1. The Battle for God: The Dangers of Open Theism Copyright Norman L. Geisler 2007

2. Outline: I. Importance of Battle for God II. Two Fronts of the Battle I. Importance of Battle for God II. Two Fronts of the Battle III. Proponents of Open Theism III. Proponents of Open Theism IV. Beliefs of the Open Theism IV. Beliefs of the Open Theism IV. Dangers of Open Theism IV. Dangers of Open Theism

3. The Importance of the Battle 1. All Basic Doctrines are Rooted in God

4. The Importance of the Battle 1. All Basic Doctrines are Rooted in God Christ is the Son of God

5. The Importance of the Battle 1. All Basic Doctrines are Rooted in God Christ is the Son of God Miracles are special acts of God Miracles are special acts of God

6. The Importance of the Battle 1. All Basic Doctrines are Rooted in God Christ is the Son of God Miracles are special acts of God Miracles are special acts of God The Bible is the Word of God The Bible is the Word of God

7. The Importance of the Battle 1. All Basic Doctrines are Rooted in God Christ is the Son of God Miracles are special acts of God Miracles are special acts of God The Bible is the Word of God The Bible is the Word of God Believers are the Church of God.

8. The Importance of the Battle 1. All Basic Doctrines are Rooted in God Christ is the Son of God Miracles are special acts of God Miracles are special acts of God The Bible is the Word of God The Bible is the Word of God Believers are the Church of God. It all gets back to which view of God. It all gets back to which view of God.

9. The Importance of the Battle 2. We can’t recognize a false God unless we know the true God.

10. The Importance of the Battle 2. We can’t recognize a false God unless we know the true God. We can’t recognize a counterfeit unless we know the genuine!

11. The Importance of the Battle 3. We can’t know the true God unless we know the truth about God. Jesus said, “God is a spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:24).

12. The Battle for God I. Importance of Battle for God II. Two Fronts of the Battle A. External B. Internal The Battle for God I. Importance of Battle for God II. Two Fronts of the Battle A. External B. Internal

13. A. The External Battle Theism versus: Deism Finite Godism Atheism Pantheism Panentheism Polytheism A. The External Battle Theism versus: Deism Finite Godism Atheism Pantheism Panentheism Polytheism

14. Deism: God made the world but does not act miraculously in it Jefferson cut the miracles out of his Bible. Jefferson cut the miracles out of his Bible. He said, “The day will come when the account of the birth of Christ as accepted in the Trinitarian churches will be classed with the fable of Minerva springing from the brain of Jupiter” (Henry W. Foote, Thomas Jefferson, 49). He said, “The day will come when the account of the birth of Christ as accepted in the Trinitarian churches will be classed with the fable of Minerva springing from the brain of Jupiter” (Henry W. Foote, Thomas Jefferson, 49). Jefferson cut the miracles out of his Bible. Jefferson cut the miracles out of his Bible. He said, “The day will come when the account of the birth of Christ as accepted in the Trinitarian churches will be classed with the fable of Minerva springing from the brain of Jupiter” (Henry W. Foote, Thomas Jefferson, 49). He said, “The day will come when the account of the birth of Christ as accepted in the Trinitarian churches will be classed with the fable of Minerva springing from the brain of Jupiter” (Henry W. Foote, Thomas Jefferson, 49). Thomas Jefferson

15. Theism versus Deism Beyond World Beyond world & in the world & not in the world Problem: God did the big miracle (creation) but not smaller ones (like resurrection )

16. Finite Godism: God is limited in power and/or perfection Rabi Kushner said: Rabi Kushner said: “There are some things God does not control.” “There are some things God does not control.” And we “…need to forgive God for not making a better world…” (When Bad Things Happen to Good People, 45, 147). And we “…need to forgive God for not making a better world…” (When Bad Things Happen to Good People, 45, 147). Rabi Kushner said: Rabi Kushner said: “There are some things God does not control.” “There are some things God does not control.” And we “…need to forgive God for not making a better world…” (When Bad Things Happen to Good People, 45, 147). And we “…need to forgive God for not making a better world…” (When Bad Things Happen to Good People, 45, 147).

