 |
|  Chucks3371 Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 28 | Posted 10/29/2002 6:17 PM (GMT -6) |   | I have been doing research on Calvinism and found this site. I had read some book reviews on Amazon and Christian Books -- if open theists really believed what they are accused of, it should certainly be avoided. But I suspect there is merely misunderstanding or misrepresentation, rather than sound debate.
The viewpoint is not quite so novel as some may think. Take, for example, the Christian philosopher Robin Collingwood (writing 70 years ago):
"... omnipotence does not mean power to do absurdities. The compulsion of another's will is such an absurdity, and therefore no real omnipotence could force such a compulsion. Omnipotence is spiritual, and spirit acts not by brute compulsion but by knowledge and inspiration. The omnipotence of God, his kingdom over men's minds, consists in their allegiance to his purposes, their answer to his love, their repentance and return from sin to his side."
Also, regarding omniscience:
"... the future is positively undetermined, non-existence as yet, unknowable; God himself cannot know it."
That does not mean that man can thwart God's will ultimately, since God, knowing all possible outcomes to any depth, can then account for all possibilities. Just as the grandmaster can beat the patzer in chess because he can see more moves in greater depth, so too will God prevail. Collingwood give this example:
"He [God] knows their ultimate fate [speaking of evil wills]; he sees them as a composer sees his symphony complete and perfect; but he cannot know beforehand every mistake of the performers."
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Electra Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002 Total Posts : 611 | Posted 10/29/2002 7:50 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi Chuck! Welcome on board. Thanks for the quotes. What else do you know about Robin Collingwood? I have to do a lot of reading for my Seminary classes, and I come across quotes that support an open future all the time. There are people on this board who are knowledgable in science or psychology or philosophy or common sense (Bill Cosby says intellectuals are people who study how to do things that come naturally for everyone else), who come across quotes in their fields as well. Maybe we can start a collection.
Cheers, Electra
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8 | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Chucks3371 Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 28 | Posted 11/3/2002 11:29 AM (GMT -6) |   | Thanks for the welcome. As I am new to open theism, I am trying to comprehend and to understand the difference from the closed view. This is my understanding thus far:
Closed View God is distant God sets world in motion. Once set, there is no need to interact with the world, like Deists of the 17th century. God determines not only the final cause (Logos) but every efficient cause, down to each particular. One wonders why the world has to go through all this process to get to the end, when God could have simple created the final result at once by fiat.
God’s power is limited God is unable to change the future.
God’s knowledge is limited God only knows this one actual world. This must be finite, since there is a finite amount of matter in the universe, and it exists for a finite amount of time.
God is coercive God determines motives and actions by force. I guess by interfering with the brain’s neurons.
Open View God is near Although determines final cause (reason, Logos) for creation, efficient cause are determined in general, but not specifically in advance. God is active and interacting with His creation at each moment to direct and accomplish His plan.
God has power over the future Because the future is possible, and all things are possible with God, God can by his interaction with the world bring about changes in the future.
God’s understanding is infinite, knowing all possible worlds God not only knows the actual world as it is thus far, he knows all future possible worlds in all their ramifications and to any depth. As the psalms tell us, God’s understanding is infinite.
God is persuasive God works on people through his grace, by persuasion, by motivation, by love, by the offer of forgiveness.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  John Earp Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1715 | Posted 11/13/2002 6:23 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hello Chuck,
It is not too well known but nevertheless true that a few 19th century Methodists believed in essentially the same thing as the Open View. The following is a link to an online copy of L.D. McCabe's book _Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies a Necessity_, first published in 1882.
http://eeminc.org/Articles/DNtitle.html
McCabe makes substantially the same arguments as modern Open Theists. He was an esteemed professor at Ohio Wesleyan. Also, as Dr. Boyd points out in _God of the Possible_, a fairly well-known Methodist circuit rider by the name of Billy Hibbard (sp?) openly advocated the position now known as the Open view. Adam Clarke, a primary leader among the early Methodists and author of a still-in-print commentary on the entire Bible, made some comments which could be easily construed as open theistic, though he did not develop this theme too much in his writings.
Fascinating stuff, history!
God bless,
John Earp
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  GregBoyd Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 1818 | Posted 11/14/2002 4:04 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hi Chuck, great to have you here. I never read or even heard of Robin Collingwood. Can you give us any more info about him? What book is this from? What flavor of Christianity did he espouse? Where did he teach? etc...
Also, I enjoyed your insight that the closed view limits God... though be forwarned... that sort of thing gets traditionalist rather peeved.
Doc
ps. we should put Collingwood's quotes on our "cool quotes" section.
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Chucks3371 Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 28 | Posted 11/19/2002 7:09 PM (GMT -6) |   | Just a little background. I am helping a friend do her sunday school homework at a local (hyper??) Calvinist church. I read Boettner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" and a commentary on the Westminster confession. At a certain level I can understand the appeal of Calvinism, as I used to be heavily influenced by the cold, hard determinism of Spinoza and Schopenhauer. However, it just doesn't seem right to me. The Calvinists pride themselves on sticking to the Bible and accuse others of not doing so. But in reading their commentaries, it seems to me they are cherry-picking what suits them and either sloughing off or interpreting away a lot of Scripture.
My basic objection is that you can't take such a diverse book as the Bible and reduce it to a small set of propositions, as if it were Euclid's Elements or the Principia Mathematica. It's like squeezing a balloon; there are always pieces oozing out, refusing to be so constrained. But Calvinists are dichotomists, so they don't acknowledge any truths but propositional truths.
Well, in my research, I stumbled upon the so-called Open Theism. This seemed more congenial to me. In particular, I am much more familiar with Process Theology, though it is a bit extreme for me; I'm hoping that Open Theism is a sounder, more Biblically based alternative.
Of course, there were no major surprises to me due to my study of Collingwood. He was a contemporary of C.S. Lewis, and like Lewis, was an Anglican. Collingwood taught at Oxford and was the last in the line of the great British idealist philosophers. This seems to have been a dead end -- I don't know of anyone pursuing theology along the lines begun by Collingwood. The quotes are from an anthology of his writings on religion, titled Faith & Reason.
Now, I just received my copy of "Satan and the Problem of Evil", so I'll take some time to read it and try to get "on the same page" as everyone else. So far I'm easy; I just find it a shame that there must be so much effort to "prove" free will. The notion of the warfare thing will be a harder sell, but I'll follow along.
At some point, I'll bring up more quotes from Collingwood re evil and the devil.
I like the concept of Das Nichtige. Is there a thread around dealing with that?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 11/20/2002 10:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | Chuck: Collingwood sounds worth checking out. Do you know where I can pick up any of his writings?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Alan Rhoda Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 680 | Posted 11/20/2002 11:19 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Collingwood sounds worth checking out. Do you know where I can pick up any of his writings?
Honorman, You may be able to find some of his books in the Philosophy section at your local bookstore. And of course there's always Amazon. The books that I found in the bookstore were:
The Idea of History The Idea of Nature
But a quick search on Amazon pulled up about 10 books by Collingwood, and with free shipping that's probably the way to go.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 11/20/2002 7:41 PM (GMT -6) |   | I checked out Amazon and it does have his books, but here's a little bidbit: Idea of History sells for $24, but it has a special note under shipping that not only is it not eligible for the free shipping, but it has a special $54 shipping rate attached to it on top of regular shipping...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Chucks3371 Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 28 | Posted 11/21/2002 1:13 AM (GMT -6) |   | Collingwood is most know for his work in the philosophy of history.
However, if you are interested in his religious thought, I sawReligion and Philosophy on Amazon. That was his first book; his other books -- as well as the anthology I have -- seem to be out of print.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 11/21/2002 1:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | Chucks3371, For a view of Calvin as a person, where academic determinism is scrapped off, and the person wrestling with the world comes forward, try: muse.jhu.edu/demo/scs/1.1lane.html Its called "Spirituality as the Performance of Desire: Calvin on the World as a Theatre of God's Glory" (Belden C. Lane, Saint Louis University)
Al
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Chucks3371 Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 28 | Posted 12/10/2002 1:50 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
"Spirituality as the Performance of Desire: Calvin on the World as a Theatre of God's Glory"
quote:
. . . It can be said reverently, provided that it proceeds from a reverent mind, that nature is God; but because it is a harsh and improper saying, since nature is rather the order prescribed by God, it is harmful in such weighty matters, in which special devotion is due, to involve God confusedly in the inferior course of his works
I sensed that Calvin's theology, rightly understood, is quite msytical. As a matter of fact, there are a couple of reviewers on Amazon -- non-Christians -- who are attracted to Calvinism for this mystical element.
