Comments - Rcampus · Web viewTake the proof-texts for Open Theism given in our new Free Methodist...
Transcript of Comments - Rcampus · Web viewTake the proof-texts for Open Theism given in our new Free Methodist...
Comments
In Paper #909, lines 5 and 6, this is written: "WHEREAS, the theology
known as the ‘openness of God’ revises understanding of God’s
attributes, particularly His omniscience," Here is where the
misunderstanding of the Openness of God (more properly "Open
Theism") concept begins: the belief that omniscience and other of
God’s attributes are being redefined, which is not true.
Does God know absolutely everything, no questions asked, no
exceptions made? Let's answer this question by addressing first God’s
omnipotence (God can do everything). To affirm that God can do
absolutely anything, no questions asked, we set ourselves up for a
hard fall. Can God make square circles and married bachelors? Can
God become evil? Can God cease to be God? Can God create another
eternal God? Can God create a female God whom He can marry? Can
God become finite? Can God decide to make our eternal security not
so secure? And the proverbial skeptic's question, can God make a rock
so big that even He cannot lift it?
These are not all illogical questions. After all, a rock is a real physical
entity, and God is a real spirit being. So the question really is can a
spirit make a physical entity so big that even that spirit cannot lift it? I
think that is a valid question. Further, if I answer "Yes," than I am told
that God is not omnipotent; He cannot lift the rock. If I answer "no," I
am again told that God is not omnipotent; for He cannot make
something so big that even He would be unable to lift it. But if I
answer, "I could care less if God can or cannot make a rock so big He
can't lift it because omnipotence is not defined by God being able to
do absolutely everything, no questions asked,” then I am free from the
skeptic’s trap! There absolutely must be, therefore, a qualification to
the statement “God can do anything,” and that qualification is this:
God can do anything that does not violate the nature of who and what
God is.
If the definition of omnipotence, then, requires qualification, it isn’t
unreasonable to assume that the definition of omniscience (God knows
everything) may also require a qualification. Indeed, it must. After all,
can God know that I am single if I am not? Can God know what it is
like to be married? Can God know what's it's like to lie? Can God
know what it's like to not be God? Can God know what it’s like to be
finite? We can quickly see that there are many things God simply
cannot know just as there are many things God cannot do. If God were
able to do and to know absolutely everything, we would have a very
mixed up and volatile God on our hands. No thank you!
The qualification, then, for defining omniscience is this: God knows all
truths and believes no falsehoods. This is not a redefining of
omniscience; it is the real facts of life about the meaning of the word.
It captures perfectly the nature of who and what God is without
violating both who and what He is. So it really isn’t a well-thought-out
conclusion to declare that the Open Theist (someone who believes in
the Open View) denies or redefines God’s omniscience. That simply is
not true.
Open Theism is the doctrine that part of the future is yet to be
decided; it is “open.” Why? Because of freewill. It isn’t that God could
not have made a world that was fully determined (fully known), but
our world is not that world. Because of freewill, every one of us has
the ability to decide how some (not all, but some) of the future will
turn out. We do this every day when we make choices. Our ability to
choose makes it impossible for God (who created us this way) to know
absolutely everything we will ever do, say, feel, think, pray, or what
have you, for all of our future. For example, if the Lord appeared to
you and told you, “I am the Lord, and since I know absolutely
everything. I’m going to tell you exactly what you will do in the next
thirty minutes, down to the amount of blinks, scratches and sneezes
you will experience, down to every thought you will think and every
word you will speak; I am the Lord.” All you would have to do is do
something differently than what He told you. As a matter of fact (this
is important), you couldn’t help but do or say differently some of the
things you were told because you have freewill. This means that we
can be assured that the Lord will never appear to any of us and
declare He knows our futures as I described above. He made the
world such that it is impossible for Him to know our futures as
exhaustively settled. It would be a complete violation of who and what
God is for Him to be able to know this kind of information in a freewill
environment. Even Molinism cannot account for the impossibility of
the Lord telling you your future as exhaustively settled. This does not
mean that God does not know our thoughts, our minds, our hearts
and, well, ourselves better than we know ourselves. But just because
He knows these things we have no need, whatsoever, to insist that
God knows absolutely everything or that our entire futures are
exhaustively settled. The simple facts of life prove they are not.
Finally, God has determined how some of the future will go, and that
cannot be changed. Further, Some things are going to be the way they
are because they cannot be changed (e.g., God will always be God).
And finally, God is never, ever at a loss because of our freewill
choices, and neither is He ever without complete control of our world.
No one is ever going to catch God off guard! He’s fully aware of
everything, and He can never be found without the ability to run this
world as only He can do. It’s like the often used chess analogy: Since
God knows absolutely every combination of moves that can be made
in the game, no matter what choices His opponent makes, that
opponent can never win. In other words, God wins the game no
matter what moves His opponent makes.
I pray that the Council give serious thought before tossing the Open
View off into heresy. Open Theism does not violate any doctrine that is
foundational to the Christian faith. It would show the Council’s
prudence and wisdom to think this matter through thoroughly and
thoughtfully.
Sincerely,
K
P.S. For whatever reason, this post has run all my sentences together.
I apologize that I do not know how to correct this.
-----------------------------------In reguards to the omnience of God, in that He is all-knowing. I
believe He is all-knowing, but not in the sense that He knows that you
are going to scratch your nose in 5 seconds.
I believe that He is all-knowing in the sense of things that relate to
man's future.
The Bible code that has been discovered is evidence that God is all-
knowing of future events because they were encoded in the Bible, and
God knew that one day man would be able discover the code.
I believe too, that if God was all-knowing as to every aspect of our
lives, and he controlled us like puppets, He would never have put the
the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." in the Garden of Eden.
So, there must be an understanding of what God's omniesence is.
Posted by: C--------------------------------------- Open theism (openness of God) tries to make a case that God is
unknowing of the future (according to Wikipedia). This theology runs
contrary to the Scriptures. If we accept openness theology, I believe
we have to discount Revelation 13:8, which says the "Lamb has been
slain from the foundation of the world." God doesn't have future
knowledge, openness theologians would say, so He can't have known
from before the foundation of the world that a Lamb would be needed!
I also believe we would have to discount the fact that God announced
through the prophet Isaiah that He chose Cyrus to free the Jews from
Babylonian captivity, 150 years before Cyrus was King of Persia (see
Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1-7). How can we say that He sometimes knows,
but not always? He sits above time, my brothers and sisters in the
Lord! He gives us free will, but He sees all time at once, from His
heavenly perspective. We must remember YHWH's words, from Isaiah
46:8:
"Remember this, and be assured, recall to mind, you transgressors.
Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no
other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from
the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been
done, saying 'My purpose will be established, and I will accompish all
My good pleasure.'"
Posted by: S------------------------------------- Greetings all,
This post is to the Council, though I am addressing S's recent post.
S begins her post (above) with, "Open theism (openness of God) tries
to make a case that God is unknowing of the future (according to
Wikipedia). This theology runs contrary to the Scriptures." If this is
what Wikipedia states, than I whole-heartedly agree with S, since the
Open View does not try to make the case that God is unknowing of the
future. How foolish that would be!
S closes her post by quoting Isaiah 46:8: "Remember this, and be
assured, recall to mind, you transgressors. Remember the former
things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and
there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and
from ancient times things which have not been done, saying 'My
purpose will be established, and I will accompish all My good
pleasure.'" Again, Open Theism supports this verse, for God is God
and there is no other; He declares the end from the beginning and will
accomplish His good pleasure. No disagreement or contradiction here
between the Bible and Open Theism.
S quotes Revelation 13:8 to support her conviction that the Lamb was
slain from the foundation of the world. Once again, Open Theism
supports this, for God did know the Lamb as slain from the foundation
of the world. How foolish it would be to think that God didn't think of
the Lamb until the Fall!.
In further consideration of S's concerns, Open Theism has no conflict
with God calling Cyrus before He was born to save the Jews. Further,
when S rhetorically asks, "How can we say that He sometimes knows,
but not always?" Open Theism is in complete agreement; one cannot
say that God sometimes knows but not always.
There are two statements S made that are problematic. One of them is
when she said,"God doesn't have future knowledge, openness
theologians would say, so He can't have known from before the
foundation of the world that a Lamb would be needed!" This is not at
all what Open Theism teaches, and if any Open Theist does claim this,
consider that teaching erroneous. That person has gone into some
unknown territory that is not at all Open Theism. The second problem
S creates is one of plain and simple logical contradiction when she
said, "He gives us free will, but He sees all time at once, from His
heavenly perspective." One simply cannot claim that we have freewill
and yet at the same time claim that God knows everything from
eternity past (EVERYTHING!) that will ever happen.
Council, brothers and sisters, and S, think about this very, very
carefully. If God knows everything (and I mean ABSOLUTELY
EVERYTHING) you will ever say, do, think, feel, if He knows every
prayer you will ever pray, every tear you will ever cry, every
conversation you will ever have, every step you will ever
walk...everything, then it is settled forever that you will do all that He
already knows you will do. Now think about what that means. It
means that there is no way you could change a thing (not an iota) if
God ever told or showed you any of your future. You would HAVE to
do everything as you heard and saw it. Now I ask you, is that reality?
No, not in the slightest. Reality is that we not only can and do make
choices, but we couldn't help but change things that anyone, including
God told us would be done exactly (I mean EXACTLY) as we were told.
What does all this mean? It means that God, who created the world
like this, is never going to be foolish enough to try to tell anyone all of
their future (I know, "their" - plural pronoun with a singular verb. Oh
well!).
God could have made the world such that He would know everything
that everybody would ever do, but this can never be once He
interjects freewill into the world. It is simply a contradiction to the
facts of life as we live them to say that we have freewill (the ability to
choose in many different situations) when it is supposedly already
known what we will do. Amazingly, even all Calvinists (Arminianists
and, yes, Free Methodists as well) live their daily lives as if the Open
View is true, as if part (not all, but some) of the future is yet to have
been decided and that that part is thus unknown. Just try for a minute
to imagine the opposite of how we live, a world where
everything...EVERYTHING you will ever think, say and do is already
known! When you pray, God would say, "I already know every word
you will say, and every word I will say in return - you're entire prayer
life is as if it's already been recorded." Maybe this is the reality of
some other world God has created, but it sure isn't our reality.
Please, my brothers and sisters, Council and S, study carefully what
the Open View is. Ask questions, and please don't listen to the cock
and bull that's out there adding only confusion to the matter. The
View is very, very simple. It's nothing more or less than this: Part of
the future is "open," meaning that God has made this world such that
neither He nor we can know that part of the future as exhaustively
settled and final until we get to that time in the future or sometime
near it.
It is "the nature of the future" that we are talking about, not God's
omniscience. Many Calvinisists believe that absolutely everything is
determined. Arminianists believe God has Simple Foreknowledge,
meaning He just knows absolutely everything that will ever happen.
Neither of these is sufficient, however, to explain how we daily
exercise freewill. Again, I ask us, if the Lord appeared to us and told
us that He was going to tell us or show us our future (everything!),
how is it not true that we would NOT have to say or do everything we
saw and heard? For that matter, how would we not even be able to
stop ourselves from saying or doing things differently than what He
told or showed us? You couldn't help it. You'd do something
differently, I can tell you that! exactly as we heard and saw it! This is
why the Lord will never be foolish enough to attempt this feat, since
He's the one who has made it impossible for anyone, including
Himself, from being able to tell anyone ALL of their future EXACTLY
as it will happen, step by step, prayer by prayer, thought by thought,
word by word. I really hope the reality of all this is hitting home here.
Freewill is God's way of ensuring that we will have a choice and say in
many matters (not all, but many), and it is His way of protecting
anyone from ever taking that away from us.
And, again, I stress that Open Theism whole-heartedly affirms that
God is in complete control, and those things He has determined will
happen just as He said. He is never caught off guard, and He's always
one hundred percent aware and knowledgeable of everything at all
times. He knows everything...EVERYTHING that is not in violation of
who and what He is (see my first post in this blog).
There are many books on Open Theism on the shelves, but most of
them are from a theological or philosophical perspective. This makes
it difficult for many of us to follow closely the contents of those books.
So I decided to write a book in plain and simple English on the Open
View from the perspective of reality as we live it daily. This is not to
put a plug in for my book, but to alert many of you that I know how
easy it is to misunderstand the Open View, and I wish to do something
about this. Even well-respected scholars are to blame for not thinking
more carefully and obtaining a more accurate perspective of what the
View is before they condemn it. The book will be called "The Open
View in Plain English," and will, hopefully, be published soon. In the
interim, please consider well what the Open View is and what it is not.
Sincerely,
K
-------------------------------------
It is important that we, as children of God, understand that God has
given us free will, but that, because He sits above time, everything
that ever was has already happened; that is why He is able to have
foreknowledge regarding Cyrus being appointed King of Persia.
Imagine how many free will decisions had to be made between
Isaiah's prophecy and the placement of Cyrus on the throne! But God
saw that, and sees everything that ever will be, through all of eternity.
As I quoted from Isaiah, He knows the end from the beginning. Here
is a quote from Theopedia, another resource, on what open theism is:
"Open theism, also called free will theism and openness theology, is
the belief that God does not exercise meticulous control of the
universe but leaves it "open" for humans to make significant choices
(free will) that impact their relationships with God and others. A
corollary of this is that God has not predetermined the future. Open
Theists further believe that this would imply that God does not know
the future exhaustively. Proponents affirm that God is omniscient, but
deny that this means that God knows everything that will happen.
"Our rejection of divine timelessness and our affirmation of dynamic
omniscience are the most controversial elements in our proposal and
the view of foreknowledge receives the most attention. However the
watershed issue in the debate is not whether God has exhaustive
definite foreknowledge (EDF) but whether God is ever affected by and
responds to what we do. This is the same watershed that divides
Calvinism from Arminianism" - John Sanders
Open Theists argue that people are created to be in meaningful
relationships with God and others and as moral beings must have the
ability to make real, responsible choices in their lives. Open Theists
argue that this cannot be accomplished as long as God exercises
exhaustive control of the universe or predetermines the future
because this would remove humanity's free will.
The counter point to this is that critics of Open Theism say that if God
is not exercising meticulous control of the universe, or does not
exhaustively know the future, then this would imply that He is not in
control and we are not able to completely trust in God's sovereignty.
Furthermore, the question remains, will God actually be able to
triumph over evil? Open Theists answer these critiques by noting that
while God does not exercise meticulous control, he is "ultimately" in
control."
I believe that open theism is a case of man's philosophy blended with
solid biblical theology. Historically, this blending has resulted in
heresy in the church. Let us not try to out-think God, or try to figure
Him out entirely; we cannot! As the heavens are above the earth, so
are His ways higher than our ways, and His thoughts than our
thoughts. Let us, however, have the mind of Christ, and keep our
focus on our role as His disciples and ambassadors.
Posted by: S------------------------------ Greetings, Council and brothers and sisters,
This will be my last post on this subject, as I believe there is little
more I have to say here…that is, of course, unless God knew from
eternity past that on such-and-such date in the future I would be
writing another post. In that case, I have no choice but to be here
again! Sorry, I can’t change that!
If I haven’t said so yet, let me say so now. I believe that part of the
future is open. The label “Open Theist” has been given to those who
believe such, but for the remainder of this post, I’m going to toss out
that label and just talk as if part of the future is open.
Wikepedia, Thopedia, and every other edia are often the wrong places
to turn to in order to learn about many things, the future being one of
them. One need only turn to reality to realize that a natural and
inescapable bi-product of freewill is a partly open future. In other
words, it is the very reality we live in that is proof enough of the
future being partly open. Reality is the best resource for learning
about a partly open future.
Let’s be clear about the difference between saying “exhaustive
knowledge” and “exhaustively settled or definite foreknowledge.” The
former means God knows the future exhaustively, which He absolutely
must know as such or He wouldn’t be God. The latter means that God
knows absolutely everything…EVERYTHING that will ever happen
and, therefore, none of it…NONE of it can be changed from how God
already knows it will happen. It is this latter understanding that
cannot be true if part of the future is open. God knows the future for
what it is, every bit of it, but with freewill around, He cannot know
everything as completely settled and finalized, unchangeable, once-
and-for all. That’s simply ludicrous to believe, because, as I have
demonstrated in my past posts, if this is true, then were God to show
or tell you ANY of your future, you’d be unable to ANY of it differently
than what you saw or heard (last time I think I’ll say that!), and that’s
just not reality. We would be able to change some things.
Here’s a quote from S: “Open Theists argue that people are created to
be in meaningful relationships with God and others and as moral
beings must have the ability to make real, responsible choices in their
lives. Open Theists argue that this cannot be accomplished as long as
God exercises exhaustive control of the universe or predetermines the
future because this would remove humanity's free will.” Think about
this for one minute and ask yourself this: Can ANYONE have a
meaningful relationship with anybody if God is exercising complete
control, that meaning if God has exhaustively settled foreknowledge,
not just exhaustive knowledge, of the future)? Consider the following
dialogue if everything we will ever say and do is already known. The
parentheses are the husband thinking to himself.
HUSBAND: “Hi, honey, I’m home.” (Hmm. God already knew zillions
of years ago that on this day, hour, minute and second that I would
say that. So whatever my wife says back to me is also already known.
This is amazing!)
WIFE“ Oh, Hi honey. You’re home. How was your day?”
HUSBAND (‘How was my day?’ she asks. Now, whatever I say back to
her, once again she will already be saying what God has already
known. I wonder what it is that I will say back to her, which God
already knows I will say?) “Oh, yes, my day. Sorry about that, dear. I
was thinking about something. Um…yes, my day. It was fine. Could
you tell me what you are going to say next so that I know what God
already knows you’re going to say?”
WIFE: “Huh?”
HUSBAND: “Ah, I see. You’re going to say, ‘Huh?’. Okay, well, go
ahead now and say it.
WIFE: “What are you talking about? Did you get fired today or
something?”
HUSBAND: “Hey, wait! That’s not what you said you were going to
say.”
WIFE: “Ooookay, so you did get fired today. That’s okay…”
HUSBAND: “No, I didn’t get fired, I just…you’re just to supposed to
say ‘Huh?’”
WIFE: “Ok: Huh?” How’s that?”
HUSBAND: “Oh, forget it now. It’s too late. Maybe you weren’t
supposed to say ‘Huh?’ after all. Maybe you were supposed to say
whatever it was that you said after that…what was it you said again?”
WIFE: “Kids, get your coats, we’re going out for dinner tonight to
celebrate your dad getting fired today.”
HUSBAND: “Huh?”
How about this dialogue, which is perfectly feasible if God knows
absolutely everything:
ME (just starting to pray on any particular day): “Praise the Lord!
God, I just want to…”
GOD: …’thank you, and tell you that I…’ I can say every word with K
because I’ve known from eternity past what He will say. Further,
everything I am thinking now I have always known that I would think
this because it’s already been known. So, I know what I know I’m
going to say, which means I am thinking right now what I already
knew I was going to think. Boy, this exhaustively settled
foreknowledge is something, ain’t it!”
Okay, the last sentence maybe isn’t so feasible, but can you see the
silliness of trying to box God, or us, into exhaustively settled
foreknowledge. It makes matters far worse than it does to just go with
the flow of reality; a partly open future where God does not know
everything I will ever think, say and do. THAT is what makes prayer,
and life, so awesome! Life and relationships juuuuust wouldn’t be too
meaningful if God knew absolutely everything. Imagine, every prayer
you pray to God, He has already known everything you will ever say
and everything He will ever say. When you pray, brothers and sisters,
you are having a discussion that has never taken place in God’s mind
until that time. Oh, He can read your mind and He knows your
thoughts and He knows you better than you know yourself, but the
conversation isn’t real and hasn’t happened and hasn’t been in God’s
mind until the day it happens. Please, I beg you, I implore you, I rip
my clothes, I toss dust in the air and into my hair…nope, can’t do that:
I’m bald! Just think about it. That’s all I ask.
If God knows every possible thing that we will do, then do you think
that we’re ever going to catch Him off guard? Is He ever going to say,
“Oh my Me! I didn’t see that coming. Great! Now what do I do? These
humans; you just never know what they’re going to do next.” I mean,
seriously, is God really at a lost to control the world if He does not
know every possible iota I will ever say or do? Isn’t He a bit more
powerful and able than that? Have we forgotten that He is
omnipotent, not because He knew in eternity past that at this day and
time I would post this, but because He’s God. Just because we have
freewill, which HE gave us, doesn’t affect His ability to handle things,
not one bit. Remember the chess analogy? God knows every possible
move on the board (He knows every POSSIBLE move you and I can
make), which means He wins no matter what (He is quite able to rule
the universe). So it doesn’t matter what move you or I make (what
choices we make). He will never, ever, be at a loss. THAT is reality!
Well, I’m through, and, as I said, I won’t be posting anymore unless
it’s already been foreknown because of God’s exhaustively settled
foreknowledge that I will post again. I would, however, like to leave
you all with one final thought, and that is this. If God has exhaustively
settled foreknowledge of the future, He Himself must be included in
that knowledge; that is, He must already know everything that He will
ever say, do, think, etc. He would have to already know all this
information, because if He didn’t, how could He know everything you
and I will ever say, do, think, etc, since what He says and does with us
has direct effect on everything we will say and do? If all my prayers
are already known, then all of God’s words and responses to them are
already known, and none…NONE of it can be changed. It’s all settled.
But, thank the Lord, this isn’t reality! (I can’t even imagine a world
like that.) So if reality teaches us, plainly and simply, that part of the
future must be open, then our approach to all those Scriptures that
seem to prove, once and for all, that God knows the future as
exhaustively settled need to be thought about again before we
continue to just condemn the idea of a partly open future. After all, we
all live as if it is true that part of it is open. Maybe it’s our
presuppositions that have forced us into some of our illogical
conclusions about the future. Maybe we just think that it cannot be
possible for God to not know absolutely everything (see my very first
post in this blog), and so we think that we are defending the
omniscience of God by denying a partly open future. The problem,
however, is that a lot of people see the contradictions in that attempt,
and they will taunt us with those questions like, “Well, can God make
a rock so big that He can’t pick it up [again, see my very first post]?”
As I said I my previous post, my answer to a question like that is “I
could care less if God can or cannot make a rock so big that He
cannot pick it up. God doesn’t have to be able to do absolutely
everything in order to be ominipotent. He only need be able to do
anything and everything that is not a contradiction and does not
violate the nature of who and what God is.”
Well, to all of you, be blessed in the Master.
For a partly open future,
Keith
-----------------------------------------
To delete the section on the openness of God would be a foolish
mistake. We cannot begin to understand how God can do all that He
can.
How can God be everywhere at the same time?
How can God be all knowing?
How can God hear the prayers of millions of people from all over the
world, in hundreds of different languages?
I don't have a clue how God is able to do all these marvelous things,
but the Bible tells us that He can.
Liberalism just denies the acts of God that they can't understand. We
as Christians must not do the same.
Lets not do as they do and eliminate the aspects of God that we can't
rationalize in our simple minds. We must accept all of the Bible as
"God Breathed", and not try to change it so we can understand the
atrubutes of God.
C
-------------------------------------
When I read Gregory Boyd's book, God of the Possible, it seemed like
a gift to Wesleyan theology. For me, it filled in some logical gaps that
otherwise sort of hang there exposed.
When I discovered the passage under question in the Pastor's and
Church Leaders Manual, I again breathed a sigh of gratitude for what
I understand to be a helpful middle way between denying God's
omniscience and asserting His absolute predetermination of all
things.
As far as the theology of the thing, I will leave that to those more
gifted in articulating philosophical positions. I would restrict my
comment to the scriptural debate and suggest that in the battle of the
prooftext, we should give equal hearing to those passages that
suggest that God has left himself vulnerable to the actions of
humanity (e.g., 1 Sam 15:11 where God "regret"s!!) as we give to
those passages that suggest his predetermination of all things (e.g.,
Psalm 139:16, where God has all our days "ordained" for us).
Whatever formulation we come up with to help us structure our
thoughts, it behooves us to allow all God-breathed scripture a voice in
the conversation.
For what it's worth, I appreciate the inclusion of the "Wesleyan
Perspective on the Openness of God" in the Manual.
Respectfully Submitted,G------------------------------------------------- First, I have to ask: did someone seriously cite THE BIBLE CODE as
evidence for God's knowledge of the future??? Yikes!
Second, rather than Wikipedia, I would suggest people not familiar
with the nuances of open theism to check out the book "The Openness
of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God."
If you are someone who must vote on this proposal at General
Conference, PLEASE educate yourself before voting.
Even if you disagree with open theism, at the end of the day, I urge all
involved to at least offer a charitable reading of its arguments. At
least understand the concerns which lie behind the arguments. If you
cannot offer a counter-argument that addresses the root concerns,
then I'm afraid we're simply going to talk past one another.
I was introduced to open theism back in college and, for various
reasons (not all virtuous), gave it my hearty endorsement. I've
questioned that commitment in recent years (I'm not strongly
committed to it). But this issue drives home an important point for our
FM tradition: we desperately need more FM theologians thinking
about these issues, both for and with us.
Posted by: T-----------------------------
There are some things that are "mysteries" to us human beings. As in
I Corinthians 13 - "Now we see through a glass darkly, now we know
in part; but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in
part shall be done away. Now we know in part but then we shall know
even as also we are known to God."
Dallas Willard suggests that part of our inability to understand God is
there for a purpose. We have to lean on him for the "mystery" that
escapes our understanding. Since God is able to capture the good will
of those who respond to him, he reveals himself to them through faith.
How God knows who will respond to him is a mystery to me, except to
say that I believe that Jesus is able to capture the good will of people,
when they fully understand what he did for them on the cross of
calvary.
What I do not know about God I can leave with him since I know our
cognitive powers are simply incomplete until we get to heaven. This is
good because it allows a certain amount of latitude within which we
may operate, subordinate to God and yet fully willing God's will. In
this dimetion perhaps there is a certain amount of area left for our
freedom. We are assured that if we sin 70 times 7, there is yet still
forgiveness for those who, when they discover their mistakes and
presumptuous sins realize that repentence toward God and faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ will in the end cover for us.
