 |
|  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 11/28/2002 8:17 AM (GMT -6) |   | Subject: Drawing Lines On Openness
Observation: Lines are being drawn on "Openness."
Thought: Two kinds of lines are being drawn. The first is a sort of personal/social line. The second is a sort of content-based line.
The first kind of line should come with it a user's manual that says that once contents are openned they are really tough to get back in the bag. Once out, they at least partially fail to work properly -- so time reassembling is worth the effort and needed growth in patience that goes with it.
The second kind of line should come with it a glossary illustrating how, just like cutting an orange, the lines can be drawn in various directions, acheiving different results in the end.
To the manual fo the first kind, I'd add reference saying that we should avoid polemical name-calling. Both sides need to read this at least weekly.
To the glossary of the second kind, I'd add reference to the FACT (imho) that the "Openness" debate is NOT about one monolithic issue, but two issues that SOMETIMES are joined together; but don't necessarily belong together.
Point: To cut an ORANGE into pieces you have to make an initial decision which way the first cut ("line") is to run.
My dad showed me that while one can make the first "line" run through the navel and stem "poles", it is sometimes more interesting to cut first along the "equator." THEN, if one uses care and imagination, and cuts the half into an ODD number fo slices, the "middle" slice will have a radiating pattern of slice-lets (sp?) These are more fun to eat. Also, if one has already cut pole-to-pole first, one can still cut the rest of the lines "across" the clice sections, yeilding a sort of slicelet even then. And this can be more fun to eat.
The OPENNESS matter, with respect to God, is not about one monolithic issue. It is about two issues. And these SOMETIMES are joined together; but they don't necessarily have to be taken together. first is the 'name-sake' issue that "God is OPEN." This is basic to Christianity. Christians do, sometimes, stray from it, introducing their own thoughts. But I beleive that it helps us all -- especially with the "first line" that is "personal/social" to identify the "Open"-ness of God as being basic. It is John 3:16. Second comes the current debate about whether God is a 'temporal' being. These are TWO different matters. And depending on how one slices the ORANGE one may or may not agree with this observation. But with respect to my own ORANGE sliding...they are two separate issue -- two separate matters of "content."
There can be some who say that God's OPENNESS necessarily means that God is time-bound just like we are. There can be some who say that God's OPENNESS means that God is not immutable (I think that Wolterstorff might be in this group. Maybe my pastor--I'm not sure.) And there can be some -- LIKE ME -- who know that God's OPENNESS does not require either temporality or mutability.
The standard possitions of the Greek Fathers clearly and distinctly allow for God's OPENNESS as to Person while also allowing God to not be matter/time bound in his essence and not be mutable, and yet in every way that reality entails be continually involved by his divine uncreated energies.
Second observation: As much care as can be done needs to be made to affirm understanding of the conviction of "Opennes" on each side of the ETS debacle! I've read articles that indicated sincere belief by the author that the "Openness" folk accuss the "classical" of not believing that God is "Open." Such polemicism has to be actively, energetically, and persistently ground to a hault.
Exploration of the EO and what it has to offer should be explored.
Edited by - fred on 11/28/2002 1:49:23 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 11/28/2002 8:52 AM (GMT -6) |   | Gotta try this new signature, and see if it works.
"Time is the freedom to love." (from Ware's The Inner Kingdom)
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  GregBoyd Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 1818 | Posted 12/1/2002 2:50 AM (GMT -6) |   | This is why I've always insisted that "the open view of God" should be rather labelled "the open view of the future." It's uniqueness is not in what it claims about God -- as though the church tradition has usually said God is "closed." Rather, its uniqueness is in the claim that the future is OPEN, unsettled, even in the mind of God. Of course, Open Theists beleive that to consistently hold to an open view of God, you need to hold to an open future. But that inference is not the heart of the position, at least as I see it.
Blessings
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 12/1/2002 8:49 AM (GMT -6) |   | Thanks for your response, Greg.
May I select one part?
quote: Doc: "Rather, its uniqueness is in the claim that the future is OPEN, unsettled, even in the mind of God."
Obviously I do not share the view that God is circumscribed by time. (Neither think I that God is removed from time.)
But, actually, I think that there is BOTH an "open future" AND God is NOT "circumscribed by time."
The quotes by Ware (and you know that's not Bruce Ware) that I've been posting on the "Time" thread are getting to that point.
quote: from Kallistos (Timothy) Ware's "The Inner Kingdom", chapter: Time: Prison or Path to Freedom?
