 |
 | 
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/4/2006 7:40 PM (GMT -6) |   | My suggestion. You start with prayer. Show what prayer means under open theism, and what it means under other systems. Use what Francis Schaeffer called "blowing the roof off". People construct safe little huts with roofs out of their beliefs. Lots of times the beliefs are not consistent with the "constructed" roof people have made to give them cover and make them feel safe. "Blowing the roof off" is simply removing the cover, showing them that to be consistent with what they say they believe will not give them the roof they "think" they have. Then help them rebuild a roof that is stronger and CONSISTENT with their "new" beliefs, open theism.
Yeah, OK. In theory that's how to do it. Usually much messier than that explanation makes it sound. And you'll lots of times come away in wonder at how much inconsistency many people are willing to live with. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/5/2006 2:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Ed-
I have a great friend and colleague who run every theology or doctrine through a litmus test. He summarizes the test with three short phrases or questions:
Big deal.
So what?
Who cares?
His point is, show me HOW it matters. What real difference does it make.
So you’re asking a great question. And the concern to articulate it in non-philosophical and high-end theological jargon is especially important.
Here’s a secret. For Arminian believers who already believe in libertarian free will, real ontological openness, options that matter, and in prayer’s undetermined role and urgency, there’s less of an issue. I mean, these believers have already bought into the basic world-view that open viewers embrace. And THAT is what’s important. Sure, they think everything about this world is eternally known to God. So what they in fact hold to is a kind of ‘pre-recorded open theism’. But they still believe in an indeterminate world and libertarian freedom. And in my view that’s what’s really important. So long as THEY don’t see the philosophical problem of God’s eternally knowing how everything shall turn out in this sort of world, then I don’t push it with them. But should they begin to question how such divine knowledge is compatible with this sort of freedom and indeterminacy, THEN I jump in. I guess my point is, I would just concentrate on teaching the essence of it—which is libertarian freedom, real options, prayers that matter in an undetermined way, the reality of risk for God and us, etc. Just lay it out there in simple terms without bringing up the philosophical questions of incompatability, the epistemological issues, the semantics of an open future, and all that. They’ll get to that eventually. But so long as they’re viewing themselves and their choices in a biblical way, I wouldn’t push the other stuff.
The problem comes in counseling suffering believers of an Arminian persuasion. They’re already on board with libertarian free will, genuine options, etc., BUT when they suffer, when evil strikes, they tend to fall back upon “God’s always known this was gonna happen” to comfort them. And they start asking questions like, “OK, so God didn’t determine it, but he knew it, and in knowing it he ‘allowed’ it; why?” that the open view becomes a way to make sense of it. At least that’s been my experience.
Now, for determinists, or Calvinists, you’re locked in a struggle from the get go. There’s nothing to do but challenge the underlying assumptions.
I may have totally missed your whole question Ed. If you’re specifically wanting to know how to begin introducing the open view in easy terms to an audience interested in knowing, then I’d definitely begin with some of the key biblical passages (Ex. 14, Jer. 3, Isa. 2, and some NT passages too). Just have ‘em read those passages and ask them to reflect on what it means for God to speaking about the future in such terms. See if the light comes on.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/5/2006 3:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Guess I should have been more clear. I didn't mean that you should de-roof in a public meta church meeting, drawing some kind of line in the sand and daring anyone to question you. Ideally, a small group or one on one, and then as you feel a welcoming for discussion of the issue. But I stick by the value of de-roofing. I've been de-roofed myself a few times, and it has led to an experience of greater freedom in my spiritual life.
I guess that's what I don't understand about those who say to hold back on talking about open theism. Open theism has opened a world of great freedom to me and I believe that's what it promises to anyone. Granted, there may be some special needs people that would not be prime candidates for expressing open views to, but I see no reason to treat your entire congregation as special needs people. I believe that's one of the reasons why we see such weakness in our churches, leadership coddles them like politicians do their constituents; keeping them from growing in a vigorous spiritual healthiness. I am not ashamed of open theism and do not want to hide the fact that I am an open theist. I'm not talking about forcing it down anyone's throat, nor am I talking about treating those who do not hold the view as some kind of second class christian. What I'm talking about is exercising your own freedom, and inviting others to exercise theirs. People are afraid to step out into new beliefs, sure...help them make the journey. But you're not going to do that by being timid about it. If open theism is good enough to believe, it's good enough to talk about openly. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/12/2006 12:43 AM (GMT -6) | | I was amazed (and quite pleasantly surprised) a couple of weeks ago in my Wed. night class at our church (where I'm the pastor), when I gently but directly presented the Open View from the Bible itself. I had already taught on election from a corporate conditional standpoint and predestination as referring to sanctification instead of salvation, and so it seemed natural to transit into the Open View. I presented from the Bible itself how God is revealed as experiencing grief, disappointment, and suffering due to mankind's sinful choices, and how prayer changes things. If these things are not true, the Bible seriously misrepresents God. When I presented the difference between perceiving of foreknowledge as a single straight line (traditional foreknowledge) and foreknowledge as a tree having both potential and certain branches, I could see the lights come on in several eyes.
When I further explained that I affirmed that God knows all things for what they are; i.e., the possible as indeed possible and the definite as indeed definite, I was amazed to hear no one object. When I opened up for questions at the end, the one elderly gentleman who had first asked me what I believed about Romans 9-11 after I had taught on biblical predestination seemed to be both delighted and amused. After the service he kidded me, "You don't teach on any easy subjects, do you?" We both laughed.
In addition to the fact that my denomination is pretty staunchly Arminian in background, I think it helped that several in our congregation were familiar with the writings of Finis Dake on this subject. When I mentioned him as one person who held to the same basic ideas as I did on this subject, several nodded in recognition.
So I guess for me at least the easiest way to teach the Open View is to teach the Bible. I know that may sound terribly arrogant, but that is truly how I see it.
Blessings, y'all.
John
Post Edited (JEE) : 4/12/2006 2:44:40 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/12/2006 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | | John-
Great point Not at all arrogant sounding. Right on. Makes good sense. So, simply teach on the biblical passages as representing a God who experiences, thinks, feels, faces possible outcomes and prepares for them, etc., instead of announcing that this morning I'm going to be speaking on a very controversial subject that many feel is heresy and it'll shock you, etc. Good point.
Ed, what if you just did a sermon, or a series, on the 'personal God' and showed how different the biblical portrayal of God is from non-biblical ideas. Leave the modern debate out of it completely and just present the biblical passages. Yes? No?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/12/2006 11:06 AM (GMT -6) | | I think it's worth noting, however (what, with the controversy of the Open View), that it be clear up front (if one is teaching specifically on the Open View) that it is, in fact, an open View of the future. If that isn't clear from the beginning, it will surely happen that someone will catch on and accuse the teacher of trying to sneak in "Open theism." Then the teaching session is up against what usually amounts to, but not always, insurmountable odds.
Better to be up front. That doesn't mean one has to state, "The subject tonight is a controversial one...," but it does mean that there should be no if, ands or buts that it is, in fact, the Open View that is being taught. I think that's just good preventive medicine.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/12/2006 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | I think it also helps that my denomination's Declaration of Faith (to which all credentialed ministers must agree) says absolutely nothing whatsoever about omniscience or foreknowledge per se: churchofgod.cc/about/declaration_of_faith.cfm
I would agree with Starky that it might be perceived as deceptive or "sneaky" to teach the Open View without being up front about it, especially if I were teaching something directly contrary to the stated beliefs of a particular church or denomination, or if I were teaching such things in a church that did not welcome the pursuit of better light on the Bible.
As a matter of fact, I was very clear in my remarks that I was not speaking dogmatically, that I knew full well that my view was a minority one, that I could certainly understand why some may not agree with my understanding of this, but that this was what I had found to be the best way to understand the subject. I always make it clear whenever I teach on something as controversial as this, and which is not a salvation issue per se, that I am submitting my views for their consideration. If they do not find my ideas persuasive, I certainly can't "make" anybody believe something they are not persuaded of from the Scriptures and Right Reason.
I would also add that we don't have to call it "the Open View" or "Open Theism" for the point of the idea to be conveyed that the future is not set in stone, is to a certain extent open, depending on what free moral agents do.
Post Edited (JEE) : 4/13/2006 4:22:53 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/13/2006 6:53 AM (GMT -6) | |
JEE said...
Oh yeah, forgot to add that whenever I teach on this, I generally will point out that "traditional theology" doesn't really know what to do with the biblical passages in which God is said to repent. In attempting to explain away such things as "anthropomorphisms," they are in fact directly undermining confidence in the veracity of the Bible itself.
Actually, I rather enjoy showing how ridiculous and absurd traditional theology is when compared to Scripture in this way.
First, in the tradition of "saying and unsaying to a positive effect" it is only in contemporary (and therein enters the absurd part) arguements that any notion of "ONLY" anthropomorphicism" is put on the table.
Traditionally God is totally "other" to his creatures. The "veracity" of God "repenting" is that it is part of the revelation that he gave us. "Traditionally" the Fathers held that there is nothing that is in God that is not revealed (and that revelation is Jesus Christ himself); but that it is only our creaturely and also sinful limitations that prevents our comprehending it.
God chose to use anthropomorphisms. But we can't expect to use them to do a vivisection on God.
If we want a closeup look, look at Christ.
And that Christ said "no man knows the hour, not even the son of man" should give us humble pause.
Definitely do NOT accept the neo-traditional view. But look into the real Tradition.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/14/2006 4:40 PM (GMT -6) | | The Suffering of God by Fretheim IS a great book.
And Fretheim is a full-blown Open Theist. I've bought all his books, good stuff. | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 4/15/2006 6:08 PM (GMT -6) | | ... they said "possibilities?... POssibilities?.... POSSIbilities.... POSSIBILITIES???????" "NO WAY, God's head would pop off!"
That's gotta be the best response ever 
Blessings,
selah | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:30 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 |
|
|