Open View Theism

[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?

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='1194134' date='Feb 13 2007, 06:57 PM']
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?
[/quote]

I know that Revprodeji and I do everything we can to "stay in the lines" for Catholic Dogma and all other Catholic teachings. We were convinced as Protestants that if God could see the exact future played out with no other potentials, then he determined it with disreguard to our will. I know that the reason why I continue to debate is because I either want to be convinced that I was wrong for thinking this (and have a theory that accounts for Free Will and God's Divinty replace the one I had before) or to prove that the theory that I had before (or an adaptation thereof) will work under the umbrella of Catholicism.

Ok. Here's a breakdown as I see them. Clarify if I am missing something. Rev, you affirm God's immutabity over and above the fact that he experiences a small change (your model has God experience potentials move to actuals). You make the claim that this small change does not affect God's immutability. Jeff, you make the claim that any change affects God's immutability, because change necessitates that there be something unexperienced or unactualized. If that is the case, then the being that experiences change is limited (by the fact that those things that he hasn't experienced are not incorporated into his experience). Anything that is limited is imperfect. God is perfect. Therefore, God cannot experience any change no matter how small.

I have to say that because Jeff laid out an a=b b=c, therefore a=c type argument, it seems to be logically sound. Even if you want to say that God is so powerful he can experience some small change and not be affected by it, you need to come up with a logical, systematic reason for it. I cannot. This is not to say that I like Jeff's argument better. I believe it creeates a deterministic God who is responsible for every evil in the world. However, I cannot reason my way out of it.

[The Joey-O]

It seems to me that when we demand that the ultimate principle of divinity is perfection, a perfection that is necessarily absolute and overriding all other possibilities, we negate a fundamental understanding of God that is central to Christian teaching. That is, that God is love. I don't mean this in some over-sensualized, tender-hearted manner. I mean to say that God technically has as His very utmost principle love. And by love, I mean that which is categorically both perfect in being and totally concerned with others (it creates sort of a balance, like the greatest law as Jesus gave it). This is not to come into contradiction with what is said in the councils or what is affirmed dodmatically about the nature of God, because that is all true. However, I think we often neglect how God "makes room" for man. It is very true that God is omnnipotent, yet He allows man to have power. It is very true that God is omnipresent, yet He allows man to take up space. God always makes room for us. So, we necissarily have to say that God "makes room" for our will. The question is "how?".

Jeff, in the model you present, if God were to (for example) poke you in the eye, he would know exactly how you would react and feel even before such an action would occur. And, he would know all consequent reactions that would follow from that. Now, you wouldn't deny that if God poked you in the eye, He would be responsible for the said poke. But, you seem to balk at the idea that He would be responsible for all consequent reactions. Look, if God knows exactly what will happen given His action of poking you in the eye, He is not only responsible for the poke, He is responsible for all other consequent reactions. So, if God knows you'll get mad if He pokes you in the eye, He is responsible. If God knows you'll hit your sister, because you're mad for getting poked in the eye, He's responsible. And so on. Essentially, He is responsible, because He knows ALL the consequences of His action before He does it. Therefore, God chose that you would hit your sister just as much as He chose that you would be poked in the eye. Even if you wanted to articulate that in some way you are responsible for hitting your sister as well (which, honestly, is nonsensical), you would have to say that God at least shares in responsibility for those actions. So, by your logic, God knew the creation of Lucifer would result in his falling away. God knew the creation of the world would result in the Fall of Man. God knew that every rape, murder, abortion, etc. would occur, and, therefore, God is responsible for them. This is the reason why I still look for an alternative means of explaining Man's free will and God's immutable perfection.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1194670' date='Feb 14 2007, 10:02 AM']
Clarify if I am missing something. Rev, you affirm God's immutabity over and above the fact that he experiences a small change (your model has God experience potentials move to actuals). You make the claim that this small change does not affect God's immutability. [/quote]


No..thats not it, experience and its ability to "change" God is what I was speaking of. Not that a "small" change could be ok. But in being immutable an experience would not be able to change.

re-read please. You missed my point.

[N/A Gone]

Joey I like what you wrote in the last post.

I think here we need to get back to basics.

