 |
 | 
Calvin_and_Hops
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/4/2004 2:34 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/4/2004 5:46 PM (GMT -6) | | | Chris: what page is that on so I can read it in context? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/4/2004 8:40 PM (GMT -6) | | I don't think the claim is accurate. I don't see that open theism demands a single view on the Trinity.
Does the reviewer you're reading provide quotes or the names of certain open theist authors upon which he bases this claim?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/4/2004 8:52 PM (GMT -6) | | | Sorry I was confused. I thought it was from the book. No wonder it didn't sound familiar. Per chance Chris could you direct us to the article, or review you read it in? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/5/2004 6:18 AM (GMT -6) | |
Here's the context:
"Another point on which Latter-day Saint understanding and openness thought converge is their view of the Christian Godhead. Both, on the authority of revelation, reject the conventional view that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost constitute one metaphysical substance, affirming rather that they are so lovingly interrelated as to constitute one perfectly united community. This understanding of the Godhead is known in contemporary Christian discourse as 'social Trinitarianism' or as 'the social analogy of the Trinity'.
"In line with this model, openness thinkers portray God as 'a triune communion who seeks relationships of love with human beings' (p. 3 [of Pinnock's Most Moved Mover]). Pinnock describes the relational essence of the Trinity as 'three persons in a caring, sensitive and responsive communion' (p. 84); this, he says, 'is central to the open view of God' (p. 84). Further, 'God is the one who lives in love and wills community with creatures; he is not a supreme monad that exists in eternal solitude. To speak metaphysically, the gospel alludes to a relational ontology of persons in communion. The Trinity speaks to us of relationality and is not tied to substance philosophy' (p. 28). Later he writes, 'God is more than a single loving person . . . he is a loving community of persons in which each gives and receives love' (p. 83)."
(David L. Paulsen and Matthew G. Fisher, "A New Evangelical Vision of God: Openness and Mormon Thought", Review of Clark H. Pinnock. Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness, in The FARMS Review, Volume 15, Number 2, 2003, pp. 423-424.)
"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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/5/2004 7:18 AM (GMT -6) | | And who are traditional non-openness Christians like in THEIR view of God, Muslims? Come on. Openness folk deny God's "one metaphysical substance"? Not necessarily so. But even if they DID this would make them like Greek Orthodox Christians, not like Mormons. Your reviewer is way off. This sort of thing makes me never wanna pick up another critique of the open view. Does your reviewer know God so well that he knows God is made up of one metaphysical subtance? I doubt it. Besides, that has never benn THE hallmark, orthodox confession (cf. the Greek Church). Clark's point is that "substance" is NOT the hightest category under which we may speak of God, "person" is (and with "person" comes "relational" and "loving"). And Clark is right on the money. "Person" most certainly must be the HIGHTEST category under which we can conceive of God. Way better than "substance." John said "God is love," not "God is one metaphysical substance."
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/5/2004 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
And who are traditional non-openness Christians like in THEIR view of God, Muslims? Come on. Openness folk deny God's "one metaphysical substance"? Not necessarily so. But even if they DID this would make them like Greek Orthodox Christians, not like Mormons. Your reviewer is way off. This sort of thing makes me never wanna pick up another critique of the open view. Does your reviewer know God so well that he knows God is made up of one metaphysical subtance? I doubt it. Besides, that has never benn THE hallmark, orthodox confession (cf. the Greek Church). Clark's point is that "substance" is NOT the hightest category under which we may speak of God, "person" is (and with "person" comes "relational" and "loving"). And Clark is right on the money. "Person" most certainly must be the HIGHTEST category under which we can conceive of God. Way better than "substance." John said "God is love," not "God is one metaphysical substance."
Some clarifications: FARMS is a Mormon apologetics group. David Paulsen is a Mormon philosopher. His review of Most Moved Mover was not a critique but an enthusiastic endorsement. (The editor of The FARMS Review gave Pinnock's book 3 stars: "Enthusiastically recommended.") Paulsen was trying to argue that we Mormons ought to be excited about Open Theism. I am glad to hear that you agree with me that Mormons shouldn't be excited about Open Theism. 
"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 | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 4/5/2004 10:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted
Chris Grant: “Open View rejects one metaphysical substance, embraces three relational substances.” Am I really reading this?
Calvin and Hops,
feelinahole: Are you really reading what?
TGB: It can’t be. Whose writing that? Who are they quoting?
feelinahole: Who wrote that?
Chris Grant: Here’s more… “LDS and O.V. are getting chummy on the trinity debate.”
TGB: Woah! Since you put it that way… God is not “substance” but “person”.
Chris Grant: Whew! FYI… it was FARMS… Close call there! I’m glad we still agree to disagree.
Am I getting the right read here? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/5/2004 11:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
And who are traditional non-openness Christians like in THEIR view of God, Muslims? Come on. Openness folk deny God's "one metaphysical substance"? Not necessarily so. But even if they DID this would make them like Greek Orthodox Christians, not like Mormons. Your reviewer is way off. This sort of thing makes me never wanna pick up another critique of the open view. Does your reviewer know God so well that he knows God is made up of one metaphysical subtance? I doubt it. Besides, that has never benn THE hallmark, orthodox confession (cf. the Greek Church). Clark's point is that "substance" is NOT the hightest category under which we may speak of God, "person" is (and with "person" comes "relational" and "loving"). And Clark is right on the money. "Person" most certainly must be the HIGHTEST category under which we can conceive of God. Way better than "substance." John said "God is love," not "God is one metaphysical substance."
Tom
PREACH, TOM! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 4/5/2004 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Its just interesting that this topic is raised. I was shown this site by a similar discussion on another site.
home.earthlink.net/%7Eeeshgeebor/Messiahrevealed.htm
Is it essential for Christ to be God in order to believe? Is the trinity an essential doctrine for the Christian?
