Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Bruce McCormack on Open Theism

Forum Quick Jump

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

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/18/2008 4:19 PM (GMT -6)

Somebody not too long ago mentioned Bruce McCormack's article on open theism in a volume on theological issues he's just edited and published. I got it in the mail and am almost finished with the article. It's actually a very good chapter, very bold, though I disagree with him. Still for those who have the volume and want to discuss it, McCormack's chapter would make a SUPER great conversation here sometime.

I'd be willing to scan or type it out sometime.

Tom

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 8/18/2008 7:10 PM (GMT -6)

Sounds good to me.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/19/2008 1:36 AM (GMT -6)

Have you read the essay Jeff?

T

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 8/19/2008 7:52 PM (GMT -6)

No, and I'm not familiar with that author. I've been wanting to throw something else out about OT. Humphrey Bogart and I got into a debate about whether there are certain contradictions necessary to the human mind or not. At one point, I was arguing my usual take on the idea that God can have supra-categorical relations in His activity, but that it's too problematic to assume that ultimate reality is ultimately contradictory to how human's naturally think.

The specific example we got into was 3-d vs. 4-d space. He was arguing something about space in terms of 4-d that would contradict what we believe given our 3-d spatial category. And it boiled down to the fact that even if that were true, people don't mean 4-d when they're normally talking about spacial relations. SO they can still be speaking accurately about 3-d relations.

Then we talked, recently, about the possibility that Christ may not have known that he wasn't free to sin. That means that Christ believed he was free in respects that he wasn't. And that got me thinking again about that other debate. You had once explained to me that there is no way that God could foreknow LFW choices by supra-categorical relations in His thought. And I agree. But how did you argue that? The only thing I can think of is that God wouldn't design us to believe what is contradictory to reality. We may know LESS than what is real. But to be designed to believe what is false seems really problematic, epistemologically. But then what would that imply about the example of Christ?

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/20/2008 8:41 AM (GMT -6)

Jeff: No, and I'm not familiar with that author.

Tom: I hope we can talk about McCormack’s essay re: open theism. He has a very interesting take on Barth’s Christology. He did his PhD at Princeton Theo Sem on Barth and now teaches there. He's Reformed.

Jeff: At one point, I was arguing my usual take on the idea that God can have supra-categorical relations in His activity, but that it's too problematic to assume that ultimate reality is ultimately contradictory to how human's naturally think.

Tom: Might be beyond me! You guys are the technicians! But I’d just say that it seems to me that reality is ultimately meaningful (even if WE can't comprehend it all). To say that reality’s ultimate meaning depends upon there being “what seem to be” contradictions to us (because of our finiteness) is one thing. But even then we conclude that the contradictions are only apparent and are grounded in the limited capacities of language to ultimately capture and express the truth about reality. So we live in the tension (and are able ultimately to dismiss it) because we know it's NOT ultimate. But to say that reality itself it ultimately contradictory is to say it’s ultimately meaningless. And a meaningless reality? We need to posit this? For what?

Jeff: Then we talked, recently, about the possibility that Christ may not have known that he wasn't free to sin. That means that Christ believed he was free in respects that he wasn't. And that got me thinking again about that other debate. You had once explained to me that there is no way that God could foreknow LFW choices by supra-categorical relations in His thought. And I agree. But how did you argue that?

Tom: Hmm. I must be good. Can’t remember!

Jeff: The only thing I can think of is that God wouldn't design us to believe what is contradictory to reality. We may know LESS than what is real. But to be designed to believe what is false seems really problematic, epistemologically.

Tom: Indeed.

Jeff: But then what would that imply about the example of Christ?

Tom: Isn’t saying God designs us to with (our knowing) less than everything different than saying God designs us to be in error? Greg was sure that Christ’s sharing our epistemic distance and human nature was enough to guarantee that he wouldn’t know that he really couldn’t fail. I like the idea at first, but then it just seemed arrogant to suppose that Christ was so inept and shallow a thinker that he wouldn’t have reflected deeply enough upon his own identity and calling to figure out that he was God and what this meant. I mean, Greg can figure that out but Jesus couldn’t?

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/20/2008 8:47:19 AM (GMT-5)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 8/20/2008 6:14 PM (GMT -6)

Yeah. That's true, too. The only way God could be faithful was if Christ faithfully "finished" his mission. So if that entailed sinlessness (he who knew no sin ...), then I think Christ could know he was essentially faithful and still have learned to be compassionate from the sheer suffering entailed in doing what's right as a human in the likeness of our flesh in this world.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/20/2008 6:18 PM (GMT -6)

By the way, Jeff, remind of that Ecclesiastes stuff from way back when. I'm trying to recall that.

Tom

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 8/21/2008 6:23 AM (GMT -6)

It had to do with language very much like the "it had been better for you had you never been born" language of Christ. But it made pretty clear, to me, that that language can be used in a much less than absolute sense. We need to try to find it again to make sure it wasn't some version-rendering that made us think that way. If not, it helps us see an idiomatic nature to that language that is different than a westerner would likely otherwise guess.

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:55 AM (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