17. Theism vs. Finite Godism Infinite Finite Problems: 1. Contrary to principle of causality. 2. There is something more than God (viz., an infinite Being). 3. No guarantee of victory over evil (in which case evil is more ultimate than good). Theism vs. Finite Godism Infinite Finite Problems: 1. Contrary to principle of causality. 2. There is something more than God (viz., an infinite Being). 3. No guarantee of victory over evil (in which case evil is more ultimate than good).

18. Atheism: Nietzsche 1844-1900 “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?” God

19. Pantheism: God is All Science and Health Science and Health “God is identical with nature, but nature is spiritual and is not expressed in matter” (119). “God is identical with nature, but nature is spiritual and is not expressed in matter” (119). “God is all…. Therefore, all that really exists is in and of God” (339, 240). “God is all…. Therefore, all that really exists is in and of God” (339, 240). “Evil is but an illusion, and has no real basis” (480). “Evil is but an illusion, and has no real basis” (480). Science and Health Science and Health “God is identical with nature, but nature is spiritual and is not expressed in matter” (119). “God is identical with nature, but nature is spiritual and is not expressed in matter” (119). “God is all…. Therefore, all that really exists is in and of God” (339, 240). “God is all…. Therefore, all that really exists is in and of God” (339, 240). “Evil is but an illusion, and has no real basis” (480). “Evil is but an illusion, and has no real basis” (480).

20. Theism versus Pantheism God made all God is all I am not God I am God Evil is realEvil isn’t real God made all God is all I am not God I am God Evil is realEvil isn’t real

21. Problems with Pantheism: Problems with Pantheism: 1. It denies sense experience, yet uses it to find and share truth. 2. It claims we can change from illusion to enlightenment; a. We can change. b. We are God. c. Yet God cannot change. 3. If error is not real, then why try to refute it (which they do). 1. It denies sense experience, yet uses it to find and share truth. 2. It claims we can change from illusion to enlightenment; a. We can change. b. We are God. c. Yet God cannot change. 3. If error is not real, then why try to refute it (which they do).

22. Panentheism: God is in all Panentheism: God is in all God is limited God is limited God has two poles God has two poles The world is God’s body The world is God’s body God is ever changing God is ever changing God is growing better God is growing better God is not in control God is not in control Alfred North Whitehead

23. Theism versus Panentheism One Pole Two Poles Pure Actuality Actuality and One Pole Two Poles Pure Actuality Actuality and & no potentiality potentiality SimpleComplex InfiniteFinite IndependentDependent Absolutely perfectNot perfect Unchanging Changing & no potentiality potentiality SimpleComplex InfiniteFinite IndependentDependent Absolutely perfectNot perfect Unchanging Changing

24. The Problems with Panentheism

25. Polytheism: Many finite gods "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345). "You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you…." (Ibid., 346). "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345). "You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you…." (Ibid., 346). Joseph Smith

26. Theism vs. Polytheism One God Many Gods Infinite Finite Problems: 1. Every finite needs and infinite Cause (So, gods need a God). 2. Unity (oneness) of universe needs One Cause (mathematical and physical laws; anthropic principle). 3. There can’t be two infinite Beings. Problems: 1. Every finite needs and infinite Cause (So, gods need a God). 2. Unity (oneness) of universe needs One Cause (mathematical and physical laws; anthropic principle). 3. There can’t be two infinite Beings.

27. Polytheism: Many finite gods Polytheism: Many finite gods Gen. 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Gen. 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Ex. 20:3: “You shall have no other gods before me.” Ex. 20:3: “You shall have no other gods before me.” Deut. 6:4: “Hear O Israel: The LORD out God, the LORD is one!” Deut. 6:4: “Hear O Israel: The LORD out God, the LORD is one!” Mark 12:29: Jesus said, “the first of all the command- ments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.’” Mark 12:29: Jesus said, “the first of all the command- ments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.’” 1Cor. 8:5-6: “For even if there are so-called gods… yet there is for us only one God, the Father of whom are all things….” 1Cor. 8:5-6: “For even if there are so-called gods… yet there is for us only one God, the Father of whom are all things….” Gen. 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Gen. 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Ex. 20:3: “You shall have no other gods before me.” Ex. 20:3: “You shall have no other gods before me.” Deut. 6:4: “Hear O Israel: The LORD out God, the LORD is one!” Deut. 6:4: “Hear O Israel: The LORD out God, the LORD is one!” Mark 12:29: Jesus said, “the first of all the command- ments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.’” Mark 12:29: Jesus said, “the first of all the command- ments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.’” 1Cor. 8:5-6: “For even if there are so-called gods… yet there is for us only one God, the Father of whom are all things….” 1Cor. 8:5-6: “For even if there are so-called gods… yet there is for us only one God, the Father of whom are all things….”

28. The Battle for God I. Importance of Battle for God II. Two Fronts of the Battle A. External Front B. Internal Front The Battle for God I. Importance of Battle for God II. Two Fronts of the Battle A. External Front B. Internal Front

29. Outline: I. Importance of Battle for God II. Two Fronts of the Battle I. Importance of Battle for God II. Two Fronts of the Battle III. Proponents of Open Theism III. Proponents of Open Theism

30. Open Theist: Clark Pinnock Open Theist: Clark Pinnock Professor: Former professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and McMasters in Toronto Former professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and McMasters in Toronto Author: Author: The Openness of God The Openness of God The Most Moved Mover The Most Moved MoverProfessor: Former professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and McMasters in Toronto Former professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and McMasters in Toronto Author: Author: The Openness of God The Openness of God The Most Moved Mover The Most Moved Mover

31. Open Theist: John Sanders Author of: The God Who Risks Professor at: Hendrix College in Conway, Arkansas Author of: The God Who Risks Professor at: Hendrix College in Conway, Arkansas

32. Open Theist: Greg Boyd Pastor: Minneapolis, MN Professor: Former professor at Bethel College Former professor at Bethel CollegeAuthor: God of the Possible God of the Possible

33. Outline: I. Importance of Battle for God II. Two Fronts of the Battle I. Importance of Battle for God II. Two Fronts of the Battle III. Proponents of Open Theism III. Proponents of Open Theism IV. Beliefs of Open Theism IV. Beliefs of Open Theism

34. Similarities of Open Theism to Theism God is infinite God is creator God is uncaused God is necessary God is supernatural God’s Word is infallible Similarities of Open Theism to Theism God is infinite God is creator God is uncaused God is necessary God is supernatural God’s Word is infallible

35. Differences of Open Theism from Theism God is Complex God is Changeable God is Temporal God is Changeable God is Temporal God is not all-knowing God is not all-knowing Bible prophecies are fallible Bible prophecies are fallible

36. Outline: I. Importance of Battle for God II. Two Fronts of the Battle I. Importance of Battle for God II. Two Fronts of the Battle III. Proponents of Open Theism III. Proponents of Open Theism IV. Beliefs of Open Theism IV. Beliefs of Open Theism V. Dangers of Open Theism V. Dangers of Open Theism

37. Dangers of Open Theism 1. They claim God is temporal. a. But what is temporal is also spatial and material. b. But God is neither. c. Hence, God cannot be temporal. Dangers of Open Theism 1. They claim God is temporal. a. But what is temporal is also spatial and material. b. But God is neither. c. Hence, God cannot be temporal.

38. Dangers of Open Theism 1. They claim God is temporal. a. But what is temporal is also spatial and material. b. But God is neither. c. Hence, God cannot be temporal. Further, if God were material, He would not be eternal for He would be running down (2 Law of Thermodynamics). Dangers of Open Theism 1. They claim God is temporal. a. But what is temporal is also spatial and material. b. But God is neither. c. Hence, God cannot be temporal. Further, if God were material, He would not be eternal for He would be running down (2 Law of Thermodynamics).

39. Dangers of Open Theism 2. They claim God does not know future free acts for sure. a. But the Bible says God does know future free acts for sure. b. Hence, Open Theism is unbiblical. Dangers of Open Theism 2. They claim God does not know future free acts for sure. a. But the Bible says God does know future free acts for sure. b. Hence, Open Theism is unbiblical.

40. Bible: God Knows the Future for Sure “I am God and there is none like Me,… declaring the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:9-10). “I am God and there is none like Me,… declaring the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:9-10). “Whom He foreknew, He also predestined…” (Rom. 8:29). “Whom He foreknew, He also predestined…” (Rom. 8:29). “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…” (Eph. 1:4). “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…” (Eph. 1:4). “His understanding is infinite” (Psa. 147:5). “His understanding is infinite” (Psa. 147:5).

41. Dangers of Open Theism 3. They claim God changes His Mind. a. But an all-knowing Mind can’t change for there is nothing new to learn if He already knows all things. b. And change about what He thinks implies He was in error before He changed to know the truth. c. But an infinite Mind cannot err. Dangers of Open Theism 3. They claim God changes His Mind. a. But an all-knowing Mind can’t change for there is nothing new to learn if He already knows all things. b. And change about what He thinks implies He was in error before He changed to know the truth. c. But an infinite Mind cannot err.

42. Dangers of Open Theism The Bible Says God does not change His Mind: “God is not a man…that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do it?” (Num. 23:19). “The Strength of Israel [God] will not lie or repent. For He is not a man, that He should repent” (1Sam. 15:29). Dangers of Open Theism The Bible Says God does not change His Mind: “God is not a man…that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do it?” (Num. 23:19). “The Strength of Israel [God] will not lie or repent. For He is not a man, that He should repent” (1Sam. 15:29).

43. Problem: Bible says God“repents” Response: 1. Bible says God does not repent ( Num. 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29), and Bible does not contradict itself. 2. God relents when people repent (Jon. 3), but he does not repent (change His mind). He knew what they would do it in advance (Isa. 46:10). 3. God regrets when we sin (Gen. 6:6), but He does not repent (change His mind). 4. God appears to change when we do, but actually we change in relation to God; He does not change in relation to us. Response: 1. Bible says God does not repent ( Num. 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29), and Bible does not contradict itself. 2. God relents when people repent (Jon. 3), but he does not repent (change His mind). He knew what they would do it in advance (Isa. 46:10). 3. God regrets when we sin (Gen. 6:6), but He does not repent (change His mind). 4. God appears to change when we do, but actually we change in relation to God; He does not change in relation to us.

45. The Pillar Doesn’t Move; The person Does

46. The Point of the Pillar The pillar does not move when the person does. The person moves in relation to the pillar. The pillar does not move in relation to the person. So, it is with God and us. The pillar does not move when the person does. The person moves in relation to the pillar. The pillar does not move in relation to the person. So, it is with God and us.

47. Dangers of Open Theism 4. They claim God is complex (has parts) but that He is also infinite. But an infinite being can’t have parts because-- a. Everything with parts can have more parts. b. But there cannot be more than an infinite. c. Hence, an infinite Being cannot have parts.

48. Dangers of Open Theism 4. They claim God is complex (has parts) but is also infinite But an infinite being can’t have parts because-- a. Everything with parts can have more parts. b. But there cannot be more than an infinite. c. Hence, an infinite Being cannot have parts. 4. They claim God is complex (has parts) but is also infinite But an infinite being can’t have parts because-- a. Everything with parts can have more parts. b. But there cannot be more than an infinite. c. Hence, an infinite Being cannot have parts.

49. Dangers of Open Theism 5. They claim God can change. a. But whatever changes has parts. b. In all accidental change, part remains and part does not.* c. But God has no parts. d. Hence, God cannot change. *But God can’t change substantially since He is a Necessary Being and He can’t go out of existence. Dangers of Open Theism 5. They claim God can change. a. But whatever changes has parts. b. In all accidental change, part remains and part does not.* c. But God has no parts. d. Hence, God cannot change. *But God can’t change substantially since He is a Necessary Being and He can’t go out of existence.

50. Dangers of Open Theism 6. They claim the Bible is infallible and yet God can’t know future free acts. But this can’t be true because— a. The Bible predicted Christ’s death (Isa. 53; Rev. 13:8; Acts 2:23), yet— a. The Bible predicted Christ’s death (Isa. 53; Rev. 13:8; Acts 2:23), yet— b. Jesus freely chose to die on the Cross (Jn. 10:18): “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” b. Jesus freely chose to die on the Cross (Jn. 10:18): “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” c. So God knew for sure what Jesus would freely choose. c. So God knew for sure what Jesus would freely choose.

51. Dangers of Open Theism 6. They claim the Bible is infallible even though it says the test for a false prophet is whether or not his predictions comes to pass (Deut. 18:22). But this can’t be true because— a. They admit some predictions by God may not come to pass (since His knowledge of the future is fallible). a. They admit some predictions by God may not come to pass (since His knowledge of the future is fallible). b. Thus, God would be a false prophet. b. Thus, God would be a false prophet.

52. Dangers of Open Theism 6. They claim God is temporal. a. But what is temporal undergoes change, for time measures change. b. Hence, a temporal God changes. c. But God cannot change. d. Hence, God cannot be temporal. Dangers of Open Theism 6. They claim God is temporal. a. But what is temporal undergoes change, for time measures change. b. Hence, a temporal God changes. c. But God cannot change. d. Hence, God cannot be temporal.

53. Dangers of Open Theism 7. Confusing God’s nature and activity. (What God is and what God does) a. God is eternal, but He acts in time. b. God is unchanging but He produces change in things. Dangers of Open Theism 7. Confusing God’s nature and activity. (What God is and what God does) a. God is eternal, but He acts in time. b. God is unchanging but He produces change in things.

54. Dangers of Open Theism 7. Confusing God’s nature and activity. (What God is and what God does) a. God is eternal, but He acts in time. b. God is unchanging but He produces change in things. 8. Assuming God’s nature changes because His relationships do. a.The person changes in relation to the pillar, but– b.The pillar does not change in relation to the person. Dangers of Open Theism 7. Confusing God’s nature and activity. (What God is and what God does) a. God is eternal, but He acts in time. b. God is unchanging but He produces change in things. 8. Assuming God’s nature changes because His relationships do. a.The person changes in relation to the pillar, but– b.The pillar does not change in relation to the person.

55. Dangers of Open Theism 9. Assuming figures of speech are literal. 9. Assuming figures of speech are literal. If so, then God has-- If so, then God has-- – Arms – Legs – Eyes – Wings – Memory lapses!

56. Conclusions: Conclusions: Open Theism is : Open Theism is : –Unbiblical –Illogical –Unorthodox Open Theism is : Open Theism is : –Unbiblical –Illogical –Unorthodox

57. Open Theism is Unorthodox because it denies orthodox doctrines such as: The Sovereignty of God The Sovereignty of God The Omniscience of God The Omniscience of God The Immutability of God The Immutability of God The Simplicity of God The Simplicity of God The Eternality of God The Eternality of God The Infallibility of the Bible The Infallibility of the Bible Note: These doctrines were taught by the orthodox Fathers and expressed in the orthodox Creeds of the Church. Note: These doctrines were taught by the orthodox Fathers and expressed in the orthodox Creeds of the Church.

58. For More Information On Accredited Classes in Apologetics On Accredited Classes in Apologetics Southern Evangelical Seminary Southern Evangelical Seminary –1-800-77-TRUTH –www.ses.edu On Book, Tapes, and Videos On Book, Tapes, and Videos –1-704-846-1226 –www.ImpactApologetics.com On Accredited Classes in Apologetics On Accredited Classes in Apologetics Southern Evangelical Seminary Southern Evangelical Seminary –1-800-77-TRUTH –www.ses.edu On Book, Tapes, and Videos On Book, Tapes, and Videos –1-704-846-1226 –www.ImpactApologetics.com

60. Arguments for Simplicity: The Argument from God’s: 1. Uncausality 2. Infinity 3. Independence 4. Necessity 5. Unity Arguments for Simplicity: The Argument from God’s: 1. Uncausality 2. Infinity 3. Independence 4. Necessity 5. Unity

61. Arguments for Simplicity: 1. Argument from Uncausality: a. God is an uncaused Being. b. But whatever has irreducible complexity is caused. c. Therefore, God does not have irreducible complexity. Arguments for Simplicity: 1. Argument from Uncausality: a. God is an uncaused Being. b. But whatever has irreducible complexity is caused. c. Therefore, God does not have irreducible complexity.

62. Arguments for Simplicity: 2. Argument from Infinity a. God is an infinite Being b. But an infinite can’t have parts 1) Whatever has parts can have more parts. 2) But there cannot be more than an infinite. c. Hence, God has no parts. Arguments for Simplicity: 2. Argument from Infinity a. God is an infinite Being b. But an infinite can’t have parts 1) Whatever has parts can have more parts. 2) But there cannot be more than an infinite. c. Hence, God has no parts.

