 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Iamur2
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 11/4/2001 6:07 PM (GMT -6) |   | First, Here is a quote from open theist William Hasker: “If every single human being has it in her power to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation, and if God has no advance knowledge of how a person will respond, then it would be possible for every person without exception to reject salvation-and if this were to occur, there would be no ‘people of God,’ no Church, and a key element in God’s plan would be frustrated. As things actually stand, to be sure, this has not happened, but it could have happened; that it has not, is a attributable to nothing but God’s luck.” (From Christian Scholars REview)
Curious question: How would you open theists interpret this? Also, here is something I wrote concerning this supposed Greek influence on the classical view of God.
Open theists almost uniformly insist that the God of classical Christianity was unduly influenced by Greek philosophy. Take fore example Gregory Boyd: “In my view, the paradigm shift (open theism) has been positive, for it has allowed people to read Scripture and to think about God and the world in ways that are less influenced by Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and Newton.” William Hasker also states: “The sources of these ideas (classical theism) can be traced back to Philo Judaeus and Plotinus, among others, and were mediated into mainstream Christian theology through such figures as Augustine.”
Basically, the open theists have a biased against the Greek philosophy of a timeless, unchanging God. They advocate their “process theology” of a changing God as far superior. They believe strongly that any philosophy of an unchanging God is Greek influenced and dangerous. Hence, in this same article, Hasker insists that since Augustine’s views on perfection were based on Plato so we can “rescue” the Biblical God from the belief that forces us to portray many of God’s actions as metaphorical. We should be true to our “metaphysical predisposition.”
This idea stands as a backdrop to the philosophical support for open theism. However, this idea is based on modern assumptions and predispositions. The first large assumption and bias of the open theist is their insistence that they succeeded in understanding God where many of the great Church fathers failed. In addition, open theism assumes that we are positioned better theologically than Aquinas and Augustine. In essence, they throw out 1500 years of Christian thought (before Sonecius) about the nature of God.
In addition, a prerequisite to any of this discussion is that every Christian thinker toils within the context of their living. Freddoso explains: “Christian thinkers toil within concrete cultural and intellectual contexts, and these contexts instill in them cognitive predispositions, which, though defeasible, nonetheless serve as tacit measures of plausibility.” In other words, Christian thinkers today are influenced by modern culture and ideas, just as the Church Fathers were. However, Hasker insists that we understand God in light of our own cultural context, and assumes that our modern metaphysical assumptions are superior to theirs.
This is an undue assumption that twentieth century thinkers have some additional revelation of God. However, this does not work. Take for example, one of our modern assumptions: “Nearly all analytic treatments of action take it for granted that if the conceptions of action, power, and agent casuality have any application at all, they are applicable only in the case of free and rational beings. Yet only a handful of pre-Humean philosophers, most notable the occasionalists, would have had even the slightest inclination to accept either one of these assumptions.” These modern assumptions constitute the heart of open theist theology.
In addition, the open theists are inconsistent in their attack on the Greek influence on God since they themselves employ Greek terms about God. For example, the trinity itself uses alien Greek terms, employing the terms of substance, person, and essence. Historically, the Arian heresy sought to diminish and deny the trinity. However, the Church Council of Nycea actually used a Greek term, homousias, to advocate the “same substance” nature of the trinity. So clearly Greek terms have been used to accurately convey Biblical truth. Open theists insist that we not employ Greek terms into our understanding of God, but they themselves do.
Gregory Boyd, “Modern Reformation,” November/December 1999; page 44.
William Hasker, “The Openness for God” from “Christian Scholars Review.”
Alfred J. Fredosso, A response to the “The Openness for God” also from “Christian Scholars Review.”
I am very curious to here the general reaction to this.
Eric
"Prejudice is a great time saver, it allows one to have an opinion without knowing the facts." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 11/4/2001 8:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Offhand I would say that you need to understand that process theology and open theology are two different beliefs, as both advocates have stated. I would suggest reading "Searching For An Adequate God," by Pinnock and Cobb, which might help you see the difference between the two.
Second, I don't believe that open theists think they have additional revelation (what author do you get that from?), nor do they have a "prejudice" against Greek philsophy, they simply don't believe it is scriptural.
As far as throwing out 1500 hundred years of Christian thought, what if isn't scriptural? Unless you are going to place tradition on a par with scripture, you have to see what the Bible says, not what certain church fathers have taught? And it could be effectively argued that the reformers of the 15 century threw out a thousand years of Christian thought when they rebelled against Rome? So you would be having us go back to Catholicism and never rebel against anything that is part of the established church no matter how wrong it may be. Being a reformer means always reforming, constanting checking and rechecking our beliefs in scripture to make such its true. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 11/4/2001 8:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh, and open theists have nothing against using Greek terms (or terms from other cultures) to help one better understand certan beliefs. It is the concepts (such as a changeless God) are incorporated that are not in scripture that open theists object to. There is a great difference...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iamur2
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 11/6/2001 10:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Just a note: I am continuing the discussion on my post on this in the Open theism section--I did respond to the points made there. Thanks!
Eric
"Prejudice is a great time saver, it allows one to have an opinion without knowing the facts." | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:39 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 |
|
|