 |
 | 
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 3/12/2004 10:33 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Chris Grant
What are the differences between Open Theism and Classical Arminianism? Is it all about their views of the future (and/or God's knowledge of the future), or is there something more?
Hey Chris,
Here are some quick ideas outside of the foreknowledge issue regarding the differences between the two camps. These ideas and quotes come from the Doc’s book, God at War.
Despite the Arminians view of freedom they still hold to the understanding of God’s immutability, timelessness, & impassibility, which according to the Doc “derive more from Hellenistic philosophy than from the Bible” (49).
Arminians affirm that creatures have power to act over and against God; however, Arminian theologians usually reject the possibility of strictly gratuitous evil i.e., “God allows specific evil events to transpire for a specific divine purpose” (God At War, 49).
Arminians usually restrict their understanding of freedom to human freedom; furthermore, they have traditionally neglected angelic freedom in their theodicy reflections (50).
Hope this helps a little anyways!
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers 
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 3/12/2004 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tiggers
Hey Chris,
Here are some quick ideas outside of the foreknowledge issue regarding the differences between the two camps. These ideas and quotes come from the Doc’s book, God at War.
Despite the Arminians view of freedom they still hold to the understanding of God’s immutability, timelessness, & impassibility
On page 319 of _Warranted Christian Belief_, Alvin Plantinga (who I think is a Calvinist) seems to reject impassibility. Aren't there many non-Open Arminians who do so as well?
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 3/12/2004 11:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Chris,
I’ve always thought Plantinga lined up more with Molina, and the middle knowledge camp. “Then we shall turn to the modern form of the doctrine [middle knowledge] as it has been revived—or rather, reinvented—by Alvin Plantinga” (Hasker, God, Time & Knowledge, 19). For the big picture, see William Hasker’s, God, Time & Knowledge, 18-52. Theologians who hold to middle knowledge agree with a libertarian view of freedom,
Chris, there’s a great discussion on impassibility between John Sanders & Chris Hall in their Does God have a Future: A Debate on Divine Providence, 55-86. Now, with regards to the Doc’s view on impassibility (I THINK) he is speaking traditionally how Arminians have regarded the issues. Even Sanders proclaims, “it is correct that the majority voice in the Christian tradition was for impassibility. However, it is no longer the majority voice. For the past two centuries the doctrine of divine impassibility has been increasingly discarded by Christian thinkers. Today, it is a minority position, even within evangelicalism” (65).
For what it’s worth  ,
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/21/2004 1:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Classical Arminians accepted the classical view of God (actus purus, timeless, impassible, etc.) while affirming human freedom. Many, if not most, Arminians today modify classical theism in certain important respects. So, for all intents and purposes, the central difference between Arminians and Open Theists concerns the ontological status of possibilities. Arminians hold that they are epistemological, not ontological, for they are not real to God. God knows all reality as settled, not possible. Open Theists hold that possibilities are ontological. Hence God, being omniscient, knows them as possibilities.
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 3/22/2004 3:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
Classical Arminians accepted the classical view of God (actus purus, timeless, impassible, etc.) while affirming human freedom. Many, if not most, Arminians today modify classical theism in certain important respects. So, for all intents and purposes, the central difference between Arminians and Open Theists concerns the ontological status of possibilities. Arminians hold that they are epistemological, not ontological, for they are not real to God. God knows all reality as settled, not possible. Open Theists hold that possibilities are ontological. Hence God, being omniscient, knows them as possibilities.
Thanks for your response, Greg. Is there any chance I might get permission to quote your explanation outside this forum?
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 3/24/2004 4:25 PM (GMT -6) | | The major difference between the Open Theism and everything else is a coherent explanation for prayer as presented in the Scripture.
Scripture indicates God "changes" His mind IN RESPONSE TO prayer. Now, how this modus operadus is maitained in the "eternal now" of Arminianism drives one into the arms of confusion and contradiction.
However, you can't really preach to the parishioners that their prayers do not REALLY change God--Hence the modications referenced above...such as "our prayers are the means God uses, etc." which of course just further begs the question.
Calvinistists generally are more honest with the implications of their theology and will concede the point of impassibility even in the face of Scripture to the contrary usually citng antinomy.
The Open View just says God has chosen to allow Himself to be impacted by man. It is remarkable to me in light of the incarnation and the atonement that the doctrine of impassibility was ever derived.
Blessings
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/26/2004 3:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
. . .So, for all intents and purposes, the central difference between Arminians and Open Theists concerns the ontological status of possibilities. Arminians hold that they are epistemological, not ontological, for they are not real to God. God knows all reality as settled, not possible. Open Theists hold that possibilities are ontological. Hence God, being omniscient, knows them as possibilities.
Where that is ackward, is, in my opinion, centers on whether "possibilities" are something autonomous.
As with the analogy of the girl and the car, the center of God's gracious actions (whether that be a carrot, a stick or a banquet) is his creation. "Possibilities" seems stuck in the abstract, self-focused. "Real to God" seems to treat "immutability" as if there were only a Yes or a No to the issue. God is Love; and personally cares for and huddles over his creatures, and scolds too. The future for US is not a matter of algorithms. Meaning is not in math and abstract relationships. That is not even true for us. And it is certainly not an experience for God. For the Shepherd the sheep are the center of his love. This battle against Determinism has twisted appreciation for God's providence to where the 'mechnical' modifies our appreciation of the 'lived.'
We might consider one aspect of God's "experience" that we may begin to grasp, and that is "communion." We only know a shaddow of the communion of the Holy Trinity -- only what we actually share in by grace through the Spirit. But while God's "experience" does not change God (as experiences do change us), we might begin to appreciate that God's "experience" IS love of and with us.
And that can be taken another step too. WE can begin to appreciate what the saints of the Church meant when, struggling for words, they hinted that as we grow in communion with God we move from action towards inaction ourselves too. Never ceasing to change and grow we grow towards the "center" of God's stillness, away from the frantic and constantly redirecting scatter of our individualistic lives.
Living Water. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:32 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 |
|
|