Suppose we assume that
- God exists,
- God is omniscient (i.e., God infallibly knows all of reality as it is),
- The future is causally open (i.e., there are multiple causally possible futures because some future event possibilities are causally undetermined).
Now, suppose a sequence S of events (E1, E2, … , En) plays out a certain way and that some of the events in that sequence are causally undetermined. Prior to those underdetermined events, reality could have gone in a different direction than it in fact did. Suppose, then, that after S God rolls back reality to the beginning of S. Because some of the events in S could have played out differently, there can be no assurance that repeated roll-backs will turn out the same way every time. Hence, it cannot be infallibly known at the beginning of S which specific sequence of events will occur. Thus, it cannot be infallibly known whether S will occur. Hence, there is no specific sequence of events which is such that it will occur. Therefore, the mere fact that, on some occasion, the sequence of events in S does occur, does not suffice to ground infallible foreknowledge that that sequence was going to occur.
Given (a), (b), and (c), therefore, there cannot be infallible foreknowledge of how things are going to play out. A causally open future must, therefore, be epistemically open for God.
Hi Dr. Rhoda,
Hope all is well with you. I’ve been heavily considering a transition to Eastern Orthodoxy lately (grown up a baptist my whole life), I’ve been visiting my local parish here in south Florida. I’d say that I affirm open theism very much, but my priest told me that if I affirm open theism I cannot become an eastern orthodox Christian at all. In fact, the way my priest was speaking sounds identical to classical theism and claims that this is the ‘patristic witness’. This of course shocked me because your name popped up in my mind. I know that you’re an open theist who has blogged about your transition to eastern orthodoxy. Three pressing questions:
1) are you still an eastern orthodox Christian?
2) what does your priest think of your stance and writings in favor of open theism?
3) is what my priest said true?
Please help.
Hi Zoogie,
I appreciate your concerns. My time is short right now, so I’ll try to answer your questions briefly but hopefully still helpfully.
1. I am member of the Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC), not the Eastern Orthodox Church (EO). The EOC is a very small group formed by ex-Protestants who highly esteem EO theology and practice, but who retain a broadly Protestant ecclesiology. More specifically, whereas the EO claims to be “the” one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, the EOC only claims to be “part of” the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
2. My EOC priest is perfectly fine with my Open Theism. For him all that matters, theologically speaking, is that I affirm the Creed and the central deliverances of the 7 ecumenical councils.
3. IMHO, your priest is mistaken. The EO is not as monolithic as it may initially seem on the outside. Some EO priests and scholars (e.g., David Bentley Hart) are hard-core classical theists. Others don’t have a hard position on classical theism. They (like my priest) focus on the EO core: Scripture, early tradition, the Creed, the ecumenical councils, and the sacraments. For the latter type of priest, Open Theism would be *tangential* to EO. So long as it’s developed in a way that doesn’t conflict with the EO core, Open Theism is neither orthodox nor anti-orthodox but an optional theologoumenon.
4. Why do some EO priests think that classical theism is part of core EO? I think there are three main reasons for this: (a) The EO has to some extent been influenced by Thomism and other forms of classical theism. (b) Like the EO generally, its priests tend to be very tradition-bound. They carry on the faith the way *they* received it. If they were taught it by a hard-core classical theist, perhaps one influenced by Thomism, then they will be inclined to see classical theism as part of the EO core. (c) Many people who profess “classical theism” haven’t thought it through in a careful and nuanced manner. They conflate absolute or “unqualified” classical theism with “qualified” classical theism, unaware that there are ways of affirming “simplicity”, “impassibility,” etc. without affirming them in an unqualified way. Here’s a relevant post of mine: http://alanrhoda.net/wordpress/2023/09/two-varieties-of-classical-theism/.
I hope that helps!