 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Core Values of the Open Worldview? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/2/2003 7:31 AM (GMT -6) |   | Mephi’s recent posts have encouraged me to think about the fundamental affirmations of the open (world)view. Doc’s comment about the difference between the “sheer” affirmation of a partly open future and the open “worldview” got me thinking. I suppose open theists are and will have to hammer this out. What beliefs are definitive for open theism? Should we differentiate between the sheer affirmation in a partly open future and what Doc has called the “open worldview”? Or should such a question even concern us? Personally I think it’s impossible to avoid.
I personally think open theists are already being tempted to think of themselves in terms of a closed set with clearly defined “boundaries” and that bothers me a little. Mephi makes some claims that the rest of us are uncomfortable with and some of us want to question whether or not Mephi really IS an open theist or whether he should be one. Makes me think of the ETS meeting in Denver! Boundaries! (Not always a bad thing mind you.)
Personally I hope we will always think of the open view in terms of an open set with central truths toward which or away from which we are moving through what we affirm and deny. Perhaps Mephi is right in saying that at the core of these fundamental affirmations is the sheer openness of the future and that one is a member of the set in affirming this regardless of what else one affirms.
The trouble with this, however, is that one can affirm a partly open and partly determined future without even being a theist for that matter. An atheist could affirm this about the future on purely scientific grounds. And it is this distinction, that is, “open THEISM” as opposed to what need amount to nothing more than a scientific view of an “open future” that has me thinking. We are, after all, open “theists,” which suggests to me a worldview, a particular theology, that houses, or is housed by, that explains and fills out, the mere affirmation of a partly open future.
So Mephi, when you say you are an open theist ONLY in that you affirm a partly open and partly determined future, I’m confused. You make it sound as though for you “open” has no relation whatsoever to “theist” in “open theist,” which in turn sounds like there are no theological reasons for your believing the future to be partly open. I think you see what I’m getting at bro.
I’m thinking this more clearly than I’m explaining it. Sorry.
I guess what I’m saying is that I think the core beliefs that define the center of the open set we want to call “open theism” are several and not just the mere affirmation in a partly open future. I’m more thinking out loud here, Mephi, than wanting to spar or debate. I love the way you challenge the assumed core tenets of open theism, which is exactly why I’m writing this.
Perhaps we ought to think FIRST not in terms of doctrinal affirmations at all. Icky! What if we thought in terms of CORE VALUES? Granting that a person could believe in the partial openness of the future even as an atheist, what are the core values of open THEISTS? Would these core values be none other than Doc’s six thesis of the warfare worldview? Are the open worldview and the warfare worldview one and the same? Do they overhap? If they’re different, what’s the difference?
Anyhow, when I think of the core values of open theism I think of: 1) God’s glory and purposes in creation, 2) Human personhood as the image of God, 3) Love, 4) Freedom, and 5) the centrality of Jesus and the Cross.
Here’s a recent summary of the open view I passed on to someone:
- Open theism understands the future as partly settled and partly open. Both genuine certainties and possibilities exist and God knows them as such. Both motifs are described in Scripture and together constitute the dynamic sort of future which God perfectly knows.
- Open theism insists that God is omniscient, meaning God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. It is neither the nature nor scope of God’s omniscience which the open view questions. It is rather the nature and scope of creation itself, the object of God’s omniscient knowledge, which open theists believe they understand more accurately.
- Open theism affirms God’s sovereign rule over creation but understands this not as meticulous control of every detail of history. God exercises a general sovereignty. His ultimate purposes for creation are settled and non-negotiable, but the routes to fulfilling these purposes are sometimes open. God is confident, wise, and resourceful enough to accomplish his ultimate ends without having to determine the minutia of history. Some routes to accomplishing these ends are open precisely because it is God’s wish that they be determined through our choosing to partner with him. Though God remains free to determine outcomes unconditionally, such divine actions lay outside the boundaries of personal relationship and morally significant choices which are the basis upon which God relates to us in love.
- Open theism believes that God has sovereignly chosen to create a world in which human beings are granted libertarian free will. This means that God may not always get what he wants, for we may choose not to realize his purposes for us. Such a world, however, is the only kind of world in which love is possible. In addition, God’s relationship to us possesses an integrity to it which is impossible to account for on the belief that he either causes all things or eternally foreknows them as certain.
- Open theism denies that God is absolutely timeless, immutable, and impassible. God experiences the flow of time, undergoes changing states of mind and emotion, interacts with us in genuine give-and-take relationships, and is open to change (not in his essential nature, but in his relationship to creation).
- Open theism argues that self-determining free choices cannot be eternally foreknown as certain, though God, being infinitely intelligent, eternally knows all possibilities and thus all possible choices we may ever make. As such, God is able to attend to an infinite number of possible story lines, perfectly anticipating each possibility as if it were the only thing that could have happened. God is not so insecure and unintelligent a Sovereign that the accomplishing of his ultimate purposes requires that he be limited to having to attend to only one certain route to the fulfillment of these purposes as opposed to several possible routes to their fulfillment.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 9/2/2003 7:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Very cool topic, Tom. I have been wrestling with this myself. I believe that the future is partly open, but I hesitate to self-identify as "open theist" because my own views and values diverge pretty significantly from what I know of the views and values of other open theists (e.g. regarding the importance of tradition, methods of biblical interpretation, investment in social/political issues, understanding of love, to name a few).
