Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Divine omniscience

Thread: Purgatory: Divine omniscience Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001236

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

A couple of questions arising from the discussion of predestination on the evangelicals and fundamentalism thread:

What are our reasons for believing that God knows not only everything that has happened and is happening, but everything that will happen?
Is this kind of 'forward' omniscience a necessary property of God?

I've long be taken by the view, expressed very powerfully by WH Vanstone in Love's Endeavour, Love's Expense that creation is an interaction between the creator and the created. If that is so, surely the idea of forward-looking omniscience is unnecessary and perhaps even redundant?

[ 05. January 2015, 21:09: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

It is a property of God because God is the eternal I Am, He who Was, and Is, and Is to come.

Omniscience is only a problem if you're a hyper-Calvinist or a Muslim, because then it really does turn God into a ogre deity. It's not really a problem for the rest of us, though.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, I get the first point about being eternal. But how, specifically, is that different from my saying 'I will be here with my dog next Wednesday, but at the moment I don't know whether or not he's going to bark at next door's cat?' (Alright, I know it's different in all sorts of ways, not least that I didn't create either the dog or the cat, but specifically, the bit about being a constant over time not necessarily implying awareness of what will happen in the future.)

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

Is this kind of 'forward' omniscience a necessary property of God?

I've long be taken by the view, expressed very powerfully by WH Vanstone in Love's Endeavour, Love's Expense that creation is an interaction between the creator and the created. If that is so, surely the idea of forward-looking omniscience is unnecessary and perhaps even redundant?

It's not necessary. Most Christians have a "soft" view of omniscience. Open and Process theologians would hold a position similar to Vanstone's.

Posted by Fëanor (# 14514) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, I get the first point about being eternal. But how, specifically, is that different from my saying 'I will be here with my dog next Wednesday, but at the moment I don't know whether or not he's going to bark at next door's cat?' (Alright, I know it's different in all sorts of ways, not least that I didn't create either the dog or the cat, but specifically, the bit about being a constant over time not necessarily implying awareness of what will happen in the future.)

God is not just constant over time, but constant outside of time. From a perspective outside of time, there is only what is -- our notion of the present is quite arbitrary. The necessity of God's position as such is arguable, though (as many open theists make a living doing so). However, I have yet to see an open-theist argument that doesn't make God subject to time, hence not eternal, hence not (in the traditional sense) God.

So, in a sense, 'forward' omniscience is a necessary property of God, but not a necessary property of a being that created humanity.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, I get the first point about being eternal. But how, specifically, is that different from my saying 'I will be here with my dog next Wednesday, but at the moment I don't know whether or not he's going to bark at next door's cat?' (Alright, I know it's different in all sorts of ways, not least that I didn't create either the dog or the cat, but specifically, the bit about being a constant over time not necessarily implying awareness of what will happen in the future.)
God is not just constant over time, but constant outside of time. From a perspective outside of time, there is only what is -- our notion of the present is quite arbitrary. The necessity of God's position as such is arguable, though (as many open theists make a living doing so). However, I have yet to see an open-theist argument that doesn't make God subject to time, hence not eternal, hence not (in the traditional sense) God.

Who have you read, then? That description doesn't fit the position of any of the major open theists-- Pinnock, Sanders, Boyd, etc.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Does God know if it's going to rain tomorrow ?

Apart from in Leicester ...

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, I get the first point about being eternal. But how, specifically, is that different from my saying 'I will be here with my dog next Wednesday, but at the moment I don't know whether or not he's going to bark at next door's cat?'

Because you are inside time and place and God isn't.

Lets say there was a film with a cat or a dog in it. Say Breakfast at Tiffany's The characters in the story don't know whether or not the cat is going to be around on Wednesday, if Wednesday is later in the story But the people making the film do. They are outside the timestream of the story. They may have filmed the last scene firt. Or have two location crews filimg different scenes imultaneaously. The scrip tof the final scene might have been written before shooting started, in effect before the creation of the secondary world in which the story is.

God creates the whole universe, time as well as space. Is God any nearer to Australia than to Bulgaria? Or to Betelguese? Niether is God bearer to Wednesday than to Tuesday.

(Oh and the cat does come back)

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Does God know if it's going to rain tomorrow ?

Apart from in Leicester ...

Yes, He does.

I believe that God is outside time. And that He knows the hour of my death.

And when the Second Coming will take place.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Couple more questions, then (please bear with me- I know they're noddy- I've had no theological education):
Where does free will fit into that, then?
If you do take the view that God knows how everything is going to work out,and He created it all, how does that make creation anything much more than a kind of enormous divine train set?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Does God know if it's going to rain tomorrow ?

The aforementioned Greg Boyd would say God knows the exact likelihood of it raining tomorrow. Link to a Greg Boyd essay on open theism here. Sample quotation:

quote:
The issue concerning the “openness of the future” is not about the infallibility or fallibility of God’s foreknowledge, but rather about the nature of the future which God infallibly foreknows. Is it exclusively foreknown and predetermined by God, or does God determine some aspects of the future and sovereignly allow other aspects to remain open?

Many passages of Scripture depict God as foreknowing and/or predetermining certain things about the future. But there are also many passages that depict the future is open (not determined) and depict God as knowing it as a realm partly comprised of possibilities.

Boyd goes on to give examples of Bible passages showing God apparently changing his mind, expressing regret at how events have unfolded, being surprised by events, testing people's faithfulness, asking non-rhetorical questions about the future, and speaking in terms of what may or may not happen in the future.

Boyd feels that interpreting all these passages in a figurative way (so as to maintain that God sees all of history as settled and confirmed) is 'not... warranted on either exegetical or theological grounds'.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Bliss South Coast Kevin. God can be as 'outside' time as He wills, but He hasn't willed what hasn't happened as happened, only as sure as ... going to happen.

Of course He cannot possibly will the spin of an undetermined electron ...

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Does God know if it's going to rain tomorrow ?
The aforementioned Greg Boyd would say God knows the exact likelihood of it raining tomorrow. Link to a Greg Boyd essay on open theism here. Sample quotation:

quote:
The issue concerning the “openness of the future” is not about the infallibility or fallibility of God’s foreknowledge, but rather about the nature of the future which God infallibly foreknows. Is it exclusively foreknown and predetermined by God, or does God determine some aspects of the future and sovereignly allow other aspects to remain open?

Many passages of Scripture depict God as foreknowing and/or predetermining certain things about the future. But there are also many passages that depict the future is open (not determined) and depict God as knowing it as a realm partly comprised of possibilities.
Boyd goes on to give examples of Bible passages showing God apparently changing his mind, expressing regret at how events have unfolded, being surprised by events, testing people's faithfulness, asking non-rhetorical questions about the future, and speaking in terms of what may or may not happen in the future.

Boyd feels that interpreting all these passages in a figurative way (so as to maintain that God sees all of history as settled and confirmed) is 'not... warranted on either exegetical or theological grounds'.

That seems to me to make a lot of sense. God as the creator has after all set the parameters within which things can happen but does not necessarily know what is going to happen within those parameters (indeed, it being of the nature of creation- creation both as noun and as activity- that he does not)?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Where does free will fit into that, then?

Makes no difference. You can believe in free will or disbelieve in free will with either view of God.

(And I suspect that different people mean different things by "free will" anyway)

quote:

If you do take the view that God knows how everything is going to work out...

But no-one is saying that God knows how everything is going to work out, in the sense that God can somehow predict the future.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
God can be as 'outside' time as He wills, but He hasn't willed what hasn't happened as happened, only as sure as ... going to happen.

False distinction, just as the distiction between predestination is false. Both can be true.

quote:

Of course He cannot possibly will the spin of an undetermined electron ...

