 |
| 
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 8/19/2003 10:27 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
But I wouldn’t expect critics to speak about “indefinite knowledge” (which I would agree doesn’t count as knowledge at all), for that is also not what open theism offers. It is most certainly “definite” knowledge whether what is known is what “shall” come to pass or what “may” come to pass.
You seem to be agreeing that definite knowledge is the only kind of knowledge. Have I understood you correctly? If so, what's the point of referring to "definite knowledge" or "definite foreknowledge" at all? Why not just say "knowledge" or "foreknowledge"?
Or are you instead saying that there is a type of knowledge that can be contrasted with definite knowledge but that this other kind of knowledge should not have the antonym of "definite", namely "indefinite", attached to it? If so, I wonder if a new set of terms shouldn't be chosen.
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/19/2003 12:23 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW: There are worse things that could happen to me  . My point is simply that one, Fleetwood is a consistant critic of the open view, two, he has yet to enter into any real view on it beyond vague generalities, and three he said he would enter into a discussion with you, and four I am very interested in what he has to say. I would truly like to know his criticisms on specfic points. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/19/2003 12:50 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/19/2003 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | I believe in holding to people to a standard. If Fleetwood is so willing to spit out vemon, he should be willing to step into the fire. If not, he should go somewhere else (or maybe he has...). | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/21/2003 8:15 PM (GMT -6) | | TGB: "We don't deny "God's knowledge of the future" or "exhaustive divine foreknowledge." "
A rose by any other name....OK, please tell me how DO you differ fron classical theology then? And by this I mean BOTh Arminianism and Calvinism, both of which affirm that God knows the future, he knows what exactly will happen tomorrow ( they just differ on the CAUSE of that future.)
So how is OT different then? It MUST be that there is some difference, or why are we even here discussing this? This seems so disingenuous, any time some non OVer tries to even discuss the novelty of OTheism, along comes some OV'er here to tell us how they DONT deny that God knows the future, NOR, that he actually DETERMINES the future, as well!! But, there must be some difference.
So is it that God knows some of the future, but not all of it, and that he has exhaustive foreknowledge, but only of some of it? I just don't see, TGB, how you can make that statement, that you don't deny God has exhaustive divinne foreknowledge, and yet deny classical theism. This gets more and more muddled as time goes on... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Ochuk
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 8/22/2003 6:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Ive only read 30 pages of Beyond the Bounds and so far I am dissapointed in the first writer's scholarship.
From the first chapter of Beyond the Bounds:
quote:
Nevertheless, Sanders misleads when he quotes Owen—
“So far as the Western world is concerned, theism has a double origin: the
Bible and Greek philosophy”—and then states: “Classical theism is the
product of the ‘biblical-classical synthesis.’”35 Owen is not saying that
Greek philosophy corrupted scriptural teaching, as Sanders clearly implies
in his citing of Owen, but that the Fathers and Philo used Greek philosophy
for expression and for amplification of the divine attributes that the
Scriptures teach.
35 Sanders, The God Who Risks, 141. By “classical,” Sanders means Greek theism; Owen usually
means traditional or standard theism, not just Greek theism, but occasionally he interchanges the
terms “classical theism” and “Christian theism” (Owen, Concepts of Deity, 2).
This is from the first chapter of Beyond the Bounds. Russell Fuller says Sanders "misleads" us by quoting Owen who believes that Greek philosophy and biblical revelation make up the traditional classical theism of the Western world. Fuller says in his note that Sanders calls "Classical theism" as "Greek theism," something that is totally fallacious. On the page of The God Who Risks that fuller sites, Sanders says nothing of the sort. He in fact devotes a paragraph to how the Fathers used Greek theism in their thinking and mentions nothing of corruption. Fuller actually misrepresents Sanders more than Sanders, purportedly, misrepresents Owen! In Sanders' rebuttal of Roger Nicole's inerreancy charge, Sanders defines "Classical Theism:"
quote:
Classical Theism. A theological interpretive tradition normally linked historically to
Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and the Calvinist tradition in general. Particular
characteristics include an emphasis on divine sovereignty, immutability, impassibility,
compatibilistic freedom, and the timelessness of God.
This clearly shows that Sanders does not define "Classical Theism" as "Greek Theism."
It is true that Owen doesn't believe that Greek philosophy corrupted Christianity as Sanders does, but Sanders never implies that this is the thesis of Owen.
Read my blog at ochuk.gizzar.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/24/2003 6:41 PM (GMT -6) | | I thought this book was one of the best books I have ever read. Regardless of whether or not one of the essa writers misrepresented Sanders, I have trouble believing that Sanders wouldn't carry the same view as Boyd, that the Calvinists depend too heavily upon Greek influence. This book was an amazing critique on Open Theism and the misinterpretation of Scripture that it tends to usher in. It will be interesting to see if our famous 3, Sanders, Pinnock, or Boyd have the time to finally respond to something that I think could have OTists running for their money. I gave the book two thumbs up!
borg
rom 2:4
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/24/2003 8:10 PM (GMT -6) | | I think how you view the book basically exposes which theological side of the fence you are on...open theists will grade it poor and (as you did) those who aren't will wonder when the "Famous 3" will respond to something "gives them a run for their money..." | | Back to Top | | |
| 37 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:19 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 |
|
|