Sentences with phrase «of open theism»

(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.