Open Theism and Determinism

[kenblogton]

Reply to dwilkins January 2 " It seems to me that in a sense when God says something will happen in the future he's saying that it will happen unless something significant changes direction of the story."
I believe what God is saying is that if plan A doesn't work, He will bring about what He wills through Plan B, as Esther 4:13-14 indicates ""Do not think that because you are in the king's house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?""
kenblogton

[mattrose]

So Ken... are you now comfortable putting the 'open theist' label on yourself?

[Ian]

I`m unsure whether open theism is true or not, but if I decided in my mind it was, then it would sure put a "rocket up my backside" in a way that determinism can`t quite.

[kenblogton]

Reply to mattrose January 3
"So Ken... are you now comfortable putting the 'open theist' label on yourself?"
I believe I'm comfortable with the "possibilities" aspect regarding free will and omniscience of Open Theism. However, I disagree with what I understand the Open Theism position to be on immutability, immanence, impassability, and free will-God's goodness, as I outlined in my 3 earlier blogs on Assessing the Necessity of Open Theism.
Thanks for asking Matt.
kenblogton

[steve7150]

I don't understand how God could predict anything if Openness is true because even if the probability is as remote as one/million that God can be wrong , that would mean he could have been wrong.
If it could have happened differently , if it could have been a different outcome (even if it was not) that puts God in the position of potentially making incorrect predictions or statements and seeming quite human.
What would this mean regarding his truthfulness? He makes a factual sounding statement that very likely is correct but may not be. That seems to make him a potential liar.
If Peter could have chosen otherwise shouldn't Jesus have said to Peter that "most likely you will betray me Peter"?

[mattrose]

I don't understand how God could predict anything if Openness is true because even if the probability is as remote as one/million that God can be wrong , that would mean he could have been wrong.

1. You have overstated your argument. You used the word 'anything,' but certainly God could predict (with certainty) some things if openness is true. For instance, God might know exactly what God is going to do irregardless of future human choices.

If it could have happened differently , if it could have been a different outcome (even if it was not) that puts God in the position of potentially making incorrect predictions or statements and seeming quite human. What would this mean regarding his truthfulness? He makes a factual sounding statement that very likely is correct but may not be. That seems to make him a potential liar.

2. Your second mistake, in my view, is assuming that prophesies in the Bible are generally to be taken as absolute, set-in-stone, predictions (statements of fact about the future). I don't think that is the case. I think prophesies are generally conditional.

If Peter could have chosen otherwise shouldn't Jesus have said to Peter that "most likely you will betray me Peter"?

3. Your third mistake, from my perspective, is in underestimating the vastness of God's omniscience. If God knew every single fact about the present on that evening of the 1st century, I don't think it is too difficult to believe that God's Spirit could have given Jesus a fool-proof prediction of what Peter was about to do. Or, another possibility is that God chose to cement Peter's heart at the moment of the prediction for the purpose of bringing Peter to full repentance later on.

Or... what about this? Let's say Peter would have changed course after Jesus' statement (which lacked the 'most likely' language). How would that have been very different from Nineveh. As far as we know, Jonah used no 'what if' language, but the people changed course. We don't interpret that as a false prophecy, do we? We interpret it as a conditional prophecy.

[Paidion]

I don't understand how God could predict anything if Openness is true because even if the probability is as remote as one/million that God can be wrong , that would mean he could have been wrong.

It does NOT mean that God was "wrong". It means only that God's prediction did not come about. Indeed God's prediction was absolutely RIGHT, based on all of the facts, e.g. God's total knowledge of people's intentions, various influences, causes, etc. And yet because of human choice, His predictions infrequently do not correspond to the reality which transpires.

One good example of this was God's prediction through Jonah, "Yet 40 days and Ninevah will be overthrown". There nothing conditional about that statement. The prophecy WASN'T "Yet 40 days and Ninevah will be overthrown if the people do not repent." If God had meant that, He would have said it. However, Ninevah DID repent, and God changed His mind. Here are the exact words from the book of Jonah:

When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God changed His mind concerning the disaster that He had said He bring upon them, and he did not do it. (Jonah 3:10)

If this had been a conditional prophecy, then there would have been nothing about which God would have changed His mind.

Was God wrong? No. Having looked into the minds and hearts of the Ninevites, it appeared to God that they would NOT repent. God would have been wrong if He had thought they WOULD repent given this knowledge. He made the correct prediction, given the circumstances and His complete knowledge of the Ninevites and the situation.

But they had free will, and DID repent, contrary to God's expectation. If God had known that the Ninevites would repent, He wouldn't have changed His mind. Rather He would have thought, "It has happened exactly as I knew it would! I never did intend to bring disaster upon them."

In THAT case, God would have lied saying, "Yet 40 days and Ninevah will be overthrown" when He had not intended to do it all along.

[steve7150]

Or... what about this? Let's say Peter would have changed course after Jesus' statement (which lacked the 'most likely' language). How would that have been very different from Nineveh. As far as we know, Jonah used no 'what if' language, but the people changed course. We don't interpret that as a false prophecy, do we? We interpret it as a conditional prophecy.








Regarding the first two points. Of course God can predict what God will do and yes there are indeed conditional prophecies. I was not referring to either of these but just to unconditional prophecies.
In the Jonah/Nineveh incident, God simply changed his mind, i don't see that as God being mistaken. When God says that Abram will be a father of nations therefore God changed his name to Abraham, how could God make a statement like that if it were possible for this result not to happen?
Either God foresees the future or God simply intervenes to make certain that what he predicted will in fact come to pass. If God leaves this up to "libertarian free will" it may not happen the way God predicted and that puts into question some of His attributes IMHO.

[mattrose]

Regarding the first two points. Of course God can predict what God will do and yes there are indeed conditional prophecies. I was not referring to either of these but just to unconditional prophecies.

Okay, since you said "God cannot predict anything if openness is true"... I thought you were speaking in more absolute terms.

In the Jonah/Nineveh incident, God simply changed his mind, i don't see that as God being mistaken.

I don't quite understand your point. You are alright with God 'changing His mind' when it comes to Nineveh. But below you can't fathom how God could have changed His mind when it comes to Abraham. Weren't both statements prophecies?

When God says that Abram will be a father of nations therefore God changed his name to Abraham, how could God make a statement like that if it were possible for this result not to happen?

I don't see any real reason to treat this as an unconditional prophecy, to be honest. The whole promise of 12:2-3 is conditioned upon Abraham obediently going (12:1) as he did (12:4). This was an act of faith (Hebrews 11:8-10) which suggests that he could have done otherwise and stayed home.

But let's suppose that Abraham faithfully went to the Promised Land (as he did) and then got hit by a runaway camel and died. Could the promise still have been fulfilled? Yes. How? B/c it was not necessarily his blood relation that fulfills the promise. It was those who have the same faith as Abraham that are his children. Is it not? Prophecies are both conditional and flexible in my understanding.

[steve7150]

But let's suppose that Abraham faithfully went to the Promised Land (as he did) and then got hit by a runaway camel and died. Could the promise still have been fulfilled? Yes. How? B/c it was not necessarily his blood relation that fulfills the promise. It was those who have the same faith as Abraham that are his children. Is it not? Prophecies are both conditional and flexible in my understanding.









OK granted it could have been kept by faith but the point is, how can God predict Abraham will be a Father of nations if it's up to probabilities. It seems to me if God allows the possibility of being wrong he allows the possibility of being untruthful.
Paul referenced this i think in Rom 4 when he said "God speaks of things that are not yet as though they are" , so how does God do this?