 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > What's the difference? (Process and Openness) | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 10:33 AM (GMT -6) |   | TGB
02/13/01 7:58 AM
What's the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all-
In less than 100 posts if possible, will somebody explain the precise difference (if any) between Open Theism and Process Theology?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
02/13/01 9:02 AM
RE: What's the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. process denies the aseity of God, openness does not
2. process denies the trinity of God. openness does not
3. process denies miracles, openness does not
4. process denies creatio ex nihilo, openness does not
5. process denies the physical second coming of Christ, openness does not
6. process is a speculative philosphical cosmology, openness is a bibilical theology
7. process does not affirm an high view of Scripture, openness does
8. process does not affirm a high christology, openness does
9. prayer does not change things in process, it does in openness
10. how many pages of this do you want? could someone please tell me what they have in common?
Great question! Feel free to follow up on this one!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
02/13/01 11:04 AM
RE: RE: What's the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also process theologians believe that God cannot intervene in the world, whereas most open theists believe he can and does at certain times. A very good book to read that amplifies the differences "Searching For An Adequate God," edited by Pinnock and Cobb. It is a dialogue between process a free will theists. The debate between Hasker and Griffin and Rice's chapter, Process Theism and The Open View of God: The Crucial Difference are the best parts. It should be noted that knowing the differences between the two avoids great confusion. One of the major problems with Geisler's book on the open view, Creating God In The Image of Man, shows this point very well. Geisler could never truly seperate the two. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
02/13/01 11:08 AM
RE: RE: What's the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think, Modes, that some theologians (such as the Doc and Richard Rice) saw some good points in the process view of God as relational (though, of course, how the relationship works out and who we are relating to are much different), but that seems to me (anyway) as the only real area that they may have some similiarities (though I suppose those who are opposed to the open view can find more if they try). John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
02/13/01 12:51 PM
RE: RE: What's the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How are they similar:
1) Open theism has a really cool name, so does Process.
2) Open theism is getting booted out everywhere. Process, well it doesn’t stand a chance among Bible believers.
3) Both view humans as historical beings and asks questions about God’s relationship to historical beings and history.
-Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TGB
02/13/01 2:21 PM
RE: RE: What's the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm asking because I recently received an email down on OT because "it's simply another name for Pinnock's process theology." They didn't elaborate.
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
writerdad
02/13/01 6:58 PM
RE: RE: RE: What's the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, you're right, open theism is a real cool name. Tom, there is another book, edited by Ron Nash called Process Theology, which is out of print, but can be easily picked up used. It has Christian scholars critiquing Process Theology. Opponents of open theism use that tack all the time. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
02/13/01 8:26 PM
A Personal Story, For What It's Worth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes did a splendid succinct job of showing how silly the association between Open Theism and Process Theology is.
Here's a little true personal story, for what its worth. It reveals something of the mentality of at least some of those who make the mindless charge that Open Theism is a form of Process Theology.
About two years ago, a rather prominent Christian figure signed their name to a petition which, if it had passed, likely would have eventually resulted in me having to leave Bethel and my Church possibly being asked to leave the BGC. This person contacted me after they signed this (nice timing) to inform me that they made their decision on the grounds that "Open Theism is simply Process theology in evangelical disguise."
I responded, "I'm glad you had the integrity to talk to me personally. But I'm wondering, why do you think this?"
He matter of factly responded, "It's common knowledge."
More curious than before, I said, "Tell me, what do you know about Process theology?"
"Well, I'm not a scholar. I've never studied it personally. Its confusing. But I know its heretical."
With increasing fascination, I said: "I see. Well tell me, what do you know about Open Theism?"
A bit more tentatively, he responded (I kid you not): "Well, not much. But I know its a lot like Process Theology."
After recovering, I said: "Let me get this straight. You're not sure what Process Theology is. You're not sure what Open Theism. But you are sure they are like each other. And on that basis you signed a petition that could potentially take away my teaching ministry, my livelihood and possibly my reputation?"