63. Arguments for Simplicity: 3. The Argument from Independence a. God is an Independent Being. b. Whatever is composed is dependent on another who composed it. c.Hence, God is not composed. Arguments for Simplicity: 3. The Argument from Independence a. God is an Independent Being. b. Whatever is composed is dependent on another who composed it. c.Hence, God is not composed.

64. Arguments for Simplicity: 4. Argument from God’s Necessity a. A Necessary Being has not potentiality (not to exist). b.What has no potentiality cannot be composed. c.Hence, God has no composition. Arguments for Simplicity: 4. Argument from God’s Necessity a. A Necessary Being has not potentiality (not to exist). b.What has no potentiality cannot be composed. c.Hence, God has no composition.

65. Arguments for Simplicity: 5. Argument from God’s Unity a.God has only one essence 1. There is a plurality of persons, but-- 2. A unity of essence in God. b.What has parts, has plurality in its essence. c.Hence, God has no parts. Arguments for Simplicity: 5. Argument from God’s Unity a.God has only one essence 1. There is a plurality of persons, but-- 2. A unity of essence in God. b.What has parts, has plurality in its essence. c.Hence, God has no parts.

66. Objections to God’s Simplicity: 1.Historical Objection 2.Theological Objections 3.Philosophical Objections. Objections to God’s Simplicity: 1.Historical Objection 2.Theological Objections 3.Philosophical Objections.

67. Objections to Simplicity: Historical Objection: It comes from Greek philosophy Response: 1.So does process theology. 2.So does logic. 3.This is a “Genetic Fallacy.” Yet they accept these! Objections to Simplicity: Historical Objection: It comes from Greek philosophy Response: 1.So does process theology. 2.So does logic. 3.This is a “Genetic Fallacy.” Yet they accept these!

68. Objections to Simplicity: Theological Objection 1: The Trinity denies absolute simplicity of God. Response: 1.This confuses essence and persons in God. 2.There is only one essence, yet there are three persons in God. Objections to Simplicity: Theological Objection 1: The Trinity denies absolute simplicity of God. Response: 1.This confuses essence and persons in God. 2.There is only one essence, yet there are three persons in God.

69. Theological Objection 2: God has many attributes. But all members of the Trinity are identical to the same essence. Hence, they are the same. Response: This confuses identity of object and identity of meaning. 1. All member of the Trinity are identical to the same object (thing); 2. Yet their meaning implies an opposing relation (e.g., same road between two cities does not mean they are the same cities.

70. Philosophical Objection 1: Simplicity is not intelligible Response: 1. It can’t be denied unless it is understood. 2. It is apprehendible, even if not comprehendible. 3. It is no more difficult to understand than infinity or uncausality which they claim to understand.

71. Philosophical Objection 2: Simplicity is not intelligible Response: 1. It can’t be denied unless it is understood. 2. It can be apprehend, even if not comprehended. 3. It is no more difficult to understand than infinity or uncausality. 4. It may be unintelligible to us (e.g., an unknown language) but not unintell- igible in itself (e.g., a square circle).

72. Philosophical Objection 3: If God is simple, then all properties are identical. But they are not. Response: 1. God’s many attributes are not the same. 2. Rather, the same God has many attributes. 3. God has many names, since no one tells all about Him. (e.g., a stone is round, hard, & grey)

73. Philosophical Objection 4: If God is identical to His properties, then He is a property (= abstract object), not a concrete person. But He is personal. Response: 1. This wrongly assumed they are predicated of God univocally (not analogically). 2. This assumes the platonic view that properties exist apart from things.

74. Problems of Open Theism 2. They claim God is a Necessary Being. a. But a Necessary Being has no potentiality in its Being (not to exist). b. But what has no potentiality cannot change in its Being, for change is the actualization of a potentiality. Problems of Open Theism 2. They claim God is a Necessary Being. a. But a Necessary Being has no potentiality in its Being (not to exist). b. But what has no potentiality cannot change in its Being, for change is the actualization of a potentiality.