A Simple Argument for Open Theism

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Post by mattrose » Fri May 02, 2014 9:52 am

Here is a simple argument for open theism. Please feel free to critique it.

1. God is love (1 John 4:8, 16)
2. Love trusts and hopes (1 Cor. 13:7)
3. Therefore, God trusts and hopes
4. Trust and/or Hope imply some degree of risk/uncertainty about the future
5. Therefore, God experiences some degree of risk/uncertainty about the future
6. The claim of open theism is that God experiences some degree of risk/uncertainty about the future
7. Therefore, open theism is true

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Post by backwoodsman » Fri May 02, 2014 10:41 am

I think you're pulling 'God is love' out of context and way, way overthinking it in a direction neither John nor God ever intended. Might be time to take a couple steps back and reevaluate both 'God is love' and open theism.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Post by mattrose » Fri May 02, 2014 10:53 am

backwoodsman wrote:I think you're pulling 'God is love' out of context and way, way overthinking it in a direction neither John nor God ever intended. Might be time to take a couple steps back and reevaluate both 'God is love' and open theism.
Please elaborate :)

I tried to lay out a step by step 'proof' so that any critique would have an actual shape (rather than just a statement of disagreement, which is essentially what you have posted).

I don't see why taking the phrase 'God is love' and combining it with the Bible's most famous definition of love is taking things 'out of context' and 'way way overthinking it'. Actually, it seems pretty straight-forward.

So, which of the 1st 4 steps in my 'proof' do you actually disagree with?

I'm guessing #3? But on what grounds?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Post by steve » Fri May 02, 2014 11:19 am

My problem would be with point #2. This is because 1 Corinthians 13 is an appeal to human beings to "Pursue love..." (1 Cor.14:1). I don't think it is defining "love" in the abstract so much as it is describing love functioning in the heart and relationships of human beings (i.e., the readers).

If we love people (the burden of 1 Cor.13) then we desire to trust them, and hope the best of them. For us, who do not know the future, this is an appropriate expression of love. It needn't be thought to be of the essence of love. A God who knows the future perfectly could still be loving in every way relevant to the nature of His being, I think.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Post by mattrose » Fri May 02, 2014 11:40 am

Thanks Steve

I figured that would be one of the objections (that 1 Corinthians 13 is describing human expressions of love that do not necessarily apply to God's love).

That is possible.

Of course, that it is possible doesn't mean it is correct. When we consider that the actual biblical narrative seems to fit very well with the idea of God partnering with people, taking risks, trusting, hoping for things, and sometimes being disappointed... it becomes apparent that words like 'trust' and 'hope' fit very well with the biblical picture of God.

So I guess my response to you would be, what do you find objectionable about the idea of God trusting and hoping. What is the biblical basis for the philosophical view that God exists outside of time?

I am becoming less and less impressed with the typical counter-argument to open theism: "What about prophecy?" When we consider a small number of straight forward realities, the apparent strength of the objections seems to wither in my mind.

1. Most prophecies in Scripture seem to be conditional in nature
2. God is omniscient (knows all things) and so is able to make incredibly precise predictions (especially about the near future)
3. God is omnipotent (can do all things) and so is able to bring about exactly what He intends to bring about (He knows what He'll do)

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Post by steve » Fri May 02, 2014 12:55 pm

Hi Matt,

I was not affirming that Openness Theology is incorrect. I was simply saying that I thought point #2 was a weak link in your chain of reasoning. Of course, your belief in Openness does not depend upon that argument alone, so a weak link in the argument does not disprove your whole system.

There are many people whom I respect who are (or were) advocates of Opnness—including Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd, yourself and others at this forum. Most of the objections I had to the system when I first encountered its advocates in the 80s are non-issues with me today. I don't argue that God is outside of time, though it is a possibility. I feel that the whole subject of what time is, and what can or cannot be affirmed about it philosophically is above my pay grade.

My most serious obstacle preventing me from embracing the Openness view is still the prediction of Peter's three denials and subsequent repentance. As I have said elsewhere, this involves a number of factors that are not well-answered without God having foreknowledge of free moral choices:

a) The denials were sins on Peter's part that God could not have authored (God not being the author of sin)

b) Since Peter was a lover of Christ, these could not be in the category of God's hardening a sinner's heart to essential consign him to self-chosen sinful behavior;

c) To say that Jesus simply knew what Peter was and was not capable of, and thus what Peter would do under temptation does not account adequately for the detail of the prediction. Jesus knew there would be the same sin three time, followed by repentance—four moral choices, three bad, and one good. How could Jesus know the number of choices in a specified time period, and their outcomes, by the mere knowledge of Peter's general weakness?

d) If we say that God orchestrated the three occasions of Peter being confronted, knowing He must inevitably succumb to the three temptations, then this raises a few other problems: Does God tempt men to sin (James 1:13)? Does He place us under tests that He knows we cannot pass (1 Cor.10:13)?

e) If Jesus predicted that these things would happen, did not His prediction de facto guarantee that they would happen? Once Jesus annouced that Peter would do these things, could Peter have done otherwise, without turning Jesus into a false prophet?

f) If Jesus, by some means unknown to us, could predict four disparate moral choices that Peter would inevitably make within the next 10 hours, could He do the same (by the same means) for those that Peter would make in the next 24 hours—or 72 hours—or the next week, month, or decade? Where are we entitled to draw the line about God's abilities?

It seems to me that, if Jesus knew what Peter would do in the near future, we cannot deny that God does not know what any of us may do into the indeterminate future. I don't know if God knows these things:

a) because He lives "outside of time" in "the eternal NOW;" or

b) because He has some kind of "middle knowledge" (a concept I do not understand); or

c) because He can extrapolate from present trajectories; or d) because he, like a super computer, can analyze all possibilities and predict near-certain probabilities with pin-point accuracy; or

d) What?

All I can say for sure is that Jesus knew exactly what Peter would choose before Peter chose it. I am given no scriptural guide permitting me to place a particular limit on what else He may know about the unknowable future.

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Post by backwoodsman » Fri May 02, 2014 3:59 pm

mattrose wrote:I tried to lay out a step by step 'proof' so that any critique would have an actual shape (rather than just a statement of disagreement, which is essentially what you have posted).
I figured as much. :) Just didn't have time to write any more at the moment.
I don't see why taking the phrase 'God is love' and combining it with the Bible's most famous definition of love is taking things 'out of context' and 'way way overthinking it'. Actually, it seems pretty straight-forward.
1 John 4 and 1 Cor 13 are talking about love in the context of our relationships with others. To lift out words and phrases and use them to prove a completely different idea, seems to me to be taking them out of context and making them say something entirely different than was intended. And of course, if the premises are faulty, one can hardly expect a reliable result.
What is the biblical basis for the philosophical view that God exists outside of time?
I see it as partly a reasoned view: Physicists tell us that time is a dimension of the physical universe. As such, it's a created thing and therefore has no hold on God. Actually I think "God exists outside of time" is a poor way to express it; I'd say something more like, He exists in & out of all time & space at once. We exist in only one moment of time, with a "before" and an "after"; but God has no "before" and "after", He's everywhere at once. In order to relate to us, He works and communicates in ways that make sense within our limited ability to perceive and understand, but there are many things about Him and His existence that are way beyond our understanding.
3. Therefore, God trusts and hopes
4. Trust and/or Hope imply some degree of risk/uncertainty about the future
I'd agree that there's a sense in which God trusts and hopes. But those imply risk or uncertainty only to us who are limited by time, with no knowledge of the future; there is no risk or uncertainty for God. Some see this as in conflict with free will, but I see no conflict. God doesn't give us choices hoping we'll make the right one; He gives us tests, knowing beforehand whether we'll (a) be faithful, or (b) choose wrongly, in which case we need the trial and resultant growth that He knew would come with the wrong choice He knew we'd make.

So, to my mind, open theism solves a problem that doesn't exist.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Post by mattrose » Fri May 02, 2014 4:13 pm

Thanks for your reply Steve

I guess I don't have a sufficiently persuasive open-theist interpretation of Jesus' prediction of Peter's denials. I've suggested some things in the past (as has Paidion), but obviously you were not persuaded :) Of course, I'm not entirely satisfied with my own guesses on the matter. I wish I had a more persuasive argument. But, for me, the amount of remaining questions in the open theist camp became less numerous than the hurdles I kept bumping up against in alternative viewpoints.

I am like you in the sense that I don't feel a great need to make a final determination. I may be somewhat unlike you in that I feel it is better to pick the view that seems to make the most sense and accept the 'label' (in this case 'open theist'). I have found that when I accept a label (which I never do quickly), I, for whatever reason, feel more equipped to REALLY make a decision about it. I don't know if I explained that very well, but it's probably not so important that it needs to be explained :)

As for the Peter predictions... I can imagine a number of scenarios that may be satisfying. But here's 1....

