 |
| 
RevMark
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 1
| Posted 8/13/2003 5:36 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hello All,
I've been lurking for sometime. I recently read "God of The Possible" and really enjoy Dr. Boyd's writings. I agree they describe what most Christians believe anyway.
I've found myself defending many of the charges against the Open View in a couple of forums where I "live" on the internet among rabid Calvinists. I have continuously come against the misconceptions. But my knowledge of the literature is pretty much limited to Dr. Boyd's writings, which I find very satisfying and quite scriptural. I have noticed that there seems to be a lot of confusion between the "Open View" and "Open Process Theology" which seem to me to be two very different things, the latter being quite outside scripture.
The following was posted by a virulent Calvinist who openly mocks the Open View. It's from a primary source I have not heard of though I know well the secondary source of Douglas Wilson.
Would like to get you guys (and possibly Doc's) take on it. Was the Cross foreseen by God, or was it a "reaction" to the fall of man...a "Plan B" of sorts. Following is the quote from the virulent fellow. Suffice it to say I edited to only include the "nicer" parts...lol
Thanks,
RevMark
************************************************
You would think that the Open Theists would get it if it were such a stupid question, but they actually believe the Father never saw the death of the Son coming.
// In the Openness scheme God Jesus did not - could not - know
// beforehand that He would be called to die for sinners. Sanders
// unashamedly reconstructs the events leading up to and surrounding
// Christ's death to portray both Father and Son deciding only at the
// last minute that Jesus had to die. "Although Scripture attests that
// the incarnation was planned from the creation of the world, this is
// not so with the cross. The path of the cross comes about only
// through God's interaction with humans in history." Not until the
// agonizing prayer in Gethsemane do "Father and Son . . . both come to
// understand that there is no other way." Even after this new
// discovery comes to God, the question still hangs over Jesus, "Will
// this gambit work?"
- Thomas K. Ascol, "Pastoral Implications of Open Theism," _Bound Only Once: The Failure of Open Theism_, ed. Douglas Wilson (Moscow, ID: Canon, 2001) 180-81. Quotations from John Sanders are attributed to _The God Who Risks_ (Downer's Grove: InterVarsity, 1998) 100-01.
And there you have one of the MAJOR problems with the Open Theism heresy. According to Open Theists, even the Father and the Son had no clue about whether Jesus' death would accomplish anything. How can WE have any confidence in Christ's work if he doesn't?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/13/2003 8:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Funny thing is, even Calvinists have been historically divided into supralapsarian, infralapsarian, and sublapsarian camps. So I don't guess they really have a consensus among them as to precisely when God decided on the Cross as the way of reconciliation, either.
In my experience, most contemporary Calvinists simply attack what they ASSUME are the necessary implications of Open Theism, not what Open Theism actually teaches.
As to "open process theology" I am unaware of that term. I am aware of process theology as well as openness theology, which contemporary Calvinists often confuse. Process theology seems quite similar to Deism to me at least, as in it God is not really free. Open Theism is quite emphatic in its assertion of God's ability to unilaterally intervene in history as well as to powerfully influence the moral choices of mankind (though OVT does not teach that God coerces people in morally responsible decisions, as Calvinism does).
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/13/2003 8:45 AM (GMT -6) | | As I understand it, process theology teaches that God "evolves" along with his creatures- that he learns along with humanity. So the God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of today. The God of the old Testament was similar to the other tribal gods of the time- the people had a rudimentary understanding of science, technology, social progress, etc., and so as society has gotten more and more progressive, God has also grown and changed.
This is far different from Deism - deism is basically that GOd created the world and the universe- started it up like winding a watch - and then disappeared and has no interaction with people, does not intervene, is not person, etc. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/13/2003 9:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi,
I had Modes once tell me that some of the ontotheological concepts employed by Process Theologians and OVTheists are quite similar.
In general, the biggest difference one can observe is that Process Theologians tend to be from "liberal" Christianity, whereas OVTheologians tend to be influenced by "Neo-Evangelical" Christianity, using the term used by Stanley Grenz in "Renewing the Center".
So Process-types emphasize the Kenosis of God and that it is now our responsibility to save the earth, etc., etc., through political activism in many cases.
Process Theology has more bases of operation, whereas OVTheism as part of an "Evangelical" Theology is displace both from secular universities and many Christian Colleges/Universities.
In a link on Dorrien's book "The Remaking of Evangelical Theology", I give a sociological analysis of the Calvinist vituperation against OVTheism, since among USAmerican, White Neo-Evangelicals, which has always been a coalition, Calvinism has traditionally ruled the nest because it was seen as more consistent in its theology than arminianism. Now OVTheism is challenging that consistency and claiming they are more consistent. Thus, by the traditions of the past, this would inevitably lead to a power-shift.
Although, it seems more likely it may cause a schism of sorts in that the views of God's relation to time and Creation are incompatible, and realistically they both can't be right.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/13/2003 12:38 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
As I understand it, process theology teaches that God "evolves" along with his creatures- that he learns along with humanity. So the God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of today. The God of the old Testament was similar to the other tribal gods of the time- the people had a rudimentary understanding of science, technology, social progress, etc., and so as society has gotten more and more progressive, God has also grown and changed.
This is far different from Deism - deism is basically that GOd created the world and the universe- started it up like winding a watch - and then disappeared and has no interaction with people, does not intervene, is not person, etc.
Thank you for clearing that up. Somewhere in the back of my brain that information was there, because I recognized it when you typed it. That said, what I meant about the similarity between Deism and Process Thought was that in Process Thought God is not able to unilaterally act in history.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/13/2003 3:30 PM (GMT -6) | | RevMark,
Im surprise, but it seems that others who have responded to you either have not read John Sanders The God Who Risks or have forgotten what they read. Thomas Ascol correctly quoted John Sanders in his essay, "Pastoral Implications of Open Theism," in Bound Only Once, edited by Douglas Wilson. I'm also surprised that other open theists seem to retreat from what John Sanders says in his book.
Thomas Ascol also correctly represented John Sanders' statements, and accurately understands what Sanders says and means. Here is a fuller quote from The God Who Risks. This is what John Sanders wrote.
“Jesus wrestles with God’s will because he does not believe that everything must happen according to a predetermined plan. Even the Son of God must search and seek for the Father's will, for the Son is not following a script bust is living in dynamic relationship with the Father. Together they determine what the will of God is for this historical situation. Although Scripture attests that the incarnation was planned from the creation of the world, this is not so with the cross. The path of the cross comes about only through God’s interaction with humans in history. Until this moment in history other routes were, perhaps, open. . . . Jesus is in the canoe heading for the falls. There is yet time to get over to shore and portage around the falls. Jesus seeks to determine if that option meets with his Father’s favor. But the canyon narrows even for God” (pp. 100-101).
"Isaac asked Abraham where the lamb was for the offering. Jesus is wondering whether his Father will supply a lamb. God stopped Abraham from offering Isaac, but God will not stop himself from offering his Son. Jesus is the lamb supplied. Providence has taken many a strange and twisting turn on its road to Calvary. In Gethsemane Jesus wonders whether there is another way. But Father and Son, in seeking to accomplish the project, both came to understand that there is no other way. . . . After his session of wrestling with the Father Jesus no longer questions which path to take. Will this gambit work? . . . The notion that the cross was not planned prior to creation will seem scandalous to some readers" (p. 101).
According to John Sanders, the cross was not foreseen, planned, or foreknown by God. The cross came about as God's reaction to human action, late in time, at Gethsemane. John Sanders expressly endorses the idea that God moves from Plan A to Plan B, etc. In his discussion of Exodus 32:31-34, John Sanders says, "God switches from plan A to plan B, saying that the divine presence will not accompany the people. Instead, God will send a messenger (angel). God is worried that if he dwelt in their midst, he would destroy them (33:3). The idea of God moving from one plan to another, is foundational to the whole argument John Sanders presents in The God Who Risks. In fact, this idea seems essential to open theism. Otherwise, why do open theist theologians argue for the idea?
You said,
quote:
And there you have one of the MAJOR problems with the Open Theism heresy. According to Open Theists, even the Father and the Son had no clue about whether Jesus' death would accomplish anything. How can WE have any confidence in Christ's work if he doesn't?
Will the strategem work? This is precisely what gambit means. Thomas Ascol was not mocking when he quoted John Sanders, who raised the question himself by asking, "Will the gambit work?"
If we expect others to fairly and accurately represent us, when we express our theological thoughts and convictions, then we need to be fair and accurate with those with whom we disagree. Thomas Ascol was completely fair to John Sanders with his quotations and comments. John Sanders may not speak for all open theists. Perhaps some or many open theists don't agree with John's presentation of the cross, Gethsemane, and God's plan. But the fact is that John Sanders makes it clear in his book that he believes that God did not plan Jesus' death on the cross until the night before Jesus actually died.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/13/2003 8:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp: Perhaps some or many open theists don't agree with John's presentation of the cross, Gethsemane, and God's plan. But the fact is that John Sanders makes it clear in his book that he believes that God did not plan Jesus' death on the cross until the night before Jesus actually died.
Tom: Modes is right to point out that many, perhaps most, open theists agree God foreknew the cross as certain and inevitable following the decision to create. I'm one of the few who disagrees with this, but that doesn't mean I agree with Sanders that "God didn't plan Jesus' death on the cross until the night before Jesus actually died" (though I doubt Sanders would describe it this way). Doesn't matter. "Certain before creation" and "uncertain until the night of Christ's betrayal" aren't the only two options.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/14/2003 2:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Not to "pile on after the wistele"... but this poorly represents Trinitarian doctrine. (Wouldn't Gregory of Nyssa roll his eyes?)
quote:
Originally posted by Polycarp
Here is a fuller quote from The God Who Risks. This is what John Sanders wrote.
