Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Beyond The Bounds

Forum Quick Jump

73 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

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

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 6/3/2003 8:18 AM (GMT -6)

Christian asked:

quote:

Scott, is there any specific reason you are not OV?

Yes, there is. The operative reason at present why I am not an open theist is that I have not studied open theism :-)

But seriously, I am Arminian because I think personal autonomy and responsibility makes more sense than election/predestination, both biblically and out of my own experience; and I don't intuitively feel that foreknowledge itself either necessarily compromises that freedom, or fails to adequately satisfy theodicy concerns. I further think physics pretty clearly shows that space and time are interrelated parts of the creation, and so I feel God as creator must transcend them in some way, so that foreknowledge at least just comes with the territory. Not being an inerrantist (I am, for example, a theistic evolutionist), I am comfortable with seeing accommodation and anthropomorphism in scripture and can accept those as tentative explanations for God's apparent changes-of-mind.

But perhaps more than anything else, I feel that in some way both open theism and traditionalism may possibly be true and complementary - sort of like wave/particle duality in physics. Perhaps God interacts with us in time, and has and will do so for all time in a free give-and-take (so in that sense open theism is valid); but perhaps in the timeless view of the transcendant God all this happens "forever at once".

Anyway, those are the elementary musings I've had over the open view, but I mean what I said: I really haven't studied it. BTW you'll note that my reasons are largely intellectual; in terms of daily application and comfort I don't find anything threatening about the open view. Ie, I wouldn't feel more assured as a Calvinist knowing "God is in control of everything" - indeed that gives me major theodicy problems. I don't even feel especially more assured as an Arminian knowing "God knows exactly how it'll all turn out", over against the open view's "God knows basically how it'll all turn out." Its not a pastoral issue with me (thankfully) just an intellectual one. Maybe because the issue doesn't burn inside me is why I haven't checked it out more closely.

Scott

Christian
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78

Posted 6/3/2003 7:41 PM (GMT -6)

Out of curiosity, IF the ETS does oust P. and S., what will your (asked to whomever) be? Do you think the open view might possibly "break away" and become a separate denomination. I forsee this in the future but of course, I am not God who knows the future so I have no way of knowing for certain.

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 6/4/2003 6:27 AM (GMT -6)

I don't think it will have much of an effect on the average individual open theist for a couple of reasons. First off, most Christians don't know who the ETS is. Second, most OV don't know they are OV. They just live that way. Third, most congregations are "open" enough to accomadate views that are not heretical to them.

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 6/4/2003 7:11 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Out of curiosity, IF the ETS does oust P. and S., what will your (asked to whomever) be? Do you think the open view might possibly "break away" and become a separate denomination.

Well, on the one hand I agree with "honorman" that most Christians don't know or care what the ETS is, or what the majority of its members think. Indeed I think most Christians don't know or care much about doctrine, period, beyond the ecumenical core that makes all wings of Christianity recognizable: one God, sinful man, Jesus is Lord and savior, full stop.

But on the other hand, not caring about doctrine means that most Christians don't care one way or another and thus remain merely uninvolved in movements to divide. It doesn't mean that such movements to divide won't happen. Analogically, most Americans don't care about partisan politics but that hardly lessens the reality and bitterness of it any! The majority who don't care are looking away, busy with other things, and pretty-much cool with however it turns out - leaving those who do care to fight it out with all vigor regardless and thus shape the landscape in which everyone - including those who don't care - eventually finds themselves.

And among those who do care about doctrine, it seems pretty plain to me that open theism is of the same "order of magnitude" at least as many other doctrinal disputes that have splintered, at least, creedal denominations and birthed new ones previously.

So I would expect creedal denominations to eventually line up with or against open theism or split if they can't pick a side - not because of anything the ETS does specifically, but in eventual reaction to the general controversy (because it is not going to go away). The only thing that might prevent or delay this from happening is if the open-theism controversy continues to be overshadowed in the creedal denominations by even-more-looming controversies around things which nearly everyone viscerally does care about: homosexuality and gender.

By the same token, conversely, I would expect non-creedal denominations to remain largely unaffected by this controversy and open to both traditionalism and open theism as a matter of conscience. This includes a large swath of non-denominational churches.

