39 Responses to “Do you pray like an open theist? (I hope so)”

1. Micah Sewell Says:
   December 10th, 2008 at 11:37 AM

   Me too! :o) It was learning about this stuff that made me see how BIG God is. I was blown away by the idea of a God who was capable of so much and yet so relational and interactive. He actually cares about us. It made me love Him more and actually want to serve Him.

2. JackNathan Says:
   December 10th, 2008 at 6:44 PM

   Well, what to say?

   Let me begin by saying yes, I agree that many people have an Open Theistic theology regardless of their denominational affiliations and of their knowledge of such a thing. Yet, I believe many others hold the polar opposite, fatalism, and pray stoically. I don’t think the fact that many people naturally believe one thing lends support to that argument. I was naturally an Arian, believing that there was a time when Jesus was not, and therefore not eternal and equal with the Father. I don’t think that means I should take that thought seriously.

   The key difference of Open Theism and all other schools of thought (Arminianism, Calvinism, and all shades in between) is the issue of God’s sovereignty. I know that this has been driven at before, but allow me to take a different angle.

   Sovereignty is mastership. If you have mastery (control) over something, you are sovereign over it. I am sovereign over my dog (most of the time). Governments are sovereign over their respective countries but none other (unless you are an imperialist I suppose). Death was once our sovereign, but Christ has claimed mastery over death. Christ is sovereign over death. My point is that whatever holds ultimate control is ultimately sovereign. In the Reformed camp, God is supremely Sovereign. What I see in the Open Theist camp is that Time is sovereign. Open Theism implies and even states by some that God is constrained by time. The rejection of the foreknowledge of God necessitates the statement that God is not outside of time and is therefore bound by time. Time would therefore be sovereign over God.

   I want to discuss those passages now since that is the meat of the argument, but time does not allow me (I am constrained by time). I have papers to write before this Friday when this semester ends. After that I hope to continue this discussion with you.

   Also, I was curious to know where and how you first encountered Open Theism (I realize you may have always held these views, what I mean is Open Theism officially).

3. Micah Sewell Says:
   December 10th, 2008 at 11:55 PM

   Here are some thoughts.

   I think sovereignty is less about control and more about authority. I don’t think any Christian would ever suggest that God is not sovereign. At the very least, I can speak for me. I think God is sovereign over everything. I do have a bit of a different definition of sovereignty.

   The State of Texas has sovereingty over its people. That is, they have complete authority. A wreckless driver answers to the State of Texas. The thing about sovereingty is that it is not control. Control is control. Sovereignty is authority. Texas doesn’t cause speeders. They punish speeders. I can disobey Texas. People disobey God. They still must answer to Him.

   Time. Time is the distance between two events, a duration. It is not an entity. It just is. Time is just a word for something that exists. It most certainly is not sovereign over anything. No one answers to it (without getting hypothetical and sci-fi). God is not inside of time. He exists. Time exists. It has no control over Him. There is no need for Him to be outside of it. He does things and then He does other things. He created the earth. Then He made Adam. Then He talked to Adam. After that He talked to Noah. There was space between those events. Nothing weird was happening. He was not being controlled or losing authority. He never lost His sovereignty. He just existed and so did time.

   I think possibly the reason for the idea that God is outside of time – or inside of time or whatever with time – is that it is SOOOO hard to understand eternity past. God has always been. WOW! God is so amazing. Everytime I try to think about God being eternal past it hurts my brain. It’s because I am finite. I had a beginning. That’s all I have experienced. But I don’t think we have to make time anything more than what it is — a distance between events.

   Anywho! I love you guys. Thanks for pushing me to seek God and study my Bible. :o) Keep writing and I’ll keep reading.

4. DannyNelson Says:
   December 11th, 2008 at 8:28 AM

   It is critical in this discussion to understand that time is a created concept. It isn’t just there anymore than space (which is actually just a vacuum that occupies an expanse) is just there. The only “thing” that existed before creation was God. When creation came into being, “time” began. To say that God allows Himself to be limited by time for purposes of relationship is not necessary.

   I offer these two sections of scripture for you to ponder:

   …[God] in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. -Hebrews 1:2

   The Greek word for the last word in this verse, world, is transliterated “Aion”. This same word (Strong’s 165) is translated in other areas as age, eternal, and forever, among others. In other words, it most often has to do with references to time. If this verse were translated with that in mind, it could read, “…through whom also He made time.”

   The point I am making here is that God created time. Einstein’s theory of relativity explains that time is dependent on, or relative to, mass and space. Therefore, since mass and space were both created by God, time is a creation of God as well. Before time, God is.

   This is the second verse that I would like to submit:

   That which is has been already and that which will be has already been, for God seeks what has passed by. -Ecclesiastes 3:15

   This scripture asserts that as far as God is concerned, everything in our future has already happened. That is to say, God is not limited by the construct of time.

   I’m on a roll, so here’s some more…

   4″Who has performed and accomplished it,
   Calling forth the generations from the beginning?
   ‘I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last I am He.’”
   -Isaiah 41:4

   21″Present your case,” the LORD says.
   “Bring forward your strong arguments,”
   The King of Jacob says.
   22Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place;
   As for the former events, declare what they were,
   That we may consider them and know their outcome.
   Or announce to us what is coming;
   23Declare the things that are going to come afterward,
   That we may know that you are gods;
   Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together.
   24Behold, you are of no account,
   And your work amounts to nothing;
   He who chooses you is an abomination.
   -Isaiah 41:21-24

   9″Behold, the former things have come to pass,
   Now I declare new things;
   Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you.”
   -Isaiah 42:9

   7′Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
   Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
   From the time that I established the ancient nation.
   And let them declare to them the things that are coming
   And the events that are going to take place.
   -Isaiah 44:7
   
   What is significant about these verses is that they all contrast God’s knowledge of the future with the idols that don’t have that knowledge. Open Theism, by limiting God, is making Him to be like the idols denigrated in these passages.

5. SteveMoss Says:
   December 12th, 2008 at 10:31 PM

   The core issue I have with Open Theism is that it puts man at the center of all things. God may have a plan & purpose, but if man unites in prayer, God would be obligated to change His plan. Who, then is truly almighty?

   If God would repent of anything because of our prayer, then we have become His judge.

6. Mike Hazeltine Says:
   December 14th, 2008 at 4:43 PM

   Hey,

   Sorry it has taken a little while for me to respond to the comments. My wife and have have been visiting family this past week. I am hoping to be able to respond every few days or so.

   Jack,

   You made an interesting point – that some people are fatalistic, and yet pray stoically. I guess I just dont think that those people are living and acting consistently with what they claim to believe. They claim to be fatalistic… yet they pray as though their future may be open to changes. The fact that they pray stoically is inconsistant with their claim to believe in fatalism.

   Sovereignty. I tend to agree with Micah’s understanding of soverignty as authority. I also believe that God is in control of the universe. But you and I may have a different understanding of what that control implies. When it comes to humans with free will, I believe that God exercises His sovereignty primarily through influence, not causation. So, although God could control my every thought and action, causing them to occur before I experience them, I do not believe He exercises this right very often. Almost never. Perhaps never. He can do it whenever He wants, but He most often does not, because it is most loving and wise of Him to allow us to have genunine free will. He desires genuine free love from us… He wants to influence us to love Him, He does not want to cause (in a directly controlling way) us to love Him. Love that is forced is not genuine love.

   Time. I do not belive that time is an entity that is capable of doing things like being “sovereign over God.” Time is not a force. It does not control people. We are not “in it”. Time is simply the passage of events. We use events to mark how much time has passed. If there are no events happening, there is no time. Before creation, If there was communication occuring within the Trinity, then there was duration between those communication events. If there were distinct thoughts, feelings, essences, or distinct somethings being communicated, or transfered amongst the Godhead then there was duration and time.

   Now, this understanding of time is not even crucial to open theism. Even if before creation God existed in somekind of timeless “eternal now”, and time began with creation, and God is “constrained by time”, this does not mean time is sovereign over God. Let me explain by using another example:

   There are millions and millions of things that God does not know. God does not know the shape of a square circle. God does not know how to divide the number 3 into two whole numbers. He does not know these things because these things do not exist. Does this mean God is “constrained by logic and math”? Perhaps it does. If so, then why do we balk at the idea of God being constrained by time? There are all kinds of things God cannot do: He cannot lie, cannot sin, cannot cease to exist, and on and on. If this means God is constrained by this inability, fine. But is there a problem with that? God is still omniscient (knowing everything that can be known), and omnipotent (absolutely powerful and able to do all that is possible to be done). So… although I don’t believe God is constrained by time, since I think time is simply the passage of distinct events, if it turns out that He is, I dont think that makes Him any less sovereign, omniscient or omnipotent.

   Greg Boyd has remarked that open theism may better be termed “open futurism” because at its core is a fundamentally different understanding of the future. Although there are implications of this understaning of the future in terms of how we understand God, open theism does not limit God’s omniscience or omnipotence. I dont have time at the moment to go into detail on this different understanding of the future, but perhaps as the discussion continues, we can go there.

   For your last question, I first encountered open theism when I was about 17, in talking to my older brother about it. Officially, I had it presented to me in a lecture by a guy named Al McBryan. It was during a discipleship training class with YWAM. Ywam doesnt have an official position on open theism, and there are Calvinists and Arminists of all degrees who lead and teach in YWAM schools. But, that is where I first officially encountered it. At first, I rejected it, because I thought it’s view of God was too small, finite, and impotent, but the more I studied it, the more I began to realize that the God described by open theism is actually bigger, more powerful, more impressive, and more attractive to me than any other alternative. This realization really was a key factor in helping me to come to grips with it, since at first it is a very foreign, unfamiliar way to think about God and the world.

