Does God Ever Change His Mind?

[Laudate_Dominum]

I have three words for Rev.

1. Trinitarian
2. Warfare
3. Theodicy

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='21 April 2010 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1271825999' post='2097209']
Revprodeji ftw!

I recommend this book:

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Appalachian-White-Oak-Basketmaking-Handing/dp/0870496727/ref=pd_ys_home_shvl_50"]Appalachian White Oak Basketmaking[/url]
[/quote]
Win. Plus one.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='21 April 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1271872187' post='2097416']
I have three words for Rev.

1. Trinitarian
2. Warfare
3. Theodicy


[/quote]
Win. Also plus one.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='21 April 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1271872125' post='2097415']
East and West understand free will and predestination differently. The East holds that all men at the level of nature are predestined to redemption through the incarnation of the eternal Son of God. In other words, through the incarnation of the uncreated Logos all of nature has been freed from corruption and the dissolution into non-existence brought about by Adam's fall from grace, and has been given the gift of redemption to everlasting existence. But salvation, on the other hand, concerns the integration of the human person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) with his natural virtues through the power of God's uncreated energies and the activity of his own created free will. Salvation requires that a man enact his will through grace in doing good and avoiding evil. If a man lives a good life through the power of his will restored by grace, he may enter into the vision of the Tri-hypostatic God, but if he fails to integrate his natural virtues into his person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), he damns himself. Thus, in Eastern theology predestination is the universal redemption of all men and of the whole of creation itself from corruption and non-existence, while salvation involves the integration of man's natural virtues with his personal ([i]enhypostatic[/i]) existence through the power of God's uncreated energies and his own free will.
[/quote]

How is this different from the West, aside from differences in terminology?

I mean, we say that all men are predestined for heaven by the redemption of human nature brought about by Christ. We also teach that salvation is when the faithful are restored by participation in grace and the life of God, which is to say that they undergo theosis through sharing in the Divine Nature, specifically through prayerful virtue.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' date='21 April 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1271873034' post='2097423']
How is this different from the West, aside from differences in terminology?

I mean, we say that all men are predestined for heaven by the redemption of human nature brought about by Christ. We also teach that salvation is when the faithful are restored by participation in grace and the life of God, which is to say that they undergo theosis through sharing in the Divine Nature, specifically through prayerful virtue.
[/quote]
Predestination concerns only human nature - assumed by the Logos - and not human persons, who remain free to act and determine their own end in cooperation with grace, i.e., to either ever-well-being (heaven) or ever-ill-being (hell).

[Slappo]

[quote name='Raphael' date='21 April 2010 - 11:03 AM' timestamp='1271873034' post='2097423']
How is this different from the West, aside from differences in terminology?

I mean, [b]we say that all men are predestined for heaven[/b] by the redemption of human nature brought about by Christ. We also teach that salvation is when the faithful are restored by participation in grace and the life of God, which is to say that they undergo theosis through sharing in the Divine Nature, specifically through prayerful virtue.
[/quote]


Tough luck for all them cute women eh?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='21 April 2010 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1271873747' post='2097430']
Predestination concerns only human nature - assumed by the Logos - and not human persons, who remain free to act and determine their own end in cooperation with grace, i.e., to either ever-well-being (heaven) or ever-ill-being (hell).
[/quote]

My understanding (which I thought was in the CCC, but I'm having trouble finding it) was that human nature is predestined for heaven (on that we agree), but that individuals were as well, although they may violate that. Regardless, I admit that I may have misread the issue (it was years ago that I studied this...when I was still a teen, even) and that the sources may actually have simply said "humanity" and not "all persons." I probably lacked the nuance at that time to tell the difference.

