 |
| 
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/22/2002 7:03 PM (GMT -6) |   | Picked up a copy of "God Under Fire," subtitled "Modern Scholarship reinvents God. Anybody read it...any comments...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 10/23/2002 8:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey honorman,
Actually, I've never heard of this title, furthermore, who is the author or editor of the book, just wondering? Oh, and before I go, welcome aboard, and have fun...Christus Victor is truly a friendly environment to chill and discuss important matters with!
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 | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/23/2002 9:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Published by Zondervan, edited by Douglas Hoffman and Eric Johnson, contributors include William Lane Craig, Paul Helm, Bruce Ware and DA Carson, among others...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/23/2002 10:49 AM (GMT -6) | | It's "Huffman." No, haven't read it. Amazon shows a November publishing date. Is it on the shelves already? How'd you get your copy?
What d'ya think?
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 10/23/2002 3:53:54 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 10/23/2002 11:37 AM (GMT -6) | | If anyone wants a look at the table of contents of "God Under Fire" follow this link:
http://www.zondervan.com/Books/verbiage.asp?ISBN=0310232694&Type=1
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/23/2002 8:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Work at a Bible bookstore and we just got it in yesterday, so I picked it up. Always looking for opposing views...I'll start it this weekend and give you a report early part of the week...it must have been released early...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
gguskid
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 32
| Posted 10/24/2002 8:13 AM (GMT -6) | | I checked out the table of contents (link above) and it looks like it should be a pretty good read, although it's hard for me to read a book that I need to constantly dialogue with in the margins. It looks like the queue ball struck the heart of the rack and the effect has been tremendous; a scramble to respond. It'll be a good exercise in OV apologetics.
Hey Honorman, perhaps you can turn this thread into a good lively book discussion. We could take on a chapter a week and set a day/time for discussion? Any takers? If I can get a copy, I'm in!
Honorman, since you have a copy and will be reading it this weekend, you could moderate for us when we all get on the same page (pun definitely intended). You'll have a leg up on the reading and will always be a bit ahead of the rest us, so you can be thinking about the first post for starting chapter discussion. Let me know what you think.
By the way, is there any way to hook-up with the store where you work to get a copy overnight (web site address, phone #, etc...)? Send me an e-mail or post it here for all to see to let me/others know what you can do. Just some thoughts.
Until That Time...
Edited by - gguskid on 10/24/2002 1:27:26 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/24/2002 7:26 PM (GMT -6) | | I would certainly be interested in a discussion of it, chapter by chapter. As far as getting the book from my place, we are a one store, family owned and aren't really set up for that (yet, I'm pushin'!) However, I do think you can get it directly from Zondervan's website and Barnes and Noble will send it quicker, if you want to pay...I know if we have it, they must be able to get it. Our little store is pretty far down the line...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 10/25/2002 4:05 AM (GMT -6) | | I'd be inerested in a book discussion too.
When I go to The Ark, the big Xn bookstore in Denver, any time I ask for OV books, their book guy says "we don't have a heresy section." He's a funny one.
Yet they carry Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland.
Terry
"Be God's"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
gguskid
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 32
| Posted 10/25/2002 8:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Clear up "Xn" for me Terry. Never heard of that one. Do they carry many books there or just unecessary explatives? Let ma know.
As for the book discussion, let's try and pick up a copy ASAP. Since Honorman will be reading it this weekend and none of us have a copy yet, Perhaps he can pull a paragraph quote or two for us to start discussing until we all get books. Sound like an idea?
Give me some FB (thats feed back Terry!), j/k...(that's just kidding) I sure do hope you're laughing!! ;-)
Until That Time...
Edited by - gguskid on 10/25/2002 1:32:06 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/26/2002 10:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the tip on the book "God Under Fire." Judging from the contents, it looks like we Open Theists are the one's being construed as shooting at God. I seriously doubt there's anything here that hasn't been said dozens of times before (so far as I can tell, there's been no new criticisms launched in four years, and no serious interaction with the responses OT's have given to those criticism launched four years ago). BUT, in any case, I'd be game for a book discussion.
How about you initiate it honorman? Give us all a week or so to get the book.
Thanks
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/27/2002 10:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes, I am very interested. I am almost finished with chap 1 and I'll post some stuff on it in a day or two...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/27/2002 5:47 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/28/2002 3:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Hope to discover...hmmm, I hadn't thought of it. A good discussion is worth it for its own sake.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Ronald Ricketts
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 10/30/2002 3:22 PM (GMT -6) | | I am a alumni of Southern Seminary back in the "good old days". It is interesting to me that Bruce Ware is being heralded as the "Leading Vocal Opponent of Open Theism". I have Ware's book but I am just not impressed with him or the book. He comes off to me as a egotistical who thinks that he definitely has the last word on God.
Ronald | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/4/2002 5:08 AM (GMT -6) | | I finished the first chapter. It is called "Should The God Of Historic Christianity be Replaced?" It is meant as an introductory chapter, laying out the goals of the book.
The authors of the chapter go through what they preceive as the threats to classical theism, starting with Constructist theologies , religious pluralism, developmental theologies, briefly laying out Process Theology and arriving at open theism. The authors consider open theism the most "christian" of these theologies.
While the authors do go over all these different theologies, they make it clear that it will be open theism that will be the "foil" for their beliefs, because they believe that, considering open theism is closest to classical theism, if it falls, the others with also.
As I read the opening chapter, I realized that, in the beginning I was annoyed that open theism was bunched with the others, as I consider it to be Christian in basis sense, with only a few variations. But then I began to understand the authors concern and saw that it should be where it was in the chapter. A radical change is indeed underway.
I applaud the authors for entitled their chapter "Should The God of Historic Christianity," rather than the God of The Bible. Too many times conservative Christians phrase the argument in such a way as to alienate their foes. Good choice.
The chapter ends with a "rundown" of what the authors consider the historical Christian view of who God is. The problem with it is I, as an open theist, agree with almost all it contained.
So I wonder, and wish to ask, the author's question: Should The God of Historic Christianity be replaced and in what way? And further (and this is more personal), what attribute of God is hardest for you to accept? What attribute of God do you think is more implicit in scripture than explict?
A final question: One thing I have noticed lately is classical theist's assertion that open theism's charge that the God of classical is remote and not relational is a misrepresentation of their view? It seems that if open theism has done nothing else is that it has made classical theists defensive about this charge and made them deal more with the relational aspect of God. But can a God who is impassive, who is not subject to emotions, who has planned all things, including our actions, truly care and respond to us.
I should get to second chapter soon.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
gguskid
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 32
| Posted 11/6/2002 6:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Honorman,
Just to let you know I'm still with you. I tried to get a copy in Duluth at B & N but the didn't have any. I'll track one down online and get to reading ASAP.
Honorman: The authors consider open theism the most "christian" of these theologies.
gguskid: This interests me. Does it appear that some from a classical perspective are beginning to accept the nuanced nature of OVT as valid?
Honorman: I applaud the authors for entitled their chapter "Should The God of Historic Christianity," rather than the God of The Bible. Too many times conservative Christians phrase the argument in such a way as to alienate their foes. Good choice.
The chapter ends with a "rundown" of what the authors consider the historical Christian view of who God is.
gguskid: why not the God of Biblical History? I think you will find that OT's seek a Biblically accurate description of God. The intent is to identify God in His truest character forms from a Biblical perspective rather than purely philosophical. After all, God is the God of the Bible and it is His revelatory gift to us in order that we might know Him more and be known as His.
Honorman: A final question: One thing I have noticed lately is classical theist's assertion that open theism's charge that the God of classical is remote and not relational is a misrepresentation of their view? It seems that if open theism has done nothing else is that it has made classical theists defensive about this charge and made them deal more with the relational aspect of God. But can a God who is impassive, who is not subject to emotions, who has planned all things, including our actions, truly care and respond to us.
gguskid: Great point--ultimately this is a question that needs to be responded to in a very clear and definite way as opposed to appealing to either "mystery" or the "hidden nature" of God--not to mention "paradox" or "antinomy."
Until That Time...
Edited by - gguskid on 11/06/2002 11:44:34 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/6/2002 2:59 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Honorman: A final question: One thing I have noticed lately is classical theist's assertion that open theism's charge that the God of classical is remote and not relational is a misrepresentation of their view? It seems that if open theism has done nothing else is that it has made classical theists defensive about this charge and made them deal more with the relational aspect of God. But can a God who is impassive, who is not subject to emotions, who has planned all things, including our actions, truly care and respond to us.
gguskid: Great point--ultimately this is a question that needs to be responded to in a very clear and definite way as opposed to appealing to either "mystery" or the "hidden nature" of God--not to mention "paradox" or "antinomy."
Until That Time...
H: "But can a God who is impassive, who is not subject to emotions, who has planned all things, including our actions, truly care and respond to us."
Who says that God who is impassive "has planned all things?" I hold the former but not the later. There are even lots of "Calvinists" (hope the word is OK  ) who would do the same. But I get it, as Tom says, from reading GO.
(How are 'them' apples?)
