Of course part of it is closed. It's just not completely closed. We do agree. And I am an OV'er. Do you feel better, now? I sure do.
The Theory of God's [lack of] Omniscience
- Thread starter Ninjashadow
- Start date
Ninjashadow
New member
I don't consider myself an OV'er, I'm calling myself and MV'er.
I have to ask, what's the M stand for?
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Ninjashadow, (and lighthouse too, I used to believe what you said, that some of the future is closed and some is open, but that view is too general and when considered carefully, contradicts itself. "M" stands for "middle view", see his earlier general post. It's sort of like Arminianism being in between man's free will and God's sovereign (Calvinistic) control, they believe in man's free will but are inconsistent in their reasoning.)
Ninjashadow, you said
(1) God has both self imposed limitations and self or innate limitations that are not optional. For example, God cannot cease to exist because, He is the everlasting God. But you seem to be fine with this now.
(2) You are still sounding inconsistent.
When it's dark outside, we call that night time, when it's light outside, we call that daytime, but there are times when both times seem to overlap to varying degrees. That represents an issue of varying degree (between two or more concepts). And there are issues that are either or. Like truth for example, either a (discrete) truth claim is true or it is not. Either your pregnant or your not, there is no "I'm half pregnant and I half not pregnant", either you are or you are not.
The issue of the entire future being open or closed is an either or situation, you can not have it both ways, not even partly so. The open and closed future issue involves several different elements that help us understand if the future is either open or closed. I believe that you are now talking about "certainty" or "contingency". According to the open view, many things in the future can be certain, but not in the closed view sense, even though they can be absolutely certain! For example, lets give arguably the most certain yet future outcome that we know of.
According to the closed view the exact way that the above statement works itself out, "can only happen according to one unalterable version". And don't forget the comprehensive nature of this yet future outcome, it can only happen according to one unalterable version, everything must happen exactly as it is destined to happen. That means that every single molecule and electron and subatomic particle in the entire universe must be perfectly aligned in the exact same fashion, everyone who exists must be doing the same thing they are fated to be doing, etc. otherwise the version of events that happen when God defeats all evil would not exactly be according to the closed view.
However, according to the open view and some things being absolutely certain, the above example can become exactly fulfilled in a gazillion different alternate versions, even if some of the most noticeable differences are from tangent non essential sources.
If any part of the future is closed, then what about all of life leading up to that point? Could it really happen in different ways and then end up perfectly aligning up with that so called closed event? No it could not. Just consider atoms again. "Every single electron" must end up lining up with the same order and position and spin and angular motion as is required by any closed view account. And the only way such terribly comprehensive alignment is going to possibly work is to have everything leading up to that event happen perfectly according to one unalterable version. Even the slightest change in anyone's hand moving slightly differently would instantly make trillions of electrons follow a different path and would NOT align the way they were supposed to in order to perfectly match that one yet future so called closed outcome.
No differences in who exist can happen, because they all must be there, and if your father died before fathering you, then obviously a change happened that the closed view cannot remotely survive.
That is just two examples, I could give many. Here's the moral of the story, if any yet future event is closed, then the entire future is closed. If any yet future event is open, then the entire future is open, it is an either or situation. The way you have some things absolutely certain in a world that has an open future, is because those things are absolutely certain because they will be brought about by that which is absolutely certain, God and His righteous and faithful character. And that absolutely certain yet future event can NOT be according to the closed view, or else the entire future is closed, and it is not.
Ninjashadow, you said
This change is far to quick for me. I want to better understand what you seem to believe. But first, let's examine what you just said.
(1) God has both self imposed limitations and self or innate limitations that are not optional. For example, God cannot cease to exist because, He is the everlasting God. But you seem to be fine with this now.
(2) You are still sounding inconsistent.
When it's dark outside, we call that night time, when it's light outside, we call that daytime, but there are times when both times seem to overlap to varying degrees. That represents an issue of varying degree (between two or more concepts). And there are issues that are either or. Like truth for example, either a (discrete) truth claim is true or it is not. Either your pregnant or your not, there is no "I'm half pregnant and I half not pregnant", either you are or you are not.
The issue of the entire future being open or closed is an either or situation, you can not have it both ways, not even partly so. The open and closed future issue involves several different elements that help us understand if the future is either open or closed. I believe that you are now talking about "certainty" or "contingency". According to the open view, many things in the future can be certain, but not in the closed view sense, even though they can be absolutely certain! For example, lets give arguably the most certain yet future outcome that we know of.
- Yet future absolute certainty
In the end, God will win and defeat evil and all who are the enemies of God.
According to the closed view the exact way that the above statement works itself out, "can only happen according to one unalterable version". And don't forget the comprehensive nature of this yet future outcome, it can only happen according to one unalterable version, everything must happen exactly as it is destined to happen. That means that every single molecule and electron and subatomic particle in the entire universe must be perfectly aligned in the exact same fashion, everyone who exists must be doing the same thing they are fated to be doing, etc. otherwise the version of events that happen when God defeats all evil would not exactly be according to the closed view.
However, according to the open view and some things being absolutely certain, the above example can become exactly fulfilled in a gazillion different alternate versions, even if some of the most noticeable differences are from tangent non essential sources.
If any part of the future is closed, then what about all of life leading up to that point? Could it really happen in different ways and then end up perfectly aligning up with that so called closed event? No it could not. Just consider atoms again. "Every single electron" must end up lining up with the same order and position and spin and angular motion as is required by any closed view account. And the only way such terribly comprehensive alignment is going to possibly work is to have everything leading up to that event happen perfectly according to one unalterable version. Even the slightest change in anyone's hand moving slightly differently would instantly make trillions of electrons follow a different path and would NOT align the way they were supposed to in order to perfectly match that one yet future so called closed outcome.
No differences in who exist can happen, because they all must be there, and if your father died before fathering you, then obviously a change happened that the closed view cannot remotely survive.
That is just two examples, I could give many. Here's the moral of the story, if any yet future event is closed, then the entire future is closed. If any yet future event is open, then the entire future is open, it is an either or situation. The way you have some things absolutely certain in a world that has an open future, is because those things are absolutely certain because they will be brought about by that which is absolutely certain, God and His righteous and faithful character. And that absolutely certain yet future event can NOT be according to the closed view, or else the entire future is closed, and it is not.
Last edited:
Hey thats pretty cool!
I think you will come to find your new found view is biblically sound. And frankly, you can call yourself a middle viewer or a open viewer or anything else it really doesn't matter to me about the label. The most important thing is realizing that God doesn't ordain all the details of all of time either through direct decree or through exhaustive foreknowledge.
Guys... guys... lets give the guy a break! I think he has come around and thats a good thing....... right?
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Knight, ok, you make a good point, but this change in Ninjashadow may be premature. Like many Arminians, they claim authentic free will but give God exhaustive foreknowledge, their inconsistency is not refreshing and serves to seriously undermine the truth and logical consistency.
Your point is worth serious appreciation.
:thumb:
Your point is worth serious appreciation.
What you said is so solid and right to the point, but I'm not sure what you said sits well with him yet. It'll be interesting to see his reaction.
:thumb:
True... but if we start beating a dead horse before the horse is even dead the horse tends to run away.
I have to stay fresh my man!
I could tell ya..... but then I would have to kill ya!
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Knight
On the other hand, godly love is not too worried about always making the truth a mild pleasing experience. Even a righteous rebuke is a good and godly thing even though that would scare away a fallen horse in a heartbeat. Yet trouble is averted when the wise man responds with love. His response of agreement or disagreement is up to him, it's not up to us and our harsher or softer environment. Fear should never be too determinative compared to godly love.
So much to learn and share and ponder and compare to God's word.
All the same, one doable step at a time.
LOL, yes, such is life sometimes. ... Where's my horse beater.
On the other hand, godly love is not too worried about always making the truth a mild pleasing experience. Even a righteous rebuke is a good and godly thing even though that would scare away a fallen horse in a heartbeat. Yet trouble is averted when the wise man responds with love. His response of agreement or disagreement is up to him, it's not up to us and our harsher or softer environment. Fear should never be too determinative compared to godly love.
Patience is a virtue that I am a bit leery of because our time is so short. Sometimes being patient is a way of allowing others to remain in false and destructive teachings.
So much to learn and share and ponder and compare to God's word.
All the same, one doable step at a time.
I commend you for humility and teachableness. We must follow the evidence. The future is partially settled and partially open. These 2 motifs are found in Scripture, and we do not have to pit one set of verses against another.
