Richard Rice Discusses Open Theism

By David Larson

More than twenty years following the publication of his book “The Openness of God,” which named and launched a new school of Christian thought, Richard Rice profiled its primary themes for several dozen bright and lively university students.  They were the guests on Sabbath Eve, November 9, of Julius and Iris Nam, and their sons Sherwin and Ansel, in Loma Linda, California.  Trisha Famisaran moderated the discussion.  Perhaps because of my interest in process theology, I was also invited to participate.  Iris and a few others prepared the meal that was eagerly enjoyed by all! 

Richard, Julius and I teach in the Loma Linda University School of Religion, respectively in the specialties of theology, history and ethics.  Trisha, a graduate of La Sierra University and the Claremont School of Theology, is now studying for her doctorate at Claremont Graduate University.  Iris is a student at the Loma Linda University School of Dentistry. 

Richard traced the development of “Open Theism” by beginning with the thought of John Calvin (1509-1564) who held that (1) God determines everything that happens right down to the smallest detail and that (2) God knows the past, present and future as though they are a single moment.  This was a first step. 
He identified a second step in the thought of James [Jacobus] Arminius (1560-1609), John Wesley (1703-1791), Ellen G. White (1827-1915) and others. Christians such as these split Calvin's twin convictions, affirming one but not the other.  They held that God knows the past, present and future with equal completeness but that God does not determine everything that occurs because God gives human beings genuine freedom. 

“Open Theism” goes beyond this in a third step, Richard explained.  It holds that Scripture, logic and experience urge us to reconsider both of the two convictions from Calvin with which we began, contending instead that God neither predetermines every thing that happens nor foreknows all that will occur.  I pointed out that, although it may seem new to some, in less detailed forms the basics of  “Open Theism” have been taught at Loma Linda University for about fifty years, beginning at least as early as long-time professor Jack W. Provonsha.

Richard explained that today the “Openness of God” movement makes a path about half way between traditional theism, on the one hand, and contemporary process theology, on the other.  With process theology, it holds that human beings have enough freedom partly to determine the future.  With traditional theism, it holds that human freedom is not inherent; rather, like the whole of creation, it is a gift from God.

He emphasized that “Open Theism” makes God's love, rather than God's power, glory or sovereignty the primary and conceptually controlling theme.  It holds that, as Jesus taught, God relates to us more like a good parent than an overpowering king or queen.

From this point of view, the Christian moral life is not primarily a matter of submitting to God's commands.  It is the joy of responsively and responsibly interacting with God in bringing about in each situation as much flourishing as possible.  I contrasted "the ethics of prohibition" and "the ethics of imagination," the latter being what “Open Theism” champions.

Richard made it clear that according to “Open Theism” God knows everything there is to know.  But there are some things that God does not know because they have not yet come into being and, given the reality of human freedom, they may or may not eventually occur.  These things are not yet “there” for God or anyone else to know. 

This is a very important point.  It means that those who wish to criticize “Open Theism” should not accuse it of “limiting God” because such arrows miss the target.  They should aim at its understanding of human freedom instead. 

If it is inherently possible for genuinely free decisions to be predicted with 100% accuracy, then God certainly knows what they will be.  But “Open Theism” contends that to understand freedom this way is to rob it of its true meaning.  What we mean by “freedom” is therefore the crux of the issue.

Some people flatly reject the idea that our choices actually do alter the flow of events somewhat, holding that all such impressions are illusory.  Others who agree that our choices can make this kind of difference do not see why they are inherently incapable of being foretold.  “Open Theism” disagrees with the first of these positions.  It holds that the second fails to discern the full implications of what it believes about human freedom.

The questions and comments from the university students were pertinent and probing.  One suggested that the language of paradox and the practice of serving the needy might be more helpful ways of dealing with the topics of our discussion.  Others probed the implications of “Open Theism” for prophesy, intercessory prayer, miracles, divine judgment, specific Biblical narratives like the story of Joseph and the ultimate triumph of good over evil.  In every case Richard emphasized God’s unending and unlimited love and the privilege we have of cooperating.

Because more than one questioner brought it up, both Richard and I commented on the relationship between “Open Theism” and Adventism’s understandings of the “investigative” and “final” judgments.  We emphasized that SDAs do not believe that God judges people now for what God foresees they will do in the future.  Neither do we teach that at some point in the future God will unilaterally render a negative verdict on those who might have subsequently responded positively to God’s influence in their lives.

I especially appreciated Richard's reminder that, linguistically speaking, as evidenced in the New Revised Standard Version of Scripture, one can translate Romans 8:28 in at least three ways.  The most familiar alternative is "all things work together for good, for those who love God."  A second legitimate option is "God makes all things work together for good."  The third is "in all things God works for good.”  Given its overall understanding of God and humanity, “Open Theism” opts for the third alternative.    

This discussion of “Open Theism” was one of monthly conversations that the Nams host for university students in the Loma Linda area. 

Comments

[Lisa Clark Diller]

I find it shocking that I had to learn about open theism from evangelical publishers and journals and never had the slightest knowledge that this was one of the things Adventists have conributed to the stream of Christian understanding about God and man. It made sense to me, although I was nervous about it for some reason, but I'd already been tracking the "rise of Arminianism" (or resurgence?) within evangelicalism, so I thought maybe that had just conditioned me, and not necessarily my very Adventist world view.

At the QOD conference Donald Dayton brought all these things together for me in his paper (not necessarily his talk, which didn't reflect the great ideas of his paper). Bull and Lockhart (_Seeking a Sanctuary_) also track this contribution of Rice's and how it fits within the larger trajectory of our church's theology. Regardless of how one reacts to the idea of open theism per se, it is clear that this is a "natural" outgrowth of (what a non theologian would call for lack of a better term) our traditionally "big" view of humanity and maybe why we're comfortable with a more comprehensible, not to say "smaller," view of God....

Amazing to me how connected all these ideas are. And how genuinetly creative and helpful Rice's contribution here is.

Again, astonishing that I never heard about it till the last few years as the evangelical world has started publishing on it.

What a really really fun confluence of people at the Nam's Friday night! Wish I could have been there....

[Trevan Osborn]

Thanks for this great overview of some of the key principles of Open Theism. I've interacted a little bit with it but this has given me a greater understanding of some of the issues.

[Monique]

I remember reading this book during my theological studies at Helderberg College, for "Doctrine of God" (if I recall correctly). It had a great impact on me at the time and has continued to challenge my thinking. As I read this post I found myself really wishing I could have been there for that exciting conversation!!

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Just a question is there a difference between foreknowledge and foreordained? I know my great granddauther is coming to visit. Put away certain items and bring out soft cuddly items and open the piano so she can compose!

To the limited extent that I can foretell, Could not God foretell over a great span or why and book of Daniel and Revelation.

I tend toward Paul not Calvin. Tom

[Jared Wright]

I appreciated the presentation, ensuing conversation, and the opportunity to finally meet Drs. Larson and Rice. Open Theism is something I've only just begun to understand and explore, and I look forward to reading up more on it.

On the subject of judgment and the Second Coming of Christ, the issue is not entirely resolved for me. When I asked the question, I framed it primarily in the context of "judgment", but the real issue is that of the second coming. Allow me a scenario that illustrates the problem I perceive:

Presumably at the Second Coming, there are still living people on the Earth. Among them, I assume are children who have only just begun the process of choosing their life paths that will ultimately determine whether they are "saved" or not. If I understand Open Theism correctly, it seems that God does NOT know ahead of time which people will be "saved" and which will be "lost".

We know from human history that the trajectory of peoples' lives can be for a long time in a negative direction and then change for the better late in life as a result of unforeseen circumstances. In other words, "bad" people can become "good" late in life.

The problem that the Second Coming in particular poses is this: If God does not foreknow who might change late in life in such a way, going in effect from death to life, then the Second Coming arbitrarily cuts off peoples' ability to potentially change and be saved.

What if a person might be numbered with the "unsaved" at the time of Jesus coming, whereas if Jesus coming had been later, that person might have become "saved."

The only way I can see (though admittedly, I have a very limited understanding of Open Theism's esachtology) would be for everyone on earth to die before the Second Coming, thereby living out their lives and finishing the process of choice making. In other words, until a person dies, her choice is not fixed, and therefore, Jesus' coming would arbitrarily cut off the possibility of "switching sides."

I've said all that very crudely, but I hope it conveys a potential difficulty nonetheless. I raise the difficulty because I want to resolve it somehow.

Thanks!

[Daneen Akers]

I wish I could have been there Friday night! I remember 20 years ago when this book was published. I was 11 and was just beginning to question theology. I remember climbing into my parent's bed one Sabbath morning where we all would occasionally congregate. I told them I couldn't understand how I really had a choice about how to live if God already knew the future--why would God have created Satan if he knew what would happen? And if it was all a big experiment to prove to the rest of the beings in the universe that God was love, then it seemed awfully unfair--what about those people who didn't get saved?

I remember being quite distraught and also a little nervous at being this honest with my parents. Much to my surprise, my dad said that a book had just been published that talked about these very questions and proposed that maybe God doesn't know the future in the way my Sabbath School class had told me he did. He admitted that he didn't know exactly what to believe either, but that it was a line of questioning worth pursuing. (I've only recently started to realize what an amazing gift my parents gave me by being willing to discuss ideas like this and being willing to not have definitive answers.)

Thanks Dr. Larson for this great summation of an important contribution. Like Lisa, I was unaware for many years that this was an Adventist contribution!

I'll look forward to seeing some of these questions debated.

[David]

I like Zwemer's question:

"Just a question: is there a difference between foreknowledge and foreordained? "

I read Rice's book some time ago, and found myself wanting to embrace the Open Theism school of thought. God gave us the power, and freedom, of choice. He doesn't force Himself on us.

I can accept this to a point. Where I have difficulty wrapping my muddled human brain around this concept is when I try to understand it looking through the prism of time. The Bible tells us that God is eternal - there is no beginning or end with God. (Ez. 57:15, Jn 1:1). Is it possible that God created linear time for the human race at creation? If God is truly eternal, I would think that there is no beginning or end in GOD TIME versus our linear view of time. If God is truly eternal, then I believe that he does know the end from the beginning as it relates to us in the human linear time. Isn't it possible that GOD TIME is different than time as we know it? Perhaps with God, everything is happening at once - creation, the fall of man, the crucifiction of Christ, the 2nd coming of Christ, all of eternity... I suspect we won't have this kind of understanding until Christ comes to take us home with Him. It is fun to speculate though, isn't it?

[David]

Re. my recent comment: The Bible reference should have been ISAIAH 57:15, NOT Ezekial. Sorry!

[Dan Akers]

I've been reading this blog occasionally and enjoying the open and respectful (mostly:) exchange of ideas. If I may leave lurking mode, I'd like to say that I believe there would be widespread interest in taping and releasing a podcast of the aforementioned discussion--and others like it. I'd certainly enjoy that.

