Open Theism & Process Theology, Part 2/2

*Open Theism & Process Theology, Part 1/2 may be found here -

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/08/process-theology-terence-fretheim.html
(for additional discussions see sidebar under "Theism")

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TYPES OF THEISM

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Theism

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.^[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.^[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism that contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.^[4]

The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning God. The term theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).^[5] The claim of no knowledge is known as agnosticism; the claim of no god or deity is known as atheism.

Types

Monotheism

Main article: Monotheism

Monotheism (from Greek μόνος) is the belief in theology that only one deity exists.^[6] Some modern day monotheistic religions include Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, and some forms of Buddhism and Hinduism.

Polytheism

Main article: Polytheism

While a specific definition of theism may exclude polytheism, it is included by the most general definition. Polytheism is the belief that there is more than one deity.^[7] In practice, polytheism is not just the belief that there are multiple gods; it usually includes belief in the existence of a specific pantheon of distinct deities.

Within polytheism there are hard and soft varieties:

• Hard polytheism views the gods as being distinct and separate beings; an example of this would be the Egyptian and Greek Religions; along with certain schools of Hinduism.
• Soft polytheism views the gods as being subsumed into a greater whole. Some forms of Hinduism such as Smartism/Advaita Vedanta serve as examples of soft polytheism.

Polytheism is also divided according to how the individual deities are regarded:

• Henotheism: The viewpoint/belief that there may be more than one deity, but worship of only one of them.
• Kathenotheism: The viewpoint/belief that there is more than one deity, but only one deity is worshipped at a time or ever, and another may be worthy of worship at another time or place. If they are worshipped one at a time, then each is supreme in turn.
• Monolatrism: The belief that there may be more than one deity, but that only one is worthy of being worshipped. Most of the modern monotheistic religions may have begun as monolatric ones.

Pantheism and panentheism

Main articles: pantheism and panentheism

While a specific definition of theism may exclude pantheism, it is included by the most general definition.

• Pantheism: The belief that the physical universe is equivalent to a god or gods, and that there is no division between a Creator and the substance of its creation.^[8] Examples include many forms of Saivism.
• Panentheism: Like Pantheism, the belief that the physical universe is joined to a god or gods. However, it also believes that a god or gods are greater than the material universe. Examples include most forms of Vaishnavism.

Some people find the distinction between these two beliefs as ambiguous and unhelpful, while others see it as a significant point of division.^[9]

Deism

Main article: Deism

While the specific definition of theism given above may exclude deism, deism is included as a form of theism by the most general definition given above.

• Deism is the belief that at least one deity exists and created the world, but that the creator(s) does/do not alter the original plan for the universe.^[10] Deism typically rejects supernatural events (such as prophecies, miracles, and divine revelations) prominent in organized religion. Instead, Deism holds that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of a supreme being as creator.^[11]
  • Pandeism: The belief that a god preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it.
  • Panendeism combines deism with panentheism, believing the universe is a part (but not the whole) of deity
  • Polydeism: The belief that multiple gods existed, but do not intervene with the universe.

Autotheism

Main article: Apotheosis

While a specific definition of theism may exclude autotheism, it is included by the most general definition. Autotheism is the viewpoint that, whether divinity is also external or not, it is inherently within 'oneself' and that one has a duty to become perfect (or divine). This can either be in a selfish, wilful, egotistical way or a selfless way following the implications of statements attributed to ethical, philosophical, and religious leaders such as Jesus,^[12][13] Buddha, Mahavira, and Socrates.^{[citation needed]}

Autotheism can also refer to the belief that one's self is a deity (often the only one), within the context of subjectivism. This is a fairly extreme version of subjectivism, however.

Value-judgment theisms

• Eutheism is the viewpoint/belief that a deity(ies) is wholly benevolent; dystheism allows for there being evil in the divine realm.
• Maltheism is the belief that a deity exists, but that god is wholly malicious and abusive.

See also

• Open theism
• Theistic evolution
• Animism
• Nontheistic religions

References

1. ↑ Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition
2. ↑ "Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism. Retrieved 2009-01-13.
3. ↑ See, for example,The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Second Edition and The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (1997) or the current Encyclopedia Britannica.
4. ↑ John Orr (English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits, 1934) explains that before the seventeenth century theism and deism were interchangeable terms but during the course of the seventeenth century they gained separate and mutually exclusive meanings (see deism)
5. ↑ Halsey, William; Robert H. Blackburn, Sir Frank Francis (1969). Louis Shores. ed. Collier's Encyclopedia. 22 (20 ed.). Crowell-Collier Educational Corporation. pp. 266–267.
6. ↑ “Monotheism”, in Britannica, 15th ed. (1986), 8:266.
7. ↑ AskOxford: polytheism
8. ↑ Philosophical Dictionary: Pacifism-Particular
9. ↑ What is Panentheism?. About Agnosticism/Atheism. Retrieved 2 October 2009.
10. ↑ AskOxford: deism
11. ↑ Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language (G. & C. Merriam, 1924) defines deism as "belief in the existence of a personal god, with disbelief in Christian teaching, or with a purely rationalistic interpretation of Scripture".
12. ↑ Matthew 5:38 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect"
13. ↑ Luke 17:21 "The Kingdom of God is within you"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

PANENTHEISM

http://www.enotes.com/panentheism-reference/panentheism

The term panentheism (from the Greek) literally means "all (is) in God." As a concept of God, panentheism attempts to do justice both to divine transcendence (God is beyond or more than the world) and divine immanence (God is in the world). Panentheism maintains that the world is in God, included in the divine life, but that God's reality is not reducible to nor exhausted by the reality of the individuals or the structures of the universe or of the universe as a whole. Thus God is all-inclusive or all-encompassing with respect to being.

Strictly construed this entails that all divine relations are internal relations, that is, relations between God as integrated whole and the creatures as included parts. For panentheism then, while the universe is part of God, God and the universe do not form an undifferentiated whole. Panentheism draws definite distinctions between God as the including whole and the nondivine parts of the universe considered in themselves. Certain properties of divinity, such as aseity (self-existence) or necessary existence and the all-encompassing attributes of omnipresence (everywhere present), omniscience (all-knowing), and omnipotence (all power or all-powerful) apply to God but definitely not to individual creatures or to the universe itself. (Note though that process forms of panentheism find the notion of divine omnipotence problematic.)

Another important distinction drawn between God and creatures concerns mutual freedom. Panentheism upholds indeterminism: Spontaneity and free will in the universe mean that antecedent causes do not fully determine present events and actions, so the future is not fully predictable or foreknown, even by God; creatures have real choices. In summary, while God is not an individual simply distinct from the nondivine individuals, in the way, for example, that one human being is distinct from another, neither is God to be equated with the universe or its constituents.


Panentheism as alternative

In construing divine transcendence and immanence as above, panentheism mediates between deism and certain forms of traditional theism on the one hand and pantheism on the other hand, attempting to avoid pitfalls of both. Deism, as developed in the European Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, holds that God created the world to operate according to natural laws but is uninvolved in its destiny. The God posited by traditional theism is not as separate from the universe as is in deism; however, panentheists judge what they call classical theism to be equally inadequate. Classical theism, in affirming certain divine attributes stemming from ancient Greek philosophy—immutability (unchangeability), impassibility (to be unaffected by another), and eternity (in the sense of strict timelessness)—does not permit God to be in genuine relation to the world.

The term pantheism literally means "all (is) God." That is, everything at least in its true essence is divine. Clearly panentheism has affinities with pantheism. American Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), the principle theological interpreter and developer of process philosophy, at first labeled his concept of God "The New Pantheism." The trajectory of German idealism produced both pantheists and panentheists. One could say that panentheism attempts to get as close to pantheism as possible in stressing the intimate relationship between God and nature, while still maintaining clear distinctions between them. A key difference is that pantheism tends to a (quasi) materialistic or (quasi) substantialistic understanding of God: Entities in the world share the divine essence or substance to a greater or lesser degree. Therefore, any distinction between God as a whole and the constituents of the universe is a matter of degree rather than of kind. In addition, since everything is a mode or attribute of God, pantheism typically denies indeterminate freedom.

The metaphor or analogy of the world as the body of God is popular among panentheists. Hartshorne compares the God-world relationship to that between a person's mind and the cells of its body. Arthur Peacocke (1924–), a key figure in the science and religion dialogue, speaks approvingly of the feminine, womb imagery that panentheism encourages: As with a fetus in its mother, creation is within God. American Christian theologian Sallie McFague (1933–) has been the principal developer of the metaphor of world as body of God. British philosophical theologian Grace Jantzen (1948–), in drawing the connection between God and world so tightly as to jettison indeterminate freedom, offers a pantheistic version of the metaphor.

Some connections with science

Panentheism offers diverse advantages for those interested in the intersection of science and religion. Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), in his role as a philosopher of science, and others have observed that the dominant model for the natural world moved from mechanism to organism during the nineteenth century. Panentheism offers an organistic understanding of the God-world relation in contrast to deism's mechanistic understanding. Like deism, panentheism offers a concept of God where natural laws or processes are respected, where God refrains from interventions that overturn nature. The crucial difference is that panentheism posits a God intimately involved, continuously interacting, with the world.

Panentheism's intimate connection of God with a world in time entails a God who in some sense or dimension is also temporal. As the trajectory of modern science—from the Newtonian mechanics of the Enlightenment to evolution to Albert Einstein's theory of relativity—has put an exclamation point on the temporal nature of reality, panentheism offers a consonant concept of the divine.

As indicated above, creaturely spontaneity and indeterminate freedom are crucial for panentheism in its distinction of God from creation. Both quantum mechanics, in stating that the motions of subatomic particles are probabilistic rather than determinable from known antecedent conditions, and chaos theory, in demonstrating the unpredictability of future events, provide openings for panentheists and other supporters of indeterminacy. In particular, Peacocke, a British physical chemist, Anglican priest, and panentheistic theologian, applauds panentheism's picture of a God who is continuously creative in relation to an open universe. It must be noted, though, that no consensus exists among scientists that quantum indeterminacy or, even less, chaos theory unpredictability entail any ultimate indeterminacy in the universe.

Avoiding violation of natural processes is not only a concern of panentheists but of other theologians involved in the science and religion dialogue, including Americans Thomas F. Tracy and Nancey Murphy. It may seem that such thinkers must renounce any traditional Christian notion of special providence, namely, that God causes particular events in natural or human history (in contrast to general providence, that God determines the general laws or processes of the universe), however, this is not uniformly the case.

For example, in his later writings, Peacocke develops his notion of top-down causation, maintaining that divine action with respect to the universe not only upholds general laws or patterns but causes specific events. Whether such divine predetermination is compatible with indeterminate creaturely decisions and their chance interactions is a major difficulty for this viewpoint.

Murphy and Tracy purchase special providence by positing that God determines the probabilistic quantum movements of subatomic particles and that these in turn produce macro-effects that result in specific events. The virtue of this notion is that it contravenes no natural laws or regularities: The quantum events that God determines are within the scientifically permissible ranges of motion, and apparently no conceivable method exists for discerning God's causation on the quantum level. At the same time, this "invisibility" is problematic: That God ultimately causes a valued event (as opposed to, say, an event issuing in tremendous evil) appears to be a matter of blind faith, at least as far as physics is concerned. Other problems for this viewpoint are the speculative nature of the connection between quantum events and macro-effects and, for advocates of indeterminacy and openness, the denial that quantum events are ultimately indeterminate. More broadly, critics of the above approaches might judge them to be backdoor attempts to reintroduce too much transcendent or interventionist causation by God.

Panentheism's history

The term panentheism was coined by German idealist philosopher Carl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781–1832). As mentioned above, German idealism, with strong ties to nature romanticism, produced various panentheistic and pantheistic thinkers. The clearest and most fully developed panentheistic model was that of physicist, experimental psychologist, and philosopher Gustav Theodor Fechner (1801–1887). Earlier examples of panentheism or panentheistic tendencies include Western mysticism and Hindu bhakti (referring to devotion to a personal god) and its principal theologian Ramanuja (traditional dates, 1017–1137). These examples are not surprising, as mysticism generally softens the creator-creature distinction, while in India that distinction is not drawn as sharply as is typical in Western religions.

Various philosophers and theologians of the twentieth century have been labeled panentheists, including Nicolai Berdyaev, William Pepperell Montague, Paul Weiss, Karl Rahner, and John MacQuarrie. While the panentheistic affinities of these thinkers are undeniable, some failed to develop a clear panentheistic model, others promoted ideas contrary to basic premises of panentheism, while still others explicitly refused the label panentheism for their thought. Coming out of German idealism, American Paul Tillich (1886–1965), an exile from the Nazis, is regarded as one of the premier theologians of the twentieth century. Tillichians widely acknowledge his panentheism. His famous phrase, "God is not a being, but being-itself," has obvious panentheistic implications. Tillich, who claimed the phrase "eschatological pan-en-theism," was accused by some critics of pantheism, to which he would jokingly respond, "This pantheist is going to take a walk in his garden." Tillich's reluctance to disavow the attributes of divine immutability, impassibility, and eternity compromise his manifest panentheistic intentions, according to American theologian David Nikkel (1952–).

The fullest explicit development of panentheism in the twentieth century came from process thought. Whitehead, a British mathematical physicist and philosopher, originated process philosophy, its theism developed and to some extent modified by Hartshorne. For process thought, reality at its depth is not static being but rather a process of becoming. God is not an exception to, but the highest exemplar of, this ultimate or metaphysical principle. As did Fechner, process thought advocates panpsychism, that all integrated entities of the universe possess some degree of sentience or feeling. The fundamental unit of reality for process philosophy is an occasion of experience. God, in the consequent nature for Whitehead or the concrete pole of divinity for Hartshorne, includes all past occasions of experience. Process panentheism emphasizes omniscience and, to coin a word, omnipathy (all-feeling). God intimately knows all experience, is affected by, sympathizes with, all feelings. As Whitehead puts it, "God is the fellow sufferer who understands" (1928, p. 351). Whitehead purchases divine transcendence through the primordial nature, which is the reservoir of all possibility. Hartshorne purchases the same through the abstract pole of divinity, which refers to the changeless character of God, namely, that God will always lovingly know and integrate whatever experiences occur in the universe. If the world influences God as object of divine knowledge, God likewise influences the nondivine individuals as object of their awareness, as a lure providing preferences for their actions. To what extent the divine lure only persuades versus constrains decisions as the unavoidable object of awareness is debated by process theologians. What is beyond dispute is the rejection of omnipotence, if interpreted to mean God is all-powerful, which would overthrow indeterminate freedom.

Contemporary issues

McFague, mentioned earlier in relation to feminist divine imagery, has presented one of the most well-known models of panentheism in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Her development of metaphors for a God in intimate relation with the world enflesh and enhance the sense of the concept of panentheism. On the other hand, her doubts concerning what we can actually know about God pose a potential problem for her panentheism. McFague's minimal Christian theistic claim is that there is a power in the universe on the side of life that is, metaphorically speaking, personal. When McFague adds that this power is many rather than one, critics may question whether God in her concept or metaphor is sufficiently integrated to panentheistically include the universe; critics may question whether there is a difference of substance between her view and American Christian theologian Gordon Kaufman's serendipitous creativity, that God should refer to the cosmic and evolutionary forces that have resulted in life and human life rather than to any personal or agential reality. Contrast McFague's outlook to that of Tillich and Hartshorne, who maintained that God is "not less than conscious" or superconscious (while recognizing the anthropomorphic dangers of attributing conscious personhood to God).

