24:08 God is free to change in non-essential ways, meaning He is free and His holy character and standard are constant. Fear of God's freedom is a frequent trigger for folks to deny His freedom.
28:25 God knows the future, but as a realm of both will-be's and might-be's. You're headed into fatalism, perhaps not knowingly, but as an entailment. Take a step back and consider Dynamic Omniscience in conjunction with the distinction in His essence and energies. Additionally the incarnation is proof of God changing in non-essential ways, which demands a denial of absolute Classical Theism
I was intrigued by Thomas Oord when I was agnostic. He may have actually been a factor that got me into Christianity. His open-relational framework reminded me a lot of ideas that were near and dear to my heart in Taoism. However, once I had an experience of God and began practicing a more trinitarian form of Christianity, open theism seemed terribly underwhelming. At times I almost felt like the god presented was so limited that it was hardly worthy of true worship and adoration.
Hi, Joel. I'm very interested in the topics you were discussing, and I have quite a few questions about what you said. But I'll limit my comments here to what I consider to be most essential: (1) You really didn't say enough, in my opinion, about how you're using the concept of immutability. (Not that other people who align with classical theists are usually any clearer about this.) If it means that God has a stable, constant character with regard to morality and metaphysics-sure, of course. But if it means anything like what it meant in Greek thought, it simply cannot apply to the Biblical God. This is a point that Process Theology makes very well, I believe: Did God decide and move willingly into becoming a creator? That's change. Does God hear and take account of prayer? That's change. Does God interact in any way, shape, or form with human beings? That's change. One of the greatest of possible expressions of divine mutability, from a classical Greek perspective, would be something like the Christian incarnation. How would this not involve change? The Christian heresy of "docetism" is precisely the belief that what Christians scandalously assert happened to God cannot happen to God. (And of course Jews like me traditionally agree with this critique.) The fact that classical Christians, among all monotheistic faiths, have piled onto the Immutability Train is deeply surprising. (2) It seemed that you referred a couple of times to problems with "divine personalism," or "theistic personalism," and yet you conclude with a strong affirmation of God as love or loving. What is the "personalist" view you dissent from, if you contend that God is a God of relationship and love? Perhaps what you're departing from is more about a believer's individual understanding of God (as opposed to a rigorous philosophic definition of God), but it's all left rather opaque, particularly given the way it's framed in the video as an important, rejected alternative.
Absolutely agree! Incarnation is change. I think when simply reading the Bible - one cannot come to any other conclusion than that God is constantly changing (even when excluding the new testament scriptures). That's why I like Jack Miles's "God - a biography". It was a huge influence on me when studying theology. Also - if God is almighty He should be able to change, right? Another point is omniscience. God seems to be surprised by what humans are doing in the Bible all the time. They don't behave as He thought they would. So God might know what HE is doing in the future but not what we are doing because we haven't done it yet.
@@MrSeedi76 Thanks for your reply to me. The last part about omniscience and God's apparent lack of foreknowledge regarding human action isn't straightforward. The Bible could have reasons for presenting it that way, even if it's not literally true. And it's not only the question of God's FOREknowledge which is related to the question of change in God, it's the question of ANY knowledge in God at all of outside events. If God knows what's happening on earth, then His awareness (and therefore He) is constantly changing as reality changes. This is why some medieval rationalist philosophers denied that God "knows particulars." They only wanted God to know, at most, the general, unchanging laws of the physical universe. So God could "act" surprised by things that happen, but we WANT God to care about what happens. And genuine caring is clearly a kind of change in God's being. Aristotle's God literally only thinks about itself.
Classical Theism FTW! Nice brief overview of the debate. I would also argue that open theism fails to substantially help answer the POE, since it still affirms a God which knows enough and is powerful enough to prevent/stop the vast majority of the worst examples of suffering, yet chooses not to. Anyway, Thanks for the vid!