“Jesus wrestles with God’s will because he does not believe that everything must happen according to a predetermined plan. Even the Son of God must search and seek for the Father's will, for the Son is not following a script bust is living in dynamic relationship with the Father. Together they determine what the will of God is for this historical situation. Although Scripture attests that the incarnation was planned from the creation of the world, this is not so with the cross. The path of the cross comes about only through God’s interaction with humans in history. Until this moment in history other routes were, perhaps, open. . . . Jesus is in the canoe heading for the falls. There is yet time to get over to shore and portage around the falls. Jesus seeks to determine if that option meets with his Father’s favor. But the canyon narrows even for God” (pp. 100-101).
"Isaac asked Abraham where the lamb was for the offering. Jesus is wondering whether his Father will supply a lamb. God stopped Abraham from offering Isaac, but God will not stop himself from offering his Son. Jesus is the lamb supplied. Providence has taken many a strange and twisting turn on its road to Calvary. In Gethsemane Jesus wonders whether there is another way. But Father and Son, in seeking to accomplish the project, both came to understand that there is no other way. . . . After his session of wrestling with the Father Jesus no longer questions which path to take. Will this gambit work? . . . The notion that the cross was not planned prior to creation will seem scandalous to some readers" (p. 101).
Jesus wrestled with the reality of his situation: "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me..." But the emphasis needs placed on his suffering. Jesus "took hold of" our humanity personally, and that humanity struggled. But without sin. And without willing--as is the very nature of created humanity--to will communion with God. He did not sin. Yet the suffering compelled his human nature to prefer to have the cup removed (not choose another path).
But the Eternal Son did not wrestle with the Father. They share in the will that has as its source the Father. There is no timing needed for the Son to seek the Father's will. There is no other vommunion besides the Trinitarian for the Son to compare with the divine will that is the product of divine communion, but neither preceed nor follows from that communion in love.
quote:
Originally posted by Polycarp
...John Sanders, who raised the question himself by asking, "Will the gambit work?")
This seems to put much to much emphasis as only on the crucifixion. Christ's suffering inclueded his "taking hold of" our humanity. He became man that we might become, by grace, what God is -- have eternal life by God's grace. He payed the price to the reality of our sin by becoming sin. He became the results of sin--death. (Maximus points out that we sinned but did not "become sin." But Christ "became sin" but did not sin.) I think that to ask "Will the gambit work?" ignores the ongoing project of Christ's being obedient while holding our humanity personally (en-hypostasized, yet it not yet glorified).
The hymns that say--something to the effect--that the devil swallowed flesh and got infinity are great. But our salvation is not "payed" to the devil. Death is trampled down by Christ's death. But it was for that death that he was born!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/14/2003 3:32 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB,
You said,
quote:
Tom: Modes is right to point out that many, perhaps most, open theists agree God foreknew the cross as certain and inevitable following the decision to create. I'm one of the few who disagrees with this, but that doesn't mean I agree with Sanders that "God didn't plan Jesus' death on the cross until the night before Jesus actually died" (though I doubt Sanders would describe it this way). Doesn't matter. "Certain before creation" and "uncertain until the night of Christ's betrayal" aren't the only two options.
Tom
First, your parenthetical statement (though I doubt Sanders would describe it this way.) is odd, at least to me. Why? Because John Sanders does describe it just this way in the quote I posted from his book, The God Who Risks. Here is what John says: "The path of the cross comes about only through God’s interaction with humans in history. Until this moment in history other routes were, perhaps, open. . . . Jesus is in the canoe heading for the falls. There is yet time to get over to shore and portage around the falls. Jesus seeks to determine if that option meets with his Father’s favor. But the canyon narrows even for God. . . . In Gethsemane Jesus wonders whether there is another way. But Father and Son, in seeking to accomplish the project, both came to understand that there is no other way.” (pp. 100-101). The underlined portion makes it clear that John Sanders does describe the matter this way, that "God didn't plan Jesus' death on the cross until the night before Jesus actually died."
Second, you said, "Modes is right to point out that many, perhaps most, open theists agree God foreknew the cross as certain and inevitable following the decision to create." If your description is accurate, I find it quite ironic and odd, since open theism's foundational claim is that God is open to the future precisely because he knows future decisions of sentient beings as possibilities and not as certainties. How can open theists claim that God foreknew the cross as certain and inevitable following the decision to create and at the same time decry and reject the belief that the fall was certain and inevitable? The crucifixion of Jesus involved many people with many individual choices. It was not a mere event. It involved human planning. It seems evident to me that to describe Jesus' death as certain and inevitable following the decision to create, requires the same to be said of the human fall, that Adam's sin was certain and inevitable following the decision to create. Otherwise, God's certain and inevitable plan for Christ's death, "following the decision to create," would have been superfluous and pointless. Why would God plan Jesus' sacrificial death, "following the decision to create," if the fall of humanity was not also certain and inevitable "following the decision to create"? Once open theists begin to claim that anything, including the death of Christ was certain and inevitable "following the decision to create," the whole open theism structure begins to weaken. We cannot make such a claim for any portion of the unfolding drama of redemption without also making the same claim with other factors, for they all hang together.
This is why it seems to me that John Sanders made the most consistent argument for open theism in his The God Who Risks. I've noticed, however, after Greg Boyd's God of the Possible was published that John Sanders began to talk more like Greg--the future, for God, is partly open and partly closed. Perhaps John's views are modifying. However, I think such modification moves toward inconsistency with the open view of God. Given the foundational belief that open theism advocates (libertarian free will), I don't believe that the future can be partly settled without violating human freedom. If God has pre-established any aspect of the future that involves human free choice as certain and inevitable, then God would be coercive over human libertarian freedom.
From the beginning, this was the foundational argument of open theists against classical beliefs. Yet, oddly enough, in Satan and the Problem of Evil, Greg Boyd contradicts this foundational argument. When he presents thesis 5, he says, “God’s design to have creatures who are capable of moral decision making requires a sort of covenant of noncoercion with each of them. . . . This means that his response to their evil choices must, under ordinary circumstances, stop short of coercion” (p. 183). Yet, Greg also says that this “does not entail that God can never exercise coercive power in his interactions with free creatures" (p. 185). If we claim that God ever exercises coercion over human freedom, what have we gained by open theism over classical theism? If one of open theism's primary gripes with classical theism is its alleged coercive God, then how is Greg's view an improvement upon classical theism? If God only knows as possibilities the future decisions his creatures will make (and we believe this in order to avoid the alleged problem of coercion in the classical view), then, it seems to me, that God cannot know any of the future as settled, and surely not as certain and inevitable. Otherwise, we're right back where we all started, with the problem of divine coercion that originally prompted open theists to reject both the Calvinist and Arminian version of classical theism in which God knows future human decisions as certain and inevitable. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/14/2003 5:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp: First, your parenthetical statement (though I doubt Sanders would describe it this way.) is odd, at least to me. Why? Because John Sanders does describe it just this way…
Tom: What I doubt is that Sanders would use the words you used (that is, “God didn't plan Jesus' death on the cross until the night before Jesus actually died”) to depict his understanding of the cross in the foreknowledge of God. Yes, he denies that the cross was a “settled” event prior to that night, but your description implies more than this simple denial. It suggests that God had not a clue and was less than prepared for the cross before that night. This Sanders would deny, as would I. I think he would admit that the cross was “planned,” but in the sense that God was previously committed to the cross should the cross be required. This allows the cross to be “planned for” but not certain.
I don’t agree with Sanders that it wasn't certain until that night. Your quotes of him are accurate. I just don’t think “God didn’t plan Jesus’ death until the night before Jesus actually died” accurate summaries those quotes of him.
Ever here of contingency plans? Living in Beirut, I and my family have detailed plans on what we are to do in the event of an emergency. Should the occasion arise, we have already committed to a particular course of action. Should the need arise and we follow through with our contingency plans, it would not be inaccurate to summarize our preparedness for the occasion by saying we had "already decided to do x."
I read Sanders as asserting this regarding the cross. “That” the cross would happen was the contingency. That the Father and Son were committed to it should it be required was not contingent. The commitment to the cross was made before the foundation of the world.
If I am ever called upon to give my life for my wife it would not be inaccurate to say my sacrifice was made the day we got married, when I pledged to protect her. I made the commitment to follow through with such an act should it be required. Not only is this sort of commitment true of God’s love at the time he created, but moreover all the specific possible ways he might be called upon to sacrifice for us were in his mind AND were embraced THEN, the cross included.
Some people are rattled by the thought that God’s sacrifice for them in Christ on the cross might possibly have been avoided. For some reason their sense of assurance requires that this particular expression of saving love be set in cement from the get-go of creation. I don’t share that viewpoint. I don’t agree with Sanders either in supposing that the cross was avoidable at such a late hour, but I wouldn’t misrepresent his views by suggesting that they entail the denial the God was eternally committed to the cross should it become necessary.
Polycarp:Second, you said, "Modes is right to point out that many, perhaps most, open theists agree God foreknew the cross as certain and inevitable following the decision to create." If your description is accurate, I find it quite ironic and odd, since open theism's foundational claim is that God is open to the future precisely because he knows future decisions of sentient beings as possibilities and not as certainties. How can open theists claim that God foreknew the cross as certain and inevitable following the decision to create and at the same time decry and reject the belief that the fall was certain and inevitable?
Tom: You’ll have to ask Modes.
I think the answer of open theists who take this position is something like this: The inevitability of the occurrence of sin, the fall of humankind is a “statistical inevitability” and not an “unconditionally predetermined certainty.” There is a difference. I think the example Doc uses is that of insurance companies. Auto insurance companies know for certain that in 2003 25,000 teen-agers will drink and be involved in a car crash. This is certain, inevitable even, given the numbers of teenagers on the road and their propensity to drink and drive. Insurance companies can be certain of this without determining that teenagers wreck their cars. Any individual teenager is free to not drink and drive. But 25,000 will drink and drive.
Similarly, in creating us with libertarian free will, God would have to have been ignorant (or I think the word used to describe God in my view was “naively optimistic”) to not know that eventually somebody would screw up and sin. Sin was a given, then, but not because God unconditionally determined it or because there’s anything defective or wrong with the free will God gave us. Sin was inevitable because of the circumstances into which humanity was placed. With so many of us populating the earth, somebody eventually was gonna blow it. And if this was the case, so was the cross a certainty in God’s mind before human fell.
Modes and Mephi can correct me if I’m wrong.
Blessings,
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/14/2003 6:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Polycarp: First, your parenthetical statement (though I doubt Sanders would describe it this way.) is odd, at least to me. Why? Because John Sanders does describe it just this way…
Tom: What I doubt is that Sanders would use the words you used (that is, “God didn't plan Jesus' death on the cross until the night before Jesus actually died”) to depict his understanding of the cross in the foreknowledge of God. Yes, he denies that the cross was a “settled” event prior to that night, but your description implies more than this simple denial. It suggests that God had not a clue and was less than prepared for the cross before that night. This Sanders would deny, as would I. I think he would admit that the cross was “planned,” but in the sense that God was previously committed to the cross should the cross be required. This allows the cross to be “planned for” but not certain.
I don’t agree with Sanders that it wasn't certain until that night. Your quotes of him are accurate. I just don’t think “God didn’t plan Jesus’ death until the night before Jesus actually died” accurate summaries those quotes of him.
We have to deal with what John Sanders has written and not with what someone thinks John might say. The quote says more than you're willing to concede. You also inaccurately assume that my summary statement of what John has said implies things that his own statements do not imply.
quote:
Ever here of contingency plans? Living in Beirut, I and my family have detailed plans on what we are to do in the event of an emergency. Should the occasion arise, we have already committed to a particular course of action. Should the need arise and we follow through with our contingency plans, it would not be inaccurate to summarize our preparedness for the occasion by saying we had "already decided to do x."
I read Sanders as asserting this regarding the cross. “That” the cross would happen was the contingency. That the Father and Son were committed to it should it be required was not contingent. The commitment to the cross was made before the foundation of the world.
God's commitment to the cross before the foundation of the world is precisely what John Sanders denies. Read the extended quote again. Read the remainder of John's discussion. He succinctly summarizes his view on page 103. He says, "My own view is that the incarnation was always planned, for God intended to bring us into the joy and glory shared among the triune Godhead (Jn 17:22-24). Human sin, however, threw up a barrier to the divine project, and God's planned incarnation had to be adapted in order to overcome it." For Sanders, God did not foreknow that humans would sin. Rather, he says, "Clearly, 'creation has miscarried'" (p. 49). Human rebellion, according to Sanders, was not certain to take place when God created his universe. Likewise, when God created, according to Sanders, God did not know that the crucifixion would take place.
All I'm seeking to do is keep the record straight. Perhaps John Sanders thinks he now overstated his case on pages 100-101 of The God Who Risks. If so, to my knowledge he has not published any retraction. I've read all his published materials. I think that John Sanders' articulation of open theism in The God Who Risks was the most consistent expression of it so far. I find it fascinating that open theists in this discussion thread let John stand alone as they retreat to reaffirm that God foreknew with certainty the crucifixion of Jesus Christ which would come about by the plotting and murderous work of humans. If this is what open theists are going to do, then what is the complaint against classical theism?
Appeal to the notion of "statistical inevitability," based in the idea of actuarial tables, will hardly resolve the dilemma for non-open theists. In fact, it worsens the problem that John Sanders set out to resolve in The God Who Risks. It aggravates the problem because it treats human rebellion and the crucifixion of Christ as inevitable in an impersonal manner. This is far worse than God's personal foreordination of Christ's crucifixion that Christian theologians have defended. Actuarial tables and statistical inevitability simply do not come close to expressing God's personal and intimate involvement in the planning and carrying out of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as theologian Luke quotes the apostles' accounting for the crucifixion. "For in this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place" (Acts 4:27-28). I've read all the open theism literature that comments upon these verses. None does justice to God's personal involvement. The crucifixion was both God's act and a human act. Actuarial tables and statistical inevitability are too cold, too remote, too deistic to account for the apostles' commitment to the fact that God personally foreordained the entire event, including the people involved in the conspiracy against his Son.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/14/2003 6:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp- you're echoing what I've been saying (and a few others) about how we can't understand the logistics of "partly open- partly settled." you wrote the problem out very eloquently.
And it seems that at least initially John Sanders was aware of the problem, and at least he was consistent in arguing for total openness. The problem with that, of course, is that really negates prophetic utterings. I also think that what you've quoted from his book really makes Jesus look like he is not God - what is Sanders' perception of the Trinity? It just seems really hard to argue with a straight face that there is only one God, but yet two different parts of the God (father and Son) have different wills that are in a dynamic relationship with each other - | | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/14/2003 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
And it seems that at least initially John Sanders was aware of the problem, and at least he was consistent in arguing for total openness. The problem with that, of course, is that really negates prophetic utterings.
Here is a quote from John Sanders that supports your comment.
“The notion that the cross was not planned prior to creation will seem scandalous to some readers. Scriptural and theological objections may be raised against the notion that the crucifixion was not set in stone prior to the creation. Text such as Psalm 22:16, Ephesians 1:4, 1 Peter 1:20, and Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 are alleged to conflict with such an understanding. However, it is interesting that the New Testament writers do not make use of Psalm 22:16, although the church has made great use of it. [Psalm 22:16—“Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.”] Since the time of Justin Martyr Christians have used this verse to prove that the crucifixion was predicted. The Hebrew text of the Psalm reads ‘like a lion at my hands and feet,’ hardly a prediction of the crucifixion. But with some subtle change in Hebrew the text may be rendered, as many of our modern translations do, ‘they pieced my hands and my feet,’ which some take to imply foreknowledge of the crucifixion. The Hebrew of this verse is not entirely clear and has occasioned much discussion. The reference to the crucifixion in it is doubtful. What is clear, however, is that many Christians have used this verse to justify belief in divine foreknowledge" (The God Who Risks, 101).
Of course, Christian belief that the Old Testament prophetically anticipates the crucifixion of Jesus Christ hardly hangs upon Psalm 22:16. Why does John Sanders comment upon Psalm 22:16, which the New Testament does not explicitly quote but he does not comment upon many other portions of Psalm 22 that the New Testament does use explicitly in the crucifixion narratives? Christians have always understood Psalm 22:16 to be prophetic concerning Christ’s crucifixion because the Gospel writers understood the whole of Psalm 22 this way. They, of course, learned this from Jesus who, while hanging upon the cross, uttered the opening words of Psalm 22 as his own—“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” This use of Psalm 22:16 is hardly evidence that Christians went looking for verses in the Bible to “justify belief in divine foreknowledge.” Christians had no reason to search for Bible verses to justify belief in divine foreknowledge because they didn’t have a problem with God’s foreknowledge.
Your observation is right, ReasonableDoubt. Sanders did recognize the problem and argued for “wide openness.” Unfortunately, however, he selectively ignored lots of evidence that contradicts his argument that “the cross was not planned prior to creation” but “In Gethsemane Jesus wonders whether there is another way. But Father and Son, in seeking to accomplish the project, both came to understand that there is no other way.” He ignores the fact that Jesus predicted his crucifixion at least three times to his own disciples (Mark 8, 9, 10). He offers no explanation of Isaiah 53 as a prophetic anticipation of Christ’s crucifixion. What Sanders does say about Psalm 22:16 is inadequate. It is true that the majority of extant Hebrew manuscripts read “like the lion.” However, the Septuagint and some Hebrew manuscripts and the Syriac version all read “they pierced my hands and my feet.” This provides evidence to support the traditional English translation of Psalm 22:16 as "pierced." One gets the distinct impression that John Sanders was the one searching for proof that God does not foreknow even major events, such as the crucifixion, as certain.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/14/2003 10:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp: For Sanders, God did not foreknow that humans would sin. Rather, he says, "Clearly, 'creation has miscarried'" (p. 49). Human rebellion, according to Sanders, was not certain to take place when God created his universe. Likewise, when God created, according to Sanders, God did not know that the crucifixion would take place.
Tom: But God of course knew that it “might” take place, counted the cost, and committed to it when it was just a possibility. So it’s hardly correct to suggest that the night before the crucifixion was the first actual counting of the cost for God or God’s first commitment to the crucifixion.
Now, I personally don't see anything in Acts 4 that requires an "eternal, unconditional, and effeciacious decree" of the events surrounding the crucifixion.
Perhaps John will drop in and comment himself.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Polycarp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 44
| Posted 8/14/2003 10:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Tom: Now, I personally don't see anything in Acts 4 that requires an "eternal, unconditional, and effeciacious decree" of the events surrounding the crucifixion.
Would you explain what you mean by the following expression?--"eternal, unconditional, and efficacious decree." And, if you can take a few moments and if you are favorably disposed, would you explain how you understand what Calvinists mean by the same expression?
Yes, perhaps John will stop by to comment, maybe even to express a "change of mind." As long as I've been lurking, I don't recall that he has participated in any discussion on this board. Of course, I'm neither all-seeing nor all-knowing the past or present or future, so he may have done so while I was not looking. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/14/2003 5:18 PM (GMT -6) | | If you, as an Open THeist, are trying to fall back on this "God knows all possibilities" to differentiate you from Sanders - I would challenge you about what this actually means. I would guess that most posters on this board are intelligent enough to say what all the possibilities are in a given future situation. For example, I could opine about what I think will happen in Iraq - I could give you X number of possibilities, and it's very likely that one of those possibilities will actualize. If God is the same as a mortal in that he can foresee possibilities but not outcomes, don't you see the implications?
In fact, especially in the Old Testament, prophecy is used basically as a LITMUS test about the veracity and legitimacy of a God. I've always been taught that a true prophet of God is known by the truth of the prophecy. In fact, if any one of the prophecies do not materialize, then there is ample reason to believe that that prophet is actually NOT from God. How is this possible, if God himself cannot say with 100% certitude which possibility is going to actualize?
And again, at least Sanders in his earlier writings is consistent. At least he is arguing for wide openness...it's as if he realizes that if he concedes that some things are settled, then from there it is not such a stretch to say all things are settled.
It's like Polycarp says - if it's so disturbing to the open theist that God settles the entire future, it, by the same token, should be disturbing that God settles any part of the future at all. B/c by definition, if any part is settled, then the people in that part, at least, are robbed of their free will. If anyone at all is robbed of their free will at any instance, i would argue that the entire open theist view fails. B/c not only is it internally inconsistent, it also doesn't serve to answer any of the "problems" of classical theology. If one of the problems is that determinism makes God responsible for evil, and thus blameworthy, can't you see that any instance of settledness also has the same problems? If any event at all is settled, in that instance, God is responsible. If you're willing to accept that, why aren't you willing to accept that God is responsible for EVERY event?
I really believe this is an important point - if just one event in all of history has been settled by God, then God has made himself responsible for that event- and inevitably , the people involved in that event, then, were robbed of their free will. The OV argument cannot rest on gradations of free will. It has to rest on the fact that there exists 100% free will all the time, in order to be legitimate. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/14/2003 7:08 PM (GMT -6) | | A couple of little points: first, open theism is a NEW movement. Therefore, not ALL of its points are worked out. Give it time. Certainly Calvinism didn't simply spring into existance. Heck, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't even articulated in the first century of the church. Don't expect our theology to be all worked out right now.
Two, don't expect everyone to agree. Theologians disagree (even Calvinists do). Given that Calvinists disagree on this very issue, don't expect open theists too.
Three, one author does not respect open theism. Don't expect it to.
Four, Polyman, what do you mean stick with what Sander's says. That isn't AScol did in the book cited. He was drawing conclusions FROM Sander's words. You are playing unfair.
As far as Sander's book I think it is excellant, but it is (in my opinion) the most comprehensive book on open theism (by a single author). As such not everyone will agree on it.
My take on the issue is this: the eternal decrees of God must be reconcilled with the full body of scripture, not interpreted in isolation. Given that scripture (to my mind) teaches that God changes his mind, changes his plans in response to humans (and given that I have yet to read any satisfactory different interpretations of said verses that would keep me from believing this is true), I see the whole of scripture teaches this: that the eternal decrees of God were contingent on how everything played out. I believe God had several plans ready and waiting, depending on what truly happened. As such, I see no problem with Sander's interpretation.
Actually, I believe God settles things he will do. But not the events we do. For instance, the incarnation would happen. But I don't believe Mary, specifically, was the one who had to have Jesus. I, personally, do not see God "settling" very many things. He acts within them, but what we do is pretty much unsettled.
Finally, yes, RD, predictive prophecy was the measure of a prophet. But it seemed limited to his lifetime. Otherwise, how could they "pay no attention to him," as God commanded the Israelities? I, however, tend to agree with Sanders in this area. Most of the prophecy about Jesus is applied prophecy, taking verses and using it to show that what happened before is happening again. Remember all of the prophecies about Jesus had immediate applications to the situation the prophet was in. I certainly don't believe they thought their words (much of the time) pertained to the future. They were applied to the future.
A question: if Psalm 22 is a prophecy about the future, how could ever be false? Or Micah 5:2? How could these ever be false prophecies? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/14/2003 8:12 PM (GMT -6) | | RD: If you, as an Open Theist, are trying to fall back on this "God knows all possibilities" to differentiate you from Sanders
Tom: This belief would not differentiate me from Sanders, since he holds to it.
RD: I would guess that most posters on this board are intelligent enough to say what all the possibilities are in a given future situation. For example, I could opine about what I think will happen in Iraq - I could give you X number of possibilities, and it's very likely that one of those possibilities will actualize. If God is the same as a mortal in that he can foresee possibilities but not outcomes, don't you see the implications?
Tom: I can think of an example of where we would know all the future possibilities in a given situation AND know for certain that one of them will actualize. Chess. At any given point in the game I know exactly what possible moves my opponent has and I know that he must make one of them. If I’m good I can keep track of possible moves and responses 5, 10, or 20 moves ahead.
Is God the same as a mortal in that he can foresee possibilities but not outcomes? Well, RD, if the outcome is certain, he certainly knows it. If it’s not, if the outcomes are only possibly x, y, and z, then that’s what he knows. So, I prefer to say not that “God is like us morals in that he knows possibilities in addition to certainties” but that “we as divine-image bearers are like God in that we know future possibilities and bring the future about via the choices we make.”
Now, human knowledge is finite and limited. The more possibilities we attempt to keep track of the more our intelligence is divided. We can know all the possibilities of a game of chess, a toss of the coin (that’s not hard, heads or tails!), the roll of a dice, or the success of Iraqi democracy, but we cannot approach God’s “infinite intelligence” which keeps coterminous, infallible, and exhaustive track of the state of ALL reality. There’s no comparison.
RD: In fact, especially in the Old Testament, prophecy is used basically as a LITMUS test about the veracity and legitimacy of a God. I've always been taught that a true prophet of God is known by the truth of the prophecy. In fact, if any one of the prophecies do not materialize, then there is ample reason to believe that that prophet is actually NOT from God. How is this possible, if God himself cannot say with 100% certitude which possibility is going to actualize?
Tom: More interestingly, what do you do with prophecies God makes which do not come about? Example: Compare Ez. 26-1-14 (utter destruction of Tyre predicted by God) with Ez 29.17-20 (utter destruction not accomplished and God predicting something else).
RD: And again, at least Sanders in his earlier writings is consistent. At least he is arguing for wide openness...it's as if he realizes that if he concedes that some things are settled, then from there it is not such a stretch to say all things are settled.
Tom: Since Sanders doesn’t argue for an exhaustively open future he can hardly concede that if some things are settled all things are settled.
RD: It's like Polycarp says - if it's so disturbing to the open theist that God settles the entire future, it, by the same token, should be disturbing that God settles any part of the future at all.
Tom: Why?
RD: B/c by definition, if any part is settled, then the people in that part, at least, are robbed of their free will. If anyone at all is robbed of their free will at any instance, i would argue that the entire open theist view fails.
Tom: Well, this seems obviously incorrect, RD. There are tons of things about ourselves and our lives over which we have no control and about which we have no choice whatsoever. We don’t choose our sex, our race, our mother tongue, the social sphere into which we are born, any bodily defects we are born with, and many other things. But the fact that some of our future is settled (I’ll always be an ugly white male who can’t slam-dunk) doesn’t mean everything about my future is equally settled.
RD: If anyone at all is robbed of their free will at any instance, i would argue that the entire open theist view fails.
Tom: Well, there we have it friends. The entire open view crashes to the ground. And so simple.  But in truth the open view will be around in spite of this argument I think. For all the open view requires at rock bottom is freedom in the morally responsible choices we make. Libertarian freedom doesn’t mean God cannot step in and determine any non-moral choice he would like to. He can remove the freedom of Cyrus’ parents in naming him Cyrus. Big deal. He can also remove Cyrus’ freedom and determine his vocation as King. But these are choices over which God will not hold Cyrus nor his parents morally responsible.
Polycarp: Would you explain what you mean by the following expression?--"eternal, unconditional, and efficacious decree." And, if you can take a few moments and if you are favorably disposed, would you explain how you understand what Calvinists mean by the same expression?
Tom: I’ll post that asap! Right now I have to jump start my neighbors car!
Polycarp: Yes, perhaps John will stop by to comment, maybe even to express a "change of mind." As long as I've been lurking, I don't recall that he has participated in any discussion on this board. Of course, I'm neither all-seeing nor all-knowing the past or present or future, so he may have done so while I was not looking.
Tom: He did join in on one occasion. I think it was back during our CoolBoard days, so those posts are archived. And interestingly, he joined in when we were talking about this very subject.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/14/2003 8:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Polycarp-
Here are three threads where John Sanders got involved.
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7&whichpage=1
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=352
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=352
The first is archived which just means that “archive” appears beside the post instead of the poster’s name. But you can still see who wrote each post by looking at the post itself. This first post regards the issue you’re discussing here.
The other two are not archived.
Tom | | 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 11:50 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|