1) Open theists contend that petitionary prayer is otiose if Calvinism is true. If our prayers are predestined, then our prayers have no effect.
I've discussed that objection on more than one occasion, so I won't repeat myself in detail. I'd simply point out that this objection is confused. Predestined prayers are efficacious in the counterfactual sense that, absent prayer, the outcome would be different.
2) But to shift to the main point of the post. What about the open theist alternative? Let's start by listing presuppositions of prayer:
i) We should pray for the best
ii) We don't necessarily know what is for the best
iii) It would be bad for God to grant our request unless it's for the best
iii) God knows best
iv) In case we pray for the wrong thing, we hope that God will grant the request we would have made had we known better
3) Now compare that to open theism. In open theism, God doesn't know what is for the best. Because God doesn't know the future, he cannot know ahead of time what is for the best.
He doesn't know what we are thinking before we think it. I may do something risky. I may do something that endangers somebody else. Since God can't foresee the consequences of our indeterminate choices, he can't act in advance with our best interests in view. He can only react. But that's often too late.
In open theism, God is the first responder. He's the fireman who shows up after your home is already engulfed in flames. He's the paramedic who arrives on scene as the gunshot victim is bleeding out on the street.
4) If open theism is true, then it's dangerous to pray to God. It's hazardous to ask God to intervene when God might unwittingly make the situation that much worse. There's only so much damage a human can do. But a shortsighted God can do far more damage, with the best of intentions.
Prayer in open theism is like the law of unintended consequences. You're safer not to ask God for help.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhile I sympathize with your comments here I’m wondering if it’s accurate that open theists would agree that God doesn’t know what’s best for the future. Seems to me they would argue that God can know what is best for the future without knowing the future. For example, God knows saving all would be best, regardless of what the future may be (according to Open Theism). But even if God arrives late to the burning house that would not necessarily mean he didn’t know what was best for that family. He knew what was best, but it didn’t happen. Perhaps what happened was number 139,000,043 on the list of best-worst possibilities.
Is OT or Arminianism any better? Imagine Doug’s salvation being contingent on how many people finally persuade God to save Doug? Doug’s salvation lies in the hands of a group of people who may in fact not pray for him at all. Then they want to argue that the only reason Doug is in hell is because it was his choice? What non-sense.
There are things some of us would do differently if we understood ahead of time how a particular course of action was going to turn out. Our lack of foreknowledge blinded us. We were unable to act in the best interests of ourselves or others because we couldn't anticipate the consequences. We couldn't see that far down the road. That prevented us from making informed decisions about our own welfare, or the welfare of others impacted by our decisions. That's a common basis of regret. "If I knew then what I know now..."
DeleteIt's a pretty simple principle.
Steve,
DeleteThanks for pointing out what’s obvious - I get that. However, I’m still wondering…
Wouldn't an Open Theist argue, like a Molinist, that God knows every possibility and therefore can calculate every consequence and thus anticipate or prepare for all things or anything? Much the way a computer might play chess. He doesn’t know what you’re going to do, but his actions change according to what you do choose.
“God knowing what would be best in a hypothetical situation isn’t helpful unless the hypothetical situation happens to correspond to reality”
But that’s just it, if that 1 hypothetical becomes reality, and it can be calculated by God, then God can anticipate what to do next. To say God can’t because he’s blind seems to imply that he’s not just blind but also dumb for he can’t even hypothesize what one might do in a given situation. But if God can hypothesize, then he can anticipate. Why would that not be true?
Of course this brings me to ask an obvious question – is Open Theism even possible if that’s an argument they employ? If God can hypothesize EVERY possible choice we make, then he does know the future. For his not knowing the future is contingent upon NOT knowing every possibility. If he doesn’t know every possibility then I can see your point. But if he knows every possibility (should an Open Theist argue that) then God in essence knows the future and all possible futures– it’s only a matter of which one becomes reality. So what advantage does OT offer then?
Forgive me if I’m wrong about this, I’m trying to wrap my ahead around these arguments.
Peace,
The butterfly effect practically guarantees that the nitty-gritty details are important. If you don't know exactly how every particle in the atmosphere is behaving, you can't even predict the weather a week in advance with certainty. And how many times have people been killed or had all their property destroyed due to weather events? For that matter, what affect does a drought causing rising food prices resulting in you having less money to pay for a trip to Disney Land, resulting in you vacationing in your home state instead of California, on what the future would have been otherwise?
DeleteIf God is not sovereign over the details, He cannot be sovereign over the whole, and He certainly cannot promise to us what will happen hundreds and even thousands of years in the future with that much of a wildcard in place.
"Wouldn't an Open Theist argue, like a Molinist, that God knows every possibility…"
DeleteI believe Molinists take the position that God knows what we *would* do in every situation, whereas an open theists only believes that God knows what we *might* do or *could* do. That's quite different.
"…and therefore can calculate every consequence and thus anticipate or prepare for all things or anything?"
The open theist God can only lead from behind. The human agent will always be one step ahead of him.
"Much the way a computer might play chess. He doesn’t know what you’re going to do, but his actions change according to what you do choose."
One problem with that analogy is that for every move, there is not a winning countermove. As more pieces are taken off the board, there are fewer pathways to victory. Especially for a losing player, he may get to the point where he *can't* win. He doesn't have enough key pieces left to beat his opponent. That may happen well before checkmate.
"But that’s just it, if that 1 hypothetical becomes reality…"
That's always after the fact. The open theist God is constantly panting to keep up.
"…and it can be calculated by God, then God can anticipate what to do next."
We're talking about a chain of consequences. According to libertarian freedom, each subsequent choice is causally independent of the prior choice. Every choice generates a new set of forking paths.
If God answers a Christian prayer, that enacts the law of unintended consequences. God doesn't know ahead of time where that will lead. It's moment by moment. For once he answers a prayer, he passes the ball back to the human agents.
When the open theist God answers a prayer, he doesn't know in advance if that will benefit the Christian, or trigger a catastrophic cascade effect. God must wait and see from one moment to the next what will happen.
Even if, after the fact, God jumps in to contain the damage, every time he pushes the reset button, that reenacts the law of unintended consequences.
Moreover, for God to routinely intervene to ameliorate the deleterious consequences of answered prayer is antithetical to freewill theism. According to freewill theism, God must allow us to suffer the consequences of our decisions. For unless our decisions stick, freedom is a charade.
"If God can hypothesize EVERY possible choice we make, then he does know the future. For his not knowing the future is contingent upon NOT knowing every possibility."
That's an idiosyncratic definition. Not knowing the future is contingent on not knowing what will actually transpire.
"But if he knows every possibility (should an Open Theist argue that) then God in essence knows the future and all possible futures– it’s only a matter of which one becomes reality."
That's how amateur gamblers lose their life savings at the casino. Knowing the possibilities is not a winning formula.
A pro poker player may have a good idea of how many cards remain in the deck. That doesn't mean he knows which card will be dealt next. Not even close.
Should he fold, call, or raise? If he bets all his chips and loses, that's where it ends.
Or, to vary the metaphor, suppose I find wild mushrooms in the woods. I know that some mushrooms are edible, and some mushrooms are toxic. If I eat the mushrooms, there are two possible outcomes. But if I guess wrong, I don't get a second chance.
For want of a nail the shoe was lost, For want of a shoe the horse was lost, For want of a horse the rider was lost, For want of a rider the battle was lost, For want of a battle the kingdom was lost, And all for the want of a horse.
Delete–Benjamin Franklin
This is also a common sci-fi theme, the time traveler. The man from the future going back in time to set things aright, or else to nefariously set things wrong.
ReplyDelete