Whyever not?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Where does free will fit into that, then?
Makes no difference. You can believe in free will or disbelieve in free will with either view of God.

(And I suspect that different people mean different things by "free will" anyway)

That's right. It makes no difference. You can believe in free will with either view of God. It's impossible not to believe in free will.

And different people do mean different things by free will. This is an important part of the issue.

People think that free will means the absence of constraints or determinants. But freedom is actually more about being able to think and do what you wish. Our lives are constrained and determined by so many factors that we are oblivious to that we don't realize how they affect our choices.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:

If you do take the view that God knows how everything is going to work out...
But no-one is saying that God knows how everything is going to work out, in the sense that God can somehow predict the future.

Yes, God knows that everything will work out for humanity. This is clearly predicted. But that doesn't mean that we believe it. It in no way affects our freedom.

It is like the law of large numbers. Random effects are unpredictable on an individual level. But the larger the scale is the more predictable they become in aggregate terms - yet they are still random.

Freedom works the same way.

We can't know if any particular individual will be saved. But we can know that humanity will be saved and that God's plan will be successful.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Because Ken the spin of an electron is indeterminate. God thinks it so. He has NO CHOICE. If you are in the God business and create that's the deal.

As for my allegedly false distinction: the indeterminate future has not happened. We're ALL outside it. Being outside time is ... relative at best, is being outside now. Where's that ? When's that ? As neither the past nor the future exist they are not encompassed, in memory in the fullest meaning.

It is not all passively computable by a long way. Virtually nothing is. Where it isn't some of it can be thought to any POSSIBLE configuration. Extra dimensions and all that. God can determine the spin of any electron by willing the outcome ... perhaps. No other way is possible.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Martin, you can claim that an event B in the world is not (fully) determined by the set of relevant prior world entities A:

code:

not A -> B,
but A /random\ B

where time runs from left to right. But this does not imply

code:

God /random\ B

A proper understanding in classical theism is:

code:

    /..>    A
God ...> /random\
    \..>    B

where time runs from top to bottom on the right hand side this time (for typographic reasons), but not at all on the left hand side.

You are correct in saying that if God creates randomness, He necessarily creates it as random to Himself. For example, an indeterminate spin is made by God as indeterminate, and hence is indeterminate to God by virtue of His creation thereof. This is simply putting into words the following part of the tripartite diagram

code:

God ...> /random\

What you do not seem to grasp is that it does not follow that God is unaware of the "random product", e.g., the outcome of a measurement of the indeterminate spin. That is so because what we mean in saying that God creates something random is this

code:

not A -> B,
but A /random\ B

That is to say, randomness is defined in terms of world entities. For example, spin is indeterminate in terms of the physical state of the electron and its relevant environment. God makes that to be so. But that is not the same as saying that the indeterminacy applies to God as in

code:

God /random\ B

That God makes it impossible to tell in terms of the world what B will be does not mean that it is impossible for God to tell what B will be. Because concerning God the relevant part of the tripartite diagram is

code:
God ...> B

That is to say, like all temporal entities of the world, so also B is created by God in eternity.

Please note that I have used creative causation "...>" for God, rather than normal causation "--->". By this I mean that God is not somehow "faking" randomness by causing the appearance thereof. So we are not saying, for example, that God determines all dice throws ever perfectly, but then arranges their total (universe wide, through all time) statistics such that they merely appear to have a uniform random distribution under statistical analysis. Rather God creates a dice (or better, some quantum system) as actually random. The dice is a real thing, that at a real point in time undergoes a real random change. So the total statistics of all dice throws appears random simply because it is. However, since God creatively causes all temporal entities in His eternal instant of Life, all these really random outcomes are simultaneously present to Him.

Any temporal causation of "randomness" where the outcome is "determined" necessarily amounts to a fake, because these properties are contradictory. But God's creative causation yields temporal randomness that is determined in eternity. While we cannot really imagine that, the problem we have there is not one of randomness, but one of eternity. We cannot imagine causation other than in a temporal manner, because we are time-bound. But God does not cause that way, because He is eternal.

A final point, it is tempting to extend the above to free will in this manner:

code:

    /..>         A
God ...> /Martin's choice\
    \..>         B

While I have no clean argument for this, I think however that it really is more interesting and looks like this:

code:

    /..............>    A
God ...> Martin ...> /choice\
    \..............>    B

That is to say, free will is not just some kind of "individualized randomness", as if we are some kind of walking super-dice, who now and then actively randomize events. Rather free will is a temporal participation in the eternal creative causation of God. God creates us in His image and likeness in the sense that we can punctually pro-create, making events relate causally to each other "choice-wise". And our pro-creation is powered by God's creation. (Note the dash: procreation is the specific pro-creative act by which we pro-create additional pro-creators...) I think it may be possible to argue for the semi-eternity of the human soul from this.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Go Ingo! [Overused]

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Couple more questions, then (please bear with me- I know they're noddy- I've had no theological education):
Where does free will fit into that, then?
If you do take the view that God knows how everything is going to work out,and He created it all, how does that make creation anything much more than a kind of enormous divine train set?

If you're a hard determinist, reality *is*'a trainset. Augustine reckoned you had free will if your decision wasn't coerced. Trouble is, in his scheme, you could only make the choices that God had determined for you. You have to buy a car, and you can buy any coloured car you like as long as it's a black one.

An alternative, flowing out of Arminian thought, is that God frometernity, sees every decision that individual humans will make, and decides what he will do in response to them. That includes prayer. So because God decides which prayers he will answer, our prayers make a difference to the way the universe turns out. We can't change the future, but the future is the way it is because we pray.

A third option is one dreamed up by a Jesuit scholar, Luis Molina. The unique perspective in Molinism is God's knowledge of counterfactuals - what would happen in any given circumstance. God knows both actual futures * and *possible futures. Events occur because libertarianly free agents - God, humanity, spiritual beings - bring them about.

But these free creatures act within the complex of human history in the world God has decided to actualise. So before God created anything, he saw every world that it would be possible to create in which free agents could make free decisions. The world he has actualised (brought into being) is this one, because it's the one that allows him both to fulfil his ultimate purposes, and allows free agents to be truly free.

It takes a bit of thinking through but gives God less control over what happens in the universe than Augustine would want (there are some world's God can't actualise if free agents are truly free) but more than Arminius would go for (God doesn't just *know* the future and decide how to fit into it, he *decides* which future, from whatever possible futures free agents will shape will come about.)

There are variations of all these, which we may tease out if you want to explore any of them further.

[ 17. July 2012, 21:31: Message edited by: Ramarius ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Thanks, Ramarius, that's very interesting- something to go away and think about.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
An alternative, flowing out of Arminian thought, is that God, from eternity, sees every decision that individual humans will make, and decides what he will do in response to them. That includes prayer. So because God decides which prayers he will answer, our prayers make a difference to the way the universe turns out. We can't change the future, but the future is the way it is because we pray.

This is what I've always been taught, but I don't think it makes sense of all those Bible passages quoted in that Greg Boyd essay I linked to upthread - the ones where God seems to change his mind etc. How can it make sense to talk of God seeing all of time as if it were the present but changing his mind?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Does God know if it's going to rain tomorrow ?
The aforementioned Greg Boyd would say God knows the exact likelihood of it raining tomorrow. Link to a Greg Boyd essay on open theism here. Sample quotation:

quote:
The issue concerning the “openness of the future” is not about the infallibility or fallibility of God’s foreknowledge, but rather about the nature of the future which God infallibly foreknows. Is it exclusively foreknown and predetermined by God, or does God determine some aspects of the future and sovereignly allow other aspects to remain open?