*scratches head*

I'll look into this later. Gotta go teach a class now.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' date='21 April 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1271873034' post='2097423']
I mean, we say that all men are predestined for heaven by the redemption of human nature brought about by Christ. . . .
[/quote]
This is well said, but it does not represent the teaching of Aquinas, or of any of the other Scholastics, who, following the views of St. Augustine, taught both positive predestination (of persons) to heaven, and negative reprobation (of persons) to hell.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas . . . God positively wills the salvation of some human beings, while negatively reprobating (i.e., overlooking) other persons [see [i]Summa Theologica[/i], Prima Pars, Question 23, Art. 3]. The Eastern Fathers reject any notion of reprobation - positive or negative - as an act of God.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='21 April 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1271874379' post='2097438']
This is well said, but it does not represent the teaching of Aquinas, or of any of the other Scholastics, who, following the views of St. Augustine, taught both positive predestination (of persons) to heaven, and negative reprobation (of persons) to hell.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas . . . God positively wills the salvation of some human beings, while negatively reprobating (i.e., overlooking) other persons [see [i]Summa Theologica[/i], Prima Pars, Question 23, Art. 3]. The Eastern Fathers reject any notion of reprobation - positive or negative - as an act of God.
[/quote]

*currently researching the issue*

Just to clarify, I'm not a Thomist, but I'm also not a philosopher, so this may take me a little while.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/04/molinism-middle-knowledge.html

If I understand him correctly, I would be a Molinist, which Armstrong claims is far closer to the Eastern Fathers and the Western Fathers (except St. Augustine).

I am an admirer of a number of St. Augustine's positions and St. Thomas' as well, but I belong to neither school.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Raphael' date='21 April 2010 - 05:13 PM' timestamp='1271880819' post='2097474']
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/04/molinism-middle-knowledge.html

If I understand him correctly, I would be a Molinist, which Armstrong claims is far closer to the Eastern Fathers and the Western Fathers (except St. Augustine).

I am an admirer of a number of St. Augustine's positions and St. Thomas' as well, but I belong to neither school.
[/quote]

Yes, I hate the idea of being put in a box like being called a "Thomist". It gives you a sense that you reject other theologians. I am a Jesusist.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='21 April 2010 - 04:24 PM' timestamp='1271881488' post='2097481']
Yes, I hate the idea of being put in a box like being called a "Thomist". It gives you a sense that you reject other theologians. I am a Jesusist.
[/quote]


Still trying to absorb all this.

[afro_john]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='21 April 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1271874379' post='2097438']
This is well said, but it does not represent the teaching of Aquinas, or of any of the other Scholastics, who, following the views of St. Augustine, taught both positive predestination (of persons) to heaven, and negative reprobation (of persons) to hell.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas . . . God positively wills the salvation of some human beings, while negatively reprobating (i.e., overlooking) other persons [see [i]Summa Theologica[/i], Prima Pars, Question 23, Art. 3]. The Eastern Fathers reject any notion of reprobation - positive or negative - as an act of God.
[/quote]

In the West the tradition flows from Augustine and Aquinas that not all men are predestined to heaven. If this were the case (a universalism if you will) then it would actually lessen the glory of God. There is some way that in God choosing to give eternal salvation to some and not to others that He is glorified even more. In the West, talking about being predestined as part of human nature will give you a title of "Pelagian." Through the fall, our human nature has been weakened and shattered and, in God's justice, the only thing that would truly be just for Him to give us would be damnation.

[N/A Gone]

True Catholicity does not mean I need to buy into the metaphysical system you buy into. I affirm the dogmas about God. It is a matter of how they apply to metaphysics. The core of this debate is how we understand time. The way you understand Time (dimensional sense) creates a contradiction in that you cannot have God “experience” time. He cannot “change” so this means he is “outside” of time and time is a “once” for him. Honestly, this makes no sense to a rational mind. There is nothing in the biblical witness to make us even want to try and justify this. If anything, you are making God weak. He becomes Mr. Burns and cannot touch time because he might change. (oh no) where as immutability as I understand it becomes a strength. He cannot change because he is fulfillment. In change we either grow or decline. God is absolute so there is no room or way to grow or decline. I believe he can and does experience but he is perfection so the experience does not “change him.


[quote name='Raphael' date='21 April 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1271823502' post='2097197']
Because God exists outside of time, He sees all things as the present, including all that will happen in the future. This means that in order to say that there are "opened realities" which are not "set," God would not be able to see what is laid before Him as present. If there is an open reality in the future, whether I choose A or B is not "set," I will still choose one or the other, and though it is unknown to me, my future is present to God, and He knows what I will choose. Ultimately, to say that there is any moment in time which God cannot see or does not know is to limit God, so yes, it does deal with theology and not just with time.
Now if you want to bring quantum mechanics and parallel realities into it, I really don't have the physics to go there, but I can say without a shadow of a doubt t[b]hat if Open Theism means that God reacts to what we do as if He wasn't expecting it or didn't foresee it, then that's heresy.[/b]
I'm content with my view, which is in line with Revelation and still allows for interaction between man and God. I really don't care what an anti-Catholic evangelical things of my metaphysics. I think Open Theism is a goofy nonsensical way of very confusingly arguing for a subjectivism in God.
[/quote]

I disagree with the premise of God "outside of time". I think that is a bad concept of time and a forced limiting of God based on that bad understanding of time. What Open theism would say is that God perfectly knows all of the options that our free will and others are making happen. Nothing surprises God. God does not get "caught off guard" he perfectly knows all of the options. It is still a matter of our determination making them happen. God works with us and with these "options" but does not violate free will. Stop using the term "future" or "moment". You are speaking of time in a dimensional sense and my understanding of Open Theism rejects that premise. Time is simply our way to understand change and our interactions. The "future" does not really exist other than my ability to think of the possibilities. Your "bold" section is important because this is what classically is accused of Open Theism by protestants like Bruce Ware and I would agree with you that it is a heresy. God does react and interact with us. He is relational, but nothing is unexpected, nothing will "catch him off guard" or "surprise" him. If you think Open Theism is a "goofy nonsensical way of very confusingly arguing for a subjective God" then why are you commenting like you are an expert? Perhaps your negative opinion of it is the result of you not really understanding it. In all respect.

[quote name='SaintOfVirtue' date='21 April 2010 - 01:34 AM' timestamp='1271828068' post='2097215']
[b]I would answer that: given God is a spiritual being, He is not limited by the material parameters of space or time. Hence, he occupies all times and all space; not because He is time or space but because He is not held by their restraints. [/b]

I've heard it explained in this fashion:
All our human senses can move only forward in time and space. You can see an eye but you cannot see the act of sight because in order for you to "see the act of sight" your eyes would have to occupy the same time and space as themselves. You taste food but you cannot taste the act of tasting, feel but not feel the act of feeling, hear sound but not the act of hearing, and smell but not smell the act of smelling. This is because these senses rely on that which is material and can therefore move only forward in time and space. However, you can think about thought, because that which is spiritual is not limited by space or time, and intellect is one proof of the existence of the spirit. It is the only sense (if it can even be classified as such) which can bend back through time to consider itself and reflect on its own actions. Therefore, if that which is spiritual is not restrained by space or time, and God is truly spirit, then it follows that God is not restrained by space or time. It clearly follows that to restrain God to the limits of time and space would be to make Him less spirit and more material. If God were even slightly material, He would not be eternal; and could not be God.
[/quote]

I like your "bold" part. Immutability is a strength, not a weakness. It also shows that the debate is about how you see Time. Not about how you see God. Your quote concerns me in that the "thoughts" that move beyond time are not real. They do not "see" the future, they simply know the possibilities. They imagine, but they do not foreshadow anything.


[quote name='Slappo' date='21 April 2010 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1271828362' post='2097218']
I don't see how it conflicts with our understanding of free will and determination. Inside the realm of time there is a real decision that must be made, and inside the realm of time there is a free act of my will to make that decision. Outside of the realm of time that decision has already been made by me. From the perspective of God he isn't seeing what I will choose but what I have already chosen. He sees all the possibilities as being definitively exhausted because he sees the decision as already having been made.
Later in your paper you say there is no reason to see the future as determined. To say "the future" is to already place yourself within time, which I would claim God is outside of. God does not see the future as determined as he is not seeing the future (that would place him inside time). I do not see the future as determined as the future is inside of time like I am, so there are plenty of decisions I need to make in the future.
[/quote]

The paper was restricted in its length, and it was for a metaphysics class. So I apologize for its limited nature. My argument would be that if the future action we make is already determined before we determine it then we are not what is determining it and are not free. Either we have a script, or we are simply reactionary/predetermined like an equation. A truly free will needs to make the decision. We are influenced, but in the end we make the choice. It is our choice that condemns or saves us in the end. You are using the time language and it is not productive for me. I see no reason to believe Time exists as a dimension and that God needs to be "outside" of it. Because of that I see no reason logically or in scripture to try and explain how we have unknown free futures that God "Sees".

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='21 April 2010 - 08:12 AM' timestamp='1271851974' post='2097278']
If God exists, He must be changeless. Anything that changes cannot be God. I have heard of open theists who insist that God's Incarnation allows for the possibility that, from the point of Christ's Ascension, all of God's interactions with man could have taken place via the Incarnation, and that the human nature of God changed / changes His mind, but always according to the will of the divine nature.
Personally, it seems like an unnecessary (and somewhat silly) thought experiment.
[/quote]

The incarnation is an example where God experiences, but I would argue he constantly 'experiences" in that He is relational, but that does not mean he changes. The Incarnation is a mystery, the hypostatic union is a mystery in how the divine can take on flesh. I think that issue is not a proof text of Open Theism but a part of the greater Christological mystery.

If it was simply a thought experiment then it would not matter. For me it involves our understanding of free will, which involves our understanding of salvation. (Are we truly free? Do we make the decision to be saved) It also has implications in Theodicy. (Does God cause evil? Are evil events a result of misuse of freedom). So it is a very important issue for me.

[quote name='Raphael' date='21 April 2010 - 09:36 AM' timestamp='1271857003' post='2097293']
Anyway, I had a problem with the same thing. To say that just because the past, present, and future are all present to God makes them determined is illogical. What God sees as present is truly future in time. It is truly something I will freely choose to do.
This is why I say that the issue is not just about time, but also about God; to say that God "foreknows" something and really mean it (rather than just as an analogy) is to place God within a timeline. I can't really say, "well, back when I was a kid, God knew me." Strictly speaking (sorry grammarians) it would be more accurate to say, "back when I was a kid, God knows me." Perhaps this goes some distance to explain Christ's apparent bad grammar, "before Abraham was, I AM." He made a theological statement about God's being present to all time. He didn't say, "I was." He said, "I AM."
[/quote]

We understand the past as done, as determined. In this we know we cannot change the past and you are not responsible because you personally cannot do anything now to stop Hitler. Your analogy needs "time traveler" which an Open Theism would reject because the future is not a dimension. The premise of time travel destroys the analogy. Although your "time traveler" does not determine himself, the people are working off a script and will play out their script. They are predetermined to do what they are going to do. I flat out do not believe this acknowledges a proper understanding of free will. I also do not see how this concept of a future makes any sense outside of a movie like Butterfly effect. Your language with God and time is beautifully put, but I see it as justifying your view of time and not as something we would need to affirm as scriptural or even dogmatic. It worries me when we think we can say "God is...." The phrase "For God it is all present" does not even make sense and I see no reason we try and justify it unless we think an Open future makes God weak. For the calvinist, Open Theism is a threat to the utter predestination that they believe. They have no free will. I do not see this within Catholicism. God does know "us" he always does. We are not debating God's knowledge. As I said, God does not see the monkey on my lap. Not because God is limited, but because there is no monkey. Our perversion of time is making many people create a contradiction in which we lose authentic free will.

