How many OVers?

[Gavin]

How many out there hold to the Openess of God theology?

Just curious.

[yxboom]

:hi:

[geebob]

me, and yx

one day, Jaltus, but not just yet.

perhaps you will be too!

[geebob]

I believe truthman is one.

[Jaltus]

I will never be an OVer, and you know it, GB.

[Gavin]

Nor I, although I think Boom's signature is a pretty eloquent aphorism about it.

[truthman]

I refer to myself as an open-dispensationalist.

I don't believe you can have one without the other.

truthman

[geebob]

We'll see fellas. Perhaps God knows that you will become an OV'er in the future Jaltus. And Gavin, If it is God's will, then so shall you, and after all, it is his secretive will for me!:)

[truthman]

geebob, excellent choice of words!

You chose to use 'perhaps' once and 'if' once in your sentence.

As you well know, one of our best arguments for the open view is the use of these two words in the Bible.

truthman

[graceinme]

I am!!!!:angel:

[truthman]

Jaltus, never say never.

truthman

[bar Jonah]

But TruthDude, you just said "never" twice. ;) LOL


One more Open Dispy... Present! :hi:

[yxboom]

Originally posted by geebob
We'll see fellas. Perhaps God knows that you will become an OV'er in the future Jaltus. And Gavin, If it is God's will, then so shall you, and after all, it is his secretive will for me!:) :rofl: That was gold!


Exodus 13:17 And it happened, when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines although that was near. For God said, Lest the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.
:read:

[yxboom]

Originally posted by graceinme
I am!!!!:angel: That is because you are too cool and gorgeous not to be ;)

[GrayPilgrim]

Originally posted by yxboom
That is because you are too cool and gorgeous not to be ;)

Boy, somebodies after brownie points!

[graceinme]

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
Boy, somebodies after brownie points!



It worked!!!:kiss:

[Philemon]

No OV here... Look forward to opening a can of rebuke on those who are....;)

[bar Jonah]

Doh! GODISNOWHERE's resident preterist is in the hizzy, folks! :o

[Philemon]

Jim,
That avatar needs a colored mohawk. =)

[bar Jonah]

Originally posted by Philemon
Jim,
That avatar needs a colored mohawk. =)
Naw, that would interfere with the halo. :angel:

[Xmansmommy]

I'm an Acts 9 dispensationalist with OV tendencies ;)

[India]

Jaltus:
I will never be an OVer, and you know it, GB.

Gavin:
Nor I, although I think Boom's signature is a pretty eloquent aphorism about it.

Non-OV'ers rock! :)

Actually, YX's sig always makes me think of Matt 3:9: "And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham."

[bar Jonah]

India:
Jaltus:
I will never be an OVer, and you know it, GB.

Gavin:
Nor I, although I think Boom's signature is a pretty eloquent aphorism about it.

Non-OV'ers rock! :)

Actually, YX's sig always makes me think of Matt 3:9: "And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham."
But India, that statement was made to the Jews, because they assumed they automatically were "in like Flynn" just for being Abraham's blood descendants.

But Paul says to us (the Gentile believers) that if we are believers (Christians), we ARE inheritors of God's promise to Abraham. What was that promise? It didn't include anything regarding Israel or the Law..... Go back and read it. It only says God will be the god of Abraham's "descendants." And by our faith, Paul says we are adopted by Abraham. So that warning Jesus gave the unbelieving Jews has no direct relevance to us, except to inform us of what was happening at that time, from a perspective of biblical history. :)

[India]

RightIdea, I was only being half-serious. I agree with you on the meaning of John's statement to the Jews. What I meant was, when I read "out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham" I get a mental picture of God turning stones into full-blooded Jews, thereby altering the past by retroactively creating their ancestors (though he could just make people who were genetically Jewish but without actual ancestors).

[Dee Dee Warren]

Wow, that is pretty cool actually.

[geebob]

At least we ov'ers only speak of an open future. Once you start speaking of an open past, you might as well call yourself a radical open theist.

[bar Jonah]

Agreed, GeeBob. If God exists outside of time, it's funny that no Christians pray that God would do something... in the past. Only in the present or future. Interesting... :idea:

Why can't I pray that God would change my past so that I was sent to a different command in the Navy, somewhere other than Diego Garcia, where I was introduced to witchcraft, Wicca? A road that led me to a degrading life that included terrible sexual sin in addition to the witchcraft itself. If a person in bootcamp can reasonably pray to God to be sent to a command that will be edifying for him... why can't I pray the above with even a modicum of hope?

[yxboom]

I would like to pray that God being outside of time would tell me next weeks lotto #s.

But since He already knows I would be po' so oh well.

[geebob]

more on radical open view'ers. You could take the initials to make the acronym ROVers. And What is it that the rovers believe? Radical Open Theism. Or just R.O.T. So this openness of the past buisness, it's just a bunch of rot! ;) :p

[yxboom]

Roving rot has the "flaming homo" ring to it :noid:

[AcousticJS]

Is anyone able to *briefly* describe the open-dispy view? I am a tentative OVer. I am currently dithering between molinism and full-blown Pinnock-style Open Theism. I reckon I'm probably closer to full-blown OV though - seems to take the Scriptures more seriously rather than suggesting that God was speaking 'anthropomorphically'. I prefer to think that our ability to change our mind and respond to events is a reflection of God's image in us, rather than that God is less free than us.

Still, it's currently a little bit beyond me. I still need to read 'The Openness of God' by Pinnock et al before I can make a decision.

God bless
Jon

PS. I definitely was shocked to hear that some believe in backwards causation. I've always thought and been taught that God can't change the past, which is great news 'cos it means that the victory Christ has won can NEVER be undone, cos not even God can change it. But if God can change the past, why didn't He just go back and have Adam and Eve not sin? If that was a viable option, why did He put Himself through the agony of the Cross?

[geebob]

Is anyone able to *briefly* describe the open-dispy view?

It's open theism + dispensationalism.


Still, it's currently a little bit beyond me. I still need to read 'The Openness of God' by Pinnock et al before I can make a decision.

It's a good book, but the best book on the subject is The God Who Risks by John Sanders. It is the most in depth treatment on the subject.


PS. I definitely was shocked to hear that some believe in backwards causation.

ahem, at the risk of sounding condescending about some of the rovers here, I don't think they've fully thought through the implications.

Too many people get their notion of what time is like and how it can be interacted with (thus how God can interact from it) from movies like Back to the Future (thus the backward causation?). The majority of christians who have heard of timelessness will say they believe in it and yet they don't have a clue what it has meant to the great minds of the church as they still hold to a dynamic God who did things (which he is no longer doing) and can do things (which he is not doing right now).

Jaltus, the TWeb member here is working on such a view, (the Back to the future view) but at least he is aware that his view is unorthodox.

And I wonder if presentism even occurs to most 20th century laymen. I think once the notion of time travel is introduced (as the idea that you can travel to any time even in the past), eternalistic notions about the nature of time are engrained.

[Act9_12Out]

:joy: Throw me in the mix as "one of those OVer's" as well!

This is a point I find interesting... If God is outside of time, and sees all time at a glance, then wouldn't it stand to reason that I am seated in the heavenlies looking down into time at myself typing this saying, "You idiot!" Why are you an OVer? God is outside of time! :rofl:

--Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Xmansmommy]

AcousticJS,
Hello. I too am studying to learn about God's foreknowledge. You might find this thread somewhat interesting...
http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=441

While it doesn't specifically address OVdispys, I do believe those that have responded are both. Not positive though. Sorry if I am incorrect in that statement. Enjoy!

[Bill K.]

Throw me in there as an OV'er. I've been one for thirty years. I think this is well before it gained a title. As a caveat, while the philosophical musings of many OV'ers today leaves me empty, the Scriptural work being done is first rate, still young, but first rate. I expect great things from this camp in the future. Boyd is coming along wonderfully. OT guys like Fretheim are also a great read.

In Christ,
Bill

[geebob]

OT guys like Fretheim are also a great read.

Word! Fretheim just doesn't get enough press.


As a caveat, while the philosophical musings of many OV'ers today leaves me empty

really? It's been succesful philosophically speaking as the number of philosophers who view the future as open is growing.

I consider it also to be solidly planted within intuition (which is a good thing philosophically speaking nowadays).

HAve you read Hasker's God, Time, and Knowledge?

I'm almost through it. Some of it has been over my head but I usually get it after he keeps plugging away.

[bar Jonah]

Interesting that you would say that about the OV being increasingly intuitive, GeeBob. Just the other day, I was chatting with a Christian friend of mine online, who I have known for over 6 months. I mentioned the OV to her for the first time, and her reaction?

"Oh my gosh, no way! I thought I was the only Christian in the world who believed that! I came to that conclusion based on my own Bible study over the past 11 years!"

She hadn't even known there was a name for it. She was an Open Theist and didn't even know. :)

[geebob]

I find people like that every now and then. I found out that the church administrator at my church was like this.

[Bill K.]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a caveat, while the philosophical musings of many OV'ers today leaves me empty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Geebob,

I probably should have said "some" of the philosophical musing leave me empty. You are right, some of it is good, and the growing number of people who support an open view of the future is growing. All that is great. My problem is when they seem to treat their philosophies as having the same authority as Scripture. I see a bit of this going on, and it makes us no better than the augustinian/calvinists we reject. We do not want to be guilty of "exceeding what is written." This is what brought us here to begin with, and if we are not careful, we will end up creating an "Open Orthodoxy" that is just as paranoid about protecting its domain as the old orthodoxy. Questions concerning God's modality not given in Scripture must be dealt with carefully.
We await the Day...

As for being "solidly planted within intuition," I couldn't agree more. "Eternalism" is utterly incoherent, with endless problems.
(To be honest, though, some of this "infinity" talk is almost as bad. Not quite, thank God!)

I have read Hasker. He is ok, but Boyd is better IMHO.

I think they are both weak on God's Immanence. In fact, I think the whole field is weak here, being nearly unbiblical in that they seem to approach it philosophically rather than textually. This could be a thread in itself: the OV'ers and God's Immanence.

In Christ,
Bill

[geebob]

I see a bit of this going on, and it makes us no better than the augustinian/calvinists we reject.

Well I myself am not overly concerned to rejcet the Augustinians and other greekly influenced church fathers on every account with regard to philosophy. I fully agree with hasker on the following,

I don’t wish to create the impression that it was simply a mistake for the early church fathers to utilize the resources of Greek philosophy in formulating the Christian conception of God. On the contrary, I regard the availability of philosophy for this purpose as a manifestation of divine providence, allowing the church to make progress in clear and rigorous thinking about God that might otherwise have been impossible to achieve. But it is clear that great discernment was required in applying philosophical conceptions to the biblical God, and we need not assume that the church fathers made the correct decision in every case.

-William Hasker in The Openness of God pg 194

[Salus]

Throw me in the non-OVer pile.

[joelkaki]

No kidding , same here.

Joel

[Bill K.]

Geebob,
Interesting quote from Hasker. To me it reflects some real problems with his way of thinking about God.

This point worries me:

"I regard the availability of philosophy for this purpose as a manifestation of divine providence, allowing the church to make progress in clear and rigorous thinking about God that might otherwise have been impossible to achieve."

This particular point is typical of the error that assumes our thinking about God should even be philosophical. The decision by our Hellenistic "fathers" to go philosophical rather than search for Hebraic categories to describe the faith was a tragedy IMHO.
They should have gone "revelational" and founded it within the limits of history. If heeded they might not "have exceeded what is written." Instead they left us with a erroneous methodology - ascertaining god via syllogisms - and the task of overcoming the respective heaps of garbage that flowed from this method. Their "clear and rigorous thinking" is suspect on every account.
I think the openness movement is just the beginning of the dethronement of the hellenistic church's work. I'm looking for "times of refreshing."

Using "openess thought" aka., Boyd's "Satan and the Problem of Evil", I would suggest that it was demonic rather than "providential", and refects a time in church history when the battlefield saw our slain everywhere. In a grand perspective, the "twin towers" of Constantine and Augustine can be seen to have signaled the end of the Hebraic faith. Life for the church has been one of recovery ever since.

Still, to be fair to Hasker, the next line caveats this nicely. We do need to recognize "that great discernment [is] required in applying philosophical conceptions to the biblical God, and we need not assume that the church fathers made the correct decision in every case." (Nor should we assume that we do.)