Many passages of Scripture depict God as foreknowing and/or predetermining certain things about the future. But there are also many passages that depict the future is open (not determined) and depict God as knowing it as a realm partly comprised of possibilities.
Boyd goes on to give examples of Bible passages showing God apparently changing his mind, expressing regret at how events have unfolded, being surprised by events, testing people's faithfulness, asking non-rhetorical questions about the future, and speaking in terms of what may or may not happen in the future.

Boyd feels that interpreting all these passages in a figurative way (so as to maintain that God sees all of history as settled and confirmed) is 'not... warranted on either exegetical or theological grounds'.
That seems to me to make a lot of sense. God as the creator has after all set the parameters within which things can happen but does not necessarily know what is going to happen within those parameters (indeed, it being of the nature of creation- creation both as noun and as activity- that he does not)?

Exactly. Boyd would say (and I would agree) that God knows all the possibilities, but cannot know which one of his possibilities his free creatures might choose. God has a plan to accomplish his eternal promises for whichever choice is made-- much like a master chess player knows all the possible moves and has a plan to get to checkmate for each, but does not know which move his opponent will make until they do so. That's how prophesy works-- not because God controls us or our choices (which leads either to some really strained exegetical olympics or a complete redefinition of freedom and choice), but because God is sovereign and has the power and the knowledge to act in history to ensure his purposes are accomplished.

I think equating "God is eternal" with "God is outside time" is a modern notion that is pushing the text beyond it's original intent. The narratives of Scripture are all written from the pov of God being in time as we are in time. Many prophesies are written conditionally-- "if this, then this..." with the implication that we are to some degree free to choose our future (see Jonah).

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Does God know if it's going to rain tomorrow ?

Apart from in Leicester ...

Yes, He does.

I believe that God is outside time. And that He knows the hour of my death.

And when the Second Coming will take place.

Do you think these two events will be connected? [Biased]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Thanks IngoB. Where does God get the information from ? About the future state of spin ?

Laurelin - so you've already died then ?

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:
Do you think these two events will be connected?

Who knows?

[Help]

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: Laurelin - so you've already died then ?

[ 18. July 2012, 12:31: Message edited by: Laurelin ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

? No ? So how does God know the time and place of your death ? Unless it's already happened ? He can't POSSIBLY know otherwise.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: Laurelin - so you've already died then ?

Martin's point, I think, is that since you haven't died, the date of your death hasn't yet happened. So God can't 'know' it. There is no 'it' for him to know.

The contrary argument is that God isn't waiting for the future to happen, like we are. He has knowledge of and access to the whole of his creation, and the parts of it that are inaccessible to us, through distance or time, are as immediately present to God as that bit we call here and now.

Martin rejects that, and seems to think that it is self-evidently false, but I don't know why.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: Laurelin - so you've already died then ?

Because, as some of us are aware, the Second Coming has taken place.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Then the gostak distimms the doshes Freddy !

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
? No ? So how does God know the time and place of your death ? Unless it's already happened ? He can't POSSIBLY know otherwise.

Yes He can.

This phenomena is actually a source of enormous joy to the angels.

According to New Church teaching, this is why prophecies are given.

The reason that prophecies of the Incarnation were given long before the earth was prepared for the event to actually take place, is so that heaven could continue to be joined to the human race. The angels perceived the prophecies as present realities, and so they were able to be joined to people in the world, and their religious rituals, based on that perception. Without a connection with heaven the human race would instantly perish.

But a foreknowledge of an event does not have the same effect as the actuality.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Then the gostak distimms the doshes Freddy !

Well no else is going to distim them!

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

No He can't. Not without willing it <omnipotently above willing it.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
? No ? So how does God know the time and place of your death ? Unless it's already happened ? He can't POSSIBLY know otherwise.

Can't He?

'Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.' Psalm 139: 16

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Martin's point, I think, is that since you haven't died, the date of your death hasn't yet happened. So God can't 'know' it. There is no 'it' for him to know.

OK. Understood. Thank you for explaining that so clearly. [Smile]

quote:
The contrary argument is that God isn't waiting for the future to happen, like we are. He has knowledge of and access to the whole of his creation, and the parts of it that are inaccessible to us, through distance or time, are as immediately present to God as that bit we call here and now.

This is how I've always tried to understand such things. And it's about as much as my average, non-Sherlockian brain can process, to be honest.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Where does God get the information from? About the future state of spin?

The past, present and future of the world are all equally concurrent to the eternity of God.

Imagine two infinite parallel lines. On one of these lines you see a spot of light travelling from left to right. The other line is lit up entirely. The spot of light represents the temporal life of creatures, the infinite line of light the eternal life of God. For the spot it makes sense to talk of "the past" (the part on the line to the left where it has been), "the present" (the position on the line where it is now) and "the future" (the part of the line where it will be). For the infinite line of light that makes no sense at all, since everything is lit up at once. How distant is the line of light from "the past, present and future", respectively? It is always the same distance, since we simply measure the same separation perpendicular between the line of light and any position of the line along which the spot moves, irrespective of where the spot is located.

Is the time then an illusion for the spot? No, not at all, the spot changes and in that sense establishes a time. But the line of light can be said to "have time" only insofar as it relates to the spot, not intrinsic to itself. On an infinite line of light there is no change and so no before or after can be identified. So we can say that God did this, now does that and in future will do something other again, because these changes are in terms of His relationship to us, and we are changing. But God Himself is entirely immutable. He is the one who is, He does not become.

You may answer that all this only works because that spot moves along a line, and so has only one way to go. But that is not the point. You may imagine two parallel planes, one fully lit, the other containing just a spot of light. We still may wish to force the spot to move from left to right in its plane, to represent time. But now it has "freedom" to move up and down in its plane, according to law, randomness or choice. Still, it's perpendicular separation to the lit up plane is always the same.

And really, if we go now from a two-dimensional plane to a four-dimensional space, we have nothing but the modern physical concept of spacetime, which does represent time as a quasi-spatial dimension anyhow. And spacetime was not invented as some kind of justification for the eternity of God, but as the best framework for the observed physical law. So it seems to me that metaphysics and physics are nicely re-converging on this particular issue...

Frankly, the real issue is in my opinion not so much whether God is eternal, but rather whether He is alive. One needs some kind of "motion" for life, but in what sense can the Immutable "move"? The classical answer is by understanding Himself, an understanding that is so perfect as to be Himself. We call this procession "Logos", the Word, who is God. And since God's Life is in this procession, it is better called "generation", and the Logos is hence also known as Son. And who incarnates? Precisely the Son, who as the principle of God's intrinsic Life brings us life by overcoming death.

One can really get close to God on this approach line. And like Icarus coming too close to the sun, one can really feel one's brain melt as one does. So I fully understand that you would rather play with demiurges in time. Still, that it is not the eternal God, and no amount of process theology will ever turn it into God. For the Origin must be pure act, and cannot be conditioned on anything, ever. That, or thinking itself is as such false. In which case we can just forget about all of that, and get on with the tasks at hand. A lot of people say all wisdom lies that way. I think they are fools playing with shadows on cave walls.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No He can't. Not without willing it <omnipotently above willing it.

Doesn't that depend on how you understand omnipotence?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No He can't. Not without willing it <omnipotently above willing it.
Doesn't that depend on how you understand omnipotence?

Exactly.

If God is omnipotent (and open theists believe he is) then he has the power to self-impose limitations on that power. He can, for example, create a time-bound universe and then choose to dwell within (rather than outside) that time-bound universe-- as he clearly chose to do in the incarnation.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If God is omnipotent (and open theists believe he is) then he has the power to self-impose limitations on that power. He can, for example, create a time-bound universe and then choose to dwell within (rather than outside) that time-bound universe-- as he clearly chose to do in the incarnation.

Omnipotence concerns only possible actions. God cannot create square circles (in Euclidean geometry). And it is impossible for God as God to become limited by space (dwell within the universe) or time (time-bound). This is also not what happened in the Incarnation, of course. The orthodox statement is the Chalcedoninan definition: Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. Divine nature was not changed by the Incarnation.

I'm guessing the key problem is the understanding of God's eternity as "infinite time". Then one could perhaps imagine that God could somehow "chop off" the infinite bits to retain a "finite time" for Himself. That's crazy enough, but that is not the kind of eternity we are talking about. Perhaps we understand that better in a spatial analogy. If I say "this wall is white," we understand. If I say "this wall is infinite and white," we do not really understand, but we can approximate an understanding with thoughts of a white wall just stretching out of sight everywhere. But if say "just all white", then we do not really understand, but we can approximate an understanding simply in terms of the colour impression as such, which does not really allow any spatial measure. To say how far white extends, there must be a marker, even if only by exceeding our sensory reach. But if all is just white, then nowhere is there room for a marker. This is a kind of infinity, but a qualitatively different one.

So God just Is, He is not for an infinite time.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If God is omnipotent (and open theists believe he is) then he has the power to self-impose limitations on that power. He can, for example, create a time-bound universe and then choose to dwell within (rather than outside) that time-bound universe-- as he clearly chose to do in the incarnation.
Omnipotence concerns only possible actions. God cannot create square circles (in Euclidean geometry). And it is impossible for God as God to become limited by space (dwell within the universe) or time (time-bound).

Is it? Why? This is what this argument always leads to: classic theists making "just so" arguments, as if this were self-evident.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is also not what happened in the Incarnation, of course. The orthodox statement is the Chalcedoninan definition: Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. Divine nature was not changed by the Incarnation.

Um, your case here supports my argument. I was using the incarnation as an example of God's self-restriction of the divine "omnis". That Jesus' limited knowledge (e.g. Mark 13:32) is consistent with the divine nature-- as we see as well in Phil. 2 which suggests that Jesus's self-emptying is precisely consistent with the divine nature. That's what God is like. That's the point of the incarnation, that's the point of the divine nature. All of which is supported by your Chalcedon quote, suggesting a unity of the divine nature.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
An alternative, flowing out of Arminian thought, is that God, from eternity, sees every decision that individual humans will make, and decides what he will do in response to them. That includes prayer. So because God decides which prayers he will answer, our prayers make a difference to the way the universe turns out. We can't change the future, but the future is the way it is because we pray.
This is what I've always been taught, but I don't think it makes sense of all those Bible passages quoted in that Greg Boyd essay I linked to upthread - the ones where God seems to change his mind etc. How can it make sense to talk of God seeing all of time as if it were the present but changing his mind?

Well if I had to defend Arminius here (and I'm not saying I do) I would suggest that this is an example of God accommodating himself to humanity, and demonstrating through an action, how what he decided in eternity is made visible in time. So the decision God made before he 'changed his mind' is a temporal reflection of the decision he made in eternity before he took account of the intercession of Moses, Amos, Abraham or whoever. I think that would make sense.

Would that make sense to you?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

I'm guessing the key problem is the understanding of God's eternity as "infinite time". Then one could perhaps imagine that God could somehow "chop off" the infinite bits to retain a "finite time" for Himself. That's crazy enough, but that is not the kind of eternity we are talking about. Perhaps we understand that better in a spatial analogy. If I say "this wall is white," we understand. If I say "this wall is infinite and white," we do not really understand, but we can approximate an understanding with thoughts of a white wall just stretching out of sight everywhere. But if say "just all white", then we do not really understand, but we can approximate an understanding simply in terms of the colour impression as such, which does not really allow any spatial measure. To say how far white extends, there must be a marker, even if only by exceeding our sensory reach. But if all is just white, then nowhere is there room for a marker. This is a kind of infinity, but a qualitatively different one.

So God just Is, He is not for an infinite time.

Another circular "just so" argument. Essentially you are saying "classical theists are correct in defining 'eternal' as outside of time because 'eternal' means outside of time." The addition of an analogy does not change that rhetorical flaw.

Do you have any evidence that your definition of "eternal" is authoritative-- i.e. that your understanding aligns more closely to that of the biblical authors than that of the open theists?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
An alternative, flowing out of Arminian thought, is that God, from eternity, sees every decision that individual humans will make, and decides what he will do in response to them. That includes prayer. So because God decides which prayers he will answer, our prayers make a difference to the way the universe turns out. We can't change the future, but the future is the way it is because we pray.
This is what I've always been taught, but I don't think it makes sense of all those Bible passages quoted in that Greg Boyd essay I linked to upthread - the ones where God seems to change his mind etc. How can it make sense to talk of God seeing all of time as if it were the present but changing his mind?
Well if I had to defend Arminius here (and I'm not saying I do) I would suggest that this is an example of God accommodating himself to humanity, and demonstrating through an action, how what he decided in eternity is made visible in time. So the decision God made before he 'changed his mind' is a temporal reflection of the decision he made in eternity before he took account of the intercession of Moses, Amos, Abraham or whoever. I think that would make sense.

Would that make sense to you?

It makes sense in the sense that it is technically possible, but it's not very plausible. You're having to work very hard to justify an a priori assumption here, rather than simply letting the text speak for itself. Note that this is far from the only example of conditional prophesy or "God changing his mind" in the Bible.

The "God accommodating himself" argument sounds more like "God being pretty disingenuous"-- pretending that he doesn't know what's going to happen when he does. Again, while I am no literalist, in this case, the plain meaning of the text seems correct here. I see little evidence that the author is trying for some stylistic thing here.

[ 18. July 2012, 19:53: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Is it? Why? This is what this argument always leads to: classic theists making "just so" arguments, as if this were self-evident.

More as in: this has been worked out in great detail many centuries ago. God's eternity follows from His immutability, and His immutability follows from His pure actuality and lack of composition, and His pure actuality follows from being the first mover and His lack of composition follows from being the first uncaused Being and the first uncaused Mover is properly named God. If you want to break that eternity, then God would have to change, but He is immutable, so how can the immutable change? And if He were to change, then that would require potentiality and composition in God, a becoming and a ceasing to be, but where would that come from? And if there were such things in God then what and how would they appear "now", when they could not be present in the (logical, not temporal) beginning?

Or perhaps a more modern summary: an eternal entity cannot become temporal, because it makes no sense to talk of something happening at a particular "point in time" of eternity. There is no before or after in eternity, so a being cannot be eternal before and temporal after. That's just a contradiction in terms. If something is a temporal entity after, then it was also one before. But a temporal entity cannot be the first cause because nothing comes into being without any cause. So something that comes into being requires a prior cause, wherefore it is not the first cause. But it is the first cause which we call God. So what we call God must be eternal, and since it is eternal, cannot cease to be eternal.

As for God's infinity, it is important to understand that just as God's eternity is not an "infinite amount of time", so God's infinity is not an "infinite amount of space". Rather it consist in there being no extrinsic measure that can be applied to God, since God has no form but rather subsists in Himself. And He cannot be otherwise because that again would break all the necessary conditions for being the Creator. It would perhaps be better to say that God lives immeasurably long and is immeasurably big. Anyway, we can now play the same game as with time. If God were in any sense to squeeze into this universe, He would need to acquire a form. But how would He acquire one if He entirely subsists in Himself? He has no composition to make a form out of part of Himself, as mentioned above. And He cannot have had form or composition or whatever in the logical beginning, for then He would not properly be God.

Again a short modern summary: God is immeasurable and rests in Himself (rather than in any kind of measurable frame). He must be so, or He could not be God (for we could ask where His measure arises from). But if He rests immeasurably in Himself, then there is no measure to be taken of Him, including by Him. If that is so, then He cannot ever be contained in the universe in any sense, because that precisely would be taking a measure of Him, since the universe is measurable (whether it be infinite or not).

