Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

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

paynedaniel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2011
Total Posts : 1

Posted 7/7/2011 12:01 AM (GMT -6)

Hello All,

I am very thankful to have found this board, and would like to present where I am theologically and ask for honest, tough criticism and suggestions to further sharpen (or change) my position.

After a few years of struggling with an attraction to both 5 point Calvinism and Open Theism, I have come to the satisfying position of what I believe to be a comfortable, sensible merger. I should also add that I am a universalist, my understanding being an extension of Barth's soteriology.

The 5 points: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace and perseverance of the saints. In my view, the open view of God need not necessarily contradict any of the five points. The crucial ingredients allowing for a merger are time and God's persuasive ability.

Both systems can allow for total depravity easily, if total depravity is understood as "human righteousness being as filthy rags." Both sysems can allow for unconditional election if it is understood that everyone is elected. Both systems can allow for limited atonement if the limit is the entire human race. Both systems can allow for irresistable grace if by "irresistable" one means unable to resist and therefore being freely compelled towards God. Both systems can allow for perseverance of the saints if all the above is found in one person alone- Jesus Christ. And here is where Barth's Christology and anthropology are so important. Salvation is located in one person, Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is the embodiment of perfect humanity. So when God the Father "sees" humanity, He sees Jesus Christ who perfected humanity, elected humanity, atoned for humanity, offered grace to humanity and holds humanity in His hand.

Of course, this requires a revision of "classical" understanding of the 5 points and most open theist's understanding of open theism, but the core of both systems can remain solid while merging.

Thoughts? Criticism? Suggestions?

Peace,

Daniel

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 7/7/2011 6:47 AM (GMT -6)

Welcome to the board, Daniel.

I would just say that I don't think your reconciliation is of any value to the Calvinist since they understand the 5 points differently. And the open theist isn't typically as tied to their specific meanings, independent of specific contexts, anyway.

But as for limited atonement, are you saying that your version of universalism doesn't include fallen angels/spirits, or that they just don't need atonement in the sense that humans do? I kind of lean to the latter. I think fallen angels, insomuch as they don't die from sin, need only be held accountable for their wrong-doing. So long as they cease sinning thereafter, I think they get a new start, which may involve some kind of change in their nature.

Jeff

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 7/7/2011 10:11 AM (GMT -6)

Daniel,

Great to have you. Thanks for sharing and inviting us in on your journey.

With Jeff, I’d say your view isn’t going to appeal to Calvinists who understand the points differently than you do here. And I think you’ll run into problems on the open view side with irresistible grace. But Jeff may be able to help you out there. If I remember rightly, Jeff is deterministic/Calvinistic in his soteriology and cosmology (he thinks God determines who gets saved and when they get saved; and he believes physical laws are universally deterministic). He just believes that human beings possess libertarian free will on occasion. (Sorry if I got that wrong Jeff!)

So technically it’s doable, yeah. But I wouldn’t call it a merger since you’re not really merging the standard 5 points with open theism. Most Calvinists would just you’ve changed too much and morphed the 5 points into something else. But no matter, you want to find a consistent worldview and interpretation of Scripture that works for you, right?

More importantly, Daniel, I’d like to know (a) just what is “open” about the future on your view, and (b) what ‘attracts’ you to open theism anyhow? You can be a 5-point Calvinist Universalist without being an open theist. So what does open theism add that you can’t do without? If the future is open, it's because God is not exercising the sort of sovereignty so central to Calvin's understanding of grace, atonement, etc. So I'm wondering what motivates you to maintain the typical 5 points once you give up the understanding of sovereignty behind them?

The problem with your merger as I see it is the tension (nearly fatal) that it creates on the theodicy side of things. True, believing that God ultimately saves all relieves a good deal of pressure. But once you say God acts irresistibly to save whomever he wishes you have to explain why there’s any evil at all. If God can irresistibly determine us without violating any other metaphysical constraint, surely a God who loves us enough to eventually save us all would not will the world to become so overrun by evil. So why does God will such evil? What’s God get in the end that definitionally can’t be gotten apart from all the evil our world has known? Any why does God save us irresistibly but not sanctify us irresistibly? Lots of issues.

If you’re into Barth and like open theism, I’m sure you’re familiar with Bruce McCormack’s chapter “The Actuality of God: Karl Barth in Conversation with Open Theism” in Engaging the Doctrine of God: Contemporary Protestant Perspectives (2008). It seems to have made the rounds at Barth-loving blogs (cf. Ben Meyers over at Faith and Theology and David Congdon at Fire and the Rose) neither of whom is a fan of open theism. So I’d be very interested in your views on McCormack’s use of Barth (on the very points you mention) against open theism, since you think these same points are compatible with open theism. And I’d be interested also in know what attracts you to open theism at all and what it adds to your merger that you don’t want to give up.

Tom

KIXYTΘEMTA

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/7/2011 1:21:39 PM (GMT-5)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 7/7/2011 7:39 PM (GMT -6)

I will address some of Tom's points for Tom and Daniel:

1) I do believe that most if not all salvation is deterministic. But I explain that in terms of a free-will theodicy by seeing it as a virtual necessity since none to few seek after God on their own, and humans don't necessarily have the power to unharden or undarken their own heart once they've gone there. Looked at this way, God would be found of any that sought Him of their own volition. But I would contend that the scripture seems to argue that too few do, in fact, seek Him. Hence the saying, "I was found of those who sought Me not." And yet He says elsewhere, that humans should seek Him since "He is not far from us." IOW, the human aversion to seeking God was not purposed by God, and it was not inevitable.

2) Once someone is saved deterministically, sanctification is volitional. In a sense, conversion is like creating a new Adam/man such that we get to start a life where we can literally do God's will perfectly--we are not allowed to be tested above what we are able. In OT times, the analogy was a circumsized heart, though without the Spirit to ultimately free them from the law of sin and death. That circumsized heart enabled those OT saints to do more of God's pleasure than they otherwise would have. With the Spirit, we're even free from the law of sin and death. God is after volitional right-relating. Without spirit conversion, that can't happen in the way God ultimately prefers--sinlessly.

3) A teleological world-view requires that there are means that are determinable/predictable enough for teleological creatures like ourselves to purposefully act with sufficient competence to fulfill God's intent for our volitional life. Thus, there could be indeterminancy at some level so long as it didn't preclude predictability in the way and at the level that is pertinent to human and angelic teleological activity.

4) My beef with non-human/non-angelic indeterminancy is that we don't know enough empirically to demonstrate that it exists. E.g., waves involve what, to us, is indeterminancy. But there is no reason to assume that the particles therein are not behaving deterministically. But if God has made fundamental particles indeterminate within ranges that don't interfere with the perceived regularities at levels required for human teleological activity, I don't see it as problematic. I just don't see it as proveable yet or intuitive, either.

Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/8/2011 6:09:51 AM (GMT-5)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 7/9/2011 11:44 AM (GMT -6)

A clarification: How might it be that none or too few seek God on their own volition? Here are some logical possibilities:

If there really was a historical "Fall," then it is logically conceivable that either:

1) post-Fall humans are simply incapable of seeking God even though "Adam/Eve" were, or

2) post-Fall humans are capable of seeking God under the right conditions, but leaven can leaven the societal lump to the extent that even seeking God becomes "above what" most or all are "able," or

3) all post-Fall humans have been/are capable of seeking God, but they just don't.

Now the 3rd option is the least satisfying because it demands an explanation we can't muster. We have to accept it as an a-plausible, brute fact that seems to require a plausible explanation.

If there was no historical "Fall," you're still stuck with something like the 2nd or 3rd option, and that 3rd option would be unsatisfying for the exact same reason. IOW, there are difficulties with all but the first in terms of a historical Fall, or the 2nd, whether or not there was an historical Fall. The latter is easier with a historical Fall if the historical Fall can also explain the origin of that natural evil that is impossible to explain in terms of a soul-building theodicy.

Regardless, there are ways to reconcile the scriptural, contextual claim that "none seek God, no not one ..." with a free-will metaphysic that posits that creation could have been sinless. But if it is not even possible that creation could have been sinless, then our problem is intractable anyway, best I can tell. Because that seems to imply that God is incompetent. And God must be both benevolent in intent and competent in action if any non-natural inference is actually warranted. Because we can't even know we're designed to competently apprehend inferentially and volitionally if God is not both benevolent and competent.

Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/9/2011 10:25:40 PM (GMT-5)

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:31 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