Process Theology and Open Theology
- Thread starter libevangelical
- Start date
Yes, but the word eternal can be used interchangeably with everlasting to mean "enduring without end."
The Greek word that is translated as eternal in 2 Cor 5:1 (a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens) is aionios, and is often translated as everlasting. Like our word eternal, it can mean "without beginning or end" or simply "without end," depending on the context.
libevangelical
New member
My transmission in my 98 Taurus is going bad. What should I do?
Knight is giving an example of the type of eternal that means "without end," rather than "without beginning or end."
"The heavens" is another example of something that is created (Genesis 1:1) but is eternal in the sense that it is "without end" or "everlasting" (2 Corinthians 5:1).
Of course God can create things that are without end. But it would be irrational to say that God can create something that is without a beginning.
You have not acknowledged our point that sometimes "eternal" simply means "endless." Knight's example was an illustration of this point.
For clarity's sake:
Do you now concede that sometimes eternal means "without end," even though at other times it means "without beginning or end"?
or
Do you maintain that eternal always means "without beginning and without end"?
Last edited:
God created the heavens on day one of Creation. It's recorded in the very first verse of the Bible.
God did not create time. The Bible describes God existing and operating "in time." We read in Genesis 1 that God created over the course of six days, then He rested on the seventh day. (If God existed outside of time, He could not create and then not create.) No where in the chapter (or anywhere else in Scripture) do we read of God creating time.
God is not limited by time in that He has always existed and will always exist, and there is no limit to what God can do in any given amount of time. But He still experiences sequence and duration, which is really all that our idea of time describes.
Now, please answer my question:
STONE
New member
Eternal can mean from now and forever.
I am addressing something always existing, and yet being created.
Going back to your reasoning:
God created the first day, but not time. What part of time existed before the first day?
-and-
If god only exists within time, then does he only exist between the first and last day?
libevangelical
New member
Wow...glad I could write something interesting enough even if it is off topic to get a response. Thanks godrulz:thumb:
libevangelical
New member
Can open theism be conceived as an orthodox theology? If not, why?
It is orthodox on the essentials. It is more about the openness of God's creation, than the 'openness of God'. Issues like the nature of time and eternity, relationship between sovereignty and free will, etc. are in the realm of biblical philosophy and are not systematically, definitively answered in a single Bible verse.
Open Theism is not traditional, classical theology in areas of foreknowledge, strong immutability, etc. The question is which theological system is least problematic and most biblical.
Open Theism can be conceived more as a subdivision of Armininianism than Calvinism (with Enyart's qualifications acknowledged...it differs from Arminianism in the area of exhaustive foreknowledge, etc.)
Traditional Reformed-Calvinists will consider it as or more heretical than Arminianism.
The controversy continues...
The recent dealings of Boyd and Pinnock with the Evangelical Theological Society (see Christianity Today Jan./2004) are insightful.
libevangelical
New member
Now same question about process theology...Can it be conceived of as an orthodox theology?
libevangelical
New member
As far as I know process theology never makes this claim of limitation on Divine power.
add yasaf
New member
Process theology does not believe in the Trinity
Pittenger - The deity of Jesus does not mean that he is an eternally preexistent person, but refers to God's act in and through the life of Jesus, who incarnated and transformed the whole of Israel's religion and became the eminent example of God's creative love which is at work universally.
Cobb -- Cobb emphasizes a Logos Christology. The Logos as the primordial nature of God is present (incarnate) in all things in the form of initial aims for creatures. But Jesus is the fullest incarnation of the Logos because in him there was no tension between the divine initial aim and his own self-purposes of the past. Jesus so prehended God that God's immanence was "coconstitutive" of Jesus' selfhood.
Pittenger - The deity of Jesus does not mean that he is an eternally preexistent person, but refers to God's act in and through the life of Jesus, who incarnated and transformed the whole of Israel's religion and became the eminent example of God's creative love which is at work universally.
Cobb -- Cobb emphasizes a Logos Christology. The Logos as the primordial nature of God is present (incarnate) in all things in the form of initial aims for creatures. But Jesus is the fullest incarnation of the Logos because in him there was no tension between the divine initial aim and his own self-purposes of the past. Jesus so prehended God that God's immanence was "coconstitutive" of Jesus' selfhood.
I imagine there are Process theologians who are believers, but it is more outside orthodoxy. It minimizes the distinction between Creator and creature, and leads to a form of pantheism. Some of the ideas are contra/extrabiblical. The questions we need to ask Process believers should relate to the essentials of the Faith: Deity of Christ, atonement, resurrection of Christ, etc.
Open Theism has similar ideas about God being responsive, creative, and dynamic as opposed to static and absolutely unchanging, but it develops its ideas more from Scripture and less from philosophy. Process is more philosophically speculative and less from the authority of revelation.
Pinnock is evangelical, but has some ideas that push the envelope. In his writings, he distances Open Theism from Process after recognizing some similarities, yet he may adopt some philosophical ideas from it more than someone like Boyd might.
I suppose there are varieties of Process from conservative to liberal (cf. denominations). Some may try to reconcile evangelical theology, while others may be unorthodox as the above post shows. They do not have one statement of faith in common.