ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
themuzicman
Well-known member
themuzicman
Well-known member
themuzicman
Well-known member
I think that would be a great idea!
I've actually started a thread or two in the past hoping that it would take off and this one would just sort of wither but it never worked.
I nominate either DFT Dave or Ask Mr. Religion to write the opening post.
Chileice
New member
If I go before my wife and kids ( a fairly likely scenario) will it be heaven? How could it be heaven if we are waiting for the fulfillment of it? If my brothers and sister are all waiting for me and their other loved ones in the same time frame we are in... then there must be tears in heaven. It doesn't make sense.
DFT Dave is our man.
Dave would you be willing to start a new Open Theism thread if we closed this one?
muszicman, that's all I ever said. God's character or nature is immutable, but his power stretches forth.
Certainly, as a first cause he moves things, but nothing moves God.
Council of Nicea decided against the arians who were saying Christ was mutable and therefore not God.
Certainly, as a first cause he moves things, but nothing moves God.
Council of Nicea decided against the arians who were saying Christ was mutable and therefore not God.
Philetus
New member
:thumb: :thumb:
Great!
But, can you make it available for a little while? There are some posts that I still want to reference for my research.
I think Dave is the man!
How about a thread where Open Theism sets the agenda. Where we can exchange ideas and content that is more focused on crucial issues that the Open View addresses.
For example:
Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover, Baker Academic, 2001. pg 155
The open view of God enjoys an ‘as if’ asset. That is, it is safe to live as if the model were true. Conventional theism, on the other hand, has an ‘as if not’ problem. It has a streak of existential irrationality running through it. Suppose that God has ordained everything you will ever do and it is all completely certain. You would be wise to live as if this were not true from a practical standpoint. Otherwise you could have a crisis of motivation. Prayer would be undermined because it cannot change anything. People could not be held responsible for what they do. God would have to be considered the author of evil. You may believe the doctrine but it certainly better to live as if it were not true.8
Pinnock’s foot note to the above: “Boettner is burdened by many practical difficulties. He knows that it sounds fatalistic; that it is inconsistent with free agency and moral responsibility; that it makes God the author of sin; that it discourages motives to exertion; that it represents God as a respecter of persons and unjustly partial; that it is unfavorable to morality; that it precludes a sincere presentation of the gospel to the non-elect; that it contradicts universalistic Scripture passages. These are, he says, objections commonly urged against the reformed doctrine of predestination.’ In Bottner, The reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941) chs. 15-22”
Pinnock concludes: “Conventional theists pay the open view of God a compliment when they live their lives on the basis of something like the open view rather than their own. Ordinary Christians untutored in theology are drawn to it because it commends the view of God that they have picked up through a simple reading of the text and makes such good sense of what they experience.9
Pinnock’s footnote to the above: “The downside of this view of appeal of the open view to ordinary believers is its possible naiveté: Theologians should not read the Bible as naively as lay people do. This is true – we ought not always be literalistic – but there is a sense of the faithful here to be heeded.”
Any/all the following make for hot topics.
Classical Theism is is burdened by many practical difficulties ...
that it sounds fatalistic;
that it is inconsistent with free agency and moral responsibility;
that it makes God the author of sin;
that it discourages motives to exertion;
that it represents God as a respecter of persons and unjustly partial;
that it is unfavorable to morality;
that it precludes a sincere presentation of the gospel to the non-elect;
that it contradicts universalistic Scripture passages
I'm not good at thread starting. But, I'm good at killing them.
(Got to admit though, I'm a little sad at the thought of loosing an old friend. This thread has played an important part in my journey into honesty in talking about God. I will miss it. OK, I admit it. I'm addicted to it! Shut er down!:doh: What did I say? )
Before you close this thread, I'd like to clarify a statement I made that was misinterpreted here.
Dave accused me of quoting from Aristotle who believed the world was eternal like god.
I simply said the world is not eternal, meaning I cannot be quoting from Aristtole who believed otherwise.
So how is my philosophy influenced by Plato and Aritotle when they are opposite arguments?
Dave accused me of quoting from Aristotle who believed the world was eternal like god.
I simply said the world is not eternal, meaning I cannot be quoting from Aristtole who believed otherwise.
So how is my philosophy influenced by Plato and Aritotle when they are opposite arguments?
I am not going to delete the thread.
I am just planning on closing it off to new posts.
This thread will always be here for reference.
I am just planning on closing it off to new posts.
This thread will always be here for reference.
Gee, you are so clever and witty! :up:
Nothing was misrepresented. The post is right there for everyone to read. It isn't our fault that you don't know how to articulate yourself.
Besides this "clarification" misses the whole point. Your philosophy is influenced by Aristotle in that the line of thinking you presented to support your philosophy came straight from the lips of Aristotle whether you were aware of it or not, which you clearly weren't.
The point Dave was making is that you aren't even aware of where the ideas you are expressing come from nor how they were arrived at. You're moronic response only served to prove his point correct.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Philetus
New member
Great! Then Shut er down. I've got something like Prozac.:crackup:
Who knows ... maybe JohnnyBoy will one day return and ask, "What was I not thinking?"
Philetus
New member
:thumb:
What a perfect ending to an incredible thread.
Thanks Clete!
The future remains open.
Philetus
What a perfect ending to an incredible thread.
Thanks Clete!
The future remains open.
Philetus
- Status