God's foreknowledge of all things is based on His decree. That means that God does not foreknow simply because He is able to see ahead what everyone will do, but He knows everything that will come to pass because He knows what He has decreed to be. I have Scripture for that, so answer carefully.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
Question: Going really really fast means you will be on earth later than those who go really really slow. But it takes so much energy to go really really fast, a person has to wonder--is it worth the energy it takes? Just think--while we are out there in the ozone speeding around, others will be enjoying a leisurely cup of coffee and keeping up with the news of which we won't be a part. I think I will just be a slow poke.Clete said:
seekinganswers
New member
Philetus,
My joy is great after having read your last post, because you words are filled with wisdom and love. I do regret that people will ignore this exchange of ours because their attention-spans have been far altered by quick retorts to one another and the polarization of their arguments. I think this has to do with the ways in which our world has shaped them in its politic (i.e. the political nature of the states into which they are born) which far impedes their ability to see more than two options for an argument. We can try to bring others in through shorter posts (which will require a much more narrow topic), but I think the natural response for a person in our world is to take a side always, unless they have submitted themselves to the words of Christ, and found unity therein. And I do realize that even we must continue to submit to Christ; we have not already attained all this, nor have we already been made perfect, but we press on to the goal to take hold of that for which Christ took hold of us.
That said, I find that we have been caught up in a remnant of and made victims to this polarization of arguments, because in our postings we have pushed one another to the extreme side of the argument. I have assumed that you have crossed the line into process theology; You have assumed that I am a Calvinist who believes in double predestination (which is so funny to me, and a bit mind-boggling; and I'm sure you would think it is funny that I thought you were crossing over into process theology, or at least you would be a bit blow-away as well). What we may discover if we talk it out a little bit more, is that our assumptions for one-another have been driving our responses to one-another, so in making our assumptions about the other, we have only succeeded in solidifying the other's view of our own position (which is not near as close to the truth as it could be). This is not to say that our differences have now been errased, but it is to say that we could come to a greater understanding of one another if we leave behind our assumptions.
So let me first tell you why I have been arguing against process-theology (and I'm assuming you already know what process-theology is, so I won't detail that). I went to a university and majored in religion. At that school one of the very influential professors in the department dabbled in process-theology, and was border-line open supporter of it. He often spoke of his love of Cobb's theology in his classes (though it was not a central part of the curriculum). Now I loved this professor very much, because he was a good teacher and listened to his students. But by my Junior year I was not so willing to see his dabbling in process theology as an innocent experiement on his part. He brought a lot of students into his camp, and probably was the reason for many a protest given to the administration from angry parents. Fortunately for me I was given a very different point of view by another professor, who happened to be the pastor at my local congregation. His views balanced me out quite a bit, and my pastor at the local congregation was far from a double-predestination calvinist; in fact, he is a pastor in the Church of the Nazarene, and he sees the views of Wesley as very important to our tradition. So when I defend myself against your Open Theism, it is because I am still dealing with the open wounds of the process-theology taught by that professor at my college. And you will hopefully understand why I begin with the transcendant God; it is not my attempt to create the traditional immutable view of God spouted by many of the members of even in my own tradition. I start with the transcendant God because God must first be a mystery to us before we can embrace the even greater mystery of his revelation to us through his Son, Jesus the Christ.
The transcendant God is not the omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscent God that is espoused by the Calvinists. That God is no longer a mystery to the Calvinists, so he has been fashioned by the Calvinists; this god is an idol. The transcendant God I speak of is the God who is other than us; this is the God who is trinity; this is the God we don't know, because the gods we know are all gods made in our image; and this is the God who must reveal himself to us in Christ.