Time as the freedom to love
Let us turn now to our second point. Time from a Christian perspective is one of the means whereby God evokes and guarantees our created human freedom, our freedom to love. The notion of freedom-both divine freedom and human freedom-is fundamental to the Christian doctrine of creation. "God is truly present and operative only in freedom," claims Nicolas Berdyaev. "Freedom alone should be recognized as possessing a sacred quality."14 As Seren Kierkegaard has rightly insisted, "The most tremendous thing granted to humans is choice, freedom."15 God created the world in freedom, and He willed that the beings whom He formed in His image should likewise be free. As a Trinitarian God, a God of shared interpersonal love, He desired that we humans in our turn should be joined to Him in a relationship of mutual love. Mutual love, however, presupposes freedom, for where there is no voluntary choice there can be no love. Love cannot be constrained, but can only be tendered willingly; God is able to do anything except compel us to love him. Love comes always as an offer to which the beloved is invited to respond in freedom.
By creating in this way a world of persons capable of freely responding to Him in love, God accepted to restrict, in some measure, the exercise of His omnipotence. He "withdrew" as it were from His creation, "distancing" Himself so that His creatures might have room to love. Creation involves a divine self-limitation, what the sixteenth-century Jewish Kabbalist, Isaac Luria, termed zimzum, "contraction" or "concentration."16 In thus bringing into existence free persons with the power of rejecting him, God inevitably took a risk. But had He not taken this risk, there would have been a universe without love. As Vladimir Lossky observes, "This divine risk, inherent in the decision to create beings in the image and likeness of God, is the summit of almighty power, or rather a surpassing of that summit in a voluntarily undertaken powerlessness... He who takes no risks does not love."17
It is in this context of freedom and love that the meaning of time can best be appreciated. Time is part of the "distancing" or "contraction" on God's side which makes it possible for us humans freely to love. It is, as it were, the interspace which enables us to move towards God unconstrained and by our voluntary choice. "Behold I stand at the door and knock," says Christ; "if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him and he with Me" (Rev 3:20). God knocks, but does not break down the door; He waits for us to open. This waiting on Gods part is exactly the essence of time: in Staniloae's words, "For God, time means the duration of the expectant waiting between His knocking on the door and our act of opening it."20 God issues His appeal to human freedom: "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" After that He awaits the voluntary response from our side: "Then I said, 'Here am I! Send me'" (Is 6:8). Time is the interval between God's appeal and our answer. We humans need this interval of time so as freely to love God and one another; without the interval we cannot engage in the dialogue of love. On the level of uncreated divine freedom, the mutual love of the Trinity is an expression of the totum simul, of eternal simultaneity, and so it is without any interval of time. But on the level of created human freedom love has to be learnt; and learning takes time, as those who teach or study in a university are only too well aware. Blake has well described our human condition in his Songs of Innocence: And we are put on earth a little space, That we may learn to bear the beams of love.21
Time is thus an all-important dimension of our created personhood, the setting that makes it possible for us to choose love. It is time that allows us to respond to God by our own free consent, that enables our love to mature, that permits us to grow in love. Space is to be understood in similar terms, as an expression of God's self-distancing so that we may be free to respond to Him in love. It affords us, says Staniloae, the possibility of "free movement.. .the freedom to draw near or to move away."22 Without time and space we cannot experience the "between" that unites in love the "I" and the "Thou."
If in our daily life we commonly apprehend time very differently-not as relationship but as separation, not as freedom but as fetters upon our liberty-then that is because we are part of a fallen world in which time has become linked with mortality and death. Yet, although fallen, time is not totally so; even in our present condition we still glimpse its primal significance as a "time of gifts" and a continual miracle. And, because it is God's creation and as such is "altogether good and beautiful," time is not to be repudiated or ignored, but redeemed. Our goal is not timelessness but time transfigured. It is true that in the Apocalypse the angel proclaims, "There shall be time no longer" (Rev. 10:6)-some would render it "There shall be no more delay"-but the time that is to be abolished is the fallen time of death (cf. Rev. 21:4). For the Apocalypse also states that within the heavenly Jerusalem there will be "the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month' (Rev 22:2). This can only mean that, in the eternal Kingdom of the Age to come, the rhythms of cyclic time are not abolished but transformed.23
If the significance of time is to be found in relationship and love, it follows that true time is not simply that which is assessed mechanically by the clock or the calendar. True time is living, personal, existential, measured not by mere succession but by intention. True time is kairos rather than chronos, characterized not by the predetermined swing of the pendulum but by unpredictable yet decisive moments of opportunity, moments of disclosure filled with meaning when clock time stands still, as Joseph found in the Protevangelion, and when eternity breaks in. Time is not just a fixed, unvarying pattern imposed upon us from outside, but it can be recreated from within and used as an expression of our inner selves. We are in time, but time is also in us. We speak of "wasting time" and "killing time," but let us also give full value to the habitual phrases "make time," "give time" and "save time."
Not intending to make you change your ideas, Greg. But just glad to share with you something that the ETS probably won't be publishing. 
Al
The reality of the Godhead, so to speak, is intrinsically relational - or, as Basil of Caesarea put it, God is 'a kind of continuous and indivisible koinonia, (Letter 38, Migne, PG 32, 332a). - FERGUS KERR OP
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 12/01/2002 4:11:55 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:29 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 |
|
|