by KeithE » Sun Jan 01, 2017 4:27 pm
Ryan,
One area of theology that has changed my mind about the nature of God (since about 1988) relates directly to questions about Sovereignty expressed for example as "Is God literally in control of everything that has ever happened or will happen”. The Calvinistic view naturally charges God as being the author of evil (although Calvinist argue that point - how I have not figured out). The Arminian view charges God as being an allower of evil but not the cause - He has the power but often fails to step in. (Arminianism being of course the view that God is all powerful and has exhaustive foreknowledge of all events past, present and future by virtue of His timelessness but that God did not cause all as in Calvinism - as expounded in Third Decree in it's Westminster Confession of Faith). The "open view of God” or “open theism” satisfies those uncomfortable charges to a large degree for me (more about natural evils - e.g disasters- in a later paragraph).
Open theism recognizes that God’s grant of creaturely free will involves giving up His micro-control and causation of all acts/events. Open theism goes on to say that God does not have exhaustive knowledge of the future (especially the freely chosen thoughts and actions of people) and that God is experiencing the lives of his creatures as time goes on. He knows all there is to know but the future is not knowable. This resonates with me and better suits several Biblical themes in that (1) it makes sense of God’s exhorting us in the Bible to act lovingly - what sense would that be if He already knew the outcome?, and (2) it relieves God from being the cause of human evil we see all around us, (3) makes sense of petitionary prayer - why pray asking for a alteration to future events if all is settled beforehand?, and (4) I can view God as genuinely rooting for me. Read Gen 22 account of Abraham’s offering up of Isaac - God is depicted as not knowing what Abraham’s action would be.
I became an open theist through writings like Richard Rice’s , Clark Pinnock’s compendium , Greg Boyd’s , John Sanders’ and others. I also heard both Roger Olson and Frank Tupper (featured in your link) lecturing at my church in the 90’s. Olson had said he was 99% sure of Open Theism (when I drove him to the airport after his three day symposium on Open Theism), but I have noticed since that he has reverted to Arminianism since that time (he certainly has that right to change his view being a thoroughly studied professor with strong books on the history theological movements).
Tupper's wife had suffered a horrible death recently (at that time) and much was made of “that could not have been in God’s will”. His (the 1995 book) elaborated on that theme but I always felt the works of Rice, Pinnock, Boyd, and Sanders wee more clearly stated. Thanks for pointing out Tupper's and I trust it will be an improvement.
A more recent book and study by Thomas Jay Oord that declares that since God is love, He cannot be controlling or coercive in anyway. His emptying of Himself is an “essential kenosis”. All of this is discussed at . His latest book . I’ve read that book but am still digesting it. What about “tough Iove”?
Counter Open Theism books are by Bruce Ware and edited by John Piper.
Now about natural evil, David Ray Griffin points out (somewhere) that God’s Creation (while stated to be “good” in Gen 1) is not said to be perfect or incapable of malfunction. God may have created a thing that he hoped would never go wrong, but earthquakes /tsunamis happen. Take for an analog Henry Ford the creator of the automobile. Ford is thoroughly an “other greater being” than a car, that does not mean the car would never go wrong.
--------------------------
Anyway, much rethinking of theology is in the air these days particularly in the Emerging Church (which is the New Reformation).
One other area of rethinking involves the atonement and the meaning of the cross. I’ll save that for another post after I read NT Wright's new book . The cross is not so much to satisfy God with blood, but to reinvigorate humans by His selfish example to bring about a revolution towards a better Kingdom of God.
Of course all of this theological theorizing is well above our pay grade (even sticking with more traditional views - e.g. Calvinism or penal substitutionary view of atonement). But it sure has pragmatically aided my faith to know that God is unabashedly good, always encouraging, and not bloodtirsty.
I realize that I’m namedropping a lot here. But I wanted to give Ryan some source and there is so much more.
Last edited by
KeithE on Sun Jan 01, 2017 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.