Open Theism, aka, Openness Theology/ Flexible Sovereignty

[RickC]

In seeing, hearing, or reading about debates regarding Calvinism, Arminianism, and Universalism; the theme of God's Sovereignty and Divine Plan rings through. Most notedly in each camp; certain basic presuppositions are held w/r/t soteriology in these exchanges. As Steve's mentioned many times; debates can be a way of learning (and even being proven wrong, if need be!); "iron sharpening iron," as it were.

Most of what I've known about Open Theism -- (OTh) -- (though there are other designators as in this thread's title) -- has come from its critics. Classical Theists, especially and obviously, have been critical of OTh. Calvinists have probably been most 'vocal' about it, though Arminians have registered complaints against OTh too. Cries of "Heresy!" are out there, as well as those saying "Slippery Slope (headed in that direction)."

In any event, I finally decided to hear about OTh from a "pro" perspective last week. I've read a few "pro" articles here and there. But hadn't actually listened to an Open Theist talk. I've not read any OTh books. So. I googled "Open Theism" and wound up on YouTube (u2b) with Greg Boyd and watched/listened to his 13 lectures on the topic. Here's a link to Boyd's lecture 1 of 13 .
(I found Greg's comment about "not liking" his formerly being a Calvinist pretty funny!),

To view all 13 in succession: One has to join u2b to access playlists.
(WARNING! --- u2b's home page has pornographic pictures and links! -- I avoid it now)!!!

Before hearing Greg Boyd (and Clark Pinnock, and another OTh guy), I had been thinking about and studying God's Sovereignty. Ideas I've been mulling over in my mind for quite some time. A primary reason I've not considered myself Arminian is its concept of God "saving according to foreknowledge." Of course, the Bible does say God had this foreknowledge. I understand the Arminian argument along these lines, as do Calvinists. It's probably one of the harder things for Arminians to wrestle with or to give arguments for in debate. Steve did a good job with it in his recently home page posted debate with Calvinist, Douglas Wilson. From what I know, Steve's presentation was pretty close to Classical Arminianism, though I may need to do a re-listen on that.

As Steve has said on various occasions (mp3s, on the radio and forums), Calvinists often "win" debates by defining the terms and conditions of debates (which isn't actually winning). It's more like "Since Calvinism is true and Arminianism is false; therefore, all arguments for Arminianism are inadmissible in this debate -- since all terms, definitions, categories, and conditions must be from the Calvinist perspective!" I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I suppose I'm saying the Arminian "foreknowledge argument" seems to be "inside" a Calvinistic-type category/ arrangement, if that makes sense? 'Does to me, anyway....

I don't want to get into an ugly, heated debate about Open Theism on this thread, PLEASE!
By this I mean to say -- "I've already heard the critics!" -- who think it's heresy and/or "on a slippery slope."

I would, however, like to explore Open Theism.
Before listening to Boyd (and others) I maybe could have been classified as an Open Theist(?). 'Can't say much about that now other than: I've had differences with Arminians, though not in the direction of Calvinism, afaik. I probably vary from Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and one other OTh guy I watched on u2b. I'm relatively sure of this 'on particulars', and need to examine their views further.

I have more introductory observations about this.
One being what I'll call "fundamental errors in the debate" (for now, BBL).

If possible, listen/watch Greg Boyd before commenting, if you need to.
Greg's "Playing chess with God" analogies are really descriptive and interesting!

Thanks!
Any Thoughts?

P.S. I've used "OTh" instead of "OT" (in case we need to abbrev. "Old Testament").

[AaronBDisney]

I've watched that whole playlist and found it pretty impressive. There were still nagging questions about certain things (though for the life of me I can't recall exactly what now) while listening to his presentation. I'm not opposed to OT.....I still consider my soteriology more Arminian, but definitely NOT Calvinistic. I'd just like to hear a real good OpenTheism vs. Arminianism debate. I don't suppose you know where I could hear or read something like that do you? Debates always bring out strengths and weaknesses much better than one sided lectures.

[RickC]

I've watched that whole playlist and found it pretty impressive. There were still nagging questions about certain things (though for the life of me I can't recall exactly what now) while listening to his presentation. I'm not opposed to OT.....I still consider my soteriology more Arminian, but definitely NOT Calvinistic. I'd just like to hear a real good OpenTheism vs. Arminianism debate. I don't suppose you know where I could hear or read something like that do you? Debates always bring out strengths and weaknesses much better than one sided lectures.

