 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 4:38 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message
ModesofThought
12/15/00 4:24 PM
Beware of Ware...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried to get some feedback on this in the guidance thread, but it seems to have gotten lost in the mix. I'll try a more prominent placement.
Ware's article is 35 pages long so for a reasonably brief response I will address only his conclusions and describe how this Open Theist deals with them.
"Despair Amidst Suffering and Pain: A Practical Outworking of Open Theism’s Diminished View of God" by Bruce Ware
Responding to Suffering in Open Theism: Conclusion:
Ware writes:
One of open theism’s strongest appeals is its claim to account for tragic human suffering in such a way that God is both blameless and caring. On the surface, this appeal appears strong. Upon examination, however, it is clear that open theism’s counsel is unbiblical, incoherent, and shallow. It is unbiblical insofar as it fails to account for the prevailing biblical vision of the God who reigns over human affairs and who ensures that his purposes are accomplished even through human wickedness and evil.
Modes:
Open theists believe that God accomplishes God's purposes both through and "in spite of" human wickedness and evil. Ware's view would require that relation to only be describable as "through" for there could be no action completely "in spite of". God is always active in the actions of humans, including rape, child molestation and genocide among other radical evils of our world. Open theists recognize that God and Satan are distinct and we do not attribute these latter activities to some subtle level of God's will unless God explicitly takes credit for them, which incidentally God does do at times in the Old Testament and New. But that is yet another problem.
Ware writes:
It is incoherent because it faces the horns of an untenable dilemma. Either God allows suffering he could prevent, in which case moral questions of the blamelessness of God are not avoided as openness advocates propose. Or God stands idly by, unable to prevent great and agonizing human suffering, in which case one is led to despair at the realization that life is under the control of massive amounts of free choice, over which God has no control, and much of which is desperately evil.
Modes:
We are all confronted by evil as a serious theological problem, the question is where and when do you appeal to mystery? Open theists say, "We know that God is for you and not against you. God loves you and suffers with you" unless it is clear that God has shown something else to be the case. That is part of the message of the cross. We are clear about the character of God but unclear about exactly what in creation made the particular evil event happen. We know that God does punish but we also know that God is a good teacher and there are warnings and the punishment is relationally appropriate as Scripture demonstrates. So the mystery is located in the complexity of creation and the many variables involved.
For Ware, the mystery is located squarely on God's head. Somehow we must reconcile this event with the fact that it is a pat of God's good and perfect will. This totally neglects the fact that God speaks so clearly throughout scripture about the times God's will is neglected and left undone. Even Jesus acknowledges this in his prayer, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." He might as well have added, "because it obviously isn’t being done on earth, that's why I am here." Don't locate the mystery of evil in God if it is reasonable to attribute it to the creation. We do know that God is good and loving and faithful, let us give God the benefit of the doubt.
Of course the corresponding "untenable dilemma" for Ware is that God claims to be good yet regularly permits/causes evil (Ware concedes "desperately evil"). If we are so bold as to acknowledge rape, etc. as truly evil, would it be less so if we find that God specifically permitted (or caused?!) it from the foundations of the world? As the child screams in terror because she is being molested by her earthly father, the mother should stand by and say "at least I can rest assured that her Heavenly Father is allowing this for a good reason and has known it would happen forever." To import this sort of meaningfulness to such an event is not redemptive, it is simply confused and exceedingly destructive to all involved. To worship a Heavenly Father who acts in (or even permits) that way is mind numbing. How then can one honestly distinguish good from evil? What will you teach your children? "Your Heavenly Father doesn't stop child molestations, rather he specifically ordains them, now grow up to be a good cop and stop murders, that God specifically ordained." Isn't this to admit that we are more moral than God? Why doesn't the fact that classical theism confounds our innate moral sensibilities seems to phase Classical theists? The answer is often found in one word, security. In their minds "power" is equivolent to "control," so omnipotence means "maximal control" which implies that all things really are as they should be. For Open Theists, "the art of power is to make free" (Socrates seems to have said it first) and control is delegated with responsibility.
Ware writes:
And, the counsel of open theism is shallow. Many thoughtful Christians will begin to wonder what hope there is if much of suffering is pointless and if God is unable either to prevent it or bring good from it. Despair and lack of confidence in God will be the legacy of open theism, should it extend its influence in the church. The simple truth is this: the God of the Bible is not the limited, passive, hand-wringing God open theism portrays. He is king, lord, sovereign, wise, good, and perfect in all his ways. The message of the Bible is that suffering has meaning, God is in control over it and all else, and so life can be lived by faith in the infinitely wise and powerful God.
Modes:
Anyone who starts a thought with the line "the simple truth is..." is about to try to sell you something and what follows Ware's use of this phrase is anything but simple, it is loaded with theological landmines. Beware of this sort of rhetoric where ever you find it. In fact, be just as cautious of it if you hear an Open Theist say, "I'm simply reading the Bible literally!"
The hope that this thoughtful Christian finds is that there is a great and wonderful God who calls us his own and creates us in God's own image. The dignity and delegation that come with that necessitate some risks on God's part, but God's desire for us and our potential make the risk worth it in God's eyes (my opinion or yours is not important regarding the risk of creation, God is the creator, the risk of creating is God's to take or not).
The hope is in knowing that God is not the nervous pathetic deity Ware caricatures the God of Open Theism as but rather that God is for us and not against us. God's greatness is in God's omnipotent resolve to love and be loved by others, even created others who do not deserve such glorious grace. God's omnipotence is reflected in God's ability to make saints out of sinners without violating the structures of God's creation.
Suffering is better left understood as sometimes pointless than wrongly attributed to God. God tells his children when they are being punished, as any good parent would. Ware's suggestion that the God of OT is "unable either to prevent it [suffering] or bring good from it" is dead wrong on both accounts, though it certianly is an effective rhetorical strategy for those who worry about security.
Don't be fooled by what might be perceived as confidence, I have my reasons to believe that Ware and others in the Classical camps that fight so hard have reason to feel threatened. Their theological security blanket is at stake. What would they do if they had to confront a God who risked and a creation that was truly every bit as scary as it so often seems? Open theists choose to live in the world as it is, not as they wish it were, this does not answer all of the questions that are raised but we do rest in the faith that God is trustworthy, wise and omnicompetent, completely faithful and God's omnipotent resolve is revealed in the love of God expressed through Jesus Christ.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Geebob
12/16/00 7:12 AM
RE: Beware of Ware...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Ware:
"And, the counsel of open theism is shallow. Many thoughtful Christians will begin to wonder what hope there is if much of suffering is pointless and if God is unable either to prevent it or bring good from it. Despair and lack of confidence in God will be the legacy of open theism, should it extend its influence in the church."
This simple truth is this: the notion that God had ordained wickedness, and that certain individuals should go to Hell for the wickedness that He allegedly ordained before they were even born was causing within me a "Despair and lack of confidence in God."
I was never very interested in this question until a about two years ago when the implications of determinism struck me. I fully beleive that God had lead me to openness, and the recourses the Open theists provide concerning the biblical and philosophical support for the position as a result of prayer.
Ware sohouldn't quit his day job for psycology because he clearly doesn't have an idea when it comes to what causes despair. On second thought though perhaps theere are some reasons for quitting his day job.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TheOpenTheist
12/16/00 9:26 AM
RE: RE: Beware of Ware...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your experience of the despair that comes from having a world view based on an omnidetermining model of God is not unique. Bob Hill tells of his transition in his response to John Piper.
JW = John wrote BH = Bob Hill
JW If we do not get our doctrine of God right, we will destroy the foundations of delight. Joy may flourish for a generation when the root is severed, but in the end, delight in God will die without true doctrine.
BH I agree with John whole-heartedly. That is exactly what the determinism of noble men has done to many Christians. They feel a loss of the joy and delight that they should have in the wonderful God who reveals Himself in the Word. But, when we see the true God Who is revealed in the Bible, we can rejoice again. He is the God Who cares, Who responds, Who mourns, Who loves, Who is grieved, etc.
JW Personally, this has meant a twenty-year battle with the attack on God’s foreknowledge of his creature’s moral choices. This engagement has been sporadic until recently, and intense for the last two years.
BH Personally, for me, this has been a forty-year battle against the God who can’t of Calvinism to restore the glories of the God of the Bible who is able. I was a strong Calvinist. The deterministic theology stifled my joy in the Lord. William Bierderwolf’s book, How Can God Answer Prayer was the first light I had that there was a biblical view contrary to the view I then held. This has restored the glorious God of the Bible. Praise His name!
And thank God that this process keeps on happening!
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Mephi2K
12/16/00 11:38 AM
Mephi Kinda Likes Ware (No Surprise There...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sup, room.
Let me say, starting off, that I don't agree with everything that Ware says. There are some points that I would alter his thinking. But the majority of his thinking is on point to me.
PART I
Modes responds to Ware's conclusion. In doing so he states:
"God is always active in the actions of humans, including rape, child molestation and genocide among other radical evils of our world. Open theists recognize that God and Satan are distinct and we do not attribute these latter activities to some subtle level of God's will unless God explicitly takes credit for them, which incidentally God does do at times in the Old Testament and New"
Mephi:
The first question I would like to ask what constitutes this "activity" of God, or which you speak? To me, it CANNOT be more than God's unconditional care and empathy for the suffering. To posit activity as orchestration or anything like that would, of course, defeat your purpose. Now, I'm going to use what I think I know about your theology, for at this point, it may be misleading some people. If I'm wrong, tell me. But I think that when you say that God is always active in the actions of humans, you mean that BECAUSE there are humans actively engaged at all times against these evils, that God is IN THAT PROCESS. That's fine, on ONE level, especially since Christ affirms that when people are gathered in His name, He would be in the midst. However, this doesn't adequately deal with a God presented in the Bible who not only does actual HISTORICAL acts, but who is said to guide history itself.
Another thing. I just want to make sure of your statement about Satan. Your statement could be construed that those who are opposed to the Open View, like Ware, cannot truly make a distinction between Satan and God. I HOPE that's not what you are saying. It should be very clear that many evangelicals, including yours truly, makes a VERY clear distinction between Satan and God. (Check Job) However, we affirm what the book of Job affirms. Satan and his satanic forces ARE dreadfully opposed to God, but in the end analysis, Satan is God's "do-boy" He is powerless beyond the limits that God allows for him. It seems like you want to say:
"Well, if God is ultimately behind Satan's acts, then he is indistinguishable from God himself."
Again, I can see how all this flows from your philosophical and theological perspective. You don't see how divine sovereignty can be completely confluent with the agency of creations. So, of course, you basically would think of the control as "either-or" Either Satan is completely responsible OR he is not. Of course, as I've said in another post, I highly disagree with you and your theological position on this matter.
PART II
Modes responds to Ware's claim of an untenable dilemma. Modes says one of the best things I've heard on this room when he said this:
"We are all confronted by evil as a serious theological problem, the question is where and when do you appeal to mystery?"
This is ABSOLUTELY right. Both sides of this debate tend to pull the mystery card before its duly appointed time...and I don't like it. They just apply the card at different places. It's almost like one's suppositions. Now don't get me wrong. I'm NOT against the concept of mystery. When dealing with the Christian faith, it is NECESSARY to be able to accept some paradox, mystery, and such. My problem is that some people on BOTH sides apply the mystery card to suit their OWN desires, claiming that the Bible warrants it. In my view, many times, this is plain not the case. Remember how Modes talked before about classicalists emphasizing the Glory of God and Openness people, the Love of God. Often these camps get very polarized and forget the ONE lesson that we should have learned from Hegel and his system. Truth is often in between the extremes, often to the point where some points have to be held in dynamic tension for an adequate synthesis. (Note the concept of complementarity)
Second, I notice the slightly biting statements about classicalists that imply that it's all about virtual theological fatalism and stoicism in the face of atrocity. Notice that this goes back to 1) a pragmatic answer (What shall we teach our children?) and 2) a moral answer that's not truly comprehensive (Wouldn't that make us more moral than God? Oy vay...)
I affirm that a theological position IS possible that avoids the absurdity of both of the extremes of this debate.
PART III
Modes responds to Ware's evaluation of the pragamtic credibility of open view theism's claims. I am prayerfully considering composing a work tentatively called "The Spirit of Meliorism: The Quest for Divine Freedom and Authority" To be honest, it will be dealing with some of the thinking I see in Openness theology, among other schools of thought. The concepts of "delegation" "co-laborers" "genuine freedom" and such are watchwords for this broad theological shift that I am noticing. Modes discussion here matches almost completely the line of thinking that I feel composes this melioristic zeal. I'm not saying that it is completely bad. But I do think that there are some pitfalls to which this type of thinking leads of which some adherents just plain aren't cognizant. To be sure, Ware caricaturizes the openess view of God...but, when you think about it, not by much.
Next, Modes says this:
"Suffering is better left understood as sometimes pointless than wrongly attributed to God."
Mephi:
I couldn't DISagree more. Of course, this may work pragmatically for some people as to not denigrate their faith. From the time I got here, one of the things that I said, and am SURE of, is that the main strength of open view theism is the PRAGMATIC effect of the view on good, wholesome Christians who really don't think all the issues out. Am I saying that there are no contemplative, philosophically astute, theologically minded openness people out there. Heck, no. But I'm saying to all the leaders of the openness view: Look at your main constituency. Look at the reasons WHY people pick up so rapidly to the open view. But let me get back to my main point. In the Bible (Job specifically) and the other Scriptures that Ware mentions, it doesnt seem that God MINDS us understanding suffering in the context of His overall sovereignty. Why do WE have such a problem with it? Remember that post by Beso where he said that WE needed God to be justified? I ask that everyone go to the "Wrong Corner" folder and check out my response.
Modes also said:
"I have my reasons to believe that Ware and others in the Classical camps that fight so hard have reason to feel threatened. Their theological security blanket is at stake.What would they do if they had to confront a God who risked and a creation that was truly every bit as scary as it so often seems? Open theists choose to live in the world as it is, not as they wish it were,"
Mephi:
LOL Now man, you know better than to say something like that. I don't even NEED to discuss this one. Tsk, tsk...
CONCLUSION:
Though I didn't agree with everything that Ware said, I think that it was a good article that brought up some issues that MUST be dealt with squarely by all openness adherents. Screw the mystery card and the overexaggeration of God's love. Modes, I hear what you are saying, and I know where you are coming from, BUT I want you to note that your theological perspective is MUCH more conducive to openness theology than many other openness people. I can see how your philosophical/theological perspective could lead you to be openness, but I wonder how many other people really consider their OWN philosophical/theological presupps and see how they mesh with the openness view. I don't think its many. (To be sure, I would say the same thing for many classicalists. A significant don't operate according to their epistemological foundations.) So, in short, I give Ware's article 4 out of 5 stars.
Peace,
Mephi2k
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/16/00 11:39 AM
On Despair
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sup, Geebob
Let me be real with you, man. I understand what the view of determinism can do to people. But I don't think going to the openness view is necessarily an adequate solution to the problem. First, I'd advise you to read up on William James, philosopher and psychologist of the early 20th century. He faced the SAME depression you are talking about when he thought about the mounting evidence of his time for determinism. His view of pragmatism deals with this implicitly. Check that out.
Second, I would like to point out that, much too much of the time, people who discuss fatalism, determinism, free will, and the like aren't really clear on their OWN conceptions of what the terms themselves mean. Sheesh, if I had a nickel for every time I talk to a person who cannot successfully distinguish fatalism from determinism...OR even knows that there are distinctions WITHIN determinism. It's almost sad. Having said all that, check your theological position and make sure that all the terms are delineated correctly and that with those understandings, your despair is truly warranted. Personally, I don't think it is.
Yours truly,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/16/00 12:47 PM
RE: Mephi Kinda Likes Ware (No Surprise There...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hold up Meph, you quoted me very seriously out of context. The view you attribute to me in your first quote of me omitted the fact that I was at that point describing Ware's position, not my own. I hope that reframes some things for you. I don't have time to get at the rest of your response right now, but just wanted to get that first part clear... You should have quoted the following:
Open theists believe that God accomplishes God's purposes both through and "in spite of" human wickedness and evil. WARE'S VIEW would require that relation to only be describable as "through" for there could be no action completely "in spite of". God is always active in the actions of humans, including rape, child molestation and genocide among other radical evils of our world. Open theists recognize that God and Satan are distinct and we do not attribute these latter activities to some subtle level of God's will unless God explicitly takes credit for them, which incidentally God does do at times in the Old Testament and New. But that is yet another problem.
I'll get back to this later...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Geebob
12/16/00 1:16 PM
RE: On Despair
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fatalism- nomatter what we do such and such willhappen
determinism- no matter what we do, will do exactly and only what has been determined since the beginning of time.
how do define them?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/16/00 1:17 PM
On Misunderstandings...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Modes,
If I misquoted you, then I would have to say I'm sorry. It was clear to me that this statement was Ware's view:
"Ware's view would require that relation to only be describable as "through" for there could be no action completely "in spite of".
That was no problem. But the next sentence may have been ambiguous to someone looking at your whole paragraph:
"God is always active in the actions of humans, including rape, child molestation and genocide among other radical evils of our world."
Note that I didn't quote you on the former statement because it was CLEAR that it wasn't your view. But looking at the second statement and taking it with this one (the first sentence in the paragraph, which was also undoubtedly yours)...
"Open theists believe that God accomplishes God's purposes both THROUGH and "in spite of" human wickedness and evil." (Emphasis mine)
...Don't you see how I could read that YOU were saying that God is always active in the actions of humans in all those respects mentioned? Had I quoted the whole paragraph, I STILL would have made the same remarks from the way I understood you. So, if it's a matter of anything it's misunderstanding not based on inadequate quotation, but just on the basis of my understanding alone. I hope that this is clear to you, bro. Holla back.
In Christ,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/17/00 9:37 AM
RE: On Misunderstandings.. .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last distinction I will point out with regard to that paragraph is that I say "Ware believes..." and what follows is what Ware believes until there is a clear breank in attribution, in this case where I say, "Open Theists believe...". I do see how one could think thay only the immediate sentence which contains the words "Ware believes..." gets that attribution, but in my reading in theology, I have found that that it often not the case. One should stick with attribution until the writer changes it for you. No biggie, just saying that I think it was reasonably clear, let's move from the semantics to the content...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/17/00 3:41 PM
RE: Mephi Kinda Likes Ware (No Surprise There...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The misunderstanding aside, here is a more substantive response to Mephi. The attribution should be clear if I put the writer's name preceeding the paragraph.
Mephi wrote:
The first question I would like to ask what constitutes this "activity" of God, or which you speak? To me, it CANNOT be more than God's unconditional care and empathy for the suffering. To posit activity as orchestration or anything like that would, of course, defeat your purpose. Now, I'm going to use what I think I know about your theology, for at this point, it may be misleading some people. If I'm wrong, tell me. But I think that when you say that God is always active in the actions of humans, you mean that BECAUSE there are humans actively engaged at all times against these evils, that God is IN THAT PROCESS. That's fine, on ONE level, especially since Christ affirms that when people are gathered in His name, He would be in the midst. However, this doesn't adequately deal with a God presented in the Bible who not only does actual HISTORICAL acts, but who is said to guide history itself.
Modes responds:
Mephi, you are quite wrong in most of your assumptions in the above paragraph, the earlier correction aside, even.
1. God, in my view is a necessary constituent of all things at the most fundamental and ontological level. This however, is far removed from the almost unimaginably complex activities at the level we are accustomed to calling events. I am speaking very metaphysically at this point. You say that God's involvement "CANNOT be more than God's unconditional care and empathy for the suffering" I have not and would not make such a claim. Though, whatever involvement constitutes the "responsible party" for such an atrocity as rape, must be held accountable for that . This was the gist of my question about the sinfulness of sin in a previous post. Of course, at times responsibility is complex and multifaceted. But at the same time, someone is usually faulted with having the power to have prevented the occurance but failed to do so. This is when blame is assigned. God does this to humanity, we do it in our courts. In both cases, the penalty is less if it is inadvertant or accidental. There must be a reason for this! Meph, I need you to let me know at some point if you distinguish between compatibilism and complementarity. In my understanding so far, compatibilism is the view that takes the meaning out of the word "freedom" by reducing freedom to the ability to do what you desire to do. This is no better that what a rock does. It desires to sit there and stay put. It does so. No one blames it for that and we don't think of that as particularly free. Complementarity, on the other hand seems to me to represent a commitment to stay in the conversation with freedom as genuine ability to do otherwise. Do you concur? If not, please explain… Under these definitions, I would be able to accept complementarity and say that we need to work on the coherence of our understandings of agency, ours and God's. I have done this elsewhere (M.A. thesis).
2. As for the rest of what you think you know about my theology, I think that that is the problem, you think you know, and you draw on sources that are not mine to answer questions that I am not asking or raising as far as I can tell. That, perhaps is an overstatement, but it accurately reflects the "sense" I get of this particular thread. My point in this thread is to show that Ware, and now you, are not engaging Open Theists on their own terms from the inside, but are quick to dismiss what it seems to us that you haven't yet understood. It seems from your language, that you think that you have, but when you venture to express your understanding, I find it wanting. I will get more specific so we can move forward... for instance, nowhere have I mentioned or built upon the specifically Christian idea that God's presence is to be framed in terms of Christ's promise to be with his followers, rather I have consistently used Spirit language.
3. God can certainly be said to guide history and "do" historical acts without having to resort to the compatibilist language game. But the problem is on the head of those who confess that God "does" rape in such a way that God's involvement was THE variable that could have prevented it but God didn't. Of course, here is where delegated authority comes in for us.
Mephi wrote:
Another thing. I just want to make sure of your statement about Satan. Your statement could be construed that those who are opposed to the Open View, like Ware, cannot truly make a distinction between Satan and God. I HOPE that's not what you are saying. It should be very clear that many evangelicals, including yours truly, makes a VERY clear distinction between Satan and God. (Check Job) However, we affirm what the book of Job affirms. Satan and his satanic forces ARE dreadfully opposed to God, but in the end analysis, Satan is God's "do-boy" He is powerless beyond the limits that God allows for him. It seems like you want to say:
"Well, if God is ultimately behind Satan's acts, then he is indistinguishable from God himself."
Again, I can see how all this flows from your philosophical and theological perspective. You don't see how divine sovereignty can be completely confluent with the agency of creations. So, of course, you basically would think of the control as "either-or" Either Satan is completely responsible OR he is not. Of course, as I've said in another post, I highly disagree with you and your theological position on this matter.
Modes responds:
I do think that it is seriously problematic to understand Satan as God's "do-boy". This in no way accounts for the language that Scripture uses of Satan as "the enemy" who is rebelling against God and in fact has his own kingdom. Why then is Jesus' ministry best described as a forward assault on the kingom of darkness where he REBUKES and CASTS out evil?
If a kingdom is divided against itself, it cannot stand. Can you take this teaching so seriously in your system?
What do you make of this sort if biblical language? What CAN you? You are absolutely right to say that I "don't see how divine sovereignty can be completely confluent with the agency of creations" if by that you mean that all the good stuff and praises get attributed to God and all the bad stuff is laid at the feet of someone else when it comes time to sort out responsibility for good and evil. When the head mobster sends out a "do-boy" why think that the one who gave the order is not culpable? If he is, why say he is good? Meph, is God unequivocally good in your mind?
PART II
Mephi wrote:
Remember how Modes talked before about classicalists emphasizing the Glory of God and Openness people, the Love of God. Often these camps get very polarized and forget the ONE lesson that we should have learned from Hegel and his system. Truth is often in between the extremes, often to the point where some points have to be held in dynamic tension for an adequate synthesis. (Note the concept of complementarity)
Modes responds:
I agree with you here. As long as your conception of complementarity is able to include libertarian freedom, even though you may not personally hold to it.
PART III
Mephi wrote:
Modes responds to Ware's evaluation of the pragamtic credibility of open view theism's claims. I am prayerfully considering composing a work tentatively called "The Spirit of Meliorism: The Quest for Divine Freedom and Authority" To be honest, it will be dealing with some of the thinking I see in Openness theology, among other schools of thought. The concepts of "delegation" "co-laborers" "genuine freedom" and such are watchwords for this broad theological shift that I am noticing. Modes discussion here matches almost completely the line of thinking that I feel composes this melioristic zeal. I'm not saying that it is completely bad. But I do think that there are some pitfalls to which this type of thinking leads of which some adherents just plain aren't cognizant. To be sure, Ware caricaturizes the openess view of God...but, when you think about it, not by much.
Modes responds:
You have done nothing more here than paint in broad strokes the message that you are right and openness is wrong. Let me return the favor, you are wrong and openness is right…
Not very effective, eh? Please do tell of the pitfalls that I fall into of which I am not cognizant. Sorry, about the sarcasm here but I found this last paragraph beneath you.
Mephi wrote:
Next, Modes says this:
"Suffering is better left understood as sometimes pointless than wrongly attributed to God."
(Mephi still)
I couldn't DISagree more. Of course, this may work pragmatically for some people as to not denigrate their faith. From the time I got here, one of the things that I said, and am SURE of, is that the main strength of open view theism is the PRAGMATIC effect of the view on good, wholesome Christians who really don't think all the issues out. Am I saying that there are no contemplative, philosophically astute, theologically minded openness people out there. Heck, no. But I'm saying to all the leaders of the openness view: Look at your main constituency. Look at the reasons WHY people pick up so rapidly to the open view. But let me get back to my main point. In the Bible (Job specifically) and the other Scriptures that Ware mentions, it doesnt seem that God MINDS us understanding suffering in the context of His overall sovereignty. Why do WE have such a problem with it? Remember that post by Beso where he said that WE needed God to be justified? I ask that everyone go to the "Wrong Corner" folder and check out my response.
Modes responds:
Are you trying to say that a view which corresponds to people's reality and fits with the most obvious elements of our world has all of that as a deficit rather than an asset? What a strange sort of argument. You must not be familiar with Boyd's (and many other fine Biblical scholars'!!) reading of Job where it is understood by the divine monologue that God is chastising Job for supposing that he understood the problem of evil. The confrontation is directed against Job's ignorance of the shear chaos and massive complexity of keeping a creation such as this in order!!! The Bible does not endorse Job's theology or that of Job's friends but confronts them both in the divine monologue. See Boyd on this in his God at War and other places on the website.
Mehpi wrote:
Modes also said:
"I have my reasons to believe that Ware and others in the Classical camps that fight so hard have reason to feel threatened. Their theological security blanket is at stake.What would they do if they had to confront a God who risked and a creation that was truly every bit as scary as it so often seems? Open theists choose to live in the world as it is, not as they wish it were,"
Mephi:
LOL Now man, you know better than to say something like that. I don't even NEED to discuss this one. Tsk, tsk...
You may find this laughable, but I for one am convinced that what motivates such aggressive and often ignorant attacks upon Openness is precisely a fear that the security implicit in the classical system may not pan out in the end. Jesus doesn't offer theological security, he calls us into a hope that is transformative but not yet secure. I am holding back on things that I have heard first hand from Ware and others which implicates them to precisely this effect. Coupled with the pragmatic (though you are so quick to convert this asset into deficit, WHY?) appeal the biblical work is in much agreement with the most widely recognized scholarship, these two when brought together with passion for faith and faithfulness reveal a strong theological and practical draw to the faith. Is this not an asset to the Christian Church!!?? We live in new times and the Gospel must be preached in a form that is relevant for this time and this place. This is the sole end of theology, as far as I am concerned. Theology is for proclamation (Gerhard Forde gets credit for that phrase). As it stands, the classical theist must convert post-moderns into moderns, then wholistic and relational thinkers into classical theists, and then perhaps pragmatists into idealists or at least conceptualists, before the TRUTH can be clearly understood? What part of this has to do with the fact that, meanwhile, Jesus is being preached to thousands and people are being saved all over the world AND VERY FEW OF THESE NEW CONVERTS WILL EVER BECOME CLASSICAL THEISTS!!! Has God dropped the ball on recent thelogical developments? Is it God's current goal through the Classical theists to reassert their imperialistic ideology? I do not, in fact, know better than to say what did about Ware above, and I do hope that you find it worth your while to respond. The character of this debate is often such that the very salvation of those who are not Classical Theists is called into question. That God would be so mocked! That is why this gets so heated from my end, the shear arrogance of those who hold so tightly to their petty ideologies that they can categorically exclude the larger part of the Christian world (I do not here mean Open Theists of course, I simply mean non-calvinistic and/or classical theists).
Mephi wrote:
CONCLUSION:
Though I didn't agree with everything that Ware said, I think that it was a good article that brought up some issues that MUST be dealt with squarely by all openness adherents. Screw the mystery card and the overexaggeration of God's love. Modes, I hear what you are saying, and I know where you are coming from, BUT I want you to note that your theological perspective is MUCH more conducive to openness theology than many other openness people. I can see how your philosophical/theological perspective could lead you to be openness, but I wonder how many other people really consider their OWN philosophical/theological presupps and see how they mesh with the openness view. I don't think its many. (To be sure, I would say the same thing for many classicalists. A significant don't operate according to their epistemological foundations.) So, in short, I give Ware's article 4 out of 5 stars.
Modes responds:
1. You do not hear what I am saying, or at least your writing does not reflect that reality back to me.
2. You do not know where I am coming from, each guess you have hazarded was not part of my own theological heritage.
3. Of course my theology is conducive to Openness, I am an Open theist. It is surely the case that there MANY anonymous open theists in the classical circles who are just ignorant of the philosophical categories and logic they are supposed to hold. This is why we have theologians who are supposed to work on the systems to bring about as much coherence and relevance as possible.
4. Please, for the sake of expedience, let slide as much of this conversation as possible, and tell me why in the world Ware's article is worth anything like 4 out of 5 stars??? I am an open theist and I did not feel as though he had any clear conception of what I actually believed. Does that not matter?
Mephi, I know that you are capable of engaging me on these issues at a more precise and helpful level. I also realize that space prohibits doing that on all issues in each post. The inevitable problem being reflected in the length and lack of overall coherence (meaning jumpingfrom issue to issue, not that there are not coherent responses to each issue from our position) of this posting. Having said that, please get back to me on one or two of the most important topics above and let us engage mor carefully and specifically on those. I look forward to going deeper. My suggestion is that you follow up with the question that I raised to you above regarding compatibilism and complementarity and what relevance the law of contradiction plays for you in that discussion…
In Christ,
Modes
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/17/00 6:37 PM
Let Us Reason Together
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dearest Modes,
At the end of your very spirited post, you said
"Mephi, I know that you are capable of engaging me on these issues at a more precise and helpful level. I also realize that space prohibits doing that on all issues in each post. The inevitable problem being reflected in the length and lack of overall coherence (meaning jumpingfrom issue to issue, not that there are not coherent responses to each issue from our position) of this posting. Having said that, please get back to me on one or two of the most important topics above and let us engage mor carefully and specifically on those. I look forward to going deeper. My suggestion is that you follow up with the question that I raised to you above regarding compatibilism and complementarity and what relevance the law of contradiction plays for you in that discussion…
Mephi:
Homie, I wrote some quite poignant and slightly acerbic stuff before this (a lot of it actually), but I turned around and decided not to use any of it. I want to get some genuine dialogue going here. And before that can happen, we obviously need to get more info on each other. You keep talking about how openness in general and you in particular are getting misunderstood. I don't want to keep this trend going. In order to further facilitate the communication, I suggest the following.
Each of us should present:
1) A concise, but comprehensive statement of our theologies, with respect to what really matters in the openness debate. This could include: theology proper, cosmology/cosmogony, christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology, if you feel like it. I see the main two as being theology proper (which will deal with our views of God and his attributes) and cosmology (which will deal with the metaphysical nature of reality and so on)
2) A view of theology. What is theology? What is theology to accomplish? What is the relationship between theology and other disciplines, particularly philosophy?
3) A view of the practical ramifications of this entire debate? What's at stake? Why are we even talking about this? Is this a crucial issue? Is this worth all the trouble.
Modes, I want you to understand my reason for proposing this. It is very easy to let our emotions and, yes sometimes pride, get into this debate , such that we just end up shouting at each other from across the room. (Unfortunately I have done this at times ) To be sure, I like a little theological sparring match every now and again. I also like the quick sarcastic and satirical quips, every now and again. But at bottom, I WANT to understand...and be understood. For us to make some real headway on this, I feel that its necessary that we get some background so that the discussion can truly take place on the foreground. If you're down, then I am. I figure that this will take us a while, but I think in the long run that it's worth it. The complementarity/compatibilitism thing will be answered within the context of this. So, do you want to go first, or would you like me to go first. You choose.
Hoping for some understanding,
Mephi2K
PS:
That thesis of yours sounds interesting. Wonder if I could have a read?
PSS:
If you have some spare time, check out the Challenge. Should be a snap for you.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/17/00 7:56 PM
RE: Let Us Reason Together
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph, I both agree with and appreciate the spirit of your response, sorry if I got out of hand at points. Anyway, yes, I'd like to do as you proposed. If you are okay with it, I propose you go first (mostly a time thing, on this end). Do we want to continue in anonymity? If I send you my thesis, that would forego anonymity of course... Just haven't thought that through much yet...
Let m know what your suggestions are for trading theological/philosophical background info, unless you plan to do it on the discussion board, but I doubt they all want to hear all about us...especially at great length, which it sounds like it could be.
Thanks again for the spirit of your recent response, I look forward to conversations empowered by greater awareness of the other.
In Christ,
Modes
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/17/00 11:15 PM
RE: RE: Beware of Ware...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geebob,
Glad to see you're still hanging in there. i thought as long as Mephi is giving references for good reading, I'd stick in my own two cents worth. Check out anything title that grabs you by Soren Kierkegaard ("Practice in Christianity" is perhaps the easiest first choice), he is perhaps the most honest theologian I have ever read. He truly follows each thought through to its logical implication and makes you wrestle with it. With this whole freedom and responsibility issue he had this to say in a Journal of his:
"From every point of view the concept of predestination may be considered as an abortion, for having unquestionably arisen in order to relate freedom and God's omnipotence it solves the riddle by denying one of the concepts and consequently explains nothing."
Now Kierkegaard doesn't simply move to an affirmation of freedom and negate omnipotence, that would be the opposite error. Rather he shows us the genuine difficulty of the matter and rejects the simplistic answer that the freedom we self-evidently possess is not in fact genuine.
Hope to hear more from you in the future...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/18/00 11:43 AM
Off and Up OUT!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dearest Brother Modes,
Yo, man. I hear ya. I'll go first. I'll be working on that while I'm out of town. Yep, Mephi is taking the fam and leaving town to go visit the relatives and see some homies from college. So, I probably won't be able to get back with you until 2001 I think that the best thing to do is for us to do this OFF the board via email. [I'll be checking my email from time to time] You have my email already, on my posts. If you could send me yours, that would be great. As far as anonymity, I couldn't care less. If you wanna swap dossiers, that's tight, too. Whatever you want to do is fine with me! I'm truly looking forward to what this will accomplish, not only in my understand of your view, but in my relationship with another brother in Christ. Holla back!
Anyway, this will constitute my last post here so I figure I will say my temporary goodbyes to the room here....
*********************************
MY WORDS AND MY HEART
First of all, I'd like to say this has been a wonderful experience so far. Just like with any relationship, it has its ups and downs, but this is ALL been worth it as far as I'm concerned! All of you guys have proven to be honest, caring, and passionate peeps, which I love. It is my sincere prayer that you all have been able to see beyond merely the intellectual arguments and philosophical spillage to see my heart. I hope that you end up seeing a guy who likes to spar when it comes to theology, but also likes to stick to the basics. I love Jesus Christ with all my heart and genuinely believe that He is the exalted Lord of All. I believe that, as His Body and Church we have obligations to love, live, and pray like Him. I also love people deeply. I truly care about what happens to people. Some people have told me that I have a pastor's heart. I told them "I thought this was the way ALL Christians were supposed to love people...just as God loves us." I also believe that the main thing we should be doing is praying about all this (and everything else in our lives as Christians) instead of merely discussing it. I want to be able to see Openness people and Classicalists actually sit together in one place and pray and WEEP over the state of world affairs, and make an effort to do everything in their power to witness the Gospel in every area of human existence. I think prayer and genuine love for God and neighbor will unite us more than doctrinal assimilation ever would.
I'd like to quote the great Roman Catholic pastoral care teacher, Henri Nouwen, from his inspiring work "In The Name of Jesus", page 30-32
"The original meaning of the word "theology" was "union with God in prayer." Today theology has become one academic discipline alongside many others, and often theologian are finding is hard to pray. But for the future of Christian leadership it is of vital importance to reclaim the mystical aspect of theology so that every word spoken, every advice given, and every strategy developed can come from a heart that knows God intimately. I have the impression that many of the debates within the Church around issues such as the papacy, the ordination of women, the marriage of priests, homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia take place on a primarily moral level. On that level, different parties battle about right and wrong. But that battle is often removed from the experience of God's first love which lies at the base of all human relationships. Words like right-wing, reactionary, conservative, liberal, {Mephi: classical theists, openness theists???}, and left wing are used to describe people's opinions, and many discussions then seem more like political battles for power than spiritual searches for truth."
"Christian leaders {Meph: I would say ALL Christians} cannot simply be persons who have well-informed opinions about the burning issues of our time. Their leadership must be rooted in the permanent, intimate relationship with the incarnate Word, Jesus, and they need to find there the source for their words, advice, and guidance. Through the discipline of contemplative prayer, Christian leaders learn to listen again and again to the voice of love and to find there the wisdom and courage to address whatever issue presents itself to them. Dealing with burning issues without being rooted in a deep personal relationship with God easily leads to divisiveness because, before we know it, our sense of self is caught up in our opinion about a given subject. But when we are securely rooted in personal intimacy with the source of life, it will be possible to remain flexible with being relativistic, convinced without being rigid, willing to confront without being offensive, gentle and forgiving without being soft, and true witnesses without being manipulative."
Mephi:
I strive for this. Know this. I want this to exemplify me. To be sure, I've missed the mark much and probably have done so here. I humbly ask your forgiveness for any offense I've given anyone here. I'm still a work in progress, and God ain't through with me. Like Paul, I'm striving for that prize everyday. This is my heart, y'all. I love each and every one of you, it is my ardent prayer that this holiday season that you will have wonderful times with your loved ones, and that you will have a great time unwrapping all those gifts. But most of all, I pray that Jesus Christ, in this season celebrating His birth, reveal a sense of Himself to all of us via the Holy Spirit that we've NEVER encountered before. A deeper sense of God's love and power than we've ever experienced in our lives. May we fall so in love with Jesus that nothing else matters but living for Him and spreading his love and LIVING His Word. You are all so precious in His sight...and believe or not, in mine as well! Know this above all things about me. Let me end this with a Scripture I think is quite appropriate, given the season...this is my final wish for us all!
Luke 2:13-14
Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to humanity on whom his favor rests." Word is bond.
Of No More Words,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Craig
12/18/00 2:33 PM
RE: RE: On Despair
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geebob says:
“fatalism- nomatter what we do such and such willhappen determinism- no matter what we do, will do exactly and only what has been determined since the beginning of time. how do define them?”
Finally! Something I am able to respond to! The rest is pretty much going over my head.
Geebob, I am disappointed in you young man ! Fatalism is defined nearly correctly, but determinism is completely incorrect.
Fatalism has more to do with not being able to escape bad things, one’s dharma if you will. You can’t escape it, doom and gloom is ever lurking around and it will get you. A terrible demise is what is in store for a person and this notion is inescapable.
Determinism has to do with things being set, but not that everything results in evil. My perspective on the destination of the saints is by no means fatal, in fact, it would be more hopeful than openness. After all, one may at any point fall out of favor and lose his salvation (unless you completely neuter God), but I think God is so powerfully moved to love that no man that is chosen will be lost…Fatalistic? By no means! Was it determined? Yup. God determined it in His perfect plan of glory, which is not fatalistic either, for He will succeed.
I am not sure I agree with the term determinism either. I may be wrong, but that seems to have to do with a naturalistic idea, whereas I believe it is God who is working out the plan of Redemption for us from spiritual slavery. It would be far more fatalistic to trust in that will for any and all faith in God as possible for Salvation when we are dead in our trespasses. Trust your will, you’re sure to fail. Trust in God, you won’t. I think your theology is fatalistic because you can’t even trust God’s prophecies, or that your Salvation is secure, and the list goes on...
Openness seems to be open to a naturalistic view of Salvation too, I might add. Man in his unholy state has a birthed ability in his flesh to be born again, to will Salvation? Man does please God with the flesh? Sounds naturalistic to me, not what Scripture describes as being born from above.
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TestWaters
12/21/00 5:23 PM
RE: Man pleases God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig said:
Man does please God with the flesh? Sounds naturalistic to me, not what Scripture describes as being born from above.
TW says:
We need to make an important distinction: We've been born into the kingdom. Even though we live in the flesh, not all of our actions are "in the flesh" as flesh is used in the NT.
God is our loving Father and EVERYTHING we do that is out of pure motives (as given by Him) pleases Him. Hebrews says it best in the negative but faith pleases Him immensely.
It is NOT humanistic to assume that the redeemed individual brings great pleasure to God--even while he/she is wrapped up in flesh.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
12/21/00 7:24 PM
RE: Beware of Ware...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If interested, take a look at this brief review of Bruce Ware’s God’s Lesser Glory at Amazon.com.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
12/21/00 9:02 PM
Beware of Ware...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the review. Should we who fall into the OT category be surprised? I find some of the review to be inflamatory. Words such as "dangerous" are used. I think this is sad. I would have expected much more from these scholars. We have seen the debate on these boards. It certainly doesn't look as if anything "dangerous" is going on (seeing as we have not seen the outworking of OT as of yet we can only say that what is dangerous so far is what has been happening in discussions-views may be changing or *reforming*).
But aside from this, we who follow OT views believe that OT is not dangerous. How would it be dangerous? The thing that bothered me the most about having believed more or less as a compatiblist is how my doctrine about God was so far removed from my experience. What does a impassive God have to do with me? What does a immutable God have to do with me? Ugh...sorry, I'll take the incarnate God pleeeeeease. Which reminds me. Isn't this what this is about as well? While many Christians hold to a Calvinistic understanding of God, could we not also say that experientially they hold to a God who is not such a one? Added to this, one of the things that Greg has pointed out is how prayer becomes urgent within the OV. In the traditional understanding of God, R.C. Sproul would say when talking about God's omnipresence or omnipotence that what this means for our practical outworking is that all Christians have all of God and all of God's power. But this can be worked within the OV as well.
I think OT has struck a chord within evangelicalism that may be motivated experientially for many, but I think is not without its biblical basis.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
12/22/00 1:18 AM
RE: Beware of Ware...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For what its worth: I personally know two people who were on the fence of faith -- more out than in -- who became full fledged disciples of Jesus because of the Open view. "This Christianity stuff finally makes sense." I've heard of several others. It is helped my own faith immensely, especially in prayer.
How "dangerous" can OT be?
I think the vitriolic response some now have to Open Theism is a sign that they see how compelling it is. If it is right, they are wrong. And no one wants to be wrong... especially if being "right" is life to you.
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:50 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 |
|
|