Someone asked me why I am not an open theist. I respect open theists for their dedication to biblical exegesis and for their determination to emphasize the personal nature of God. I am also attracted to open theism as a solution to the problem of evil. (Which I, personally, do not think Calvinism can solve. Arminianism does a better job in that it does NOT say God foreordained or rendered sin and evil certain. The distinction between God’s antecedent will and God’s consequential will is necessary for any good theodicy.) Most of the leading open theists are my friends and I would love to be with them on this issue. I have been their defender on many occasions.
However, I have the same problem with open theism as with Calvinism when it comes to theology’s normed norm–tradition. The key Calvinist doctrines of unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace were not even thought of until at least Augustine in the fifth century. (And, I still believe, no Christian suggested limited atonement until the ninth century.)
[And so,] if open theism were true, it seems to me early church fathers such as Irenaeus, who learned the faith under Polycarp who learned it under John the Apostle, would have known of it and taught it. I realize this is not a knock-down, drag-out proof against open theism. However, I’m cautious about embracing doctrinal ideas (or even theologoumena* which is what open theism really is) that are so new in terms of church history.
[And so,] if open theism were true, it seems to me early church fathers such as Irenaeus, who learned the faith under Polycarp who learned it under John the Apostle, would have known of it and taught it. I realize this is not a knock-down, drag-out proof against open theism. However, I’m cautious about embracing doctrinal ideas (or even theologoumena* which is what open theism really is) that are so new in terms of church history.
I’m also stuck on Jesus’ prediction/prophecy to Peter that he would deny him three times before the rooster crows. Open theist explanations just don’t convince me yet.
I don’t see any great need to make up my mind about this in some kind of hard and fast way. In fact, I kind of like thinking about it. As I said before, it really doesn’t make any difference to worship or piety.
**********
.... some google searches brought these several definitions up ...
*Theologoumena and pious opinions are actually the same thing. In fact, "pious opinion" is the very definition of theologoumen. Basically, one can think of a theologoumen as being a pious opinion that does not contradict the dogmas of the faith but is not required by any dogmas, either. An example of this would be the pious (but uncertain) belief that each of us is assigned a guardian angel upon his/her baptism. To my knowledge, there's nothing in the Apostolic deposit of faith that requires one to believe such, but neither is there anything in our Tradition forbidding such belief. Hence, this belief is relegated to the area of pious opinion, or theologoumen.
++++++++++
Theologoumena is a theological opinion on a subject that has not been definitively settled by the Church. I suppose whether one would define such opinions as "genuine" is if the foundation of said opinion is generally in accordance with the consensus of the Fathers, or the phrenoma (mindset) of the Church.
++++++++++
Excuse me for being a tad persnickety, but the word is theologoumenon (sg), theologoumena (pl), meaning a theological hypothesis that is a legitimage subject for debate or difference of opinion without anyone incurring the label "heretic" for his/her views on the subject.
++++++++++
First Words on Theologoumena
http://rtmerrill.com/writing/theologoumena.php
April 8, 2007
A coherent-sounding blogger[1] named Tom provides this definition:
The definition of this word ‘theologoumena’ is from the Greek and Latin meaning “to speak of God.” The term usually refers to the historicization of theological statements derived from speculation on divine things and logical inferences from revelation rather than based on historical evidence. For example, the genealogy of Jesus and his virgin birth are classified by some as theologoumena derived from beliefs that Jesus was the son of David and the Son of God. (Patzia, A. G., & Petrotta, A. J. (2002). Pocket dictionary of biblical studies (116). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.)[2]
Or, as some would say, “baggage.”
The Archbishop (Orthodox) of Etna, Chrysostomos, in an article[3] on an Orthodox Christian response to a World Council of Churches paper, in passing defines theologoumena as:
“privately-held, though possibly accurate, views held by some [Church] Fathers.”
