 |
| 
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 6/10/2002 9:23 PM (GMT -6) |   | What should Christians who believe that God knows the future as partly open and partly settled write on their theological name tags?
I would like to start a little collection of all the names critics of the open view have come up with for us. If you know of a name someone has made up for open theism, please post it here, and cite the source. I’m also interested in reflections on why critics seem to be preoccupied with making up their own names for the open view.
Thanks,
Electra
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
…in him, lost in him and his love… | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/11/2002 12:35 AM (GMT -6) | | 1. Neotheism (source: Geisler)
2. "Hand-wringers" (source: Ware)
3. "Great-guessers" (source: My friend)
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/11/2002 4:51 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm not thinking that this is such a good idea. Gives one a complex.Changes you inside, and makes that change more permanent.
Remember how everyone felt last summer? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 6/11/2002 5:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi, my name is…What?…my name is Who? my name is…Heretic  !
You see, I went into my Old Testament professor Jeffrey J. Niehause’s office of Gordon-Conwell and told him about a great new book I read…God At War, by Gregory A. Boyd, and his first words were something like…what/why were you reading that book? He then proceeded to assert how he couldn’t believe that IVP would even print such “heresy”. Sooo, I guess since I’m an open theist and open theism is heresy my name is Heretic...  !
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 6/11/2002 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, Tiggers, welcome to the club. I was going to add that title via Pastor Larry Dean who applied it to me while telling our {former} Sunday School Class how to deal with me as one.
Unfortunately for me he didn't know where the rest of you heretics were or perhaps it was an effort to starve me by lack of support. He just didn't understand how I work. The Bible is the bread, the fellowship is the butter.
Fifteen years of bread, oh, how I like the butter too!
quote:
Hi, my name is…What?…my name is Who? my name is…Heretic !
You see, I went into my Old Testament professor Jeffrey J. Niehause’s office of Gordon-Conwell and told him about a great new book I read…God At War, by Gregory A. Boyd, and his first words were something like…what/why were you reading that book? He then proceeded to assert how he couldn’t believe that IVP would even print such “heresy”. Sooo, I guess since I’m an open theist and open theism is heresy my name is Heretic... !
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie).
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 6/11/2002 6:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I'm not thinking that this is such a good idea. Gives one a complex.Changes you inside, and makes that change more permanent.
Remember how everyone felt last summer?
Point well taken, PoW. I certainly don’t want to be on the giving or receiving end of ecclesial mud (nasty stuff). But I am very curious about this phenomenon: why do critics critics of the open view invariably rename it? What’s in a name, anyway? Shakespeare wondered, and so do I. We could also take a biblical approach: God renamed people, too. What’s going on when God renames us, and what’s going on when we rename each other?
Electra
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
…in him, lost in him and his love… | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 6/11/2002 6:23 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I'm not thinking that this is such a good idea. Gives one a complex.Changes you inside, and makes that change more permanent.
Remember how everyone felt last summer?
Point well taken, PoW. I certainly don’t want to be on the giving or receiving end of ecclesial mud (nasty stuff). But I am very curious about this phenomenon: why do critics critics of the open view invariably rename it? What’s in a name, anyway? Shakespeare wondered, and so do I. We could also take a biblical approach: God renamed people, too. What’s going on when God renames us, and what’s going on when we rename each other?
Electra
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
…in him, lost in him and his love… | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gusdaberean
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 10
| Posted 6/11/2002 6:51 AM (GMT -6) | | [quote]
What should Christians who believe that God knows the future as partly open and partly settled write on their theological name tags?
I would like to start a little collection of all the names critics of the open view have come up with for us. If you know of a name someone has made up for open theism, please post it here, and cite the source. I’m also interested in reflections on why critics seem to be preoccupied with making up their own names for the open view.
__________________
Free Will Theism-RK Macgregor Wright (No Place For Soveriengty-WEhat's wrong with Free Will Theism)
Neo-Theism (The Battle For God; Creating God in the Image of Man?- Dr. Norman Geisler)
Open-theism- God's Lesser Glory-The Diminished God of Open-Theism
Process theology or theologians- All of the above have affirmed that Openness affirms a form of Process theology
shalom
Gus
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/11/2002 8:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
eLECTRA: Point well taken, PoW. I certainly don’t want to be on the giving or receiving end of ecclesial mud (nasty stuff). But I am very curious about this phenomenon: why do critics critics of the open view invariably rename it?
Then one might look at the phenomena of how someone often RE-NAMES oneself in the process of renaming others (visavis 'allergic reactions'). | | Back to Top | | |
|
JoeMoore
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 25
| Posted 6/12/2002 9:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Process theology or theologians- All of the above have affirmed that Openness affirms a form of Process theology
How is it that polemic writers can 'affirm' that A 'affirms' a form of 'B'?
Wouldn't that be called an 'allegation' rather than an 'affirmation'?
How would you like to hear a list of beliefs that open theists 'affirm' that Calvinists 'affirm'?
I don't think that would be very profitable .
By the way--I'm not a card-carrying open theist. I just find this to be a refreshing group of Christians to hang out with that think in a way that challenges me. Let's stay away from the guilt by association (I'm not sure that process theologians want to be grouped with open theists any more than the reverse).
Joe Moore
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 6/12/2002 11:26 AM (GMT -6) | | My name: Trinitarian process theism
If you look at some of the names mentioned, I think that line of similarity is that the first part is probably what the namer feels CHARACTERIZES the theological position.
Free will theism: Based on Free Will
Neo-Theism: Trying to emphasize the PERCEIVED "newness" of the theological view
Open-Theism: Trying to emphasize the PERCEIVED emphasis on "openness" to apply to MORE than just forknowledge.
Process theology: Based on an underdeveloped understanding of both process theology AND the fundamental bases of open view theism (especially Doc's view). This is insofar as these people basically think that the open view actually IS process theology ala Whitehead or Hartshorne.
So, I think I've done the same things. To me, the words "trinitarian" and "process" truly characterize the METAPHYSICAL nature of the worldview.
My nomenclature comes PRIMARILY from my (not THE) understanding of Doc's metaphysical worldview (ala his book "Trinity And Process") and working out other issues within that framework. The "trinitarian" part is important because it attempts to note that:
--the view is indeed in LINE with orthodox Christianity insofar as it assumes the existence of the triune God spoken of in Christian Scripture. (This goes a long way!)
--the view reframes Hartshornean process theology LARGELY using it's own categories, showing how METAPHYSICALLY, a trinatarian idea of God is more workable than merely a unitary view.
IMPORTANT: Don't be fooled. The "trinitarian" aspect is a VERY INTEGRAL piece that distinguishes this view from either Whiteheadian or Hartshornean process thought!! Non-negotiable. Haters, PLEASE don't minimize it's importance. Get "Trinity And Process" and read it, why don't you?!? LOL!)
The "process" part is important because:
--it does seem the case that general open view theism CONSISTENTLY WORKED OUT uses many process categories
--with respect to Doc's view, though Doc reframes Hartshornean process in the worldview, it is STILL process theology in it's essence.
The "theism" part is because...well, it's a THEISTIC view. 
There you have it. Trinitarian...process...theism.
From what I understand, the only real problem with my terminology would be the political connotations. (Sheesh...) But anyway, that's what I would call it. No one asked me, but whatever... 
Holla,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/12/2002 5:37 PM (GMT -6) | |
Well, folks. Now that Meph has made up his mind (a terrible thing to waste...) and is all set to VOTE... Lets see what Mr. JCsites has all cooked up for him so there won't be any of those awfull "hanging Chad's" this time!
As to the politics part... well he is still working on THAT one.
So....