   Anyway, thanks for the comments, Jack… I will respond soon to the comments from others. Thanks guys!

7. Mike Hazeltine Says:
   December 14th, 2008 at 6:19 PM

   Steve,

   First let me apologize to you if my post gave you the impression that I think man is the center of all things. This really could not be further from the truth! Also, if I made it sound like God is obligated to change His plans if we unite in prayer… I apologize. This was not my intention at all.

   Open theism does not teach that God is obligated to change his plans, simply that He MAY change them, and sometimes He does change them. He always does what is best, wisest, and most loving. Sometimes, what is best in one situation, is not what is best in another. Before the Ninevites repented, it was best, and most loving to destroy the city. After they repented, it was best and most loving to repent of those plans, and spare the city.

   The fact that God responds to us does not mean that we are His judge. We can respond to creatures and beings that we rule over. An injured dog might move us to sympathy, so we rescue it and care for it. Has this dog become our judge? Certainly not, but isn’t it noble, loving and kind of us to care for it? It is the same with God. We cannot demand that He intervene when we pray, but we can know that he might, and that He has done so in the past. When He does, what awe and love arises in us! What worship and thanks for His grace and mercy. He freely bends His will in response to our pleas when He sees that it is best to do so.

   Thanks for the comments, all……

   Danny, I will respond to you soon, I hope.

8. Mike Hazeltine Says:
   December 17th, 2008 at 1:16 AM

   Danny,

   Some thoughts on those verses you mentioned…

   “…[God] in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.” -Hebrews 1:2

   I think the translators were correct to use the word “world” instead of “time”, given the context. Verse 10 explicitly refers to Christ laying the foundation of the world, and says that the heavens are the works of his hands. If we read Heb 1:2 in the context of Heb 1:10, it makes sense to translate that word as “world”, not time.

   “That which is has been already and that which will be has already been, for God seeks what has passed by.” -Ecclesiastes 3:15

   This verse seems best understood as a variation on the recurring theme in Ecclesiastes: there is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:5-10 really sets the tone for the rest of the book:

   5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
   and hurries back to where it rises.

   6 The wind blows to the south
   and turns to the north;
   round and round it goes,
   ever returning on its course.

   7 All streams flow into the sea,
   yet the sea is never full.
   To the place the streams come from,
   there they return again.

   8 All things are wearisome,
   more than one can say.
   The eye never has enough of seeing,
   nor the ear its fill of hearing.

   9 What has been will be again,
   what has been done will be done again;
   there is nothing new under the sun.

   10 Is there anything of which one can say,
   “Look! This is something new”?
   It was here already, long ago;
   it was here before our time.

   Ecc. 3:15 is simply a restatement of what is said in these introductory verses. Life is meaningless, because there is nothing new under the sun. It is not a statement about the future already having happened. It is not a statement that deals with God’s foreknowledge or the nature of time. We have to read Ecc. 3:15 in the context of the whole book of Ecclesiastes…. and the same is true of any verse.

   As for the rest of the verses you mentioned…

   It is not a problem for Open theists that God knows at least some of the future as certainties. There are things that He knows for certain because He knows that He will bring them about. There are future things that God can declare and know for certain because He has decided to bring them to pass.

   Also, God has perfect knowledge of people’s character. He knows the hearts of all people. If my heart is bent on wickedness and evil, God can see that, and know how I will respond in certain situations. Because of this knowledge (which idols do not have) God can be certain about a great many things in my future, and in the future of nations.

   Remember, open theism does not limit the omniscience of God. It holds that God knows all that can be known, and that He knows everything for what it is. In other words, events that have taken place in the past, He knows as past. Events in the present, He knows perfectly as present events… events that are happening now. Events in the future, He knows them for what they are: some of them He knows as certainties, because that is what they are, and some of them He knows as possibilities, since that is what they are.

   God can declare future events that will take place – this is no stumbling block for me. I wholeheartedly agree with those passages which contrast God’s knowledge of the future with that of idols. However, none of them demand that we conclude that ALL of the future is settled and certain in God’s mind. And none of them indicate that God is outside of time, or that He created time, or that time is the kind of thing that someone can be “in” or “out of”.

   So… those are my thoughts. Thanks for yours, Danny.

   I am interested to hear another take on the passages that I addressed concerning God repenting. Anyone have a different understanding of them?

9. JackNathan Says:
   December 17th, 2008 at 2:40 PM

   Sorry for the gap in my comments. My semester just ended (yay!).

   As for you comment on my comment:

   I think hairs are being split as far as vocabulary is concerned. You term sovereignty in terms of authority while I used the word control. Authority and control are synonyms.

   I was not trying to say that Time is somehow a sentient being. Micah said: “Time is the distance between two events, a duration. It is not an entity. It just is.” I see how my earlier statements would lead anyone to think I thought that Time is an entity; I did not intend that. But I believe that your statement, Micah, enforces my point. Time is measured as a distance between two events. I assert that God can and does traverse that “distance”. Theoretical physics has been pointing to this as a possibility for some time. Simply because we cannot comprehend the so-called 4th dimension does not negate the possibility of it being traversed by one who can comprehend it. We are like a 2-dimensional figure looking at a 3-dimensional reality. We can only comprehend it in 2-dimensions. (Which as a side note was the downfall of Khan in the first Star Trek movie. He was unable to plan a battle on three dimensions and only fought on a flat plane, as if it were sea warfare. Kirk exploited this and attacked him at the third dimension, coming from below, and crippled him. Sorry, I like Star Trek)

   As for the verses you raised:

   Yes, I see these as anthropromorphic statements. God who is able to operate on more dimensions than we are, condescended to our understanding of things and revealed Himself in space and time. These statements of God repenting are representative of what happened if relegated to an understanding of one who is confined by time and is unable to understand the way to traverse it. God is judge and God is loving and gracious. These two statements are not contradictory. We say that God repented from His judgment of Ninevah and turned to His grace. Yet this is not the act of a God surprised by the turning of the Ninevites. It is simply a finite understanding and way of explanation of what happened. God forgave them and was not going to destroy them as He said He would. His statements were a warning, not indicative of His will that needs altering. But furthermore, the issue of this text is not the nature of God’s exhaustive or limited knowledge. The purpose of the text is that God forgives those who were previously listed as base, evil, and entirely alien to worship of God.

   Furthermore, I assert the point of the texts which show God being moved by prayer to not destroy His people is not that God needs others to tell Him what to do as if He doesn’t quite know yet. I assert that these individuals mentioned (Moses, David) are foreshadowing Christ. The Old Testament is known as an era of types and shadows, pointing to fullness in Christ. The intercession of Moses and David on behalf of the people show the need for intercessory prayer on behalf of Israel. They needed an intercessor to stand before God and plead for them. They needed one who wouldn’t die. They needed an eternal intercessor. They needed Christ. These instances are a simple foretaste of Christ. God was not going to destroy Israel but instead Moses stopped Him (phew! that was close). God used Moses as a pre-NT Christ, a Christ figure, who would call to mind the need for the Christ to come.

   So, to review what I said (I do this to make sure I’ve made sense, I’m not sure I have really)

   • Time is not an entity, but a distance which is traversed by God
   • Our lack of perception of the existance of a traversible 4th dimension has produced a text that has anthropromophicized the issue of time for our benefit
   • The issue of time is not central to those texts, to read them as such would be an import of recent philosophy
   • The issue of these texts is the grace of God which is offered (save for the text about God being sorry He made man and flooding earth, I’d like to tackle that at a different time)
   • The intercessors who moved God were types of Christ to come, foretelling of His office as Intercessor

   Two more things:

   One: Open Theism is not the only theology which holds to a God who experiences emotions. Just because you know things before hand doesn’t mean that you lead an unwavering lifestyle, unmoved by what has happened. I knew my wedding day was coming, but I wept when it arrived. Christ knew He was to die, but He sweat-ed blood in the Garden of Gethsemane over the cup He had to bear.

   Two: Since you and Micah close your discussions of Open Theism with how it has caused greater devotion to God, I thought I would do likewise.

   I was an Arminian whose basic stance was that of an unlabeled Open Theism (as you stated, many people are naturally Open Theist). But shortly after I experienced God’s salvific touch, I became Calvinist. I rejoiced at the knowledge that my God not only had control over every calamity, but that it was orchestrated by Him to do the will of Him. I find rest in all ills by knowing that God is sovereign and operates outside of time. He declared He loves me and therefore saves me before the foundation of the world. I rejoice that my God is big enough to be big and yet condenscend to reveal Himself.

   PS-I enjoy this conversation and seek truth out of love.

10. Alexander Hooper Says:
    December 19th, 2008 at 5:48 PM

    Greetings All,

    It has been awhile since I’ve had the chance to read and to comment. So I thought I would throw my 50 cents in (it would be 2 cents but because of inflation i thought I would contemporazie the quote).

    There are a few things that I find intriguing about this post.

    One is that Mike pointed out that God is unable to do certain things. I concur with his assesment and I would posit another example of this. I would say that God can’t contradict His holy and good nature, which means that he can’t sin. It also means that he can’t choose to sin. God’s Will is dictated by His nature. God is not free to choose everything but only to choose according to his nature. I think this has something to say about the nature of humanity and choice as well, but I’ve written at lenght on that already in another article on theophilux. However, the discussion on free will as well as nature is important to this discussion on open theism. After all, Mike (i believe it was Mike) talked about how God doesn’t infringe upon our free will because If our free will is infringed upon then we cannot freely choose to love God, we would be forced to love God. This seems to be a foundational belief that is held unto. Love must be free of coercion in order to be love. Or to say it another way, if we don’t choose to love then it is not love. I sympathize with this to a degree. As a calvinist, I would say that I love God freely by my Will, not because God has forced my will, but because he has changed my nature and since my will follows my nature I choose to love God of my own free will. I love him because He first loved me and raised my dead spirit to life, or to say another way he created me anew. I became born again. Now where am I going with this. Where I’m going is that Scripture emphasizes again and again that God is in the process of shaping each person’s life. Romans 9 has the potter and teh clay analogy. God is purposesly and actively involved in making out of clay, out of the cursed dust of the ground, out of humanity, some that are to be vessels of mercy. And he passes over others cursed of the earth and allows them to become vessles of wrath. God is actively invovled in making people into vessels of mercy. And what’s interesting is that Paul even voices the objection:

    Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
    Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
    Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?
    Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
    Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory–
    Rom 9:24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

    My point is that God is actively engaged in the destiny of people’s lives. It’s not as though he is standing by wondering who will become what. Instead, he is not just involved but He is guiding the process.

    however, some may not like hte Romans 9 so I’ll present some other verses about God’s sovereignty.

    Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
    Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
    Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
    Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

    The point I want to show with these verse is that the Father has given Jesus certain individuals and they will come to Him. They cannot be lost. This is God’s Will. God has chosen people to give to His Son. His Will will not be thwarted.

    Another thought in reference to God guiding and ordaining the lives of people

    Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them.

    God has ordained the lives of men before their life has even happened. What htis tells me is that in the least God has decided the lifespan of each man. I think this verse cannot be reconciled with the notion that God doesn’t know the certain future. To me it seems that God has ordained every man’s life and guides their eternity. God knows what could be and decides what will be that is clear.

    Another verse:

    Luk 10:13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

    This verse lets us know that God knows the outcome of possible futures. In other words had the mighty works been done in that city they would have repented but he didn’t allow it to happen and therefore they didn’t repent.

    This is another interesting thing. God decided not to allow something that would have caused Tyre and Sidon to turn to him but he decided to allow mighty works to happen in Bethsaida and Chorazin knowing that they wouldn’t turn to him either.

    It seems to me that God is guiding the future according to whom He’s elected, to His Plan, To His Glory. He’s not sitting back seeing what man will do and then acting. He knows the possiblities of each action and he allows some things to happen and other things not to happen. What guides Him is the manifestion of His Glory. I would say that God has ultimatley designed history to exemplify in the highest way His Holiness, His Mercy, His Justice, in Short who He is! His decision about the direction of history/time, I don’t believe is based on this idea of having humanity choose him in order for him to have an opportunity to have one of his creatures freely love him. I think that’s putting to much glory on the creature and not upon God. I think history is about the revelation of God’s character and God will not allow His glory to be diminished for anything.

    Now the question is what do we do with these apparant passages of repentance. well I would love to write on this but I gotta go get my wife. I’ll try to continue this later.

11. Mike Hazeltine Says:
    December 21st, 2008 at 10:12 PM

    Jack,

    It may seem as though we are splitting hairs as far as vocab is concerned, but I really think there is a significant difference between authority and control.

    Dictionary.com (which we know is infallible, of course :) defines authority as..

    Authority:

    3. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.

    2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?

    Control:

    the act or power of controlling; regulation; domination or command

    to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.

    The key difference is that Authority is the RIGHT to control or dominate, while control is the ACT of dominating or regulating. I believe that God is sovereign, that is, all Authority lies with Him. He has every right to do whatever He wishes with His creation. He does not, however, always exercise this authority by controlling his creatures. He could if He wanted to, but I believe that as far as human free will is concerned, He most often chooses to restrain himself rather than control the choices of humans.

    Time. We agree that time is the duration between two events. I do not believe that God can travel this distance to peer into future events before they happen. I believe this for one simple reason. There is no such thing as an actual, future event. Future events do not exist somewhere in another dimension… they have not happened yet. There is no distance between point A (present events) and point B (future events) because there is no actual point B. I know this is confusing, but try to think it through with me. When or where do those future events exist? The future is not a place towards which we are travelling. It is not a destination. Events that have not happened yet in time, have not happened at all, anywhere. If I put on a red shirt tomorrow, that event is still in the future. It hasn’t happened yet. It is not a point B which can be traversed by God, because it is an event which has not yet occurred. It doesnt exist yet. The only realm in which it does exist at this point in time is in the realm of possibilities. It is not an actuality… it is not a reality towards which I am travelling. The future does not exist as real events in another dimension. The only reality that exists is the present.

    God knows all of reality for what it is. He sees the future as what it is: full of possibilities and some certainties, since He can be certain about the events that He has determined He will bring about.

    I have some questions about your understanding of God’s repentance. You wrote:

    “We say that God repented from His judgment of Ninevah and turned to His grace. Yet this is not the act of a God surprised by the turning of the Ninevites. It is simply a finite understanding and way of explanation of what happened. God forgave them and was not going to destroy them as He said He would. His statements were a warning, not indicative of His will that needs altering.”

    Is it fair to say that in your view, we simply don’t know what happened within the mind of God when He repented? Would you say that “something” happened, but we dont quite know what, and it looks like the human act of repentance, so we will call it that? This is just a clarifying question, to see if I am understanding you correctly.

    My second question is this: when God told the Ninevites that He was going to destroy them, did He mean it? Did He actually intend to destroy them? If the answer is “no”, then it appears as though God lied to them, or at best used fear and manipulation to get them to repent. This does not sound like the God that you and I both know and love, whose “kindness leads us to repentance.” God told them that He would destroy the city in 40 days. There were no conditions given. This was not a warning, this was a statement of intention.

    I agree with your statement above that God’s words are not indicative of a will that needs to be altered. All of God’s plans and intentions and wills are perfect. His plan to destroy Nineveh was perfect. His loving, just intention to destroy the godless pagan city was perfect. When the Ninevites repented, God altered His plan to accomodate the new event. His plans are always perfect. His new plans are as perfect as his previous ones. His plans are always perfectly suited to the situation, and Nineveh is no exception.

    Thanks for your thoughts, Jack… I appreciate them!

12. Mike Hazeltine Says:
    December 22nd, 2008 at 1:33 PM

    Alex, thanks for your 50 cents. Here are some thoughts in response.

    You wrote: “As a calvinist, I would say that I love God freely by my Will, not because God has forced my will, but because he has changed my nature and since my will follows my nature I choose to love God of my own free will.”

    My first thought is that if my will always follows my nature, then I am not truly free. I think that personal experience shows this to be true. Although I believe along with you that you and I have have been given a new nature, I am still free to act in accordance with my old nature. I still sin. I still act as though my nature has not been renewed and transformed. I still act as though the old is here, even though the new has come!

    If human will always lines up with our nature, then humans are not truly free to choose (or to love) God. I fully believe that humans can act contrary to their nature. We do it all the time. God is a different kind of being than we are. He cannot sin – He cannot act contrary to his nature.

    My take on Romans 9… I’m not sure if I can really go into enough detail here, but I want to stress the importance of context. Read those verses in the context of all of chapter 9. Read chapter 9 in the context of the whole book of Romans. One of the major questions that Paul wrestles with in Romans is, “what will become of Israel?”. If salvation and friendship with God is now open to Jew and Gentile alike, have God’s promises to Israel failed? My point here is that Romans as a whole is concerned with nations, not individuals. Even “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”, is using those two men as representatives for the nations of Israel and Edom. God chose Israel to be a unique, set-apart, called-out people.

    Rom. 9:15 “For he says to Moses,
    “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
    and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”

    Paul is making the point here in Romans 9 that salvation does not depend on works, it does not depend on Jewish heritage or ethnicity, it depends on the mercy of God. The verses following the ones that you quoted provide important context as well:

    9:25 As he says in Hosea:
    “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
    and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”[i] 26and,
    “It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
    ‘You are not my people,’
    they will be called ’sons of the living God.’ “[j]

    27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
    “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
    only the remnant will be saved.
    28For the Lord will carry out
    his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”[k]

    29It is just as Isaiah said previously:
    “Unless the Lord Almighty
    had left us descendants,
    we would have become like Sodom,
    we would have been like Gomorrah.”[l]

    30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” 33As it is written:
    “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
    and a rock that makes them fall,
    and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”[m]

    The main thrust of this passage is not that God creates some individuals whom He predestines to hell, and some that He predestines to eternal life. THe main thrust of Romans 9 is that salvation is open to everyone! It does not depend on works, but on God’s mercy. It does not depend on adherance to a code or law, but on mercy.

    I also find this interesting. Do you think that the objection that Paul raises and responds to would actually ever happen in real life? I mean do you think that there are actually people out there who want to serve and love God, who wish that they could be in a relationship with Him, who are pursuing Him, and seeking after Him, and yet somehow they cannot enter into that relationship, so they ask, “why have you made me like this?”. Those who are “objects of wrath” do not care to have a relationship with God. They would not ask the question, “why have you made me like this?”. I just can’t picture that scenario happening in real life: a person asking God, “why have you made me an object of wrath? I want to follow you, but I can’t because you have made me this way, why have you made me like this?”. It just doesnt seem like that would ever happen.

    The verses in John that you mentioned…. there is nothing in them that says that God’s will is never thwarted. I have no problem with Jesus statement that, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.”

    When I read “all that the Father gives me”, I do not picture God controlling people and bringing them to Jesus. I picture God setting a mission in front of Jesus, “reach these people”. And Jesus obeys.

    The verse in Luke: Luk 10:13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

    yes, I agree with you that God knew what would have happened if miracles had been performed in those cities. He knows people’s hearts, and knows how they will respond to certain situations. But this is hardly the point of that verse. The point is to show how stubborn and full of unbelief Chorazin and Bethsaida were. In fact, I don’t even think Jesus was making an actual, historical statement about Tyre and Sidon here – he was just using them as well-known examples of wicked cities. He made reference to them as a dramatic device, a hyperbole, to show how wicked Chorazin and Bethsaida were. He wasn’t making a historical statement about what would have happened in Tyre and Sidon.

    Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them.

    I agree with this. God knows the days that are formed for us. But in what way does He know them? As certainties? Or does He know them as they truly are: as open to possibilities? This passage doesn’t say, one way or the other.

    A final thought:

    What about prayer? My original post was about how an open view of God and the future provides a huge motivation for prayer. If I believe that my future is already set and determined, why pray? Can my prayers actually accomplish anything… can they actually move the hand of God? I don’t see how this can be so, if God has predetermined the outcome of every future event. My choices and my prayers cannot change anything, if that is the case. This is a huge stumbling block for me, and I find that open theism provides me with great motivation and responsibility to pray since the outcome of future events may actually hinge on whether or not I do so.

    Thanks for your thoughts, Alex!

    Mike

13. JackNathan Says:
    December 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 PM

    Yes, I too went to dictionary.com to make sure before I said that sovereignty and control are synonyms. Control was listed as a synonym and on thesaurus.com (a favorite website of mine when writing papers, and the sister site of dictionary.com) they are listed as synonyms. So that’s where I got it, but I see the way in which you are using it and I realize the point you are making.

    A question:

    You said: “He most often chooses to restrain himself rather than control the choices of humans.” I would ask what times then would you say that He controls the choice of humans?

    You mentioned there not being a definite future reality, that it does not exist in any tangible domain because it hasn’t happened. Your point is based however on your own perception. Lack of perception does not mean that something does not exist. My point is that the idea is perceptible to secular science. But such a reality cannot be perceived by us finite humans. But our lack of ability need not be forced upon God, to do so would be to make God after our own image. Do you agree that this could be a possibility, namely that God has the ability to perceive what we cannot since He created it be master over it (not just limited to the issue of time)?

    You asked me what I thought of God’s repenting of the calamity He was going to bring upon Ninevah. Well, I’ll do my best.

    I see two characteristics of God that seem to be at war with each other but in fact are not. He is a righteous judge that punishes iniquity, and He is gracious and forgiving. It seems that those two characteristics are at odds, but if we assert that we have a schizophrenic God. In fact this was the god of the gnostics. They saw the deity of the Old Testament as an evil spirit called the Demiurge and the deity of the New Testament they saw as a good spirit. But God is not schizophrenic. So I think that God turned from His promised judgment to His promised grace. They seem to be at odds but are not. And in fact, this understanding of His turning from one to the other is due to our inability to grasp the reality that He is outside of time. For if He is outside of time, all explanations fail because we fail to understand. Therefore, the explanation itself is given in ways that we can understand. It is given in relationship to time. Their evil warranted destruction. Their repentence was evidence of a contrite heart that feared God. I feel like this is getting a bit muddled. Let me try this way of explaining it.

    The stories of the Ninevites and of myself are synonymous. Sin warranted my destruction. But on one specific day (06/06/04 to be precise) I was saved from such destruction. Before that day, I was an enemy of God outside of His grace. His wrath was declared to be upon my head until that day of repentance. Yet at the same time, I was chosen before the foundation of the world to be saved, my name having been recorded in the Book of Life before the creation of the world (Rev 13:8; 17:8; 20:12; 21:27). So in an atemporal sense, I have always been saved. But in a temporal sense, I was saved on 06/06/04. So in a temporal sense, God rested His judging hand from Ninevah. But in an atemporal sense, God always had purposed on not destroying Ninevah. I know you will not like that understanding since you do not agree to God existing outside of time.

    One thing that I do not understand is how you can say that God’s will(s) is(are) perfect if He must go about changing His will. Any alteration is indicative of flawed design.

    This is where the rubber meets the road. Forgive me if I sound harsh. But I love God, and I am passionate for the truth of Him. Please don’t take this as an attack on you. I hate doing this in such a format because the flat text does not give indication of tone. I do not wish to say this simply to have or share knowledge. I say this out of love for my fellow man and love for God. For if I say anything without love I am a resounding gong and a clanging symbol (1 Cor 13).

    I do not want to serve a God who cannot foresee all future events. I do not want to serve a God who must alter His will to accommodate for things changing or interrupting. I see in that an impotent God who deserves no praise. I would not pray to such a God, for that God is not master over His own creation. That is not the God found in the Bible. I pray to a God who knows all future happenings as certainties. I can trust in His word. I find Him to be faithful. I pray to commune with my God and to intercede for others as a way of imaging Christ, who is interceding on our behalf. I pray because my God hears my cries, that is the way He has declared that He would work. God is the author and perfecter of our faith and is depicted throughout the Scriptures as the one in charge of all events in all nations, who answers to no one (cf Job). His will need not change, because it is perfect. That is the God who I worship.

14. Mike Hazeltine Says:
    December 26th, 2008 at 2:38 PM

    Jack,

    I’m not sure that I can come up with a clear biblical example of God controlling the actions of a human (which I take as evidence that He does not do so very often). God obviously played a part in hardening Pharaoah’s heart, but I still don’t see that asa crystal clear example of absolute, direct, irresistible control, since Pharaoah hardened his own heart first. But, I do believe that God could exercise this kind of control if He saw fit to do so. If I were about to walk unknowingly out into a busy street, I believe that God could override my free will, and stop my legs from moving forward. He doesn’t always do this kind of thing, but He certainly can, and it is certainly His right to do so. He created me, He is sovereign over me, He can control me if He wishes.

    There are two things that I think are crucial to this point. First, God is just, and second, God is love. Because He is just, if He causes me to do something that I did not freely choose to do, His justice demands that He not hold me responsible for it. If God overrides my free will and causes me to sin, He is responsible for it. I had nothing to do with it. I had no choice in the matter. His justice requires Him to not hold me accountable for it. It would be unjust to punish me for something that He forced me to do against my will.

    Second, since God is love, I can rest assured that He will never force me (or anyone) to do something that contradicts this. He always chooses what is best and most loving for His creation. We do not always understand why He does what He does, but we can rest assured it is loving. If God forces me to do something against my will, it will be because He loves me, and knows what is best for me.

    Time and the future.

    I agree with you that God can see and perceive things that we are unable to see. He knows everything that can be known. He is omniscient. He knows the thoughts of every human who has ever lived. He knows the limits of the universe, if there are any. But, as I mentioned earlier, there are things that even God does not know, simply by definition. These things are unknowable in any dimension because they do not exist in any dimension. You suggested that God may be able to perceive the future since He created time and is master over it. I am suggesting that the future falls into the category of “things God did not create”. Some other things that fall into this category are square circles, the names of my three sets of identical twins who were all born yesterday at 11:22 pm, and rocks that are too big for God to lift. None of these things exist. None of these things were created by God. I believe that the future also fits into this category. It was not created by God; it is not a thing that exists as a reality.

    Jack, I think your own story is similar to that of the Ninevites with one clear difference. God told the Ninevites He was going to destroy them. This happened at a specific moment in time for Jonah and the Ninevites. Then, at a later specific time, He spared them. Whether or not God exists outside of time, there is a discrepancy between what He said He would do, and what He did. I resolve this discrepancy by believing that God was telling the truth when He said He would destroy Nineveh… and when they repented, He changed His mind. He fully intended to destroy them, but based on their repentance, He changed His intentions towards them. I am not sure how else to make sense of it.

    Changed plans are not indicative of flawed plans. God’s plans are perfect. His plan to destroy the Ninevites was perfect. When they repented, His new plan was perfect. Perfection does not meaning He cannot change. God is the kind of being that can change from perfection to perfection. If He is perfect, and then changes His intentions, He is still perfect, as are his intentions. This is a confusing thing for us who have a Platonic mindset… we see perfection as this one, specific thing. Perhaps perfection has different facets. There can be multiple expressions of perfection.

    A final thought…..

    Open theism often seems to make God look small and impotent. This is how I first understood it. What is important to remember is that open theism holds that God is sovereign. He is omnipotent, and He is omniscient. We disagree on HOW he exercises his sovereignty, and on the list of things that fall into the category of “things that do not exist”. A God who can and will see His will done on earth… who will bring about His plans on the earth, and can do it while working with these stubborn, unwilling, obstinate, flawed, finite, humans who often choose to ignore Him… this is an impressive God. A God who has predestined everything to happen, and simply knows the future because He is controlling it…I dunno.

15. DannyNelson Says:
    December 26th, 2008 at 3:36 PM

    Mike,

    You said to JackNathan:

    I agree with you that God can see and perceive things that we are unable to see. He knows everything that can be known. He is omniscient. He knows the thoughts of every human who has ever lived. He knows the limits of the universe, if there are any. But, as I mentioned earlier, there are things that even God does not know, simply by definition. These things are unknowable in any dimension because they do not exist in any dimension. You suggested that God may be able to perceive the future since He created time and is master over it. I am suggesting that the future falls into the category of “things God did not create”. Some other things that fall into this category are square circles, the names of my three sets of identical twins who were all born yesterday at 11:22 pm, and rocks that are too big for God to lift. None of these things exist. None of these things were created by God. I believe that the future also fits into this category. It was not created by God; it is not a thing that exists as a reality.

    All of the items in bold you are grouping together with the future as items that do not exist as a reality. Actually, the examples that you cited are not simply items that do not exist as a reality, they are either logical inconsistencies or items that simply have not come to pass (or ever will since you have placed one of them within the construct of time). The items you listed will never come to pass because they can’t, whereas the future will certainly come to pass.

    In order to support your statement, I would ask that you come up with some other concepts that are logically consistent.

    ————————————-

    Additionally, how can God declare with any certainty what the future contains if He doesn’t know what it is?

