Openness Heremeneutics: Response Thread

[Jaltus]

I wrote a paper on Openness heremeneutics. It is essentially a critique of Boyd, Pinnock, and Sanders and their varied approaches to heremeneutics, both stated and practiced.

Ok, the paper I wrote is here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=48898#post48898).

Comments?

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 06:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50342#post50342)
Jaltus:

I wrote a paper on Openness heremeneutics. It is essentially a critique of Boyd, Pinnock, and Sanders and their varied approaches to heremeneutics, both stated and practiced.

Ok, the paper I wrote is here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=48898#post48898).

Comments?

Jaltus,

I agreed with your thread, I thought it was very insightful! Not only that I think the criticisms hold well.

P.S.By the way have you read Covenant and Eschatology by Horton? (the question is a little off subject :smile:

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake:smile:

[yxboom]

I read your article if my opinion is really important than I will get back to this in a bit.

[Jaltus]

I'd appreciate your opinion, Boom.

Yes, I have read Horton. It was not bad, but I don't buy his thesis.

[Arminian]

FYI --

Clark is going to publish one more book on this issue before he retires. He wants to clear up some misunderstadings of his view. (Sorry, you won't get any hints from me.)

[quetzalphoenix]

Jaltus, I think your paper does a good job of summarizing the pros and cons of the positions and, from my perspective, comes to a fair conclusion. I really don't want to just BASH Openness folks. I think that they have a lot to say to some unbiblical, abstract, overly philosophical understandings of God and scripture that many of my Reformed bros and sisters have. They do challenge us to be slower to systematize than we often are... but they fall into the same problem, but their system is based upon different presuppositions.

I guess I'm still wondering how they take a stance on the fallibility of scripture, if they are assuming that God isn't acting in a way so as to preserve it or to inspire it? Or are they? I know that is a different question than you are answering in your paper, but it's the one that I've been grappling with.

The person who was responding to my posts in the other thread seemed to have an atypical view of Openness, saying that his "Open View" is that God DOES know the future and does intervene in history. Explicit statements from Openness theologians deny this. In your research for this paper, did you come across any discussion of revelation within an Openness framework?

[yxboom]

Maybe there will be some Open Theist who will respond :hrm:

[Jaltus]

The above OVers hold to inerrancy, and thus to God's preservation of the text. Remember, the OV does not deny that God can override LFW, just that He normally does not.

The statements about revelation can be found in the intro to Pinnock's Most Moved Mover (thoroughly unsatisfactory), intro to Boyd's God of the Possible (too low level), and Sander's The God Who Risks chapter 2, which is the best of the bunch. They are more statements about reading the Bible than revelation proper, but it is a start.

Jake,

Do you know Pinnock? If so, I wonder if you could get me in contact with him.

[GrayPilgrim]

Jaltus talk to Bullmore. One of Pinnock's nephews goes to his church.

On anothoer note, am I correct in understanding it from post #8 that you would side against the motion to exclude Pinnock and Sanders from ETS in November? (Note the motion only accuses these two of denying inerrancy in some of their writings, and does not imply that OVT is incompatible with inerrancy.)

GP

[Arminian]

Jaltus,

I'll see if I can find his e-mail for you. I'm not at my home computer at the moment. I'll PM it to you if/when I find it.

A few years back he and I had been discussing his desire to finish his book on systematic theology. Then he got swamped with the debates on this topic. He's a really nice guy, but considering his schedule, I doubt that he could grant you much time.

[geebob]

I only read the portion covering pinnock and would like to cover more and comment but I have a few things I want to get out of the way first, in particular, your 1 on 1 with powel and blake rease's trhead on a similar topic for which I've been doing a little studying.

With regard to your question, why is "God is love" given preference over "God is spirit", I don't know how pinnock would handle it but I'd say that love is a richer metaphorical concept that would lend itself towards a more comprehensive system. This is because we have a great depth of insigt into love as it is such an intense part of our experience and with spirit, our contact points aren't as substantial. And the complexities of love can be demonstrated in narrative.

[Woman]

geebob:
With regard to your question, why is "God is love" given preference over "God is spirit", I don't know how pinnock would handle it but I'd say that love is a richer metaphorical concept that would lend itself towards a more comprehensive system. This is because we have a great depth of insigt into love as it is such an intense part of our experience...

Did you mean perhaps "abstract" instead of "metaphorical?" I ask because my understanding is that love is very real even if abstract or invisible, whereas something metaphorical is not real, but a substitute for something else.

I may have completely misunderstood you here and if so I apologize.

(By the way, I agree that our concept of love is much richer than that of "spirit")

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 03:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51712#post51712)
geebob:

I only read the portion covering pinnock and would like to cover more and comment but I have a few things I want to get out of the way first, in particular, your 1 on 1 with powel and blake rease's trhead on a similar topic for which I've been doing a little studying.