My experience has been that those who make this charge are either ignorantly repeating something they heard someone in authority say, or they are intentionally pushing peoples' fear button as a way of discrediting something they are afraid people will read and possibly believe. This latter group preys on the first.
And now you've heard "the rest of the story."
Blessings,
Greg
ps. In case you're wondering, I had and have no ill will whatsover toward this person or any others who have made these charges. I do not believe that anything is worth letting anger, frustration, bitterness or worry finding a footing in the soul. With Paul, I want to thank God for everyone who preaches Christ.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Shine150
02/13/01 9:00 PM
I've got a serious Whitehead!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
heretic though i may be, i confess to truly digg'n Process and Reality. I've got me a serious case of Whitehead! i know his di-polarity gig requiring a necessary God-world relationality tied to God's superjective nature providing the subjective aim to each actual occasion in the intial phase of its concresence ain't where its at. (just proving i actually read him). But lets get over a few wrong turns in an otherwise genius system. i don't see what's so insulting about being associated with Whitehead. he's not revelation, but he is REALLY REALLY smart!
next point: every wonder what Billy Hibbert, L.D.McCabe, Adam Clarke, and other 19th century Openness folk would think about being accused of being overly influenced by Process theology?
no wonder i
Shine at 150
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Shine150
02/13/01 9:19 PM
I've Got a Whitehead!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
every wonder what L.D. McCabe, Adam Clarke, Billy Hibbert, or any of the other 19th century Open Theists would think of being accused of being overly influenced by “process thought”! think about it. it shows the utterly silliness of the modern "guilt by association" tactic of Geisler and co.
on a different note, and on the other hand, what’s so aweful about being associated with process thought? Dudes, i’ve read Process and
Reality, and i’m telling ya, its genius! i’ve got a serious case of Whitehead! i haven’t quite read all the great classics of western philosophy, but this has GOT to rank up there in the top two or three. ya ya, i know Whitehead’s necessary God-world relationship tied to his view of the superjective nature of God offering a subjective aim to each actual occasion in the initial phases of concresence before becoming objectified datum to
subsequent actual occasions ain’t where its at. (just jibbin ya’ll with my fancy process-talk). But cut the chump a
break. he’s not revelation, but he’s VERY VERY smart.
heh Club211, i used to date a girl named Club 111. Any relation?
shine on
at 150
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Geebob
02/13/01 10:33 PM
RE: What's the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a great thread. Modes' post is very helpful.
This question comes to mind though.
what is the relationship that opennes has to process theology (or at least process philosophy)
Of coarse the guilt by association trend that shine points out is horribley juvenile but I have heard from non hostile sources that there is a relationship between openness and process and my philosophy prof who is an openness sympathizer said that process (theology or philosopy, I'm not sure which) made the way possible for openness theology to ask the questions that it does.
I doubt it is that dependant but although i have an idea of what that means i would like to have a better idea.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Shine150
02/13/01 10:43 PM
RE: I've Got a Whitehead!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry bout the double entry... when i posted the first one the computer said "error, page not available" or whatever... so i assumed it didn't get posted. wrongo.
but, as long as i'm on -- again -- let me answer Modes. he asked, "Will some one please tell me what Openness and Process have in common." i agree that there is no historical influence between Process and Openness. i agree that the dissimilarities are far greater than the similarities. but seems to moi there are two similarities worth mentioning
a) both hold to an "open" future... though for entirely different reasons. For Whitehead, the future is open by metaphysical necessity. In Openness thought, the future is open by divine fiat.
b) both views hold to a relational ontology. now, most openness people don't think in terms of "ontology." they just interpret the Bible. but i think there is an ontological similarity here. things are what they are IN RELATIONSHIP to other things, and all is in process. this is especially true of their views of God. God is intrinsically related to the world process. For Whitehead, this is so by metaphysical necessity, whereas in Openness thought it is so by divien choice. Still, in both views there is a non-classical, non-substantial, thoroughly relational and thoroughly temporal metaphysics.
sleep tight ya'll.
Shine150
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Shine150
02/13/01 10:48 PM
RE: RE: What's the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geebob, if process thought "made the way possible" for openness theology, how do you explain the openness people of the 19th century? I've read McCabe, and he sounds a lot like Boyd (but way harder to read).
To Modes of Thought, chum, you come across as rather anti-process, but your name betrays you. Tell me you didn't lift it from Whiteheads book. Great book too, heh? I'm sniff'n out a closet process dude!!!!
I bet Modes would agree that if it weren't for fundies pushing the panic button bout the process-guilt-association stupidity, we'd be pretty happy pointing out similarities with Whitehead. Despite the dudes zitty name, he's genius.
Shine150
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
02/13/01 11:58 PM
Qualify Qualify Qualify!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualify Qualify Qualify!!! Look I too share your love for Whitehead and I too share your love for Club 111 (come to think of it she had a lot of whiteheads ). I haven’t read much, only his views on education, but I see the brilliance you’re seeing. I love reading geniuses and Whitehead can write tons of stuff that I disagree with content wise but am enthralled with brain candy wise. I can even read the genus theologians that I disagree with and feel good about it. It’s those 3rd rate theo types that really get on my nerves. Luckily I’ve found this room so chock full of disagreeing geniuses! But now on to the Qualifying->
SHINE WROTE:
[Referencing how open theism and process theism are similar] things are what they are in relationship to other things, AND ALL IS IN PROCESS.this is especially true of their views of God. God is intrinsically related to the world process. (emphasis mine)
WISLAWA SAYS, MOO:
In open theism all things are not in process. God character for instance is not in process because His character is not dependent on beings that are temporally finite. Since God’s character is unchanging and since He has no beginning and no end it is not in process. We on the other hand do have a beginning and will have an end (except for the whole eternal life thing). Our character is in process and only that which is contingent on us can be in process. Since OTs think that history is partly contingent on us, and since I personally think that history is one of the places that Truth manifests itself, I can say that Truth is in process in some respects. But not all respects. In Process theism a mutual contingency is set up in all matters of Truth, in open theism an asymmetrical relationship is consistently maintained and therein lies the difference.
I’m with you in spirit but more conservative in making claims.
From one Whitehead lover to another or
with all 150 whiteheads shining
Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Wislawa
02/14/01 12:14 AM
An Openness Generation Gap?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could be wrong but I think it is only this new generation of Open Theists who owe any debt to Process thought. Surely McCabe does not bare this debt but did our generation of Open Theists really get to where they are through McCabe. I could be wrong but I think that it is only after Pinnock and pals encountered Process theology/philosophy and tried to qualify it with scripture did they then look for others who held this view and uncover McCabe and pals. Is this right? How bout you Doc, did you hear of Whitehead before you heard of McCabe or was it the other way around? How much of a debt do you personally give to processland? (I know that you have to be careful so as not to give the impression that you ENDORSE process. Maybe you shouldn’t answer this. Heretic headhunters might be monitoring maliciously waiting, wandering, wanting to take something out of context. [props for alliterating] ).
-Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TGB
02/14/01 1:12 AM
RE: RE: I've Got a Whitehead!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shine150:
a) both hold to an "open" future... though for entirely different reasons. For Whitehead, the future is open by metaphysical necessity. In Openness thought, the future is open by divine fiat.
Is this entirely accurate? It’s been my impression thus far that open theists do posit a partially open future as a metaphysical necessity, maintaining that it’s metaphysically impossibly to determine acts of free will. Open theism doesn’t maintain that God “could” determine such acts but simply decided not to (that is, by simple “fiat”). He in fact cannot do such a thing (in any world). It may be that God could have created the world to operate differently than he did. He could have created the world in which everything was exhaustively predetermined, but open theists would still insist that in such a world free will and moral responsibility would be impossible. Thus, a partially open future is a metaphysical necessity to a world populated by free moral agents.
Have I missed something?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Geebob
02/14/01 1:48 AM
RE: What's the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A generation Gap? maybe
now that I think about it more, Process thinkers argue that God can change and that he is in time. I think that some of the arguments from process theism for such things are attractive to openness thinkers thus any dependence is on the apologetic and philosophical side of things but only a skeletin of what is involved in process metaphysics. I imagine that what the 19th century ov's held was primarily scriptural considerations and some intuitive philosophically relevent arguments but these arguments may not have the advantage of the sophisticated philosophical reasoning that process thinkers helped to contribute.
I asked about a dependence but I did not want to give the impression that I think that open theism relies on some faith based contra scriptural assumptions of the process thinkers. That is not what I had in mind at all.
What I wrote is somewhat speculative.
what I am trying to get at is that it is not for no reason that open theists are called process theists (although it is a horrible mischaricterization). There is a relationship and I think I have hit on some of it but I wanted confirmation or correction from someone who is a little more versed in the history and relationship of openness and process.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Shine150
02/16/01 7:14 AM
A few reflections "IN PROCESS"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello metaphysians in process,
w'sup? y'all "prehending" you're "objectified datum" in response to the intial "subjective aim" flowing from "God's superjective nature" as we "actual occasions" strive for an "aesthetic satisfication" and become objectified participants in "God's concrete pole"?
YOU GOTTO LOVE WHITEHEAD.
(loved the joke about club111 with whiteheads!!!)
few reflections meta-dudes
1) there may be conceptual similarities between Open theism and process thought vis-a-vis a) a dynamic relational ontology and b) hence, an open future. But
i)there are far far more dissimilarities than similarities (open view has much more in common with classical view than process view)
ii) these similarities are not historical connections. Open theists are as biblically driven today as they were in the 19th century. All attempts to caricature them as "process" or "philosophically" driven are either ignorant or intentionally decieving.
2) brother TGB in Beruit, you think Open theists DON'T share with Process theologians the conviction that "all is in process." well, even Process people hold that God has an unchanging "pole" (the "primordial" or "abstract" pole). so, in this sense, even they don't say "everything IS process." rather, they say all "concrete reality" is in process.
3) Geebob wondered if Open Theist see the openness of the future as a metaphysical condition the same way Process folk do. (i earlier argued they differed here). Here's the primary difference, Geebob. In Openness,
a) God sovereignly CHOOSES to create a world; in process he doesn't' and
b) God sovereignly CHOOSES to create a world with an open future -- he could have done it differently (just take away freedom).' in Process thought God doesn't CHOOSE the openness of the future. It's metaphysically "build in" to each and every "actual occasion".
catch ya'll at a later stage of concresence...
hope none of you attain eternal objective immorality as a permanent prehended data in God's prehension... (viz.. you die (.
chill
skater
who shines at 150
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Geebob
02/16/01 10:31 AM
RE: A few reflections "IN PROCESS"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the thing I like about alot of you contributers of opentheism.org discussion board is that you are really wak.
I would like to give a hearty word to your mothers.
your mom
Jerry garcia
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TGB
02/16/01 3:40 PM
RE: A few reflections "IN PROCESS"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Shine-
You noted to me: "brother TGB in Beruit, you think Open theists DON'T share with Process theologians the conviction that "all is in process." well, even Process people hold that God has an unchanging "pole" (the "primordial" or "abstract" pole). so, in this sense, even they don't say "everything IS process." rather, they say all "concrete reality" is in process."
You might as well have just spoken Chinese to me. I have no idea what you're saying. All I did was ask a question regarding your claim that OT believes God does not know the future "by fiat" while Process believes he doesn't know the future "by metaphysical necessity." From what I have understood thus far, OT does indeed believe God doesn't know future acts of free will by metaphysical necessity.
Come at me again. I'm slow, but I catch on.
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Go To Page 2 >>
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:53 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 |
|
|