    I have expressed more than once on this site, including a comment on this post, how time is relative to mass and space (which I would hope you would not disagree are created by God), and as such, is categorically created. I would like to hear a response to this assertion. The silence has led me to believe that it is an apt argument but nobody will admit it.

    ————————————-

    In the case of Nineveh, just because God declared that He would destroy Nineveh and relented does not mean that that was not His plan all along. As you and Micah have said repeatedly (and I don’t disagree), “God is all about relationships” and “God is love”. I would suggest that God was establishing his relationship with and expressing His love for Nineveh. Even more so, He was magnifying Himself as a just and merciful God. When He declared that He was going to destroy Nineveh, He was establishing His justice. When He relented as the people repented, He established His mercy. Justice and mercy are how God relates to His creation, both the reprobate and the regenerate. Righteous justice for the reprobate and righteous mercy for the regenerate.

16. Alexander Hooper Says:
    December 29th, 2008 at 1:06 AM

    Mike,

    Thanks for your two cents.

    In response to your response to me, I’ll make a few comments, I hope not to be brazen.

    As to the relationship of our will following nature, I would just want to push the conclusions of your statement. You assert that free will can only be had if we have the ability to contradict our natures. You propose that God is not like us and that he cannot contradict his nature. Therefore, according to your definition of free will, God does not have Free Will. This seems to be a strange conclusion for me to think that humans have free will but God does not.

    In regards to Romans 9, I do understand that Paul is talking about the Jew/Gentile problem and how salvation is open to all people groups. However, I think to focuses solely on a national level is also to miss the point of the individual aspect of Romans. It is not nationality that makes a person of the offspring of Abraham, but upon God’s election of the individual regardless of whether they do good or bad. It is based upon God applying mercy to the individual. Is there a national aspect to this yes, because the collection of elect individuals create an elect nation, true Israel is comprised of elect indviduals. I think this is seen in 9:24 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? The even us is a group of people who have been called from both groups. I think the emphasis is that the each person in the group has been called and Paul is saying these people come from both groups. There is an individual and corporate callng from all races here. And I would further add that this idea of calling is an individual concept.

    Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

    The called ones are a group of individuals who were forknown by God. Of course we can debate what foreknowledge means here but my point is that this is not a verse for nations but for individuals who create an elect nation.

    Also, I think you are right that there’s an emphasis that it is not by works but by God’s mercy. However, God showng mercy to whom he will is set in contrast to hs decision to harden those whom he will harden.

    I think this also speaks to the point about Pharaoh. I think Pharoah hardening his heart was his own will and God’s sovereign will interacting with one another. I would not say that PHaraoh hardened his heart first. After all, God told Moses that he was going to harden Pharoah’s heart. This of course is another interesting situation that might be and I stress might be instructive about the Ninevites situation. I mean God tells Moses to tell Pharaoh to let His people go, but at the same time he tells Moses that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart so he will not listen. So let’s break this down, God issues a command to Pharaoh but tells Moses that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart in order that he won’t keep the command. This I think is part of Paul’s dialogue,

    17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ “[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

    How can the real human Pharaoh keep God’s commandment when God said that he’ll harden his heart, which will keep Pharaoh from not listening? That is the objection that is raised. People looking from the outside would say this isn’t right, but Paul simply says that God has the right to do this. I would say that we are cursed individuals because of Adam and God has the right to have mercy on us and change us or he can simply allow us to form into objects of wrath. But this might not even be the true meaning, perhaps this is justice beyond what I understand to be justce. I personally will probe as far as Scripture takes me wth this, but if it doesn’t make sense then I will simply bow and worship Him. And say you are God and I’m not. I heard of you but now I see you.

    As for this being a real situation, I think it is. Paul is anticipating people’s reaction to this statement of God’s ability to make from the same lump of clay vessels of wrath. In fact, I believe I’ve showed this to my youth. When they hear me talk about this I believe from my memory that I pointed out their objection to predestination and election follows Paul’s statement. Does this mean that they’re vessels of wrath? no. But I think Paul is answering a tendency in humanity to act as a judge over God. Paul cuts across this tendency and says that we do not have the right to judge God and what he does. He alone has the right to run the universe.

    As to the passage in John, I would also say like you that context is key here. you only quoted, “All that the Father gives me,” and then said that you think this refers to a general statement given to Jesus to reach these people. I think that does violence to the text. Jesus says Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. There’s an equation here, those that are given by the Father come to Jesus. If you come to Jesus then you are a gift from the Father. To say that here are some people and minister to them I think is a far cry from the text.

    Psalm 139: my point here is that God has written the days of each individuals, whether that means how many days they have or what they’re days will be like we could talk about. HOwever, I believe that the verse does point to the fact that God knows the days of the individuals life not as possibilities but as certanties. After all, the force of the psalm is that this knowledge of God knowing the certainity of the person’s days before they are written brings comfort to the Psalmist.

    As for Tyre and Sidon, to say this was just hyperbole misses the point. After all, if the miracles would not have really changed Tyre and Sidon then the guilt and unbelief of Chorazin is lessened. The idea is that yes, Tyre and Sidon, these cites were wicked but if miracles would have occured there they would have repented. But they didn’t and so they ddn’t repent. HOwever, in Chorazn and Bethsaida they did happen and they didn’t repent and therefore they are more wicked then Tyre and Sidon. To say that Jesus is not make a historical statement loses the force and veracity of his statements against Chorazin and Bethsaida. If anything this seems like legal discourse to me.

    Now as to how praying and God’s sovereignty work together. First, Calvinism is not fatalism. God is pleased to use means to accomplish His purposes. He uses my prayers. He knew ahead of time that he would react to my prayers in a certain way and so He ordained those prayers to happen so that he will react to them in a way that accomplishes his ultimate plan for history, the Glory of His name. I think a good example would be Judas. Judas was appointed to betray Jesus. John 17:12: None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. Judas was doomed to destruction. He acted with his own choices and desires but they were ordained to happen that way. God knew it was going to happen. Jesus knew it was going to happen, but that doesn’t mean that Jesus still didn’t react personally to what Judas did. Just because God knows and ordains something doesn’t mean that he is unaffected by what he ordains. He is pleased to react personally to what we do and I would say he plans on it. This gets into the mystery of God’s transcendence and how he relates personally. I believe this is what D.A. Carson points out. How God relates to us in time and space is caught up in the mystery of God’s transcendence and relational qualities.

    Now, a series of question to you about this whole business of certainties and possiblities of the future. If the future is not created then how can God make things in the future certaintly happen? If it’s in the realm of the square circle or the rock to big for God to lift then how can God have any control over it? How can he bring it about as a certainity? According to your statements he can’t transverse into the future. And why does he make some things certain? How does he go about making some things certain if he doesn’t know the future. And if he can make some things certain why are other things left to be possiblities? And what does this say about prophecy, which deals with the future? HOw can prophecy be utter when God can’t go into the future, does he see the futre and if so how can it be a certain future?

17. DannyNelson Says:
    December 31st, 2008 at 1:14 PM

    I’ve been thinking lately about the transcendence and immanence of God and how these concepts relate to our discussion here.

    Up until Alex’s most recent comment, I don’t think that anybody here has considered the mystery between God’s transcendence and His immanence. The Open Theist, from what I’ve studied, sees God as purely immanent. The only transcendence that the Open Theist allows God is that there is a separation between God and creation. In other words, as far as I can tell, Open Theism does not assert strict Pantheism.

    However, Open Theism flirts with Pantheism. A purely immanent god cannot be distinguished from his creation. Some transcendence is essential.

    So then, my question is, “Is the god of Open Theism allotted enough transcendence to distinguish itself from the deity of Pantheism?”

18. Gramps Says:
    January 2nd, 2009 at 9:21 AM

    There are lots of intriguing ideas in this series! Still, there are a few things I would like to add!

    First, the example of Jonah & the Ninehvites, is perhaps not the best example of God “changing His mind.” In this particular case, both Jonah and the Ninehvites understood that God’s “plans” are always subject to certain conditions. If we repent and believe, we shall be saved. God knows that, and has calculated that into His plans. The Calvinist, of course, would say that God knew how Jonah would react, and He knew how the Ninehvites would react, and so there was not change in His plan. In fact, His plan was to “change His plan” if there was repentance. Surely, if Jonah and the Ninehvites could understand God’s character that well, God could understand theirs. So, the “changed plan” was part of the plan.

    The issue of Time is another interesting one. Mike has suggested that going into the future is something that God cannot do because it doesn’t exist. It was pointed out that the examples given were logical inconsistencies, and that better ones should be provided. Here’s an example, God cannot change my pet elephant into a frog. Why? Because I don’t have one. I could have one, but don’t. There is no internal illogic. I think the main point is that God’s omnisicence, in the Open Theist view, is that He knows all that can be known. He doesn’t know about my pet elephant because it doesn’t exist. There is a big difference with Time, of course.

    For example, we can and do influence what happens in the future. In the same way that I can plan to go shopping this afternoon, God can plan to do something in the future. There is nothing inconsistent with declaring that God can, with certainty, bring something to pass in the future. If people can do this, often with near certainty, surely God can do it with absolute certainty.

    However, influencing the future and/or planning for the future is not the same as “seeing” the future or knowing with absoute certainty what will happen or what choices a person will make. The Open Theist, I believe, suggests that God can be surprised by our decisions. Even if I accept their view that God doesn’t know what decisions we will make with absolute certainty, I doubt very much that He could be surprised. After all, if I can predict a person’s behavior with a high degree of success given enough about them (e.g. my wife…. uh, maybe not the best example, but you know what I mean!), how much more can God know exactly how I will respond in any given situation.

    Second, it has been argued that God created Time, along with space and matter. This is a “discovery” of science, and frankly may or may not be true, or fully understood, or completely relevant. I’m not sure about the connection between space, matter, and time, but I’m sure that there is much to be learned about it, and our views may well change in the future. We need to be careful about bringing in scientific or philosophic constructs to sort through Bibilical issues.

    Nevertheless, let us grant that Time was created by God. (Another option: Time is part of His nature and has always existed along with Love, Truth, Justice, Power, Free Will, etc.) We are still faced with the question of its nature. Must/Does God proceed through time in a linear fashion as we do? (“Must” because that is the nature of Him/Time. “Does” because He chooses to.) Or, as some have suggested, is He “above time”. We know that at least in some respects He can “see the end,” but that idea does not necessarily mean that He knows every detail. And, even if He does know every detail, does He know it because He “sees” it (that is, it has already happened in His time framework) or because He is able to calculate all possible actions and reactions and compute the probabilities and predict with certainty what will take place? It is not unreasonable to accept, as Mike as proposed, that God moves through time as we do but also can see into the future much as we do but with greater precision.

    Finally, I will address Mike’s first point which is that most of us do actually believe that our prayer influences God. We do, in fact, typically pray as Open Theists. Regardless of the theology that says everything including our prayers are ordained by God, our experience is that we do make choices to pray or not pray and how to pray. And the Bible exhorts us (needlessly in the Calvinist perspective) to pray diligently and fervently. The example of Judas was given to show how God sovereignly ordained Judas to betray Christ and judged him for doing so because he was making his own free will choice. Leaving aside the logical inconsistency of God ordaining a free will choice, the Scriptures can also be read to mean that God, through Christ, chose Judas knowing that he would betray him. He was chosen on the basis of foreknowledge of his actions. This also shows God sovereignly working alonside man’s free will. (All this, of course, opens an entirely different can of worms!)

    One final thought: As I continue to read the views of the Calvinist and Arminian (Open Theists are clearly in this camp though with considerable differences), I realize that both are passionate for their positions because they both have solid Scriptural basis for them, and because the former is zealous to guard God’s sovereignty and the latter zealous to guard God’s love. (And both would argue that their respective positions do not in any way minimize His love or His sovereignty, of course! :)

    Great posts & great responses from all of you!

19. DannyNelson Says:
    January 2nd, 2009 at 9:49 AM

    Gramps,

    As a Calvinist, I deny your following assertion:

    And the Bible exhorts us (needlessly in the Calvinist perspective) to pray diligently and fervently.

    There is nothing needless about anything in Scripture. I see the point you are making and why you would think that, but I believe that everything in Scripture is there for a reason. I do believe that we are to pray without ceasing. That is what we are commanded to do and that is how God has chosen to relate to His children.

    Also, I believe that when I am praying, I am praying biblically, not open theistically. Simply because the Open Theistic view of prayer resembles how God uses prayer to interact with His children doesn’t mean that the entire framework of Open Theism isn’t flawed (such flaws I and others have outlined in previous comments).

    I am enjoying this discussion. I am indeed passionate about this content matter. Not because of me, but because of the implications. What one believes concerning how God loves and relates to creation is of the utmost importance. Nothing less than the Gospel is at stake.

20. JackNathan Says:
    January 2nd, 2009 at 1:56 PM

    Mike,

    You made it clear that your view is that God cannot reckon sins to one who did not commit the sins of his own volition. You say that God cannot and will never hold someone accountable for something that they did not do of their own free will. Then of course by the extension of your argument, you then assert that God will not and in deed cannot hold someone accountable for sins which he did not commit. You hold that if this were to happen it would be a logical inconsistancy in the Justice of God. This thereby denies Original Sin as transmuted by Adam and held on the heads of every member of the human race after Adam. This is the basic belief of Open Theism.

    Yet, God did punish Christ for sins He did not commit. This is where your logic fails. Christ deserved no punishment for He was blameless. Yet, the sins of all those redeemed by Christ were in fact placed on Christ’s head and He suffered the punishment for those sins. To deny this would be to deny the very atonement that is central to the entire Scripture and is the crux of our faith. A denial of this would be the denial of salvation and of any hope we have. We would be most pitied.

    My point in saying this is that your logical deduction of God’s justice and what that means is faulty. You have asserted that the atonement was impossible because it presents a logical incompatability with God’s justice as you understand it. God punishing people for sins which they themselves did not willingly do therefore is not an inconsistency within the justice of God. Rather, it is based on it.

    Let me explain. Adam sinned. That sin was not an isolated sin that brought guilt solely on Adam. He was the Federal Head of mankind. He was representative of the whole. What he did would have bearing on his progeny. His sin brought sin on the head of each individual in the history of the world. All are guilty. But Christ is the Federal Head of all those who will believe. For in Christ, His blameless life of virtue is reckoned to us. Therefore Paul says in Romans 5:15-19

    15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

    Also, if you assert that the God reckoning sin on one who did not willingly commit said sin (as in the case of original sin) is logically incompatible with God’s justice. Then the other side of that is true as well. God then could not reckon righteousness onto someone if they had committed even one sin. That too would be logically inconsistant with God’s justice. Justice is not just condemnation, but is also approval. Therefore, if your understanding of God’s justice were true, then I would have no hope of salvation, for such salvation would be a logical incompatability with the God’s justice since I have sinned.

    (A good illustration of Federal Headship is the “Trial by Champion”. This is when Goliath called for a champion to come and fight him, the Philistine champion. The combatants are fighting as a representative of their whole army. Therefore, when David defeated Goliath, the Philistine army fled. Their defeat was acknowledged in the defeat of the one representing them, their Head. The kings of Israel were also shown to have a degree of federal headship over their kingdom. “As it goes with the king, so it goes with Israel,” has been said to describe the events in the books of Kings and Chronicles.)

21. JackNathan Says:
    January 2nd, 2009 at 2:24 PM

    This is another matter, so I put it in another comment.

    If as you say, the future is not a reality. Then the heroes of our faith in the Old Testament (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc) would not be saved. They all sinned. Their salvation must have been on the basis of something other than themselves. Their salvation was based on Christ’s future (to them) atonement. But this atonement was necessarily a reality for them in the past because they were reckoned as righteous. This reckoning cannot come from the simple whim of a capricious God. This reckoning came on the basis of the tangible future reality of the atonement by Christ. Without this, each would merit punishment eternal punishment for each were sinful! (I’m not getting into Enoch and such characters, that is an argument for another time).

    Here are two examples of the necessity of the tangible future for the past to make any sort of sense.

    1. Moses entered into the very presence of God. His face glowed from His encounters with the most Holy One. But He should be destroyed because He was sinful (see Isaiah’s cry in Isaiah 6). So what held God from judging Moses on the spot and striking him dead? It was the present reality of the (then) future atonement of Christ. If that atonement were not a reality at that time, Moses would have been destroyed. The blood of bulls were not efficacious in themselves. The sacrifices of Israel were only accepted on the basis of the sacrifice of Christ which did not occur yet, but occurred in the future (past for us, sorry this time talk is confusing)
    2. The Cross. All of the sins of those who were, are and will be found in Christ were nailed to the cross. Yet, we were not even born until nearly two millenia after that event. So what about our sins? Did the cross just cover the ones that were committed up until that point? No, for the cross to have bearing on us (as it most surely does) the future must have been a reality. It must have been so in order for the sins of the future to be included in such a sacrifice. For our sins were covered with specificity. Christ did not die for sins which never happened. Our future sins were not simply future possibilities. They were future realities which were included in the crucifiction of Christ. Each of our sins were placed on Christ and He was punished for them. Our future sins where very tangible to Christ that day.
22. Alexander Hooper Says:
    January 2nd, 2009 at 5:51 PM

    Whoa Nathan!

    I’m impressed at such theological insight! The connection of Open Theism and how it relates to atonement is a great connection. You’ve definitely opened up new thoughts and insights to me on how Open Theism affects other areas of my life and thinking.

    Gramps,

    I appreciate the sincerity of your posts, I felt a note of gentleness in the comments. I will press a question however. It seems to me that either God knows things with certainity or possiblity in the Open Theism view. I got the feeling that you were saying that God can calculate or know all possible future realities but it seemed that you were implying that his certainity of future events wasn’t really certainity but highly probable possibility. God knows the likelihood of certain actions in a given situation and so he can guess with a high measure of certainity if something will happen but there’s still a possiblity that it won’t. If this is the case then that it isn’t certainity but high possiblity. For instance, he knew that it was highly likely that Judas was going to betray Jesus, but it still could have been a possibilty that Judas might have changed his mind. After all, if God was counting on Judas’ decision based on past decision, general condition of Judas’ heart or nature then what does that say about Judas’ free will? If free will is to act contrary to one’s nature or you can even say contrary to one’s habitual or historic pattern then it seems that there can be no certainity of how Judas would act. IT was just that it was more likely that he would act this way, there’s no certainity there. And so all prophectic utternace that this is what Judas would do would be subject to being untrue. How does God make things to be absolutely certain if He can’t see the future or truly know how someone would act to a given situation?

23. Gramps Says:
    January 7th, 2009 at 5:18 PM

    Danny,

    I too believe that everything in Scripture is there for a purpose. However, if one asserts that prayer is ordained of God to accomplish God’s purposes that are foreordained, then the exhortation to pray is needless. (Why would God exhort people to do something that He has foreordained them to do to accomplish His will.) I don’t believe that the exhortation is needless; not do I think that most Calvinists think that either.

    The difference is that if one takes a more Arminian view that the exhortation is really meaningful and the lack theoreof might actually change whether people pray or not, then one’s response is logically consistent with the exhortation. If one believes that God will move people to pray as He wills, when He wills, how He wills, then the exhortation to pray serves no purpose in changing whether people pray or not. In this case, the exhortation is logically inconsistent with the assumptions that prayer will or will not happen in accordance with God’s will.

