 |
| 
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/26/2003 4:40 PM (GMT -6) |   | Laika, because your explanation does not agree with all of Scripture; thus is is non-authoritative and based on man's logic and speculation vs. truth.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/26/2003 4:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood
quote:
But God does know what will happen because God is not bound by our logic or by time.
So when He made us in His image, what, exactly, was the image of His we are made in?
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/26/2003 4:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood
quote:
Laika, because your explanation does not agree with all of Scripture; thus is is non-authoritative and based on man's logic and speculation vs. truth.
Show me.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Rpeterso
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 7/27/2003 9:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood:
“What do you think of that? George says open theism teaches that "God cannot know the future." Can't count how many times I've heard open theists say this is not an accurate portrayal of open theism. So is it or is it not?”
Rpeterso:
I would argue that George’s proposition concerning the underlying implication of Open View Theism, particularly that “God cannot know the future,” needs to be qualified in a sense. Fleetwood, you imply that this is some sort of a shortcoming or discredit to God’s omniscience and/or deity, that He “can’t” do something, while elsewhere on the board RD submits that Open Theists employ a tactic of semantic circumlocution or perhaps verbal evasion in order to avoid a direct denial of God’s omniscience, that God knows all possibilities but in simple terms still does not know the future. Now this could be considerably problematic in a relative sense, particularly in relation to a God who “can” know the future exhaustively, but in both Fleetwood's and RD's account, as DLW pointed out, there is still an implicit predisposition toward the traditional understanding of the future and a complete lack of affirmation in the fundamental premise of Open Theism: the future is intrinsically defined as unsettled. Secondly, both Fleetwood and RD presume this to be an issue concerning God’s omniscience and His perfection; however, Open Theism, as I am sure they are both aware, primarily concerns the metaphysics of reality, but if one is going to critique Open Theist theology it is imperative to do so with a commitment to the fundamental precepts of Open Theism or thus there is no impasse or, naturally, no debate. Nevertheless, it appears as though they wish to talk about apples (Open Theism/ontological status of reality), but in actuality, are talking about oranges (God’s omniscience/deity).
If the future then is defined ontologically and inherently as existing as possibilities and/or unsettled, which is the fundamental premise of Open Theism, then any line of theological reasoning that requires God to know future transpiring events (settled events) is contradictory in nature, irrational, and thus outside of any relevance to God. This aforementioned contention is demonstrated flawlessly in the notions of a three-sided square, of God being able to form a rock too heavy for Himself to lift, or of God being capable of removing 100 floors from a ten floor building. In all three instances, God “can’t” do something, however this is far from a discredit or impairment to His omnipotence because those above petitions are just simply absurd. Analogously, God knowing the future as settled in one of an unsettled status is consistently ABSURD as well. Therefore, inquiring as to what exactly Ryan Peterson will do on July 25, 2003 at 10:00 pm or what exactly Hitler was going to do before his ascension into power appears to be pure nonsense, for the future is INHERENTLY defined as being unsettled. Once again, this is certainly no shortcoming within God’s omniscience or deity; GOD KNOWS EVERYTHING just as GOD CAN DO EVERYTHING, but rather, absurdities and irrationalities simply do not apply. They are not relevant to the attributes of God.
I believe, it is for this very reason that Open Theism is so difficult to grasp and swallow, namely, it requires that we FULLY discard the traditional conception of reality. To completely understand Open Theists, one must push their entire thinking process away from the presumption that the future is settled to one that is UNSETTLED. Once this is achieved then reflecting upon a God that “can’t” know the future is correspondent to one that “can’t” create a three-sided square. In essence then, if you are going to defeat Open Theism you must prove that the future is settled NOT APPEAL TO AN IGNORANT OR IMPOTANT GOD. Quite simply, appealing to oranges (omniscience) in an attempt to discuss or critique apples (metaphysical reality) is somewhat futile and ineffective.
