Why does God create those humans that He knows will end up in Hell?

[Breton]

Donald45 said

The Open View is pretty doggone catholic Donald. It fits very well with catholic teaching, with the only barriers being “timelessness” and “exhaustive definite foreknowledge”.

Your claim that the Open View is catholic - small “c”, universally held - is a huge stretch. That it is undeniably NOT Catholic - capital “C”, the church established by Christ and shepherded by the Bishop of Rome - has been unequivocally proven in this thread.

You certainly have every right to espouse any view you wish but, to ascribe this theology to the Catholic Church is deceitful.

Is it you intention to present Open Theism as a theology taught by the Catholic Church?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

I have read somewhere that Jacques Maritain in correspondance with a friend pondered the mystery of evil in this way:

Indeed, those who go to hell are severed forever from the presence of God, but an all merciful God at the last judgment might remove the sting of that separation.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

spauline said

Actually, cynic’s objection has not been fully addressed, that is, we cannot even completely understand and reconcile man’s freedom with God’s soveriegnty, as the following question that I asked on EWTN shows here.

You can’t understand or reconcile man’s freedom with God’s sovereignty IF you assume Neoplatonic philosophical assumptions about God and His [non]relationship with creation.

you said

That is, as cynic points out, we as creatures have no control over the fact that we pass through successive states of existence.

This assumes, wrongly, that there is some other way to exist. That there is a timeless existence which you have absolutely no evidence to support other than Greek rationalism which says that God cannot change in any way or experience emotion. Do you believe that our God who “is love” does not experience emotion and does not possess the power to change?

you go on

In other words, we do not ontologically create our successive states of existence, for God must, in some sense, cooperate in bringing the state into existence Himself.

What God has done is bring the creation into His existence. God existed prior to creation and in creating the universe He brought us into the sharing of His experience. Into God’s present, the moments where God exists, which is the present moment and its continuing endurance. God wants us to participate in His life, though most of us choose not to do that.

you said

However, Catholics must concede that, in some way, God gives us the power to make of the state what we will.

That’s correct. We can participate in God by becoming members of the Body of Christ and doing what those in the Body are supposed to do, or we can reject that and go to Hell.

Ott discusses that the precise nature of how the Mode of the Cooperation between the Causa Prima (God) and the Causa Secundae (Creatures) works is debated between Thomists and Molinists. In other words, as the above EWTN Q shows, even free will is still a mystery.

There is some mystery still, yes. It is extremely clear from Scripture, however, that God has chosen to engage in give-and-take relationships and does not always get what He wants (for example: unbelief, sin, murder, rape, apathy and indifference).

you claimed

For Open Theist, as far as the idea that there is no evidence for God’s timelessness and unlimited knowledge, it would appear this is false.

Its not false. Nowhere in the Bible do we find a timeless God who knows the future as completely settled.

you said

Here is just a sampling of several related dogmas from Ott:

I. God Possesse an infinite power of cognition. (De Fide)

I have no problem agreeing with this claim.

II. God is absolutely immutable. (De Fide)

This is false based upon the fact of God’s incarnation. God became flesh. God was not always flesh. Do you believe that God was always a man or that He became a man in the incarnation?

III. God is eternal. (De Fide)

The word “eternal” carries the idea of timelessness so I reject this. I believe that God is everlasting. God is uncreated and God continues to experience duration and will forever. There was never a moment when God did not exist and there will never be a moment when God does not exist.

IV. God’s Knowledge is infinite. (De Fide)

This is false because God’s knowledge involves actual content. God’s knowledge is coextensive with reality. He knows the past, present and future as they actually exist at this moment. For example, God knows that on April 26. 1950 my dad was born. God does not know, because it would be flase, that my dad was born on April 25, 1950. It is, at the very least, inaccurate to say that God’s knowledge is infinite.

V. God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence. (De Fide)

I agree with this.

VI. God knows all things in the past, present and the future. (De Fide)

I agree with this as long as “all things” is defined as the reality of the past, present and future. God knows the future as it truly is, which Scripture reveals to be partly settled and partly open.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

…continued

VII. By the knowledge of vision, God also forsees the future free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De Fide)

This is false according to Scripture (Gen 6:5-6; Jer 3:7; 18:7-10; 26:3; 32:35; Is 5:1-5; 38:1-8; Jon 3:10; 4:2). Also, God possessing exhaustive definite foreknowledge is completley unhelpful for His exercising providential control over His creation. God knows the future and brings about the future that He wants through exerting His influence and using His power to bring those things about (Is 46:9-11).

VIII. God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Sent. communis.)

God knows that which is inevitable and God also knows that whichmight occur. Perhaps Israel will repent, perhaps Israel won’t (Jer 26:3; 36:3). Perhaps Israel will change its mind when they see war and return to Egypt and perhaps Israel won’t (Ex 13:17). He incorporates these possibilites which become actualities into His “eternal purpose” which is the Body of Christ (Eph 3:11) grown into the perfect man (Eph 4:13).

you said

There are more, I believe, but these will suffice.

Feel free to share others for discussion so that we can see how they well they match up with the God revealed in Scripture.

you said

Also for Open Theist, about the Scriptures which portray God as “changing his mind,” they need proper interpretation.

I agree, unless by “proper interpretation” you mean that we ought to explain those passages away because they do not fit our philosophical assumptions.

you give as an example the following Scripture

For example, “And God hardened Pharo[h]'s heart,” yet, unless you are an ultimate Calvinist, we would not take this to mean that God literally and directly caused Pharoe to sin. Rather, God withheld the grace that would’ve enabled Pharoe to repent, in order to teach Him a lesson.

You are incorrect. God did not harden Pharoh’s heart by withholding grace that would have somehow made Pharoh love and trust God, as you seem to be asserting. God hardened Pharoh’s heart by performing miracles which demonstrated that the God of Israel existed and was far more powerful then Egypt’s false idols. Pharoh’s heart towards God had already been molded through his beliefs and actions over decades as a result of thousands of decisions he had made concerning God. The best article on this subject I have ever read is HERE .

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Gilbert Keith:

I have read somewhere that Jacques Maritain in correspondance with a friend pondered the mystery of evil in this way:

Indeed, those who go to hell are severed forever from the presence of God, but an all merciful God at the last judgment might remove the sting of that separation.

The Bible does not reveal a God who is “all merciful”. In fact, God commanded that capitol criminals be executed without mercy as the author of Hebrews wrote

Hebrews 10:28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

And James wrote that “judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy” (Jam 2:13).

Conclusion - God is not “all merciful”. And this is so because there is a point where showing mercy or grace is ineffective

Isaiah 26:10 Let grace be shown to the wicked, yet he will not learn righteousness…

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Donald45 said

Response to TheOpenTheist, Posts 43 & 44:
"You are claiming that there is a 2,000 year history of dogmatic statements which say ‘God is timeless’ and that ‘God’s knowledge of the future consists of totally settled realities’?" Among other things, yes.

Strange then that no church council or creed has ever said so. The Open View is within one of the threads of catholic tradition, which is the free-will tradition. Open Theism is a form of free-will theism and well within the bounds of orthodoxy.

you continue

Perhaps we should begin with a brief explanation of the Church’s teaching on Tradition. In Catholic thought, Tradition is another term for what we also refer to as “the Deposit of Faith,” that irreformable doctrine handed on from Christ and his apostles, through the bishops and fathers of the Church, down to our own day. While this is a dynamic, growing Tradition—i.e., we progress in our understanding and articulation of its truths

And that is exactly what Open Theism is, the progression in our understanding and articulation of who God is.

you go on

we recognize that what is seen in a fuller form in the present (for example, in a precisely-articulated doctrine of the Trinity, which wasn’r formally developed until the 4th century) was also present in seminal form in Christ’s own teaching, and even in that of the Old Testament. So there is a theological continuity throughout Catholic Tradition, from its beginning to our own day. In this sense, then, I’d answer ‘yes’ to your question. God’s attributes are indeed contained in the doctrinal content of Sacred Tradition, from the start of the Church, throughout Christian history, to the present.

I agree. Yet, it is beyond question that many have taken the revelation of God’s attributes in Scripture and especially in the incarnation and denied the existence of some of them, like that God has emotions or is able to actually respond to His creation. God is not utterly or totally immutable and *impassible *according to Scripture on practically every page of the Bible. Most peopl today reject the old Greek-influenced belief that God is impassible. “God IS love” (1 John 4:8,16) and we can “grieve the Holy Spirit” (Eph 4:30).

you said

Let’s again take the Trinity as an example.

OK. I see little relevance in doing this though since there has never been a council that dealt with the idea of timelessness or the sort of future that God knows.

Since, in the sense given above, doctrine “develops” in the Catholic Church (though it never changes or ceases to mean what it once did), the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) saw fit to authoritatively define as dogma the doctrine of the Trinity. Does this mean that this view of God did not exist in the Church prior to the 4th century? Certainly not. Though it was more precisely defined at this later time, the Trinity was clearly taught (though in a simpler form) from the very beginning of the Church. Now, how might this apply to the Open Theism question?

It doesn’t.

Open Theism (OT) postulates a doctrinal-historical break between the pre-Augustinian Church Fathers and St. Augustine himself, based on the assumption that Augustine was unduly influenced by Neo-Platonic philosophy.

Its not an assumption. Its a widely accepted historical fact based upon what Augustine himself wrote concerning Scripture and his philosophical views. For example:

For those absurdities which in those Scriptures were wont to offend me, after I had heard divers of them expounded properly, I referred now to the depth of the mystery: yea and the authority of that Book appeared so much the more venerable, and so much more worthy of our religious credit. –St. Augustine’s Confessions I, Loeb Classical Library, Bk VI, p. 285.

