Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Are openness proponents reductionist?

Forum Quick Jump

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

Martin Cothran
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 7

Posted 11/7/2001 5:30 AM (GMT -6)

It seems to me that one of the chief characteristics of openness thinkers is that they assume that attributes of God and the nature of his actions must be fully comprehensible in order to be accepted. In other words, if something is asserted of God in Scripture, it must first be tried at the tribunal of human understanding, and if it is found wanting--if our finite minds cannot fully grasp it, then it must be rejected.

Here is an example from another thread:

quote:

I can't at all wrap my head around the idea that God can regret what God predetermines. ... But if God determines all, then why not just determine that God can be glorious WITHOUT his wrath being revealed? I wouldn't think that'd be such a hard thing for God to do.

Classical theism, on the other hand, seems to take a different approach. Classical theism seems to be more willing to accept beliefs that are prima facia inconsistent if Scripture seems to assert both simultaneously.

I am thinking, for example, of classical theism's acceptance of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility--which seem mutually exclusive to some, but which many classical theists are content with even though they admit they do not fully understand it.

In short, when confronted with seemingly exclusive ideas in Scripture, the classical theist tends to say, "I don't understand how they could both be true, but I will accept both because Scripture asserts both." Whereas the openness thinker tends to say, "Since these two ideas are mutually exclusive, both cannot be true, and we must reject the one that militates against God's ability to love, take risks, etc.."

I would be interested to know:

1) whether you all think this is an accurate representation of the two views;

2) if true, what you think this says about both positions in terms of respect for Scripture; and

3) which methodology is closer to Greek rationalism.

Thanks.

Edited by - Martin Cothran on 11/07/2001 10:31:44 AM

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 11/7/2001 6:26 AM (GMT -6)

There is much, as an open theist, that I do not understand that is in scripture, yet I accept it. I disagree with your view that, for open theists, its about human understanding, unless you are including all Christians under that heading.
To a great extent, all believers must have SOME understanding of who God is, in order to worship God properly and to be assured that they are worshipping the true God. This is called discernment. Classical theism does this as well.
However, a problem occurs because, many times, classical theists assume their beliefs are clearly laid out in scripture and when differed from believe that people are differing from the teaching of scripture, ignoring that many believers have disagreed with them throughout the centuries and are still Christian.
I would say that open theists are more willing to look at the hard scriptures of the Bible and try and understand what they mean while classical theists tend to distance themselves from such scriptures, labeling them with a metaphor all the while writing them off.
I know of no openness thinker that "assumes that the attributes of God and the nature of his actions must be fully comprehensible in order to be accepted." I would be interested in where that thought came from...John 17:3 Harold
PS. It should be recognized that we all use our brain (and should) in order to understand as much as possible as to the nature of God. This is not the providence of openness thinkers. Classical theists have also tried to make the Bible more understandable to their way of belief with such things as Calvin's "divine accomodation."

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 11/11/2001 7:59 PM (GMT -6)

Nice to have you on the board Martin. Thanks.

Several comments:
1) I don't see that open theists are more rationalistic than classical theists and/or less accepting of mystery. Couldn't an open theists as easily criticize classical theists for being unwilling to accept that the sovereign God can create a world in which he REALLY changes in mind, regrets outcomes of his own decisions, thinks of the future in terms of "maybe," tests people "to know" their hearts, experiences disappointment and surprise, etc.? Why rationalistically rule these things out, when they are spelled out in Scripture in very clear terms?

2) Classical theology has almost always agreed that there is a vast difference between a legitimate mystery or paradox, on the one hand, and a contradiction, on the other. When someone says that an agent freely did x, and is morally responsible for doing x, even though they were eternally predetermined to do x, is this a mystery, or a contradiction? If it can be rendered meaningful, then, however mysterious it is, it could be categorized as a paradox, not a contradiction. (This of course doesn't mean its true, but at least its possible.) However, I, for one, can't give any cognitive content to the assertion. I have no analogy, or anything, by which I could meaningfully say, "Hilter was free and morally responsible for making his evil decision to exterminate the Jews, and God eternally predeterimined that he would do so." The second half of the sentence negates the first. It's on a par with, "God loves all married bachlers." This LOOKS like a meaningful sentence, but no one could get a concept in their head as a result of it. So it is, I maintain, with the supposed sentence "God determines what free morally responsible agents do."

Now, it could very well be that I am simply exceptionally dull or biased on this matter, and this is why I can't get a concept in my head when people talk this way. If so, please help me. Give me a way fo forming a concept in response to the sentence. I'll try to be open.

Until then, I must conclude that the position does not articulate a genuine mystery. It articulates a contradiction.

(Fortunately for me and other Arminians and open theists, I find I do not need to conclude that Scripture is contradictory, for I find that Scripture does not require this conclusion).

Blessings

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 11/12/2001 5:44 AM (GMT -6)

Martin said

quote:
I am thinking, for example, of classical theism's acceptance of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility--which seem mutually exclusive to some, but which many classical theists are content with even though they admit they do not fully understand it.

Many people, including classical theists explain God's sovereignty and man's responsibility by saying that man has compatibilistic freedom. That view makes sense. What would be totally incomprehensible (because it is a contradiction) is if someone said that God exercised divine meticulous control (deterministic) while man had libertarian freedom (indeterministic).

Make sense?

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

JoeMoore
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 25

Posted 11/14/2001 9:18 AM (GMT -6)

[quote]
Many people, including classical theists explain God's sovereignty and man's responsibility by saying that man has compatibilistic freedom. That view makes sense. What would be totally incomprehensible (because it is a contradiction) is if someone said that God exercised divine meticulous control (deterministic) while man had libertarian freedom (indeterministic).

Make sense?

[Joe]
Not really :-D. I realize the crux of the issue is usually libertarian freedom but I also cannot conceive of the existence of something called freedom that has no libertarian component to it. It seems nonsensical to me to say "you're free, but you only have one choice in each instance". Maybe someone can enlighten me in terms I understand. I'm not inclined to put any stock into the answer "well, as long as you feel free that's all that matters to you". I'm not saying I shouldn't accept that answer--just that I'm not inclined to right now.

Joe Moore

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:12 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual