Open Theism part II
The idea of God in time answering prayer, being grieved and pitying and responding in blessing and cursing upon men is probably where Open Theism (OT) gets the most traction. The discussion regarding God’s emotions becomes a center of debate where traditional Christians resist a view of God where he is subject to mood swings or change. The classic doctrine of the impassibility of God held fast that since God cannot change caution should be taken when exploring references to God’s expressed emotion in scripture. With the doctrine of the impassibility of God the conception of God bound by time or existing only in time was resisted by early watchman as it was seen to make God too much like us. The 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith has “There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable...” (Ch.2 Of God) The references given to support “without body, parts, or passions” are - Deut 4:15-16; John 4:24 w/Luke 24:39; Acts 14:11, 15. God is immutable, that is he changes not. (Mal.3:6, Jam.1:17, Heb.1:11-12,13:8, Psa.102:12, Ex.3:14)
From this it is inferred that since God is not like us the scriptures speaking of God’s emotions ‘represent anthropomorphic ideas and employ the language of analogy or metaphor’. However, “A totally impassive God would be a horror, and not the God of Calvary at all. He might belong in Islam; he has no place in Christianity.” (J.I. Packer, “What Do You Mean When You Say God?” Christianity Today (Sept 1986). OT seizes upon this “anthropomorphic” explanation as obscuring scripture when it speaks of God’s emotion. “Perhaps the most difficult biblical dilemma for those of us who affirm the classic view of an utterly sovereign and immutable God is the problem of how to make sense of the various divine affections spoken of in Scripture. If God is eternally unchanging—if His will and His mind are as fixed and constant as His character—how could He ever experience the rising and falling passions we associate with love, joy, exasperation, or anger?” Phillip R. Johnson The thing people find bothersome is thinking God is not actually love or full of compassion and this is just a figure of speech. Johnson again- “We can learn much from the anthropopathic expressions, but to a large degree the divine affections remain hidden in impenetrable, incomprehensible mystery, far above our understanding.”
OT is reacting to an impassibility idea that God is indifferent and unaffected and untouched by the obedience or disobedience of his creatures. In consistent OT form a false dilemma is established to make OT look like the clear option; either God the romanticist or God the frozen abstraction. They assert it is either OT or hyper-Calvinism. The admittedly difficult conciliation in understanding God’s emotional response to men and his unchangeability is seized upon by OT with the same zeal drunkards have when referring to Jesus turning water into wine. It seems appropriate then to consider God in his eternal state and God manifesting himself in time as a harmonious blacksmith in forging the doctrine.
Quoting Johnson again: “Moses' intercession in this incident (Exodus 32:12-14) could not literally have provoked a change of mind in God (Numbers 23:19). In other words, a strictly literal interpretation of the anthropopathism in this passage is an impossibility, for it would impugn either the character of God or the trustworthiness of His Word.” But it carries some meaning. We must all accept knowledge with God that is too wonderful for us; that is high, where we cannot attain unto it. (Psa.139:6, 131, Eph. 3:19; Rom. 11:33) So, depending upon where we start is where we finally appeal to divine mystery. Some Calvinists seeks to disentangle a view of God in his eternal state outside of time with expressions of his emotions within time. Johnson interestingly notes one who “embraced the spirit of the hyper-Calvinist error” whose “ultraism had got the better of him wrote me, "God has no desires and no affections, no true delight or grief, and certainly no sorrow over anything that comes to pass—because His mind is pure, sovereign, irresistible will. You yourself acknowledge that the verses that talk about divine affections are anthropopathic. Why can't you see that such expressions teach us nothing whatsoever about how God really thinks?" That man and the open theists have far more in common than he would care to admit. Both are convinced that the doctrine of impassibility makes God utterly cold and unfeeling. Both are wrong, however. While anthropomorphisms are not to be taken as wooden, literal truths, they certainly are meant to convey some truth about the mind and heart of God” (note 15) We want to work from this template set forth from the classical interpretation as Johnson writes “Unlike the modern open theists, Dabney saw clearly both sides of what the Scriptures strive to declare: God is unchanging and unchangeable, but He is not devoid of affection for His creation. His impassibility should never be set against His affections. His immutability does not rule out personal involvement with His creatures.” But what we want to do here is to seek out a further understanding of God in his eternal state and God as he manifests himself in time and creation. (See here- The Angel of his presence & Anthropomorphisms scrolling down toward the bottom.)
