 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/5/2002 9:19 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hi all-
I thought it would help discussion of the article to post it here. One can download it at the site Shelby gave, but if anybody wants to discuss it, it helps to have the article on hand. So here it is. I intend to come back asap with some observations of my own.
Tom
PS I wasn’t able to include Lee’s footnotes. So please, if you’re interested, download the article from Enrichment Journal website: http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/enrichmentjournal/200204/200204_134_openness_of_god.cfm This is posted here just to facilitate discussion.
----------
The "Openness of God" From a Pentecostal Perspective
By Edgar R. Lee
The hottest topic on the evangelical-theological circuit these last few years has been the openness of God, also called open theism, presentism, and freewill theism. The doctrine of God’s omniscience has been revised by openness theologians to a form presumably more in keeping with modern sensibilities. Their project has triggered a spirited debate as to whether the revision is truly biblical and compatible with historic evangelical theology. This article takes a look at that debate from a Pentecostal perspective.
The Debate
Early in the 1990s, several evangelical Arminians began to publicly question the orthodox consensus that God foreknows all future events, including all decisions that people can or will make. They suggested that much of the future is open to be decided only as free creatures make decisions as yet unknown to God. Among the most prominent of these theologians are: Clark Pinnock, one of the editors of The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (1994); John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (1998); and Greg Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (2000). John Sanders was also the openness partner in a two-part dialogue with Christopher A. Hall published by Christianity Today.
Scholars from across the evangelical spectrum have joined in the debate. The Evangelical Theological Society is a major forum for evangelicals and its members have been major participants in this debate. The openness issue came to a head in the last annual meeting in March 2002. At that time, ETS members voted decisively for a resolution that included the following affirmation: "We believe the Bible clearly teaches that God has complete, accurate, and infallible knowledge of all events past, present, and future including all future decisions and actions of free moral agents." This statement represents a decisive rejection of openness views.
The Southern Baptist Convention and the Baptist General Conference have responded similarly to openness theology. The SBC adopted a resolution in June 1999, stating that "the omniscience of God extends to all creation and throughout all time, to all things actual and potential, even to the thoughts and actions of His conscious creatures, past, present, and future." The BGC adopted a resolution in June 2000, declaring "that God’s knowledge of all past, present, and future events is exhaustive . . . we also believe that the "openness" view of God’s foreknowledge is contrary to our fellowship’s historic understanding of God’s omniscience." Recognizing that different denominations have different theological agendas not always compatible with the Pentecostal tradition, Pentecostals should examine openness claims in terms of sound biblical exegesis and theological explication.
The Openness View
Sanders has described the openness position with four points that may be briefly summarized as follows:
1. Our all-powerful Triune God has created human beings with freedom, and their abuse of freedom notwithstanding, He remains committed to their freedom.
2. God decided to make some of His actions contingent on what humans do.
3. God’s providence is sufficiently general that He does not control every detail of human life and may even change His plans in response to what men and women do.
4. While God knows the past and the present exhaustively, His knowledge of the future is partly indefinite, or open (hence openness), and He does not know all that free persons will do in the future.
An emphasis on dynamic human freedom is not new, being characteristic of both Calvinist and Arminian theologians (with differing definitions and emphases). However, to suggest that God’s providence is only general in nature, or that God is reduced to changing His plans when His creatures act, or that there are events in the future that God does not know is a major departure from the classical theology of both Calvinism and Arminianism. God’s omniscience (God’s perfect knowledge) and providence (God’s perfect oversight of His creation) have been redefined by openness theologians, and this redefinition requires close scrutiny.
The Proponents’ Case For Openness Theology
In making their case, openness theologians lodge several complaints against historic orthodoxy. One is the claim that orthodoxy has been influenced by Greek philosophy in ways that dim the biblical message. In the words of John Sanders, "The god of Greek thought is anonymous, self-sufficient, alone (unrelated), invulnerable, self-thinking thought, changeless, and egocentric." Interacting with these influences, early Christians theologians came to describe the God of the Bible—who warmly communicates with humans and reveals himself preeminently in the person of Jesus—with Greek philosophical language. Some terms that openness theologians single out are impassibility, implying a lack of emotion; immutability, implying an inability to change and respond to human situations; timelessness, implying immunity to subsequent changes in people over time; and His simplicity, implying inability of the Triune person to relate as Father, Son, and Spirit. In openness thought, these nonbiblical categories hinder our understanding and experience of the personal and relational God of the Bible. The openness theologians, then, are calling for reconsideration of classic Christian doctrines expressed in or affected by those terms.
Then, on these assumptions, the openness project gathers a number of passages from the Bible that show God relating to people in ways that seem to contradict classical theological categories. At first, these intriguing passages seem to show not only that God has emotions (challenging impassibility and simplicity) which is contrary to Greek thought, but that God also observes what people do and learns from them things He did not previously know (challenging timelessness and traditional omniscience). Their passages also appear to demonstrate that God changes His mind and His plans to respond to what people do (challenging immutability). Usually cited in openness writings are the following texts and emphases:
Genesis 6:6: "The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain." Numbers 14:11: "The Lord said to Moses, ‘How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me?’ " 1 Samuel 15:11: "I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me." Isaiah 5:4: "What more could have been done for my vineyard than I have done for it? When I looked for good grapes, why did it yield only bad?" Isaiah 38:1,5: "This is what the Lord says [to Hezekiah]: ‘. . . you are going to die; you will not recover.’ Go and tell Hezekiah, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: "I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will add fifteen years to your life." ’ " Jeremiah 3:7: "I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not." Jeremiah 19:5: "They have built the high places of Baal . . . something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind." Jonah 3:10: "When God saw what they [the Ninevites] did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened." Matthew 26:39: "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." 2 Peter 3:12: "as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming."
If all the details of these texts were taken literally—without consideration of the larger biblical context—they certainly would suggest that God does not know what human beings will do until they do it. Further, they would suggest that God not only responds personally and dynamically to people but also regularly changes His plans when they do not act as He hopes.
Moreover, on the basis of these and similar texts—and guided by a particular modern philosophy of time—openness theologians draw out the understanding that God does not, and indeed, cannot know every detail of the future. In their thinking, the future has not happened and simply is not there to know. Free agents such as men and angels have not yet made tomorrow’s decisions nor acted on them. Therefore, those decisions and actions do not yet exist and cannot be known or controlled—even by God. It is further assumed that God cannot know all the contingent, or potential decisions and actions of human beings and angels. Many aspects of the future are thus truly open and yet to be determined.
Openness theologians do maintain that God has vast knowledge of the present and the past as well as of the things He has personally determined to bring about. God may also draw inferences from what He already knows. The Second Coming of Christ and the end of the world are good examples of events He has determined. It is the things free men and angels do that God cannot know in advance. So, openness advocates definitely restrict the traditional scope of omniscience. Omniscience is redefined to assert that God continues to learn and thereby change—at least in His knowledge—plans and providential actions. The task is redefinition; they do not deny or abandon those doctrines in their entirety.
