A little blog from an upstart theologian that will do its best to exemplify Christ while sharing a thing or two along the way.
|
|
| Preachin's Blog A little blog from an upstart theologian that will do its best to exemplify Christ while sharing a thing or two along the way. |
|
|
Friday, December 03, 2004 Open Theist dialougeI'm posting here a dialouge I've been having with some proponents (or at least curious parishioners) of the Open Theism camp. This is some happy theobloggy for the soul...so without any further avail: On the other hand, isn't omniscience just knowing all that there is to know? What if the future, by definition, is unknowable? Is it therefore any slight on God's knowledge to say that He doesn't know that which it is impossible to know? i don't think so. So God is a temporally located, future vision limited God who cannot guarantee that tomorrow will come? How does this work in the face of prophecy throughout the Bible? How can a perfect God say that thus and such will happen thus and such way fully knowing that this may not actually happen as He has said. This makes God a liar and a cheat. This does not allow God to guarantee His or humanity's existence since some cataclysmic event might happen that He doesn't know about? This is a foolish and extremely limited/ing view of God. If God is the sovereign, complete, absolute, perfect God as we are told and example by the Bible and the creation around us than how is it that He does not possess absolute omniscience over all things. One of the great separating features of the true God is He is everything that all other human created gods are not. This God, this YHWH, is the absolute consummation of all perfection and completeness which cannot be found anywhere else. This God, YHWH, is able to create not only the land and creatures but the sea and skies and universe...something which no other mythical god created by humanity could do. The open theist would have us to believe that our God is not this great, sovereign, perfect, most powerful thing I can begin to imagine and that we are left with a God that is contingent on creation for His worth, wealth, substance, and existence. This is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jerusalem He doesn't know that which it is impossible to know? i don't think so. To use a common illustration, think of the attribute of omnipotence. If we say that God is all powerful, that He can do anything, does that mean that he can create a square circle? No. Why? Because it is logically impossible, by definition, to create a square circle; they are mutually exclusive. God's inability to do that in no way takes away from his omnipotence. This is a horrible argument and one used by atheists worldwide to dispute the greatness and perfection of God. Please tell me you are not actually positing that God cannot do anything He wishes. If you are we need to have a loong talk about your view of who God is. To respond to this point: God will not do anything that violates His nature and will Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it? Can God make a square circle? Is His inability to do so limiting of His omnipotence? The first two are loaded questions and not awfully good argumentation...actually they are logical fallacies but I'll leave that point alone. The matter on each of these is within my answer above, God cannot do anything that violates His nature and will. Thus God is unchanging in His ability to do anything that does not violate His will and nature. God's omnipotence is final and absolute, God can do anything He wishes and is indeed all powerful in being able to do that. Being all powerful means God's power is perfect and undiminished by anything. Likewise this same qualification is attached to His omnipresence...God has casual access to anywhere at any given time. His omnipresence is perfect and absolute, God can be anywhere and everywhere while still being selectively present in certain circumstances. God can be in multiple places and still be in a single place. Funny isn't it that omnipresence is never really debated...nor understood awfully well by most people. This leads to God's perfect love and will for His creation, God wishes for His creation to be in His will for them and within His love for them. God is omnibenevolent. Certainly understanding this we can see that God's perfect and absolute benevolence for His creation is seen not only in the continues existence of this creation in spite of itself but also in the various pleasure accorded to that creation. Keep in mind that benevolence is not just feel good happy joy joy emotions but is a holistic thing in that God has allowed pain receptors in our brains to keep us from injuring our frail bodies when we touch a hot stove...He watches out for us. A final point it God's omniscience. If all these other attributes are final, absolute, and perfect than likewise God's ability to know and have knowledge is perfect, final, and absolute. Now this is going to take a moment to hash out so follow me because it is at the crux of this argument: Omniscience is the ability to have knowledge of all things past, present, and future. It is final, that is it has nothing further to grow into or learn about. It is absolute in that it is not contingent, arbitrary, or subjective, God's knowledge is not wavering since He already has all the facts. It is perfect in that God needs no more additional information or experience