There may have been some things going on behind the scenes that would explain Jesus' ability to accurately predict Peter's denials in such detail. For example, imagine this hypothetical scenario with me:

A. Imagine that the content of Job 1-2 were true facts, but were never revealed, written-down, and canonized
B. Imagine that God had sent a prophet to Job in the gap between Job 1:12 and Job 1:13 and predicted that "everything you have will be taken away from you today, but you yourself will not be harmed."
C. Imagine, again, that God sent a prophet to Job in the gap between Job 2:6 and Job 2:7 and predicted that "today your flesh and bones will be struck terribly, but your life will be spared."

In such a scenario, a non-open-theist might use those prophecies as evidence that God knows very precise details about the future. But what that non-open-theist did not know was that behind the scenes Satan had specifically requested to do those very things and God had granted permission. They weren't prophecies based on detailed knowledge of the future. They were prophecies based on known realities of the present (known to God, but not to us).

And, to be a bit more aggressive, I could have made this hypothetical scenario much more impressively similar to the Peter situation. Since open-theists believe that God is omniscient and, therefore, knows the present perfectly, it would have been well within God's means to know specifically that Satan was about to use the Sabeans (1:15), natural disasters (1:16, 19), the Chaldeans (1:17), and, later, painful sores (2:7) and to send a prophet to prophecy that level of detail. In such a scenario, non-open-theists would likely use those 'prophecies' just as often as they refer to Jesus' prophecy about Peter. But as impressive as such arguments would sound, they would actually be misinformed because God's knowledge of what was about to happen to Job was not based on knowing the future in advance but based on knowing what He had given permission to Satan to do and knowing what kind of devil Satan was and what kind of 'resources' were available to him.

Of course, I'm not claiming that this sort of 'behind the scenes' was going on in the case of Jesus' prediction about Peter (although Luke 22:31 could be used to support such a theory), just that there are so many possible 'behind the scenes' factors that we aren't privy too that imagining a scenario which makes an open-theist interpretation of the Peter prophecy legitimate is not actually as difficult as it might, at first, seem.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Post by mattrose » Fri May 02, 2014 4:57 pm

backwoodsman wrote: I figured as much. :) Just didn't have time to write any more at the moment.
No worries. Glad you came back :)
1 John 4 and 1 Cor 13 are talking about love in the context of our relationships with others. To lift out words and phrases and use them to prove a completely different idea, seems to me to be taking them out of context and making them say something entirely different than was intended. And of course, if the premises are faulty, one can hardly expect a reliable result.
Why would you expect there to be a dis-continuity between God's kind of love and the kind of love God wants us to have for one another? Isn't part of the point that there is a continuity there?
I see it as partly a reasoned view: Physicists tell us that time is a dimension of the physical universe. As such, it's a created thing and therefore has no hold on God. Actually I think "God exists outside of time" is a poor way to express it; I'd say something more like, He exists in & out of all time & space at once. We exist in only one moment of time, with a "before" and an "after"; but God has no "before" and "after", He's everywhere at once. In order to relate to us, He works and communicates in ways that make sense within our limited ability to perceive and understand, but there are many things about Him and His existence that are way beyond our understanding.
I'm not sure if God's lack of existence 'out of all time' is by necessity or choice. Jurgen Moltmann was once asked about his thoughts on open theism. He said he didn't know what that was. Once it was explained to him, he said "Of course! That's the kenosis of God." It could be that God voluntarily limited Himself to the realm of time in order to make real relationship possible (Though I realize you don't think that would have been necessary). So I could reword your final sentence to say: In order to really relate to us, He actually enters into time." The incarnation of Jesus teaches us that God is incarnational, so it wouldn't be surprising if this were the case.
I'd agree that there's a sense in which God trusts and hopes. But those imply risk or uncertainty only to us who are limited by time, with no knowledge of the future; there is no risk or uncertainty for God. Some see this as in conflict with free will, but I see no conflict. God doesn't give us choices hoping we'll make the right one; He gives us tests, knowing beforehand whether we'll (a) be faithful, or (b) choose wrongly, in which case we need the trial and resultant growth that He knew would come with the wrong choice He knew we'd make.
I would be interested to know more about your thoughts of the sense in which trust and hope can exist alongside certainty.

Thanks for responding!

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: A Simple Argument for Open Theism

Post by Singalphile » Sat May 03, 2014 12:07 pm

Open Theism makes sense in a lot of ways to me, but I can't quite get over some things about it - the things that Steve listed, basically. So, I'm not an open theist.

Regarding the proof: I agree with backwoodsman and Steve's thoughts about 1 Cor 13. I tend not to like putting separate passages by separate authors together like that.

The questions that puzzle my little mind:

Does God know everything that He Himself will ever allow, cause, or communicate (i.e., "do" or "say")?
That means that God knows what decisions He will make before He makes them?

Hmm....

The "kenosis of God" idea seems quite plausible.

Always an interesting topic.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”