Many theologians in the science and religion dialogue affirm some notion of God's sustaining creativity common to the Western religious traditions: Every aspect of every particular constituent of the universe is radically contingent, dependent upon divine power for its continued existence moment by moment. Process theism rejects such an understanding of divine power. Whitehead is clear that both divine and finite occasions of experience are manifestations of the ultimate metaphysical principle of creative synthesis, each such occasion possessing ultimate independence of being. Whitehead reasons that if God were upholding the very existence of occasions, then indeterminate freedom would be overridden and his panentheism would transmute into a pantheism. Christian process theologians, while often neglecting to acknowledge this Whiteheadian perspective on divine power, have not challenged it either. The question for panentheists who wish to retain a notion of divine sustaining activity is this: Can omnipotence be defined as "all power" rather than "all-powerful"? Can God panentheistically encompass all power by sustaining and thus empowering the existence of each creature, as an existence with indeterminate freedom? If such a concept is not self-contradictory, then one can avoid pantheism and affirm a notion of divine power more consonant with the all-inclusive logic of panentheism.

See also CHAOS THEORY; DEISM; DOWNWARD CAUSATION; EINSTEIN, ALBERT; GOD; NEWTON, ISAAC; PHYSICS, QUANTUM; PROCESS THOUGHT; PROVIDENCE; THEISM; WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH

Bibliography

Fechner, Gustav Theodor. Zend-Avesta: Oder ueber die Dinge des Himmels und des Jenseits, Vom Standpunkt der Naturbeschreibung, 5th edition. Leipzig, Germany: Leopold Voss, 1922. Translated excerpts appear in Philosophers Speak to God, ed. Charles Hartshorne and William L. Reese. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.

Hartshorne, Charles. Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism (1941). Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1964.

Hartshorne, Charles. The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1948.

Jantzen, Grace M. God's World, God's Body. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1984.

McFague, Sallie. Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1987.

McFague, Sallie. The Body of God: An Ecological Theology. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1993.

Nikkel, David H. Panentheism in Hartshorne and Tillich: A Creative Synthesis. New York: Peter Lang, 1995.

Peacocke, Arthur R. Intimations of Reality: Critical Realism in Science and Religion. South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984.

Peacocke, Arthur R. Theology for a Scientific Age: Being and Becoming—Natural, Divine, and Human, 2nd edition. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1993.

Russell, Robert John; Murphey, Nancey; and Peacocke, Arthur R., eds. Chaos and Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Berkeley, Calif.: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 1995.

Tillich, Paul. The Courage to Be. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1952.

Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology, 3 Vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951–1963.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Science and the Modern World. New York: Macmillan, 1925.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology (1929), corrected edition, ed. David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: Macmillan, 1978.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Adventures of Ideas. New York: Macmillan, 1933.

DAVID H. NIKKEL

Source: Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, ©2003 Gale Cengage. All Rights Reserved. Full copyright.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

OPEN THEISM

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Open_theism

Open theism is a recent theological movement that has developed within evangelical and post-evangelical Protestant Christianity as a response to certain ideas that are related to the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology. Several of these ideas within classical theism (a designation which is not to be taken as inclusive of all of orthodox theism) state that God is immutable, impassible, and timeless. For several versions of classical theism, God fully determines the future; thus, humanity does not have libertarian free will, or, if free, that its freedom must necessarily be compatible with God's determining actions.^[1] Open theists argue that these attributes do not belong to the God of the Bible and are at odds with personhood.

Openness is based on God as the Living God. The five most fundamental attributes of God are that God is Living, Personal, Relational, Good, and Loving. These faithfully represent God the way that Scripture presents Him, and starkly contrast with the Greek and Roman philosophical construction of God.^[2]

Practically, open theism makes the case for a personal God who is open to influence through the prayers, decisions, and actions of people. Although many specific outcomes of the future are unknowable, God's foreknowledge of the future includes that which is determined as time progresses often in light of free decisions that have been made and what has been sociologically determined. So God knows everything that has been determined as well as what has not yet been determined but remains open. As such, God is able to anticipate the future, yet remains fluid to respond and react to prayer and decisions made either contrary or advantageous to His plan or presuppositions.

Gregory A. Boyd claims that "open theism" is an inappropriate term since the position posits more about the nature of time and reality than it does about God itself. This is to say that open theists do not believe that God does not know the future, but rather that the future does not exist to be known by anyone. For the open theist the future simply has not happened yet, not for anyone, and thus is unknowable in the common sense. Thus, to say that God does not know the future is akin to saying that God does not know about square circles. In this understanding, it could be technically wiser to refer to the view as "open futurism".^[3]

Historical development

The first known post-biblical writings by a Christian advocating concepts similar to open theism with regard to the issue of foreknowledge is found in the writings of Calcidius, a 5th-century interpreter of Plato. It was affirmed in the 16'th century by Socinus, in the early 18'th century by Samuel Fancourt and Andrew Ramsay (an important figure in Methodism). In the 19th century several theologians wrote in defense of this idea, including Isaak Dorner, Gustav Fechner, Otto Pfleiderer, Jules Lequier, Adam Clarke, Billy Hibbard, Joel Hayes, T.W. Brents, and Lorenzo D. McCabe. Contributions to this defense increased as the century drew to a close.

The term "open theism" was introduced in 1980 with theologian Richard Rice's book The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will. The broader articulation of open theism was given in 1994, when five essays were published by Evangelical scholars (including Rice) under the title The Openness of God. Theologians of note currently espousing this view include: Clark Pinnock, John E. Sanders, Jürgen Moltmann, Richard Rice, Gregory Boyd, Thomas Jay Oord, C. Peter Wagner, Roger T. Forster, John Polkinghorne, Hendrikus Berkhof, Adrio Konig, Harry Boer, Thomas Finger (Mennonite), W. Norris Clarke (Roman Catholic), Brian Hebblethwaite, Robert Ellis, Kenneth Archer (Pentecostal) Barry Callen (Church of God), William Abraham, Henry Knight III, Gordon Olson, and Winkie Pratney. A significant number of philosophers of religion affirm it: William Hasker, David Basinger, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Richard Swinburne, Peter Van Inwagen, J. R. Lucas, Vincent Brümmer, Peter Geach, Richard Purtill, A. N. Prior, and Keith Ward. Biblical scholars Terence E. Fretheim and John Goldingay (Fuller) affirm it. Others include writers Madelline L’Engle and Paul Borgman, mathematician D. J. Barholomew and physicist Arthur Peacocke.^[4]

The dynamic omniscience view has been affirmed by a number of non Christians as well: Cicero (first century BCE) Alexander of Aphrodisias (second century CE) and Porphyry (third century). God’s statement to Abraham “Now I know that you fear me” (Gen 22:12) was much discussed by Medieval Jewish theologians. Two significant Jewish thinkers who affirmed dynamic omniscience as the proper interpretation of the passage were Ibn Ezra (12'th century) and Gersonides (14'th century).

Philosophical arguments

Open theists maintain that some of the classical attributes of God are contradictory and unintelligible. The five main classical attributes are as follows:

• Immutability: God cannot change in any way. Augustine argued that because God is immutable God cannot even speak in time, using created beings to utter eternal words.^[5]. [This is actually a false citation. Augustine argues here that God's words recorded in Matthew 17:5 are not the same as His Eternal Word—namely Christ—by Whom God creates and upholds all things. God actually spoke, but the words were not God Himself.]
• Impassibility: God is not the object of actions, but the subject.^[6] ("Impassable" is from the Latin patior: suffer, undergo, endure.) Thus we cannot reach up to God without Him first coming down to us (cf. Romans 10:6), and any real interaction we have with God must be the result of God's condescension to us through the Incarnation and Pentecost. Neither impassibility nor immutability should be taken to imply we cannot actually interact with God. Classical Theist Blaise Pascal even says God has established prayer "To communicate to His creatures the dignity of causality." ^[7] The Definition of Chalcedon established the orthodox doctrine that Mary is the mother of God. The Passion is called the "passion" to underscore the fact that here, the impassible One suffers [Latin: passus] on the Cross. And Alexander bishop of Alexandria says of the Crucifixion "the impassable suffers and does not avenge its own injury."^[8] (in Greek, the same root is used for "suffer" and "impassible" so perhaps a more accurate (though more wordy) translation would be "the one who does not suffer suffers and does not avenge his own injury.").
• Omnipotence: God has all power, which includes complete sovereignty over all things. Thus God's sovereign will that we be free and that our will be effective is necessarily realized; and we are free and our will is effective.
• Omnipresence: God is present everywhere, or more precisely, all things find their location in God; or alternatively God transcends space and time.
• Omniscience: God has all knowledge, including of all past, present, and future events.

Contradictions in the traditional attributes are pointed out by open theists and atheists alike. Atheist author and educator George H. Smith writes in his book Atheism: the Case Against God that if God is omniscient, meaning God knows the future, God cannot be omnipotent, meaning God can do anything, because: "If God knew the future with infallible certainty, he cannot change it – in which case he cannot be omnipotent. If God can change the future, however, he cannot have infallible knowledge of it."^[9] Likewise, if God is omnipresent, God cannot be omnipotent because God could not limit his own location. Open theists would again use the same argument here that changing his location would conflict with his immutability. A classical theist would respond to such an argument by pointing out that their position is that God is the author of the future, and thus there is no more contradiction in saying God knows the future and is sovereign over it than in saying "Shakespeare was free to make Romeo and Juliet as he would, but having made it He is not free to make it different from how he had."

Open theism also answers the question of how God can be blameless and omnipotent even though evil exists in the world. H. Roy Elseth gives an example of a parent that knows with certainty that his child would go out and murder someone if he was given a gun. Elseth argues that if the parent did give the gun to the child then the parent would be responsible for that crime.^[10] However, if God was unsure about the outcome then God would not be culpable for that act; only the one who committed the act would be guilty. This position is, however, dubious, as a parent who know his child was probable, or likely, or even possibly going to shoot someone would be culpable; and God knew that it was likely that man would sin, and thus God is still culpable. An orthodox Christian might, on the contrary, seek to ground a theodicy in the Resurrection, both of Christ and the general Resurrection to come^[11], though this is not the traditional answer to evil.

Another claim made by open theists is that the traditional definition of omniscience is incompatible with a real love relationship with God. It is claimed that for someone to have a real love relationship, it must be give and take. Each member opens themselves up and becomes vulnerable. They point out that God, throughout the Bible, is shown as grieving over Israel's rebellion. They claim that if the future was known with absolute certainty, then Israel could not have freely chosen to rebel and God could not be genuinely grieving, knowing that this was the only possibility. Israel's actions would have been set in stone a millennia before they were ever born. They would have been compelled by fate or providence to take those actions. This would be the same as a relationship between a programmer and computer. Open theists, such as John Sanders, claim that the only way a relationship can be real is if there is freedom to choose.

It should be noted that many open theists believe that God's infinite intelligence affords him an infinite understanding of all probabilities in the universe. Thus, to an unknown degree, God is able to "know the future" with certainty due to his understanding of the probabilities at hand. However, other open theists reply that this perspective simply reinforces the intellectual image of God which open theism is working to revise. God´s knowledge that "exceeds human wisdom" should not be thought of in terms of Greek philosophical categories. Biblically speaking, this inscrutability is a confession: either of human limitation and incompleteness or else of God´s care that goes beyond our horizon of comprehension.

Biblical arguments

In order to defend open theism, open theists also tend to focus on verses that tell of failed or subverted prophecies and instances where God changes his mind through interaction with man. The following is a quick overview of where the Bible expounds ideas that seem to contradict the classical attributes of God:

• Genesis 6:6-7 (KJV) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

• Exodus 13:17 (KJV) And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt:

• Exodus 32:7-14 (RSV) And the LORD said to Moses, "Go down; for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves; they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them; they have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, `These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!'" And the LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people; now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them; but of you I will make a great nation." But Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, "O LORD, why does thy wrath burn hot against thy people, whom thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, `With evil intent did he bring them forth, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou didst swear by thine own self, and didst say to them, `I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it for ever.'" And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people.

• Exodus 33:4-6 (KJV) And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned: and no man did put on him his ornaments. For the LORD had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked people; I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee. And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb.

• Isaiah 5:4, 7 (KJV) What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.

• Isaiah 38:1-5 At that time Hezekiah became very sick; he was almost dead. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to see him and told him, "This is what the Lord says: Make arrangements, because you are not going to live, but die." Hezekiah turned toward the wall and prayed to the Lord, "Lord, please remember that I have always obeyed you. I have given myself completely to you and have done what you said was right." Then Hezekiah cried loudly. Then the Lord spoke his word to Isaiah: "Go to Hezekiah and tell him: 'This is what the Lord, the God of your ancestor David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears. So I will add fifteen years to your life.


Varieties of open theists

Philosopher Alan Rhoda has described several different approaches several open theists have taken with regard to God's knowledge of the future and the nature of the future.

• Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents.

• Involuntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because truths about future contingents are in principle unknowable. William Hasker espouses this position.

• Non-Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions about future contingents are neither true nor false. J. R. Lucas espouses this position.

• Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions asserting of future contingents that they 'will' obtain or that they 'will not' obtain are both false. Instead, what is true is that they 'might and might not' obtain. Greg Boyd espouses this position." ^[12]

Critics of open theism

Opponents of open theism include Norman Geisler, Bruce A. Ware, Thomas R. Schreiner, John Frame and John Piper. Norman Geisler, in his book Creating God in the Image of Man? argues against open theism and in favor of the traditional attributes of God. He quotes Exodus 3:14 ("I am who I am") and claims that it establishes God's aseity. From there, Geisler deduces Simplicity, Necessity, Immutability, Impassability, Eternity, and Unity. He also addresses the claims that the Classical attributes were derived from the Greeks with three observations:

1. The quest for something unchanging is not bad
2. The Greeks did not have the same concept of God
3. Philosophical influences are not wrong in themselves^[13]

Opponents of open theism such as John Piper^[14] claim that the verses commonly used by open theists are anthropopathisms (see anthropopathy). They suggest that when God seems to change from action A to action B in response to prayer, action B was the inevitable event all along, and God divinely ordained human prayer as the means by which God actualized that course of events.

They also point to verses that suggest God is immutable, such as:

• Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
• Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
• 1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
• Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Those^[who?] advocating the orthodox view see these as the verses that form God's character, and they interpret other verses that say God repents as anthropomorphistic. Authors who claim this can be traced back through Calvin, Ambrose, and Augustine. Open theists note that there seems to be an arbitrary distinction here between those verses which are merely anthropopathic and others which form God´s character. They also note that the immediate sense of the passages addressing God´s inalterability ought to be understood in the Hebrew sense of his faithfulness and justice.

See also

• Conceptions of God
• Corporate election
• Open theism section of Arminianism
• Process theology
• Clark Pinnock
• John E. Sanders
• Gregory Boyd
• Thomas Jay Oord
• William Hasker
• Terence E. Fretheim
• John Polkinghorne

External links

• Open Theism Information Site maintained by John Sanders
• Christus Victor Ministries Open Theism site maintained by Greg Boyd
• Does God Know Your Entire Future? A debate between Knox Theological Seminary professor Samuel Lamerson and an open theist pastor.
• One-on-One Debate Between a Calvinist and an Open Theist A debate between a North American Reformed Seminary Theologian and an open theist pastor.
• Thomas Jay Oord's musings on Open and Relational Theology and related subjects
• Open Theology and Science seminar
• God vs. God a February 2000 editorial in Christianity Today
• Did Open Debate Help The Openness Debate? a February 2001 article from Christianity Today
• Open theism Theopedia — Theopedia's material is from a five point Calvinist perspective, see their statement of faith
• Open Theism — An Introductory Presentation Jonathan Erdman, not an Open Theism advocate, attempts an objective and very detailed analysis of Open Theism focussed on the biblical, philosophical, and existential arguments of Open Theism as outlined by their leading proponents.
• nOFuTuRe A blog exploring some of the positive, practical implications of open theism
• Open Theism, logically flawed (mostly critical thread, on the Blog Soli Deo Gloria)

Books

Pro

• Trinity and Process, G.Boyd, 1986
• "Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy", Greg Boyd (2001) ISBN 0-8308-1550-3
• The Case for Freewill Theism: a Philosophical Assessment, David Basinger, 1996, InterVarsity Press, ISBN 0-8308-1876-6
• The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will, Richard Rice, 1980, Review and Herald Pub. Association, ISBN 0-8127-0303-0
• The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, Clark Pinnock editor, et al., 1994, InterVarsity Press ISBN 0-8308-1852-9, Paternoster Press (UK), ISBN 0-85364-635-X (followup to Rice book includes contribution from him)
• The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, John Sanders, revised edition, 2007. InterVarsity Press, ISBN 978-0-8308-2837-1
• God, Time, and Knowledge, William Hasker, 1998, Cornell University Press, ISBN 0-8014-8545-2
• God of the Possible, Gregory A. Boyd, 2000 reprint, Baker Books, ISBN 0-8010-6290-X
• Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness (The Didsbury Lectures), Clark Pinnock, 2001, Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-2290-8
• Providence, Evil, and the Openness of God, William Hasker, 2004, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-32949-3
• Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science, Thomas Jay Oord ed., 2009, Pickwick, ISBN 13:978-1-60608-488-5

Con

• God's Lesser Glory, Bruce A. Ware, 2000, Crossway Books, ISBN 1-58134-229-2
• Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (editors), 2000, Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-2232-0
• Bound Only Once: The Failure of Open Theism, Douglas Wilson editor, et al., 2001, Canon Press, ISBN 1-885767-84-6
• No Other God: A Response to Open Theism, John M. Frame, P & R Publishing, 2001, ISBN 0-87552-185-1
• Consuming Glory: A Classical Defense of Divine-Human Relationality Against Open Theism, Gannon Murphy, Wipf & Stock, 2006, ISBN 1-59752-843-9
• Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, John Piper et al., 2003, Crossway Books, ISBN 1-58134-462-7
• What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge, Millard J. Erickson, Zondervan, 2006, ISBN 0-310-27338-2
• How Much Does God Foreknow?: A Comprehensive Biblical Study, Steven C. Roy, InterVarsity Press, 2006, ISBN 0830827595
• The Benefits of Providence: A New Look at Divine Sovereignty, James S. Spiegel, Crossway Books, 2005, ISBN 1-58134-616-6

Multiple views

• The Sovereignty of God Debate, D. Steven Long and George Kalantizis editors, 2009 Cascade Books, ISBN 13:978-1-55635-217-1
• Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: 4 Views, Bruce Ware editor, 2008, Broadman and Holman Academic, ISBN 978-0-8054-3060-8
• Divine Foreknowledge: 4 Views, James Beilby and Paul Eddy (editors), et al., 2001, InterVarsity Press, ISBN 0-8308-2652-1
• God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature, Gregory E. Ganssle and David M. Woodruff (editors), 2002, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-512965-2
• God & Time: Four Views, Gregory E. Ganssle (editor), et al., 2001, InterVarsity Press, ISBN 0-8308-1551-1
• Predestination & Free Will, David and Randall Basinger (editors), et al., 1985, Intervarsity Press, ISBN 0-87784-567-0
• Searching for an Adequate God, John Cobb and Clark Pinnock (Editors), et al., 2000, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ISBN 0-8028-4739-0

Related work

• The Nature of Love: A Theology, Thomas Jay Oord (2010) ISBN 9780827208285
• God, Foreknowledge, and Freedom, John Martin Fischer (editor), 1989, Stanford, ISBN 0-8047-1580-7
• The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge & Human, William Lane Craig, 2000, Wipf & Stock Publishers, ISBN 1-57910-316-2
• The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge, Linda Zagzebski, 1996, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-510763-2
• Eternal God : A Study of God without Time, Paul Helm, 1997, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-823725-1
• Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time, William Lane Craig, 2001, Crossway Books, ISBN 1-58134-241-1
• Time and Eternity, Brian Leftow, 1991, Cornell, ISBN 0-8014-2459-3
• Travels in Four Dimensions: The Enigmas of Space and Time, Robin LePoidevin, 2003, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-875255-5 * The Ontology of Time, L Nathan Oaklander, 2004, Prometheus Books, ISBN 1-59102-197-9
• Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time, Theodore Sider, 2003, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-926352-3 * Real Time II, Hugh Mellor, 1998, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-09781-9
• The Suffering of God, Terence E. Fretheim, 1984, Fortress Press, ISBN 0-8006-1538-7

References

1. ↑ Viney, Donald (2008-10-06). "Process Theism". In Edward N. Zalta. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/. Retrieved 2008-12-01.
2. ↑ Openness Theology - Does God Know Your Entire Future?, Bob Enyart v. Samuel Lamerson
3. ↑ Boyd, Gregory A. (2001). Satan and the problem of evil: constructing a trinitarian warfare theodicy. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1550-3. OCLC 46866232. ^{[page needed]}
4. ↑ See documentation on most of the people in this list see John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence, revised edition (InterVarsity press, 2007)166-169.
5. ↑ Augustine, Confessions 11.6.8
6. ↑ David Bentley Hart "No Shadow of Turning: On Divine Impassibility", Pro Ecclesia (Spring 2002): 184-206.
7. ↑ Pascal, Thoughts VII.185.
8. ↑ Alexander of Alexandria , Addition in the Codex
9. ↑ Smith, George H. (1974). Atheism: the case against God. New York City: Nash. p. 74. ISBN 0-8402-1115-5. OCLC 991343.
10. ↑ Elseth, Howard R.; Elden J. Elseth (1977). Did God Know? A Study of the Nature of God. Saint Paul, Minnesota: Calvary United Church. p. 23. OCLC 11208194.
11. ↑ N. T. Wright Evil and the Justice of God
12. ↑ Alanyzer: Four Versions of Open Theism
13. ↑ Geisler, Norman L.. Creating God in the Image of Man. Minneapolis: Bethany House. p. 96. ISBN 1-556-61935-9. OCLC 35886058.
14. ↑ "The Sovereignty of God and Prayer". http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/resources/the-sovereignty-of-god-and-prayer. Retrieved 2010-10-07.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

PROCESS THEOLOGY

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Process_theology

Process theology is a school of thought influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) and further developed by Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000). While there are process theologies that are similar, but unrelated to the work of Whitehead (such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin) the term is generally applied to the Whiteheadian/Hartshornean school. Process theology is unrelated to the Process Church.

History

The original ideas of process thought are found in the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. Various theological and philosophical aspects have been expanded and developed by Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), John B. Cobb, Jr., and David Ray Griffin. A characteristic of process theology each of these thinkers shared was a rejection of metaphysics that privilege "being" over "becoming," particularly those of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Hartshorne was deeply influenced by French philosopher Jules Lequier and by Swiss philosopher Charles Secrétan who were probably the first ones to claim that in God liberty of becoming is above his substantiality.

Process theology soon influenced a number of Jewish theologians including Rabbis Max Kadushin, Milton Steinberg and Levi A. Olan, Harry Slominsky and, to a lesser degree, Abraham Joshua Heschel. Today some rabbis who advocate some form of process theology include Bradley Shavit Artson, Lawrence A. Englander, William E. Kaufman, Harold Kushner, Anton Laytner, Michael Lerner, Gilbert S. Rosenthal, Lawrence Troster, Donald B. Rossoff, Burton Mindick, and Nahum Ward.

Alan Anderson and Deb Whitehouse have attempted to integrate process theology with the New Thought variant of Christianity.

The work of Richard Stadelmann has been to preserve the uniqueness of Jesus in process theology.

Major concepts

• God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The divine has a power of persuasion rather than coercion. Process theologians interpret the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving force, and suggest instead a forbearance in divine power. "Persuasion" in the causal sense means that God does not exert unilateral control.^[1]
• Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. These events have both a physical and mental aspect. All experience (male, female, atomic, and botanical) is important and contributes to the ongoing and interrelated process of reality.
• The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God cannot totally control any series of events or any individual, but God influences the creaturely exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. To say it another way, God has a will in everything, but not everything that occurs is God's will.^[2]
• God contains the universe but is not identical with it (panentheism, not pantheism or pandeism). Some also call this "theocosmocentrism" to emphasize that God has always been related to some world or another.
• Because God interacts with the changing universe, God is changeable (that is to say, God is affected by the actions that take place in the universe) over the course of time. However, the abstract elements of God (goodness, wisdom, etc.) remain eternally solid.
• Charles Hartshorne believes that people do not experience subjective (or personal) immortality, but they do have objective immortality because their experiences live on forever in God, who contains all that was. Other process theologians believe that people do have subjective experience after bodily death.^[3]
• Dipolar theism, is the idea that God has both a changing aspect (God's existence as a Living God) and an unchanging aspect (God's eternal essence).

Relationship to liberation theology

C. Robert Mesle, in his book Process Theology, outlines three aspects of a process theology of liberation:^[4]

1. There is a relational character to the divine which allows God to experience both the joy and suffering of humanity. God suffers just as those who experience oppression and God seeks to actualize all positive and beautiful potentials. God must, therefore, be in solidarity with the oppressed and must also work for their liberation.
2. God is not omnipotent in the classical sense and so God does not provide support for the status quo, but rather seeks the actualization of greater good.
3. God exercises relational power and not unilateral control. In this way God cannot instantly end evil and oppression in the world. God works in relational ways to help guide persons to liberation.

Relationship to pluralism

Process theology affirms that God is working in all persons to actualize potentialities. In that sense each religious manifestation is the Divine working in a unique way to bring out the beautiful and the good. Additionally, scripture and religion represent human interpretations of the divine. In this sense pluralism is the expression of the diversity of cultural backgrounds and assumptions that people use to approach the Divine.^[5]

Relationship to the doctrine of the incarnation

The Christ of process theology does not represent a hypostasis of divine and human persona. Rather God is incarnate in the lives of all humans when they act according to a call from God. Jesus fully and in every way responded to the call of God and so the person of Jesus is theologically understood to be “the divine Word in human form.” Jesus was not God-man in essence, but fully identified with God at all moments of life.^[6]

Further information: Incarnation (Christianity)

Process theologians

Bradley Shavit Artson Charles Birch Philip Clayton John B. Cobb Bruce G. Epperly Paul S. Fiddes Stephen T. Franklin

Terence E. Fretheim David Ray Griffin Charles Hartshorne Nancy R. Howell William E. Kaufman Catherine Keller Harold Kushner

Michael Lerner C. Robert Mesle Thomas Jay Oord Norman Pittenger Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki Alfred North Whitehead Daniel Day Williams

Further reading

• Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki's God Christ Church: A Practical Guide to Process Theology, new rev. ed. (New York: Crossroad, 1989, ISBN 0-8245-0970-6) demonstrates the practical integration of process philosophy with Christianity.
• C. Robert Mesle's Process Theology: A Basic Introduction (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1993, ISBN 0-8272-2945-3) is an introduction to process theology written for the layperson.
• Jewish introductions to classical theism, limited theism and process theology can be found in A Question of Faith: An Atheist and a Rabbi Debate the Existence of God (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1994, ISBN 1-56821-089-2) and The Case for God (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1991, ISBN 0-8272-0458-2), both written by Rabbi William E. Kaufman. Jewish variations of process theology are also presented in Harold Kushner's When Bad Things Happen to Good People (New York: Anchor Books, 2004, ISBN 1-4000-3472-8) and Sandra B. Lubarsky and David Ray Griffin, eds., Jewish Theology and Process Thought (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995, ISBN 0-7914-2810-9).
• Christian introductions may be found in Schubert M. Ogden's The Reality of God and Other Essays (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-87074-318-X); John B. Cobb, Doubting Thomas: Christology in Story Form (New York: Crossroad, 1990, ISBN 0-8245-1033-X); and Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984, ISBN 0-87395-771-7). In French, the best introduction may be André Gounelle, Le Dynamisme Créateur de Dieu: Essai sur la Théologie du Process, édition revue, modifiée et augmentee (Paris: Van Dieren, 2000, ISBN 2911087267).
• For essays exploring the relation of process thought to Wesleyan theology, see Bryan P. Stone and Thomas Jay Oord, Thy Nature and Thy Name is Love: Wesleyan and Process Theologies in Dialogue (Nashville: Kingswood, 2001, ISBN 0-687-05220-3).
• The most important work by Paul S. Fiddes is The Creative Suffering of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); see also his short overview "Process Theology," in A. E. McGrath, ed., The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Modern Christian Thought (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 472–76.
• Norman Pittenger's thought is exemplified in his God in Process (London: SCM Press, 1967, LCC BT83.6 .P5), Process-Thought and Christian Faith (New York: Macmillan Company, 1968, LCC BR100 .P615 1968), and Becoming and Belonging (Wilton, CT: Morehouse Publications, 1989, ISBN 0819214809).
• Constance Wise's Hidden Circles in the Web: Feminist Wicca, Occult Knowledge, and Process Thought (Lanham, Md.: AltaMira Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-7591-1006-9) applies process theology to one variety of contemporary Paganism.

See also

• Conceptions of God
• Existence of God
• Names of God
• New Thought Movement
• Open theism
• Postmodern Christianity
• Theopoetics
• Theodicy

References

1. ↑ Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes (Albany: State University of New York, 1984), 20-26.
2. ↑ John Cobb and David Griffin, Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 14-16, chapter 1.
3. ↑ Hartshorne, 32-36.
4. ↑ C. Robert Mesle, Process Theology: A Basic Introduction (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 1993), 65-68, 75-80.
5. ↑ Mesle, 101.
6. ↑ Mesle, 106.

External links

• The Center for Process Studies
• Process and Faith
• Anderson-Whitehouse Process New Thought—a synthesis of New Thought and process theology

Reference works

• Donald Viney, "Process Theism," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• John B. Cobb, Jr., "Process Theology," Religion-Online
• An encyclopedic-type article

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What is Open Theology?

http://www.enc.edu/history/ot/what.html

Open Theology Affirms That

1) God and creatures enjoy mutually-influencing relations, 2) the future is open and God does not fully know or settle it, and 3) love is uniquely exemplified by God and is the human ethical imperative.

