Does God Ever Change His Mind?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='22 April 2010 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1271960401' post='2098100']
Incorrect. Change is a measure between two points. Change did not start until time/space was created. At that point, the change was in Creation, not in God. God did not change in the act of creation, Creation did. God is pure act.
[/quote]
God - according to the Eastern Fathers - is creator dynamically and energetically, and not essentially, which means that God could have chosen not to create the world, or He could have chosen to create a different world than the one in which we exist. Moreover, He is free to distribute His many spiritual gifts in any way that He chooses, and can even choose to withhold them in a given situation, and it follows from this that - unlike the God of the philosophers, i.e., the god of pure act - the God of revelation can be affected by our prayers and supplications.

[Apotheoun]

[i]The following excerpt from an essay written by Dr. David Bradshaw helps to explain why the East rejects the Augustinian / Thomistic approach to God:[/i]


[size="3"]Augustine and Aquinas have different ways of reaching this point, but they agree that all non-relational and non-privative predicates said of God are different ways of signifying the divine essence. Part of what this implies is that God’s will is identical to his essence. Of the many difficulties to which such a view gives rise, I will mention two. The first pertains to divine freedom. If God is free in the way traditionally assumed in Christianity, he could will differently than he does. Does this mean that in such a case his essence would be different? And if so, how different could it be? Assuming that there is at least some aspect of the essence that could never be different—say, divine goodness—then there must be a distinction within the essence between that which could be different and that which could not. Surely, however, if anything is contrary to divine simplicity, it is the presence of such a distinction within the divine essence!

The second difficulty pertains to reciprocity between God and creatures. If the divine will is identical to the divine essence, it would seem that the divine will cannot in any way be a response to creatures’ own initiative, for in that case creatures would contribute to determining the divine essence. Aquinas recognizes this problem, if it is one, and bites the bullet: his position is that God’s will is not in any way a response to creatures but is determined solely by God. It is hard to see how most traditional religious practice, including petitionary prayer, sacrifice, and even simply the desire to please God, can make sense on such a view. Indeed, as Aquinas recognizes, on this view the Augustinian interpretation of predestination is not only true but is necessarily true, since God could not create creatures who are capable in any way of affecting his judgments regarding salvation and damnation. Yet the Augustinian position began precisely as the attempt to exalt the divine will over all necessity. Such are the tangles one is led to by divine simplicity.

It is problems such as these that led Pascal to exclaim that the God of the philosophers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Augustinian-Thomistic God, who is perfectly simple and fully actual, seems to be locked within a box from which he cannot escape in order to interact in any meaningful way with his creatures. Plainly there needs to be some other way of understanding divine simplicity, one that does not involve these unacceptable limitations. Such a way is provided by the distinction of the divine essence and energies. The Greek Fathers think of simplicity as itself a divine energy, one of the ways in which God manifests himself in his activity. As with any energy, God is both simplicity itself and beyond simplicity as its source. Just as the sun is simple and yet possesses an indefinite multitude of rays, so nothing about divine simplicity prevents God from possessing an indefinite multitude of energies. Likewise nothing prevents these energies from being affected by creatures. The energies are precisely the realm of reciprocity, that in which God shares himself with creatures and summons them to offer themselves to him. [Dr. David Bradshaw, [i]The Concept of the Divine Energies[/i]][/size]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='22 April 2010 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1271960401' post='2098100']
Change is a measure between two points. Change did not start until time/space was created. At that point, the change was in Creation, not in God. God did not change in the act of creation, Creation did. God is pure act.
[/quote]
If God - as to His essence - is creator, and His essence is eternal, or as the Eastern Fathers would say [i]pre-eternal[/i], it follows that creation itself participates in this same essential eternity, i.e., as that which is always being created, and - as a consequence - creation would have no beginning.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Apotheoun

[afro_john]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='22 April 2010 - 06:06 PM' timestamp='1271974000' post='2098229']
[i]The following excerpt from an essay written by Dr. David Bradshaw helps to explain why the East rejects the Augustinian / Thomistic approach to God:[/i]


[size="3"]Augustine and Aquinas have different ways of reaching this point, but they agree that all non-relational and non-privative predicates said of God are different ways of signifying the divine essence. Part of what this implies is that God’s will is identical to his essence. Of the many difficulties to which such a view gives rise, I will mention two. The first pertains to divine freedom. If God is free in the way traditionally assumed in Christianity, he could will differently than he does. Does this mean that in such a case his essence would be different? And if so, how different could it be? Assuming that there is at least some aspect of the essence that could never be different—say, divine goodness—then there must be a distinction within the essence between that which could be different and that which could not. Surely, however, if anything is contrary to divine simplicity, it is the presence of such a distinction within the divine essence!