Certain “absurdities” had hindered Augustine from believing in the Word of God. Augustine believed that God was immutable. To him it was absurd to believe in a God who could change his mind. How did Augustine know that this was absurd? The force of his own reasoning concluded that it was absurd. But his reasoning was permeated by Platonic rationalistic philosophy. After hearing Ambrose, Augustine was able to make the rationalistic judgment that the Bible was a rational authority. Augustine only turned to the Scriptures after the absurdities were “expounded properly.”

 

[TheOpenTheist]

God addressed this rationalism that was first popularized by Plato, in 1 Cor 1:19-21

1 Corinthians 1:19-21 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

The Greeks considered the crucified God of the Christian faith “foolishness” since reason demanded that God could not become flesh and die on the cross because God is totally immutable and does not even know that we exist.

you go on

Yet, given the view of doctrinal development outlined above, Augustine was no more “corrupted” by Greek thought than was St. Paul by the pagan religious ideas of his own day, many of which are recognizable (though re-defined in a decidedly Christian way) in his canonical writings.

Paul at least recognized that the world did not know God through Greek rationalism. He was certainly no proponent of total immutability or impassibility.

you said

Similarly, neither was St. Thomas Aquinas “polluted” by Aristotelianism in the development of his theology (his Summa Theologica, by the way, quotes copiously from the writings of Augustine). In fact, Augustine’s basic theology, as well as that of the Fathers who came after him, represents a development, rather than a corruption, of Christian doctrine.

In some ways its a “Development” and in others its not. Neither Augustine’s nor Aquinas’ work is immaculate or infallible.

you claimed

Its seeds can be found in the early doctrinal history of the Church.

Impassibility and total immutability are not in the early doctrinal history of the church at all. Jesus Christ, who is God come in the flesh (a change John 1:14) did not teach the church that He is totally immutable or impassible (Jesus wept John 11:35 Cf. Is 63:9; Jer 15:1) or that the future for God is totally settled (different routes may be taken Luke 13:6-9; John 21:23; Rom 11:20-22; Jer 18:7-10).

you go on

And it can no more be legitimately dismissed by OT-ists than can be a Trinitarian view of God’s nature, or countless other beliefs reflected in the Church’s theological Tradition.

Incorrect. This is not a necessary valid implication as you claim it is.

you claimed

(Note the irony in OT’s complaint that the traditional view of God is supposedly “corrupted” by Greek philosophy, given that OT’s own rejection of the traditional view is itself based upon theories borrowed from a Greek thinker, Aristotle.)

None of us borrowed any philosophical views from Aristotle. We came to the Open View through the study of Scripture and through our experiences more than anything else. Yes, reason and tradition did have some effect on us, but we did not study Aristotle and think “Yeah, what he says is right and nothing can contradict it including Scripture” as Augustine did in the above reference.

you said

Now, this is not to say that every single idea expressed by a particular Church father (pre- or post-Augustine alike) was necessarily orthodox. Now and then, a Father would come up with an objectionable concept (Origen comes to mind).

I agree. And some of the most objectionable concepts that they ever imposed upon the Body of Christ are total immutability and impassibility which are both denied by Scripture on practically every page.

you continue

But when there was a general consensus among the Fathers of the early Church—what Catholicism refers to as “the unanimous consent of the Fathers”— then the teaching reflected in this general consensus was to be considered doctrinally orthodox and binding on all Catholics.

I’m fine with that. Its a fact, however, that there is not unanimous consent when it comes to how God exercises His providence. There has always been a free-will tradition and there has always been the other tradition (determinist).

you asked

How did the Nicaean Fathers determine the orthodoxy of the Trinitarian view of God? By the fact that the early Church prior to Nicaea consented unanimously to that teaching.

Unanimously if you do not include all of the Arians and Semi-Arians anyways.

 

[Aaron_I]

I would think that believing something as “interesting” as open theism would take a substantial amount of reasoning (albeit faulty reasoning). Yet here you belittle Augustine for being rational. I don’t see any reason that foreknowledge prevents free will. If God is outside of space and time–and hopefully you can agree to that much–then he literally HAS TO see the fullness of time in one instant. Also, how were there prophecies about Christ in the OT if God didn’t know what would happen. Prophecies aren’t necessarily self-fulfilling. To say that they are would require some crazy reasoning, something you purportedly aren’t willing to do.

God being immutable hardly leads to his being unaware that we exist. If God is mutable, then it necessarily follows that 1) he can possibly be overcome (after all he worried about it in Gen), and 2) The Bible is useless and the teachings presented within it can be changed to match the whims of God. Is this some wacky “Neo-Platonic” reasoning? If that means it is rational, then I hope so.

Impassibility is not true, and it does not necessarily follow from a belief in immutability. Just because God always knew the way he would act does not mean that he was not affected by it.

I find that the OT view lacks reason, most likely because it rejects it.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

And now, when Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, and other aberrant religious groups claim that the Catholic Church “invented” the doctrine of the Trinity in the 4th century, we recognize their error and reject it. It is the same, then, with OT’s suggestion that the traditional attributes of God were “invented” by St. Augustine and later Fathers enamored with Greek philosophy.

Its not at all the same. There is a wealth of Scriptural evidence that shows that the Trinity is correct. This cannot be said about total immutability and impassibility, which have NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE to back up such beliefs, and are in opposition to the God revealed in Scripture.

you claimed

OT is simply another historical-doctrinal novelty attempting to redefine the content of orthodoxy and introduce certain philosophically-based theological innovations into “the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones” (Jude 3).

Its not. It can rightly be called Neo-Arminianism. In fact, its consistent Arminianism, and almost everything that people claim is wrong with Open Theism can also be said of Arminianism. Greg Boyd coined the term Neo-Molinism because of his recognition of might counterfactuals. Once you reject impassibility then you will arrive at the Open View as Wolterstorff explained. Pay close attention to what one of the top philosophers in the world and the top Christian philosopher in the USA says about this Aaron I.

Once you pull on the thread of impassibility, a lot of other threads come along . . … One also has to give up immutability (changelessness) and eternity. If God responds, then God is not metaphysically immutable; and if not metaphysically immutable, then not eternal.

Donald45 said

Response to TheOpenTheist, Posts 43 & 44 (Continued):

"Specific papal statements concerning the content of the future that God knows and God’s experience of time…perhaps you can share a few…" First of all, a statement doesn’t have to come directly from the Pope in order to be considered dogmatically binding. Official pronouncements by Church Councils, doctrinal decrees issued through the bishops collectively, etc. may also hold the status of binding orthodoxy.

So, when one contradicts with another what do you do then??

you said

Let me offer just a few such statements concerning the Church’s doctrine of God:

On divine omniscience:

“He knows all things beforehand, and He is acquainted with what is in our hearts.” ~ Second Clement, (150 AD)

Clement provides no evidence that God knows “all things” (and this assumes that the “all things” that God knows are settled and not possibilities) beforehand. He simply makes the claim. Not very helpful.

Also, it is true that God is acquainted with what is in our hearts. Yet, there are instances where God tests people in order to know if their heart was for Him or not as was the case with Hezekiah.

2 Chronicles 32:31 However, [regarding] the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, whom they sent to him to inquire about the wonder that was [done] in the land, God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all [that was] in his heart.

In fact, God often tests people in order to find out what their response to the test will be (Gen 22:1 with the result in Gen 22:12; Ex 16:4). Do a search for the word TEST in the Bible and you will find that God often tests people or nations.

continuing

"He foreknows that some are to be saved by repentance , some even that are perhaps not yet born." ~ Justin Martyr (160 AD)

I can agree with this. This agrees with corporate predestination. This statement does not imply of necessity that God predestines individuals to salvation or knows which specific individuals will be saved in the future…

 

[TheOpenTheist]

“The power of the Logos has in itself a faculty to foresee future events. Yet, these events are not fated, but take place by the choice of free agents.” ~ Tatian (160 AD)

This is true of that which is inevitable or settled, but this is not true of the entirety of God’s knowledge of the future. A good example of this is Christ’s prediction that some of those He was addressing would not die until He returned.

Matthew 16:28 “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

This did not occur however - they ALL tasted death prior to “see[ing] the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”. So, what happened? What happened was this: Israel did not bear fruit (Luke 13:6-9), so God cut Israel off as He said He would if they did evil (Jer 18:7-10). What Christ said in Matt 16:28 was contingent upon Israel repenting so that Christ could return and rule as their king as Peter preached in Acts 3:19-26. He specificly preached “Repent…that He may send Jesus Christ”.

“He knows hidden things, and He knows all things before they come to pass.” ~ Irenaeus 180 AD)

Thats what the fallible Irenaeus claims. Let’s see what Scripture says about that.

Genesis 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for NOW I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only [son,] from Me.”

Irenaeus says that God always knew. Scripture tells us that God is able to acquire knowledge. Sorry Irenaeus, gotta go with Scripture here.

“God is fully acquainted with whatever is about to take place [including future free acts], for He has foreknowledge.” ~ Hippolytus (225 (AD)

OK, who inserted those bracketed words into his statement there? I can agree with that statement for the most part since as the moment approaches where a decision is made the possibilities drop away and give way to one extremely probable or even inevitable action that the agent actualizes. God is indeed “fully acquainted with whatever is about to take place”. And he also knows how He will respond to the specific decisions made in each case (if Israel bears fruit or not Luke 13:9, for example).

[Clearly, in the beliefs of the early Church, God’s “omniscience” includes the future free choices of men, as well as events that have not yet taken place in history. Note also that all of these statements are *pre

-Augustine.]

These passages seem to indicate that, but church fathers often contradict themselves and the more you read them you find that they say things that seem to support both free-will theism and determinism.

