 |
| 
Ochuk
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 9/2/2003 11:27 AM (GMT -6) |   | I was reading an interview that Modern Reformation did with Doc about the OV. Doc said in the open question:
quote:
In my view, the "Openness of God" position is more about creation than it is about God. I'd rather call it "openness of creation" position, or "open creationism." The view simply states that the future is partly open to possibilities, and since God is omniscient and knows all of reality just like it is, he knows the future as being partly open to possibilities. In the classical view of God, the future is eternally settled. For God there are no genuine possibilities--no genuine "maybes."
Later, at the end of the interview he says:
quote:
Will classical theology weather the storm? If you mean by "classical theology" the view that God is altogether devoid of change, potentiality, and passion, and that God experiences all of history in an eternal instant--I hope not. For I see this view of God as being far more compatible with Aristotle than with the Bible.
Are not those qualities (i.e immutability, potentiality, impassability, and timelessness) all related to the doctrine of God as opposed to "the content of creation?"
How can you say the OV is not about God, but rather, creation? How can you rethink him as being passable, within time, and subject to change without touching the classical doctrine of God?
See www.alliancenet.org/month/99.10.gb.debate.html
Read my blog at ochuk.gizzar.com | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/2/2003 12:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Oct 1999
quote:
In my view, the "Openness of God" position is more about creation than it is about God. I'd rather call it "openness of creation" position, or "open creationism." The view simply states that the future is partly open to possibilities, and since God is omniscient and knows all of reality just like it is, he knows the future as being partly open to possibilities. In the classical view of God, the future is eternally settled. For God there are no genuine possibilities--no genuine "maybes."
Aug 2003
quote:
Dude, it seems you’ve reduced the Open Worldview down to the sheer ascertain of a partly open future. But I suspect that for most Open Thiests, the "Open Worldview" is MORE a matter of a certain picture of God , of a certain picture of his relationship with us, and thus of a certain picture of what it means to be human. You’re proposed "compromise" cuts to the core of this – even though it allows for a future composed of possibilities.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Ochuk
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 9/2/2003 1:42 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/2/2003 2:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc said it when we were discussing Romans 9 on the other thread in this forum. I felt no problem posting that here, as 1)it was said on the public forum here and 2) I dealt with it in small part in that other thread already.
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2513&whichpage=2
Let’s get something VERY clear here. The intent is not to try to rag on or disrespect Doc in any way.  What this is to do show the necessity of doing what Tom has done on that other thread: really trying to hash out what open view theism really is. Otherwise, statements like the ones posted will look either like unintentional misrepresentations or, even worse, blatent untruth. As open theists, we need to be very CLEAR and upfront about what we are about. That’s all.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 9/2/2003 2:59 PM (GMT -6) | | | It'd be helpful if someone had a solid definition of this ever-evolving theology. It is a slippery slope as a natural result of its constant evolutions and changes since its inception. These quotes are obviously part of this evoving theology. Does God's holy word shift and change like the seasons? Is it a slippery slope constantly evolving wtih each change of distinction and belief? Is there not a problem with any theology that cannot agree with itself on its own premises and basises? | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 9/2/2003 3:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood: your questions could equally apply to Christian theology as a whole, for many of the beliefs that classical theists hold evolved over decades and centuries as they were worked out by honest theologians. So watch out for the snake you are holding. It may turn back on you...
God's holy word does not change; but classical theism evolved, just as any interpretation of God's word has. Remember, classical theology is not the Bible, but an interpretation of it.
BTW, welcome back! Have you garnished enough information to take up that discussion with DLW on "Beyond The Bounds?" I'd be interested in any insight you could give... | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 9/2/2003 5:55 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Ochuk
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 9/3/2003 7:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Doc said it when we were discussing Romans 9 on the other thread in this forum. I felt no problem posting that here, as 1)it was said on the public forum here and 2) I dealt with it in small part in that other thread already.
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2513&whichpage=2
Let’s get something VERY clear here. The intent is not to try to rag on or disrespect Doc in any way. What this is to do show the necessity of doing what Tom has done on that other thread: really trying to hash out what open view theism really is. Otherwise, statements like the ones posted will look either like unintentional misrepresentations or, even worse, blatent untruth. As open theists, we need to be very CLEAR and upfront about what we are about. That’s all.
I agree, too, that I am not trying to pick on Doc, I am stickler for clarity. I give my Reformed friends just as much grief over details like this, and I hope that I can in some way help bring a clearer definition of OT.
In my opinion, Open Theism must make changes to the doctrine of God. That's why it is so hated by some of its critic (i.e. Ware, Geisler)
Read my blog at ochuk.gizzar.com | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:41 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 |
|
|