Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 6/10/2007 12:29 AM (GMT -6)

Gordon Knight (Department of Philosophy at Iowa State U) has written “Universalism for Open Theists,” Religious Studies 42 (2006): 213-223.

Abstract

In this paper I argue that the denial of middle knowledge and emphasis on human freedom characteristic of open theism makes the traditional concept of hell even more morally problematic than it would otherwise be. But these same features of open theism present serious difficulties for the view that all will necessarily be saved. I conclude by arguing that the most promising approach for open theists is to adopt a version of contingent, as opposed to necessary, universalism.

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

Haven’t read it, but I’m guessing he’s zeroed in on the very problems we’ve discussed here and concluded (as some of us have) that there is no absolute 100% (“necessary”) UR that’s compatible with LFW. But there is, statistically speaking, spread out over time, as close to an absolute guarantee as one can get. This make UR logically speaking “contingent.” That’s his point. This is the route OVers will have to go if they wish to affirm UR.

Tom

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 6/10/2007 8:15 AM (GMT -6)

Makes sense to me. Sweet.

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be One, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be One as we are One— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete UNIty. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to SONship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 6/10/2007 10:07 AM (GMT -6)

I don't, off the top of my head, see why the problem of a traditional hell is greater for OV'ers. All the problems I have with hell have to do with issues unrelated to OV. UNLESS he's saying that free-will entails OT, as Alan has argued. Then, yeah. Because if we aren't free, we would have no good reason to believe that God is free. And if God isn't free, how could we imply any standard to His actions at all? What am I saying? If we aren't free, we don't have good reasons for believing much of anything!! biggrin

Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/10/2007 10:25:15 AM (GMT-5)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 6/10/2007 4:31 PM (GMT -6)

One more thing. Is the author advocating that UR is only contingent in a time sense, or he is saying that OT'ers can not affirm with strict certainty a true universal reconciliation? If we say the latter, then wouldn't we have to say that perfect love allows for the case of, "it would have been better for you had you never been born (existed)?" Do we really need to say that? I don't see why. To my mind, precluding that case is the most important thing UR buys us.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/10/2007 4:49:58 PM (GMT-4)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 6/10/2007 10:22 PM (GMT -6)

Jeff: One more thing. Is the author advocating that UR is only contingent in a time sense, or he is saying that OT'ers can not affirm with strict certainty a true universal reconciliation?

Tom: Though I’m sure he’d admit that we can only be relatively certain of the truth of UR, my guess is he’s advocating the former, that UR is contingent in the sense that however certain we might be of its truth, what we’re certain of is that all eventually make it with a 99.999999% eventuality.

Jeff: If we say the latter, then wouldn't we have to say that perfect love allows for the case of, "it would have been better for you had you never been born (existed)?" Do we really need to say that? I don't see why. To my mind, precluding that case is the most important thing UR buys us.

Tom: Yeah, so what did we finally say about that passage? Can’t remember!

Tom

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 6/11/2007 7:14 AM (GMT -6)

Tom: Yeah, so what did we finally say about that passage? Can’t remember!

Jeff: If I remember correctly, you found examples in Ecclesiastes that made it look pretty clear that the frame of reference was not eternal (or even post-mortem in those examples). So I'm supposing that the case with Judas means something like this: "Judas, you're about to do something very heinous. Indeed, the consequences are such that if you were only able to compare the sentient quality of your life to these consequences, you would have chosen not to have been born."

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 6/11/2007 7:31 AM (GMT -6)

I did that? Wow. I'm pretty smart!

Tom

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 6/11/2007 7:35 AM (GMT -6)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 6/11/2007 9:12 AM (GMT -6)

I don't know why I don't just start a huge document to save all this good stuff that gets posted. It's so hard to find it after the fact with the search. I can't remember now what those verses were. But I do remember that they had a much more Eastern flare to them--almost to the point of seeming non-sensical to the Western mind. And they were in Ecclesiates. That's a short enough book, so we could find 'em again.

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:07 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual