Breaking down the problems with Open Theism

Given the choice between calvinism and open theism, Tim would have to give approval to open theism. Though that doesn't mean there aren't issues with the view...

-----------------------------------------------
Footnotes

[1] Aaron Rizierri has recently attempted to offer an argument against the knowledge of God (as a maximally great being) by going after divine omnibenevolence while appealing to a version of the Hiddenness Argument. Jacobus Erasmus and I have written a paper showing that this argument does not scathe the middle knowledge-affirming Molinist (Forthcoming in Perichoresis, 2022). It seems to me, however, that both the Calvinist and the Open Theist fall prey to his conclusions. If this is the case, then the Open Theist affirms a “double whammy”: a low view of God’s knowledge and a low view of His character.

[2] Arthur Pink has a long discussion in his book The Sovereignty of God:

“To declare that the Creator’s original plan has been frustrated by sin, is to dethrone God. To suggest that God was taken by surprise in Eden and that He is now attempting to remedy an unforeseen calamity, is to degrade the Most High to the level of a finite, erring mortal.

To argue that man is a free moral agent and the determiner of his own destiny, and that therefore he has the power to checkmate his Maker, is to strip God of the attribute of Omnipotence” (Pink, 1949:16)….

Later Pink strips God of the attribute of Omnibenevolence (1949:17,19). He writes: “God bestows His mercies on whom He pleases and withholds them as seemeth good unto

Himself…. When we say that God is Sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom He chooses. God does not love everybody….” (my emphasis.)

[3] This verse still affirms certain middle knowledge. Even if we were to grant (not affirm) the “perhaps” God still seems to know with certainty that “Aliens would swallow it up.”

[4] Kirk MacGregor, after proofing a draft of this article, added the following (via personal correspondence):

“The very fact that ‘perhaps’ is used in several of these verses implies that the people have libertarian free will to go one way or the other. The ‘perhaps’ statements are literally true: it is true that ‘perhaps I will leave my office at 3:30 this afternoon’ (I can do it or not do it) and that ‘I will leave my office at 3:30 this afternoon.’ The person also seems to assume a dictation theory of biblical inspiration, which is untenable.”

MacGregor’s forthcoming book provisionally entitled Molinist Philosophical and Theological Ventures focuses on Open Theism in the Chapter 5: “A Molinist Exegesis of Alleged Open Theist Prooftexts.”

[5] Jacobus Erasmus informed me that it’s unclear whether אוּלַי (‘ûlay) should be translated as “perhaps” in those passages given the term’s various meanings. Consider, for example, Numbers 22:33: many scholars believe ‘ûlay should have been luley and, hence, translated as “if not”.

-----------------------------------------------

Mere Molinism Facebook Group

-----------------------------------------------

Find us online!

Buy Tim's book!

#FreethinkingMinistries​ #OpenTheism​ #Calvinism #Molinism #TimStratton #Determinism #Apologetics #Christianity #Philosophy #FreeWill #Predestination #Predetermination #Choice #Theology #Bible #Libertarian #Freedom #Compatiblism #Arminianism #Debate

[FreethinkingMinistries]

In the first footnote I pointed out the following: "If this is the case, then the Open Theist affirms a “double whammy”: a low view of God’s knowledge and a low view of His character."

With that said, in my book I pointed out that Calvinists are often guilty of a "double whammy" if not a "triple whammy" against the greatness of God. Of course Calvinists typically affirm that God is a maximally great being, but I don't think this affirmation is logically consistent with their view of divine sovereignty. Indeed, many (if not most) Calvinists reject Molinism and thus, reject God's middle knowledge of free creatures within His power to create. So, if that's the case, these folks also affirm a low view of God's knowledge. I explained in my book that Calvinists like John Piper inadvertently affirm a low view of God's power, and thus tacitly reject God's omnipotence. And of course, as I explained in the footnotes of this video, many Calvinists reject God's omnibenevolence. Arthur Pink is clear: "God does not love everybody."