Before Dr. Rice's book was published, I thought the particular belief that God didn't know personal salvational outcomes was just a private "heresy" that my granddad--a most sincere and devout Adventist convert--believed but didn't much talk about since it seemed to stir up untold controversy. He looked to a particular statement of Ellen White as confirmation in fact. I don't recall the exact reference in the Testimonies, but a paraphrase would be that the great Monarch of the Universe and all the watching worlds were watching and waiting to see who would be saved.

That understanding of God's foreknowledge as limited (which at that time I believed was self-limited so as to preserve freedom) was a necessary belief for me to go forward with being a Christian. It wasn't until I read Dr. Rice's book that I understood that others wrestled with Calvinistic influence and that there was an entire, organized theological way to view this aspect of God's character. I believe that this area of study is far more than just an interesting or provocative line of theological thought.

In fact, I believe that we must each frame our understanding about God in a way that makes submission and allegiance personally possible--even if it may be considered heresy by the larger orthodoxy. I couldn't love and submit to a God who presided over eternal hellfire for instance. Nor could I engage in Christian belief and life if I believed that an omnipotent God already knows my personal salvational outcome.

So, any possibility of a podcast version of the discussions? Or perhaps a do-over with that potential in mind?

[David R. Larson]

Jared

Thank you for participating so thoughtfully last Sabbath Eve and continuing to do so here!

As you say, if we are open theists we may imply that some people will be unfairly lost because it is impossible for God to know at the end of this age which of them might have responded positively if they had been given enough additional time.

If we are traditional theists we have another problem, however. It is that if God knew at the beginning of our age who in the end would be saved, why have we gone through all the ensuing time? If God's verdict rests on what God knows in advance about each person's future, why didn't God complete the judgment at the time of Creation? Why have any judgment at all?

This is where I agree with traditional SDA theology. It holds that God will not end this age as long as there is even one person who might move from the "lost" column to the "saved" one or vice versa.

We Adventists have often talked about things like "the sealing time" and "the close of probation." These themes do not mean that sometime in the future God will cease to be forgiving. They mean that there can come a point in the life of a person or a community that he or she is "permanently settled" either "for" or "against" God.

Some people will be like Job. Although they are not perfect, their loyaty to God will be unshakable no matter what happens to them. Others will be just as "fixed" in their oppostion to God and for this reason they will experience God's wrath.

According to Romans 1, God's wrath occurs when God lets us have our own self-destructive ways. Speaking of God's wrath, the text more than once says, "God gave them up."

Thus, whether we are traditional or open theists, we all need to get rid of the idea that God will ever do anything that will result in the loss of even one person who might have been saved if only God had waited a little longer.

We may be in a hurry, but God isn't. II Peter 3 is interesting in this regard, I think. Thank you!

Dave

[Pat Travis]

To Dave and Others,

The last 4 weeks have been most interesting to me, perhaps personally providential. I never had visited the blog until then. Since then we have discussed Global warming, Religious inclusivism and pluralism, and QOD as relates to Christ our Redeemer and Creator.

To the Topic-

Dave I appreciate your outline that points out that (OT) “Open Theism” is “new” on the scene and that it differs from Calvinism and Arminianism in that both of those disciplines do view God as having an exhaustive view of the past, present and future. They do arrive at that through different nuances.

A Seminary Professor of mine from RTS, John M. Frame, wrote a book in 2001 that may be of interest to serious seekers. “No Other God- A Response To Open Theism” P&R pub. 235pp.

John suggests that those who frame the questions may often also skew the outcomes. He suggest that often OT’s suggest that the only loving, relational God can exist with the OT’s view. He suggests that it is true that often traditional theists have over emphasized God’s Transcendence to the neglect of His immanence and this has contributed to the problem.

John also suggests that OT’s is "not new" but has its “roots” in libertarianism and Socinianism. We should always be skeptical of guilt by association since aspects and nuances vary. However, Socinius (1539-1604) denied the exhaustive foreknowledge of God and also the full deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement and Justification by Faith alone.

Perhaps EGW saw a “nuanced” Open Theism in the Sadducees,
“They (Sadducees) believed in God as the only being superior to man; but they claimed that, having created man, God left him to pursue his own course. They argued that an overruling Providence sustaining the machinery of the universe, and a foreknowledge of events would deprive man of free moral agency, and lower him to the position of a slave. They therefore disconnected the Creator from the creature, maintaining that man was independent of a higher influence; that his destiny was in his own hands. Denying as they did that the Spirit of God worked through human efforts, or natural means, they still held that man, through the proper employment of his own natural powers, could become elevated and enlightened, and that his life could be purified by rigorous and austere exactions."{3SP 44.3}

It is an interesting subject.

Dave after reading QOD report 4, I could not help but notice the desire of you and Richard to kind of move on from these past discussions on such things as Christ's human nature. I am wondering how this subject …the attribute of God’s foreknowledge… is that much different and thus more valid for present discussion.
I would also be interested in Richard’s and your view on 1) Justification by Faith Alone and 2) What effect did the “fall” have on “free will?” I think of Luther’s “Bondage of the will” and Paul’s “dead in trespasses and sins.”
It seems to me that in our “centralizing” free will in theology we often forget our failure and inability. We possibly fail to continually remember that Grace entails God taking the initiative towards us in redemptive activity “continuously.” We did not first love Him and seek Him out with our “free will” but rather He first loved us and gave himself for us while we were yet sinners.

The complexity of the "interface" between the sovereignty and foreknowledge of God and mankinds response is indeed enormous.

Regards,

pt

[David R. Larson]

Pat/pt [which do you prefer?]

Thanks for your observations!