    This, of course, ties back to Mike’s original post that most people pray as if doing so made a difference and as if they actually had a choice in the matter.

24. Gramps Says:
    January 7th, 2009 at 5:37 PM

    Alexander,

    That is essentially the Open Theist position. In this view God can know with complete certainty the things that He has ordained to come to pass. But the Open Theist would also say that God cannot know things that are “unknowable.” Then, the issue would be what things could be unknowable to God. Mike suggested some things such as square circles which are logical absurdities. Other ideas include things that don’t exist like my purple elephant. While knowing the future isn’t in itself a logical absurdity, is it something that doesn’t exist and is therefore unknowable.

    The question remains what does/can God know of the future. Is all of the future knowable? Is some of it unknowable? (This does not restrict God if it is in the nature of His being or creation that it be this way; it just is.)

    When it comes to knowing what people will do in the future, I’m not sure that one has to press the Free Will position to its extremes. For example, we don’t choose where we will be born, our intelligence, our aptitudes, our tendencies to respond in certain ways, and many other things. Free Will is never considered to be unlimited. We are influenced in our choices continually, sometimes strongly, and sometimes irresistably. This latter we refer to as coercion. While coercion is real enough, it doesn’t eliminate free will; it suspends for a given situation.

    One can therefore also believe in genuine free will and still leave God room to override it if He so chooses. I think that Pharoah is a clear example of both man’s free will and God’s sovereignty working together. Phraroah hardened his own heart, and God also hardened Pharoah’s heart.

    You raised a good point with the example of Judas. Lots of questions come to mind: What did God know for certain here? Did He know it with absolute certainty? How did He know it? (Because He foreordained it? Because He foreknew it? Because He knew Judas’ character?)

    I’m not sure that the Scriptures are as clear in answering those questions as we tend to be when we bring our theological frameworks to bear. Given certain prior assumptions about foreknowledge, predestination and the like, we will reach certain conclusions about what and how God knew that Judas would betray Jesus. Are those the only reasonable/logical/consistent/Biblical perspectives? And does whatever we conclude about the specific instance of Judas apply to all people at all times? Does God harden or soften all hearts or just in specific instances to accomplish His foreordained purposes? (And these events He would know with absolute certainty.) Does He truly desire that all men to be saved? Did He really give Himself as a ransom for all? (1Tim. 2:4,6)

    Thanks for your thoughtful input.

25. DannyNelson Says:
    January 8th, 2009 at 1:07 PM

    I just listened to/watched this entire video on my lunchbreak. It addresses pretty much what we’ve been discussing here. Check it out and let’s see if anybody can glean from it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV_zZ6YWfNQ

26. DannyNelson Says:
    January 8th, 2009 at 1:23 PM

    Gramps,

    If one declares that God has foreordained everything and and that that declaration nullifies the exhortation to pray, then one must see the implications of that conclusion. That is, not only is prayer, and the exhortation thereof, needless, so is everything else, including God.

    I declare that nothing is meaningless because of God’s foreordination. Nay, foreordination gives it meaning. Because God foreordained it, He gets the glory for it.

    I get the feeling from your last comment (2nd paragraph) to me that we should take a certain theological position based on the way people will respond to it and not based on whether or not it is scriptural. Please tell me I’m wrong.

27. Mike Hazeltine Says:
    January 8th, 2009 at 8:04 PM

    This thread is getting so long and involved that it’s tough to keep straight who said what and respond accordingly, but I will do my best. By the way, thanks to Gramps for reigniting some serious discussion. Your first posts are a good summary of my arguments thus far.. I can tell that you understand my point of view and that is encouraging since we are using a form of communication so prone to misunderstanding.

    Jack,

    At the risk of splitting hairs, there is a nuance in my post about justice and free will that you seem to have missed. You wrote: You made it clear that your view is that God cannot reckon sins to one who did not commit the sins of his own volition. You say that God cannot and will never hold someone accountable for something that they did not do of their own free will.

    This is not actually what I said. What I said was:

    Because He is just, if He causes me to do something that I did not freely choose to do, His justice demands that He not hold me responsible for it. If God overrides my free will and causes me to sin, He is responsible for it. I had nothing to do with it. I had no choice in the matter. His justice requires Him to not hold me accountable for it. It would be unjust to punish me for something that He forced me to do against my will.

    I was addressing the hypothetical situation of God causing an individual to sin. Since, in my view God does not directly cause everything to happen in the world, for Him to do this would be somewhat of an oddity. If God were to override my free will and cause me to sin, His justice demands that He not hold me accountable for it.

    Now, I did not actually say that “God cannot and will never hold someone accountable for something that they did not do of their own free will.” And, in fact I believe that He can and does hold us accountable for things that we do that are not done of our own free will. Some examples…

    God holds us accountable for how we use the gifts that He has given us. He bestows gifts on us (talents, abilities, place of birth, personality, influence) that have nothing to do with our free will, and then holds us accountable for how we use them. However, God would not withhold the gift of speech from me (in other words cause me to be mute) and then hold me accountable for not using my voice to worship Him. Would that not be cruel and unjust for Him to do so?

    God also, (in some way) holds us accountable for being under the headship of Adam. I say “in some way” because I haven’t quite settled in my mind what I believe about Original Sin. What I am convinced of, however, is that babies or the mentally handicapped who die and who have not been given the opportunity to choose or reject God in this life will either be given such an opportunity after they die, or God will see them as innocent, since true guilt implies responsibility for ones sinful actions, and neither babies nor some mentally handicapped can be said to bear such a responsibility.

    Hmmm, I just had a thought about guilt and responsibility that had never occurred to me before… I might be willing to say that babies, and mentally handicapped people may actually be “guilty” before God even if they unknowingly and unwittingly commit sin, or are sinful by birth in Adam. In the same way, I might be willing to say that if God overrides my free will and forces me to sin, technically I am “guilty” of that sin. Even admitting that much grates on me, but what I propose is that even if babies, the handicapped, and my coerced self are technically “guilty” before God, He would be unjust to punish us or hold us responsible or accountable for that guilt. In that situation, He would respond towards the ‘guilty’ in grace and forgiveness. This was just a thought though… what I tend to think is that babies (and unborn babies, for that matter) are seen as neutral, not having yet made a response to God towards Him or away from Him. If that contradicts the doctrine of Orginal Sin, then perhaps we need to understand that doctrine differently.

    As far as the atonement goes… there are so many different ways to try to explain what exactly happened on the cross. Was Jesus being punished? Was He paying a debt, conquering sin, conquering death, taking our place, satisfying the wrath of God, satisfying His justice and His mercy? All of the above? This may sound slightly blasphemous, but when I think about the cross, I tend to see it as the epitome of injustice. Because of the cross, I, a sinner, will not be given what I justly deserve for my sins. On the cross, Christ, the perfectly obedient one unjustly bears the sin of the world – he bears sins he did not commit. If the cross is primarily about someone taking the heat from God for all this sin that He is so angry about, then it is terribly unjust for Him to take it out on Christ. True, God gets to punish someone, but it’s the wrong someone. Where is the justice in that? I’ll admit, I find it hard to pin down exactly what transpired on that day, but rather than seeing the situation as the ultimate expression of God’s justice, I see it as the ultimate expression of His grace. God dies in our place. God Himself bears our sin. How unjust! How full of grace He is! How wonderful and bizarre and unthinkable for Him to do such a thing. It blows me away.

    Thanks for your thoughts, Jack

28. SteveMoss Says:
    January 8th, 2009 at 10:04 PM

    Mike:

    Your last comment (re: the injustice of God’s wrath falling on a perfect person) is, perhaps, blasphemous. In fact, it sounds familiar – Brian McLaren-ish, almost.

    But if I go there, I’m off topic…

29. Mike Hazeltine Says:
    January 9th, 2009 at 12:13 AM

    Steve,

    I’ve only read one of McLaren’s books – “A New Kind of Christian”… I don’t recall whether or not the atonement comes up in that book, but I don’t think it does. I remember liking the book though. I’m not really sure where I came across the idea of injustice within the atonement, but it was in my head from some forgotten source (I’m not that original). I had never actually put it into words like that before today though.

    Not really sure how to respond to the charge of blasphemy.

    I had a professor once who said that it’s impossible to talk about the Trinity without committing blasphemy…

    When we try to put these incredibly lofty, incredibly dense theological concepts like the atonement, the incarnation, or the Trinity into concrete words, sometimes we are left with inconsistencies and paradoxes. We are left saying things like, “Jesus was 100% God and 100% man”. “God is three in one”. And, “The atonement seems like the epitome of injustice”.

    Since I believe that all who are saved are saved solely by grace, and do not, in fact receive the just reward for their sins, I am comfortable with the idea of God’s justice being overthrown by His grace. His mercy triumphs over judgement Paul writes. Perhaps grace and justice are both satisfied in Christ in the atonement… but if not, I am ok with saying that grace wins the day.

    Let me just say that if by blasphemy you mean raising questions about orthodox teachings, then I am indeed guilty (and I hope we all are). If you mean that I am slandering God, profaning His glory and His goodness, defaming His character, or something of that nature… that is a truly serious accusation.

    I am saddened, more than hurt by the suggestion that I have defamed God’s character (if, indeed that is being suggested). It means that instead of accurately communicating what I know and believe about God’s nature and character, I have totally misrepresented Him. If my posts have led anyone to think that God is anything less than perfect, anything less than completely good and loving and worthy of all honor and praise… shame on me. The God that I know and love deserves better.

30. SteveMoss Says:
    January 9th, 2009 at 7:28 AM

    Mike:

    [I edited this response]

    The sense I was conveying was not a charge but a question. Note the word “perhaps”. You might note the irony here; I find McLaren annoying because he has a tendency to say things that can be easily interpreted two different ways. I want to be clear.

    Your professor’s statement strikes me as exactly the sense in which I intended to be understood. We’re using words, inflections, interpretations, etc. to convey something about the most high and holy God. The line between profound and profane gets pretty narrow sometimes.

    Now, regarding your comment, my disagreement is this: the atonement is exactly the opposite of injustice. In fact, justice is required for those guily of sin. If God does something unjust, He no longer is consistent with His character. Jesus, by the will of God, stood in the place of those God has chosen, to receive the punishment due them for their sin. If you were saying that God was unjust to punish His Son, then, yes, I would say your comment borders on blasphemy. But…were you really saying that God was unjust? I don’t think so.

    How does substitutionary atonement work, and why did God choose to do that? I don’t know, but I am grateful. On this we do agree, I would hope.

    It was coincidental that I heard McLaren on a podcast yesterday, and his point was that God was no different from man if he has to resort to violence to get His way. My jaw dropped. McLaren looks with contempt on substutionary atonement and seems to have rejected the existence of hell.

    Handshake extended. Didn’t mean to cause a stir.

    Danny…we gotta plan our night at Matty’s. And Mike, you gotta be there.

31. DannyNelson Says:
    January 9th, 2009 at 12:29 PM

    Let’s see if we can find some common ground between Open Theism and orthodox Protestantism. I’d like to start with the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide). I have written a brief post on it here. I would like to get a discussion started on that post instead of here so that we don’t get too off topic.

32. Mike Hazeltine Says:
    January 9th, 2009 at 4:03 PM

    Steve,

    Handshake warmly accepted.

33. Mike Hazeltine Says:
    January 11th, 2009 at 11:33 PM

    Two quick comments:

    Alex,

    In regards to free will. Yes, I believe that humans are free in ways that God is not free. We can act in opposition to our nature, God cannot. He cannot sin, humans can. We are free in ways that He is not and will never be. Humans are free to do things that God is not free to do. Would you not agree?

    Danny,

    The fact that you are comparing open theism with pantheism completely baffles me. Either I have seriously miscommunicated what open theism is about, or I seriously misunderstand what pantheism is about. I dunno, man. Honestly have no idea how you came up with the comparison. Is there anything I have said that led you to think that I believe that there are many gods, or that the sun and moon and stars and trees are gods, or that everything is god?

    The short answer to your question: “Is the god of Open Theism allotted enough transcendence to distinguish itself from the deity of Pantheism?”

    is “yes”.

34. DannyNelson Says:
    January 12th, 2009 at 9:40 AM

    Mike,

    I am not satisfied with your answer.

    Please explain whether or not God is transcendent. If so, to what degree?

    Also, please explain whether or not God is immanent. If so, to what degree?

    These may seem like petty questions at first, but I have deep concern for your doctrine of God. One’s doctrine of God has a profound impact on how one develops and views other doctrine.

    I think that you gave me a quick short answer of “yes” because you think my question was absurd. Of course you aren’t a Pantheist, right? The point I am making is that the Open Theism view of transcendence/immanence is dangerously close to that of Pantheism. Maybe you disagree. I hope so. If so, I would like you to make that distinction – which can be done by answering the two questions at the beginning of this comment.

    As an aside, I have studied Open Theism apart from what you have explained here. You have not misrepresented Open Theism as far as I can tell. What I have done is taken the premises of Open Theism and applied them to other doctrine to come up with a conclusion. My conclusion was that Open Theism’s doctrine of God and Pantheism’s doctrine of God have similarities, particularly with how they view immanence.

35. SteveMoss Says:
    January 14th, 2009 at 9:06 AM

    Just an observation that came to me as I was driving to work this morning.

    A kid walks into geometry class at 10 a.m. and listens. The teacher presents the pythagorean theorem. The kid tests it and understands it. Kid walks out of the class at 10:50 a.m.

    My question: other than the fact that time has passed, and factoring out any other input the kid received in class, is the kid different from the time he arrives and the time he departs? In the strict sense, he simply knows something at 10:50 that he did not know at 10 a.m. Does knowledge change a person?

    If it does, what does it say about open theism, since we hold that God cannot change? The unchangeable One is learning?

    If God has no knowledge of future, He didn’t know, in 1962, that I would be born in 1964.

36. Micah Sewell Says:
    January 14th, 2009 at 2:29 PM

    Hey Steve, your question is so important to this discussion! You are exactly right. In a small sense the child is different. The only change is in his knowing of something new. He is still the same child with the same personality.

    I think that this is true of God. He doesn’t change in who He is. His character and nature are still the same. But He does change in the small sense of having experienced something new. Whether He knew it would happen for sure or not, He hadn’t experienced it until it happened.

    The idea that God never changes in even this way is a result of Greek thinking from the smart guys (Aristotle, Plato, Socrates). They introduced this idea to counteract the wickedly quick changing greek gods who were led by their emotions. It was these Greek philosophers who came up with a stoic God. It was just a pendulum swing too far.

    So, I can’t speak for Mike or every open theist, but I can speak for me. I think this is how it works. It is actually one of the coolest things about God – that He is able to interact in real relationship with real people. As people change things (whether they repent or start sinning) He can alter what needs to happen to fix the actions in the earth – be it good or bad consequences. He really is “God with us.”

37. SteveMoss Says:
    January 14th, 2009 at 6:47 PM

    Micah:

    I can’t see how that demonstrates a picture of God that is omniscient. It sounds more like we’re making God into our image.

    And BTW, what have you got against Greek thinking? :)

    I may be wrong – in fact, I probably am wrong – but the best explanation I can come up with is this: To God there is no past, present or future. It simply is.

    To us, life passes by in a linear fashion. We speak to God, and He hears us. He knows our thoughts, words, deeds…everything. God chooses to reveal Himself to us according to His will and His plan.

    The interaction happens, but not in the way you describe. I agree, God is with us, but He is not like us. He cannot be.

38. Gramps Says:
    January 22nd, 2009 at 3:53 PM

    Danny,

    (It’s been a few days since I reviewed this blog; I don’t seem to be getting any alerts about posts to this blog….)

    In your last post, you said, “If one declares that God has foreordained everything and and that that declaration nullifies the exhortation to pray, then one must see the implications of that conclusion. That is, not only is prayer, and the exhortation thereof, needless, so is everything else, including God.”

    I fail to see the logic of this on a couple of grounds. First, I didn’t say that it nullified the exhortation to pray, simply that it made such exhortations logically inconsistent. It is, I think all should agree, a weakness in the Calvinist position.

    Second, simply because this one particular element is inconsistent does not mean that everything else is. It is possible (and this would be the Arminian view as I understand it) to believe that God foreordains many things, but not all things. Because something is foreordained doesn’t make it meaningless. However, anything which is foreordained makes any exhortation to do that thing needless since it was foreordained. That is simply a matter of logic. To exhort someone to do something implies two things: 1) That such exhortation might actually move someone to respond, and 2) That a person can actually respond. I suppose it also implies the negatives of these; that is, the failure to exhort might mean that the person failed to act in a certain way.

    You also said that, “… foreordination gives it meaning. Because God foreordained it, He gets the glory for it.”

    I couldn’t agree more. God will be glorified for what He does. But will He get glory for what He doesn’t do? He cannot sin and does not cause people to sin; He gets no glory from our sin. (He gets glory for forgiving sin, but that is a different matter.) All I am saying here is that it is possible for God to be glorified in any number of ways without seeing Him as the one who foreordains everything.

    Finally, you said, “I get the feeling from your last comment (2nd paragraph) to me that we should take a certain theological position based on the way people will respond to it and not based on whether or not it is scriptural. Please tell me I’m wrong.”

    Yes, you are wrong. :) My point is simply to recognize that there are weaknesses in every theological system, and that reasonable people can come to the Scriptures believing them to be God’s infallible, inerrant, and authoritative word and come to different conclusions. When we try to understand that Word, we must use reason, logic, principles of grammar, accurate definitions, context, culture, and the like. A position which is either logically inconsistent or contrary to statements made elsewhere in Scripture (or violates rules of grammar, or is based on faulty texts, etc., etc.) should rightfully be challenged.

39. Gramps Says:
    January 22nd, 2009 at 5:24 PM

    Danny,

    I viewed the You Tube clip you mentioned (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV_zZ6YWfNQ)

    It is a good discussion that touches on much that we have been talking about.

    He spends a fair bit of time noting that “all men” in 1Tim. 2:4 must mean the same as “all men” in 1Tim. 2:2 and notes that it clearly means all categories of men there because of the reference to “kings and those in authority”. But, of course, there are other possible views. The “all men” off 2:2 could mean every single individual, and the reference to “kings and those in authority” could have been given as an example, or in the sense of “yes, including those in authority who persecute you.”

    I do find an error in Oakley’s thinking when it comes to foreknowledge. He holds that if God knows it, then it is foreordained and therefore there is no free will. I don’t think that these are the only possible positions. God can know that something will happen not just because He has decreed it, but because He knows it. (He may know it because He exists in all three dimensions of time, or He may know it because He can logically deduce all possible human choices in advance, or by some other mechanism that we don’t understand.) The fact that He knows it, does NOT mean that it isn’t a free will choice.

    Lets’ give one example as to how this MIGHT work. I video tape you getting breakfast in the morning, and you freely choose coffee as your morning beverage. I then play that tape back and point out to my friend that I know, with 100% certainty what you will drink. Sure enough, you drink the coffee! My foreknowledge of what would happen on the video has nothing to do with your choosing to do it. If God “sees” all events in human history into eternity future, that in no way negates human freedom and responsibility for choices that are made as mankind progresses from the past into the future.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.