Couldn't agree more with Hasker here.

In Christ,
Bill

[geebob]

We must be careful not to place certain philosophical reasoning's on the same par as scripture, after all, there is diversity within the philosophical schemes behind the open view, in particular what is to be done about propositions about the future? Through philosophical reasoning and research, some answers may indeed come out to be better than others.

As long as we regard scriptures as the final authority, something which limits the parameters of what the truth that we can percieve about God philosophy wise, I don't see the problem. When we discover that scripture really and undeniably favors a specific doctrine, the responsible christian philosopher will follow suit.

As for the scripture, could it be about exceeding what scripture indicates for our personal piety? If so, than I don't see the problem. Surely we are to avoid vain and idle philosophies. But not all philosophies are vain and idle. What passage is this from?

And what about science. Science is of course responsible for transmitting the truth of scriptures through the entire world! And we cannot say that science has nothing to do with our knowledge of God, for nature, the subject matter of Science declares his glory.

[Bill K.]

Geebob,
I appreciate the response. We will probably have to differ on the use of philosophy. I agree that we "must be careful not to place certain philosophical reasoning's on the same par as scripture." But not because of the diversity, but because of the imminent danger of corrupting the faith.

"Some answers may indeed come out to be better than others." But they must always remain contingent, never dogma. This is my problem with Calvinism. I see it as a hybrid between Hellenistic philosophy and Christianity, with the Christian part coming out nearly unrecognizable from its Hebraic counterpart.
Open theism can follow the same route if we are not careful. I see the seeds for the same mistakes already at work.

What I am saying is that we need to be warned "not to exceed what is written (I Cor. 4:6)." In this verse it is not "personal piety" that is the issue as you seem to suggest, but the tendancy of human hubris to move beyond the authority of the Apostles...and the text. We are "stewards" required to be found "faithful" in dealing with revealed truth. When Boyd and Hasker et al., do their work in Scripture, it is great. When they back it up with philosophy, I have noticed some serious unscriptural errors both with regard to the doctrine of prayer and God's Immanence. (Another thread?)


As long as we regard scriptures as the final authority, something which limits the parameters of what the truth that we can percieve about God philosophy wise, I don't see the problem. When we discover that scripture really and undeniably favors a specific doctrine, the responsible christian philosopher will follow suit.

On the surface I can agree with this. But I don't think we can "really and undeniably" find human philosophy to always agree with Scripture. And there always exists the danger of, after having excepted the philosophy, letting the philosophy inform the text, rather than vice versa. I see this a lot already.
Very bad business.


And what about science. Science is of course responsible for transmitting the truth of scriptures through the entire world! And we cannot say that science has nothing to do with our knowledge of God, for nature, the subject matter of Science declares his glory.

Is that in Scripture?! Is that really the goal of science? That may be the goal of some scientists, but not of science. While it is true that the "subject matter" of science is also a subject matter of Natural revelation, that hardly identifies the two together. You can have the same subject matter and be different sciences. When science uncovers something that speaks of God's glory, great! But that is not its purpose, that is the purpose of the one wielding it (maybe). Science, as science, has nothing to do with our knowledge of God. Give me an example if you know of anything that blows me away here. We may simply be failing to communicate on this issue.

In Christ,
Bill

[Bill the Cat]

Don't know what I am, but I have a question. How would we know if God did change the past? This time would cease to exist. I know it sounds "Back to the Future"ist, but I have watched enough Star Trek episodes to understand it. :rofl:

I believe God is not subject to time because He created it. If He is not eternal, then the original cause argument flies out of the window.

So what am I?

:shrug:

[geebob]

You're not an open viewer. The open view denies that God is outside of time.

[freeontheinside]

I would have to say that I am not an OVer but I can understand how they get to their point. I have heard John Sanders debate his point of view a couple of different times and I would have to say that I was impressed. I also have been looking into this a little and see this whole issue as a different hermeneutic not a herasy as some that I have talked to would view it. I also would have to sayt that I am still studying the issue and I am very interested in the ETS response to these people and will be following the developements over the next year.:smile: