(By the way, I prefer to refer to this view as «the open view of the future,» since the most distinctive aspect
of Open Theism is not its understanding of the nature of God, but its understanding of the nature of the future).
If anything, their views resemble a charismatic form
of Open Theism, in which every prayer is capable of tipping the balance in the running fight between good and evil.
Not exact matches
In class, we had discussions about election and predestination,
open theism, inerrancy and inspiration
of Scripture, millennialism, tribulationalism, dispensationalism, infra -, supra -, and sublapsarianism and many other «very important» subjects that you discuss every day over dinner.
An
opening essay on Hartshorne's methodology is followed by eight others: the initial four focus in one fashion or another on Hartshorne's discussion
of theism and the latter four attend to other aspects and implications
of his thought.
This is why I claim that
open theists don't think God knows less than the God
of classical
theism; he knows more!
Stephen: How do you feel that
open theism works in relation to the concept
of the «Sovereignty»
of God?
If I had to define «
Open Theism» in one sentence, I would say that it as the view that the future is partly comprised
of possibilities and is therefore known by God as partly comprised
of possibilities.
I interviewed Greg last year about his most recent book, Benefit
of the Doubt, but today I want to invite you to engage Greg around one
of his most interesting (and controversial) beliefs — that
of «
open theism.»
From Sonja: So if I'm understanding
open theism right, it sounds like it's similar to — if not the same as — the idea that «omniscience» in God doesn't mean «knows exactly what will happen» but instead means «knows every single permutation
of what could happen.»
Open theism argues that God does not know «the future», either because it does not yet exist to be known, or because God chooses not to know it, in an act
of kenosis (self - emptying).
Postconservative theologians are moving away from classical Christian
theism and toward an «
open view
of God.»
More and more, however, philosophy's attempt to become radically secular, divorcing itself from all ties with Christian
theism, has become successful, leaving fewer avenues
of approach
open to the theologian.
While it may handle the problem
of evil, does not process
theism's critique
of classical omnipotence
open up a Pandora's box
of its own?
When I meet someone who identifies himself as Reformed, I make all kinds
of assumptions — that he is stuck up, that he thinks Calvin must sit on the right hand
of the Father, that he delights in the idea
of people being predestined for hell, that he will call me «uninformed» and «unenlightened» when he finds out that I've explored
Open Theism.
However, though over time we exchanged views on a wide range
of related topics I can not find any reference to
open theism as such.
It was well known at the time that
open theism was a major issue in the proceedings
of the Evangelical Theological Society.
Those
of us who worked with him on a daily basis realize it is not a fair assessment
of Winter to state, «along with undercutting the omniscience
of God, Winter's
open theism would seem to undermine the full authority
of Scripture and emasculate the biblical gospel.»
But I am convinced
of this: the no - God theory leaves the most important facts in human life utterly without possibility
of explanation, while
theism opens wide the door to an outlook on life which makes even the world's evil seem ultimately soluble.
Understanding God primarily in terms
of God's nature as love or understanding God primarily in terms
of God's will to love distinguishes process
theism from
Open theism.
I don't defend inclusivism or
open theism (Yet???), but I no longer consider myself a Calvinist
of any shape or size.