Open Theism And Aeviternity

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='02 June 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1275539666' post='2123032']
Dr. Boyd is working on a project right now. The problem is the theology is co-dependant on your view of time and the early Church did not have a developed sense of time outside of basic platonic concepts.
[/quote]
On the other hand, it's pretty bad for your side if any of them speak against anything similar to your theory, regardless of their time period, yes?

Edited June 3, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='02 June 2010 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1275530219' post='2122976']
The typically phatmass reaction to open theism is to not provide counter argument and discussion, but make an attack and then mock it and then ignore it. Which is partially why this is no where near a priority to me right now. It gets annoying hearing the same responses and nobody willing to engage or discuss.
[/quote]
I understand brother.

[Innocent]

Hi, kafka!

[quote name='kafka' date='02 June 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1275489606' post='2122712']
I dont understand why this thread was started or what the interest is,
[/quote]

Well, the interest I have here is that the hypothesis of this system that "God does not exist in an 'eternity' that is distinct from our existence in time" is very much startling for me. I'm sure many Christians wonder what effect their prayers have on God. Many of us have read C.S. Lewis' essay on this, I think. The essay I refer to is On [i]The Efficiency Of Prayer[/i], collected in the volume [i]The World's Last Night[/i]. (Digression: This used to be [url="http://www.archive.org/details/worldslastnighta012347mbp"]available on the Internet Archive as a free download[/url], but no longer. Sad.)

But here is a new theory that says that there's no eternity at all. If any groundbreaking new theory like what Revprodeji is proposing is going to be accepted as a possilble cosmology for Catholics to hold to, (Revprodeji stated in some other thread that some Catholic theologians known to him told him that his theories contained nothing wrong.) that would be a notable turning point in the intellectual life of the Church, would it not?


[quote name='kafka' date='02 June 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1275489606' post='2122712']hopefully in order to refute this system. I will follow along and weigh in my opinion.[/quote]

Perhaps in the meanwhile, you could give this system the benefit of the doubt, and get hold of those books recommended by Revprodeji and read them while waiting for him to respond here so as to better understand the system.

I wish I had access to these books.

Revprodeji, could you possibly suggest to these authors (Dr. Boyd and others) that they publish ebook versions of these books online for free? That system seems to work for Cory Doctorow...

Edited June 3, 2010 by Innocent

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='03 June 2010 - 01:07 AM' timestamp='1275541635' post='2123048']
On the other hand, it's pretty bad for your side if any of them speak against anything similar to your theory, regardless of their time period, yes?
[/quote]

Depends on context of course. Speculative theology has various understandings. Plato does not undo Aristotle; Thomas does not undo Augustine.

If they said anything dogmatic, of course, but they do not. At most we would be reaching out of context for quotes in either directions. (My belief) The fathers were not concerned with what time was and because of that, the implications that has on God. Perhaps we can use quotes about the exact belief of immutability, but my research has shown that is not determined yet either.

God's knowledge of contingent future events is indeed an important thing to discuss. Augustine, Boethius, and Aquinas are the major figures in the Catholic tradition on this question, but it is all speculative. 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. All of these are examples of reconciling 3 factors, 1.) God knows everything, 2.) We have free will and 3.) God is immutable. I think we create a weird contradiction when we try to say time is a linear event (dimensional) and God is "out" of that dimension.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Innocent' date='03 June 2010 - 04:02 AM' timestamp='1275552158' post='2123088']
(Revprodeji stated in some other thread that some Catholic theologians known to him told him that his theories contained nothing wrong.)

I wish I had access to these books.

Revprodeji, could you possibly suggest to these authors (Dr. Boyd and others) that they publish ebook versions of these books online for free? That system seems to work for Cory Doctorow...
[/quote]

1.) I have had this discussion numerous times for the past 10 years. The issue was taking an anti-Catholic Boyd and using his theological system without the polemic language. His system does not need to be anti-Catholic but he goes out of the way sometimes. Knowing him personally, I can make that statement. My conversion was not met with joy. I have discussed with a couple Franciscan University MA professors and received a blessing. I have also discussed this with clergy and other theology students. Understanding this is speculative theology and at the safest level the answer is a "mystery", I continue in the process. My issue is when people impose a flawed view of time on God and the Christian metaphysic and end up with conclusions that are harmful.