So, at the end of the day, although I think that both Calvinism and Open Theism are false, I do think Open Theism is closer to truth than Calvinism.

[paulrobbertze]

In my version of Open Theism, God has knowledge of every possible future for ever possible choice every person could ever make. I see this as a high view of God's knowledge as the possible outcomes are almost infinite yet God knows them all (and works then all together for good). The best computer cannot even calculate every outcome ( and how to win) every chess game, yet God knows them all.

[briancross]

Many years ago I wrote out 95 verses that show the bible supports open theism. Certainly there was at least one "perhaps" verse but many of these you gave were not in the original list. I was not trying to be comprehensive. While the main argument for open theism from scripture has nothing to do with those five verses, I do think you've failed to really deal with the scriptures at hand. When God reasons with Jeremiah that if he writes the word down exactly as God says it that perhaps they will repent, he is not saying "I've got a great surprise for you if you do this". In fact the ploy doesn't work. God is mistaken and they still do not repent.

[israelcowl]

What about verses such as 1 Sam 2:30: “Therefore the LORD God of Israel declares, ‘I did indeed say that your house and the house of your father should walk before Me forever’; but now the LORD declares, ‘Far be it from Me—for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me will be lightly esteemed." In a Molinism God knew that they would not walk before Him forever yet said they would, why?

[exploringtheologychannel]

This was a good video. I do have a question. Why the jab at Ken Ham? What is your view of Genesis?

[jeffmoreau]

Hello again Dr Stratton,

Since you gave a long reply I decided I would think it over a little bit. I still lean toward open theism, I hope you don't mind a long response in reply. First let me say thank you for your ministry. I've used the freethinking argument a couple of times, and indeed it's easy both to explain and to defend, which makes it very useful and powerful.

According to most open theists, God has dynamic omniscience - knowing everything past and present and all other truths. That says less about God than it does about the nature of reality, that is, whether or not the future is settled.

With an open future, God is still the greatest possible being regarding omniscience, but doesn't lose the potential attributes I mentioned before, like ingenuity and adaptability. So there seems to be a legitimate case to be made that God with an open future is a greater being than God with a settled one. After all, God presumably *could* make the future certain, but a certain future does not seem to have the capacity to become uncertain, even by act of God, so why would God want that? God would have had to decide to switch from being an open theist to being a molinist - I'm not convinced that's a positive change, but maybe you could convince me otherwise.

In response to your idea that God needs middle knowledge in order to be omniscient, I would say that God also needs the knowledge of what MUST be the case in order to achieve true omniscience in the classical sense - I think that's why we both reject the classical sense, me just in a more complete way than you do. Also, God needs the ability to do otherwise to be omnipotent, and to create creatures who have the ability to otherwise in order to be omnipotent, and I say the Bible indicates He did exactly that.

Indeed, if God knows what all creatures would do in all situations, it would be easy, even for a human being given enough time, to exhaustively plan out the future in any way they wanted, that is more of a task for a supercomputer than someone who reasons. But it's much more difficult, humanly impossible, even impossible for a supercomputer, to have the capacity for an infinite supply of contingency plans that can be enacted on the fly so that goals will be accomplished regardless of creaturely free choices to do otherwise.

As a general principle, God under molinism also seems somewhat disingenuous. It may be true that in a previously possible world if you do x, God will do y, but by the time God says that to you He knows which choice you will make, so why would He make it seem like there are live possibilities? The purpose in God saying these things makes much more sense if they regarded as current possibilities where men are able to choose from multiple options in a specific circumstance, rather than as mere philosophical points about hypothetically possible worlds that are already known to not become actualized in the future.

A verse you mentioned that seems to prima facie go against OT is Psalm 139. Open theists agree that God knows things before you say them, since they are usually thought about first. Usually. If God had meant that He knows all your future free choices a thousand years before you take them, there are a lot of ways to say that where it couldn't have been taken any other way.

In OT, the ideas God has about the future consist of possibilities, but also probabilities and also certainties. In the case of David you mentioned, I expect that the motivations of the men were strong enough that the future was either certain or virtually certain. Similar to Jeremiah 38:18. Open theists don't reject future certainties, they only reject that the entire future is certainties.

With Judas, God would have known his present intent to betray, as well as past theft. Like He did with Pharoah he could have strengthened his resolve, or just given him over to Satan who wanted Jesus dead. With Peter, God certainly knew he was not ready to die for Jesus sake and was afraid, so it would not have been difficult for God to remind three nearby people that they had seen Peter.

It's interesting you mentioned 2 Kings with Elisha declaring that Ben-Hadad would not recover. A decent passage in support of open theism is in 2 Kings 20:1-6, where the same thing is declared to Hezekiah, but then Hezekiah prays, and God adds another 15 years to his life. Adding years seems to imply that the future became different, because it was not settled.

Another one is Jonah 3, which you mentioned, but remember - God's decree here, just like with Hezekiah, did not have any conditions. God didn't say He would relent only if they repented, which is also implied by what the good open theists of Ninevah said: "Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”

In Numbers 14:12, God says He will destroy Israel and raise a nation from Moses. Of course, that did not happen, because He allowed Moses to change His mind by verse 20. Presumably there was no repentance on the part of the Israelites during the course of that conversation.

Then there's Jesus in Matt 26:53, about to be arrested, implying that he had the ability to do something that didn't happen. Namely, calling down a dozen legions of angels from the Father. No matter your soteriology, I think we can all accept that would have been an awesome Bible story. Not better than the cross and the resurrection, granted, but still pretty good.

In Matthew 3:9, Jesus says God has the ability to raise children of Abraham from the stones. But again, unfortunately, that didn't happen either. I think in order to say that God really had that ability at the time Jesus said it, the future must be open.

Thank you for reading this long reply! I don't expect to continue having a lengthy dialogue, but I thought you might appreciate some feedback.

And if I somehow became convinced that open theism was wrong, I would certainly first become a molinist before even dreaming of Calvinism.

[brianwagner]

As a believer of dynamic omniscience, which includes knowing all possible futures, including the future that is partly open, I see it as giving the highest view of God.

[xavier]

In Open theism, God know all possible avenues. This makes God more omnipotent that we anticipated since he knows every single outcome of every possible avenue. Reroute outcomes if a path is chosen. In a relationship, a husband chooses to work together with the wife for a better outcome or chooses not to. This is free will. We choose out of free will to work with God in a relationship that brings the will of God to earth as it is in heaven.

[THESWISH]

I'm not sure that Open Theism is a low view of God. Though God could have predestined all of creation, he chose not to. To me this doesn't seem like a low view at all. We would have to understand God's omniscience a bit differently I suppose but I think the standard def, God has a knowledge of all true propositions and no false ones is sufficient. Here we would just have to include possibilities, God knows what could happen and I think we are sorted. You could state that OT has a low view of providence I suppose as this would be incompatible with OT but I don't think it therefore leads to use concluding that OT is a low view of God. Now if this is in relation to Maximally Great Being theology, then I am at a disadvantage as I do not know much about that. However I do not think that Change is incompatible with God being maximally great. I will need to do more research however if I wish to comment more.

[gingrai]

“Perhaps”, as I read it, is a nod toward genuine contingency which cuts against Calvinism… “Perhaps” on the lips of God demonstrates the Molinist position that contingency actually exists even when God knows what will happen.

[trebmaster]

Have a discussion with Mike Saia, author of "Does God Know The Future".

[israelcowl]

If God knows what they would do in any circumstance, can humans do otherwise? If yes what is the probability that they will do other than what God knows? If the probability is zero, is it even a possibility? If it is not a possibility then how do people have free will in any sense?

[MZONE]

If molinism is false then Open theism and Calvinism are not the only options

We have Thomism

[ninamom]

I guess I won't worry about whatever theology man argues for or against. I'll just read the word of God and let the power of these words do their work.

