He objects that we do not agree with everything Sanders and Pinnock say. So? We do not claim they are infallible, but I believe they are on the right track globally.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
He objects that we do not agree with everything Sanders and Pinnock say. So? We do not claim they are infallible, but I believe they are on the right track globally.
Lon
Well-known member
Boyd, Pinnock, Sanders, and Wagner have their PhD's but have trade papers instead of commentaries, websites instead of Systematic theologies, and blogs instead of historical considerations. Furthermore, I deem OV followings as being less than engaging in the study department. Most of these guys either came from a liberal background or charismatic backgrounds. I'm not sure they'd be able to converse well with us for their thoughts are molded in those spheres. Again, it seems with no commentaries, systematics, or historical tracings, that they aren't putting their best feet forward and it expresses itself both ad hoc and anti-academic and leaves you guys asserting on lack of supported strength. Furthermore, when the majority of mainstream theologians are moving strongly against OV ideas and digging up those works to refute it, there is a preponderance of evidence and support that weighs heavily to one side.
So Yes, I'd like to see some quality time put in on these so I can examine them because OVers seem all over the map on doctrines and is hard to pin down. Like you, I object very strongly to points from these men and wonder how someone with a PhD can makes such huge blunders in serving a palatable view of the OV. Sanders and Boyd will always stay in my mind as saying God makes mistakes and Pinnock will always be a close friend to the Mormons (if one were to reach across and ecumenical table, at least it should not be a cult
).For God to have planned for a Savior from the beginning, there had to be a prescient reason for doing so. For God to make any future provision in steering His people toward a Savior, He had to know exactly what His plans were. In order for God to say 300 years before he was born, that Josiah would be his name and that he'd tear down the Asherah poles and burn the priests of Baal, He had to have prescience. There are huge concerns from my reading of scripture to be able to assess any strength in the OV position of limitation upon prescience. Again, if God isn't prescient, why hazard a guess? If God is ever mistaken, He's an unwilling liar and the truth is not in Him. I cannot, will not, accept that from anyone's position and it is more heinous than OV asserts against Calvinism. Both Boyd and Sanders have said God makes mistakes. Boyd has moved away from that statement strongly, but imo, it is too late. It reveals what he believes about the Father from his OV stance.
CRASH
TOL Subscriber
Nice try. I never said something is right because Bob said so.
I'll buy the DVD series and send it to you if you agree to watch it and respond here to it.
Won't cost you a penny to consider the Biblical evidence he presents.
CRASH
TOL Subscriber
Want is spelled W-A-N-T.
Lon
Well-known member
Oh, btw, the Amazon comments, not yours specifically. All 5 posts with A+'s and anti-calvinist rhetoric. Calvinism is not the only view on the table and Arminians in here have expressed the same concerns.
Where is Rob E these days?
Lon
Well-known member
I'm more frustrated with Winkie Pratney. The man held me spell-bound for 3 1/2 hours at a Presbyterian church! Yancey does surprise me a bit and is my something new today. It is very interesting to me, though, that the majority of OVer's tend to be from Charismatic backgrounds (at least I think it does at this point-I'd like to get to some figures on it).
themuzicman
Well-known member
Boyd, Pinnock, Sanders, and Wagner have their PhD's but have trade papers instead of commentaries, websites instead of Systematic theologies, and blogs instead of historical considerations. Furthermore, I deem OV followings as being less than engaging in the study department. Most of these guys either came from a liberal background or charismatic backgrounds. I'm not sure they'd be able to converse well with us for their thoughts are molded in those spheres. Again, it seems with no commentaries, systematics, or historical tracings, that they aren't putting their best feet forward and it expresses itself both ad hoc and anti-academic and leaves you guys asserting on lack of supported strength. Furthermore, when the majority of mainstream theologians are moving strongly against OV ideas and digging up those works to refute it, there is a preponderance of evidence and support that weighs heavily to one side.
So Yes, I'd like to see some quality time put in on these so I can examine them because OVers seem all over the map on doctrines and is hard to pin down. Like you, I object very strongly to points from these men and wonder how someone with a PhD can makes such huge blunders in serving a palatable view of the OV. Sanders and Boyd will always stay in my mind as saying God makes mistakes and Pinnock will always be a close friend to the Mormons (if one were to reach across and ecumenical table, at least it should not be a cult
For God to have planned for a Savior from the beginning, there had to be a prescient reason for doing so. For God to make any future provision in steering His people toward a Savior, He had to know exactly what His plans were. In order for God to say 300 years before he was born, that Josiah would be his name and that he'd tear down the Asherah poles and burn the priests of Baal, He had to have prescience. There are huge concerns from my reading of scripture to be able to assess any strength in the OV position of limitation upon prescience. Again, if God isn't prescient, why hazard a guess? If God is ever mistaken, He's an unwilling liar and the truth is not in Him. I cannot, will not, accept that from anyone's position and it is more heinous than OV asserts against Calvinism. Both Boyd and Sanders have said God makes mistakes. Boyd has moved away from that statement strongly, but imo, it is too late. It reveals what he believes about the Father from his OV stance.
Well, given your desire to lean on others for your theology, and your bias against those who have the wrong associations, and your misunderstanding and misconceptions about OVT, along with your seeming failure to grasp the idea of omnipotence and the OVT concept of omniscience, all of which seem to be non-negotiable, then there isn't much more for us to say.
Muz
If Pentecostals are the largest Arminian group, then it is a shorter leap to Open Theism, a more biblical, coherent free will theism (vs Calvinistic determinism). I think it is anecdotal and not necessarily true that most OT's are charismatic (not true of the MAD TOL variety, for sure).
What was Winkie talking about? Revival? He has a book out on the doctrine of God. He is not a dummy and is to be commended for being a pioneer OT. Tell me more about his talk.
Lon
Well-known member
Was 30 years ago, but yes, was about the state of Christianity, the call and duty of believers, and our relationship to Him. He went about 3 hours over his time and we were all still glued to the seats. Many of his spoken points are found in his Revival: to Change the World.
Lon
Well-known member
One might lean before or after. For me, because of exactly how I'd built my faith in a Liberal church, it is reaffirmation rather than building.
You'd never be able to categorize me as indoctrinated because my theology was built against my exposure without a lot of input other than His Spirit and His Word. That I've come to the same as the whole of Christianity rather than OV is incidental but nicely convenient and verifying.
I grasp the ideas of omnipotence and omniscience just fine from OVer's. My rejection is not based on ignorance, but disagreement. In that, you are correct: non-negotiable unless and until I see work that moves back a few steps in an official OV stance toward mutuality and orthodoxy. Until such, I'm chasing after pieces beyond containment.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
As far as Arminians go, it appears that Wesleyans are the largest with Methodists at the top and then Free-will Baptists.
Charasmatics, as per diversity, would fall speckled among these whether the largest group or not. It, however, does not surprise me that Wesleyans are represented in OV, (but that they are also debating strongly against it along with the rest of us Reformed).
Tackling Reformed for OV conversion is a daunting and courageous undertaking. Charasmatics, though I love them, seem ripe for such. I don't mean to criticize too harshly, but I expect them to stand or fall on how solid their doctrinal position might be.
Lon
Well-known member
I think I read somewhere that this was the case and second only to the RC if I remember correctly.
I think 'majority' does have a bearing on some of this. There is evidence that majority are most nearly right. Where we'd want to do our comparisons is 1) historical, 2) sects such as 4square AoG, etc.
It's difficult to try and lump all of Pentecostals together on any given topic (but for perhaps the gifts).
Lon
Well-known member
I don't think we use that word the same way. To me it just means 'group' or 'section.' I agree with your assessment other than that word
themuzicman
Well-known member
Eph 3: 8 ...to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, 10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.
This may seem an odd place to start speaking of Open View Theism but it is important to establish a few things before we get into the nature of Creation.
What we see here is that God has an eternal purpose for creation, and that God's eternal purpose remains for creation, and, in fact, to realize this purpose, Jesus Christ, the Son of God had to come.
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Part of accomplishing this purpose is restoring our sonship. However, we can also see God's motivation for accomplishing this eternal purpose. It wasn't "out of obligation" or "in a desire to get back what was God's", but it was "In Love" that God predestines us for adoption." 1 John 4:8 says that God IS love. So, it is part of God's nature to love, and part of His eternal purpose to have created sons that engage in a loving relationship with Him.
To me, this is the piece that many people miss as part of God's eternal purpose. Maybe it is the influence of dispensationalism, I don't know.
