 |
| 
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/14/2003 5:14 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hi
I'm new to this forum and I am wanting to learn more about the Open View though I have been reading Open View stuff for nearly two years. I have primarily read most of Dr. Boyd's books and one by John Sanders (The God Who Risks) and one by Winkey Pratney (The Nature and Character of God) and I also bought and read an old book by Howard R. Elseth titled Did God Know? A Study of the Nature of God. Oh yeah, and I read Christianity 101 (The author's name escapes me). This coupled with a lot of internet research.
Has anyone written anything on the Open Theist's perspective of the book of Revelation? It seems to me to be an accurate foretelling of events to come. I would be interested in knowing how Open Theists feel about this book.
I have more questions but I'll start with this.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
 |
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 4/14/2003 8:52 AM (GMT -6) | | It's possible, but then again it might be settled....hehe.
†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/14/2003 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Victorywood: welcome aboard! I think as you travel this sight you will find many who are studying it and this bulletin board is a good place to sound off ideas and debate issues.
Since open theism is a new movement within Christian circles, not much has been in the area of eschatology, but there is a book that I purchased recently called "Looking Into The Future," edited by DAvid Baker and published by Baker Books. Part 5 deals with eschatology from an open view.
I would add caution to you, though. There are many out there that would rather suppress open debate through opinion and such. God's truth will always prevail, regardless of the times. If you are interested in open theism find out first from those who profess it what it is, not from those who "it diminishes God, making him very wimpy." Those who believe that it is done just to make a person feel good or so they do not have to deal with why God allows evil simply are ignorant of the subject matter available by open theists. Good luck!
Finally, Bob, you sound like you need to "divorce" your personal feelings and experiences with WHC from the whole issue of open theism. WHC and Doctor Boyd are not the end all and be all of open theism, and open theism is multi-faceted, not simply one person. Finally, Boyd and WHC are human beings who are not perfect. If your husband did not get enough help at WHC he probably should have found more help elsewhere. Regardless, the issue of divorce is a completely seperate issue from open theism.
Edited by - honorman on 04/14/2003 3:51:02 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/14/2003 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Quick comment, Open theist do NOT say (I think this has been said over and over) that God does not know the future. Open theist do say that God knows the future exhaustively. The question is not God's knowledge-both sides say that God has perfect knowledge of the future- the question is what is the nature of the future. Also I think it must be stressed that Open Theist believe that some of the future is settled.
I think that this issue was discussed on an earlier thread. Here is the link. www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1690 It is a great discussion topic.
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
bob
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46
| Posted 4/14/2003 1:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry Victorywood to get your thread off topic!
Honorman said: "Finally, Bob, you sound like you need to "divorce" your personal feelings and experiences with WHC from the whole issue of open theism. WHC and Doctor Boyd are not the end all and be all of open theism, and open theism is multi-faceted, not simply one person. Finally, Boyd and WHC are human beings who are not perfect. If your husband did not get enough help at WHC he probably should have found more help elsewhere. Regardless, the issue of divorce is a completely seperate issue from open theism."
Bob says: Good points Honorman! I hesitated mentioning the whole divorce thing but did so as to share why a non- Open Theist is in an Open Theist discussion board and to clarify that my beliefs re: Open Theism are not out of spite or anger because of the divorce but they were there far prior to the divorce. So that is why I went into a brief background description. Yes, divorce is a separate issue from Open Theism BUT an Open Theist's beliefs will determine how they counsel people and how they teach people because their view, opinions, and counsel will stem from how they view God and God's Word... so I do see the two tied together. But I'd agree with you that Open Theism is multi-faceted and beyond just Dr. Boyd. In fact, I have discovered that not all Open Theists believe the same or to the same extent on certain things, but I suppose that is how it is with anything.
Back to Revelation! How do Open Theists view the prophecies in Revelation? What is their perspective?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/14/2003 2:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello,
I don't know whether I am still considered to be an open theist or not. I was a student of Greg when he was a professor and just finished my PhD in Economics. When I was an undergrad, my theological beliefs were shaped a lot by Greg, but then during my graduate years my views changed some and I didn't get a lot of affirmation from Greg over those changes. He was too busy and didn't feel called to deal with some of the issues, like altering the spiritual warfare theodicy to one that is based on the problem of order or the reality of the political(concerns that stem from a training in the social sciences, rather than theology proper).
Anyways, I think regarding Revelations, the teachings of my biblical studies professor Michael Holmes, who I don't think is an open theist, are relevant. I think it is primarily an exegetical question. What does the book of Revelations mean for today? Holmes hewed to the hermeneutical principle that the Bible cannot mean something different from what it was originally written for. As such, Revelations has to take into account the persecutions that the Christian Church was undergoing in the first century of its formation. A lot of the historic interpretations of Revelations deviate from this principle considerably. As for the millenium itself, I believe it is considered by many theologians, both open and "not-so-open" to be a hapax. A hapax is a term or phrase that shows up once or twice within scripture and for which there is not enough context for true biblical scholars to discern what its original meaning was. So I would say that open theism is a-millenialist on that account, believing in the second-coming of Christ, but not necessarily the millenium.
To understand how the concept of the millenium has come to take on its meanings for so many Christians in the US, you have to consider a good deal of the history of theology. Post-millenialism first developed using the establishment of the millenialism as a theological banner for Christian political activism or the establishment of the kingdom of God, particularly here in the US, where we didn't have the residue of feudal political structures serving as a check on political reform. Pre-millenialism became more predominant in the US after the Civil War, when the gore and tragedy of the war generally lowered everybody's expectations regarding the possibilities for improvements being made writ large. So, in the first, the establishment of the millenium was the goal of Christian political activism, in the latter, it was something that takes place independent of the actions of Christians and we are just to reach as many people with the Gospel as possible before it takes place.
As GB might say, ideas have consequences. Some of the worse consequences of pre-millenialism have been a rather fatalistic view of world affairs. It was used in the Reagan Administration to justify not having to take care of the Environment since the rapture was going to happen anyways. Also, many that I have talked to have taken a very lax view of trying to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons, since their eventual use in end-times was already predestined.
So I don't know if all open-theists would see this. It comes down to a question of what aspects of the future are already determined. That is open to debate.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Arrogance that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/14/2003 2:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello Bob
quote:
I'm somewhat new too. You said: "If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting." I would say that not all Open Theist beliefs can be supported by Scripture.
While I struggle with some areas of Open Theism, in my humble opinion they they have presented such an excellent Scriptural case so far. I think they have done a much better job than their opponents so far. This is the reason I am still researching and studying it. Otherwise, I would have dismissed it as so much rubbish as I do with Calvinism.
quote:
I also have been recently studying Open Theism. I attended Boyd's church for awhile (do not anymore) and that was when I first became familiar with Open Theism. My husband divorced me during that time, and he received very little in the way of Biblical counsel from Boyd's church staff which left me wondering: "What do Open Theists & Greg Boyd believe" regarding divorce? My struggle with that led me to these forums and as I have come to better understnad Open Theism, I now better understand my husband and his beliefs re: divorce as well as Boyd's beliefs, thus clarifying for me why a church did not do more to help my marriage. This did not begin as a search out of bitterness but out of true confusion.
I will share though that I only attended Boyd's church because of my husband's desire to attend there. However, from the beginning, I felt "disturbed" and very uncomfortable there. I thought I was just being critical and picky... but as I have come to better understand Open Theism, I better understand why I felt such lack of peace in my time there. I won't go into detail here as to my own personal thoughts about the church and what "disturbed" me but I share this so as to share that I do not have anything against WHC due to my divorce, but rather that my divorce is something that reaffirmed my own thoughts & questions about WHC and Open Theistic teachings which began the very first time I attened WHC (when my marriage was still good).
Wow Bob, I am really sorry to read this. Divorce is always a sad thing. I know that it is something that God hates and I know how painful it must be for you. My parents divorced when I was no more than five years old and I saw my mother's constant pain. While I am not qualified to defend Open Theism or any of its proponents, I have never gotten the impression that Open Theist proponents condoned anything that would violate God's Word. However, I cannot speak for YOUR experiences. I will pray for you and God's healing for you.
quote:
In my time on here, I have found it to be more a theology of human reasoning than Biblical support. Alot of people on here have gone to great deatil explaining Open Theism and it has helped me alot to better understand it; however, I have, upon reading these things, come to the conclusion that it is a contrary theology to the Word of God. In my opinion, it diminishes God making Him very "wimpy" and limited in His abilities and this is done in order to make a person "feel good" so that a person does not have to grapple with such things as "Why does God allow evil?" Open Theism seems to give "answers" to some difficult questions which I believe are for the purpose of causing a person to feel "good"; however, these answers have left me feeling anything but good when I think of a God who is not much higher than a person in His ability, knowledge, and power.
Bob, I am not sure if you have had a chance to visit my webpage. If you have not then let me tell you that I am a part of the Word-Faith movement and have been a part of this for 18 years. If there has been one movement that gets its share of criticism, it is this movement because it believes that God's desires His people to be healed, have their every need supplied in abundance, and that we are effective in evangelism. Because this movement teaches that God does very little outside of the believer's prayer and demonstration of faith, we are compared to just about every cult and ideology and are highly criticized by other Christians. If there is one thing I have learned is to be sympathetic towards other groups who present ideas that they have found in Scripture.
I know that you are experiencing pain and I am hurting for you as I write this but I truly hope that what you say is not based on that pain. Much of what I have found in other more "orthodox" systems such as Calvinism and Arminianism have been quite a bit of "human reasoning" that outdoes anything that I have read in Open Theism.
quote:
What exactly are you desiring to learn about Open Theism? You said you've studied it for 2 yrs but are still wanting to learn more? There is a discussion called "Continuing the Open Theism discussion" in which alot has been said about Open Theism (both supporting statments and rebuttals). You might read some things in there.
There are some things that I still wonder about such as if God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge as is taught by my brothers and sisters in the Openness movement, how do we account for Revelation. I also question things like Peter's denial and Jesus' clearly accurate prediction. Dr. Boyd did explain it in his book on openness but I am not totally satisfied with it. Otherwise, I felt that Dr. Boyd has done an excellent job in all of his books and I have learned much from him and his writings have helped me. It's just these other areas that keep me wondering.
quote:
As for the book of Revelation, I also wonder what an Open Theist's perspective would be on Revelation as well as on all prophecy for that matter, for prophecy certainly shows us that God DOES know the future (which would contradict the teachings of Open Theism).
Glad you share my curiosity :)
Edited by - bob on 04/14/2003 3:40:47 PM
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com
Edited by - victoryword on 04/14/2003 7:41:35 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/14/2003 2:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Everyone
Thank you so much for the replies that I have so far received. I apologize for not giving everyone a personal reply as I did Bob. She seems to be hurting so I wanted to respond to her personally. The rest of you seem to be doing okay I hope.
There are some things I am interested in that I want to discuss. One of them is Dr. Boyd's perspective on Hell and annhilation. Some things in his book, Satan and the Problem of Evil seems to allude to some of these things. Just to let you know ahead of time, I do not believe in annhilation. I believe that those who rejects Christ's redemptive work that was done on their behalf will burn in the lake of fire throughout eternity. This is another reason I want to get an Open Theist perspective on the book of Revelation.
Otherwise, I have been very much blessed by what are believe are truths taught within Open Theology and because of it I have come to understand Biblical truths and do not see God the same way. Just a few nitnoy things here and there that keeps me from completely crossing the threshhold.
I hope to be able to engage in more conversation with you guyts. I hope that we can challenge one another and learn from one another.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/14/2003 3:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Victorywood,
I will check out your site. [:)} I really didn't want to get into the whole divorce thing but used it more as to explain how I got here and what I believe. But I'm really okay.  Really. I find it somewhat humorous because when you say I am hurting, it kinda comes across that that would be the reason why I disagree with Open Theism. I'm sure you didn't intend it to, but I reread my comments and there is no hurt in them and I didn't say I was hurting so I'm just wondering how you got that impression. I actually am not hurting, believe it or not... it's been awhile since the divorce and things are going really well for me since then. Not much I can do except accept it and thank the Lord that I have an awesome church, family, friends, career, and a bright future (I am still pretty young, thankfully). I do appreciate your prayers though but I'm really doing quite well! But thanks. I didn't like the way WHC handled it, but it's the past now and I already discussed it with Greg Boyd, and I do not attend WHC as well so there is really not much I can do as far as that goes! (Could you tell me which comment gave you the impression that I'm hurting?)
So... that is totally off the subject!
I guess we differ in our opinions on Open Theism because I don't find the use of Scripture within this theology to be accurate. I do not compare it though to Calvinism as I know very little about Calvinism. It seems to be a very big thing in here though-- Open Theism vs. Calvinism. You said: "I have never gotten the impression that Open Theist proponents condoned anything that would violate God's Word." I guess I will say that I have. I have read things that are not Scriptural... that take Scripture out of context or change words... such as God "changes his mind".
Well, I hope you find what you are looking for on your search of Open Theism! I am a "loner" in here because I do not agree with most all of Open Theistic teachings but there are alot of very intelligent people in here so I'm sure you will enjoy the discussions.
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/14/2003 3:22 PM (GMT -6) | | My comments re: divorce: "My husband divorced me during that time, and he received very little in the way of Biblical counsel from Boyd's church staff which left me wondering: "What do Open Theists & Greg Boyd believe regarding divorce"? My struggle with that led me to these forums and as I have come to better understnad Open Theism, I now better understand my husband and his beliefs re: divorce as well as Boyd's beliefs, thus clarifying for me why a church did not do more to help my marriage. This did not begin as a search out of bitterness but out of true confusion".
I'm sorry but I don't see the "hurt"???? I'm confused. ? Did you really see me as hurting or do you maybe assume I am hurting because I don't agree with Open Theism? I'm not sure but wondered if you could clarify. I know it's not a big deal but I don't want any of my comments in these forums invalidated with the excuse of "well, she's hurting." You know what I mean? Hopefully. Thanks!
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/14/2003 4:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi bob,
Something you may want to think about:
In your "God is in total control" view, it is inescapable to conclude that your husband divorced you according to God's perfect will and "control". As you say, God is in control, right?
As an Open Theist, I for one would never counsel a couple or an individual to divorce except in cases where a woman's life or that of her children were in real danger from an abusive husband. Even then, I would counsel separation as a first step.
I think you are arguing (and at that, totally unfairly) from a particular instance (of what you think Greg Boyd and WHC did or did not do) to a general. Greg Boyd has clearly stated what his own position with regards to divorce is. As it is an untrue generalization based on your own experience (and especially your own subjective perception of that experience), it is simply unfair of you to continually try to use this as some sort of a bat to hit open theists over the head with.
As I said before (but you took my sentence apart and made it mean things I never said) Open Theism makes coherent sense of the biblical call to discipleship as does no other theological point of view. This is because it so strongly emphasizes human choice (moral responsibility), as in "Choose you this day, whom you will serve." Such a statement really means nothing in the "God controls everything" viewpoint, as in the determinist point of view that you say you hold to one can only choose according to God's will.
If your "God controls everything" view of God is correct, then what your husband and my mother did was simply the perfect will of God.
It seems extremely pointless to get upset at any of the other pawns in this game of chess, as God alone is "in control."
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 04/14/2003 9:39:27 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/14/2003 4:50 PM (GMT -6) | | As to Open Theist's views of the Book of Revelation, I don't know if you are asking about eschatology in general or how Open Theists view predictive prophecy, but it sounds like your talking about predictive prophecy, so here's my take...
Open Theists affirm that much of the future is settled, while some of the future is open; therefore, predictive prophecies fall within the realm of the settled future.
Open Theists affirm that God will ultimately triumph in the eschaton.
Open Theists affirm that whatever is truly predictive in Scripture is certainly within God's power to bring to pass. (In other words, at times God overrides human free will in order to bring about his purposes in history, as with Pharaoh).
I think many Open Theists would view much of the Book of Revelation as already fulfilled in the early years of Christianity (preterism), as that early church was who it was written to. I don't think Open Theism requires a particular eschatology per se, though probably many would agree with preterism, postmillenialism, or amillenialism. That said, I think you might find as many different views of eschatology within Openness ranks as you would within evangelicalism in general. I can see how premillenialism would even be adaptable to the OV.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 04/14/2003 9:52:42 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/14/2003 5:21 PM (GMT -6) | | John, sorry it comes across like a "bat" I'm using. Didn't intend for it to. Keep in mind, there were two others in the divorce forum who had very similar experiences to me (johnson and cami) at Woodland Hills. And those were only people in here on these forums. I imagine there are others we don't know about.
