I'm reading about Open Theism in a Greg Allison's Historical Theology, in the chapter on Providence. Its been a while since I last read about it--wow, around 5 years ago. But as I'm reading about, there is something I like about it! This sentence hit me:
Is not God's freedom this radical? is not God even so free as to become a man? (can we even say, free to become a creature?)?
I think what I like about John Sander's open theism (Sanders is representative open theist here) is that it reminds us--us who have long emphasises God's total omnipotence -of God's vulnerability. Sanders makes the issue whether or not God risks: the God who knows all and has all power is "the God who never takes any risks..." What Sanders says is that God has the sovereign freedom to chose to be affected by his creatures. He is free to give his creatures power, free to give them a power, and free to become vulnerable to their power. What I like in open theism is not so much its metaphysics (which I will dispute shortly), but its portrait of the suffering God. Does not God suffer? Is that not where love takes him? What else could the cross lead us to say? When we just think of God as the one who has all power, power power power, we can forget that God is vulnerable. [of course, saying that might be the wrong words, but I hope you feel my sentiment]
I think what I like too is the idea that God has chosen to "give us space to operate." Rather than determining every action, God has let us determine actions. It is the flip side of GOd's otherness. He has chosen to create something other, and to let it be other. He respects its ability to be what it is, because that is his sovereign will. God, because of his love for love, because of his love to create people who can love, sincerely from themselves, has given them true freedom, freedom to self determine. This is the God of love.
I think we should, somehow, welcome this portrait of the God who blesses man, who gives him freedom, who desires after communion with them (does that sound wrong to you? It almost does to me, but how can it be? does not God desire communion with man? Is that not ridiculous? Is it not true though?), and who in this decision to give freedom and this decision to love, if that love was a decision, does not God in this make himself vulnerable, open himself up to suffering, open himself to the sorrow of sin? In making the cup for a sweet wine, he makes the a cup from which to drink bitterness. In some way this all seems kind of biblical, and powerful, and profound, and worshipful...
But of course, I think the issue is that maybe God is not free to not be in control. Here's my thought: If God knows everything, if he know all counterfactuals--that is, if he knows all the ways that the world could play out for every different way it could start--then anything he chooses is in a sense a choice that implies the whole future. God knows what will happen if he he sovereignly chose to not to determine everything that would happen in history. And if one knows everything that would follow from one's choice, and those things only follow given ones choice, then God knows what he is choosing God knows what his creatures will do. He knows the world that is to follow from his decision. And do something when you know exactly what the results will be...that's not really a risk. So yes, God has sovereignly chosen to not control each action, he has chosen even to be vulnerable to human action (maybe). But that doesn't mean God's not in control. It just means that in his control he chose to permit a thousand actions. It doesn't mean that he's risking. A God who knows everything is a God who cannot risk. A God who knows everything knows exactly what he is doing in making this world with freedom. A God who knows everything that is happening, and a God who can intervene is a God who has to chose at each and every moment whether to intervene in what he sees, or to allow what he sees. But a God who is allowing, or choosing to contradict, or just choosing to act at every point in time regarding every event in time...well, there's a word for that kind of God. Its a God who is in control, who exercises providence.
- "God is free to sovereignly decide not to determine everything that happens in history."
Is not God's freedom this radical? is not God even so free as to become a man? (can we even say, free to become a creature?)?
I think what I like about John Sander's open theism (Sanders is representative open theist here) is that it reminds us--us who have long emphasises God's total omnipotence -of God's vulnerability. Sanders makes the issue whether or not God risks: the God who knows all and has all power is "the God who never takes any risks..." What Sanders says is that God has the sovereign freedom to chose to be affected by his creatures. He is free to give his creatures power, free to give them a power, and free to become vulnerable to their power. What I like in open theism is not so much its metaphysics (which I will dispute shortly), but its portrait of the suffering God. Does not God suffer? Is that not where love takes him? What else could the cross lead us to say? When we just think of God as the one who has all power, power power power, we can forget that God is vulnerable. [of course, saying that might be the wrong words, but I hope you feel my sentiment]
I think what I like too is the idea that God has chosen to "give us space to operate." Rather than determining every action, God has let us determine actions. It is the flip side of GOd's otherness. He has chosen to create something other, and to let it be other. He respects its ability to be what it is, because that is his sovereign will. God, because of his love for love, because of his love to create people who can love, sincerely from themselves, has given them true freedom, freedom to self determine. This is the God of love.
I think we should, somehow, welcome this portrait of the God who blesses man, who gives him freedom, who desires after communion with them (does that sound wrong to you? It almost does to me, but how can it be? does not God desire communion with man? Is that not ridiculous? Is it not true though?), and who in this decision to give freedom and this decision to love, if that love was a decision, does not God in this make himself vulnerable, open himself up to suffering, open himself to the sorrow of sin? In making the cup for a sweet wine, he makes the a cup from which to drink bitterness. In some way this all seems kind of biblical, and powerful, and profound, and worshipful...
But of course, I think the issue is that maybe God is not free to not be in control. Here's my thought: If God knows everything, if he know all counterfactuals--that is, if he knows all the ways that the world could play out for every different way it could start--then anything he chooses is in a sense a choice that implies the whole future. God knows what will happen if he he sovereignly chose to not to determine everything that would happen in history. And if one knows everything that would follow from one's choice, and those things only follow given ones choice, then God knows what he is choosing God knows what his creatures will do. He knows the world that is to follow from his decision. And do something when you know exactly what the results will be...that's not really a risk. So yes, God has sovereignly chosen to not control each action, he has chosen even to be vulnerable to human action (maybe). But that doesn't mean God's not in control. It just means that in his control he chose to permit a thousand actions. It doesn't mean that he's risking. A God who knows everything is a God who cannot risk. A God who knows everything knows exactly what he is doing in making this world with freedom. A God who knows everything that is happening, and a God who can intervene is a God who has to chose at each and every moment whether to intervene in what he sees, or to allow what he sees. But a God who is allowing, or choosing to contradict, or just choosing to act at every point in time regarding every event in time...well, there's a word for that kind of God. Its a God who is in control, who exercises providence.
