 |
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 5:00 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 5:04 AM (GMT -6) | | This quote does not point to the title of the article. But it does point to something often discussed on this board:
quote:
On their own grounds, though, it is hard to see how the seminiscient deity of open theism helps much with the problem of evil. If God has comprehensive knowledge of everything past and present, and if He has the capacity to intervene in the course of human affairs, then why doesn’t He come to the rescue as soon as He sees that things have gotten out of hand? Maybe He couldn’t know for sure back in 1933 that Hitler would freely decide to carry out the Holocaust, but when it was well underway a decade later, why didn’t He use His omnipotent resources to bring it to a halt? Did He “allow” it to go on just to preserve Hitler’s libertarian free will? Such a God has just as much to account for as the old-fashioned deity dismissed by the process model. Open theism grants God too much power to get Him off the theodicy hook, but not enough power to support a plausible doctrine of providence.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 5:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Wroth noting:
quote:
The openness debate has done one good thing for evangelicals: it has refocused our attention on the character and nature of God, a topic surely more substantive than the relative merit of praise choruses or church growth statistics. Moreover, openness thinkers are right to question certain forms of classical theism that have indeed played down the personal character of God and His interactivity with the world and history. The Nicene doctrine of the Holy Trinity was developed in part to counter the pagan notion of God as a transcendent monad devoid of communicability and love. No one can read Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, or Wesley with any care without realizing how committed they were to the compassionate, covenantal, dynamic God of the Bible, the God who “spared not His own Son but delivered him up for us all,” as St. Paul put it (Romans 8:32). But none of these great teachers of the Church deemed it necessary to deny divine foreknowledge of future contingents (as openness theologians do) in order to affirm the relationality and responsiveness of the one true God.
Notice:
quote:
... The Nicene doctrine of the Holy Trinity was developed in part to counter the pagan notion of God as a transcendent monad devoid of communicability and love. No one can read Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, or Wesley with any care without realizing how committed they were to the compassionate, covenantal, dynamic God of the Bible, the God who “spared not His own Son but delivered him up for us all,” as St. Paul put it (Romans 8:32). ...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 5:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
... the recent ECT statement “Your Word is Truth” (FT, August/September 2002) makes a profoundly Protestant point, even if it is also a profoundly Catholic one: “The isolation of Scripture study from the believing community of faith disregards the Holy Spirit’s work in guiding the witness of the people of God to scriptural truths, and leaves the interpretation of that truth vulnerable to unfettered subjectivism. . . . Scripture itself is not understood in a vacuum apart from the historical existence and life of the community of faith.”
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 5:13 AM (GMT -6) | |
This about the OV causes me concern too:
quote:
Openness theologians can claim biblical support for their dogma of a seminiscient deity only by a hermeneutic of selective literalism. For example, they interpret quite literally biblical statements about God’s repentance, citing this as evidence that God really does not know the future with precision. But they gloss over other biblical texts which say that God also “forgets” aspects of the past, that He does not remember the sins of His people (cf. Isaiah 43:25). Are we to suppose then that God suffers from amnesia as well as ignorance of the future? Openness theism teaches that God cannot know the future (although He can know what He intends to do in the future), for the future has not yet happened. However, Jesus predicted not only the death of Peter, but also the precise mode of his martyrdom (John 21:18-19). Was this just an educated guess, a holy hunch? The consensual wisdom of the Church’s exegetical tradition has been able to account for difficult biblical texts—and let us admit there are some—without breaching the sovereignty of the God who is the Creator of time as well as space, and Lord of the future no less than the past.
This part of the OV has not been answered. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/3/2004 9:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Open theists don't posit a semiomniscient deity. Until George wakes up from his sleep it'll be impossible to dialogue with him.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 8/3/2004 9:44 AM (GMT -6) | | | Amen, Tom. Too many people believe they know what open theists believe, redefine it through their prism and write it off. Until they look through our lenses I will never understand. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 9:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Open theists don't posit a semiomniscient deity. Until George wakes up from his sleep it'll be impossible to dialogue with him.
Tom
Tom, please posit what you DO think. And take something that George said and make a side-by-side comparison. That would be helpful and meaningful. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/3/2004 11:24 AM (GMT -6) | | What I think is that God IS omniscient, meaning God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. That's omnisicience, and I affirm it.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 11:35 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
...Openness theism teaches that God cannot know the future (although He can know what He intends to do in the future), for the future has not yet happened.
It does look like, Tom and feel'n, that George accurately reprented your possition. Don't you think? If not, what's the difference?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | | John, explain and illustrate what difference you say it there. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 12:13 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
George's caricaturized misrepresentations of the OV: God is "seminescient."
The actual position of the Open View: "God is omniscient." The only distinction the Open View adds to this is what everyone already knows: God knows possibilities as real possibilities, just as He knows certainties as real certainties.
But it is simply not the case that the Open View denies that God is omniscient.
Now, this is just my opinion, based on my best judgement, but this is my read on what you just wrote -- two things:
First, it did NOT seem like he was trying to be prejorative (sp). Rather, it looks like being faced with two views, which are different but wanting to be called the same thing, he selected "parts" to construct a differentiating term. Its not clear from what he wrote that he expects that to be a final name; but he needed something to help his readers differentiate.
Second, just that, that what the OV is calling omniscient is different from what George is calling omniscient. Arguably, both concepts can fit the literal meaning of the word. Expect turf-wars! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/3/2004 1:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
quote:
...Openness theism teaches that God cannot know the future (although He can know what He intends to do in the future), for the future has not yet happened.
It does look like, Tom and feel'n, that George accurately reprented your possition. Don't you think? If not, what's the difference?
Here's the difference as I see it. Whereas George DEFINES omniscience as entailing HIS view of the future, I just define omniscience as God's knowing all truths and believing no falsehoods WITHOUT assuming what is true and false about the future. If it's now the case that something WILL happen, God knows that will happen. If it's the case that something WILL NOT happen, God knows that too. And if it's true that something MIGHT AND MIGHT NOT happen, God knows that as well. Omniscience doesn't tell us how much of the future is a "will," how much is "will not," and how much is "might and might not." And certainly nothing in the definition of omniscience requires that there NOT BE any true "might and might not" propositions. This is George's first mistake.
His second mistake is to argue that open theists believe that IF God does know the future, he only knows it as a "will." George just rules out, without argumentation, knowledge of "might and might not" propositions as true knowledge. He just assumes that omniscience rules out knowing such truths. Why assume that?
His third mistake is to argue that open theists believe that if God knows some event as that which "will" happen, it's only because God determines the event in question. Not true. That's only one class of "will's" that God would know. There are also true "will's" that are determined by factors other than God's will.
Somebody with George's credentials ought to know better.
And somebody who has been around as long as you, PoW, ought to know the answers as well. Hmmm?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/3/2004 1:16 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW (on George): he needed something to help his readers differentiate.
Tom: This is the whole point, PoW. George ought NOT to attempt to differentiate between HIS definition of omniscience and open theists' definition. They're the same: God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. Open theists can be wrong, but not because they wrongly define omniscience. It would have to be because they wrongly define the world by believing there to be SOME true "might and might not" propositions about the world. George believes there are no true such propositions. But he mistakenly thinks believing in "omniscience" necessarily leads to this conclusion about the world. It does not. George is just begging the question by seeking to attempt to get his readers to differentiate between his definition of omniscience and that of open theists.
PoW: Second, just that, that what the OV is calling omniscient is different from what George is calling omniscient.
Tom: He thinks they are. But he's wrong. All I need to do to demonstrate this is present my definition of omniscience (God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods) and ask him to disagree with it. He won't disagree with this definition. So what he's doing is reading INTO this definition his own beliefs about what IS true and what IS false about the world (the future). But once you switch to talking about what actually are the truths and falsehoods about the world, you're not discussing omniscience any longer. You're talking a doctrine of creation. George just proves the point open theists have been insisting upon all along. The debate is not about omniscience. But many on the opposing side won't admit that. Because it's easier to demonize open theists and get them kicked out of churches and institutions on the basis of their not believing in divine omniscience.
Later,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 1:19 PM (GMT -6) | | I know that you are convinced, Tom.
(One way or another you made a wonderful contribution to this thread!)
So, WHY don't you send it to George?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/3/2004 1:29 PM (GMT -6) | | It's not about your knowing that I'm convinced, PoW. It's about George being true to the facts, which he's not being. That's what you should be convinced of. And he'll hear that better from YOU than he will from me an open theist. He'll assume that as an open theist I've been brain-washed and don't really understand the issues. If you tell him you dislike open theism just as much as he does but stil don't appreciate his less than accurate or fair presentation of it, he might actually think about it.
Good luck.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 2:15 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
It's not about your knowing that I'm convinced, PoW. It's about George being true to the facts, which he's not being.
1. You did a nice clear, lucid presentation of your point. (Minus the ad hominum at the end.) Don't worry about him understanding you. Believe me.
2. The issue will be the other overtones that HE is interested that your view either does not grasp, or that you react to allergically, thus distorting them.
So, HIS problem with your view is that it does not cover enough.
For that reason it is quite congruent that he would choose a 'depreciating' (withdrawing something, not being derogatory) form of nomenclature.
Write him.
How else will you ever know????????
Sincerly,
PoW
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/3/2004 3:42 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW: 1. Don't worry about him understanding you. Believe me.
Tom: If his article is any indication, one can worry (if one cares to) whether or not he understands open theism.
PoW: 2. The issue will be the other overtones that HE is interested that your view either does not grasp, or that you react to allergically, thus distorting them.
Tom: You understand that I distort his view readily enough but were unable to recognize his distortion of open theism. Interesting.
PoW: So, HIS problem with your view is that it does not cover enough. For that reason it is quite congruent that he would choose a 'depreciating' (withdrawing something, not being derogatory) form of nomenclature.
Tom: Well, at least you understand him.
PoW: Write him.
Tom: He has Moses and the prophets to read! It wouldn't help if I came back from the dead and spoke to him.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 3:48 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Mordecai
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 8/3/2004 4:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Tom: He thinks they are. But he's wrong. All I need to do to demonstrate this is present my definition of omniscience (God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods) and ask him to disagree with it. He won't disagree with this definition. So what he's doing is reading INTO this definition his own beliefs about what IS true and what IS false about the world (the future). But once you switch to talking about what actually are the truths and falsehoods about the world, you're not discussing omniscience any longer. You're talking a doctrine of creation. George just proves the point open theists have been insisting upon all along. The debate is not about omniscience. But many on the opposing side won't admit that. Because it's easier to demonize open theists and get them kicked out of churches and institutions on the basis of their not believing in divine omniscience.
If I may. It seems to me the issue of Omniscience goes beyond the simple etymology of the word. By defining it to include God's certain (sure) knowledge of the past, present, and future, Classical Theists have INEXTRICABLY linked to this word another attribute of God--His Eternity (timelessness). While OVTs seem to be only concerned with the equivalency of their definition to the etymology of the word, CT's concern clearly goes beyond that.
So in truth, Timothy George is not the one reading his beliefs into the definition since his beliefs is already INHERENT in the [original CT] definition. It seems to me that it is precisely the (more recent) OVTs doing the "reading into" by adding assumptions like the ontological nature of the future is not real to God hence He does not know all of the future as certainties but only some as real possibilities.
I also don't see it as a surprise that George used the word "seminiscient" to describe OVT's understanding as oppose to his own, since CT's understanding of Omniscience is the senior and established orthodox view of the 2 views, and since God appears diminished in a CT's point of view. I'm sure they would've used "Ultraniscient" if they saw OVT as an improvement of God in their view. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 6:10 PM (GMT -6) | | I thought this interesting (a response by him at www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0311/correspondence.html, down the page where it says "Timothy George replies"): quote:
. . .
But what about impassibility? Again, confusion arises from a failure to see how this term has functioned in the history of theology. True enough, the language of impassibility is deeply embedded in patristic theology going back to Ignatius of Antioch. But, as G. L. Prestige has shown, apatheia as a divine attribute was understood by the early fathers to undergird God’s indefectible stability (Barth uses the word “constancy”) and perfect moral freedom. “It is clear that impassibility means not that God is inactive or uninterested, not that he surveys existence with Epicurean impassivity from the shelter of a metaphysical insulation, but that His will is determined from within instead of being swayed from without.” Understood in this sense, divine impassibility is no barrier to God’s self-giving love, but rather a guarantee that the God of the Bible is not like the fallible, mutable, passion-driven deities of the ancient world. Thus the Alexandrian school of Christology could say, in the language of paradox, “he suffered impassibly,” and Gregory of Nazian-zus, long before Luther, could speak of “a God hanging on a cross.” As Geoffrey Wainwright has noted, “Modern theologians with deistic or unitarian tendencies will obviously be unhappy” with such language, but it is the language of both Catholic liturgy and evangelical piety (“And can it be that thou my God shouldst die for me?”—Charles Wesley).
Now apatheia is not a biblical word and it may well be that, given the meaning this term has assumed in a post-Cartesian world, we should no longer apply it to God. But that is a different move than the radical revisioning of the doctrine of God attempted by process and openist thinkers. The God Augustine describes in his Confessions—creating, loving, supporting, filling, protecting, nurturing—is “impassible” in the historic sense but not unresponsive or “unaffected” by the world He has made. Rather, He is “unchangeable, yet changing all things, never new, never old, making all things new, yet bringing old age upon the proud, and they know it not; always working, ever at rest; gathering, yet needing nothing.” Only by denying this “yet . . . never . . . ever . . . yet” aspect do we get the caricatured deity of deism against which open theism (rightly) reacts with disdain.
I find that all VERY interesting!
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/3/2004 6:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Mordecai: By defining it to include God's certain (sure) knowledge of the past, present, and future, Classical Theists have INEXTRICABLY linked to this word another attribute of God--His Eternity (timelessness).
Tom: A huge number of classical theists--theological determinists for example--don't link timelessness to God's knowledge of the future. That's a typically Arminian move nowadays at least. Determinists, on the other hand, who are concerned with the unconditionality of God's decrees, avoid such a link at all costs. God does not "get" his knowledge of the future via his timelessness, for that would make God dependent for his knowledge upon the world. God gets his knowledge of the future from himself, i.e., from knowing his own will which unconditionally determines what happens in the world. So for determinists God's timelessness isn't necessary to omniscience. This is why you find determinists today abandoning divine timelessness. It's not necessary in their view to explaining how it is God knows the future.
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.
Mordecai: While OVTs seem to be only concerned with the equivalency of their definition to the etymology of the word, CT's concern clearly goes beyond that.
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.
The problem with reading one's entire theology into the definition of a single theological term like 'omniscience' is that those who don't agree with your entire theology become heretics because they're not allowed to claim that they too believe in 'omniscience.' But Craig's definition is accurate, meaningful, biblical, and orthodox, and it has room in it for determinists and non-determinists alike, for Molinists and Open Theists. God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods...regarding the past, present, AND future. Heck, I even agree that whatever TIMELESS truths there are (and there are some) about the world, whatever temporally eternal truths there are about the world, whatever truths there are at any time about the past, present, or future, GOD KNOWS THEM ALL.
But this STILL would not be enough for some for the simple reason that much political leverage is lost once opponents grant that open theists agree that God is omniscient. It shifts the whole debate to the question of what timeless and temporal truths about the world exist. And that's bad news for those who want open theists OUT.
Mordecai: So in truth, Timothy George is not the one reading his beliefs into the definition since his beliefs is already INHERENT in the [original CT] definition.
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.
Mordecai: It seems to me that it is precisely the (more recent) OVTs doing the "reading into" by adding assumptions like the ontological nature of the future is not real to God hence He does not know all of the future as certainties but only some as real possibilities.
Tom: Not at all my friend. Not even close. If one defines omniscience (alone) for what it is, namely: "God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods" nothing whatsoever can be concluded from this alone about the ontological status of the future, or whether the future is partly settled and partly open. If open theists argue that God doesn't know the future as exhaustively 'settled' because the future isn't there to know, it's not because of their definition of omnisience; it's because of their understanding of creation. John Piper will agree with me that God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods, as would Arminians, as would Craig and other Molinists. So I can't be reading my open view of the future INTO my definition of omniscience if my definition is compatible with theological determinism, Molinism, Arminianism, and Open Theism. I especially can't be reading my view of the future INTO my definition of omniscience if I'm getting my definition from a non-open theist like Craig. 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: I also don't see it as a surprise that George used the word "seminiscient" to describe OVT's understanding as oppose to his own...
Tom: It's not a surprise that George would view open theists are denying omniscience relative to HIS understanding of omniscience. But this is because he reads his view of creation and providence into his definition of omniscience.
Mordecai: ...since CT's understanding of Omniscience is the senior and established orthodox view...
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).
Mordecai: ...of the 2 views, and since God appears diminished in a CT's point of view.
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.
Point is, Mordecai, of course views appear inaccurate, faulty, or incomplete relative to other views. That goes without saying. And if you would concede (which I hope you do) the possibility that tradition can be wrong, very wrong, then there's not a lot to be gained in claiming seniority. The only thing left is is get both sides in the debate to agree on a definition of omnsicence that doesn't assume either point of view. Is that possible? Sure it is! Here it is: "For every p, if p, then God knows that p and doesn't not believe that not-p." In other words, God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. You can't conclude from this defintion alone whether one is a Calvinist, Arminian, or Open Theist. That comes as bad news to Calvinists and Arminians, but hey, that's life. There was a day when Calvinists were saying about Arminians everything they're saying now about Open Theists. But they gave up when it became obvious to them that Arminians were here to stay and that they really can and do love God and live Christ-centered lives. Our day will come.
Tom
A cigar for PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 6:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 74 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:41 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 |
|
|