The bible reveals that God is eternal, that he “inhabiteth eternity” (Isa.57:15). Note the present tense of the scripture; and not ‘inhabited eternity past and will inhabit eternity future’. This would have to mean more than what it would for us who will endure forever. And it wouldn’t mean God has eternal past duration because it is in the present tense; the eternal present I am. The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms… Dt.33:27 Creation reveals “his eternal power and Godhead” (Rom.1:20); scripture that he is an “eternal Spirit” (Heb.9:14, Jn.4:24) which is “having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (Heb.7:3) Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. 1 Tim.1:17 The “name of the Lord, the everlasting God” was revealed unto Abraham, and unto his seed that “the Lord God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting” he alone is God. (Psa.41:13, 90:2, 93:2, 103:17, 106:48, Prv.8:23, Isa.63:16, Mic.5:2, Hab.1:12) God reveals himself as the eternally present self-sufficient one: Ex.3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. So then, “he that cometh to God must believe that he is”. (Heb.11:6)
We want to pay particular attention to the phrase “from everlasting”. We discussed how OT (Open Theism) proponents need to conceptualize God existing in a state of eternalized time, conflating time and eternity (also ignoring space/time in relativity). They do this to allow for God to be ‘ever learning’ and never able to come to all knowledge since new facts emerge continually and he cannot know the future. So, rather than submit to the revelation of scripture (e.g. God knoweth all things 1 Jn.3:20, 1 Cor.2:10, Rom.11:33) they create infinite regress fallacies and subject God to them, just so they can make sure their thoughts are like his. Whereas God’s self-revelation in the bible he states that “his understanding is infinite” and “there is no searching of his understanding” (Psa.147:5, Isa.40:28, Psa.40:5) OT has God traversing infinite series of thought processes or successions of moments in the eternal past and will continue into the everlasting future. This of course limits God concerning the future eternity, again defying God’s testimony of himself as we previously addressed. God is said to know all his works from the beginning (Act.15:18) and is said to declare the end or the things that are not yet done from the beginning or from ancient times. (Isa.46:10) The distinction God reveals concerning himself as the only Living God is that he tells the future. (Isa.41:22-3, 44:7, 45:21, 48:3,5) OT robs God of this foreknowledge and all foreknowledge (which they change to forward planning). If God has been learning from an infinite past series of thoughts coming into his mind and will continue in the infinite future, then his understanding cannot be infinite now, or ever. It can only be traversing the infinite and not itself infinite. OT may assert that ‘infinite’ means ‘immeasurably vast’ from our reference frame as used here- Job 22:5, Nah. 3:9. This is like Mormons who say in response to God being from everlasting (Psa.90:2) that he is from a very distant past that had an absolute beginning, so not actually from everlasting. (To everlasting of course means exactly what it says, it’s just from everlasting that needs their private interpretation.) From our perspective infinite would be immeasurably great, but from God’s perspective Egypt’s strength was not. Just as a “great multitude, which no man could number” (Rev.7:9) would not escape God’s tally and it would be a fixed finite number. Given enough time we could search the number of this multitude and the strength of Egypt could be quantified. However, God’s mind could not be exhausted throughout eternity by all his creatures. Mathematically speaking God’s thoughts "are more than can be numbered". (Psa.40:5) Infinite regarding God has greater meaning than infinite regarding man. Just as “without number” with the creature is different than the Creator who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Isa.55:8-9)
God’s understanding of himself is infinite and the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God, so all his knowledge is known in an instant by him from the beginning. Does God really need time to think through contingencies and plan his actions? Is he subject to time? OT answers yes. The “Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God”. (1 Cor.2:10) The Spirit therefore “hath known the mind of the Lord”. (Rom.11:34, 1 Cor.2:16) “In God there can be no hidden depth of possibility unfathomed by his own consciousness. Neither can there be anything in non-being for which God must wait before he can be fully aware of himself.” (The Defense of the Faith- Van Til pg.36) God inhabits eternity (Isa.57:15) he is not traversing through it from an everlasting past succession of moments. Ideas of infinity and eternity expose the limits of our conceptual power. If you have ever been on the sea when it is waveless at dusk, you cannot tell where the horizon is as the sky and the water join seamlessly together.