Historical Overview

For some time now, scholars of religion and theology have discussed various ideas at the core of open theology. Many of these ideas are found in ancient Greek philosophers such as Heraclitus and Plato. Most present-day open theologians, however, argue that the themes and stories found in the Bible contain authoritative material for open theology.

Although affirming that their theological ideas are derived primarily from Christian scripture, open theologians typically contrast their views with the theological formulations of St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin and many of their heirs. In these classical or conventional theologies, God is often not open. Rather, these conventional theologies portray deity as wholly transcendent, a predestiner, unrelated and wholly nontemporal, and a “sovereign king.” How often have we heard that “God is outside time?”

In addition to appealing to scripture, reason, and experience, open theologians draw from a less-emphasized theological tradition. This tradition is evident in, for example, the 16th century Christian theologian James Arminius’ rejection of divine predestination and emphasis upon creaturely freedom. It is found in the 18th century theologian John Wesley’s emphasis upon love as God’s primary attribute and a crucial basis for theological formulation.

A growing number of contemporary Christians find open theology both existentially and intellectually satisfying. In 1994, a quintet of evangelical scholars published, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. This work caused, and continues to cause, an uproar within Christian evangelical circles. Several formal and informal internet discussions, for instance, reveal that participants discuss open theology more than any other topic. The issue has been the lead story in several prominent evangelical journals and magazines, such as Christianity Today, as well as a feature story in a recent Chronicle of Higher Education.

 

Open theologians in evangelical traditions acknowledge that their thought enjoys some affinities with process theology. But they are also quick to note important differences. Because of these similarities and differences, a scholarly conversation has grown between process theologians and evangelical theologians. The conversation is challenging both as it pertains to substantive issues and for what it signifies to critics who identify with more conventional theological perspectives. Clark Pinnock expresses well these challenges:

Let’s be honest – there is risk for [both process and openness theists] in this dialogue. The conservatives will undoubtedly say: “There, we told you so – the open theists are talking with the process theists! Did we not warn that they are covert processians who aim to smuggle these process ideas into evangelical thinking?” And certain liberals and modernists will say: “Why do you process theists bother with fundamentalists? Why do you lower yourselves to appear in print together with them? Where is your self-respect? Are you so desperate to find acceptance in the mainline?” Together we say to the critics – we will not allow ourselves to be led by such fears (Searching for An Adequate God, xii).

Themes Typical of Open Theologies

While important differences of opinion exist among open theologians, the following statements comprise core themes that the majority, if not all, would affirm:

• God’s primary characteristic is love.
• Theology involves humble speculation about who God truly is and what God really does.
• Creatures – at least humans – are genuinely free to make choices pertaining to their salvation.
• God experiences others in some way analogous to how creatures experience others.
• Both creatures and God are relational beings, which means that both God and creatures are affected by others in give-and-take relationships.
• God’s experience changes, yet God’s nature or essence is unchanging.
• God created all nondivine things.
• God takes calculated risks, because God is not all-controlling.
• Creatures are called to act in loving ways that please God and make the world a better place.
• The future is open; it is not predetermined or fully known by God.
• God’s expectations about the future are often partly dependent upon creaturely actions.
• Although everlasting, God experiences time in a way analogous to how creatures experience time.

If God created the universe, what created God?

http://biologos.org/questions/what-created-god

by Alistir McGrath

Introduction

The existence of God is an enduring and popular philosophical problem. Many arguments claiming to prove the existence of God have been proposed througout the centuries, often on the basis of some feature of the natural world. There have also been attempts to disprove the existence of God, which is a more complex task. Consider how much easier it is to establish that there is a black swan somewhere on the Earth compared to establishing that there isn’t one. G.K. Chesterton made this point: “Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative.”¹

Popular arguments for the existence of God include the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the moral law argument, and the argument from Design. The argument from Design is a more general version of the narrower perspective about irreducible complexity that forms the core of the Intelligent Design movement. Each of these arguments supports a certain belief in a creator. The response to many of these arguments, however, is:

“If God created the world, what created God?”

This is a reply that requires serious consideration. It suggests that certain arguments for God’s existence only push the question of beginnings one step farther back. It also suggests that any God complex enough to account for all of creation would necessarily be complex enough to require an explanation. Richard Dawkins is one of the strongest proponents of this argument.

An Answer From Doctrine?

In many faiths, God’s origin is straightforward. Christian doctrine teaches that God is eternal and thus had no beginning. The Psalms speak clearly about God’s eternal nature, affirming, but never defending God’s existence:

“Before the mountains were born or you gave birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God.” ² 

“For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night.” ³

These verses, and many others like them, highlight the complexity of God’s relation to time. Theologians have debated the relationship of God to time for centuries and no doubt will continue to do so. It is a question that we probably cannot answer. In one thoughtful response, God is the creator of time itself, and thus exists outside of time seeing all of history at once. Verses like those above are often used to support this view. On the other hand, this view is often critiqued by Biblical scholars including Clarke Pinnock, John Sanders and Gregory Boyd⁴, who point out that God is portrayed in scripture as acting in time. For example, when God is negotiating the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah with Abraham (Genesis 18), or lamenting having created humans at the time of Noah (Genesis 6:5-8), God certainly seems to be in time and responding to the unfolding course of events. But of course, given the difficulty our time-limited minds have in grasping this philosophical problem, there is no compelling reason that God could not be both outside of time and capable of acting within it.


An Answer From Definition?

Answers from religious doctrine are rarely adequate for nonbelievers. In fact, many fervent believers in God reject the argument about God’s timelessness because even timeless beings need explanations for their existence. But if God is the creator of all things, and yet also requires cause, we face an infinite regress of causes. The only way to avoid this infinite regress problem is to state — as Christian theology has always done — that God is the first cause and is entirely self existent, meaning the reason for God’s existence is contained within the very definition of God.

While this viewpoint certainly may be attractive, it still fails to convince skeptics who are more likely to favor the idea that the universe contains within itself the reason for its own existence. If that could be true of God, why couldn’t it be true of the universe? There is certainly reason to be skeptical about the common sense intuition that everything must have a cause or that everything must have a reason to be as it is. This perennial assumption has been challenged by the physics of the 20th century that uncovered a mysterious quantum world where things often do not appear to have reason to be the way they are.

The common sense assumption that everything must have a cause or a reason to be as it is also suffers from what is called the fallacy of composition. This fallacy comes about when we assume that properties of the parts apply to the whole. For example, just because every member of the human race has a mother, we cannot infer that the human race itself has a mother. Similarly, a collection of spherical things would not itself have to be spherical. In discussions about the origins of the universe, we would say that just because every individual part of the universe has a cause, that does not mean that the entire universe has a cause.

The realization that our universe had some sort of beginning has opened up exciting new conversations about origins. In some ways, a universe with a beginning seems to beg for a cause. But if the universe came into being from nothing [("ex nihlo" creation - res)] , it becomes deeply problematic to speak of anything having caused the universe to exist. Some cosmologists would argue that our universe is the result of an uncaused quantum fluctuation. Such fluctuations do not have causes in the traditional sense, so they argue this does away with our universe needing a cause. But there is a significant problem that the vacuum that fluctuates is not nothing. Quantum vacuums — which are what you get when you remove from space all the particles and energy — are real. They have activity, laws and rules. Our universe may have fluctuated into existence from such a vacuum, but the vacuum remains unexplained.

Cosmologist Lee Smolin suggests in Life of the Cosmos, that black holes can give birth to new universes.⁵ He proposes that our present universe emerged out of a black hole in some other “meta-universe.” And perhaps our universe is presently birthing new universes. Such a process, while clearly speculative, provides a caution against extrapolating from common sense notions of causality to philosophical conclusions about the nature of all of reality.


An Answer From Plausibility

The difference between the theist and atheist positions on this topic is that by assuming that everything — including the universe — has to have a cause, then the atheist is left with a dilemma of what or who that first cause might have been. For the theist, the answer is God, but a satisfactory reason must be found why God should be exempt for the need for a cause. Such a response is available through the Augustinian concept that God is not limited in space and time, and therefore the argument of needing a first cause loses its power.

"On the other hand, if not everything needs to have a cause,

the theist and atheist have no grounds for arguing this part of their case."

                                                       - Augustine

But the argument can be reframed in a way that is more sensitive to postmodern intuitions about causation and the importance of starting points. Suppose as a religious believer you ask the question, “What kind of a universe is most compatible with my belief in an eternal God?” In this case the response affirms but does not prove the reality of God. The universe that we experience appears to have had a beginning; it appears to be finely tuned for life; it appears to have a place for love and purpose. These appearances affirm as plausible your prior belief in God.

See: "What is the 'fine-tuning' of the universe, and how does it serve as a 'pointer to God'?"

Now suppose you start from the atheist assumption. In this case the universe must not really be as it appears. It cannot have a real beginning, be tuned for life and love, and purpose can’t be anything other than illusory epiphenomena — the curious byproducts of chemistry and physics. The whole picture has a claustrophobic bleakness.

Bertrand Russell, one of the most brilliant and ruthlessly honest atheists of the 20th century, captured this sense of despair in A Free Man’s Worship:

“That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins – all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's salvation henceforth be safely built.“ ⁶

In contrast to this view, the theist can affirm that the wonders encountered in the world are real, that they belong, and are a reflection of the glory of the creator whose mysterious power upholds everything.


Conclusion

The world disclosed by modern science is far subtler and nuanced than the world in which philosophers and theologians have lived for the past few centuries while formulating their arguments about the mysterious relationship between God, the physical world, time and causality. Nevertheless, no development in contemporary science poses a particular challenge to the view that God is creator. And some developments, like the discovery of fine-tuning in the physical laws, are supportive of traditional affirmations. The common-sense assumptions that have historically undergirded this entire discussion, however, need reconsideration in the face of recent scientific developments [in a postmodernistic era]. We must be intellectually humble in making claims about God as creator. But we can also state confidently that denials that God is creator are fraught with even more unresolvable difficulties and ultimately provide a far less satisfactory grounding for a worldview in which meaning and purpose play important roles.


*[...] additions are mine, RE Slater (res)



Consulted Experts:
The BioLogos Foundation is grateful for the assistance of Alister McGrath in drafting this response.


Notes

1. G.K. Chesterton, Twelve Types (The Echo Library, Middlesex, U.K., 2008), 29.
2. Psalm 90:2 (New American Standard Bible).
3. Psalm 90:4 (New American Standard Bible).
4. Richard Rice, Clark Pinnock, William Hasker, David Basinger, and John Sanders, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994); Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 2007).
5. Lee Smolin, The Life of the Cosmos (Oxford University Press, 1999).
6. Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1917), 47-48.

Further Reading

Lectures

• The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion. Cosmology and Physics.

Articles

• Philosophy of Religion. "The Cosmological Argument."

What is Evolution?

http://biologos.org/questions/what-is-evolution

Introduction

The word evolution can be used in many ways, but in biology, it means descent with modification. In other words, small modifications occur at the genetic level (i.e. in DNA) when a new generation descends from an ancestral population of individuals within a given species. Over time the modifications fundamentally alter the characteristics of the whole population. When the population accumulates a substantial number of changes and conditions are right, a new species may appear.

Universal Common Descent

A cardinal principle of evolutionary theory is that all living things—including humans—are related to one another through common descent from the earliest form of life, which first appeared on earth about 3.85 billion years ago. How the first simple organisms arose is still a scientific mystery, but we know that they carried hereditary information and were capable of self-replication. Over eons, successive generations led to the marvelous diversity of living things that exist today. Common descent is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence, most notably the fossil record and the comparison of many species’ genomes.

Mechanisms of Evolution

When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, descent with modification was not a particularly new or controversial idea. Darwin’s intellectual leap was to propose the mechanism by which evolution occurred. That mechanism, called natural selection, is a description of what happens when variations occur in a population where resources are limited. When more individuals are born than the environment can support, those with advantageous variations are more likely to survive than those without them. This differential reproduction leads to overall changes in the traits of a population over time.

Natural selection is called “natural” not because it occurs apart from God’s activity (after all, many believe natural laws and processes are a reflection of God’s activity), but because it is the usual pattern one observes in nature, in contrast to the “artificial” selection practiced for centuries by farmers and animal breeders.

Other mechanisms of evolution besides natural selection include sexual selection and genetic drift. Sexual selection occurs when individuals of one sex are attracted to mates which manifest certain traits (the peacock’s tail arose this way, for example). Genetic drift is the random (i.e. unpredictable) fluctuations that naturally occur in a population’s gene pool when the population is small. The best adapted individuals do not always survive to reproduce, while poorly adapted individuals don’t always die before passing on their genes. Over time, in small populations, genetic drift can lead to noticeable change.

More recently, it has been proposed that a group of organisms could sometimes benefit from its members behaving in ways that would otherwise be detrimental to an individual organism. This so-called group selection takes into account the survival needs of an entire community of a given species.

Genetic Mutations as the Source of Variation

Darwin recognized from his years of study that when any organism reproduces, new variants sometimes arise. Although he didn’t know it at the time, these differences were a consequence of mutations. Mutations are changes in DNA that occur due to errors in DNA replication or exposures to radiation or certain chemicals. The vast majority of mutations are neutral or harmful and are not preserved, but occasionally beneficial mutations occur that are preferentially passed down through the generations.

Misconceptions

A number of common misconceptions have led to confusion or suspicion about evolution over the years. One common argument is that despite hundreds of years of observation, there has been no experimental proof of one species evolving from another, such as a cat turning into a dog. The truth is, such a drastic transition is not predicted by the theory of evolution. In some cases, scientists have observed speciation, but it is true that we have not observed major changes in form. The reason, is that we simply haven’t been watching long enough.¹ Evolution of new forms—what some people call “macroevolution”—takes a very, very long time.

Next, the claim that humans share common ancesry with other species should not be misunderstood to mean that humans have evolved from any other presently existing species. Humans do share close common ancestry with other living primates, but rather than being direct descendants, we are more like cousins. Other primates have been changing as well over the past 5-6 million years since humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.

A third misconception is that evolution is a random, purposeless process. It is true that individual mutations are random, in the sense that they are unpredictable, but natural selection is decidedly non-random. Whether there is any purpose behind the evolutionary process is not a scientific question, and the answer depends greatly on one’s worldview. For believers in the God of the Bible who created and sustains the whole universe, evolution is simply the means by which he accomplishes his praiseworthy purposes of bringing forth life.

Notes

1. Darrel Falk, Coming to Peace, 131.

• Back to Top

 

Further Reading

Web sites

• The American Scientific Affiliation. “Creation and Evolution.”
• The Natural History Museum Board of Trustees. “What is Evolution?”
• University of California, Museum of Paleontology. "Understanding Evolution."
• The Smithsonian Human Origins Program

Articles

• University of California Museum of Paleontology. “Discrete Genes Are Inherited: Gregor Mendel.”

Books

• Alexander, Denis. Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? Oxford: Monarch Books, 2008.
• Collins, Francis S. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press, 2006.
• Darwin, C. R. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray, 1859.
• Falk, Darrel R. Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds between Faith and Biology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
• Giberson, Karl. Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. New York: HarperOne, 2008.
• Miller, Kenneth. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. New York: Cliff Street Books, 1999.
• Weiner, Jonathan The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution In Our Time. New York: Knopf, 1994.