Practical Advantages Seen by Openness Proponents
Openness advocates contend that their modified view of omniscience lends itself to more dynamic Christian living across a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices.8 Probably the most compelling argument relates to prayer. As Boyd puts it, "many Christians have an understanding of divine sovereignty in which the urgency of prayer simply doesn’t make much sense . . . they believe that God’s plans cannot truly be changed; the future is exhaustively settled." If God has not somehow, as in Calvinist thought, decreed and thereby settled all aspects of the future, then God, along with His creatures, discovers many things about the future as it unfolds in the normal course of events. God can then respond spontaneously, lovingly, and decisively to the believer’s prayers without being bound to a decree from eternity past. God can change His mind. God can go from plan "A" to plan "B." God can immediately respond to the pain and suffering of His creation as it is happening. This kind of divine-human encounter appears to be made to order for the "effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man" (James 5:16, KJV) who desperately wants to move the hand of God. Viewed from this perspective, the arguments of the openness theologians seem particularly compelling.
Classic Teaching on Omniscience
It is important, though, to set openness ideas into the context of historic evangelical theology as articulated by both Calvinists and Arminians. Certain differences of opinion between Calvinist and Arminian theologians over the nature of God’s omniscience have existed ever since Arminianism arose as a protest against perceived Calvinistic determinism. The Calvinist has usually argued that God knows every detail of the future, including every decision that His creatures will make, simply because He has foreordained the salvation of the elect and the ordering of the universe. The Arminian, too, has usually argued that God knows every detail of the future, including every decision that His creatures will make. Unlike the Calvinist, the Arminian believes that God gives freedom to humans and angels to make their own decisions with the help of prevenient grace but without the compulsion of irresistible grace. Nonetheless, God fully knows in advance what those decisions will be, weaves them into His eternal plan from eternity past, and graciously guides His creatures and the universe they inhabit to a desired and certain consummation…….. So, while Calvinists and Arminians interpret foreknowledge, predestination, and providence differently, the two classic traditions have historically agreed on the central issue at stake in the openness debates—God knows every detail of the future including all that free creatures can think and do, i.e. all contingencies, and does not have to change His plans with every human decision.
Arminian Theologians
Even though the advocates of the openness theology identify with Arminianism, they have deviated from classic Arminian teachings. James Arminius himself declared, "God knows all things from eternity, nothing [de novo] recently . . . He understands all things through His essence." A long line of theological heirs has maintained that position. Samuel Wakefield commented, "Omniscience is boundless knowledge; and when it is ascribed to God the meaning is, not merely that He has power to know everything, but that He actually knows all things, past, present, and future." John Miley similarly noted, "Omniscience . . . must be prescient of all futuritions, whatever their nature or causality. Future free volitions must be included with events which shall arise from necessary causes."
Contemporary Wesleyan theologian, Thomas Oden, writes, "God’s knowing is . . . (a) eternally actual, not merely possible; (b) eternally perfect, as distinguished from a knowledge that begins, increases, decreases, or ends; (c) complete instead of partial; and (d) both direct and immediate, instead of indirectly reflected or mediated."
Assemblies of God theologians usually think in the same vein. Thus William Menzies and Stanley Horton assert, "God is omniscient, having infinite, universal, complete knowledge and insight. . . . All events, past, present, and future, are available to Him as present knowledge."
Calvinistic Theologians
John Calvin utilized the biblical term foreknowledge, which he separated from predestination, to explain God’s knowledge of the future. "When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things always were, and perpetually remain, under His eyes so that to His knowledge there is nothing future or past, but all things are present." Foreknowledge to Calvin is comprehensive embracing all of creation and all of time.
Unlike Calvin, more recent Calvinistic theologians have tended to equate foreknowledge and predestination. However, they consistently understand God’s knowledge to be comprehensive in scope. So with the Presbyterian Charles Hodge, "Among the objects of the divine foreknowledge are the free acts of men. The Scriptures abundantly teach that such acts are foreknown." From the Christian Reformed tradition, Louis Berkhof maintains, "He knows all things as they actually come to pass—past, present, and future—and knows them in their real relations." Berkhof adds, "It is perfectly evident that Scripture teaches the divine foreknowledge of contingent events." Reformed theologian Donald Bloesch states his own belief clearly, "God’s omnipotence includes His omniscience, by which He knows all things—even before they happen."
What this brief survey of representative evangelical theologians of both Arminian and Calvinistic persuasion clearly shows is that openness theologians have significantly deviated from both streams of the evangelical theological tradition.
A Biblical Perspective Concerning Openness Theology
Having looked at the evangelical theological traditions, it is important to return to the Scriptures where this issue must finally be decided. There is another group of texts that uphold the classic tradition and cast a somewhat different light on the earlier group accentuated by openness theologians. Observe the following:
Psalm 139:4: "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord." Psalm 139:15: "My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth." Psalm 147:5: "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit." Proverbs 15:3: "The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good." Isaiah 41:23: ". . . tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods." [God’s challenge to pagan gods to do what He can do.] Isaiah 46:10: "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please." Ezekiel 11:5: "Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon me, and he told me to say: ‘This is what the Lord says: That is what you are saying, O house of Israel, but I know what is going through your mind.’ " Acts 15:18: "that have been known for ages." Romans 8:29: "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." Hebrews 4:13: "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account."
These texts so definitively teach that God knows what free creatures will think and do in the future as to leave little doubt about the full-orbed biblical understanding of divine omniscience. It will not do to sweep away God’s comprehensive foreknowledge with a few hard-to-interpret texts or a fog of objectionable Greek philosophical terms.
The first group of texts cited that seem to show God dumbfounded before His creatures is most easily understood in the sense of God’s accommodating himself to limited human understanding. These texts employ gripping anthropomorphisms in which God is presented as though He was a human person in face-to-face relationships. In so doing, they also dramatically demonstrate that God wonderfully and personally relates to human beings in real time and space. Whatever God’s knowledge of the future may be, and whatever the mysteries of predestination and providence may be, He is always present in loving relationships with His people, answering their prayers and working out His good purposes in their lives.
It is almost as though openness advocates have not noticed that modern evangelical theologians have long since abandoned the more austere language of early orthodoxy and place far more emphasis on the personhood of God and His ways of warmly relating to His people. They rarely employ some of the old Greek philosophical concepts, such as impassibility, that seem to rob God of personality and responsiveness.
