 |
| 
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 11/27/2002 4:19 AM (GMT -6) |   | Quick question,
I am a recent graduate of of Union University, a Southern Baptist school. Needless to say, the Open View is not a very popular one with a lot of my friends from college (especially the ones in the theology department.) Although I am not sure about what I believe about the Open View of God, I usually end up defending the view whenever I hear "discussions" (read: open theism strawman bashing) about the subject, which goes on quite often at school.
I say all of this to preface my basic question. In discussing Open Theism with my friends, the only names that are brought up as proponents of the Open View are Pinnock, Sanders, and Boyd. Of course I have pointed out that there are many others that hold to the Open View (Willam Hasker etc...) When some of my Southern Baptist friends realize that there are more than a few philosophically sophisicated people that hold to the Opne View it makes the position more understandable.
Now FINALLY here is my question. Somewhere I read that Nicholas Wolterstorff and Richard Swinburne also had a somewhat "open view" understanding of God's knowledge of the future. Does anyone know what these two philosophers positions are on the subject?
So much for quick questions...
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 | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/27/2002 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | See the FOOTNOTES in this article, for #s 2 and 26, which mentions Woltersdorff.
www.gty.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm
quote:
2. Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Professor of Philosophical Theology at Yale Divinity School, says he rejected the doctrine of impassibility after the death of his own son. Shattered by grief, Wolterstorff concluded that God could not possibly be unmoved by human tragedy. "I found that picture [of God as blissfully unperturbed by this world's anguish] impossible to accept—existentially impossible. I could not live with it; I found it grotesque." ["Does God Suffer?" Modern Reformation (Sept-Oct 1999), 45.]
quote:
26. Wolterstorff, who rejects impassibility, admits that the denial of this doctrine is like a thread that, when pulled, unravels our entire understanding of God. "Once you pull on the thread of impassibility, a lot of other threads come along . . .. One also has to give up immutability (changelessness) and eternity. If God responds, then God is not metaphysically immutable; and if not metaphysically immutable, then not eternal." ["Does God Suffer?", 47.]
BTW - this quote surprised me. (same article):
quote:
14. For example, Wayne Grudem's mostly-superb Systematic Theology quickly dismisses the doctrine of impassibility. Grudem writes, "I have not affirmed God's impassibility in this book . . .. God, who is the origin of our emotions and who created our emotions, certainly does feel emotions" (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 166. Grudem seems to think the Westminster Confession's statement that God is "without . . . passions" means to portray God as utterly apathetic. He therefore agrees with the critics of classic theism who claim the doctrine of impassibility makes God cold and unfeeling. What Grudem doesn't discuss is the nature of God's "emotions" and how they differ from human passions. His entire discussion of divine immutability is marred by this, and it even seems to cause him to take a weak stance on the question of whether God actually changes His mind.
.............
Another article, an interesting one, is this www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/scholars/freewilltheism.htm
Its on Sanders. I thought that BOTH Sanders and the author EACH had good points to make.
Fred
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/27/2002 12:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Ross,
I don't know the details of Swinburne's position, but from what I remember when I read it a long time back, his discussion of omniscience in his book "The Coherence of Theism" is quite congenial to open theism.
Some other Christian philosophers & theologians who seem to be sympathetic are Dallas Willard, David Basinger, J.R. Lucas, Peter Geach, etc.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/4/2002 8:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Swinburne is an open theist. There's a host of non-evangelicals that hold to an open view of the future, but not many other "out of the closet" evangelicals. Obviously, its a politically vulnerable position to be in.
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:10 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 |
|
|