ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well, now that's a thought! Imagine the possibilities!
Philetus
New member
Right ON, godrulz!
I would go so far as to say that dialogue with hard-core post-moderns promises to bear more fruit than it does with Calvinists. At least there is promise that in realizing that we also reject their (Calvinistic) suppression of the truth about God and their foundation of pagan philosophy, they (non-Christians) might come to believe the Truth revealed in Jesus and the bible. It's the hope of the Gospel.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Unfortunately, Mormons have seized upon the open theist movement to legitimize themselves, make them more mainstream. When I see folks like Pinnock and Sanders, who should know better, pandering to them, I wonder about the possibility that open theists will ever being perceived as a legitimate movement. If this sort of dialog between Mormons and open theists continue, one day I fully expect to see open theism appearing in a new edition of Walter Martin's tome. If I were an open theist I would make it my business to be visiting the various blogs, forums, etc. that encourage these "conversations" to dispel the notion that there can be some ecumenical détente between the two systems.
Some atheists and agnostics reject God because of the straw man caricature of Him and His ways that Calvinists sometimes put up as a barrier. It impugns the character of God to make Him responsible for heinous evil. I would understand someone thinking this god is not worthy to be followed.
Other Calvinistic or classical apologists have also spoke before Mormons and built bridges. They preached the gospel without compromise. If we are serious about reaching the kingdom of the cults, we need to build relationships and dialogue WITHOUT compromising our convictions nor condoning their errors. This is difficult, but possible. The Pharisees among us may misunderstand and make false accusations, but this should not deter us.
I am not always happy with all of Pinnock's ideas or ways, but he is on the right track to reevaluate ideas that have been uncritically accepted if they are wrong.
Philetus
New member
(Where is that baby smile when you need it?)
Pandering? How about an honest discussion? Something that seems to evade you.
Ecumenical détente? Isn't that what you Calvinists have with Arminians as evangelicals so you can keep using 'millions' as you reason for existence?
Get real.
Philetus
New member
:up:
You have such a gentle way of putting that. Want to join our 'love in'?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Think harder. See here.:think:
ApologeticJedi
New member
I think this is more an attempt of guilt by association. Since Calvinists do not like Open Theists (because they have opened sore wounds in their faith) they try to dismiss them by lumping them with a group of obvious distaste. It's easier than dealing with the obvious problems in their faith.
Conservatives are sometimes guilty of this when we throw around the word "liberal" to anyone we might disagree with.
Be reminded that long before Open Theism was an issue, Mormons tried to gain legitimacy by using our lingo, using the Bible, claiming to love Jesus, claiming to be Christian because Jesus' name is in their title, singing our hymns (Choir), etc. It is an odd way to try to be legitimate Christians by identifying with a view that is a minority position and considered heretical by the majority of Christians. Your argument would make more sense if you said Mormons were trying to be like Catholics or Calvinists to gain legitimacy. OT will likely undermine an attempt to look like a Christian denomination.
Likewise, I am surprised that the Watchtower has stumbled on a better understanding of omniscience than Calvinists. This does not mean the rest of their teaching is credible or that they are trying to gain legitimacy through Open Theism (few JWs have a clue about it) or that we are compromising our faith by admitting they have a point of truth. Heresy is half truth, not complete error.
Likewise, I am surprised that the Watchtower has stumbled on a better understanding of omniscience than Calvinists. This does not mean the rest of their teaching is credible or that they are trying to gain legitimacy through Open Theism (few JWs have a clue about it) or that we are compromising our faith by admitting they have a point of truth. Heresy is half truth, not complete error.
Philetus
New member
Just another deflection avoiding the issue, AMR. You are a master at it. But, then you have to be.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
From previous posts, both to Muz, that were apparently glossed over:
The universe was created ex nihilo (out of nothing). Consequently, God does not change “internally”, that is, His essence, by creating something else. The only thing that changes is “external”, the relationship of the world to Him. After creation and after, God became “Creator” for the first time. That is, at creation God gained a new relationship [to Him but not from Him to creation], but not any new attributes. God did not change in His essence, but in His external activity. There is no change in what God is, but what God has done. The change is only in the effect, not in the Cause (God), since He caused from eternity all that was later to be effected in time. Failure to make this distinction leads to the neotheistic confusion of speaking of God “changing His nonessential nature”. This failure also assumes that to act in time is to be temporal. It does not demonstrate that the Actor is temporal; only that His acts are temporal. God does not have a “nonessential” nature. “Nature” is what is essential to a thing. So a nonessential nature is a contradiction in terms. Since nature means essence, it would be a nonessential essence, which is nonsense.
To look at the point differently, even non-theists recognize that there is a real difference between an uncreated Creator and a created world. One has no beginning and the other does. One has no temporal starting point, and the other does. In the same way, theists insist that God is beyond time, even though He made time.
God's Feelings
In Greek thought immutability of “god” meant not only unchangeability but also the ability to be affected by anything in any way, i.e., the unmoved mover. The Greek word for this primary characteristic of “god” was apatheia, from which we get our word “apathy”. Apathy means indifference, but the Greek term goes far beyond that idea. It means the inability to feel any emotion whatsoever. The Greeks believed “god” possessed this quality because we would otherwise have power over him to the degree that we could move him to anger or joy or grief. He would cease to be absolute and sovereign. Thus the “god” of the philosophers was lonely, isolated, and compassionless. This all makes for good, logical, philosophy, but it is not what God reveals about Himself in the Scriptures and we must reject it. The Scriptures tell us that God is indeed immutable, but that He nevertheless notices and is affected by the obedience, plight or sin of His creatures. Why else, then, would Christ have wept at the tomb of Lazarus?
God is always the same in His eternal being. In other words, God never differs from Himself. For a moral being like ourselves to change means that it is necessary to change in one of two directions- from better to worse, or from worse to better. Clearly God cannot change in these directions. As I noted in a previous post, immutability also applies to God’s attributes, to which you [Muz] have agreed. I have never stated that God’s emotions change. I stated: God does act and feel emotions, and He acts and feels differently in response to different situations. God’s attitudes towards us is the same as it was in the farthest reaches of eternity past and will be in the farthest reaches of eternity to come. God has feelings—but they are unchanging feelings. God feels good about our being good, bad about our being bad. God does not change when we repent—He always feels the same about the same. When we change, God does not change. We simply move under another unchangeable attribute of God. For example, God feels bad about our badness; when we change, God feels good about our new state of being good. God experiences feelings as I have noted, but not in the way we experience them. God experiences them in accordance with His own nature—in an active, eternal, and unchangeable way.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Well, how can God be moved, if He already knew what was going to happen, and all events are "now" to Him? Which emotion does God have all the time?
Muz
Muz
The universe and space are two different things, sparky.
Evoken
New member
Did you miss the definitions I provided?
:blabla:
God does not exist in Wonderland, because Wonderland does not exist. God does not exist anywhere that does not exist.
Philetus
New member
Well said. Shouldn't come as a surprise though. Much of the world has 'stumbled' on a better understand of omniscience than Calvinists. The surprise comes when you stop and consider who claims to be r-e-a-d-i-n-g the Word. I think that postmodern man is more honest and more open to the claims of the Gospel (God's offer through Christ) than any generation before. The question remains; Will we drop the garbage and share the truth, or keep making them choose between Luther and Calvin instead of life and death?
- Status