Wednesday, October 10, 2007

"Open Theism"

If God is relative, not absolute, than it would seem that God is subject to change, and of course we all know that God cannot change. Again, we are under the influence of Aristotle and his Unmoved Mover, and are still in agreement that Patripassionism is heresy. Yes, God changes.

Note the several references in the Scriptures where it is said that God repented of one thing or another. We all understand that God has not done something wrong for which he must repent, but we also must recognize that God, in some sense, changes course in these passages. God is often frustrated, but never thwarted. If he fails to find those who will trust and obey, he continues to move to accomplish his will and purpose. I

t was not God’s will that Israel have a king in the days of Samuel, the judge of Israel. God was their king. But when they were insistent, God made a shift, relative to their stand, and gave them Saul as king. God could accommodate himself to the situation, and did. When Saul became a disappointment, God selected David as a replacement; when David failed at significant points, Solomon was God’s choice, but God again found the need for a course correction after the failure of Solomon.

Nowhere is change more evident in God than in the Incarnation. God, by divine knowledge and creative experience knew everything about human being, but he did not know by experience what it meant to be a human being until Mary had her child named Jesus who was in all points human. This is something new for God, to be Emmanuel.

And when Jesus prayed in agony in Gethsemane, and later on the cross asked in despair why God had forsaken him, surely no one is prepared to say this made no difference to God. The full story of God’s incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth means there is some kind of difference in God after the incarnation. God, in some sense, is changed.

Now Jesus, the eternal Son of God, the second “person” of The Trinity, knows, bu experience, what it is like to live as a human. That is who he was on this earth, and as the writer of the Hebrews notes, that is who is now, and always be: “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Rather than proving that God doesn’t change, it refers to the fact that God is changed forever as a result of the incarnation.

God’s character doesn’t change, God’s purpose doesn’t change, but because his character and purpose are relational in nature, it is God’s character to be free to change, relative to the living people and their free responses as they are involved in the working out of his purpose.

God is love, God can be trusted eternally; Jesus is the truth and the only way. In him alone is life and that life is the light of men. This truth doesn’t change.

But God is alive and dynamic, not a mere eternal principle, Force, or Absolute Idea, so there is a continual process of change in God as he still suffers for us, in us, and with us. Since we are free and God is free, the future depends on the way we respond to God: in faith and obedience, or in rebellion and disbelief.
___________________

Another potential objection immediately arises. If the future is dependent on our response to God’s initiative, then it would seem that God would not know what the future will be, the future would be open. Doesn’t God know everything? Isn’t God omniscient?

The answer lies in the distinction between the potential future an the actual future. The eternal, holy God who created the entire world knows everything that has happened--the actual past--knows everything that is on the scene of the present--the actual present--and knows all future potentiality. Nothing could occur that would surprise God or catch him unprepared. But the actual future is another matter.

H. L. Cravens, a legendary teacher at Howard Payne University in Brownwood, Texas, was a nationally acclaimed, championship checker player. Occasionally on days set aside for fun, he would challenge as many university students as desired to play him in a game of checkers--all at once. Tables were set up and as many as sixteen checkerboards might be lined up as students took him on.

Dr. Cravens stepped to the first table, the first checkerboard, and moved a checker, then to the second board, and on, until he had played each student. Then he would walk back to the first table and start again with the first student’s game. He took only a few seconds at each board. In a short while, a few boards began to be folded, then more, until only two or three remained. Dr. Cravens always defeated all challengers, although I do remember one fellow who claimed, “I almost beat him.”

For years I assumed that my friend knew all possible moves on a checkerboard, and had strategies for dealing with any of them. I suspected that after the first two or three moves he knew whether his opponent was a serious player or not, and that he could usually predict what each player was likely to play next.



A couple of days before his death, visiting in his home, I told him I had often spoken of his checker knowledge as analogous to God’s knowledge. He confirmed most of what I said about his knowledge of checkers, but noted that he did not begin to know all possible moves that might develop during the course of a game between skilled players. He believed those moves to be almost infinite in number.

He did agree that after the first few moves he knew what kind of player he was up against, and that at any given moment he knew not only what possibilities there were for the next move, but also what move a player was likely to make. He also knew ahead of time how he would respond, depending on what choice his challenger took.

