Warning and Disclaimer: Long theology post ahead. Some may be bored by this post, or even utterly abhor it, but hey, this is my blog and this is the stuff I think about when I'm not updating my fantasy football roster... :)
(In case you missed it, there was intended irony in that statement.)
Recently, I've found myself interested in "Open Theology." Open theology states that the future is partly settled (or determined) by God, but it is also partly "open" to God. God does not know most of the future in any certainties; it is only known to him in possibilities. In other words, God does not know exactly what I will do this evening, although he does know every possibility of things that I "may" do this evening.
On a more complicated level, Open Theology exists to help explain issues such as evil and suffering. If God knew evil would exist when he created the world, the open theist wonders, is he partly responsible for it? For example, if I own a pit bull that I'm certain will attack a nearby child, and I voluntarily release it from the chain, most would agree that I would be partly responsible for the child's injuries. This idea of responsibility, which is the logical conclusion to an "all-determining" God, contradicts the evangelical view of an "all-loving" God. And therein the problem lies - If God is all-powerful, all-loving, all-good, how can he permit the atrocities in our world to continue???
So, open theology simply suggests that God does not know. Quickly, evangelical alarms are raised and the "defenders of truth" shout that open theology is heresy because it "limits" an omniscient and omnipotent God!
However, this argument is easily side-stepped because open theology does not in any way question the nature of God's omniscience or omnipotence. The discussion is not about God himself; it is a discussion about the nature of the future.
Does the future exist as a reality to be known? Can the future free actions of free agents be known before their free decisions are made? Open Theists contend that God cannot know our future free actions because our future free actions do not exist as an object to be known. Foreknowledge of future free actions, therefore, becomes a self-contradictory statement. Can God make a 4-sided triangle? No. If he did, it would cease to be a triangle. Could he make a married bachelor? No. Again, if the man is wedded, he ceases to be a bachelor - they are self-contradictory concepts. If God foreknows our future free actions, they would cease to be "free."
So, why can God not foreknow our future free actions? Let me use this analogy:
If God foreknows that I am going to cheat on my 2010 tax return, then this is information that he has always known, from the beginning of eternity. At any point in history, therefore, he could reveal to humankind, perhaps in some book titled, "Troy's Future Actions" everything I will ever do, including cheating on my 2010 tax return. Let's say that he reveals this book to humanity in the year 2005. And let's say that I had the opportunity to peruse this book during that year. I would see that God foreknows that I will cheat on my taxes 5 years later. What am I supposed to think about this? I read that God is telling me I will cheat in 2010. I wonder to myself, "Do I have any choice? Can I change this? Can I "not" cheat on my taxes that year?" If I do decide to be honest on my tax return, then God's foreknowledge was wrong; therefore, I must cheat on my taxes to affirm God's foreknowledge. And if I "must" cheat to affirm his foreknowledge, then I do not have a choice in the matter. I have to cheat. My freedom of choice has been taken away.
So, with the future free actions of free moral agents now "open" to God as possibilities, we see that before creation, God knew that with our freedom of choice, the possibility (not the certainty) existed that we may choose something other than Him. So, when genocide occurs in Rwanda, AIDS devastates Uganda, the US goes to war with Iraq, and I can't sell my house even though many people are praying for God to act, and even more, trusting in His goodness to take care of us, we cannot blame God for the continuation of human suffering. They are a necessary condition to the freedom of choice he has given us. People choose sin and as a result, other people suffer.
Open Theology also deals with the scriptural evidence of God changing his mind as a result of unknown future actions of free moral agents, the power of prayer, and the fact that some of the future must be partly determined, e.g. Jesus will return one day and we will join him in heaven. Some liken the future as a highway, travelling in one particular direction, with the vehicles on the highway free to drive as they choose. There are many nuances of open theology - too many to discuss here, but Greg Boyd's "The God of the Possible" is a great place to start for a short primer.
I have found some relief in Open Theology's answers. However, as I have recently been made aware, Open Theology only exists as an answer to evangelical philosophical presuppositions, most of which may be off-track in and of themselves. From an evangelical perspective, Open Theology can sufficiently explain some of our deepest questions.
But the metaphysical problems of the evangelical perspective still remain...
...and of course, I could be wrong about all of this :)
4 comments:
Troy - Even with your fair warning, I just wanted you to know that I read your entire long theological post and enjoyed it. Deep thoughts from a UPS man. :)
You write very well. When you have the time, please show us how the scripture backs up this view.
You've been given a challenge, Bud. I'm anxious for a response.
I have to post part 2 first, but let me say that Scripture is not always as easy (or black/white) as we make it out to be at times. But yes, there are plenty of passages that do support this.
Post a Comment