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/6/2002 7:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Al: Most classical theists hold that God either planned all things or knows all things in advance, so the question may not stand for you but it does for most classical theists (we are talking widely held beliefs, not individually held ones. I certainly would grant that some classical theists don't believe God planned all things). If God knows all the things we do, can we really have free will? I would argue that God cannot know all things without planning all things. You know Calvinists who don't believe God planned all things? Thats great news, but why are they Calvinists?
I would add that even without God planning all things, can a God who is impassive respond to us at all, given that he is unmoved by anything outside himself?
Edited by - honorman on 11/07/2002 12:08:13 AM
Edited by - honorman on 11/07/2002 12:11:00 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/6/2002 7:59 PM (GMT -6) | | honorman asks: I would add that even without God planning all things, can a God who is impassive respond to us at all, given that he is unmoved by anything outside himself?
Al:Good question. I read from Alan Rhoda, that from Thomas Aquinas' perspective he can't. But that's not true. God is FREE personally to act. God is impassive -- does not in his essence change. But God is Love. God does not NEED to do anything. But is is his WILL to do them. God, who "moves" (is eterally begotten, in the Son's case; and proceeds, in the Spirit's case) but "does not change" with-in the Trinity (an difficult couple of things to consider at the same time) can create (we call this extra-Trinitarian stuff "divine opperations" or "divine uncreated energies"). God is also free to become incarnate. To take on our flesh, and suffer. A range of thoughts on THAT equally challenging thought include: that Christ assumed a body of pre-fall calabre humanity and then willingly suffered our weakness; and that Christ assumed a "fallen" humanity (in all ways except sin) and in "becoming sin for us" suffered for humanity in the reality of our state. One person with two natures and natural wills. The divine will impassive and untemptable; but the human natural will knew (as did the divine through united experience) all that we know; and yet did not sin. What's "new" about the incarnation of Christ, as opposed to just creation, was that for the first time God knew our estate.
God is free. He can do that. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/7/2002 8:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Al: I would certainly agree with all that you are saying. I would question, though, whether what you are truly describing is an impassive God. Perhaps that is what the debate truly centers around.
I believe God in his essense does not change. But I do believe he is effected in some way by us (I am still working on this, so it may be contradictory in some way). And I believe, in some sense, he does change. He does not need to change, nor is this change something he needs. Rather he changes because he allows himself to be influenced by us. How this fits into simplicity and other such stuff I am not sure...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/7/2002 11:09 AM (GMT -6) | | No time for comment. I'll just--for fun--place these two comments side by side:
quote:
1. I believe God in his essense does not change
2. I believe, in some sense, he does change
Orthodoxy says that "God in his essense does not change."
Orthodoxy also says:
quote:
He (the Son/Logos) is within creation, but only through his operation. He holds creation together, and stops it returning to non-being. But in his essence he is outside creation.
As uncreated and begotten of the Father, the Logos has all the properties of the Father, who is unoriginated, unchangeable, imperishable, immortal, and he is homouosios with the Father.
(Lossky)
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/7/2002 12:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Orthodoxy says? Who is Orthodoxy? I am only interested in individual persons arguments about different theological positions, not declarations placed on the level of scripture and labeled as the representation of a certain group.
While not at all an expert, I do know that Orthodoxy is not a single movement nor does it speak in a single voice. It is as diverse and complicated as Catholicism and, like Catholicism, likes to present itself as united, when nothing could be further from the truth.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/7/2002 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Relax, honorman.
It was perfectly fine for me to say merely "Orthodoxy" because I was doing so in contrast to the Thomism and DDS that Alan Rhoda presented on the other thread. The two -- Thomism and Orthodoxy -- treat very central issues in very distinctly different ways. (And I did cite the author. Lossky. So, relax.)
But then, what I sweepingly called "Orthodoxy" was detailed by Palamas (14th cent) but developed way back by St. Basil (in the 300s) who, it was, who began to formulate the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. I merely raised the Orthodox distinction of the difference between divine energies and divine essence. That is as universal within Orthodoxy as anything that you will find.
BUT WHAT DID YOU *THINK* ABOUT WHAT WAS POSTED?
honorman:
1. I believe God in his essense does not change
2. I believe, in some sense, he does change
It is YOUR thoughts I'd like to explore.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 11/07/2002 9:33:52 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/7/2002 5:39 PM (GMT -6) | | I suppose I would have to wonder what the author meant by "operation." I think one runs into problems when a person says God is "in the world," in a sense because God cannot truly be in the world if God is truly spirit, for it seems to me that a person is talking about two different modes of existance...let me think a little more on the subject before commenting further.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 30 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:32 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 |
|
|