The second difficulty pertains to reciprocity between God and creatures. If the divine will is identical to the divine essence, it would seem that the divine will cannot in any way be a response to creatures’ own initiative, for in that case creatures would contribute to determining the divine essence. Aquinas recognizes this problem, if it is one, and bites the bullet: his position is that God’s will is not in any way a response to creatures but is determined solely by God. It is hard to see how most traditional religious practice, including petitionary prayer, sacrifice, and even simply the desire to please God, can make sense on such a view. Indeed, as Aquinas recognizes, on this view the Augustinian interpretation of predestination is not only true but is necessarily true, since God could not create creatures who are capable in any way of affecting his judgments regarding salvation and damnation. Yet the Augustinian position began precisely as the attempt to exalt the divine will over all necessity. Such are the tangles one is led to by divine simplicity.

It is problems such as these that led Pascal to exclaim that the God of the philosophers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Augustinian-Thomistic God, who is perfectly simple and fully actual, seems to be locked within a box from which he cannot escape in order to interact in any meaningful way with his creatures. Plainly there needs to be some other way of understanding divine simplicity, one that does not involve these unacceptable limitations. Such a way is provided by the distinction of the divine essence and energies. The Greek Fathers think of simplicity as itself a divine energy, one of the ways in which God manifests himself in his activity. As with any energy, God is both simplicity itself and beyond simplicity as its source. Just as the sun is simple and yet possesses an indefinite multitude of rays, so nothing about divine simplicity prevents God from possessing an indefinite multitude of energies. Likewise nothing prevents these energies from being affected by creatures. The energies are precisely the realm of reciprocity, that in which God shares himself with creatures and summons them to offer themselves to him. [Dr. David Bradshaw, [i]The Concept of the Divine Energies[/i]][/size]
[/quote]

Another thing to consider though in regards to our petitions and prayers to the divine: our prayers come not from ourselves but from a movement of God's grace that enables us to do so. Prayer itself is an outcome of grace, or God placing the ability or the wanting to pray on our hearts. Therefore, it's not inconceivable to accept the view that all of time is exhaustively planned by God. I don't see that there needs to be a discrepancy between divine simplicity and being involved with the beings He has created. God works not only through primary causes, but also through secondary causes (i.e., others, our inclinations etc.). Even if you consider scripture, it becomes painfully obvious that God has ordained and ordered all of time. Ecclesiastes 3:14 says, "I know that whatever God does endures for ever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it; God has made it so, in order that men should fear before him." God works through our nature, not contrary to it, so there is some way that our free will truly does interact with divine providence, but simply put, how or the mechanics of it all will be a mystery to us.

[afro_john]

Thank you all for your thoughts/suggestions, I just finished the paper this morning!

[afro_john]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='21 April 2010 - 01:37 PM' timestamp='1271871428' post='2097408']
What books are you using if I may ask? Just curious.

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/Trek/spacehippies.jpg[/IMG]
[/quote]

I just realized that you asked this question while re-reading through the thread. I used six sources primarily namely:

1. The Bible (most everything in open theism is drawn from scripture)
2. The Catechism
3. John Sanders, "The God Who Risks"
4. Gregory Boyd, "God of the Possible"
5. Bruce Ware, "God's Lesser Glory"
6. Thomas Aquinas, selections from the Suma on Nature and Grace

[N/A Gone]

Did you read Boyd's response to Ware?

http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-open-theism/response-to-bruce-wares-defining-evangelicalisms-boundries-is-open-theism-evangelical/

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='22 April 2010 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1271973583' post='2098225']
God - according to the Eastern Fathers - is creator dynamically and energetically, and not essentially, which means that God could have chosen not to create the world, or He could have chosen to create a different world than the one in which we exist. Moreover, He is free to distribute His many spiritual gifts in any way that He chooses, and can even choose to withhold them in a given situation, and it follows from this that - unlike the God of the philosophers, i.e., the god of pure act - [b]the God of revelation can be affected by our prayers and supplications.[/b]
[/quote]

Interesting. Could you explain more?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='afrojohn' date='24 April 2010 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1272083152' post='2099047']
I just realized that you asked this question while re-reading through the thread. I used six sources primarily namely:

1. The Bible (most everything in open theism is drawn from scripture)
2. The Catechism
3. John Sanders, "The God Who Risks"
4. Gregory Boyd, "God of the Possible"
5. Bruce Ware, "God's Lesser Glory"
6. Thomas Aquinas, selections from the Suma on Nature and Grace
[/quote]
Cool. Did you find Sanders' book to be superior to Boyd's? Just curious. I read Boyd's book a few years ago as well as a book in which Sanders was a contributor, namely, [i]The Openness of God[/i]. I'm guessing that [i]The God Who Risks[/i] was not yet published back when I was interested in this topic.

