Does God Ever Change His Mind?

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='afrojohn' date='25 April 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1272225660' post='2099845']
If you had to submit a general, cursory summary of open theism what would it look like? What would the philosophical basis be? I am genuinely interested in this because I feel that it would be hard to [i]not[/i] be an open theist because it is such a radical appeal to the human heart.[b] If the position wasn't condemned as heretical,[/b] but a problem I see with open theism is that it is nowhere within the tradition. So, if you could give me a legitimate, philosophically based argument in favor of open theism, I would appreciate it.
[/quote]

Other than Raphel, I have never had someone explain it as heretical to me. Usually when someone declares it as heretical it is because of a misunderstanding they have in the theology (like how in your paper you assume that any moment of sovereign action by God is against Open Theism) As a matter of fact, this was a topic I presented and discussed exhaustively when I was in my conversion (hence the TWT joke with LD). I have had 2 prof at FUS tell me that this topic is ok to explore and not heretical. I have discussed it with other priests and theologians an amazing amount of time. I do not believe the church considered the framework of Open Theism to be heretical. I do believe that parts of Boyd could be considered heretical because sometimes he will go out of his way to kick the Church. But this is a matter of his personal bias, and not the theology. (We had a painful "break up" during my conversion). The idea of God/Time/Freedom is explored by many of the great minds in the faith and I believe it will always continue to be explored. My belief is Open Theism as I understand it does not contradict any of the dogmas of God, rather it changes how we understand time. We see God as a relational God that could be all-controlling, but does not exercise that in order to give us authentic freedom. Authentic freedom involves causality. God as father, and us as son, is a matter of covenant relationships. We see in this relationship numerous times we do not live up to our covenant and God "reacts". I do not believe anything surprises God and he can and does control anything he sees fit, but we have wiggle room to freely respond to him. I think the radical appeal to the human heart, the understanding of salvation history as relational, the implications of free will, as well as the idea of theodicy as a misuse of free will and I argue that this theology is not "profoundly novel" but a metaphysic that I see the world in. A world-view perhaps.

Open Theism is not found in the tradition, but neither was Thomas's view (which is really Boethius) was not found in the tradition until he taught it. I think that matters of the deposit of faith need to find continuity, but matters of philosophy can evolve as our understands involve. These men of faith applied their ability of reason to the question of faith. Why not do the same? This is a matter that is strongly dependent on how you see time. Fr. Clark in "The One and the Many" asks the question of "what is time". I think we can explore that without being dependent on Hellenistic concepts. Once you have your concept of time figured out, then the rest of the discussion can begin. Issues such as "God's knowledge" and "power" and "free will" fall into place based on how you understand time. If time is a settled dimension then you have issues. If time is "an illusion of consciousness" and the real world is "timeless and unchanging" (clark) then you can understand my perspective. I think Apo added value in this discussion explaining a problem I have with scholastic understanding of immutability. It makes God sound like a weakness, not a strength. Just a side note.

I do not mean any disrespect (perhaps this is why I feel disrespected by -1 boy), I do not know you well and you do not know me. So things I say might come off as intense and I apologize for that.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Revprodeji

[afro_john]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='25 April 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1272227208' post='2099857']
Other than Raphel, I have never had someone explain it as heretical to me. Usually when someone declares it as heretical it is because of a misunderstanding they have in the theology (like how in your paper you assume that any moment of sovereign action by God is against Open Theism) As a matter of fact, this was a topic I presented and discussed exhaustively when I was in my conversion (hence the TWT joke with LD). I have had 2 prof at FUS tell me that this topic is ok to explore and not heretical. I have discussed it with other priests and theologians an amazing amount of time. I do not believe the church considered the framework of Open Theism to be heretical. I do believe that parts of Boyd could be considered heretical because sometimes he will go out of his way to kick the Church. But this is a matter of his personal bias, and not the theology. (We had a painful "break up" during my conversion). The idea of God/Time/Freedom is explored by many of the great minds in the faith and I believe it will always continue to be explored. My belief is Open Theism as I understand it does not contradict any of the dogmas of God, rather it changes how we understand time. We see God as a relational God that could be all-controlling, but does not exercise that in order to give us authentic freedom. Authentic freedom involves causality. God as father, and us as son, is a matter of covenant relationships. We see in this relationship numerous times we do not live up to our covenant and God "reacts". I do not believe anything surprises God and he can and does control anything he sees fit, but we have wiggle room to freely respond to him. I think the radical appeal to the human heart, the understanding of salvation history as relational, the implications of free will, as well as the idea of theodicy as a misuse of free will and I argue that this theology is not "profoundly novel" but a metaphysic that I see the world in. A world-view perhaps.