With regard to your question, why is "God is love" given preference over "God is spirit", I don't know how pinnock would handle it but I'd say that love is a richer metaphorical concept that would lend itself towards a more comprehensive system. This is because we have a great depth of insigt into love as it is such an intense part of our experience and with spirit, our contact points aren't as substantial. And the complexities of love can be demonstrated in narrative.

GeeBob,

There is no "e" at the end of my name :cheers:! I don't care how you spell it I felt like being a butt head.

So is God is love more substantial then saying he is Jealous, Just or something else? if so how do you justify this? I agree God is love but I think that Rice in his Article in the Openness of God makes Love so supreme that it is dangerous. It is much better to affirm that no single attribute should be brought above another, I think Jaltus would agree with me here(which will be amazing if true!).



By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[Jaltus]

It is much better to affirm that no single attribute should be brought above another, I think Jaltus would agree with me here(which will be amazing if true!).


This summer I will be trying to publish an article about exactly that. If God truly is perfect, and His attributes are perfect, then there should be no such thing as an overriding attribute in God.

[Arminian]

Sorry, Jaltus, I couldn't find that e-mail. If I were you, I'd talk to G. O., since they meet about twice a year.

[GrayPilgrim]

Could you respond to my question in post #9?

Today @ 05:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Jaltus:

This summer I will be trying to publish an article about exactly that. If God truly is perfect, and His attributes are perfect, then there should be no such thing as an overriding attribute in God.

Exaclty! You might want to look at Bavinck's The Doctrine of God to get a reformed formulation of that very thing, for balance. If you would be interested I could dig through my Psalms notes from W.V. where he speaks on the perfections of God, the psalms are a good plce IMHO to see the equality of hte attributes. I must say the elevation of love over say holiness leads to a lot of problems. Remmeber that Migliorie book I read? I remember that according to the way he argued God only had one attribute, and he comlpetely ignored his holiness.

GP

[Jaltus]

Yeah, let me "see" your notes from WV.

Any bibliographic info would be nice as well.

[Jaltus]

And yes, I would not back the removal of Sanders and Pinnock in the least. I think what they are doing is contemptable.

[GrayPilgrim]

It's not "they" its him. Didn't you get the letter? You know the one that showed it was the motion of one of the founding members.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 05:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Jaltus:

And yes, I would not back the removal of Sanders and Pinnock in the least. I think what they are doing is contemptable.

I think they should be kicked out I wish I had a Masters degree so that I could vote :argh:! Where are "evangelicals"(if there is such a thing anymore) going to draw the line?

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[geebob]

They did draw a line. innerrency of scripture and the trinity.

[Jaltus]

GP,

Yeah, one guy filed charges, but he was backed by a specific group of people who used him as a figurehead because he is a founding member.

Blake,

The charges against Sanders and Pinnock are ridiculous. You may not like what they stand for, but there is no reason they should not be members of ETS. Essentially, a group of people are trying to railroad them because of their OV beliefs.

If it were not for the current President of ETs and his deft handling of te matter so far, I would leave ETS.

[yxboom]

ok yxboom's $.02 for Jaltus.

I read it but for space sake I will address one at a time. Regarding Pinnock I think you accurately point out the influence of God's love in his theology but neglected to mention that which was more paramount to that. I can't remember the chapter be it 1 or 2 in The Most Moved Mover he goes to great lengths pointing out that which is the foundation for God's love. The tri-une community of God eternally Father, Son and Holy Ghost. In this tri-une community of God they freely give to each other in love. The nature of community in the Godhead is "love" as they share and enjoy another's fellowship. Creation was an outpouring of this overflowing love that existed in the Godhead. Yes, love is very essential to the Open View but love is the result of a trinity that shares reciprocal love amongst another. God is love but God is trinity. Pinnock does also point out the reality and existence of Hell for a loving God is a Holy and Righteous God. As for my own words to this I agree wholly that God's attributes are co-equal but I believe these are all in subjection to God's nature of trinity, and the attributes of God be it Holiness, Love, Righteous are expressions so to speak of God's triune nature. In this regard I agree wholly with Pinnock as understanding God's attributes should be laid upon who it is that God is........Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I point this out as I found this to be missing in the article.

[themuzicman]

04-02-2003 @ 10:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51712#post51712)
geebob:


With regard to your question, why is "God is love" given preference over "God is spirit", I don't know how pinnock would handle it but I'd say that love is a richer metaphorical concept that would lend itself towards a more comprehensive system. This is because we have a great depth of insigt into love as it is such an intense part of our experience and with spirit, our contact points aren't as substantial. And the complexities of love can be demonstrated in narrative.

Does he really give preference to "God is love", or is that simply a concept that is germane to his argument? I don't think there is a lot of disagreement over whether "God is spirit", so he would naturally not give that a lot of attention.

It's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil concept, I'd guess.

I don't think Pinnock deals much with God as provider or banner, either, even though He is called these things.

Michael

[Jaltus]

musicman,

Pinnock denies implicitly that God is spirit. See my paper on the matter by viewing the link in post 1 of this thread.

[themuzicman]

Jaltus,

Ah, I see.

Well, no one is perfect :argh:

Michael