But God's will for mankind is to rule over the earth. To subdue it. We are commanded to multiply to accomplish this purpose. Now, the fact that we see that we are created in God's image smack dab between God declaring that man will be created to rule over the earth, and God's order to man to rule over the earth clearly suggests that the primary way in which we are created in the image of God is that we are able to rule, and that we have authority. The earth is God's blessing to mankind.
So, what do we have so far? We have God, whose eternal purpose is to engage in a loving relationship with mankind, creating the universe, placing man in the middle of it, and giving man dominion over it, and telling him to go subdue it. in part through multiplying.
Notice that the expression of love is complete. God has created a perfect universe, and then created man, and, in love, given man everything to rule over.
Except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:
Gen 2:15The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die."
Unfortunately, we aren't directly told why God put the tree there. It is just a part of the story.
And a big part, as it turns out. A serpent appears, and convinced Eve and Adam to eat from the TGKE. And God appears, and His just and righteous nature demads that He judge them. But notice in the curses that man's dominion over the earth is not lost:
14The LORD God said to the serpent,
"Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
15I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
16To the woman he said,
"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you."
17And to Adam he said,
"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return."
"Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
15I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."
16To the woman he said,
"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you."
17And to Adam he said,
"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return."
The woman's place is reduced as a result of the curse, in that the man will rule over her. But man's role in subduing the earth is confirmed, but also made more difficult, for now thorns and thistles will appear, and our diet will be grain, not fruit. And, as promised, death now overshadows them.
We also see God assuring the death of Adam and Eve:
Gen 3: 22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—" 23therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
So, sin has entered the world, and plagues those who have been given dominion over the earth.
Why wasn't dominion removed?
If you go back, you'll see that God's gift to Adam and Eve was without condition. Man would have dominion over creation, and whomever man chose to serve would now rule over man.
Why is this all important?
It supports the tenants of OVT:
1) God created because He desired to bestow love. God created man with a relational capability, placed him in a perfect world, and gave man dominion over it, so that man's every need would be met, and God and man would live in a perfect loving relationship.
2) God's purpose was to have this relationship. Neither sin nor the fall was God's will for creation.
3) Man has dominion over the earth. What happens here is the result of man's decisions.
So, how do we arrive at some of the often disputed elements of OVT?
1) Denial of EDF. God's eternal purpose is to have a perfect and loving relationship with mankind.If God creates a world in which He knows that the majority of mankind ends up being eternally punished for sin, then God would be thwarting His own purpose. The only other option is to say that man does not have free will, and God's intent was to have a "loving relationship" with the few He saved, but that brings us to point #2:
2) A loving relationship requires free choice. This tenant actually helps us to explain the TGKE. Without a way to reject God, the relationship between A&E couldn't be defined as a loving one. A loving relationship is best defined by two people who choose to meet each other's needs and desires. Obviously God doesn't have any needs, but He does desire for us to worship and give glory to Him, and to engage in this loving relationship with Him. God has already met all our needs in giving us dominion over the earth, and then sending Jesus Christ to die for us.
But without the ability to choose to love freely, that relationship cannot be defined as a loving one. Thus, free choice is necessary for God's eternal purpose.
2a) Logically speaking EDF and free choice are incompatible.
3) Evil is wholly man's doing. The fall was not God's will. Evil that occurs after the fall was not in any way a part of God's eternal purpose. Even where God orders Israel to wipe out a city or a nation is only a just and necessary result of the fall.
To the answer to: Why does God allow evil? Why doesn't God prevent evil? The answer is that God gave man dominion over the earth. To prevent man from committing evil directly would be a violation of God's declaration in creation. There may be individual instances where God is protecting His chosen servant for a given purpose, but even this actions appear to be done to the servant, and not the perpetrator.
To the question: Why doesn't God directly preach the gospel to all men. Same answer: Man has dominion over the earth. Thus, the preaching of the gospel, the prevention of evil, the furtherance of good on earth must come through men. We see this in Romans 10:14, where one cannot hear the gospel without a preacher.
In fact, it is a rare event indeed (if at all) when God directly interacts with men who are not His chosen servant(s) to communicate the message.
Now, there are evidences of the future being logically unknowable, (Gen 22, Jer 6), and of God changing His mind (Exo 32), and other corollaries to OVT, but these do not form the foundation of OVT doctrine. I'm sure one could compile a different list of verses to demonstrate these same doctrines, and someone probably has. But these are the ones that I use to demonstrate the doctrines of OVT.