When I see Rick Rice this morning, I will see if he can relate his response to Frame's book. That several scholars have taken the time and effort to try to "refute" OT is encouraging to me because it means that they are taking it seriously.

As you say, there have virtually always been those who have denied that God's knowledge of the future is as exhaustive as God's knowledge of the past and present. OT contends that this is the position of the Old and New Testaments, for example. Another illustration is that at Loma Linda University some have taught a version of it for at least fifty years, as in the work of Jack W. Provonsha.

Rick's contribution has been to pull several together several of its themes, explore their inner and connected logic and trace their likely implications in a way that has made OT a serious theological option in our time too. That there is now a unit in the annual meetings of the American Academy of Religion for scholars of all sorts who are interested in "Open and Relational Theologies" testifies to this success, I think.

Your paragraph from EGW is interesting! The only similarity I see between its summary of the views of the Sadducees and OT is their stances on divine foreknowledge. Everything else is different. If I were to pick a recent parallel it would be Deism, something both OT and process theology explicitly reject. Nevertheless, it is an interesting comment and I thank you for bringing it to our atttention.

As you know, there were several Protestant Reformations in the sixteenth century, the versions of Luther and Calvin being two of them. I think it is a mistake to focus entirely on them. Among others, the Anabaptists have much too teach us too, for example.

Similarly, in Scripture and in the subsequent centuries the followers of Jesus have explained what happened at the Cross in a variety of ways, none of which exhuasts the subject. Carefully formulated Substitutionary Theories make their contribtuions; however, I think other alternatives do so as well. No one approach is adequate.

Perhaps I can come more directly to what may be the question beneath our exchanges: What do I think of the kind of theology Desmond Ford and others have emphasized?

My response to that question is mixed. On the one hand, I think that this kind of theology highlights important threads in the fabric of Christian theology in a way that has been spiritually renewing for thousands of SDAs all over the world. I am grateful for that. On the other hand, I see it as a strong reaction to earlier problematic schools of Christian thought and life that has its own tendencies to be one-sided.

Much current Biblical scholarship, even by Lutherans, contends that for too long we have read Paul's writings through the experience of Martin Luther. This has made it difficult for us to hear Paul on his own terms. This is the sort of thing that we need also to keep in mind, I hold.

Thanks again! I'll inform Rick of this discussion and invite him to particiapte as his schedule allows.

[Pat Travis]

Thanks Dave,

Pat is fine.

The point I have in regards to EGW and the doctrine of Justification is that she says, GC p.253.,"The great doctrine of justification by faith, so clearly taught by Luther.

Either she supported Luther's understanding or the comment is disingeuous...or she did not understand his position.

That seems to be the Protestant fountain from which GC was formulated...yet some of the most ardent EGW supporters say just the opposite concerning the doctrine.

I was noting the specific portion..."They argued that an overruling Providence sustaining the machinery of the universe, and a foreknowledge of events would deprive man of free moral agency, and lower him to the position of a slave." I agree the first potion was deism...the above is a separate thought.

If convienient how does the post fall "free will" fit into your process interest?

Thanks,

pt

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Dave,
I've not read The Openness of God although it is now sitting on my book shelf.

One of Ricks greatest contributions to our church is his rigorous scholarship which rightly demands attention and a careful reading. He really is lifting up the quality of Adventist theology.

I look forward to engaging open theism myself with the belief that indeed the Doctrine of God is incredibly important to our theology. In my opinion it is something we should all be well read in and think through critically.

[Raul Batista]

The Open View of God might partially explain the mystery of sin and Satan. God is an optimist by nature, otherwise why create something to begin with if he didn't think it would turn out perfect and stay perfect. A perfect being, by definition, is only capable of optimism.

Can you imagine a being who knows everything that will ever occur? There are no surprises. He knows everything he will ever do and create and what will happen to his creation. God created the universe with the best of optimistic intentions. God had no idea when he created Lucifer that a ghastly creature like Satan would eventually emerge from Lucifer's free will and cause so much anti-perfection for millions (or thousands) of years. Otherwise why be partially responsible for such horror and evil?

If father or mother Hitler had received convincing proof from a time traveler that their little Adolf would murder so many innocent people, would they go ahead and play a role in allowing him to be born? They went ahead because they had no idea, of course. They hoped for the best and waited to see what would become of their little boy.

God, likewise, created Lucifer and his confederates, as well as humanity, with the best of intentions, hoping against hope that we'd all turn out as perfect as he would have liked for us all to have turned out.

Perhaps that's why he sent himself in the form of Christ, because in being partially responsible for allowing us to get into this mess as he was, he got himself into this mess as well, as one of us, to bare the brunt for having created us in the first place and to help us get out of it and return us to that hoped-for perfection he wished we all had chosen for ourselves all along. Think of the pain he's in to see how we all have suffered and continue to suffer. God wants this all to end as much as we do, otherwise he'd already have ended it for all concerned.

That, my friends, sounds like a responsible and sacrificing God and parent.

[Pat Travis]

Raul,

This statement may or not be true...we have a right to disagree with all but scripture in my view.

EGW's statement is not as you portrayed it... it seems.

"The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal." Rom. 16:25, R. V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne. From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. So great was His love for the world, that He covenanted to give His only-begotten Son, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. {DA 22.2}

regards,

pt

[David R. Larson]

Pat

I believe that all aspects of the human self (cognition, volition, affection to use one of many schemes) have been damaged but not totally destroyed by sin in normal and healthy human adults.

I don't ask what we "can will on our own" because we are not in that situatuon. Rather God is an active influence in our lives that makes space for our freedom by giving us possibilities that partly liberate us from our pasts.

To the extent that we respond favorably, we are free. To the extent that we don't, we aren't. Both are responses to God's gracious initiatives, however.

Thank you!

Dave

[Pat Travis]

Dave,

Thanks for your time in your busy schedule. I appreciate the way you verbalized that.

On the one hand, I don't feel we have lost all the reflections of the beauty of our created state and on the other hand, I have experienced Paul's description:
"For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin." Rom.7:22-25.

Regards,

Pat

[David R. Larson]

Pat

Yes! Me too. And I find what Paul says to me to be true "post" as well as "pre" conversion. But that's not the end of the story, right? There is also Romans 8: 1ff: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus........" God is more gracious than any of us can possibly imagine!

This is why everyone will be in heaven except for those for whom it would be hell!

BTW, IMHO I think ML overdoes it in BOW.

I hope this is turns out to be a good day for you.

Thanks!

Dave

[Cliff Goldstein]

I never have understood the thinking behind this openness theology. Foreknowledge has nothing to do with limiting one's freedom. I had some friends who got married years ago, and I knew beforehand that it wouldn't last, and it didn't, even though I had absolutely no contact with them during their ill fated union. That is, my foreknowledge had nothing to do with the freedom they used to ruin their marriage.

How does God knowing before hand what free beings will do somehow limit their freedom? Did God's knowing that I was going to write this post mean that I was forced to write this post? Or does is simply mean that God, knowing all things about eveything at every time knew that I, using my free will, would write this post? And suppose I had changed my mind at the last minute? What difference would it have made? He would have know that too.

Cliff

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Thanks Cliff

I agree. I attend a Presbyterian church in Augusta. The Senior pastor told he he avoids preaching on predestination by preaching on procrastional. Tom

[Pat Travis]

If we just rely on human reason and we place God completely in our realm of time and space, it makes a lot of sense,that foreordination and foresight are related.

However, God is not just like us and He dwells both outside and inside of our realm of time and space.

That is but one aspect of why we are not all together like Him and can never by "wisdom" find Him out.

I believe at the Sovereign God's "interface" with man's response and rsponsibility their remains a mystery...an apparent antinomy, if you will. Maybe that is why he is God?

Maybe that is why also after a certain point of investigation, good advice is, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law." Dt.29:29.

pt

Dave, BTW help my challenged texting and mind and tell me what... I think ML overdoes it in BOW...means :)

[Alexander]

Hey Cliff.

You actually just made a great case for open theism as not limiting the omniscience of God.

If God knows the future like you or any human might know the future, than there is no free-will problem.

In fact your comparison of divine omniscience to human inferred knowledge is essentially the open position contra the sovereign view which would say that God knows -- unlike you -- every single possible cause and effect which that couple would experience.

But I'd like to raise God to be higher than just on par with Cliff. In fact, as the open theists point out, God knows more than us, namely every possible choice. God just don't know in the Absolute sense which choices we will make until they ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

For instance, Cliff knew that the couple's breakup would happen as a very real outcome. But the fact is that we all "know" things that don't actually happen the way we expected.

To really understand open theism one has a understand the concept of infinite divine foreknowledge which, unlike Cliff's foreknowledge, has zero contingency, not just in the big clashing questions -- should I stay or should I go? -- but in every single human pause to blink, each tyyped letter, etc. If God Absolutely know what will happen before it happens, then there is neither meaning nor responsibility for human choice. This determinism undergirds much of the moral complacency of Greek fatalism. The sovereignty of God is really due to the Scholastic co-option of Aristotle, not from study of the very dynamic God of the Bible.

Evidence?

Check out the larger Openness of God book, edited by Clark Pinnock which examines the scriptural, philosophical, historical support.

[David R. Larson]

Hi Pat!

I was thinking of some of our exchanges about the sixteenth century. Do ML and BOW now make sense?

Hi Cliff!

Let's begin by reminding ourselves about how little we do and can know about these things. Our best efforts aways fall short.

Let's also begin by reminding ourselves that in theology, as we see in Scripture itself, there is always an irreducible pluralism. Therefore, although I am happy to share with you what I believe and why, I have no interest in "converting" you or anyone else to how I see things.

If we accept this, we need to review the secular freedom/determinism debates to sort out at least some of the different ways the word "freedom" is used.

This is the only way to understand where people like me are coming from. All talk about "limiting God" or whether "God's foreknowledge robs us of our freedom" misses the point.

Of course God's knowledge is not limited. And of course God's foreknowledge does not destroy our freedom. The questions are about what kind of freedom we say we possess and whether decisions made on that basis are inherently capable of being foretold with 100% accuracy.

It is no criticism of God's omnipotence to say that even the Creator cannot make 2 + 2 = 5. This does not mean that there is something wrong with God. It means that there is something wrong about this expextation of God.

As long as the terms "2" and "plus" and "equal" and "5" have their customary meanings, this is the case. Likewise, if we are working with a "libertarian" theory of freedom, Open Theism seems necessary, at least to me.

Therefore, the questions before us are about what "libertarian" theories of freedom mean and what, it they are true, they entail.

Thanks!

Dave

[David R. Larson]

Good points, Alex! Do we have Cliff on a run? Somehow I doubt it! Thanks!
Dave

[Raymond Roccograndi]

"Perhaps that's why he sent himself in the form of Christ, because in being partially responsible for allowing us to get into this mess as he was, he got himself into this mess as well, as one of us, to bare the brunt for having created us in the first place and to help us get out of it and return us to that hoped-for perfection he wished we all had chosen for ourselves all along. Think of the pain he's in to see how we all have suffered and continue to suffer. God wants this all to end as much as we do, otherwise he'd already have ended it for all concerned."

I'm entering late on this thread, and for that I apologize. This has been a rather stimulating and interesting discussion. I like, Dr. Diller, came to learn of Open Theism (OT) as a product of non-Adventist Christians and thought that the Adventist Church would never have any connect with such theological concepts. However it was my Philosophy professor, Dr. McArthur, who introduced my class to Rice's book.

I'm very attracted to the theology of OT, because of the questions it helps to answer questions that have long been nagging at me since I was a small child attending both Sabbath and Sunday Schools.

I can really relate to Daneen when she writes,

"I told them I couldn't understand how I really had a choice about how to live if God already knew the future--why would God have created Satan if he knew what would happen? And if it was all a big experiment to prove to the rest of the beings in the universe that God was love, then it seemed awfully unfair--what about those people who didn't get saved?"

I think that Ellen White's statement,

"The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal." Rom. 16:25, R. V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne [this could be understood, possibly, form an Open Theism perspective, that God knew not that Lucifer would become Satan or than man would fall, but that such was possible and hence the Great Plan of Redemption, if such occurred]. From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan [which could mean that God knew of Satan's scheming within his own heart], and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate [this could mean that God knew of this possibility]. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency [This would support Open Theism]. So great was His love for the world, that He covenanted to give His only-begotten Son, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. {DA 22.2}

Just some of my thoughts. Thanks for this lively discussion everyone

[Pat Travis]

Cliff,

I meant to mention something to you before having to rush off for an eye exam. He told me no Glaucoma. I think I misunderstood Him when I thought I heard him say my foresight and foreplay were challenged.

Anyway, I appreciate your editorship of the SS quarterly. I do feel on many occassions you make an effort to emphasize Just. by Faith Alone...something rarely if ever done in the past.

However, I hope the next quarterly on Dan.8:14 etc. occurs shortly after the consummation of all things when you point out the importance of these things to God in person. :}

Also, I wish you could point out to your old sidekick Lincoln at Liberty Mag. to get a good church historian to do a good article on how the German Church, which was very theologically liberal, got sucked into the states purposes in the social services arena...How Jim Wallis and "U.S. Bishops' Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy." might segue into the same situation under difficult situations at the expense of Religious Liberty...while promoting the importance of "the new creation."

In other words...equal notice of the religious left and right!

Regards,

Pat

[Pat Travis]

Dave, I am slow ...BOW?

pt

[Pat Travis]

Ray,
Hope all is well...
"From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan." not...(of its possibility or his heart condition only)...and the fall of man.

Let's not reframe language to mean what WE want it to say. Also consider that 3P44 quote.It seems obvious that the Sadducees could not conceive of a God who could foreordain and control certain events and have foreknowledge without trampling on "human liberty."

You don't have to agree however.

pt

[Lisa Clark Diller]

Pat, I'm betting BOW is post-modern textmessage-speak for _Bondage of the Will_ by Martin Luther. Although I'm sure no modern teenager has short-TM'd that term before...

Dave, I appreciated what you said at the QOD conference about OT not being about limiting God, but about giving humans freedom. That helped make it sense-able to me. We're NOT trying to make God small here. Or less powerful. If anything, this keeps me from making God too much like me and too small. Because any analogies I can make with my own thinking end of anthropomorphizing God, often....

Again, I'm struck over and over by the radical Arminianism of Adventists. I'm having a hard time explaining this to all my dear friends at Calvin College. Glad that Arminians are making a comeback in the evangelical world so that we get to be included as fully Christian and able to contribute to the larger Body of Christ by talking about human freedom.

Thank God that He is so much bigger than me and knows all--but in a way that I can't understand. His thoughts are NOT my thoughts...

Best,
Lisa

[Joselito Coo]

ML (Martin Luther?) and BOW (Bondage of the Will?) of the 16th C. Doesn't this put JC in the same league with ML?

Appreciate the informative exchange between Pat and Dr Larson regarding the nature of our freedom, pre and post conversion.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Please bear with me because I come with questions not answers.

I have been thinking today about prayer and immutability after spending the afternoon reading Openness of God.

I was thinking about Gods choices because I think open theism is as much about God as it is about us. When I hear open theism I don't immediately think of human free will, I think of the Doctrine of God.

I think the notion that God is putting on an act- that God wasn't really about to destroy the wandering tribe, God was just testing Moses- to be more repulsive than the idea that God responds to the human condition and, yes, even changes Gods mind.

Of course the Doctrine of God impacts more than prayer... there are lots of reasons why it is very important to have a firm grasp of a concept, and I'll agree with Barth on this, human words cannot begin to express fully. There is indeed a tension within no only open and traditional theisms but also within Scripture.

It is not enough for me to form my hermeneutics to accommodate or repudiate Open Theism. My cursory reading tells me that is happening as a rigid position seems to require marginalizing certain texts.

I don't think it's appropriate for me to say I agree or don't agree with this or that theological concept when I haven't studied it. I have a hard time respecting people who do...

I am making space for the Doctrine of God in my reading which includes the Openness of God (Pinnok not Rice) and Reforming The Doctrine Of God by F. LeRon Shults.

The implications for human moral responsibility are huge. I also think this presents a pastoral challenge particularly with human suffering.

That is my graduate student practical theologian/ Christian ethicist take on this discussion which I'm happy to admit I have no grounding in. My goal after reading those two books is to have more questions.

Thanks!

[Pat Travis]

Thanks Lisa...ML & BOW.