As far as Arminian perspectives w/r/t OTh ---
I've found posts/with comments on prominent Arminian blogs. But there aren't many, relatively speaking, as far as I've been able to find. I haven't located any [actual, in person] debates between Arminians and Open Theists, though there are exchanges of differences on blogs. The differences range from "disagree" (from Classical Arminians) to "at least Open Theists are wrestling with the text and address important points in the debate" (Arminians who disagree to lesser degrees, and are willing to see OTh POVs and grapple with what they might mean).

As I mentioned, I don't consider myself Arminian, nor Calvinist. In terms of what's usually discussed and/or debated on the internet, I would be decidedly "non-Calvinist." In the past I thought I was non-Calvinist in no uncertain terms. However, as a student and something of a "fan" of N.T. Wright, who has referred to himself as "a good Calvinist" --- "I'm trying to keep an open mind."
(Something of an aside, has been discussed on this forum before, not to go-there, here)....

In my first post I said I'd have more later. For now I have:
My views on soteriology are quite similar to Greek (or Eastern) Orthodox. In one lecture, I heard their view w/r/t God's Sovereignty and Salvation is similar to, or somewhat sympathetic toward, Open Theism. It may have been in Greg Boyd's talk, I can't recall offhand. This is something else definitely I want to look into!

More later.
Thanks!

[Michelle]

I watched, or at least listened to (I got bored just looking at Greg Boyd) the whole thing. I found it very interesting as well. I'd love to hear more of your thoughts as you study, Rick and Aaron.

In my first post I said I'd have more later. For now I have:
My views on soteriology are quite similar to Greek (or Eastern) Orthodox. In one lecture, I heard their view w/r/t God's Sovereignty and Salvation is similar to, or somewhat sympathetic toward, Open Theism. It may have been in Greg Boyd's talk, I can't recall offhand. This is something else definitely I want to look into!

More later.
Thanks!

VERY interesting. Can you explain a little more?

[RickC]

Hi Michelle!

VERY interesting. Can you explain a little more?

This goes back to the consensus of the Early Greek Fathers of the Church (prior to Augustine --- who believed in/taught "free will"). However, Augustine, being in the West and not knowing Greek; he may not have been very familiar with the teachings/writings of the Church Fathers who went before him. I'm not sure to what extent he understood or had known what the consensus of the Church had been. Some EO thinkers I've read and heard (like on Ancient Faith Radio) say Augustine was essentially 'ignorant' of what had been taught. I touched on this in my 'mini-debate' thread re: Romans 5:12 --- where Augustine read the (incorrect Latin) translation, and thus, derived (incorrect) theology from it.

So, in terms of this thread; EOs and Open Theists believe in/teach free will.
(And I'll look into this later, soon I hope).

Thanks! and have a good weekend!
P.S. I might go to Paltalk Tweb L8r, bye,

[Michelle]

So, in terms of this thread; EOs and Open Theists believe in/teach free will.
(And I'll look into this later, soon I hope).

Thanks! and have a good weekend!
P.S. I might go to Paltalk Tweb L8r, bye,

I see; the common teaching is free will. What did you think about Greg Boyd's explanations that certain things are predestined and settled?

[darinhouston]

I know there are scriptures that support future omniscience such as fulfilled prophecies and the like, but those can be explained I would think by omnipotence (ability to ensure an outcome) -- is there a scriptural argument that precludes such explanations? In other words, I know there's a Greek Philosophical tradition that has entered the church, but what is the scriptural argument for the necessity of omniscience (as normally understood) as a necessary or fundamental characteristic of God ?

[Suzana]

I listened to Boyd's lecture and found it interesting also. Though I'm not convinced, I don't really find the idea of an open future heretical.

[AaronBDisney]

(Sorry for the interruption to the flow of this discussion, but) I have to say I agree with Rick: his opening comment about understanding how Calvinists come to certain conclusions being understandable, but liking those conclusions being ludicrous, was pretty funny. I completely relate to that.

[George]

We seem to use labels such as "Calvinism" to explain that God is in control of all things, yet I think a better term is "God is Sovereign". A Calvinist would believe in "double predestination" in that we have the elect and the reprobate and God has determined whom this is to be and nothing changes this fiat. I once believed this way, but now though I continue to believe that God is sovereign as stated in Eph. 1:11, "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will", I also believe the term "reprobate", is only for a season.
To believe in freewill and or Open Theism, in my estimation suggest that God is not all knowing and something less then Almighty.

Peace, George