For me, ecumenical consensus is important because it informs us of how the majority of Christians have interpreted certain passages of Scripture over time. It would be exceedingly reductionistic to say that Scripture does not speak of God's knowledge of the future. Certainly there are even passages that speak of God's providence over future events. In the same way, I would need to acknowledge that there are passages that speak of God "changing His mind" and so on. You have to admit Dan that there are passages that do not fit into an Open Theistic paradigm.
Also, I think that ecumenical consensus shows us that humans have historically been able to have a dynamic relationship with God, while still maintaining a high view of His sovereignty. "Open Theism" is (in my opinion) a recent development in the church, that addresses contemporary societies need for autonomy, and affirmation of self. I attribute this to Whitney Houston (The Greatest Love of all - 1985
see below) and Mr. Rogers (not really). Our generation like no other
begs God to affirm our identity, dreams, and ideas (Bono really captures this idea:" It's not if I believe in love, but does love believe in me?")
I don't think that God's desire is so much to affirm me, as to make me like Christ (Gal. 2:20). Isn’t this how the greater church has always interpreted it? Certainly one could argue that this understanding leads away from intimate (dynamic) relationship, but I would disagree...there is no greater intimacy than oneness. God doesn’t need me to be me, as much as he needs me to be Jesus (I recognize that there are aspects of this that we all would agree on).
Dan, In a previous post you mentioned that the churches historic view (perfection = unchangeability) is a Greek idea. Are you asserting that ancient Judaism was more Open Theistic? I mean, would a Rabbi (messianic or otherwise) believe that God doesn’t know the future? Could you substantiate this a little more?
Just some of my thoughts
“For me, ecumenical consensus is important because it informs us of how the majority of Christians have interpreted certain passages of Scripture over time.”
ReplyDeleteMy response – Agreed but it’s also important to remember that many of our “ecumenical consensus” is really “western consensus”. The ecumenical movement has done a lot to show that African and Asian theology has been (is being) developed differently than what we have. So while I agree that ecumenical consensus is important, on the other hand its important to remember that Augustine, Aquinas, etc were only one perspective.
“You have to admit Dan that there are passages that do not fit into an Open Theistic paradigm. “
My response – So far I have not seen or heard scripture that an open theistic paradigm cannot respond to. That is not to say I can argue the point, but simply that others have responded at length to multiple possible “problem passages” and I have been left satisfied with their response. The most thorough response I have seen is John Sanders The God Who Risks (2nd edition).
“Also, I think that ecumenical consensus shows us that humans have historically been able to have a dynamic relationship with God, while still maintaining a high view of His sovereignty. “
My response – Agreed but you have not defined sovereignty. Open Theists don’t just say “well I guess God isn’t sovereign anymore”. So of course they will agree with a dynamic relationship and a sovereign God.
“"Open Theism" is (in my opinion) a recent development in the church, that addresses contemporary societies need for autonomy, and affirmation of self. I attribute this to Whitney Houston (The Greatest Love of all - 1985 see below) and Mr. Rogers. Our generation like no other begs God to affirm our identity, dreams, and ideas (Bono really captures this idea:" It's not if I believe in love, but does love believe in me?")”
My response – Seriously? You really think that Open Theism is a response to Whitney Houston and Mr.Rogers? I think I would rather be called a heretic than a watered down theology that is only responding to recent cultural needs for self affirmation. By reducing Open Theism to such a response you completely ignore their biblical, theological, traditional, and philosophical arguments. What of their works have you read to make such a sweeping generalization?
“Dan, In a previous post you mentioned that the churches historic view (perfection = unchangeability) is a Greek idea. Are you asserting that ancient Judaism was more Open Theistic? I mean, would a Rabbi (messianic or otherwise) believe that God doesn’t know the future? Could you substantiate this a little more?”
My response – No I am not willing to assert that. But then again I don’t believe reformed theologians can assert that ancient Judaism would have been Calvinists or Lutherans either. What I am willing to say is that an ancient Jewish view of God would not have seen Him as unmoving and unable to respond to the cries of His people. An ancient Jewish view would not have understood all future events to have already been preordained by God. I believe a Rabbi would state that God has the power do whatever He desires and whatever plans He wants to do He will do. That, however, does not state that God knows the future in exhaustive detail before it even happens.