Btw, would you be interested in posting your essay?

[afro_john]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='24 April 2010 - 10:17 AM' timestamp='1272118626' post='2099191']
Cool. Did you find Sanders' book to be superior to Boyd's? Just curious. I read Boyd's book a few years ago as well as a book in which Sanders was a contributor, namely, [i]The Openness of God[/i]. I'm guessing that [i]The God Who Risks[/i] was not yet published back when I was interested in this topic.

Btw, would you be interested in posting your essay?
[/quote]

Sanders' book was definitely more in depth than Boyd's, but I got the distinct impression that Sanders was writing for a more educated audience. Boyd's was more "accessible" to understand the concepts for laymen who may or may not be as familiar with the question of divine sovereignty. I can definitely post the essay, but it'll have to wait until this afternoon since I'm working on a research article that I'm writing with my team for psychology (prayer and its relation to stress reduction).

[afro_john]

Alright, for those who may be interested I've created a blog for this paper so that I don't have to take up so much space here. If you're interested in looking at how I responded to [url="http://afrosacademics.blogspot.com/"]open theism[/url] then, please, partake!

[N/A Gone]

[quote]The classical view holds that God has predestined from eternity the length of the lives of men.[/quote]

This is not Catholic dogma is it?

I think your paper fails to answer open theim's objections which involve free will. As I read your paper I could have been confused that it was from a calvinist. I know there are a lot of Thomists that drift very near calvinism, but I am not under the impression that this is a forced belief of the faith.

What bothers me is when someone arguing against Open theism says "in the end this is a mystery of God that we do not understand" and then proceeds to inform and enforce their understanding. I think this theology is a mystery and no system will properly understand it, but it is hypocritical to tell one group to "stop, it is a mystery" and then push your view.

You seemed to have missed a major part of open theism. That is, the future exists as possibilities and as determined things. God perfectly knowing all possible outcomes and knowing us, can and does work within those things to determine things. It is a blend of Openess and providence. This accounts for things such as Peter's denial. Open Theism assumes providence and a relational God. Your paper makes the faulty claim that these things disprove Open Theism. "God of the Possible" deals with this issue. I am surprised you would not know this after reading that book.

You also say again that God creates some predestined to be condemned. Is this even Catholic? yes, we all have the possibility to be condemned, we all have that option, but the idea that God creates people with the uncontrolable fact that they will be damned is just wrong.

[quote]In the open theist position there are only two ways to consider the question of God’s will, either He is entirely sovereign ordaining all that happens in history, or He is a God who risks and leaves the possibilities open for His creation to interact with Him and in doing so co-direct the flow of history.[/quote]

Once again, you are wrong. Open Theism has a God that is utterly in control, utterly Sovereign, but he does not always exercise that utter control in giving us free will so that we may freely love him. The "either or" argument that you are presenting is a straw man that any Open Theist would reject. God leaves aspects of the "future" open (that is, not determined) in order for us to be relational. God is in control and does determine things but he leaves other things open in order for us to exercise a truly free will. Nothing surprises God, God is never "caught off guard". But in giving us free will there is the risk of rejection.

Your Thomas argument (first mover) is out of place. No open theist says that God changes. Only a weak platonic God would change from experience. My issue with this understanding of immutability is that we treat it as a weakness (Oh no God cannot experience or he will change) rather than a strength (experience does not change God because he is perfect, immutable). This is not biblical, this is not Catholic, it is an application of very strict Platonic understands of God. I also think that your presentation of "first cause" is wrong. Being the first cause and being the causation of the entire universe is not threatened if God gave up some of the control in order for free will. You are presenting a weak God. I am presenting a God that is in control but does not exercise exhaustive control in order for his children to freely choose to love Him.

[quote]
This relates to God’s exhaustive knowledge of all of time because if God could not know a future exhaustively, then it simply would not exist.[/quote]

Only if you believe in a linear time model. Dogmatically we do not need to do this. Hollywood does with "time travel" but I see no reason to limit myself metaphysically do this flawed model. God not seeing the monkey on my back does not limit God, I just have no monkey. God seeing the future does not limit God, there is simply no dimensional determined future to see. Only if you affirm time as a dimension do you deal with the contradiction of free will and God's perfect knowledge. You clearly side with Calvin that we have no free will and are just following a script. In that case, I am predestined to reject predestination, but it is not my fault because God determined it.


