 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject) | Forum Quick Jump
|
|  BJS Registered Member
 Date Joined Dec 2001 Total Posts : 587 | Posted 9/4/2002 5:43 AM (GMT -6) |   | Here's a question that keeps nagging at me. Many here seem to refer to "open view theism" and "spiritual warfare theodicy" interchangeably. Are these two belief systems necessary to each other? Can you, for instance, believe in the spiritual warfare motif without being an open theist? I understand that both deny determinism, but it does seem that one is about the problem of evil and the other is about God's foreknowledge. Yes?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Mephi2K Registered Member
 Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 713 | Posted 9/4/2002 5:58 AM (GMT -6) |   | BJS:
quote: Here's a question that keeps nagging at me. Many here seem to refer to "open view theism" and "spiritual warfare theodicy" interchangeably. Are these two belief systems necessary to each other? Can you, for instance, believe in the spiritual warfare motif without being an open theist? I understand that both deny determinism, but it does seem that one is about the problem of evil and the other is about God's foreknowledge. Yes?
My opinion: The only difference between open view theism and spiritual warfare theodicy is that that latter posits the existence of Satan and demons...AND IS SERIOUS ABOUT IT'S EFFECTS. This is why I feel Doc's warfare worldview is the BEST and MOST COMPREHENSIVE open view theology out there. One CAN be an open theist without holding to the spiritual warfare theodicy...but it will pay for that by being QUITE incomplete in its dealings with the various levels and types of evil, biblically and philsophically. Doc realizes that and was, IMHO, VERY THOROUGH in working through many of the arguments.
And remember. Ultimately, it's NOT just about God's foreknowledge. It's INEVITABLY about God's providential activity in history...which LEADS to considerations of the problem of evil. I believe that it is NO coincidence that John Sanders brings up the tragedy of his brother's death in "The God Who Risks". I believe that it is NO coincidence that Clark Pinnock details his great dissatisfaction with Calvinism's logical outworkings with respect to the problem of evil...when discussing HIS move into openness. It's NEVER just been about foreknowledge. Theology is quite organic...and very often, ideas about one things entail certain ideas about others. And this really applies with this situations of open view theism.
So, in short, Brett...IF YOU believe in Satan and demons...AND the seriousness of their potential effects, then open view theism should probably BE synonomous with the spiritual warfare theodicy.
Holla,

Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/04/2002 10:59:39 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Mephi2K Registered Member
 Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 713 | Posted 9/4/2002 6:08 AM (GMT -6) |   | Looking at this, I think that I maybe mistook the question.
quote: Can you, for instance, believe in the spiritual warfare motif without being an open theist?
This question is different from what I thought it was. I answered the question:
Can one believe in open theism without being a spiritual warfare person?
Sorry about that. The answer to FIRST (original) question is yes. But, of course, you would have to posit some type of theological determinism like the Nevillian type. And as you've probably already guessed, you'd still be in the situation ULTIMATELY like Calvinists. But you'd be able to say that for every time that Satan "won" a round, there was ULTIMATELY a "greater good" reason behind THAT PARTICULAR VICTORY (and every other one) that we just can't see yet. The mosaic of God's eternal plan remains intact. We could affirm all this WHILE affirming logically that prayer IS efficacious in the world...thus rendering spiritual warfare intelligible.
Sup, Brett. Thinking about going into theological determinism? 
 | | Back to Top | | |
 |  BJS Registered Member
 Date Joined Dec 2001 Total Posts : 587 | Posted 9/4/2002 6:11 AM (GMT -6) |   | Yeah, that makes sense. I felt the connection between the two the more I discussed them. Thanks for the articulation.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
 |  GregBoyd Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 1818 | Posted 9/9/2002 6:09 AM (GMT -6) |   | I know some who hold to an intense warfare worldview and embrace a warfare theodicy, but yet hold to foreknowledge. So yes, one CAN hold to a warfare theodicy and NOT be an open theist. The issue is, can one do this with logical consistency.
I think the real hub of the issue in terms of a warfare theodicy is not primarily whether or not the future is open, but whether or not one holds to IRREVOCABLE FREEDOM. It is THIS principle that undermines the blueprint worldview that there is a specific DIVINE reason for every specific thing AGENTS do. God gives freedom, irrevocably, but the "why" behind what agents do with it is lodged IN THEM, not God.
One could hold to this view and yet hold to a form of exhaustive definite foreknowledge. God foreknows what agents will do, in this view, but CAN'T on this account intervene to stop it. This is called "simple foreknowledge." God in this view functions AS THOUGH the future was open, but in fact it is not.
I think the view is implausible, biblically problematic and unnecessary... but some hold to it.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:05 PM (GMT -6) There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads. In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|