to have knowledge and comprehension of everything. Now this is a particular point to bring up because many people often wonder whether or not God's knowledge is covering everything in creation...including what sin is. God's possesses what is called de se knowledge in that, unlike humanity, God does not need to experience something in order to fully comprehend it. God already has full knowledge of pain, pleasure, pride, and promise without ever having to experience those things. This is an attribute of God's omniscience. It further proves my point that since God's knowledge is perfect, final, and absolute that His knowledge is all encompassing. Thus it is not at all difficult to suggest that in understanding all of God's attributes as seen in Bible and creation that God possesses perfection including all His various attributes bonded together and are all holistic. To the point which we are talking, God's has perfect knowledge of all things past, present, and future and He has the ability know all things absolutely and finally in the whole scope of creation. This simple point quashes any attempt of the open theist to posit that God doesn't know everything. If that is the case, certainly God could (and would) allow the free actions of humans to inform His course of action. This is scary...very scary. Suggesting that God's actions are both contingent and only permissible through the actions of His creation is both invalidating God's sovereignty and God's perfect character. Do we actually think that God sits around in Heaven with a divine instant messenger awaiting humanity's actions in order to act? What kind of a God is this? Sounds like a wimpy God to me. If God is the most perfect being I can begin to comprehend than He is as far above this as He is far above the creation He put into existence. Do we believe that God created all this because He was lonely? This is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David. This is not the God who reigns supreme yet is still concerned with caring for the sparrow in the tree outside my window. This is not a God who is transcendent of His creation, occupying the atemporal space outside of creation, yet still intimately personable to humanity to the point of restoring their destroyed imago Dei. This is not the God who holds together our delicate lives by His perfect will, yet makes available His tender leadership for each of our lives. To suggest that God sits in the dock, that is God sits in the seat of the witness in our courtroom while humanity prosecutes His character and person by wishing Him to act in accordance to our wills. This is not the God of the Bible. This is a wimpy, nonsensical version of God which is an idolatrous intrusion onto His character. i would refer to a previous post of mine on this thread regarding the difference between having an unchanging character, and yet at the same time, because of that unchanging character, changing "tactics" or plans. Okay, so the writer of Hebrews doesn't deal with the holistic person of Christ? By "Greek idea" i was referring more to traditional, classic Greek philosophy in the vein of Plato and Aristotle than to any Greek god. From my understanding, the idea of immutability and impassability really came into Christian thought with St. Aquinas (who gave us the idea that God was "that of which nothing greater can be thought" in his ontological argument). Uh actually its Anselm that gave us that thought...but I digress. BTW you'll notice the ontological argument is part and parcel to my case here. I'd be interested to hear an argument from anyone on this forum to dispute my claim that God is the greatest being I can begin to imagine. Anyhoo...don't classify it as the "Greek idea" since there is a pantheon of mythical gods and various philosophies that go along with such a route classification. Now my answer to the objection that Augustine (and seemingly all the church fathers...) is too influenced by Plato and Aristotle is that in light of the vast pantheon of Greek philosophical thought that Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy might actually be the most coherent and God given philosophies which help to cohere the Christian philosophy and theology. Why is it wrong to suggest that Plato and Aristotle are right and should be used by us to better understand God? Could it be that God would have used these two men to craft philosophy which not only gives God glory but also acts to cohere the forthcoming Christian thought which God had already put into motion? I suggest this is actually the case and further suggest that it is compelling to consider this since out of all the other options available to Augustine and all the church fathers they chose this one particular view when it certainly wasn't the most widespread philosophical belief of their day. So your overly Greek accusation is moot since I say Platonic thought is God inspired and God breathed and useful for understanding and bonding Christian philosophical thought. i don't propose to argue that this means that view is wrong, but more to argue that there can be other views that are maybe more outside that world view that aren't necessarily unbiblical. Actually I'll go ahead and say that there are indeed other worldviews out there which are unbiblical and shouldn't be used. But enough on that. posted by Preachin Jesus | 10:50 AM | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||
|
|||||
Read my Profile