Also, just out of curiosity, but I believe that Thomas is only a portion of the universality and richness that is the Catholic faith. I do not believe a Catholic needs to affirm dogmatically Thomas' understanding. Clearly an Eastern Catholic would not do this. I do feel you apply Thomas wrong to this debate, but that does not really matter because nowhere in my confessional do I need to affirm Thomas as dogmatic. (To my understanding)

[quote]This passage clearly shows that part of the reason that God is the true God of all creation is because He not only knows the past and present, but all that is to come[/quote]

An Open Theist would agree with you. There is a difference between knowing all possibilities exhaustively and seeing a determined event before it happens. I fully believe that God knows everything that there is to know. I do not believe the future exists as determined set events, so it is not a debate about God's knowledge but rather that those events do not even exist. What does exist is the possibilities that God utterly knows completely.

[quote]
“Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether. You beset me behind and before, and lay your hand on me.” The passage makes it quite clear that the Lord knows what the psalmist is going to do and say before it ever comes to pass.[/quote]

I do not see it that way. I think God knowing someone perfectly does not mean they have a scripted life. It just affirms that God knows us perfectly. We are both reading the text differently because we are bringing different bias to the text.

[quote]
At the very least scripture affirms that God’s knowledge exhaustively covers not only the past and the present, but also the future unknown to man.[/quote]

Yup, and an open theist would completely agree with you. The argument is in what that "future" is.

[quote]The classical sovereign view of God’s Divine Providence also makes an appeal to the heart of man, much like open theism does. In considering the life and struggles of every day Christians, sometimes what happens simply does not make sense. The future remains veiled and unforeseen by man, and this can be a terrifying reality of life. The Christian, however, should have confidence in God’s good plan. This plan would mean that God would have everything about each individual’s future within His control, ordaining what will ultimately be best for those who He loves.[/quote]

This notion I could not reject more. I could not worship this God. If the only way God's perfect unfolding plan could work includes raping and killing small children then how could we say God is love? I think people appeal to your perspective because they are afraid that their choices matter. They want someone else to be responsible. Bad things happen because we have authentic free will and God gave us this will in order to love him, but we can misuse this gift and sin which harms other people. This does not mean these individual events are part of a master plan and had to happen. Instead, with providence, God can bring good out of these bad events, but that does not mean he preordains these events. This is the difference between providence and predestination. Providence shows that God is in complete control and works with our mistakes in order to bring about his good and his will. It accounts for horrible events, where as your calvinist predestination has to believe that God made the decision to have a child raped, to have kids starve to death, to have all these horrible evils as part of a plan. If the world was truly scripted and God ordained everything exactly as it happens then my hope would be the all-loving, all-knowing God could come up with another way to prove his point. Love involves risk.

In conclusion, I feel your paper does not properly understand or address open theism. I say this because you assume any example of God "knowing" is proof against Open theism, when Open Theism perfectly affirms God knowing the "future" actions. I believe you create a straw man and then bounce it against a very Calvinist understanding of God. I wish you would have explained the dilemma of Free will and God's knowledge. I wish you would have explained why we need to think of the future as settled or even as existing in a dimensional sense.

This issue has been discussed and explored numerous times in our history. Augustine, Boethius, and Aquinas are the major figures in the Catholic tradition on this question. Augustine addresses this problem in Book III of Free Choice of the Will (where he argues that God's foreknowledge is not causative) , Boethius in the Consolation of Philosophy (where he argues that God sees all events from an Eternal Now), and Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae I, early questions on God's knowledge and providence (where he adopts Boethius' position, but adds to it an account of how God causes contingent events). Molina provides some innovations to these big three with his account of middle knowledge. These are all theories that conflict with each other but are honest attempts to understand and reconcile God with freedom. I am very influenced by early Augustine and in Free Choice of the Will he implies that God "knows" but not that he "sees". Later on after his confrontation with Pelagius he gets rid of free will and promotes the blueprint view. (Which Calvin follows) God has knowledge of our actions and as an open theist I would agree. God knows all the possiblities that our free will can determine. God knows us perfectly, God knows all the factors that would influence us. But nowhere would I need to affirm that God "sees" the predestined determined actions. Your paper strikes me as a straw man that misrepresents basic Open theism, attempting to almost criminalize it. You respond with a very Calvinist understanding of God. Considering we are both Catholic I affirm that part of the Catholic understanding can include this calvinist perspective, but that is hardly the only understanding and I fully reject it.