As one scripture says, "It is required that all men everywhere should
repent." That is pretty inclusive and we should be concerned with that
rather than the "mystery."
Posted by: U------------------------------ while I do reject open theism. I wonder what is its root? Could it be
that the fear of us arminian/wesleyans is that God might pre-ordain
anything. While the calvinists fear that anything might be subject to
free will. Isn't this at the root of most of the debate? The mystery of
God is something some are uncomfortable with. I believe
predestination and mans free will are both biblical and correct
doctrines however their meaning and where they intersect is beyond
our understanding. What would happen if we preached all the
attributes of God instead of just the ones we were comfortable with.
Would we split churches? Maybe.. Would we foster in our
communities of faith a wonder and awe of God not often experienced?
I would pray that. My prayer is that we as a denomination would stop
trying to explain everything in some effort to establish our
"demoninational distinctives" and rather stand back and experience
the awesomeness of our God. All of Him.
Posted by: J--------------------------- I don't know if "Open Theology" is an issue of such concern that we
need to address it denominationally.
Open Theology is the struggle of finite human minds living in a
universe of Time and Space struggling to understand a transcendent
God who exists outside of Time and Space, a God who doesn't see
past, present, and future the way we do.
Armenians have always understood that there is a difference between
"knowing" and "deciding", that God's knowledge of a future event
does not necessarily imply God causing that event. Wesley said as
much in several places, such as his comments on Revelation 8:28.
Open Theology oversimplifies this issue, making the
foreknowledge/free will dichotomy a zero sum game (any choice to
which God "knows" the outcome isn't a choice, therefore for us to
really have free will, God cannot "know" the outcome of any choice -
that is He cannot absolutely know the future, or that he must "know"
all the potential outcomes - all the potential futures - of any choice).
Armenians have always understood that this is a false dichotomy.
God's foreknowledge of our choice does not nullify our free will,
conversely, our free will does not nullify God's foreknowledge. Even
God's causality does not rule out our free will: for example, Pharaoh's
God-hardened heart, does not rule out his culpability for the suffering
experienced by his country while he refused to let the Hebrews go.
But to feel this error is so crucial that we have to address it in the
Book of Discipline . . . we're debating the epistemology of a
Transcendent being. We really don't even have a solid lock on an
epistemology of human beings. We sound a lot like Job's four friends
debating about things far outside their ken. We'd be better off
reaffirming our understanding of God's omniscience and how it does
not exclude our free will without having to address a fad theology
based on an inaccurate fractal interpretation of Time that is
suggested by Chaos Theory mathematics.
Posted by: M------------------------ K's comments begin by incorrectly representing what the resolution
says. The resolution doesn't claim that Open Theism redefines divine
omniscience; the resolution claims that Open Theism revises the
traditional understanding of divine omniscience. The difference is
important: Open Theists and traditional Christians can agree on
defining omniscience as "knowing all truths and believing no
falsehoods" or similar definitions. Where the two groups disagree is
on whether future free-willed decisions are "truths" that God can
presently know. K repeatedly insists that God's absolute
foreknowledge would cancel out our free will, and K's repeated
example is that, if God told us exactly what we were going to do, we
couldn't help but do otherwise. But Jesus told Peter that Peter would
deny Jesus three times before the cock crowed, and Peter still did it!
Furthermore, K's example doesn't prove that God can't know my
future choices; it only suggests that God can know for sure what I'll
do next as long as God doesn't tell me what I'll do next. So the
example is both biblically and logically flawed. I agree with M that the
idea that God's foreknowledge somehow cancels out my free-willed
choices is wrong. My real, unforced, free decisions determine my
future and also determine God's knowledge of my decisions, but my
decisions work "backward in time" (from a human perspective) to give
God his foreknowledge. In Deuteronomy 31 and 32, God predicts
Israel's rebellion and God's own emotional response when Israel
rebels. God's foreknowledge doesn't cause Israel to rebel, nor does it
mean that God is emotionally unaffected by the rebellion when it
happens. God's foreknowledge of an event isn't necessarily the same
as God's experience of an event.
K also thinks it's silly that God would know what I'll say in prayer or
conversation before I say it, but K also claims to believe that God
knows my thoughts. K, my words are thoughts before I speak them, so
if God knows my thoughts, he still knows what I'll say in prayer or
conversation before I actually speak the words! Besides, in Matt. 6:8,
Jesus says God knows what we need before we ask him, and in Psalm
139:4, David says God knows what our words will be before they are
on our tongue. The awesome truth is that God doesn't need our
prayers in order to know something he didn't previously know; rather,
he graciously invites us time-bound, finite creatures to share in his
boundless eternal life to the full extent of our capacity. I may know
what my daughter wants for Christmas or for a snack even before she
asks me, but I still want her to ask me for the sake of building our
relationship and her character. Ditto for God and us, in a much
greater way.
Finally, so what? Firstly, Open Theists want to protect free will. But
classical Arminians already provide a middle way between God's
predetermination of everything on the one hand and denial of his
omniscience on the other, and they do it without sacrificing God's
exhaustive foreknowledge. Secondly, Open Theists present us with a
God who "feels our pain," who's not emotionally detached from the
world. I don't think you have to deny God's exhaustive foreknowledge
to believe in a relationally open God: Jesus foreknew that Judas would
betray him, Peter would deny him, and the Jews and Romans would
crucify him; that didn't take away from Christ's being emotionally
affected by these events, if his prayers in Gethsemane and on the
cross are any indication. Finally, Open Theists think they've found a
solution to the problem of evil: if God didn't know 9/11 or the
Holocaust would happen, then he's off the hook; if he did know, he's
responsible. But this line of thought doesn't work, even granting Open
Theism: did God really not hear the terrorists as they discussed how
to attack the Twin Towers? Surely he saw them once they had
hijacked the planes, and could figure out what they were going to do!
And if God still didn't "get it" until the first plane had hit, why didn't
he at least figure out how to stop the second plane from blasting
through the second tower? If at this point Open Theists appeal to God
giving free will to us and permitting evil for a purpose, then you're
right back in the same line of defense that non-Open Theists have
used for at least 1500 years! In the first two chapters of the Book of
Job, God doesn't plead ignorance when Satan afflicts Job; instead, God
pre-authorizes Satan to afflict Job, but also sets boundaries on the
afflictions. That's the God I serve: To use C. S. Lewis's words, "'Course
he's not safe! But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."
Posted by: Jerome Van Kuiken ------------------------ Jerome K’s begins by correcting an in accurate understanding I
implied with regard to the Openness of God resolution. Indeed, I
didn’t quote the resolution completely, and I do apologize for that. It
is the content of the future that is at issue here; whether all future
actions are definite, thus settled.
Jerome’s refers to Peter telling Jesus that Peter would deny Him as
evidence that God knows everything we will. This event, according to
Jerome, proves that God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF
—the believe that God foreknows EVERYTHING we will ever think,
say and do). All Jesus did, however, was tell Peter that he would deny
Him, a very broad “prediction.” Jesus didn’t give any details except to
say that cock wouldn’t crow before the denial took place. Truth be
told, there was no need, in the least, for Jesus to have EDF knowledge
in order to know that Peter would deny Him. A simple peak into
Peter’s heart was more than sufficient to know the this truth. Peter
wasn’t nearly as strong in his commitment to Jesus as he thought he
was, and Jesus knew this. God, in His love and care for Peter, would
then take the necessary steps to box Peter in a corner, something very
easy for God to do, to force this issue. Further, Peter possessed full
freewill, the whole time, to do other than deny Jesus. Had he not been
so convinced that Jesus was wrong, He might have just fled the scene
and stayed away until it was over. But that was the point: to have even
done that would have been a denial! It was a heart-to-heart talk
between Jesus and Peter, not a demonstration of EDF.
In my first post in this blog, I demonstrated, for those who believe in
EDF, the contradiction between freewill and EDF by using a scenario
of the Lord appearing to someone and telling that person exactly (in
every detail lived out) what he/she is going to do come a point of time
in the future. I was clear to state that God could never possess EDF
knowledge, much less be able to show any of it, because we would
change things we were told, things that are not supposed to be
changed, thus proving that EDF can’t be true where freewill exists.
Jerome objected by stating that this doesn’t prove that God doesn’t
have EDF knowledge, but only that God has to be quiet about what he
knows. So, God can’t say anything about our futures, what He has
known from eternity past, because we might change things? I’m sorry,
but God having to keep silent really isn’t a good defense for EDF!
Some people say that if God told us what He knows that we would just
do what He told us. Anybody want to explain how one would just “do,”
in the exact detail (no exceptions), what one was told or shown? You’d
have to become an automaton to do that, and that’s not reality!