[quote name='afrojohn' date='21 April 2010 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1271863504' post='2097327']
The important thing it seems with open theism is that our relationship with God is only within a "shared context." It is precisely because of this shared context that the relational, reactional view of God's providence is taken. God foreknows, true, but His plan is open for input from us. Open theists often point to the story of Hezekiah in Isaiah 38 or (as noted earlier in the thread) the story of Abraham pleading with God to spare Sodom. The difference between a classical view of God's providence and the open theist interpretation is that the classical view would hold that God already foreknew and preordained the outcomes of those exchanges, the open theist would say that God left the specific outcomes of those encounters "unsettled" out of his [i]relational, loving[/i] relationship with His creation.

The problem that open theists react against is the notion of predestination as is presented in a more fast-and-hard sense by Augustine and Thomas. The argument is not for a sovereign God that ordains everything, but for a God who is truly relational. They don't argue that God [i]is not capable[/i] of being entirely sovereign, but as is witnessed by the incarnation, God chooses to keep His plan open as a means of Divine condescension, out of love for His creation.
[/quote]

I would say later Augustine. Not early Augustine. Augustine after Pelagianism was very focused on predestination. Where as the earlier Augustine was more eastern (or Apo friendly) in his acknowledgment of free will. (His work free will and choice is very good). Otherwise I like what you wrote. In order for God to relate with us, he does limit. Dr. Hahn talks about this in his Theological foundations class. We reach up to God, but only because God reached down to us. God is utterly sovereign and could at any time do anything, but he gives us real authentic free will in order that we can love him.

[quote name='afrojohn' date='21 April 2010 - 11:31 AM' timestamp='1271863918' post='2097333']
We as Catholics have to hold to predestination, that is, God chooses to save some and allows others to be damned (not double-predestination that's advocated by Calvin). I guess the biggest concern in modern thought with all of this is that anything we do that is good, is brought about by the grace of God, the question becomes "how do we interact and truly partake in the good things we do?" Open theism is attractive to many because it makes for a personable, loving God as opposed to a distant, divine foreman that some within the tradition have painted God.
[/quote]

We do? God desires all to be saved. God does not predestine certain individuals to heaven and some to hell.

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='21 April 2010 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1271866658' post='2097358']
A support of authentic Catholic orthodoxy regarding God's nature, knowledge, and predestination. Father Most is an excellent scholar and right up there with Newman and Ratzinger. I am not an expert in open theism or would I call myself even competent in this protestant developed doctrine. From what I have read though it is difficult to even specifically define open theism according to evangelicals because they have different ideas of what it is. That's like putting a group of Protestants from different denominations in a room and asking them to define "Eucharist". In some ways open theism is compatible with Catholicism depending on how it is used and explained, in other ways it is heretical. The only thing I know for sure is most simple remarks regarding it have typically been off base which is why I haven't personally commented on it yet.
[/quote]

Exactly.


[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='21 April 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1271872187' post='2097416']
I have three words for Rev.

1. Trinitarian
2. Warfare
3. Theodicy


[/quote]

Amen. Goodtimes.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Raphael' date='21 April 2010 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1271880819' post='2097474']
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/04/molinism-middle-knowledge.html

If I understand him correctly, I would be a Molinist, which Armstrong claims is far closer to the Eastern Fathers and the Western Fathers (except St. Augustine).

I am an admirer of a number of St. Augustine's positions and St. Thomas' as well, but I belong to neither school.
[/quote]

Open Theism is often called Neo-Molinism.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' date='21 April 2010 - 01:46 PM' timestamp='1271879172' post='2097463']
*currently researching the issue*

Just to clarify, I'm not a Thomist, but I'm also not a philosopher, so this may take me a little while.
[/quote]
All the different schools of thought in the West hold that there is both positive predestination of persons and negative reprobation of persons by God . . . the differences between the schools is in whether or not God takes into account our merits and demerits.