Scott

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/4/2003 7:22 AM (GMT -6)

It seems to me that the Calvinists in the ETS itself do not believe in inerrancy, from the way I've seen many of them try to wriggle around the divine repentance passages.

"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

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 6/4/2003 11:37 AM (GMT -6)

Christian,

[quote]As a "traditionalist", I'm thankful for God's omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevelence, despite the many who misunderstand the "traditional view" and claim "traditionalists can't have an intimate relationship of God because they see Him as controlling". Thank God Almighty for real, genuine, undeceptive relationship![/quote

I held the traditionalal view of God's foreknowledge for well over twenty years; I understand the view quite well! I certainly would never say that those who hold to it cannot have an intimate relationship with God--I held to it and had (still do) an intimate relationship with God), and I wouldn't say that God is seen as controlling within this view. God has the right to do as much controlling as He wishes, so were I to call God controlling would only be to affirm His right to control.

Obviously, Christian, since Calvinists, Arminianists and Open Theists can all have a deep, intimate walk with God, our views of God's foreknowledge are really neither here nor there, aren't they. And if you've been led to believe that Open Theists claim that any traditional view of God's foreknowledge leads to the belief that God is some kind of controlling chump, well, I apologize for the misunderstanding (and, maybe, even the statements of a few Open Theists who've talked along these lines. But that's by far not the majority of Open Theists' beliefs).

Just be sure, though, to differentiate, in the conversations we have on this boad and elsewhere, between controlling, as in the controlling power God is said to exhibit in Calvinism, and controlling as one who's just power hungry. In other words, if, as the Calvinist might say, God controlled the destiny of everything and everyone, then God is simply being God: He's controlling as He has the right to do. That doesn't mean the Open Theist agrees with this perspective, but that's also not to call God a "control freak" either. It's just theological disagreement, that's all.

Hope this helps clear the fog a tad more,

Starkman

Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 6/5/2003 5:45 PM (GMT -6)

I forgot to subscribe to the thread, or I would have responded sooner. I did not mean to "post and run."

Christian:

quote:
Out of curiosity, IF the ETS does oust P. and S., what will your (asked to whomever) be? Do you think the open view might possibly "break away" and become a separate denomination. I forsee this in the future but of course, I am not God who knows the future so I have no way of knowing for certain.

Personally, I have not read any of Sanders, but I have read several Pinnock books, and believe that history will show that he has provided some significant theological contributions to the church. I like theology, and I have observed that each century only a "handful" of people have made signficant contributions to theology. I say this not to put people down, or to discount the hundreds of people who engaged those ideas to make Christianity what is is today. It is just as an observation. That said, 300 years from now, the OV debate may be no more settled than the Calvinist/Arminian debate is today.

Will there be OV denominations? Probably. Though I hope not. I say this because as a member of Woodland Hills Church, I know that people on both sides of the FN debate can coexist in Christian community. I also know that the debate has little to do with the day by day ministry.

As I alluded to earlier, if someone is getting very upset about either side of the issue, perhaps they are thinking too much about it. I do not say this to be offensive. It is just that I have been there, done that. And as I said, God really is much bigger than our understanding of Him.

For what it is worth, I am not an Open Theist, mostly because like some, I think FN and free will could be compatible and I do not presuppose to know what God's experience of anything might be. However, I am very sympathetic to the OV and believe they make some good observation. In particular, they are causing people to seriously consider free will, which I think is very biblical. The OV debate might help move Christianity beyond the Calvinist/Arminian "stalemate." For this reason, I can relate to both Starkman and Scott's comments about their position.

There are many things that I liked about the Calvinist/Reformed tradition. However, as I engaged open theists like Greg, I quickly realized that I was not as Calvinist as I thought, that rather, I was more Arminian in my thinking, at the least. As I have groppled with the issue, I have not yet gotten to the point where I can embrace the OV, but I have come to disagree strongly with Calvinist soteriology and their position on libertarian free will.

Yours in Christ,
Winghead

"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 6/6/2003 4:16 AM (GMT -6)

Christian: Out of curiosity, IF the ETS does oust P. and S., what will your (asked to whomever) be?

Tom: The same thing I've always been--a disciple of Jesus Christ. If the day comes when every evangelical in the world denounces open theism as heresy, then I'll still be what I've always been--a disciple of Jesus Christ. I just won't be an evangelical. Big deal.

Tom

Christian
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78

Posted 6/6/2003 8:17 AM (GMT -6)

I mistyped the question. It should have read, "What will your reaction be?" (left out the "reaction" part). My apolgies.

Enjoyed reading the responses.

Edited by - Christian on 06/06/2003 1:28:04 PM

Chris Grant
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151

Posted 6/19/2003 7:21 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Have any of you read the lastest by Piper & others, Beyond The Bonds?

I'm on page 309 right now. Back on page 300, the following statement by Greg Boyd is quoted: "[M]y father asked me why God would allow Adolf Hitler to be born if he foreknew that this man would massacre millions of Jews. It was a very good question. The only response I could offer then, and the only response I continue to offer now, is that this was not foreknown as a certainty at the time God created Hitler."

Was Greg's father's question that much more perplexing than if he had instead asked why God would allow Adolf Hitler to continue to live when He saw that Hitler had begun to massacre Jews? After Hitler had massacred, say, the first million Jews, why didn't God arrange for a bite of Bratwurst to go down the wrong pipe?

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 6/19/2003 7:29 AM (GMT -6)

Chris Grant

quote:

Was Greg's father's question that much more perplexing than if he had instead asked why God would allow Adolf Hitler to continue to live when He saw that Hitler had begun to massacre Jews? After Hitler had massacred, say, the first million Jews, why didn't God arrange for a bite of Bratwurst to go down the wrong pipe?

Maybe God did intervene. Maybe He had the Allies defeat Hitler before Hitler had 12 million Jews exterminated. Read about "praying" Hyde and his band of prayer warriors sometime. Their prayers during WWII seemed to have influenced how the war went somewhat.

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 6/19/2003 8:41 AM (GMT -6)

Chris: you want to read "Letters From (TO?) A Skeptic," where the quote actually came from, so you can get the context that Doctor Boyd is answering the question.

Chris Grant
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151

Posted 6/19/2003 9:25 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Chris: you want to read "Letters From (TO?) A Skeptic," where the quote actually came from, so you can get the context that Doctor Boyd is answering the question.

Our library doesn't have a copy, and I don't want to buy one. In any case, my larger point is: If there are satisfactory answers to why God [with exhaustive knowledge of the present] doesn't stop horrific evils in the middle of their being perpetrated, why don't those also serve as acceptable answers to why [an exhaustively foreknowing] God doesn't prevent horrific evils from beginning?

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 6/19/2003 10:09 AM (GMT -6)

Chris - your point is exactly what i"ve said here on the board many times.

Christian
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78

Posted 6/19/2003 11:18 AM (GMT -6)

Ditto to Chris and RD. God bless.

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 6/19/2003 12:22 PM (GMT -6)

Chris: Then you should not be critizing a view you do not really understand. If you are not willing to check out what a person believes by reading the exact words the person writes, then you are not in a position to acturately understand (which seems to be the position Christian is in, given the amount of times John Earp has corrected her views of the open position) what they believe.
I, personally, do not find the traditional view satisifying at all. Just because you do, just not mean everyone does. And certainly not after posing one question to it.
Many people have rejected the traditional position because it is, to them, biblically incoherent and logically inconsistant. That does not mean their view is perfect. It means it makes more sense to them. I would suggest that you read the open view by its author before judging it.
I personally, have most of the major works of Calvinism in my library. I have benefitted greatly from them. But I also understand them enough to recognize what I agree and disagree with them from studying them from their sources. I would suggest you do the same.

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 6/19/2003 1:36 PM (GMT -6)

Chris wrote:

quote:

In any case, my larger point is: If there are satisfactory answers to why God [with exhaustive knowledge of the present] doesn't stop horrific evils in the middle of their being perpetrated, why don't those also serve as acceptable answers to why [an exhaustively foreknowing] God doesn't prevent horrific evils from beginning?

There is a distinction that makes these questions of theodicy (reconciling God's goodness in light of evil) important.

First, neither view answers the question of why God allows evil to continue to exist. This by the way, includes the evil we do, or are capable of doing.

The distinction is that with Calvinism, God is viewed as ordaining everything that happens. For many, this puts the responsibility on HIM for the evil. (I realize a Calivinist might not accept that premise, but I said, "for many" it is preceived this way. I for one, agree.)

The Armininian position, along with the Open View accepts the idea of libertarian free will. These positions say that God allows other free agents to act in the world -- at least for now. These positions also hold to the idea that God also engages the actions of these free agents -- hence His using one person or group to bring judgement on another, the parting of the Red Sea, etc.

However, if God exhaustively knows the future, then he should be able to pro-actively act to prevent evil or "bad things from happening to good people," as the saying goes. For many, this means that even within the Arminian view God is responsible for evil. The idea is that God does act or choose to act, thus determining the outcome.

The OV, however, tries to reconcile God's knowledge in relation to the actions of free agents by suggesting that some of the actions cannot be known -- i.e., the future is partially open. This is a way of trying to deal with the philosophical argumment that says free agency cannot exists if God has exhaustive knowledge (EFN) of the future, and is all powerful. (The molinist position tries to deal with this question within the context of the classic position.

Again, the problem of evil remains for all views. Wolfhart Pannenberg correctly observes that you cannot answer questions of theodicy without eschatology. In his view, God IS doing something about evil, and we will see the full results of that at the consumation of the ages.

Letters From a Skeptic is not going to help you understand Greg's open theism. IMO, God fof the Possible would be a better book for that. Whether you come to the same conclusions or not, I think Greg's two motifs -- that the future is partially settled, and partially open -- fit well with what is revealed in scripture. We would all do well to engage those motifs. Personally, I do not think the anthropormophic interpretation is sufficent to explain the openness motif.

Yours in Christ,
Winghead

"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/19/2003 2:58 PM (GMT -6)

Winghead, I really liked the way you said that.

Here is what I just posted on "Freedom to choose love outweighing evil..."

WHAT'S YOUR CRITIQUE?

quote:

At the risk of making EVERYONE mad at me...

quote:
Laika

We ALL have plans. And we strive to fulfill those plans without having comprehensive knowledge of a future that hasn't happened yet. God is much more able to accomplish His plans and He doesn't need to have comprehensive knowledge of a future that hasn't happened yet in order to accomplish His plans. A WEAKER God would have to micro-manage EVERYTHING in order to get His plans accomplished. A WEAKER God would have to be a control-freak. Ever worked for a control-freak boss? Look at Jesus' example. He didn't convert that many people, He delegated the rest of the task to us. THAT is the example of a powerful God. If you really want to see a Master's work, look at his pupils' work. Greater works than His, He promised us we would do. Him, working through us imperfect humans, doing greater works. That's a powerful God.

It has struck me, always, that in this OV versus "classical" debate that both sides are saying the same thing. And here's what they are saying: Its all about details. What's wrong is that both the OV and "classical" partisans are saying that what is important are the details. But I think that what is significant is that what really matters is something qualitatively different. And example is instructive. Say, "martyrdom." In its details martyrdom looks like a complete failure. But is presented to us in scripture as being a crown. Something is wrong with the picture, and its just that we are looking at it from the side of the frame--we don't see the "perspective" in it that way.

I think that those close to this debate have to REALLY be careful to keep in mind the FACT that in Christianity we know the truth of things by knowing their ultimate end. From that perspective of the end (eschatology) we can "see" back to interpret the meaning of everything else. And FACT is, that we live our Christian lives that way too. The one who converts and "sees Jesus" with their fresh-clean heart sees Jesus no less than those saints in Revelations 21 (or somewhere around there.)

But, I hope this is not so far out that anyone really disagrees with the way I said this.

Fred

Edited by - fred on 06/19/2003 7:56:13 PM

CRITICISMS?

Fred

Mayflower
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445

Posted 6/19/2003 3:31 PM (GMT -6)

Ditto Fred; ditto Winghead.
Beautifully articulated. My thanks to both of you...

Fred wrote:

quote:
...I really liked the way you said that.

<><

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 6/19/2003 4:25 PM (GMT -6)

I would add, though (and I like your perspective Fred, your "let's look at really matters") that Calvinist's such as Ware and Piper, and Arminians, such as Geisler have argued that Open Theists cannot look back from the end, because we cannot give out the promise that God can truly control the end, given our way of looking at free will.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/19/2003 4:35 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
honorman: "...given our way of looking at free will."

H, can you lay that "way" out for me?

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 6/19/2003 5:17 PM (GMT -6)

Honorman:

quote:
I would add, though (and I like your perspective Fred, your "let's look at really matters") that Calvinist's such as Ware and Piper, and Arminians, such as Geisler have argued that Open Theists cannot look back from the end, because we cannot give out the promise that God can truly control the end, given our way of looking at free will.

They may argue this way, but it seems like nonsense to me. On one hand, we will all be able to look back in the end, when the end is the now, and looking back means looking back at history.

However, I assume your point is that they do not think Open Theists can have confidence that God can truly achieve the eschatological end that he promises us, given the presuppositions of the OV. This too is nonsense, because the OV has no problem with God determining whatever he wants, and imposing his will if necessary, to achieve that end. Given that, I would say that God is able.

And further, the OV does not view election individually like Calvinism. Instead, it views election corporately. So, eternal life is for all how will receive it. In fact, the OV does not differ in soteriologically from Arminism.

My response to such Calvinists and Arminians is to ask, "What is it that you think God cannot control, in the end?" Are you questioning His ability to create a new heaven and new earth? The OV does not. Are you questioning the the effectiveness of Christ's death and shed blood to atone for our sins? The OV does not. Are you questioning the ability for the holy spirit to indwell the believer and transform us into the likeness of Christ? The OV does not. In fact, a strong Trinitarian is not bothered by the intersection of two wills, because the will of the Father resides perfectly with the will of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus' prayer in John 17 tells us that we are to be united in that same harmony, both with the Triune God, and each other, as the Bride of Christ.

The problem is that people focus too much on the particulars, they lose sight of the big picture. For example, we start arguing about how our will and God's will might be in opposition, and lose sight of the harmony of wills within the Trinity and between a believer and God. Our will is not always in harmony with God's, and the flesh is always hostile toward God (cf Rom 8:7), but God woos us. He gently draws us to himself. He wins us over. He teaches us to walk by the Spirit in faith, he disciplines those he loves. It is an ongoing process, but in any way you look at it, God is able.

In Christ,
Winghead

"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/19/2003 5:29 PM (GMT -6)

Winghead:

quote:
And further, the OV does not view election individually like Calvinism. Instead, it views election corporately.

LINK

And YOU thought you knew Calvinism...

See Smedes.

Besides, everyone is saved one person at a time. There are TWO aspects. There is ONE salvation, and that is IN CHRIST. And everyone is baptized ONE PERSON AT A TIME.

I think that everyone agrees with both of these two assertions.

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 6/19/2003 5:50 PM (GMT -6)

Fred:

quote:

LINK

http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=567

And YOU thought you knew Calvinism...

See Smedes.

Actually, the idea of God choosing individuals to save the many is very biblical. Gen 12:1-3, God chooses Abramham to promises to bless all the nations through him. We are partakers of that promise. The Church is chosen, to "disciple the nations."

It strikes me that Smedes is planting more than TULIPS.

YBIC,
Winghead

"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 6/20/2003 3:10 AM (GMT -6)

fred

quote:

And example is instructive. Say, "martyrdom." In its details martyrdom looks like a complete failure. But is presented to us in scripture as being a crown. Something is wrong with the picture, and its just that we are looking at it from the side of the frame--we don't see the "perspective" in it that way.

Martyrdom is:
1. dying
2. good coming from that dying

Are both parts of martyrdom intrinsically good?
Or is part 1 bad and part 2 what God accomplishes despite part 1? There's a difference. Maybe even better good could come about with the person NOT dying.

Personally I think that when all is over and we look back, we'll see that evil really was evil. There won't be an "ah" moment where we realize that evil really was good. That seems to be the argument of C*lv*n*sm, that we'll look back and see that bad was really good.

73 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:56 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