No. I meant what I said.
1. I suppose being the "discoverer and inventor" of Open Theism you think you have the final authority to say what it is all about. All I can say if you wanted to be the expert you should have published a book and gotten it copyrighted.Why is it so important for you to lay claim to Open Theism anyway? No truth is anybody’s personal property.I invented openness theology myself so I don't see how you can assert that my view is incompatible with what I myself have invented. Of course, I wasn't the first to invent it but what I have invented, was invented entirely independently of others. And of course by invented I mean expressed/discovered/promoted, etc.
This is an absolute statementOpenness theology is relational. As I said previously, absolute statements are not part of the ethos of openness because absolute statements, by definition, close all loops.
The Bible many times says to “get knowledge” Proverbs 18:15. This is verified throughout the whole of scripture. You can learn more and more. In fact, there is no end of what can be known. It is not just relational. It can be shared and exchanged as we share the word with each other. If this were not possible why bother going to school? Why bother listening to people teaching Open Theism?Are you trying to tell me this? You speak as if knowledge were some absolute thing. (But of course most people misunderstand this anyway, please don't take it personally). Knowledge is what we do to evaluate what we perceive. I know this is a tulip. To some other person it might be a bright spring morning, to another person it might be a Single Late or a Darwin Hybrid (he's not sure...) All of us have different ways of looking at things but there is no absolute right way. Most of the above things are actually compatible with each other. So they are all true but at the same time different. Knowledge is just how we apply shared language to shared experiences. It's not like a bank account where when the numbers go down, I have nothing left. It's not something that I can get more of and trade with others like a commodity. It's relational.
Nope. The reason why some things are unknowable to God is that they are logically unknowable because the shared language we use (as I explained above knowledge is an expression of shared language) prohibits statements of certain kinds.
1. Because a single truth can have many aspects does not mean the truth is not absolute.
2. Individuals with Schizophrenia have perceptions that the rest of us less open-minded people call “hallucinations” The delusional system he invents to organize and interpret his perceptions I suppose would be classified as “knowledge.” His, system, however is not valid because there IS an absolute right way of looking at things. My belief that he is the Mad Hatter is much closer to the truth than his view that he is the king of England.
1. It is only by using “omnipotence” in a way thinking people have never accepted that you have arrived at your conclusion that it is "logically invalid." You cannot misrepresent a term and they build a case on it. C.S.Lewis said something to the effect that nonsense is impossible even if we tack "God can" on the end. .This sleight-of-hand may work on a lot of people but not on those who are better informed.For example the statement 'I always lie'. Is logically invalid. Shared language does not permit this statement. You can say the words but there is no communicable meaning behind them. In the same way, the absolute statement 'God is omnipotent' is logically meaningless. (I take that in the sense 'There is nothing that God cannot do'.) The same thing is true of both omniscience and omnipresence. These absolute statements were invented to express the majesty of God, which I suppose was a good purpose but they are unreliable, they don't have a practical meaning that any of us can share or that can be mediated to us.
Practicality is not the first issue. It never should be. Truth comes first and then the application of the truth.It would be more practical to say something like 'What God knows is of more worth than what human beings know.'
1. Where is your proof that these words were intended to express the Majesty of God? Maybe they mean what they "appear" to meanAnd there is of course the Biblical witness which clearly states that there are some things that God cannot do. But I guess that is another argument.
2. Do you know more about their intentions of those that coined the "omni" terms than they did?
4. History has already spoken as to what the Early church believed.
5. The ancients were perfectly capable of inventing words that expressed highly abstract ideas. They could have come up with words to express Open Theism had they wanted to.
3. It is presumptuous of you to declare that these terms having now served their purpose and can henceforth be considered as "unreliable" Have the teachings of Boyd brought you to his same denial of Biblical Inerrancy in favor of some "relational" view of truth 3. We don’t determine whether or not something is true by whether it is practical or usable to us. Pragmatism should not shape theology. Aside from that I think God’s omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience does have a great deal of personal fulfillment and usefulness.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)