Freewill protects us from ever being boxed in to a situation like that, a
situation in which we cannot fully choose and thus change things. This
makes EDF knowledge impossible in a world with freewill operates. I
ask you, Jerome, and everyone else: please demonstrate how God can
ever tell you any part of your future with what is supposed to be EDF
knowledge without you being able to contradict this by doing
something different than what you were told. The truth is that no one
can demonstrate that. It’s absolutely impossible, and that’s because of
a very simple truth: where freewill is operating, there can never be a
time when God can know absolutely everything. That’s just life, and
it’s reality.
Jerome, however, resorts to a theory of time to further prove his point.
He says that we really do make our own freewill choices, and that this
determines God’s knowledge of our future choices, and this is
because, he says, (and here’s where it gets weird), “. . . my decisions
‘work backward in time’ to give God His foreknowledge.” Jerome used
Deuteronomy 31 to prove this point: God knew that Israel would
rebel, that God’s knowledge didn’t make Israel rebel, so that must
mean that Israel’s decisions work backwards in time (whew!) How
about we just look at Deuteronomy for what it is: God knew the heart
of the nation of the people (like He knew Peter’s heart); that they’d
rebel, and probably very quickly. This knowledge didn’t take EDF
knowledge or even a rocket scientist. All one had to do was review
Israel’s history of constant rebellion from Egypt on out. Israel never
changed their ways. (Working backward in time? Can’t we just let life
and reality speak for itself instead of coming up with far-reaching
theories of time? Let Captain James. T. Kirk and his gang on the
Enterprise go where no man has gone before!)
As to God knowing our thoughts, does it really take EDF knowledge
for God to know what you are thinking? No. Does it take EDF
knowledge for God to know from eternity past every thought you will
ever think? Yes, and that is what is what would be so unrealistic;
completely outside of our reality, and completely false as to how we
relate with God. Jerome however finds it comforting that God has
invited us into a relationship where, Jerome believes, that everything
we will ever pray is already known. Go back to my earlier posts in this
blog, however, and re-read the ridiculous relationship that would
result were God to know everything we will ever think and pray. It’s
simply ludicrous. Quoting psalm 139 isn’t going to help either. You
need to be consistent, Jerome: was David really meaning to imply that
he had been born by a secret process way down in the depths of the
earth (vs 15)? Is there’s really a book in heaven where David’s arms,
legs and the rest of his parts are all written down (a doctor’s dream!)?
Isn’t it possible, Jerome, that the point of the Psalm isn’t a didactic
lesson on God knowing everything by EDF, but rather an intimate
statement about the ever-present God running through the veins of
humanity’s existence? Why resort to verse-picking in that Psalm to try
to support EDF? (Oh, and by the way, you do not know from eternity
past what your daughter wants for Christmas. Somehow, in some way,
you had to learn that information. THAT is why your relationship with
your daughter is vivacious and dynamic. It wouldn’t be vivacious,
however, if you knew everything (and I do mean absolutely
everything) she were ever going to think, say and do. That’s just not
the way life and relationships function.)
As to Jerome’s statement about Open Theists wanting to protect
freewill, that’s incorrect. I, an Open Theist, have no desire to protect
freewill. I am only interested in our understanding the contradiction
between freewill and EDF when they said to exist at the same time
and in the same place. God can create worlds all day long where EDF
knowledge rules, and people would be automatons. That’d be fine,
too, because they’d never know the difference. However, there’s
really not much to be said about relationship in that context, though,
is there!
With regard to Armenianism (and I was an Armenians for many
years), it doesn’t teach that God determined the future; Armenianism
teaches Simple Foreknowledge with very little determinism. The
contradiction, however, between EDF and freewill is no less
problematic. One is still hostage to what God already knows will (and
therefore, must) take place, in the exact way God knows it. No one
gets to choose to do anything differently under this view, even if they
think they can. To prove the point again, all God has to do is try to tell
someone something of that person’s future, and I guarantee you that
the person wouldn’t just “do” what they learned (we are not
automatons), and that things are going to get changed from how God
said things would go. That means EDF cannot be true in this world.
Again, life and reality are so instructive here.
Ask yourself, Jerome, what would you do if God came down and told
you about your future with what He supposedly knows by EDF? I’m
not talking broad, sweeping statements—God does that all the time,
and it doesn’t take EDF for Him to know those things. I’m talking God
telling you detail upon detail, since that is what God would know. If
He told you a half-hour’s worth of your future, in exact detail, would
you just “do” what He told you? Hardly. I hope, therefore, you can
better see the contradiction between EDF and freewill.
As to the issue of theodicy, I don’t pretend to believe that Open
Theism answers all the problems of evil. Obviously, there’s stuff going
on behind the scenes, stuff we can’t see, and it just isn’t cool to say
that Open Theism answers it all. Not in the least.
To close here, if one wishes to contend for EDF in a world where
freewill exists, then just be consistent: 1) Explain how God can ever
tell or show anything He knows without saying that we’d just “do”
what we learned; 2) explain how you still have freewill when you can
only do what God knows you will have to do. It makes no difference if
God doesn’t tell you what He knows. The same truth exists: you
ultimately do what He already knows you will do. That's not freewill in
my book! I contend that the problems just get more and more complex
and unrealistic when we try to force EDF and freewill into the same
room.
Thanks,
K
--------------------------If you believe the "Bible Code," that when you analyze the Hebrew
Bible with a computer program and find certain things out that
correspond with specific names and historical events future to what
was written originally, some would say this is a validation or
demonstration of God's foreknowledge. Some would scoff at the code.
Others observe the outcomes and might say, "interesting." I am in the
later category. By believing the code, I am placing esoteric knowledge
ahead of common knowledge and it might suggest that God allows
certain people . . . those with a comoputer program to analyze for
such things . . . to have his full will and knowledge of his Word
through the Bible Code, while others without the benefit of such a
code do not have this knowledge. This raises the issue that God may
be preferential in who receives what he has to offer. Scripture says
that God is no respector of persons. Common grace is available to all,
therefore God allows everyone who will take time to look into his
Word an opportunity to become cognizant of his plan of salvation.
Some go so far as to say that the devil offers substitutes that detract
from what God has to offer in salvation . . . i.e. "the promise of the life
that now is and that which is to come."
Posted by: U-------------------------- In response to K's latest blog:
First, it's Arminian theology, not Armenian theology. Armenia is a
country. Arminians associate themselves with the theology of James
Arminius.
Second, while K may have little desire to protect free will, it's pretty
clear that other Open Theists do; hence the name of David Basinger's
book: The Case for Freewill Theism. I stand by my statement.
Third, with regard to Peter's denial, K is incorrect that the only detail
Jesus gave was that Peter would deny Jesus before the cock crowed.
Jesus predicted the exact number of times that Peter would deny
Jesus. Simply peeking into Peter's heart could have shown Jesus that
Peter would probably deny Jesus if pressured, but there's no way a
peek into Peter's heart would yield information about the exact
number of times Peter would deny Jesus, nor the very limited time
frame in which Peter would do so. K claims that God "[took] the
necessary steps to box Peter in a corner." How did God do this
without violating the free wills of all the soldiers, disciples, officials,
servants, and others involved in this scenario? The less foreknowledge
you grant God in the name of preserving our free will, the more you
have to have God override our free wills in order to accomplish his
purposes. Open Theist Greg Boyd has claimed in a couple of his books
that God occasionally restricts our free willing in order to fulfill his
predictions. If so, then Open Theism has run away from Calvinism
only to fall back into it when necessary as a stopgap measure!
If the case of Peter's denial contains too few specific predictions to
demonstrate to K exhaustive divine foreknowledge, then he might
consider 1 Sam. 10:1-13 or Dan. 11, which contain a host of details. 1
Sam. 10 is significant because it's about as close as Scripture comes
to meeting K's criterion of "what would you do if God gave you a
detailed prophecy of what you would do?" Dan. 11 is valuable because
it predicts in exquisite detail the geopolitical history of the Ancient
Near East over an extensive time period in a way that mere
probability could never establish. The bottom line in predictive
prophecy, however, is this: God has made accuracy in prediction a
test of whether a prophet really speaks for God (Deut. 18:21-22) and a
test of whether Yahweh or an idol is the true God (Isa. 41:21-29; 44:6-
8, 24-28; 45:11, 20-21). How is God able to make such accurate
predictions? Open Theism only has two options for explaining God's
accuracy: either he's a really good guesser, which means his
credibility as God rides on his mastery of the laws of probability (can
even a divine dice-roller roll perfect sixes every time?), or else he's
got to override free will at key points in order to fulfill his predictions,
in which case human moral accountability at those key points is lost.
Classical Arminianism avoids the horns of this dilemma by positing
that God foreknows without causing future free decisions.
Fourth,let me reiterate that K's scenario of "what would you do if God
told you what you would do" hardly disproves exhaustive divine
foreknowledge. There is no logical incompatibility between God
foreknowing everything but not revealing that foreknowledge to me,
on the one hand, or between God revealing foreknowledge to me and
my freely doing what he's revealed, on the other hand. My suggestion
about God keeping quiet to preserve his foreknowledge was not meant
to present my real position but only to show that, even in terms of K's
position, his scenario doesn't do what he claims it does. I might add
here that I'd like to see Scriptural support for K's position instead of
simply relying on a (dubious) logical demonstration. Scripture, not
reason, is our final authority for truth, and if Scripture teaches what
appear at first blush to be contradictory truths (God is one, God is
three; Christ is God, Christ is human; God is sovereign, humans are
free), then it is the job of reason to try to humbly grapple with these
truths rather than seeking to press Scripture into the mold of our
presuppositions. K, let me gently suggest that perhaps your logic or
experience are too small.
Fifth, K calls my suggestion that our decisions cause God's
foreknowledge "weird" and ridicules it with a reference to Star Trek.
Note that these aren't arguments against my position: they are simply
expressions of his bias that work to bias unthinking readers against
my position. K pleads that we should let reality be itself instead of
appealing to time-bending theories. But Einstein's Theory of
Relativity, quantum mechanics, and the doctrine of the Trinity (to
name a few) are all pretty "weird," yet appear to describe reality. The
first two of the above-mentioned "weird" things also have some things
to say about time and causation that run counter to common sense. In
my last blog, I put "backward in time" in quotation marks and added
the qualifier, "(from a human perspective)" precisely to indicate that
this description of how God's knowledge relates to our decision-
making should not be taken as a dogmatic metaphysical statement. I
should also note that, according to Roger Olson's book Arminian
Theology, John Wesley's view of divine foreknowledge and
predestination was that our "decisions cause God to know them." (p.
188) It's nice to know Wesley had weird ideas, too! If K would
seriously entertain this idea that our free-willed choices cause God's
foreknowledge of them, I think it would solve a lot of his difficulty
with foreknowledge and free will being in "the same room," as he puts
it.
Sixth, K calls me inconsistent for taking the metaphors of Ps. 139
metaphorically and the literal parts literally. How do I know which
parts are literal and which are metaphorical? By application of
ordinary laws of hermeneutics (biblical interpretation)! Even K
believes God knows our minds and hearts perfectly in the present
(which I assume K would support by "resort[ing] to verse-picking" of
his own!) If Scripture teaches that God knows our minds and hearts,
then Ps. 139's claim that God knows David's words before they're on
his tongue fits with that teaching and there's no need to take it
metaphorically. If, as K believes, God knows our minds and hearts,
then why should K bother to pray aloud at all? After all, God already
knows what's in his heart and mind! K also proposes a false dilemma
between Ps. 139 as a "didactic lesson" vs. an "intimate statement."
Why can't it be both? David rejoices that the God who's known him
thoroughly before he was born continues to know him thoroughly,
intimately, and relationally in the present.
Seventh and last (seven being the perfect number!), let's keep things
in perspective. This blog is about a resolution to remove a statement
about Open Theism from the Pastors' and Church Leaders' Handbook.
The resolution does not call for a change in our Articles of Religion,
nor for General Conference to brand Open Theism as a heresy, nor for
the burning of self-confessed Open Theists at the stake. Debates like
those between K and me can continue right on going, but do we really
want the denomination to appear to be officially approving of a
controversial theological position by publishing a positive statement
of that position in an official denominational resource? I think the
decision to publish the chapter on Open Theism "jumped the gun."
Therefore, I support the resolution.
Posted by: Jerome Van Kuiken--------------------------- The resolution states, in part, “whereas, the Free Methodist Church is
committed to promoting accord with sound doctrine (Titus 2:1), and
whereas, the theology known as the ‘openness of God’ revises
understanding of God’s attributes, particularly His omniscience.“ The
implications are clear: the Open View is not sound doctrine and the
Open View revises understanding of God’s attributes (more than just
omniscience), quite a hefty accusation, like saying that the Open View
is heresy. It is important to me, therefore, that this blog offer enough
information from different angles to give the reader a rounded
understanding of exactly what the resolution is against. I am against
the resolution. (So that we may move on, however, this will be my last
response to Jerome.)
Jerome noted “K may have little desire to protect free will, it's pretty
clear that other Open Theists do; hence the name of David Basinger's
book: The Case for Freewill Theism. I stand by my statement.” You
should have said, the first time, that some, not all, Open Theists are
out to protect freewill. And Basinger’s book is not about protecting
freewill either. It’s about understanding the philosophy behind several
different versions of free-will theism. That’s not to say some Open
Theists are not out to protect freewill, but if they are, I’d be willing to
bet it’s because of the contradictions that are present when trying to
maintain exhaustive settled foreknowlendge (EDF) at the same time.
Jerome noted a detail about Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial that I
didn’t mention; that Peter would deny Jesus “three” times. I felt like
Jerome thought this to be the clincher; that it would be pushing things
too far to expect God to be able to manipulate circumstances and
people for this particular three-time denial event. Rest assured,
Jerome, God did NOT have to manipulated “all the soldiers, disciples,
officials, servants, and others involved in this scenario” as you asked.
God can trounce freewill all day long if he wants to, but He doesn’t
need to. (A return to Calvinism? Oh, for the love of pete.)
Jerome quoted I Sam. 10:1-13 to support EDF. Let’s look at the
passage. Samuel anoints Saul and tells him (a simple summary),
“When you leave today, you’ll find two men by Rachel’s grave. Oh, and
the donkey’s you were looking for have been found. You will continue
on and end up in the plain of Tabor, where you’ll meet three people
going up to God. Each will be carrying specific items. They’ll give you
two loaves of bread. After that, you’ll go to the hill of God and
eventually meet a company of prophets. The Spirit of the Lord will
come upon you and you will prophecy, and [please note:] that when
these signs come to you, that you do for yourself what the occasion
requires.”
You know something? There isn’t one thing here that requires that
God have EDF knowledge in order to bring these “signs,” as Samuel
calls them, to pass (and no, God would not had to have manipulated
“all” the soldiers, disciples, officials, servants, and others involved in
this scenario). Isn’t God allowed to demonstrate His great power once
in a while, particuarly to the guy who’s going to become king?
Further, Jerome, you forget the problems I have noted with regard to
anyone, including God, trying to tell someone what is supposedly from
EDF knowledge about that person’s future choices; the person
receiving the information never looses the ability to change what they
were told. Not everything, but a lot of things. The simple facts of life,
as we all live them day to day, is that Saul didn’t have to “do” his part
with regard to what Samuel said would happen. Saul could have
decided to high-tail it off and go do something else. It’s obvious he
didn’t want to do that, but he never lost his freewill ability to choose
to do otherwise, and that’s all it takes to toss out the idea of EDF
where freewill exists. Further, Jerome, you didn’t bother to offer an
explanation about how anybody can just “do” without the choice to
not do, what they were told by supposed EDF knowledge. You also
didn’t answer my questions about what YOU would do were God to
tell you what is supposedly from EDF knowledge about your future.
You need to address those in front of us all so as to clearly
demonstrate that EDF is true. Otherwise, you are merely assuming
and asserting and begging the question about God’s view point and
our view point and how God is in or out of or along side of or beneath
time. You need more than that to argue this issue.
As to the Daniel passage, though there is tremendous detail God can
easily cause kings to meet for lunch and negotiate over countries (and
God doesn’t even have to spend all His time overriding people’s
freewill in order to get these few things accomplished). I will grant
that of all Scripture, this passage is one of the most challenging
against the Open View, but the facts are that things could have, and
can, get changed in that prophecy if God did, and does, not determine
that certain things were, and will, be. It’s really not a big deal.
If all God has is simple foreknowledge—just plain ol’ foreknowledge of
everything that will ever happen—then this is of little help to God,
particularly when He sees things going the wrong way but can’t be
changed because these things are known by EDF knowledge. (Of
course, one can say that God has already worked out all the details of
how He will interact, which just makes things worse. Second, even
God’s very own actions are part of this knowledge and cannot be
changed from what they will be anymore than anything else can be
changed from it will be. This locks God into His own EDF knowledge.
After all, His words and actions are part and parcel to how things will
go for us. EDF just makes things get more weird, as I said. (Oh, and
by the way, Jerome, it really is a weird concept to think that “. . . my
decisions ‘work backward in time’ to give God His foreknowledge.”
You say that this is from our perspective, however, your argument, as
I said above, is merely an assertion, an assumption, with no proof,
much less evidence, and the only way to argue it is to beg the
question (i.e., this is how God’s view point is, because this is how
God’s knowledge is, because this is… On and on it goes.)
When God tells Hezekiah that he’s going to die because of his
sickness and then changes the pronouncement and gives Hez fifteen
more years, someone who believes in EDF will say, “Well, God knew
all along that Hezekiah wouldn’t die,” and the whole point of the
passage goes right out the door, but so does any proof that God knew
from eternity past that Hezekiah would live. Relationship between
God and man is just not built on the dishonesty and deceptiveness of
God acting like things are one way when they are another. You can’t
have a relationship with anyone who knows things will go one way
and either acts like it isn’t known how things will go or changes what
was said in order to have things go the way they are really to go?
Weird, weird, weird!
To disconcerting prophecies are found in Acts and in Ezekiel. In acts,
it is the prophet Agabus’s words to Paul about being tied up and
bound by Jews: “In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man
who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles
(Acts 21:10-11).” The prophecy didn’t come to pass in the manner
Agabus described; the Jews neither bound Paul nor delivered him to
the Gentiles. Rather, the Romans came to break up a Jewish riot in the
makings against Paul, and the Romans bound Paul themselves in
order to get the situation under control (further, they helped protect
Paul on a few occasions). It won’t do to say, “Well, that’s what Agabus
meant.” Not at all. Agabus said what he said, a prophecy that didn’t
come to pass in the exact manner he said it would. I’m not the least
bit bothered by this, however, because God was making a point, not
demonstrating EDF knowledge. There is also the prophecy Ezekiel
gave about the fall of Tyre in chapter 26. It didn’t happen quite the
way Ezekiel said it would happen. Some, like Archer Gleason
(“Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”), have offered a pretty good
explanation to address this issue, but there are several biblical
scholars who take issue with these explanations.
Jerome said, “How is God able to make such accurate predictions?
Open Theism only has two options for explaining God's accuracy:
either he's a really good guesser . . . or else he's got to override free
will at key points in order to fulfill his predictions, in which case
human moral accountability at those key points is lost.” There are
many other ways by which God knows what’s going to happen. Moses’
prediction of Israel’s rebellion, for example, didn’t require EDF
knowledge, much less a rocket scientist. Just looking at Israel’s
unbelief and rebellion early on was more than enough to know what
they would do. There simply are many ways God can know things.
Jerome says that Classical Arminianism posits that God foreknows
without causing future free decisions. Well, if EDF were true, God
would not “cause” future free decisions, but He would most certainly
destroy freewill; people would only choose what God knew from
eternity past. Now, that’s not “causing” someone to choose what they
choose, but it unnaturally and abnormally interferes with freewill. If
you know that God already knows what you will do, and you go to do
something, then you know that whatever you do is settled and cannot
be other than how God has always known what you will do. So, even if
you think you are freely choosing, even if you try to out smart God by
suddenly choosing something other way, the final outcome is that
whatever you choose is already known and thus settled. You will end
up doing what you are foreknown to do. The problems with this are
numerous. No one can prove that God has EDF of all future choices,
and no one can prove that God has some special experience in time
that affords Him foreknowledge of all future actions. What is true,
however, is that if anyone gets wind of what it is that God knows (like,
if He tells you like He told Samuel and Daniel), things can be changed.
So, if it makes perfectly logical sense to say that EDF can exist in a
world where freewill doesn’t exist, and if it happens to be that when
freewill is in a world where EDF is said to be operating that there will
be tremendous problems—like a) being able to change what shouldn’t
be able to be changed; b) not having to do what you were said you
would do; and c) not being able to prove anything about EDF or
adequately deal with the contradictions and inconsistencies that arise
—then it shouldn’t be too hard to figure out that EDF and freewill
can’t exist in the same room at the same time. What part of this isn’t
making sense? Yet, Jerome still insists that there’s no problems when
he says, “K's scenario of "what would you do if God told you what you
would do" hardly disproves exhaustive divine foreknowledge. Jerome
continues: “There is no logical incompatibility between God
foreknowing everything but not revealing that foreknowledge to me,
on the one hand, or between God revealing foreknowledge to me and
my freely doing what he's revealed, on the other hand.
Plain and simple: If God supposedly has EDF, and if He can reveal
what He knows, and if what He knows can be changed, which I’ve
proven is the case, then if God keeps silent about what He knows, He
then does NOT have EDF knowledge. Plain and simple, EDF
information cannot be changed, whether God speaks or remains
silent. The truth is still the truth. So, since it is the case that God
cannot reveal something by supposed EDF knowledge, because it can
be changed, then God does not possess EDF knowledge where freewill
exists. In a world where people are automatons, God can possess EDF
knowledge. But where there is freewill, that can’t happen.
As to you wanting Scripture to support the Open View, take a look at
Greg Boyd’s book called “God of the Possible” (you mentioned Boyd,
so I’m sure you’ve heard of this book). Avoid everybody else for the
time being. It’s a very quick and easy read, and it’s filled with more
than enough Scriptural examples of what I’ve just mentioned. I
obviously don’t have room here to argue Scripture. But just remember
that Reason, according to Wesley, was quite respectable. It forms one
of the four points of authority that Wesley espoused (the
Quadrilateral), the Bible, of course, being superior, but not without
witness.
As to Jerome’s statement, “. . . John Wesley's view of divine
foreknowledge and predestination was that our "decisions cause God
to know them." (p. 188) It's nice to know Wesley had weird ideas, too!
If K would seriously entertain this idea that our free-willed choices
cause God's foreknowledge of them, I think it would solve a lot of his
difficulty with foreknowledge and free will being in "the same room,"
as he puts it.
Wesley wasn’t infallible (he’d be the first to agree), so if when he said,
“decisions cause God to know them” he meant that the decisions we
make today are what caused God to know them in eternity past, we
got some serious problems. First, if what God knew before I was born
didn’t include my decisions, God would not possess EDF. Second, if
my actions are the cause of what God knows, particularly in regard to
predestination, how do I cause something (to be known) before I was
born? This just gets weirder and weirder and more weirder! This
would have been the wrong way to deal with predestination, if this is
what Wesley meant. Now, if what Wesley meant was that when I
respond to the gospel that I am fulfilling something of God’s plan—His
predestination of all who will respond positively to the gospel—and
that my action causes God to know this, then I say, “Bully!” To tell you
the truth, I’m not acquainted well enough with Wesley’s teaching on
the subject, but I can tell you that he got himself in a world of hurt if
he believed that the decisions we make today are what caused God to
know them in eternity past!
As to Jerome’s response to my comments about his use of Ps. 139, God
knowing David’s thoughts before they are on his tongue does not
prove EDF. It only proves that God knows David’s thoughts as they
take place. Next, in view of there being much metaphorical and literal
aspects of the psalm, that’s the reason to be very cautious about
making the psalm didactic. The psalm is just not an “Okay, listen up!
This is lesson 101 on God’s EDF knowledge.” Rather, it is a heart-
wrenching issue of David’s heart-felt awareness of the ever-present
God. It is in just a psalm like this where you would expect David to
speak metaphorically and hyperbolically. We will have to agree to
disagree on this, Jerome, if you feel otherwise. Finally, Jerome said,
“If, as K believes, God knows our minds and hearts, then why should K
bother to pray aloud at all? After all, God already knows what's in his
heart and mind!” I guess I pray out loud because…my mouth exists
and works! Those who’s mouths don’t work will, however, get by just
fine by praying without spoken words. Hannah (Samuel’s mother) is
your friend!
The Open View doesn’t have anything to do with major doctrines of
Christianity, and it isn’t heresy. If it “revises” omniscience, it does so
only by causing us to think about what we mean when we say, “God
knows everything” and to rethink how this is true. Thus, with part of
the future being open, the Open View clarifies more than it revises.
Jerome, you may have the last post, and I hope you will answer my
questions. It’s been good to debate with you.
Sincerely,
K
-----------------------My thanks to K for offering me the last word in this debate. I also
appreciate that he didn't take the easy way out on Dan. 11 by late-
dating it.
Reasons given by proposers of a resolution may be different than the
reasons that motivate those who adopt a resolution at General
Conference. I would be stunned if GC '07 actually condemned Open
Theism as heresy. If this resolution is adopted, I suspect it will be
because delegates recognize that this is a highly controversial issue
that should not have been given the appearance of denominational
endorsement by having a chapter devoted to it in the new Pastors'
Handbook. At very least, the chapter should have acknowledged that
Open Theism is not a traditional or standard Arminian, Wesleyan or
(Free) Methodist viewpoint.
Open Theism does in fact change a major doctrine: the doctrine of
God. It revises or rejects several divine attributes: omniscience,
immutability (God is unchanging), impassibility (God is not affected by
the world), and eternity (God is timeless). I welcome rethinking of the
latter three of these attributes, but obviously I can't agree with Open
Theism's revision of omniscience. Open Theism, at least as presented
by K, also revises other divine attributes: if God really inspired Ezekiel
and Agabus to give mistaken information, then either God lacks the
power to make his predictions come perfectly true, or God lacks the
wisdom to avoid making detailed predictions that he knows he might
not pull off, or God lacks the moral integrity to be true to his word,
even when he's staked his reputation as the one true God and the very
lives of his prophets on the accuracy of his predictions (on this point,
see my last post for biblical support). In fact, God's attribute of being
the only real God is compromised: God makes accuracy in prediction a
test of who is the real God, but if he is only accurate part of the time,
then he's no better than the spiritual sources of ancient pagan
prophecy or modern psychic predictions -- even the Oracle at Delphi
and Jeane Dixon have made some accurate predictions. For that
matter, even TV weather forecasters do that without any divine
intervention, so maybe there was no God inspiring the biblical
prophets after all! (Readers can consult standard evangelical
commentaries on the accuracy of the prophecies in Ezek. 26 and Acts
21.)
K says that in Open Theism there are many ways God can know the
future besides 1. guessing or 2. overriding free will. But the examples
K gives only confirm that these are the only two options for an Open
Theist. K cites God's prediction of Israel's future rebellion based on
Israel's past performance. But according to K's explanation, this is a
guess -- an educated guess, but still a guess! K also says that, in Dan.
11, God can "cause kings to meet for lunch." If you throw out simple
foreknowledge, how can God make certain that the kings will do this
without overriding free will? Open Theists Greg Boyd, William Hasker
and David Basinger concede that God overrides human free will at key
points in order to fulfill his plan (and yes, this is a Calvinistic
explanation; see pp. 332-333, including footnote 15, of the book
Panentheism -- the Other God of the Philosophers by John W. Cooper,
professor of philosophical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary).
Appealing to God's perfect present knowledge of hearts like Peter's or
circumstances like Saul's doesn't guarantee that God can know for
sure what we'll do next, at least from an Arminian perspective. The
reason is that when Arminians speak of "free will," they mean that we
have the power to choose contrary to our outer circumstances or
inner character. But if God can't know for sure what we'll choose next,
why does God risk giving such detailed prophecies, especially when
he stakes his own reputation and that of his prophets on his accuracy?
If Peter had denied Jesus only twice, Jesus could have been truly
charged as a false prophet by Deuteronomy's standards. If any of the
people that Samuel predicted Saul would meet had spontaneously
decided to stay indoors that day, not all the signs that God was with
Saul would have been fulfilled and Saul would have had cause to
doubt both Samuel's and God's trustworthiness. There's no way even
God could get every last detail right if he were just guessing, which
means either that he overrides free wills (so long, moral
responsibility; hello, automatons!) or else that he simply foreknows
for certain without causing future free-willed decisions (the classical
Arminian position). That K is willing to charge God with false
prophecy is a sad commentary on what Open Theism can do to one's
view of God.
K sees it as impossible for me to truly have free will if what I'll do is
settled in God's mind. Conversely, if I'm able to do differently than
what God knows or says I'll do, then God can't have exhaustive
foreknowledge. Let me respond by switching the past for the future. It
is settled in my mind that Columbus sailed in 1492. Does this settled
knowledge of mine restrict Columbus's free will? No. Just because his
action is settled in my mind doesn't mean it's settled in his mind or
that he couldn't have chosen to do otherwise. Maybe Columbus
thought, "Wow, whatever choice I make, someday historians will write
down what I did, and I won't be able to change it. What a damper on
my free will!" But free will is a matter of who causes an act, not who
knows about the act. Of course Peter, Saul and others retained the
ability to do differently than what God told them they would do -- but
they didn't do differently! They freely did what God said they would
do, even when, in Peter's case, he specifically said he wouldn't do it. If
God told me exactly what I would do next, I would do it, either 1. from
a free-willed desire to please God, or 2. in spite of myself, from free-
willed decisions to avoid God's will that end up fulfilling that will, just
as Peter did. For a short, helpful reading that defends a classical
Arminian view of the relationship between EDF and human free will,
see Ch. 8 of Paul Copan's book "That's Just Your Interpretation" (the
whole book is worth reading, by the way).
What's the evidence for EDF? K sets the bar too high by demanding
that God reveal hours of detailed data about the future before K will
believe in EDF. It's like someone saying they won't believe God exists
unless God appears to them personally and writes, "I exist" across the
sky. (Please note: I am not equating Open Theism with atheism; I am
only drawing an analogy of what constitutes an unreasonable burden
of proof.) K also seems to require that I explain the exact relationship
of God to time or of EDF to free will in order to be justified in
believing in both EDF and free will. This is like saying that Christians
must explain the exact relationship between Christ's human and
divine natures in order to justify their belief that Christ is both human
and divine. The test of a belief's truthfulness is not whether it can be
exhaustively explained or undoubtably proved (like Descartes sitting
in his oven, trying to find something that he couldn't possibly doubt or
be deceived about); the test is whether a belief is based on good
evidence and can adequately explain contrary evidence. In Scripture
we find that God predicts the future in precise detail, and we find that
those predictions come true. Therefore we conclude that God
possesses a thorough foreknowledge of those parts of the future that
he predicts. Based on these sample cases, we generalize that God
must thoroughly foreknow the parts of the future that he does not
predict. It's a similar logical sequence to the argument that God can
do miracles at any time and place: God has done miracles in some
times and places, therefore we generalize that he can do them in all
other times and places.
What about contrary evidence, such as God changing his mind,
speaking conditionally ("if," "maybe," "perhaps," etc.), asking
questions, expressing frustration or disappointment, etc.? There's no
way I can deal with all the material here; interested readers can read
any of a number of books that have come out against Open Theism.
Let me just respond to a few pieces of contrary evidence.
First, God accommodates his revelation to us time-, space- and
culture-bound creatures. So says Calvin, and here I agree with him.
That means it's not deceptive for the Bible to speak of our hearts as
the centers of our thoughts and wills, even though modern science
tells us the heart is nothing but a blood pump. It's not dishonest for
Isaiah to speak of "the arm of the Lord" when God is really a spiritual
being, without arms or legs. It's not doublespeak for us to pray to "our
Father in heaven" when God isn't male and when he both fills and
transcends heaven and earth (Jer. 23:34; 2 Chron. 6:18). So it makes
sense that when God is speaking to finite, free-willed beings, he
condescends to speak from their perspective as they face a future that
is open as far as their choices go, even though it is closed as far as
God's knowledge goes.
Second, in interacting in time with his creatures, God can feel
genuinely frustrated and disappointed, even though he knows in
advance what we'll do and how he'll feel. That was my point in citing
Deut. 31.
Third, God "changing his mind" is a paraphrase that English
translations of Scripture use for a Hebrew word that has to do with
actions, not mental states. When God "changes his mind," the Bible
means that God changes the way he acts: he quits blessing and starts
judging or vice-versa. A change in God's actions is fully compatible
with no change in God's foreknowledge, just like I foreknow that once
I arrive in Michigan, I'll quit driving and start walking. (For more on
the translation of the Hebrew word, see pp. 308-311 of John Walton's
NIV Commentary on Genesis.)
Lastly, Scripture must be tested against Scripture. Take the proof-
texts for Open Theism given in our new Free Methodist Pastors'
Handbook: the two biblical passages cited to show that God doesn't
have EDF, Gen. 22 and Jer. 32, actually almost cancel each other out.
If God could order Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, then clearly the
thought of child sacrifice had entered his mind, contrary to a
straightforward reading of Jer. 32:35, in which the "abomination"
Israel is committing is child sacrifice! (We need not even mention that
God, in the Lev. 18:2, 21, 24, forbade Israel to follow the Canaanite
practice of child sacrifice, so surely it had entered his mind that Israel
might imitate the Canaanites and sacrifice their children.) If all God's
statements are taken literally, then God doesn't even have exhaustive
knowledge of the present (see Gen. 3:10, 11; 8:1; 18:20-21)!
Thanks for the stimulating debate, K. May God guide GC '07!
Posted by: Jerome Van Kuiken | June 07, 2007 at 12:36 AM ------------------------------Publishing the article “A Wesleyan Perspective on the Openness of
God” in our “Pastors and Church Leaders Manual” does not make
“Open Theism” a part of our Book of Discipline nor a doctrinal
statement. In a manual designed to provide pastors and laypersons
with an understanding of Free Methodist thought, it is an attempt to
bring a Wesleyan perspective to a current theological discussion. The
“Reason” of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is not intended only for
professional theologians, but also for those of us making amateurish
attempts at understanding God; in this case understanding how God
relates and responds to the free-will persons He has created. Although
“open theism” is a relatively new concept, it attempts to be true to
scripture and is deserving of further study by those of us who
consider ourselves “free-will theists.” It is my opinion that this article
has a place in this manual.
Posted by: W ---------------------------------The comments posted here are exhaustive. There is little to be added.
I would probably go further than Rev. VanKuiken and move a
statement drawn up opposing it.
While open theists have done well to remind us that we exist in
relationship with an emotive God who responds to relationship with
him, spiritual masters have done so well before this movement. This is
the nature of the spiritual life.
To force the timeless into linear time and rob him of omniscience
strikes at his very nature and ventures well past simple disagreement
or error.
Please understand I want to speak grace, and I want to speak it
honestly.
Posted by: V