Open View Theism

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1187004' date='Feb 6 2007, 10:27 PM']
We are the fish, in a current changed and effected by the current. God is the fisher standing in the water not being moved. The creator is not changed by his creation. But the nature of his creation is that it is linear time progressing. I argue that the future is not determined. We have self-causation. In that the available options are always avaliable but not settled. We can see that the past is settled. Thus we have no control of responsability in its blame. The future, in which we have control and we have responsability shows its openess.
[/quote]

Brilliant! I love fishing! This analogy is perfect!

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1187025' date='Feb 6 2007, 10:56 PM']
again, we are coming back to old issues that have already been covered, but if God experiences time as you suggest, then the quality of his knowledge must also undergo change and God must therefore be conceived of as within time.
[/quote]


I agree it is an old issue. But I was too submissive before which led to me going nuts from the logic of what we were creating falling apart. Im willing to let you pin me. But I stretched out and got my singlet on this time. This is more than an argument for me. It is my worldview and if I am going to be truly catholic than I need to kill this thing. I have learned that I can not do it in my own studies because I feed it.

I listed numerous times/events in which God experiences a change. Many of those are the biblical witness in which just covering it with the band-aid of anthropromorphism makes no sense logically or hermenutically. There are also times before our "created time" in which God would have had to logically "experienced" a change. I listed those times as well.

I disagree that the "quality of his knowledge" must undergo change. WHere is this from? Whats the patristic basis? Time is within God. Contained within God. But Time, in the essence in which God created it; is linear and progressive. He gave us options, he gave us self-causation.

[Guest JeffCR07]

It would be an error to say that "there must have been a time before God created time." Think of it like this: everything that God does, He does in one eternal, primordial act. Everything from Creation and Redemption to the so called "repentence" of God in 1 Samuel 15:11. All of it is the result of a single self-manifesting act of grace and love. It isn't as if God acted, then acted again, then decided to act a third time, then decided his second action wasnt very good and "repented" of it, only to act a fourth time. God acts once, from eternity, and this pure, simple act plays itself out in all the different manifold ways that we have ever and will ever experience God.

You are correct that time is created, and also correct that time is linear. In fact, you are [i]also[/i] correct to say that time is "within" God. Where you go wrong is in thinking that the line is unfinished. Just because God knows what we will do doesn't mean that God's knowledge makes us do it. That would be like arguing that because I know that gravity will make a ball drop somehow my knowledge forces gravity to make the ball drop. God knows the results of our free choice because the entire line of time is open to Him and he sees us make the choice. God's knowledge of free human actions doesn't cause those free human actions any more than my vision of your free human actions in the moment causes those free human actions.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1187584' date='Feb 7 2007, 01:18 PM']
It would be an error to say that "there must have been a time before God created time." Think of it like this: everything that God does, He does in one eternal, primordial act. Everything from Creation and Redemption to the so called "repentence" of God in 1 Samuel 15:11. All of it is the result of a single self-manifesting act of grace and love. It isn't as if God acted, then acted again, then decided to act a third time, then decided his second action wasnt very good and "repented" of it, only to act a fourth time. God acts once, from eternity, and this pure, simple act plays itself out in all the different manifold ways that we have ever and will ever experience God.
[/quote]

Ok, I know you are responding to revprodeji, here, but what you've said exposes what I believe are the logistical errors of this debate. You say that time is linear and God exists outside of it. I say that time is an abstract construct that we use to describe the various actualizations (actions, beings, experiences) that we percieve and that react with us. These actualizations move from potentiality (non-being, but possible-being) to actuality (being-being) and then cause other actualizations and effect there own state to return to potentiality (non-being). Now God does exist outside this system, but it isn't as if God determines [i]all[/i] the actualizations. He determines some and grants self-causation to other beings. Thus, there are areas of potentiality (of possibility) that he [i]does not[/i] know will occur. He [i]does[/i] know what all the possible actions are in any given area, AND He knows exactly what He'll do in any given circumstance. In fact, we know that all these possibilities exist in a very real way [i]even as potentialities[/i] (see my blurb on quantum physics above). Thus, even those these possibilities do not actualize, that doesn't mean that in some way they are not real. Thus, God isn't changed by any of this (even in His knowledge).

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1187751' date='Feb 7 2007, 06:40 PM']
Ok, I know you are responding to revprodeji, here, but what you've said exposes what I believe are the logistical errors of this debate. You say that time is linear and God exists outside of it. I say that time is an abstract construct that we use to describe the various actualizations (actions, beings, experiences) that we percieve and that react with us. These actualizations move from potentiality (non-being, but possible-being) to actuality (being-being) and then cause other actualizations and effect there own state to return to potentiality (non-being). Now God does exist outside this system, but it isn't as if God determines [i]all[/i] the actualizations. He determines some and grants self-causation to other beings. Thus, there are areas of potentiality (of possibility) that he [i]does not[/i] know will occur. He [i]does[/i] know what all the possible actions are in any given area, AND He knows exactly what He'll do in any given circumstance. In fact, we know that all these possibilities exist in a very real way [i]even as potentialities[/i] (see my blurb on quantum physics above). Thus, even those these possibilities do not actualize, that doesn't mean that in some way they are not real. Thus, God isn't changed by any of this (even in His knowledge).
[/quote]

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.

Your Brother in Christ,

Jeff

[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?