Let me quote Boyd as to why this issue is important and is not "profoundly novel", (I have already discussed the soteriology, here is the theodicy)
[quote]
To me, the most forceful objection to belief in an all-good and all-loving God is the problem of evil. Not only this, but in my opinion this is the objection the majority of Christians — including Christian scholars — respond to least effectively. It’s not their fault, however, for they’re strapped with a theology that doesn’t allow them to provide a compelling response to this objection. Most believe that everything that happens is either specifically willed or allowed by God. (I call this “the blueprint worldview” since it assumes that everything in history unfolds according to a divine “blueprint”). This view commits believers into thinking God wanted each and every event to occur — or at least that he wanted it to occur more than he wanted to stop it, otherwise he wouldn’t have allowed it. And this is why they can’t give a cogent response to the problem of evil. What particular reason might God have had for allowing (say) a little girl to be kidnapped, tortured, raped and killed? While many who are committed to the “blueprint worldview” will find my thoughts disturbing, I’ve been blessed to receive thousands of e-mails from people who tell me this book set them free to see, for the first time, God as altogether beautiful — despite the massive evil in the world. Some of these e-mails have been profoundly moving. For example, a mother told me Is God to Blame? empowered her to finally stop blaming God for the drowning of her two year daughter five years earlier. Now, instead of keeping God at bay with her rage, she could let God embrace her, weep with her and finally heal her.[/quote]

God of the possible is a layman book. If you want to invest into this topic you need to read "Satan and the problem of evil: Constructing a trinitarian warfare theodicy" (hence the TWT title Sean) It is part 2 of Boyd's major series. The 3rd part "Myth of the Blueprint" is not expected out until 2012 but answers our issue perfectly.

http://www.gregboyd.org/books/satan-the-problem-of-evil-constructing-a-trinitarian-warfare-theodicy

I hope you do not take offense to my review of your paper. I read it as an Open Theist and gave my honest critique. I hope we can discuss some of these issues. It would benefit my understanding.

[afro_john]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='24 April 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1272154910' post='2099439']
This is not Catholic dogma is it?

I think your paper fails to answer open theim's objections which involve free will. As I read your paper I could have been confused that it was from a calvinist. I know there are a lot of Thomists that drift very near calvinism, but I am not under the impression that this is a forced belief of the faith.

What bothers me is when someone arguing against Open theism says "in the end this is a mystery of God that we do not understand" and then proceeds to inform and enforce their understanding. I think this theology is a mystery and no system will properly understand it, but it is hypocritical to tell one group to "stop, it is a mystery" and then push your view.

You seemed to have missed a major part of open theism. That is, the future exists as possibilities and as determined things. God perfectly knowing all possible outcomes and knowing us, can and does work within those things to determine things. It is a blend of Openess and providence. This accounts for things such as Peter's denial. Open Theism assumes providence and a relational God. Your paper makes the faulty claim that these things disprove Open Theism. "God of the Possible" deals with this issue. I am surprised you would not know this after reading that book.

You also say again that God creates some predestined to be condemned. Is this even Catholic? yes, we all have the possibility to be condemned, we all have that option, but the idea that God creates people with the uncontrolable fact that they will be damned is just wrong.



Once again, you are wrong. Open Theism has a God that is utterly in control, utterly Sovereign, but he does not always exercise that utter control in giving us free will so that we may freely love him. The "either or" argument that you are presenting is a straw man that any Open Theist would reject. God leaves aspects of the "future" open (that is, not determined) in order for us to be relational. God is in control and does determine things but he leaves other things open in order for us to exercise a truly free will. Nothing surprises God, God is never "caught off guard". But in giving us free will there is the risk of rejection.

Your Thomas argument (first mover) is out of place. No open theist says that God changes. Only a weak platonic God would change from experience. My issue with this understanding of immutability is that we treat it as a weakness (Oh no God cannot experience or he will change) rather than a strength (experience does not change God because he is perfect, immutable). This is not biblical, this is not Catholic, it is an application of very strict Platonic understands of God. I also think that your presentation of "first cause" is wrong. Being the first cause and being the causation of the entire universe is not threatened if God gave up some of the control in order for free will. You are presenting a weak God. I am presenting a God that is in control but does not exercise exhaustive control in order for his children to freely choose to love Him.



Only if you believe in a linear time model. Dogmatically we do not need to do this. Hollywood does with "time travel" but I see no reason to limit myself metaphysically do this flawed model. God not seeing the monkey on my back does not limit God, I just have no monkey. God seeing the future does not limit God, there is simply no dimensional determined future to see. Only if you affirm time as a dimension do you deal with the contradiction of free will and God's perfect knowledge. You clearly side with Calvin that we have no free will and are just following a script. In that case, I am predestined to reject predestination, but it is not my fault because God determined it.


