 |
| 
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/24/2003 3:22 AM (GMT -6) |   | MephEternal,
Thanks for your response. Can you say m-u-t-a-t-i-o-n?  When I address open theism, I address published ideas because one can make a genuine effort to hold authors accountable for their published ideas. This is precisely what I have done in this thread, just as I made clear from the beginning of my entrance into this thread. I have addressed published presentations of open theism, such as Sanders’ The God Who Risks. (Instead of burying his retractions in this forum, he needs to publish them. Even better, if he no longer agrees with major outrageous statements in his own book, he ought to retract the book from publication.  ) Your version of open theism is a philosophical mutation that virtually renders published open theism non-open theism. I challenged open theism's published foundational assumptions. I did not take on your unpublished philosophically adapted version of open theism. I entered the discussion to challenge published open theists' (mis)use of Scripture to support their undemonstrated and unchallenged but plainly published assumption that they carry to Scripture.
However you and other open theist conversationalists tweak and adjust and change what has been published matters little to me and to Christian theologians who have to address published works that the Christian and non-Christian public are reading. What we address and critique is what is published. Since you have not yet published, at least to my knowledge, I will continue to deal with those things that have been published. (I'm sorry, if I have missed something you have published on these matters.) From where I sit, any version, such as yours, that incorporates some idea of compatibilism into it is not being true to the foundational assumptions and beliefs upon which published open theists have argued their case in the marketplace of ideas. Such mutations render open theism, in this forum, incapable of being proved untrue or false.  It is utterly uncontestable that open theism's published materials have made it abundantly clear that open theism is founded upon a radical view of libertarian freedom that repudiates any and every form of compatibilism. Therefore, your acceptance of some form of compatibilism strikes at the published foundational assumptions of open theism.
This is why conversation with "open theists" on this forum is so frustrating. Each time anyone challenges the published claims of open theists, someone on this forum neutralizes the challenge. Some do so by failing to know what published open theists advocate in their books because it is obvious, even by their own confessions, that several open theist participants in this forum have not read all their books. Some seem not to have read any of their books. They need to do some serious reading.  (At least, we who publish challenges to open theism have read and re-read and read again open theists' published materials. Even then, it is difficult to keep abreast with the ever-changing ideas published authors float in their public presentations, for coherency and consistency do not seem to matter as much to them as it does to others.) Others on this forum render challenges to published open theist ideas null and void as you have by saying, "No problem! I agree with you." Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, MephEternal, but what you and other unpublished mutators of open theism argue in this forum is of little significance because you are not publishing your claims in the market of ideas where your ideas would have to compete against Greg Boyd's or John Sanders' or Clark Pinnock's or David Basinger's or William Hasker's already published ideas. Your statements about open theism and the statements by John Earp, by Honorman, by Starkman, by Geebob, and by all other advocates of their own versions of open theism do not count for published presentations and representations of open theism.  The disclaimer at the top of this forum makes this abundantly clear.
quote:
Christus Victor Ministries is happy to make our discussion public and invite anyone to join in, but our comments are not intended for publication. Like any on-line discussion board, our spontaneous, unedited dialogue is appropriate for a conversational context, but not for scholarly discourse. Please do not publish quotes from our discussion without seeking the author's permission. Contents of this discussion are protected by copyright.
To whatever degree you agree with my exposition of Isaiah 10:5-19, to that degree you are not with open theism as argued, presented, and represented by published works of published open theists. Publish your ideas in a book. Argue your case in a conventional form where others can read your ideas and assess their coherence and consistency and weigh your ideas against Scripture. It is apparent that the so-called "open theists" who participate in this forum are all over the map theologically and philosophically. It is virtually impossible to gather any coherency or consistency of theological view from "open theists" on this forum. About the only thing that is consistent and coherent is the defensive posturing people take to defend published open theists, even if the defenders have not actually read the book or books being challenged.
I've given the matter a lot of careful thought and prayer. I'm going to continue to devote my time to published works where published open theists will have to defend their published views, recant their published views, or openly modify their published views. They cannot morph their published views as easily, as quickly, or as furtively as goes on in this forum. What counts is what's published. Therefore, I'd like to say I'm sorry that I cannot take further time to respond to ever-changing and ever-morphing ideas that fall under the protection of the CVM disclaimer. I will continue to address published ideas that people in the church are reading. Until your conversational ideas that virtually render open theism non-open theism get published, I find no compulsion to devote much time to them. If you publish your CVM protected conversational ideas  , then I will address them in the published realm. If John Sanders or Greg Boyd or any of the other open theists publish your ideas, that run counter to their own already published ideas, grounded upon already published foundational assumptions that utterly reject and repudiate compatibilism, then I will address those published ideas. Others have already published critiques of Greg Boyd's published mutating ideas in which he argues that God sometimes goes against his so-called "covenant of non-coercion" and actually coerces people. I have yet to read any published response from Greg Boyd in which he offers a serious response to non-open theist critiques of his view that God occasionally coerces people.
I'll watch my e-mail box for a note from you. 'Til then. . . .
Actually, you do not agree with what I have said concerning Isaiah 10. You version of "compatibilism" is not mine. Tom is correct. I have demonstrated that Isaiah 10:5-19 makes it clear that God ordained the whole affair the passage presents. God ordained that the Assyrian should be boastful and arrogant and that the Assyrian would do precisely what he wickedly intended to do and that what he wickedly intended to do was precisely what God purposed to be done. Otherwise, Isaiah 10:5-19 would have to state the whole affair fundamentally different from what it says. The point of the passage is that the Assyrian did exactly what God ordained that he should do and that God held him fully accountable for the wicked way that he carried out what God ordained that he should carry out. This is biblical and Christian compatibilism. Indeed, it is a mystery. Though the Bible leads us to confess that God ordained whatever comes to pass, including the wicked deeds of wicked individuals, the Bible offers no philosophically satisfying explanation of how God does this without also being culpable for the wickedness that his creatures carry out just as he ordained that they should. I do not believe these things because of philosophical reasons. I believe these things because Scripture requires me to believe them. God's Word governs my beliefs; philosophical reasoning does not. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/24/2003 3:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: Bottom line, Polycarp. Your essential point is NOT MADE with this text. It is completely explainable within an open view framework. I would have thought that someone else would have clearly seen this and dealt with this forthrightly. Oh, well.
Tom: I did. I argued precisely what you argued here.
Mephi: What an open view theist would say in contrast to you is the following: It is possible that the Assyrian king’s arrogant, ungodly nature was NOT primarily orchestrated and solidified God, but that God USED that solidified nasty character in a COMPATIBILISTIC fashion! That’s all.
Tom: Indeed. I said this very thing pages ago. But it is not enough for theological determinists, as you surely know. The decree is exhaustive and unconditional. It embraces the Assyrian king’s arrogance unconditionally. I could be wrong, but after following threads closely here since the day we started, and talking with determinists, and reading their stuff, I’m convinced that THE issue is: Divine Unconditionality.
You’re perfectly right in what you argue about Isa. 10. I said the same thing in agreeing with Polycarp that this passage was an example of God working compatibilitistically and suggesting that there was every reason to believe across the board that God does not relate “exclusively” to us compatibilitically. But here’s the thing. Even though you and I agree to call Isa. 10 compatibilism, it doesn’t bring us ANY closer to Polycarp. We are NOT in truth agreeing with him on Isa. 10 when we admit this is God working compatibilistically. Why? Because you and I admit conditionality into God’s decision to so act, whereas Polycarp can never admit conditionality into God’s decrees. You and I believe in “conditional compatibilism” where morally responsibility is to remain in tack. Polycarp denies this for it admits conditions into the decrees of God and that cannot be. True, we also admit “unconditional compatibilism” (which is the only kind Polycarp recognizes), but ever here we disagree with Polycarp, for we argue that in such cases agents are not held morally responsible. Polycarp, as you must know, admits only one type of compatibilitsm, “unconditional” compatibilism, and argues as well that agents remain morally responsible throughout.
When open theists agree that God sometimes works compatibilistically they aren’t in reality agreeing with theological determinists at all. So when you (or I) agree with Polycarp in point after point regarding Isa. 10, in reality we and Polycarp are worlds apart, for behind it all for Polycarp is the unconditional divine decree which embraces everything that happens in Isa. 10, the arrogance of the Assyrian king included, while behind it all for us (Arminians and open theists) there is a conditional decree. And that is the crucial difference.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/24/2003 4:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp, thank you. For real!
Modes, the people have spoken.
WE MUST PUBLISH!
I knew this was comin’ someday. Ok. Ok. I can do this. No fear. No fear.
Just gotta get all my thoughts together. Get all the stuff from the board (Making sure to give credit where due, of course) and my own little notes. Synthesize em. Think of all objections. Do tons of research. Get some ideas down. Get Tom, Doc and others to go over it with a fine toothed comb. Ok. No sweat. No pressure. Sheesh... 
******************************
Tom:
quote:
You’re perfectly right in what you argue about Isa. 10. I said the same thing in agreeing with Polycarp that this passage was an example of God working compatibilitistically and suggesting that there was every reason to believe across the board that God does not relate “exclusively” to us compatibilitically. But here’s the thing. Even though you and I agree to call Isa. 10 compatibilism, it doesn’t bring us ANY closer to Polycarp. We are NOT in truth agreeing with him on Isa. 10 when we admit this is God working compatibilistically. Why? Because you and I admit conditionality into God’s decision to so act, whereas Polycarp can never admit conditionality into God’s decrees. You and I believe in “conditional compatibilism” where morally responsibility is to remain in tack. Polycarp denies this for it admits conditions into the decrees of God and that cannot be. True, we also admit “unconditional compatibilism” (which is the only kind Polycarp recognizes), but ever here we disagree with Polycarp, for we argue that in such cases agents are not held morally responsible. Polycarp, as you must know, admits only one type of compatibilitsm, “unconditional” compatibilism, and argues as well that agents remain morally responsible throughout.
When open theists agree that God sometimes works compatibilistically they aren’t in reality agreeing with theological determinists at all. So when you (or I) agree with Polycarp in point after point regarding Isa. 10, in reality we and Polycarp are worlds apart, for behind it all for Polycarp is the unconditional divine decree which embraces everything that happens in Isa. 10, the arrogance of the Assyrian king included, while behind it all for us (Arminians and open theists) there is a conditional decree. And that is the crucial difference.
I hear ya. Open view theists admit to there being TWO types of compatibilism whereas theological determinists, for the most part, only admit to ONE type. And this goes back to the open view believing in the existence of SOME indeterminacy to God. I’d agree.
But we must notice something. And I said this before on this board. It’s quite obvious that in the currently published works, the fact that open view theism is able to allow for ANY type of compatibilism by God is RADICALLY downplayed. I think Polycarp is dead on right here. As you know, Tom, to the extent that one plays us the existence of EITHER TYPE of compatibilism in the open view framework, it LESSENS the power of the theodicy. Doc didn’t care for this very much, as I recall.
But that doesn’t matter. If open view theism is to truly be preserved and respected as a viable theological position, we’ve GOT to admit some of this stuff IN BOOKS. You hearin’ me, Doc???
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/24/2003 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp:
quote:
Actually, you do not agree with what I have said concerning Isaiah 10. You version of "compatibilism" is not mine. Tom is correct. I have demonstrated that Isaiah 10:5-19 makes it clear that God ordained the whole affair the passage presents. God ordained that the Assyrian should be boastful and arrogant and that the Assyrian would do precisely what he wickedly intended to do and that what he wickedly intended to do was precisely what God purposed to be done. Otherwise, Isaiah 10:5-19 would have to state the whole affair fundamentally different from what it says. The point of the passage is that the Assyrian did exactly what God ordained that he should do and that God held him fully accountable for the wicked way that he carried out what God ordained that he should carry out. This is biblical and Christian compatibilism. Indeed, it is a mystery. Though the Bible leads us to confess that God ordained whatever comes to pass, including the wicked deeds of wicked individuals, the Bible offers no philosophically satisfying explanation of how God does this without also being culpable for the wickedness that his creatures carry out just as he ordained that they should. I do not believe these things because of philosophical reasons. I believe these things because Scripture requires me to believe them. God's Word governs my beliefs; philosophical reasoning does not.
Polycarp, do you really not see that you are bringing metaphysical assumptions to the text? Do you really think that we can read Scripture without bringing any metaphysical assumptions to the text? EVERYONE brings philosophical reasoning to Scriptural interpretation. But not everyone notices it. And not everyone is deliberate about EXAMINING their own presuppositions. This is just like Biblical Hermeneutics 101. EVERYONE brings presuppositions to a text (cultural, theological, etc). And a conscientious student will take the time to ANALYZE and acknowledge here OWN presuppositions before hand, to make adjustments and allowances for that. Only THEN can the “hermeneutical spiral” not turn into a VICIOUS one. Just like there is a hermeutical spiral in operation with interpreation, there is a PHILOSOPHICAL spiral there too. One can let the text stand as is, bring CONSCIOUSLY THOUGHT OUT metaphysical ideas to the text, and by way of hypothesis, see which ideas help reconcile more biblical data than others. It’s the same principle, sir.
About Isaiah 10. It seems that you believe that there is only ONE TYPE of compatibilism by which God can act. But there is NO BIBLICAL GROUNDS for you saying this. And I know there aren’t any philosophical grounds to do so. All Isaiah 10:5-19 needs is the FRAMEWORK of compatibilistic action. NOT YOUR SPECIFIC TYPE. Either type would work! The hardest part of my take I can see right now is to convince certain people that there actually are TWO TYPES of compatibilism that can fit MANY of the Scriptures of the Bible. (Make a SERIOUS note, Modes, my man…) And the existence of BOTH TYPES are compatible with open view theism.
It’s not as mysterious as you may think, Polycarp. But give me some time. Maybe I can convince you of that.
Thanks,
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/24/2003 4:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: It’s quite obvious that in the currently published works, the fact that open view theism is able to allow for ANY type of compatibilism by God is RADICALLY downplayed.
Tom: ANY type? I can think of one type which is incomptabile with the open view (and all forms of libertarianism), and that is the particular form of compatibilism argued for by Polycarp and other theoloigcal determinists, namely, unconditionally determined acts for which the agents are held morally responsible.
Totally lookin forward to October!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/24/2003 4:58 AM (GMT -6) | | An Aside: Thoughts on Publishing.
Polycarp said:
quote:
I'm going to continue to devote my time to published works where published open theists will have to defend their published views, recant their published views, or openly modify their published views. They cannot morph their published views as easily, as quickly, or as furtively as goes on in this forum. What counts is what's published.
I’ve thought about this. Why is it so hard for people to revamp or significantly recant their own published views? I suppose it may be a money issue or whatever. I mean, if we really do think of our discovery of truth as progressive, it should be ASSUMED that one newly discovered fact may render TOMES of work obsolete. That’s just the way the ball bounces.
But I don’t get what the problem is…perhaps, I am too into an “IF” mentality…
If by Ruyard Kipling
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - what is more - you'll be a Man my son!
I’m like screw it. We make mistakes. Admit em and move on. But then again, I guess I’m not making a LIVING off of my work like that. This is some people's livlihood we are talking about here. Oh, well, I say. There’s ALWAYS McDonald’s hiring. 
Heh.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/24/2003 5:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: See what I’m saying?
Tom: I'm tooootally trackin!
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/24/2003 5:46 AM (GMT -6) | | The fact that I'm responding to this note, MephEternal, does not imply that I will continue to post notes. I simply cannot take valuable time from life's demands to do so. But, I shall respond to this one note because of the content it bears. Otherwise, my correspondence with you will have to be via private e-mail as time permits.
quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Polycarp:
quote:
Actually, you do not agree with what I have said concerning Isaiah 10. You version of "compatibilism" is not mine. Tom is correct. I have demonstrated that Isaiah 10:5-19 makes it clear that God ordained the whole affair the passage presents. God ordained that the Assyrian should be boastful and arrogant and that the Assyrian would do precisely what he wickedly intended to do and that what he wickedly intended to do was precisely what God purposed to be done. Otherwise, Isaiah 10:5-19 would have to state the whole affair fundamentally different from what it says. The point of the passage is that the Assyrian did exactly what God ordained that he should do and that God held him fully accountable for the wicked way that he carried out what God ordained that he should carry out. This is biblical and Christian compatibilism. Indeed, it is a mystery. Though the Bible leads us to confess that God ordained whatever comes to pass, including the wicked deeds of wicked individuals, the Bible offers no philosophically satisfying explanation of how God does this without also being culpable for the wickedness that his creatures carry out just as he ordained that they should. I do not believe these things because of philosophical reasons. I believe these things because Scripture requires me to believe them. God's Word governs my beliefs; philosophical reasoning does not.
Polycarp, do you really not see that you are bringing metaphysical assumptions to the text? Do you really think that we can read Scripture without bringing any metaphysical assumptions to the text? EVERYONE brings philosophical reasoning to Scriptural interpretation. But not everyone notices it. And not everyone is deliberate about EXAMINING their own presuppositions. This is just like Biblical Hermeneutics 101. EVERYONE brings presuppositions to a text (cultural, theological, etc). And a conscientious student will take the time to ANALYZE and acknowledge here OWN presuppositions before hand, to make adjustments and allowances for that. Only THEN can the “hermeneutical spiral” not turn into a VICIOUS one. Just like there is a hermeutical spiral in operation with interpreation, there is a PHILOSOPHICAL spiral there too. One can let the text stand as is, bring CONSCIOUSLY THOUGHT OUT metaphysical ideas to the text, and by way of hypothesis, see which ideas help reconcile more biblical data than others. It’s the same principle, sir.
Indeed, I evaluate my presuppositions and seek to correct any flawed assumptions every time I engage the Bible. This is precisely why the Bible's evidence brought me to conversion. I'm talking about radical conversion from what I once believed about how God relates to humans. I was as subject to natural beliefs about God and about how he relates to humans as any other sinful human. I was subject to much inferior preaching and teaching for years. I found in the Bible precisely what preachers, teachers, and I wanted to find in the Bible. I found support for my beliefs in the autonomy of human freedom, namely libertarian freedom. Yet, the Bible would not let me rest in my twisting and turning of the Scriptures to suit my fancy. The Bible fought against my preconceptions and assumptions. I fought the Bible's portrayal of God, just as many on this forum continue to do. My problem, of course, was that I carried a whole boatload of presuppositions about how God relates to humans, and those assumptions were conceived in my sinfully corrupted thoughts. It was not until the Bible continually clashed with my ideas and countered my philosophically conceived assumptions that my concept of God crashed to the ground in a thousand incoherent and disconnected pieces. At last I found true freedom, freedom to think of God and of myself the way the Bible portrays him and me. God is on the throne, and I am not. God's Word bent my knee to acknowledge that God ordained everything that comes to pass and that God's ordination in no way violates human choice or exonerates human accountability in any choice we make. (Yes, the Bible portrays one kind of compatibility between God's actions and ours.)
So, if you are going to question whether or not I am aware that I carry in my own thinking what you call "metaphysical assumptions," perhaps you can explain why and how I became converted to think as I do now, when I formerly thought radically different, much more like you now think. Perhaps you can explain how I have come to think about God 180 degrees differently from how I used to think. If I were an unreflective and blank-minded person, as your questions imply I am, then I would never have become converted to believe as I now do.
There was a time when I did not subject my assumptions to the claims of Scripture. When I took that posture, I believed much like an open theist believes. Now I do subject my assumptions to the evidence of Scripture, and I believe radically different and contrary to the natural inclinations of the human heart. So, indeed, I'm quite conscious of my foundational beliefs, beliefs that Scripture itself has shaped and established. I'm quite aware of what you call "metaphysical assumptions" that I bring to the text. It is the Bible's text that has shaped these beliefs that you call "metaphysical assumptions." Do you suppose I'm foolish? Why would you pose the questions as you do, as if I were a blank and unreflective mind? You asked your questions as if the thing you ask were in fact true of me.
quote:
Polycarp, do you really not see that you are bringing metaphysical assumptions to the text? Do you really think that we can read Scripture without bringing any metaphysical assumptions to the text?
Why ask the questions this way? I will grant you the benefit of the doubt that you did not intend to insult me. Nevertheless, your questions, as they stand, assume that I am an unreflective person who gives little or no thought to critique and to correct my own preconceptions and assumptions. Every person who knows me well knows that I am quite self-reflective and constantly weighing very carefully my own beliefs as I measure them with the canon, the Word of God. This, in fact, is what most people who know me well would point out as one of my chief characteristics. I thought you might like to know.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/24/2003 6:15 AM (GMT -6) | | First of all, I appreciate you bringing your personal history into this discussion. I’m grateful for the transparency. I mean that. Moreover, I’m glad that you’ve given me the benefit of the doubt on that statement. I assure you that it wasn’t meant to insult at all. I’d be making myself look bad doing that, now wouldn’t I?
When you made the statement:
quote:
I do not believe these things because of philosophical reasons. I believe these things because Scripture requires me to believe them. God's Word governs my beliefs; philosophical reasoning does not.
I took this as meaning that you actually thought that your interpreation and understanding of God’s word didn’t have to do with philosophical reasoning. Usually, when I have heard this in the past, it dealt with people not acknowledging their presuppositions. It would appear that I erroneously attributed this to you and I sincerely apologize. That’s my bad.
Now…I would like to suggest something.
I would like to suggest that it is POSSIBLE to look at Scripture and arrive at the SAME CONVICTION about God’s glory being central, God’s unthwarted deterministic activity in history, and God’s using sentient being for God’s own ends that you have gained…and STILL be an open theist.
It…IS…possible.
I’m willing to agree with you that a significant amount of open view theism seems to downplay these things. But that is not the fault of the ESSENTIAL VIEW ITSELF.
If I could demonstrate to you, by some means, that it is really NOT an either/or situation, but a BOTH/AND, would you believe me? If I were to show you how it could genuinely be the case that compatibilism (2 types) AND indeterminacy can exist in the same framework, would you believe me? If I could show that this really DOES solve biblical issues for BOTH SIDES, would you believe me?
Well, I guess I’ll have to see when it’s in book form, yes?
Thanks,
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Kenya
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 8/24/2003 4:24 PM (GMT -6) | | I have a question that I'd mostly like to ask mepheternal (hoping to not run into honorman). Are there any mainstream evangelicals who believe in open theism? I have struggled with this belief for a bit and because it has been on my mind, every time I read a book lately (I do alot of reading since I like it and I am a student), I see that the author talks about God being "in control" and God knowing the future (everything!) and things that are very opposite open theism. I just read a book by Bill Bright called "God" where he talks about the attributes of God. Believe me, they are opposite of what an open theist person believes. So many other of the main evangelical men and women who have established really strong reputations as Bible scholars and devoted, intelligent preachers and writers do not teach anything close to open theism. I haven't seen any who believe anything like open theism and I was wondering if there are any? I know that Greg Boyd is a pasotr, but he is not known like Bill Bright or Billy Graham who are known all over the nation and the world. Also, these men don't just talk about one thing, like the men who talk about open theism only talk about open theism. I never even heard of Greg Boyd before someone told me about him because of open theism. And the other men, I have never heard of them either. And hardly anybody I know of at my church has ever heard of Greg Boyd or open theism. But they all know who Bill Bright and Josh McDowell and all those other influential leaders are. I don't know of any of them who believe or teach anything like open theism. Personally, I think that says something.
Oh, and what do you think of these people? Are they all wrong and messing people up? I will mention all the names I can think of of people who I KNOW don't believe in open theism and would probably say it is wrong.
Bill Bright, Billy Graham, Josh McDowell, Charles Stanley, James D. Kennedy, Elizabeth Elliot, Corrie ten Boom (if she were alive), Jim Elliot (if alive), D.L. Moody (if alive), Charles Swindoll, John McArthur, Charles Stanley, Tony Evans, Chuck Colson, Beth Moore, James McDonald, Henry Blackeby, Luis Palau, Bill Hybels, Oswald Chambers (if alive), Joseph Stowell. That is all that come to mind right now. Even that guy who is really popular right now- John Eldridge. I think he sounds like he is kinda open theist, but he said that he is not.
You don't even know how much I respect men and women like these, people who've been missionaries, pastors, authors, speakers, evangelists and they have impacted the world so amazingly. It is really hard for me to suddenly embrace open theism when none of them do. It is really hard for me to accept what you say over what they say. It is really hard especially because I've read in here and there is alot of ugliness as far as how people treat people and so that right there really turns me off period. I don't see the fruit of the Holy Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness...) in people like honorman. Why would I not believe someone as good and loving as Bill Bright, who gave his life to God until the day he died, over someone who is rude and insulting? I just don't see the fruit of this belief and I don't see the leaders of our times believing it either. So that bothers me and says to me that there is something not right about open theism. I'm not really basing it on all the intellectual arguments. I can't even understand most of what you guys are saying. But I do base alot of it on the fruit that I see in people's lives. And most of what I have heard or read since finding out about open theism has really been against it and the people who've talked agaisnt it are men and women who are very godfearing, knowledgeable people. They are also people who really study the Bible and I just can't believe that they are all missing what it is that you guys teach. Not only that, but every time I read the Bible, I read a verse and think, "That is totally opposite what open theist people teach!" So, I have decided that my first instincts were right. My first instincts when I heard of open theism were, "What? It sounds fishy." | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/24/2003 5:34 PM (GMT -6) | | | (SMILE>>>HI< Kenya>>>you ran into me!!!) A question for you: are main stream evangelicals perfect? Do you base your beliefs on them or on what scripture teaches? Every single person you named is fallible. It ain't what peopple believe. Its what God taught.in his word, not theirs. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/24/2003 5:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | Mephi: again, I want to give you serious props for your posts. Man, to stick your neck out there when you may not agree to get others to wake up to an idea so foreign to them its almost useless to do so shows incredible love. I much appreciate it. Doin' the bridging. Thats what its all about... | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/24/2003 5:41 PM (GMT -6) | | | Polycarp: God works through you. Nobody leaves their personality behind. God saved you. Radical change. But that don't mean your interpretation is right, just like it don't mean mind is just because God changed me. Look at Peter. With the Lord all that time still made major mistakes. We all make mistakes sometime in interpretation. I don't believe we get saved and suddenly we get out of your old ways totally. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/24/2003 5:43 PM (GMT -6) | | | Tom: you done hit the nail on the head so many times the nails completely through the other side... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Rpeterso
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 8/24/2003 6:27 PM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal:
“But what I’m saying is that it appears that much open view correspondence doesn’t want to make way for unconditionally determined acts dealing with sentient beings AT ALL. Like God NEVER can or DOES do that. That God NEVER works by unconditional exhaustive determination in ANY case. From what I see, they don't even deal with the SECOND type of compatibilism much.”
Rpeterso:
It seems to me that if Open Theism were to concede and affirm the intelligibility of human freedom and God-determined interactions (compatibilism) at any instance within the biblical narrative, then the entire argument would fail and be essentially deemed ineffectual. From my understanding, the primary reason why Open Theists rejected compatibilism in the first place was that it is logically inconsistent just as the coupling of exhaustive definite foreknowledge and libertarian freedom; for the underlying predication of Open Theism is a pronouncement that the rules of logic and scripture cohere in a meaningful and lucid fashion. This is precisely why Calvinism (compatibilism) and Arminiamism (simple foreknowledge) are discarded by Open Theists. Naturally then, any concession of contradictory and/or paradoxical conceptions by an open theist would entirely cut the legs right out from under the entire line of reasoning. Why not just affirm compatibilism straight across the board then?
Ryan
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 8/24/2003 6:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Kenya,
You've got to see that the nature of the future is not the ONLY thing that Open Theists address. I have downloaded several of Dr. Boyd's sermons and I have never actually heard him mention "Open Theism." To me the fundamental distinction in Evangelicalism is between those who hold to a deterministic understanding of God's sovereignity (D. James Kennedy, Sproul, Piper, John MacAuthor, Bruce Ware, Carl Henry, etc.) and those who hold to a definition of God's sovereignity that makes room for man's free will (Bill Craig, J P Moreland, Dallas Willard, John Sanders, Greg Boyd, etc) I have always agreed with Dr Boyd that "the question of the openness of the future is an in-house Arminian discussion on how to render the free will defense most coherent, biblical, and credible." (SATPOE pg 87)Further, he gives several big name Christian scholars who present versions of the Open View of the future, including Richard Swinburne, Stephen Davis, Richard Foster, J R Lucas, Peter Geach and Vincent Brummer. These guys ain't no slouches...
Here is what John Eldridge says in "Wild at Heart" quote:
God's relationship with us and with our world is just that: a relationship. As with every relationship, there's a certain amount of unpredictability, and the ever present likelihood that you'll get hurt. The ultimate risk anyone ever takes is to love... Yet as John Sanders says, God's own character "keeps him in the game despite the risk." God's willingness to risk is just astounding- far beyond what any of us would do were we in his position. (pg32)
Sounds like Elderidge and Dr. Boyd would get along great...
Hope that this somewhat answered your question.
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/25/2003 2:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Rpeterso
It seems to me that if Open Theism were to concede and affirm the intelligibility of human freedom and God-determined interactions (compatibilism) at any instance within the biblical narrative, then the entire argument would fail and be essentially deemed ineffectual.
Iconoclast
Open Theism says that where compatibilism is operating free-will is not. Calvinism says that it is all black (total compatibilism) Open Theism is NOT saying that it is all white (total free-will) just that it is NOT all black. All Open Theism has to show is one reasonable example of a person NOT doing God's will to show that it is NOT all black. If God compatibilistically made Peter deny Him but still allowed Peter enough free-will choices to actually choose for or against God then that is enough.
thanks,
Iconoclast
Iconoclast,
You said, "Open Theism says that where compatibilism is operating free-will is not." Now, if this is meaningful and communicates anything coherent, it means that whenever God relates to a creature in a manner that could be called "compatibilism," then the human is not operating freely.
You also said, "If God compatibilistically made Peter deny Him but still allowed Peter enough free-will choices to actually choose for or against God then that is enough." Please explain how this statement can cohere in any consistent manner with your statement above. Your statement above rules out compatibilism, because you think compatibilism destroys free-will. I'm puzzled. Can you help me understand? From where I read your two statements, they contradict one another.
Remember one of the favorite expressions that Greg Boyd taught open theists to use to expose the alleged contradiction inherent in compatibilism? I refer to the one about "square circles." It seems to me that you have made two contrary assertions:
A. "Wherever circles are round, they cannot be square." ["Open Theism says that where compatibilism is operating free-will is not."]
B. "Occasionally where circles are round, they can also be square." ["If God compatibilistically made Peter deny Him but still allowed Peter enough free-will choices to actually choose for or against God then that is enough."]
So, which is it? It seems apparent that your second assertion contradicts your first, unless I am profoundly lacking understanding.
BTW, you stated precisely what I have already said, in my Isaiah 10 posts, is the linch-pin assumption of open theism. I agree with you that "Open Theism says that where compatibilism is operating free-will is not." This is an accurate and succinct statement that gets to the essence of open theism's foundational assumption.
P.S. I will leave, for now, your understanding of Calvinism and compatibilism through your grid which distorts both.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/25/2003 4:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp: …the linch-pin assumption of open theism. I agree with you that "Open Theism says that where compatibilism is operating free-will is not." This is an accurate and succinct statement that gets to the essence of open theism's foundational assumption.
Tom: I wonder, Polycarp, if you realize that this assumption of open theism is one and the same with traditional Arminianism. Both affirm libertarian free will and deny compatibilistic free will. Does this not mean your comments about open theists needing to repent and drinking from poisoned wells include non-open theists who affirm libertarian free will as well as open theists? If not, in what sense do any of your fundamental arguments in this thread apply to open theists alone?
Just thinking out loud (correct me if I’m wrong). My hunch is that you don’t think traditional Arminians who affirm libertarian free will, for example, ought to leave the ETS, though I’m guessing you feel open theists should leave. So it can’t be libertarian free will alone that is responsible for your believing open theists need to repent and ought to leave the ETS. This is interesting, for all that you have argued for from Isa. 10 against the open view militates equally against all Arminians who also affirm libertarian free will.
I think John Sanders is right when he says that the entire debate surrounding the open view turns very little on what sort of knowledge God is believed to possess and entirely upon what sort of sovereignty God is believed to exercise. There are several contributing factors that explain why theological determinists cannot now move to oust Arminians from evangelicalism, but I wonder if the fact that in spite of their affirming free will Arminians continue to espouse a model of the blueprint worldview places them closer to Calvinists than to open theists where it really matters for Calvinists, namely, sovereignty. Just thinking out loud.
Now, obviously people who affirm libertarian free will (open viewers and Arminians alike) are going to claim that where God is working compatibilistically, libertarian free will is not. No surprise there and nothing to uniquely incriminate open theists. This is because libertarian free will is believed to be finite. Over time it gives way to compatibilistic free will. But you knew that. Still, the point to keep in mind is that one can affirm libertarian free will and maintain that God sometimes works compatibilistically AND that agents remain morally responsible in such circumstances IF the agents themselves are responsible for resolving themselves into a compatibilistic state via the exercise of libertarian free will.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/25/2003 4:34 AM (GMT -6) | | I agree with Meph that open theists need to publish. We need two things: 1) We need a couple popular level books (like Greg’s God of the Possible) to clear up issues and introduce refinements and new arguments, and 2) we need to establish a regular Journal of Open Theism. The Open Letter was nice and should continue at a popular level, but it’s time for something more formal.
Anybody got a lot of money to endow the Journal of Open Theism? Or save by keeping it digital.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 4:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Kenya,
Thanks for your correspondence. You really put it out there. I ‘preciate it. I’ll try to reply best as I can…
The first thing is that I would agree with you that, many times, it is NOT the intellectual arguments of different people that really help draw people, but the SPIRIT and FAITH in which those people live. I TRULY hope that people who read this board are hearing this. The most sophisticated philosophical arguments for a Christian belief mean little when they are couched in divisive, mean-spirited language. Could it be that some arguments just don’t get HEARD because of the condescending or dismissive tone in which they are stated? Probably so. Anyways, thanks for bringing this out. Theologians, lay and professional. Let’s take heed to this!
Second, let’s deal with the fact of diversity within the body of Christ. Historically speaking, Kenya, Christianity has NOT be unified on all beliefs at all times. There is a diverse amount of opinions upon many theological subjects like creation, sin, final states, etc. And the truth is that all of these beliefs can be held by sincere, God-loving, God-fearing people that just want to honor God. Make no mistake that there are some sheisters out there. But it really is possible that people can, in good faith and will, come to an irreconcilable disagreement. Think about Paul and Barnabas…and how THEY separated. Should we think that they loved each other any less just because they had a difference of opinion so serious that they had to separate? Should we say that God used either person ANY LESS because they weren’t unified on all things? I don’t think so on either count. I think it’s very unfortunate that people on BOTH SIDES of the open view discussion can’t honestly PRAY TOGETHER and understand that NEITHER SIDE is essentially trying to disrespect God or make God LESS WORTHY of worship. It would be NICE if they could grant each other some serious sense of good will instead of automatically thinking them ignorant or demonically DECEIVED. Oh, well. My main point is this, Kenya: just because a person holds a minority belief theologically does NOT necessarily mean that they are not being just as diligent or studious with the Scriptures or earnest in prayer. Differences do occur. And the majority is NOT always right. And if we can actually get more CHRIST-LIKE, perhaps we can truly major on the majors and skip all the nonsense.
Third, open view theism, contrary to popular belief, doesn’t HAVE to be taken as some idea the inherently DEMEANS God. There’s been far too much unhelpful rhetoric on both sides. There is a middle ground that both allows for some things to be inherently in the hands of created beings while not denying the sovereign, determinative power of God. If you stick around, maybe you’ll hear something that will convince you of this. Maybe not. But hey, it’s something to do, right?
Finally, if you don’t jive with open view theism, then don’t take it. Fine with me. Don’t stress. I would much rather you concentrate your efforts and energy on loving God, loving your neighbor as yourself, and living in the grace of God in Christ than trying to figure out whether or not God knows the future anyways. Just being completely honest. Keep the MAIN THINGS the main things. I don’t think when you stand before God that it will matter so MUCH whether you believed in free will or not as much as you remaining faithful to your CALL and PLACE in Christ.
Gotta go. Thanks for listening.
Holla,
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/25/2003 5:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Polycarp: …the linch-pin assumption of open theism. I agree with you that "Open Theism says that where compatibilism is operating free-will is not." This is an accurate and succinct statement that gets to the essence of open theism's foundational assumption.
Tom: I wonder, Polycarp, if you realize that this assumption of open theism is one and the same with traditional Arminianism. Both affirm libertarian free will and deny compatibilistic free will. Does this not mean your comments about open theists needing to repent and drinking from poisoned wells include non-open theists who affirm libertarian free will as well as open theists? If not, in what sense do any of your fundamental arguments in this thread apply to open theists alone?
Just thinking out loud (correct me if I’m wrong). My hunch is that you don’t think traditional Arminians who affirm libertarian free will, for example, ought to leave the ETS, though I’m guessing you feel open theists should leave. So it can’t be libertarian free will alone that is responsible for your believing open theists need to repent and ought to leave the ETS. This is interesting, for all that you have argued for from Isa. 10 against the open view militates equally against all Arminians who also affirm libertarian free will.
I think John Sanders is right when he says that the entire debate surrounding the open view turns very little on what sort of knowledge God is believed to possess and entirely upon what sort of sovereignty God is believed to exercise. There are several contributing factors that explain why theological determinists cannot now move to oust Arminians from evangelicalism, but I wonder if the fact that in spite of their affirming free will Arminians continue to espouse a model of the blueprint worldview places them closer to Calvinists than to open theists where it really matters for Calvinists, namely, sovereignty. Just thinking out loud.
Now, obviously people who affirm libertarian free will (open viewers and Arminians alike) are going to claim that where God is working compatibilistically, libertarian free will is not. No surprise there and nothing to uniquely incriminate open theists. This is because libertarian free will is believed to be finite. Over time it gives way to compatibilistic free will. But you knew that. Still, the point to keep in mind is that one can affirm libertarian free will and maintain that God sometimes works compatibilistically AND that agents remain morally responsible in such circumstances IF the agents themselves are responsible for resolving themselves into a compatibilistic state via the exercise of libertarian free will.
Tom
Indeed, I'm quite aware that Arminianism, in its present and dominant form, subscribes to the same basic undemonstrated and unchallenged assumption: "Wherever compatibilism exists, human freedom does not exist." I've been around for awhile, so that I've learned a few things, even theological things. [No Arminian, however, that I have read ever makes a case that occasionally God violates human freedom, as some open theists argue, so that humans are not accountable for those actions they took under such circumstances.]
Since you're just "thinking out loud" and working on "a hunch," I will leave you to continue as you are, except to say that you have not given accurate expression to my thoughts. Apparently "reading minds" is not one of your gifts. Whatever I think about open theists in relation to the ETS conflict will remain privately mine. However, I think you would be surprised, if you actually could get into my mind to know my thoughts. Want to take another go at trying to read my mind? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 5:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok. Let’s do a brief take here.
Free will: Occurs when any deliberated agency is initiated from the agent alone ON EVERY METAPHYSICAL LEVEL SAVE EXISTENCE.
Compatibilism: Occurs when any deliberated agency is initiated from the agent, but NOT from that agent alone ON EVERY METAPHYSICAL LEVEL SAVE EXISTENCE
[Note: Important to note that “save existence” part. If we are to truly say that God upholds ALL CREATION by the countenance of God’s word and power, than that means that God is operating with us all confluently on the level of existence!!]
Ok. If we look here, then we easily see why, ON THESE DESCRIPTIONS, free will and compatibilism cannot co-exist at the same time in the same being in the same event. And notice that the description of compatibilism allows for the TWO distinct types.
Polycarp, this what I’d like you to understand. If you do already, excuse the redundancy. Open view theists don’t see freedom of will as just agent self-efficacy and event initiation. They don’t see freedom of will as just an agent doing what THEY want to from who they are. Open view theists see freedom of will as agent self-efficacy that comes SOLELY from that agent. This is not saying that the agent is not influenced by external things…even God. But it is saying that on THIS metaphysical issue, there is a genuine AUTONOMY, or ontological distinction rather, of created sentient beings from God. [Note: I heighten the “this metaphysical issue” because, of course, God upholds ALL THINGS by the countenance of his power.]
Let’s just forget about the moral culpability things for right now. Let’s just get this. THIS is the reason why they want to say that it’s CONTRADICTION that free will and compatibilism can coexist in the same being at the same time with respect to the same event. Either the agent is acting COMPLETELY ALONE on all relevant metaphysical levels or the agent is NOT.
Let’s discuss this. Does this make sense?
| | Back to Top | | |
| 176 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:25 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 |
|
|