Process Theology and Open Theology

[libevangelical]

Has anyone read the book "Searching For an Adequate God" edited by Cobb and Pinnock? It is a dialogue between open and process theologians and philosophers. The central issue seems to be the nature of divine power. Is it exclusively persuasive or is it primarily persuasive and sometimes coercive. The contention of process philosophy is that God being Spirit cannot execise direct physical control. God can only persuade physical entities to exercise such power. In other words, God has no hands except ours do do his will. Hence Creation out of nothing is an ontological impossiblity. I am an open theist myself. I have my own intuitions about how this ontological problem can be resolved but am not sure if I can say flatly that God as pure Spirit is capable of exercising direct physical control over his creation. I welcome your insights.

 

[Chileice]

Re: Process Theology and Open Theology

Originally posted by libevangelical

Has anyone read the book "Searching For an Adequate God" edited by Cobb and Pinnock? It is a dialogue between open and process theologians and philosophers. The central issue seems to be the nature of divine power. Is it exclusively persuasive or is it primarily persuasive and sometimes coercive. The contention of process philosophy is that God being Spirit cannot execise direct physical control. God can only persuade physical entities to exercise such power. In other words, God has no hands except ours do do his will. Hence Creation out of nothing is an ontological impossiblity. I am an open theist myself. I have my own intuitions about how this ontological problem can be resolved but am not sure if I can say flatly that God as pure Spirit is capable of exercising direct physical control over his creation. I welcome your insights.

Would a god who can exercise no direct control still be God? I mean I can influence people. Does that make me God?

 

[STONE]

God can and does create all that we will ever see or experience.
How can the mind of man attept to limit God?

 

[godrulz]

God does not create moral evil.

Open Theism has a few similarities with Process Theology, but has many more differences. Process falls short of the biblical model, while Open Theism seems to reconcile the relevant Scriptural evidence.

The Creator is distinct from His creation. He is transcendent and immanent:

Is. 57:15 He is the Almighty Father

"For this is what the high and lofty one says- he who lives forever, whose name is holy: I live in a high and holy place, BUT ALSO with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite."

He is not an aloof Deist god, but can and does have relationship with us and intervenes in space-time history as He pleases. Nor is He a pantheistic god, literally in everthing.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Re: Re: Process Theology and Open Theology

Re: Re: Process Theology and Open Theology

Originally posted by Chileice

Would a god who can exercise no direct control still be God? I mean I can influence people. Does that make me God?

This is not a accurate nor a logical reason to reject open theism.

A. Open theism does not state that God cannot exercise complete control, yet open theism argues that God chose not to exercise complete control. I often concede that God COULD HAVE completely ordained the entire future but that doesn't match what we read in the Bible and therefore I reject that notion.

B. Your point about you being able to influence people not making you God is a non sequitur. No one to my knowledge argues (nor should argue) that having influence is a strictly divine attribute.

 

[freelight]

in process.......

in process.......

Originally posted by libevangelical

Has anyone read the book "Searching For an Adequate God" edited by Cobb and Pinnock? It is a dialogue between open and process theologians and philosophers. The central issue seems to be the nature of divine power. Is it exclusively persuasive or is it primarily persuasive and sometimes coercive. The contention of process philosophy is that God being Spirit cannot execise direct physical control. God can only persuade physical entities to exercise such power. In other words, God has no hands except ours do do his will. Hence Creation out of nothing is an ontological impossiblity. I am an open theist myself. I have my own intuitions about how this ontological problem can be resolved but am not sure if I can say flatly that God as pure Spirit is capable of exercising direct physical control over his creation. I welcome your insights.

)==============Hi libevangelical,

I would say this of course brings up the age-old debate over free will and the extent of the sovereignty of will. It may be that since God gave man a certain liberty of free will that He has chosen by his own law/constitution not to impose his will on or coerce man ever....however his divine power/will is ever a persuasive influence of course. With process theology......Deity and Man are ever momentously unfolding and sharing in a continuous experience of sequences/events which include free will participation and therefore such transpirations are always 'coordinate'. Since the dynamic and free agency of man is ever involved in the creative process....Gods influence is primarily and always persuasive.
As far as divine power being sometimes coercive....such would be possible only in the arena of action where there is no interplay or engagement with free will beings - it would be a realm wherein the cooperative element of free will and creative participation is absent. However, because God has provided the inclusion of free will to sentient beings....this being part of His Will....He has willingly given up a measure of divine power in the grant of free will liberties to engage in the cooperative exercise of creation and experiential realities. In the case of God and Man....each have certain 'powers' and the dynamic of will appears to be inherent in these powers. I believe man is granted free will and shall have such liberty as long God wills such....as in accordance with the laws inherent is such bestowal. God remains omnipotent and omniscient still.......as His immanence and transcendence is omni-versal...He being God. However,...in the individual life of a soul....such liberties of free will as granted govern the souls station, condition and destiny as eternal constants.

I havent read the book, but look forward to continued dialogue in these matters,


peace,


paul

 

[Rolf Ernst]

This thread shows that the OVers are swiftly descending the slippery slope they entered with their first heretical notion of openess.

That is what happens when men think they can discover God or determine any truths concerning Him by human reason, rationality, or logic.

 

[STONE]

"He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest thou?"

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by godrulz

God does not create moral evil.
Open Theism has a few similarities with Process Theology, but has many more differences. Process falls short of the biblical model, while Open Theism seems to reconcile the relevant Scriptural evidence.
The Creator is distinct from His creation. He is transcendent and immanent:

"Him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein..."

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. "

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by STONE

"He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest thou?"

Bible reference is important to establish contest (please).

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by STONE

"Him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein..."

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. "

Evil is in the realm of morals (choice, wrong moral choice...it does not exist until a choice is made; God created things 'very good' and then their was a Fall that He was not culpable for) and not metaphysics (things). Evil is not a 'thing' that God creates. "All" is not always used in an absolute sense. e.g. 'everyone saw the play' does not mean that millions saw the play.

God created the universe, but He did not directly create the cars we drive, the thoughts and feelings we have, etc. He gave us the power to procreate and be creative. He does not directly make babies, we must be involved.

Again, verses for context. These verses do not contradict the many verses that indicate evil grieves God, and is not for His 'pleasure'. i.e. your interpretation of the inclusiveness of 'all' is incorrect as it contradicts the ministry of Jesus, God with a face, who opposed evil, and did not affirm it as God's will or 'creation'.

 

[STONE]

To God all means some?
(I'm only searching your Theology.)

 

[STONE]

For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. (col 1:16-17)

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by STONE

To God all means some?
(I'm only searching your Theology.)

Do you believe God created moral evil? I believe He created Lucifer, not Satan. He created Adam and the earth and pronounced it 'very good'. Subsequently, due to the inherent nature of free will (God is not the only moral agent in the universe with a will), evil was introduced by other agents than God. Now, God did not say it is still 'very good', but He was grieved and regretted even making man. Evil is incompatible with the holiness of God.

Once again, evil is not a 'thing' (metaphysics), but it is in the realm of moral choice (non-existent until the choice made, and still not a thing).

The problem is not with the word 'all' (God created the heavens and the earth. Man creates plastic, cars, etc.). The problem is confusing morality and substance (things). They are not identical. God is the Moral Governor of the universe and uses moral laws to govern us. Nature is under the law of instinct, and inanimate creation is under the law of cause and effect. We cannot confuse or blur the distinctions between created things and the moral realm of love and relationship.

Hyper-Calvinism and predestination logically makes God responsible for evil, contrary to His revealed character. A wrong view of sovereignty leads to these conclusions and is not biblical.

Stone, are you in the Reformed-Calvinist camp? I believe the topic of evil has been discussed on other threads. We should focus on process issues here.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by STONE

To God all means some?
(I'm only searching your Theology.)

Ask yourself... did God create Himself at creation?

Your answer will make it clear "all things" has obvious limitations.

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by Knight

Ask yourself... did God create Himself at creation?

Your answer will make it clear "all things" has obvious limitations.

Not really.
God is not of the creation. The scripture makes it clear He is above all things.

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by godrulz

Do you believe God created moral evil? I believe He created Lucifer, not Satan. He created Adam and the earth and pronounced it 'very good'. Subsequently, due to the inherent nature of free will (God is not the only moral agent in the universe with a will), evil was introduced by other agents than God. Now, God did not say it is still 'very good', but He was grieved and regretted even making man. Evil is incompatible with the holiness of God.

Once again, evil is not a 'thing' (metaphysics), but it is in the realm of moral choice (non-existent until the choice made, and still not a thing).

The problem is not with the word 'all' (God created the heavens and the earth. Man creates plastic, cars, etc.). The problem is confusing morality and substance (things). They are not identical. God is the Moral Governor of the universe and uses moral laws to govern us. Nature is under the law of instinct, and inanimate creation is under the law of cause and effect. We cannot confuse or blur the distinctions between created things and the moral realm of love and relationship.

Stone, are you in the Reformed-Calvinist camp? I believe the topic of evil has been discussed on other threads.

Are your thoughts things, or what realm are they in?
I'm not of any camp except Christ.

 

[godrulz]

Thoughts are real, but they are not 'physical things' (unless at a neurobiological level). We are spirit, soul (will, intellect, emotions), and body.

I think of things, substance, essence etc. as material. I suppose it depends on a definition of things (can be used in different senses?). Does God literally create every act, thought, and emotion in a human being (attempt to support a proof text that says God creates ALL things) or does He create personal, moral beings that can experience, relate, act, think, and feel inherent to who He has made them? We are children, not deterministic automatons/robots. Having personal, moral, and spiritual attributes makes us in the image of God (it does not make us god). It separates us from machines and inanimate creation. God alone is uncreated Creator, eternal, omni. x3, etc. Otherwise, we share in personal and moral attributes (but not in perfection).

What is the point you are raising about thoughts? This is probably a question for philosophy class, and not explicit in Scripture (apart from the above principles that I hope are consistent with biblical anthropology= nature of man). Is the issue you are raising to do with God's sovereignty in relationship to man's free will? or libertarian freedom vs compatibilistic freedom? etc.

I would hope we are all of Christ's camp, but we tend to have theological world views based on study or denominational influences. These views can sometimes lead to eisegesis (reading meaning into Bible) vs exegesis (pull meaning out). We all have influences, if we are honest.

 

[STONE]

Godrulz, this subject may not be appropriate now. Thanks for your input.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by STONE

Godrulz, this subject may not be appropriate now. Thanks for your input.

Fair enough. It does relate to Process vs Open Theism, so back to our main event...which is not catching on apparently (too Ivory Towerish?).