Lon
Well-known member
I don't think many would have a hard time with your exegesis. Where we disagree is what you draw from the text.
1) For instance, no, I disagree that love demands a free response. If we were created to love (and we were) it is a created response.
To choose otherwise is but another thing we 'can' do. It is not necessary for love to exist. No contrast is needed between Father, Son, and Spirit. They are unchanging in love, that is to say, because of God's nature, there is no other choice.
EDF is beside the point and no consideration here. By your standard, God should eliminate all evil so that only His desired relationships remain. We can quibble over that, but my point is that EDF is doesn't enter this phase of the considerations.
2) Don't you really mean that EDF and love are incompatible? Before you get to this assessment, we have to revisit your premises on #1 again. EDF doesn't even enter the conversation at this venture.
3) If the fall was not God's will, it wouldn't have happened. As with the Calvinist, OV also recognizes that God has a will that cannot be resisted (as with the return of Christ, new kingdom, judgement etc.).
And it, with us, also recognizes that God allows even though it is against His intentions for us. Your further explication affirms this.
Finally, isolation passages are at best, presuppositional. As I've said with Genesis 22:12, it is nowhere clear that God didn't know before Abraham's heart or foreknow his actions. I absolutely agree with you that we find answers elsewhere and those suppositions steer our understanding of any given text. My prescient (EDF) view came naturally (although the Liberal church where I grew up also believed in EDF). Because I held suspect all teachings, I also examined this doctrine. Every week, as the humanized sermon progressed, I read and compared scriptures, listening with one ear, investigating my bible with the other. There are many texts that support a prescient view and it was no-ways a determinist perspective in assessing that God knew future actions and decisions of man. The Arminian church didn't hold to it. As I've seen arguments since then, I recognized the arguments against the stance as from OV and have steadily moved toward God's Sovereignty. So my move toward Calvinism was obvious as I was not willing to tread upon His majesty with my limited/fallen human anthropomorphism.
In understanding 1Kings 13:2, if God has no prescience, He has invasive predeterminism that puts hyperCalvinism to shame or is making some obscure (at best) guess, risking a 'mistake.' Neither is a comfort for the theologian nor a lofty view of His attributes. Further, it makes no contextual sense:
that OV would assert hyperCalvinism-then you are a different type of Calvinist altogether.
Or, that God risks and makes all kinds of mistakes as any man. In this view, we are clueless as to why God would venture a predictive guess at all and it also makes no sense to have prophets who tell the future.
This OV undermines the office of prophet as any tool by God to bring about His future plans. It also holds God less responsible for the same parameters given to the prophets: If their words do not come true, they are to be stoned.
Odd, since if God cannot know the future acts of men, like a boy 1) named Josiah 2) being made king 3)tearing down altars 4)and killing the wicked priests. The prophet then is giving a testimony of what must come true yet God doesn't know this Himself? Odd that the prophet is to be killed for a missed prophetic utterance but God can make mistakes? Odd that a prophet is telling of a specific future event, but God is only guessing?
OV is a convoluted mess of an attempt to rewrite what it doesn't like about orthodoxy as it has always existed. Odd how the old ideas like this that have been soundly rejected, for the ▲obvious▲reasons, are resurfacing in strange, convoluted, and unpalatable assertions.
If OV forces the logic of compatiblism, it serves us no better but far worse exegesis suppositionalism that is a convolution of irony.
No thank you. I'll keep my convolutions as opposed to the can of worms OV opens.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
This is the eternal purpose for the church, the Body of Christ. We are seated far above all heavens and will judge angels, the principalities and powers in heavenly places.
1 Cor 6
3: Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
Adam lost the dominion.
Matthew 4
8: Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9: And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Satan is the god of this world.
It was.
This is why it's important to accept the truth of the 1,000 year reign of Christ. HE will subdue the earth and heaven and exercise dominion. The last Adam.
Adam was never given dominion over the universe, only the earth. God's prophetic scriptures deal with bringing dominion back
to the earth. God's revelations that were kept a mystery in time past deal with bringing dominion back to the heavens. This is what those who refuse to separate Israel and the church miss. Israel is for dominion on the earth, the church is for dominion in the heavens.
They weren't his to give.