Open View Theism

[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

[The Joey-O]

Maybe this can move us in a better direction. From St. Augustine's [i]De magistro: De immortalitate animae:[/i] Chapter III:

[quote]
Some power [virtus]is constant, and all constancy is unchangeable, and all power can act, nor does it ceas to be power when it acts. Fruther, all action is moved or moves. Therefore, not all which is moved, or surely not all which moves, is changeable. But all which is moved by another and does not move itself is a mortal thing. Nor is anything immutable which is mortal. Hence, certainly and without any disjuction, it is concluded that not all which moves is changed.[/quote]

This, essentially is a great point in favor of what rev and I have been arguing for. "Not all that is moves is changed." That, I believe is exceptional for supporting my view on this matter.

[N/A Gone]

Code blue...Code blue..Code Blue...


V-vib, someone get me the bloody v-vib

[N/A Gone]

Time of death...

I thought we were making progress this time guys?

Budge...without being hateful. What do you think? Just curious. It seems like you have some calvin in you.

[N/A Gone]

[N/A Gone]

Have we got to a point where no fruitful dialogue can come? I think this has been very productive and has helped me a bit. I still hold to tenents that are not of your liking, I am sure, but I have brought myself to a position where I feel I am within the orthodoxy.

Give me a heresy quiz..