Open Theism is not found in the tradition, but neither was Thomas's view (which is really Boethius) was not found in the tradition until he taught it. I think that matters of the deposit of faith need to find continuity, but matters of philosophy can evolve as our understands involve. These men of faith applied their ability of reason to the question of faith. Why not do the same? This is a matter that is strongly dependent on how you see time. Fr. Clark in "The One and the Many" asks the question of "what is time". I think we can explore that without being dependent on Hellenistic concepts. Once you have your concept of time figured out, then the rest of the discussion can begin. Issues such as "God's knowledge" and "power" and "free will" fall into place based on how you understand time. If time is a settled dimension then you have issues. If time is "an illusion of consciousness" and the real world is "timeless and unchanging" (clark) then you can understand my perspective. I think Apo added value in this discussion explaining a problem I have with scholastic understanding of immutability. It makes God sound like a weakness, not a strength. Just a side note.

I do not mean any disrespect (perhaps this is why I feel disrespected by -1 boy), I do not know you well and you do not know me. So things I say might come off as intense and I apologize for that.
[/quote]

Apology accepted, back to the issue at hand.

I would not tend towards a determinism that some who have read Thomas or Augustine have taken (i.e. Calvin), but I think that there are ways within the Thomistic system that allow for our free will (again "the freedom to do the good") and God's exhaustive knowledge of all time. We say that God works through our nature, not contrary to it, therefore it follows that God co-operates with our free will to bring about sanctification within the elect. If you could explain how open theism specifically changes our view of time I think that's where my hang-up is.

Also, I didn't say that open theism was condemned as heretical, ha ha. John Cassian's 13th conference was condemned as heretical (and this was the view that I was most enamored with). If you want to read his 13th conference, I'm [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/350813.htm"]posting the link[/url] This was the heretical view that was condemned by the council of Orange (that was a heart-breaker when I learned that).

[N/A Gone]

Honestly, I do not think I have heard of John Cassian. I am familar with Augustine and how his theology dramatically changes after the episode with Pelgian. I have a copy of Free Will and choice that shows the original writings and the retractions with it. It is almost like a different person is writing them. We might need to redefine freedom, just to make sure we are coming from the same perspective.

I agree that God works through our nature, not contrary to it. God gives free will, and works with us to bring about sanctification. (Just to clarify, what do you mean by "the elect").

The time issue is this. If you picture time as a linear dimension. As a blueprint that God pre-ordains and exercises exactly as a script. A future that is settled in the same sense that the past is settled, then you have the problem we are dealing with now. I argue that time as we know it is an illusion. Time is not a dimension, but rather it is our way of understanding relationships and interactions. It is our way to understand why our broken-self changes. It is not a dimension. In that, there is no "past" and there is no "future" just an ever present now. We remember the past, but we cannot visit it. We cannot change it. It is settled. If we view the future in the same way we view the past then we are not responsible or can change it just as we cannot stop Hitler. Rather, we all have possibilities that we can "imagine" in our minds. We are aware of some of the possibilities and some of the interacting factors but only the tip of the iceberg. God in his Omniscience perfectly understands all of these possibilities and all of the interacting factors, which makes it possible to determine some things and leave other things open. Allowing our free will, but also his power. We possess causality in our choices. In this we are able to truly love God and others, or reject that love.

I have spent a lot of time working and reconciling the basic worldview of Open Theism with Catholicism. I am willing and desiring to work with a framework that Boyd would consider pointless. In that, you will find basics of Boyd in my views, but I am not limited to that. I am not a Thomist, and I have only read a very little amount of this. I tend to agree with Apo's understanding in this issue and as an Eastern Catholic his views are not based on Thomas but are considered a viable reality of the apostolic faith that is declared in our catholicity.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 03:06 PM' timestamp='1272222388' post='2099816']
Apotheoun is, and has from the start been the undisputed champion of green numbers.
[/quote]
Todd has good "sound bytes."

[N/A Gone]

I am a giddy fan of Todd, so I can understand. Perhaps we can even blame him for my alleged "eastern leanings"

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='25 April 2010 - 05:55 PM' timestamp='1272236125' post='2099939']
I am a giddy fan of Todd, so I can understand. Perhaps we can even blame him for my alleged "eastern leanings"
[/quote]
I'll blame him for anything if it gives me an edge over him in the Battle For Little Green Numbers.

[Brother Adam]

I'm a simpleton when it comes to Open Theism, but...

