 |
| 
Grahaminator
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 70
| Posted 6/14/2007 5:01 PM (GMT -6) |   | | I recently heard a classical theist say something like "Open Theism is primarily motivated by the rejection of the doctrine of divine impassibility."
In my brief study of open theism, it seemed to me that OVT is primarily motivated by a rejection of theological determinism and the upholding of libertarian free will.
Being a classical theist myself, I would be interested in getting your guys thoughts on the underlying motivation for the Open View. (Or motivations) I don't ask for you thoughts on this in the spirit of "obviously your view is false so what's your psychological motivation." I am honestly curious about what primarily pushes you guys in the direction of Open Theism.
Were you guys classical theists at one point and then you listened to the arguments for OVT? Were you simply trying to study theology and in the process trying to avoid theological fatalism? Did a rejection of the doctrine of impassibility play a role in anyone's thinking?
Matt
Man is the feeblest reed in existence, but he is a thinking reed. There is no need that the universe be armed for his destruction; a noxious vapour, a drop of water is enough to cause his death. But though the universe were to destroy him, man would be more noble than his destroyer. -Pascal | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/14/2007 5:54 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/15/2007 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | I was an Arminianist for many, many years. I became an Open Theist for one reason: it makes sense out of the reality in which we live. For instance, how is it possible that the Lord can tell me exactly what I'm going to do in the next few minutes (much less days) when in so many circumstances of my future I possess the ability to not only make my own choices, but even to choose differently than what anybody, including God, tells me what I will choose? I mean, I can't choose differently in every single situation (e.g., if God were to tell me, 'You're going to die, Starkman'), but with the exception of those few things, I can choose to do a lot of things differently than how I am told I will choose. That's the exercise of freewill. That's what makes it impossible to be boxed into the corner of having God know, down to the last blink, what I will do next. That is reality.
I'm not an Open Theist because it addresses the problem of evil or because of divine impassibility. I'm an Open Theist simply because it makes sense with regard to how we do life.
Thanks,
Starkman
Post Edited (Starkman) : 6/15/2007 8:30:20 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/15/2007 10:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: (b) a better existential "fit" between what they believe and how they live; (b) the "explanatory power" faith gets from this "fit"; and (c) a more consistent interpretation of Scripture
Matt: Could you elaborate on your point b? The "explanatory power" faith gets from this "fit"?
Tom: Hi Matt. I’ll try. When we have beliefs about God, reality, and the world that “fit” our experience OF the world, our beliefs then gain explanatory power. They are able to explain things better. I guess (a) and (b) are two sides of the same coin. I just wanted to say that part of open theism’s appeal is its ability (in view and experience of open theists!) to account for how it is we go about living in the world (deliberating options for example). There’s an ‘existential’ component. But then this still have to be ‘argued’ consistently and put together in a logical manner. That’s the (b) I was aiming at. The fact itself that there’s such existential fit between the OV and the undeniable
Griffin, for example, argues for the “acceptance of the inevitable presuppositions of practice…as the primary test of adequacy for any philosophical or theological position.” He calls these “hard core commonsense notions.” Just what those are is one aspect of the existential argument in favor of the religious adequacy of the OV (my (a) perhaps). The explanatory power (viz., the ability of this religious/existential adequacy) to fill out our worldview systematically and consistently is another (part b).
Hope that helps. Maybe I’m dividing it up too finely. If so, just lump (a) and (b) together under “existential fit” or “adequacy.”
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:55 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 |
|
|