Dan, thanks for responding…here are my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say that the “ecumenical consensus” of the East has developed differently, are you referring to the popular Christian consensus or the academic/institutional consensus? I have been to Africa (Sudan) and have observed the opposite to be the case. African Christians appeared to have a very high view of God’s sovereignty (as traditionally defined), one that unfortunately boarders on fatalism. Can you identify the sources of your African and Asian consensus?
Concerning Scripture interpretation; as I stated in the post, I see the Scriptures as pointing to a theology that accounts for both human freedom and divine sovereignty. I do not doubt that you can give me a reasoned argument in unfalsifiable terms that interprets each passage differently. I’m sure you’re prepared, as am I. But here are a few of my favorites - Romans 8: 28-30, Eph. 1: 3-5, Phil. 1:3-6.
Regarding my definition of “sovereignty” I will stick with the traditional theological definition which assumes God’s “omniscience.” I am not using the political definition. Does the historic church refer to God’s sovereignty without assuming His omniscience?
Now, about my Whitney Houston comment… No I do not think open theists had her song in mind when they developed their theology. That pithy addition was one of the perks of blogging as opposed to writing in a theological journal… no offense intended my friend. At the same time, I do think that Open Theism has development out of the stated contemporary concerns. This is unapologetically my opinion. I do not expect you to agree.
Concerning Jewish theology, predestination is discussed extensively in the rabbinic writings. The term used is Hashgochoh Protis, which was defined as “Divine supervision of the individual.” While classical Judaism questioned the traditional view of God’s providence (due in large part to debates over naturalism and miracles – you and I would have sided with the traditional folks), Orthodox Jews in general still hold to a high view of God’s omniscience and providence. The most extreme example being contemporary Hasidic Jews.
I recognize that this post contains a number of generalizations. Just to clarify... it isn't my intent to say that there are no theologians with well articulated arguments for Open Theism. It is my intent to confront our contemporary society's hunger for new theologies that better fit contemporary ideas.
ReplyDeleteThe Jewish term above is actually spelled two ways...the more common is Hashgacha Pratis.
ReplyDelete“African Christians appeared to have a very high view of God’s sovereignty (as traditionally defined), one that unfortunately boarders on fatalism. Can you identify the sources of your African and Asian consensus?”
ReplyDeleteMy response – I was not trying to say that African or Asian theology does not align with reformed understanding of sovereignty. Instead I was trying to highlight that some theologians in non-western areas are developing theology that highlights what we believed to be “ecumenical consensus” is really just “western consensus”. Choan-Seng Song, Jung Young Lee, and Raimundo Panikkar are examples when it comes to Christology. Kanzo Uchimura and Hiroyasu Iwabuchi are examples for Ecclesiology. I will say I am more familiar (which is very little) with differing Asian theology instead of African. I might have overstepped my point.
“I do not doubt that you can give me a reasoned argument in unfalsifiable terms that interprets each passage differently. I’m sure you’re prepared, as am I. But here are a few of my favorites - Romans 8: 28-30, Eph. 1: 3-5, Phil. 1:3-6.”
My response – It sounds like you are looking for a debate but in my response I said “that is not to say I can argue the point, but simply that others have responded at length to multiple possible 'problem passages' and I have been left satisfied with their response.” I am not here to try and argue scripture with you Phil, I can simply say that I have been satisfied with an open position, even regarding the scriptures you highlighted, and if you are interested in a response to them I would suggest going to those more scholarly than myself. I even suggested a specific work you might be interested in.
“Does the historic church refer to God’s sovereignty without assuming His omniscience?”
My response – Any attempt to answer this would be out of ignorance.
“ I do think that Open Theism has development out of the stated contemporary concerns.”
My response – I am ok with contemporary theological frameworks to be responses to contemporary problems or concerns. It seems to me that you were fairly firm on the idea that all pictures about God are wrong. If that is the case then new pictures are wrong, just like old ones are. Yes Open Theism is new to the stage, but that doesn’t mean it is any less valid simply because it is addressing contemporary concerns.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteSorry it took a while for your above comment to post...evidently blogger thought it was spam, and I just noticed.
Thanks for adding more of you're thoughts!
A couple quick thoughts... I took you to be asking for verses when you stated (as part of your argument) that I hadn't provided you with any (above). Also, I hear you're point about contemporary concerns, but I will continue to look with a certain skepticism upon theologies that are not founded in church history. We will agree to disagree.
Blessings Brother