 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/3/2004 6:39 PM (GMT -6) |   | PoW-
On George's understanding of impassibility (viz., "that His will is determined from within instead of being swayed from without"), I'd probably disagree with this too! I know you've hammered on this too. Here's my problem. If all "not swayed from without" means is "not so weak that others can determine what God's feelings and opinions are" then I say sure. But I'd add that this is neither informative nor useful TODAY as a doctrine. Fine, God isn't so weak that others can determine for him what he feels on any given moment.
But...(you know what I'm gonna say!)...if "not swayed from without" means "not INFLUENCED from without" then I'd wholeheartedly disagree (on biblical and philosophical grounds). God is influenced by us. We can hurt God. We can give God joy. WE do these things. HE responds to us in these ways. God may not be determined against his will by us, nor is he led around by nose by his emotions which are in turn determined by us, nor would I say God is emotionally unstable or immature. I'm all for arguing (as George pointed out) that the early believers wanted to avoid picturing God's emotional state as being as unpredictable as pagan deities who were picky and irritable.
But I would argue God is "influenced by us." And I'd argue this in the most reciprocally personal of terms. Now, if THIS be admitted to by supporters of impassibility, then there's no argument (except to say that "impassibility" as a term really sucks at communicating the point). But I don't think you'd get an unqualified "Amen" on "God is influenced by us" from supporters of impassibility. I remember your allergic reaction to my "God experiences changing states of emotion." 
I think in some cases we'd just get tomes of qualification, which just tells me that in spite of agreeing that God does have emotions that actually work, what's really believed is that these emotions are not at all analagous to our emotions and that God is in fact much more like Aquinas' "stone pillar."
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 6:58 PM (GMT -6) | | I'll read the rest of this tommorrow. But this seemed a connection:
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
God is influenced by us. We can hurt God. We can give God joy. WE do these things. HE responds to us in these ways. God may not be determined against his will by us, nor is he led around by nose by his emotions which are in turn determined by us, nor would I say God is emotionally unstable or immature.
I just posted the following on a Piper site:
quote:
For the Eastern Church, God is never the primary cause, but the Creator. It is creation "in the image" of the Creator which places the "second freedom" outside any causal determinism, and the patristic conception of humankind as autexousia, self authoritative, rightly defines its mysterious capacity to transcend every necessity and the very condition of the creature over against divine freedom: to see oneself as microtheos, as God-in-miniature. One can even say that God, the Lover of humankind, is much more determined himself by his creation and his covenants than the creature by his Creator: "The Lord has sworn and he will not change his mind" (Ps 110:4). The Incarnation appears as God's reply to his own promise: the divinizing of his creature. The fall of man reveals the titanic fullness of our freedom, which in turn, determines our own destiny. Satan did not lie in saying: "You will be as gods." Man has created something which never existed before. We created evil and introduced it into our innocent nature. What is more, our salvation determines the shape of the Incarnation as Love crucified. Divine blood has been shed to safeguard our freedom in grace, for, according to the Fathers' saying, "God is not able to force anyone tolove him."
. . .
I knock at the door," says the Lord, and he knocks at the door of his own image in man, at the image of divine freedom in us. God empties himself. He "waits," determining nothing.
. . .
The error of predestination and of prescience is to introduce into God the Creator the temporal "before." The primary cause placed in time foresees and predestines, determines all. They're- deforms the "eternal" character of God and the capacity of faith to surpass the framework of time. Freedom bears the only interior necessity: to express oneself in choosing. Its fullness contains the most fearful choice; that of a revolt and a determination of oneself against God. Its archetype, the first choice of Lucifer before any concrete existence of evil, reveals that even in the initial state of innocence, freedom is safeguarded intact, and it is God who protects against his own omnipotence.
(From: “IN THE WORLD, OF THE CHURCH”, by Paul Evdokimov, SVSP)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 7:04 PM (GMT -6) | |
If Athanasius can write "purposive" theology ("purposive logic, and not somethiing analytical of the 'constitution' of the Incarnation) then maybe your dialog with George needs to be about God's PURPOSES, and not analytical things like chance (OV) or predestination (CT).
