Open Panel Discussion - Open Theism

[civic]

I've found this topic through the years interesting but also a struggle to deal with. Reason is so many are so committed to their paradigm way of thinking and their passion to defend it shuts out any other possibility to be considered. And then you also get the charge that you're a heretic or you're this or that.

Some times I wonder what Paul meant when he stated when in heaven he heard things he was not allowed to speak. 2 Cor 12:4 I ask could that be because what he learned was good but people's minds on earth would go tilt or that it would be so staggering that people would put their focus on that....instead of the job, the great commission, the things that God in this present time would want our focus on?

Or could it be it would create controversy with rolling out then strife among the spiritual immature? Years ago I believe God showed me how all these things work that is TIME, or God knowing or not knowing things. Granted I know many make claims God told them this or that.....not really a fan too much of one's asserting such and people should take such assertions with a grain of salt even from me.

The claim God told me has with it a sense one is speaking an infallible truth and not fair to any reader to try to lift the weight or seeking to prove the one might be wrong. I acknowledge I COULD BE WRONG. but we do formulate our beliefs at times at what we feel God personally in our spirits has revealed.

I backed off from wanting to get into any details concerning it but I will say it most certainly does set aside Calvinistic assertions on determination. I will say this. God is Good! God is Great And God does know the future but not necessarily in a way that an open theist would have it. As you said Civic....there could be other options.

Yes Warrens view with the Dynamic is a much better one than the traditional open theists view. You can see that from the video. This is a condensed version of the other video where he interacts with the audience while commenting on what happened in the video debate.

 

[civic]

Here is Craig on God as Atemporal

Let’s look briefly at your friend’s arguments. The second need not detain us, for it is terribly confused. What does he mean when he asserts, “‘existence beyond time and space’ [is] a non-falsifiable concept and therefore [can] have no place within logic”? This statement is a mess. Concepts are neither falsifiable nor non-falsifiable; propositions are. So presumably he’s complaining that the proposition “God exists beyond time and space” is non-falsifiable and so has no place in logic. But what does that mean? No one is claiming that such a proposition is a logical truth like the Law of Contradiction or the Rules of Inference such as modus ponens, modus tollens, etc. I suspect that what your friend is expressing is the old falsification principle of meaning, namely, that a proposition is meaningful only if it is, in principle, capable of being empirically falsified. But if that’s what he means, you need to inform him that, like the verification principle of meaning, the falsification principle is an arbitrary and utterly implausible principle which virtually no contemporary philosopher believes. In any case, the proposition “God exists beyond time and space” is falsifiable, and I claim to have falsified it! In the above cited books I offer two arguments against divine atemporality which I believe to be sound and persuasive arguments. Worse, your friend himself claims to have falsified it! For his first argument is that there cannot exist a God beyond time and space. Thus, his second argument (insofar as I can make sense of it) stands in contradiction to his first.

So the really interesting argument is the first. It is an old argument that has been pressed against divine atemporality. The detractor of divine atemporality argues that the statements

1. God is timeless.

and

2. God is personal.

are broadly logically incompatible on the basis of the following necessarily true premises:

3. If God is timeless, He does not exemplify properties x, y, z.

4. If God does not exemplify properties x, y, z, He is not personal.

where x, y, z are replaced by certain specified properties. The properties that your friend has in mind are reason and rational volition. He has to show both (i) that these properties are essential to personhood and (ii) that they cannot be exemplified timelessly.

I agree that these properties are essential to personhood. But I see no reason to think that they cannot be exemplified timelessly. Consider reason. Your friend seems to confuse reason with discursive reasoning, which is an elongated process of arriving at conclusions by inference from premises. Discursive reasoning on God’s part is ruled out not so much by God’s timelessness as by His omniscience. An omniscient being cannot reason discursively because He already knows the conclusions to be arrived at! Even if God is in time, He does not engage in discursive reasoning. But, obviously, He is not impersonal as a result.

Defenders of divine timelessness have frequently pointed out that the act of knowing something need not take any time at all.[1] Without going into the debate over what it means to be rational, we may say rather confidently that God’s being timeless impairs neither God’s noetic structure (His system of beliefs) nor His ability to discharge any intellectual duties He might be thought to have. Since He is omniscient, it’s pretty silly to think that God could be indicted for irrationality!

What about volition? I see no reason to think that free volition cannot be exemplified by a timeless God. Again, omniscience alone precludes God’s deciding in the sense of making up His mind after a period of indecision. Even a temporal God does not decide in that sense. But God does decide in the sense that His will intends toward one alternative rather than another and does so freely. It is up to God what He does; He could have willed otherwise. This is the strongest sense of libertarian freedom of the will. In God’s case, because He is omniscient, His free decisions are either everlasting or timeless rather than preceded by a period of ignorance and indecision.

So I have yet to see a sound argument against the coherence of a timeless, personal being. My own view is that God is timeless sans creation and in time since the moment of creation.

 

[praise_yeshua]

God is not static , God is dynamic and personal , not impersonal . That’s the jest of the dynamic view. God interacts in a personal way it time with conditions of you do this then I will do that. Not everything if fixed as in determinism.

"In time" is very important.

 

[Rockson]

Yes Warrens view with the Dynamic is a much better one than the traditional open theists view. You can see that from the video. This is a condensed version of the other video where he interacts with the audience while commenting on what happened in the video debate.

Thanks for posting the video. I am interested in a variety of takes people have on this theme. I watched it all.

So Civic when you say Warren's Dynamic view is much better than say the traditional open theist view in just what ways would you say they're different?

 

[civic]

"In time" is very important.

I can see that I will be rethinking some of my previous held positions with a few of the attributes.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Here is Craig on God as Atemporal

Let’s look briefly at your friend’s arguments. The second need not detain us, for it is terribly confused. What does he mean when he asserts, “‘existence beyond time and space’ [is] a non-falsifiable concept and therefore [can] have no place within logic”? This statement is a mess. Concepts are neither falsifiable nor non-falsifiable; propositions are. So presumably he’s complaining that the proposition “God exists beyond time and space” is non-falsifiable and so has no place in logic. But what does that mean? No one is claiming that such a proposition is a logical truth like the Law of Contradiction or the Rules of Inference such as modus ponens, modus tollens, etc. I suspect that what your friend is expressing is the old falsification principle of meaning, namely, that a proposition is meaningful only if it is, in principle, capable of being empirically falsified. But if that’s what he means, you need to inform him that, like the verification principle of meaning, the falsification principle is an arbitrary and utterly implausible principle which virtually no contemporary philosopher believes. In any case, the proposition “God exists beyond time and space” is falsifiable, and I claim to have falsified it! In the above cited books I offer two arguments against divine atemporality which I believe to be sound and persuasive arguments. Worse, your friend himself claims to have falsified it! For his first argument is that there cannot exist a God beyond time and space. Thus, his second argument (insofar as I can make sense of it) stands in contradiction to his first.

So the really interesting argument is the first. It is an old argument that has been pressed against divine atemporality. The detractor of divine atemporality argues that the statements

1. God is timeless.

and

2. God is personal.

are broadly logically incompatible on the basis of the following necessarily true premises:

3. If God is timeless, He does not exemplify properties x, y, z.

4. If God does not exemplify properties x, y, z, He is not personal.

where x, y, z are replaced by certain specified properties. The properties that your friend has in mind are reason and rational volition. He has to show both (i) that these properties are essential to personhood and (ii) that they cannot be exemplified timelessly.

I agree that these properties are essential to personhood. But I see no reason to think that they cannot be exemplified timelessly. Consider reason. Your friend seems to confuse reason with discursive reasoning, which is an elongated process of arriving at conclusions by inference from premises. Discursive reasoning on God’s part is ruled out not so much by God’s timelessness as by His omniscience. An omniscient being cannot reason discursively because He already knows the conclusions to be arrived at! Even if God is in time, He does not engage in discursive reasoning. But, obviously, He is not impersonal as a result.

Defenders of divine timelessness have frequently pointed out that the act of knowing something need not take any time at all.[1] Without going into the debate over what it means to be rational, we may say rather confidently that God’s being timeless impairs neither God’s noetic structure (His system of beliefs) nor His ability to discharge any intellectual duties He might be thought to have. Since He is omniscient, it’s pretty silly to think that God could be indicted for irrationality!

What about volition? I see no reason to think that free volition cannot be exemplified by a timeless God. Again, omniscience alone precludes God’s deciding in the sense of making up His mind after a period of indecision. Even a temporal God does not decide in that sense. But God does decide in the sense that His will intends toward one alternative rather than another and does so freely. It is up to God what He does; He could have willed otherwise. This is the strongest sense of libertarian freedom of the will. In God’s case, because He is omniscient, His free decisions are either everlasting or timeless rather than preceded by a period of ignorance and indecision.

So I have yet to see a sound argument against the coherence of a timeless, personal being. My own view is that God is timeless sans creation and in time since the moment of creation.

It does take time to know something. It takes time because time is nothing more than sequence. Duration can be debated but the very foundation of God stands "precept UPON.... precept". One thought begets another. REASON.... requires a foundation and subsequent determinations.

 

[civic]

Thanks for posting the video. I am interested in a variety of takes people have on this theme. I watched it all.

So Civic when you say Warren's Dynamic view is much better than say the traditional open theist view in just what ways would you say they're different?

God does interact in time with us and always has and since creation is not outside of time. He is actively involved, God even changes His mind with many of those if propositions that if you do this I will do this and if not then there will be these consequences. I like the David one where God told him what Saul would do to him and David fled so those things did not happen. So was God lying to David ? No He was telling him exactly what would occur with certain conditions. So this makes God dynamic and not static and deterministic when everything has been set in stone. Nineveh is another example and there are plenty of them in scripture.

The one thing I have learned since leaving Calvinism is to be open and teachable and to examine what I have learned and have been taught and see how it lines up with Scripture. I will never reject the Tri-Unity of the Godhead but my understanding of God has changed. Does that makes sense ?

 

[civic]

It does take time to know something. It takes time because time is nothing more than sequence. Duration can be debated but the very foundation of God stands "precept UPON.... precept". One thought begets another. REASON.... requires a foundation and subsequent determinations.

God is relational at His core being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit so even prior to creation there must of been sequence which is hard to wrap our minds around. God was not static imho and never has been. Love is not static but dynamic. I'm literally just thinking these thoughts and posting them as we speak.

 

[Rockson]

The one thing I have learned since leaving Calvinism is to be open and teachable and to examine what I have learned and have been taught and see how it lines up with Scripture. I will never reject the Tri-Unity of the Godhead but my understanding of God has changed. Does that makes sense ?

Sure my friend. It means you're seeking to be flexible in seeking to ascertain exactly what essential beliefs are. And I know you, I know you'd add on to the essentials that Jesus came and died as our substitute . There are other things however we can consider we can have discussion on and explore different ways of thinking.

 

[praise_yeshua]

God is relational at His core being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit so even prior to creation there must of been sequence which is hard to wrap our minds around. God was not static imho and never has been. Love is not static but dynamic. I'm literally just thinking these thoughts and posting them as we speak.

I agree.

This is difficult topic to address because there are so many doctrines this impacts and there is long historical narrative relative to modern theological narratives. I extensively debated this subject @ bible.org forums when they existed. There were some rather good debates there back when Open Theism became more popular when Piper attacked Boyd. Which lead to Boyd charting his "own path" forward. Someone hacked the forum and destroyed all the content back then and they didn't have a backup. Then it they did the same thing again. They didn't have a backup again. I hate all that happened. To make matters worse, they started banning the topic. Not only that topic but anything to do with canonicity. It wasn't long before they shut the entire thing down. It looked bad for an alumni member of DTS to have such things there....

I'll give you a little background as I see it.....

C.S. Lewis had a huge impact on modern theology. Though he was an Anglican, he had a very broad reach and impact because of his talent in many areas. He was a very talented man. However, he overstated the concept of "God being outside time". He did appeal to some historical narratives to try to establish this belief as a "tenant" of a good theology. His appeals are largely ambiguous. If you ask most any Jewish Rabbi about the subject, they will tell you that there is no historical context to the claim in Judaism. You will find some historical context to God being "unknowable" that some will try to use as evidence of God being "outside time" but it is nothing more than conjecture. We all believe that God is not entirely quantifiable.

However, the very idea that God knows everything "outside of time" actually quantifies God. Every how large that "equation" becomes, it defines a limit that God "fits inside of". Which is the goal of some men. To claim they know God to the degree they can speak for HIM.... in everything. Control. Power.

I love the subject but it is a challenge to deal with.

Just my penny.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Sure my friend. It means you're seeking to be flexible in seeking to ascertain exactly what essential beliefs are. And I know you, I know you'd add on to the essentials that Jesus came and died as our substitute . There are other things however we can consider we can have discussion on and explore different ways of thinking.

Hermeneutics is all but a "lost art" in theology today. Most everyone has "went to their corners" and built walls to seperate themselves.

 

[praise_yeshua]

God is relational at His core being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit so even prior to creation there must of been sequence which is hard to wrap our minds around. God was not static imho and never has been. Love is not static but dynamic. I'm literally just thinking these thoughts and posting them as we speak.

Just adding one thing....

I've asked Calvinists throughout my life several questions relative to this topic. I've never gotten any answers.

If what the Calvinists believe about Foreknowledge is true, then it must mean that "God's foreknowledge" must only consist of a singular thought without any form or context. If that singular "thought" requires context, then there must be duration.

To me, "outside time" is nothing more than a means to sell uncertainty as fact.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Thanks for posting the video. I am interested in a variety of takes people have on this theme. I watched it all.

So Civic when you say Warren's Dynamic view is much better than say the traditional open theist view in just what ways would you say they're different?

I'm curious about your general view on the subject. I respect your knowledge and demeanor brother. I wish I were as gentle as you are brother.

 

[Rockson]

God is relational at His core being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit so even prior to creation there must of been sequence which is hard to wrap our minds around. God was not static imho and never has been. Love is not static but dynamic. I'm literally just thinking these thoughts and posting them as we speak.

Hahaha......well now you be careful about that. 12 years from now someone might dust off one of these old posts and tell you that you said A, B and C!

"Well I was just thinking out loud" "Nope, nope, nope! You said it you meant it you ole heretic you!"

I actually do agree with your statement though. Even before creation there must have been sequencing with God.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Nevertheless, open theists like Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd, John Sanders, and Richard Rice have avoided the problem of fatalism by redefining predestination to mean God’s predetermination on behalf of those who are or will be Christians, not who will believe or how certain persons become Christians (Basinger and Basinger, Predestination, 159).

The Lexham Bible Dictionary

I don't believe this is an accurate assessment of the Open Theism position.

Notice some things with me.

1. Notice the "problem of fatalism" highlighted above. This a false charge being made against the intent of the position. There is no sense of fatalism in Open Theism. None whatsoever.

2. Notice the "redefining" claim in the quote. I'm certain that Boyd and others would say they are "defining" predestination. Not "redefining". It is important to notice instances where this happens.

I want to make this clear. I'm not an Open Theist. However, I know the position well. In my view, Boyd is the talent when it comes to defining the position. Not Pinnock nor Sanders.

"Richard Rice" is somewhat credited with defining the original position but I have never felt it necessary to try and trace who "coined a phrase". "Seeds" of this topic have been around in philosophy and some forms of theology for a very long time. From my studies, C.S. Lewis began the modern concept of "outside time" relative to the nature of God.

 

[Rockson]

I'm curious about your general view on the subject. I respect your knowledge and demeanor brother. I wish I were as gentle as you are brother.

Well thanks for the comment about my demeanor. I like to believe I try to be kind. Not sure I always succeed in that. About my view I'll give some thought on maybe how I could share it but it is somewhat different than others.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Well thanks for the comment about my demeanor. I like to believe I try to be kind. Not sure I always succeed in that. About my view I'll give some thought on maybe how I could share it but it is somewhat different than others.

Contrary to popular belief.....different is often good...

 

[Rockson]

God does interact in time with us and always has and since creation is not outside of time. He is actively involved,

Yeah I believe that's pretty obvious that he does relate to us in a time basis. When God said to Abraham "Now I know...." that he was going to be faithful in putting him first the question kind of remains though.....To say "Now I know " if language means anything would have to mean that he became actually aware of this now in reality. If he actually DID know one would wonder why his statement wouldn't have been, "I knew all along you would"

 

[Frank Russell]

In the creation God created a firmament to to cover the sky with stars moon and sun.

Prior to that God separated waters so water would be in the heaven and on the earth.

The heaven behind the heaven

This firmament rolls up like a scroll revealing the heaven behind the heaven during the release of the sixth seal in Revelation. People act like the people on the Mountain with Moses afraid of dying, and asking the mountains to bury them.

Jesus teaches us to pray that may God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Because it isn't.

So it can be determined that the place where God is has a different way (or laws of physics) that in the place where we live. However, there is no scripture indicating that God lives outside of time itself ... Some scriptures indicate that time flows more slowly for God than for us, but that's it.

 

[Frank Russell]

I'm not sure why a discussion about Open Theism became about temporality, (thought it was about how God's personality develops as time passes) but was fun to think on anyway.