Everytime I talk with Muslims I find myself carrying the trinity debate without even saying a word. I would just like to have a conversation without some obvious stumbling blocks. But NOOO! I always have the role of trinitarian imposed on me because I am Christian. I wish I wasn't called anything so I could just talk about Jesus without having to swim upstream in the river of semantics and debate.
Some of you, likely those who live in the MiddleEast probably have some first hand wisdom on this. What do you think?
Wahoo | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/5/2004 5:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Wahoo: Everytime I talk with Muslims I find myself carrying the trinity debate without even saying a word. I would just like to have a conversation without some obvious stumbling blocks. But NOOO! I always have the role of trinitarian imposed on me because I am Christian. I wish I wasn't called anything so I could just talk about Jesus without having to swim upstream in the river of semantics and debate.
Tom: And you wouldn't have ANY stumbling blocks if you were JUST talking about Jesus? Wow. Hey, if you carry the Trinity debate with Muslims "without saying a word" then you need to write a book on it for us workers in the Muslim world. I've been out here over 20 years, speak Arabic, and have talked with Muslims a lot about the Trinity; but to carry the debate without speaking a word? Now THAT'S something. Write your book Wahoo. I'll read it.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/5/2004 5:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Wahoo
quote:
Originally posted
Chris Grant: “Open View rejects one metaphysical substance, embraces three relational substances.” Am I really reading this?
Calvin and Hops,
feelinahole: Are you really reading what?
TGB: It can’t be. Whose writing that? Who are they quoting?
feelinahole: Who wrote that?
Chris Grant: Here’s more… “LDS and O.V. are getting chummy on the trinity debate.”
TGB: Woah! Since you put it that way… God is not “substance” but “person”.
Chris Grant: Whew! FYI… it was FARMS… Close call there! I’m glad we still agree to disagree.
Am I getting the right read here?
I don't think so. I have no idea what a "relational substance" is. I know what a relationship is. OK. But not a "relational substance."
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 4/5/2004 5:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Ha, ha, ha.
Here's what happens. I want open dialogue, so I allow the Muslim to speak about what his faith means first. But on two separate occasions I have found myself nodding through a discourse in the Muslim debate of Christianity. Their harshest criticism as I have encountered has been the godman Jesus. They don't accept this and I can't seem to speak without having this baggage thrust upon me for being a Christian. I prefer to listen to the Muslim so I nod because I understand where he is coming from. It makes no sense... The Trinity, the Godhead of Jesus and it follows suit into the substitute death of Judas in Jesus' place on the cross.
What am I supposed to do? Christianity and the Trinity are married to each other and I don't even understand the trinity myself. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/10/2004 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | | Spen: frankly, I think you need to let go of defining "God" that open theists believe in through Doctor Boyd's book Seeing Is Believing. It seems that all open theists are being defined in that way by you, because DOctor Boyd is an open theist. Certainly all theologians of all traditions differ in how they view God in some way. In a sense, how we view God is as personal as each human being. However, Open theists affirm the doctrinal creeds of the church as far as who God is. Open theists see themselves as Arminians. | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/10/2004 1:30 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
You say, "I think this is basically just a semantical argument. How is "the Spirit of Christ" NOT "spiritual" and NOT "Jesus"? " Does this mean you think that we have a spiritual Jesus that we meet with inside of us because the Holy Spirit dwells there?
I think that it is important, but perhaps I am unable to articulate the reason very well. Jesus was raised physically with a real tangible body of flesh and bones as we see in Luke 24:39, quote:
"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
He ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the Father. He will then come back again, bodily and we will meet Him in the clouds and the whole earth will see Him.
If the Holy Spirit is a "spiritual Jesus" inside of us, then I think that there are Christological issues involved. This is really why I asked the question in this thread concerning the trinity. It seems more than semantic and I am really wondering what others think. It appears that you wish to just blow it off, and you are welcome to, but I really do have a question.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Calvin_and_Hops
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/10/2004 1:36 PM (GMT -6) | | | spen lake gets my vote for the *most* polite, tactful, and transparently plain spoken poster in memory. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/10/2004 2:00 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
John,
You say, "I think this is basically just a semantical argument. How is "the Spirit of Christ" NOT "spiritual" and NOT "Jesus"? " Does this mean you think that we have a spiritual Jesus that we meet with inside of us because the Holy Spirit dwells there?
Acts 16:7After they arrived in Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not let them. (Sounds awfully mystical to me--direct communication with Deity).
1 Peter 1:10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries,
11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.
12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things into which angels long to look.
I don't know what your deal is with this "spiritual Jesus" bit. Honestly.
I have never denied that Jesus Christ is at the right hand of the Father in heaven. Do you deny that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit indwell the believer? See what I mean?
quote:
If the Holy Spirit is a "spiritual Jesus" inside of us, then I think that there are Christological issues involved. This is really why I asked the question in this thread concerning the trinity. It seems more than semantic and I am really wondering what others think. It appears that you wish to just blow it off, and you are welcome to, but I really do have a question.
Talk about Christological issues! You seem to want to say that:
1. Jesus Christ is in heaven.
2. Jesus Christ does not dwell in the believer, because He's in heaven.
3. Any depiction of Christ dwelling within the believer should be very cautiously avoided, as this would mean some kind of New Age mystical "spiritual Jesus."
Is this what you're trying to say? If so, it just seems to me that you have erected your own straw man that involves a real denial of the omnipresence of the Son of God.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Calvin_and_Hops
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/10/2004 2:24 PM (GMT -6) | | | Good judgement. Lucky Guess. Just an easy choice I suppose! | | Back to Top | | |
| 31 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:34 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 |
|
|