idea that a single whole complete thing—me—is first one way and then at some later time that same complete whole thing is different. This is simply something that block theorists view as inconsistent with their metaphysical view. It is something that is inconsistent with what they think is the basic structure of the universe, just as the notion that the whole of you is before me when we interact is a mistaken view. We might now wonder what the block view commits us to regarding the nature of free choice. Am I able to do other than what I do? Whatever I will choose to do tomorrow—is it the case I am at that temporal point able to choose something else?

The discussion here is very difficult to track. In one sense, I necessarily occupy the spatial temporal whole that I occupy, and whatever state any temporal slice of me is in is necessary.47 God might well have instantiated a different spatial-temporal block, but it is difficult to see in what sense that block is relevant. More importantly, whatever sense of possibility might apply, I do not have the power to actualize what is ‘possible.’ We might work out the modal truths of a block world in such a way that it is broadly metaphysically possible that I do something other that what I in fact do; however, that sense of ‘ability’ seems to fall well short of what we need for libertarian free will. What we need for libertarian free will are circumstances where I am able to actualize more than one possible future, because the block universe is a physical universe that requires that it be physically possible for me to actualize more than one possibility. However, in the block universe there is only one future.48 This seems to eliminate libertarian free will. God, in creating this particular space time block, creates the whole thing. On the other hand, if we reject the block view of time, it is not clear that there is a future for God to be aware of. Open theists assert that if we do have libertarian free will and there exists no future for God to know, then God cannot know (with certainty) what I will do.

To sum up, the divine atemporalist faces a dilemma: either the future is complete, in which case the resulting view of objects and changes is unlikely to be reconciled with her/his view of freewill; or there is no future and thus there is nothing for God to know. It is not God’s knowledge which is the cause of the determinism that is inconsistent with libertarian freewill; it is the structure of reality put forward that is the problem. Of course, none of this shows that the block view of time is not the correct view of time. My point here is merely that divine atemporality does not, in any obvious way, get us both EDF and libertarian free will.

Conclusion

Open theism is not immune from significant criticism. However, I hope that I have shown how open theists respond to some recent criticisms. Many critics simply miss the mark by making assumptions that open theists will be unwilling to grant. Some assumptions that are common, like the clarity of doctrine or the notion that we can somehow independently determine which biblical passages are the strong and clear ones, open theists are right to reject. Some like the nature of time seem far more tenuous and difficult to justify.49

David Woodruff Divine Providence EDF Examining Problems Key Terms Old Testament Open Theism

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.

See also:

The bibliography compiled by Thomas Oord on this website.
The “History of Open Theism” on this website.
Taylor, Jusin. “A Bibliography on Open Theism.” Eds with John Piper, Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity. Chicago: Crossway, 2003: 385-400.
Swanson, Dennis M “Bibliography of works on open theism”. Master’s Seminary Journal, 12 no 2 Fall 2001, p 223-229.

Multi-views books:
- Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: 4 Views, edited by Bruce Ware (Broadman & Holman, 2008), includes a defense of open theism by Sanders, a defense of the traditional Arminian view by Roger Olson, a “classical Calvinist perspective” by Paul Helm and a “modified Calvinist perspective” by Bruce Ware.
- Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views ed. James Beilby and Paul Eddy (IVP, 2001). Contains Boyd on the open view, David Hunt for a modified simple foreknowledge view, William Lane Craig for middle knowledge, and Paul Helm for theological determinism.
- God and Time: Four Views ed. Gregory Ganssle (IVP, 2001). Wolterstorff defends a temporal conception of God, Helm the atemporal view, while Padgett and Craig affirm divine temporality since creation.
- Predestination and Free Will: Four Views, ed. David Basinger and Randall Basinger (IVP, 1986) contains Pinnock on open theism.
Works supporting open theism:

Archer, Kenneth. “Open Theism View: Prayer Changes Things.” The Pneuma Review 5.2 (Spring 2002): 32-53.

_________. “How Much Does God Control? Open View Response to the Arminian View,” The Pneuma Review 1/1(Winter 2004): 60-64;

Baker, Vaughn. Evangelism and the Openness of God: The Implications of Relational Theism for Evangelism and Missions (Pickwick, 2013).

Barholomew, D. J. God of Chance (London: SCM, 1984), chap. 7

Basinger, David. The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1996.
________. ‘Can an Evangelical Christian Justifiably Deny God’s Exhaustive Knowledge of the Future?’ Christian Scholar’s Review 25/2 (1995): 135-145.
________. ‘Divine Control and Human Freedom: Is Middle Knowledge the Answer?’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36/1 (1993): 55-64.
________. ‘Divine Omniscience and the Soteriological Problem of Evil: Is the Type of Knowledge God Possesses Relevant?’ Religious Studies 18/1 (1992): 1-18.

Borgman, Paul. Genesis: The Story We Haven’t Heard. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Boyd, Gregory. God of the Possible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.
________. “Two ancient (and modern) motivations for ascribing exhaustively definite foreknowledge to God: a historic overview and critical assessment.” Religious Studies 46 no 1 Mr 2010, p 41-59.
________. Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
________. God At War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict. Downers Grove: IVP, 1997.
________. Is God to Blame? IVP 2003
_________. Trinity and Process: A Critical Evaluation and Reconstruction of Hartshorne’s Di-Polar Theism Towards a Trinitarian Metaphysics. American University Studies Series VII, Theology and Religion vol. 19. New York: Peter Lang, 1992.
_________. (2001) “The Open-Theist View.” James Beilby and Paul Eddy eds. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

Boyd, with Alan Rhoda,and Thomas Belt “Open Theism, Omniscience, and the Nature of the Future” Faith and Philosophy, 23(4), 432-459, October 2006.

Brents, T. W. The Gospel Plan of Salvation. 12th Edition. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1928 [1st Edition, 1874].

Brümmer, Vincent. Speaking of a Personal God: An Essay in Philosophical Theology. Cambridge: University Press, 1992.
________. What Are We Doing When We Pray? A Philosophical Investigation. Revised edition, Ashgate, 2008.

Callen, Barry. Discerning the Divine :God in Christian Theology, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004

Carasik, Michael. “The Limits of Omniscience.” Journal of Biblical Literature 119.2 (summer 2000): 221-232

Clayton, Philip. “Kenotic Trinitarian Panentheism,” Dialogue, 44/3 (2005).

Cobb, John B. Jr., and Clark H. Pinnock, eds., Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue Between Process and Free Will Theists, William B. Eerdmans, 2000

Culp, John. “From Criticism to Mutual Transformation? The Dialogue Between Process and Evangelical Theologies.” Process Studies, pp. 132-146, Vol. 30, Number 1, Spring- Summer, 2001

Dorner, Isaac. Divine Immutability: A Critical Reconsideration, Robert Williams and Claude Welch trans. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), pp. 149-153

Ellis, Rober. Answering God: Towards A Theology of Intercession. Paternoster, 2005 Elseth, H. Roy. Did God Know? A Study of the Nature of God. St Paul: Calvary United Church, 1977.

Ellington, Scott. “Who Shall Lead them Out? An Exploration of God’s Openness in Exodus 32:7-14.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 14/1 (2005): 41-60.

Fiddes, Paul S. The Creative Suffering of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.

Fretheim, Terence. The Book of Genesis. The New Interpreter’s Bible. Nashville,TN: Abingdon, 1994.
________. “Creator, Creature, and Co-Creation in Genesis 1-2.” Word and World. Supplement 1 (1992): 11-20.
________.”Divine Foreknowledge, Divine Constancy, and the Rejection of Saul’s Kingship.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 47, no. 4 (Oct. 1985): 595-602.
________. Exodus. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1991.
________. God and Violence in the Old Testament,” Word & World 24/1 (Winter 2004): 18-28.
________. “Prayer in the Old Testament: Creating Space in the World for God.” Ed. Paul Sponheim. A Primer on Prayer. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
________. “The Repentance of God: A Key to Evaluating Old Testament God-Talk.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 10, no. 1 (June 1988): 47-70.
________. “The Repentance of God: A Study of Jeremiah 18:7-10. Hebrew Annual Review 11 (1987): 81-92.
________. “Suffering God and Sovereign God in Exodus: A Collision of Images.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 11 no. 2 (Dec. 1989): 31-56.
________. The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
________. First and Second Kings, Westminster John Knox, 1999. Geach, Peter. Providence and Evil, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977

Goetz, James. Conditional Futurism: New Perspective of End-Time Prophecy. Wipf and Stock 2012. Argues that all biblical covenants and predictive prophecies [are] conditional. Does not discuss the open theism debate but is compatible with openness.

Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology, vol. 1 (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003)

Gould, James B. “Bonhoeffer and Open Theism.” Philosophy and Theology: Marquette University Quarterly, 15/ 1, pp. 57-91, 2003

Gregersen, Niels Henrik. “Faith in a World of Risks: A Trinitarian Theology of Risk- Taking.” Eds. Else Pedersen, Lam Holger and Peter Lodberg, For all People: Global Theologies in Context: Essays in honor of Viggo Morterson (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002): 214-233.

Harvey, Sharron. Open Theism and Environmental Responsibilities: A Promotion of Environmental Ethics. (Original publication 2007) AV Akademikerverlag, 2012.

Hasker, William. Providence, Evil, and the Openness of God, London: Routledge, 2004.
_________. God, Time, and Knowledge, Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion. Cornell University Press, 1989.
_________. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, with Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, and David Basinger, Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
_________. “Is Free-Will Theism Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi,” Religious Studies, .
__________.“The Antinomies of Divine Providence,” Philosophia Christi, 4:2 (2002), pp. 361-75.
__________.“Counterfactuals and Evil: A Reply to Geivett,” Philosophia Christi, .
__________. “The God Who Takes Risks,” in Michael Peterson, ed., Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion, Oxford: Blackwell, 2003.
_________.“Response to Helm,” in Michael Peterson, ed., Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion, Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
_________. “The End of Human Life: Buddhist, Process, and Open Theist Perspectives.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 32:2 (June 2005).
_________. “The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism,” Process Studies 29:2 (Fall/Winter 2000), pp. 194-208.
__________. “The Foreknowledge Condundrum.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 50, Numbers 1-3 ( December 2001 ): 97 – 114
___________. “Bitten to Death by Ducks’: A Reply to Griffin,” Process Studies 29:2 (Fall/Winter 2000), pp. 227-32.
___________. “An Adequate God,” in John B. Cobb, Jr., and Clark H. Pinnock, eds., Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue Between Process and Free Will Theists, Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 2000, pp. 215-45
__________.“In Response to David Ray Griffin,” in Searching for an Adequate God, pp. 39-52.
__________.“The Openness of God,” Christian Scholar’s Review 28:1 (Fall 1998), pp. 111-23.
__________. “Tradition, Divine Transcendence, and the Waiting Father,” Christian Scholar’s Review 28:1 (Fall 1998), pp. 134-39.
_________. “Providence and Evil: Three Theories,” Religious Studies 28 (1992), pp. 91-105.
__________. The Triumph of God Over Evil: Theodicy for a World of Suffering. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
_________. “Why Simple Foreknowledge is Still Useless,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 52/3 (September, 2009): 537-544.

