Open Theism, (cont'd from earlier)

[RickC]

I'm re-posting my original post from another thread here and will reply to posts made here also.
================================

In seeing, hearing, or reading about debates regarding Calvinism, Arminianism, and Universalism; the theme of God's Sovereignty and Divine Plan rings through. Most notedly in each camp; certain basic presuppositions are held w/r/t soteriology in these exchanges. As Steve's mentioned many times; debates can be a way of learning (and even being proven wrong, if need be!); "iron sharpening iron," as it were.

Most of what I've known about Open Theism -- (OTh) -- (though there are other designators as in this thread's title) -- has come from its critics. Classical Theists, especially and obviously, have been critical of OTh. Calvinists have probably been most 'vocal' about it, though Arminians have registered complaints against OTh too. Cries of "Heresy!" are out there, as well as those saying "Slippery Slope (headed in that direction)."

In any event, I finally decided to hear about OTh from a "pro" perspective last week. I've read a few "pro" articles here and there. But hadn't actually listened to an Open Theist talk. I've not read any OTh books. So. I googled "Open Theism" and wound up on YouTube (u2b) with Greg Boyd and watched/listened to his 13 lectures on the topic. Here's a link to Boyd's lecture 1 of 13 .
(I found Greg's comment about "not liking" his formerly being a Calvinist pretty funny!),

To view all 13 in succession: One has to join u2b to access playlists.
(WARNING! --- u2b's home page has pornographic pictures and links! -- I avoid it now)!!!

Before hearing Greg Boyd (and Clark Pinnock, and another OTh guy), I had been thinking about and studying God's Sovereignty. Ideas I've been mulling over in my mind for quite some time. A primary reason I've not considered myself Arminian is its concept of God "saving according to foreknowledge." Of course, the Bible does say God had this foreknowledge. I understand the Arminian argument along these lines, as do Calvinists. It's probably one of the harder things for Arminians to wrestle with or to give arguments for in debate. Steve did a good job with it in his recently home page posted debate with Calvinist, Douglas Wilson. From what I know, Steve's presentation was pretty close to Classical Arminianism, though I may need to do a re-listen on that.

As Steve has said on various occasions (mp3s, on the radio and forums), Calvinists often "win" debates by defining the terms and conditions of debates (which isn't actually winning). It's more like "Since Calvinism is true and Arminianism is false; therefore, all arguments for Arminianism are inadmissible in this debate -- since all terms, definitions, categories, and conditions must be from the Calvinist perspective!" I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I suppose I'm saying the Arminian "foreknowledge argument" seems to be "inside" a Calvinistic-type category/ arrangement, if that makes sense? 'Does to me, anyway....

I don't want to get into an ugly, heated debate about Open Theism on this thread, PLEASE!
By this I mean to say -- "I've already heard the critics!" -- who think it's heresy and/or "on a slippery slope."

I would, however, like to explore Open Theism.
Before listening to Boyd (and others) I maybe could have been classified as an Open Theist(?). 'Can't say much about that now other than: I've had differences with Arminians, though not in the direction of Calvinism, afaik. I probably vary from Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and one other OTh guy I watched on u2b. I'm relatively sure of this 'on particulars', and need to examine their views further.

I have more introductory observations about this.
One being what I'll call "fundamental errors in the debate" (for now, BBL).

If possible, listen/watch Greg Boyd before commenting, if you need to.
Greg's "Playing chess with God" analogies are really descriptive and interesting!

Thanks!
Any Thoughts?

[RickC]

also from original thread ---
=============================================

I've watched that whole playlist and found it pretty impressive. There were still nagging questions about certain things (though for the life of me I can't recall exactly what now) while listening to his presentation. I'm not opposed to OT.....I still consider my soteriology more Arminian, but definitely NOT Calvinistic. I'd just like to hear a real good OpenTheism vs. Arminianism debate. I don't suppose you know where I could hear or read something like that do you? Debates always bring out strengths and weaknesses much better than one sided lectures.

As far as Arminian perspectives w/r/t OTh ---
I've found posts/with comments on prominent Arminian blogs. But there aren't many, relatively speaking, as far as I've been able to find. I haven't located any [actual, in person] debates between Arminians and Open Theists, though there are exchanges of differences on blogs. The differences range from "disagree" (from Classical Arminians) to "at least Open Theists are wrestling with the text and address important points in the debate" (Arminians who disagree to lesser degrees, and are willing to see OTh POVs and grapple with what they might mean).

As I mentioned, I don't consider myself Arminian, nor Calvinist. In terms of what's usually discussed and/or debated on the internet, I would be decidedly "non-Calvinist." In the past I thought I was non-Calvinist in no uncertain terms. However, as a student and something of a "fan" of N.T. Wright, who has referred to himself as "a good Calvinist" --- "I'm trying to keep an open mind."
(Something of an aside, has been discussed on this forum before, not to go-there, here)....

In my first post I said I'd have more later. For now I have:
My views on soteriology are quite similar to Greek (or Eastern) Orthodox. In one lecture, I heard their view w/r/t God's Sovereignty and Salvation is similar to, or somewhat sympathetic toward, Open Theism. It may have been in Greg Boyd's talk, I can't recall offhand. This is something else definitely I want to look into!

More later.
Thanks!

[RickC]

cont'd from original thread, (a post from Michelle) ---
==========================================

Hi Michelle!

VERY interesting. Can you explain a little more?

This goes back to the consensus of the Early Greek Fathers of the Church (prior to Augustine --- who believed in/taught "free will"). However, Augustine, being in the West and not knowing Greek; he may not have been very familiar with the teachings/writings of the Church Fathers who went before him. I'm not sure to what extent he understood or had known what the consensus of the Church had been. Some EO thinkers I've read and heard (like on Ancient Faith Radio) say Augustine was essentially 'ignorant' of what had been taught. I touched on this in my 'mini-debate' thread re: Romans 5:12 --- where Augustine read the (incorrect Latin) translation, and thus, derived (incorrect) theology from it.

So, in terms of this thread; EOs and Open Theists believe in/teach free will.
(And I'll look into this later, soon I hope).

===============================

Added Reply (Now)

That EO theology is 'similar' to Open Theism on the matter of free will is easy to see. Where EO theology differs from Open Theism, as well as with the 'Classical View of Sovereignty', is that it leaves details to 'mystery'. This isn't to say that EO theologians, modern and ancient, didn't have things to say about God's Sovereignty. But it is to say that EOs, (to my knowledge, anyway), do not have elaborate theological-philosophical systems wherein minute details are explained (as in the Classical View of Sovereignty, Open Theism, and/or other).

[RickC]

from original thread, (again) ---
==================================

I listened to Boyd's lecture and found it interesting also. Though I'm not convinced, I don't really find the idea of an open future heretical.

I also don't see it as heretical (or false).
I see the Classical and Open Theist views for what they are: philosophical theology.
Both are theories and/or mere theories, imo.
(more on this below)

I know there are scriptures that support future omniscience such as fulfilled prophecies and the like, but those can be explained I would think by omnipotence (ability to ensure an outcome) -- is there a scriptural argument that precludes such explanations? In other words, I know there's a Greek Philosophical tradition that has entered the church, but what is the scriptural argument for the necessity of omniscience (as normally understood) as a necessary or fundamental characteristic of God ? (bold for emphasis, where I want to "pick up" from)

Not to directly reply to your question, Darin, but to emphasize and look at "Greek Philosophical tradition that has entered the church."

In times past on this forum I've somewhat rather 'ranted' against Augustine's "importing Neo-Platonist and/or Manichean philosophical concepts into (his version of) Christianity." (Not to go into or debate that here).

Classical Theists, who are critical of Open Theism, have 'accused' Open Theists of doing the same (that is, of "importing philosophy"). However, the problem with this is that the Classical View is philosophical theology also. Thus, to argue "your system is philosophical" is N/A in terms of determining which system is correct -- when all systems under consideration are philosophical in nature.

But, of course, many if not most(?) Christians have believed that philosophy can explain "the things of God." From earliest times even before Augustine; philosophy was seen as a 'friend' of theology, so to speak. Yet it has also been seen as an 'enemy' of theology, as with Tertullian's famous quote:

"What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"

So, in this point of a revived discussion; I suppose we're back to questions revolving around hermeneutics. In terms of the thread topic -- I'll add that I've tended toward Tertullian's POV. His, and EO's.

And leave it there for now.
Thanks!

[RickC]

And now, I want to reply to....

what is the scriptural argument for the necessity of omniscience (as normally understood) as a necessary or fundamental characteristic of God ?

This is where I have a 'strong inclination' that philosophical theologies are nothing more than mere theories (echoing Tertullian and "EO thought").

To briefly explain.
The Jews in the NT Era were 'influenced' by Hellenism and/or Greek thought. But they didn't become primarily philosophical in their orientation toward God. They did speculate on many things, including God's nature (or attributes). But in doing so, their ideas were never divorced from God as He is experienced (known). I'm not sure where this 'fits' in a discussion about Open Theism(?). I doubt that 'the saints of old' entertained 'thoughts about God' that we may or do. They seemed to be somewhat content or 'resigned to the fact' in knowing God is transcendent and sovereign -- as contrasted as over against, and above, themselves.

Enuf from me for now!

[Michelle]

cont'd from original thread, (a post from Michelle) ---
==========================================

Hi Michelle!

VERY interesting. Can you explain a little more?

This goes back to the consensus of the Early Greek Fathers of the Church (prior to Augustine --- who believed in/taught "free will"). However, Augustine, being in the West and not knowing Greek; he may not have been very familiar with the teachings/writings of the Church Fathers who went before him. I'm not sure to what extent he understood or had known what the consensus of the Church had been. Some EO thinkers I've read and heard (like on Ancient Faith Radio) say Augustine was essentially 'ignorant' of what had been taught. I touched on this in my 'mini-debate' thread re: Romans 5:12 --- where Augustine read the (incorrect Latin) translation, and thus, derived (incorrect) theology from it.

So, in terms of this thread; EOs and Open Theists believe in/teach free will.
(And I'll look into this later, soon I hope).

===============================

Added Reply (Now)

That EO theology is 'similar' to Open Theism on the matter of free will is easy to see. Where EO theology differs from Open Theism, as well as with the 'Classical View of Sovereignty', is that it leaves details to 'mystery'. This isn't to say that EO theologians, modern and ancient, didn't have things to say about God's Sovereignty. But it is to say that EOs, (to my knowledge, anyway), do not have elaborate theological-philosophical systems wherein minute details are explained (as in the Classical View of Sovereignty, Open Theism, and/or other).

Rick,

I wanted to discuss Open Theism with you, but I think I should just let it go. I'm much more content to let some things be a mystery as well. I'm slow to understand and quick to jump to wrong conclusions, so it is probably best that I look elsewhere for my elucidation. Thanks, anyway, for bringing this up.

Michelle

[RV]

Hey Rick,

I watched the videos and thought they were great. I had been looking for something like this on this subject. It cleared up a lot for me.

I would love to learn more about the view.

RV

[RickC]

Hello RV,

I'm glad you enjoyed Greg Boyd's lecture.
I've actually watched/listened to it about five times by now.
I'm still taking things in, so to speak, and have more ideas on the topic.
However, they're still 'mulling about in my mind'.

I talked with Steve about this on TNP Radio (on Dec. 28th).
Steve gave his view about Open Theism generally, but we didn't delve into it deeply.

I've been considering Open Theism with the scripture reference of:
Acts 1 (NIV)
4On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

Now.
I don't know where to take this conversation from there.
But am meditating on vs. 6 and 7 especially.

But of course, there are many other scriptures that could be looked at....
Hmmmm....I'll be thinking about it.
Some stuff that immediately comes to mind right now is ---
1) Jesus knew before His ascension that the Father 'has plans' concerning their question about 'Israel'.
2) These 'plans', as we see later in Acts, would lead to the incoming of the Gentiles into Israel (the Church).
3) However, at the present time, the disciples had 'no clue' as to how this was to later come about.
4) What's the significance of 1-3? for the disciples and for us?

Food for thought....
Thanks,

[RV]

Hey Rick,

The way that I have understood the open view in the past, the Acts passage does present a challenge.

But, it seems even those who hold the open view believe the Lord can bring things to pass. My understanding is that the future at that point was still open, but God had already had a plan.

Maybe specific dates weren't given because the Father was waiting to things to play out. I'm not sure, but I think that is how someone with the open view would respond.

I'm still thinking as well... very interesting stuff.

[Michelle]

Hi Rick,

On another thread you posted a link to an interview with Roger Olson. (link)

In your review of the interview, you mentioned one negative:

My only 'negative critique' of this discussion would be on some things Olson says about Greg Boyd and/or Open Theism. (What he says about Boyd in particular isn't how I've 'heard' Boyd myself. His critiques of Boyd/ Open Theism are almost the same as the critiques in a discussion on the forum we had, here while back. Be that as it may: Olson and the "Non-Open Theists" on this forum are Arminians of a more Classical variety---thus, the critiques "are to be expected").

Could you briefly say what you've heard from Boyd that you've 'heard' differently from what Olson stated?