Assessing the Necessity of Open Theism 1

[mattrose]

Reply to mattrose
I don't have any better explanations of God's immutability and impassability than what I've already given. If you could tell me specifically what you find objectionable about what I've said, perhaps I could clarify.
Fitting omniscience into the mix, and using the same analogy which you didn't like, the possibilities are like multiple copies of a film, only one copy of which gets distributed - we humans get to choose which version gets distributed.
kenblogton

I don't think immutability needs to be as confusing as people make it seem. God is immutable in one obvious sense and not immutable in another obvious sense. His character/message never changes. His actions/methods change all the time in response to free will creatures. Too many people have taken immutability to mean God doesn't change in any sense, but that is ridiculous given revelation.

I don't understand why impassability is even an issue. Do some people think that emotions are inherently evil? Why would it be considered detrimental to God's nature if He has emotions? To me, God is more glorious if He has emotions and is able to always utilize them appropriately and perfectly. That this is exactly the impression we get from the Bible is icing on this common sense cake.

[kenblogton]

Reply to mattrose

I don't think immutability needs to be as confusing as people make it seem. God is immutable in one obvious sense and not immutable in another obvious sense. His character/message never changes. His actions/methods change all the time in response to free will creatures. Too many people have taken immutability to mean God doesn't change in any sense, but that is ridiculous given revelation.

.
We agree God's character is immutable and that God does different things over time in response to His free will creatures. I think we DISAGREE on the nature of God doing different things over time. I maintain God established every possible one of His future contingent actions - the actions He might take in time - at creation - every one of His possible actions for all time. That must be true if He is immutable.

I don't understand why impassability is even an issue. Do some people think that emotions are inherently evil? Why would it be considered detrimental to God's nature if He has emotions? To me, God is more glorious if He has emotions and is able to always utilize them appropriately and perfectly. That this is exactly the impression we get from the Bible is icing on this common sense cake.

.
If God is not impassible - if He experiences changing emotions, it means God changes - He is NOT immutable. That's what I object to. I maintain immanent God feels the same emotions - unchanged - since creation.
kenblogton

[mattrose]

We agree God's character is immutable and that God does different things over time in response to His free will creatures. I think we DISAGREE on the nature of God doing different things over time. I maintain God established every possible one of His future contingent actions - the actions He might take in time - at creation - every one of His possible actions for all time. That must be true if He is immutable.

I'm not sure I disagree with you. I am also not sure why it matters. What difference does it make if God 'established' every possible one of His future contingent actions OR if He simply takes such actions in the course of time? Either way, His actions flow out of His unchanging character!

If God is not impassible - if He experiences changing emotions, it means God changes - He is NOT immutable. That's what I object to. I maintain immanent God feels the same emotions - unchanged - since creation.
kenblogton

For God to experience changing emotions only speaks against His immutability in the second sense that I talked about, not the first. Changing emotions doesn't necessarily suggest a change in character. In fact, perfect character dictates that ones emotions change based on changing circumstances! It would be imperfect to be unchanging in the face of a transition from good to evil or from evil to good.

You are probably right that we simply disagree on some of these matters. That's OK. I am pretty sure I'm right, but I'm sure you feel the same way. Clearly these are finer points of theology and nothing worth dividing over, eh?

[kenblogton]

Reply to mattrose
All change occurs in time. If I am sometimes rageful, sometimes lustful, sometimes jealous, sometimes loving, I think we could agree my character is NOT immutable. The same is true for God.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

Reply to Paidion September 15 1 & 2. Apologies. I thought I had replied earlier - I must have previewed it but not submitted it.
At 2:07 pm, you said "The impassable God is the impossible God.
Throughout the Old Testament God's passions are described: At various times He is sorrowful, angry, jealous, compassionate, grieved, pleased, joyful, affectionate, hateful, and many more."
I agree with the descriptions but disagree with your conclusions. Let me explain:
Because we humans are physical, we have a tendency to recast God in physical human terms so we can better relate to Him. This is called anthropomorphism. My favourite human quality attributed to God is that He is said to be “slow to anger and abounding in love” (Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 103:8, 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4: 2). The human quality attributed to God that I like the least is when His anger is said to be aroused or to “burn” against people (Exodus 4:14; Numbers 11:10, 12:9, 22:22, 25:3, 32:10; Deuteronomy 31:16-18; Joshua 7:1; Judges 2:12-14, 20, 3:8, 10:7; 2 Samuel 6:7, 24:1 and in many other places in the Old Testament).
When people experience emotion, it changes them. If we’re angry, fearful, or sad, we’re different – changed – from when we’re calm and at peace or in some other emotional state. That being said, let’s now consider the Old Testament passages that speak of “God’s anger” in the context of God “never changing” (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Psalm 110:4; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). We can humanize God, and allow that He changes, or we can affirm His always being the same and accept that the Scripture writers also anthropomorphized God.
In Numbers 11:4-23 and Deuteronomy 5:15, God is portrayed as a human with mighty arms and hands - are we to take this literally? I think not.
In Job 38, God mentions: laying the Earth’s foundation (implying a flat earth), the storehouses of snow and hail and rain from the water jars of heaven. Are we to take these descriptions literally? I think not.
God’s purpose in inspiring the Bible was to communicate about Himself and His ways to people. If it takes anthropomorphic or empathic metaphor to achieve that end, so be it! God’s “anthropomorphized anger” communicates that certain behaviours lead to hell and away from heaven. For us humans, to know that is of eternal critical importance.
At 8:05 pm you said "If He does not exist in time or space, how can He affect conditions in time and/or space? "
The creator of anything does not exist within their creation. A film maker does not exist within the film they create, but they can affect it. A car maker is not a part of the car they create, but they can affect it. Similarly with God. He pre-exists space, time, matter & energy and is not a part of it, but can and does affect His Creation.
kenblogton