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JCsites.com
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 169
| Posted 6/14/2002 4:12 AM (GMT -6) | | POW,
Sorry I don't get it. Me cook up something for Meph? Hanging Chads? Please elaborate, my brain is not in gear yet.
JC Sites guy
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/14/2002 4:27 AM (GMT -6) | | I hate explaining humor.
(Go watch a TV game show. That will help you.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 6/17/2002 5:21 AM (GMT -6) | | JC sites guy,
I think PoW is referring to you setting up the Poll function so we can all vote on the names. Hey, I missed ya Sunday at our sound booth gathering. I was hoping to chat a minute.
Pow,
Go watch a game show???
Choose a door?
Spin the wheel?
Answer in the form of a question?
-S
Gilthoniel, A! Elberech!
-JRR Tolkien | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/17/2002 5:34 AM (GMT -6) | | TWO PHRASES THAT CAN BE SAID WITH THE SAME "TONE OF VOICE":
"Lets see what's behind door number one."
"Lets see what Mr. JCsites has all cooked up for him so there won't be any of those awfull 'hanging Chad's' this time!"
Where are Monty Hall and Bob Barker when you need him?
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/17/2002 10:42:58 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/17/2002 7:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Who should carry the name "anachronists?"
Just being bothersome here....
Seems that both "sides" of the debate enjoy an overly literal (does 'plenary' mean verbal inspiration?) reading of the older Old Testement texts.
While eventually the "conceptual mileu" and the "thought forms and language by which the prophets and sages expressed their understanding of God's presence and activity within the life of the people" (Breck) developed into something that we can recognize as paralleling our own. It even seems to have continued to develop during the time from Christ to the end of the writing of the New Testement. BUT... the form in which statements about God and official narratives of God's actions with man take in the Bible's earliest narratives is just SO FAR DIFFERENT from what it is with, say, an Ezekiel, or a Matthew that to read those earlier passages with the same eye and mind that we would our own life's experiences is to be anachronistic!
.........................
BTW, It is interesting also to read "The Sacred and the Profane" for a world religions ovreview. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 6/17/2002 12:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Naming is an extremely powerful rhetorical tool and, as such, I'd encourage Open Theists (by any other name) to consider this topic very carefully.
Think about the American abortion debate and how much damage has been done to one side in public debate and news coverage by being labled "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life" (and feminist groups are "women's groups" whereas Concerned Women for America is not). Was it a Civil War or War between the States? Was it a German invasion or Lebensraum?
Notice also how damning the original poster considered it that Openness is 'just process theology under another name.'
Mephi's response is well reasoned, although his preferred label is probably too complex to catch on. It'll also create situations where people dismiss it because it contains the word 'process.' It may be theologically accurate, but it's a rhetorically poor move for the health of the movement (which, is much more than a 'political' problem... it's an evangelism problem, and a social movement problem, etc.).
To me, the most sound descriptor is "open view of the future". This would make adherents 'openists'.
Fortunately, the 'battle' has largely been won (on this one front) by the popularization of the term "Openness". Who doesn't want to admit that God is "open" to people in some sense? It fits well with John 3:16 and the premise of Christianity that God did something as a 'response' to humanity.
The ground has been shifted such that the opponents of openness are struggling to name it, come up with catchy-dismissive names for it that capture its basic fallacy, etc.
Rhetorically (NOT theologically or morally) the best thing for the growth of this movement is probably to retain the sememe <open>, or to have multiple names such that launching coherent attacks against it are more difficult.
Realistically (and here I'm drawing on other historical movements), a single name will gain wide currency (with "Boydians" being a very remote possibility since the movement has several visible leaders). It will then be the task of leaders to define that name positively, as abolitionists and prohibitionists and American revolutionaries did in the past.
Terry
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/17/2002 2:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Terry, you are a wise man!
BTW, Semiea, in the above I not-too-well identified BOTH sides as "anachronists." And as the debate continued it brought the worst out of each side. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:16 AM (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 |
|
|