Also, just out of curiosity, but I believe that Thomas is only a portion of the universality and richness that is the Catholic faith. I do not believe a Catholic needs to affirm dogmatically Thomas' understanding. Clearly an Eastern Catholic would not do this. I do feel you apply Thomas wrong to this debate, but that does not really matter because nowhere in my confessional do I need to affirm Thomas as dogmatic. (To my understanding)



An Open Theist would agree with you. There is a difference between knowing all possibilities exhaustively and seeing a determined event before it happens. I fully believe that God knows everything that there is to know. I do not believe the future exists as determined set events, so it is not a debate about God's knowledge but rather that those events do not even exist. What does exist is the possibilities that God utterly knows completely.



I do not see it that way. I think God knowing someone perfectly does not mean they have a scripted life. It just affirms that God knows us perfectly. We are both reading the text differently because we are bringing different bias to the text.



Yup, and an open theist would completely agree with you. The argument is in what that "future" is.



This notion I could not reject more. I could not worship this God. If the only way God's perfect unfolding plan could work includes raping and killing small children then how could we say God is love? I think people appeal to your perspective because they are afraid that their choices matter. They want someone else to be responsible. Bad things happen because we have authentic free will and God gave us this will in order to love him, but we can misuse this gift and sin which harms other people. This does not mean these individual events are part of a master plan and had to happen. Instead, with providence, God can bring good out of these bad events, but that does not mean he preordains these events. This is the difference between providence and predestination. Providence shows that God is in complete control and works with our mistakes in order to bring about his good and his will. It accounts for horrible events, where as your calvinist predestination has to believe that God made the decision to have a child raped, to have kids starve to death, to have all these horrible evils as part of a plan. If the world was truly scripted and God ordained everything exactly as it happens then my hope would be the all-loving, all-knowing God could come up with another way to prove his point. Love involves risk.

In conclusion, I feel your paper does not properly understand or address open theism. I say this because you assume any example of God "knowing" is proof against Open theism, when Open Theism perfectly affirms God knowing the "future" actions. I believe you create a straw man and then bounce it against a very Calvinist understanding of God. I wish you would have explained the dilemma of Free will and God's knowledge. I wish you would have explained why we need to think of the future as settled or even as existing in a dimensional sense.

This issue has been discussed and explored numerous times in our history. Augustine, Boethius, and Aquinas are the major figures in the Catholic tradition on this question. Augustine addresses this problem in Book III of Free Choice of the Will (where he argues that God's foreknowledge is not causative) , Boethius in the Consolation of Philosophy (where he argues that God sees all events from an Eternal Now), and Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae I, early questions on God's knowledge and providence (where he adopts Boethius' position, but adds to it an account of how God causes contingent events). Molina provides some innovations to these big three with his account of middle knowledge. These are all theories that conflict with each other but are honest attempts to understand and reconcile God with freedom. I am very influenced by early Augustine and in Free Choice of the Will he implies that God "knows" but not that he "sees". Later on after his confrontation with Pelagius he gets rid of free will and promotes the blueprint view. (Which Calvin follows) God has knowledge of our actions and as an open theist I would agree. God knows all the possiblities that our free will can determine. God knows us perfectly, God knows all the factors that would influence us. But nowhere would I need to affirm that God "sees" the predestined determined actions. Your paper strikes me as a straw man that misrepresents basic Open theism, attempting to almost criminalize it. You respond with a very Calvinist understanding of God. Considering we are both Catholic I affirm that part of the Catholic understanding can include this calvinist perspective, but that is hardly the only understanding and I fully reject it.

Let me quote Boyd as to why this issue is important and is not "profoundly novel", (I have already discussed the soteriology, here is the theodicy)


God of the possible is a layman book. If you want to invest into this topic you need to read "Satan and the problem of evil: Constructing a trinitarian warfare theodicy" (hence the TWT title Sean) It is part 2 of Boyd's major series. The 3rd part "Myth of the Blueprint" is not expected out until 2012 but answers our issue perfectly.

http://www.gregboyd.org/books/satan-the-problem-of-evil-constructing-a-trinitarian-warfare-theodicy

I hope you do not take offense to my review of your paper. I read it as an Open Theist and gave my honest critique. I hope we can discuss some of these issues. It would benefit my understanding.
[/quote]

The vast majority of my paper was taken from Sanders' "The God Who Risks." Quite frankly, I found Open Theism to be insufficient. I find that open theism completely dismisses metaphysical, philosophical arguments which stem from Aquinas and Augustine. There is not definitive Catholic doctrine on the length of the lives of men, however most of the tradition comes with a Thomistic understanding. Keep in mind I'm not claiming to be an expert on all the ins and outs of open theism, I was only taking what I thought would be useful to hit the high points.

As far as open theism claiming to a God Who is utterly sovereign, I do not see how this clicks with Catholic tradition, unless the term "sovereign" means two different things and we're not talking on the same plane. I would submit that a God Who does have all of eternity exhaustively planned and known [i]is[/i] truly biblical. Dei Verbum talks about reading the scriptures in the light of the author's intent, open theism, I would argue, tends to read scripture far too literally, we talk about God feeling in the scriptures but is that really how God is in Himself? Is the language used in scripture to define God just something to give us so we can try to wrap our minds around it?

Again I think a clashing of terms is in what constitutes "free will." Since William of Ockham the idea of freedom has shifted from "the freedom to do the good" which is the Augustinian, Thomistic view, to a freedom to choose what I desire to choose. According to the more ancient tradition, freedom is freedom to do the good, which is only enabled in us by grace. This freedom is completely dependent upon God's providence which, I argue, is not "open" as an open theist would place it, but already known. It is God's knowledge that causes existence, therefore, it is arguable that God [i]has[/i] to know all of eternity extensively, not all the possibilities, in order for what we experience as "future" to come about.

I know that open theists don't claim any relationship with the philosophy, but I found what seemed to be hints of process thought scattered throughout Sanders' and Boyd's books. The idea that everything in history is in the state of "becoming," I know Boyd especially shot out against this, but the fact of the matter is that I really had a hard time differentiating the two.

As far as the God you could not worship, I think that there is a misunderstanding in how God is painted. See, we recognize that our choices do matter, that's why things like the raping and murdering of little children happen, but it's because God takes away His grace from those individuals and leaves them to their own devices that things happen the way that they do. I personally would not want a God Who does not have everything planned because then where would that leave me? When I'm fearful about the future and I have no idea what's going to happen next, doesn't it make sense, doesn't it feel comforting to know that God Himself knows and "sees the plans" he has for us? Just like in Jeremiah, He knows well the plans he has for us, truly, not ambiguously. The tradition of the Church is what comes in to make this, Augustinian principles regarding grace and nature were infallibly decreed from the Council of Orange. Although the council itself doesn't directly deal with the nature of God's plan, it does talk about things in light of Augustine's understanding of freedom and grace after his bouts with Pelagius. I found open theism to be an interesting way to interpret God's relation to us, but ultimately I could not simply throw away the philosophy of Aquinas and Augustine as easily as Sanders was able to do.

[N/A Gone]

of course if the majority of your research came from one source, let alone an insufficient source of course you found Open Theism to be insufficient. That is just bad scholarship. I doubt how well you read Boyd if you did not know that a basic part of Open Theism is that the future is partially open and partially determined with God "knowing" all and working within our free wil.

Of course if you are reading protestant writers they are not going to even bother with Aquinas and Augustine. There are 2 facts here. 1.) They will not work with them because their target audience could honestly care less. 2.) Boyd does work a bit with Augustine in his research, but you based most on Sanders. Knowing Dr. Boyd for over a decade now I can attest that he hardly "dismisses" philosophical arguments. His M.Div is philosophical theology (PhD was at Princeton Theological)His current work on the blueprint perspective is a reflection of years of patristic research. You just did not properly research. You cannot do an academic paper on Open Theism and ignore God at War and Satan the Problem of Evil. Your desire was to understand and attack Open Theism from a scholarly perspective, but you read the "for dummies" version of the research.

I do not believe your paper "hit key points" but instead misrepresented Open Theism as a straw man that you then took down. Of course someone reading your paper would agree Open Theism was wrong. I disagree with whatever your paper was promoting as Open Theism, but that is the nature of a straw man argument.

My point on sovereignty and control is that as Catholicism understands God as "all-powerful" so does Open theism. I am sorry if I used the wrong term in expressing this. Perhaps you could explain where the misunderstanding was?

[quote]I would submit that a God Who does have all of eternity exhaustively planned and known [i]is[/i] truly biblical. [/quote]

And an Open Theist would tell you to prove it, (both sides have a ton of proof texts) in the end it is a matter of "what is eternity" and what is exactly there to be known. An Open Theist believes that God knows everything there is to be known, just that the "future" is not a scripted blueprint that we are all blindly following. This is not biblical, this is reading into the text a metaphysical perspective. That is why, in the end, the debate is about what is time and what is the future. Our perspectives on those 2 things then reflects on our dogmas of God. I do like what Apo said above.

[quote]t is problems such as these that led Pascal to exclaim that the God of the philosophers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Augustinian-Thomistic God, who is perfectly simple and fully actual, seems to be locked within a box from which he cannot escape in order to interact in any meaningful way with his creatures.[/quote]

I guess I am more Eastern in this idea that Latin. (Although I will say Augustine pre-retractions is very different on this topic than post-peligian augustine...One promotes Free Will to the extreme, the other promotes predestination to the point of Calvin)

[quote]Dei Verbum talks about reading the scriptures in the light of the author's intent, open theism, I would argue, tends to read scripture far too literally, we talk about God feeling in the scriptures but is that really how God is in Himself? Is the language used in scripture to define God just something to give us so we can try to wrap our minds around it?[/quote]

Where would you get that from? Open Theists still read scripture just as any scholar would. Some are fundi, some are not. Implying that an Open Theist would not read scripture right is just naive on your part. If anything, it is just mean and unnecessary. Anthropomorphic terms can be understood as anthropomorphic by Open Theists (clearly God's hand is not a giant high five) but the perspective of dialogue, and relationships are not written as an anthropomorphic. The Incarnation is not an anthropomorphic.

[quote]Again I think a clashing of terms is in what constitutes "free will." Since William of Ockham the idea of freedom has shifted from "the freedom to do the good" which is the Augustinian, Thomistic view, to a freedom to choose what I desire to choose. According to the more ancient tradition, freedom is freedom to do the good, which is only enabled in us by grace. This freedom is completely dependent upon God's providence which, I argue, is not "open" as an open theist would place it, but already known. It is God's knowledge that causes existence, therefore, it is arguable that God [i]has[/i] to know all of eternity extensively, not all the possibilities, in order for what we experience as "future" to come about.
[/quote]

I think you are wrong in the blanket statement "ancient tradition=freedom to do good". If we want to speak in strict soteriological language I would argue that we have a battle of Grace and pride. A battle of flesh and spirit as Paul would say. This is not a one time choice, but it is something our will debates and struggles with for our entire life. Free will is the part of us that makes the decision, it is the causality, to follow grace or pride. It is a dangerous avenue to say the only way we can do any good is via God's providence, because then you would have to say that Evil does not come from a misuse of freedom, but rather from God "allowing" or "granting" something he should have prevented. Of course this concept of freedom is not compatable with Open theists, but honestly the only place I have read it before is in Calvin.

The thing we need to flesh our is [quote]"It is God's knowledge that causes existence, therefore, it is arguable that God [i]has[/i] to know all of eternity extensively, not all the possibilities, in order for what we experience as "future" to come about.[/quote]

So please answer, "why does God need to know something that I do not believe even exists in order to cause existence." The line about "in order for what we experience as 'future' to come about" is confusing to me and needs fleshing out.


[quote]I know that open theists don't claim any relationship with the philosophy, but I found what seemed to be hints of process thought scattered throughout Sanders' and Boyd's books.[/quote]

I assume if you understand Process theology half as well as Open theism then you probably do not know the difference. That is like confusing a christian and a Muslim because they both pray.

[quote] The idea that everything in history is in the state of "becoming," I know Boyd especially shot out against this, but the fact of the matter is that I really had a hard time differentiating the two. [/quote] Of course, because you do not know Open Theism.



[quote]As far as the God you could not worship, I think that there is a misunderstanding in how God is painted. See, we recognize that our choices do matter, that's why things like the raping and murdering of little children happen, but it's because God takes away His grace from those individuals and leaves them to their own devices that things happen the way that they do. [/quote]

This does not even begin to make rational sense for me. Why does God not just give his grace to everyone, if he desires all to be saved? Why prevent some and help others? If we inevitability will do horrible things without grace and God only gives some grace then God is to blame for evil in your analogy. Our misuse of free will is not the causality for rape, but God is. Also, where is the line drawn? Is it only mortal sins that God causes or all evil? If so, then God takes grace away from all of us at some time? I have no free will in your perspective. This is very late-augustine/calvinist. In that, I believe I have no responsibility also. Clearly your grace would force me to be good, and if I am bad it is because God did not give me his grace. Free will is a myth. Sweeeeeeet.


[quote]I personally would not want a God Who does not have everything planned because then where would that leave me? When I'm fearful about the future and I have no idea what's going to happen next, doesn't it make sense, doesn't it feel comforting to know that God Himself knows and "sees the plans" he has for us? [/quote] Not at all. This blueprint perspective is incredibly dangerous if you ever have anything bad happen in your life. I think it perverts our view of God and our view of the possibilities in our future. I do agree that God "knows" everything but not that he pre-ordains everything and we simply follow a specific detailed forced plan. I do not think the "peace" you find here is real. I also think you misunderstand what "divine plan" means. God made you, God has a design for Christians to follow. There are advantages and there are negatives in this life because this life has a plan, but that does not mean it has a script. If God does have a specific plan for you, and we are open to following that plan, then the Open Theist would argue that God can "settle" some things, but this is not "fate" it is God having a plan and us responding.

Lets continue this talk sir. I am enjoying this.

[Innocent]

Revprodeji, do you have any thoughts on the subject of [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=103576"]this thread[/url]?