The metaphysics that I understand is that God is love. That is the basic thing, God is relational. Now, in true love there must be the other party making a free-will decision to accept the love and be in that love. Now, in a legit expereince of love there then must be allowed an equal potential for non-love. This is a risk. In Open theism a major tendent is that God risked in creation. He risked rebellion. It is not a threat to him in his divine nature, but it is a threat of rejection, of pain and this pain is in emotional investment. For the evil that Hitler was capable of God grants the possibility for a love like Mother thersa.

Now, in this basic idea of soteriology our choices need to have an aspect that is not forumlated. Not determined. Catholic theology dogmatically teaches that ALL or made for heaven. So there is an aspect of self-causation that leds to the determination of our outcomes. That is why we are responsable for our souls (dont get caught up on lingo..Im trying to keep this simple) This is why the idea that the future is "done" or "determined" before I have determined my portion is wrong. A calvinist would embrace this they push sovereignty in a similar way as your view of immutability is made here. There are other things also, like a relational God and spiritual warfare. But we can get to those later or ignore them and move on.

I am co-dependant on drawing pictures. I pray this makes sense to you.

[N/A Gone]

I really did not want to kill this. Please, anyone else have some insight? Joey and I have sent emails back and forth (perhaps I will post them here in order to progress this) but I would really desire this to come to a head.

Ok, here is what Joey sent me

[quote]God is being. I AM THAT I AM. God is the Source of His Own Total Being. God is Perfect Being, because He is Being. There is nothing that exists that doesn’t exist in and through Him.

The definition of an accident is that which is non-essential to being, but nonetheless is an expression out of being. In other words, an accident is an incidental attribute of something. God, therefore, has no accidents, because He is All Being, by definition (He has no foot, or color, etc.)

Change necessitates movement from one reality to another (or one actualization to another – This is Aristotle’s understanding of change). A can is red. When you paint it, it becomes blue. This change is a change of attributes. It does not affect the fundamental nature of the can. The can is still, essentially a can. When the can is recycled and becomes a spoke on a rim, it goes through a substantial change. The can went through a change that affected its being. Since God has no accidents, any change that would be attributed to God would have to be a change of His Being.

We describe God’s knowledge according to the revised version of Open View Theism as follows: The past is settled reality, a series of actualized events. The future is a series of potentialities, spread out with a web of contingencies, etc. etc. The present is where those potentials are chosen by God and other beings of free-will within the confines God sets for them. So future potentials move either to actualized reality in the present or to non-potentiality (as those possibilities that did not actualize move to impossibilities). The problem is: God’s knowledge of these events moves from “they are future potentials” to “some are actualized, others are non-potentials”. This is a movement in the reality of God’s mind from “future potentials” to “the actualized and non-potential present”. Movement is change (as stated above). And, since God has no accidents, this would have to be a change of Being. Thus, this negates God’s Immutability.[/quote]Here is my response to him...

[quote]The biggest issue we are having is the difference in what is classically called “attributes” and what I am calling “expression.” In this I fully affirm your thesis statement that

“God is being. I AM THAT I AM. God is the Source of His Own Total Being. God is Perfect Being, because He is Being. There is nothing that exists that doesn’t exist in and through Him.”

In this I am not speaking of an accident. The analogy I used was a deck of cards, in which God expresses something that he always has, always is, but he chooses to express that portion at certain aspects of time. (obviously God does not fully reveal himself in his glory, biblically he expresses portions of himself often) So, I would argue, as you would, that God is not attributes and essence, rather he just IS. This does not mean he does not have “something” in which the Old testament writers would prescribe as “foot” hand” “anger” etc” but this is an expression of Gods, not an attribute or something changing, or causing change. God “experiencing” anger is not a change, since it is an expression he has always had.

The can can only change because it is mutable. Things can change it, because it is of their characteristic as incomplete to be changeable. Where as something immutable is not of its nature to change. We MUST have a view of immutability in which it is a strength to laugh in the face of change, not to be fearful of change. What strength is there in avoidance? Is something “unchangeable” if all we do is show how it avoids experience? I argue not.

Even so, the idea that a knowledge type causes change to me is not proper. Even if I held to a similar immutability belief as them, I would not hold that this “change in knowledge” was worth anything. I do not argue this “point of change” because I feel experience does not hurt immutability.

See what I mean?[/quote]

Ok, fix me

Edited February 18, 2007 by Revprodeji