Conciliar Statements:

“We faithfully hold that ‘God foreknows and has foreknown eternally both the good deeds which good men will do, and the evil which evil men will do’ [future free acts], because we have that word of Scripture which says: ‘Eternal God, who are the witness of all things hidden, who knew all things before they are’ [Dan.13:42]… …what that one [man] would be from his own will…He foreknew from His omnipotent and immutable Majesty.” ~ Council of Valence (855 AD)

That reference is from an apocryphal book and is contrary to the faith of Israel as revealed in the creedal statements in Jon 4:2 and Joel 2:13. They used a bad source here to prop up their belief and ignored many passages that demonstrate God knowing the future as partly open.

“But God protects and governs by His providence all things which He created, ‘reaching from end to end mightily and ordering all things sweetly’ [Wisdom 8:1]. For ‘all things are naked and open to His eyes’ [Heb.4:13], even those which by the free action of creatures are in the future.” ~ First Vatican Council (1870) [The Church’s position could hardly be clearer.]

Wisdom 8:1 contradicts Scripture if this statement means that rape and other evil acts that God does not want to occur are part of the all things which God orders. Not sure what to make of using the word “sweetly” here. Perhaps this statement in Wisdom is like Rom 8:28 where God works together with all things synergisticly to bring about good for those who love Him. If so, then this would not necessitate that God ordains any evil that occurs or even knows the future as completely settled, but takes the circumstances that we bring about in opposition to God and uses that as much as possible to further God’s own will. Since the future is not a “thing”, I can easily affirm what Heb 4:13 says.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Those at Vatican I seemed unable to believe that God could bring about His overarching will for creation if He did not know the future as having already taken place. Such a concern is not warrented however, since knowing the future as compoletely settled would make it impossible for God to take that knowledge and use it to order things in any way. Once He knows that Adam and Eve sin, He is powerless to stop it from occuring. In my view, God has the power and the freedom to change what will occur.

You asked for Papal statements. Consider the words of Pope Pius XII:

“It is not strange that such innovations, as far as pertains to almost all branches of theology, have already produced poisonous fruit… Eternal and infallible *foreknowledge of the free actions of men *is likewise denied to God; all of which, indeed, are opposed to the declarations of the Vatican Council.” ~ Pius XII, Humani generis (1950)

[Note, then, the theological continuity from the earliest Church Fathers throughout Christian history to our own day. I’ve only offered a few quotations from Catholic sources. The statements given here could obviously be multiplied significantly.]

I never denied that there were many who believed that God knew the future as completely settled. I know there are some church fathers and popes who believe this. And as you have shown, some councils affirmed that God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge. That does not mean that the free-will theism tradition did not also exist. My point is that there is not one, monolithic tradition when it comes to God’s knowledge and relationship to His creation. There is more than one tradition. And no, if most people have historically held a few contrary to mine, that does not mean that their view must be right and mine must be wrong. If that were the case then we would have to conclude that anti-semitism is the correct tradition, which it clearly is not.

you said

Response to TheOpenTheist, Posts 43 & 44 (Continued):

On God & time:

“God always was, and is, and will be; or better, He always is. Was and will be are portions of time as we reckon it, and are of a changing nature. He, however, is ever existing…” ~ St. Gregory of Nazianz (383 AD) [This ties together God’s immutablity with his eternality.]

That’s interesting. Greg here affirms what Scripture tells us about God, that God is, was and will be as the Book of Revelation says 4 times. Then he goes beyond Scripture, apparently as a result of his having been influenced negatively by Neoplatonic philosophy as Augustine was, and says that God “always is”. And that time as we reckon it includes what “was” and “will be”, implying that God does not reckon time the same way. How in the heck does He know this to be the case!? The fact is, he doesn’t. Its only due to the effect of Neoplatonism upon Greg that he believes such a thing.

And what Greg says here is as incoherent as a colorless red car. Because if God is, if God is ever existing, then there is a present and along with it a past (what was) and future (what will be). There is no such thing as a present without a past and a future. Greg is simply trying to make the God revealed in Scripture fit within the Neoplatonic metaphysics of his day.

moving on

“Eternity itself is the substance of God, which has nothing that is changeable. There is nothing there that is past, as if it were no longer; nothing there is future, as if it not yet were. There is nothing there except ‘is’.” ~ St. Augustine (392 AD) [Note that Augustine’s doctrine simply reflects and builds upon that of earlier Fathers, such as St. Gregory quoted above.]

And its just as equally as incoherent and opposed to the portait of God revealed in Scripture. God is not still dead or still sin or still on the cross. God, in Jesus Christ, is seated at the right hand of the Father and possesses a human body. And I reject the notion that “the substance of God” is “eternity”. I believe that the substance of God is LOVE and this belief finds direct support in Scripture (1 John 4:8,16).

 

[TheOpenTheist]

next

“…one God, Lord and Creator of all things, eternal, almighty and good, of whose nature it is to exist always and never to be able to be changed.” ~ St. Fulgence of Ruspe (523 AD)

This is partly true. God’s goodness, His character is unable to change. If God wants to respond to His creation and change the route He takes to bring about His will, then he has the freedom to do that. God’s willingness to repent of doing harm is not an imperfection, but praiseworthy (Jon 4:2).

next

“He is the God who, from beyond space and time, can do this and wills to do it, the God who will put his almighty power to work for this plan… To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace…” ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 205; 600)

The problem with this statement is that “time” is not a thing to be “beyond”. Experiencing duration is what happens when anything simply exists. Since God has always existed He has endured always and will always endure without end. The claim that “all moments of time are present in their immediacy” to God is nowhere supported by Scripture and rejected upon every page of Scripture. Passages like Gen 6:5-7; Gen 22:12; Ex 13:17; Ex 32:9-12; Jer 3:7; 18:1-10; 26:3; 32:35; Is 38:1-8; Jon 3:10; 4:2 give positive evidence that God exists in the present with us and responds to what we do.

Scripture portrays God as exercising general providence, not meticulous providence. The evidence for general providence is overwhelming, finding its support in the many instances where God does not get what He wants. Meticulous providence, on the other hand, takes a handful of instances where God predestines or determines specific things and extrapolates that into God predestines/determines/ordains everything.

In Catholic thought, God’s relationship to time is understood in light of his essential attributes, of his immutability in particular.

God’s character is immutable. And he even has an immutable will that He exercises which includes that which God wants to bring about. He will bring about the completion of the Body of Christ (Eph 3:11; 4:13). And He will judge the living and the dead one day and establish His reign on the earth through Jesus Christ fulfilling His promises to David (Ps 89:34-35) and to Abraham (Heb 6:13-18).

And love is the one essential attribute of God. Its at the very core. Not total immutability, which would make the incarnation an impossibility along with any sort of relationship with the creation.

you said

"Molina…Thomas Aquinas…Anselm…Augustine…" Of course, all of these theologians are Catholic (unlike Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders, etc.) and, as Catholics, we are to consider their ideas within the overarching historical-doctrinal Tradition of the Church to which we are all theologically accountable (after all, the “Church” didn’t begin with Billy Graham! ). Since OT departs from that Traditional understanding of God held by Christians throughout Church history, it must to that extent be considered incompatible with Christian orthodoxy.

Nice try, but no cigar. Pinnock, Boyd and Sanders are very familiar with the catholic tradition and are worthy of critiquing it. Heck, Sanders was the extraordinary fellow at the Notre Dame Society for the Philosophy of Religion a while back. He had access to those who are extremely knowledgeable concerning the teaching of the church fathers and the catholic tradition, much more than either you or I are.

you continue

***"There are *traditions, not one monolithic tradition that is believed ‘everywhere, always, and by all’." In one sense, this is true, at least when applied to “Christendom” from around 1517 to the present. Up until the Protestant Reformation, there were no competing Christian “traditions,” rather there was only the one apostolic Tradition handed down from Christ and the Apostles. There was but one “Church,” and “Apostolic Tradition” and “Catholic Tradition” meant precisely the same thing. With the Reformation came a fracturing of Christendom into ever more disparate religious groups and sects, so that today the number is somewhere around 35,000 Protestant denominations and groups.

There was the Orthodox Church prior to 1517 and even the early church fathers held varying beliefs on important topics. The free-will tradition has always been there with Calcidius being the earliest proponent of the Open View in writing after those men who contributed to the Bible (Abraham, Moses, David, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Jonah, Joel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Peter to name a few).

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Donald45 said

Response to TheOpenTheist, Posts 43 & 44 (Continued):

What this fracturing of Christendom left to the Protestant movement was merely countless fragments of the one Deposit of Faith originally (and still) present in the Catholic Church. And these fragments, sadly, have inevitably been combined with a great deal of falsehood and untruth, resulting in a virtual chaos of competing and mutually exclusive Protestant doctrinal traditions.

This has always been the case Don. It did not start happening with the Reformation. And just because the catholic church claims to possess the complete “deposit of faith” that does not at all nullify the fact that meny individual catholics hold to views that are contrary to or are not found within that “deposit of faith”. It is true that there was less public disagreement and debate in the passt, but this is largely because if someone held to a different view and spoke out publicly about it they would be murdered by the catholic church.

you claimed

Yet, this original Apostolic Tradition remains, undiluted and in its fullness, within the historic Christian Faith, that Church established by Christ himself—the Catholic Church.

So you claim.

So, this is what I’m referring to when I speak of the historic doctrinal Tradition that is believed “everywhere, always, and by all” (this last is a quotation from the early Church Fathers).

And this claim of his is unprovable, since to demosntrate that this is the case he would have to know what every local congregation believed and taught.

you continued

"[Open Theism] defines God’s attributes according to what has been revealed in Scripture primarily." Then again, this is the identical claim made by all 35,000 Protestant denominations and sects in an attempt to support their particular theologies. Each of them seeks to establish its own preferred doctrines with the claim that “We have the biblical truth, ours is the correct interpretation of Scripture!”

