Talk:Open theism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) Open Theism should NOT be equated with "traditional Arminian theology!" Roger Olson (one of the bigger Arminian voices) in "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities," says this: "Open theists argue that their view is consistent Arminianism. As they see it, they have fixed classical Arminianism's logical inconsistency between divine foreknowledge and human free will. But at what cost? Most Arminians have not jumped on the open-theist bandwagon because they are committed to the doctrine of predestination! Now, there is an irony! Calvinists accuse classical Arminians of not believing in predestination, but MOST CLASSICAL (emphasis mine) Arminians reject open theism precisely because they believe in predestination. If open theism is true, election and reprobation can only be corporate. But classical Arminianism bases a great deal on Romans 8:29, which seems to refer not to classes or groups but to individuals. God does not justify and glorify groups, but individuals. Classical Arminian theology includes corporate election and individual(conditional) election based on God's foreknowledge of future faith (or lack thereof). Open theism has to reduce predestination (election and reprobation) to its indefinite, corporate dimension; predestination of individuals gets lost. Some classical Arminians, such as Jack Cottrell, reject open theism because they believe it undermines God's providential advantage, which is debatable. It remains to be seen whether many Arminians will adopt open theism. Few Arminians are willing to denounce their open theist brothers and sisters as heretics, but most are unwilling at present to give up belief in absolute divine foreknowledge, because the Bible seems to assume it everywhere." His words have much more weight than mine! Calends (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Capitalization 2 Book removed from list 3 Emergence of Open Theism in 1994? 4 Calcidius 5 Foreknowledge Heavy 6 Scriptural arguments 7 Classical theism. 8 Historical developement fix and suggestions 9 Peter Wagner

[edit] Capitalization

Should Open Theism, Free will Theism, Neo-orthodoxy, Stoicism, Hellenic Philosophers, Classical OmniGod, Open Theists et al. be all capitalized that way? Rafał Pocztarski 18:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair point. Some should like "Hellenic" and "Stoicism". As for the double-capitalized, OmniGod -- well, if I was all-knowing/powerful/benelevonent then I'd demand an extra capital. I did a google-search and got: OMNIGOD, omniGod, OmniGod, omnigod, OMNIgod ... but no omniGOD. WpZurp 23:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have already decapitalized (decapitated?) words like Fatalism, Determinism or Process Theology. As for the rest, well, you certainly make a good point so let’s just say that I prefered to leave it alone just in case the concept of omnibenevolence was exaggerated. Rafał Pocztarski 01:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The rule of thumb here is: the only "isms" that should be capitalized are those which are constructed from a proper name. Theism is a generic term, not a name of God, so it should not be capitalized (unless of course at the start of a sentence). --Blainster 23:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Book removed from list

• The Sovereignty of God, Pink, Arthur (1919), Baker Books 1984 reprint, ISBN 0801070880

This book, written in 1919 is a classic defense of the Calvinist position, but as it was published 75 years before open theism was proposed, it does not directly address the topic and so would be misleading to leave it on the list. It is left here for reference by those who may be interested. --Blainster 22:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emergence of Open Theism in 1994?

As an ardent adherent to Open Theism, having researched it for years now, I would argue that Open Theism (albeit by a different name) actually goes back way further than 1994. At least to a guy named L.D. McCabe in the 1800's, and I think you can even find it here and there in some of the writings of the church fathers (ante-nicene particularly).

So I'm wondering what anyone thinks about editing the notion of emergence, and including something about it's historical roots?

To me, as an adherent, it seems a negative bias to claim that it is only as recent as the '90s.

Thoughts? Rmeegan 03:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It might be helpful to add a section on antecedents, but the article is about the named subject, which as far as we know began in 1994. An analogy would be to suggest that Christianity really began with Judaism. Of course that would be correct (see Lev. 19:18 for Jesus's "new" commandment), but we don't usually say that Christianity began with Moses rather than Jesus. --Blainster 05:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I included the history of open theism; to say that the name alone defines the particulars of the system does not seem to justify a failure to mention its historical proponents, as it is traditionally defined not by the name, but rather by the particular claims about the nature of God and the future. Furthermore, open theism is not the only name for the view even in modern writings--it is also referred to as free-will theism, the open view of God, the open view of the future, neo-Molinism, and several others. Again, it thus seems prudent to identify the history of open theism due to its claims rather than merely defining it by a name. --Jared: Feb. 4, 2006

[edit] Calcidius

There is no Wikipedia article on Calcidius, so if you know something about him you should write an article. The only thing substantive I found on the Internet is that his only known work was a 4th or 5th century Latin translation and commentatay on Plato's Timaeus and that he was probably a Christian, so perhaps I will stub that much. Since open theism was not likely a term used by Calcidius, the editor who added this should provide an explanation and reference. Only one of the names listed as a 19th century writer on open theism Adam Clarke, has a Wiki article, and it does not mention open theism, so again, a reference here is needed. --Blainster 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.opentheism.info/pages/questions/traq/tradition_02.php Similar information can be found in Satan & the Problem of Evil, by Gregory Boyd. Here also are writings by Lorenzo McCabe and Joel Hayes: http://twtministries.com/articles/9_openness/mccabe_I/index.html http://twtministries.com/articles/9_openness/hayes_1890/HAYES001.pdf Wikipedia isn't the end-all of knowledge. A lack of a wiki article on a particular person or subject does not provide adequate grounds for rejecting valid information about a related subject. Case in point: Gregory Boyd does not yet have an article written about him. Does this mean that no reference can be made to him in any other wiki article? This proves particularly true for subjects which are only adequated represented in written form rather than in an electronic state (i.e. the internet). The writings of Calcidius (http://www.brill.nl/m_catalogue_sub6_id2280.htm) and most of the other theologians mentioned are occasionally still available in book form. In reference to whether open theism was a term used by Calcidius, I will again reiterate: "...to say that the name alone defines the particulars of the system does not seem to justify a failure to mention its historical proponents, as it is traditionally defined not by the name, but rather by the particular claims about the nature of God and the future. Furthermore, open theism is not the only name for the view even in modern writings--it is also referred to as free-will theism, the open view of God, the open view of the future, neo-Molinism, and several others." The common factor in Calcidius, the aforementioned theologians of the 19th century and modern open theists is not a name, but rather a particular view of the nature of the future and thus God's knowledge of that future. As such, an history of open theism can and should include mention of those who advocated the same view in the past, regardless of its name. --Jared: April 15, 2006.

[edit] Foreknowledge Heavy

Much of this article focuses on Open theism with regard to foreknowledge. The considerations of open theism concerning foreknowledge are necessary to open theism and they are the most controversial aspect. But they don't constitute the whole or the most important aspects of open theism. I've added some missing elements (regarding timelessness, immutability, etc.) to the previously missing definition of open theism at the top of the article (which needs more fine tuning yet), but these elements need to be worked in to the rest of the article such as in the history and arguement sections.

Robert Rohrs April 21 2006

Indeed the article seems to be missing a central argument. Open Theism is essentially motivated by theodicy -why does suffering occur if God is all powerful and all loving? Therefore it places freedom as central to love. People must be free to love or not love God. So God takes risks, limits himself etc. This linked with an open future where omniscience means knowing what is logically possible (and if it hasn't happened yet then it's not logically possible to know) is what makes open theism rather than a scattering of differences. It's also IMHO where the weak point is. Will try and get round to putting some updates in to the article but probably will be the summer now (193.63.62.252 21:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

Blainster, what you discuss of classical theism is not what open theists take issue with and that's a problem with your edits in the intro. Open theism is formed counter to specific ideas in Classical theism and those ideas for most, if not all, mainstream open theists do not include omnipotence nor omniscience. Open theists have a lot to say about both of those topics but it is not in their opposition to those concepts as presented by classical theists.

From Sanders on omniscience:

"Omniscience may be defined as knowing all there is to know such that God's knowledge is coextensive with reality. Or following Hasker, it may be defined as 'at any time God knows all propositions such that God's knowing them at that time is logically possible.' The advantage of these definitions is that they do not prejudice the debate regarding the content of omniscience toward any particular view... Christian philosophers disagree about the nature of omniscience, not about whether or not God is omniscient."

The God who Risks 1998 p. 194

The definition of omniscience given is one to which any theist, even a classical theist can agree.

From Hasker on Omnipotence:

"To say that God is omnipotent means that God can perform any action, the performance of which is logically possible and consistent with God's perfect nature." (p 135)

"According to the open view of God, or 'free will theism,' God is strictly omnipotent as defined earlier in this chapter... It is worth stressing the point that God as so conceived is in no way deficient in power as compared with God as viewed by Calvinism."(pp 150-151)

The Openness of God 1994

The understanding of omnipotence outlined by Hasker is not unique to open theism and is understood by many philosophers and philosophy historians to have been the gist of Thomas Aquinas' understanding of omnipotence as is written in the intro to one of his essays on the topic of omnipotence found in a text book collection of philosophical writings.

"In affirming that God is omnipotent, Aquinas (1224-1274) is careful to explain exactly what it means to say this about God. It should be noted especially that God's omnipotence does not imply that God can do what is "impossible absolutely" because that is to do something that is contradictory (such as making a square circle)."

Philosophy of Religion Michael Peterson, William Hasker, et al, 1996 Oxford University Press p 109.

As for eternality, it is an ambiguous term. Scripture claims that God is eternal. Open theists agree with Scripture and contest the meaning of the Biblical definition of eternal. In technical, philosophical discussions, eternality usually refers to a B theory of time or timelessness in God. Given that there is this ambiguity in the word "eternal," it is more clear to use the term "timelessness." --Rob Rohrs 03:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scriptural arguments

More could be said of the many Scriptures used for and against open theism. This article seems to have a good grasp of some of the philosophical arguments and implications of this theology, but I'm seeing very few Scripture references. As an open theist, while I find my views to be philosophically sound, it is biblical authority which is my primary motivation, and I suspect this would be the case for most open theists as well. If I have time I can try to compile such a list, unless someone else wants to try and tackle it first. Greg's Boyd's "God of the Possible" is a very good source. Thoughts? [Matt Poppe]

Yeah there should be a substantial amount of scripture though it need not be exhaustive. I would suggest scriptures not merely on foreknoledge but also on other aspects of open theism such as scriptures cited agains impassibility. For that matter, there should be a section on biblical interpretation that may discuss the range of approaches taken by open theists such as Boyd and Wolterstorrf who take a literalist approach to Sanders who emphasises that the metaphors have not been truely respected in the tradition.

I've made a note of this in the article: Malachi 3:6 clearly invalidates any claim that the notion of God's immutability is a Hellenic idea ("For I am Jehovah, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob"). -- User:Spock 205.174.162.86 04:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Augustine, God did not say that, for any speaking is a change. That is a made creature proclaiming God's enteral will. That is how Augustine got over the problem of a talking "changeless" God. If you believe God actually said that, you must know he changes in some aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychoelf (talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classical theism.

I'm removing the parenthetical addition in the intro and adding a different one to the short description of classical theism. The usage of classical theism by open theists revolves around those attributes of God including timelessness. It may be true that some who held to some beliefs according classical theism didn't hold to timelessness. However, that is where they part with classical theism, i.e. the Greek-Classical synthesis. Classical theism is not synonomouse with traditional or orthodox theism which is considered much broader. The usage of "classical" here does not simply mean the ideas that the old church fathers held but refers specifically to the doctrines that come from the greek influence. --66.250.69.8 Rob Rohrs 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical developement fix and suggestions

Okay, c'mon guys. I highly doubt open theism could be considered widespread. It may be gaining in popularity but it's still mostly scholars and their students who hold it. As an open theist, I would like to think that it could be called widespread, but I don't think a census would show this. I changed the statement to say that 1994 was when open theism recieved it's full articulation which is true and important.

The history section is a bit messy about this. I don't have a problem with stating that open theism began in the last fifth of the 20th century, but historical developement should still go back to the early church fathers as thinkers through out the orthodox tradition of disagreed with various parts of classical theism. Where they open theists? No, but open theism cites these thinkers in their case against classical theism and as part of the roots of open theism. Calcidius is an example of a person who should not be cited as an open theist. Yes, he did believe that God knew the future as open as opposed to completely settled, but we don't know what he thought about other important views that are a part of open theism. And that leads to another issue. Open theism is not primarily about God and what he knows or doesn't know about the future. Read the intro to get an idea as to what it is that most open theists hold about open theism. That God knows the future as open is not the source of most of the ideas behind open as the history currently asserts. It is one of the results! It is a conclusion, a necessary conclusion of open theism but not a premise and it is not the most important one. It is merely the most controversial aspect.

All the other aspects get pushed to the back and hence the history section is missing important references to such persons as Martin Luther who stated contrary to classical theism that God suffers or Tertullian who was hostile to the usage of greek philosophy applied to Christian thought. The history section doesn't have to be exhaustive but it should be broad.

I may work on it. I'm tempted to overhaul it. Rob Rohrs --66.250.69.8 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Wagner

Please. I'd like to know where C. Peter Wagner adopted the open theism. 201.74.188.25 (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)