Ryan
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/27/2003 9:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh fleety-one,
prior to responding to your posting to me(It's DLW, L is for my middle name.), I would like to suggest to you that you use caution in saying that OVTheism goes against the Bible. If you've hung around here long enough, you will see that we do regard the Bible as the Word of God and 99% of us(OVTheists) would not be OVTheists if it were not for the very strong biblical support that can be given to the position. I think I mentioned in an earlier posting here or on another link that it comes down to which passages do we interpret other passages in light of. So please, lets not accuse each other of shuckin' the Bible and startin' over again.
quote:
Originally posted by Fleetwood
DL, I'm neither speaking for you nor for me (in last comments) but speaking of humanity as a whole. People do get angry at God. You and I know this should not be because you and I know that Scripturally, we are to trust God. However, people do get angry at God. People who know "better" as well as people who do not know "better." I, even as a Christian, have experienced anger towards God even though I know "better". It is a result of my sinful nature.
Sure, we got precedent for that with some of the Psalms of David. One can always ask, "Where were you God?" and it would be a valid question irregardless of whether you were an OVTheist or not.
quote:
God is more than capable of giving us "free will" whilst also foreknowing. His divine nature transends time. I like the article for this very reason. George explains how we can keep both beliefs due to the very nature of God.
Yes, but the notion of transcending time is linked with a particular understanding of time. One can transcend a Chess game, theoretically-speaking, in the same way one transcends a game of Tic-tac-toe; by considering all possible states of the world at all points/nodes of time and formulating a strategy that will guarantee the end-victory. All linear closed systems have a solution, as shown by John Nash, the dude from the movie "A Beautiful Mind". Big Blue can't be beat at Chess because it literally goes through all the possibilities and selects the best strategy. When it comes to Chess, Big Blue is omniscient in the same sense that the God of the OpenViewTheology is.
quote:
I can not explain to you why God did not do something about "it" and I cannot explain that to anyone I counsel. But I can offer comforting words of Scripture that while it happened, God still is in control, He can bring good from it, He can be trusted, He does love. It is not for us to figure out the reasons why or why not. God does not always offer us those reasons but rather says "Trust me."
An OVTheist would say almost the exact same thing you said above. God is still control(though this control need not be deterministic), can bring good from it and can be trusted, God does love. When tragedy happens, what matters most is showing God's love to the people affected. Theological lectures are never called for. However, later, how we understand the world and God's relation to it can make a difference. It can be one of the things that may lead some to reject Christianity.
quote:
We must remember that it takes the faith of a child to believe. "Unless you become like little children." Little children cannot explain the logic behind something. They cannot tell you why this or why that; yet, they believe it to be true. This is how our faith is to be. This, in fact, it what faith is. Believing what we cannot see, cannot hear, cannot logically figure out.
But our faith can grow in understanding. Remember how Paul said that when he was a child he thought like a child but, having grown up, he put childish things away. The thing is that the issue at hand has led to the problem of evil. Why do bad things happen to good people? The problem of the problem of evil is that it is not discussed in the Bible. When Christ and his disciples saw suffering and sin, they don't ask why such happens, they are moved by it and did something about it.
quote:
God is neither evil nor inept and I think both you and I would agree to that. However, He is certainly not bound by time or human reasoning, and there is sufficient evidence in the Bible of God's foreknowledge as well as man's choices. The two can be compatible although the open theist argues they cannot be.
We do agree. However, once more being bound by time presumes a certain view of time. God in his relations to his creation operates through time, although he is not bound like we are by time and place.
As for the reconciliation of the two, as of right now it seems that such is a leap of faith on your part. The question is is it a leap of faith that we as Christians must/should make? My leap is the same as Mother Teresa's. I believe God does in fact know the Nash Equilibrium Strategy to the game of Life and so the end is secure and God values our struggles at the various steps along the way as well.
quote:
While evil may indeed be for a greater purpose, it does not make it any less "evil." For instance, Joni Erikson Tada recently published her memoirs in which she calls her life-changing accicdent a "divine appointment." Yes, indeed, that is how she sees it. In fact, she says that if it had not been for that accident, which left her forever paralyzed, she would not have the relationship with God she now has.
