 |
| 
brolewis
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 1/14/2004 8:41 AM (GMT -6) |   | First, Doc, are you smoking in that sombrero? 
The class went quite well. I apologize for not replying sooner but with the semester starting the same day as the mini-mester with Erickson ended I have been quite overwhelmed. The debate went quite well and I feel that I presented the OVT case quite well. Each side was given 20 minutes to present their side, and I used 20:10 (Erickson graciously allowed me to go over to finish my last paragraph ). A majority of the questioning time after the debate from the class was directed towards me, since a great many students were curious about Open Theism and had little exposure aside from having heard the name. I was able to direct a number of students to various books to read, from your books, Doc, to Pinnock and others. As a result of this time, it is my hopes in the following semester to have a colloquium on OVT where students can come and ask questions and just learn about the theology in general, since so many students seem to have questions.
Now on to Dr. Erickson. I was able to have lunch with him, but only a small fraction of our conversation was devoted to his book and only slightly more devoted to OVT. We talked about how OVT has even affected Calvinistic theologians in that there has been a shift away from immutability as a tenet, and he felt that at the least OVT has been beneficial to the study of theology by forcing us to recognize the historical link between theology and Plutonian philosophy.
In our debates, I argued that when differing understandings of a passage are available we need to take the most simple (using Ockham's Razor as my philosophical rational) and argued that a literal understanding is the most simple. It was by establishing this idea that I was able to argue that many passages normally seen as less literal should not be interpreted that way, drawing from God of the Possible. At lunch, Dr. Erickson felt that such a stance was a fair one, but did say that if one is to take that position, they need to hold true to it throughout Scripture, thus when it speaks of the arm of God, recognize it as the literal arm of God. He said that you simply can't pick and choose which verses you want to interpret as literal and which are anthropomorphic. While I don't know that I totally agree with his conclusion, I think he does make a valid point. I am curious to hear y'alls (yes I'm from Texas) thoughts about this.
Secondly, he talked about how he had never heard an OVT address James Barr's work concerning the language of the OT. Since I am not well-versed in this particular work, I was unable to respond to him. However, I went to talk to one of my Biblical Studies professors who specializes in the OT about it and he gave me the reference, and in our talking, found him to be sympathetic to OVT. He commented that in all of his studies of the OT he cannot help but come to the conclusion that God was an unpredictable God who seemed to not always know what to expect. I am currently working through Barr's work and hope to be able to author a paper to answer Dr. Erickson's question.
johnmd, in response to your question about Erickson's (apparent) limited view of God, we did not discuss that since I didn't see your post until post-debate (sorry for the little play on words there)
I was introduced to OVT by Dr. Roger Olson. Doc, I believe that you are familiar with him, seeing as he wrote an endorsement for at least one of your books  . His comment to our class about OVT was that he would become an OVT if he could find a good explanation for the end times within OVT. He would agree with the comment Robert Furney made in seeing predictive prophecy as the most serious threat to open theism.
In our class debate, this same concern was voiced. One of my focal passages for my debate was in Exodus where Moses pleads to God not to destroy the Israelites and he relents (Exodus 32:9-14 as a reminder). In his original statement, God said that he wished to destroy the people of Israel but start anew with the Moses. In this passage, God knows the end (the establishment of his nation) but the means can change (either through those living from Israel or starting fresh with Moses). I argued, on the fly, that it is possible for God to know the end while not knowing the means he will achieve that end, allowing for an open future. My parallel example, again on the fly, was that I KNOW that I am graduating from seminary in December. The means I will achieve that end (which classes I will take, my final grade, etc) may change between now and then, but the end remains the same. Now before you point out the first obviously fallacy of my analogy, I do recognize that I don't know with absolute certainty that I will graduate. A great deal can happen between then and now. However, I simply replied to that response that I am not God and therefore my knowledge is far more limited that God. However, I wonder if this is not a possible argumentation that could be worked out. It is something to debate about at the very least. I am curious, at the very least, to see how others feel about the idea that God can know an end without knowing the means. Take for example the end times. God knows with absolute certainty that he will be victorious in the end, but he does not know who all will be in heaven, leaving that up to our choice to believe in him or not.
Please post your thoughts and comments about any and all points in this rather lengthy thread. I am curious to hear the thoughts of fellow open theists.
To think that it is correct first of all to deal with the metaphysical Being of God, and then with His Love, as His ‘ethical attribute’, means that the decisive element in the Biblical Idea of God has not been perceived." -Emil Brunner | | Back to Top | | |
 |
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 1/14/2004 12:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the information on the meeting.
Regarding interpretation of metaphors, anthropomorphisms, etc...
I think we must begin with the question to Dr. Erickson, "What does the text/metaphor/anthropomorphism mean?" I submit that whatever the interpretation he renders, it should not ultimately mean the opposite of what the text says. Else all attempts at communication are meaningless.
For example, "God changed his mind" interpreted anthropomorphicaly should ultimately NOT render an interpretation that God really did NOT change His mind in order for the text to state anything meaningful.
On the other hand "the right arm of God" cannot be literal because we know from scripture elsewhere that "God is spirit" and that the Kingdom of God is not that of "flesh and blood." Hence, we are free to explore the metaphor and associated correlates and interpret the metaphor within the historical context of the phrase e.g., "strenth," "protector," security," etc. In so doing we do not conclude that the real interpretation means the "left arm of God." Nor is our interpretation counterintuitive.
In contrast "God changed His mind" has no Biblical or historical correlate (as a phrase or a concept) that would indicate God really did not change His mind. Metaphors (and anthropomorphisms) are analogies which mean they are ANALOGOUS comparisons and not opposites.
The meaning of the analogy "He is my right hand man" is immediate and obvious. However, to say "I changed my mind" with the intended meaning "I did not change my mind - In fact I cannot change my mind" is insincere and disingenuous. While this line of fickle reasoning might apply to the female gender, it is unbefitting of God (sorry for the chauvinistic remark)
So, Dr. Erickson, "What DOES the metaphor/anthropomorphism mean that is not nonsensical?
He will have to be careful here. As best I can tell the options with the text are as follows:
1. Concede the Open Theists are correct in which case Dr. Patterson will serve his head up on a platter. You know Southern Baptist employees do not have academic freedom to do anything but oppose Open Theism (cf. 2000 Baptist Faith and Message).
2. Conclude that the text really does not mean what it says. You know Southern Baptist employees do not have academic freedom to do anything but oppose inerrancy.
3. Conclude that God reveals Himself in disingenuous and incongruent language. We are all in trouble if this is the case.
Unless I am missing an option, he is in quite a conundrum if integrity is to remain a meaningful concept.
To God alone be the glory,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/14/2004 2:16 PM (GMT -6) | | BL: I argued that when differing understandings of a passage are available we need to take the most simple (using Ockham's Razor as my philosophical rational) and argued that a literal understanding is the most simple.
Alan: Simplicity is certainly one important factor to consider, but it's not the only factor. Moreover, while everyone seems to have an intuitive notion of what "simplicity" is, it is notoriously difficult to define precisely. My point is that I doubt that a mere appeal to simplicity is enough to establish a general preference for a literal reading of Scripture. And if it did, then it would seem to prove too much for, as Erickson pointed out to you, the same principle would seem to require that we take references to the "arm" of God literally as well. As I see it, the biblical case for open theism rests on a case-by-case examination of a wide array of passages. All other things being equal, the simpler interpretation should be preferred. But sometimes all other things are not equal. Sometimes literary genre, the wider literary context, consistency with other passages, and background assumptions bearing on the plausibility of an intrepretation suffice to override our default preference for literal interpretations.
BL: Dr. Erickson felt that such a stance was a fair one, but did say that if one is to take that position, they need to hold true to it throughout Scripture, thus when it speaks of the arm of God, recognize it as the literal arm of God. He said that you simply can't pick and choose which verses you want to interpret as literal and which are anthropomorphic.
Alan: He's right that you can't simply "pick and choose", but that hardly shows that one must always favor the literal interpretation throughout Scripture. There can be principled reasons, as John points out in his post, for rejecting the literal interpretation of a passage. Erickson falsely supposes that open theists cannot give principled reasons for interpreting Exodus 32:9-14 literally and not interpreting "the arm of God" literally.
BL: His [Roger Olsen's} comment to our class about OVT was that he would become an OVT if he could find a good explanation for the end times within OVT.
Alan: I think that a preterist or an idealist interpretation of Revelation may be a plausible way to minimize the number of specific, long-range end-times predictions. General (idealist) and short-range (preterist) predictions are easier to square with OVT than the specific and long-range predictions of the usual futurist interpretations.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/15/2004 3:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Per brolewis:
Dr. Erickson felt that such a stance was a fair one, but did say that if one is to take that position, they need to hold true to it throughout Scripture, thus when it speaks of the arm of God, recognize it as the literal arm of God. He said that you simply can't pick and choose which verses you want to interpret as literal and which are anthropomorphic.
Ah, but our good man Dr. Erickson must also abide by the same hermeneutic: he must IN EVERY PASSAGE interpret either symbolically (or otherwise) or literally, and I'll bet he doesn't! Not that his incosistent hermeneutic would be, or is, unjustified--though he lays this burden of inconsistency upon the Open Theist--, but it's to be remembered that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
brolewis
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 1/15/2004 5:12 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm glad to see people debating this topic. Without going into much detail at this time, I did want to post a couple of comments.
Starkman: Ah, but our good man Dr. Erickson must also abide by the same hermeneutic.
I couldn't agree with you more. However, in the context, I didn't press him on this becuase we had already moved on to other topics in our conversation and my time with him was limited. However, it does yet again remind me how I feel that we are on trial. Its as if the truth of Calvinism has been established and we must present our case of opposition and make it worthy to be heard. I'm not saying this is right, but it seems to be how it is most of the time. We are called to answer questions and give statements that have not even been addressed by the opposite side, yet because they have status quo, it seems as though they feel as if such questions do not apply to them.
AR: Simplicity is certainly one important factor to consider, but it's not the only factor.
Absolutely, but when I only had 20 minutes to present my side, I felt I could sacrifice other factors so that I could have more time devoted to Scriptural and philosophical argumentation. It was a concession on my part for the sake of time.
AR: I think that a preterist or an idealist interpretation of Revelation may be a plausible way to minimize the number of specific, long-range end-times predictions.
Being a non-futurist (haven't decided what I am yet, but I know I'm not a futurist ), I would agree. I need to see his reaction to that. I shall ask him...
JMD, thanks for the resopnse. It is well-written and gives me some information. I hope to email Dr. E and see if we can continue our little dialoge. As before, I'll keep everyone posted.
To think that it is correct first of all to deal with the metaphysical Being of God, and then with His Love, as His ‘ethical attribute’, means that the decisive element in the Biblical Idea of God has not been perceived." -Emil Brunner | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 1/15/2004 5:46 AM (GMT -6) | | BL
Someone on the board posted a great quote from C.S. Lewis that I think is applicable to your discussions...”Unintelligible concepts do not become compliments simply because we ascribe them to God."
Lewis did not consistently apply this belief to all his opinions (but who among us is absolutely consistent anyway). However, it is still agreat quote.
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 1/15/2004 6:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Ross
I too am a Southern Baptist (life long)…And an inerrantist (of sorts). I am disappointed over the "mean-spiritedness" under the guise of “doctrinal purity” among the upper eshalon of our leadership. Not that doctrine is unimportant…I just think they/we have gone too far, especially relative to foreknowledge, women’s issues, and I believe we have escalated the Baptist Faith and Message to a functionally exclusive creed beyond what is reasonable. I have many personal friends in leadership on both sides of the issue and do not doubt their personal commitment to the faith. For what it is worth I think the CBF has gone too far the other way. While I perceive that SBC waters run so deep as to be stagnant, I perceive that CBF waters run too shallow as to be superficial. Both conventions have there strengths as well. But this is only a personal opinion. From a pragmatic standpoint I am in a small town in the South with few (evengelical) options, so I continue serving in an SBC church and feeling somewhat hypocritical in “looking past” these perceived doctrinal inconsistencies in the SBC.
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
brolewis
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 1/15/2004 8:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, if its confessional time (where's the priest?), I too grew up in an SBC church. I now serve at a church that really doesn't care, which is nice since there are many points of contention I have with the SBC (namely those you mentioned, John). However, I recognize that as I continue to explore my ministry that some of my convicitons (foreknowledge, women in ministry, BFM 2K, etc) can hinder me, but that is something I am willing to live with. I have even had struggles in my own home when I have talked about OVT. My parents are quite open on many respects, but this has been a point of contention. Yet, I still believe as I do.
As to the topic at hand, I turned in a written copy of my debate to Dr. E and he returned those to us today. As soon as I am able to decipher his comments (he has some pretty messy handwriting! ), I'll post them for your reaction.
To think that it is correct first of all to deal with the metaphysical Being of God, and then with His Love, as His ‘ethical attribute’, means that the decisive element in the Biblical Idea of God has not been perceived." -Emil Brunner | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 1/16/2004 10:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Sorry Ross
The town is too small and I am too well known elsewhere. I remain a covert operator for now. I am pretty good at it too...Ya' think my paranoia fits the bill?
I get to Nashville a couple of times a year though
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/30/2004 4:38 AM (GMT -6) | | At lunch, Dr. Erickson felt that such a stance (viz. simplest reading) was a fair one, but did say that if one is to take that position, they need to hold true to it throughout Scripture, thus when it speaks of the arm of God, recognize it as the literal arm of God.
Doc: So if one takes the arm of God as figurative must one "to take that position...throughout Scripture"? The incarnation is figurative, the parting of the Red Sea?
Secondly, he talked about how he had never heard an OVT address James Barr's work concerning the language of the OT.
Doc: Barr showed that one can't determine the meaning of a term just by lexigocraphy. One has to look at its USE in a particular context. How this impacts the OV more than or less than any other view is unclear.
I am curious, at the very least, to see how others feel about the idea that God can know an end without knowing the means.
Doc: He can be certain because he knows ALL POSSIBLE means....The infinitely wise chess master doesn't know what you shall do, but can nevertheless announce, "in not more than seventeen moves I shall checkmate you."
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:35 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 |
|
|