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Um, your case here supports my argument. I was using the incarnation as an example of God's self-restriction of the divine "omnis".

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of which is supported by your Chalcedon quote, suggesting a unity of the divine nature.

Chalcedon explicitly rules out that Christ is a "unity of the divine nature". Rather He is one Divine Person in two distinct natures, one human and one Divine. Christ as human is not omnipotent, Christ as God is. It is as Person that God has assumed human nature, it is not that His nature has in any way or form changed.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

@cliffdweller. I don't disagree with you. Open Theism is a highly dynamic approach to Providence and I suspect a powerful motivator for prayer. To be fair to the Arminian position there is a danger of criticising it on the basis of a contemporary western worldview.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Believe it or not IngoB, that works for me. I'm actually still wowed (dood!) by your most orthodox penultimate comment and need to read the last one again and loop back.

Your definition of omnipotence is most sound.

I have a half formed resonance, a blurred echo in response as in reacting to the question 'Does God exist?', which is invalid as it objectifies God as does any answer to it. I'm sure you see what I'm fumbling at in that analogy.

The eternity of God transcends all of our concepts of time, yes, God is always eternal at every ... 'point' in eternity. Yes. And all 'points' in eternity cannot be on a time line. Yep, gotta be so.

VERY nicely put. All is white, all is now. Ineffable. Mysterious. Forever beyond our ken even when we are augmented to butterfly beyond maggot.

I still maintain that the future of any creation in God has not happened and that He cannot possibly know what a magnetic field will reveal about an electron He's thinking's spin.

Plato's cave comes to mind. There are no 'better' electrons being projected through whose image is electrons.

Others here seem to think that God can both not know and know the spin of an electron prior to its being determined and that He has choice in creation. To me that's utterly meaningless. As meaningless as responding to the question of God's existence.

Yours is the ONLY POSSIBLE objection to this proposition that there can be, if you have one, and you will on form if not substance, which is fine. If you have a substantial objection please keep saying it until I get it. Which may take many more years. You are without equal here, you are truly gifted, but God has a funny sense of humour ... we seem to be stuck in the ever expanding edge of Goedelian - Wittgensteinian thinking. Ever learning ... ever halving the distance to go, with a mind like yours on point in the military patrol sense.

God is IN our future meeting us. And ALL our past is redeemed there.

Nothing that you have come down to say means that our future has to have happened, whether you believe that or not, and I can't see that you do. But if you do, how and why MUST you ?

And as for the perichoretic hypostatic union of natures (whatever they are independent of person) and where was God the Son when the new person Jesus was embryonic, asleep, dead and everything in between ... you gotta get that puppy metaphor going again.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Um, your case here supports my argument. I was using the incarnation as an example of God's self-restriction of the divine "omnis".

Falsely, and in explicit contradiction to Chalcedon, which says most clearly that there is no change to Divine nature in the Incarnation. Thus in particular, there is not the slightest change to the Divine "omnis".
[/QUOTE]

(sigh). And, again, that was my point-- that there has been no change in the divine nature, that the self-restriction is inherent to the "godness" of God-- to the divine nature (again, see Phil. 2). Which is why Chalcedon supports the point I was making.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
this has been worked out in great detail many centuries ago.

All that has been worked out is a set of definitions for words that, when combined in a certain way with the assertions of Roman Catholic dogma, create the appearance of a reasonable argument.

The flakiness shows, and this is just the first example I noticed in that post, when in your modern summary you refer to God as an eternal being. What does that mean? 'Being' implies continuity. Eternal continuity is a contradiction in terms. The idea is merely a reflection of a human desire for God to be like that, a 'being', fostered by the Church through history to support its mythology.

When an element that fundamental to your case is inherently flawed, the credibility of the whole facade is shot.

Of course talk of eternal things is not trivial. We have to stretch language. But if we blur the distinction between religious conviction and rational metaphysics we're only ever going to be dealing in propaganda.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Some of these replies are interesting, but I can never understand why a future has to be posited anyway. It seems nonsensical to me. For me, the future is simply either an emotional aspect of the present, or some kind of abstract reification. Apart from that, I can't understand the concept of it at all. In fact, I can't understand the concept of past either.

But how can there be foreknowledge if there is nothing to know?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Peeping in--

I don't think we really know what time is anyway, let alone what out-of-time is. So maybe we don't know what the hell we're talking about.

Or maybe it's just me.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Peeping in--

I don't think we really know what time is anyway, let alone what out-of-time is. So maybe we don't know what the hell we're talking about.

spot on.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, again, that was my point-- that there has been no change in the divine nature, that the self-restriction is inherent to the "godness" of God-- to the divine nature (again, see Phil. 2). Which is why Chalcedon supports the point I was making.

Firstly, there precisely never was any "self-restriction" of the "godness" of God, and Phil 2 is saying nothing of that sort. Phil 2 is saying that God (as Person) made the choice to assume human nature, and then in this form lived with the restrictions of human nature. Secondly, this is portrayed as an exemplary choice to be emulated, not as something inherent.

To make clear what you are saying: it is claimed that it is inherent to the nature of particular humans that in the presence of the full moon there is a self-restriction of their humanness to wolf-ness. We call these people "werewolfs". You are basically saying in the above that Jesus was a "Werehuman", whose transformation was triggered by who knows what.

I'm not quite sure whether that falls under any classical heresy, or whether you've managed to invent a new one. If the latter, congratulations, I guess...

[ 19. July 2012, 07:21: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Many thanks to all who've replied to my OP- lots for me to think about- genuinely interesting and enlightening stuff.
Off on shore leave now until September.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...I'm not quite sure whether that falls under any classical heresy, or whether you've managed to invent a new one. If the latter, congratulations, I guess...

Having read and taken part in the 'Authority of the Catholic Church' thread, I now know that what you mean by 'classical heresy' is simply 'disagreement with official Catholic Church teaching'. Correct me if I'm wrong...

But so what - cliffdweller is not a Catholic. Within the broader scope of Christian doctrine and teaching, there have been many things taught and believed over the years. I don't think it's helpful to use words like 'heresy' because don't they just close down or at least polarise discussion? And my 'heresy' that needs to be knocked on the head is your 'interesting theological viewpoint' that is well worth exploring further!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Peeping in--

I don't think we really know what time is anyway, let alone what out-of-time is. So maybe we don't know what the hell we're talking about.

Or maybe it's just me.

Me too. Before anyone develops complex theories about God and time, or knowledge of the past and the future, it would be useful to have a delineation as to what these things are exactly.

I assume we just don't take on board the folk-philosophical sense of 'time', 'past', 'future' and so on, but attempt something a little more rigorous.

Of interest here is presentism, the idea that only the present exists, and past and future are intellectual reifications. I wonder how this maps onto omniscience and so on? It could simplify it I guess; if there is only the present, than a knowledge of it seems almost inevitable, as our knowledge itself is in the present.

I can see the value of the idea that God is present to all points in time, past, present and future, but question the need for past and future at all. Or if you like, they are part of mental architecture, but not actual reality. Of course, you could sneakily argue that reality includes mental architecture, OK, clever clogs.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Oh, bollox, got trapped again by the edit final deadline.

I forgot to say that some Buddhists argue that the present itself is a reification. A scary but invigorating idea, best taken with tonic water and ice.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Do you have any evidence that your definition of "eternal" is authoritative-- i.e. that your understanding aligns more closely to that of the biblical authors than that of the open theists?

