Open/Closed Theism?

[Trinitarian]

I just wanted to get a feel for the numbers here on the various models of theism represented here.

Classical Theism

The traditional view of God as timeless, immutable, foreknowing all things, simple and impassible.

Open Theism

God enters into "genuine give-and-take" relationships with his creation, humans have significant (libertarian) freedom. God is temporally everlasting, dynamically interactive and knows all present realities and future possbilities, however the future decisions of free agents cannot be known defintately.

Process Theism

God and the world are fundamentally related such that both are eqaully necessary to the other. God cannot exercise unilateral control over the world, but simply pervades all things and seeks to encourage them toward their proper end. This is a form of Panenthism

Relational Trinitarian Theism

More closely related to the classical than to the open view. Still sees God as ultimately sovereign and capable of knowing the choices of future free agents, but also sees God as fundemetally (Trinitarianly) relational and dynamic, affected by the world and intimately invloved with, though distinct from the creation.

[yxboom]

I am the infamous Open Theist admin of TWeb :punch:

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 09:15 PM post located here
yxboom:

I am the infamous Open Theist admin of TWeb :punch:

Well...just so your infamous.

[yxboom]

I will grant you put up an excellent definition for open theism.

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 09:24 PM post located here
yxboom:

I will grant you put up an excellent definition for open theism.

Thank You.

[Warcraft3]

Hey there Trinitarian:

I just wanted to get a feel for the numbers here on the various models of theism represented here.

Classical Theism

The traditional view of God as timeless, immutable, foreknowing all things, simple and impassible.

Open Theism

God enters into "genuine give-and-take" relationships with his creation, humans have significant (libertarian) freedom. God is temporally everlasting, dynamically interactive and knows all present realities and future possbilities, however the future decisions of free agents cannot be known defintately.

Process Theism

God and the world are fundamentally related such that both are eqaully necessary to the other. God cannot exercise unilateral control over the world, but simply pervades all things and seeks to encourage them toward their proper end. This is a form of Panenthism

Relational Trinitarian Theism

More closely related to the classical than to the open view. Still sees God as ultimately sovereign and capable of knowing the choices of future free agents, but also sees God as fundemetally (Trinitarianly) relational and dynamic, affected by the world and intimately invloved with, though distinct from the creation.

I choose the 5th choice.........
Russ's open theism
God enters into "genuine give-and-take" relationships with his creation, humans have significant (libertarian) freedom. God is temporally everlasting, dynamically interactive and knows all present realities, future possbilities, and future decisions of free agents that He chooses to know



Russ

[Jaltus]

If you think God can know future free decisions, you are by definition not an Open Theist.

For myself, I am number 4 (also known as a modern theist, since classical is what we reject).

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 10:28 PM post located here
Jaltus:

If you think God can know future free decisions, you are by definition not an Open Theist.

For myself, I am number 4 (also known as a modern theist, since classical is what we reject).

Jaltus,

Have you read any of the recent works in Trinitarian theology? Just curious.

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 05:28 PM post located here
Jaltus:

If you think God can know future free decisions, you are by definition not an Open Theist.

For myself, I am number 4 (also known as a modern theist, since classical is what we reject).

True. I am not technically an open theist. But I am closer to that than the closed view. Which is why I am an "almost open view theist".


Russ

[Kenny]

Well, I went ahead and voted for the “classical theism” option, though there are some subtle qualifications I would like to make to the standard classical view and some points of commonality with what you describe as the “relational Trinitarian view” (e.g. I believe that God has an emotional life that He conditions upon the behavior of His creatures, but I also deny that this entails that His creatures have any real causal power over Him). But, in terms of the way I see the metaphysics playing out, I have more in common with classical theism than any of the other views you describe. Call me a theological dinosaur, I guess.

In Christ,
Kenny

[Sheepdog]

Me and Kenny can both be theological dinosaurs together. however, i have to clarify my position on the terms noted, for i probably am as close to the fourth choice as i am to a strict clasical view:

Timeless: I prefer to state that time does not apply to God as it does to us. Beyond that i cannot say, though i believe that God does interact in real time.

Immutable: The doctrine of immutability as understand it pertains to God's essense, attributes, plan, and will. Like the relational theology I view God as being dynamic in His interactions with us.

Foreknowledge: Exhaustive and Infallible, baby! :w00t: However, i diverge from a certain systematic who will remain nameless, in that Foreknowledge is not determinative-- at least, it isn't more determinative than i am determinative of the events i know happened in the past.

Simple: Don't know what it means as a theological term, so i will reserve comment.

Impassible: Not sure how the usual classic theist defines this one, but if it means what I think it does, i would disagree. God does feel emotional grief, though probably not any sort of pain or suffering in the sense of physical pain (e.g. when you stub your toe).

[Theolog]

Kind of classical, In a loose way,

While God knows everything past, present and future, He being a living God is capable of spontaneously relating to the present in a way that focuses solely on the now.

God is impervious to the effects of time as he is immortal.

None the less this infinite, continually changing, time and space that we are aware of is part of His conscious domain eternally.

[Sheepdog]

:w00t: one more and we'll outnumber the OVers

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 04:15 PM post located here
yxboom:

I am the infamous Open Theist admin of TWeb :punch:

I am the infamous wanna be Molinist admin of TWeb

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 07:51 PM post located here
Sheepdog:

Me and Kenny can both be theological dinosaurs together. however, i have to clarify my position on the terms noted, for i probably am as close to the fourth choice as i am to a strict clasical view:

Timeless: I prefer to state that time does not apply to God as it does to us. Beyond that i cannot say, though i believe that God does interact in real time.

Immutable: The doctrine of immutability as understand it pertains to God's essense, attributes, plan, and will. Like the relational theology I view God as being dynamic in His interactions with us.

Foreknowledge: Exhaustive and Infallible, baby! :w00t: However, i diverge from a certain systematic who will remain nameless, in that Foreknowledge is not determinative-- at least, it isn't more determinative than i am determinative of the events i know happened in the past.

Simple: Don't know what it means as a theological term, so i will reserve comment.

Impassible: Not sure how the usual classic theist defines this one, but if it means what I think it does, i would disagree. God does feel emotional grief, though probably not any sort of pain or suffering in the sense of physical pain (e.g. when you stub your toe).

What he said.