Well, of course! So does every Thomist and Molinist and Augustinian and Arminian within the catholic church! Such a belief is to be expected by those who seek the truth.

you go on

This sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”) approach to doctrinal formation, along with its hermeneutic of private interpretation, is the methodological cornerstone of Protestantism. (If, as your profile states, you’re truly “orthodox leaning,” you’ll be encouraged to abandon such an approach without delay, that is, if you intend to “lean” much further.)

I’ve made myself clear several times on these forums that I do not use the Bible alone as my source. So you must stop asserting that I do since you are no longer ignorant of how I do my theology. I use the Postconservative method and make use of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. Everyone makes use of these four sources whether they admit it or not.

you go on

From a Catholic perspective, of course, the Bible was never intended to function as the sole standard of belief and behavior for Christians. And attempting to force it into such a distorted role, as Protestantism is wont to do, has resulted in the hopelessly confused state of doctrinal anarchy reflected in the Protestant movement throughout its history.

Again, thats not me.

you said

Open Theism, from this standpoint, is yet another faddish theological novelty in a vast panoply of such fragmented Protestant innovations. When compared with the historic doctrinal Tradition of the Church, it fails as a proper view of the Christian God.

You have yet to demonstrate this. The fact is that there are Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Wesleyans, Methodists, Pentecostals and others who hold to the Open View. Its in no way a “faddish theological novelty”.

At least Open Theists look at a passage that says "and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. (Jon 3:10) and believe it. We do not respond as you do by saying “I know it says that God repented, that God responded to what Nineveh did, but that can’t be the case since God always knew He would not destroy Neneveh and is really unable to repent of doing anything.”

 

[TheOpenTheist]

you said

"When Scripture says…[such and such]…we believe it." As interpreted by whom? Clark Pinnock? Greg Boyd? William Hasker? TheOpenTheist?

Yep. We understand it to mean what it says, just as many Arminians and others do, yet hold to Simple Foreknowledge or Simultaneity which is the only real difference between them and us Open Theists. We reject Simple Foreknowledge and Simultaneity.

Augustine understood what Jon 3:10 was saying as does anyone who reads that passage. It couldn’t be said any clearer - God responded to Nineveh’s repentance and repented of the hamr He said He would bring about. It takes much work and a real commitment to the philosophical assumptions of total immutability to take such a passage and come to the conclusion that it does not reveal to us God as He truly is, which is what Augustine, Calvin and others throughout history said. Their philosophical assumptions about God would not allow the passage to mean what it said.

you said

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the succesor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome… The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him” (# 85; 100). This is not to say that individual Catholics do not study and interpret the Bible for themselves, only that their exegesis is to be guided and framed by the authentic teaching Tradition of Christ’s Church. When this principle is followed, OT cannot be maintained as a “Catholic” concept of God.

I guess I’ll have to call all the priests and other catholics I know tomorrow and tell them that they and I are wrong to think that Jonah 3:10 accurately reveals what God is like. Wonder what their response will be like. Hmmmmm…

you said

Now, it could be that when you say that “God does not control every single thing,” you are seeking to protect human free will, and are acknowledging that God’s will sometimes involves his “permitting” certain events, as opposed to God causing them directly.

That would be accurate. And permitting, yet not wanting or willing that evil occurs. God does not immediately destroy us, but is merciful and gracious to all for a time.

you continue

In other words, perhaps your statement is intended to allow for God’s use of secondary causes. With this Catholics will wholeheartedly agree.

Good to hear!

Yet, in a real sense, whether by primary or secondary causality, whether directly or indirectly, God does indeed “control every single thing which happens in history.”

The word “control” is a bad word to use in this case. Control is not what relationships are all about, at least controling others. God relates to the creation in personal and relational terms. We are to give God control over our lives. And in so doing become co-laborers with God (1 Cor 3:9).

Thus, the contemporary Open Theist redefinition of omniscience drastically shortchanges the orthodox Christian doctrine of God, and is therefore unacceptble within a properly Catholic theology.

It is unacceptable to those who use specific metaphysical assumptions when describing what God is like, but no major group that I am aware of has claimed that Open Theism is outside of the orthodox Christian faith or heretical. Only Calvinists have made such a claim and a couple Molinists.

It is not inaccurate at all to say, as far as I can tell, that God knows that which He has chosen to know. So, if God has indeed chosen to know the future as partly settled and as partly open, then that is what God has chosen to know.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Breton:

Your claim that the Open View is catholic - small “c”, universally held - is a huge stretch. That it is undeniably NOT Catholic - capital “C”, the church established by Christ and shepherded by the Bishop of Rome - has been unequivocally proven in this thread.

You certainly have every right to espouse any view you wish but, to ascribe this theology to the Catholic Church is deceitful.

Is it you intention to present Open Theism as a theology taught by the Catholic Church?

I oversimplified. What I meant was that the Open View is a valid belief within the catholic tradition, not that the catholic church teaches the Open View in any large measure. Of course, there are catholics who are Open Theists and some of them are professors. And there are some non-catholic professors which teach the Open View at catholic schools.

