Open View Theism

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1187982' date='Feb 7 2007, 09:54 PM']
With all due respect, it seems that you have missed the thrust of my previous post, or perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been since Rev and I have been having this conversation almost as long as he and L_D have. Rev knows that I don't think God [i]causes[/i] the actualization of all potentials within contingent beings. In fact, he knows that I would vehemently deny any position that attempted to put forward such a position.

The issue at hand is concerning God's [i]knowledge[/i] and His [i]immutability[/i]. My point is that if God knows "x" as a potentiality (because some free agent hasn't decided what he is going to do), and then, upon the free choice of the free agent, that potentiality is actualized, it would follow that now God would no longer know "x" as a potentiality, but rather, as an actuality. This involves a real and qualitative change in the knowledge of God, and denies Divine Immutability.

Lets use an example: I am trying to decide if I will go to the pool tomorrow. Under the Open Theism position, at this very moment, God knows my decision to go to the pool tomorrow as a potentiality (one among many). When tomorrow comes along, and I do in fact go to the pool, God will then know my decision to go to the pool as an actuality. This means that with regards to God's knowledge of my-decision-to-go-to-the-pool-on-thursday there was a change from potentiality to actuality. The quality of God's knowledge changed, and that is impossible because God is immutable.
[/quote]

Ok, let's say for argument's sake that there is a change in God's knowledge from an understanding of something as potentiality to actuality. Does that effect a change in God's essence? Does that effect a change in God's nature? No. God is still God. Please, if this effects a change in His Immutability, please explain how. And, I ask that you show how this is a substantial change, a change of essence.

[N/A Gone]

Jeff, L_D thanks for putting time into this issue again.

The biggest issue here is just the size of the issue. We end up on rabbit trails without dealing with another issue and when we make progress on one aspect it breaks down due to the under-development of the other aspects.

God does everything in one act

--I would need to disagree. You say there is one act of God and we are reacting to it as our time progresses. I would say this is convenient and I do not see a reason to believe this and would argue the Old testament ideas of God relating with his people shows more integration. Not reaction. Adaptation from God would be an easy picture to see as the covenants progress and He adapts to our sins.

If you want to say that his eternal one action relates forever with our progressive mutable nature then we still do not have an answer for the events that happen outside of our creation. The begeting of the Son, the creation and fall of the angels.

How does God interact in heaven if he is one act? Does God think? Does he communicate personally? What about when we achieve grace and are in His kingdom. Will we become stoic? Do we lose the ability to communicate with each other? Does God change when souls return to him in heaven? When that soul is away there must be a change. What will the final judgment do? How is that not a change God experiences? What about the incarnation and the time when Son and father were separated?

Time

--the language of unfinished is our problem right now. I argue, and affirm that all the possibilities are known perfectly. But they are not determined until something/someone determines them. Now, whether that thing/one is God/us/or another free will beings decision that determined outcome can not be determined until it is determined. We are not an equation. We have numerous factors that influence us, but we also have self-causation. For us to be responsible for our actions we must be the ones determining the actions. Not God, not outside factors. That self-causation aspect of us must be what determines the choice in order that we are able to make the choice for salvation or for damnation. God knows the possibilities of what we will do, but the for certain what we do is not determined until we do it.

You sometimes say that God “knows” other times you say that God “sees” these are very different things with different implications. One could argue, that God, by knowing the variables and knowing us perfectly could “know” our future actions (I do not feel this fully affirms a self-causation) but to say He “sees” and that it is perfectly determined before we have actually determined it. Thus our self-causation is not a contributing factor in determining it. We are just reading a script. We are not the author. Only the author can be responsible for the outcome. So why are we responsible for ours?

I think your gravity example is flawed, gravity is a law that is an equation and we know exactly how it will work if we put the proper formula together. All the variables are present and we can equate them. We, watching the ball, do not give the ball self-causation. We do not give gravity self-causation. We acknowledge them as acting a script. We know it will happen 100 times out of 100 because they are predetermined to work that way. This would not carry healthy soteriological implications when staying true to free will. A calvinist could affirm this. But not a catholic.

My goal is to not interfere with Joey_O's thought progression. He is more of a philosopher and I want to hear where his thoughts progress to. I do not affirm the pure potentiality idea, but I want to give him a change to explain himself.

But

You affirm that I know you do not “think God causes the actualization of all potentials within contingent beings” and I know truly that you would be truly against any position that did this. The problem is I can not configure your position to not do this. I see your position as only allowing this. That is my issue. I am violently against any position that does that. Calvinism was my first taste of blood and that taste is lingering when I attempt to submit and make sense of this theology.

In regards to knowledge and immutability I will just disagree. I do not see immutability as a weakness. I see it as a strength. Mutability can be moved/changed. Immutability can not. I do not believe Immutability is unable to experience, but rather in their perfection they can not become more than they are, thus that experience does not change their nature for it is perfect. I would not adhere to a stoic idea of divine immutability. During the christological controversy it was understood that God experienced emotions. A stoic immutability would not allow this.

In a thread on the incarnation a church miltant named Paphnutius answered a question from rkwright. The Question was [quote]“Is this possible? To be an unchanging timeless diety, yet 'enter' into time at some point? Can He both unchanging and changing at the same time? Maybe a bit more indepth Pap? You've got my attention...”[/quote]
Paphnutius answered

[quote]Well I will have to be careful with the way that I word things. When we say that He enters into time (such as the Incarnation or the theophanies) this does not imply that God is changing ad intra. The doctrine of God's immutability does not mean that God is either always speaking or not speaking at all, it means that God is the same God (ie: omnipresent, omniscient, all-good) all the time. His divine will does not change. He is pure act, and therefore the most perfect being (or Being itself some would say). The immutability refers to God being pure act, and not at all potential.

Is it possible? Sure God did it didnt He? [/quote]

In this I see that God's nature is immutable. We can not limit it or try to protect it and say “God can not experience change” rather we just need to say “experience wont change God”

I like your pool analogy. I just dont see an issue to it. You claim that the change in knowledge hurts God's immutability. I just disagree with this. I do not see immutability as weak. God is not caught off guard. He is prepared and fully understands the possibilities in perfect ways. I dont see a problem.

New advent defines Immutability as “ the divine nature is incapable of eternal change...change implies the increase or diminution from perfection” Here I see that the nature is what cannot change. I agree with this, but I do not believe that experience would change the nature of the divine.

[The Joey-O]

Ok. I wanted to get this down before I forget, but this insight was given to me by a friend of mine. Essentially, God's immutability isn't effected by not knowing what may actualize in the future. Because the future is (at least in the way that I am describing it) non-being. It is potential-being, but isn't being yet. This again is how I would say that the standard assumptions about time are false. Time isn't linear, its sequential. I haven't read revprodeji's post yet, but I'm under some time constraints.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

[The Joey-O]

Time is like an eternally flowing present in as much as the past and future are nonexistent. The present is. We can say that at one point I existed differently than now and through changes that have occured, I am in the state that I am in now. However, it would be incorrect to say that in some way to some being this "past time" still exists. The past was being and now is non-being. It in no way continues to exist.

Thus, if God doesn't know certain aspects about the future, (because he doesn't determine how we use our free will) then all is still well. His immutability remains unaffected, because "the reality of the future" isn't really a reality. It's necessarily non being. It is potential-being, but currently, it is non-being. And that non-being that is the future in no way exists until such a time that it does.

I hope this addendum to my previous post helps clear up what I was trying to say.

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1188716' date='Feb 8 2007, 04:34 PM']
My goal is to not interfere with Joey_O's thought progression. He is more of a philosopher and I want to hear where his thoughts progress to. I do not affirm the pure potentiality idea, but I want to give him a change to explain himself.
[/quote]

That was mostly me being clumsy with language. I initially was basing almost all of what I said off of some contemporary Platonists, and I had my understanding of Aristotle mixed up. Ignore what I was saying. It is, at best, a topic for another day (more likely, it was just a bad idea).