You said, "...Open Theism makes coherent sense of the biblical call to discipleship as does no other theological point of view." I disagree. It does not make "coherent" sense. And esp. compared to other theological views. From various comments made by Open Theists in these forums explaining Open Theism, I have concluded that I strongly disagree with most of Open Theism. Sure, we have some common beliefs but there are certain beliefs that distinguish Open Theism as a "class of its own" and those beliefs are very unlike the Biblical teaching I so appreciate at the churches I've been to during my years of being a Christian.
God can be in control of everything while at the same time allowing us to make choices, etc. We are not puppets. We have choices, etc.... but this does not mean that God is not in control! You are talking about the One who created the UNIVERSE! The UNIVERSE! Do you understand the implications of that??? How on earth can you understand someone who created the universe... who created life? Explain to me-- how did He do it? How does he create life? How does He dress the birds? How does the prayers of billions of people? How does He do the things He does and how has He done the things he did? Create light from darkness? Create a woman from a rib? Make rain? Create the seas and the sea life and knows every grain of sand? Those things CANNOT be understood or explained by us puny humans! And neither can God's being in control while at the same time allowing us to make choices be explained. Show me the verses that say God is NOT in control. Show me the verses that say God cannot do ALL things. I have asked for these verses soooo many times in here to various people and have yet to see them! Why? I can tell you why. They do not exist!! The Bible has more authority than your human reasoning and until you can use that authority and SHOW ME Scripture, I will find your belief called Open Theism to be false.
Open Theists are WRONG in trying to explain God! And what I mean is... who gave you the knowledge of what God does and doesn't or can and can't control?! Who gave an Open Theist such brilliance in this new revelation!? It reminds me of Joseph Smith who believed God gave him this special new knowledge of the "truth". It honestly does. I don't believe Open Theism is anywhere near being a cult but you yourself have told me that Open Theism is the ONLY really right-on theology and all the rest of us are really in the dark! That is pretty presumptous!
You are trying to explain some of the awesomeness of God and in so doing, you are completely diminishing Him to some wimpy, limited Being and not much greater than any of His creation. I CAN'T STAND the God of Open Theism and He is NOT the God of the Bible! Now, the God of the Bible... I LOVE that God, I know that God, I serve that God and seek that God. But this wimpy, "I don't know what might happen in the future" God... what kind of God is that? I see that god being no greater than any other man-made, man-explained god.
Earl, about the divorce and counsel received, you said, "As it is an untrue generalization..." Who are you to say it is "untrue?" Were you there? Were you the one I spoke to? Were you the one my husband spoke to? Did you hear the words said thus giving you the insight to be able to say it is untrue? Or is this just another example of the way you seem to know everything... or so you think.
BACK TO THE TOPIC ON REVELATION... (sorry, victorywood...)
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/14/2003 5:49 PM (GMT -6) | | 1. You simply cannot know precisely what your husband was or was not told, unless you were standing right there.
2. We have presented scriptures, many scriptures to which you apparently can't respond. (Like for instance 2 Kings 20).
3. I realize, as you have said, that coherence is not a highly valued thing for you, but for many people coherence is very important. It does not add weight to your attempts to reason while you continue to disparage reason.
4. I really think that for the time being for your own emotional/spiritual health, you should consider not trying to engage in discussion/debate with people who are associated with something that is so obviously related to a raw nerve for you--your divorce.
If your husband in fact tried to use open theism to justify his divorcing of you, he was totally wrong and abusing his theology to support his sin, much like some Calvinists do at times (like my mother did when she said that she knew "once-saved-always-saved" was true, because she could "speak in tongues" all the while she was living in an adulterous relationship).
Open Theism, properly understood, does not allow people to "pick and choose" what commandments to obey--any more than evangelicalism in general does.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 04/15/2003 12:28:21 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/14/2003 6:41 PM (GMT -6) | | "Open Theists are wrong in trying to explain God!" Are you not trying to explain God as well, considering you have a view of God that you are trying to espouse? Are you not wrong as well...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/14/2003 7:51 PM (GMT -6) | | JOHN said:" We have presented scriptures, many scriptures to which you apparently can't respond. (Like for instance 2 Kings 20)"
BOBBIE says: Ah contrare... I simply have not yet taken the time to address them. This in no way would be an indication that I "cannot" respond to them.
JOHN said: You simply cannot know precisely what your husband was or was not told, unless you were standing right there.
Bobbie says: Not necessarily. Perhaps I asked the person who gave him the counsel what was said. Perhaps I was there. I never did mention actually.
