Talk:Open theism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Capitalization
Should Open Theism, Free will Theism, Neo-orthodoxy, Stoicism, Hellenic Philosophers, Classical OmniGod, Open Theists et al. be all capitalized that way? Rafał Pocztarski 18:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Fair point. Some should like "Hellenic" and "Stoicism". As for the double-capitalized, OmniGod -- well, if I was all-knowing/powerful/benelevonent then I'd demand an extra capital. I did a google-search and got: OMNIGOD, omniGod, OmniGod, omnigod, OMNIgod ... but no omniGOD. WpZurp 23:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- I have already decapitalized (decapitated?) words like Fatalism, Determinism or Process Theology. As for the rest, well, you certainly make a good point so let’s just say that I prefered to leave it alone just in case the concept of omnibenevolence was exaggerated. Rafał Pocztarski 01:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The rule of thumb here is: the only "isms" that should be capitalized are those which are constructed from a proper name. Theism is a generic term, not a name of God, so it should not be capitalized (unless of course at the start of a sentence). --Blainster 23:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Book removed from list
- The Sovereignty of God, Pink, Arthur (1919), Baker Books 1984 reprint, ISBN 0801070880
This book, written in 1919 is a classic defense of the Calvinist position, but as it was published 75 years before open theism was proposed, it does not directly address the topic and so would be misleading to leave it on the list. It is left here for reference by those who may be interested. --Blainster 22:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Emergence of Open Theism in 1994?
As an ardent adherent to Open Theism, having researched it for years now, I would argue that Open Theism (albeit by a different name) actually goes back way further than 1994. At least to a guy named L.D. McCabe in the 1800's, and I think you can even find it here and there in some of the writings of the church fathers (ante-nicene particularly).
So I'm wondering what anyone thinks about editing the notion of emergence, and including something about it's historical roots?
To me, as an adherent, it seems a negative bias to claim that it is only as recent as the '90s.
Thoughts? Rmeegan 03:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- It might be helpful to add a section on antecedents, but the article is about the named subject, which as far as we know began in 1994. An analogy would be to suggest that Christianity really began with Judaism. Of course that would be correct (see Lev. 19:18 for Jesus's "new" commandment), but we don't usually say that Christianity began with Moses rather than Jesus. --Blainster 05:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I included the history of open theism; to say that the name alone defines the particulars of the system does not seem to justify a failure to mention its historical proponents, as it is traditionally defined not by the name, but rather by the particular claims about the nature of God and the future. Furthermore, open theism is not the only name for the view even in modern writings--it is also referred to as free-will theism, the open view of God, the open view of the future, neo-Molinism, and several others. Again, it thus seems prudent to identify the history of open theism due to its claims rather than merely defining it by a name. --Jared: Feb. 4, 2006
[edit] Neutral Point of View
This page seems to be lacking objectivity. The argumentation against Open Theism contains counterpoints for Open Theism; in order to maintain the integrity of this article, a more balanced analysis is necessary. Please, include more information describing the reasons persons oppose the idea of Open Theism. If you wish, I may do a little research and readily provide stronger cons. The overall tone of this article seems, to the layman, not to identify this view as a small minority and without much controversy. Cheruben 03:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Cheruben
- From what I've seen, it is quite common in articles such as this for the doctrine to be explained, objections noted, and then objections clarified by a second explanation of the doctrine. The second explanation shouldn't be a rebuttal per se, but if it gives the reader more information than I don't have any issue with that, particularly if the view is minority and oft-misunderstood. Regardless, I only noted one objection that was addressed. David Schroder 16:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
What has been brought to my attention is that Open Theism does involve a lot of flaws in it that seems to make it seem awfully fallible. First of all it would seem hard to be an open theistic since God is able to provide prophesy about future events that have such specific aspects it would not make sense to say that God could just tweak with events to allow His plans to unfold. Also it appears to be that this is used as something that explains why sin was able to occur because open theism says that God knows past and present perfectly, but future is something that can only be guessed based on prior knowledge. It seems as if this would only make God less than who He really is. Like Ephesians 1:4-5, 11 says we were known and predestined before time. That alone gives substantial evidence for God's ability to be above time and have adequate knowledge of past present and future.(66.194.51.26 20:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC))
What you see to be flaws in Open Theism have absolutely nothing to do with an objective presentation of what this theology actually is. I'm sure there are plenty of discussion boards out there you can find to debate what merits Open Theism has or doesn't have. A side note, were you to stumble upon one such board, you shouldn't be surprised to know that open theists are more than prepared with an explanation of Ephesians 1:4-5. In my experience they're actually more familiar with it than classical theists. It's not as damning of a passage for open theologians as you'd think.
[edit] Calcidius
There is no Wikipedia article on Calcidius, so if you know something about him you should write an article. The only thing substantive I found on the Internet is that his only known work was a 4th or 5th century Latin translation and commentatay on Plato's Timaeus and that he was probably a Christian, so perhaps I will stub that much. Since open theism was not likely a term used by Calcidius, the editor who added this should provide an explanation and reference. Only one of the names listed as a 19th century writer on open theism Adam Clarke, has a Wiki article, and it does not mention open theism, so again, a reference here is needed. --Blainster 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
http://www.opentheism.info/pages/questions/traq/tradition_02.php Similar information can be found in Satan & the Problem of Evil, by Gregory Boyd. Here also are writings by Lorenzo McCabe and Joel Hayes: http://twtministries.com/articles/9_openness/mccabe_I/index.html http://twtministries.com/articles/9_openness/hayes_1890/HAYES001.pdf Wikipedia isn't the end-all of knowledge. A lack of a wiki article on a particular person or subject does not provide adequate grounds for rejecting valid information about a related subject. Case in point: Gregory Boyd does not yet have an article written about him. Does this mean that no reference can be made to him in any other wiki article? This proves particularly true for subjects which are only adequated represented in written form rather than in an electronic state (i.e. the internet). The writings of Calcidius (http://www.brill.nl/m_catalogue_sub6_id2280.htm) and most of the other theologians mentioned are occasionally still available in book form. In reference to whether open theism was a term used by Calcidius, I will again reiterate: "...to say that the name alone defines the particulars of the system does not seem to justify a failure to mention its historical proponents, as it is traditionally defined not by the name, but rather by the particular claims about the nature of God and the future. Furthermore, open theism is not the only name for the view even in modern writings--it is also referred to as free-will theism, the open view of God, the open view of the future, neo-Molinism, and several others." The common factor in Calcidius, the aforementioned theologians of the 19th century and modern open theists is not a name, but rather a particular view of the nature of the future and thus God's knowledge of that future. As such, an history of open theism can and should include mention of those who advocated the same view in the past, regardless of its name. --Jared: April 15, 2006.
[edit] Foreknowledge Heavy
Much of this article focuses on Open theism with regard to foreknowledge. The considerations of open theism concerning foreknowledge are necessary to open theism and they are the most controversial aspect. But they don't constitute the whole or the most important aspects of open theism. I've added some missing elements (regarding timelessness, immutability, etc.) to the previously missing definition of open theism at the top of the article (which needs more fine tuning yet), but these elements need to be worked in to the rest of the article such as in the history and arguement sections.
Robert Rohrs April 21 2006
- Indeed the article seems to be missing a central argument. Open Theism is essentially motivated by theodicy -why does suffering occur if God is all powerful and all loving? Therefore it places freedom as central to love. People must be free to love or not love God. So God takes risks, limits himself etc. This linked with an open future where omniscience means knowing what is logically possible (and if it hasn't happened yet then it's not logically possible to know) is what makes open theism rather than a scattering of differences. It's also IMHO where the weak point is. Will try and get round to putting some updates in to the article but probably will be the summer now (193.63.62.252 21:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC))
[edit] "NOTE" in arguement section removed
There are a pro and a con sub-sections in the arguement section. Someone put a criticism of the pro section in the pro section. This was innappropriate. If he wanted to add a criticism, he should've added to the con section. But it wasn't even a good arguement. The fella made an issue of God's timelessness, but considering that open theism rejects timelessness, this amounts to question begging.
This does highlight something that I've already pointed out. More needs to be said about other aspects of open theism. No arguements were given about time and that would be useful. I will do so some time in the future myself.
Rob Rohrs April 21, 2006
[edit] problem with arguements
the presentation of the arguements are a little messy with regard to bullet points and such. A bullet point could represent a step in an arguement or an entirely different arguement. This needs to be cleaned up somehow. Perhaps each each arguement should be given it's own heading.
Robert Rohrs April 21, 2006
Further thoughts on arguements, some of what is suggested there in the pro section is not representative of mainstream open theism. Some of the statements about the "omni" attributes, such as omnipresence are dubious.
R. Rohrs
[edit] Blainster's edits of intro on 4/21/06
Blainster, your edits in the intro of article are not in line with what mainstream open theists teach and thus are misleading, hence, I reversed them and then some. Robert Rohrs, April 21, 2006
Blainster, what you discuss of classical theism is not what open theists take issue with and that's a problem with your edits in the intro. Open theism is formed counter to specific ideas in Classical theism and those ideas for most, if not all, mainstream open theists do not include omnipotence nor omniscience. Open theists have a lot to say about both of those topics but it is not in their opposition to those concepts as presented by classical theists.
From Sanders on omniscience:
"Omniscience may be defined as knowing all there is to know such that God's knowledge is coextensive with reality. Or following Hasker, it may be defined as 'at any time God knows all propositions such that God's knowing them at that time is logically possible.' The advantage of these definitions is that they do not prejudice the debate regarding the content of omniscience toward any particular view... Christian philosophers disagree about the nature of omniscience, not about whether or not God is omniscient."
The God who Risks 1998 p. 194
The definition of omniscience given is one to which any theist, even a classical theist can agree.
From Hasker on Omnipotence:
"To say that God is omnipotent means that God can perform any action, the performance of which is logically possible and consistent with God's perfect nature." (p 135)
"According to the open view of God, or 'free will theism,' God is strictly omnipotent as defined earlier in this chapter... It is worth stressing the point that God as so conceived is in no way deficient in power as compared with God as viewed by Calvinism."(pp 150-151)
The Openness of God 1994
The understanding of omnipotence outlined by Hasker is not unique to open theism and is understood by many philosophers and philosophy historians to have been the gist of Thomas Aquinas' understanding of omnipotence as is written in the intro to one of his essays on the topic of omnipotence found in a text book collection of philosophical writings.
"In affirming that God is omnipotent, Aquinas (1224-1274) is careful to explain exactly what it means to say this about God. It should be noted especially that God's omnipotence does not imply that God can do what is "impossible absolutely" because that is to do something that is contradictory (such as making a square circle)."
Philosophy of Religion Michael Peterson, William Hasker, et al, 1996 Oxford University Press p 109.
As for eternality, it is an ambiguous term. Scripture claims that God is eternal. Open theists agree with Scripture and contest the meaning of the Biblical definition of eternal. In technical, philosophical discussions, eternality usually refers to a B theory of time or timelessness in God. Given that there is this ambiguity in the word "eternal," it is more clear to use the term "timelessness." --Rob Rohrs 03:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Scriptural arguments
More could be said of the many Scriptures used for and against open theism. This article seems to have a good grasp of some of the philosophical arguments and implications of this theology, but I'm seeing very few Scripture references. As an open theist, while I find my views to be philosophically sound, it is biblical authority which is my primary motivation, and I suspect this would be the case for most open theists as well. If I have time I can try to compile such a list, unless someone else wants to try and tackle it first. Greg's Boyd's "God of the Possible" is a very good source. Thoughts? [Matt Poppe]
Yeah there should be a substantial amount of scripture though it need not be exhaustive. I would suggest scriptures not merely on foreknoledge but also on other aspects of open theism such as scriptures cited agains impassibility. For that matter, there should be a section on biblical interpretation that may discuss the range of approaches taken by open theists such as Boyd and Wolterstorrf who take a literalist approach to Sanders who emphasises that the metaphors have not been truely respected in the tradition.
[edit] Classical theism.
I'm removing the parenthetical addition in the intro and adding a different one to the short description of classical theism. The usage of classical theism by open theists revolves around those attributes of God including timelessness. It may be true that some who held to some beliefs according classical theism didn't hold to timelessness. However, that is where they part with classical theism, i.e. the Greek-Classical synthesis. Classical theism is not synonomouse with traditional or orthodox theism which is considered much broader. The usage of "classical" here does not simply mean the ideas that the old church fathers held but refers specifically to the doctrines that come from the greek influence. --66.250.69.8 Rob Rohrs 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Historical developement fix and suggestions
Okay, c'mon guys. I highly doubt open theism could be considered widespread. It may be gaining in popularity but it's still mostly scholars and their students who hold it. As an open theist, I would like to think that it could be called widespread, but I don't think a census would show this. I changed the statement to say that 1994 was when open theism recieved it's full articulation which is true and important.
The history section is a bit messy about this. I don't have a problem with stating that open theism began in the last fifth of the 20th century, but historical developement should still go back to the early church fathers as thinkers through out the orthodox tradition of disagreed with various parts of classical theism. Where they open theists? No, but open theism cites these thinkers in their case against classical theism and as part of the roots of open theism. Calcidius is an example of a person who should not be cited as an open theist. Yes, he did believe that God knew the future as open as opposed to completely settled, but we don't know what he thought about other important views that are a part of open theism. And that leads to another issue. Open theism is not primarily about God and what he knows or doesn't know about the future. Read the intro to get an idea as to what it is that most open theists hold about open theism. That God knows the future as open is not the source of most of the ideas behind open as the history currently asserts. It is one of the results! It is a conclusion, a necessary conclusion of open theism but not a premise and it is not the most important one. It is merely the most controversial aspect.
All the other aspects get pushed to the back and hence the history section is missing important references to such persons as Martin Luther who stated contrary to classical theism that God suffers or Tertullian who was hostile to the usage of greek philosophy applied to Christian thought. The history section doesn't have to be exhaustive but it should be broad.
I may work on it. I'm tempted to overhaul it. Rob Rohrs --66.250.69.8 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments removed from article
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THESE SUPPOSED 'CON' RESPONSES ARE FAR FROM NEUTRAL OR OBJECTIVE. NOTE THAT WITH EVERY POINT, A PERSON BIASED TOWARD OPEN THEISM REBUTS IN DETAIL SLANTING THE 'CON' RESPONSES WITH LOTS OF 'PRO' MATERIAL. WHERE IS THE UNEDITED 'CON' RESPONSE THAT CAN FAIRLY SPEAK FOR ITSELF IN THE FIRST POINT BELOW? YOUR 'NON-NEGOTIABLE' POLICIES ARE THUS VIOLATED AND YOU DON'T SEEM TO ALLOW A BALANCED CORRECTIVE TO LET THE 'CON' POSITION BE OBJECTIVELY STATED WITHOUT 'PRO' BIAS. PLEASE ALLOW THE FULL 'CON' POSITION AS STATED IN THE BOOKS REFERENCED BELOW IN THE 'CON' SECTION BE HEARD TO GET THE WHOLE STORY ON THIS TOPIC. OTHERWISE WHY HAVE A 'CON' SECTION THAT IS BASICALLY 'PRO'? HOW CAN WE THEOLOGIANS WHO RESPECTFULLY HAVE LEGITIMATE 'CON' RESPONSES ACTUALLY RESPOND IF OUR COMMENTS ARE EDITED OUT, BUT THE 'PRO' SIDE IS LEFT AS IS? LET'S TRY TO MAKE THIS FAIR FOR BOTH SIDES, NOT JUST THOSE 'PRO'. OTHERWISE IT IS A DISSERVICE TO THOSE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE TOPIC TO GET A LOPSIDED BIAS HEAVY ON 'PRO' AND WEAK OR EMPTIED OF EQUAL TIME AND ACCESS FOR 'CON'. AS FOR RELIGIOUS 'DOGMA', THAT'S WHAT THE WHOLE TOPIC IS ABOUT ANYWAY: ONE GROUP'S 'OPEN' DOGMA VS. OTHER GROUP'S SETTLED DOGMA. THAT'S THE NATURE OF THEOLOGY, BY THE WAY, TO ASSERT ONE'S DOGMATIC POSITION FAIRLY AND COMPLETELY SO THE OPPOSITION CAN HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND IN KIND, FAIRLY AND FULLY. IS THAT ALLOWED HERE? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.59.198.127 (talk • contribs) 07:35, September 7, 2006 (UTC)
- User 70.59.198.127, comments about articles are not appropriate in them. If you have a point to make, that is what the talk page is for. Also, please read Wikipedia use of capitals: all capitals should not be used for emphasis. As you can see, they are more difficult to read, and that reduces the chance that people will read them. If you wish to emphasize a point, use italics or underlines. It would be a good idea if you read the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, the Manual of Style, and words to avoid to see how the community here works together. You have objected to the presentation in the "con" section. Improvements there should be no problem if they follow Wikipedia guidelines. Verifiable additions are encouraged. Changes to text that may be controversial should be discussed here on the talk page first. --Blainster 17:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