Hasker, William, Thomas Oord, and Dean Zimmerman eds. God in an Open Universe: Science, Metaphysics, and Open Theism (Pickwick, 2011).

Hayes, Joel S. The Foreknowledge of God; Or, The Omniscience of God Consistent with His Own Holiness and Man’s Free Agency. Nashville: Publishing House of the M[ethodist] E[piscopal] Church, South, 1890.

Hempelmann, Heinzpeter. Wir haben den Horizont weggewischt Die Herausforderung: Postmoderner Wahrheitspluralismus und christliches Wahrheitszeugnis (Wuppertal 2008).
________. Unaufhebbare Subjektivität Gottes. Probleme einer Lehre vom concursus divinus, dargestellt anhand von Karl Barths “Kirchlicher Dogmatik”, (Wuppertal 1992).

Kapitan, Tomis. ‘Acting and the Open Future: A Brief Reply to David Hunt.’ Religious Studies 33/3 (1997): 287-292.
_______. ‘Agency and Omniscience.’ Religious Studies 27/1 (1991): 105-120. Knight, Gordon. “Universalism for Open Theists.” Religious Studies: An International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, 42(2), 213-223. 11 p. June 2006

Krump, David. Knocking on Heaven’s Door: A New Testament Theology of Petionary Prayer (Eerdmans, 2006)

Lucas, J. R. The Freedom of the Will. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.
_________. The Future: An Essay on God, Temporality, and Truth. Blackwell, 1989. McCabe, Lorenzo Dow. ‘Does God’s Foreknowledge Embrace All Future Futuritions?’ Western Christian Advocate [Cincinnati], 23 May 1894: (Photocopy in Personal Library Collection of Gordon C. Olson.)
_________.‘Prescience of Future Contingencies Impossible.’ Methodist Review (September 1892): 760-773.
_________. Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies a Necessity, Being an Introduction to ‘The Foreknowledge of God and Cognate Themes’. New York: Phillips and Hunt, 1882.
_________. The Foreknowledge of God and Cognate Themes in Theology and Philosophy. Cincinnati: Cranston and Stowe, 1887 [original copyright 1878].

Moberly, R. W. L. “God is Not a Human That He Should Reptent: Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29,” in eds. Tod Linafelt and Timothy F. Beal, God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), pp. 112-123.

Nichols, Jason. “Openness and Inerrancy: Can They be Compatible?” JETS 45/4 (Dec. 2002) 629-649.

Olson, Gordon. The Foreknowledge of God and The Omniscience of the Godhead (Arlington Heights, IL: The Bible Research Corporation

Oord, Thomas Jay. “The Divergence of Evangelical and Process Theologies: Is the Impasse Insurmountable?” ARC: Journal for the McGill Faculty of Religious Studies, 51, 2003: 99-120.
_________. The Nature of Love: A Theology (Chalice, 2010) Oord, Thomas Jay editor, Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science (Pickwick, 2009).

Paulsen, David. “The God of Abraham, Isaac and (William) James.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 13.2 (1999) 114-146

Pinnock, Clark H. and Cobb, John B. Jr., eds., Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue Between Process and Free Will Theists, William B. Eerdmans, 2000
_________. ‘Open Theism: “What is this? A new teaching? – and with authority! (M[ar]k 1:27).’ University of Calgary, 03 February 2003.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/faculties/HUM/RELS/chairs/cchair/crsrc/Pinnock.OpenTheism.pdf

_________. ‘There Is Room for Us: A Reply to Bruce Ware.’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45/2 (June 2002): 213-219.
_________. Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
_________. ‘Divine Relationality: A Pentecostal Contribution to the Doctrine of God’ Journal of Pentecostal Theology 16 (2000):3-26.
_________. ‘Between Classical and Process Theism.’ In Process Theology, ed by Ronald [H.] Nash (309-327). Grand Rapids, Baker, 1987.

Pinnock, Clark and David Paulsen, “Open and Relational Theology: An Evangelical Dialogue with a Latter-day Saint.” BYU Studies 48, no. 2 (2009): 50-110.

Polkinghorne, John. Ed. The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001.
________. Science and Creation (Boston: Shambala, 1988)
_________. Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Realilty (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004

Pratney, Winkey. The Nature and Character of God (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998 Prior A. N. “The Formalities of Omniscience,” Philosophy 32 (1962), pp. 119-29

Purtill, Richard “Foreknowledge and Fatalism” Religious Studies 10 (1974): 319.
_______. “Fatalism and the Omnitemporality of Truth,” Faith and Philosophy 5 (1988), pp.185-192

Putt, Keith. “Risking Love and the Divine ‘Perhaps’: Postmodern Poetics of a Vulnerable God.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 34.2 (2007): 193-214. (compares and contrasts Caputo, Kearney, and open theism).

Rice, Richard. The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will. Nashville: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc, 1980.