2.) http://www.gregboyd.org/category/essays/essays-open-theism/

That is the closest thing to online books. Simple essay. Remember, he is writing as a baptist to a baptist reader. There is sometimes a quota of Anti-Catholic statements. The best example is instead of working with and researching Church understandings of immutability (Which I did about 3 years ago). He just throws the whole thing out and says the early Church was corrupted by Greek philosophy in that example. ( A common anti-Catholic statement that is not his own by any means.)

[N/A Gone]

Once again, Innocent, I am not committing much time to this thread until next week. I am a teacher at a Catholic College prep school and this is our finals week. I will give full attention to your OP either this weekend or next week. God Bless.

[kafka]

I think this thread has a good potential for discussion, mainly since it is not in the debate section, only right now I have less time to participate since I have to sponor and help an 83 year old Jew (who literally lived through WWII and escaped the holocaust) get baptised, by figuring out some way to bypass RCIA and the local parish bureaucracy by convincing my priest he is worthy without having to undergo a rigorous course. But hopefully tonight I will catch up with your posts Rev and Innocent. Here is a good guideline for the discussion that I hope to follow from Fides et Ratio:


"It must not be forgotten that reason too needs to be sustained in all its searching by trusting dialogue and sincere friendship. A climate of suspicion and distrust, which can beset speculative research, ignores the teaching of the ancient philosophers who proposed friendship as one of the most appropriate contexts for sound philosophical enquiry." (n. 33)

will catch up and respond later.

Edited June 3, 2010 by kafka

[kafka]

O.k. well I am well on my way on the other project so here are some of my initial responses to the nascent discussion:

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='03 June 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1275538714' post='2123023']
Does anyone have Patristic sources that could be used for one side or the other? I consider those the best sources of any unless it's spelled out in the Bible.
[/quote]
The patristic sources are of course very good since they are a pre-eminent transmission of the Sacred Deposit of Faith, yet they are limited and fallible (as I expressed in my Dei Verbum commentary). The soul and foundation of all theology is the explicit and implicit teachings of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Magisterium (which draws from and serves Tradition and Scripture). These are the three pillars of the Catholic Faith. The writings of the Fathers are a limited and fallible transmission, illumination, reflection of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture:

"Sacred theology rests on the written word of God, together with sacred tradition, as its primary and perpetual foundation." (Dei Verbum n. 24)

"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end." (

"Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church." (n. 10)

"But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church [The Magisterium], (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." (n. 10)

"It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."(n. 10)

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='03 June 2010 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1275539666' post='2123032']
Dr. Boyd is working on a project right now. The problem is the theology is co-dependant on your view of time and the early Church did not have a developed sense of time outside of basic platonic concepts.
[/quote]
This I think is a bit of a sweeping statement. Time and space are simple concepts that almost everyone in history has some understanding of regardless of whether or not they possess a philosophical way of explaining it.

[quote name='Innocent' date='03 June 2010 - 04:02 AM' timestamp='1275552158' post='2123088']
Well, the interest I have here is that the hypothesis of this system that "God does not exist in an 'eternity' that is distinct from our existence in time" is very much startling for me. I'm sure many Christians wonder what effect their prayers have on God. Many of us have read C.S. Lewis' essay on this, I think. The essay I refer to is On [i]The Efficiency Of Prayer[/i], collected in the volume [i]The World's Last Night[/i]. (Digression: This used to be [url="http://www.archive.org/details/worldslastnighta012347mbp"]available on the Internet Archive as a free download[/url], but no longer. Sad.)

But here is a new theory that says that there's no eternity at all. If any groundbreaking new theory like what Revprodeji is proposing is going to be accepted as a possilble cosmology for Catholics to hold to, (Revprodeji stated in some other thread that some Catholic theologians known to him told him that his theories contained nothing wrong.) that would be a notable turning point in the intellectual life of the Church, would it not?

Perhaps in the meanwhile, you could give this system the benefit of the doubt, and get hold of those books recommended by Revprodeji and read them while waiting for him to respond here so as to better understand the system.

