Now we’re mixing threads. Sorry. A bit of this belongs over on the other thread about Alan’s article. The rest belongs here.

ALAN: 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.

POW: Appears to fail the test of openness. It is two-story.

TOM: a) What do you mean by "two-story"?

POW:  I mean where activity in one story can proceed without affecting the other story -- the two are really one when proceeding affects 'both,' which are really then one.

TOM: If that’s how you’re defining ‘two-story’ then there’s no of it in Alan’s comments. Quite the opposite.

------------------------------

TOM: b) What is there in Alan's comment that makes you think he adopts a "two-story" worldview?

POW:  Because of where he says “free contributions help to determine the shape of things to come.” I chose this for an example because of the word “determine.” That meant to me that there were things caused by creatures that were NOT also caused by God. I see where I did not give much wieght to Alan's "help to" -- which might make me feel better about it.

TOM: I might make you feel better. But then it might not, because Alan’s “help to” might not give you all you want.

------------------------------

TOM: c) What do you think ALAN means by "openness"?

POW:  I think he means creatures causing things that God is not also causing.

TOM: Right. That’s the ‘causal’ openness. But what’s ‘causally’ open is also KNOWN to be causally open, and that’s where you get God’s knowing an open future. Can you live with that?

------------------------------

POW: What mystified me was how neither you nor Alan embraced what Hutchens offered as example of openness.

TOM: We didn’t deny the sort of openness Hutchens offered. Everybody (except Calvinist fundies) SAYS God has an open given-and-take relationship with creatures. That’s not knew. But this doesn’t get you the openness of open theism, which is a claim about God’s knowledge of the future of such relationships. Hutchens will say, “Sure, the relationship is open,” but he won’t admit God’s knowledge OF that relationship is as open AS that relationship. For him the relationship is open, but the future of the relationship is closed.

Open theists say you can’t have it both ways. Hutchesn essentially says, “Sure I can. It’s called a paradox.” I suspect this is how he’s filling in the blanks: If you affirm ‘the relationship is open’ (which is fine) but use this to efface of deny that the truth that ‘the future of the relationship is closed’ (the counterpart truth), then you fallen into the heretical ‘form’ of all ancient heresies. So the “paradox” that Hutches thinks open theists have “lost” (I’m guessing, ‘cause he doesn’t say, but I think my guess is on the money) is the paradox of an open relationship with a closed future.

------------------------------

POW: Tell me, Tom, were my own 5 anathema to your openness, or just too common to take a look at. I was systified by your dismissal.

TOM: I asked you to tell me what the CORE belief was of open theism. If somebody asked you, “What do open theists really believe? What unique stand are they taking on which issues?” you wouldn’t give them those 5 points. If you would, then like I said, you either don’t get it, OR you get it but don’t want the person asking you the question to get it. You five points didn’t tell me what the defining belief(s) of open theists is(are).

-----------------------------

POW: I'm having some trouble with my left hand and type with great difficulty.

TOM: God touch and bring you healing. Yes, Lord.

POW: I had hoped that Tom would be interested in the first few quotes I'd pulled from Hutchens -- I thought that he'd really like them.

TOM: Sorry to disappoint! But Hutchens dudn’t get it either, or he gets it and isn’t writing clear so readers can see what steps he takes. He says open theists have “lost paradox” but never tells us which “paradox” they’ve lost. Maybe he doesn’t think it matters. Maybe he thinks ANY paradox will do. But you said that was silly. So I’ll believe you and assume he doesn’t know or doesn’t want to say WHICH paradox open theists have lost.

On a similar note, you’ve said here that the thread (and Hutchens’ article) is all about “mystery.” But—and this is important I think—‘which’ mystery? That’s the whole point. You have to SAY it, spell it out, with some of that objectionably “rigidity” that bothered you about Alan. You have to specify the CONTENTS of the mystery because not everything is a mystery. Not every ‘truth’ we affirm stands next to some other apparently contradictory ‘truth’ to make up some ‘mystery’ or ‘paradox’ we’re supposed to embrace. There are SOME mysteries, yeah. But there have to be good reasons to claim ‘paradox’ status, and those reasons HAVE to be overwhelming reasons for believing independently two ‘truths’ that are formally contradictory or contrary. The incarnation and hypostatic union together are the mother of all mysteries. We have overwhelming (to us) reasons for believing Jesus is both fully divine and fully human as ONE undivided person. And one can easily point out attributes of each nature that are not compatible with each other. So we do the best we can and leave the rest to mystery.

But do ‘the openness of God’s relationship with us’ (on the one hand) and ‘the closed truth about the future of this relationship’ (on the other) together comprise a mystery we have overwhelming reason to embrace? H-e-l-l no. Hutches say yes. That’s the point of his article. I say, “Tell me what two truths you’re talking about.” He says nothing and just points to the ‘form’ of heresy which open theists refuse to embrace.

So let me ask you Bruce, because you like Hutchens’ article and seem to agree with his point. Why don’t you fill in the blanks for us: “Open theists affirm that _______ in such a way as to deny that __________.” If you can tell me which two truths go in these blanks I’ll THEN be able to SEE the “paradox” you think open theists have “lost.”

Tom

And that's just it.  If you've got Christology wrong, you WILL misinterpret not only the Church, but the Eucharist AND Baptism, which are core elements of the Body.

What's the use of me being an open theist...who believes the God the Logos can just "stop" being Creator?

What's the use of my being an open theist...who believes that Christ doesn't have a human spirit?

It'll end up screwed in the end.  Always.  Wouldn't you agree?

The paradoxes MUST be kept.  The right paradoxes. 

Otherwise, "Christification" of individuals and communities will be impossible. 

And isn't "partaking in the divine nature" the MAIN point here?

See what I'm getting at? 

Post Edited (One Love) : 7/21/2009 11:54:33 AM (GMT-5)

BRUCE: My own long held suspission (The "long" part is significant because Tom was chiding me about not knowing what OV is after alal these years.) is, that at least in part, for manay OV-ers they came to their vew as a reaction to earlier held Calvinism. THAT fits Greg Boyd's self reported biography. That's what I meant by politics.

TOM: If that’s what you have in mind, then thank God for politics! We SHOULD react to beliefs that don’t work for us and find ones that do work. This is a good thing. You point this out a lot, and it’s true. I don’t deny it. But you always used this as some kind of strike against the open view. If a Muslim decides he can’t take Islam anymore and reacts to it, is that a bad thing? Some reactions are proper.

When a mind a bright as Greg’s abandons one worldview for another because the one he’s leaving doesn’t work and the one he’s embracing does, everybody should listen. Even if it goes the other way, from Process thought to determinism, as it sometimes works out. That should grab get us paying special attention to their reasons.

That’s how I see it anyhow.

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

TOM: I don’t mean to criticize you personally, i.e., as a person. Just so we’re clear.

-----------------------

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: It bothers me because he starts out by saying “After many years of open theism hanging around I’ve finally reached a conclusion! Open theism is false and here’s why….”

-----------------------------

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

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

TOM: Be more specific. “God and man acting together” isn’t a mystery. Use Hutchens’ ‘form’ and fill in the blanks: “Open theists affirm that _________ in such a way as to deny that _____________.” It need to see the paradox. If you say “God unconditionally determines our choices” and “we’re free in our choices” (or “we’re responsible for our choices”), THEN you’d have a paradox. If you said “God relates to us in free, open-ended, give-and-take relations” and “God eternally knows everything about how this relationship unfolds,” THEN you’d have a paradox. Gimme the paradox you think open theists SHOULD be embracing but which they are not embracing.

--------------------------

TOM: SOOOOO what?

BRUCE:  Sooooorrrrrrry!

TOM: No, don’t be sorry. Tell me WHY Alan’s being “rigid” is a bad thing.

---------------------------- 

TOM:  Scribbling graffiti (“Classical form of heresy!” or “All ‘isms’ are heresies!”) over top the conversation is just pointless.

BRUCE:  My intention was TO OFFER AN OLIVE BRANCH! Notice that I reported to you that a Calvin Sem prof. said in class THAT CALVINISM IS A HERESY -- along with all other "ists and isms."

I meant well! I did.

TOM: OK.

------------------------------

Hutchens:  "What seems to be the great discovery of these theologians? Do they need to inform an ignorant or unheedful Church that God is “open?” I think not. The Church has always known that he is, in the ways constantly and insistently indicated by Scripture, and needs no convincing. Rather, their discovery seems to be in their use of this truth to deny or efface (by way of resolution) the divine attributes that form the other part of the paradox."

BRUCE:  I WISH THIS WERE WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY! I hear y'all begging the question of "WHICH" divine attribute(s) Hutchens feels are in danger of being too weakly appreciated -- pastorally.

TOM: And the answer is?

BRUCE: I see two possible answers for a lessoning in "the divine attributes that form the other part of the paradox": a lessoning in ... God's sovereignty or a lessoning in human participation.

TOM: Dudn’t quite get it Bro. I mean, open theists believe in “sovereignty” and “participation” too. And if you ask Piper, only HE really believes in these. And if we ask some Arminian he’ll admit, “Sure, I believe God is sovereign and we participate in shaping things to come.” EVERYBODY believes God is sovereign and that we participate in our own way. So we have to say WHAT IT IS specifically that separates Piper’s ‘sovereignty’ from mine, or yours, or the Arminian’s. Same thing with ‘participation’. Obviously Hutchens means something by these that open theists don’t mean. And that difference constitutes the paradox he affirms and we don’t.

Obviously it’s a mixture. The attributes Hutchens thinks we open theists sacrifice are omniscience (if God doesn’t know all the free choices you’ll make he doesn’t know everything) and then probably sovereignty/providence (if God isn’t the final arbiter in deciding what happens in the world, he’s not sovereign). So Hutchens no doubt would say that the paradox open theists deny but ought to affirm is “God knows and controls everything about our participating.”

And I’ll agree with Hutchens that that IS a paradox. I just don’t think it’s a paradox we have good reasons to embrace.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/21/2009 1:21:12 PM (GMT-5)

The original version of this page can be found at :

http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=5&m=21876

Posted By : GregBoyd - 12/3/2001 8:05 PM

In his address at the ETS conference, Bruce Ware raised about 20 objections to the Open View. All of them have been adequately addressed by openness proponents in one venue or another (mostly omitted in Ware's address) except one. It has to do with Christology.

Since we hold that humans possess libertarian freedom, Ware assumed that Openness advocates must hold that Jesus could have sinned. He thus pointed out that this implies that the incarnation could have failed, which in turn raises serious questions about the whole of the biblical narrative. What of all the messianic prophecies? What would have happened to the plan of salvation? Could God's over all plan to have a redeemed bride have failed? Doesn't the possibility of Jesus falling imply that it was possible for God's whole project to fail?

Though he didn't go into the classical view, the assumption is that the classical view which embraces a compatiblistic view of freedom avoids these difficulties. Jesus, like the rest of us, had compatibilistic freedom -- freedom to do what God ordains we do. Hence Jesus could not have fallen, though he experienced real temptation as a full human being. God's plan for world history was thus not "at risk" in the incarnation, according to classical theology.

So, here's the million dollar question: Did God take a genuine risk in the Incarnation? Could Jesus have fallen? If you say yes, does this imply that all the biblical prophecies about the messiah could have failed to come to pass? Does it imply that God's whole project for world history could have flopped? Indeed, does it not imply a "Nestorian" christology (Nestorius basicallyheld that Jesus had two "persons" in him), for it seems that the all holy divine Son of God would have abandoned the human Jesus if he sinned. If the incarnation could have been "aborted," as it were, it seems the union of God and man in Jesus was not the union of one person.

If you say no, however, does this not compromise the full humanity of Jesus? Is it the case that those who hold that humans must possess libertarian freedom must hold that Jesus possessed libertarian freedom if they are to hold that Jesus was a full human being?

This is an area Openness advocates have not yet worked through, and it seems to me that this board is the place to do it. Now, as you may have suspected, I have a proposal in my back pocket -- though its not one most of my openness friends like. But rather than me blurping out right now, I'd like others to pipe in and lets wrestle with it together. Maybe after a couple of pages I'll have revised my proposal.

Lets have at it.

Doc

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 7/21/2009 2:03:24 PM (GMT-5)

And do you think that the discussion has moved much more from this?  Do ya?

It's not for nothing Greg's pretty much a monothelite...among other issues.

Hmmmm.... 

Post Edited (One Love) : 7/21/2009 2:07:45 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (One Love) : 7/21/2009 2:49:27 PM (GMT-5)

D: I'll say this. I've yet to see a diehard open theist with anything near a effective Christology...or a decent ecclesiology.

TOM: Let’s say you’re right. Open theists are shallow when it comes to those things. Does that reflect on the truth of the open view? You may a REALLY important point. I don’t disagree. But I don’t see how it bears on the truth of open theism per se.

I’m sure nobody’s is perfect and error-free all the way around, but if we get enough right, or the right things right, we can fellowship with God and grow in grace. I sure hope so.

D: If you've got Christology wrong, you WILL misinterpret not only the Church, but the Eucharist AND Baptism, which are core elements of the Body.