Reimer, David J. “An Overlooked Term in Old Testament Theology—Perhaps,” eds. A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters, Covenant and Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003),

Rhoda, Alan. [Most of his work is available at: http://www.alanrhoda.net/papers.htm
________. “The Fivefold Openness of the Future.” In William Hasker, Thomas Oord, and Dean Zimmerman eds. God in an Open Universe: Science, Metaphysics, and Open Theism (Pickwick, 2011).
_________. “Gratuitous Evil and Divine Providence,” Religious Studies, 46(3), 281-302, September 2010.
________. “Probability, Truth, and the Openness of the Future: A Reply to Pruss.” Faith and Philosophy, 27(2), 197-204, 8 p. April 2010.
________. “Presentism, Truthmakers, and God.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 90(1), 41-62, March 2009.
_______. Beyond the Chessmaster Analogy: Game Theory and Divine Providence, in Thomas Jay Oord (ed.), Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2009).
________. “Generic Open Theism and Some Varieties Thereof,” Religious Studies, 44.2 (May, 2008).
_________. “The Philosophical Case for Open Theism.” Philosophia, 35(3-4), 301-311, September-December 2007.
________. Open Theism, Omnisciece and the nature of the Future. Faith and Philosophy 23 (2006): 432–459.

Rhoda, Alan Greg Boyd and Thomas Belt “Open Theism, Omniscience, and the Nature of the Future” Faith and Philosophy, (2007)

Thomas Renz, “Proclaming the Future: History and Theology in Prophecies Against Tyre,” Tyndale Bulletin 51 (2000): 17-58

Saia, Michael R. Does God Know the Future? A Biblical Investigation of Foreknowledge and Free Will. Fairfax, VA Xulon Press, 2002.

Sanders, John. “Open Theism.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online, 2013.
_________. “Divine Reciprocity and Epistemic Openness in Clark Pinnock’s Theology,” The Other Journal: the Church and Postmodernity (January 2012).
_________.“Open Theistic Perspectives—The Freedom of Creation” in Ernst Conradie ed., Creation and Salvation: Essays on Recent Theological Movements. LIT Verlag, Berlin, 2012.
_________. “Open Creation and the Redemption of the Environment,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, Spring 2012.
_________. “The Eternal Now and Theological Suicide: A Reply to Laurence Wood,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 45.2 (Fall, 2010): 67-81.
_________. “Theological Muscle-Flexing: How Human Embodiment Shapes Discourse About God,” in Thomas Jay Oord ed., Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science (Pickwick Publications, 2009).
_________. “Divine Providence and the Openness of God” in Bruce Ware ed., Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: 4 Views. Broadman & Holman. Nashville,2008.
_________. “Divine Suffering in Open Theism” in D. Steven Long ed., The Sovereignty of God Debate (Wipf and Stock Publishing, 2008).
_________The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence. Revised edition, IVP, 2007.
_________. “An Introduction to Open Theism,” Reformed Review, Vol. 60, no. 2 (Spring 2007). The issue includes three articles responding to my article.

http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/john%20sanders%20article.pdf

_________. “No Way to Settle the Matter: the Criteria We Use to Develop Different Models of God.” in And God saw that it was good: Essays on Creation and God in Honor of Terence E. Fretheim, ed. Fred Gaiser, (forthcoming Word and World supplement, January 2006).
_________. “Response to the Stone Campbell Movement and Open Theism,” in Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement, Vol. 2, ed. William Baker (Abilene Christian University Press, 2006).
_________With Chris Hall, Does God have a Future? A Debate on Divine Providence. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.
_________. “On Heffalumps and Heresies: Responses to Accusations Against Open Theism” Journal of Biblical Studies 2, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 1-44.
__________"Historical Considerations" and “Introduction” in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. IVP, 1994.
_________“On Reducing God to Human Proportions” in Semper Reformandum: Studies in Honour of Clark Pinnock, eds. Anthony Cross and Stanley Porter (Paternoster, U.K. and Eerdmans, U.S. 2003).
_________ "Why Simple Foreknowledge Offers No More Providential Control than the Openness of God," Faith and Philosophy 14, no. 1 (Jan. 1997): 26-40.
__________.“Is Open Theism a Radical Revision or Miniscule Modification of Arminianism?” Wesleyan Theological Journal (Fall 2003).
__________.“The Assurance of Things to Come” in Looking to the Future, ed. David Baker, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2001.
_________. “On Heffalumps and Heresies: Responses to Accusations Against Open Theism” Journal of Biblical Studies 2, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 1-44 Online journal.
__________.“Be Wary of Ware: A Reply to Bruce Ware” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (June 2002): 221-231.
_________. “A Tale of Two Providences.” Ashland Theological Journal 33 (2001): 41-55.
_________. With Chris Hall, “Does God know your Next Move?” Christianity Today, May 21, 2001, pp. 38-45 and June 7, 2001, pp. 50-56.
_________. “Truth at Risk,” Christianity Today, April 23, 2001, p. 103.
_________. “Theological Lawbreaker?” Books and Culture (January, 2000) pp.10-11.
Reprinted in Daniel Judd, ed. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Religion. McGraw-Hill, 2002. Sanders with J. Aaron Simmons. “A Goldilocks God: Open Theism as a Feuerbachian Alternative?” Element: The Journal for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (2013).

Sontag, Frederick. “Does Omnipotence Necessarily Entail Omniscience?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34 (1991): 505-8.