Openness Theology and Process Theology
It is somewhat ironic to read the criticisms openness theologians make of orthodox Christian theology and its Greek philosophical terminology. As they describe God’s gradual accommodation to an unfolding future, one cannot help but think about process theology in which God, at least on a certain level, is growing and changing with the supposed evolution of the universe. While it is commonly agreed that openness theologians are not process theologians, they nonetheless interact extensively with, and appear to share certain assumptions with process theology. A major assumption is their view of time that assumes God cannot know anything that does not yet exist. While inveighing against the supposed dilution of early orthodox theology by Greek concepts, they themselves may very well have succumbed to certain nonbiblical influences from modern philosophy and theology. Donald Bloesch has pointed out that process theology "by positing a God who really does experience temporality . . . has done so at the price of letting go of the biblical truth that God is in full control of history." Openness theology has not now reached that point but can it avoid continuing on the journey?
Calvinism vs. Arminianism
Some of the unfortunate fallout of the openness of God discussions may be a growing rift in the American evangelical movement. As a generation of young Arminian scholars has come to maturity and other non-Calvinistic evangelicals, like the Pentecostals, have become numerous and influential, there has been a sharper polemic from some Calvinistic theologians that seems to have been exacerbated by the openness dialogue. David Wells recently wrote that openness theism is a combination of Arminianism and a view of God impacted by process theology. His colleague, John Jefferson Davis, also states that openness theology "takes to the limit tendencies expressed in the Arminian and process traditions." From the Arminian side, one might just as easily point out that what Calvinists perceive as openness exaggeration of Arminian tendencies is a reaction to tendencies toward determinism and fatalism in hegemonic Calvinism. It is no more appropriate to yoke openness theology to Arminianism than to yoke fatalistic determinism to Calvinism. An irenic and honest exploration of both streams of evangelical theology with a view to scriptural fidelity is essential.
CONCLUSION
This brief study has demonstrated that openness theology is not a legitimate or necessary extension of historic Arminianism with which the Pentecostal tradition has many affinities. Neither is it reflective of the Calvinistic tradition nor a necessary response to that tradition. Rather, openness theology appears to be another tangent in the ongoing quest to reconcile divine providence and human freedom, with a little stimulation from process theology.
The beliefs of openness advocates are probably not so deviant as to require their exclusion from Christian fellowship. They seem genuinely concerned to preach the God of the Bible and make vibrant Christian disciples. Nonetheless, it does seem clear that openness theologians lack adequate scriptural grounding and are outside the theological mainstream with regard to God’s omniscience and providence. Biblically, the future appears to be less open than they propose.
Edgar R. Lee, S.T.D., is former vice president for academic affairs, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, Springfield, Missouri, and chairman of the Commission on Doctrinal Purity for the Assemblies of God.
Edited by - TGB on 08/05/2002 2:45:19 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/5/2002 9:07 PM (GMT -6) | | In general, Lee’s article evidenced a less than complete understanding of the open view. Some important points are not mentioned while some comments summarizing the open view are simply not true.
Lee: The doctrine of God’s omniscience has been revised by openness theologians to a form presumably more in keeping with modern sensibilities.
Tom: What do modern sensibilities have to do with it? Lee makes it sound as if open theists were motivated by modern sensibilities (what might these sensibilities be he doesn’t say) to come up with open theism. But there’s none of this in books by open theists. The only writer I have noticed making mention of anything close to this is Pinnock who emphasizes that the Church be able to address each generation effectively and that open theism appears to do a better job at this than other views. But this is not what Lee seems to be saying. What’s Lee’s point?
Lee: An emphasis on dynamic human freedom is not new, being characteristic of both Calvinist and Arminian theologians (with differing definitions and emphases).
Tom: “Dynamic freedom” is a characteristic of Calvinism?
Lee: However, to suggest that God’s providence is only general in nature, or that God is reduced to changing His plans when His creatures act, or that there are events in the future that God does not know is a major departure from the classical theology of both Calvinism and Arminianism.
Tom: This is misleading. The open view does not suggest that “God’s providence is only general in nature,” or that “God is reduced to changing his plans when his creatures act,” or that “there are events in the future that God does not know.” This one paragraph reveals Lee’s fundamental misunderstanding of the open view.
In all that I’ve read of opponents of the open view, no one has been able to articulate the open view or its supporting arguments accurately except one person, Terrance Teissen (Peace be upon him). If all the books open theists have written were destroyed and, years from now, people only had Ware, Geisler, David Wells, and others in their vein to use in reconstructing what open theists actually believed, I don’t believe they’d be able to do it.
Lee: Then, on these assumptions [i.e., that the Western classical theological tradition was at points influenced for the worse by Greek philosophy], the openness project gathers a number of passages from the Bible that show God relating to people in ways that seem to contradict classical theological categories.
Tom: Two points--first, to me this sounds like Lee is claiming that open theism starts with a rejection of Greek philosophy and its influence on theology and only afterwards moves on in search of biblical arguments that might support this view. But it is not "on the assumption" that the Western theological tradition has been influenced for the worse by Greek philsosophy that open theism then procedes to "gather a number of passages" that show otherwise. The influence of Greek philosophy upon the classical theological tradition is nowhere "assumed" by open theists. It is everywhre "argued" by open theists. If Lee disagrees, he should deal with the arguments and not pretend open theists only "assume" such is the case.
Secondly, Lee never offers an argument for why it only “seems” that the biblical passages in question contradict classical theological categories. In fact, absent from this article is ANY interaction whatsoever with the biblical texts themselves or with the theological/philosophical arguments used by open theists. There is a passing mention of anthropomorphic language but with no argumentation.
Lee: At first, these intriguing passages seem to show not only that God has emotions (challenging impassibility and simplicity) which is contrary to Greek thought, but that God also observes what people do and learns from them things He did not previously know (challenging timelessness and traditional omniscience). Their passages also appear to demonstrate that God changes His mind and His plans to respond to what people do (challenging immutability).
Tom: I’m interested to know whether or not Lee actually believes in the classical doctrines of impassibility, simplicity, and immutability, none of which are required by the Assemblies of God Statement of Faith.
Secondly, to say without qualification that God “learns things he did not previously know” misleads readers. When using such language open theists are careful to qualify their meaning by pointnig out what this does NOT mean. Now, this is something even open theists disagree on. Doc, for example (and probably most open theists), would argue that God does "learn," but exclude from their definition of “learning” the notion of “moving from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge.” God learns in the sense that his knowledge of the changing world changes with that world to keep unmediated, infallible, and coterminous account of the state of reality. As long as all one’s cards are on the table, using "learn" to describe the changing state of God's knowledge is OK. Personally, I don't do it because I end up qualifying the term to death. I think it’s far easier to simply agree that the prevailing definition of “learning” does include “movement from ignorance to knowledge” and simply deny that God "learns." God cannot be “ignorant” of anything. He infallibly knows all truths and states of affairs.
In any case, Lee’s comments beg the question—What is the nature of the reality which God infallibly knows? The entire article skirts the underlying issues.
Lee: ...guided by a particular modern philosophy of time.
