Discussions in Open Theism (and differences with Process Theology): Gordon Knight, ROSE, Roger Olson, Thomas Oord, Alan Rhoda

 

Creation Made Free

Why Open Theism Should Be Considered

by Gordon Knight

August 23, 2013

"Open Theism" Facebook Group

 

Assuming we have some idea what we are talking about, why be an open theist? This is is more or less my take: Before I thought about it, I assumed we can have a personal God, with exhaustive foreknowledge, who loves creation, can have relationships with creatures, and we can have Free will to boot. Then I was persuaded that free will (in the libertarian sense) and divine foreknowledge are incompatible... but then I had a further thought. Its not just metaphysical free will, its also genuine love and relationships with creatures that exhaustive foreknowledge excludes. The God of traditional theism can, at best, play act at responding to you or me. Its an inchoate notion, but I tend to think loving relationships (or interpersonal relations in general) require responsiveness and a kind of give and take [between two parties]....

 

 

What Open Theism Affirms

 

Open Theism affirms that:

 

1) God and creatures enjoy mutually-influencing relations

2) the future is partly open / God ...does not fully settle it

3) love is uniquely exemplified by God and is the human ethical imperative

 
Open Theism's Core Themes:

 

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 partly open; it is not completely 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.

 

 

The R.O.S.E. Acronym

© 2007 T. C. Moore

R - Responsibility (Libertarian Freewill)

God has granted free agents significant freedom and responsibility to make moral choices for which they are culpable and upon which at least part of the future hangs. The choices of free agents effect others, the future, and God.

O - Openness

God knows all of reality as it is. In the scriptural 'Motif of Future Openness,' God speaks of, and knows, the possible future choices of free agents as possibilities. God allows the future to remain open to the extent God chooses. Therefore, the future is partly open.

S - Sovereignty

God knows all of reality as it is. In the scriptural 'Motif of Future Determinism,' God speaks of and knows the certainties that God will carry out in God's own power as certainties. God determines the future to the extent God chooses. Therefore, the future is partly composed of certainties.

E - Emotion

God is Love. God is affected by the choices of free agents. God responds to free agents. God changes God's mind and plans in response to free agents. God is the most moved mover. It is God's desire to extend the intense love that God has always shared in the Trinity to the creatures God created forever. Christ is the perfect revelation of who God is, even in his emotions. 

* * * * * * * *

Open theism: a test case for evangelicals
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/08/open-theism-a-test-case-for-evangelicals/

by Roger Olson
August 23, 2010
Comments

In the January 9, 1995 issue of Christianity Today I reviewed the then new book The Openness of God and ended by raising a question about the maturity of evangelicalism: “How do American evangelical Christians handle theological diversity? Have we come of age enough to avoid heresy charges and breast-beating jeremiads in response to a new doctrinal proposal that is so conscientiously based on biblical reflection rather than on rebellious accommodation to modern thought? This may be the test.”  Needless to say, the next decade proved that to a very large degree significant segments of American evangelicalism had not yet come of age in that sense.

 

The controversy has largely died down now.  But there are many stories yet to be told about it.  I believe much of the controversy over open theism among evangelicals was fueled by misinformation, misrepresentation and down right demagoguery. In many places and at many times open theism and open theists did not receive a fair hearing.  And I know of cases in which evangelical critics knowingly misrepresented open theism in order to create fear of it among the untutored (i.e., people who would never pick up and read a book by an open theist).

 

As I look back on that decade-long controversy now, my heart is heavy for evangelicalism.  I was profoundly disillusioned by the dishonesty and lack of sincerity of many evangelical luminaries who I know read books by open theists and often talked with open theists about their views and nevertheless went public with blatant misrepresentations.  I was also profoundly disillusioned by the heat of the controversy in which some evangelical scholars and leaders hurled accusations and charges against open theists that were completely out of proportion to the amount of time and effort they had spent in dialogue with their fellow evangelicals who either were open theists or sympathized with them.

 

One of the most common charges from conservative evangelicals was that open theism simply amounted to process theology.  At one conference I attended a well-known and highly regarded evangelical theologian who had the podium stated simply and baldly that “open theism is just process theology.”  This is a man who should know better; he is widely read and intelligent and a prolific evangelical author.  I stood during the discussion time to explain to him and the audience why it is not “just process theology.”  Before I could say much he told me to sit down because he and I were never going to agree about this.  He was simply rude and closed-minded.  (About two years later he apologized to me and for that I am grateful, but the damage was already done.  I would rather that he publish something rescinding his publicly stated view that open theism is process theology.)

 

Another well known evangelical theologian and apologetics writer wrote that “neotheists [his term for open theists] admit not only that this is a diversion from the historic theistic position but that it is influenced by process theology.”  He sought to support his accusation by quoting evangelical open theist philosopher William Hasker: “It will no doubt have been noticed that the conclusions we have reached agree, on an important point, with the conception of God’s knowledge developed in process theology.” Even a quick glance at Hasker’s book (from which that quote was taken) reveals that Hasker does NOT admit influence by process theology and in fact goes to great lengths to distance open theism from process theology.

 

So what are the differences?

- All open theists affirm creatio ex nihilo while process theology denies it [Update: at this point in the discussion one can hold to CEN as separate from process theology given that Evolutionary Creationism will allow for CEN - R.E. Slater].

- All open theists affirm God’s omnipotence while process theology denies it.

- All open theists affirm the supernatural and miracles while most, if not all, process theologians deny them.

- Open theists all say that God limits himself; process theology represents God as essentially limited and finite.

- The only point on which they agree is about God’s knowledge of the future, but even there one finds profound differences.  For example, according to open theists the openness of the future even for God is due to God’s self-limitation in creation.  According to all open theists, God could know the future exhaustively and infallibly IF he chose to create a world with a closed future (as in divine determinism).

Anyone who doubts or questions these differences MUST read the edited book Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists.  There the differences come out very clearly; the dialogue breaks down over the points mentioned above.  The two sides start out and end up rejecting each other.  The differences are vastly greater than the minor similarities.

 

Other accusations against open theism and open theists amounted to pure demagoguery (in my opinion).  One leading evangelical (whom I would rather categorize as a fundamentalist) wrote that open theism’s God is an “ignorant God” without explaining the open theist viewpoint on God’s knowledge or lack of it with regard to the future.  The same man wrote that the open theist God “gives bad advice” without noting that for an open theist God’s advice is always good even if later, because of a creatures’ misuse of free will, that same advice would be bad.  No open theist says that God gives bad advice or that God is ignorant of anything.

 

Now some may balk at that last statement.  But I ask them: Does God know the DNA of unicorns?  The only honest answer is that he does not because unicorns don’t exist.  (Some have tried to cavil that of course [because] God [would know] the DNA of unicorns if he had created them.  But that is simply a cavil.)  Similarly, open theists say God’s lack of knowledge (if one can even speak that way) of parts of the open future lies in the fact that there is nothing to know.  God knows everything it is logically possible to know.

 

At a conference I heard an influential evangelical philosopher blast open theism for “limiting God.”  I asked him if he believes God can change the past to which he replied no.  Isn’t that limiting God? I asked.  He had no answer; he changed the subject.  My point is that everyone “limits God” in some way.  Even the most radical nominalists of the medieval and renaissance eras and even Luther acknowledged that there are things God cannot do.  (William of Ockham, who believed that God does not have an eternal, immutable nature or character that limits what he can or cannot do, said that God cannot do the logically impossible.  Most theists agree.)

 

One leading evangelical accused open theism of “Socinianism” which normally means denial of the deity of Christ and of the Trinity. [How Absurd!]