I wish I had access to these books.

Revprodeji, could you possibly suggest to these authors (Dr. Boyd and others) that they publish ebook versions of these books online for free? That system seems to work for Cory Doctorow...
[/quote]
It is startling but,

God is Eternity. He does not exist in "eternity" and I do not know if any serious theologians have ever thought of such a thing. If he existed in eternity this would be a seperation which would automatically default His existance to a before and an after or a here and a there thus setting a limit on Him.

Here is part of an article I wrote and posted here a few months ago in the school of Aquinas:

One

God is One. He is undivided. God is Simplicity. He is not composed of parts. God is Unity. He is not seperated. His Mind is His Will and His Will is His Mind which is His Existance. His Mercy is His Justice, His Justice is His Mercy and so on. God is Purity. He has no purpose or reason or anything other than Himself. The only purpose of God is God. The only reason of God is God. God is His own purpose and His own reason and these are one and the same as His Existance. The Simplicity, Unity, and Purity of God may basically be summed of as the following: God is One.

Eternal

God is Eternity. He is no beginning and is no end, He simply Is. God is not seperated into the before and after of Time, nor divided into the here and there of Place. We in the Time and Place of History say that God is, has been and always will be, yet God as He is in Himself transcends all reference to these concepts. God transcends all Time, Place, History, Creation, and everything. God is Infinity. He is without limit or limitless as we say. Another way of expressing Infinity is to say He is formless. All Creation whether by nature spiritual or material (or both) has a form whereby it is set to a limit or in other words is finite. Yet God transcends all spiritual and material creation and so we say He is limitless and formless. God is not a spirit nor is He spiritual. If this were the case then a limit or form would be set upon His Nature which is impossible. When Jesus said in the Gospel of John, "God is Spirit" He was referring to the Third Person of the Trinity and not describing the Nature of God. God communicates Himself to our souls through grace while remaing Transcendent of our souls and ever beyond all that is spiritual. He is Infinity. For all practical purposes no beginning and no end is another way of describing Infinity, since to have a beginning or an end would establish a limit and a form upon God which is impossible. God is Eternal.

One Eternal

God is One. God is Eternal. What does this teach us about God? It teaches us that He is Pure Act, meaning there is no unused potential in His Nature. He is what He does and does what He is. His action is one and the same as His Existance. If it were possible that God could do something other than what He already is, then He would in reality be divided and seperated, into a before and after of Time, which would place a limit and form upon Him and hence would not be the Transcendent God. He is different than a human. A human person has a nature with the freedom to act (or not act). Human nature establishes one's freedom to act and a person acts again and and again. Yet God is everything that He does (act), and does everything that He is (existance). God creates since He is Creative. If God were not Creative there would be no Creation. In God doing is being and being is doing. And so the philosophers say He is Pure Act. I will simply say He is One Eternal Act.


What effects does our prayers have on God? God answers all our prayers in One Divine Eternal Act. His grace, will and providence is distributed "by seeing and understanding all persons, things, and events—everywhere and everywhen—and how they all best fit together, all at once. God creates all things, answers all prayers, performs all miracles, dispenses all Grace, governs all Creation with His Providence, throughout all Time and all Place and all Creation, all in One Divine Eternal Act." (Conte, Time and Eternity)


will respond to Rev's other two posts later.

[kafka]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='03 June 2010 - 09:28 AM' timestamp='1275571683' post='2123110']
God's knowledge of contingent future events is indeed an important thing to discuss. Augustine, Boethius, and Aquinas are the major figures in the Catholic tradition on this question, but it is all speculative. 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. All of these are examples of reconciling 3 factors, 1.) God knows everything, 2.) We have free will and 3.) God is immutable. I think we create a weird contradiction when we try to say time is a linear event (dimensional) and God is "out" of that dimension.
[/quote]
I agree it is important to discuss.