Does this help you at all as you try to understand what I have posted? I am not a double-predestination Calvinist. But I am not so easily convinced by your particular open-view of God. I am just convinced that the grounding of events is solidified in God. This is not to say that how one responds to those events is set in stone, but that God is working in a particular way in History, and God has not changed that working because of human decision, for if God were to change according to what humans do, than God responds to sin on sin's own terms. When I read the scriptures I never see a God who needs to sit back and ponder what to do now because people have sinned. Even in the story of Sodom and Gomorra, though God listens to Abraham, God still destroys the cities. God is the actant in the Creation; God is not within a causal relationship with the Creation. The Creation is ground and sourced in God; not vice-versa. And what I see in an open view of God where God must respond to sin is this hint of process-theology, where the relationship between God and humanity is equal, and they influence and change one another. I refuse to believe that God becomes more relational in God's interaction with the Creation, for I find in the Creation that thinks it has anything to add to the relationship there is nothing but distortion and sin. God is the grounding for relationship, and that means God drives the events that unfold in the Creation. That is not to say that God sits with his finger above human beings as if they were dolls in his playhouse moving them around according to his whim. But it is to say that the house in which humans interact is set by God.
Humans, though they can disobey, cannot destroy the house. They can't utterly destroy the Creation, even with sin. When Adam and Eve fell, God said that their fall would not bring an end to the Creation. Though distortion enters, God's ultimate desires for a Creation at rest would be brought about. So, even at the beginning of all things, the eschaton was established. In the beginning, when God was creating the Heavens and the Earth, God began his work with the seventh day already in mind. So to say that humanity ever threatened the work of God is not appropriate in my mind, for that is to give a power to sin that I don't want sin to have, and is a power that I know sin does not have.
You see, Philetus, I see a wonderful driving narrative in this Creation that has not been under the control of humanity, but that has been held in God, and in which humans have chosen to participate and have been invited to do so by God. I think it is very interesting that the blessing of God always falls on the second child, the weaker child, throughout the narrative. God's choosing is not what men would choose. So when I see Paul in Romans talking about Jesus as the second and true Adam, and when Luke uses the language of Son of God for Adam in his Geneology of Jesus, I see a theme that has been present throughout the narrative of the scriptures continuing to the very end. God chooses the lesser Son by human standards to be the greatest son and to be a blessing to the first Son; and God chooses what is barren to bring about God's actions. These themes can be witnessed throughout the narrative of the scriptures. God elects Isaac, Jacob, Benjamin, David, ect., ect. (and I'm not talking about a Calvinist's understanding of election here, but am using the very language of the scriptures where God does what God wants). God gives life in the midst of barreness in Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Elizabeth. And God doesn't care what men do, but brings about God's plans through these people. Yes, people have to respond to participate in God, but they do not have to respond for God to bring about his plans through them.
God is not open in the sense that God doesn't know the end. God does know the end, and does so because he is active in bringing it about. God hasn't just set the Creation into motion and let it come to whatever end it will come to. Humans aren't that good at distorting the Creation. God has been active in bringing about the true Creation, and will preserve that from the distortion of sin. And this is the only way in which humanity would have any choice to follow God, through the call of God on them. And this call is not delivered by some whim of God in the heavens to certain people, but it is proclaimed in the Heavens and throughout all the earth in the gospel (good news) or our Lord, Jesus the Christ.
The scriptures have succeeded, because they are the witness of God's activity in the Creation. And the scriptures point us to the Good News, the call that God has given us to follow Christ. It isn't good enough to just have a relationship with God or with Christ. That language is far too easily twisted by our own understanding of relationship. We are called to follow Christ, and that is not so easily twisted by our understanding of it (unless we let the language go for more "relevant" talk). It requires faithfulness, love, and hope, preserverance, and long-suffering. It requires that the Spirit of God given through Christ be living among us to teach us how to live like Christ. And it requires that we submit to that spirit through our love of God and of our neighbor.
Our choice remains, but it is grounded in God, and not in ourselves. It is not a choice to live in God or live in sin. It is a choice to live or to die, as Joshua would put. God has set before us life that we might live. And if we must choose, let us choose life. But there is nothing the other way. It is either life in God, or destruction and death.
But as you said, Philetus, this is wrapped up in our Lord Jesus Christ, and that is where we must come together. Not in the way that we have been told we can have a "relationship" with Christ. We must come to him as he has called us to come to him, and then and only then will we find rest for our lives. Christ must be our Lord. We must yield to his command, and by his grace we will be restored!
Peace,
Michael
My joy is great after having read your last post, because you words are filled with wisdom and love. I do regret that people will ignore this exchange of ours because their attention-spans have been far altered by quick retorts to one another and the polarization of their arguments. I think this has to do with the ways in which our world has shaped them in its politic (i.e. the political nature of the states into which they are born) which far impedes their ability to see more than two options for an argument. We can try to bring others in through shorter posts (which will require a much more narrow topic), but I think the natural response for a person in our world is to take a side always, unless they have submitted themselves to the words of Christ, and found unity therein. And I do realize that even we must continue to submit to Christ; we have not already attained all this, nor have we already been made perfect, but we press on to the goal to take hold of that for which Christ took hold of us.
That said, I find that we have been caught up in a remnant of and made victims to this polarization of arguments, because in our postings we have pushed one another to the extreme side of the argument. I have assumed that you have crossed the line into process theology; You have assumed that I am a Calvinist who believes in double predestination (which is so funny to me, and a bit mind-boggling; and I'm sure you would think it is funny that I thought you were crossing over into process theology, or at least you would be a bit blow-away as well). What we may discover if we talk it out a little bit more, is that our assumptions for one-another have been driving our responses to one-another, so in making our assumptions about the other, we have only succeeded in solidifying the other's view of our own position (which is not near as close to the truth as it could be). This is not to say that our differences have now been errased, but it is to say that we could come to a greater understanding of one another if we leave behind our assumptions.
So let me first tell you why I have been arguing against process-theology (and I'm assuming you already know what process-theology is, so I won't detail that). I went to a university and majored in religion. At that school one of the very influential professors in the department dabbled in process-theology, and was border-line open supporter of it. He often spoke of his love of Cobb's theology in his classes (though it was not a central part of the curriculum). Now I loved this professor very much, because he was a good teacher and listened to his students. But by my Junior year I was not so willing to see his dabbling in process theology as an innocent experiement on his part. He brought a lot of students into his camp, and probably was the reason for many a protest given to the administration from angry parents. Fortunately for me I was given a very different point of view by another professor, who happened to be the pastor at my local congregation. His views balanced me out quite a bit, and my pastor at the local congregation was far from a double-predestination calvinist; in fact, he is a pastor in the Church of the Nazarene, and he sees the views of Wesley as very important to our tradition. So when I defend myself against your Open Theism, it is because I am still dealing with the open wounds of the process-theology taught by that professor at my college. And you will hopefully understand why I begin with the transcendant God; it is not my attempt to create the traditional immutable view of God spouted by many of the members of even in my own tradition. I start with the transcendant God because God must first be a mystery to us before we can embrace the even greater mystery of his revelation to us through his Son, Jesus the Christ.
The transcendant God is not the omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscent God that is espoused by the Calvinists. That God is no longer a mystery to the Calvinists, so he has been fashioned by the Calvinists; this god is an idol. The transcendant God I speak of is the God who is other than us; this is the God who is trinity; this is the God we don't know, because the gods we know are all gods made in our image; and this is the God who must reveal himself to us in Christ.
Does this help you at all as you try to understand what I have posted? I am not a double-predestination Calvinist. But I am not so easily convinced by your particular open-view of God. I am just convinced that the grounding of events is solidified in God. This is not to say that how one responds to those events is set in stone, but that God is working in a particular way in History, and God has not changed that working because of human decision, for if God were to change according to what humans do, than God responds to sin on sin's own terms. When I read the scriptures I never see a God who needs to sit back and ponder what to do now because people have sinned. Even in the story of Sodom and Gomorra, though God listens to Abraham, God still destroys the cities. God is the actant in the Creation; God is not within a causal relationship with the Creation. The Creation is ground and sourced in God; not vice-versa. And what I see in an open view of God where God must respond to sin is this hint of process-theology, where the relationship between God and humanity is equal, and they influence and change one another. I refuse to believe that God becomes more relational in God's interaction with the Creation, for I find in the Creation that thinks it has anything to add to the relationship there is nothing but distortion and sin. God is the grounding for relationship, and that means God drives the events that unfold in the Creation. That is not to say that God sits with his finger above human beings as if they were dolls in his playhouse moving them around according to his whim. But it is to say that the house in which humans interact is set by God.
Humans, though they can disobey, cannot destroy the house. They can't utterly destroy the Creation, even with sin. When Adam and Eve fell, God said that their fall would not bring an end to the Creation. Though distortion enters, God's ultimate desires for a Creation at rest would be brought about. So, even at the beginning of all things, the eschaton was established. In the beginning, when God was creating the Heavens and the Earth, God began his work with the seventh day already in mind. So to say that humanity ever threatened the work of God is not appropriate in my mind, for that is to give a power to sin that I don't want sin to have, and is a power that I know sin does not have.
You see, Philetus, I see a wonderful driving narrative in this Creation that has not been under the control of humanity, but that has been held in God, and in which humans have chosen to participate and have been invited to do so by God. I think it is very interesting that the blessing of God always falls on the second child, the weaker child, throughout the narrative. God's choosing is not what men would choose. So when I see Paul in Romans talking about Jesus as the second and true Adam, and when Luke uses the language of Son of God for Adam in his Geneology of Jesus, I see a theme that has been present throughout the narrative of the scriptures continuing to the very end. God chooses the lesser Son by human standards to be the greatest son and to be a blessing to the first Son; and God chooses what is barren to bring about God's actions. These themes can be witnessed throughout the narrative of the scriptures. God elects Isaac, Jacob, Benjamin, David, ect., ect. (and I'm not talking about a Calvinist's understanding of election here, but am using the very language of the scriptures where God does what God wants). God gives life in the midst of barreness in Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Elizabeth. And God doesn't care what men do, but brings about God's plans through these people. Yes, people have to respond to participate in God, but they do not have to respond for God to bring about his plans through them.
God is not open in the sense that God doesn't know the end. God does know the end, and does so because he is active in bringing it about. God hasn't just set the Creation into motion and let it come to whatever end it will come to. Humans aren't that good at distorting the Creation. God has been active in bringing about the true Creation, and will preserve that from the distortion of sin. And this is the only way in which humanity would have any choice to follow God, through the call of God on them. And this call is not delivered by some whim of God in the heavens to certain people, but it is proclaimed in the Heavens and throughout all the earth in the gospel (good news) or our Lord, Jesus the Christ.
The scriptures have succeeded, because they are the witness of God's activity in the Creation. And the scriptures point us to the Good News, the call that God has given us to follow Christ. It isn't good enough to just have a relationship with God or with Christ. That language is far too easily twisted by our own understanding of relationship. We are called to follow Christ, and that is not so easily twisted by our understanding of it (unless we let the language go for more "relevant" talk). It requires faithfulness, love, and hope, preserverance, and long-suffering. It requires that the Spirit of God given through Christ be living among us to teach us how to live like Christ. And it requires that we submit to that spirit through our love of God and of our neighbor.
Our choice remains, but it is grounded in God, and not in ourselves. It is not a choice to live in God or live in sin. It is a choice to live or to die, as Joshua would put. God has set before us life that we might live. And if we must choose, let us choose life. But there is nothing the other way. It is either life in God, or destruction and death.
But as you said, Philetus, this is wrapped up in our Lord Jesus Christ, and that is where we must come together. Not in the way that we have been told we can have a "relationship" with Christ. We must come to him as he has called us to come to him, and then and only then will we find rest for our lives. Christ must be our Lord. We must yield to his command, and by his grace we will be restored!
Peace,
Michael
seekinganswers
New member
Clete said:
First of all, Bob's experient shows an ignorance with regards to the theory (and he admits his ignorance yet he keeps going). It would not take billions of years for the clocks to be off by a day. Even a clock that was off by 2 nanoseconds every year for three billion years would only have a net difference of .6 seconds at the end of 3 billion years. Of course, when we are talking about distortions in nanoseconds we are talking about clocks travelling with acceleration with respect to the clock on the ground and with respect to one another in the airplanes (that is the experiment that was conducted). The differences in the gravitational field of earth on a mountain and on the ground are so minute that we could measure it in much, much fewer than nanoseconds (in fact we don't have the means by which we can measure it). At non-relativistic speeds or in the equivalent gravity wells, Einstein's theories predict that the effects of relativity are so minute they can be ignored. The only place that the theories become useful are when we get closer to the speed of light (when v in the equation approaches c).
So how about we let the people who have devoted their lives to knowing Einstein's theories set up the experiments. The airplane experiment was done and yielded results that Einstein's theory predicted. Two airplanes carrying atomic clocks on board (which measure the decay of Cesium atoms) took off in different directions from a central clock on the earth. When their readings were analized, the plane that flew in a westward direction (against the rotation of the earth) were off by a greater amount than the planes that flew in an eastern direction (with the rotation of the earth). In other words, the clocks that travelled at a greater velocity (because their air speed opposed the rotation of the earth) demonstrated cesium atoms that appeared to have decayed at a slower rate than other cesium atoms that travelled with the same air speed but at slower velocities (because they were travelling with the rotation of the earth). Both planes showed differences from the ground clocks.
But this isn't even close to the most amazing experiment. The most amazing experiment comes with the really high velocities of satellites in orbit, especially those used for GPS tracking on the earth. What we have discovered is that those satelites in their ability to track positions on the earth slowly become less and less acurate over time if one calculates their measurments using only Newtonian Physics. When Einstein's physics are taken into consideration, the satellites are dead on in their positioning. In other words, the satalites were projecting coordinates that were slightly off because they were projecting coordinates from positions slightly into the future of their orbits around the earth. Now they weren't off by too much in their orbits, but when there is a slight position difference and measurements of the surface of the earth that is many hundreds of miles away are taken from that position, this is when a small distortion produces huge effects (miles and miles). Now from the satelite's point of view it had not travelled into the future, but the distances it travelled it will say were slightly shorter than what we were reading from the ground (this is length contraction). It still travelled the distance that it's velocity would allow it to travel within a certain length of time, but because the length was shortened, that translated into a slight shift in its orbit. The satelites weren't firing their engines secretly to go faster; space-time had been distorted by their acceleration with respect to the ground.
The point is, it has been shown that satelites "travel into the future" or from the satelite's point of view that "the end just got closer." It's not true time travel or the true shortening of distances, but it is the affects of acceleration on space/time. Whether Bob can get his little mind around it or not is not the question here. Einstein in his theories is not discussing the quandaries of time travel (for the experiments he poses are not examples of time travel). Within any inertial frame of reference the laws of physics still apply (a person has not jumped into the future). But when comparing inertial frames (looking from one to the other) one must compensate for the distortions of acceleration if one is to accurately observe what is occuring in the other frame of reference. The next time you fly in a plane or travel in a ship, or use GPS, remember that you are getting to your destination with that technology because of Einstein's theories, not because you decided that he was wrong.
Peace,
Michael
seekinganswers
New member
Clete said:
Well I guess it is the same reason you don't understand, "Satalites are sending us future coordinates of our orbit." Of course if you didn't really care, wouldn't you just stop responding? But I guess these intricacies of communication are lost on us.
:sigh:
Peace,
Michael
NewStenographer said:
How does God simply 'see'? The future is not there yet to see. Do not confuse it with the fixed past. They are fundamentally different and known as such (future as possible; past as actual).
Simply assuming that God sees a nothing is not defensible nor coherent.
hermes said:
Decreetal theology is no more defensible than simple foreknowledge. The problem with decrees is that it makes God responsible for heinous evil (contrary to His self-revelation) and makes free will and responsibility illusory.
The strengths and weaknesses of the major views are summarized in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0830826521/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-4390241-3131926#reader-link
(click next page for contexts...I would concur with Boyd and an incompatibilist/libertarian free will view vs compatibilism/determinism).
Seeking: I actually read post #1525, despite my short attention span 
atrol:
I appreciated the tone and background. For the record, Open Theism and Process theology are not in the same boat. Most Open Theists have significant problems with process thought or finite godism. Similar on a few points does not mean identical on all points (I am sure you are aware of this).
I also concur that God's transcendence is important, but not at the exclusion of the paramount emphasis in Scripture on His relationality. They are not diametrically opposed, of course. God is both transcendent and immanent, but His primary revelation is that of a covenant vs deist God.
atrol: I appreciated the tone and background. For the record, Open Theism and Process theology are not in the same boat. Most Open Theists have significant problems with process thought or finite godism. Similar on a few points does not mean identical on all points (I am sure you are aware of this).
I also concur that God's transcendence is important, but not at the exclusion of the paramount emphasis in Scripture on His relationality. They are not diametrically opposed, of course. God is both transcendent and immanent, but His primary revelation is that of a covenant vs deist God.
I have full confidence in my theology, Clete. You place so much value on your thought processes that I am just trying to give you my thought processes in return. Concerning my statement that our own minds are often not a sufficient means toClete said:
determine the extent to which our actions are the result of free will--I answer yes, according to our perceptions. For example, have you ever left the house intending to make a personal purchase, perhaps for the shop, and ended up not buying anything for the shop, but along the way something your wife needed came to mind, or you saw it "by chance," purchased it, and went back home. In everything you did, you were acting according to your own volition--the way you backed out of the drive, the route you took--to all the circumstances you faced you reacted according to your will; but the outcome of your actions was not always according to your will. That doesn't change the fact, however, that throughout the trip, all your actions were volitional. Do you believe that an unsuccessful attempt of a volitional action means that your will was therefore not free? I believe that freedom of will does not necessitate ability to perform that which is willed.
No, godrulz, I am not a compatibalist, Not at all. Unless you define compatibalist as someone who believes the results of the actions of His creatures is always fully compatible with what God intended. Many times men will a thing, and proceed to accomplish it, but somethig funny happens as the man goes about his business. Meaning--man's actions do not always have the effect he intended.godrulz said:
seekinganswers
New member
Clete said:
I have actually been reviewing the theory and articulating it in my own words (as one who has also been taught by others on the subject matter). I haven't been cutting and pasting snipets of the theory for others to read so that they can get a really warped view of Relativity, nor have I referred the people on this cite to a person who admits he doesn't have any true grasp of the theory (namely Bob), and despite the fact that he admits his ineptitude with regards to the theory he procedes to give extensive commentary on the matter and to suggest ludacris experiements that can never be performed to test the theory. And he even has the audacity to dismiss a theory he doesn't understand based on the hypothetical test he gives that can't be performed and you say I'm the one who, let's see how you say it, "doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground concerning it."
Please instead of saying I don't know what I'm talking about, why don't you poke holes in my summaries if you are the almighty and wise one with regards to Einstein's theories. I have pointed out the tests that have actually been done to see if Einstein's theories of relativity actually works. I have referred to the givens of Einstein's theory that must be assumed in order for the theory to work (namely that the laws of physics apply to any non-accelerated inertial frame [the second postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity]), and yet you continue to astound me, because without demonstrating any mastery of the subject greater than my own, you have arrogantly raised yourself above me as by some defacto reasoning of your own you just know more about the theory than I do and don't actually have to demonstrate that mastery. I would love to see you try to pull the same crap on a Black belt in the martial arts, because you would come out of it :hockey: .
Peace,
Michael
- Status