Gen 18:20-32 answers the topic question.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Raphael' date='21 April 2010 - 09:36 AM' timestamp='1271857003' post='2097293']
Strictly speaking, I think we'd have to see that He doesn't see your decisions as already made, but rather, he sees them precisely as they are being made, in that first moment of the decision's existence.

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. To say that something is determined is to say that it has been determined at some point prior to the present or at the very least in the present moment. It is a set course of action that cannot be avoided. If I am a time traveler and come back from the future, I will say, "tomorrow, a cat in a box will die." Does my being in the past while knowing it somehow make it happen? Does my saying it make it happen? Obviously not. To the present moment, it is not determined because it hasn't yet happened. It will happen and I can be sure of it, but that doesn't mean that free will is violated. Rather, because someone exercised their free will, a cat in a box died and people afterward knew of it. What you call a statement of a determined fact of the future could in fact not have occurred without free will (assuming, of course, that humans are involved in the "determined fact" of the future, things that will happen naturally in the future are not the result of free will). To say that because I know the future, I've determined the future is illogical. To say that because I know the future, the future is set, well, that perhaps makes a little more sense, but it still doesn't violate free will. The future wasn't pre-determined, it wasn't decided on before hand; rather, it was pre-known, and only then as a result of the hindsight of a time traveler who looked on from after the fact. So to say that because I know the future, I've determined the future is illogical.

However, God doesn't actually know the future. He knows what we perceive as the future, but He knows it as the present. We speak of God's "foreknowledge," but this is really just a human perception designed to explain in our terms how our future is present to God. Even as I speak to Him now, my voice reaches Him from the entire span of my life. My life lays open like a book before the eyes of God. He doesn't know my future, He knows my present, which is my whole life into eternity, but which I experience as a sequence of past, present, and future. So, in fact, there isn't any foreknowledge in God. Thus, there isn't a contradiction. For God, it's all present. My current moment, in which I exercise my free will, is as present to Him as my past (in which I did exercise it) and my future (in which I will exercise it).

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."



While it was a real dialogue between Abraham and the Ever-Present God, I would argue that as the outcome of that dialogue was as present to God as the beginning of the dialogue, it was both a real dialogue and a pedagogical approach by God, who, knowing what Abraham would do, let Him on to ask for greater and greater mercy.
[/quote]

Isn't God's present-ness a temporal relation?

[Hassan]

[quote name='Raphael' date='21 April 2010 - 05:35 PM' timestamp='1271885702' post='2097524']
Jon, I've come to the judgment that Open Theism is incompatible with Christianity simply on the basis that it tries to redefine all the variables in order to arrive at its conclusion. I also think it's odd that I'm accused (indirectly) of being irrational for stating something that is contradiction where there is, in fact, no contradiction. Open Theism is a break with the Tradition of the Church and argues something so profoundly novel that I cannot possibly see it as a valid development of doctrine. So I won't spend any more time on that topic because I think it's a waste of time. Sometimes arguments are made that are so outrageous the only real response to give is no response at all - not in the present or the future.

Todd, still researching.
[/quote]


I don't think that is fair or does justice to his questions. There is something quixotic about asserting a certain temporal relationship to God regarding his relationship to his creation while simultaneously asserting that God does not exist within temporal relations.

[Slappo]

I'm glad that for finding a post uncharitable and giving it a -1 I am dubbed "-1 boy."


That seems real mature.

[N/A Gone]

Why are you making this personal? I thought it was ironic for you to uncharitably judge me as being uncharitable with the all-mighty (-1). I could not remember your name so I called you "-1" boy. I explained myself to afrojohn, that I am intense but I did not intend to be uncharitable. Posters such as PhatCatholic, Brother Adam, Apo, LD and others "know" me and can attest to my passion in this issue. I just thought you were out of place with your -1 and the post explaining it. I tend to react to out of place judgment. No beef, one FUS student to another, you have a nickname now.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Revprodeji

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='25 April 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1272237724' post='2099955']
I'm a simpleton when it comes to Open Theism, but...

Gen 18:20-32 answers the topic question.
[/quote]

Good Question...Bump

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='26 April 2010 - 11:23 PM' timestamp='1272338617' post='2100764']
Good Question...Bump
[/quote]

Bump. (I have more questions also, but we should respectfully answer Bro Adam first)

[N/A Gone]

My answer, Brother Adam, is that God is changing his mind. He is using Divine Accommodation to meet us where we are in order to bring us where we need to be. There are numerous OT references where this happens because God's "people" is simply not there yet.