Studebaker, Steven M. “The Mode of Divine Knowledge in Reformation Arminianism and Open Theism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 47.3(September, 2004): 469-480

Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism. Revised Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

Truesdale, Al God Reconsidered: The Promise and Peril of Process Theology (Beacon Hill, 2010).

Tuggy, Dale. “Three Roads to Open Theism,” Faith & Philosophy (2006). Udd, Kris. “Only the Father Knows: A Response to Harold F. Carl,” Journal of Biblical Studies [http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org]. 1.4 (Oct-Dec 2001):
________. “Prediction and Foreknowledge in Ezekiel’s Prophecy Against Tyre,” Tyndale Bulletin 56.1 (2005): 25-41.

Van Inwagen, Peter. “What Does an Omniscient Being Know About the Future?” in Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion (2008): 216-230.
_______. “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)

Viney, Donald Wayne. “Jules Lequyer and the Openness of God.” Faith and Philosophy, 14 Ap 1997, p 212-235
_________. “The Varieties of Theism and the Openness of God: Charles Hartshorne and Free-Will Theism.” Personalist Forum, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 199-238, Fall 1998.

Wagner, C. Peter. Dominion! How Kingdom Act on can Change the World. Chosen Books, 2008. Ward, Keith. “Cosmos and Kenosis,” John Polkinghorne ed. The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001
_________. “The Temporality of God,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 50 (Dec. 2001): 153-169.
________. Religion and Creation (Oxford, 1996) pages 275-277. White, C. Jason. “An Accommodating and Shunning Culture: Evaluating the Cultural Context of the Evangelical Theological Society in the United States.” Scottish Journal of Theology 65, no. 2 (2012): 192-2011.

Witham, Larry. The God Biographers: Our Changing Image of God from Job to the Present (Lexington Press, 2010). Provides a history of the debate in evangelicalism.

Woodruff, David. “Being and Doing in the Concept of God.” Philosophia 35 (3-4), 313-320. September-December 2007.
_________. “Examining Problems and Assumptions: An Update on Criticisms of Open Theism.” Dialogue, 47.1 (2008): 53-63.

Woterstorff, Nicholas. “Unqualified Divine Temporality” in Gregory Ganssle ed. God & Time: Four Views (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Yong, Amos. ‘Divine Omniscience and Future Contingencies: Weighing the Presuppositional Issues in the Contemporary Debate.’ Evangelical Review of Theology 26/3 (July 2002):240-264.

Yerxa, Donald A. “A Meaningful Past and the Limits of History: Some Reflections Informed by the Science-and-Religion Dialogue.” Fides et Historia, 34.1 2002:13-30.

Zimmerman, Dean. [several of his articles are available at http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/index1.htm
_______. “Open Theism and the Metaphysics of the Space-Time Manifold”, in God in an Open Universe: Science, Metaphysics, and Open Theism, ed. by William Hasker, Thomas Jay Oord, and Dean Zimmerman (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2011), pp. 125-57
_______. “Time and Open Theism”, in Science and Religion in Dialogue, Vol. 2, ed. by Melville Stewart (Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), pp. 791-809
_______. “God Inside Time and Before Creation,” Gregory Ganssle and David Woodruff eds., God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 75-94
_________. For more of Zimmerman’s papers on God, time, and foreknowledge see: http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/index1.htm

3. Works engaging open theism: Christianity Today, 1995, Vol. 39 Issue 1 contains reviews by Roger Olson, Doug Kelly, Alister McGrath and Tom
Oden of the book, The Openness of God.

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45/2 (June 2002): the entire issue. Master’s Seminary Journal, 12 no 2 Fall 2001, entire issue.

Bouma-Prediger, Celaine. “Toward a Reformed Theology of Prayer and Spiritual Direction: A Response to John Sanders. Reformed Review, vol 60, no. 2 (Spring 2007),

Boyd, Gregory & Paul R Eddy. Across the spectrum: understanding issues in evangelical theology. Baker Academic, 2002.

Cottrell, Jack. “Understanding God: God and Time” in Evangelicalism and the Stone- Campbell Movement, Vol. 2, ed. William Baker (Abilene Christian University Press, 2006).

Dorrien, Gary. The Remaking of Evangelical Theology (Westminster John Knox, 1998). Fackre, Gabriel “An evangelical megashift? The promise and peril of an `open’ view of God.” Christian Century, 5/3/95, Vol. 112 Issue 15, p484, 4p

Keepers, Brian. “My Only Comfort in Life and in Death: A Pastoral Response to Open Theism.” Reformed Review, vol 60, no. 2 (Spring 2007), Kurka, Robert. “Open Theism and Christian Churches (Independent)” in Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement, Vol. 2, ed. William Baker (Abilene Christian University Press, 2006).

Robinson, Michael The Storms of Providence: Navigating the Waters of Calvinism, Arminianism and Open Theism. (University Press of America, 2004).

Tiessen, David Alstad. “The openness model of God: an Evangelical paradigm in light of its nineteenth century Wesleyan precedent.” Didaskalia (Otterburne, Man.), 11 no 2 Spr 2000, p 77-101

Warden, Duane. “Open Theism and Churches of Christ (a cappella)” in Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement, Vol. 2, ed. William Baker (Abilene Christian University Press, 2006).
________. “Openness of God,” Restoration Quarterly, 46 no 2 2004, p 65-78

Yerxa, Donald A. “A Meaningful Past and the Limits of History: Some Reflections Informed by the Science-and-Religion Dialogue,” Fides et Historia, 34.1 Winter/spring 2002: 13-30.

4. Works Against Open Theism: Beckman, John C. “Quantum Mechanics, Chaos Physics and the Open View of God.” Philosophia Christi, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 203-213.

Bloesch, Donald. God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love. (IVP, 1995) Bray, Gerald. The Personal God. Patternoster, 1999.

Caneday, A B, “Critical comments on an open theism manifesto” Trinity Journal, ns 23 no 1 Spr 2002, p 103-107
________. “Putting God at Risk: a Critical Analysis of John Sanders’ The God Who Risks.” 1999. Trinity Journal, ns 20 no 2 Fall 1999, p 131-163

Ciocchi, David. “The Religious Adequacy of Free-will Theism,” Religious Studies 38 (2002): 45-61.

Cole, Graham A. “The Living God: Anthropomorphic of Anthropopathic?” Reformed Theological Review, 59 no 1 Ap 2000, p 16-27.

Davis, William. “Does God Know the Future?” Modern Reformation 8/5 (September, 1999) 20-27.

Erickson, Millard. God the Father Almighty. Baker, 1998.
________. What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? Zondervan, 2003 Feinberg, John. The One True God. Crossway Books, 2001 Flint, Thomas. Divine Providence: The Molinist Account. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.

Frame, John. No Other God: A Response to Open Theism. Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001.

George, Timothy. “What God Knows.”. First Things (June-July 2003): 7-9

Geisler, Norman and House, Wayne. The Battle for God. Kregel 2001.

Geisler, Norman. Creating God in the Image of Man? Bethany, 1997.

Helm, Paul. “Does God Take Risks in Governing the Universe?” in Michael Peterson ed. Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion. Blackwell, 2003.

_______ The Providence of God. InterVarsity Press, 1994. Helseth, Paul Kjoss. ‘On Divine Ambivalence: Open Theism and the Problem of Particular Evils.’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44/3 (2001): 493-511.

Hesselink, I. John. “A Response to John Sanders on Providence: Your God is Too Small.” Reformed Review, vol 60, no. 2 (Spring 2007),

Highfield, Ron. ‘The Function of Divine Self-Limitation in Open Theism: Great Wall or Picket Fence?’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45/2 (June 2002).
_______. Great is the Lord (Eerdmans, 2008)
_______. “The Problem with the ‘Problem of Evil’: A Response to Gregory Boyd’s Open

Theists Solution,” ResQ 45 (2003): 175-76,

Horton, Michael. “Hellenistic or Hebrew? Open Theism and Reformed Theological

Method.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 45.2 (June 2002): 317-342
________. “Is the New News Good News? Modern Reformation 8/5 (September, 1999) 11-19.

Huffman, Douglas and Johnson, Eric. eds. God Under Fire. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002.

Hunt, David P. “The Providential Advantage of Divine Foreknowledge” in Kevin Timpe, ed. Arguing About Religion (Routledge, 2009).

Lamerson, Samuel. “The openness of God and the historical Jesus” American Theological Inquiry, 1 no 1 Ja 15 2008, p 25-37

MacArthur, John. Open theism’s attack on the atonement” Master’s Seminary Journal, 12 no 1 Spr 2001, p 3-13.

Master, Jonathan. “Exodus 32 as an Argument for Traditional Theism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45.4 (2002), pp. 585-598.

McCormack, Bruce, “The Actuality of God: Karl Barth in Conversation with Open Theism,” in McCormack ed. Engaging the Doctrine of God (Baker, 2008).

Middelmann, Udo. The Innocence of God (Paternoster, 2007).

Mordomo, Joao.”Missiological Misgivings about the Openness of God Theology.”

Patrick Henry College, Global Journal of Classical Theology, 3.2 (Nov. 2002).

Mohler, Albert. “The Eclipse of God at Century’s End” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 1.1. (Spring, 1997) 6-15.

Murphy, Ganon. Consuming Glory: A Classical Defense of Divine-Human Relationality Against Open Theism (Wipf and Stock, 2006)

Picirilli, Robert. “An Arminian Response to John Sanders’s The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 44/2 (September 2001): 467-491.
________. “Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 43/2 (June 2000): 259-271.

Piper, John. ed. Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity. Chicago: Crossway, 2003.

Pyne, Robert and Spencer, Stephen. “A Critique of Free-Will Theism.”, in two parts Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (July 2001): 259-286 and (October 2001):

Richards, Jay Wesley. The Untamed God: A Philosophical Exploration of Divine Perfection, Immutability and Simplicity, IVP 2003

Robinson, Jason. “Freewill Theism: Doing Business in a Free-Market Society.” Theology Today 62 (2006): 165-175.

Robinson, Michael. “Why Divine Foreknowledge?” Religious Studies 36: 251-275. Roy, Steven. “God as Omnicompetent Responder? Questions about the Grounds of Eschatological Confidence in Open Theism” Looking Into the Future, ed. David

W. Baker (Baker Academic, 2001): 263-280.
______. How Much Does God Foreknow? IVP, 2006.

Stallard, Michael D. A dispensational critique of open theism’s view of prophecy” Bibliotheca sacra, 161 no 641 Ja-Mr 2004, p 27-41.

Schreiner, Thomas and Ware, Bruce. eds. The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, Baker, 1999.

Thompson, Matthew K. “Does God Have a Future? A Pentecostal Response to Christopher Hall’s and John Sanders’ Recent Book.” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies; Spring2004, Vol. 26 Issue 1, p130, 8p

Tiessen, Terrence. Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World? (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000)

Tracy, Steven. “Theodicy, Eschatology, and the Open View of God” Looking Into the Future, ed. David W. Baker (Baker Academic, 2001): 295-312.

Ware, Bruce. God’s Lesser Glory. Crossway Books, 2000.
________. “Despair amidst suffering and pain: a practical outworking of open theism’s diminished view of God.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 4 no 2 Sum 2000, p 56-75.

_______. Ware, Bruce. Their God is Too Small: Open Theism and the Undermining of Confidence in God (crossway, 2003).

______. God’s Greater Glory (Crossway, 2004). Webster, Loring C. The End from the Beginning; Or, Divine Prescience vrs. Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies. Cincinnati: Cranston & Curts, 1895.

Wellum, Stephen. “Divine Sovereignty-Omniscience, Inerrancy, and Open Theism” JETS 45/2 (June 2002): 257-278.

Williams, Stephen N. “More on Open Theism” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 22 (2004): 32-50. _______. “What God Doesn’t Know,” Books & Culture, November/December 1999. vol. 5, no 6, p.16.

Wood, Laurence. “Divine Omniscience: Boethius or ‘Open Theism?’” Wesleyan Theological Journal 45/2 (Fall 2010): 41-66.

________. “Does God Know the Future? Can God be Mistaken?: A Reply to Richard Swinburne.” Asbury Theological Journal 56 (Fall 2001): 5-47.

Wright, R. K. McGregor. No Place for Sovereignty., IVP, 1996. Yuille, Steven. “How Pastoral is Open Theism? A Critique from the Writings of George Swinnock and Steven Charnock.” Themelios 32/2 (Jan. 2007): 46-61.

5. Doctoral Dissertations and Masters Theses: Doctoral Dissertations:

Park, Dong Sik. The God-World Relation Between Joseph Bracken, Phillip Clayton, and Open Theism. Claremont Graduate School, 2012.
Baker, Vaughn. Evangelism and the Openness of God: The Implications of Relational Theism for Evangelism and Missions. University of South Africa, 2011.
Holtzen, William Curtis. Dei Fide: A Relational Theology of the Faith of God. University of South Africa, 2007.
Ham, T. C. Relational Metaphors and Omniscience in the Hebrew Bible (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2007).
Holland, Richard. God and Time: Rethinking the Relationship in Light of the Incarnation of Christ (PhD, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, 2007).
Ostrom, William Bruce. Divine Sovereignty and the Religious Problem of Evil: An Evaluation of Evangelical Models (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007).
Rissler, James D. Divine providence and human libertarian freedom: Reasons for incompatibility and
theological alternatives. University of Notre Dame, 2006, 322 pages.
Calvert, Michael. Paradox Lost: Open Theism and the Deconstruction of Divine Incomprehensibility—A Critical Analysis (PhD, Trinity Theological Seminary, 2005).
Harmon, Jerry. Exodus 24.6-7: A Hermeneutical Key in the Open Theism Debate (PhD, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005).
10. Moore, Scott. The Problem of Prayer (PhD, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2006).
11. Campbell, Travis. The Beautiful Mind: A Reaffirmation and Reconstruction of the Classical Reformed Doctrines of the Divine Omniscience, Prescience, and Human
Freedom. Westminster Theological Seminary (2004).

12. Gilbert, Kevin James. The rule of express terms and the limits of fellowship in the Stone-Campbell movement: T. W. Brents, a test case. The Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 2004.

13. Robinson, Franklin Webster. Adversity, crisis counseling, and the openness of God: An evaluation of open theism for pastoral response to victims of violence.
Azusa Pacific University, 2002.

14. Kersey, Kent Allen The freedom of God and man: A critical analysis of the relationship between providence and anthropology in Open Theism. Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002.

15. Ladd, Steven Willis Theological indicators supporting an evangelical conception of eternity: A study of God’s relation to time in light of the doctrine of
creation ex nihilo. Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002.

16. Steven Roy, How Much Does God Foreknow? An Evangelical Assessment of the Doctrine of the Extent of the Foreknowledge of God in Light of the Teaching of Open
Theism, Trinity International University, 2000. Now published.

17. Tae Soo Park, A Biblical Response to Open Theism: Christology in the Four Gospels. Bob Jones University 2004.

Masters Theses:
1. Conn, Jeremy. Developing Doctrinal Criterion for Evaluating Orthodoxy and Heresy: Open Theism as a Test Case. Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2011.
2. Belt, Thomas G. A Critical Evaluation of the Religious Adequacy of Open Theism: Toward an Open Theistic Theology of Petitionary Prayer. University of Wales, 2007
1. Manning, John. Does God Suffer? Australian College of Theology, November 2006.
2. McLaughlin, Ryan Patrick. God of Authentic Rapport: A Tale of MeinIgenes. Ashland Theological Seminary, August 2006.
3. Lim, Joung Bin. A Thomistic Account of Divine Providence and Human Freedom. Texas A&M University, 2005.
4. Verhage, Kara Elizabeth. Prayer and a Partially Unsettled Future: A Theological Framework for Prayer From the Perspective of Open Theism Emphasizing Prayers of Supplication. Luther Seminary, 2004.
5. Thompson, Matthew K., Openness and Perichoresis: An Analysis of Pentecostal Spirituality Toward a Pentecostal Doctrine of God. Saint Paul School of Theology, 2003.
6. Nichols, Jason. Omniscience in the Divine Openness: A Critical Analysis of Present Knowledge in God. Trinity International University, 1997.
7. Jason Brian Santos, Jean Calvin’s classical divine providence juxtaposed with John Sanders’s Risk theology and the pastoral implications of Theodicy. Wheaton College Graduate School, 2002.
8. Pillai, Jessica D. God’s Change of Mind. Denver Seminary, 2004.
9. Joseph Holt: Predicating Infinity of God: An Open Theist Perspective. Bethel Seminary, St. Paul, MN, 2001.
10. Craig W. Thompson. John Sanders’s Philosophy of Religious Language: an Analysis of Divine
  Predication in the God Who Risks, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002.
11. Jonathan L. Master, Exodus 32 as an Argument for Traditional Theism. Capitol Bible Seminary, 2002.
12. Irwin, Ben. The Sovereignty of God and the Biblical Narrative: A Response to Open Theism. Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, May, 2002.
13. Dana Arledge, Does Scripture teach libertarian Freedom? Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary, 2003.
News articles:

Bollag, Burton. “Can God see the future? Some evangelical scholars are taking worldly heat for suggesting that divine knowledge has its limits.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov 26, 2004 v51 i14 pA11-A14. Bollag, Burton. “Peer Review,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 2/18/2005, Vol. 51 Issue 24, pA8, 1/2p, 3c;

“One God, Hold the Omniscience,” Michael Valpy. Toronto Globe and Mail 9/3/2005. F7.

“Redfining Omniscience.” Bill Broadway; The Washington Post; Nov 8, 2003; pg. B.09

“2 Escape Expulsion by Evangelical Group” Bill Broadway. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Nov 22, 2003. pg. B.09 “Process, Open Theologians Debate” Thomas Oord, Science and Theology News. 4.5 (Jan 2004), pp. 2, 32.

Smith, James. “What God Knows,” Christian Century 7/12/2005, 122.14, p30-33.
1. “College to close out ‘open theism’ scholar.” By: Dart, John.
  Christian Century, 12/28/2004, Vol. 121 Issue 26, p13, 2/3p,
2. “Open Theism Scholars Retained,” Christian Century, 12/13/2003, 120.25, p14.
10.
“Evangelicals in the dock” Leithart, Peter J. First Things, 141 Mr 2004, p 9-11.
1. “Cracks in the Ivory Tower,” Allen Guelzo. Books &
  Culture (Summer, 2005).
2. “Does God know what you’re thinking now?” Richard N. Ostling, Halifax Daily News 08-03-2003
13. “Theological society won’t oust two ‘open theists’” Adelle Banks Religion News Service 12-05-2003
1. “Society Keeps Open Theists,” San Antonio Express-News 11-22-2003
2. “Evangelical theologians reject ‘open theism’” Gorski, Eric The Christian Century 118.34 12-12-2001 p. 10
3. “Theologians Divided over Free Will,” Eric Gorski, Colorado Springs Gazette 11/24/2001.
4. “How Much Control Does God Have? Ray Waddle Tennessean 01-20-2001 3B
5. “Area Religious Colleges Wrestle With Orthodoxy.” Rebecca Green, Fort Wayne Journal Gazette May 21, 2005, Page 1C.
19. “Love is the Answer,” Kevin Kilbane. Fort Wayne News Sentinel. 3/5/ 1999,

20. Open or Closed Case? Controversial theologian John Sanders on way out at Huntington. Stan Guthrie Christianity Today, 12/22/2004

21. “Open to Healing,” Neff, David. Christianity Today, Jan2004, 48.1, p21. 22. “Closing the Door on Open Theists?” Doug Koop Christianity Today, Jan2003, p24.

23. “Foreknowledge Debate Clouded by ‘Political Agenda.’” Neff, David. Christianity Today 11/19/2001

24. “God at Risk” By: Zoba, Wendy Murray. Christianity Today, 03/05/2001, 45.4, p56-9.

25. “Did Open Debate Help the Openness Debate? Christianity Today, 2/19/2001 26. “God vs God” Christianity Today, 2/7/2000 27. “Do Good Fences Make Good
Baptists? Christianity Today, 8/8/2000

Christianity Today Divine Foreknowledge Divine Providence Evangelical Theological Society Four Views Grand Rapids John Sanders Open Theism Religious Studies

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 Providence

Why Simple Foreknowledge is Still Useless (In Spite of David Hunt and Alex Pruss)

I. INTRODUCTION : THE FIRST ARGUMENT

II. A SECOND ARGUMENT

Share this:

Like this:

Mapping the Terrain of Divine Providence

Introduction

Traditionalist Views

Key Areas of Agreement and Disagreement

Conclusion

Share this:

Like this:

Examining Problems and Assumptions: An Update on Criticisms of Open Theism

Biblical Interpretation and Open Theism

Considering the Old Testament

Open Theism and Christian Doctrine

The Example of Omniscience

The Example of God’s Sovereignty

Molinism: One Version of Divine Providence

Open Theism and Philosophy

The Example of Temporality

The Role of Modern Physics

Block Theory and the Nature of Change

Conclusion

Share this:

Like this:

Bibliography on Open Theism

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"