Our interpretation of the Biblical authors has to be compatible with the best certain results of secular enquiries in matters where those secular enquiries are competent. So, our interpretation of Genesis 1 must be compatible with Hutton and Darwin, for example. And our interpretation of what the Bible says about time and eternity has to be compatible with Einstein.
The picture of time in classical theism is compatible with Einstein and with modern physics generally. The picture of time in open theism is not compatible with Einstein or modern physics generally. The picture of time in open theism requires that every event is either past, future, or simultaneous with every other event. And that's just not true in modern physics.

(There was a time when I understood the maths behind that. IngoB probably still understands the maths. He might even be able to explain the maths.)

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

quetzalcoatl - presentism. Like it. There is no need for anything else.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
quetzalcoatl - presentism. Like it. There is no need for anything else.

I have to tell you, entre nous, that one day I had a dazzling insight that a memory is a present experience. Well, OK, it wasn't actually dazzling,it was just mundane, as it should be.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Do you have any evidence that your definition of "eternal" is authoritative-- i.e. that your understanding aligns more closely to that of the biblical authors than that of the open theists?
Our interpretation of the Biblical authors has to be compatible with the best certain results of secular enquiries in matters where those secular enquiries are competent. So, our interpretation of Genesis 1 must be compatible with Hutton and Darwin, for example. And our interpretation of what the Bible says about time and eternity has to be compatible with Einstein.
The picture of time in classical theism is compatible with Einstein and with modern physics generally. The picture of time in open theism is not compatible with Einstein or modern physics generally. The picture of time in open theism requires that every event is either past, future, or simultaneous with every other event. And that's just not true in modern physics.

(There was a time when I understood the maths behind that. IngoB probably still understands the maths. He might even be able to explain the maths.)

I would agree with you that reason/science is a source of authority that needs to be factored into our interpretation of Scripture. Sadly, like you, the reason/science behind Einstein's theory is beyond me, although I'm aware that it's considered problematic from an open perspective. All I can say is that in the academic conferences I've attended, I've heard scientists & physicists with some valid academic credentials speak approvingly of open/process theology and it's position re: time. But again, as they say, it's "above my pay grade."

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, again, that was my point-- that there has been no change in the divine nature, that the self-restriction is inherent to the "godness" of God-- to the divine nature (again, see Phil. 2). Which is why Chalcedon supports the point I was making.
Firstly, there precisely never was any "self-restriction" of the "godness" of God, and Phil 2 is saying nothing of that sort. Phil 2 is saying that God (as Person) made the choice to assume human nature, and then in this form lived with the restrictions of human nature. Secondly, this is portrayed as an exemplary choice to be emulated, not as something inherent.

Again, precisely my point, and why Chalcedon is not a problem for the open pov.

I never said there was a restriction of the "godness" of God-- that's your parody of the open position. Rather I said that Phil. 2 suggests that voluntary self-restriction (not of "godness" but of omnis) was inherent to the divine nature, that "self-emptying" is what makes God god, rather than the "omnis". The "omnis" are not the character of God-- goodness, righteousness and love are.

[ 19. July 2012, 14:37: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE]To make clear what you are saying: it is claimed that it is inherent to the nature of particular humans that in the presence of the full moon there is a self-restriction of their humanness to wolf-ness. We call these people "werewolfs". You are basically saying in the above that Jesus was a "Werehuman", whose transformation was triggered by who knows what.

I'm not quite sure whether that falls under any classical heresy, or whether you've managed to invent a new one. If the latter, congratulations, I guess...

Well, yes, that would be a particularly inventive and weird new heresy, if in fact it were anything remotely like what I or open theists believed.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

quetzalcoatl - mundanely BRILLIANT, of course it is and why is that a revelation to me after 58 years ?!

.....................IngoBeeee-eee
IngoB..........IngoB
..IngoB......IngoB
....IngoBee

Don't worry, the bipolar downturn with bitter animosity will return shortly for no reason.

[ 19. July 2012, 19:59: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Although cliffdweller is looking less heterodox ...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

I just stumbled on this talk by Stephen Barr on what natural science can contribute to philosophical and theological understanding, as exemplified by a discussion of time and causality, plus a response by Alexander Sich. It's a long video, and both speakers need a while before they get to the heart of the matter, but I believe this to be well worth watching. It may be the best I've seen so far on video on the subject.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
quetzalcoatl - mundanely BRILLIANT, of course it is and why is that a revelation to me after 58 years ?!

.....................IngoBeeee-eee
IngoB..........IngoB
..IngoB......IngoB
....IngoBee

Don't worry, the bipolar downturn with bitter animosity will return shortly for no reason.

Because we are all indoctrinated in a set of ideas, for example, that time exists, and memory gives us access to past time?

I would think that most people simply accept this. I did Zen meditation for 30 years, and one day it just went thunk. There is now. Errm, that's it.

Well, one might dispute that there is now actually, but that's another can of worms.

I think such ideas are engrained in us, and breaking from them is very difficult. They are just mental habits, or as Blake said, 'mind forg'd manacles'.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Couple more questions, then (please bear with me- I know they're noddy- I've had no theological education):
Where does free will fit into that, then?
If you do take the view that God knows how everything is going to work out,and He created it all, how does that make creation anything much more than a kind of enormous divine train set?

Does the knowledge of something cause that something to happen? It seems to me, as it did to medieval philosopher/theologian Boethius and to C.S. Lewis, that your objection* implies that God’s knowledge (of the past, the present and the future) is equivalent to the knowledge of a person in time. If God was in time, I certainly would agree that his knowledge of a future action would imply, if not require, that he was the cause. But I don’t agree to this, since God is outside of time (and space). Lewis sums it up quite nicely, referring to Boethius:

quote:
Eternity is quite distinct from perpetuity, from mere endless continuance in time. Perpetuity is only the attainment of an endless series of moments, each lost as soon as it is attained. Eternity is the actual and timeless fruition of illimitable life. Time, even endless time, is only an image, almost a parody, of that plenitude; a hopeless attempt to compensate for the transitoriness of its ‘presents’ by infinitely multiplying them. That is why Shakespeare’s Lucrece call it ‘thou ceaseless lackey to eternity’ (Rape, 967). And God is eternal, not perpetual. Strictly speaking, He never foresees; He simply sees. Your ‘future’ is only an area, and only for us a special area, of His infinite Now. He sees (not remembers) your yesterday’s acts because yesterday is still ‘there’ for Him; He sees (not foresees) your tomorrow’s acts because He is already in tomorrow. As a human spectator, by watching my present act, does not at all infringe its freedom, so I am none the less free to act as I choose in the future because God, in that future (His present) watches me acting.

Source: C.S. Lewis, The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature (Cambridge University Press, 1964; Canto edition, 1994), p.89

* I.e., that if God has knowledge of a future action, this entails that said action isn’t free, and thus that if God is omniscient (with respect to past, present and future) no actions are free.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

God can be as outside time as He likes and is, has it rained tomorrow yet ?

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

No, but why would that stop someone outside of time to know about it if it will?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Couple more questions, then (please bear with me- I know they're noddy- I've had no theological education):
Where does free will fit into that, then?
If you do take the view that God knows how everything is going to work out,and He created it all, how does that make creation anything much more than a kind of enormous divine train set?
Does the knowledge of something cause that something to happen? It seems to me, as it did to medieval philosopher/theologian Boethius and to C.S. Lewis, that your objection* implies that God’s knowledge (of the past, the present and the future) is equivalent to the knowledge of a person in time. If God was in time, I certainly would agree that his knowledge of a future action would imply, if not require, that he was the cause. But I don’t agree to this, since God is outside of time (and space). Lewis sums it up quite nicely, referring to Boethius:

Positing God outside of time makes it difficult to make sense of much of the biblical narratives.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Here is an interesting thought. It was posted by a Lutheran pastor

During our discussion of the calling of Saul as Israel’s first king, someone asked, “Why would God not want a king, but then turn around and tell Samuel to go ahead and anoint a king?” It was a good question. Several possible answers were offered.

Finally one man said, “Well, it must have been God’s plan all along.” For him, that settled things. Others nodded in agreement.

“But what if it wasn’t part of a plan?” I asked.

“Meaning what?” he asked.

“Meaning,” I replied, “what if God was improvising? What if God was saying, ‘All right, have your king. I’ll figure out how to work with it.’ ”

“Impossible!” he said. “God’s omniscient. God knows everything, even before it happens.”

For a number of people in the class, throwing down the gauntlet of God’s omniscience was enough to settle things. But others weren’t so certain. So we went back and forth a bit: “God does know”—“God doesn’t know!” “Yes, God does! No, God doesn’t!”

To help get us unstuck, I asked, “What if God’s omniscience is about something else entirely?”

There was a curious silence. “Early on in Genesis we’re told that ‘the man Adam knew his wife Eve,’ ” I said. “What does that mean?”

There were a few smiles, and then one woman said, “Well, in addition to the obvious, it means that Adam had a relationship with Eve.”

“Right,” I said. “So what if God’s omniscience—God’s being all knowing—is more about God’s heart than God’s head? Maybe God’s omniscience doesn’t mean that everything’s already scripted and God has all the present and future details locked up in the divine mind. Maybe it means that God is completely and intimately in relationship with all of creation.”

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
...“So what if God’s omniscience—God’s being all knowing—is more about God’s heart than God’s head? Maybe God’s omniscience doesn’t mean that everything’s already scripted and God has all the present and future details locked up in the divine mind. Maybe it means that God is completely and intimately in relationship with all of creation.”

This sounds quite a lot like the Open Theism idea that God knows with 100% accuracy everything there is to know, but doesn't know the future because the future isn't there to be known (unless God's already set it).

And I agree with cliffdweller that God being outside of time is hard to reconcile with many Biblical passages; e.g. those that speak of God changing his mind, being disappointed and so on.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
And I agree with cliffdweller that God being outside of time is hard to reconcile with many Biblical passages; e.g. those that speak of God changing his mind, being disappointed and so on.

A lot of things are hard to reconcile with those passages.

quote:
Malachi 3:6 “For I am the LORD, I do not change."

Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"

And yet He seems to both repent and change His mind.

To me the killer is the following exchange. Israel has sinned, so God says to Moses:

quote:
Exodus 32:10 "Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.”

But Moses, thinking fast, uses acute logic to turn the big man around:

quote:
Exodus 32:12 "Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people."

It works!

The God pictured in passages like this is not especially omniscient, nor even especially bright. I find it easy to believe that this divinely inspired portrayal is not intended by God to be taken literally. Not that Moses didn't actually speak to God on the mountain, but that God presented Himself in a way that would make sense to Moses but not necessarily accurately represent His true nature.

By contrast, it takes some thought to comprehend a concept like "outside of time."

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

'I am the LORD, I do not change' - exactly what this means could be the subject of a whole new discussion but, whatever, I think there are other meanings beyond 'I never change my mind'. For a start, how about it means God's overall intentions or his character never change?

I certainly agree about God presenting himself in a way that we limited humans can grasp, but I think there's a potential trap in treating the passages that fit our theology more literally than we treat passages that apparently contradict it.

Those of us in the 'God knows everything in the past, present and future' camp mustn't dismiss as metaphor or anthropomorphism the passages that speak of God being surprised / changing his mind etc. Unless, of course, we treat in the same ways passages that speak of God knowing everything or being unchanging.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Here is an interesting thought. It was posted by a Lutheran pastor...
“Right,” I said. “So what if God’s omniscience—God’s being all knowing—is more about God’s heart than God’s head? Maybe God’s omniscience doesn’t mean that everything’s already scripted and God has all the present and future details locked up in the divine mind. Maybe it means that God is completely and intimately in relationship with all of creation.”

Intriguing. And in keeping with the Open position that the essential defining divine characteristic is not the omnis, but love, and that the constancy of God has to do with character rather than determinism. I think you could build a case for this from Phil. 2.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Good stuff guys; k-mann, knowing what ? How can anything indeterminate or chaotically uncomputable be known beyond that ?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Those of us in the 'God knows everything in the past, present and future' camp mustn't dismiss as metaphor or anthropomorphism the passages that speak of God being surprised / changing his mind etc. Unless, of course, we treat in the same ways passages that speak of God knowing everything or being unchanging.

I am in the 'God knows everything in the past, present and future' camp and don't see any alternative to seeing some of these things as anthropomorphisms. This doesn't mean they are not divinely inspired. They are true on a higher level.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

Those of us in the 'God knows everything in the past, present and future' camp mustn't dismiss as metaphor or anthropomorphism the passages that speak of God being surprised / changing his mind etc. Unless, of course, we treat in the same ways passages that speak of God knowing everything or being unchanging.

Except the latter are the opposite of anthropomorphism because they are God being unlike us and beyond our understanding, rather than an accomodation to that.

I can think of passages that suggest God relenting. Are there those that say he is surprised? I'm not saying there aren't I just can't think of any.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Those of us in the 'God knows everything in the past, present and future' camp mustn't dismiss as metaphor or anthropomorphism the passages that speak of God being surprised / changing his mind etc. Unless, of course, we treat in the same ways passages that speak of God knowing everything or being unchanging.
I am in the 'God knows everything in the past, present and future' camp and don't see any alternative to seeing some of these things as anthropomorphisms. This doesn't mean they are not divinely inspired. They are true on a higher level.

What bothers me is that most folks who take the Bible literally, then stumble over the verses where God changes his mind or gets angry or grieves intensely over something that has happened. Personally, that puts them in the cafeteria camp they don't like. We all do it, interpret one passage through a literalist lens and then rationalize another or visa versa.

Personally, I have no problem with God not knowing the future, be it limiting himself or that the future is just not knowable. ETA: it doesn't change the fact that God's character never changes. (end of edit) I have more of a problem with everything already being mapped out with the winners and losers already known with nothing to change that. What is the purpose of continuing?

[ 12. August 2012, 17:35: Message edited by: Niteowl ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I can think of passages that suggest God relenting. Are there those that say he is surprised? I'm not saying there aren't I just can't think of any.

This article lists a bunch of Bible passages that seem to show God changing his mind, being disappointed, being surprised, and testing people's faithfulness. I've not looked through all of them myself - maybe some are a bit tenuous; what do you think?

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
What bothers me is that most folks who take the Bible literally, then stumble over the verses where God changes his mind or gets angry or grieves intensely over something that has happened. Personally, that puts them in the cafeteria camp they don't like. We all do it, interpret one passage through a literalist lens and then rationalize another or visa versa.

Yes, exactly. If we're not going to take a Bible passage not at face value, I think there has to be a good reason. There often is a good reason IMO - I'm no Biblical literalist - but I think we have to be consistent.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

(what happened to delete button?)

[ 12. August 2012, 20:28: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The camps aren't 50:50, of equal merit just because they're a binary.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Couple more questions, then (please bear with me- I know they're noddy- I've had no theological education):
Where does free will fit into that, then?
If you do take the view that God knows how everything is going to work out,and He created it all, how does that make creation anything much more than a kind of enormous divine train set?
Does the knowledge of something cause that something to happen? It seems to me, as it did to medieval philosopher/theologian Boethius and to C.S. Lewis, that your objection* implies that God’s knowledge (of the past, the present and the future) is equivalent to the knowledge of a person in time. If God was in time, I certainly would agree that his knowledge of a future action would imply, if not require, that he was the cause. But I don’t agree to this, since God is outside of time (and space). Lewis sums it up quite nicely, referring to Boethius:

Positing God outside of time makes it difficult to make sense of much of the biblical narratives.