[ravissary]

Why wouldn't open theism allow God to know possible avenues?
It's the 100% certainty of some items in the possibility space of the future which is not known, not nothing at all.

[R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

An unknown future is no threat to a truly Sovereign, omnipotent God, much less having made a creature after his own image endowed with genuine libertarian free will to choose to love, honor, and obey or reject entirely his maker.

[michaelcarrington]

I have a few questions for the one doing the speaking in this video. First let me say that from my perspective it appears that you, just like most Calvinists and most Open Theists and most Traditional Arminians are way too focused on whether or not we have a free will or not and how God's knowledge relates to our free wills and not at all focused on whether or not the God that we pray to has a free will of His very own to freely make His own choices and how His knowledge impacts what we believe about His very own free will ability to freely make His own choices including such choices as the choice to make changes to the future. Being able to provide a robust defense of man's free will will never solve the theological problem of absolute fatalism so often associated with Calvinism. If the only kind of a future that God is capable of facing is one in which the future is so completely written in stone in such a way that even God Himself cannot make any changes to the future then it makes no difference whether or not we have a free will or not. We will do what we are destined to do whether our actions are free or not. If I as an open theist so perfect my theology of God's free will ability to freely make His own choices that I end up with a God who doesn't know diddly squat about the future then my theology fails to amount to a high view of God. If you on the other hand so perfect your theology of God's knowledge that you end up with a God who cannot make choices and therefore cannot make changes to the future then your theology also fails to amount to a high view of God no matter how high your view of His knowledge is. A high view of God's freedom to freely make His own choices is just as essential to a high view of God as a high view of His knowledge is and a high view of His free will ability to freely make His own choices is the only key to solving the theological problem of fatalism. My main question for you is as follows. If ever since eternity past the God of your Molinism theology knew as absolutely certain that in the ACTUAL near future one of your loved ones would die in a terrible accident then would He (God) be able to freely choose to prevent this terrible accident from happening and therefore have one of the alternative "possible" futures happen instead of the actual future He always knew would happen? It would sure seem to me that if God's nature is such that He must (whether He wants to or not) foreknow everything as certain and if He cannot experience changes in His knowledge as so many of us have been taught then that would mean that He cannot make such a change to the future. If He made a change to the future then He would experience a change in His knowledge. He would go from knowing that although it was going to be one way it ended up being the other way instead and that would be a change in His knowledge. If the God of Molinism cannot make changes to the future then can we really believe that the God of Molinism rules sovereign over the future or are we forced into believing that an unalterable future that God cannot make changes to rules sovereign over God??? Hope to hear from you.

[ThePettiestOfficer_Juan]

“I’m here for the theology and tight t-shirts.”

[paulchamberlain]

This is an insightful video. Though maybe when arguing to convince people of a “mere” position, don’t make a dig against another position (here young earth creationist) on a different topic.

Using a video on “mere molinism” to undercut young earth creationism gives the impression that the position isn’t so “mere”.

[ewallt]

Where did you get the idea that Open Theists believe God doesn’t know the future? I don’t know any Open Theists who say that.

What Open Theists generally say is that the issue is not epistemological but ontological, meaning that it’s not God’s knowledge that’s in question but what reality is. Whatever reality is, that’s what God knows.

The difference is that Open Theists believe the future is open, or unsettled, rather than settled, so that God’s knowledge of the future is one of an unsettled future. He knows all things which can happen. In terms of being a maximally great being, in terms of knowledge, that of the Open Theist would be the greatest, because knowledge of an unsettled future requires far more intelligence than that of a settled one.

However, Open Theists would not argue that Gods is maximally great because of His knowledge, or intelligence, but because of His goodness, His character. God loves freedom, and created beings who were free, and when these beings chose to sin, which God knew perhaps they might, although He in know way planned that they should, nor was there any fault in His creation or in anything that He did which would induce His created beings, whether man or angel, to sin, God was ready with the Plan of Salvation, the ultimate in self sacrifice, and it is the self sacrificing love of God which makes Him maximally great.