A couple of weeks ago, I heard Neil Walsch (of Converstions with God fame) interviewed on the Art Bell show. In Neil's world, everything is an action of God, including humans who are little centers of consciousness acting out God's will. Basically, the world as drama, though the actors are unaware of their roles within it. Much like a universalist Calvinism, which calvinism would be if they stop redefining worlds like "all" and "world".
quote:
Recent scholarship in Calvin Studies has emphasized that the sixteenth-century Genevan Reformer's theology was not so much governed, as traditionally thought, by an over-arching "system" centered on a unifying doctrine of (for example) predestination, as it was by "the constant reappearance of favorite images, metaphors, or figures of speech."
This exemplifies the adage that a great thinker does not always get the followers he deserves.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 12/10/2002 5:51 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 12/10/2002 6:32 AM (GMT -6) |   | www.basden.u-net.com/Dooy/d4p.html Most of Dooyeweerd in Four Paragraphs
quote: Most of Dooyeweerd in Four Paragraphs
Dooyeweerd started his A New Critique of Theoretical Thought by carefully checking (or defining) the tools by which he would proceed in his critique. From the context of everyday life experience, he began by asking "What is it to know, think, analyse and theorize?" and in particular, "What is the role of philosophy?" He saw theorizing as just one human mode of functioning, without any special claim to lead us to truth (hence all theory is fallible, in marked contrast to positivist assumptions). While science is theoretical thinking centred on single aspects of human life and existence, philosophy is theoretical thought that embraces all aspects. With such conceptual tools ready, he then analyzed 2,500 years of development in philosophical thinking, highlighting various problems, especially those of reductionism, antinomies and deep dichotomies. He argued that all theoretical thinking is based on deep presuppositions, some of which take the form of dualistic ground motives, that have driven theoretical thinking forward over the last 2,500 years: form-matter of the ancient Greeks, nature-grace of mediaeval Europe, and nature-freedom since the Renaissance. That was his critique of theoretical thought - Volume I.
However, not content with criticizing, with demolishing, he embarked on a bold and risky venture of constructing a different framework that does not exhibit the problems. To accomplish this, he started with the non-dualstic ground motive found in Hebrew thought, of creation-fall-redemption, treated in a philosophical rather than theological manner. This led him to posit that Meaning, rather than Existence, is the fundamental property, and that Law rather than Entity is the framework within which we live and exist. This, incidentally, enabled him to escape both philosophical realism and nominalism. From this, he developed his General Theory of Modal Spheres, the main topic of Volume II. This explains diversity without recourse to dualism and unity without recourse to monism. As an outworking of this, reflecting upon human history and experience, he proposed a suite of fifteen aspects that, today, are proving useful as a basis for understanding and tackling interdisciplinarity, issues related to sustainability and success, and complex normativity.
In Volume III, on the basis of his Theory of Modal Spheres, he developed a Theory of Entities, or Being, including non-living, living, sentient, conceptual, artificial, social and other types of entity. Being is defined in terms of Meaning rather than the other way round, and this helps us understand the multi-level nature of many entities, the relationships between entities, and the process of change of entities.
That constitutes the main arguments of his magnum opus, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought. Interspersed with those arguments, and in other writings, he developed some of these themes in more detail, working some of them out in the light of the historical context in which he lived (a Europe dominated by Nazism and Communism in the middle the twentieth century). These workings-out included a theory of social institutions, a theory of history and progress, a theory of theory, a putative theory of the corporation, and so on, each focused on a different modal aspect. However ultimately, he believed, it was not the philosophers who should work each aspect out, but those engaged in the special science centred on each aspect. Running through all his thinking was the notion that all life is inherently religious, that is, a relationship with our Divine Origin and Destiny, and he developed a theory of this relationship, which included a notion of human supra-temporality. He sought always to respect the thinking of others, understanding, applauding and criticizing them in their own terms, and to engage with them on a basis that allowed genuine dialogue. That basis was his view of presuppositions developed in Volume I - which are themselves ultimately religious in nature.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is part of The Dooyeweerd Pages, which explain, explore and discuss Dooyeweerd's interesting philosophy. Email questions or comments would be welcome to http://www.basden.u-net.com/Dooy/contact.html. Copyright (c) 2002 Andrew Basden. But you may use this material subject to conditions.
Number of visitors to these pages: . Written on the Amiga and Protext.
Created: 18 September 2002. Last updated:
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:51 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 |
|
|