Assessing the Necessity of Open Theism 1

[Paidion]

That's exactly the way I see it, Matt. Thanks for articulating our position.

[kenblogton]

Reply to mattrose

Once one thinks about this for more than a minute, it seems to me, we realize that a God who is immutable in EVERY sense of the word (therefore, impassible) would be a lesser God. He would be less glorious. It is a mark of God's greatness that He is able to adjust perfectly to changing situations every time. It is by no means a deficiency to experience changing emotions in the face of changing situations. It is wholly appropriate.

Classic Theism, based on the biblical characterizations of God, says that God is immutable IN EVERY RESPECT - He does not experience any sort of change, He does not have to adjust to any situation, He does not experience emotion, and He is not in time ever. If God is in time and experiences any sort of change, He is not immutable. I believe that, in the classic theism sense of the terms, you accept neither God's immutability nor immanence. To me, to call a god immutable who experiences emotional change and who adjusts to changing situations is an oxymoron. A god who changes, who had a beginning (for change logically implies a beginning), is a lesser god, and is NOT the God of the Bible.
kenblogton

[mattrose]

Classic Theism, based on the biblical characterizations of God, says that God is immutable IN EVERY RESPECT - He does not experience any sort of change, He does not have to adjust to any situation, He does not experience emotion, and He is not in time ever. If God is in time and experiences any sort of change, He is not immutable. I believe that, in the classic theism sense of the terms, you accept neither God's immutability nor immanence. To me, to call a god immutable who experiences emotional change and who adjusts to changing situations is an oxymoron. A god who changes, who had a beginning (for change logically implies a beginning), is a lesser god, and is NOT the God of the Bible.
kenblogton

I am more interested in being a Christian than a classic theist then.

But I'm curious where I can get this official guide to classic theism? I've read a lot of the early church fathers and I see plenty of variety amongst them. It seems to me the 'classic theism' that you're referring to is essentially greek philosophy.

Does the 'is NOT the God of the Bible' line suggest that I'm not a real Christian? Am I worshiping the wrong God (surely a huge problem!) or am I just worshiping the right God with the wrong thoughts appraisal of His nature?

[kenblogton]

Reply to mattrose

I am more interested in being a Christian than a classic theist then.

. So am I! The Pharisees were the Classical Theists of their day. Scripture clearly teaches that orthopraxy (right behaviour) is what genuine believers manifest. Orthodoxy (right intellectual understanding) is unnecessary for a genuine follower of God.
There are many websites that list the classical attributes of God, such as http://biblelists.blogspot.ca/2007/10/g ... butes.html or http://www.theopedia.com/List_of_God's_known_attributes.
kenblogton