 

One criticism of open theism that particularly galled me was the ironic one from some leading evangelical Calvinists that open theism allegedly diminishes the glory of God.  What I want to know is how anything can diminish the glory of God if everything, without exception, is foreordained and rendered certain by God for his glory?  I asked a theologian who wrote a book that revolves around this criticism if he believes open theism was foreordained by God for his glory.  The answer was, of course, yes.  Then, I would like to know, how it can diminish God’s glory?

 

Throughout this controversy several evangelical thinkers, writers and speakers simply stated to their audiences that I am an open theist.  They had no ground or basis for this as I had never (and still have never) identified myself as an open theist and have always identified myself as a classical Arminian. At least twice evangelical writers attributed quotes to me that I never said or wrote.  When challenged, they could not show where I said or wrote those things.  In one case, the man wrote me a letter of apology and in another case the man relentlessly defended his attribution in spite of being unable to show where I said it.

 

One of the worst tactics used by some opponents of open theism was attributing to open theists beliefs they consciously and publicly reject.  For example, some critics of open theism have stated publicly that open theists deny the atonement.  When pressed about that they have explained (too late) that what they MEAN is that open theism, if true, (in their opinion) would make the death of Christ impossible because God would not know in advance what the actions of free agents would be and therefore could not arrange Christ’s death.  Even if that were true, it falls far short of denying the atonement! [Hence, it is only an assumption based upon theological conjectured. - R.E. Slater]

 

I believe this entire controversy proves my claim (made earlier here) that many conservative evangelicals are not really evangelicals in the post-fundamentalist, post-WW2 sense but really fundamentalists (which might be unfair to many fundamentalists!).

 

So why does all this matter now?  Because the whole controversy poisoned the atmosphere within the evangelical academy.  One open theist scholar was fired from his teaching position even though the school hired him knowing he was an open theist.  I assume they fired him under pressure from constituents few of who probably understood open theism.

 

I know many people who are afraid of open theism but have no real knowledge or understanding of what it is.  They have only read (mostly Calvinist) critics of open theism and have closed their minds to it.  They rarely take the time or trouble to read open theists’ own writings.  (In case anyone reading this needs to read a good, brief exposition of open theism I recommend Greg Boyd’s The God of the Possible.  It is the clearest brief statement of open theism that clears up most, if not all, of the misconceptions about it.)

 

Many evangelical “scholars” and leaders have simply lumped people like me, who defend open theism as a legitimate evangelical option, into the same camp with the open theists–as dangerous subversives of the evangelical faith.  That’s fine; I’ll stand with my open theist friends in that camp over against the neo-fundamentalists who seem to be largely controlling the evangelical establishment today.  I have higher hopes for the future of the evangelical academy and there are hopeful signs (e.g., the new direction Baker Academic publishers is taking).  But I know that many evangelical college and university and seminary administrators are so under the spell of the neo-fundamentalists’ fear factory that they are reluctant or totally unwilling even to consider hiring an open theist.

 

To me, open theism, though mistaken, is much to be preferred over five point Calvinism, with its belief that "Christ died only for the elect."  By historical standards, that doctrine is a novelty.  I have found only one instance of it before Theodore Beza–the 9th century monk Gottschalk who was imprisoned for that teaching (and others similar to later Calvinism).  Even Calvin did not believe in it.  (See the excellent book on this subject by R. T. Kendall as well as the chapter by Kevin Kennedy in Whosoever Will: A Biblical and Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism.)  Not only is limited atonement a novelty in terms of church history; it represents a deep deviation from the biblical and historic Christian teaching about the love of God for all people.

 

However–both open theism and five point Calvinism [do, and will,] exist within the evangelical movement.  All talk about “evangelical boundaries” to exclude one or the other is futile.  There are no such boundaries and no magisterium to enforce them if they did exist.

 

Debate over open theism is fine; I have no objection to it–so long as it is informed and civil.  But far too much of the debate over open theism in evangelical circles has been neither.

 

* * * * * * * *

 

What's Next?

R.E. Slater

August 23, 2013

 

Occurring further below will  follow a discussion between two theologians concerning whether Open Theology may admit to Process Theology or not. The turning point of this admittance seems to rest upon one's definition of Genesis 1.1 and the Latin term "creation ex nihilo," (CEN) which translated means "creation out of nothing."

 

Here are my several thoughts. First Roger Olson's criteria for orthodox Christian differences with process theology's semi-Christian statements are good criteria with the exception of CEN. However, if process theology is adjusted from its views of panentheism's basis of God and world as co-equal, co-dependents, and rectified with Relational Theism (that is, how God relates to His creation), than for me, process theology becomes relational-process theology and all is well and good and we may learn some valuable insights from process theology. Moreover, process theology ceases to be the bogey man that more fundamental theologians believe it to be.

 

Additionally, with Thomas Oord I would stand upon a redefinition of CEN as an unknowable subject which the Bible remains inspecific about. According to quantum science's latest theories there always was a physical something in the universe... even though we deem it as "nothing" - still that "nothing" had quantum substance, mass, and energy (please refer to our past articles on this subject). And if the theories of multi-verses are admitted in their mathematical logic so that even before the pre-primodial mass of our present day universe there existed other universes bubbling along in eternal inflation or conflation, existing for a time or ceasing all together like a large cosmic yo-yo expanding and detracting back-and-forth from time immemorial to time eternal.

 

In terms of Genesis 1.1, the un-versed, non-scientific, biblical writer could not know this... it was simply the writer's belief that God created all. Sustained and maintained all. And even now guides and directs all. And so, whether God created from nothing, or from this quantum soup of "something-nothing," or even from the pre-postmordial soup of multiverses, still the biblical writer would be correct in his assessment. And hence, the Latin term (CEN) is an argument from logic that is un-answerable on biblical terms in so far as Genesis' literary and historical redaction is concerned. But in terms of one's definition of God, as theorized on the grounds of His ontological essence by philosopher/theologians, we still cannot know.... Only that dependent upon our theological biases we may either say "God created all things" (from Him came something), or "God created from alongside of something." Which in the conservative view of things would diminish God's "God-ness," even though I don't think it actually would. However, it is pragmatically understandable from the pedestrian viewpoint. Still, these are the logical arguments based upon one's definition - or idea of - "God" behind the confessional, systematic discussions.

 

The other problem comes from asking "Where does sin come from?" Does it come from the God who creates all things? If so, is God than a progenitor of evil? More probably, at least for myself, it is a theological misperception of creational indeterminacy and human freewill. Once God created as He did, by allowing the cosmos to run as it does, He had given to nature at that moment its random, chaotic, and indeterminate nature even as He had decreed to man his own freewill (sic, that is, as that freewill had developed along its evolutionary scale from nothing to something, from beast to man). And with freedom came corruption, death, sin, and evil. These events are not generated by God but from within the nature of freedom itself as granted by God to His creation. (Remember too that "freedom" is a metaphysical quality or idea, but not an ontologic essence as many have attributed to it. That is, sin does not reign alongside God... it is simply a result of the freedom God gives to His creation). Which is why I think the statement is a misperception, or ill-framing, of the question of whether God is an evil God. But this too has been discussed at length in past articles (cf. sidebar, Sin).

 

That's the short answer. And it is also a problem that process theology attempts to answer by saying that God "self-limits Himself." Though I would prefer to understand God's limitations as unlinked from the idea of panentheism and relinked by the idea of divine self-limitation pertaining to creational freedom. Whereas process theologians would assert that this idea is definitively linked to panentheism (given their idea of God's co-dependence and co-equality with creation). And yet, by turning the idea of CEN and freewill around a bit (as shown above) and by creating a synthetic arrangement between classic theism and process theism we might then better explore a postmodern orthodoxy based upon relational theism that combines/connects with the ideas behind open theism (even as other postmodern theologies are explored such as an anthropological hermeneutic in its meaning for us in our reading of the Bible for today).