[mattrose]

Reply to mattrose
All change occurs in time. If I am sometimes rageful, sometimes lustful, sometimes jealous, sometimes loving, I think we could agree my character is NOT immutable. The same is true for God.
kenblogton

God's emotions flow out of unchanging character. His core characteristic is love. Sometimes love takes the form of jealousy (as in, when the beloved is being courted by a false god). Sometimes love takes the form of wrath (when the beloved has continued down a road of rebellion). Sometimes love takes the form of discipline (when the beloved is in need of character formation). Sometimes love takes the form of what we typically think of as love (blessing). It's all love. It's all flowing from God's unchanging character.

We are creatures with ever-transforming characters, so our emotions are sometimes inappropriate. God's emotions are never inappropriate b/c they flow out of a fully mature and perfect character. Your analogy is false.

[Singalphile]

Hi, kenblogton.

I'm sure I don't and can't comprehend God fully, and I'm sure you'd say the same, but I'd like to ask how you avoid thinking of God as just some super-powerful machine, like a super-computer?

Thank you in advance for any response.

[kenblogton]

Reply to Singaphile

how you avoid thinking of God as just some super-powerful machine, like a super-computer?

Two ways. The first is Scripture (1 John 4:16), which tells me God is love, which is a sound theological answer. The second is personal. I've had a number of personal encounters with the God of Love over the years. I'll share the first one with you.
At the age of twenty, I was a student at McGill University. I believed in God as Creator of the Universe but not in God who got personally involved with – who interacted with or who cared about – the people in the Universe He’d created; I was a Deist. At university, I had come to believe that people were only biological machines. During this same time, I had fallen in love with a Roman Catholic girl. One day as I was out walking along Sherbrooke Street in front of McGill, I heard what I thought was a voice. The voice said 'Machines can’t love!' I was sure someone had spoken to me, so turned around to see who it was and saw there was no one anywhere near me! I now know God put the thought in my mind that Machines can’t love. God had given my first memorable personal spiritual experience. God was showing me He was not only the Creator God of the Deists in whom I believed, He was also personally interested in me! And God was telling me I had a choice to make: to be a machine or to be in love – I couldn’t be both.
I know in my head and in my heart that God is love, not a machine.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

Reply to mattrose
To call all those different - changing - emotions as all part of God's unchanging love or character makes no sense to me. Different emotions represent change. If you take the Bible literally about God's emotions, they occur in time. Anything that occurs in time represents change. But God does NOT change. So all the emotions He would experience for all time He experienced at Creation, since He knew all future possibilities. It appears we'll have to agree to disagree about God's immutability.
kenblogton

[mattrose]

Reply to mattrose
To call all those different - changing - emotions as all part of God's unchanging love or character makes no sense to me. Different emotions represent change. If you take the Bible literally about God's emotions, they occur in time. Anything that occurs in time represents change. But God does NOT change. So all the emotions He would experience for all time He experienced at Creation, since He knew all future possibilities. It appears we'll have to agree to disagree about God's immutability.
kenblogton

Well, we don't HAVE to agree to disagree. One of us could persuade the other toward a more sensible view

It seems to me you are stuck by your insistence that changes at an emotional level are always linked with changes at a character level. This seems like an arbitrary insistence. You are also stuck by your insistence that any emotional change that occurs in time represents change to ones character. This is also an arbitrary insistence.

Unless you are able to make a solid argument for these apparently arbitrary acts of insistence, I'm not sure why I should be persuaded toward your view. On the other hand, if you are unable to make a solid argument for these apparently arbitrary acts of insistence, then you should consider being persuaded toward my view.

I'll re-state my view again, just to be clear. The doctrine of God's immutability has to do with God's character. His character (essentially... love) never changes. It is immutable. Created beings are basically always changing. God responds to change out of His love. The form of love dispensed corresponds to the creatures needs. For a creature in rebellion against God, love may take the form of wrath or discipline and be accompanied by divine emotions such as anger and displeasure. This is not a 'change' in God's character. It is a revelation of God's unchanging character. To say that God is immutable even at the emotional level, He'd have to be stuck in one emotional state (a state of being pleased with? a state of being angered with?). If He were stuck in a pleased state of emotions, He would be pleased even with a rebellious creature!

Once one thinks about this for more than a minute, it seems to me, we realize that a God who is immutable in EVERY sense of the word (therefore, impassible) would be a lesser God. He would be less glorious. It is a mark of God's greatness that He is able to adjust perfectly to changing situations every time. It is by no means a deficiency to experience changing emotions in the face of changing situations. It is wholly appropriate.