Take a hint from history.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/3/2004 7:06 PM (GMT -6) | | I loved the first two paragraphs, PoW. On the third, I would only disagree with his assessment of the fundamental error of predestination and prescience being that of "introducing into God the temporal 'before'." I don't think that's the fundamental error at all. I think the fundamental error of theological determinism is believing God to be "unconditioned" by the world. That, I think, is at the heart of what is wrong with theological determinism.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 7:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Good night, Tom.
Face my old Arden Hills, MN and say good night to it for me! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/4/2004 2:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
[font=Book Antiqua]We need alternate spellings of the words impassible and omniscient. "Ympassible" could represent the impassible that doesn't mean "not passible". "Amniscient" could mean "knowing everything except future possibilities".
Yeah, I like "Amniscient." Then you can also have "Amishnet" which is a net the Amish use to fish in Pennsylvania streams with. It catches ALL the fish, not just SOME of the fish. It does it be CLOSING UP the stream.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/4/2004 3:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
I loved the first two paragraphs, PoW. On the third, I would only disagree with his assessment of the fundamental error of predestination and prescience being that of "introducing into God the temporal 'before'." I don't think that's the fundamental error at all. I think the fundamental error of theological determinism is believing God to be "unconditioned" by the world. That, I think, is at the heart of what is wrong with theological determinism.
Tom
SERIOUSLY, I READ A LOT IN WHAT GEORGE WROTE IN THOSE TWO THAT ARE ADDRESSING JUST WHAT YOU SAY IS "ABSENT." AND YOU FEEL MISUNDERSTOOD YOURSELF.
YOU NEED TO TALK. YOU ARE IN THE SAME FAMILY; AND YOU CAN'T DENY THAT.
"How blessed it is when...." All you have to loose is your life--and that doesn't belong to you anymore anyways. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/4/2004 6:36 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Mordecai
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 8/8/2004 6:59 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
In short, it's not true that classical theists posit divine timelessness to explain omniscience.
I don't find it at all convincing either to argue that classical theists have the right to read beliefs of theirs (unrelated to a proper definition of omniscience) into the definition of omniscience but open theists are not allowed to do the same because classical theists beat them to it.
Granting that CTs do not posit divine timelessness in the original definition of Omniscience, the point is, before there was OVT, it is commonly understood that Omniscience includes God’s certain and exhaustive knowledge of the future. One only needs to review its expanded or detailed definition in Systematic Theology references. Thus, for people like George who appreciates the full-orbed [theological] meaning of the word, it is merely natural then for them to speak of Omniscience the way they do and to describe OVT’s omniscience in a comparably lesser light.
The fact that CTs “beat them to it” only highlights the truth that CTs have set the [theological] standard by which all other ideas of Omniscience must be judged. It is thus sort of a “birth-right” for CTs to describe OVT’s Omniscience in whatever manner they see fit, such as Semi-niscient. I personally think OVTs should just remove the chip off their shoulder and accept this fact.
quote:
Tom: And I'd suggest that it shouldn't go beyond that, that taking it beyond that is precisely the problem. And open theists aren't the only ones saying this. Take Craig for example. Here's somebody who really doesn't like open theism. But take his own published working definition of omniscience (a definition nobody is disagreeing with by the way): "For every p, if p, then God knows that p and does not believe that not-p." This is precisely the definition of omniscience that I work with, and it's a great definition.
Your definition simply amounts to reductionism. Though Craig shared a similar definition in one of his writings, probably for brevity and conciseness, the fact is that Craig Himself is a CT and likely agrees with the traditional expanded definition of Omniscience found in Systematic Theology references.
quote:
Tom: George isn't reading his beliefs into the definition of omniscience because his beliefs ARE ALREADY inherent in the classical definition of omniscience? This doesn't go anywhere Mordecai. It reduces down to: George isn't wrong because his arguement is an inherent part of his view. Well, of course it is. But just because it's a view that's been around a long time doesn't make it right. Scores of folks from within the classical view have admitted that tradition can be wrong regardless of how long it's been around.
The point is not that George is right or wrong in his view, the point is that he is not reading his beliefs in the world as you charge. One cannot read a belief into a definition when the belief itself is already in the definition.
quote:
I mean, Mordecai, enlighten me. Where in the words "God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods" am I sneaking in an open view understanding of the future? Where in this definition can anyone sneak in anything about a particular view of the future?
From what I can see, you are sneaking it in by your use of a reductionist definition of Omniscience. The doctrine of Omniscience (as opposed to the word omniscience), was not meant to be reduced to a one-liner. That only works in the movies. 
quote:
Tom: Theology by seniority? Tradition can be wrong my friend. At least some folks on the traditional side of things are saying this (i.e., Millard Erickson, may his camels increase).
Agreed. However, I’m sure many would say that God’s Omniscience did not simply spring from tradition. It seems to me, in this case, worth considering the fact that the “traditional” view has been time-tested through the study and discourse of great godly men of the past and present. I am reminded of the assurance Jesus gave that the Comforter and Teacher will remain to guide His Church, as represented by those great godly men of the past, into all truths. I would be hesitant then to believe that years of orthodoxy, especially on God’s nature, has been merely an exercise in futility and the Holy Spirit has not been guiding the Church in such matters.
quote:
Tom: And of the two views, George's appears diminished in the OV's point of view. I could argue that George's God is not omniscienct because he doesn't know all truths. For example, in his view God doesn't know all those truths about the future expressed by "might and might not" propositions.
But God does know them, only in a different guise in CTism, i.e. God knows them as the “will and will not” propositions instead. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/8/2004 7:05 PM (GMT -6) | | M: Thus, for people like George who appreciates the full-orbed [theological] meaning of the word.
P. I thought so too.
And for "OV-ers" to converse they will have no notice that G. is really saying; rather than a steriotype of it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/9/2004 2:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Mordecai: Granting that CTs do not posit divine timelessness in the original definition of Omniscience, the point is, before there was OVT, it is commonly understood that Omniscience includes God’s certain and exhaustive knowledge of the future.
Tom: Yes, that was and is the common understanding.
Mordecai: One only needs to review its expanded or detailed definition in Systematic Theology references. Thus, for people like George who appreciates the full-orbed [theological] meaning of the word, it is merely natural then for them to speak of Omniscience the way they do and to describe OVT’s omniscience in a comparably lesser light.
Tom: This is quite ‘natural’ given the theological assumptions of CT.
Mordecai: The fact that CTs “beat them to it” only highlights the truth that CTs have set the [theological] standard by which all other ideas of Omniscience must be judged.
Tom: Which CT standard? The determinist’s? The Arminianists? The Molinists? There is no ONE agreed upon CT understanding of the doctrine of omniscience apart from the agreement that it excludes divine knowledge of “might and might not” propositions. And how old IS the classical view anyway? Has it always reigned supreme? Is it not interesting that there is not a single word regarding foreknowledge or the manner in which God is believed to know all things in all the early creeds? Why shouldn’t THAT approach be the standard by which the classical and other views be judged?
Mordecai: It is thus sort of a “birth-right” for CTs to describe OVT’s Omniscience in whatever manner they see fit, such as Semi-niscient. I personally think OVTs should just remove the chip off their shoulder and accept this fact.
Tom: Birth-right? I don’t do theology like that. Thank you, but no.
Mordecai: Your definition simply amounts to reductionism. Though Craig shared a similar definition in one of his writings, probably for brevity and conciseness, the fact is that Craig Himself is a CT and likely agrees with the traditional expanded definition of Omniscience found in Systematic Theology references.
Tom: If my definition is reductionistic, your objection is begging the question. But my definition isn’t “mine.” It’s Craig’s. Craig didn’t share a “similar” definition to that which I shared. He shared the very definition I shared. It’s his published definition, not mine. From what I’ve read of Craig, his definition of omniscience (viz., “For every p, if p, then God knows that p and does not believe that not-p”) isn’t a boiled down version of some more complicated view he didn’t have time to explain. Craig usually says precisely what he wants, no more or less. He’s not an open theist for sure, but his definition of omniscience is right on the money. It is not his definition of omniscience that’s behind his rejection of the open view. He believes we cannot hold to omniscience for other reasons (complicated, but fun!).
Mordecai: The point is not that George is right or wrong in his view, the point is that he is not reading his beliefs in the world as you charge. One cannot read a belief into a definition when the belief itself is already in the definition.
Tom: Fine. If the point is not that George is right or wrong [in understanding omniscience to entail the doctrinal expansion that has come to be commonly believed to be part of the definition of an omniscient being], then whether or not that expansion to omniscience is a right or wrong IS the issue of debate. My point precisely. One can’t begin the debate by assuming one’s expanded doctrine of omniscience and considering it an established fact that open theists can’t believe in “omniscience” because they don’t buy the whole classical package.
My point isn’t to charge that George is the first to do something with the word “omniscience” that’s never been done before. How shall I say it then? He embraces a definition of omniscience that’s already read-into. It still remains that his is an “expanded definition” (as you agree). Exactly my point. One can’t take a word/concept that has a definition of its own, ‘expand’ it to a doctrine that embraces views not essential to the concept itself, and then claim that others who don’t agree with the doctrinal expansion (how ‘bout “baggage”?) can’t really believe the word means what it means or that it applies to God. So I don’t see anything wrong in questioning the theological expansion by asking what it essentially means to be an omniscient being. In this instance at least, the chip is on the shoulder of the classical theist.
quote:
Tom: I mean, Mordecai, enlighten me. Where in the words "God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods" am I sneaking in an open view understanding of the future? Where in this definition can anyone sneak in anything about a particular view of the future?
Mordecai: From what I can see, you are sneaking it in by your use of a reductionist definition of Omniscience. The doctrine of Omniscience (as opposed to the word omniscience), was not meant to be reduced to a one-liner.
What’s reductionistic about it? It doesn’t “entail” YOUR understanding of the world as you believe God knows it, but that’s a different issue. Let’s assume you and I are both standing in a large conference room. We study the room the best we can and propose how many people we think are in attendance. You think there are 350 persons in attendance. I think there are 300. You believe God knows there are 350 people present. I believe God knows there are 300 present. You and I disagree about what God knows. But it’s not reductionistic of me to claim that “omniscience” means God knows exactly how many persons are present in the room, period. Wouldn’t it be silly for you to co-opt the word “omniscience” and claim that it’s reductionistic of me to say that omniscience means “God knows how many people are in the room” while you insist "Omniscience means 'God knows there are 350 people in the room' and anyone who thinks there are more or less than 300 persons in the room obviously doesn't believe God is omniscient"? It's almost comical.
Truth is, though you and I disagree about how many people are in the room, we agree (I’m arguing we OUGHT to agree) that omniscience means “God knows how many people are in the room.” It’s silly to accuse me of believing only that God is seminiscient because I think God knows there are less people in the room than you believe are in the room.
quote:
Tom: Theology by seniority? Tradition can be wrong my friend. At least some folks on the traditional side of things are saying this (i.e., Millard Erickson, may his camels increase).
Agreed. However, I’m sure many would say that God’s Omniscience did not simply spring from tradition.
Quite so. Nothing simply springs from tradition.
Mordecai: It seems to me, in this case, worth considering the fact that the “traditional” view has been time-tested through the study and discourse of great godly men of the past and present.
Tom: Tradition means a lot to me. And I take it seriously. But just to point out, the “traditional” view is not a uniform as your argument supposes.
Mordecai: I am reminded of the assurance Jesus gave that the Comforter and Teacher will remain to guide His Church, as represented by those great godly men of the past, into all truths. I would be hesitant then to believe that years of orthodoxy, especially on God’s nature, has been merely an exercise in futility and the Holy Spirit has not been guiding the Church in such matters.
Tom: This is really difficult to apply as a rule. I mean, who determines whose “hesitancy” is the standard by which the church ought to decide “God wouldn’t let us be THIS wrong, or be THAT wrong”? I don’t like to think God lets us screw up as badly as we do, but there you have it. What do I say to my Muslim friends about decades and decades of Crusades? Preventing that didn’t seem to lie within the fulfillment of God’s promise that the Spirit would guide us into all truth. They weren’t really Christians? That’s convenient. What about Luther’s reviving a doctrine (justification by faith) that lay practically dead for centuries? God evidently let things get THAT bad. Do you really want to claim that God would not let Christians inaccurately expand on their understanding of omniscience for centuries? I wouldn’t think so. If we can be wrong, we can be wrong. Let’s just bite the bullet on this one. Besides, one can argue that the open view is evidence that God is bringing us back to truth. How would we know unless we humbly admit our fallibility and the fallibility of our traditions and creeds and put that on the table (albeit tentatively) in debate?
quote:
Tom: And of the two views, George's appears diminished in the OV's point of view. I could argue that George's God is not omniscienct because he doesn't know all truths. For example, in his view God doesn't know all those truths about the future expressed by "might and might not" propositions.
Mordecai: But God does know them, only in a different guise in CTism, i.e. God knows them as the “will and will not” propositions instead.
God knows “might and might not” propositions in a different guise? As “will” and “will not” propositions instead? “Might” and “might not” are contradictory propositions to “will not” and “will” (respectively). Recall the square of opposition? You know it. If all God knows are “will’s” and “will not’s” with regard to the future, then he knows that all corresponding (contradictory) “might and might not” propositions are false (which unfortunately for us means that every belief we have that an event "may and may not" come to pass is false; thus, there are not "might and might not's" for us if there are none for God). Conversely, if God believes any “might and might not” propositions to be true, he knows their corresponding (contradictory) “will” and “will not” propositions to be false. It’s logically impossible both that “x will happen” and that “x might not happen” be true, as it is impossible that both “x will not happen” and “x might happen” are true.
I appreciate your thoughtful and challenging words, Mordecai.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 8/11/2004 9:14 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
Laika wrote:
And calvinism is like the membership of The Flat Earth Society, all in complete agreement.
http://www.flat-earth.org/
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/11/2004 9:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Mark C.
OVT is alot like Existentialism; it's definition is unique to each Existentialist Philosopher, therefore their beliefs are derived from their own experience formulating (their own worldview with) the idea of man's freedom and how he should act. OVT has the appearance of Existentialism in a cleric robe. Who can own the precise meaning and live accordingly? It becomes purely personal and subjective.
Mark,
Amen! Open theism takes the shape its individual advocates give it. I have found this reinforced in my numerous discussions with open theists.
Open theism advocated even by the triumvirate (Pinnock, Sanders, and Boyd) is continually morphing as its advocates encounter problems shown them by their critics. Since the modern advocacy of open theism first began in 1986 (in Pinnock's essay), I have watched open theism morph and transmogrify. I have watched this in this discussion. Not only does open theism undergo change, but also open theism changes longstanding theological terminology, such as "omniscience," as Mordecai has already argued in this thread.
Open theism's transmogrification makes it difficult for many of open theism's critics to keep pace with what open theists currently advocate. And, if they critique open theism as it was advocated two or three years ago, open theists promptly chastise the critics for misrepresenting beliefs open theists currently advocate. Take for example the definition of open theism. Originally, open theists themselves expressly defined open theism as consisting of the belief that God does not and cannot know the future decisions of his free creatures, for otherwise his creatures would not be free. This is precisely what open theists first asserted and what astonished so many. Yet, this assertion posed some serious problems for them, especially concerning the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. (John Sanders, in The God Who Risks, advocates the notion that God the Father and Jesus did not have the crucifixion planned until the night before it took place, while Jesus was praying in Gethsemane.) Consequently, other open theists have backed away from John Sanders' view to advance the notion that God has sure knowledge of everything that God has purposed to bring to pass, such as the crucifixion. (I think that John Sanders, himself, has backed away from this view, also.) The original definition of open theism has changed to accommodate this adjustment. It is understandable, then, that many Christians are profoundly confused as to what open theists actually believe. Their beliefs are in continual flux.
Just some observations from a geezer who makes every effort to keep up with the transmogrification of open theism.
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 8/11/2004 11:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Gerry-......The original definition of open theism has changed to accommodate this adjustment. It is understandable, then, that many Christians are profoundly confused as to what open theists actually believe. Their beliefs are in continual flux.
Ron
Do you exercise the same level of critique about what is happening in the Reformed camp pertaining to the "new perspective on Paul"? Specifically the transformation of the understanding of righteousness, faith, justification, and the gospel. I am thinking of NT Wright, who has a large following among scholars. You were saying OV has morphed, well, look whats going elsewhere, there is a whole lot of morphing going on.
If you are of the Armenian persuasion, I think the work of Methodist Richard B. Hays in his morphing work "The faith of Jesus" is a good example of a whole lot of morphing going on.
I don't know if you are tracking these men or their works but if your criticism of OV is they are changing the way they express themselves as they pursue the truth as it is in Jesus, well....
Peace
Ron | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/11/2004 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Mark: OVT is alot like Existentialism; it's definition is unique to each Existentialist Philosopher, therefore their beliefs are derived from their own experience formulating (their own worldview with) the idea of man's freedom and how he should act. OVT has the appearance of Existentialism in a cleric robe. Who can own the precise meaning and live accordingly? It becomes purely personal and subjective.
Tom: Mark wins August's Funniest Post Award!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/11/2004 11:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Mark wins August's Funniest Post Award!
No, no! Wait a sec. Let's give it to Gerry.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
WormBowedB4TerribleGod
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 43
| Posted 8/11/2004 3:47 PM (GMT -6) | | supralapsarianism
infralapsarian
Historic Calvinism
Neo-Calvinism
http://members.aol.com/RSIGRACE/neo2.html
five point calvinism (Hypercalvinism)
four point calvinism
three point calvinism
three and a half point calvinism (Geisler)
two point calvinism (Biblicism, Moderate Calvinism)
http://www.synapticstorm.org/Soteriological%20Systems.htm
one point calvinism
http://members.aol.com/MGrass7222/reformed.htm
Mix in some Manichaeism:
quote:
Manichaeism, once a gnostic world religion, soon spread to the Roman West. Here, the life and the work of the future (and, without doubt, most influential) Church Father Augustine (354-430) became inextricably connected with Manichaean teachings and practices. In view of the many new Manichaean texts in particular, it turns out that, without a thorough knowledge of the ‘Religion of Light’, Augustine’s theology and philosophy are hardly conceivable.
http://www.brill.nl/m_catalogue_sub6_id8784.htm
quote:
The Manichaean contribution to the success of Augustine's conception of predestination is both undeniable and indispensable. By engaging the Manichaean question of unde sit malum?, he was able to achieve what other Christian leaders of his time could not: a Christian theory of the inevitability of personal evil and the cosmological implications for the role played by predeterminism in the doctrine of predestination.
http://www.dissertation.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581120176
Mix in some other stuff:
“How, then: is it possible to be sinless? It is impossible; but this is possible, to strive not to sin.” -- John Calvin? No, the Greek Stoic Epictetus
“But having become good, to remain in a good state and be good, is not possible, and is not granted to man. God only has this blessing; but man cannot help being bad when the force of circumstances overpowers him.”
-- John Calvin? No, Plato
“These quotations I have adduced in reproof of the Basilidians*, who do not live rightly, either as having power (exousian) to sin because of their perfection, or as being altogether assured by nature of future salvation, although they sin now, because they are by dignity of nature the elect.”
-- *Clement describing the calvinists? No, Clement describing the Gnostics
Having been invented in the medieval ages, calvinism resembles other systems of medieval logic:
http://arago4.tn.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/holy-grail/scene-05.html
Who are you, oh worm, to question the living God? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/11/2004 6:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Worm. Nuff said. After hundreds of years, the variants within the family of theological determinism are enough to make one dizzy.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/12/2004 2:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Tom: Mark wins August's Funniest Post Award!
No, no! Wait a sec. Let's give it to Gerry.
Tom
IMHO, Laika wins August's Funniest Post Award. His comparison of Calvinists with the Flat Earth Society is absolutely hilarious!
Gerry
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/12/2004 4:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by rsirkel
Gerry-......The original definition of open theism has changed to accommodate this adjustment. It is understandable, then, that many Christians are profoundly confused as to what open theists actually believe. Their beliefs are in continual flux.
Ron
Do you exercise the same level of critique about what is happening in the Reformed camp pertaining to the "new perspective on Paul"? Specifically the transformation of the understanding of righteousness, faith, justification, and the gospel. I am thinking of NT Wright, who has a large following among scholars. You were saying OV has morphed, well, look whats going elsewhere, there is a whole lot of morphing going on.
If you are of the Armenian persuasion, I think the work of Methodist Richard B. Hays in his morphing work "The faith of Jesus" is a good example of a whole lot of morphing going on.
I don't know if you are tracking these men or their works but if your criticism of OV is they are changing the way they express themselves as they pursue the truth as it is in Jesus, well....
Peace
Ron
Ron,
I'm thoroughly familiar with the alleged "New Perspective on Paul." The theological discussion in that arena is of an entirely different kind than the discussion over open theism. It would take an essay to demonstrate the veracity of this assertion. I will not be writing that essay. In summary, however, the difference is evident from within the history of Christian theology. The theological issue of God's exhaustive knowledge of his creation (past, present, and future) has always been elementary, i.e., foundational and basic. Though Arminians and Calvinists have not agreed on how God possesses his exhaustive knowledge of all his creation (past, present, and future), they have historically agreed that God knows in advance everything that will come to pass within his created order. Open theism is a radical departure from the historic faith of Christians on these issues, which is why both Arminians (e.g., Robert Kerka, Robert Picarelli, and Peter Cottrell) and Calvinists (e.g. Steve Wellum, Douglas Huffman, and Paul Helseth) oppose open theism. In other words, the evangelical Arminian view of God's exhaustive and effective knowledge and the evangelical Calvinist view of God's exhaustive and effective knowledge is of the same species. The open theist view is a very different theological species.
The theological issue of the relationship between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus Christ has continually spawned considerable discussion and disagreement among evangelicals from the earliest days of the church. For example, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (neither of which I am) are developments of the same theological species. Throughout the history of Christian theology, no singular understanding of the redemptive-historical relationship has attained dominance even within either the Reformed school of thought or the Arminian school of thought. For example, many who are Reformed in soteriology lean toward a Dispensational understanding of the relationship between the Law and the Gospel. Many who are Arminian in soteriology hold a view quite close to that of Covenant Theology with regard to the relationship between the Law and the Gospel. Then there is Luther to consider. Luther's understanding of the Law and the Gospel shapes views among Dispensationalists (who might be either Arminian or Calvinistic) and views among those who hold to Covenant Theology.
Growth in the knowledge of Scripture obviously entails development but not morphing. Development such as we find evident in the work of N. T. Wright and R. B. Hays is not what I would call morphing. Development or growth occurs within the same theological species. Theological development does not produce a new species. N. T. Wright, for example, has not rejected or denied the historic Christian faith concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ. Contrary to allegations by some Reformed theologians and "wannabe theologians" N. T. Wright has not rejected or denied the historic Christian affirmation concerning justification before God on the basis of Christ's righteousness. Neither has R. B. Hays. The theological species their work is developing is in full continuity with that of Martin Luther and John Calvin, despite the protests of people such as Michael Horton, Ligon Duncan, or John Piper.
Theological morphing entails the spawning of a new species that has no genuine organic development in continuity with the stream of historic Christian faith. Such is the nature of open theism. And to make open theism more acceptable to theologians and Christians in the stream of the historic Christian faith, open theists have engaged in quite rapid transmogrifying of their new species or of theological terminology. For example, open theists initially challenged the theological understanding of God's omniscience embraced by both Arminians and Calvinists. I watched with wonder and amazement as open theists at first radically departed from the historic Christian view. Yet, once they seemed to discover that they had transgressed the evangelical affirmation concerning God's knowledge, open theists did not repent of their view. Instead, open theists ingeniously redefined omniscience. Greg Boyd's efforts in the BGC led the way with his famous "monkey-that-isn't argument" (God of the Possible, 16-17). Given his view of the future, he redefined God's omniscience. "If God does not foreknow future free actions, it is not because his knowledge of the future is in any sense incomplete. It's because there is, in this view, nothing definite there for God to know! His lack of definite foreknowledge of future free actions limits him no more than does the fact that, say, he does not know that there is a monkey sitting next to me right now. As a matter of fact, there is no monkey sitting next to me, so it's hardly ascribing ignorance to God to insist that he doesn't know one is there" (God of the Possible, 16). (If one grants him his assumptions, his argument seems to work, but Greg Boyd's argument builds upon major assumptions concerning the future that he no where demonstrates.) Redefinition of God's omniscience to make open theism acceptable among evangelicals is theological transmogrification or morphing. It is a different theological species from the Calvinist and Arminian theological species.
But, hey! I've got to hand it to open theists. They are ingenious! Their ingenuity has masterfully preserved their place within evangelicalism. It's an amazing story that has unfolded right before these aging geezer eyes.
Throughout the short life of open theism within evangelicalism (18 short years so far), morphing has brought the theological species incrementally closer to the likeness of the historic Christian species. I anticipate that within the next generation open theism's transmogrifications will eventually reshape the present species to resemble the historic Christian species so that people then will wonder why Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, Greg Boyd, et al. bothered in the first place to cause such a theological ruckus.  Christian theology, if this happens as I anticipate, will then be stronger for having weathered the battle. Don't you love my geezer optimism?
Gerry
P.S. Armenians may take offense at your bringing their ethnicity into this theological discussion. Most Arminians are not Armenians. Perhaps some Armenians are Calvinists. | | Back to Top | | |
| 74 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:17 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 |
|
|