Tom: Assuming that this modern understanding of time is the view that the passage of time is ontologically “real,” what philosophy of time is Lee working with? The “ancient” understanding of time as “relative” (Einstein)?
Lee: Therefore, those decisions and actions do not yet exist and cannot be known or controlled—even by God.
Tom: I wish Lee had written a little more carefully for readers who are not familiar with the issues. God doesn’t know future free decisions “as definite,” but he does know all possible choices we might make. This makes a huge difference in our understanding of providence. Lee shows no awareness that open theists have addressed these issues many times. Perhaps he is unaware of the answer given. For example, there’s nothing about God’s infinite intelligence in the article. But surely somebody well-read on the issues would be familiar with this and interact with it, or at least mention it.
Lee: It is further assumed that God cannot know all the contingent, or potential decisions and actions of human beings and angels.
Tom: I'm not sure what exactly Lee is referring to. By saying that's it's "further" assumed, I expect that Lee is introducing another point in open theism. So I'm inclined to think he is here referring to what he believes is Open Theism's denial that God knows all that might potentially happen, all that we might potentially choose. But open theists claim the opposite of course. God can and does know the potential decisions human beings may make. It is Lee who denies that God knows possible choices.
But I think Lee meant “...assumed that God cannot know as definite all the contingent or potential decisions….” In this case Lee is correct. But the open view doesn’t ASSUME this, it ARGUES for this. Lee nowhere deas with the arguments for the incompatibility of libertarian free will and exhaustively definite foreknowledge. He sweeps such arguments aside without argumentation of his own by claiming that open theists simpy "assume" such incompatibility.
Lee: So, openness advocates definitely restrict the traditional scope of omniscience. Omniscience is redefined to assert that God continues to learn and thereby change—at least in His knowledge—plans and providential actions.
Tom: Openness advocates do not restrict the scope of omniscience. This is everywhere denied by open theists and demonstrated not to be the case. To keep repeating this is to reveal one’s inadequate grasp of the issues. Openness advocates restrict the limits of REALITY (future reality to be specific). Nothing is done to redefine or deviate from the orthodox understanding of God’s omniscience as such, as “knowledge coterminous with reality.” It is impossible that God should fail to believe what is true or should believe a falsehood.
Lee: God fully knows in advance what those decisions will be, weaves them into His eternal plan from eternity past, and graciously guides His creatures and the universe they inhabit to a desired and certain consummation.
Tom: Here’s the classic simple foreknowledge. OK. Fine. But…it remains to be argued successfully that God would be able to access simple foreknowledge derived from the events themselves in order to determine his own prior actions. I argue (with others) that this is impossible.
Lee: God knows every detail of the future including all that free creatures can think and do, i.e. all contingencies, and does not have to change His plans with every human decision.
Tom: Again, I think Lee is not choosing his words carefully. Only Middle Knowledge and Open Theism affirm that God knows what free creatures CAN think and CAN do (where "can" refers to what agents "may" or "may not" do), i.e. God knows possibilities. Middle Knowledge places ALL possibilities in the category of “that which is forever excluded from reality,” while the open view includes all genuine possibilities within the reality which God knows. I’m guessing that what Lee meant and should have written was “…God knows as definite every detail of the future including….” But again, stating your conclusion is not arguing it.
Lee: it is important to return to the Scriptures where this issue must finally be decided.
Tom: Amen!
Lee: These texts so definitively teach that God knows what free creatures will think and do in the future as to leave little doubt about the full-orbed biblical understanding of divine omniscience. It will not do to sweep away God’s comprehensive foreknowledge with a few hard-to-interpret texts or a fog of objectionable Greek philosophical terms.
Tom: Well, I’m looking at the texts in the article. The passages from Psalms, Proverbs, Ezekiel and Hebrews say nothing whatsoever about God’s timeless knowledge of future free choices. In fact, they don’t say anything about God and the future at all. They affirm God’s exhaustive and infallible knowledge of present reality.
The two passages from Isaiah have been commented on everywhere by open theists. Does Lee not know what our view on these passages is? Does he think our view not plausible? The passage from Romans 8 and Acts are not decisive against the open view. (We can discuss them if anyone wants.)
Lee: The first group of texts cited that seem to show God dumbfounded before His creatures is most easily understood in the sense of God’s accommodating himself to limited human understanding. These texts employ gripping anthropomorphisms in which God is presented as though He was a human person in face-to-face relationships. In so doing, they also dramatically demonstrate that God wonderfully and personally relates to human beings in real time and space.
Tom: Whatever Lee's first group of passages shows, no open theist claims that they be interpreted as meaning God is dumbfounded. Another indication that Lee has not yet understood the open view.
But even if Lee is correct and the open passages in the Bible are all literary anthropomorphisms, what do they mean? We've gone round and round on this one here on this site. And the arguments are all available in the books Lee mentions.
How are such anthropomorphism existentially gripping? Only if I “believe” they’re true. If I know they're not, that is, if I know God is incapable of feeling emotion (e.g., God is impassible), incapalbe of changing his mind in response to us (e.g., God is immutable), what could possibly be “gripping” about God telling me he "grieved" having made humankind, or that he "changed his mind"? Once I know the truth that these passages portray God as relating and acting in ways NOT possible for God, what’s left to bring God and me into wonderful and personal relationship?
Lee: It is almost as though openness advocates have not noticed that modern evangelical theologians have long since abandoned the more austere language of early orthodoxy and place far more emphasis on the personhood of God and His ways of warmly relating to His people. They rarely employ some of the old Greek philosophical concepts, such as impassibility, that seem to rob God of personality and responsiveness.
Tom: We have noticed that lots of modern evangelicals are abandoning the austere language and using more intimately personal categories. Why have modern evangelicals done this? Is it “presumably more in keeping with modern sensibilities”? In addition, open theism's beef with the classical view is not over what language we use. Behind the language is a view of God.
Lee: An irenic and honest exploration of both streams of evangelical theology with a view to scriptural fidelity is essential.
Tom: I welcome this and pray earnestly that Assemblies of God national leadership will encourage and facilitate such an exploration. By all means, let’s explore! But...notice; Lee only wants to explore two streams of evangelical theology: Calvinism and Arminianism. Thus, open theism is jettisoned an non-evangelical and irenic exploration of it is, I assume, not essential. Am I misunderstanding him here?
Lee: This brief study has demonstrated that openness theology is not a legitimate or necessary extension of historic Arminianism with which the Pentecostal tradition has many affinities. Neither is it reflective of the Calvinistic tradition nor a necessary response to that tradition. Rather, openness theology appears to be another tangent in the ongoing quest to reconcile divine providence and human freedom, with a little stimulation from process theology.
Tom: Well, even if this were all true, it wouldn't say anything about whether or not the open view is biblical (unless one assumes that the only biblical options available are Calvinism and classical Arminianism).
What process theology stimulated Calcidius? Lorenzo McCabe?