The way God chose to limit His knowledge of the future was by creating other free moral agents with a say in the future (contingent choices vs determinism). The only way God could have exhaustive foreknowledge is to not create genuinely free moral agents. He would have to create a deterministic universe, which He did not, to know the future as a total certainty vs possibility.
So, I think you are almost there, but tweak the idea that God could have exhaustive foreknowledge if He wants. He does not just turn knowledge off. He knows everything that is logically knowable. His knowledge is limited by the type of creation He freely chose, not by His arbitrary will (you cannot will to not know something that is knowable if you are omniscient).
There is a view about 'middle knowledge' that emphasizes possibilities/counterfactuals. It is also called Molinism. William Lane Craig holds to this, but I think it is also problematic. You might find it interesting.
1Way: The future is partly settled if it is things that God will bring to pass because He purposes to do so apart from man's will (Is. 46).. e.g. After the Fall, the possible plan of redemption was implemented as a certain plan (Gen. 3). This does not mean it became an actuality. This happened at the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ thousands of years later. His Second Coming is also 'predestined' or certain. Nothing will thwart it. The future general judgments in Revelation will come to pass, though the minor details are not fixed or settled. The mystery of the Church was also in the mind and plan of God before Pentecost. He purposed to have a people for Himself, Israel, and the Body of Christ. Just because things are not predestined or decreed from infinite eternity past, does not mean some things about the future are not settled in God's mind. The possibilities will become certainties/actualities. The Messiah was prophesied and did come.
The open areas are genuinely possible, but not certain. God did not know which individuals would be saved billions of years before they were created. This is not an object of knowledge.
There are varities of Open Theism. Dr. Gregory Boyd (calls himself a Neo-Molinist) gives evidence for these 2 motifs in Scripture:
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=494
I trust you will look at the verses and arguments and not say I am looking to man for my ideas. Again, if Enyart can help you understand Mid-Acts and Open Theism, than Boyd could be considered for his understanding of relevant verses. Why reinvent the wheel? There are no original thoughts, someone has said.
Last edited:
1 Way. I did not mean that the future was closed in the vein that God can see the future, but that He knows things He is going to do, and when He is going to do them. And He has decreed certain things. Knight is correct. I agree with what he posted in reply to ninjashadow.
Ninjashadow
New member
1way, my change was not as sudden as you may think. If you fully followed my posts, I have said that I am not a staunch CV'er. I have always been open to others opinions. I like to consider myself a reasonable guy and will listen to others.
Now, I have said all along that I agree that God has power over His powers. God IS, WAS, and ALWAYS will BE and I have no doubt about that. Now, as for the self imposed limitations, I believe that God COULD exhaustively know the future, but chooses not to because, in the grand scheme of things, He would know that Skip would reject him and that does not fit into what the bible says. However, God has to know part of the future, otherwise, how else would he be able to tell John the book of Revelations?
Now, I have said all along that I agree that God has power over His powers. God IS, WAS, and ALWAYS will BE and I have no doubt about that. Now, as for the self imposed limitations, I believe that God COULD exhaustively know the future, but chooses not to because, in the grand scheme of things, He would know that Skip would reject him and that does not fit into what the bible says. However, God has to know part of the future, otherwise, how else would he be able to tell John the book of Revelations?
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
ninjashadow, your relative flexibility may be a good thing, but I don't think it is in this case. It was because of several things you said that give me reason to believe that you may be premature about some conclusions you have made. You sound very much like an Arminian, and they are notorious for being irrational and inconsistent concerning these issues of man's free will and God's foreknowledge and His sovereign control. You want to mix the two (open and closed theism) as though they can be mixed, they can not. Either the one is true or the other, not both, that is impossible.
That was why I think you are changing your mind a bit hastily, because you are presenting somewhat inconsistent (or incongruent) ideas.
Please respond to Knight's comment about what you supposedly believe. Is it accurate or what would you change and why?
That was why I think you are changing your mind a bit hastily, because you are presenting somewhat inconsistent (or incongruent) ideas.
Please respond to Knight's comment about what you supposedly believe. Is it accurate or what would you change and why?
Ninjashadow
New member
I am not an armenian and I'm not irrational. I started this thread because I thought that open view caused God to be limited in a way that caused Him to no longer be an all powerful God. I have changed my view because what Knight and Lighthouse and you have said has made sense. However, there are parts of the future that cannot be completely open because God used the prophets to tell of Jesus coming and there is the book of Revelation.
I guess I kind of look at it this way: God is the writer of a book and he has a beginning (Creation) and He's written the end (Armegeddon or whatnot), but He's letting the characters work their way towards that ending with but a little guidance and help when they ask for it.
I guess I kind of look at it this way: God is the writer of a book and he has a beginning (Creation) and He's written the end (Armegeddon or whatnot), but He's letting the characters work their way towards that ending with but a little guidance and help when they ask for it.
Generalities are revealed. The specific details to achieve the consummation in Revelation could vary and are incidental (it does not matter if I live or die, the earth will be judged with or without my presence). God will bring to pass the judgments regardless of what man does or does not do. He will return to set up a kingdom. We cannot stop this nor do Christians want to.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
ninjashadow,
I did not mean to insinuate that you are an Arminian, but only that you reason (somewhat) like one. However I find your clarification to be both helpful and encouraging, but I still wonder about your response to Knight's line drawn in the sand, please respond. You have been repeatedly drawn attention to it and yet for some reason you seem to be reluctant to respond.
It's ok, relax, your with friends, or at least family, you don't have to answer everything all the time. And we don't have to all think and talk alike, ,,, we are just supposed to have the same believes and faith, that's all.
I like your recent expression in that parts of the future can not be completely open (as in open to optional outcomes? No, even some absolute certainties can have unfold with optional events. Open to contingency? Yes, some yet future things are not a matter of contingency, instead they rely upon God and His unchanging nature.). Technically that is still a contingency, but one that rests upon an absolutely certain being. So I suppose that you mean to suggest that some yet future events involve a great deal of (or absolute) certainty and not simply that some of the future is not like the open view which involves numerous concepts
Some yet future things are absolutely certain, but not in the same sense that the closed view requires them to be. That distinction may become more and more helpful as you consider these views.
Thanks for including me in your conversion process, but I should say that apparently these guys; Knight and lighthouse, deserve foundational credit, although looking back I was in on some early discussions. I hope some of my illustrations proved helpful, but I mostly agreed with what Knight and lighthouse was trying to say and tried to press home a logical constraint, namely that the future can not be both open and closed to at least some contingency, that is a logical impossibility. Either the future is according to the closed view, or the open view. Maybe that point is less than clear or agreeable, maybe not. The important thing is that you seem to becoming grounded against the false teachings most commonly associated with closed theism. Let God be true and every man a liar.
Blessings to you :cloud9: and thanks for starting such an interesting thread. Looking forward to more!
I did not mean to insinuate that you are an Arminian, but only that you reason (somewhat) like one. However I find your clarification to be both helpful and encouraging, but I still wonder about your response to Knight's line drawn in the sand, please respond. You have been repeatedly drawn attention to it and yet for some reason you seem to be reluctant to respond.
It's ok, relax, your with friends, or at least family, you don't have to answer everything all the time. And we don't have to all think and talk alike, ,,, we are just supposed to have the same believes and faith, that's all.
I like your recent expression in that parts of the future can not be completely open (as in open to optional outcomes? No, even some absolute certainties can have unfold with optional events. Open to contingency? Yes, some yet future things are not a matter of contingency, instead they rely upon God and His unchanging nature.). Technically that is still a contingency, but one that rests upon an absolutely certain being. So I suppose that you mean to suggest that some yet future events involve a great deal of (or absolute) certainty and not simply that some of the future is not like the open view which involves numerous concepts
- foreknowledge, exhaustive or not
yet future contingency, real or not
yet future certainty, absolute and exhaustive or not
man's free will, real or not
optional yet future outcomes, real or not
Some yet future things are absolutely certain, but not in the same sense that the closed view requires them to be. That distinction may become more and more helpful as you consider these views.
Thanks for including me in your conversion process,
but I should say that apparently these guys; Knight and lighthouse, deserve foundational credit, although looking back I was in on some early discussions. I hope some of my illustrations proved helpful, but I mostly agreed with what Knight and lighthouse was trying to say and tried to press home a logical constraint, namely that the future can not be both open and closed to at least some contingency, that is a logical impossibility. Either the future is according to the closed view, or the open view. Maybe that point is less than clear or agreeable, maybe not. The important thing is that you seem to becoming grounded against the false teachings most commonly associated with closed theism. Let God be true and every man a liar.Blessings to you :cloud9: and thanks for starting such an interesting thread. Looking forward to more!
Last edited: