Open Theism and Determinism

[Paidion]

We agree that to God it's all now.

No. I don't agree.

Scripture tells us that God does not change and is timelessly eternal (e.g., Genesis 21:33; Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Nehemiah 9:5, Psalm 90:2; Psalm 102:27, Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8.).

NOT ONE of these scriptures tell us that God does not change or is timelessly eternal. I'll discuss just the first two. If you think any of the others tell us "that God does not change and is timelessly eternal" please quote them and explain

Gen 21:23 refers to Him as "the everlasting God." Does "everlasting" mean "timelessly eternal" to you? It doesn't to me. It seems to me that it could mean "timelessly eternal" only to someone who read that concept into "everlasting".

Num 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

Does this verse say that God NEVER changes His mind? No, it is specifically talking about God's fulfilling His intentions to do to bless Israel. So Balaam was unable, as a prophet, to curse Israel as Balak wanted him to do. For God told him to bless Israel. God wouldn't frivolously change His mind and tell Balaam to curse Israel. It is tantamount to saying that God keeps His promises, and in this instance, it was His promises to Israel.

However, the Scriptures record several instances of God changing His mind. Here are two examples:

Jeremiah 18:7-10 (ESV) If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it,and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.

The word translated from the Hebrew as "relent" actually means "regret". In Greek the word is translated from the same Hebrew text type as the New Testament quotes from the Old. It is translated to the Greek word μετανοησω which means "I will change my mind". So God sometimes changes his mind about what He says He will do. Here is a second example:

Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

The same word is used here, but in the past tense. The Hebrew would indicate that God regretted the disaster that He said He would bring upon them. The Greek says that God changed His mind about the disaster that He said He would bring upon them.

Also, logic tells us that God cannot change. If God changes, then God had a beginning.

Is the following your argument? I have tried to set it up in a structurally logical argument:

If God changes, then God has a beginning.
God did not have a beginning.
Therefore, God does not change.

The first premise itself is a logical argument. I don't think the proposition "God has a beginning" follows logically from the propostition "God changes".

If God had a beginning, then some other entity would be needed to create God.

Here again, I don't think the consequent follows from the antecedant. This would be true only if there is an infinite regression of time into the past. But what if time had an actual beginning and that God was simply there at the beginning of time, and there was no "before the beginning of time"?

There is no was or will be with God – was and will be are the change characteristics of our physical world. The name that immanent God takes in the Bible (see Exodus 3:14.) is I AM – God is always now.

You believe that God is immanent? Then if so He exists within space and time. I understood you to believe that He exists outside of space and time, that He transcends space and time. Wouldn't that mean the He is transcendant rather than imminant?

Also the fact that Yahweh's name is "I AM" does not imply that God transcends time—that God is always NOW.
In the Greek Septuagint the phrase is "ὁ ὠν" (ho ōn), which means "The Being".
The Hebrew word means not only "I am" but "I was" and "I shall be". This fits precisely with the Revelation verse which reads:

Rev 4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”

Therefore, because He cannot change, God does not exist in time, because everything that exists is time changes. God knows all of time from the moment of creation, but exists outside of the universe of matter, energy, space & time which He created.

All actions and events take place within time. So if God exists outside of time, how can He act within time? I think your position implies Deism.

[kenblogton]

Reply to steve7150
This may be my last post in this thread because it seems like we are not covering any new ground.
Ex 32.13 is a good observation where Moses references the Abrahamic Covenant and he did indeed lead his people into Israel. However there is a reason the Sinaitic Covenant is called by it's name, which is that God gave it to Moses at Mount Sinai. That's where God gave Moses the ten commandments and the rest of the law. Do you think the ten commandments and the law of Moses are part of the Abrahamic Covenent? Duet 28 is all about blessings and curses based on obedience to the law, all conditional whereas the Abrahamic Covenant is God decreeing the land to Israel and many decendents to Abraham with no conditions after Abraham left his home.
The covenant is the same through Abraham-Isaac-Jacob(Israel) and fulfilled through Moses. That's why Exodus 32:13 references their covenant; it does not reference a Mosaic covenant or what your refer to as the Sinaitic Covenant ANYWHERE from Exodus through Deuteronomy! Moses codified the Abrahamic covenant, as Paul explains in Galatians 3:15-19 "Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed [Isaac, Jacob,... Moses,..., etc.] The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later [by Moses], does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator."
Again regarding Peter, nothing is said which requires the word "if" or "if man sinned." We have different opinions as i think man was destined to sin.
If man was foreordained or, as you say it, destined to sin, God foreordained evil, which is impossible!
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

Reply to Paidion

I said We agree that to God it's all now.
You said No. I don't agree.
Scripture tells us that God does not change and is timelessly eternal (e.g., Genesis 21:33; Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Nehemiah 9:5, Psalm 90:2; Psalm 102:27, Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8.).
NOT ONE of these scriptures tell us that God does not change or is timelessly eternal. I'll discuss just the first two. If you think any of the others tell us "that God does not change and is timelessly eternal" please quote them and explain
Gen 21:23 refers to Him as "the everlasting God." Does "everlasting" mean "timelessly eternal" to you? It doesn't to me. It seems to me that it could mean "timelessly eternal" only to someone who read that concept into "everlasting".
Num 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
You quoted a couple of my references which, taken together, say that with God it's all now and that He does not change. I'll quote two of the other verses, underlining the key parts. Psalms 102:27 "But you remain the same, and your years will never end." Malachi 3:6 ""I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed." If God remains the same-does not change-then He is does not have a past or future, but is always now!

You said However, the Scriptures record several instances of God changing His mind. Here are two examples:
Jeremiah 18:7-10 (ESV) If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it,and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.
The word translated from the Hebrew as "relent" actually means "regret". In Greek the word is translated from the same Hebrew text type as the New Testament quotes from the Old. It is translated to the Greek word μετανοησω which means "I will change my mind". So God sometimes changes his mind about what He says He will do. Here is a second example:
Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.
The same word is used here, but in the past tense. The Hebrew would indicate that God regretted the disaster that He said He would bring upon them. The Greek says that God changed His mind about the disaster that He said He would bring upon them.
God does NOT change His mind. As always, God punishes sin but relents with repentance - always - throughout the entire Bible! The passages you cite illustrate this, but Ezekiel 18 says it best!

I said Also, logic tells us that God cannot change. If God changes, then God had a beginning.
You said Is the following your argument? I have tried to set it up in a structurally logical argument:
If God changes, then God has a beginning.
God did not have a beginning.
Therefore, God does not change.
The first premise itself is a logical argument. I don't think the proposition "God has a beginning" follows logically from the propostition "God changes".
Please give me one example of something that changes which does not have a beginning.

I said If God had a beginning, then some other entity would be needed to create God.
You said Here again, I don't think the consequent follows from the antecedant. This would be true only if there is an infinite regression of time into the past. But what if time had an actual beginning and that God was simply there at the beginning of time, and there was no "before the beginning of time"?
If God had a beginning, He is not eternal, and He changes, from non-existent to existent. God was, and must be, there BEFORE the time - space - matter - energy which He creates.

I said There is no was or will be with God – was and will be are the change characteristics of our physical world. The name that immanent God takes in the Bible (see Exodus 3:14.) is I AM – God is always now.
You said You believe that God is immanent? Then if so He exists within space and time. I understood you to believe that He exists outside of space and time, that He transcends space and time. Wouldn't that mean the He is transcendant rather than imminant?
Also the fact that Yahweh's name is "I AM" does not imply that God transcends time—that God is always NOW.
In the Greek Septuagint the phrase is "ὁ ὠν" (ho ōn), which means "The Being".
The Hebrew word means not only "I am" but "I was" and "I shall be". This fits precisely with the Revelation verse which reads:
Rev 4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”
You are correct in how I use the term immanent. I use the term immanent in a way that combines both omnipresent (always everywhere in the world) and transcendent (not a part of creation: space, time, matter, energy).

I said Therefore, because He cannot change, God does not exist in time, because everything that exists is time changes. God knows all of time from the moment of creation, but exists outside of the universe of matter, energy, space & time which He created.
You said All actions and events take place within time. So if God exists outside of time, how can He act within time? I think your position implies Deism.
All human action and physical events take place within time; divine action and events occur outside of time - from before the big bang. It seems to me you want to anthropomorphize God and cannot accept an eternal outside of creation God.
I believe we've already covered this ground in my 3 Assessing the Necessity of Open Theism blogs. Perhaps we need to agree to disagree.
kenblogton

[steve7150]

What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later [by Moses], does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator."
Again regarding Peter, nothing is said which requires the word "if" or "if man sinned." We have different opinions as i think man was destined to sin.
If man was foreordained or, as you say it, destined to sin, God foreordained evil, which is impossible!
kenblogton

kenblogton





I'm only responding regretfully because you respond to claims i never made. I never said the Sinaitic/Mosaic Covenant which is the giving of the law and is a CONDITIONAL covenant , sets aside the Abrahamic covenant which is an unconditional covenant given to Abraham,Issac and Jacob.

The conditions of these two Covenants are so vastly different i don't even have any idea why you insist they are the same covenant? Your response was because Moses referenced the Abraham Covenant when the Jews were about to go into Israel. Moses referenced a lot of other things and so did Jesus but that in itself means nothing. The Sinaitic/Mosaic Covanent has the 613 laws of Moses as part of it given to just the Israelites whereas the Abrahamic covenant included a prophecy that Abraham himself would be a father to many nations. How different can two covenants be?

Again re Peter and the foreordaining of evil. The bible specifically says that for man to become like God he must know good and evil. We are supposed to become perfect (mature) like our Father in heaven. We can speculate how God had no idea what was going to happen with Eve or that God had nothing to do with mans disobedience based on the mindset of distancing God from "evil" , but a dispassionate reading of the text surrounding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil makes it plain that God foreordained the outcome just as he foreordained Christ. God didn't make Eve sin but he didn't give her the tools not to.

"For God has consigned ALL to disobedience , that He may have mercy on ALL." Rom 11.32

Lastly EVIL is simply a tool for God to shape us into what we need to be which includes us experiencing EVIL. To borrow an expression," it's a necessary EVIL."

[kenblogton]

Reply to steve7150

I'm only responding regretfully because you respond to claims i never made. I never said the Sinaitic/Mosaic Covenant which is the giving of the law and is a CONDITIONAL covenant , sets aside the Abrahamic covenant which is an unconditional covenant given to Abraham,Issac and Jacob.
The conditions of these two Covenants are so vastly different i don't even have any idea why you insist they are the same covenant? Your response was because Moses referenced the Abraham Covenant when the Jews were about to go into Israel. Moses referenced a lot of other things and so did Jesus but that in itself means nothing. The Sinaitic/Mosaic Covanent has the 613 laws of Moses as part of it given to just the Israelites whereas the Abrahamic covenant included a prophecy that Abraham himself would be a father to many nations. How different can two covenants be?
As I explained in my previous post, there is only the one covenant for the Israelites, not 2. I have nothing more to say on the topic, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Again re Peter and the foreordaining of evil. The bible specifically says that for man to become like God he must know good and evil. We are supposed to become perfect (mature) like our Father in heaven. We can speculate how God had no idea what was going to happen with Eve or that God had nothing to do with mans disobedience based on the mindset of distancing God from "evil" , but a dispassionate reading of the text surrounding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil makes it plain that God foreordained the outcome just as he foreordained Christ. God didn't make Eve sin but he didn't give her the tools not to.
"For God has consigned ALL to disobedience , that He may have mercy on ALL." Rom 11.32
Lastly EVIL is simply a tool for God to shape us into what we need to be which includes us experiencing EVIL. To borrow an expression," it's a necessary EVIL."
God did not foreordain any evil and it's not a tool of His, He must allow for it because He gave humans and angels free will. He did give Eve the tool that she needed to resist sin: listen to Him: Genesis 3:1-6 "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."
I think this is another topic on which we'll have to agree to disagree.
kenblogton

