 |
 | 
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/12/2004 7:37 PM (GMT -6) |   | | A: I'm not really sure what the second part of your questions means, but it would hard for me to believe that a book that is so hard to wade through could be ruinous to open theism. My own take so far is the posturing by those involved bespeaks of a certain nervousness. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/12/2004 9:10 PM (GMT -6) | | A: There is, within these books, a lack of want to truly dialogue with the subject. Instead, the debate is moved to a discussion of the integrity of God being at stake. Those opposing open theism (the more extreme ones such as Ware, Piper, Geisler, etc.) frame it as changing God, instead of as trying to find what is the popular biblical view of God. When you frame it that way, the accusations fly, because now you are a heretic. You are changing who God is.
So I see it (and while Beyond The Bounds is a more scholarly work it does not escape this) getting worse because I believe the more traditional of these opponents (particularly on the reformed side, who, in truth, only tolertate Arminians) are beginning to realize a couple of things: for a lot of Christians open theism is the way they view God anyway, so it is an easy transition, and two, they cannot refute it as easily as they wish. As such, the name calling will probably get worse... | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 3/13/2004 2:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
A: There is, within these books, a lack of want to truly dialogue with the subject. Instead, the debate is moved to a discussion of the integrity of God being at stake. Those opposing open theism (the more extreme ones such as Ware, Piper, Geisler, etc.) frame it as changing God, instead of as trying to find what is the popular biblical view of God. When you frame it that way, the accusations fly, because now you are a heretic. You are changing who God is.
So I see it (and while Beyond The Bounds is a more scholarly work it does not escape this) getting worse because I believe the more traditional of these opponents (particularly on the reformed side, who, in truth, only tolertate Arminians) are beginning to realize a couple of things: for a lot of Christians open theism is the way they view God anyway, so it is an easy transition, and two, they cannot refute it as easily as they wish. As such, the name calling will probably get worse...
I agree. 
"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 3/15/2004 5:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Piper, Helseth, Taylor edited it. And you think they're afraid? Not at all. The truth is just so evident to these people that it is hard for them and myself to understand how one could ever think otherwise. The Bible states it plain, the philosophy is Biblically backed, etc. The only thing i think they are nervous about is that we feel as though the glory of God is at stake and that's why we fight it. But the book is not written because we are afraid that some new thought might creep into the doctrines of faith. No, we welcome Biblically backed doctrines into the Church to reform our thinking. But to us, Open Theism does not meet these requirements. as the subtitle of the book says, "Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity".
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 3/15/2004 6:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
No, we welcome Biblically backed doctrines into the Church to reform our thinking. But to us, Open Theism does not meet these requirements. as the subtitle of the book says, "Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity".
I have yet to see anyone offer a capable Biblical refutation of OVT. Typically you get Biblical refutations of Strawman versions of OVT, but I've yet to see a true scholarly challenge.
Sounds like this book doesn't bring anything new to the table, but I'll probably check it out anyway. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 3/15/2004 6:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by A_Theist
How serious should we open theists take "Beyond the Bounds" anyways?
I'm not an open theist, but here's my opinion. I've read the following critiques of Open Theism:
- Beyond the Bounds
- Bound Only Once
- God Under Fire
- What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?
In addition, I'm halfway through Feinberg's massive No One Like Him which devotes several of its 800+ pages to critiquing Open Theism. I've given each of these books 4 out of 5 stars on Amazon because I generally agree with them, but I wouldn't call any of them outstanding. As far as the tone goes, Bound Only Once is clearly the most strident, Beyond the Bounds is a little less strident, and the other 3 seemed pretty irenic to me.
In my opinion, Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views is more interesting than any of the books mentioned above.
"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 | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/15/2004 6:30 AM (GMT -6) | | | Chris: truly you are right. Bound Only Once is simply for the already converted. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/15/2004 7:59 AM (GMT -6) | | I did want to add that my views here does not mean that I believe that open theism is right, or wrong, or that such people as Piper are "scared," in the traditional sense of the word.
I take the notion that all views have problems, because all views are flawed by us humans. I think Calvinists, particularly, would do well to recognize this fact, and clean their own houses first before attacking others.
If open theism is wrong, theological systems such as Calvinism have only themselves to blame for it. Calvinism will never take a stronghold in the average Christian until they stop attacking alternatives, and start recognizing that their own house has its own repairs that need to be fixed. Until Calvinists recognize that theirs is not the only way to interpret certain passages and believing the five points is not always the best way for a Christian to glorify God, they will continue to lose people.
All theological systems are flawed because they are just that: systems. The Bible is not exact about what God knows exactly and until people stop asserting that it is, there will never be effective dialogue.
Having said that I believe scholars such as Piper are "scared" because I think it is dawning on them that they cannot make open theism go away by quoting scriptures they interpret a certain way and then asserting that this proves their view. I think open theism, if nothing else, has been a watershed for evangelism because average Christians are no longer accepting the scholars words but are actually looking at the verses and asking questions. I, for one, believe God loves our questions.
"The truth is just so evident..." Borg, such a statement proves my point exactly. Until you get off your high horse and try and understand where other Christians are coming from and how they come to their interpretation of scripture,even if you disagree with them, there can be no dialogue...only assertions of right and wrong...
All systems have their problems. Recognize this, recognize another person's struggle to find God's truth and stop blaming his interpretation on tradition. Only God knows the truth about himself. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/15/2004 9:37 AM (GMT -6) | | | Ochuk: I think what you are saying is really true. What non-Calvinists such as Geisler and others (like the one who endorsed Ware's book) don't seem to understand is that most of the arguments against open theism are arguments against Armianism as well and it does not behoove Armianisms to join with Calvinists on this issue. Unfortunately (and I have Frame's book as well), I find it very ironic that Calvinists are constantly whining (See James White) about how they are misrepresented. And what do they do: they turn around and do exactly that to open theists. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/15/2004 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | | | Are those who hold to middle knowledge correctly labelled Arminians? I would, however, agree with you Chris. I would say also that Craig is also the least strident of open theim's critics, which means open theists are more likely to listen to him. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/15/2004 5:55 PM (GMT -6) | | | WL Craig is WAY above my head most of the time... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 3/16/2004 4:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Are those who hold to middle knowledge correctly labelled Arminians?
A good question that is best answered by someone other than myself. A Google search indicates that Craig is not infrequently called an Arminian on the Internet. In Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, the simple foreknowledge view is labelled "Classical Arminianism" by the editors, with the implication that Craig's Molinism is somewhere between that and the Calvinist viewpoint. In God & Time: Four Views, on the other hand, his view is placed next to Wolterstoff's divine temporality view, and perhaps it is closer to the Open View than classical Arminianism is, as Laika seems to suggest above.
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
I would say also that Craig is also the least strident of open theim's critics, which means open theists are more likely to listen to him.
He is certainly in some sense less strident than most, although I don't know that he's less strident than, say, Erickson. On the other hand, there's something about Craig's style that comes across to me as very aggressive. He seems to have supreme confidence in the correctness of his arguments, and, when combined with his apparent penchant for jargon, this can be very off-putting.
I am a Mormon, and in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, Craig writes: "It is striking how similar Boyd's literalistic hermeneutic is to that of Mormon theologians, who employ it to justify their belief in a God who is not only ignorant of future contingents but is a physical being with human form." I have compiled a fairly comprehensive list of the statements made by Mormon church leaders over the last 50 years that have a bearing on what God knows about the future, and I thought of sending it to Craig, in case he's unaware that the Mormon theologians and philosophers don't always agree with the people who actually lead the church, but I decided not to because his writing style suggests to me that such a communication on my part would meet an icy reception. (Of course, the fact that I couldn't find an email address for him had something to do with it 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 | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 3/16/2004 5:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
Chris, what do you think of his Kalam Cosmological argument? There's something about it I don't quite buy into but I've not thought it through yet.
I've not read his book on the issue, nor am I very familiar with the argument itself. It appears that the argument hinges on the impossibility of a real infinite set, which to me, as a working mathematician but not a mathematical philosopher, smacks of constructivist complaints about standard mathematics--complaints that I find unconvincing and, well, annoying. If and when I bring myself up to speed on Craig's work in this area, I'll let you know what I think of it.
"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 | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 3/16/2004 5:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
Chris, what do you think of his Kalam Cosmological argument? There's something about it I don't quite buy into but I've not thought it through yet.
[/br]
I'm pretty familiar with the argument and its a very good one for proving that a God is likely to exist. What about it bothers you? | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/16/2004 5:34 AM (GMT -6) | | | Chris: it wasn't a criticism, just a thought...I wonder what Craig calls himself. | | Back to Top | | |
| 35 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:05 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 |
|
|