TOM: There are different interpretations of all these things out there right now, so either somebody’s getting it right and the rest are all wrong, or all are getting it wrong. What do you think the consequences are for those who are getting it wrong? That’s interesting. Will their love and worship and denial of self not produce the same theotic change in them it does in you? Is theosis only open to those who know about and understand it, or who believe in a particular view of the elements? Gosh I hope not.

D: What's the use of me being an open theist...who believes the God the Logos can just "stop" being Creator?

TOM: Yeah, that’s crazy isn’t it? (D’s talking about somebody I wrote him about.)

D: What's the use of my being an open theist...who believes that Christ doesn't have a human spirit? It'll end up screwed in the end. Always. Wouldn't you agree?

TOM: Yes and no…on some things, yeah. But what ‘spirit’ is, how it emerges, etc., you think that’s THE doorway everybody’s got to walk through? What if I’m ignorant and don’t know what the human spirit is? I’m just saying I don’t know how much ‘theological knowledge’ of ‘content’ is required for us to love God and give him our hearts. Do we have to really have a theological grasp of the homoousion? Perichoresis? ‘Spirit’ as emergent? Gnomic will? I sure hope not. I’m screwed otherwise.

D: The paradoxes MUST be kept. The right paradoxes.

TOM: That’s what I’ve been saying. But we have to argue EACH paradox separately.

----------------------

POW: I HAVE (SORRY FOR THE CAPS!) ROOM FOR A PARADOX OF TWO WAYS OF GOD'S KNOWING -- NOT ONE. SO, THE CALIBRATION OF IT IS NOT SO CRUTIAL FOR ME.

TOM: What ‘two ways of God’s knowing’ are you talking about?

POW: HI THINK I MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOVE: THERE CAN BE BOTH AN OPENNESS AND A CLOSEDNESS IN OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD.

TOM: It depends on whether you mean on and same outcome is closed and open in the same sense. If so, then you have a paradox to embrace and enjoy with Hutchens. But open theists will argue the future can’t be open and closed in the same regard with respect to the same outcome (however many ‘ways’ God has of knowing things). This is part of the single-story nature of the relationship; its integrity and consistency for both God and us.

--------------------------------

D: It's not for nothing Greg's pretty much a monothelite...among other issues.

TOM: Right, but an open theist doesn’t have to be a monothelite. Alan’s point is that there is no one “open theist” view on ecclesiology, Christology, etc. There’s a lot of room.

D: 3) Yeah, and, personally, it's quite peripheral to my own indwelt continuing dependent love relationship with God. I'd rather spend more time doing my love thing with God every present moment in Jesus Prayer than trying to ascertain how "real" my freedom is...and then work from there.

TOM: Exactly. And wouldn’t something like that be true for other theological knotty issues (the one’s you ARE into a lot as much as you USED to be into openness?)? What if somebody said, “Man, I don’t get all the Christology lingo—spirits, wills, freedom, peccability, yada yada. It’s all quite peripheral to my own indwelt continuing dependent love relationship with God. I'd rather spend more time doing my love thing with God every present moment in Jesus Prayer than trying to ascertain whether the Cross was entailed in God’s choice to create the way the incarnation was, or just how providentially open or closed all that stuff is”?

D: If open theists are passionately identified with their theological position, it's coherence and assertion such that it takes significantly more energy and time than living present-moment-by-present-moment in Christ's Spiritual Presence...then yes, they are HEAVILY missing the point.

TOM: Of course that would be true. It would be true of people who are passionate about anything, anything at all (including Christology and Ecclesiology and Communion), over and against Jesus himself. Right?

-----------------------------

Asher: You have obviously embraced Orthodox Christology. Are you saying that someone cannot both 1) be an open theist and 2) embrace Orthodox Christology? Cause if they can, then BAM, there is an open theist who you should be saying has an effective Christology, by your own views on it.

TOM: Exactly. And isn’t D just the example D’s looking for? That is, an open theist who’s got it right everywhere else as well? (I mean that kindly.) D obviously holds to HIS views on Christology, the elements, what the Church is, etc., AND he’s an open theist, soooooo……? It can be done. D’s proof.

Unless he’s no longer an open theist?

Are you no longer an open theist D?

Tom

A different article by Hutchens:

Losing Faith

by S. M. Hutchens

http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2008/04/losing-faith.html

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 7/21/2009 8:09:08 PM (GMT-5)

In this case, my "openness" CANNOT be separated from my faith in Christ.  It's implicit within it.

The Hesychasts would have known about "presentism" and "openness" experientially...WITHOUT having read Whitehead or Hartshorne.  Who'da thought...

Post Edited (One Love) : 7/22/2009 1:01:54 AM (GMT-5)