[steve7150]

Genesis 3:1-6 "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made











I never gave this any thought but is sounds as if the serpent was made crafty since it's being compared with the other animals God had made. In other words these are things God had made including the serpent and he was made crafty. Being made crafty indicates he was not a good or perfect angel gone bad , but crafty or Satan from his creation and a servant of God.
If this is the case we have the craftiest creature in the universe verses Eve who was innocent with no experience with evil.

[mattrose]

If I had to guess, I'd say that Satan was created as a testing agent (my daughter was watching the original Willy Wonka movie the other day and I found myself wondering if Satan is comparable to Mr. Slugworth). But there is a big difference between God purposefully creating a testing agent and God actually ordaining the failure of the students.

[steve7150]

But there is a big difference between God purposefully creating a testing agent and God actually ordaining the failure of the students.




Not necessarily. But Satan was more then an objective testing agent he was a deceiver as Eve could tell you and a liar from the beginning as John could tell you.

If Jesus were to appear to mankind and say "My Father has given all of you free will so go make your choices, but know this that after you die you will appear before me to be judged by your works." Mankind's free will would be preserved but the amount of evil in the world would dramatically reduce. So if God wants us to have free will but is so disturbed by the evil in the world why does he not do this?

[mattrose]

But there is a big difference between God purposefully creating a testing agent and God actually ordaining the failure of the students.




Not necessarily.

Yes, God could have created the testing agent for the purpose of having them fall. I'm saying I don't think God did that.

But Satan was more then an objective testing agent he was a deceiver as Eve could tell you and a liar from the beginning as John could tell you.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by testing agent. To me, the concept of a testing agent does not necessarily imply neutrality (and certainly not an agent that has the best interest of the tested person in mind). A testing agent is simply someone who puts someone's trust and obedience in God to the test... they challenge it. Even grade school tests sometimes contain 'trick' questions. For the test to be genuine, it might require a tester that uses every trick in the book.

If Jesus were to appear to mankind and say "My Father has given all of you free will so go make your choices, but know this that after you die you will appear before me to be judged by your works." Mankind's free will would be preserved but the amount of evil in the world would dramatically reduce. So if God wants us to have free will but is so disturbed by the evil in the world why does he not do this?

Jesus basically did do that.

But I think what you're asking is why doesn't Jesus do this for every generation?

I think the key to the answer is to question your assumptions that if he did that "mankind's free will wold be preserved" and that "the amount of evil in the world would dramatically reduce." These are both highly questionable thoughts.

Truth be told, I find your line of questioning somewhat strange and I'm not even sure what to say in response. It seems to me you're trying to defend a theology that sees God as fore-ordaining evil because He in some sense needed evil in order to accomplish victory over it. I find this view (if it is your view) to be unsupported by the biblical material, poor theology, and lacking value for the Christian spiritual life.

[steve7150]

Truth be told, I find your line of questioning somewhat strange and I'm not even sure what to say in response. It seems to me you're trying to defend a theology that sees God as fore-ordaining evil because He in some sense needed evil in order to accomplish victory over it. I find this view (if it is your view) to be unsupported by the biblical material, poor theology, and lacking value for the Christian spiritual life.









Many people find Christianity strange which at it's heart is one man dying for the sins of others but that doesn't mean it's not true. If you are not sure how to respond then don't respond. Yes i think God uses evil as a tool for us to learn because we develop our spiritual and physical muscles by overcoming resistance and we learn by contrasting things like good and evil. That's why the knowledge of each were in the same tree instead of different trees and why it was in the midst of the garden because God knows how we learn. As far as lacking value for the Christian spiritual life, to myself my view is simply interpreting what happened, nothing more or less.