I appreciate the way you have summarized the open view. As for the core values, the only one I would question is #2. The debate over what exactly constitutes the image of God is notorious. I think it is an important debate, but not important enough to warrant core-value status. Also, why does the little Lutheran church-lady have to point out to the Jaberwocky-speaking Pentacostal that the Spirit is conspicuously missing from your core values?  Open theists must have something to say about the Spirit!
Lovin' it,
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/2/2003 8:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Cool stuff, Tom. Really cool. My input.
Open theism understands the future as partly settled and partly open. Both genuine certainties and possibilities exist and God knows them as such. Both motifs are described in Scripture and together constitute the dynamic sort of future which God perfectly knows.
Granted without qualification.
*****************
Open theism insists that God is omniscient, meaning God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. It is neither the nature nor scope of God’s omniscience which the open view questions. It is rather the nature and scope of creation itself, the object of God’s omniscient knowledge, which open theists believe they understand more accurately.
Granted without qualification. Implication of first one.
**************************
(Emphasis mine)
Open theism affirms God’s sovereign rule over creation but understands this not as meticulous control of every detail of history. God exercises a general sovereignty. His ultimate purposes for creation are settled and non-negotiable, but the routes to fulfilling these purposes are sometimes open. God is confident, wise, and resourceful enough to accomplish his ultimate ends without having to determine the minutia of history. Some routes to accomplishing these ends are open precisely because it is God’s wish that they be determined through our choosing to partner with him. Though God remains free to determine outcomes unconditionally, such divine actions lay outside the boundaries of personal relationship and morally significant choices which are the basis upon which God relates to us in love.
I’m with this…as long as that italicized “sometimes” is REALLY highlighted. I’d take slight issue with the emboldened part. This may sound to some like to the extent that God operates on beings via 1st type compatibilism that God is NOT being personal with them…or that God is not relating to us in love. I don’t believe this is true. I believe that a person can say that God does lovingly relate to persons WITHIN the boundaries of 1st type compatibilism. Remember my whole “sustaining grace as demonstration of unconditional love” idea. The sustaining grace of all sentient being is inescapably personal. It is a symbiotic relationship that deals on the level of spirit. This is about as personal as you can get. Now, as you are saying, it may not be interrelational on a conscious level for that would require freedom, but the whole thing is DEEPLY personal. As far as the morally significance thing, I’d go with what you have.
*******************
(Emphasis mine)
Open theism believes that God has sovereignly chosen to create a world in which human beings are granted libertarian free will. This means that God may not always get what he wants, for we may choose not to realize his purposes for us. Such a world, however, is the only kind of world in which love is possible. In addition, God’s relationship to us possesses an integrity to it which is impossible to account for on the belief that he either causes all things or eternally foreknows them as certain.
I would disagree with the emboldened part. To the extent that I hold a REALIST view of God’s love being part of God’s essential existence and all the implications from that, I cannot hold to the “love requires freedom” idea. My ideas on that other thread hopefully explain that. Everything else here is cool.
*************************
Open theism denies that God is absolutely timeless, immutable, and impassible. God experiences the flow of time, undergoes changing states of mind and emotion, interacts with us in genuine give-and-take relationships, and is open to change(not in his essential nature, but in his relationship to creation).
Granted without qualification
*****************************
(emphasis mine)
Open theism argues that self-determining free choices cannot be eternally foreknown as certain, though God, being infinitely intelligent, eternally knows all possibilities and thus all possible choices we may ever make. As such, God is able to attend to an infinite number of possible story lines, perfectly anticipating each possibility as if it were the only thing that could have happened. God is not so insecure and unintelligent a Sovereign that the accomplishing of his ultimate purposes requires that he be limited to having to attend to only one certain route to the fulfillment of these purposes as opposed to several possible routes to their fulfillment.
I agree wholeheartedly with the principle, but I firmly withstand the rhetorically pejorative way that the emboldened statement is phrased. I would interpret this as implying that for say that God can constrain all possible options to one via continuous, carefully detailed divine direction, is to admit God’s insecurity and unintelligence as a deity. That’s not quite accurate and may seem mean-sounding. I figure that you didn’t mean this as pejoratively as it sounds, but it could really come across that way. Just so you know. 
***********************
Tom, I think this is a VERY good job in encapsulating the salient points of the open view. The first one, in my mind, tells WHAT the worldview essentially is, and the rest of the ideas fill that out in how it works. As you can see, the only place that I would significantly disagree about is the whole “love requires freedom” idea. Moreover, I do notice that nothing in this, barring a particular application of the “love requires freedom” thesis, says that God cannot unconditional determine some people to end states. So, someone could be an open theist who believes in at least partial unconditional election.
Good show, Tom. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/2/2003 8:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra-
Good point about the image of God. I guess I just value the subject of what it means to be a human (as Doc pointed out to Mephi) and this is where I'd take up that issue. But you're right (as usual!).
As for the Spirit...Kada baka shandala...
You're right again!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/2/2003 8:21 AM (GMT -6) | | More stuff.
When you say “core values”, you don’t seem to be talking DISTINCTIVES of open theism among other versions of Christian theism. You seem to be saying what open view theism amounts to for Christians. And if that’s what you are saying, I, like Electra, would agree with 1, 3, and 4. I’d hesistate on #2. and modify 5 thusly: the centrality of the Triune God (Father, Son, and Spirit)
THAT’S how you deal with the Spirit aspect. The Christ Work IS a triune event.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/2/2003 9:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Though God remains free to determine outcomes unconditionally, such divine actions lay outside the boundaries of personal relationship and morally significant choices which are the basis upon which God relates to us in love.
Mephi: I’d take slight issue with [this]. This may sound to some like to the extent that God operates on beings via 1st type compatibilism that God is NOT being personal with them…or that God is not relating to us in love.
Tom: I knew you find this and comment on it. I knew it I knew it I knew it!
Yes, I do believe that in as much as God unconditionally determines a person God and that person are not relating personally. Whatever God does, one might say he does personally. But unconditional determinations cannot result in or be conducted via personal relationships. Thus, in as much as one wants to argue that achieving such divine-human relationships is a creation-goal of God’s, one must assume God does not work in such ways. It’s not ruled out. It just isn’t the sort of thing that leads to the fulfilling of God’s purposes in this regard.
Mephi: I don’t believe this is true. I believe that a person can say that God does lovingly relate to persons WITHIN the boundaries of 1st type compatibilism. Remember my whole “sustaining grace as demonstration of unconditional love” idea?
Tom: I remember. But I wouldn’t describe God’s sustaining our existence as 1st type compatibilism. I think we’ll disagree on this score. That’s OK. I’ll continue to argue that sustaining one’s existence is neither good nor bad, neither loving nor unloving, in and of itself. It takes its character entirely from the purpose for which God sustains our existence.
Mephi: …as you are saying, it may not be interrelational on a conscious level for that would require freedom, but the whole thing is DEEPLY personal.
Tom: Deeply personal for whom? You admit then that there is a “level” to personal relationships where love DOES require freedom. If THIS level of interpersonal loving relationship is purposed by God in creation, then it remains true that in as much as God desires such personal relationships with us, God must refrain from 1st type compatibilism. There remains a fundamental purpose of God in creation that cannot be achieved via 1st type compatibilism.
I’ve been reading too much Vincent Brummer. He has two wonderful paperbacks you should read if you haven’t already: Speaking of Personal God, and The Model of Love. Great stuff on what must be present for “personal relationships” to exist.
Tom: Such a world, however, is the only kind of world in which love is possible.
Mephi: I would disagree with [this]. To the extent that I hold a REALIST view of God’s love being part of God’s essential existence and all the implications from that, I cannot hold to the “love requires freedom” idea.
Tom: You gotta read Brummer! I too hold to God being love, but I don’t see that this rules out love requiring freedom for us. I think the answer to this lies in the distinction between God as a necessary being and us as finite beings. No need to get into it here. I hear ya though.
Tom: God is not so insecure and unintelligent a Sovereign that the accomplishing of his ultimate purposes requires that he be limited to having to attend to only one certain route to the fulfillment of these purposes as opposed to several possible routes to their fulfillment.
Mephi: I agree wholeheartedly with the principle, but I firmly withstand the rhetorically pejorative way that the emboldened statement is phrased.
Tom: Glad you pointed that out. I don’t wanna come across this way, so let’s rephrase it. Still, I was responding to the claim that in open theism God is no more intelligent or secure than your average human being. How about if we just removed the opening bit, like this:
- As sovereign, God is able to accomplish his ultimate purposes without being limited to having to attend to only one certain route to the fulfillment of these purposes as opposed to several possible routes to their fulfillment.
Apart from the “love requires freedom” thing, we are right on target! And even with “love requires freedom” we agree that it remains true where, as you say, consciously chosen interpersonal relationships of love are concerned.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 9/2/2003 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I really appreciate what you are doing here, fleshing out the parameters of the open view. I understand your want not to be too "closed," but then there has to be some boundaries or there is no real "open theism," just something without form that can be attacked by anyone.
That said this is my small definition of open theism (very simple): open theism is the view that all human relationships with God are truly open, therefore everything that proceeds from these relationships is open to some extent (the future, etc.). Its a work in progress but it helps me when I'm getting confused in debates, or trying to 'plain it to someone.
Plus, I take it as a given that open theists affirm historical creeds, so that doesn't need to be defined. Thanks the work once again... | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:35 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 |
|
|