From everlasting to everlasting is the perspective from time. Thus, the ‘from everlasting’ perspective began in the beginning. Prv.8:23 “I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.” Regarding the eternal past if OT has God in eternalized time there would need to be a series of time indicators such as God doing or thinking things. Imagine if you met someone reading a book of infinite pages and they were somewhere in the middle of the book. If you ask them what page they are on, they could not say for a page number would make the book finite. Furthermore, were you to ask them to turn to the beginning of the book they could not for as many pages as they turn there is an infinite number of more pages. Since God began creating “in the beginning” OT could only assert God was traversing an infinite series of thoughts in successive moments of time, thereby making God’s understanding less than infinite- Psa.147:5. OT tries to avoid a revelation of God as already knowing everything in eternity past because they see this as “God himself is frozen into everlasting inactivity, indifference, and inability”. This is how they view the idea of God knowing everything at once in an instant in the eternal present state. Instead of being driven to worship as the apostle they recoil back in disgust. Remember, for them it is either God the romanticist or God the frozen abstraction. When we see a glimpse of his infinite mind we should say “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” (Rom.11:33-4)
And yet the bible also reveals God operating within time. OT proponents will point to verses describing God repenting himself and being grieved dealing with man in successive moments in time- Gen. 6:6-7; Ex. 32:12-14; Num. 23:19; Deut. 32:36; Jdg. 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:11, 15:29, 15:35; 2Sam. 24:16; Ps. 90:13, 106:45, 110:4, 135:14; Jer. 4:28, 15:6, 18:8, 18:10, 20:16, 26:3, 26:13, 26:19, 42:10, Eze. 24:14, Hos. 11:8, 13:14; Joel 1:13-14; Amos 7:3, 7:6; Jonah 3:9-10, 4:2; Zech. 8:14
We see God responding to man in prayer thus in time- Josh. 10:14; Dan. 10:12; 1 Kings 17:22; Matt. 7:7-11; Ex. 32:10- 14; Num. 11:1-2, 14:12-20, 16:16:20-35; Deut. 9:13-14, 9:18-20, 9:25; 2 Sam. 24:17-25; 1 Kin. 21:27-29; 2 Kin. 20:6; 2 Chron. 12:5-8; Jer. 26:19; Isa. 38:5. God establishing covenants presupposing time- Gen.6:18, 9:9-17, 15:18, 17:2-21, Ex.6:5, 19:5, 31:16, Dt.4:13,31, 7:9,12, Jer.31:31-33, 32:40, 33:20-25; Ezek. 37:25-27. Basically, the entire bible is a record of this fact, that God interacts with creation within time. So, is this a contradiction with God being revealed as within time and also inhabiting eternity? Obviously not. So, how do we reconcile these concepts? Well, we see an example of this with the incarnation of Jesus Christ. This also is very mysterious. How does this infinite person become a finite incarnation; God manifesting himself in flesh? Well, whatever answer you arrive at would apply mutatis mutandis to God manifesting himself within the universe, in a form or image and sitting upon a throne in the presence of angels. (See here- The Angel of his presence & Anthropomorphisms scrolling down toward the bottom.)
The Lord is high above all nations, and his glory above the heavens. Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high, Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth! Psa.113:4-6
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isa 55:9
Comentarios