FTW ... lol. If you interrogate your assertions about both Classical and Open especially in regard to the POE, I think you'll be entirely bankrupt on the Classical side. On Classical, Evil is God's doing necessarily. Only a strawman version of Classical avoids this. Most people you run into that call themselves Classical, are affirming a strawman version of it, ignoring it's logical entailments. Things like, God cannot think in Classical. Sound absurd? Dig into the consequences of being timeless, immutable & impassible. Most write ups you'll see God is unable to undergo intrinsic change --- yet in strict terms, there is absolutely no change extrinsic included that God can undergo in Classical. Impassible requires His entire agency to be self-determined from a singularity with no outside influence. So thinking is technically impossible for God, let alone something like a trinity, or speaking something into existence. The POE is lightweight work for Open, it's only hard to see for folks deep into Classical.
As someone who has went from opentheism back to a more classical understanding of Gods omniscience and being.. How do you weigh out God being surprised, shocked, changing his mind, etc. as well as our free will? Just curious. Thank you, God bless.
Foresters unite! I was stopping in to mention John Sanders, but I see there's no need. Turns out our we were at HC/U for at least one semester together. I graduated in '94 and sporadically took classes thereafter. Taught a semester of English as well. I always wondered how well Open Theism was understood by those complaining about it, or how many people in their pews had come to similar vague theological positions without realizing there was a name for it.
I will add to what I said about Moon's theology in light of Your 2nd deconstruction, Moon lays out a detailed understanding of history revealing God's plan to realize His ultimate purpose. So, God is not really open or as changeable in the sense that open theists believe.
Do you part with DBH on universalism? Also do you have a source and exposition for "God is Trinity" that makes sense to you? Appreciate your journey, I've been there myself.
Wow... The three strong reasons you gave for accepting open theism as true seem to be completely thrown out the window to make you feel more connected a classical scholarship and perhaps feel a mystical humility in acceptance of simplicity. You should feel a great tension your return to classical theism has created concerning the doctrines of the perspicuity of Scripture, theodicy, and prayer! I hope you do. Have you read through the whole Bible at least 5 times yet?
What gets me is that OPEN THEISTS are late in the game. Sun Myung Moon understood this more than 70 years ago but with a more thorough and biblically consistent explanation than open theism has. If people paid any attention to Moon years ago the world, at least the world of theology would be a very different place today. BTW, believe it or not, his ideas are not the product of his own intellect but came through his conversations with Jesus. Scoff if you will, but Moon's revelations taken as a whole are undeniably earthshaking, like Jesus’ words were when he spoke 2000 years ago. Much more from Jesus is being revealed now. One may recognize this by a superficial overview of Moon's theology stated concisely in the Divine Principle, but unfortunately it takes time to really appreciate how incredible his systematic theology is. [repeated elsewhere]
Interesting thoughts. I'm wondering how an impassible and immutable God can become incarnate in human flesh, suffer and die? Classical theism doesn't appear to have a good answer for this.
Best 24 hrs of your life. God actually listening to prayers and being able to answer them is amazing. Ok, maybe that was a low blow, but worth thinking about. I think folks have a stunted view of both Classical and Open that when the comparison devolves to a conclusion of 'God in Time' is akin to drowning in the shallow end. I hope Joel digs a bit deeper and questions his dependence on Time being a created thing. To the average Open Theist, time is sequence and necessary. The phrase 'before time existed' is absurd as it borrows language from time 'before' to assert a time before time. The Hebrew understanding of time and the creation account focus of measuring time vs creating time itself is interesting. And the understanding of Christ developing a new nature of overlap of God and Man is also. The Platonist foundation of Classical Theism seems to need to keep this overlap or blending an impossibility. You'll hear He was both at the same time but distinct and unblended.
