Please explain.
Theology Club: What exactly is Openness?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Openness is the belief that the world as a whole is an open system.
By as a whole I mean the sum total of all real things, including God.
By as a whole I mean the sum total of all real things, including God.
Before you ask:
An open system is a system which changes in respect to its various parts in a way that is determined solely from within that system, i.e. it is not determined from the outside.
For example, a clock mechanism is (in theory) a closed system because it was built and designed by someone who is not a part of that clock mechanism and all it can do is to function in accordance with predetermined rules. At any given time in the future it is possible to predict what state the system will be in by performing a simple calculation based on where the clock hands were pointing at a given time in the past and calculating the elapsed time since then.
Whether or not any actual open system exists is a matter of opinion so it would be pointless in giving any examples of one, however a simple mathematical example is the well known foxes and rabbits system in which foxes eat rabbits and the fox population increases until there are so many foxes that there aren't enough rabbits for them to eat. Then there is mass hunger and death amongst foxes until the fox population dwindles. As the fox population dwindles, the rabbit population booms and so on ad infinitum. The outcome of the system is dependent only on factors within the system, namely the number of rabbits and the number of foxes at any given time.
It has been shown that given even the simplest starting parameters the number of foxes and the number of rabbits at any given time cannot be predicted absolutely and follows no mathematical pattern. (In other words there is no function whereby you can plug in T and get out the number of rabbits and foxes at any given time T.) It is possible to calculate this number by repeated iterations into the future (or working backwards into the past) but to provide a complete prediction would require a computer that consists of the entire universe.
It is the openist's contention that the world as a whole is similar. Whilst it can be predicted a short while in the future and a short spatial distance away from the observer, it is impossible to absolutely predict what will happen at any given time.
An open system is a system which changes in respect to its various parts in a way that is determined solely from within that system, i.e. it is not determined from the outside.
For example, a clock mechanism is (in theory) a closed system because it was built and designed by someone who is not a part of that clock mechanism and all it can do is to function in accordance with predetermined rules. At any given time in the future it is possible to predict what state the system will be in by performing a simple calculation based on where the clock hands were pointing at a given time in the past and calculating the elapsed time since then.
Whether or not any actual open system exists is a matter of opinion so it would be pointless in giving any examples of one, however a simple mathematical example is the well known foxes and rabbits system in which foxes eat rabbits and the fox population increases until there are so many foxes that there aren't enough rabbits for them to eat. Then there is mass hunger and death amongst foxes until the fox population dwindles. As the fox population dwindles, the rabbit population booms and so on ad infinitum. The outcome of the system is dependent only on factors within the system, namely the number of rabbits and the number of foxes at any given time.
It has been shown that given even the simplest starting parameters the number of foxes and the number of rabbits at any given time cannot be predicted absolutely and follows no mathematical pattern. (In other words there is no function whereby you can plug in T and get out the number of rabbits and foxes at any given time T.) It is possible to calculate this number by repeated iterations into the future (or working backwards into the past) but to provide a complete prediction would require a computer that consists of the entire universe.
It is the openist's contention that the world as a whole is similar. Whilst it can be predicted a short while in the future and a short spatial distance away from the observer, it is impossible to absolutely predict what will happen at any given time.
So what then is open theism?
It would also, I think, be the openist's contention that there are in fact no actual closed systems anywhere in the universe.
The clock mechanism for example requires winding up so its actual predictability is compromised for that reason. An actual closed system would be the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.
The clock mechanism for example requires winding up so its actual predictability is compromised for that reason. An actual closed system would be the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.
For me, it is the belief that God is a part of the universal open system. I.e, he is at all times in relation to other parts of the universe. And, as a personal being, he is free to relate to other things in the universe at his own discretion.
www.opentheism.info
The summary page is a good introduction.
Open Theism is a free will, relational theism dealing with the providence of God. It contrasts with Calvinism/determinism, Arminianism (OT is a more biblical, coherent free will theism), Molinism (middle knowledge), Process Thought (heretical).
Some of its distinctives include an emphasis on love, dynamic omniscience (God knows reality as it is and does not have exhaustive definite foreknowledge because of libertarian free will, His sovereign choice), reciprocal relationships, influential prayer, responsiveness vs control (providential vs meticulous control sovereignty), God experiencing endless time, not eternal now timelessness, partially open/partially settled future, etc.
Other areas of theology are not germane to Open Theism, so various soteriological, eschatological, etc. views may be held by adherents.
The summary page is a good introduction.
Open Theism is a free will, relational theism dealing with the providence of God. It contrasts with Calvinism/determinism, Arminianism (OT is a more biblical, coherent free will theism), Molinism (middle knowledge), Process Thought (heretical).
Some of its distinctives include an emphasis on love, dynamic omniscience (God knows reality as it is and does not have exhaustive definite foreknowledge because of libertarian free will, His sovereign choice), reciprocal relationships, influential prayer, responsiveness vs control (providential vs meticulous control sovereignty), God experiencing endless time, not eternal now timelessness, partially open/partially settled future, etc.
Other areas of theology are not germane to Open Theism, so various soteriological, eschatological, etc. views may be held by adherents.
The real reason why God does not have absolute foreknowledge is simple: the future is not there to be known because the future has not happened yet.
It is not fundamentally because of freewill, whether of God or other beings: saying this implies that the future could be predictable if it were not for the existence of freewill beings. That may in itself be true (that freewill beings are unpredictable) but it is not the reason why the future cannot be known. We need to distinguish between being known and being predicted. We can all predict the future but none of us, even God, can know it. Our actions as freewill beings (including God's actions) affect the degree of predictability of the universe but that is all. Even if there were no living beings apart from God, it would still not be possible to absolutely know the future. This is because the universe (=sum total of all real things) is an open system.
If determinism was true absolutely, the future could be known (but not seen as actual). Predictable can be probable, improbable, certain, etc. Contingencies are one reason why the future is not known, but the nature of it as not yet vs actual is also true.
Well, yes, sort of.
If the 'future' were completely predictable, there would be no future at all. Concepts of past, present and future would all be academic. The world would be a kind of perpetual motion machine. We distinguish between past, present and future only because each successive state of the universe is unique. If there were some state of the universe that could be repeated AND everything was determined by some set of rules then it would not be possible to distinguish between the universe as it is "now" and the universe in some future iteration of the same identical state.
Consider even without reference to freewill beings and just considering celestial mechanics. In the late 70s the Voyager I and II probes were launched. It took the world's most powerful computers to set the course for these using sling-shot techniques. To do this required a solution to the 3-body problem. OK, it ws the 70s and much more powerful computers are available now. But consider the solar system consists of not three but millions of bodies. To predict the state of the entire solar system 20 years ahead would require a computer more powerful than the size of the known universe.
And you can't argue that God is as powerful as that (by definition, supposedly) because you would then destroy your starting premise that God is a part of this open system. The only way you can get away with that kind of argument is by taking God out of the universe and giving him different qualities. However, the dualism that this entails (enter Plato, Augustine, Calvin, etc.) means that you cannot define God as real. You effectively define him out of existence. In other words, if you want to start with the premise that God is real, you have to also accept that he is constrained by other real things.
Perhaps that is just a fancy logical way of saying what is really a completely simple and intuitive truth that is inbuilt into every sane person - that when we make decisions, we assume that the course of the world is affected by our decisions and that we are responsible for what we do. What we decide is not the result of some other algorithm, fate, the decree of some infinite being or is a mere illusion.
Last edited:
A theology/science answer:
God is the sovereign creator of the universe, we creatures, the results of his creation are freely open to accept or reject his rule. He always says “yes” to us, but will never stop us from saying “no” to him. Now the terrible consequence of “NO” will result in separation, always and forever, from his presence, the most horrible of all hells. This is because the desired final results of His long ago first act of creation, that explosion of energy, was to ultimately bring into being creatures who would first discover and then live in willing fellowship with their immanent and transcendent God.
In other words God chose from the beginning of time to allow us the right to make mistakes and to fumble our way through time, hopefully, ultimately to an understanding of Him. This kind of free will is impossible if God already knows our decisions and our final fate. Time that has not happened cannot exist putting God as much in this moment as we are. The big difference comes in the form of a God capable of knowing everything that can be known in the entirety of the universe.
The future for this creation is partly open because God chose to create a world with free agents and so possibilities are real. As we see from Scripture, the future is also partly settled. It is settled to whatever degree God wants to settle it. So, with this creation, God chooses to face a partly open and partly settled future. The fact that some of the future (or most of it) is partly open doesn’t hinder God, because God is just as prepared for every future possibility as if it were a certainty. God is infinitely intelligent and so He can see and perfectly anticipate all possibilities at the same time without using an ounce of intellectual effort. Finite beings can’t do such a thing. We can know only so many possibilities before we become mentally fatigued and eventually tapped out. There’s only so much we can be prepared for. God, on the other hand, is prepared for every possible scenario and ready to bring good out of every evil situation. In this view, people actually do have a say-so in things and prayer really can make a difference. I see it as God allowing us to write His story for mankind along with Him.
BR, did, the responses to your OP go someway to answering your question?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Open Theism cannot be explained.
For it is contrary to the universal, biblical truths revealed in scripture by God.
Open Theism can only be theorized, at the peril of the unbelieving speculations of its adherents.
Nang
Open Theism has been explained by doctorate level scholars in countless books and publications.
It is contrary to Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism, but that does not mean it is contrary to Scripture and godly philosophy/logic (you beg the question and assume your view is infallible).
Models of providence do have an element of speculation, yours included, because Scripture is not exhaustive and not revealed in the form of an infallible systematic theology textbook (so there are translation/interpretation issues that we all face in our subjective fallibility as exegetes of the infallible Word/original autographs specifically).
Nang
TOL Subscriber
OT has been theorized by a recent few but never properly explained according to the whole of scripture or the confessions of historical Christian beliefs.
The onus is upon Open Theists to defend their beliefs and explain why they do not accord with historical Protestant beliefs.
You can't just come up with crazy views that declare God does not know and control all things, without faithful and orthodox Christians questioning the basis for your novel (and unbiblical) beliefs!
You underestimate the research on the topic. You also have the same dismissive attitude to Arminianism despite centuries of defense of it.
Reasonable people want to dialogue on this to sort out what is truth and what is tradition. Equally capable, godly believers have held different views over the centuries on any given doctrinal debate. Calvinists tend to be arrogant and Pharisaical (and do not even agree among themselves on many things). The essential truths of Christianity are fully affirmed by Open Theists in general. The exact nature of providence is debatable, just as cessationism vs continuationism is (I am also correct on this and you are likely wrong on it).
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Criticizing me and my views is not responsive to the problematical fact that no one on TOL is able to present a scriptural apologetic for their Open View beliefs.
It is NOT an "essential truth of Christianity" to claim that God is not absolutely Omniscient.
Just saying such a thing, does not make it so . . . And when all of you fail making a scriptural argument for your hapless theories, it only makes you an embarrassment to the testimony of the historic Christian faith.
http://reknew.org/2008/01/is-it-tru...ou-dont-think-god-knows-the-future-perfectly/
e.g.
Tradition is not always truth...:dog: