Are you Open or Closed?
I made reference a couple of posts back to a quack named Bob Enyart. He is a committed Open View Theist. He openly espouses the belief pretty regularly on his radio show.
On Wednesday, a caller called in and challenged his belief on Open Theism, but sadly the caller didn't seem to be as studied up on the subject as he should have been. Unfortumately he seemed like he was calling in just to say "I don't really know a better way to explain things, so I'll just leave it for now by saying that your view is dumb." I really don't see the reason for such intellectually lacking arguments. To me it's like trying to find your way out of a black hole.
Anyways, you can follow one of the links above to read about what Open Theism is. I will have to say that honestly right now I feel that in light of certain positions given by the Classical View that I have problems with Openness. But I will also say that the reverse is true; In light of some things that the Open view points out, I have some problems with the Classical view.
This is the meat of either side-
Classical View: God is unchanging. He is sovereign, immuatble, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He is in control of all things, and though he permits limited free will actions of his creatures, he ultimately has ended the story and is just waiting to see its fruition.
The Open View- God is open for change. He has changed his mind in the past. He has limited knowledge of the future and therefore works with the free will of men in a cooperation of bringing about his will [hopefully] through the obedience of his people. The future is therefore open for both God and his people, and therefore his people can bring about change on God's behalf; including the possibility of ushering in His Kingdom on earth and cutting short the "end times" by various means.
The Open View bears some resemblance to something that an anscestor of mine [Alfred North Whitehead] called Process Theology. I'm not going to get into all of what that is here. You can read about it for youself at the previous link.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the readers of this blog even care; and to some extent I really don't blame you.
So here's the question- Are you Open or Closed?
Or are you like me who is wandering around looking for any damn door that I can even find the knob? I don't even know what room I'm supposed to be in. Didn't I order a cheeseburger?
Oh well, think about it and then comment if you want.
On Wednesday, a caller called in and challenged his belief on Open Theism, but sadly the caller didn't seem to be as studied up on the subject as he should have been. Unfortumately he seemed like he was calling in just to say "I don't really know a better way to explain things, so I'll just leave it for now by saying that your view is dumb." I really don't see the reason for such intellectually lacking arguments. To me it's like trying to find your way out of a black hole.
Anyways, you can follow one of the links above to read about what Open Theism is. I will have to say that honestly right now I feel that in light of certain positions given by the Classical View that I have problems with Openness. But I will also say that the reverse is true; In light of some things that the Open view points out, I have some problems with the Classical view.
This is the meat of either side-
Classical View: God is unchanging. He is sovereign, immuatble, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He is in control of all things, and though he permits limited free will actions of his creatures, he ultimately has ended the story and is just waiting to see its fruition.
The Open View- God is open for change. He has changed his mind in the past. He has limited knowledge of the future and therefore works with the free will of men in a cooperation of bringing about his will [hopefully] through the obedience of his people. The future is therefore open for both God and his people, and therefore his people can bring about change on God's behalf; including the possibility of ushering in His Kingdom on earth and cutting short the "end times" by various means.
The Open View bears some resemblance to something that an anscestor of mine [Alfred North Whitehead] called Process Theology. I'm not going to get into all of what that is here. You can read about it for youself at the previous link.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the readers of this blog even care; and to some extent I really don't blame you.
So here's the question- Are you Open or Closed?
Or are you like me who is wandering around looking for any damn door that I can even find the knob? I don't even know what room I'm supposed to be in. Didn't I order a cheeseburger?
Oh well, think about it and then comment if you want.
posted by The Raging Paradoxidation at
02:25
4 Comments:
From the theological aspect,… humans have left a huge hole in their thinking….
I, sometimes, have wondered if God wrote His book… filled the pages with all He wanted.. then left two or three pages blank.. just to see what we humans would do… I do not think He even placed:
“This page left blank intentionally”
at the top of the pages….We humans have filled those two or three pages and added thousands more…
However, here is my two cents worth…
If the Classic view definition is correct (I think it is) and truly contain the essence of what God is…. Then the use of words such as:
“God is unchanging. He is sovereign, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He is in control of all things, and though he permits limited free will actions of his creatures, he ultimately has ended the story and is just waiting to see its fruition.” (editor’s note.. spelling in quote corrected for clarification)
brings about certain rules we must consider if we choose to try to redefine God.
Should we use the words: “omnipotent, omniscient”, then we must try to understand what they mean. The very nature of those two words shows that we (finites) can not understand God (infinite). Therefore, we must look inside (of finite) to see that all of our definitions easily fit inside infinite (omnipotent, omniscient.. even sovereign and immutable…..) with room to spare.
One must also consider that any definition of God that limits Him, and does not use “omnipotent, omniscient, sovereign, and immutable” in the definition misses the point completely.
So God rules:
1.) I am Alpha and Omega.
2.) Do not need, see rule one.
Of course, as always… I am open to debate, conversation about it… always trying to be open minded about everything….
steve
"These are lost drunken men who don't know where they are, but do care! And these are men who know where they are and care, but don't drink." ~ Dr Klahn
I use wikipedia frequently but there's too many biased articles and this one about Open Theism needs to define what it is at the beginning.
It may seem that Open Theism is a cop out that God may change His mind and save all (Universalism). This is how I view pre-tribulationism--we're believers and God wouldn't want us to suffer through the end times--and if this is becoming more popular in evangelical churches than it's the same "easy way out" attitude of Christianity that sells.
I feel that something that we've lost is our Fear of God and managed to get sucked up by warm fuzzies and good, euphoric vibes in worship.
Cooper said "I feel that something that we've lost is our Fear of God and managed to get sucked up by warm fuzzies and good, euphoric vibes in worship."
Cooper…
I agree…Warm and Fuzzy is all nice and good.. but leaves out a total picture… lack of a total picture when viewing God leaves humans with waaaaay too much wiggle room in their\our\my daily life..
steve
Am I open or Closed?
Yes...
steve
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home