The cruciform or Cross pattern stretches out horizontally, as Christ's arms did on the Cross, and in these are the *open* heart of the father and the healing wings of the Holy Spirit.

(pg.6 In the World, of the Church, by Paul Evdokimov)

 

If you are RC you would wish Evdokimov to have addressed papal authority, and as a Protestant you focus your center on comparative details of doctrine, but Evdokimov focues on the relational.

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 7/20/2009 8:35:32 AM (GMT-5)

STILL LOOKING -- and waiting for your example(s)

FOUND THIS ON MY HARDDRIVE:

The Vollenhovenian-Reformational formulation of ‘Law-Word’ comes remarkably close to the Byzantine formulation which also distinguishes the creation of the cosmos from the putting of the Law but interprets the verbal ‘putting’ not as an objectified (reified), monarchian “third mode of being” but as “God putting,” i.e., as the dynamic immanent presence in Grace of the transcendent Triune God in His Uncreated Energies and Light (Byzantine Law-Words). This procession or manifestation (doca) [doxa] of God in His Uncreated Energies would shine forth even were there no creation. That the Law-word for human marriage and whatever fulfils it in the Age to Come is Uncreated, implies that human marriage also is in the image and after the false pagan idea of deity as “temporal duration with neither beginning nor end”. In Law as “mirroring” or “imaging,” God as Absolute Origin retains the initiative. God’s Absolute Freedom is reflected in the openness of the dependent freedom of His people. Led by the Spirit we are drawing near to Him when He is drawing near to us. In our falling away from Him and from each other, He is turning away from us in wrath. What loving human father has not experienced this alienation [Hebrew term ‘hating’] from his children in his righteous indignation? Those chosen in Christ, called transcendentally out as first fruits into the Heavenly Places before the foundation of the world, are the vessels (vehicles, ministers) of God’s measures of mercy in the world, while those as yet outside in reprobation experience the very measures of wrath they mediate. Punishing my children hurts me too. Both in wrath and the Mercy which outweighs it, the relation of the vessels or pots to the Potter is one of absolute dependency–correlation, correspondence: “as above, so below” in a Biblical setting–Calvin’s Biblical teaching abounds with examples of this dual reference to Creator and creation–This is Law as “mirroring.”

PARALLELS TO THE BYZANTINE-HESYCHAST, DIVINE ESSENCE/ENERGIES DISTINCTION, ByMichael M. Morbey Dec.25th, 1979

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 7/20/2009 9:20:26 AM (GMT-5)

Open Theism, Omniscience, and the Nature of the Future
Alan Rhoda, Gregory A. Boyd, Thomas Belt

Introduction

At the heart of the ongoing debate between defenders of exhaustive definite foreknowledge and open theists is a dispute about the nature of the future. Since the former hold that God knows the future as exhaustively settled, i.e., that he knows and always has known precisely what is to happen at any future moment, they are naturally committed to the view that the future is exhaustively settled and therefore cannot be changed. According to this settled future view (SFV), the future can be completely and truly described in terms of what either will or will not happen. Open theists, on the other hand, hold that God knows the future as partly unsettled, as a field of open possibilities, which implies that the future is partly open and can therefore change as matters which are unsettled become settled. On this open future view (OFV), a complete, true description of the future must include reference to what might and might not happen.1 In this paper we explore both ways of looking at the future, note their ramifications for the open theism debate vis-à-vis the doctrine of divine omniscience, and examine some of the arguments that may be offered for each. We will argue that which view of the future is correct is a contingent matter and that the future’s being settled is not, as is often supposed, a logically necessary truth.

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 7/20/2009 9:47:20 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 7/20/2009 9:55:43 AM (GMT-5)

"...a complete, true description of the future must include reference to what might and might not happen."

Can I spell it out for you any more clearly and pointedly, Tom?

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 7/20/2009 10:00:09 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 7/20/2009 10:53:13 AM (GMT-5)

http://www.alanrhoda.net/papers/opentheism.pdf

 

The great-uncle of O-T.

This, from Alan's page one

"Conversely, God’s openness to creation, particularly his openness to developing loving relationships with his creatures, requires an open future in which their free contributions help to determine the shape of things to come."

appears to fail the test of openness. It is two-story.

Exactly Jeff. However careful a writer or thinker Hutchens is (I’m not familiar with him), this piece on the open view isn’t a “careful” piece. He never defines open theism or any claim open theists make, never “engages.” Like you said, it’s just rude and insulting to anybody (on either side of the debate) who cares about genuine dialogue to be told by Hutchens that after years of having open theism “adhere lightly to the exterior surface of [his] consciousness” he was finally able to come to a “clear conclusion” to discard it when it finally dawned on him that open theism shares the “form” of ancient heresies.

What is that form? It is “to affirm a truth in such a way as to efface or deny an equally true counterpart.” That’s the ancient form of heresy. (Of course, there is no such ancient “form” of heresy, but never mind that.) Assuming he’s right about such a form, he never says what truth it is that open theists affirm in such a way as to efface or deny another equally true counterpart. What’s the truth we’re affirming? He won’t say? What truth do we efface or deny? He’s silent. Neither truth is ever spelled out. It’s just the FORM that convicts—paradox lost. Ask POW which two truths get dropped into the blanks. He won’t say. Your questions of him become an opportunity for him to just talk about what HE wants to discuss.

Bruce: Open Theism, Omniscience, and the Nature of the Future
Alan Rhoda, Gregory A. Boyd, Thomas Belt

Introduction

At the heart of the ongoing debate between…

SOOOOO regid. So shaped by what it is fighting against.

Tom: SOOOOO what? We can say the same thing about Athanasius and Arius at Nicaea or Cyril and Nestorius at Ephesus. Dude, come on! The great doctrines at the heart of the Christian faith only saw the light of day in terms of formal creedal statements when they had errors that challenged the Fathers into action. The doctrines of the Trinity and the hypostatic union are absolutely shaped by what they fought against. No doubt about it. And they’re quite rigid—VERY rigid—in fact. They say something “specific” that rules out other specific things. That’s just the way unique truths are believed in and claims are expressed.

Is open theism shaped by opposing views? Sure. So what? What’s that prove about the claims open theists make, about the ‘openness’ THEY are promoting (not the openness YOU want to talk about, the openness Hutchens claims the Church has always believed in)? I’ll tell you what it proves—Nothing. Nothing, except that believers disagree passionately. It cannot tell you where the truth is. You have to THINK to find it, not just stand on the side of the apolitical party. You wanna talk political? Dude, reread McGuckin’s book on Cyril. Those bishops were fist fighting in the streets of Ephesus, locking doors on one another, and conniving to beat the band, locking each other out of churches, and squeezing a weak Emperor for every ounce of favor they could manage. Don’t even go there. I won’t have any pious anti-political claims about ‘Truth’ that’s won and preserved apart from politics, bartering, and conniving. Whether or not such politicking is right or wrong—there’s no history of Orthodoxy free of it. So it obviously has nothing to do with determining truth.

Did open theists want a fight? Did they want bloody noses and wrestling in the streets? No. Did they want the Evangelical Mullahs of the ETS to issue their fatwas of intolerance? No. Did they want Piper to sweat drops of blood in his attempts to get Greg booted from the BGC? You need to take your anti-political rhetoric to Piper and Ware and Sproul and stick some daisies down the barrels of their guns. There’s no place for it here.

Someday hopefully you’ll stop your own politicizing of the conversation and settled down with a cup of coffee for a conversation about THE ISSUES, about what open theists are saying about openness. Are they right or wrong? They could be wrong. Could be right. Could be both in a way nobody's been able to articulate yet. But you’ll have to actually ENGAGE the view, the actual biblical and theological claims open theists make, if you at all care about what’s going on. Scribbling graffiti (“Classical form of heresy!” or “All ‘isms’ are heresies!”) over top the conversation is just pointless.

Tom

THIS IS FROM THE THREAD: http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=7&m=106353

First, let me move the discussion to the thread I started, which Alan also posted on.

I have no other impression of Alan tha he is smart and articulate.

Tom, in light of the other thread and Alan's posting there...ONE post here about how the traditional mystery of synergy seemingly evaporating (as it does in the culture) in favor of thinking that is comfortable with with where outright "creatures...determine the shape of things to come"...it is fine for me to contrast the apple of Alan's definition of openness with the orange of the way I was using the word.  

But, Tom, I agree that Alan does a good job -- and excellent job (!!!) arguing for his understanding of openness. I think we all agree on that one.

What I did is UNDERLINE a key place that (I thought) clearly illustrated Alans use of "openness" and then I very briefly stated why this definition was different from my definition.

I think that is fair, and productive.

How we cooperate with God seems to me a mystery -- you and D. posted how many threads on that one? Alan's post on the other thread, and the enture threat itself is about mystery. And after posting a quote from Alan's other paper aand its lin on the other thread and the "five-fold" paper being encouraged here... AND, having found a simple example of two-story division presupposition in the thesis portion of the paper I simply posted as brief as possible here.

Now to take this to the other thread so that Alan's paper can be discussed here from other angles -- whether two-story or one...

Tom said...
Alan IS brilliant. No doubt about it. We all hit the jack-pot when he converted to OV! Hahaha!

POW, can I ask a couple things?

a) What do you mean by "two-story"?
b) What is there in Alan's comment that makes you think he adopts a "two-story" worldview?
and lastly,
c) What do you think ALAN means by "openness"?

The last question is all-important. You cannot adopt a definition of "openness" different from Alan's and then claim Alan's argument fails because it fails to satisfy YOUR definition of "openness." Alan isn't arguing for your understanding of openness. He's arguing for HIS understanding of it. And his understanding actually precludes a two-story (commonly understood) universe. It's BECAUSE there's continuity and integrity to the relationship (and the unity of the relationship) between God AND the world (i.e., NO two-story approach) that God's openness TO the world entails the openness OF the world to God and to its future becoming. That's all Alan's saying, and that ain't no two-story story.

Tom

 

Tom, the personal criticisms of me are well aimed, and timely. Thank you.

I'll try -- up to my abilities -- to answer some here.

Bruce: Tom, you me and Hutchens all seem to think that OV-ers come in a variety of flavors. But where it bothers you to not have one of them used as an example to illustrate where denial of something could lead them into heresy, to me (and I think Hutchens chooses to do this, as a writer and teacher) it makes perfect sense to see Hutchens do this. The article is short; he makes one point and stops.

But I understand how and why this bothers you, Tom.

Tom:  Ask POW which two truths get dropped into the blanks. He won’t say.

Bruce: Sorry. I'd NOW answer now that it is that God and man act together, in a mystery.

Tom: SOOOOO what?

Bruce:  Sooooorrrrrrry! 

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 7/21/2009 11:07:50 AM (GMT-5)