In the book, "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" by Packer he notes the meeting of Calvinist Charles Simeon and Arminian Wesley on p.13.

"Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; I have sometimes been called a Calvinist; and therfore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions...Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself to be a depraved creature, so depraved that you would have never thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?" "yes," says the veteran, "I indeed do."
"And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?" "Yes, Solely through Christ." "But sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not now somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?"
"No, I must be saved by Christ from first till last." "Allowing then that you were first turned by the Grace of God, or you not in some way or another to keep yourself by your own power?" "NO." "What then, Are you to be upheld by God, as much as an infant in His mothers arms?" "Yes, Altogether."
"And is all your hope in the Grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?" "Yes, I have no hope but in Him.""Then Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism;this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therfore if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherin we agree."
-------------------
This is not the HyperCalvinism or Neo- Calvinism that some present and others at times witness today. There is a "relationship with God" in the original Calvinist message and I think it would do well for OT to acknowledge that as an alternate for an imminent loving God.

Regards,

pt

[Pat Travis]

Thanks Joselito also... BOW.

Christ was different from us. He was the second Adam.
He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and His "spiritual nature" was never described as ours is, "as dead in tresspasses and sins...and as by nature children of wrath." Eph.2:1-5.

Dave did point out well that the "old man" still resides in us, while God patiently works on us to "put on the new man."
AND the good news is that we are reckoned perfect in Christ by faith while we are "being made holy." Now that is good news...I am not justified by a finished work but by beholding the works of One outside of myself by faith alone.

Thanks for this and previous thoughts.

pt

[Pat Travis]

Johnny,
All of us are limited in time but you might add John M. Frame's books:

"No other God- A response to Open Theism"

and "The Doctrine of God"

[Pat Travis]

PS.(Somebody make that old white guy sit down!)

Having said the nice things about Calvinist noted above...I do not accept the concept of "particular election and reprobation" which is usually not outspoken anyway.

NOT because it is logically inconsistent or even unjust...it is not he that willeth or runneth.

BUT because the "hound of heaven" the God of love that sought me out would not bypass anyone without a tug and many repetitive barks!

In Him,

pt

[Cliff Goldstein]

Dave

I understand that placing certain logical limits on what God can or cannot do doesn't take away from His omnipotence. I have used that argument many times myself, such as to argue that even an omnipotent God can't create a love that is forced, any more than He can create (in Euclidean space) a four sided triangle. I wrote an article for Ministry in which I argued (spurred on by something in Susan Nieman's Evil in Modern Thought) that because there is no rational explanation for sin (and hence evil), even God can't explain it, because if God could explain it, then it would be explicable. Anyway, someone attacked me, saying that what I was teaching was just another version of Richard Rice. As I was writing, I saw that coming so I was prepared, and my arugment, which still gets to the heart of my argument here is, Sure, to say that God cannot make 2 +2 =5 is not a limit on his omnipotence. I understand that. But what I don't see, in any way, is any kind of logical limitations on what God can know about the future. What logical impossiblity arises by asserting that the future is not open to God, but that He knows all our choices even before we freely make them. To say that God can explain the inexplicable is, IMHO, a contradiction; to say that God knows all our choices, even before we make them, and that we can still make them freely, even if He knows them before, doesn't present the same kind of problem.

Or am I missing something here?

Cliff

[Joselito Coo]

There's a Wikipedia link to a September 1981 issue of Spectrum written by H. E. Phillips of Walla Walla where he states the exact same objection Cliff raised regarding the openness claim that exhaustive divine foreknowledge excludes human freedom. I'm interested to know what Dr Rice says. Thanks, Cliff, for bringing up this point.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Obviously, I can not speak for God. But I am a parent, a grandparent, a great grandparent, and was Chief of Children's dentistry at Milwaukee Children's hospital. I can tell you right off that little Madie will head right for the toy box when she arrives a our house and then hugs "Grama". I had absolutely perfect foreknowledge and absolutely zero ordination.Of course I have no choice. I believe that God disciplined Himself not to interfer in the main. Tom

[David Hamstra]

I'm relatively unexposed to this open theism stuff myself, but have always wondered if it hinges on a _post hoc, ergo propter hoc_ (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy. Just because my action follows God's knowing, doesn't logically imply that God's knowing caused my action. Am I missing something here?

[Rich Hannon]

For context, the argument Cliff rejects is ably expressed in a 'classic' 1965 article by Nelson Pike titled 'Divine Omniscience and Voluntary Action', reprinted (with many subsequent pro/con articles) in a volume titled 'God, Foreknowledge, and Freedom' edited by UC Riverside professor John Martin Fischer. A statement of Pike's argument (with an attempted rebuttal) can be found here: http://www.cloudsofheaven.org/2006/03/fatalism-debunked.html.

I paste the steps:

1. God's being omniscient implies that if Jones mows his lawn on Saturday afternoon, then God believed at an earlier time that Jones would mow his lawn on Saturday afternoon.
2. Necessarily, all of God's beliefs are true.
3. No one has the power to make a contradiction true.
4. No one has the power to erase someone's past beliefs, that is, to bring it about that something believed in the past by someone was not believed in the past by that person.
5. No one has the power to erase someone's existence in the past, that is, to bring it about that someone who did exist in the past did not exist in the past.
6. So if God believed that Jones would mow his lawn on Saturday afternoon, Jones can refrain from mowing only if one of these conditions is true:
(i) Jones has the power to make God's belief false.
(ii) Jones has the power to erase God's past belief.
(iii) Jones has the power to erase God's past existence.
7. Alternative (i) is impossible. (This follows from steps 2 and 3).
8. Alternative (ii) is impossible. (This follows from step 4).
9. Alternative (iii) is impossible. (This follows from step 5).
10. Therefore, if God believes that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday afternoon, Jones does not have the power to refrain from mowing his lawn on Saturday afternoon.

Personally I find Pike's argument compelling, i.e. that there is a logical contradiction between God's absolute foreknowledge and human freedom. So I guess that makes me an open thiest. However, one only has to reference Rice's original book to read persuasively (for me anyway) why conceding to Open Theism does not lead to emasculating God or opening a Pandora's Box to chaos that God cannot handle.

[Pat Travis]

David,

The OT logic argument goes that God could not have exhaustive foresight unless He predetermined all outcomes...thus your loss of free will.

pt

[David R. Larson]

This is turning out to be a very rich conversation; however, at the moment I'm pressed for time and will get back ASAP.

Julius Nam has arranged for Kenneth Newport to be here at LLU to give a lecture tomorrow. His is the best book on what went wrong at Waco, I think. Julius and are heading to LAX to welcome Newport from Liverpool, England.

Also, I want to get Rick Rice involved. Though his office is next to mine, I've hardly seen him for a couple of days.

In other words, we are almost as busy as the rest of you are!

Thank you!

Dave

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Dave,
Thanks for making me laugh.

Pat,
As a general rule I try to stay away from books/ work that is negative. That is, work that attacks something rather than offer an alternate view. The first book by Frame does that. Anyways John M. Frame is a hard core Calvinist and I don't like orthodox/ old school reformed thought enough to make time for it now if ever.

Frankly these hard core Calvinist associations are not helpful IMHO when discussing human free will and divine omniscience.

I will say however that I'm studying with and under lots of great neo-orthodox folk who could be said to like Calvin and are in love with Barth. They part with Calvin on this very issue as a matter of fact.

Cliff,
I'll try to catch your sermon on Sabbath!

[Cliff Goldstein]

Johnny--

That would be great. I got assigned a topic that I know really nothing about, i.e., standards, and don't really have an interest in (too practical, too down to earth for me; would rather speak on some abstract metaphysical/theological subject that has no bearing on anything). I'm still trying to get the sermon written for Sabbath but it's like pulling teeth.

But back on this openess thing. The whole question of free will and determinism has been problematic enough, even in an atheistis world-view; throw in an all-knowing God and you really can have issues. I guess I just don't see that what we gain by keeping the future open to God is worth what we are forced to give up. Plus, I just don't see the basic contradiction: if two thousand years ago God knew that I was going to write this email, did I have have a choice then to write it? Yes, becuase if I wasn't going to write it, then it would be true that two thousand years ago God knew that I wasn't going to write it.

Again, can someone show me what I am not getting, someone who is a lttle less esoteric than my good friend Alex(and yes, Alex, I haven't forget about getting the date to come to your church; just been busy).

Cliff

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Would it not be good advice to:

"Resume not God to scan. The proper study of mankind, is man!" God reveals Himself. He does not submit to exploration. Tom --I think Paul is saying that God foreknow the possibility sin and Foreordained Jesus Christ to redeem the fallen. Tom

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Sorry to take this off-topic but I hear you. If we're talking ethics, "standards" sounds like "prescriptive" to me which makes me cringe.

Back on-topic, I think that perhaps the trinity would be useful in addressing some of the tension expressed. Not only Christ on the cross although I would zero in on Christs words crying out for a God who had forsaken him.

I think in the model of the inter-trinity relationship, specifically Christs earthly ministry, is helpful in understanding our relationship with God. Prayer, and the Holy Spirit, are also helpful.

We can see in Christs ministry how a single God can be one in three persons, how God the Christ did not have foreknowledge God the Father had. Or it was all an act and Christ wasn't really in anguish for our sins on the cross.

So did God the Father foreordain Christs death and resurrection without Christs knowledge? Wow I have so many problems with that view.

I guess I'll admit again to having more questions than answers. This raises lots and lots of problems for one if God is incoherent within Godself or looking forward, like Jared said, does open theism allow for the eschaton to play out differently than was shown to John in Revelation?

I have heard people argue that no one will actually die eternal death, a rejection of hell which surprises me precisely because it limits the agency for humanity to choose to deny being in relationship with God.

Nevertheless, the trinity is an amazing theological concept about Gods inter-relatedness which can help us understand our relationship with God and I think might be useful in this discussion.

[Rich Hannon]

Cliff Goldstein wrote, above: "if two thousand years ago God knew that I was going to write this email, did I have have a choice then to write it? Yes, becuase if I wasn't going to write it, then it would be true that two thousand years ago God knew that I wasn't going to write it."

Cliff, with all due respect, it seems to me that you have just: 1) asserted 'p' (God knew I would write) and 'not p' (God knew I wasn't going to write), which violates the law of non-contradiction; or 2) denied the fixity of the past. If so, such moves are too extreme for me. But I would certainly welcome correction if I am confused.

[Joselito Coo]

Rich,

Just wondering if you may not have missed the concluding comment in the same site from which your quote was lifted, debunking fatalism?

"And fatalism does not show a contradiction between divine foreknowledge and human freedom. Necessarily if God foreknows something then it will happen, but he foreknows things simply because they will happen. God foreknows that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday not because Jones must mow it, but simply because he will know it. Jones certainly has the power to refrain from mowing, and he does refrain, God would simply have foreknown that instead." [end quote]

Is this not the exact same assertion Cliff just made?

[Pat Travis]

Johnny,
Whatever...

pt