Why?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Positing God outside of time makes it difficult to make sense of much of the biblical narratives.

Why? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Look over the list posted above. The Bible is full of passages where God very much seems to be acting in time without the benefit of "forekknowledge". Dozens of passages, for example, where he gives conditional prophesies where the outcome varies according to human choice. In really all the narratives, God appears to be revealing, acting, moving, and speaking in time as we are in time. The pat answer, as we have seen, is that these are all "anthropomorphisms", but they are so numerous and so deeply embedded into the texts that the narratives themselves become meaningless if you take God out of time and suggest he already "foreknows" the outcome.

[ 13. August 2012, 20:01: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The cultures of the texts would not have had the concept of God being outside time, which doesn't mean He isn't and that doesn't mean it's rained tomorrow.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Positing God outside of time makes it difficult to make sense of much of the biblical narratives.

Other way round I think. It all only makes sense if God is eternal.

But I guess I would say that because for me personally that understanding of God as timeless was the key on the door that unlocked Christianity, that made it possible to believe, and so led pretty immediately to my conversion. I believed in God before then, but was not a Christian. So I have a horse in this race.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The cultures of the texts would not have had the concept of God being outside time...

That's not true! Read Margaret Barker!

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The cultures of the texts would not have had the concept of God being outside time, which doesn't mean He isn't and that doesn't mean it's rained tomorrow.

Yes, that's possible. But, as you'll see if you read the chain of the conversation, I was responding to a specific question. The comment I made initially was that positing God outside of time makes a muddle of the biblical narratives. That fact still stands. You can decide that's an anthropomorphism, you can decide that's a cultural construct based on their lack of awareness of the concept. But the fact remains that many of the narratives are very hard to make anything meaningful of if God is in fact outside of time.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Positing God outside of time makes it difficult to make sense of much of the biblical narratives.
Other way round I think. It all only makes sense if God is eternal.

But I guess I would say that because for me personally that understanding of God as timeless was the key on the door that unlocked Christianity, that made it possible to believe, and so led pretty immediately to my conversion. I believed in God before then, but was not a Christian. So I have a horse in this race.

OK, can you unpack that at all? How did understanding God as outside of time make it easier for you to embrace Christianity? And, to this point, how does understanding God as outside of time help you to make sense of the biblical narratives-- for example, the conditional prophesies I mentioned?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Positing God outside of time makes it difficult to make sense of much of the biblical narratives.
Other way round I think. It all only makes sense if God is eternal.

fyi: there is some variation in the definition of "eternal" here. I very much believe God is eternal. I also happen to believe that God is in time as we are in time.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Thanks Ken, I was fishing believe it or not [Smile]

So if they did ...

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The pat answer, as we have seen, is that these are all "anthropomorphisms", but they are so numerous and so deeply embedded into the texts that the narratives themselves become meaningless if you take God out of time and suggest he already "foreknows" the outcome.

There are lots of things that are numerous and deeply embedded in the text that we don't pay much attention to.

Ken mentioned Margaret Baker; there persistent evidence of a stream of Israelite thought that held to the idea of the God-Most-High ruling over a Divine Council of his sons, one of whom was Yahweh. We tend not to pay much attention to this.

Going back to the original point; if - as modern physics suggests - time is just part of this particular creation, we can at least say that if God experiences time then he doesn't experience it in the particular way we do.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The pat answer, as we have seen, is that these are all "anthropomorphisms", but they are so numerous and so deeply embedded into the texts that the narratives themselves become meaningless if you take God out of time and suggest he already "foreknows" the outcome.
There are lots of things that are numerous and deeply embedded in the text that we don't pay much attention to.

Ken mentioned Margaret Baker; there persistent evidence of a stream of Israelite thought that held to the idea of the God-Most-High ruling over a Divine Council of his sons, one of whom was Yahweh. We tend not to pay much attention to this.

mmm... not to the extent we have here, where the references to God's "timefulness" are not only explicit but central to the meaning of the text itself. Positing God outside of time really makes it difficult to find any meaning at all in these texts. It's not some tangental cultural error, it's central to the meaning of the text itself.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
[QUOTE]
Going back to the original point; if - as modern physics suggests - time is just part of this particular creation, we can at least say that if God experiences time then he doesn't experience it in the particular way we do.

Not necessarily. If time is part of the universe God created, and God has chosen not to stand outside of creation but to enter into it and dwell with us in it, then he would experience it in many ways as we do-- as he intended it to.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

cliffdweller, I'm sure we overlap considerably.

I'm happy to accept all rhetoric, especially Jack Lewis', about God being outside time, whatever that could possibly mean (and I haven't the faintest idea), as that can have no effect on now being all there is for us.

Brian McLaren is most beguiling on the maximization of the idea that I've had for only this year, that everything, everyone we've been is redeemed. Nice Jungian rhetoric that.

No DVD is being played: The real past (which does not include the non-existent future) is less complete than now, I more than suspect.

Because we're not there.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
cliffdweller, I'm sure we overlap considerably.

I'm happy to accept all rhetoric, especially Jack Lewis', about God being outside time, whatever that could possibly mean (and I haven't the faintest idea), as that can have no effect on now being all there is for us.

Brian McLaren is most beguiling on the maximization of the idea that I've had for only this year, that everything, everyone we've been is redeemed. Nice Jungian rhetoric that.

No DVD is being played: The real past (which does not include the non-existent future) is less complete than now, I more than suspect.

Because we're not there.

Greg Boyd is another great read-- a bit more scholarly than McLaren, but very accessible and intriguing.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
And I agree with cliffdweller that God being outside of time is hard to reconcile with many Biblical passages; e.g. those that speak of God changing his mind, being disappointed and so on.
A lot of things are hard to reconcile with those passages.

quote:
Malachi 3:6 “For I am the LORD, I do not change."

Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"
And yet He seems to both repent and change His mind.

To me the killer is the following exchange. Israel has sinned, so God says to Moses:

quote:
Exodus 32:10 "Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.”
But Moses, thinking fast, uses acute logic to turn the big man around:

quote:
Exodus 32:12 "Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people."
It works!

The God pictured in passages like this is not especially omniscient, nor even especially bright. I find it easy to believe that this divinely inspired portrayal is not intended by God to be taken literally. Not that Moses didn't actually speak to God on the mountain, but that God presented Himself in a way that would make sense to Moses but not necessarily accurately represent His true nature.

By contrast, it takes some thought to comprehend a concept like "outside of time."

Freddy, if you look even closer you can see God deliberately deconstructing his own stated purpose of destruction. I mean, if he truly and absolutely wanted their destruction, a) why say anything to Moses about it at all till it was all over, and b) why plant the idea in Moses' head that he can alter the decision in any way? Yet that is just what God does when he first announces his plan and then says (to a mere puny human being!) "Now let me alone so I can destroy them." This is equivalent to me telling my kid, "I plan to divorce your father, please let me do it, okay?" I mean, it's a screaming invitation to talk God out of it. Nobody says that sort of thing when they DON'T want to be talked out of it.

So it's even harder to argue that God is changing his mind if we credit him with the same level of complexity, both of thought and of communication, as we possess. The problem starts with figuring out his real message.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Thanks cliffdweller. Brian is doing my head in. I thought I was bleeding edge and now I've fallen off the edge. Not on what I'm realising now is me being guilty on this thread of a how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin debate, but on sex and violence! Rob Bell is in on it too!

Lamb Chopped - nice. God does the same over Sodom & Gomorrah with Abraham.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I mean, it's a screaming invitation to talk God out of it. Nobody says that sort of thing when they DON'T want to be talked out of it.

Great point Lamb Chopped. There is no question whose side the reader is expected to be on.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0