Contending For The Faith---Part 38

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Open Theism

A woman in the Vatican II sect was very upset. She had prayed that God would lead her to a find a good husband. After ten years, and in her mid-thirties, she met "Bill." Also a member of the Vatican II sect, he seemed to have everything for which she had been seeking. Bill was two years older, was never married, had a good job, wanted to raise a family, and went to "mass" each Saturday evening for Sunday. 

After dating ten months, Bill proposed and they got engaged. They went to "pre-Cana," and were married a little over six months later. Then things changed. After having been married only eight months, she found out Bill was having an affair with a woman colleague at his office. He asked forgiveness, and she forgave him. Two years later they had a baby. When the child was less than two years old, she caught him in another affair. He broke it off, but began to grow angry and verbally abusive. Soon, he started slapping her. When Bill refused to go to marriage counseling, she took their child, and went back to live with her parents. She filed for divorce and sought an "annulment."  

The woman went to her Vatican II sect "priest" for counseling. The lady was upset with God. "Why would God lead me to marry such an awful man?" she asked. The cleric responded, "“Don’t be mad at God. It wasn’t His fault. He gave you the best and wisest direction He could. He just didn’t realize what kind of a monster your husband would become. If He had known, He would never have led you to Bill. Take comfort in the fact that God is looking after you."

I hear stories like this more frequently. Like some Protestant sects, some members and clerics of the Vatican II sect deny that God's knowledge encompasses the future. It has been called Open Theism. In a related way, some Vatican II sect clergy go so far as to implicitly deny the Divinity of Christ by asserting Jesus did not know He was God until after the Resurrection. Since God is omniscient, if Christ wasn't omniscient at any time, He could not be God. This error goes back a long way with the Modernists. In Lamentabili Sane (1907), Pope St. Pius X condemned the following proposition:

35. Christ did not always possess the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.

In this post, the heresy of Open Theism will be explained and refuted. (I wish to credit the vary many books, articles, and various reference works which I used in compiling this post. I give credit to them and take none for myself.---Introibo). 

An Overview of Open Theism

There are differing points of view among the various "Openness" theologians and philosophers, so I’d like to hone in on a central issue that unifies them all. All Open Theists allege that God does not know which future contingent events will occur. Several issues need clarification first. Openness proponents are not claiming that God knows no future events. He does know several kinds of things regarding the future. 

God knows how He will respond to certain human actions such as sin and love. He knows future events that are causally determined from previous ones (e.g., future earthquakes based on his infallible knowledge of plate tectonics and other factors); He knows His own future actions (e.g., “I will rescue My people Israel in four hundred years,” etc.); because He has infallible knowledge of all present and past events, He knows everything that can be known about the future that can be inferred from the past and present (e.g., a non-citizen will not be elected president of the U.S. in 2028); and He knows many other things that can be inferred from His infallible present knowledge.

What God does not know for sure, according to Openness proponents, are future contingent events. Yet, what are they? Future contingent events are future events that are not causally determined by present events. Future human actions would be prime examples of future contingent events. For example, God does not know for sure what I will have for dinner tonight, who will ultimately decide to run for president of the U.S. in 2028, and what sins any particular person might commit tomorrow.

God not only does not know for sure what will happen in such situations as these, but He also does not know for sure what would happen given other conditions in such situations. This latter kind of knowledge is referred to as “conditional future contingent events.” An example of this is that not only does God not know for sure who will win the next presidential election, He does not know what a person who is not elected would do in a given situation if he would have been elected. At best, God knows what he could do in future situations, but not what that person would do if faced with them.

As a result of what God does and does not know, He is ignorant of virtually all of humanity’s future. He knows future possibilities but not future realities; he knows what could happen but not what will happen. He is a very good guesser, no doubt, and His guesses or predictions are based on infallible present knowledge, but He sometimes gets things wrong. Thus God can make assessments about our future actions based on our present character, but sometimes He is mistaken and surprised (as the Vatican II sect priest stated to the woman in the story at the beginning of this post). 

Why do they believe this about God? Openness proponents typically maintain that there is a dichotomy here such that if God foreknows our future actions, then they cannot be free actions. However, if we do have free will, then God cannot know the future free actions of His creatures. Calvinist heretics will never be among open theists since they deny humans have free will. The other Protestant sects that affirm free will, as well as the Vatican II sect, will fall prey to this heresy. 

The Teaching of the Church

From theologian Ott:

By the knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the future free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide)...The dogma of human freedom is not abrogated by the dogma of the infallible certainty of the Divine prevision of future free actions...Divine foreknowledge imposes as little compulsion on future actions as human remembering does on the past. (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pg. 41; Emphasis in original).  

God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty(Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.) By these are understood free actions of the future which indeed will never occur, but which would occur, if certain conditions were fulfilled...The Thomists deny that this knowledge of the conditioned future is a special kind of Divine knowledge which precedes the decrees of the Divine Will...the Divine foreknowing of conditioned future things is is based on the infinite perfection of the Divine knowing, on the infallibility of the Divine providence, and on the practice of prayer in the Church. (Ibid, pg. 42; Emphasis in original). 

Sacred Scripture:

There are many examples in the Old Testament of God foreknowing the future actions of human beings—actions that were freely accomplished and yet were prophesied to happen. The prophet Isaiah uses this kind of knowledge as a demonstration that God is, in fact, the true God. For example, Isaiah 44:6–8 says:

Thus saith the Lord the king of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.  Who is like to me? let him call and declare: and let him set before me the order, since I appointed the ancient people: and the things to come, and that shall be hereafter, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not, neither be ye troubled, from that time I have made thee to hear, and have declared: you are my witnesses. Is there a God besides me, a maker, whom I have not known?

God also knows what would happen given different future scenarios. For example, in 1 Kings 23:6–13 the prophet describes a scenario in which Saul was intending to attack David and his men at a city called Keilah. David then inquires of God, through Abiathar the priest, whether the people of the city will surrender David into Saul’s hand if and when Saul attacks. God informs him that they will indeed do this if he remains in the city. So we see here that God knew that if David were to remain in Keilah, then Saul and his men would come after him, and if Saul were to come after him, then the men of Keilah would hand David over to Saul. These events did not happen, for David fled Keilah. So it was not that God foreknew merely what was going to happen, but what would happen

In the New Testament we also see the notion of God’s foreknowledge mentioned and described on a number of occasions. For example, in 1 Peter 1:10–11 Peter notes that the Old Testament prophets foretold the sufferings and glory of Christ. Peter also refers to groups of believers in Asia, Galatia, and elsewhere as being “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Peter 1:1–2). Likewise, Paul states in Romans 8:29 that “those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son.” Jesus himself has foreknowledge of future events that entail human freedom. For example, in his Olivet Discourse (St. Matthew 24:1– 25:46) He tells His disciples about the times and signs of the destruction of the Temple. During the Passover meal, He also foretells his betrayal—a free and sinful future action by Judas.

Many other examples could be given.

Sacred Tradition

St. Jerome: For Adam did not sin because God knew that he would do so; but God inasmuch as He is God, foreknew what Adam would do of his own free choice. (Against the Pelagians. Book 3 part 6).

St. Irenaeus: Man has received the knowledge of good and evil. It is good to obey God, and to believe in Him, and to keep His commandment, and this is the life of man; as not to obey God is evil, and this is his death. Since God, therefore, gave [to man] such mental power (magnanimitatem) man knew both the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience, that the eye of the mind, receiving experience of both, may with judgment make choice of the better things; and that he may never become indolent or neglectful of God’s command; and learning by experience that it is an evil thing which deprives him of life, that is, disobedience to God, may never attempt it at all, but that, knowing that what preserves his life, namely, obedience to God, is good, he may diligently keep it with all earnestness. Wherefore he has also had a twofold experience, possessing knowledge of both kinds, that with discipline he may make choice of the better things. …Offer to Him thy heart in a soft and tractable state, and preserve the form in which the Creator has fashioned thee, having moisture in thyself, lest, by becoming hardened, thou lose the impressions of His fingers. … If, however, thou wilt not believe in Him, and wilt flee from His hands, the cause of imperfection shall be in thee who didst not obey, but not in Him who called [thee]. … Nor, [in like manner], does the light fail because of those who have blinded themselves; but while it remains the same as ever, those who are [thus] blinded are involved in darkness through their own fault. The light does never enslave any one by necessity; nor, again, does God exercise compulsion upon any one unwilling to accept the exercise of His skill. Those persons, therefore, who have apostatized from the light given by the Father, and transgressed the law of liberty, have done so through their own fault, since they have been created free agents, and possessed of power over themselves. But God, foreknowing all things, prepared fit habitations for both, kindly conferring that light which they desire on those who seek after the light of incorruption, and resort to it; but for the despisers and mockers who avoid and turn themselves away from this light, and who do, as it were, blind themselves, He has prepared darkness suitable to persons who oppose the light, and He has inflicted an appropriate punishment upon those who try to avoid being subject to Him. (Against Heresies chapter 39).

