New Theology Mill

I need to learn more about the issue of Open Theism. I lean more toward the Calvinist side of things but find compelling arguments on both sides of the issue. The problem is that both sides can strongly bolster their arguments with scriptures which appear to support their theoretical outlook. What I realized in studying the issue somewhat is that most people do not think about the issue but would come down on the Arminian side. An author I read pointed out that this is a 180 degree turn from earlier in US history. Aspects of Calvinism such as the issue of Limited Atonement (avoiding double jeopardy) make logical sense. Yet, other sides of Calvinism leave something to be desired in terms of the free will/nature of man and a tap dance around issues related to this. Then comes the once saved always saved debate etc. I sometimes wonder if God is amused by the hair splitting debates.

North

 

Re: Re: Process Theology - Open Theism

Personally, I am positioned directly in the center of a biblically correct understanding of predestination/free will.

 

That's certainly true. I positively enjoy it. I just wonder if it is on-topic for a distance education discussion board. I fear that technical discussions in any field, be it theology or computer science, may be a little intimidating to those who are uninitiated. (The theological discussion here intimidates me, since I can follow less than 50% of it.) I didn't say that theological discussion should cease (far from it), just that the 'off topic' forum might be a better home for it.

My reason for bringing up that point was Nosborne's remark about theology being a strange subject. It studies God, but how does it get a sample of God to examine? (As somebody suggested, you handle fragments of God with asbestos gloves and tongs. It's best to wear welder's goggles. I'd imagine that God is kinda like plutonium.)

My response was that theology doesn't really address that problem full-frontally, because it has Christ and the Bible. (And the traditions of the Fathers, if you're Catholic.) Jews have Torah and Talmud, Muslims have Mohammed, Koran and Hadith, Buddhists have the Buddha, the Tripitaka and the Sutras (if they are Mahayanists). Those elements of tradition are the raw materials that theology (or its cognate field of study in another religion) works with, not pieces of God (or Brahman, or Tatagathagarbha, or whatever you decide to call your transcendent principle) in theological laboratories. So the tradition necessarily comes first, since it initially supplies the subject matter that theology works on.

But I didn't think that Nosborne's remark about theology being simply a study of *opinions* about God was accurate either. Because that's not how theologians see it. The Bible isn't just a story, it is a revelation. The Buddha's teaching isn't just a philosophy, it is a means of salvation. Christian theology isn't just a historical (or sociological, or psychological, or literary) examination of a particular mythological tradition, as a study of Homer would be, it is about God's relationship with man. So there is an element of personal commitment to theology. Biblical theologians aren't studying just another ancient book, they are studying a revelation of God.

If you add the element of distance that Nosborne suggested, you don't get theology, you get something else. A meta-pursuit: instead of ideas about God, you have ideas about ideas about God. You can then move from religion into the more abstract realms of philosophy, and comparative or even reductive analysis. The subject of inquiry is no longer what the tradition reveals, but the tradition itself.

I certainly meant no criticism of you. I didn't mean any criticism at all, really. Instead, I was kind of feeling for the reason that theology is an "odd" discipline. And I was seeking the answer in the way that it straddles dispassionate academic objectivity on one hand, and personal religious commitment on the other.

Neither one of these things is a bad thing. But they have been uneasy in each other's company for as long as theology has existed. Athens and Jerusalem, as Tertullian put it.

 

Re: Re: Re: Process Theology - Open Theism

Calminian I assume

North

 

A couple of interesting articles on Open Theism.

The first a SBC article on the Evangelical Theological Society debate over Open Theism.

http://www.sbclife.org/Articles/2002/05/SLA14.asp

The second is a plain language comparision of the different approaches to the problem of evil including the Open Theism view.

http://www.indwes.edu/tuesday/openthe.htm

North

 

Hi North,
I knew of the ETS decision right after it was made. It is quite unfortunate, in my view, that they are so closed minded that they would even consider voting on such a thing. I happen to attend Greg Boyd's church once in awhile on Saturday nights and they are strongly evangelical. They have grown from nothing to over 5,000 strong in less than ten years. They have hundreds of decisions for Christ each year and are reaching many in the inner city. But because he has a different view of sovereignty he is blackballed by the ETS. Go figure! They have extreme Calvinists there that believe in double-predestination, but Open Theism is intolerable!

Another short article by John Sanders that does a good job of giving an overview of Open Theism can be found by CLICKING HERE Also, Sanders has a longer (and more comprehensive) article -On Heffalumps and Heresies: Responses to Accusations Against Open Theism

Most of the "anti" open theism arguments you will find online distort the position so badly that they are not even arguing against the belief systems that proponents uphold. If you are interested in this, I suggest Boyd's book "God of the Possible". It is a fairly easy read for a theology text and (in my opinion ) completely annihilates the Calvinist position.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Annihilates it? Oh! Well, OK, I call the boys at Westminster, Covenant, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Dallas and tell them to close up shop! I'm sure they have just not read Boyd yet.

 

Thank you for the ub.org site as it made for interesting reading and explanation of the OT position.

As to the issue of "anti" comments, this is often the case whether it be apologetical arguments against Mormonism, or with regard to grace & freewill. I think the temptation is too great to bolster ones own side of the debate by slight or wholesale distortions of the other sides beliefs. I remember hearing Chuck Smith talk on *To Everyman an Answer" about why he did not believe in Calvinist theology. At this point I cannot remember what it was (eg Limited Atonement) but at the time I thought that he was not accurately representing what the Calvinist position is. I think he claims Calvary is not Arminian either but it would seem to fall more into that arena.

I am sure these debates get heated like no other. I have been surprised to find sites on the internet blasting people from John MacArthur and Charles Stanley to Psychologists James Dobson & Larry Crabb for not being *true* to biblical theology. Of course Dr's Dobson & Crabb are not theologians but it seems that some people will take offense at even minor details and turn them into assertions that these people are not faithfully following scriptural ideology and therefore to be avoided. It often comes down to what side of a certain debate you are on. Somewhere (may have been CT Letters to the Editor) someone took a swipe at one of Pinnock's books. What is amusing is when someone from within a certain religious perspective sees a given person as *liberal* and yet from without that community (eg secular) the person is perceived in the opposite manner. I think I remember seeing a site once criticizing BJU for allowing students to have other versions of the bible than the KJV and because Bob Jones' son was attending graduate studies (History) at Notre Dame (Roman Catholic). The article almost seemed to imply that BJU was going liberal. Outside of that viewpoint such as assertion would have seemed ridiculous. It is almost a case of "I can be more conservative (or liberal depending on the denomination) than you...nanny nannny boo boo."

North

North

North

 

QUOTE]Originally posted by BillDayson
That's certainly true. I positively enjoy it. I just wonder if it is on-topic for a distance education discussion board. I fear that technical discussions in any field, be it theology or computer science, may be a little intimidating to those who are uninitiated. (The theological discussion here intimidates me, since I can follow less than 50% of it.) I didn't say that theological discussion should cease (far from it), just that the 'off topic' forum might be a better home for it.

SNIPPED

I certainly meant no criticism of you. I didn't mean any criticism at all, really. Instead, I was kind of feeling for the reason that theology is an "odd" discipline. And I was seeking the answer in the way that it straddles dispassionate academic objectivity on one hand, and personal religious commitment on the other.

Neither one of these things is a bad thing. But they have been uneasy in each other's company for as long as theology has existed. Athens and Jerusalem, as Tertullian put it. [/QUOTE]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You make many good points, Bill.

The integration of objectivity and commitment is difficult to do. Philosophers and politicians and many others, of course, at times either struggle with objectivity or opt not to deal with apparent facts. I wonder if even a supposed dispassionate objectivity could not in reality be a poorly placed commitment to ones own powers of reason. Only a Damascan Road experience (Acts 9) might erase the tension. Unfortunately for me I get my direction second hand from Paul and am distanced from his interpretation of that light and that voice by 2ooo years of cultural change and language differences. Consequently the doctrinal issues I see clearly enough to be dogmatic about are few.

 

There is often debate about what exactly some passages of scripture mean. A theologian once said that Hebrews 6:4-8 was one of the hardest set of verses in the bible in terms of reconcilling it with other doctrinal issues (eg can you lose your salvation or can you repent and return to faith). There are arguments on all sides of the issue. It would sure be nice to be able to directly ask the author...."Now, in light of other passages of scripture, please put these verses in perspective for us".

So, I agree with you Bill.

North

 

hard verses

________________________________________________

Yep Heb 6:4-6 is a killer. One of the former profs of Greek exegesis at Western did his ThD dissertation on that very passage. Imagine how much time he spent. Years on three verses. But you know it changed opinion not one whit! Eternal security is still hotly contested on many fronts---BUT--not by me!

For I've decided that I've two sets of beliefs. One set consists of a numerically small but essential (to me) list of doctrines. These I am committed to. The other is better called "opinions." In this latter set I am a 5 p0int Calvinist-but I will read Boyd's book. However my guess is that like that prof's dissertation neither will Boyd tumble the opposition!

 

__________________________________________________

BLD

When I came back to the Lord in '89 (ie, lost salvation and believed again OR remained saved and acted like a crud for 12 years?? Heb 6:4-6??who knows?? ) my wifes folks were in a Christian Church. I joined too. Taught adult SS. Interim pastored. The distinctives of the Christian church as to the ordinances took hold of me despite my baptistic background. This was fun at times in interaction with profs and peers during my four years at Western. But to demonstrate the openmindedness of even Dallas bred ThDs (some at least) my thesis concerned Paul's referent in his major baptismal passages as to whether it is water or Spirit. My thesis went against the grain of the view that the ordinance is purely reminiscent of experience and rather took the stance that it induced or rather OCCASIONED experience . But nevertheless, my committee all DTS grads Ok'd my work but did not agree with the conclusions!. (I really liked Western! The Christian Church, however, in some school catalogues are cessationist re charisma (not that I am- just don't agree 1 Cor 13 teaches that)and require faculty to sign their credo on that matter to teach. Please excuse me,and my frustration, so "dammit" I just don't fit anywhere!

 

Join the club! The church where I was ordained would have second thoughts if they were to question me now. I've decided to let the Bible form my creedal system rather than let my creedal system determine what I believe about the Bible. That has gotten me into some hot water, but it allows for a whole lot more freedom. It was much easier when I first graduated from Bible College and had everything all figured out

BTW, I doubt Boyd's book will turn Westminster around, but there is hope!

 

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

I think we think much alike! And I'm wiiling to overlook your Arminian heretical leanings!!

 

Re: hard verses

Wow, wouldn't it be terrible if a guy spent all that time on three verses, ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth, and ultimately ending up an apostate?

Even worse, if he spent a lifetime in study, only to find that he was predestined to have free will.

 

Yesterday at the barber shop, I saw a cute traffic-like sign that read:

 

Not to worry, Bill. Using expletives is a good indication that one is a hyper-calvinist. The arminians must give account for such language.

Civil discourse, gentlemen!!!

 

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

Some men's sins are open for all to see. Others do theirs in secret.

It's foolish to judge one's soteriology by one's language.

If my language is unacceptable then let me be judged for it, I'll give my account too ,along with the Arminians.. And so will those denominations and so will those schools and so will those churches which exclude from sevice all save those who fit perfectly into that theological mode of theirs made with human hands. If I have offended your eyes, I'm sorry. these, I believe, have offended God, Himself!

 

Re: Re: hard verses

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

Russell, why would this be bad? I am quite happy to spend the rest of my life studying . If I don't study does that not evince that my prideful assumption is that i already perfectly understand? BLD suggests I look at Boyd. Either I say "Why, I am already absolutely convinced I am right"or else I try to meet Boyd and honestly counter his points. So in the case of this Western Seminary prof, God bless him for doing what the Word commands Christians do! What is" even worse "is to be closed minded!

 

No personal offence here, Bill. And indeed, we shall all give account. What is disturbing is to see believers resort to the base diatribe of the secular to ephasize a point. If I remember correctly, we are challenged to wholesome speech.

I guess its my Wesleyan theology.