Lee: The beliefs of openness advocates are probably not so deviant as to require their exclusion from Christian fellowship.
Tom: This is the only thing the article is “unsure” about, whether or not Assembly of God ministers who embrace the open view will be welcome to stay.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 08/06/2002 06:49:28 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/6/2002 4:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
The beliefs of openness advocates are probably not so deviant as to require their exclusion from Christian fellowship.
When I first read this I assumed Lee was saying open theists probably not so deviant as to require their exclusion from "membership as ordained Assemblies of God ministers" (because that's my concern), but reading it again it seems clear that Lee is rather talking about admitting that open theists are Christian "at all." And it only seems "probable" to him that we remain eligible for fellowship as believers with other believers. He hasn't made up his mind yet.
If this is what he's saying, then, OK, I'm offended.
Tom 
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
sboese
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 8/6/2002 4:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom-- I agree with your assesment, just haven't had the calm to articulate it as I would wish to. I am very concerned with how he handles the true challenge relating to the Biblical data. If the open view is tolerated in the AG people will need to understand the textual issues that the ov brings to the table.
You should send this to enrichment and the evangel and district/ national (US) AG officials.
BTW I helped influence our north central region Chi Alpha committee-- we are bringing in Greg to speak at our SALT conference in Rochester MN in January. (I am also the SD District Chi Alpha Rep. Helping to raise awarenss of Chi Alpha Campus ministries and encouraging churches to reach out the campus in our small district). (of course he is "limited" regarding anything relating to the open view-- hopefully He will not be univited after this article) Mark Dean the MN District Youth Rep and also our regioal Chi Alpha director called around to see if it was ok to invite him before hand, and got "clearance" from someone obviously.)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
sboese
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 8/6/2002 5:14 AM (GMT -6) | | just throwing this out.. enrichment
75 years ago--1927
"Efforts failed.. to change the denomination name to Pentecostal Evangelical Church."
hmmm
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/7/2002 4:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Shelby-
Just got an email from Edgar Lee, author of the article. Very nice brother! I'm looking forward to discussing it more with him.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
sboese
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 8/7/2002 4:32 AM (GMT -6) | | I, ah hem, sent an email to Gary basically saying I thought the article was pathetic and would love to have a more balanced view presented or even a pro-openness response.
(of course in a much more loving and metered tone, but still pointed none-the-less)
Edited by - sboese on 08/07/2002 09:33:09 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/7/2002 6:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Mad Ramblings: Don't Even Sweat This Stuff Here
Let me say this about this whole thing. And I'm going to be very broad about this. This is going from MY experience and interpretation of things. Please get that up front. This is not scientifically verified with conclusive testing or anything like that. But it's my general impression...
I think that open view theists should be very upfront about all the FULL IMPLICATIONS of taking the open view. What do I mean by this? I mean that ALL of the aspects of the "scary world" that emerges from OVT should be THOROUGHLY clarified and presented. Personally, I think that it has been done on this board plenty of times. And I think that it occurs in "Satan and the Problem of Evil" to a large extent, as well.
What would be the reason for doing this? Because I believe something interesting would be discovered. My belief is that many Pentecostals and Charismatics (clergy and lay) would reject open view theism on THOSE bases for sure. Especially those of the Word of Faith persuasion. I don't think that many P/Cers could really deal with the significant self-chosen finitism that ends up occuring in the open view. And, frankly, I think it's patently unfair when OVTers say things like:
"Hey, I'm ONLY saying that God knows everything that it is possible to know. That's all."
or
"I'm JUST saying that reality is partly determined and partly free"
This is a friggin copout and I think at least everyone that's been HERE for the past year or so should know that. The ripples of this thought run VERY wide theologically. And I really believe some people can't deal with it.
For example...ask an average P/Cer in Tulsa, OK these questions:
"What if I told you that there was a theological belief that God could be thwarted against some type of intended divine action (like a healing)...EVEN IF there were TONS of prayer, faith, and spiritual warfare...AND God REALLY, REALLY wanted to do it?"
(Digression: You HAVE to ask it this way. Why? Because many Word Faith people will tell you EASILY that lack of faith can prevent God from acting. So there is not problem with God being thwarted when faith or free will is lacking. There is a SIGNIFICANT problem when it's there and God can STILL be thwarted.)
"What if I told you that there was a theological belief where there are MANY different things that not even God can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN about the outcome...including things that God Himself predicts?"
Hmmmm...what do you think they would say? How about...
"Well, Bless God, that's not MY theology and that's not MY God!"
or...
Obviously, those people haven't read the Bible or don't know God."
How do I know? Because I've asked. Yep. I've asked. Lots of people. And let's be honest, y'all. When you boil everything down, the questions I've asked are based on SOLID IMPLICATIONS that arise from the open view. They've been demonstrated time and again on VARIOUS threads...and most coherently in S&PE. (If you doubt this, I can probably provide links to ALL relevant threads and posts. I have em noted, ya know.  )
As biblicistic (heh...so it's not a word maybe as many average P/Cers tend to be, one thing that I believe will NEVER be fully accepted (at least, not for a long while) is a God that is not a significantly POWERFUL AGENT in things of this life. And I don't mean in the process manner of guiding initial aims and thangs. I mean a God that can heal at WILL. A God who can significantly do things OVER AND AGAINST the will of humanity, if He so chooses. Now let it be said that P/Cers often have very conflicting views about God. This can be easily demonstrated when you ask the right questions. The praxis and stated beliefs about the God/world relation usually collide somewhere. There could be many reasons for this. But one thing I do know. Anything that is seen as a significant DEPOWERING of God (in terms of knowledge and providential agency) will be thoroughly opposed. Hands down.
Again, this may seem pretty blunt to some people...but here's my thing.
1) I went to school at Oral Roberts University and have had plenty of time and opportunity to talk this over with all types of Pentecostals and Charismatics there. What I'm saying here has not CEASED to be confirmed in large degree.
2) Tulsa, OK is the friggin MECCA for Pentecostal/Charismatic churches (probably due to ORU and Rhema being here). I have plenty of people (of various nuances WITHIN the Pentecostal historical tradition) to ask that I have asked. Again, lots of confirmation.
Now, am I saying this is dogma. Heck, no. I am only going from my limited experience. But I do honestly think that what I'm saying is largely true. To put it bluntly, in the "could not" vs "would not" choice about the problem of evil, I really believe that many P/Cers would choose the WOULD NOT any day of the week. But hey, I've been wrong before.
So what you guys think?
Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/07/2002 11:04:56 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
sboese
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 8/7/2002 6:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok fair enough, however most AG people with any intellectual bent, consider most of the faith/ Tulsa crowd backwards, material driven, symbolizing all the bad things and excesses that the charismatic movement suffers from. And remember the AG is the world's largest pentecostal group (some even say maybe protestant).
In addition, the Open View doesnt diminish God's ability to act unilaterally if He so chooses. But He has chosen, in general to not act in a unilateral manner (as I understand it).