Chrysostomos goes on to say that the concept of a firm line between dogma and theologoumena is a Western one, and that the Orthodox approach ought to be:
“a thorough, careful search of the Fathers and to an existential immersion into their spirits—to something that ultimately rises above the useful tools of research that we have borrowed largely from Western theological schemata.”
This is apparently done in the context of full participation in the continuity of Orthodox life, bound together by baptism, the eucharist, and the priesthood, which:
“constitutes a breeding ground for spiritual transformation and for development of that discretion by which a Father can, in one instance, honor the intent and quality of a non-Orthodox sacrament (discerning, as it were, the closeness of its relative truth to the criterion of truth within Orthodoxy), and in another reject such a sacrament.”
I understand this to mean that participation in the Orthodox community through participation in its sacraments, forms or sharpens a way of knowing which those outside the Orthodox community lack. I believe that idea of “other ways of knowing” is an important one when it comes to spirituality.
Chrysostomos has a lot more to say, but not much about theologoumena.
My next stop will be blogger Tom, whose full name is Tom Price[4]. I think he’s coming from a completely different direction, and that may be useful.
April 8, 2007
A coherent-sounding blogger[1] named Tom provides this definition:
The definition of this word ‘theologoumena’ is from the Greek and Latin meaning “to speak of God.” The term usually refers to the historicization of theological statements derived from speculation on divine things and logical inferences from revelation rather than based on historical evidence. For example, the genealogy of Jesus and his virgin birth are classified by some as theologoumena derived from beliefs that Jesus was the son of David and the Son of God. (Patzia, A. G., & Petrotta, A. J. (2002). Pocket dictionary of biblical studies (116). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.)[2]
Or, as some would say, “baggage.”
The Archbishop (Orthodox) of Etna, Chrysostomos, in an article[3] on an Orthodox Christian response to a World Council of Churches paper, in passing defines theologoumena as:
“privately-held, though possibly accurate, views held by some [Church] Fathers.”
Chrysostomos goes on to say that the concept of a firm line between dogma and theologoumena is a Western one, and that the Orthodox approach ought to be:
“a thorough, careful search of the Fathers and to an existential immersion into their spirits—to something that ultimately rises above the useful tools of research that we have borrowed largely from Western theological schemata.”
This is apparently done in the context of full participation in the continuity of Orthodox life, bound together by baptism, the eucharist, and the priesthood, which:
“constitutes a breeding ground for spiritual transformation and for development of that discretion by which a Father can, in one instance, honor the intent and quality of a non-Orthodox sacrament (discerning, as it were, the closeness of its relative truth to the criterion of truth within Orthodoxy), and in another reject such a sacrament.”
I understand this to mean that participation in the Orthodox community through participation in its sacraments, forms or sharpens a way of knowing which those outside the Orthodox community lack. I believe that idea of “other ways of knowing” is an important one when it comes to spirituality.
Chrysostomos has a lot more to say, but not much about theologoumena.
My next stop will be blogger Tom, whose full name is Tom Price[4]. I think he’s coming from a completely different direction, and that may be useful.
[1] Understanding the word “blogger” is left to you as part of your cyberspace immigrant-assimilation course
[2] http://abetterhope.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-true-christian-faith.html
[3] http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/bemandos.aspx
[4] http://www.tompriceapologetics.blogspot.com
Conservatives believe that spirituality/religion is the content. The form is adaptable to the sub-culture (culture is too large; the selected sub-culture usually conforms to that of the age of the leadership; their life-situation changes, the form changes) and doesn’t affect the content. They are wrong.
Liberals believe that spirituality/religion is the form. Content is supplied by the ever-changing culture and sub-cultures. They are wrong.
Form and content are intertwined, and there is no such things as separation. Form always affects the content, and content always affects the form. The important thing to ask is to determine how each affects and “effects” the other. Also, one should ask, “What am I losing by using this form or centralizing this content?” Most people never ask such a question.
Conservatives believe that spirituality/religion is found in the content.
Liberals believe that spirituality/religion is found in the form.