 

Why? Because, as the church and societies mature and evolve through time and industry, rot and breakage, so too must our theological ideas and expressions evolve... held to biblical standards nonetheless - but perhaps not to past-biblical standards as once so strictly (or naively) defined and expressed in our more ancient eras of human history. There is no reason for Christians to believe that their faith is out-of-date or irrelevant with the evolving maturity of the world and cosmos. But to be wise - and wisely be able to judge - past doctrinal expressions framed within future doctrinal expressions while knowing when to expand (or let go) of either one's past or future commitments. According to Roger Olson, those that don't like it will hastily judge in misunderstanding and error to their congregation's harm and faith's demise.

Tradition - especially religious tradition - can provide sorrowful blinders and leprosy to the Christian faith. Let not its cancer divide and kill. And fear not honest discussions between intimate subjects passionately waged. It is ever the more prudent course to remain humble of heart and spirit (as seen here in Thomas Oord's rebuttal) while attempting to remain theologically relevant and forward-looking. Especially for the one who firmly believes God is God regardless of our pulpiteering windage, rancorous pockets of power and mammon, and theological towers built to the heavens like the vaunted tower of Babel's pride. Let God's love be our steady companion and guide amid lands of the unknowable or unexplained. Even as we have seen by Jesus' life and witness, His death and resurrection, reach past His accusers to share God's love with all. Let this be our orthodox heritage in word and deed, and nothing less to the God we know and love and cannot begin to fathom in His glory. Amen.

 

R.E. Slater

August 23, 2013

 

"Biblical criticism is perennially caught between the Scylla of interpretive freedom and the Charybdis of irrelevance. Too much hermeneutic freedom and the tradition disintegrates, losing its epistemological appeal. Too little interpretive freedom and the Bible becomes merely an irrelevant historical artifact, rather than the living word of God." Inherently, evangelical biblical interpretation is unquestionably caught between a need for relevance and the need for textual validity.

 

* * * * * * * *

 

 

Oord's Response to Rhoda's

"Thoughts on open theism (OT) and creation ex nihilo (CEN)"

 

Thomas Jay Oord
https://www.facebook.com/groups/opentheism/permalink/10153215553710372/

 

 

Dear Alan and others,

Here's a point by point response to your excellent post:

Alan wrote: “My claim that Open Theology (OT) (broadly construed) is committed to "broadly classical theism" (BCT) encountered pushback from Tom Oord.”

Tom: Actually, I agree that OT is broadly classical theism. So there’s no push back on that claim. I also consider my own views to be in synch with broadly classical theism, although the issue of creation ex nihilo (CEN) [Latin for "creation from nothing"] is obviously an exception.

Alan writes: Tom objects to the final clause of BCT, which states that God "created the world ... ex nihilo and can unilaterally intervene in it as he pleases." Tom thinks I should drop the clause so that he and other scholars who reject CEN qualify as "open theists" under a suitably revised definition of OT.

Tom: This is true. But my main motivations for dropping CEN have to do with:

(1) OT being consonant with the biblical witness (I think CEN is not supported by Scripture [which was based upon the ancient view of cosmology at that time - R.E. Slater]), and

(2) the damaging implications CEN has for dealing well with the problem of evil ["since God created all than He must have created sin too," which is biblically unsupportable, but is well within the biblical purview of creational indeterminacy and human free will - R.E. Slater]

I think the problem is unsolvable if one thinks God can create something from nothing; most theologians I know agree, but they bite the bullet and appeal to mystery.

Alan writes: CEN does not entail that God could have refrained from creating.

Tom: I’ve thought a lot about this over the years, and I admit I’m still not completely sure what I think. If advocates of CEN say one of its virtues is that God creates freely in the sense that God need not create (an idea you can find often in OT literature), aren’t we saying this freedom means God could have refrained from creating? If one really wants to emphasize the freedom inherent in CEN, one should have to bite the bullet of saying God could have existed eternally without ever creating. If you affirm CEN, you should say creating isn’t essential to God’s nature.
Alan writes: Nor does [CEN] entail that God is the sole sufficient cause of everything *in* creation, which would rule out creaturely freedom.

Tom: I agree. And as you know, I don’t make that argument in my paper.

Alan: [CEN] does require, however, that God *unilaterally* initiate creation.

Tom: I agree. And that’s one reason I oppose CEN.

Alan: (1) My inclusion of the clause in BCT was not arbitrary. It serves to distinguish OT from process theism (PT).

Tom: Yes, it does distinguish OT from PT – AS YOU DEFINE THEM – but it doesn’t distinguish them in the actual world of theologians who identify themselves by these labels (see my example of Philip Clayton, for instance).

Alan writes: In the founding writings of the modern OT movement (The Openness of God, God of the Possible, The God Who Risks), whereby the term "open theism" was coined, all of the main authors (Boyd, Pinnock, Rice, Hasker, Sanders, Basinger) were clearly intent on keeping OT distinct from PT, particularly with respect to CEN and God's power *unilaterally* to intervene in creation. Since it was under that intent that the term "open theism" was introduced, this should have considerable normative force for the term's usage.

Tom: This is a strong historical argument. It assumes, of course, that OT is not subject to change. And we all know historical movements change. As I mentioned earlier, Pinnock softened on his original affirmation of CEN, and this softening was influenced by biblical scholarship. As you know, OT has various versions within the OT philosophical community too.
Alan: (2) As this post below by Roger Olson reminded me (HT: T.C.), a common charge against OT during the heyday of controversy at the ETS, was that OT was just warmed-over PT--process theism in sheep's clothing. To blur the lines between OT and PT by dropping the final clause of BCT would at least partially vindicate such critics.

Tom: Perhaps this is true. But I’m not very interested in pacifying such critics. I’m more interested in seeking a biblically, existentially, and philosophically viable theology. I like how Clark Pinnock addressed these critics:
PINNOCK: 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 openness 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.

Alan: (3) After reading Tom's paper, I believe his biblical case for rejecting CEN is at best inconclusive. He argues plausibly that CEN enjoys *less* positive biblical support than is often supposed, but I don't think he makes a strong biblical case *against* CEN. (I resist, e.g., his reading Gen. 1:1 through the lens of Gen. 1:2.)

Tom: I admit that there is not complete consensus among biblical scholars on this. But my argument is that the VAST MAJORITY of biblical scholars agree with my view that CEN is not in Genesis 1:1. I don’t know of any non-Fundamentalist OT scholars who think Gen 1:1 entails CEN. Perhaps there are some, but I know and have read many who agree with me.

Alan: (4) Certain Biblical verses (esp. Gen. 1:1, John 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Col. 1:16) lend strong *prima facie* support to CEN.

Tom: I strongly disagree! These have been read through the presupposition of CEN, but I don’t think they should be or give strong prima facie support to CEN.

Alan: Other verses (e.g., 2 Peter 3:5) may seem to suggest otherwise, but I think these can be read as referring to *post-initial* creative events, rather than to the event that started it all. (Tom doesn't think there was a start to it all, but that's a separate issue. It's a stretch to claim that the *Bible* teaches an infinite past.)

Tom: I disagree with your reading of Peter, as you might suspect. But your last sentence is an especially important one. I don’t say that the Bible “teaches an infinite past.” Rather, I say the Bible teaches that God always creates something from something. And then I speculate that the best possible theory is that God has been doing this everlastingly.
Alan: (5) Tom argues that CEN renders the problem of evil "unsolvable" and makes God "culpable" for permitting evils that he could have prevented. But he moves *way* too fast here. His presentation of the problem of evil largely ignores the contributions of theodicy ("a vindication of the divine attributes, particularly holiness and justice, in establishing or allowing the existence of physical and moral evil") and implausibly (IMHO) assumes that we can easily tell what a God of love would or would not be justified in permitting.

Tom: Of course, I disagree with you here. I’ve written much about this in various books, so I’ll not comment more. See my arguments in The Nature of Love and the last chapter of Defining Love, for instance.

Alan: (6) Tom also charges that "the God who creates out of nothing does not essentially and everlastingly relate to and love the world and could voluntarily choose to hate it." But his argument for this disturbing conclusion is based on two conflations:

 

(a) First, he conflates CEN with the claim that God might have refrained from creating, something CEN does not entail.

Tom: See my comments above on this…

Alan: (b) Second, he conflates the idea that *possibly God does not create and thus does not love creation* (because in that case there would be no creation to love) with the idea that *possibly IF God creates God does not love creation*.

Tom: I’m not sure I’m following you here, so you may have to explain this more. But my argument derives from the view that CEN implies creating is not essential property of God.

Alan: (7) CEN is entailed by the "sovereignty-aseity intuition" (SAI). God, in virtue of being the sovereign Lord of all, must be the most *fundamental* being there is. Nothing else can be co-fundamental with God. Hence, God must be the *only* fundamental being. Hence, all that is not-God must *ultimately* owe its being to God.

Tom: I agree with all of what you say here. But I think my alternative coheres with all of this. Read the paper sections on my denial that creation is eternal. I say God is the only eternal (e.g. “fundamental”) being. And I say everything that is not God owes its being to God.

Alan: (8) Tom aims to accommodate (7) by supposing that God and creation both have an infinite past and that, at every stage, God's causal input is *necessary* for bringing about the next stage of creation. He stops short, however, of saying that God's causal input is ever, or even could be, *sufficient* for the existence of any created thing or sufficient for there being any creation at all.... That's the sticking point. On Tom's view, God's creative activity is *always* and *essentially* constrained by an already existent, partly independent something-or-other that is not-God. This's not compatible with CEN, but it is compatible with PT.

Tom: I think this paragraph is mostly right. You’re right to point to God acting as a sufficient cause as the sticking point between us on CEN. But you also say…

Alan: “On Tom's view, God's creative activity is *always* and *essentially* constrained by an already existent, partly independent something-or-other that is not-God.”

Tom: This is true. But what makes my version different from most PT versions I know is that I say this constraint derives ultimately from God’s nature of love. In other words, it is God’s own loving nature that creates others, and then these others subsequently place constraints on some things God can do. Do you see this important move of placing ultimacy in God’s nature rather than created others (even if you don’t personally affirm it)?
Thanks again for this conversation, Alan. I often learn from you, and I’m grateful that you are open to considering my arguments on these issues.

In friendship!

Tom 

 

* * * * * * * *

 

Thoughts on open theism (OT) and creation ex nihilo (CEN)

by Alan Rhoda

 

My claim that OT (broadly construed) is committed to "broadly classical theism" (BCT) encountered pushback from Tom Oord. Tom objects to the final clause of BCT, which states that God "created the world ... ex nihilo and can unilaterally intervene in it as he pleases."

Tom thinks I should drop the clause so that he and other scholars who reject CEN qualify as "open theists" under a suitably revised definition of OT.

Having now read and reflected on Tom's paper critiquing CEN, I'm sticking to my guns on BCT and CEN, subject to the following clarification:

CEN =def. God is the sole necessary, sufficient, and actual cause of there being anything other than God at all.

 As such, CEN does not entail that God could have refrained from creating. Nor does it entail that God is the sole sufficient cause of everything *in* creation, which would rule out creaturely freedom. It does require, however, that God *unilaterally* initiate creation.

As to why I'm sticking to my guns:

(1) My inclusion of the clause in BCT was not arbitrary. It serves to distinguish OT from process theism (PT). In the founding writings of the modern OT movement (The Openness of God, God of the Possible, The God Who Risks), whereby the term "open theism" was coined, all of the main authors (Boyd, Pinnock, Rice, Hasker, Sanders, Basinger) were clearly intent on keeping OT distinct from PT, particularly with respect to CEN and God's power *unilaterally* to intervene in creation. Since it was under that intent that the term "open theism" was introduced, this should have considerable normative force for the term's usage.

(2) As the post by Roger Olson reminded me (HT: T.C.), a common charge against OT during the heyday of controversy at the ETS, was that OT was just warmed-over PT--process theism in sheep's clothing. To blur the lines between OT and PT by dropping the final clause of BCT would at least partially vindicate such critics.

(3) After reading Tom's paper, I believe his biblical case for rejecting CEN is at best inconclusive. He argues plausibly that CEN enjoys *less* positive biblical support than is often supposed, but I don't think he makes a strong biblical case *against* CEN. (I resist, e.g., his reading Gen. 1:1 through the lens of Gen. 1:2.)

(4) Certain Biblical verses (esp. Gen. 1:1, John 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Col. 1:16) lend strong *prima facie* support to CEN. Other verses (e.g., 2 Peter 3:5) may seem to suggest otherwise, but I think these can be read as referring to *post-initial* creative events, rather than to the event that started it all. (Tom doesn't think there was a start to it all, but that's a separate issue. It's a stretch to claim that the *Bible* teaches an infinite past.)

(5) Tom argues that CEN renders the problem of evil "unsolvable" and makes God "culpable" for permitting evils that he could have prevented. But he moves *way* too fast here. His presentation of the problem of evil largely ignores the contributions of theodicy and implausibly (IMHO) assumes that we can easily tell what a God of love would or would not be justified in permitting.

(6) Tom also charges that "the God who creates out of nothing does not essentially and everlastingly relate to and love the world and could voluntarily choose to hate it." But his argument for this disturbing conclusion is based on two conflations:

(a) First, he conflates CEN with the claim that God might have refrained from creating, something CEN does not entail.

(b) Second, he conflates the idea that *possibly God does not create and thus does not love creation* (because in that case there would be no creation to love) with the idea that *possibly IF God creates God does not love creation*.

(7) CEN is entailed by the "sovereignty-aseity intuition" (SAI). God, in virtue of being the sovereign Lord of all, must be the most *fundamental* being there is. Nothing else can be co-fundamental with God. Hence, God must be the *only* fundamental being. Hence, all that is not-God must ultimately* owe its being to God.

(8) Tom aims to accommodate (7) by supposing that God and creation both have an infinite past and that, at every stage, God's causal input is *necessary* for bringing about the next stage of creation. He stops short, however, of saying that God's causal input is ever, or even could be, *sufficient* for the existence of any created thing or sufficient for there being any creation at all. That's the sticking point. On Tom's view, God's creative activity is *always* and *essentially* constrained by an already existent, partly independent something-or-other that is not-God. This's not compatible with CEN, but it is compatible with PT.

 

Jenny Winder: "The Music of Science: Exploring Astronomy and Space through Music"

 http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/collective/2013/aug/22/music-science-and-science-music/

The Collective by Jenny Winder
August 22, 2013

When I was 5 years old my father did two things that were to have lasting and profound influence on my life. He showed me the planet Saturn through a telescope. And took me to my first opera.

I have been hooked on astronomy and opera ever since!

I could already recognise the Belt of Orion, the Big Dipper and the “W” of Cassiopeia in the night sky. Dad and I had looked at other planets before, but Saturn jumped out of the eyepiece as a three dimensional object in the vastness of space. I will never forget that moment.

Later that same year Dad took me to see Puccini’s Madame Butterfly at the Royal Opera House Covent Garden. Before we went he sat me down and told me the sad story of Cio-Cio San and Pinkerton, so that I would have some idea of the plot and characters.

I remember sitting in the darkened opera house, holding his hand, while we both cried at Butterfly’s tragic end. But I also remember being being a little disappointed that she went behind a screen to plunge the knife in so I didn’t get to see any blood, gruesome child that I was!

Since then my interests have widened to encompass science and the arts in general. Fed by the likes of Carl Sagan, David Attenborough and Richard Feynman.

My greatest pleasure now is when art and science combine so The Collective will debut with an exploration of the conjunction of astronomy and music.

Where better to start than with Around Saturn by Fabio Di Donato, who perfectly combines stunning imagery from the Cassini spacecraft, unsurprisingly my favorite space mission, with music from Dmitri Shostakovich - Jazz Suite No.2: VI. Waltz 2.

x

Around Saturn from fabio di donato on Vimeo

My love for Saturn has never dimmed. Rather, it has been re-ignited by the images and science being returned by Cassini.

Here is Dr Carolyn Porco, head of the Cassini Imaging Team, giving a characteristically engaging TED Talk from the early days of the mission.

To return to the music of science, Star Songs is a project from the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, that turns cosmic x-rays emitted by the binary system of EX Hydrae, 200 light years away, into music.

NASA’s two Voyager probes that launched in 1977 recorded electromagnetic waves from Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune during their tour of our Solar System. Those signals were then translated by NASA into strange, yet oddly familiar sounds.

Jim Bumgardner, a software engineer has created The Wheel of Stars using data from the European Space Agency’s Hipparcos mission, which pinpointed the positions of more than one hundred thousand stars with high precision. Bumgardner plotted the brightest stars, revolving them about Polaris, the North Star. As the stars cross zero and 180 degrees, the center line plays an individual note for each star, to mesmerising effect.

(Click here for actual simulation and then click "Full Screen")

There is a beautiful online orrery created by Dynamic Diagrams design studio, which allows you, among other things, to switch between the Copernican Heliocentric and Tychonian geocentric systems.

Orrery by Dynamic Designs (click on link to left for actual simulation)

Exploratorium has an excellent site that delves into the science of music, with online exhibits, and videos, looking for answers to such questions as “Why do I hear the bass from my neighbor’s stereo, but not the treble?” and “Why does some music give me goose bumps?” For an answer to that last question, I need look no further than this vibrant TED talk given by Benjamin Zander, conductor of the Boston Philharmonic Youth Orchestra, about the transformative power of classical music and one-buttock playing!

And here is the wonderful Bobby Mcferrin demonstrating the universal power of music by playing an audience like a cheap piano!

(demonstration of the pentatonic scale - this is great!)

Michael Blake is a musician who has taken the musical scale and used it to interpret Pi to 31 decimal places in What Pi Sounds Like while the ever infectious Vi Hart has a great video that explores Twelve Tone composition or dodecaphony.

What Pi Sounds Like by Michael Blake 

Vi Hart explores Twelve Tone composition or dodecaphony.

Of course much great music has been inspired by astronomy and space. From David Bowie’s Space Oddity has never been more spine tingling than when performed by Commander Chris Hadfield aboard the International Space Station.

John Cage wrote his Atlas Eclipticalis by placing note paper on a star atlas and letting the arrangement of the stars determine the pattern of notes. Not sure I like the results but an interesting experiment nonetheless.

Favored is Henryk Górecki’s Symphony No. 2 called Copernican. Written to celebrate 500 years since he great astronomers birth, it includes words taken from his great book De Revolucionibus.

Or the Peter Eötvös piece Cosmos which includes comets and asteroids an ends “a quarter of a second before the next big bang.”

Or best of all Antonin Dvorak’s Song to the Moon from Rusalka surely one of the most beautiful arias ever written.

Its been a long long time since I was five years old.

Huff Post: "23 Signs You're Secretly An Introvert"

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/introverts-signs-am-i-introverted_n_3721431.html

The Huffington Post | By Carolyn Gregoire

August 20, 2013

Think you can spot an introvert in a crowd? Think again. Although the stereotypical introvert may be the one at the party who's hanging out alone by the food table fiddling with an iPhone, the "social butterfly" can just as easily have an introverted personality.

"Spotting the introvert can be harder than finding Waldo," Sophia Dembling, author of "The Introvert's Way: Living a Quiet Life in a Noisy World," tells The Huffington Post. "A lot of introverts can pass as extroverts."

People are frequently unaware that they’re introverts -– especially if they’re not shy -- because they may not realize that being an introvert is about more than just cultivating time alone. Instead, it can be more instructive to pay attention to whether they're losing or gaining energy from being around others, even if the company of friends gives them pleasure.

“Introversion is a basic temperament, so the social aspect -- which is what people focus on -- is really a small part of being an introvert," Dr. Marti Olsen Laney, psychotherapist and author of "The Introvert Advantage," said in a Mensa discussion. "It affects everything in your life.”

Despite the growing conversation around introversion, it remains a frequently misunderstood personality trait. As recently as 2010, the American Psychiatric Association even considered classifying "introverted personality" as a disorder by listing it in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5), a manual used to diagnose mental illness.

But more and more introverts are speaking out about what it really means to be a "quiet" type. Not sure if you're an innie or an outie? See if any of these 23 telltale signs of introversion apply to you.

1. You find small talk incredibly cumbersome.

Introverts are notoriously small talk-phobic, as they find idle chatter to be a source of anxiety, or at least annoyance. For many quiet types, chitchat can feel disingenuous.

“Let's clear one thing up: Introverts do not hate small talk because we dislike people," Laurie Helgoe writes in "Introvert Power: Why Your Inner Life Is Your Hidden Strength." "We hate small talk because we hate the barrier it creates between people.”

2. You go to parties -– but not to meet people.

If you're an introvert, you may sometimes enjoy going to parties, but chances are, you're not going because you're excited to meet new people. At a party, most introverts would rather spend time with people they already know and feel comfortable around. If you happen to meet a new person that you connect with, great -- but meeting people is rarely the goal.

3. You often feel alone in a crowd.

Ever feel like an outsider in the middle of social gatherings and group activities, even with people you know?

"If you tend to find yourself feeling alone in a crowd, you might be an introvert," says Dembling. "We might let friends or activities pick us, rather than extending our own invitations."

4. Networking makes you feel like a phony.

Networking (read: small-talk with the end goal of advancing your career) can feel particularly disingenuous for introverts, who crave authenticity in their interactions.

"Networking is stressful if we do it in the ways that are stressful to us," Dembling says, advising introverts to network in small, intimate groups rather than at large mixers.

5. You've been called "too intense."

Do you have a penchant for philosophical conversations and a love of thought-provoking books and movies? If so, you're a textbook introvert.

"Introverts like to jump into the deep end," says Dembling.

6. You're easily distracted.

While extroverts tend to get bored easily when they don't have enough to do, introverts have the opposite problem -- they get easily distracted and overwhelmed in environments with an excess of stimulation.

"Extroverts are commonly found to be more easily bored than introverts on monotonous tasks, probably because they require and thrive on high levels of stimulation," Clark University researchers wrote in a paper published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. "In contrast, introverts are more easily distracted than extroverts and, hence, prefer relatively unstimulating environments."

7. Downtime doesn’t feel unproductive to you.

One of the most fundamental characteristics of introverts is that they need time alone to recharge their batteries. Whereas an extrovert might get bored or antsy spending a day at home alone with tea and a stack of magazines, this sort of down time feels necessary and satisfying to an introvert.

8. Giving a talk in front of 500 people is less stressful than having to mingle with those people afterwards.

Introverts can be excellent leaders and public speakers -- and although they're stereotyped as being the shrinking violet, they don't necessarily shy away from the spotlight. Performers like Lady Gaga, Christina Aguilera and Emma Watson all identify as introverts, and an estimated 40 percent of CEOs have introverted personalities. Instead, an introvert might struggle more with meeting and greeting large groups of people on an individual basis.

9. When you get on the subway, you sit at the end of the bench -– not in the middle.

Whenever possible, introverts tend to avoid being surrounded by people on all sides.

"We're likely to sit in places where we can get away when we're ready to -- easily," says Dembling. "When I go to the theater, I want the aisle seat or the back seat."

10. You start to shut down after you’ve been active for too long.

Do you start to get tired and unresponsive after you've been out and about for too long? It's likely because you’re trying to conserve energy. Everything introverts do in the outside world causes them to expend energy, after which they'll need to go back and replenish their stores in a quiet environment, says Dembling. Short of a quiet place to go, many introverts will resort to zoning out.

11. You're in a relationship with an extrovert.

It's true that opposites attract, and introverts frequently gravitate towards outgoing extroverts who encourage them to have fun and not take themselves too seriously.

"Introverts are sometimes drawn to extroverts because they like being able to ride their 'fun bubble,'" Dembling says.

12. You'd rather be an expert at one thing than try to do everything.

The dominant brain pathways introverts use is one that allows you to focus and think about things for a while, so they’re geared toward intense study and developing expertise, according to Olsen Laney.

13. You actively avoid any shows that might involve audience participation.

Because really, is anything more terrifying?

14. You screen all your calls -- even from friends.

You may not pick up your phone even from people you like, but you’ll call them back as soon as you’re mentally prepared and have gathered the energy for the conversation.

"To me, a ringing phone is like having somebody jump out of a closet and go 'BOO!,'" says Dembling. "I do like having a long, nice phone call with a friend -- as long as it's not jumping out of the sky at me."

15. You notice details that others don't.

The upside of being overwhelmed by too much stimuli is that introverts often have a keen eye for detail, noticing things that may escape others around them. Research has found that introverts exhibit increased brain activity when processing visual information, as compared to extroverts.

16. You have a constantly running inner monologue.

“Extroverts don’t have the same internal talking as we do,” says Olsen Laney. “Most introverts need to think first and talk later."

17. You have low blood pressure.

A 2006 Japanese study found that introverts tend to have lower blood pressure than their extroverted counterparts.

18. You’ve been called an “old soul” -– since your 20s.

Introverts observe and take in a lot of information, and they think before they speak, leading them to appear wise to others.

"Introverts tend to think hard and be analytical," says Dembling. "That can make them seem wise."

19. You don't feel "high" from your surroundings

Neurochemically speaking, things like huge parties just aren’t your thing. Extroverts and introverts differ significantly in how their brains process experiences through "reward" centers.

Researchers demonstrated this phenomenon by giving Ritalin -- the ADHD drug that stimulates dopamine production in the brain -- to introverted and extroverted college students. They found that extroverts were more likely to associate the feeling of euphoria achieved by the rush of dopamine with the environment they were in. Introverts, by contrast, did not connect the feeling of reward to their surroundings. The study "suggests that introverts have a fundamental difference in how strongly they process rewards from their environment, with the brains of introverts weighing internal cues more strongly than external motivational and reward cues," explained LiveScience's Tia Ghose. 

20. You look at the big picture.

When describing the way that introverts think, Jung explained that they're more interested in ideas and the big picture rather than facts and details. Of course, many introverts excel in detail-oriented tasks -- but they often have a mind for more abstract concepts as well.

"Introverts do really enjoy abstract discussion," says Dembling.

21. You’ve been told to “come out of your shell.”

Many introverted children come to believe that there's something "wrong" with them if they're naturally less outspoken and assertive than their peers. Introverted adults often say that as children, they were told to come out of their shells or participate more in class.

22. You’re a writer.

Introverts are often better at communicating in writing than in person, and many are drawn to the solitary, creative profession of writing. Most introverts -- like "Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling -- say that they feel most creatively charged when they have time to be alone with their thoughts.

23. You alternate between phases of work and solitude, and periods of social activity.

Introverts can move around their introverted “set point” which determines how they need to balance solitude with social activity. But when they move too much -- possibly by over-exerting themselves with too much socializing and busyness -- they get stressed and need to come back to themselves, according Olsen Laney. This may manifest as going through periods of heightened social activity, and then balancing it out with a period of inwardness and solitude.

"There's a recovery point that seems to be correlated with how much interaction you've done," says Dembling. "We all have our own private cycles."

Pslam 48: "Singing Along with All Creation..."

Louie Giglio Mashup of Stars and Whales Singing Gods Praise

5 min. version



14 min. version

Psalm 48

English Standard Version (ESV)

 

Zion, the City of Our God

A Song. A Psalm of the Sons of Korah.

48 Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised
    in the city of our God!
His holy mountain, ² beautiful in elevation,
    is the joy of all the earth,
Mount Zion, in the far north,
    the city of the great King.
³ Within her citadels God
    has made himself known as a fortress.

⁴ For behold, the kings assembled;
    they came on together.
⁵ As soon as they saw it, they were astounded;
    they were in panic; they took to flight.
⁶ Trembling took hold of them there,
    anguish as of a woman in labor.
⁷ By the east wind you shattered
    the ships of Tarshish.
⁸ As we have heard, so have we seen
    in the city of the Lord of hosts,
in the city of our God,
    which God will establish forever. Selah

⁹ We have thought on your steadfast love, O God,
    in the midst of your temple.
¹⁰ As your name, O God,
    so your praise reaches to the ends of the earth.
Your right hand is filled with righteousness.
¹¹     Let Mount Zion be glad!
Let the daughters of Judah rejoice
    because of your judgments!

¹² Walk about Zion, go around her,
    number her towers,
¹³ consider well her ramparts,
    go through her citadels,
that you may tell the next generation
¹⁴     that this is God,
our God forever and ever.
    He will guide us forever.^[a]


Footnotes:

[a] Psalm 48:14 Septuagint; another reading is (compare Jerome, Syriac) He will guide us beyond death

The Time You Have Left (as measured in JellyBeans)

  

 

The Time You Have (In JellyBeans)

 

 

 

... I gotta say that I like the softball and hiking parts!

 

:)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Topical Discussion Between Classic Orthodoxy v. Process Theology: "The Competitive Nature of Divine and Human Agency"

A Dip into the Depths of the Doctrine of God: Discussion of the Non-Competitive View of Divine and Human Agencies

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/08/a-dip-into-the-depths-of-the-doctrine-of-god-discussion-of-the-non-competitive-view-of-divine-and-human-agencies/

 

by Roger E. Olson

with additional comments by R.E. Slater

August 19, 2013

Comments

 

Recently I posted here an imaginary conversation between a Calvinist and an Arminian (see next article below) - about God’s sovereignty. At one point I inserted a common comment made by especially intellectually-minded Calvinists about the non-competitive nature of divine and human agency. But it’s not only Calvinists who bring this up in discussions of God’s agency and creatures’. Some of the Christian thinkers I most admire in terms of their intellectual prowess and insight insist to me that I am risking idolatry when, as an Arminian, I insist that God’s agency and creatures’ are competitive.

 

Now it’s time to explain.

 

The issue can be stated many different ways; this is just one way. When a creature such as a human person makes a decision to act and then acts according to his or her desire and decision, what is God doing? A deist, even one who doesn’t call herself that, says God is observing. At the opposite end of the theistic theological spectrum a process thinker says God is observing. On that one point deists and process panentheists agree. God does not act in and through a creatures’ actions in such a way as to be directly involved. To put it another way, both deists and process thinkers agree that human creatures (and perhaps other creatures as well) have such a degree of autonomy from divine power as to be capable of acting on their own without requiring God’s corresponding action in them....

