 |
 | 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2009 11:02 PM (GMT -6) |   | |
This, from Alan's page one
"Conversely, God’s openness to creation, particularly his openness to developing loving relationships with his creatures, requires an open future in which their free contributions help to determine the shape of things to come."
appears to fail the test of openness. It is two-story.
EDIT -- CONFUSION HERE IS MY OWN FAULT. BY OPENNESS I MEAN IT DOES NOT SEEK TO SAY THE SAME SORT OF THING about OPENNESS THAT A TRADITIONAL EMBRACE OF MYSTERY DOES. EXAMPLES OF THIS TRADITIONAL EXPRESSION CAN BE FOUND HERE: http://www.opentheismboard.org/pr.aspx?f=10&m=106300
(o)Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 7/21/2009 9:16:17 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/20/2009 11:20 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/21/2009 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | | THIS IS COPIED TO THE THREAD: http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=10&m=106300&p=2
First, let me move the discussion to the thread I started, which Alan also posted on.
I have no other impression of Alan tha he is smart and articulate.
Tom, in light of the other thread and Alan's posting there...ONE post here about how the traditional mystery of synergy seemingly evaporating (as it does in the culture) in favor of thinking that is comfortable with with where outright "creatures...determine the shape of things to come"...it is fine for me to contrast the apple of Alan's definition of openness with the orange of the way I was using the word.
But, Tom, I agree that Alan does a good job -- and excellent job (!!!) arguing for his understanding of openness. I think we all agree on that one.
What I did is UNDERLINE a key place that (I thought) clearly illustrated Alans use of "openness" and then I very briefly stated why this definition was different from my definition.
I think that is fair, and productive.
How we cooperate with God seems to me a mystery -- you and D. posted how many threads on that one? Alan's post on the other thread, and the enture threat itself is about mystery. And after posting a quote from Alan's other paper aand its lin on the other thread and the "five-fold" paper being encouraged here... AND, having found a simple example of two-story division presupposition in the thesis portion of the paper I simply posted as brief as possible here.
Now to take this to the other thread so that Alan's paper can be discussed here from other angles -- whether two-story or one...
Tom said...
Alan IS brilliant. No doubt about it. We all hit the jack-pot when he converted to OV! Hahaha!
POW, can I ask a couple things?
a) What do you mean by "two-story"?
b) What is there in Alan's comment that makes you think he adopts a "two-story" worldview?
and lastly,
c) What do you think ALAN means by "openness"?
The last question is all-important. You cannot adopt a definition of "openness" different from Alan's and then claim Alan's argument fails because it fails to satisfy YOUR definition of "openness." Alan isn't arguing for your understanding of openness. He's arguing for HIS understanding of it. And his understanding actually precludes a two-story (commonly understood) universe. It's BECAUSE there's continuity and integrity to the relationship (and the unity of the relationship) between God AND the world (i.e., NO two-story approach) that God's openness TO the world entails the openness OF the world to God and to its future becoming. That's all Alan's saying, and that ain't no two-story story.
Tom
(o)Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 7/21/2009 8:57:56 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/21/2009 9:05 AM (GMT -6) | | ALAN: Conversely, God’s openness to creation, particularly his openness to developing loving relationships with his creatures, requires an open future in which their free contributions help to determine the shape of things to come.
POW: Appears to fail the test of openness. It is two-story.
TOM: a) What do you mean by "two-story"?
POW:
TOM: b) What is there in Alan's comment that makes you think he adopts a "two-story" worldview?
POW:
TOM: c) What do you think ALAN means by "openness"?
POW:
Post Edited (Tom) : 7/21/2009 9:08:22 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/21/2009 9:08 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/21/2009 9:45 AM (GMT -6) | |
Tom said...
ALAN: Conversely, God’s openness to creation, particularly his openness to developing loving relationships with his creatures, requires an open future in which their free contributions help to determine the shape of things to come.
POW: Appears to fail the test of openness. It is two-story.
TOM: a) What do you mean by "two-story"?
POW: I mean where activity in one story can proceed without affecting the other story -- the two are really one when proceeding affects 'both,' which are really then one.
Tom: b) What is there in Alan's comment that makes you think he adopts a "two-story" worldview?
POW: Because of where he says "free contributions help to determine the shape of things to come." I chose this for an example because of the word "determine." That meant to me that there were things caused by creatures that were NOT also caused by God. I see where I did not give much wieght to Alan's "help to" -- which might make me feel better about it.
TOM: c) What do you think ALAN means by "openness"?
POW: I think he means creatures causing things that God is not also causing. Take for an example the liturgical prayer from Lent that sometimes -- piously -- is translated "take from me the spirit of sloth." It should rightly be translated "DO NOT GIVE ME the spirit of sloth." God is much more involved with us and we are much more involved with God than our piety makes us comfortable with -- at "heart" we are all two-story dwellers.
What mystified me was how neither you nor Alan embraced what Hutchens offered as example of openness.
Tell me, Tom, were my own 5 anathema to your openness, or just too common to take a look at. I was systified by your dismissal.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/21/2009 1:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Question about the "Providentially Open" thing...
It says:
The future is providentially open for Agent S as of time t if and only if for some state of affairs X and some future time t* neither X's obtaining at t* nor X's non-obtaining at t* has been efficaciously ordained by S either (i) as of t or (ii) timelessly.
and...
Hence, we may say that the future is providentially settled if and only if God exercises 'meticulous providence", that is, if and only if he efficaciously ordains "whatsoever comes to pass." If, on the contrary, God exercises non-meticulous or "general" providence, then the future is providentially open.
Agent S = God
SoA X = Self-giving Death of Incarnated God-Self
Time t = Moment of Creation
According to this, were the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of God's Son into the world "providentially open" from before Creation was created?
I'm interested.
The Lamb – Slain from the Foundation of the World
by Father Stephen
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."
"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian." -James Fowler Post Edited (One Love) : 7/21/2009 1:28:29 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/21/2009 1:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Moreover, if we say that the Word's incarnation "in the fullness of time" and His self-giving death "before the foundation of the world" are NOT providentially open events, does this have any implications for the any of the other levels?
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."
"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian." -James Fowler | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 7/21/2009 1:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Rob,
I'm glad you liked my paper. Thanks for the kind words.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/21/2009 1:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan:
I added the timelessness clause in my definition of 'providential openness' because there are Arminian (non-Molinist) proponents of divine timelessness who would deny that God ordains "whatsoever comes to pass". Such folks aren't open theists, but they do agree with open theists on this issue at least. I didn't want to exclude their position by definition.
Oh, I see. I thought that you were covering all the bases another way. But I'm still wondering...given the definition, would the self-giving death of the Incarnate God be considered providentially closed?
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."
"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian." -James Fowler | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 7/21/2009 2:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne: Given the definition, would the self-giving death of the Incarnate God be considered providentially closed?
Alan: Well, my definition of providential openness doesn't imply anything one way or another about the Incarnation. What it does imply is that IF God efficaciously ordained that the Son would become incarnate and die on the cross for our sins, THEN that event was providentially settled as of the moment God efficaciously ordained it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/21/2009 2:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan:
What it does imply is that IF God efficaciously ordained that the Son would become incarnate and die on the cross for our sins, THEN that event was providentially settled as of the moment God efficaciously ordained it.
Well, Scripture pretty much lays that out there. Because before Creation, the Eternal Son was the "Lamb who was slain." (implying God's pre-Creation preparation for death as an experience) What I'm wondering is this: if we say that such an event about 13-14 billion years in the making can be providentially settled, even before the Big Bang, doesn't this have any implications on the other four forms of openness you talk about?
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."
"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian." -James Fowler | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/21/2009 2:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne,
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you (wouldn't be the first time, sorry for that) but it seems to me that you did not understand Alan's statement.
IF God efficaciously ordained X (in this case, X being "the Son would become incarnate and die on the cross for our sins" )
THEN, THAT event (X) was providentially settled as of the moment God efficaciously ordained it.
This does not imply that ALL events are providentially settled
And just because one event may have been providentially settled for 13-14 billion years does not mean that it has any implications on the other four forms of openness because it is an existentially important event, any more so than if some other more trivial event had been providentially settled for that same amount of time. Would you be asking this question if what had been providentially settled was something trivial?
If the likelihood of the Fall is approaching near certainty, then how difficult is it to understand that providentially settling the answer to the Fall is an easy decision to make. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/21/2009 2:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Hence, we may say that the future is providentially settled if and only if God exercises 'meticulous providence", that is, if and only if he efficaciously ordains "whatsoever comes to pass." If, on the contrary, God exercises non-meticulous or "general" providence, then the future is providentially open.
The providential "setting" of the Incarnate Word's death-cum-resurrection doesn't imply that ALL things are exhaustively foreknown and determined as such, but it does seem to God exercised a significant amount of "meticulous providence" with respect to things that needed to occur for Christ's Work on the Cross to occur.
That's nothing to sneeze at, right?
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."
"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian." -James Fowler | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/21/2009 3:04 PM (GMT -6) | | I love seeing the traffic. Yeah baby.