JOHN said: "...coherence is not a highly valued thing for you..."
BOBBIE says: Excuse me?? I did not say I do not value coherence and would appreciate you not putting words into my mouth. I said I do not agree that Open Theism is coherent. Ah... it makes sense. I don't think Open Theism is coherent, I do not agree with Open Theism... thus, I must indeed value coherency, mustn't I?
JOHN said: "It does not add weight to your attempts to reason while you continue to disparage reason."
BOBBIE says: Keep in mind that what is "reason" to you is not be "reason" to me. You see me disparaging reason because you believe what you are saying is reasonable. I, on the other hand, believe that what I am saying is reasonable and it is indeed you who are disparing reason.
JOHN says: "I really think that for the time being for your own emotional/spiritual health, you should consider not trying to engage in discussion/debate with people who are associated with something that is so obviously related to a raw nerve for you--your divorce".
BOBBIE says: Thanks for the "advice" and input as to what I ought to do re: these forums. But there is no raw nerve with my divorce. It was quite some time ago. I disagreed with Open Theism very quickly after I first heard what it was and when I first began attending WHC and had misgivings. It had nothing to do with my marriage. Currently, I am dating and doing quite well and all "raw nerves" have been... um... well, suffice to say, there aren't any. My divorce has nothing to do with my being on here. It led me here because I wanted to address the church's role with divorce & marriage which I did in the divorce thread. I am quite emotionally and spiritually healthy, John, but thanks for the concern. Are you now saying that not only are non Open Theists deceived, but they are also not healthy? I will continue to engage in these forums as long as I feel led to. Read the above quote under the "Christus Vitor Ministries" welcome banner: "CVM is happy to make our discussion public and invite ANYONE to join in..." Even the emotionally & spiritually unhealthy! 
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/14/2003 7:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Honorman said: ""Open Theists are wrong in trying to explain God!" Are you not trying to explain God as well, considering you have a view of God that you are trying to espouse? Are you not wrong as well..."
Bobbie says: I don't think I'm trying to explain God as much as I'm desiring to defend Him from the things Open Theists say about Him! But maybe I should reword that statement. When I "explain" anything about God, it is not some new explanation I have come up with... it is explanations already given in the Word of God. My explanations are more of a sharing of what is already said about God in His Word. Open Theists are "explaining" with ideas not found in the Word (such as "God knows no possiblities" or "the future is open". There are NO verses that say such things and in my opinion, very few that allude to such things and the ones that Open Theists use to support these ideas are misread. Example: God changes his mind when the actual words of the verse are "God relented." BIG difference between relenting and changing one's mind!)
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/14/2003 8:38 PM (GMT -6) | | JOHN said: "...coherence is not a highly valued thing for you..."
(See bolded quotes below from bobbie's earlier posts)
JOHN said: "It does not add weight to your attempts to reason while you continue to disparage reason."
(ditto to above)
BOBBIE says: Keep in mind that what is "reason" to you is not be "reason" to me. You see me disparaging reason because you believe what you are saying is reasonable. I, on the other hand, believe that what I am saying is reasonable and it is indeed you who are disparing reason.
John, you said: "Open Theism is the only theology that is able to make coherent, practical sense out of the clear biblical call to discipleship".
Here's what leads me to conclude that you are not interested in logical coherence, which is fine if that is what you want to do, just know that those who do value coherence will not be persuaded by irrational "reasoning":
bobbie said: I'm sorry but I still do not see the coherency or practicality you mention... but on that note, I don't determine my beliefs on discipleship (or on God, etc) based on that criteria either. I don't decide that I believe something because it is coherent or practical or even because it makes sense.
John says: Need I say more?
Bobbie went on to say: John, two things stand out in your comment:
#1- Open Theism is the ONLY theology that makes... sense.... That's a strong statement and infers that all the rest of the people who call themselves Chrsitans and yet do not adhere to Open Theistic beliefs and teachings, are thus, deceived.
John replies: This is just plain deceptive of you, bobbie, to actually take words out of my sentence. Shame on you. I never said, "Open Theism is the ONLY theology that makes sense," and neither did I ever say non-Open Theists are "deceived." I simply and only said that in my opinion Open Theism is the only theology that is able to make sense out of the call to discipleship (see top of this post for the actual quote before you edited it). I believe this because of the might/might not of human obedience to God's call. In the classical view, there simply is no might/might not at all.
Bobbie went on to say: #2- the only theology that MAKES SENSE OUT OF... Is it possible that some things of God simply don't make sense to us and never will (because He is God and we are not)? Is it possible that time could be wasted trying to make sense of such things when meanwhile people are suffering, dying, and not saved and really don't care whether or not "God faces possibilities?" I guess I hesitate when I hear that this theology is "making sense" of God... well, you said "Biblical discipleship", but I also feel that there are alot of attempts of making sense of God.
John replies: I make no apologies for trying to make sense of God; nor should anyone. God might just as well have had the Bible written in unintelligible gibberish had he not intended it to be understood. Anyone who ever engages in Bible study by definition is trying to make sense of God.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 04/15/2003 01:49:10 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/14/2003 8:44 PM (GMT -6) | | JOHN said: You simply cannot know precisely what your husband was or was not told, unless you were standing right there.
Bobbie says: Not necessarily. Perhaps I asked the person who gave him the counsel what was said. Perhaps I was there. I never did mention actually.
John replies: If you were standing right there, your accusations might carry some weight as an eyewitness. If you were not standing right there, regardless of who you talked to, your information is at best secondhand, and at that, from very biased sources (such as your ex-husband, who seemed to have self-serving motives to get out of the marriage and justify his sin).
BOBBIE says: Thanks for the "advice" and input as to what I ought to do re: these forums...
John replies: It seems to me that you basically are presently unable to be objective about this subject, as you continue to demonstrate in every discussion you engage in, and this sort of angst doesn't help anyone, least of all you. But that's just my observation.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/14/2003 9:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh, but it does help me, John. I won't go into all the ways, but it certainly does help me.
John, you said: "It seems to me that you basically are presently unable to be objective about this subject, as you continue to demonstrate in every discussion you engage in...".
I'd been warned by some friends (not Open Theists) that I was walking into a "lions den" in here, but I decided to go in. But I knew going in that my comments would not be much "appreciated" seeing as this is an Open Theist haven so to say. I'm sorry you feel I am unable to be objective about the subject. I guess I will have to work on that, but again, that is your opinion and it is an opinion that does not surprise me seeing as you and I differ greatly in our opinions. You will think you are right, I will think I am right, and as evidenced by our most recent posts & comments to each other, we are simply going in circles with each other. Wouldn't you agree? It seems to me that it's starting to get "vicious" between you and me, so maybe we need to just "chill" and lay off each other for a bit. Peace!
Oh... as for your comment about me not wanting coherency (sorry... can't remember the verb you used there and too tired to go look right now).
I said: "I'm sorry but I still do not see the coherency or practicality you mention... but on that note, I don't determine my beliefs on discipleship (or on God, etc) based on that criteria either. I don't decide that I believe something because it is coherent or practical or even because it makes sense. "
I can see your point that this statement sounds like I don't value coherency. Let me reword better: what I mean is, I do not determine my beliefs due to the fact that they are practical or coherent. Not that they can't be, but I base my beliefs on the plain ol' Word of God. I hear a theological statement and I do not say to myself, "It must be true because it is practical and coherent". Rather I say, "Is it Biblical? Is that in the Bible?" If it is the Word of God, I believe it, without question. If it's coherent, great! Practical, great! If not, so be it! Coherency is wonderful and important. Practicalness is to. My main point was that the Word of God is where I determine my beliefs. You had said something along the lines of Open Theism being the only coherent and practical belief (I believe you said "only"... could be wrong) and I was trying to get across to you that if it's not Scriptural, then I don't care much about it's coherency or practicalness. Now, I know it's practical to take your socks off when you shower, and that's not what I'm talking about. Anyways... I hope that better explains! If not... ah well... I tried!
Edited by - Bobbie on 04/15/2003 02:29:12 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/15/2003 5:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie said:
quote:
Did you really see me as hurting or do you maybe assume I am hurting because I don't agree with Open Theism? I'm not sure but wondered if you could clarify. I know it's not a big deal but I don't want any of my comments in these forums invalidated with the excuse of "well, she's hurting." You know what I mean? Hopefully. Thanks!
I saw you hurting primarily from your divorce. Since I have seen my parents divorce I can someone relate to your pain. Nonetheless I sense a little from your posts that you feel that you did not receive the help for your marriage that you needed from ministers who espouse Open Theism. Whether this is your reason for espousing Calvinism and opposing Open Theism is not something that I can say without God Himself telling me and He didn't.
In the movement that I have been a part of I have seen people walk away due to extreme teachings within the movement (which I am fighting against as well as refuting the lies told against us). I have seen them turn to Calvinism and they become the biggest opponents of the Faith Message. I have actually seen one couple tunr from the Faith Message to Calvinism and then later fell into the lie of liberal theology. This was all due to some hurts that they received from some Faith Teachers. Whenever we have discussions on these topics they will relate their hurtful experiences but when I tell them that they are reacting to thse things they told me that I was wrong and that they were just "exposing" the movement I am in.
Therefore, I hope you understand where I am coming from. Though I am not an Open Theist, you might be more opposed to my beliefs than you are to Open Theism once you find out more about me - though I believe that I base all of my beliefs on the Bible itself.
God bless you and I love you with the love of the Lord.
Troy
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/15/2003 6:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Correction on the above where I said that I am not an "Open Theist." I am probably much closer to believing this than most other systems of theology because it seems to explain the Scriptures better. Let's just say I am on the side of the pull and one push could knock me in the water.
Just a few things that keeps me on the side of the pool and not allowing me to jump dead in there.
I appreciate the book references which I may purchase (so many books to read, so little time, and plus I am on an allowance. My wife says I buy more books than I do clothese). I also appreciate John Earp's explanation that Open Theists believe that some of the future is settled and some of it is opened. I have read similar statements by Dr. Boyd on this. This has been my main defense of Open Theism whenever I run into those who oppose it with the belief that none of the future has been determined. But then I am still troubled by the accuracy of Jesus' prophecy to Peter (the three time denial) and also Jesus' prophecy of how Peter would actually die (see John 21).
Nonetheless, I guess I can see how stating that part of the future is settled might be a good explanation for the book of Revelation. Nonetheless, I am still troubled by how God was able to give John a VISION of the things to come and how John saw in this vision detailed descriptions of the things that would later come to pass. Even if one took the preterist viewpoint and said that many of these things were already done, the fact remains that it was still future to John and see it happening before it happened.
The funny thing is that Satan must be aware of this book, must have read it and must be attempting to do everything to prevent his final doom. I know that Open Theists, like myself, believe that God is omnipotent and can cause to happen what He has spoken. Yet, we also know that if men and angels have free will, could they act out the events in exact detail as spoken in Revelation if they know that the acting out will bring them to their final doom?
These are mysteries I am wanting to resolve here.
By the way, Is Dr. Boyd still planning to write his Fallacy of the Blueprint book (or something like that)?
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/15/2003 6:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
The funny thing is that Satan must be aware of this book, must have read it and must be attempting to do everything to prevent his final doom. I know that Open Theists, like myself, believe that God is omnipotent and can cause to happen what He has spoken. Yet, we also know that if men and angels have free will, could they act out the events in exact detail as spoken in Revelation if they know that the acting out will bring them to their final doom?
O.K. Satan knows Revelation. So either of two things:
1. He doesn't believe Revelation. He's still deluded in thinking he can be like the most high.
2. He realizes he's doomed but is still fighting God, taking as many down with him.
I do think Satan has tried to force God's hand in the past and have some examples in mind but these are only speculations and not worthy of discussion.
_________________________
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/15/2003 6:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobby: you make the classic mistake that all do who assume that HOW THEY INTERPRET SCRIPTURE IS THE WORD OF GOD AND NOT ACTUALLY AN
INTERPRETATION. We all interpret scripture. Stating that you are only defending what is in the word of God begs the point. When you are quoting certain scriptures and making the point you are, you believe they are saying what you believe they are saying. Others may disagree. I would suggest that you choose a line of reasoning within scripture that respects other people's interpretation of scripture as well as your own. We all interpret scripture. Yours in one view, but there are others that equally fit in to the view of orthodoxy Christian faith...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/15/2003 6:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh BTW, Bobbie, there are many who post on this site and are not open theists and are not in "the lion's den." Just because someone opposes what you believe doesn't mean your comments are unwelcomed...
| | Back to Top | | |
| 64 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:10 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 |
|
|