As indicated earlier, I see H. L.’s knowledge of checkers as a pointer to God’s knowledge of the future. The world and human history are infinitely more complex than a checker game, but God created it all and does know all its possible moves. Humans were created with genuine freedom, but again, God knows all possibilities that exist for humanity as well as for each person. In the sense that he knows all future possibilities and cannot be surprised or caught unprepared, God knows everything. But because God is love--relational--and because he created humans with the freedom that love entails, God does not know the actual future until it happens.

At any given moment, he knows not only what moves are possible, but he knows what moves are likely because of the pattern and character of the past. He is prepared to accomplish his purpose not matter what human choices are made, but if the human is genuinely free, God cannot know which option will be taken until it is actually taken.

God can be trusted to complete the creation and redemption he has begun; he will not be defeated. There will come the time when “every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,” the day when the victory will be complete and he will be known as “King of Kings and Lords,” will put all enemies under his feet, “and he shall reign forever and forever.” But until then, both God and his creature struggle with the powers of evil, and the moment by moment development of this conflict is open and unknowable in its actuality until that moment happens.

To repeat, God knows all the past, the entire present scene, and all potential futures, but he does not and cannot know the actual future until it occurs. Our understanding of God’s knowledge hinges on the distinction between potential and actual future events. More fundamentally, it hinges on our understanding of the relation between love and freedom.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Open theism? I was able to trace the last part of this blog to June 24, 2002 in the Baptist Standard.

Your statement “So far as I know, I am the only Texas Baptist to openly identify with open theism…” in tomorrows blog, would indicate that not many Baptist identify with open theism. What does the opposition state? What is the rest of the story? What am I missing? I am at work at present and my break is about over, but I think I will be spending precious time on open theism this weekend.

RobeFRe said...

You know I could be wrong but I wonder if this definition of Open Theism depends upon a definition of eternal whereby eternal is restricted to temporal perceptions and understanding(undoubtedly influenced by our human condition). Could it be that eternal comes at a point in time out of the past, from witin the point in time, and back from the future, all at once, that is if God is that which no greater can be imagined. But in the words of my grandfather, "I could be wrong!"

So if eternity surrounds time and expands the experience of time into a unity of immediacy of experience(a thousand years is but the twinkling of an eye), an all at once thing so that Jesus Death on the cross--atonement for sin is an eternal death--then His death is not just a painful scourging He overcame once after a couple of days, but that thing that reminds us who God is--able, willing, ready to overcome our meanness(wrongheadedness and or stupidity).

Of course this line of obtuse thinking argues against God's waiting to see what happens along with the rest of us. Although I suppose that could be a part of His greatness--His ability to take things in faith and hope and accept the things He did't get changed(you notice I did not say 'things He couldn't change'!
If I had I would have had to explain that God's nature generally has expressed itself in allowing us a point in time of deciding our eternal destination, which occasionally comes across as no choice at all.

Anonymous said...

funny how no one really cares about what you are saying...my prayers are with you and i pray that you find the REAL truth (caps mine).

May God have mercy on your soul Doc

Also, do not feel that this criticism is even further validating your beliefs...you are not going to be the next Columbus or anything close to that...you will only by the grace of the lord be accepted into the gates of Heaven.

good bye sir

Daniel said...

I think Open theism is a good critique of classical Reformed theology because you seem (at some level) to be able to answer the problem of evil and foreknowledge. But it seems to me that you have to ignore (or interpret around) a heck of a lot of Scripture to get there.

I always enjoyed your class at HPU because you stretched me in my thinking and i thank you for that, but i disagree with you. I know that you don't really care, nor do I care that you disagree with me.

As far as God "changing his mind and giving Israel a king". I believe God ordained that they would ask and receive a king in order that His people would see the failures of human kings and depend even more upon the true King of Kings.

And other times when God "changed his mind" and chose not to destroy a nation... was he not remaining true to what he spoke through Jeremiah in 26? When read in the context... it is not God that changes, it is the people. God only holds true to his promise.

Again, i think open theism gives an answer to the problem of evil... but it eventually crumbles. You constantly stress that God is love and you ignore the other God is statements... God is not only love, but he is also spirit and light.