Separate incarnation from redemption from sin. That creation and incarnation are essentially one choice is, I think, a VERY plausible claim. God creates intending to incarnate as the means by which creation (esp. humanity) is brought into relationship and fulness with him. But the "slain" part I don't think has to be entailed the same way in spite of the "since the foundation of the world" which might suggest otherwise. (1) I have to check the Greek (REv. 13.8), but I think it's simply "apo katabolei" the kosmos, which just means (if I remember, apo followed by a noun in the genitive) from the point of creation onward, not implying anything necessarily about times or commitments prior to or "before" creation. In fact, the noun there "katabole" can mean "disruption" (casting down), which might just mean that once SIN entered the picture, the incarnation THEN took on the added task of redemption. But (2) the phrase may just reflect God's unconditional commitment at the time he decides to create (assuming "before" is the way to render "apo" followed by a genitive) to do whatever it took to see the project through. So when the crises arose, God knows, "Hey, we knew this was possible, maybe even virtually inevitable, and we committed then to pay the price, so here we are; we committed to this [should the arise] when we decided to create." It doesn't mean the cross is entailed in the choice to create purposively the way the incarnation is.
So, eventual incarnation is providentially closed because it's PART of the reason for creating. Death and suffering is as providentially closed or open as it the liklihood of sin's interrupting the program. If you wanna say sin is inevitable or virtually inevitable (like I do), you'll say God knew suffering was part of the deal. If you want to hold out optimistically that humanity could have ran the whole race without ever scewing up, then you'll say the death part is providentially open.
Tom
TomPost Edited (Tom) : 7/21/2009 3:11:54 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/21/2009 3:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
It doesn't mean the cross is entailed in the choice to create purposively the way the incarnation is.
The "fullness of time" in which the Incarnation took place? Was THAT entailed in the purposeful creative choice?
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."
"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian." -James Fowler Post Edited (One Love) : 7/21/2009 3:22:13 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/21/2009 4:01 PM (GMT -6) | |
Tom: It doesn’t mean the cross is entailed in the choice to create purposively the way the incarnation is.
D: The “fullness of time” in which the Incarnation took place? Was THAT entailed in the purposeful creative choice?
Tom: Obviously if God says, “Let’s create so you incarnate” then God’s got in mind what the optimal context would be for the incarnation to occur. When the “time is right” it’ll happen. That’s all I think it means. So yeah, I suppose the commitment to incarnate at the best time is part of the commitment to incarnate at all. God's a competent planner, right?
Do I think all the specifics of what the “best time” actually ended up looking like (Jewish culture, Roman world empire, Greek as lingua franca, Roman roads for optimal dissemination of the message, etc.) was all exactly how God intended it to work out “from the foundation of the world”? Of course not. I’m an open theist, not a determinist. But do I think all those historical specifics did in fact fulfilled the sort of “best, most optimal time to incarnate” that WAS part of God’s intent to incarnate. Yes.
That all the intersecting factors important to God would eventually (through his influence of course) come together and constitute that “fullness of time” moment for the incarnation...that moment was as providentially closed as the incarnation was. But what that moment would look like specifically might have been very different than it in fact was. Things could have gone differently. The Son could have been born in what we call South America or China for all I know had the intersecting factors eventuated there instead of in the Middle East.
Tom Post Edited (Tom) : 7/21/2009 4:06:40 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/21/2009 11:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Irenaeus's soul-making theodicy takes a slightly different understanding on sin's inevitability, yeah. He says what God wants out of creation are creatures who have stories to tell (of healing, rescue, redemption, etc.). And you can't have THAT apart from sin. So for Ireneaeus (I'd argue), sin (in an important sense) DOES have a purpose, a purposeful role to play, in creation's 'telos'. It plays a positive role in the exposition of divine created beauty by shaping the form of the beautiful. I personally have problems with that, but it's OK! Not a big deal! ;o)
Pax,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/22/2009 12:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Irenaeus's soul-making theodicy takes a slightly different understanding on sin's inevitability, yeah. He says what God wants out of creation are creatures who have stories to tell (of healing, rescue, redemption, etc.). And you can't have THAT apart from sin. So for Ireneaeus (I'd argue), sin (in an important sense) DOES have a purpose, a purposeful role to play, in creation's 'telos'. It plays a positive role in the exposition of divine created beauty by shaping the form of the beautiful. I personally have problems with that, but it's OK! Not a big deal! ;o)
Loder had an idea in "The Transforming Moment." The " Void" (the ultimate no-thingness of which death is representative and sin is expressive) is the chrysalis, as it were, for the development of possible new being in, with, and through the "Holy".
I could be reductionistic here. Creation was an inevitable "damsel in distress" that God would make free through his Children who have gone THROUGH the chrysalis of crucifixion of the self to be released into new being in Christ.
Or something like that.
I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration(futility), not by its own choice, but by the will of the One who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."
"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian." -James Fowler Post Edited (One Love) : 7/22/2009 12:18:53 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 39 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:42 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 |
|
|