Given that open theists do not believe that the future is a 'thing' how do they deal with Revelation 13:8 which says "and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. this verse teaches that there was a "book of the lamb who was slain" before the earth was created... teaching that Jesus death was foreknown
You seem to be using a non-philosophical definition of immutability which is that God is incapable of change, any change, not just His characteristics. Your definition sounds like the definition given by the Eastern Orthodox. Your reformed view of immutability would be more like the Neoplatonic view, which is where the tensions come in. Open theism, saying that the future is unknowable, is not the only form and in itself causes you to disregard the simple reading of the text and causes its own tensions. Dynamic omniscience is another form saying that God know all future possibilities, much like middle knowledge, but differs in that the future is not set, though some things are, like the end times, the coming of Jesus, the rise and fall of empires, etc. all through the working of God. This view is a grand view of Gods omniscience in my opinion and is awe inspiring. The East does it well, using philosophy in a pared down version to suit scripture. They read philosophy through a scriptural lens, rather than reading scripture through a philosophical lens. Best of all, they can find beauty, and use it, while rejecting the evil that comes with it. A very balanced approach which is the best way. Having a philosophical view of immutability makes God unknowingly, unapproachable, cold, distant. Paring it down by saying it is his character that is immutable rejects that ugliness. Same could be said about omniscience , which is why you struggled with it, pre it down and it releases the tension, thinking of it more dynamically helped me. It’s not classical theism though.
You could argue though that Gods foreknowledge, is really a knowledge of a person, or a culture, more than a knowledge of the future. I would love to hear the issues you came across with open theism in more detail. Always good to have an open ear, and an open heart.
I'm only half-way through your video but really hope you will go on to bridge the gap between Open Theology and God's prophecy and plan of salvation. If Open Theism is true, then why would God pre-plan salvation because it was possible that humanity after Noah could have lived entirely abiding by God's will.
Open Theism says God is the most active will in the universe... knowing all things and having plans for all possibilities with the ability to enforce certain things but choosing not to enforce other things. So a general will makes perfect sense but with variability built into it. The alternative is a static God since all things are determined. God doesn't think...he Just knows.
Immutability IMO is the hinge for taking one or the other side more or less seriously. If you go toward Classical, it's usually a commitment to immutability that gets you there. With all due respect to your journey and your investment into scholarship, the bias you're surrounded in is Classical. It's everywhere you look & almost impossible to escape at this point. You might say you took that into consideration and did your work via first principles. And if that's the case, kudos. I think you'd agree, most people do not. They just aim at who makes better arguments for or against given positions, which if I'm honest, seems to echo your description of your journey. It was the strict understanding of immutability & impassibility that caused me to leave Classical Theism entirely. It now feels empty to represent God in any way. A God that cannot interact by definition is the sort of God (idol) that God compared Himself against in scripture. You might say this is a strawman of Classical. Before you go there, think carefully if accidental or cambridge changes are permitted in Classical Theism. If you say Yes, it's my opinion you're not representing Classical Theism anymore and the strawman is actually on your end. The second category that helped keep me away from Classical is the subject of time itself. Time as sequence as it relates to change. It seems odd that Christians would defend a philosophy that requires at it's logical ends to say God doesn't speak, think, act, intend, decree, plan, will, --- anything. Given the biblical narrative, it's precisely the opposite God testifies about himself. He is a Living God who often doesn't get what He wants. Food for thought. I cheer you forward in keeping on your journey and testing your recent conclusions.
@@logosoflove7385 It's certainly a form of argumentation that will win over many inclined to emphasize God & Love. The staunch Platonist, even if they've not identified it in themselves yet, would likely rebut with 'God is also Wrath' ...'Justice'... 'Peace' --- to which I'd cut them off and ask 'Patient?' See, a timeless, unaffected God cannot be patient by definition, similar to Love which implies reciprocation. To which they might say 'all these labels are anthropomorphic language, to communicate in baby talk to lesser created beings than God.' To which I'd say 'communicate what exactly? That actually, He's the opposite of what the text says? The only one communicating that is YOU.' It's rare, but sometimes we need to confront this idea directly and give strong push back. It does take some discernment however. Not all will receive it as a rebuke of the idea. They'll take it personally. If they are the latter, you have to judge if the timing is right and be ready for radio silence from them for a while, or worse, them retaliating with ad hom, which is often the case. The reason I don't lead with the Love argument is some will argue that Love is the default expression within the trinity and creation is just a thing sustained by it. The 'love' we think we receive from God is an indirect byproduct and another anthropomorphism, not a direct 1-to-1 reality. I'd like them to explain the reality of Christ following that claim but that's a longer post for another time. By arguing the Patience angle, it somewhat undercuts that line of thinking, because there is nothing within the trinity to challenge patience, they are one. At least this line of thinking seems to gain ground faster for me than Love. Perhaps it'll help you in your own dialogs with folks.
some people feel better with daddy looking over them. they must think that there is something or someone who is going to say, it's okay, you'll be all right, I love you. so I'm not going to watch the rest of this video because, if it was your father or the father his nuts would allow him to show up and fix everything. but he hasn't and he won't. so remember, don't step on cracks, don't carry your opened umbrella into a building, don't ever eat any shellfish. and, for gods sake never believe in false idols like smartphones and youtube. good luck.
If God sees the future He sees 100 billion people dead resurrected judged and in the afteroife and he sees everything everyone will say and do including Christ for infinity. How does he see that all TODAY?!
I am and remain an open theist… the thing that caught me off guard toward the end of the video was what you said when you were trying to sum up why you switched back to classic theism. You gave a bunch of what I felt to be not good reasons because they weren’t aligned with what I believe God's essence to be in agape love. Then at the last second you threw in that "God is Love" was one of the reasons you switched back to classic theism. That makes no sense to me. The fact that God is love is precisely why I am an open theist. Love is dynamic not static and therefor I believe God is dynamic not static. How did God is Love become a catalyst for you to change your view back to classic theism? It makes no sense, a God outside of time can’t truly agape love anything much less be agape love himself. All due respect to Hart but there is most certainly a strand of Jewish thought that views God as more dynamic then static, specifically I would argue the ones who wrote and espoused the TANAK … having said that I grant that there is a varied view of Jewish thought on the topic and so it’s not simply Jewish thought as if they monolithically believe in a dynamic Gady the way some open theist claim. It comes back to what you think the central essence of God is. I believe it’s love and therefore God is dynamic as love is dynamic. Miss me with the idea that love was one of your central views that caused you to go back. You would have to convince me that a static immutable being could actually Agape love and I don’t think you can.
Joel, I appreciate this series and hope you'll continue with it. I imagine it's challenging to share very personal stuff without somehow making it only about yourself and thus limiting the impact. Your content strikes such a solid balance of graceful relatability but without feeling toothless. And you've helped give a name to the journey I'm currently on-- I especially liked your phrasing in a prior video of "naivety, questioning, then 2nd naivety". The fact I'm fortunate enough to be unpacking my inheritance along with my 76 yr old mom, the very person who instilled my original 80s-era fundamentalism, is quite a blessing... but also double overwhelming. She's not quite as far along and is working through the earliest stages: "Wait, am I even allowed to even think about this and how is it I never wondered about any of this before?!". With social media currently chock full of deconstruction stories, your brand of re--ordering seems more necessary than ever. Offering a kind of pastoral 'permission', to ask questions, explore, and slowly rearrange or reverse is a tonic for me. Some deconstructors just automatically package their experiences with the suggestion that you, too, should walk away from the faith tradition (even if it's from, in my case, merely exposure to a less than ideal version of it). Also, am excited to discover "Kierkegaard and the Changelessness of God", looks intriguing. Anyway, way too many words to say: thank you.
Wow, this comment is so encouraging to me. This is exactly why I am doing these videos. To know it's genuinely helpful to real people out there is humbling! Thank you for sharing, genuinely.
24:08 God is free to change in non-essential ways, meaning He is free and His holy character and standard are constant. Fear of God's freedom is a frequent trigger for folks to deny His freedom.
28:25 God knows the future, but as a realm of both will-be's and might-be's. You're headed into fatalism, perhaps not knowingly, but as an entailment. Take a step back and consider Dynamic Omniscience in conjunction with the distinction in His essence and energies.
Additionally the incarnation is proof of God changing in non-essential ways, which demands a denial of absolute Classical Theism
Your exposition here is really helpful, thanks.
I was intrigued by Thomas Oord when I was agnostic. He may have actually been a factor that got me into Christianity. His open-relational framework reminded me a lot of ideas that were near and dear to my heart in Taoism. However, once I had an experience of God and began practicing a more trinitarian form of Christianity, open theism seemed terribly underwhelming. At times I almost felt like the god presented was so limited that it was hardly worthy of true worship and adoration.
Hi, Joel. I'm very interested in the topics you were discussing, and I have quite a few questions about what you said. But I'll limit my comments here to what I consider to be most essential:
(1) You really didn't say enough, in my opinion, about how you're using the concept of immutability. (Not that other people who align with classical theists are usually any clearer about this.) If it means that God has a stable, constant character with regard to morality and metaphysics-sure, of course. But if it means anything like what it meant in Greek thought, it simply cannot apply to the Biblical God. This is a point that Process Theology makes very well, I believe: Did God decide and move willingly into becoming a creator? That's change. Does God hear and take account of prayer? That's change. Does God interact in any way, shape, or form with human beings? That's change. One of the greatest of possible expressions of divine mutability, from a classical Greek perspective, would be something like the Christian incarnation. How would this not involve change? The Christian heresy of "docetism" is precisely the belief that what Christians scandalously assert happened to God cannot happen to God. (And of course Jews like me traditionally agree with this critique.) The fact that classical Christians, among all monotheistic faiths, have piled onto the Immutability Train is deeply surprising.
(2) It seemed that you referred a couple of times to problems with "divine personalism," or "theistic personalism," and yet you conclude with a strong affirmation of God as love or loving. What is the "personalist" view you dissent from, if you contend that God is a God of relationship and love? Perhaps what you're departing from is more about a believer's individual understanding of God (as opposed to a rigorous philosophic definition of God), but it's all left rather opaque, particularly given the way it's framed in the video as an important, rejected alternative.
Absolutely agree! Incarnation is change. I think when simply reading the Bible - one cannot come to any other conclusion than that God is constantly changing (even when excluding the new testament scriptures).
That's why I like Jack Miles's "God - a biography". It was a huge influence on me when studying theology.
Also - if God is almighty He should be able to change, right?
Another point is omniscience. God seems to be surprised by what humans are doing in the Bible all the time. They don't behave as He thought they would. So God might know what HE is doing in the future but not what we are doing because we haven't done it yet.
@@MrSeedi76 Thanks for your reply to me. The last part about omniscience and God's apparent lack of foreknowledge regarding human action isn't straightforward. The Bible could have reasons for presenting it that way, even if it's not literally true. And it's not only the question of God's FOREknowledge which is related to the question of change in God, it's the question of ANY knowledge in God at all of outside events. If God knows what's happening on earth, then His awareness (and therefore He) is constantly changing as reality changes. This is why some medieval rationalist philosophers denied that God "knows particulars." They only wanted God to know, at most, the general, unchanging laws of the physical universe. So God could "act" surprised by things that happen, but we WANT God to care about what happens. And genuine caring is clearly a kind of change in God's being. Aristotle's God literally only thinks about itself.
Classical Theism FTW! Nice brief overview of the debate.
I would also argue that open theism fails to substantially help answer the POE, since it still affirms a God which knows enough and is powerful enough to prevent/stop the vast majority of the worst examples of suffering, yet chooses not to.
Anyway, Thanks for the vid!
FTW ... lol. If you interrogate your assertions about both Classical and Open especially in regard to the POE, I think you'll be entirely bankrupt on the Classical side. On Classical, Evil is God's doing necessarily. Only a strawman version of Classical avoids this. Most people you run into that call themselves Classical, are affirming a strawman version of it, ignoring it's logical entailments. Things like, God cannot think in Classical. Sound absurd? Dig into the consequences of being timeless, immutable & impassible. Most write ups you'll see God is unable to undergo intrinsic change --- yet in strict terms, there is absolutely no change extrinsic included that God can undergo in Classical. Impassible requires His entire agency to be self-determined from a singularity with no outside influence. So thinking is technically impossible for God, let alone something like a trinity, or speaking something into existence. The POE is lightweight work for Open, it's only hard to see for folks deep into Classical.
As someone who has went from opentheism back to a more classical understanding of Gods omniscience and being..
How do you weigh out God being surprised, shocked, changing his mind, etc. as well as our free will? Just curious. Thank you, God bless.
Foresters unite! I was stopping in to mention John Sanders, but I see there's no need. Turns out our we were at HC/U for at least one semester together. I graduated in '94 and sporadically took classes thereafter. Taught a semester of English as well. I always wondered how well Open Theism was understood by those complaining about it, or how many people in their pews had come to similar vague theological positions without realizing there was a name for it.
I will add to what I said about Moon's theology in light of Your 2nd deconstruction, Moon lays out a detailed understanding of history revealing God's plan to realize His ultimate purpose. So, God is not really open or as changeable in the sense that open theists believe.
Do you part with DBH on universalism? Also do you have a source and exposition for "God is Trinity" that makes sense to you? Appreciate your journey, I've been there myself.
7:02 Funny how high school me going to evangelical school came up with the same idea
Wow... The three strong reasons you gave for accepting open theism as true seem to be completely thrown out the window to make you feel more connected a classical scholarship and perhaps feel a mystical humility in acceptance of simplicity.
You should feel a great tension your return to classical theism has created concerning the doctrines of the perspicuity of Scripture, theodicy, and prayer! I hope you do. Have you read through the whole Bible at least 5 times yet?
What gets me is that OPEN THEISTS are late in the game. Sun Myung Moon understood this more than 70 years ago but with a more thorough and biblically consistent explanation than open theism has. If people paid any attention to Moon years ago the world, at least the world of theology would be a very different place today. BTW, believe it or not, his ideas are not the product of his own intellect but came through his conversations with Jesus. Scoff if you will, but Moon's revelations taken as a whole are undeniably earthshaking, like Jesus’ words were when he spoke 2000 years ago. Much more from Jesus is being revealed now. One may recognize this by a superficial overview of Moon's theology stated concisely in the Divine Principle, but unfortunately it takes time to really appreciate how incredible his systematic theology is. [repeated elsewhere]
Interesting thoughts.
I'm wondering how an impassible and immutable God can become incarnate in human flesh, suffer and die?
Classical theism doesn't appear to have a good answer for this.
I was an open theist for about 24 hrs. 😂
Best 24 hrs of your life. God actually listening to prayers and being able to answer them is amazing. Ok, maybe that was a low blow, but worth thinking about. I think folks have a stunted view of both Classical and Open that when the comparison devolves to a conclusion of 'God in Time' is akin to drowning in the shallow end. I hope Joel digs a bit deeper and questions his dependence on Time being a created thing. To the average Open Theist, time is sequence and necessary. The phrase 'before time existed' is absurd as it borrows language from time 'before' to assert a time before time. The Hebrew understanding of time and the creation account focus of measuring time vs creating time itself is interesting. And the understanding of Christ developing a new nature of overlap of God and Man is also. The Platonist foundation of Classical Theism seems to need to keep this overlap or blending an impossibility. You'll hear He was both at the same time but distinct and unblended.
Given that open theists do not believe that the future is a 'thing' how do they deal with Revelation 13:8 which says "and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
this verse teaches that there was a "book of the lamb who was slain" before the earth was created... teaching that Jesus death was foreknown
You seem to be using a non-philosophical definition of immutability which is that God is incapable of change, any change, not just His characteristics. Your definition sounds like the definition given by the Eastern Orthodox. Your reformed view of immutability would be more like the Neoplatonic view, which is where the tensions come in. Open theism, saying that the future is unknowable, is not the only form and in itself causes you to disregard the simple reading of the text and causes its own tensions. Dynamic omniscience is another form saying that God know all future possibilities, much like middle knowledge, but differs in that the future is not set, though some things are, like the end times, the coming of Jesus, the rise and fall of empires, etc. all through the working of God. This view is a grand view of Gods omniscience in my opinion and is awe inspiring.
The East does it well, using philosophy in a pared down version to suit scripture. They read philosophy through a scriptural lens, rather than reading scripture through a philosophical lens. Best of all, they can find beauty, and use it, while rejecting the evil that comes with it. A very balanced approach which is the best way.
Having a philosophical view of immutability makes God unknowingly, unapproachable, cold, distant. Paring it down by saying it is his character that is immutable rejects that ugliness. Same could be said about omniscience , which is why you struggled with it, pre it down and it releases the tension, thinking of it more dynamically helped me. It’s not classical theism though.
You could argue though that Gods foreknowledge, is really a knowledge of a person, or a culture, more than a knowledge of the future.
I would love to hear the issues you came across with open theism in more detail. Always good to have an open ear, and an open heart.
I'm only half-way through your video but really hope you will go on to bridge the gap between Open Theology and God's prophecy and plan of salvation. If Open Theism is true, then why would God pre-plan salvation because it was possible that humanity after Noah could have lived entirely abiding by God's will.
Open Theism says God is the most active will in the universe... knowing all things and having plans for all possibilities with the ability to enforce certain things but choosing not to enforce other things. So a general will makes perfect sense but with variability built into it.
The alternative is a static God since all things are determined. God doesn't think...he Just knows.
Immutability IMO is the hinge for taking one or the other side more or less seriously. If you go toward Classical, it's usually a commitment to immutability that gets you there. With all due respect to your journey and your investment into scholarship, the bias you're surrounded in is Classical. It's everywhere you look & almost impossible to escape at this point. You might say you took that into consideration and did your work via first principles. And if that's the case, kudos. I think you'd agree, most people do not. They just aim at who makes better arguments for or against given positions, which if I'm honest, seems to echo your description of your journey. It was the strict understanding of immutability & impassibility that caused me to leave Classical Theism entirely. It now feels empty to represent God in any way. A God that cannot interact by definition is the sort of God (idol) that God compared Himself against in scripture. You might say this is a strawman of Classical. Before you go there, think carefully if accidental or cambridge changes are permitted in Classical Theism. If you say Yes, it's my opinion you're not representing Classical Theism anymore and the strawman is actually on your end. The second category that helped keep me away from Classical is the subject of time itself. Time as sequence as it relates to change. It seems odd that Christians would defend a philosophy that requires at it's logical ends to say God doesn't speak, think, act, intend, decree, plan, will, --- anything. Given the biblical narrative, it's precisely the opposite God testifies about himself. He is a Living God who often doesn't get what He wants. Food for thought. I cheer you forward in keeping on your journey and testing your recent conclusions.
Great response! I think the end all be all is God is Love and Love is and has to be dynamic. Therefore, God is and has to be dynamic. Simple as that.
@@logosoflove7385 It's certainly a form of argumentation that will win over many inclined to emphasize God & Love. The staunch Platonist, even if they've not identified it in themselves yet, would likely rebut with 'God is also Wrath' ...'Justice'... 'Peace' --- to which I'd cut them off and ask 'Patient?' See, a timeless, unaffected God cannot be patient by definition, similar to Love which implies reciprocation. To which they might say 'all these labels are anthropomorphic language, to communicate in baby talk to lesser created beings than God.' To which I'd say 'communicate what exactly? That actually, He's the opposite of what the text says? The only one communicating that is YOU.' It's rare, but sometimes we need to confront this idea directly and give strong push back. It does take some discernment however. Not all will receive it as a rebuke of the idea. They'll take it personally. If they are the latter, you have to judge if the timing is right and be ready for radio silence from them for a while, or worse, them retaliating with ad hom, which is often the case.
The reason I don't lead with the Love argument is some will argue that Love is the default expression within the trinity and creation is just a thing sustained by it. The 'love' we think we receive from God is an indirect byproduct and another anthropomorphism, not a direct 1-to-1 reality. I'd like them to explain the reality of Christ following that claim but that's a longer post for another time. By arguing the Patience angle, it somewhat undercuts that line of thinking, because there is nothing within the trinity to challenge patience, they are one. At least this line of thinking seems to gain ground faster for me than Love. Perhaps it'll help you in your own dialogs with folks.
some people feel better with daddy looking over them. they must think that there is something or someone who is going to say, it's okay, you'll be all right, I love you. so I'm not going to watch the rest of this video because, if it was your father or the father his nuts would allow him to show up and fix everything. but he hasn't and he won't. so remember, don't step on cracks, don't carry your opened umbrella into a building, don't ever eat any shellfish. and, for gods sake never believe in false idols like smartphones and youtube. good luck.
If God sees the future He sees 100 billion people dead resurrected judged and in the afteroife and he sees everything everyone will say and do including Christ for infinity. How does he see that all TODAY?!
I am and remain an open theist… the thing that caught me off guard toward the end of the video was what you said when you were trying to sum up why you switched back to classic theism. You gave a bunch of what I felt to be not good reasons because they weren’t aligned with what I believe God's essence to be in agape love. Then at the last second you threw in that "God is Love" was one of the reasons you switched back to classic theism. That makes no sense to me. The fact that God is love is precisely why I am an open theist. Love is dynamic not static and therefor I believe God is dynamic not static. How did God is Love become a catalyst for you to change your view back to classic theism? It makes no sense, a God outside of time can’t truly agape love anything much less be agape love himself. All due respect to Hart but there is most certainly a strand of Jewish thought that views God as more dynamic then static, specifically I would argue the ones who wrote and espoused the TANAK … having said that I grant that there is a varied view of Jewish thought on the topic and so it’s not simply Jewish thought as if they monolithically believe in a dynamic Gady the way some open theist claim. It comes back to what you think the central essence of God is. I believe it’s love and therefore God is dynamic as love is dynamic. Miss me with the idea that love was one of your central views that caused you to go back. You would have to convince me that a static immutable being could actually Agape love and I don’t think you can.
.Molinism is very interesting and the best explanation.
Open theism makes God impotent.
Anyone who truly knows God rejects open theism out of hand. I hope your profession of faith is genuine.
Joel, I appreciate this series and hope you'll continue with it. I imagine it's challenging to share very personal stuff without somehow making it only about yourself and thus limiting the impact. Your content strikes such a solid balance of graceful relatability but without feeling toothless. And you've helped give a name to the journey I'm currently on-- I especially liked your phrasing in a prior video of "naivety, questioning, then 2nd naivety". The fact I'm fortunate enough to be unpacking my inheritance along with my 76 yr old mom, the very person who instilled my original 80s-era fundamentalism, is quite a blessing... but also double overwhelming. She's not quite as far along and is working through the earliest stages: "Wait, am I even allowed to even think about this and how is it I never wondered about any of this before?!".
With social media currently chock full of deconstruction stories, your brand of re--ordering seems more necessary than ever. Offering a kind of pastoral 'permission', to ask questions, explore, and slowly rearrange or reverse is a tonic for me. Some deconstructors just automatically package their experiences with the suggestion that you, too, should walk away from the faith tradition (even if it's from, in my case, merely exposure to a less than ideal version of it).
Also, am excited to discover "Kierkegaard and the Changelessness of God", looks intriguing. Anyway, way too many words to say: thank you.
Wow, this comment is so encouraging to me. This is exactly why I am doing these videos. To know it's genuinely helpful to real people out there is humbling! Thank you for sharing, genuinely.