Trintarian Warfare theodicy

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'd like to make a minor revision to a previous statement.

I previously indicated a suspicion that open theism is a reaction to Calvinism and Arminianism.
I'm beginning to appreciate how open theism is in fact a reaction to Calvinism, but I'd say in some regards it's a kind of ultra-Arminianism, in that it seeks to assert a radically autonomous view of free-will ultimately to the detriment of Divine foreknowledge. Thus, any tenents of classical Arminianism that are retained are probably redefined according to the new paradigm.

Arminianism vs. Calvinism
----------------------------------------------------------
Partial Depravity vs. Total Depravity
Conditional vs. Unconditional Election
Universal vs. Limited Atonement
Resistable Grace vs. Irresistable Grace
Uncertain Perseverance vs. Perseverance of the Saints

It would seem that open theism clearly falls on the Arminian side of this theological model but pushes beyond the Arminian envelope in the radicality of its conception of God and free-will.

I wonder how open theism (or at least Boyd) would speak of Christ's Atonement? Substitutionary death, penal satisfaction or maybe both? For the record, I'd rather not debate open theism within the bounds of protestant theology; this doesn't really concern me. I'm just curious to get at the roots of open theism.

And am I misrespresenting or misunderstanding open theism thus far?

[Laudate_Dominum]

sorry for the crappy grammar and incoherence of my posts. I was spewing.

[Guest JeffCR07]

If the above is a good representation of open theism, then I can't see it working, if for no other reason than that it falls to the same question of authority and Tradition that all protestantism falls to.

If the Fathers of the Church and the teachers of the Church across all of Tradition were as mistaken as Open Theism claims, then there is certainly no reason to think them inspired by the Spirit. But if they were not inspired by the Spirit, and neither were the Councils (which clearly incorporated ancient philosophy), then there is absolutely no basis for believing that the Church was innerrant when it closed and determined the Canon. But if that is true, then the Canon of the Bible could be wrong, and that means that we have absolutely no basis for knowing what is or is not an inspired book. This means that the entire Bible is called into question.

Ultimately, it seems to me, this [i]crushes[/i] Open Theism, which tries to assert itself as the only truly biblical theological outlook.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Laudate_Dominum]

I agree Jeff. There are insurmountable problems on many levels. I mentioned earlier an article in which the author admitted that open theism meant discarding the early councils. He personally didn't have a problem with that.

I'm sort of stewing right now and just reading what I can about this theology. When I'm ready I intend to present a thorough critique. In the mean time I'm just going to take an inquisitive and somewhat passive stance until I feel like I've really got my arms around this big fur ball of a system.
There are many angles from which it needs to be analyzed as well.. Certainly, the fact that in its most basic expression it is already at odds with dogma is enough for me to smell it for what it is, but there has been a great deal of work put into it by its proponents and I think it deserves a bit more attention and thought than just that.

If you have the time and motivation, I wouldn't mind seeing what you come up with. I'm really surprised more phatmassers haven't been tackling this thread. The more minds the better. The problematics that this theology presents are not as simple as they might appear.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Dec 12 2005, 07:56 AM']If the above is a good representation of open theism, then I can't see it working, if for no other reason than that it falls to the same question of authority and Tradition that all protestantism falls to.

If the Fathers of the Church and the teachers of the Church across all of Tradition were as mistaken as Open Theism claims, then there is certainly no reason to think them inspired by the Spirit. But if they were not inspired by the Spirit, and neither were the Councils (which clearly incorporated ancient philosophy), then there is absolutely no basis for believing that the Church was innerrant when it closed and determined the Canon. But if that is true, then the Canon of the Bible could be wrong, and that means that we have absolutely no basis for knowing what is or is not an inspired book. This means that the entire Bible is called into question.

Ultimately, it seems to me, this [i]crushes[/i] Open Theism, which tries to assert itself as the only truly biblical theological outlook.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]821429[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I must also say that the picture open theism has presented thus far (in the books and articles I've read) is a gross charicature and over simplication. It sounds plausible and difficult to refute, but its actually not that bad, it'll just take a bit of work. Oh, and its not particularly original either. The whole "cleans theology of the pagan phantom" has been thrown around many times. It's become a classic polemic I'd say; its pretty much cliche in my book.

[Laudate_Dominum]

And I actually think the stuff I've read so far makes some valid points and raises some interesting questions. I'm not just trying to attack or dismiss this theology. I'm trying to engage it and discern its truth value honestly and critically.
I doubt whatever I come up with will "convert" those who live by it, but at the very least I'd like to clearly address it in relation to Catholic teaching. Let us remember that it is a theological controversy within Evangelical Protestantism and it pretty much non-existent within Catholic circles (as far as I can tell).

And once again, to the best of my knowledge, open theism has little or nothing to do with Molinism and I don't think its quite appropriate to insist that there is a real connection. For starters, Molinism operates within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy; open theism begins with evangelical protestantism and relies upon the undermining of any established notion of Christian orthodoxy in order to put forth its claims.

[N/A Gone]

keep reading..

btw, whatever author said to dis-own the early councils was a moron and simply didnt think about it. Remember these are evangelicals, they dont like you..

but, I know that Boyd uses patristics often.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 12 2005, 09:19 AM']keep reading..

btw, whatever author said to dis-own the early councils was a moron and simply didnt think about it. Remember these are evangelicals, they dont like you..

but, I know that Boyd uses patristics often.
[right][snapback]821491[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Thanks for being so cool about all this. I know I'm not the king of tact, so I appreciate it.

From what I've read of him so far, I'm sure I will like Boyd more than Sanders and the others.

I hope your finals go well. God bless you.