Praise God, I wouldn't have my relationship with God if I had not been hit by a car and almost killed when I was seven. The problem is that such arguments argue from the part to the whole. Ultimately, I affirm both God's predestination and free-wills of autonomous creatures, potentially acting outside of God's will and I also affirm that there will always be a fundamental uncertainty for me as to which is which. I can live with that, but that is not an easy thing to live with. It too easily can lead to much angst.
quote:
Another missionary, the name escapes me, has recently published a biography. His wife and baby were recently shot and killed while flying with him and his son. He believes that the shooting and death of his family was intended by God. It does not make it any less grievous or "evil," but he actually lists several reasons why he believes that his wife and daugter's death were indeed acts of God. I have this book on hold so I cannot tell you any more than that.
We see but through a glass darkly. I have an uncle whose ex-wife was unfaithful to him. He also copes with his sorrows by seeing purpose from God in what happened to him. My point is that just because people interpret their experiences through this lense doesn't mean that that is really in fact what happened.
quote:
Obviously, I see no value or good in rape, suicide, or murder. These acts are indeed evil acts and not a part of God's original plan for man. They will not exist in heaven. They are a result of the depravity of man resulting from the Fall. We cannot escape them. But they may indeed be used for a greater purpose and perhaps there are times God does intend them (although I cannot see him intending rape because it is such a heinous violation of a person's soul and psyche). Who are we, really, to know?
Ultimately, we don't know for certain. The OVTheist point is that God does not intend them all. There are gratuitous acts of evil that were not foreknown by God with certainty. Otherwise God would clearly have been justified in intervening and preventing them from happening. As such, the Nazi Holocaust happened not because it was part of God's plan from the beginning, but because we Christians fell way short of the glory of God.
later,
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.
C.S. Lewis
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/27/2003 11:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Whenever I hear the pious talk about how every specific thing is permitted by God for a wonderful good reason -- though we of course can't know why -- I immediately wonder if the speakers will apply this to people in hell.
And I wonder if the damned would find it at all comforting.
Because if THEY wouldn't, I can't imagine why the parents of a kidnapped child would.
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/27/2003 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg, you are known as the "outrageous love" proponent but I challenge you with this question. Is it loving to call a person "pious" because they believe God did indeed permit the evil to happen? In my opinion, it is not "outrageously" loving.
It comes across as a judgement call on your part, to use the term "pious" in labeling people who have suffered and yet believe God did permit the suffering (i.e. J. Erikson Tada).
Open theists talk about "outrageous love" but I have seen only glimpses of it from a minority. Mostly I have witnessed much ado towards Calvinists, towards those who hold to KJV only, or towards those who claim suffering is from God. I have witnessed very little love expressed except by a minority (names remembered would be starkman and baxter. others I cannot recall). It comes across as hypocrisy, to say a theology is about love yet to not express that love towards those who adhere to different beliefs. Obviously, tempers flare and passions are heated in any debate, especially one that is theological, and this is to be expected. But, the label of "pious" is one in which the heart of the person has been assumed to be one that is self-rightous. The assumption made here about someone's heart being pious is made based on their acknoledgement that God permitted the suffering in their life. I find that assumption to be no more than a judgemental call that is unwarranted but is based on a differing view that holds that God does not cause suffering.
I have edited my comments and deleted my prior rudeness so as not to be accused (again) of attacking Greg Boyd. However, I see no justification for calling a person pious unless there is evidence of pious actions and statements in the person's life. Claiming that God permitted suffering in a person's life is certainly not a sign of piety. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/27/2003 12:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Fleetwood
Greg, I know you are the "outrageous love" guy but is it loving to call a person "pious" because they believe God did indeed permit the evil to happen? In my opinion, it's not.
Look Boyd was speaking from his own experiences as a pastor.
The main point is not to bring up theodicy in a time of crisis.
quote:
I think it's judgemental of you to use the term "pious" for people who have suffered and yet believe God did permit the suffering (i.e. J. Erikson Tada).
I'd like to see you go tell them face-to-face how "pious" they are.
The point is once more incorrectly arguing from what may be the part to the whole, which then in turn causes intolerable questions about why God would create a world with so much suffering and creatures like us who has such a high capacity to feel pain.
quote:
BTW, open theists talk about "outrageous love" but I have yet to see it. You people gripe because Calvinists, yada, yada "misrepresent" you but then you make total judgment calls like this one by Greg Boyd. It's hypocritical.
It is not a judgment on their relationship with God, but a pastoral judgement as to how to help people cope with the reality of evil in our lives.
Please, you are misreading Boyd.
dlw
A quote from Lewis,
Apologetics work is so dangerous to one's own faith. A doctrine never seems dimmer to me than when I have just successfully defended it.
Lewis, while not rejecting the classical view he defended, did indeed question it strongly.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.
C.S. Lewis
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 7/27/2003 5:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Fleetbob,
Why are you here? Is it to learn? Dialogue? Or just insult everyone, ridicule Greg, and malign the open view?
Adiaphora, When is enough enough?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/27/2003 6:00 PM (GMT -6) | | | I am not here to ridicule Greg Boyd but his comment about people being "pious" was judgemental and not in line with the love he preaches about. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/27/2003 6:02 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 7/27/2003 6:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Just a point of clarification:
I will leave my post as follows, to not add to the confusion, despite the fact that Fleetwood edited his original post to reflect somewhat of a different tone and usage of words than what Springs and I originally responded to.
UGH!!!  
Fleetwood,
What I heard in Greg's post was a reference to pious "talk", talk...talk...talk... and that is different than saying a person is pious...and actually Greg is my pastor and he really is the outrageous love guy...so you can remove your "quotes" around that... God has used him to touch so many people's lives...including mine so LAY OFF! [:0]
Shell
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/27/2003 6:10 PM (GMT -6) | | | My quotes around "outrageous love" indicate that Greg is well known for preaching about "outrageous love." He is known to use that phrase often. I think DLW said it best that Greg is speaking from a pastor's perspective. It did not come across that way, however. I do not see it as loving to call someone "pious" based on their view of suffering. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 7/27/2003 6:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Fleetbob,
I think you should admit you came here with an ax to grind. It's not just this post. It's all over the board.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 7/27/2003 6:29 PM (GMT -6) | | I should really stay out of this. You'de think I would have learned my lesson from past experiences on this board. I'm really going to stay out of this now...
Shell | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/27/2003 6:33 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW,
Big Blue was beat, by a human, a couple of times just recently.
Somehow, all of this is beginning to sound like Mark Twain's satire on Noah and the Ark. It's been a long time since I read it, but it seems to revolve around skeeters (can't spell the real word  ), malaria, death and such being God's fault, because He let the skeeters on the Ark. But, the purple martins around here would starve to death if there weren't any skeeters to eat!
I'm also reminded of the fellow who asked me what I did about red bugs (chiggers for you northern folks) when they bite, solid, all the way to ... well above your knees. My answer was the loving thing to do when I told him to just take it like a man and quit whining. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/27/2003 7:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Springs, I enjoy being opinionated, yes, all over the board. Not quite all over the board however. Primarily on the topic of open theism. This is what I am interested in. I am in the midst of writing a particular composition on open theism for a specific purpose. I have found my time here fascinating for the fact of the motivations I have seen in the open theists that have dialogued with me, epecially in comparison to the diaglogue I have witnessed from non open theists (chris grant, Reasonable Doubt, others). I have been called many things by several open theists and this has gone to support various suppositions I, and colleagues, share on the theology of open theism. Various comments have been made with regards to Calvinism and with regards to other beliefs that do not adhere to the open theism belief structure (i.e. Boyd's comment re: piety). It will certainly make for good writing, and a good "case". As for my "ax", I certainly am not an adherent to open theism, and I am opinionated as well. My "ax" is aimed at bad theology.