St. John Chrysostom: But when He said, “It must needs be,” it is not as taking away the power of choosing for themselves, nor the freedom of the moral principle, nor as placing man’s life under any absolute constraint of circumstances, that He saith these things, but He foretells what would surely be; and this Luke hath set forth in another form of expression, “It is impossible but that offenses should come.” But what are the offenses? The hindrances on the right way. Thus also do those on the stage call them that are skilled in those matters, them that distort their bodies. It is not then His prediction that brings the offenses; far from it; neither because He foretold it, therefore doth it take place; but because it surely was to be, therefore He foretold it; since if those who bring in the offenses had not been minded to do wickedly, neither would the offenses have come; and if they had not been to come, neither would they have been foretold. But because those men did evil, and were incurably diseased, the offenses came, and He foretells that which is to be. (Homilies # 59 on Mathew 18:7).

Philosophical refutation:

An argument for God’s knowing future free human actions, then, can be put succinctly in the following format: 

1. God is omniscient. 

2. An omniscient being knows all truths. 

3. Therefore God knows all truths. 

4. There are truths about future contingent events (e.g., future free human actions). 

5. Therefore, God knows all truths about future contingent events.

Typically those in the Openness camp will not deny God’s omniscience; they will not deny, that is, steps 1–3. So this leaves step 4, that there are truths about future free human actions, and this is in fact the step most frequently challenged. The argument takes a number of forms, but the most persuasive of them goes something like this: “God is omniscient, which means that God knows all truths. But future free human actions are not truths. Since the future does not yet exist, there are no truths about the future. So, while God does not know future free human actions, that does not mean that he isn’t omniscient. He is omniscient, for he knows everything that can be known. Since the future doesn’t exist, it cannot be known, even by an omniscient being.”

First, remember that truth is a correspondence between a proposition and what actually is--i.e., reality.  Further, statements are either true or false, and they are either past tense, present tense, or future tense. So, it is either true or false that Donald J. Trump is President of the United States on  April 7, 2025. Of course, we know that it’s true. However, what is interesting is that facts—those things that make statements (propositions) true—can refer to issues of the past, the present, or the future. Consider this statement: “Joe Biden did lose the presidential election in 2024.” Is this statement true? Of course. Notice that it is a past fact that makes it true. Similarly, consider this statement: “Iraq will have a Communist government in 2027.” This statement, too, must be either true or false. Obviously we don’t know whether it’s true or false, but that is beside the point. It is one or the other. And what makes it either true or false is what form the future government of Iraq turns out to be—a future fact. 

Openness proponents have challenged the view that future-tense contingent statements are either true or false. They argue that such statements are neither true nor false but indeterminate. Since the future is not here yet, there are no future facts. So, for example, it is neither true nor false that Iraq will have a Communist government in 2027; it is simply indeterminate. However, this view that there are no future facts leads to a number of difficulties. First, if future-tense statements are neither true nor false, then past-tense statements cannot be true or false either, for what makes the one true (or false) is the same thing that makes the other true (or false)—namely, a fact referring to the past or a fact referring to the future. The past no longer exists, and the future is yet to exist. We can’t consistently affirm that past facts now exist but future facts do not. One is simply in the past, and the other is simply in the future. To give up on the one is to give up on the other. Surely, no one wants to claim that it is neither true nor false that Joe Biden lost the election in 2024!

Take the statement, "It is raining today in NYC." If that is true, then the statement, "It will rain in NYC tomorrow" was true yesterday. Therefore, it is more reasonable than not to believe that there are truths about future contingent events, which is step 4 in the argument presented. Given, then, agreement with steps 1–4, the conclusion, step 5—that God knows all truths about future contingent events (such as future free human actions)—must also be true.

Lastly, God exists outside of time. Everything, past, present, and future is beheld by Him even if it does not yet exist for humans. 

The Evil Consequences of Believing Open Theism

All heresies have logical corollaries which bring further evil.  

1. Lack of Confidence in God's Guidance.

On the Openness view, God does not know our future. Not only does He not know where you will have dinner tonight, for example, but He does not know for sure where you’ll be next week, or what your life and career will look like in the next five, ten, or twenty years. On such a view of God, how can humans be assured that He will guide us correctly in any future matter of significance? How can people trust a God Who either doesn’t know the future or Who merely watches our lives from a distance?

2. No Divine Comfort.

Not only does such a view of God’s foreknowledge seem to be a diminishing of what He truly knows, but it also tends to create a feeling of uneasiness, uncertainty, and even a sense that "God cannot really help me."

3. Prayer becomes mostly useless.

If God doesn't really know what will and would happen, praying to Him for something in the future would be futile. Since God can't be certain as to what will be the future free acts of His creatures, how can He intervene correctly to answer many kinds of prayer intentions? 

Conclusion

Open Theism is heretical and blasphemous. It is a denial of God's omniscience as always understood and taught by the Church. Don't let any Vatican II sect member try to convince you otherwise. For I know the plans I have for thee,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper thee and not to harm thee, plans to give thee hope and a future. (Jeremiah 29:11; Emphasis mine).