 |
| 
Iamur2
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 11/4/2001 6:10 PM (GMT -6) |   | I posted this and realized that it was in the "theology section" so whichever is better because I don't want to respond on two fronts (two front wars never really worked to well :)
First, Here is a quote from open theist William Hasker: “If every single human being has it in her power to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation, and if God has no advance knowledge of how a person will respond, then it would be possible for every person without exception to reject salvation-and if this were to occur, there would be no ‘people of God,’ no Church, and a key element in God’s plan would be frustrated. As things actually stand, to be sure, this has not happened, but it could have happened; that it has not, is a attributable to nothing but God’s luck.” (From Christian Scholars REview)
Curious question: How would you open theists interpret this? Also, here is something I wrote concerning this supposed Greek influence on the classical view of God.
Open theists almost uniformly insist that the God of classical Christianity was unduly influenced by Greek philosophy. Take fore example Gregory Boyd: “In my view, the paradigm shift (open theism) has been positive, for it has allowed people to read Scripture and to think about God and the world in ways that are less influenced by Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and Newton.” William Hasker also states: “The sources of these ideas (classical theism) can be traced back to Philo Judaeus and Plotinus, among others, and were mediated into mainstream Christian theology through such figures as Augustine.”
Basically, the open theists have a biased against the Greek philosophy of a timeless, unchanging God. They advocate their “process theology” of a changing God as far superior. They believe strongly that any philosophy of an unchanging God is Greek influenced and dangerous. Hence, in this same article, Hasker insists that since Augustine’s views on perfection were based on Plato so we can “rescue” the Biblical God from the belief that forces us to portray many of God’s actions as metaphorical. We should be true to our “metaphysical predisposition.”
This idea stands as a backdrop to the philosophical support for open theism. However, this idea is based on modern assumptions and predispositions. The first large assumption and bias of the open theist is their insistence that they succeeded in understanding God where many of the great Church fathers failed. In addition, open theism assumes that we are positioned better theologically than Aquinas and Augustine. In essence, they throw out 1500 years of Christian thought (before Sonecius) about the nature of God.
In addition, a prerequisite to any of this discussion is that every Christian thinker toils within the context of their living. Freddoso explains: “Christian thinkers toil within concrete cultural and intellectual contexts, and these contexts instill in them cognitive predispositions, which, though defeasible, nonetheless serve as tacit measures of plausibility.” In other words, Christian thinkers today are influenced by modern culture and ideas, just as the Church Fathers were. However, Hasker insists that we understand God in light of our own cultural context, and assumes that our modern metaphysical assumptions are superior to theirs.
This is an undue assumption that twentieth century thinkers have some additional revelation of God. However, this does not work. Take for example, one of our modern assumptions: “Nearly all analytic treatments of action take it for granted that if the conceptions of action, power, and agent casuality have any application at all, they are applicable only in the case of free and rational beings. Yet only a handful of pre-Humean philosophers, most notable the occasionalists, would have had even the slightest inclination to accept either one of these assumptions.” These modern assumptions constitute the heart of open theist theology.
In addition, the open theists are inconsistent in their attack on the Greek influence on God since they themselves employ Greek terms about God. For example, the trinity itself uses alien Greek terms, employing the terms of substance, person, and essence. Historically, the Arian heresy sought to diminish and deny the trinity. However, the Church Council of Nycea actually used a Greek term, homousias, to advocate the “same substance” nature of the trinity. So clearly Greek terms have been used to accurately convey Biblical truth. Open theists insist that we not employ Greek terms into our understanding of God, but they themselves do.
Gregory Boyd, “Modern Reformation,” November/December 1999; page 44.
William Hasker, “The Openness for God” from “Christian Scholars Review.”
Alfred J. Fredosso, A response to the “The Openness for God” also from “Christian Scholars Review.”
I am very curious to here the general reaction to this.
Eric
"Prejudice is a great time saver, it allows one to have an opinion without knowing the facts." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 11/5/2001 2:50 AM (GMT -6) | | HI Iamur2, welcome to the site.
On Hasker's comment regarding the "good luck" that it turns out not everyone rejected Christ: I think this line of thinking is altogether misguided. The central issue, I think, revolves around whether or not "laws" are descriptive or prescriptive.
Nominalist hold that laws are descriptive. Realist hold they're prescriptive (viz. they have an ontological status distinct from the particulars they govern). I think Hasker's comment presupposes a descriptive / nominalist view toward laws. If one holds a prescriptive view, however, then there is no incompatibility in claiming that a) each individual, considered as an individual, could reject salvation; and b) it is impossible that EVERY individual could reject salvation.
This is essentially no different than saying a) every quantum particle in my computer could blip out of my computer, but b) my computer as a whole cannot blip out of existence. For the stability of my computer -- and of all phenomenological reality -- is based on the ontological reality of statistical laws.
Advertisers and insurance agents (and others) make their living knowing statistical laws, and leveraging them against individual behavior.
So, while I don't think God knows in advance WHICH INDIVIDUALS will accept Christ or not, he CAN know that, within a parameter, a certain percentage of people over the long run will accept Christ -- given, of course, all the gracious things he intends to do to bring about this probability (e.g. working in their heart through the Holy Spirit, etc.).
On the issue of Greek Philosophy -- its not the influence of philosophy itself that I regard as harmful, for we are ALL influenced by some philosophy or other. Its the fact that (in my view) the philosophy that was incorporated into the Church tradition was antithetical to the revelation given in Scripture. If Scripture depicted a timeless, altogether immutible, impassible, actus purus model of divine perfection, I'd certainly have no problem allowing Hellenistic philosophy to help us articulate it and think it through. But, for my part, I regard these ideas to be a) antithetical to Scripture; and b) philosophical unwarranted. Hence the concern to show how they influenced the church tradition.
Hope this helps.
Blessings to you.
Greg
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
JoeMoore
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 25
| Posted 11/6/2001 9:18 AM (GMT -6) | | [quote]
...
Basically, the open theists have a biased against the Greek philosophy of a timeless, unchanging God. They advocate their “process theology” of a changing God as far superior.
...
[Joe]
In the real world, bias is always in relationship to something. How is it different (unless your purpose is to discredit open theists) to say:
- open theists have a bias against the Greek philosophy;
- open theists are trying to eliminate the bias of orthodox theology toward several aspects of Greek theology from their own thinking and challenge other orthodox theologians to do the same.
I would suggest that the first choice is a dialog stopper and often political weapon and the second is a dialog enabler that then allows people who actually disagree with open theism based on substance to discuss the substance of their case.
But maybe that's just me. (Mephi?)
Joe Moore
Edited by - joemoore on 11/06/2001 2:20:45 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iamur2
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 11/6/2001 10:05 AM (GMT -6) | | I will defintely address the preceptive/descriptive argument in the near future (after I get through tomorrow's midterms--what fun :), but just a few notes on the Greek philosophy. From what I am gathering, the line of reasoning is that a timeless, changeless God is unscriptural, and thus that Greek philosphy is wrong. Honestly, then, it seems like the best thing to do is to see exactly what the Scripture says, putting off any "church fathers influenced by Greeks" or "modern theologians influenced by process theology, change." The basic point was that everyone is influenced by the culture and theological dispotions of their time, so to say that the Greek influence was worse than the influence today is not necessarily correct. It really boils down to this: Figure out what the Scriptures advocate, and then look at dispositions from there, and that seems to be the main point that has been made. More later.
Eric
"Prejudice is a great time saver, it allows one to have an opinion without knowing the facts." | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:27 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 |
|
|