I must admit though, I typically encounter catholics who hold to or teach some form of Free-Will Theism which is the tradition that the Open View has emerged from.

 

[Donald45]

TheOpenTheist:

The Open View is pretty doggone catholic Donald…

…You abused that Scripture. WE in this passage refers to John and the “children” who are of God…And having been said while mangling Scripture in the process…

…You demonstrated that what I said was correct in your last post where you quoted some mediocre evangelicals as significant evidence that some Protestants do not accept the Open View. You truly are talking as if you know what you are talking about even though you don’t. Its typical catholic behavior…

…You demonstrated that what I claimed about you was true. Its an ad hominem no longer…

You state (without valid support) that “the Open View is pretty doggone catholic,” yet in a previous post, you claim that “the Catechism is wrong here” when it contradicts your favored opinion. Which is it? Is Catholic doctrine (which is faithfully articulated in the Catechism) for or against Openness? And are you now such an expert on Catholic theological sources that you can confidently make such an assertion in the first place?

You accuse me of “mangling” Scripture, and claim that “we” in 1 John 4:6 refers to “children of God.” Not so, and, once again, you may wish to save the ad hominem rhetoric in the future. It doesn’t impress. The passage uses varying pronouns, which must be kept in mind in one’s exegesis. “They,” “you,” “we,” “us.” The Venerable Bede writes of the text: “Those who do not want to listen to the preachers of love are soon recognized as not knowing God or coming from him…” (On 1 John). The notes of The New Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic source) observes that “‘we’ = the Christian prophets, recognised evangelists and preachers with apostolic authority.” (Do you still wish to maintain that OT is “pretty doggone catholic?”) The historic Church, which you claim affirms the Open view, commonly understands the “we” of 1 John 4:6 to be a reference to John the Evangelist and his fellow Apostles. This is Catholic teaching. You reject this Catholic exegetical perspective, while simultaneously claiming that OT is “pretty catholic.” Your inconsistency is readily apparent. Your hermeneutic methodology appears to be that whatever interpretation falls into line with your personally preconceived theological system (OT) is acceptable, while whatever contradicts it automatically must constitute a “mangling” of Scripture. Why not simply admit that OT is inherently un-Catholic in its concept of God (which is all I’m suggesting), and move on?

When, in any of my posts, did I ever quote “mediocre evangelicals”? And in what way am I displaying “typical Catholic behavior”? Are you now properly equipped to suggest how a Catholic would “typically” behave? Such stereotyping is simply another knee-jerk ad hominem response that says much more about you than it ever could about Catholic doctrine. Ad hominem comments are merely another way of complaining, “I don’t like what he said!” This amounts to an exercise in autobiography, rather than theology. But in no way do such pseudo-arguments advance one’s position in the discussion.

You write: “You demonstrated that what I claimed about you was true. It’s an ad hominem no longer.” Are you at all clear about what an *ad hominem *fallacy even is? (An introductory philosophy course might be helpful here.) The fallacy does not rest in the truth or falsehood of the accusation, but rather in its form. An ad hominem argument is directed toward the personal character or behavior of one’s opponent, rather than specifically to the ideas expressed by one’s opponent. So, even if your ad hominem sarcasm and emotive language expressed something true about me (and, of course, they did not), your approach would still be considered objectively fallacious. Once again, you may wish to reconsider such “argumentation” in the future.

 

[usr88]

I am having trouble reconciling a few concepts as they pertain to God’s creation and free will. I’d appreciate if somebody could help to clarify this for me:

• I understand that God created us in His own image, a key attribute of which was granting us free will.
• I understand that God created us because He loves us, and wishes that we will seek out communion with Him. He wants us to one day be with Him in heaven.
• I understand that God is all-powerful and all-knowing.
• I understand that God transcends time.

So, given all of that… how do you make sense of my question in the subject line? At the time He creates that person, God would be able to foresee all of the choices that he/she would make in their lifetime. To maintain the promise of free will, He would not interfere and would allow him/her to make those choices.

Is that person then doomed to go to Hell? Why would God create him/her if that is what will end up to him/her?

Please help me to understand this mystery.

Thank you and God bless you.

Ask Howard Storm, the writer of ‘I went down to Hell’ or something like that, who claimed he was in hell, got catechized by angels and was promptly zapped back to Earth… I think you can make some inquiry of him from focusvideos.com .

 

[jaynekae]

Greetings discerning,

You could ask the same question in a different way.

I didn’t choose to be created, why should I be condemed to hell if
I do not choose to follow God’s ways?

Peace

Eric

Hello Eric, the way I see it—is, your parents made the choice to create a baby (you)–and after that choice, and once your at the age of reason, YOU are responsible for all of the choices that you make. And if you are taught Gods ways and then choose not to follow His Words, then you will be condemned.
My question is why evangelize when teaching Gods Words, may set a person up for condemnation? If one never knows what is wrong, then he will never be condemned? My sister was a lay missionary is Papua New Guinea and that question was brought up frequently. Jayne