I think if Tulsa, the faith movement and ORU is your filter for seeing Pentecostals--you need to check around more. *I say this in love*
I was in a "faith movement" church for 2 years--and found it, well disgusting and nothing like my AG expereinces (both good and bad).
Many AG pastors in the 80s-90s preached against the "faith movement" as unbiblical and simplistic in regards to healing and spiritual warfarae. Many taught an open view, without pressing the foreknowledge idea/ not even thinking about it.
just more thoughts for ya...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/7/2002 6:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Sboese,
Sincere thanks for the thoughts, Sb. However, personally, I would not disparage the Tulsa crowd THAT much. Not everyone here is a "yokel" (as I would HOPE my presence would kind of make slightly apparent  ) There are some mad cool people here. Plus I hope this wasn't taken as me FOCUSING on the "faith movement" or just Tulsa folk. (Like me, not everyone IN Tulsa is FROM here) It wasn't. I took other things into account. Actually, there was a Society of Pentecostal Studies Annual Meeting at ORU that I attended where there were some pretty sharp people. One Dr. Mark D. McLean actually presented a paper called "Pentecostal Responses to the Problem of Evil: Walking the Razor's Edge between Deism and Calvinism" In this paper, he dealt with the open view. This was not the only paper that discussed it however. In these sessions were different theologians of various camps. But I was actually suprised how similar some of the responses were when dealing with the subjects I've raised here. Especially about issues of providence.
But anyway, I'd like to focus more on what you think, given your understanding of the implications from the open view. In your opinion, with your experience of AG ministry and ministers, do you think that the AG would take very kindly to the FULL IMPLICATIONS of the open view, if they were properly presented? You seem like a good person to ask.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
sboese
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 8/7/2002 6:55 AM (GMT -6) | | When comes to the issue of the problem of evil most AGers would agree with the open view. The problem is that most of our theologians were educated in calvinistic seminaries (of all flavors I might add) and therefore keep trying to force various forms of a deterministic model of God on top of pneumatology and pentecostal praxis.
It is not uncommon for a pastor to talk of God's absolute control and exhaustive (conventional theism) foreknowledge and timelessness-- and then turn around and call for a special intercession prayer meeting to deal with such and such an attack or issue. (at least in churches that stay true to Pentecostal praxis, some are simply reformed/ determisitic baptists in pentecostal clothes).
It is my contention that the AG and other pentecostal movements need to separate from this insane drive to be mainstream evangelicals (which tend to mainly be conventional calvinistic (all flavors of cal. determinists--they are always trying to throw the wesleyans out).
There is a need for a theological movement w/i P/C camp that moves from our praxis to theology, instead of the reverse. One would think that would be the starting point, but obviously it hasnt really been when it comes to the doctrine of God himself.
Once again, I think that Eastern Orthodox seminary training should be required for pentecostal theologians to understand a world view that has much more in common with us and has ways of speaking of the Spirit which simply do not exist in present western theology--thereby creating this theological disconnect in Pentecostal academia.
What I wonder is why arent more people speaking up about this? the open view certainly points out this problem. As does pneumatology in general.
(sorry i apologize for my terrible spelling)
Edited by - sboese on 08/07/2002 11:57:44 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/7/2002 7:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Sb,
I completely agree with EVERYTHING you've just said. No doubt! Actually, Clark Pinnock wrote a paper in JETS some time ago pretty much saying what you've said here. But I'm still wondering something...
See, I realize that AGers would agree with the open view with the problem of evil. This is largely because of the inextricable link between their ideas on the problem of evil and their praxeological view of the power of prayer and the Spirit. But what I'm wondering (and asking) is would they be willing to accept the FULL IMPLICATIONS of the view. The implications that have been highlighted not only on this board, but in S&PE.
Let me explain my problem. I remember in one class when we were looking at "God at War" We read the book and all. And one thing that struck me was that people were all hype about the idea of spiritual warfare and prayer being effacious and all that...but they seemed largely ignorant of the RAMIFICATIONS of the entire worldview. The "scary world" that Doc was talking about. In other words, as I saw it, many of my fellow classmates were being somewhat SELECTIVE about the implications they wanted to highlight. To me, it was like wanting to accept only ONE SIDE of a coin. Just not gonna work. I see this as happening with the open view. Sure, AGers (and others in the Pentecostal tradition) would want to have a dynamic view of God and his interaction with us along with a robust pneumatology. But are they really wanting to deal with ALL the ramifications this has in the realm of divine providence, prophecy, etc? I'm thinking not. THIS is my concern. On this board, I can honestly say that I think that we have largely hashed out pretty much MOST of the full implications of the view here as it applies to many different areas (cosmology, cosmogony, christology, soteriology, etc) We've had great ideas from amazing people that has spanned the continuum of ideas on the subjects. And it's from that basis that I'm speaking.
Bottom line: I don't know if AGers, if given the FULL IMPLICATIONS upfront, would really jive with the whole OV thing. I think it would be genuinely possible that they would rather solidify in an ARMINIAN camp (just accepting the paradox) than to take the hardcore leap into open view theism. Again this is just my opinion. But I do feel pretty sure about it.
So, Sb, do you see my issues...and why I'm asking the question to you like I am? I quite understand that AGers will accept some implications of the Open View. What I want to know is do you think they would stomach them ALL...even the ones that may cause some serious dissonance with their understanding of God's sphere of UNILATERAL control?
Preciate the dialogue,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/7/2002 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Major greetings to my main man Mephi!
What's up Bro?
Two things...well, no, three things...maybe four--
1. I just watched Robert DeNiro and Marlon Brandon in The Score. Cool. This has nothing to do with the subject, but I wanted to throw it in anyway!
2. Mark McClean's article is interesting, eh Mephi? He sent it to me some time ago. If you don't know him, Shelby, Mark teaches at Evangel. He's doing a good bit of research on popular beliefs among Pentecostals regarding evil and providence. When he's all done I'm sure it'll be good. I don't know if Mark advocates the open view (Mephi, do you know?) or not. I asked him and he basically said he teaches it along with other views in his classes and tells students to make up their own minds. That's good enough for me.
3. Mephi, I think most Word of Faith Charismatics, and those in the A/G inclined to that particular expression, wouldn't know where to go if given a choice between the "Would not" and "Could not" alternatives. Among the non-negotiable beliefs of their system is the conviction that God WANTS to heal ALL the time, no exceptions. If you're not healed, the reason cannot be because God doesn't WANT you healed. I don't see Faith teachers and advocates giving this up. That leaves them with "Could not," which I think would freak them out aslo. Right? If Pentecostals and Charismatics of the Word of Faith variety have trouble with the open view, or the implications of a "scary world," it's not the open view's fault  as much as it is a weakness in their worldview.
4. Ed Lee did write me a nice note. He didn't say much; he was on the road. I don't believe he'd mind my mentioning that he did say that his article was not intended to represent the position or opinion of the Commission on Doctrinal Purity which he chairs. He was speaking only for himself. His article wasn't intended to bring dialogue to an end. He encourages our folk to talk about the issues. There were a few other comments, but that's the jist of it.
5. Lastly, I'm still in process on what you are already quite sure are the necessarily and "full" implications of the open view. Must one buy into all of Doc's S&PE thesis regarding theodicy in order to simply affirm that the future is partly open? I don't know. I mean, on natural evil I'm not so convinced. And I think there's room for...drum roll please...some mystery! Do we have to have answers for it all? Wouldn't some Pentecostals/Charismatics be comfortable with a partly open future without feeling driven or even required by the open view to come up with some explanation for every occurence of evil?
Just thinking out loud.
Good to hear ya Mephi. Peace to your family!
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 08/07/2002 1:11:34 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/7/2002 8:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Sup, Tom. Good to see you, too!
quote:
1. I just watched Robert DeNiro and Marlon Brandon in The Score. Cool. This has nothing to do with the subject, but I wanted to throw it in anyway!
Wish I could see it. Heard it was good.
quote:
2. Mark McClean's article is interesting, eh Mephi. He sent it to me some time ago. If you don't know him, Shelby, Mark teaches at Evangel. He's doing a good bit of research on popular beliefs among Pentecostals regarding evil and providence. When he's all done I'm sure it'll be good. I don't know if Mark advocates the open view (Mephi, do you know?) or not. I asked him and he basically said he teaches it along with other views in his classes and tells students to make up their own minds. That's good enough for me.
In the actual discussion of his paper, he basically said that he believed that all evil was indeed gratuitous. I wanted to make sure of what this meant, so I asked him personally. He told me that he leaned toward it considerably. But that was then. Things may have changed.
quote:
3. Mephi, I think most Word of Faith Charismatics, and those in the A/G inclined to that particular expression, wouldn't know where to go if given a choice between the "Would not" and "Could not" alternatives. Among the foundational/non-negotiable beliefs of this system is the belief that God WANTS to heal all the time. I don't see any indication that Faith teachers would concede this. That leaves them with "Could not," which I think would freak them out too. If Pentecostals and Charismatics of the Word of Faith vaiety have trouble with the open view, or the implications of a "scary world," it's not the open view's fault! This would indicate a weakness in their view, not mine.
I hear ya...and I agree. If P/Cers cannot deal with the implications of a "scary world", it does indicate something about their view. But that's my point. How many of the AGers really CAN deal with the implications?
quote:
4. Ed Lee did write me a nice note. Couldn't say much; he was on the road. But it did say that his article was not intended to represent the position or opinion of the Commission on Doctrinal Purity, of which he chairs. He was speaking only for himself. He also his article wasn't intended to bring dialogue to an end. He encourages our folk to talk about the issues. There were a few other comments, but that's the jist of it.
Cool.
quote:
Good to hear ya Mephi. How's the family?
Pretty cool. Nuff said.
quote:
5. Lastly, I'm still in process on what you are already quite sure are the necessarily and "full" implications of the open view. Must one buy into all of Doc's S&PE thesis regarding theodicy in order to simply affirm that the future is partly open? I don't know. I mean, on natural evil I'm not so convinced. And I think there's room for...drum roll please...some mystery! Do we have to have answers for it all? Wouldn't some Pentecostals/Charismatics be comfortable with a partly open future without feeling driven or even required by the open view to come up with some explanation for every occurence of evil?
LOL. Actually, I think a significant lump of people have issues with the natural evil thing in S&PE. But I wouldn't say that Doc's view of natural evil is NECESSARY to the open view. But I WOULD say that the implications that we have repeatedly discussed about divine providence, prophecy, etc ARE necessary. I think we can bank on that...or go back over it.
And the "M" word. Sigh...LOL... My thing is this. I have no problem with mystery. I DO have a problem with pulling the mystery card BEFORE it's time. We don't have to have answers for it all...but it would be NICE for us to take the implications that we CAN reasonably take. That's all I ask.
Good hearing from you, Tom.
Holla,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/7/2002 3:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Edgar R. Lee
Some of the unfortunate fallout of the openness of God discussions may be a growing rift in the American evangelical movement.
Iconoclast
I sense that this is his major concern with openness theology. That it is just causing dissension, although he did seem to see value in the implications regarding prayer, which suggests to me that he is trying to show the factions that there is at least some value in it.
Edgar R. Lee
It is almost as though openness advocates have not noticed that modern evangelical theologians have long since abandoned the more austere language of early orthodoxy and place far more emphasis on the personhood of God and His ways of warmly relating to His people.
Iconoclast
In other words: So … can’t we all just get along?
Edgar R. Lee
It is no more appropriate to yoke openness theology to Arminianism than to yoke fatalistic determinism to Calvinism.
Iconoclast
In other words: Come on Calvinists, don’t blame us Arminians for this … and we won’t blame you for fatalistic determinism.
Edgar R. Lee
What this brief survey of representative evangelical theologians of both Arminian and Calvinistic persuasion clearly shows is that openness theologians have significantly deviated from both streams of the evangelical theological tradition.
Iconoclast
In other words: Therefore openness theology is NOT evangelical thought and thus can and should be seen as a non-issue. It should be considered a mere tangent to the greater thought that is going on between Arminians and Calvinists.
Edgar R. Lee
Rather, openness theology appears to be another tangent in the ongoing quest to reconcile divine providence and human freedom, with a little stimulation from process theology.
The beliefs of openness advocates are probably not so deviant as to require their exclusion from Christian fellowship. They seem genuinely concerned to preach the God of the Bible and make vibrant Christian disciples.
Iconoclast
In other words: And no need to get all up in arms about the openness folks either. There is just no problem here whatsoever. Nothing that should be considered a serious threat to the status quo. Therefore, let's do nothing
This is how I am hearing this guy. I don’t see any desire on his part to really wrestle with the ideas to determine whether they represent a potentially new and helpful thought. Rather, I see his primary concern being the disruption and dissension that open theism is causing to the current status quo.
Is this a fair assessment?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 08/07/2002 8:37:47 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/7/2002 5:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi
For example...ask an average P/Cer in Tulsa, OK these questions:
"What if I told you that there was a theological belief that God could be thwarted against some type of intended divine action (like a healing)...EVEN IF there were TONS of prayer, faith, and spiritual warfare...AND God REALLY, REALLY wanted to do it?"
(Digression: You HAVE to ask it this way. Why? Because many Word Faith people will tell you EASILY that lack of faith can prevent God from acting. So there is not problem with God being thwarted when faith or free will is lacking. There is a SIGNIFICANT problem when it's there and God can STILL be thwarted.)
