 |
 | 
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 8/9/2003 10:06 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Yes, I've read it. It's very infomative and well-written. However, it's not written by J. Piper. He wrote the forward and the final chapter (one out of eleven chapters). He is one of three editors and one of 12 authors of the book. IMO, his is the best written chapter though for the fact that it gives practical implications of open theism. It's a chapter that the average layperson needs to read. Also has an extensive bibiography in the back. Good references. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/9/2003 8:17 PM (GMT -6) | | No way, man. That would be too indepth for him | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 8/9/2003 8:30 PM (GMT -6) | | You see, Honorman, you are a prime example of what one man, Wayne Grudem, addresses in "Beyong the Bounds" where he asks "Do the advocates of this teaching frequently manifest arrogance,deception, unrighteous anger, slander, and falsehood rather than humility, oppeness to correctin and reason, kindness, and absolute truthfulness? (ch. 10) I have yet to see you respond to any one of your oppostition with even an ounce of goodness.
DLW, will get back to you on the debate. I didn't like the setup of that particular forum. It was not quite as reader-friendly as the setup of this one.
Let me try out one of these new smileys:  | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/10/2003 7:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Did Grudem write about people with a lack of a sense of humor? Probably not. That has more to do with the end times, then apostasy
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/10/2003 7:47 PM (GMT -6) | | BTW Fleetwood, I too, believe everyone whose interested should read "Beyond The Bounds," and all other criticisms of open theism. But I also believe they should find out what open theism believes from its proponents and make their own decision as to its truths (or falsehoods) just as one should read both the critics of Calvinism and its proponents and make a rational decision on it as well. To make a fair and honest evaluation of anything one must to as informed as possible.
Piper's chapter, however, is simply his opinion of what open theism brings to the table. It is not a evaluation of the system through reason.
The funniest chater is four: Why Open Theism is Flourishing Now. I always like it when theologians play shrinks and try and figure out why. The assumption of right always gives off a foul odor... | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/10/2003 8:20 PM (GMT -6) | | | Fleetwood, I am glad to see that you are going to actually engage the subject, rather than quoting others or simply making statements about how open theism doesn't give God his due. I am anxiously awaiting your reasoned views on the subject. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/11/2003 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh, but everybody KNOWS I cannot keep my word . I make special exceptions in the unlikely event that oh fleety one is actually going to engage in a discussion of the subject rather than simply being RD's fanatical defender or the purveyor of witty comments...
I would truly like to see him discuss open theism...truly | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/11/2003 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 8/11/2003 6:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Honorman to Fleetwood: "Hey, batter, batter".
Honorman, you are quite the provoker and accuser. I don't mind discussing more with DLW, but don't have the time for your games Honorman. I have already seen that a "discussion" with you on open theism is impossible. You don't discuss. You berate, provoke, demean, and accuse claiming to be the "watchdog" defending the "truth" of open theism.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/11/2003 7:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Ah, but I'll always be lurking around, in the corners , keeping you on the right track. For I AM THE GUARDIAN OF OPEN THEISM. THE GREAT PURVEYOR OF TRUTH! BTW, I noticed you were misformed about what John was saying in the "Logic" thread. Naughty! Naughty!
Hey, DLW, you place those smiles really well! (Can I get an amen for that!)
Isn't purveyor like the coolest word?! I think I'll try and use it as much as possible, fit it in as much as possible...Purveyor, purveyor, purveyor. Like she is a purveyor of fruits and vegetables, he is a purveyor of fine wines... | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/18/2003 10:05 AM (GMT -6) | | | So, Fleetwood, when are you going to begin a discussion on "Beyond The Bounds?" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 8/18/2003 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
So, Fleetwood, when are you going to begin a discussion on "Beyond The Bounds?"
Perhaps about the same time Reverend Boyd tells us who the "Bolsac" was who was killed by Calvin, and why the Westminster Confession, Savoy Declaration of Faith, and Canons of Dordt don't qualify as Reformed Confessions.
"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 | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/18/2003 11:19 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 8/19/2003 2:20 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 8/19/2003 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Chris Grant
Perhaps about the same time Reverend Boyd tells us who the "Bolsac" was who was killed by Calvin
quote:
Originally posted by Laika
Maybe he meant Jacques Gruet or Gentile.
"Bolsac", Gruet--it's an easy mistake. They almost share a letter in common.
Loretta Tortelli: "Wait a minute! How come the cake says 'Nick and Diane'?"
Nick Tortelli: "You know what a lousy speller I am!"
Loretta Tortelli: "Oh, yeah. (pause) But, wait...that's pretty bad."
Now I'm dying to hear your explanation of why the Westminster Confession, Savoy Declaration of Faith, and Canons of Dordt don't qualify as Reformed Confessions. I'm sure it will be a good one.
"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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/19/2003 7:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Open theism--denying God's knowledge of the future--is an attempt to change the way Christians think about God and is a growing challenge to orthodox belief. In this book, twelve pastors and teachers explain why the God of open theism is not the God of biblical Christianity. They probe the biblical, historical, and philosophical context, language, and interpretation of the debate, giving readers an understanding of what is at stake when exhaustive divine foreknowledge is denied.
Can't even get it right on the back cover.
We don't deny "God's knowledge of the future" or "exhaustive divine foreknowledge."
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 8/19/2003 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, Tom,
It is so amazing that I get drawn in to this forum on Wed. mornings, when I need to get to the Prayer team to pray for our church. I'll try to make it quick.
Are you still in the states, or back in Lebanon?
A few thoughts:
1. I believe that you, Tom, have a saving faith in God
2. I believe that many (if not most) people who are exposed to OV do not "get it" in the same way you do, and because they misunderstand it, it "messes with" their faith detrimentally and takes them further from the truth. This causes a lot of harm, if it can't be resolved. I believe that this is probably the biggest problem with OV belief.
3. C.S. Lewis said that sometimes the literal acceptance of biblical truth is closer to THE TRUTH than a more abstract, scientifically "true" belief, because the literal belief is in actuality closer to TRUE TRUTH than the scientific "truth", because "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Is.55:9).
4. Why don't we, as fellow believers, put our "weapons" down for a day, and take up THE BEST WEAPON against our true enemy, Satan,..............PRAYER! How about it?
Psalm 139:4 "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/19/2003 9:43 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM: 2. I believe that many (if not most) people who are exposed to OV do not "get it" in the same way you do, and because they misunderstand it, it "messes with" their faith detrimentally and takes them further from the truth. This causes a lot of harm, if it can't be resolved. I believe that this is probably the biggest problem with OV belief.
Tom: Hi SIM. Prayer is one thing I'll join you in! But regarding those who don't "get it," given the defintion the publishers give open theism, let's inclucde them in the group of people you're talking about.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 8/19/2003 9:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Can't even get it right on the back cover.
We don't deny "God's knowledge of the future" or "exhaustive divine foreknowledge."
Is it fair to criticize critics of Open Theism for not consistently identifying the thing being denied by Open Theists as exhaustive "definite" foreknowledge (as opposed to exhaustive divine foreknowledge, or simply exhaustive foreknowledge), when Open Theists themselves seem less than fully consistent in this regard?
Consider, for example, the terminology used in The Grace of God, The Will of Man. There, Richard Rice writes that "it is hard to understand how God's experience of the world could change if his knowledge of the future is exhaustive" (p. 126), and "To avoid the difficulties involved in trying to reconcile creaturely freedom with absolute divine foreknowledge, a number of thinkers propose revisionary interpretations of omniscience" (p. 128). "Absolute divine foreknowledge" is a formulation that Rice uses repeatedly, as on p. 130 when he uses it to refer to the view of omniscience affirmed by both Calvinists and Traditional Arminians but denied by Open Theists. (Incidentally, in poking fun at Bruce Ware, Greg Boyd asks on this website: "Is there a non-divine form of exhaustive foreknowledge Ware is concerned about?" Did Boyd ever direct a similar question to Rice?)
Clark Pinnock was the editor of The Grace of God, The Will of Man. In his own contribution, Pinnock says: "I knew the Calvinist argument that exhaustive foreknowledge was tantamount to predestination because it implies the fixity of all things from 'eternity past,' and I could not shake off its logical force." In his editor's introduction, he characterizes Jack Cottrell's essay as defending "exhaustive foreknowledge. . . . This has been the classical Arminian position" (p. xii.) On the same page, he characterizes Rice's essay this way: "Rice accepts the force of the common Calvinian argument against the Arminian position on precisely this point and therefore presents the case for limited divine foreknowledge in opposition to Cottrell's view".
I'm just guessing, but it may be the case that critics of Open Theism aren't enthusiastic about talking about "definite foreknowledge" because they don't think "indefinite knowledge" should count as knowledge at all. As the next best thing, would you be content if Beyond the Bounds were to use the terminology that, say, Pinnock used in the last quote above?
"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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/19/2003 10:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Chris: Is it fair to criticize critics of Open Theism for not consistently identifying the thing being denied by Open Theists as exhaustive "definite" foreknowledge (as opposed to exhaustive divine foreknowledge, or simply exhaustive foreknowledge), when Open Theists themselves seem less than fully consistent in this regard?
Tom: Good point Chris. It would only be unfair if we did not also criticize open theists who are less than consistent in this regard, which is something I try to hammer on. Remember how Polycarp reminded me that it’s “God unconditionally determines that we do x” and not “God determines that we do x unconditionally”? The fine print is important. Open theists I think are slowly coming up with a more consistent vocabulary—“mutating” some might think it.
Chris: I'm just guessing, but it may be the case that critics of Open Theism aren't enthusiastic about talking about "definite foreknowledge" because they don't think "indefinite knowledge" should count as knowledge at all. As the next best thing, would you be content if Beyond the Bounds were to use the terminology that, say, Pinnock used in the last quote above?
Tom: I think Pinnock ought to tighten up his articulation of the view (something I’ve said to him, though I’m hardly a spec on his radar), and I think he has fixed things a bit. Let’s hope open theists improve in this regard because it would really help. I think you’re right; it tends to miscommunicate to readers and critics.
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. It is definitely the case, for example, that x may or may not occur. So, determinacy and indeterminacy are attributes of the events themselves and not attributes of God’s knowledge of the events. Whatever God knows, he definitely knows, though he definitely knows some of the future as determinate or settled and some as indeterminate or unsettled. And here we are again back to trying to accurately articulate the essential claim.
Whew!
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
| 37 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:36 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 |
|
|