 

Sidebar: Panentheism asserts that God is dependent upon His creation even as His creation is dependent upon Him - this process was initiated at the moment of creation. As such, Process theology understands God as becoming part of the human experience and not apart from it (austere deism vs. classical orthodoxy's view of God's willing and necessary involvement in our lives and in the world's economy). Now whether God is rigorously involved (Calvinism: meticulous sovereignty) or not (Arminianism: concording sovereignty as here explained) is what divides Orthodox Theists committed to orthodox doctrine from non-orthodox positions of divine separation and sterility (deism).

 

The conundrum has been how to approach a process-driven theology while retaining a classically-driven position of sovereignty (whether Calvinistic or Arminian).... At Relevancy22 we have been promoting a process theology that is theistically-driven as a synthesis between all positions involved. My theological choice for this synthetic reconciliation has been to utilize the position of Relational Theology (or relational theism, or relational thought) - that views God's love and loving relationship with His creation as a way to combine the good from both the classic orthodox positions and the process theological positions. Why? At its heart, process theology has always been understood as a relational-process theology which it later seemed to have dropped when emphasizing God's finiteness in dependent relationship with His creation. But a relational process theology can re-orient Scripture back towards God's "Otherness" without loss to His "Closeness" to creation.

 

At the same time a relational process theology may help elucidate classic orthodoxy's non-biblical, artificial constructs of God's perceived relationship with His creation, as presently understood.... Meaning that, both God-and-His-creation are together evolving in experiential relationship with one another. Where the futures of both God and cosmos are unknown (though not unplanned - especially as God redeems His creation's separation from Himself, even as His creation willingly participates in this redemption).

 

Lastly, as a matter of personal preference, I wish to nuance all relational, Creator-creature discussions through the lens of an Arminian view of Relational Theology. Thus my emphasis upon understanding human free will and divine agency through Dr. Olson's Arminian discussions. I find them as a helpful offset from Reformed Calvinism's more austere views of God, world, church, and self. - res

 

... [Now] I realize some who call themselves process thinkers may disagree; I am talking about the major process philosophers and theologians such as Whitehead, Hartshorne, Cobb, Griffin, et al. There are many theologians now who attempt to modify classical process theology to correct what they see as some of its excesses—especially its tendency to make God finite. However, classical process thought and theology was not embarrassed to talk of God as finite except insofar as God is immediately present to every actual occasion giving it its initial aim and luring it toward that. The same can be said of so-called “Boston Personalism” (Brightman, Bowne, et al.).

 

The vast majority of Christian thinkers of all tribes have always insisted that human beings, creatures in general, have no autonomy over against God such that they can decide and act without God’s “concurrence.” The classical, orthodox Christian doctrine of God, whether Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant (including Arminianism) has always included “divine concurrence” as part of the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, providence, and agency. (I discussed this in some detail in Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.)

 

Stepping farther back for a moment: Classical Christian doctrines of God’s sovereignty, usually in the doctrine of divine providence, have traditionally held to three modes of God’s sovereignty in providence (history and individual lives): sustaining, concurring, and governing. Orthodox Christians, whether Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant (of all traditional types up until Boston Personalism’s and process theology’s appearances) have held that God:

 

(1) sustains everything that is and without God’s immediate sustaining power the creature and creation as a whole would fall into nothingness;

 

(2) God concurs with creatures’ decisions and actions or else they would be powerless to decide and act (I would qualify this as "positively concurs, or positively acts", so as to hold all humans accountable for their own sin, and not God for their sin and transgression - res); and,

 

(3) God oversees, governs, even directs the course of history and human lives such that nothing can happen without God’s permission or causation (or both). [Again, this classic statement overreaches without discriminating from man's sin and sinful actions. - res]

 

The gist is that God is infinite and self-sufficient while creatures are finite and dependent. Put another way, God is autonomous in being, deciding and acting while creatures are not (as strictly defined under classical orthodoxy - res).

 

This is classical Christian theology. Yes, to be sure, there are variations of it. The devil is in the details, so to speak, of how theologians work out God’s sovereignty. But that God is sovereign in the ways I just described is basic Christian orthodoxy. Otherwise, God would not be infinite and could be regarded as just another creature, even if one without beginning. Creature in the sense of dependent on things outside himself or at least limited by them.

 

So what do theologians (and here I use the term broadly to include all who attempt to think Christianly about God) mean when they say that God’s agency and creatures’ agencies are “non-competitive?” That puzzles me. If they only mean what the doctrine of divine concurrence means—that creatures are not so autonomous as to be capable of deciding or acting completely apart from God’s permission and power—then I am in complete agreement. All orthodox Christians are.

 

However, in many discussions with Christian theologians I have detected they are accusing me of something more when they say I am pitting God’s agency and humans’ agencies against one another and thereby violating a principle of non-competitiveness between God’s agency and ours. This usually occurs when I insist, as I always do, that, when it comes to evil, God is not involved except in terms of permission and agreement. And by “agreement” I mean “concurs”—reluctantly permits and gives power to act. All creaturely power is “on loan,” as it were, from God.

 

I agree with those who insist on a non-competitive view of God’s agency and creatures insofar as we are talking about the good. According to Philippians 2:12-13 every good thing we do must be attributed to God being at work in us. In other words, when we are most active doing good, God is most active. And when God is most active in us we are most active. But that’s only true when we’re talking about the good. God’s agency and ours is strictly non-competitive in the realm of the truly good. Otherwise we could boast of the good that we do.

 

However, my problem with a “non-competitive view” of God’s agency and ours arises when we are talking about evil. Nothing in Scripture points to that! When we (or any creature) do what is truly evil, then God is still involved (sustaining, concurring, governing) but there is also competition—between God’s agency and ours. In other words, there can be no parallel principle along the lines of Philippians 2:12-13 when it comes to doing evil. Paul could not have written truly, under divine inspiration, and we should not believe or say “Work out your own evil inclinations and plans, your corruption and damnation, for God is at work in you to will and to do of his good pleasure.”

 

When theologians, Calvinist or non-Calvinist, tell me I must avoid a competitive view of God’s agency and ours, my mind goes immediately to the problem of evil. Of course, I want to say, that’s true when we are talking about good or neutral decisions and actions (if there are neutral ones) but not when we are talking about evil decisions and actions.

 

But some theologians I have talked with about these matters want to take the non-competitive view all the way—to saying that God’s agency and human agency are never in competition. They are on distinct planes altogether with God’s completely surrounding and underlying, so to speak, creatures’.  (These are spatial metaphors that cannot do justice to what is meant by “noncompetitive agencies” when divine and human agencies are under consideration.)

 

My objection to that is that, while it may protect theology from idolatry and God’s being from finitude, it falters in making theodicy impossible.

 

Unless all is meant is divine concurrence. But that does not seem to be the case in many cases. Both Calvinist and non-Calvinist theologians often insist to me that any talk of creatures acting against God’s will, doing what God does not want done, thwarting God’s perfect, antecedent will introduces an element of creaturely autonomy that ultimately finitizes God. [Here is a case of an artificial theological construct caught-out between classical orthodoxy and its differences with relational theology.... it begins innocently enough by assertion of a logical argument but quickly devolves into additional syllogisms and logical arguments for-and-against-God couched within an infinite variety of biblically-sounding statements. What results is paradox and enigma, mystery and riddle. Though these theological differences cannot be defined without removing oneself further and further into adjudicated argument I find returning to a Postmodern, narrative form of theology often more helpful than the Enlightened era's systematic statements about God, world, church and self as derived from the days of the Reformation. - res]

 

While I do not wish to do that, of course, neither do I wish to imply that evil dispositions, decisions and actions fit within divine agency except concurrence. And with the proviso of divine concurrence I must admit that I view divine and creaturely agencies as somewhat competitive—commensurable in the sense that they can conflict....

 

[Like myself, Dr. Olson wishes to adhere to a defined system of thought (mine is more probably blended than his as my preference leans towards relational-process thought)... herein he has been utilizing classical theological arguments while rejecting classical process thought as he here defines it.... So that by using classic orthodox arguments he has removed the idea of God's finiteness, or limitedness, within sinful mankind's actions... even as process theologians grapple with seeing the same sinfulness within mankind from their own perspective by positing man's limitation of God when man sinfully acts. Each are saying the same thing but from within a different theological structure. As such, Dr. Olson's article today is an even better illustration between classic orthodoxy's perception of an individual theological doctrine against that of  a classical (non-relational) process theology. He begins with his perceptions between Calvinism and Arminianism but quickly devolves into his own qualifying perceptions between classic orthodoxy versus classic process theology. - res]

 

res - ... Without process thought a classical orthodox position must say the following:

 

I do not think that requires me to adopt a deistic or processive view of God as a finite being limited by creatures (a lá William James or Alfred North Whitehead or any of their faithful followers).  Why not? Because I hold to the doctrine of divine concurrence. I can do nothing, not even evil, without God’s agreement and aid [per Dr. Olson's classic orthodox summation - res]. However, an element of competition of agencies enters in the moment I suggest that God only agrees and aids (concurs) in the evil that I do reluctantly and that the evil I do cannot be attributed to God’s agency as its primary, efficient cause. Whatever good I do I attribute to God’s primary, efficient causation (Philippians 2:12-13). Therefore I cannot boast and can only confess “What do I have that I was not given?” However, when I do evil I attribute it to my own causation as efficient and instrumental and to God’s causation only in terms of Aristotle’s (and Aquinas’s) final cause (making it possible and directing it to its ultimate “place” in God’s overall plan).

 

The problems I have with any consistently noncompetitive view of God’s agency and ours is that it problematizes theodicy [("theodicy" is the branch of theology concerned with defending the attributes of God against objections resulting from physical and moral evil - res)] and, while seeming to pay God metaphysical compliments, conflicts with the biblical narrative in which God is portrayed as horrified by evil as that which he does not intend or cause—even indirectly (through secondary causes).

 

I would describe my view, as briefly outlined here, as “biblical personalism”—a term I borrow from Emil Brunner. God is a person (or three persons in perfect community of will), not an object or force. While I am reluctant to identify God, or talk about God, in objectifying ways (i.e., as “thingy”), following the biblical narrative and avoiding speculation, as much as possible, I have to talk about God as a “Thou” who encounters me in a genuine, personal “I-Thou” encounter and not as an energy or force or principle or whatever who is impersonal or suprapersonal (whatever that means) or even infinite in the speculative, philosophical sense of “the Absolute” (a lá Hegel or Tillich and, I fear, much negative theology).

 

[By the end of his article Dr. Olson also sees a theology based upon God's relationship with man as a way out of the classic theological box of syllogistic debate. Meaning that, as a well-versed historical theologian he senses classic orthodoxy's need to evolve into a postmodern perception of relationality utilizing time and process, openness and evolution. For myself, Dr. Olson has always been a good barometer in reminding us of our classical theological boundaries while pursuing more blended forms of theology and ministry. It also reminds today's postmodernist of our orthodox birthright even as it propels us forward towards newer systems of discovery and discussion in both their limitations and brighter prospects for the postmodern Christian faith. - res]

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

 

A Conversation between a Calvinist and an Arminian about God’s Sovereignty

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/08/a-conversation-between-a-calvinist-and-an-arminian-about-gods-sovereignty/

 

by Roger Olson

August 7, 2013

Comments

 

Calvinist to Arminian: “You Arminians don’t really believe in God’s sovereignty.”

 

Arminian: “You Calvinists don’t really believe in God’s love.”

 

Calvinist: “Oh, but we do. You’re so wrong! The Bible is clear about God being love.”

 

Arminian: “But you don’t believe God loves all people, so how can you believe, as the Bible says, that God is love?”

 

Calvinist: “God loves all people in some ways but only some people in all ways.”

 

Arminian: “Uh, you seemed to be in a trance as you said that. Are you sure you didn’t just hear that somewhere and are repeating it like a mantra—without really thinking about what you’re saying?”

 

Calvinist: “No, that’s what I really believe!”

 

Arminian: “How does God love those he predestined and foreordained to hell?”

 

Calvinist: “He gives them many temporal blessings.”

 

Arminian: “You mean he gives them a little bit of heaven to go to hell in.”

 

Calvinist: “Well, I wouldn’t put it that way.”

 

Arminian: “That’s what it sounds like to me.”

 

Calvinist: “That’s because you don’t understand God correctly. God is infinite and beyond our comprehension. So God’s love is not the same as our love. [His love] It transcends [our love] it.”

 

Arminian: “How is that different from saying God is ‘supercalifragilisticexpialadocious’?”

 

Calvinist: “Look, you Arminians have a low view of God. That’s your whole problem. You don’t understand the glory of God. Why, you don’t even really believe in the sovereignty of God—as I said.”

 

Arminian: “No, you’re wrong. We do. But God’s ‘sovereignty’ is different than any of our notions of human sovereignty—even the best and highest of them. God is infinite and transcends our categories.”

 

Calvinist: “Wait a minute. ‘Sovereignty’ means absolute, total control.” [sic, meticulous sovereignty, as defined. - res]

 

Arminian: “It might in your vocabulary or even in your dictionary but that doesn’t matter. ‘When we attribute something to God we have to realize it’s totally different in God than in us because of God’s glory.’ At least that’s so if we play the theology game your way. If you can say you believe in God’s love but God’s ‘love’ is different than our highest and best concepts of love and that it’s even compatible with what we know as hate, then surely we can say, without you objecting, that we believe in God’s sovereignty even if our concept of God’s sovereignty is totally different than any concept of sovereignty you think is normal or compatible with human knowledge or experience.”

 

Calvinist: “Okay, I see. You’re trying to turn the tables on me.”

 

Arminian: “I’m just trying to get you to put aside double standards and play fair in your rhetoric about Arminianism. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. You can’t appeal to God’s infinity and incomprehensibility to defend your unusual (to say the least) meaning of ‘God is love’ and then turn around and object when others use words about God in ways beyond what you think is normal understanding.”

 

Calvinist: “Well, we Calvinists are just going by what the Bible says. We have to understand God’s love by what we see clearly revealed in Scripture about God’s actions.”

 

Arminian: “Well, we Arminians are just going by what the Bible says. We have to understand God’s sovereignty by what we see clearly revealed in Scripture about God’s actions.”

 

Calvinist: “Now you’re mocking me.”

 

Arminian: “No, I’m just trying to point out that two can play that game.”

 

Calvinist: “Well, I don’t even know what you mean. God’s sovereignty in Scripture is clearly absolute control [(sic, meticulous sovereignty, again. -res)]. That’s how God acts in Scripture.”

 

Arminian: “And what about all those times when God didn’t get his way and regretted things because of what humans did to thwart his plans and will? And what about Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and saying he wanted to…but they would not? Et cetera?”

 

Calvinist: “Oh, well, that’s easy. Those are anthropomorphisms.”

 

Arminian: “And so could be all those times in Scripture when God controlled circumstances and people.”

 

Calvinist: “No, those must be taken literally.” [based upon an inerrantist position of biblical literalism - res]

 

Arminian: “You are coming to Scripture with a preconceived idea of God and choosing what to take figuratively and what to take literally based on that. Your starting point is a philosophical idea of God drawn from reason and then you use that as a Procrustean bed of hermeneutics.”

 

Calvinist: “Wait. I think you’re trying to turn the tables on me again. That’s what we Calvinists say you Arminians do—with free will.”

 

Arminian: “Oh, really?”