Joey O.

[N/A Gone]

a random thought...

could it be that open theism, or at least my understanding of it. Is plausable within catholic theology, but not compatable with a thomist?

take for example...Would Christ have come if Adam had not fallen?

I would answer...

God always knew the possibility of a revolt from humanity, and thus always had a plan for it. But I do not believe his will was for humanity to fall and for the incarnation and such to happen. But it happened because we fell.

Clearly against thomists, but still orthodox.

That is what I am feeling right now. I pray I have conformed my theology to the point where it is not cancer, but I feel that tendents of open theism (which in its very nature is against calvinism) would naturally but heads with a thomist (which is compatable with some tendents of calvinism)

[Veritas]

+

Open Theism - Always has been, and always will be, a heresy.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1191014' date='Feb 10 2007, 07:29 PM']
+

Open Theism - Always has been, and always will be, a heresy.
[/quote]


No offense sir, but after hashing this issue out for 2 years on this board alone. And having numerous priests, a bishop and other theologians attest that It could be compatable I would appreciate it if you could offer something more to this conversation then just a one-liner.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1188134' date='Feb 8 2007, 12:34 AM']
Ok, let's say for argument's sake that there is a change in God's knowledge from an understanding of something as potentiality to actuality. Does that effect a change in God's essence? Does that effect a change in God's nature? No. God is still God. Please, if this effects a change in His Immutability, please explain how. And, I ask that you show how this is a substantial change, a change of essence.
[/quote]

If God can move from potentiality to actuality, whether it is with regards to his nature or not, then God is not perfect. To have a potential means that there is something that you [i]could[/i] actualize, but have not. Thus, a god who admits any change whatsoever is one who moves from potentiality to actuality. Such a god would be imperfect, and so would not be God at all.

To approach the problem from another angle, you are suggesting that the "changes" in God are not changes in His nature or essence. But if this is true, then they must be changes in something that is accidental to the Godhead. But God is a necessary being and he has no "parts," especially not accidental parts. As such, any change in God [i]must[/i] be a change in the Divine Nature or Essence. But this is impossible too, and so we recognize that there can be no change in God whatsoever.

*******

The biggest and most serious problem that I see in these discussions is the fact that we must recognize that [i]foreknowledge doesn't equal causation[/i]. Just because God sees, from outside of time, all of your free actions, whether they are past, present, or future, doesn't somehow make them not free. Just like my vision of my roomate sitting in his chair doesn't cause him to sit there, neither does God's vision of what I do tomorrow cause me to do it.

It seems to me that if this one point would just be admitted, the majority of the "problems" that Open Theism attempts to pose would go away.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[N/A Gone]

jeff,

Not sure if you are gonna write back to me, or if I should continue here.

I agree it would be better to take this point by point

You cite that foreknowledge does not equal causation.

1.) How do you define foreknowledge. If you say God "knows" or are you saying God "sees" "knows means it has not yet happened, not yet been determined. "sees" means it is exhaustively settled. I have argued above that If it is exhaustively settled before we settle it then it is wrong (I wont repeat the argument just look above)

thanks Jeff

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1191016' date='Feb 10 2007, 08:34 PM']
No offense sir
[/quote]
I always thought that Veritas was a she for some reason.

Which is it cuz I'm curious?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1191016' date='Feb 10 2007, 08:34 PM']
No offense sir, but after hashing this issue out for 2 years on this board alone. And having numerous priests, a bishop and other theologians attest that It could be compatable I would appreciate it if you could offer something more to this conversation then just a one-liner.
[/quote]
I must say that the open theist texts that I read last year were quite explicitly heretical (some of the authors even admitted this fact, namely that their theology is incompatible with the theology of the early ecumenical councils). But I am open (no pun intended) to the possibility that many of the themes and concerns of open theism can be reworked and articulated in a way that is orthodox. The problem I have is that I don't consider myself qualified to make such a determination and I wonder if this will ever be entirely resolved through dialogues on this message board.

The very few Catholic writings that I've seen which speak of open theism simply criticize the heretical aspects (quite rightly), but don't seem concerned with exploring the validity of what open theism seeks to achieve or the framing of the problems that it wants to resolve. On the one hand I tend to believe that the core concerns of open theism could be dealt with by a clear and direct articulation of existing Catholic theology, but on the other hand the conceptual and linguistic differences between classical Catholic theology, and mainstream open theism make such an approach quite difficult if not impotent to effect a mutual reconciliation.

Whether or not my impressions are true, the basic fact of my incompetence still remains so I do not believe that I have a whole lot to offer in this discussion. My favored course of action is simply to suggest that any Catholics with open theistic tendencies keep on studying theology. I agree with your sentiments rev, that there is no 'one liner' that can actually deal with the issues at hand. But to attain a comprehensive understanding of Catholic Theology takes a great deal of study, so do not be quick to discard something that is not yet fully understood. And yes, I agree that this can go both ways; there is a tendency to pronounce certain ideas as 'heretical' before fully understanding the intent or rationale behind the ideas. I was not guilty of this at the beginning of this thread where I criticized Joey's statements since I was only seeking clarification and considered my understanding of Joey's statements as heretical to be a tentative view pending further clarification.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1191023' date='Feb 10 2007, 07:37 PM']
If God can move from potentiality to actuality, whether it is with regards to his nature or not, then God is not perfect. To have a potential means that there is something that you [i]could[/i] actualize, but have not. Thus, a god who admits any change whatsoever is one who moves from potentiality to actuality. Such a god would be imperfect, and so would not be God at all.
[/quote]

You assert that change necessitates movement to or away from perfection. This assertion, from what I understand, is nothing more than that. I would like either some sort of proof for this.

[N/A Gone]

this is quick, but the biggest issue in your readings is more of a protestant vs catholic thing. Not from you, but I can promise. Knowing boyd that if he made a good sandwich he would find a way to claim it is different than catholicism. He is given credibility, as many protestant writiers, but claiming they are fixing or doing something better than the early church fathers and the evil roman empire.

I wouldnt even consider myself an open theist, as much as whatever bastardization I have developed by shooting the cancer with enough chemo that whatever creation I have now only is recognizable in basic ways I describe and I feel is making progress in speaking with Jeff.

Dont misunderstand these comments as submission to something I can not attest to. I strongly adfirm an openess and the strong role of self-causation as well as a God that has adapted and related to humanity in the foolish options we have choosen. A future not yet determined, but known perfectly. An immutability that is strength, not weakness

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1191120' date='Feb 10 2007, 10:18 PM']
You assert that change necessitates movement to or away from perfection. This assertion, from what I understand, is nothing more than that. I would like either some sort of proof for this.
[/quote]

Not exactly, my point is that change itself necessitates imperfection. If my laptop were to magically change from blue to black, we wouldn't say that it has become more or less perfect, but we would maintain that it has changed. However, the fact that my laptop [i]can[/i] change its color means that it is in some way limited or qualified. In order to have a color that can change, it must be corporeal, extended, etc. All of these are limiting factors. But a limit implies imperfection. The only truly perfect thing would be that which is limited by nothing - that which is bounded by no qualification.

If something can change, there must be some aspect of it capable of change. But if there is an aspect of it that is capable of change, then that aspect must be limited in some way. In order for change to occur, a thing must become something that it is not, and if there is a "something that it is not" then this thing in question is limited. Thus, change necessitates limitation, and perfection is not limited in any way. Therefore, something that changes cannot be perfect.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[The Joey-O]

Hmmm...Thinking...

Edited February 11, 2007 by The Joey-O

[The Joey-O]

Jeff, to boil down what you said, this is the crux of your argument? (with the part in bold being the most essential statement)

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1191524' date='Feb 11 2007, 11:51 AM']
[b]In order for change to occur, a thing must become something that it is not, and if there is a "something that it is not" then this thing in question is limited.[/b] Thus, change necessitates limitation, and perfection is not limited in any way. Therefore, something that changes cannot be perfect.
[/quote]

Ok. Rev, you said you had an answer for this. What is it?

[N/A Gone]

Jeff..

Do you want me to answer this, or do you want it to just be joey and you?

If you dont reply in a handful of minutes Im gonna do it..


(by handful I mean if I get bored..hehe)

I dunno..I have other points that havent been addressed..I know it is alot of info.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Revprodeji

[The Joey-O]

If I have a vote, I would appreciate an answer to this from you Rev.

[N/A Gone]

Remember, I am just an undergrad student. Not worthy of the MA program's y'all have. But here is my take.


Ok, There are a couple of objections I have with your logic here jeff. We have hashed this out before, but I will state it again for the sake of Joey and the flow of this conversation. It pains me that we are not covering some of the issues already brought up, but this issue is deep and has many bunny trails. I will allow you and L_D to decide the flow and what issues you want to bring up. But...lets get back to the other issues when this aspect is resolved or brought to a standstill.

I touched on this barely in post 22; but Your thesis in a nutshell is that change necessitates imperfection. This of course is based on the platonic idea that any change, any experience moves the one changing. If they are at a “7” then if something changes they are moved either for the good or the evil. (a 8 or 6) thus the perfection is something in which can not change for the better or for the worse. I agree with this. I feel that all mutable creatures are subject to influence, or “growth” as we would call it. An example being how my personal faith and theology has developed from my experiences with many of you. Or Joey, the growth you and I have experienced in hashing out issues over the past 3-4 years. We are an imperfect being, and in being imperfect we have not achieved that which makes us uneffectedable (is that a word?) My argument then is that the difference in mutability, and immutability would be the ability to be changed from an experience. God is that which nothing better can be conceived. In that he has no more “room for Growth” he is the standard. So an experience, or a change would not change Him because he has no room to change. So when God experiences something(and in an openness theology God would have already have a perfect knowledge of all the options, so he can not get caught off guard or unprepared...a common objection from uneducated people) nothing changes for God. Nothing is new for Him. All is from Him. So, God does not change from Black to Orange. God is both and expressing one of them at a time does not cause his perfection to lessen because he is all “color” at once. (perhaps this is what Joey meant by all possibilities??) In your laptop the color “magically changed” but God will express the color when he wants to based on the situation. But God has all the colors already, nothing changes in God's essence, just his displayed attributes. (Did I just use Aristotelean philosophy?ugh..)

You cite that changing the color, or a change in general means that the laptop is limited. Or Qualified. I just don't buy it since a color is an attribute, not an essence. God expresses disappointed with the people During Noah's time. That does not mean that it was the first “experience of disappointed” for he is the Source of all emotions beyond our understanding, and the creator of all emotions. He is expressing something that is of Him at that time. So I do not see how this limits God. This shows a God that is genuinely relational, genuinely invested in His people. Perhaps this really isn't change for God. At least in the sense you are explaining because God was everything he is before and after that moment. We can not fully comprehend the Divine. We only see what he expresses towards us. You cite that in change something becomes something it is not. This is where I degree as well. God already has “orange” and “black” so expressing one or expressing the other does not cause Him to be something he is not or was not. God is more of a deck of cards in this sense. He has all the cards. Can not earn anymore, and he can play whatever ones he wants at whatever time he in his unbound nature wants to. But it does not add or change anything from that deck that he is.

I would challenge that an immutability that can not experience because it “could change” is not an immutability, it is a fragile weakness. Rather than the strength. What strength is there when it is withdrawn? The Nerd that avoids the weight room will never pull a muscle, but it is not because he can lift everything, rather he avoids the weight room.

Thus, the ability to change your expression, without changing the essence is immutability relating with the mutable. Not a sign of weakness, but a strength we do not have.

[phatcatholic]

perhaps this is an ignorant question (i'm afraid i am one of the "uneducated people"), but, if you agree that God does not change, then where is the disagreement? why are we even debating?