To that last sentence, I would respond by saying God is everywhere and everywhen since He quite simply beyond all Time and Place. God is Eternity. God is present throughout all of Creation and throughout all of Time, and beyond Time and Place, all at once. Knowledge of the future is not foreknowledge to God since he is not limited to a Time and a Place. The past, present and future is in a sense all present tense to God and his knowledge of all events, all free choices of all persons, at all times and in all places is perfect, infallible and inerrant since God is One Eternal Act:

Here are some verses from Scripture and my commentaries:

Isaiah:
{42:9} The things that were first, behold, they have arrived. And I also announce what is new. Before these things arise, I will cause you to hear about them.

God causes us to hear about future events since He was already there to see them and has already shaped them by His Grace and Providence in One Transcendent Eternal Act. He is not trapped in Time, thinking of yesterday and figuring out tomorrow like we are.

{42:14} I have always been quiet; I have been silent; I have been patient. I will speak like a woman giving birth. I will destroy and consume, all at once.

God does all at once, since everything that God is and everything that God does is One-Pure Eternal Act

{43:13} And from the beginning, I am the same. And there is no one who can rescue from my hand. I act, and who can turn it aside?

There is no separation in God. No change. No before and after, no here and there. He simply is, He is One Act, and nothing or no-one can change His Nature which is One which is Eternal, which is Pure Act.

{43:19} Behold, I am accomplishing new things. And presently, they will spring forth. With certainty, you will know them. I will make a way in the desert, and rivers in an impassible place.

The new things are only new to us who are in Time and Place. We know some future events, such as some events of the End Times, the Second Coming, the general resurrection, general judgment, the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth etc, with certainty since God is already there and has revealed them to us by inspiring the Sacred Writers.

{44:7} Who is like me? Let him call out and announce it. And let him explain to me the order of things, since it is I who appointed the ancient people. The things of the near and the distant future, let him announce them.

{46:10} From the beginning, I announce the last things, and from the start, the things that have not yet been done, saying: My plan will stand firm, and my entire will shall be done.

The Tribulation/End Period of Time is God's last things. His final plan to bring His Faithful home once and for all. He will execute it as He always planned too, for He is Eternity.

Revelation

{22:13} I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Jesus Christ is God. He is the beginning and end, first and last since He is Eternity. The Divine Nature is Eternity.

Psalms

{89:2} Before the mountains became, or the land was formed along with the world: from ages past, even to all ages, you are God.
{89:3} And, lest man be turned aside in humiliation, you have said: Be converted, O sons of men.
{89:4} For a thousand years before your eyes are like the days of yesterday, which have passed by, and they are like a watch of the night,

No separation in God. Verse 4 is a figure of speech proclaiming God's Transcendent Nature beyond all Time and Place, thus everywhere and everywhen. There truly is no adequate terminology to express God who is Eternity, the concepts of Time and Place are insufficient to explain the Eternal Triune God. And so the Holy Spirit uses many figures of speech as well as direct yet inadequate expressions (such as the Isaiah verses above) to express this Truth which cannot be completely contained or expressed by human language.

This sequence in Proverbs illustrates how utterly nothing Time and Place is to (in this case the Son of) God. Time and Place is no obstacle to God. His Nature so thoroughly transcends Time and Place that He is everywhere and everywhen all at once:

{8:26} Still he had not made the earth, and the rivers, and the poles of the globe of the earth.
{8:27} I was already present: when he prepared the heavens; when, with a certain law and a circuit, he fortified the abyss;
{8:28} when he made firm the sky above, and set free the fountains of waters;
{8:29} when he encompassed the sea within its limits, and laid down a law for the waters, lest they transgress their limits; when he weighed the foundations of the earth.
{8:30} I was with him in composing all things. And I was delighted, [b]throughout every day, by playing in his sight at all times,[/b]
{8:31} playing in globe of the earth. And my delight was to be with the sons of men.


So here is some initial support from Scripture. Now what about the teaching of Magisterium? And then the Fathers, Doctors and Saints. These should come next.

I uploaded the first article by Gregory Boyd, the Hexago of Opposition and will take a quick look.

Edited June 3, 2010 by kafka

[kafka]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='03 June 2010 - 09:28 AM' timestamp='1275571683' post='2123110']
Depends on context of course. Speculative theology has various understandings. Plato does not undo Aristotle; Thomas does not undo Augustine.

If they said anything dogmatic, of course, but they do not. At most we would be reaching out of context for quotes in either directions. (My belief) The fathers were not concerned with what time was and because of that, the implications that has on God. Perhaps we can use quotes about the exact belief of immutability, but my research has shown that is not determined yet either.
[/quote]
I agree some of what we are discussing here is speculative theology and it is surprising how the Fathers do not seem to transmit and meditate on Time and Eternity as much as say Aquinas. Still there is much support in Scripture which is the second pillar of the Faith.

I am going to jump ahead to Aquinas. I realize I am getting a head start, this isnt to one up anyone. As long as I have the time and will I might as well move forward with my thoughts since I have spent a lot of time on this subject.

These quotes from Question 10 from the Summa: The Eternity of God (with my comments in brackets)

Article 1. Whether this is a good definition of eternity, "The simultaneously-whole and perfect possession of interminable life"?:

"Thus eternity is known from two sources: first, because what is eternal is interminable--that is, has no beginning nor end (that is, no term either way); secondly, because eternity has no succession, being simultaneously whole."

[I would add that another source is Infinity, namely no limit which is basically the same as Aquinas' term. Infinity and Eternity are basically the same. There is absolutely no limit or term set on God and this includes Time and Place-past, present, and future-even future Space and Time does not impose a limit on the Divine Nature. If it did then Time and Place would be equal or greater than God. And so God is already is in future Time and Place even though it is yet to occur.]

"Simple things are usually defined by way of negation; as "a point is that which has no parts." Yet this is not to be taken as if the negation belonged to their essence, but because our intellect which first apprehends compound things, cannot attain to the knowledge of simple things except by removing the opposite."

[Eternity seems like a negation to us, yet it is the Infinite fullness and perfection of God who is both beyond Time and Place and in every Time and Place (everywhere and everywhen)]

"What is truly eternal, is not only being, but also living; and life extends to operation, which is not true of being. Now the protraction of duration seems to belong to operation rather than to being; hence time is the numbering of movement."

[Being and doing are one and the same in God. God is what he does and does what he is and this is One Eternal Act beyond and permeating all past, present and future all at once. And so "God understands everything all at once, so God knows what to do with Grace and Providence all at once. Therefore, the future is not conditional to God." (quote taken from Conte, Time and Eternity]

"Eternity is called whole, not because it has parts, but because it is wanting in nothing."

"If the future were not already present to God then he would be divided, a limit would be set upon Him which is impossible."

Article 2. Whether God is eternal?

"Nor is He eternal only; but He is His own eternity; whereas, no other being is its own duration, as no other is its own being. Now God is His own uniform being; and hence as He is His own essence, so He is His own eternity."

[Aquinas is asserting that God is Eternity. Eternity is the Divine Nature.]

"When Augustine says that "God is the author of eternity," this is to be understood of participated eternity. For God communicates His eternity to some in the same way as He communicates His immutability."

[The eternity of Heaven is not the same as the Divine Nature. Heaven participates in the Divine Nature. Heaven is with God who is Eternity.]

"For God is said to be before eternity, according as it is shared by immaterial substances. Hence, also, in the same book, it is said that "intelligence is equal to eternity." In the words of Exodus, "The Lord shall reign for eternity, and beyond," eternity stands for age, as another rendering has it. Thus it is said that the Lord will reign beyond eternity, inasmuch as He endures beyond every age, i.e. beyond every kind of duration. For age is nothing more than the period of each thing, as is said in the bookDe Coelo i."

[Heaven is created and so even though it is a sort of age or place or container that is with God, it has a beginning. The first Heaven will have an end and God will create a New Heaven. Yet God is Eternity, transcending even the durations of Heaven which is a created place beyond all Time and Place with God.]

"Eternity is nothing else but God Himself. Hence God is not called eternal, as if He were in any way measured; but the idea of measurement is there taken according to the apprehension of our mind alone."

God is Eternity.

"Words denoting different times are applied to God, because His eternity includes all times; not as if He Himself were altered through present, past and future."

[God subsumes all times and all places even the times yet to occur. How could it be otherwise? We pray for something one day and God beyond all Time and Place may have set events in motion to answer that prayer days maybe even years before we utter that prayer in Time. We pray for a good death, and God is present in the future moment of our death helping us as well as at ever point leading up to our death. A friend of ours dies and we pray for him after he died yet God beyond all Time and Place answer that prayer and gives grace to that person before he dies.]

Will take a break. Isnt this fun

[kafka]

Article 4. Whether eternity differs from time?

"Eternity is simultaneously whole. But time has a "before" and an "after." Therefore time and eternity are not the same thing."

[God and Time are distinct. The nature of space/time is that it is limited. Time and Place cannot contain Eternity, and so Eternity subsumes all Time and Place. God is present everywhere and everywhen since Time and Place are not able to impose any limit on Him neither past, present, nor future:



And I have often wondered
That if I like Moses met the Lord what I would say
But I have come to reflect much more now
On what words He might speak to me

Would He recall His talks with Moses
And remember the face of Pharaoh or experience them
As if in present time for tense has no meaning
For that which stands outside of time.


God is present since He is beyond presence.
and now my brain is fried.

[N/A Gone]

Kafka, you appear to have good background in this and you even mention if it "gets out of hand" you will post something you wrote. How about you save time and post this end-all writing?

Also, if you could present your objections in an easier way without the wall of text it would be much easier for me to respond. Right now I am not exactly sure where you are going and what you are trying to say.

[kafka]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='08 June 2010 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1276032245' post='2125897']
Kafka, you appear to have good background in this and you even mention if it "gets out of hand" you will post something you wrote. How about you save time and post this end-all writing?

Also, if you could present your objections in an easier way without the wall of text it would be much easier for me to respond. Right now I am not exactly sure where you are going and what you are trying to say.
[/quote]
not sure what you mean by 'end-all writing.'

I guess I was just trying to present my understanding based on Tradition-Scripture-Magisterium. The one thing about Open Theism which bothers me is that the system seems to teach God does not have an infallible, perfect and full understanding of the future. Or that His action is divided into peices based on what happens in the present. If that is what Open Theism teaches it would place a limit on Eternity, closing Him in on one end or term which is the future 'tense' which is impossible.

But I am not sure if that is correct understanding of Open Theism, so I stopped posting to see what you might say.

Edited June 9, 2010 by kafka

[Innocent]

[quote name='kafka' date='09 June 2010 - 09:26 PM' timestamp='1276095410' post='2126316']
not sure what you mean by 'end-all writing.'

I guess I was just trying to present my understanding based on Tradition-Scripture-Magisterium. The one thing about Open Theism which bothers me is that the system seems to teach God does not have an infallible, perfect and full understanding of the future. Or that His action is divided into peices based on what happens in the present. If that is what Open Theism teaches it would place a limit on Eternity, closing Him in on one end or term which is the future 'tense' which is impossible.

But I am not sure if that is correct understanding of Open Theism, so I stopped posting to see what you might say.
[/quote]

Kafka, I think it would be a good idea to get hold of one of the books Revprodeji has recommended, read them, and then post your responses to specific passages from the book, just as Pope Benedict did with Rabbi Jacob Neusner's book.

My humble observation is that, it seems to me that if you just say, "I'm not sure I have a grasp of what Open Theism is, but I'm going to refute it," that would make Open Theists like Revprodeji discouraged and perhaps even irritated. After all, he has invested a tremendous amount of time and energy into this field of study and has even received encouragement from some Catholic theologians.

[Innocent]

Just in case people want to read up on the discussions on Open Theism that previously happened here on Phatmass, here are the links to the old threads in which RevProdeji and others discussed Open Theism:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?%20showtopic=43642"]Trintarian Warfare theodicy (yea, you will get a headache)[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?%20showtopic=58218"]Twt & Heresy[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?%20showtopic=57279"]Fix Me... (TWT-Immutability-EMotions-etc)[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?%20showtopic=46341"]Sheed and God experiencing (sorry to open this up)[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?%20showtopic=88013"]God Time And You (Remember the Open theism/ TWT debate?)[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?%20showtopic=104654"]Does God Ever Change His Mind? (Open Theism... what is our response?)[/url]


Kafka, if you have time, you can read through these threads and find some points to respond to.