Iconoclast
I would like to suggest that stating it this way is misleading. I am a big proponent of the full ramifications of the open view and yet find myself objecting that this isn’t my God either. It is suggesting that some outside force is preventing God from doing what He chooses to do and therefore God is not all powerful, there is something more powerful than God.
What is missing for me is that while God REALLY, REALLY wants to do some divine intervention He also REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wants us to fully experience triune love which requires a free choice. That His CHOICE of free will and the benefits of freely chosen love can and often does override His desire to intervene in some instance. And NOT that He is somehow prevented by some outside force that is not in His dominion. Thus God could, if He chose, intervene at any point whatsoever. There is absolutely nothing preventing Him except some other choice He makes. So it has nothing really to do with God not being all powerful it only has to do with the nature of what is required for humans to participate in the triune love. It must be freely chosen. And this is God’s choice.
In other words, it is not that this whole theology of freely chosen love is prescriptive and thus ties God’s hands in some ultimate way. Rather, it is descriptive. It is a description of why God chooses to allow evil, even when our faith is not lacking (Jesus certainly did not lack faith, He prayed that God would take this cup from Him, but it was God’s choice to allow our choice to crucify Jesus in order to save us all). It is a description of why God often chooses NOT to intervene; because He has chosen to allow us to make real choices with real penultimate consequences and ultimate consequences.
And yes, one might at first see this as a scary world and be concerned about what might actually happen to them. Yet, it does not in any way suggest that the ultimate outcome is scary – rather it shows that the ultimate outcome is actually more assured – God is in even more control than we at first realize. He is indeed able to make us into His children all we have to do is say yes. Yes, bad things will happen in a penultimate sense, but we have been assured of this already. We are actually called to suffer for Him. On the other hand, it powerfully shows the real and therefore meaningful role we individually play. When fully understood it actually enhances our sense of responsibility AND efficacy. It is really US making things happen BY calling on God’s awesome power.
Isn’t there a way to address the implications of these fundamental concerns first and then describe the theology that leads to them?
Perhaps something like:
Imagine a theology where it is even more clear that we can be assured of salvation if we but say yes to Him. Where it is even more clear how meaningful our existence is in the here and now. Where it is even more clear how powerful prayer is in our lives – and we can be assured of this even when don’t always see it first hand. Where it is even more clear how our daily suffering makes a powerful difference in the world and how it will in the not distant future turn into joy. Where it is even more clear how God is powerfully working His amazing will right here and now and bringing His kingdom into being through us.
Then, always with this result in front of our audience, would it be possible to build up the openness worldview that leads us directly to these conclusions? Could this work?
Mephi
"What if I told you that there was a theological belief where there are MANY different things that not even God can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN about the outcome...including things that God Himself predicts?"
Iconoclast
I struggle with this characterization also. In isolation it suggests that God is not capable of “determining” future events. The open view would say that God is absolutely capable of determining anything He chooses to in the future. Now He may predict something that does not come to pass but my recollection is that this sort of prediction is always predicated upon some free will choosing something or another. He predicts that He will destroy X if Y doesn’t repent. But if Y does repent then He won’t destroy X. Now if you said that there is a theological belief where God typically predicts things only as probabilities, that God of course can determine that some things have a probability of 1 and that He can also predict any event fully by actually determining it, would people have the same reaction?
What do you think?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/8/2002 4:51 AM (GMT -6) | | I hear ya.
Perhaps you can help me, Icon. I look at this like some type of sales thing. What I want to do is be completely UPFRONT about the costs of the product even while I am describing it. I don't want to tell the person ALLLLLL the wonderful things about the product for 2 hours and then spend the last 5 mins briefly discussing the drawbacks and the cost. I don't like when car advertisements or other commercials go on and on about the glorious deals the have going...and then in the last 5 secs of the commericial, the person speaks 200 miles a minute talking about all the qualifications and stuff. I see this done a lot in these type of contexts, too. I don't want to do that. I want to have a bottom-line way of expressing the issues of the view that other may consider "negative" The first question deals with God's providential ability in a given instance where because of the creational variables God is RESTRICTED from doing some act he really wants to accomplish, even when other crucial factors are present. The second question deals with the fact that it is genuinely possible for God to predict (GENUINELY THINK X IS GOING TO HAPPEN) at least SOMETHING that he cannot be ABSOLUTELY certain about.
I tell you what. I'd like you (or anyone else) to provide me with a more accurate statement that will serve the INTENT that I'm trying to reach. Something that cannot be miscontrued as easily. Something that not only educated people, but the average person can understand. Something that gives the bottom line implication. That would help me out. Then maybe I can list the other potential negatives and you can do the same thing.
Let's see what we can do here...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/8/2002 7:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Oops. I wanted to apologize to whomever. I just realized that I got this thread ALL off track. Forgive me, y'all. Please feel very free to carry on with the article stuff.  This idea and discussion can be continued at the thread "Various Possible Implications of the Open View" located in this Raging Debate folder.
Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/08/2002 1:40:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
sboese
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 8/8/2002 8:51 AM (GMT -6) | | tangent is essential to provocative discussion.. no problem.
Again I would, as I believe TGB would, like to hear some more from A/Gers that are pro-open view or at least open to the OV (punny, eh?). And of course others reactions to the article.
ICON i agree that defending a status quo and "cant we all just get along" attitude is probably intended by Lee. The problem I have is with the exegesis.
A friend of mine at NCU has indicated that most the Biblical Studies profs don't have major objections to the OV, but the systematic theologians do more so.
Maybe I can pursaude him to comment :)
TGB I did a small sample in my church, and most are ambivilant or OK with keeping me in the fellowship even as I use the OV model of God.
Of course we are a pretty laid back church when it comes to these issues. Our Sr. (head) pastor is a GP and district asst. supt. (could have been the supt, but wasnt interested) is very oK with it. But he could be swayed if he saw many influencial leaders in the movement reject it. He is completely sold on the problem of evil aspects, once again it is the foreknowledge issues. And of course pragmatism reigns in the AG in preaching and teaching.
more to come later...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/8/2002 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Again I would, as I believe TGB would, like to hear some more from A/Gers that are pro-open view or at least open to the OV (punny, eh?).
I think you and I are the only ones dude! Of course, there's that *&#%$ Benedict Arnold A/Ger Greg Boyd! quote:
ICON i agree that defending a status quo and "cant we all just get along" attitude is probably intended by Lee. The problem I have is with the exegesis.
After hearing from Lee on this I'm not so sure. But as for exegesis...there isn't any in the paper! Arrghhhh!quote:
A friend of mine at NCU has indicated that most the Biblical Studies profs don't have major objections to the OV, but the systematic theologians do more so. Maybe I can pursaude him to comment :)
Gotta talk to him. Get him on here!quote:
Our Sr. (head) pastor is a GP and district asst. supt. (could have been the supt, but wasnt interested) is very oK with it.
Very interesting.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:18 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 |
|
|