Laika,
We are certainly made in God's image, but this conveys to us that we our souls, emotions, and being are in His image. Animals, for instance, are not made in God's image. Animals, while they eat, drink, and sleep, do not have life long relationship, they do not have morales, and so forth. This is because they are not made in the image of God. Being made in God's image does not denote that we are like God. We are IN His image. We are not equal to Him. While we are IN his image, we still are called to bow down before Him. Even the angels shield their faces from the Almighty God. We, as humans, are not like God and do not know the scope nor the sequence of God. We are limited by many things including mortal bodies, sin, and time, none of which limit God in any way. This is strinkingly different than being made in the image of God. God is omni. Omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omni, omni. While we are adopted children of God, made in His likeness, sharing in his kingdom, given the power of Christ (to extent of course), we do not share in his omni qualities.
Jonah 1:14 "For you O Lord have done as you pleased."
Isaiah 48: 18 "I am the Lord your God who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go."
Jeremiah 30: 24 "The fierce anger of the Lord will not turn back until he fully accomplishes the purposes of his heart."
And finally,
1 Timothy 6:16 "God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who ALONE is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or ever can see."
Now, I challenge you to refute the above verses if what you are saying is that being created in God's image equates us to knowing all the mysteries of God or to being like him in all ways. I challenge you to refute those verses in defense of an open future and an open Diety. It cannot be done.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/27/2003 7:48 PM (GMT -6) | | If I may, I would like to offer what I think Dr. Boyd was saying. He was NOT referring to persons when he used the word, "pious," he was referring to a type of talk (pious talk) that is often used by Christians (of any kind) to try to comfort the suffering.
"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 | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/27/2003 7:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Response to "I will leave my post as follows, to not add to the confusion, despite the fact that Fleetwood edited his original post to reflect somewhat of a different tone and usage of words than what Springs and I originally responded to."
I appreciated DLW's follow up post in which he, as well as Shell, read Greg Boyd's comments in a different light than myself. Perhaps we all can be reminded that our rhetoric needs to be precise so as to convey the message we are desiring to convey (such as in using the word "pious" which immediately conveys an air of judgement from the one saying it). I am happy to accomodate by editing my words to change the tone from one of rudeness to one of opinionation yet with charitable resistance, termed from Timothy George in the aforementioned article. Iron sharpens iron, does it not? Timothy George's article is that iron intent on sharpening its readers. I will not cease in a resistance of open theism based upon personal convictions, but charity might be something I can occassionally offer here and there, although it might come in the form of an edit since the words fly off the handle in the heat of the moment, something to work on, eh? 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/27/2003 7:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Thank you John for your opinion. Three or four people now have pointed out that they read Boyd's comments in this light. I will have no choice but to comply and agree that this is the light it was written in. However, in the circles of Christianity, we must take care with technical words that convey airs of condemnation, for we know that in Christ, there is no condemnation. If a person claims God caused their particular suffering, this may very well be true. Greg's comments, as I understood them, come from an open theistic viewpoint which says that to say that God causes any evil is to ascribe to God what is not true of Him. Open theists can adhere to their views of God not causing an iota of suffering but must acknowledge that there are saints of God who do and who will ascribe the source of their tragedy or suffering to be God, such as Erickson Tada who called her tragic accident a "Divine appointment" and sees God as having permitted it for a higher purpose.
In my own experience, I have found that true piety is few and far between and comes more from the non sufferer than the sufferer. Most attempts at comforting a sufferer are inadequate at best (due to the nature of suffering) and are most often attempts stemming from a genuine sympathy rather than a finger of piety.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/27/2003 8:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood gave some verses which he says contradict the Open view. Fleetwood said, "I challenge you to refute those verses in defense of an open future and an open Diety. It cannot be done."
With that in mind, allow me:
Jonah 1:14 "For you O Lord have done as you pleased."
And this refutes the Open view how? Open theists emphatically affirm God's omnipotence (that God can do as he pleases).
Isaiah 48: 18 "I am the Lord your God who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go."
Let's look at the context, shall we?
Is 48:17 ¶ Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, Who leads you in the way you should go.
18 "If only you had paid attention to My commandments! Then your well-being would have been like a river, And your righteousness like the waves of the sea.
19 "Your descendants would have been like the sand, And your offspring like its grains; Their name would never be cut off or destroyed from My presence."
The Lord is speaking to Israel and saying what might have been! This, too, is in complete agreement with the Open view. In v.17, God is saying that if they had listened to their Lord, they would have been blessed. As it turned out, they did not do God's will, and were therefore suffering the consequences of their rebellion.
Jeremiah 30: 24 "The fierce anger of the Lord will not turn back until he fully accomplishes the purposes of his heart."
Again, the Open view in no way denies that God possesses omnipotence, and will in fact mete out judgment when He sees fit.
1 Timothy 6:16 "God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who ALONE is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or ever can see."
I don't know of any Openness author who has ever said that we can see God directly (except in the person of Jesus). I also don't see what this verse even remotely has to do with openness.
"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 | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 7/27/2003 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I have edited my comments and deleted my prior rudeness so as not to be accused (again) of attacking Greg Boyd. However, I see no justification for calling a person pious unless there is evidence of pious actions and statements in the person's life. Claiming that God permitted suffering in a person's life is certainly not a sign of piety.
Fleetwood also said: ...I am in the midst of writing a particular composition on open theism for a specific purpose. I have found my time here facinating for the fact of motivations I have seen in the open theists that have dialogued with me, especially in comparison to the diaogue I ahve witnessed from non open theists(reasonable doaube, Chris Grant...). I have been called many things by several open theists and this has gone to support various suppositions I, and collegues share on the theogy of open theism...It will cerainly make for good writing, and a good "cas". As for my Ax, I certainly am not an adherent to open theism...my ax is aimed at bad theology.
Shell:So you admit to prior rudeness...I mean this in the nicest possible way...but it seems to me that you were determined to come in here and NOT learn anything valuable about open theism or the warfare worldview etc. Even if you walked away without changing any of your beliefs, I believe that you could have really learned something valuable about another group of believers who are legitimate, Christ loving believers, who don't believe exactly as you do... It seems as though your preconceived notions about Open theology, and everyone who is an open theist caused you to come in with an approach which elicited negative responses. It really has nothing to do with whether one is a Calvinist or an Open Theist, it really has to do with how one goes about discussing the topic. From what you said above it is clear that you came in here with a very negative view of open theology, pushed as many buttons as you could, got your response, and are heading back to write a paper that isn't a true representation of what open theism is really about. Are you satisfied with that for your "research"?
Shell | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/27/2003 8:23 PM (GMT -6) | | John, the last verse more or less addressed Laika's comments re: made in God's image.
Shell, I am now very tired, but will read your comments quickly. Of course, I admit to rudeness, not only to open theists, but towards family, friends, collegues. I have stated many things but the fact that I am perfect is certainly not one of them! You are correct that my intention is not along the lines of learning about open theism. Nor do I believe this is the intention of several of the people in here who argue against the case for open theism. While I cannot speak for them, I have discussed with a few about their intentions on dialoging in this particular forum, and it has not been to learn. I have learned some things Shell, but could not say that they have been valuable. You must not have seen recent comments from some open theistic fellows of late (not aimed solely at me). They have been nothing but derogatory, inflammatory, and unChristlike. I suppose the same could be said of my comments, but I certainly would not say this about the posters of whom these fellows have aimed their comments towards, often in unison causing one to wonder their intent and motivation. This has led me to form a question about the intentions and motivations of open theists. I have also posed a question about the battle that seems to lie between open theism and calvinism which has been mentioned quite a bit. If this is to you considered learning, then I have learned. Have I changed any opinions? No, I have not, although I have formed some new opinions, but none of which are gracious. It is quite possible that my approach elicited a negative response although it is ironic that negative responses have been elicited from others as well, all of whom have "preconceived notions" about open theism, in other words, I have witnessed a hostility rearing its head towards 5, 6, 7? in here who argue against the open view. This hostility has been given from the same three gentlemen, all of whom have been confronted by various people (including open theists). I am now accustomed to their rudenss and am at times, simply ignoring it. But, ah, Shell, it does indeed have much to do with whether one is Calvinist or Open Theist. You might want to review the postings in which there is clearly an air of hatred towards anyone or anything associated with Calvinsm. There are two or three dialogues in the open theism folder here, none of which are pretty. My view of open theism has only been negative in the theological aspect. If you take the time to review recent messages in this folder, but I forewarn you that there are many, perhaps you have already read them, you will see that a negative view has been accomplished on its own merits due to the interaction of open theist who have continually berated several in here for holding differing views or for holding to Calvinistic views. Yes, a negative opinion has indeed formed from that interaction in which I, as I have previously said, question the motives and intentions of open theists as a result of what I have read. It will be mentioned in the writing. I used the word hypocrisy earlier in my edited message because hypocrisy is along the same lines of piety, a word which I dislike. Hypocrisy, like piety, is a word which judges the heart of a man and ought to be used sparingly. Jesus used it, but He was Jesus, the knower of all hearts and minds. I am not the knower of hearts and minds so for me to claim hypocrisy is of serious and perhaps judgemental nature. However, for a group that claims to have a new understanding of love, as the open theists do, I have been dumbfounded that I have not witnessed it from them in their interaction with their opponents, of whom I am only one.
My wife is becoming rather offended with me and my internet usage so goodbye.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/27/2003 8:29 PM (GMT -6) | | | BTW, these are perilous days and open theism has caused quite a stir in the evangelistic world. It is a hot topic on the burner and is not likely to quiet down. In fact, a split of sorts is predicted in the future as a result. It is unfortunate, but yet, when it comes to matters of doctrine, is at times unavoidable. Open theism affronts the beliefs held by many upright and god-fearing men and women. Some pray, some speak, some write books and articles. My "preconceived notions" have only come after extensive dialogue with both open theists and non open theists as well as research, study, and prayer. My manner of dialogue via inernet discussion may not be gracious as it should be and for those who have confronted this on my part and on the part of others as lately there has been much bru-ha-ha, I read their words and take them to heart. There is no excuse for incivility on my part; however, as a person with passion and fervor, it is my nature to be hotheaded, espcially in a matter such as this. Yes, much of this will be added to my research and writing, which perhaps is unfortunate for open theists. There must be good fruit born of a theology for that theology to be respected and valued. And with that, let us pray that that comment does not lead to another Calvinsm lashing! | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 7/27/2003 8:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
This has led me to form a question about the intentions and motivations of open theists.
This is where you are way off. I am not advocating the tone or comments that you felt were personally attacking towards you or Calvinism...but, your personal experience with "three fellows" is not an acurate picture of open theism, so I'm wondering what your other sources are? Have you read any of Greg's books on Open Theism? Others? Maybe try to meet face-to-face with an open theist.
note:the above was posted before reading Fleetwood's post just prior to this one.
 So you have had extensive dialogues with open-theists before coming to this site? On another open view site, or in person...I'm just curious. | | Back to Top | | |
| 71 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:06 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 |
|
|