A problem with open theism (HOF thread)

[godrulz]

Godrulz, a limited "foreknowledge" nevertheless. Just curious what did you think of the ETS ruling against open theism?

ETS was as concerned about Clark Pinnock's view of biblical inspiration (he clarified it to their satisfaction) and John Sander's views. There was some division, but in the end, they retained their membership, with Sanders by less of a margin. He has since been forced out of the college he taught at (unrelated to ETS). ETS defends Calvinistic orthodoxy and confuses it as being the only legitimate expression of Christianity. The old Reformed guard rejects Arminianism as much as Open Theism. I think they will shore up their statement of faith further so they can take a stronger stand against Open Theism. I imagine Pinnock and Sanders will be eventually forced out of membership. As far as I know, they are still members in good standing despite ETS rejecting their Open Theism as heretical.

Christianity Today followed the story and fairly represented it (? Jan. /2005).

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/145/54.0.html


http://www.evangelicalnews.org/bp172.html

(membership retained)

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=12210

 

[Freak]

ETS was as concerned about Clark Pinnock's view of biblical inspiration (he clarified it to their satisfaction) and John Sander's views. There was some division, but in the end, they retained their membership, with Sanders by less of a margin. He has since been forced out of the college he taught at (unrelated to ETS). ETS defends Calvinistic orthodoxy and confuses it as being the only legitimate expression of Christianity. The old Reformed guard rejects Arminianism as much as Open Theism. I think they will shore up their statement of faith further so they can take a stronger stand against Open Theism. I imagine Pinnock and Sanders will be eventually forced out of membership. As far as I know, they are still members in good standing despite ETS rejecting their Open Theism as heretical.

Christianity Today followed the story and fairly represented it (? Jan. /2005).

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/145/54.0.html


http://www.evangelicalnews.org/bp172.html

(membership retained)

Why do you think the universal Body of Christ, generally speaking, has rejected open theism. As believers in Christ we are guided by the Holy Spirit unto all truth and it appears that the Holy Spirit has guided the Body of Christ to reject open theism.

 

[godrulz]

Why do you think the universal Body of Christ, generally speaking, has rejected open theism. As believers in Christ we are guided by the Holy Spirit unto all truth and it appears that the Holy Spirit has guided the Body of Christ to reject open theism.

Calvinism vs Arminianism is as big a split as Open Theism. There have been times in church history where tradition was shown to be wrong and ideas had to change to be more biblical. The area of time vs eternity has not been wrestled with adequately by the church. This issue impacts our view of foreknowledge, etc. We cannot underestimate tradition and its blinding effects. The Reformation was a needed wake up call. The Pentecostal Movement (which you probably support) was another restoration of truth and emphasis on the person and work of the Spirit. Open Theism affirms the great truths of the faith. Understanding the nature of the future is not salvific. I appreciate your concern, but Calvinism is problematic as is some aspects of Arminianism.

We all claim to be led by the Spirit, so why the great divisions in the Body of Christ? Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox, etc. all claim the Spirit and the Word. We need to exegete Scripture. Augustine was influenced by Greek philosophy. Calvin was influenced by Augustine. Many of our ideas were influenced by Calvin and others and have been accepted uncritically. Even the classic idea of strong immutability is no longer believed by most theologians, yet there was a time that not believing it was tantamount to heresy. A new attention to God's omniscience is needed, since the classic view does not resolve tensions between free will, predestination, etc. There are logical, philosophical, and scriptural problems with some traditional ideas. The Spirit is leading us into all truth, but we can be stuck in ideas that are less than biblical.

Most of the attack against Open Theism comes from Reformed circles (though Arminians also reject it). They are also against Arminianism and use similar arguments against it. There is a political wrestling of control to be the dominant wing of Christianity. Wesley vs Whitefield is instructive in how we should work through doctrinal divisions. I would understand Open Theism and not misrepresent it before I was quick to dismiss it as heretical. It also goes back farther than the last 20 years (McCabe, etc.). Do you reject the Pentecostal revivals because they are 'new'? What does Scripture say?

 

[Freak]

The area of time vs eternity has not been wrestled with adequately by the church.

This is true.

The Reformation was a needed wake up call. The Pentecostal Movement (which you probably support) was another restoration of truth and emphasis on the person and work of the Spirit.

This is true again. So, you see Open Theism as another restoration of truth?

Open Theism affirms the great truths of the faith. Understanding the nature of the future is not salvific. I appreciate your concern, but Calvinism is problematic as is some aspects of Arminianism.

I agree.

We all claim to be led by the Spirit, so why the great divisions in the Body of Christ? Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox, etc. all claim the Spirit and the Word.

But we don't disagree on the essentials. The above mentioned groups all embrace certain truths. We are unified. On non-essentials we need to be careful. It seems the Body of Christ is concerned about open view as it militates against certain essential core beliefs.

Yet, the Body of Christ, universally, has rejected open theism and has labeled it as heretical or borderline heretical.

Do you reject the Pentecostal revivals because they are 'new'? What does Scripture say?

The Pentecostal revivals are embraced, universally, by the Body of Christ. Throughout the globe the fastest growing segment of Christianity is Pentecostalism (which, btw, I am not a member of). Nearly every Christian group in the world has embraced the truths of the Spirit. This is unlike open theism. It seems the Body of Christ, while guided by the Holy Spirit is very cautious concerning this element.

 

[godrulz]

Most critiques of Open Theism I have read simply rehash Reformed doctrine. Wesley would also not fair well in their critiques. They also misrepresent and misunderstand the view, creating a straw man caricature. e.g. they confuse it with Process Theology and think attacking Process thought refutes Open Theism. Most Open Theists also create Process theology (though there are some common ideas).

There is still a fair bit of anti-Pentecostalism in the Body of Christ.

I honestly believe that Open Theism does not deny the essentials of the faith.

e.g. omniscience means that God knows all that is knowable. We disagree on the nature of the future and what is knowable as a certainty. Recognizing the differences between possibilities and actualities and the past, present, and future is not heretical.

Take a moment to read Boyd's affirmations. His Baptist denomination did not like his Open Theism, but most did not feel he crossed the line into total unorthodoxy.

http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=506

I believe the Open View is less problematic and more biblical than the classic view in many areas.

Just as there are at least 5 major views on the nature of the atonement, nature of sanctification, nature of time vs eternity, etc., so I think there is more than one possible view on the exact nature of omniscience/foreknowledge/predestination. OSAS is another divisive debate that is not easily resolved. We should not question each other's orthodoxy over the perseverance of the saints.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Freak, much better tone - thanks!

There is no reason we cannot all be reasonable with each other on this thread. :up:

 

[Freak]

Understanding the nature of the future is not salvific. I appreciate your concern, but Calvinism is problematic as is some aspects of Arminianism.

Any aspect within open theism problematic?

 

[asilentskeptic]

Heh, this post had 666 replies... scary! *gasp* *cringe* Must... Change... Number!

 

[Delmar]

Any aspect within open theism problematic?

I don't see it

 

[docrob57]

First off, I would recommend anyone who hasn't read Clete's first substantive post in the one on one to read it. It is very interesting and well thought out.

The question of Calvinism vs. Arminianism is not the same as the question of exhastive foreknowledge. The question really comes down to whether foreknowledge negates the possibility of free will. As I have argued many times throughout, it does not. I think the main problem with the open theist perspective is that it essentially imposes human limitations on God.

Does God know who you will vote for in 2008? I suggest he does. Not because you have no choice, but he has perfect knowledge of all the causal factors and how they will play out. What if I intend to vote for Peroutka, but on the way to the poll I am struck by lightning and killed. Again, God's perfect knowledge of ALL the causal factors involved allows Him to know that this will happen too. God did not cause you to support Peroutka, he did not cause you to leave to vote at the time you did, etc. But he can anticipate with complete accuracy.

 

[Clete]

You're right! Clete, I offer my apologies. I just get frustrated over your, sometimes, silly remarks.

At the risk of opening a can of worms that I will later regret, I would like to know what I said that so silly.

I said that saying it doesn't make it so (which you agree with) and told you to show us if you can. To which you replied with an outright lie...

Clete, I've discussed the issues with you over the years and you have yet to confront the truth I have presented. Why should I bother with someone like yourself that simply whines all the time.

A lie Freak! That's all this is. 100% pure and complete fabrication.

I then said that to refuse a label that fits you is a lie. Another comment with which you agree.

I then said the following...

If (and I do say IF) you believe in what distinguishes Calvinism as a theological system then you are a Calvinist.​

To which you lived up to your user name and quite literally FREAKED out...

Prove it. Prove that I'm a Calvinist. Either put up or shut up!

Why should I need to prove something that I didn't say? I never insisted that you were a Calvinist and I worded my comments so as to make that perfectly clear to anyone who actually wanted to understand what I was saying. I was not responding to your denial of the label "Calvinism" but you glib denial of any and all theological labels, as though that somehow makes you better than the rest of us who don't mind using the English language to its full effect. If you would stop assuming hostility on my part and just read what I say and take it for what it is actually saying without reading into it whatever pops into your head, you and I might be able to make some progress.

Next I made yet another comment with which you agree saying, "Ducking the label does you no good."
Tell me when I get to the silly part of my post, okay?
To this comment you remained in the freak out mode...

Are you mentally ill? I have never once identified myself with Calvinism or any other ism. I find my identification in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ unlike you. You find your identity in open theism and Hillism.

You are a liar Freak. That's the plain and simple fact of the matter. You lie with such skill and gracefulness that I doubt you even realized that it's happening. You run out of substance within one post and then immediately resort to asking ridiculous questions and spouting outrageous lies that everyone here knows are not the truth including yourself.

You came back from being banned insisting that there was a "new Freak" and that you had changed your ways and turned over a new leaf. I knew better then but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and to give you an honest chance, which I have done with this last comment as the result. Well, I've had it. I simply will not tolerate this sort of thing any longer. You will admit clearly and immediately on this thread that what you've said here was an intentional lie or else I will simply have nothing more to do with you at all. I’m not interested in a response from you on anything else. I don’t care what your reaction is to what I’ve said in this post, I’m not interested in what you have to say about Open Theism, I don’t care if you’re jumping up and down in a wild eyed frenzy over what you consider to be an injustice in what I’ve said or anything else. You will admit that you lied or that’s it, period. I want to see that admission or nothing at all from you in response to anything I’ve said.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Any aspect within open theism problematic?

To a Calvinist, much of it. Apparently it is problematic in light of the classic, traditional view. Most Open Theists do not deny the essentials of the faith (Deity and resurrection of Christ; salvation by grace through faith, etc.).

I do not see why Clete thinks you are deliberately a liar with the intent to deceive. Ignorant, misinformed, playing games? Not a liar?

 

[godrulz]

First off, I would recommend anyone who hasn't read Clete's first substantive post in the one on one to read it. It is very interesting and well thought out.

The question of Calvinism vs. Arminianism is not the same as the question of exhastive foreknowledge. The question really comes down to whether foreknowledge negates the possibility of free will. As I have argued many times throughout, it does not. I think the main problem with the open theist perspective is that it essentially imposes human limitations on God.

Does God know who you will vote for in 2008? I suggest he does. Not because you have no choice, but he has perfect knowledge of all the causal factors and how they will play out. What if I intend to vote for Peroutka, but on the way to the poll I am struck by lightning and killed. Again, God's perfect knowledge of ALL the causal factors involved allows Him to know that this will happen too. God did not cause you to support Peroutka, he did not cause you to leave to vote at the time you did, etc. But he can anticipate with complete accuracy.

None of these supposedly causal things existed trillions of years ago. There is nothing inherent to make them knowable that far in advance. There are too many contingencies to predict 2008 details in eternity past (as a certainty vs possibility).

 

[docrob57]

None of these supposedly causal things existed trillions of years ago. There is nothing inherent to make them knowable that far in advance. There are too many contingencies to predict 2008 details in eternity past (as a certainty vs possibility).

For us, yes, but for God?

 

[godrulz]

For us, yes, but for God?

It is not a deficiency in omniscience to not know a nothing. Future free will contingent events cannot be known as a certainty until they become actual, even for God. This is an issue of logical absurdity and contradiction, not a problem with God's omniscience.

 

[docrob57]

It is not a deficiency in omniscience to not know a nothing. Future free will contingent events cannot be known as a certainty until they become actual, even for God. This is an issue of logical absurdity and contradiction, not a problem with God's omniscience.

Okay

 

[Clete]

I do not see why Clete thinks you are deliberately a liar with the intent to deceive. Ignorant, misinformed, playing games? Not a liar?

How can you not see it?

I find my identification in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ unlike you. You find your identity in open theism and Hillism.

Do you think that there is any truth to this intentionally insulting nonsense?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Does God know who you will vote for in 2008? I suggest he does. Not because you have no choice, but he has perfect knowledge of all the causal factors and how they will play out. What if I intend to vote for Peroutka, but on the way to the poll I am struck by lightning and killed. Again, God's perfect knowledge of ALL the causal factors involved allows Him to know that this will happen too. God did not cause you to support Peroutka, he did not cause you to leave to vote at the time you did, etc. But he can anticipate with complete accuracy.

What if God doesn't want to know who we will vote for a millennia into the future?

Isn't it possible that God doesn't want to have this type of detailed knowledge that constrains the future so tightly?

The ultimate dream of the computer programmer is to design a computer that can think all on its own. Yet the best we can do is come up with computers that appear to think on their own but ultimately can only do what they are programmed to do.

God did what we cannot.

God was able to create something that actually could think on its own. Yet as Peter Parker's uncle said . . . "with great power comes great responsibility." God knew the consequences of this creation might be that man would choose what is in opposition to His own will. Yet God is merciful and sent His Son to die on the cross for us to repair the damage we have done with the great power of the human will.

The human freewill is at the very core of the gospel.

 

[docrob57]

What if God doesn't want to know who we will vote for a millennia into the future?

Isn't it possible that God doesn't want to have this type of detailed knowledge that constrains the future so tightly?

It is possible I admit, however, it still doesn't follow that foreknowledge=constraint.

The human freewill is at the very core of the gospel.

On this, I did find Clete's argument quite compelling in the One on One. I am rethinking this one.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It is possible I admit, however, it still doesn't follow that foreknowledge=constraint.

Foreknowledge doesn't necessarily equal constraint unless the foreknowledge is exhaustive and perfect. If foreknowledge is perfect it cannot be altered (otherwise it wouldn't be perfect) and therefore the future is constrained to what is contained in that pefect foreknowledge. Can you argue any differently? (that question sort of sounds rude - it isn't intended to be rude).