Opening Remarks
I must admit I have always been quite disillusioned with and disenfranchised by conventional "glory-based" views of God. So, this book really hasn't done much to bring me over to the darkside as much as it has eased my weary soul and my incessant doubting.The Openness of God proposes the idea of what is known in many academic circles as, Open Theism. At its core, it seeks to bridge the gap between our personal practice of Christian faith and the theological implications perpetuated by our particular view of God. Of course this is assuming there is a bridge that needs "gapping", and that the aforementioned gap is located directly between the way that we practice our faith and the beliefs that we hold about the one we are putting our faith in. This is where conventional (or classical) theism busts up the party.
In Classical Theism, it is believed that God is a being who's sole purpose for creating all that exists is for his own glory, and as a result of his irresistible sovereign will all that he dictates must come to pass as it plays servant to his grand purpose for self-glorification. In a nutshell (and I'm sure this is going to seem harsh) God's relationship with the world is one of mastery, domination, and control. For some, this is welcoming and comforting, but for me this is most unwanted and alarming. I see an innate paradox in the act of lifting up a prayer to a God who already knows what I am going to say, what he is going to do, how I am going to respond, and all the while calling it a "genuine relationship". How can it be that while sitting in the pew I'm invited to enter into a reciprocal communion with the Creator, but while pondering specific doctrine I'm turned into a measly pawn in the Creator's eternal chess-match of life?
I'm petrified by the notion that the truth behind ultimate reality is that I am merely a means to an end, rather than an end in and of myself.
I imagine some will say that I should only be so lucky. But, if this type of belief were a movie, I'd ask for my money back.
more to come...
Intersting post, and I appreciate your opinion. See "Beyond the Bounds". The implications of a God who does not know the future are more frightening for me than one who does not. When I sinned I forfeited my rights to what I want.
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:12 AM
Pardon, A God who does not know the future is more frightening than one who does.
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:39 AM
is your being frightened by a God who doesn't know the future not just another example of a human desire that was forfeited because of sin?
Posted by
jared slack |
10:56 AM
No- I think speaking with any implication that God does not have the right to do whatever He wants is an idea we forfeited because of Sin.
The creature can't justly come to the Creator and say, I don't like that you made me this way. Let me say I do not think we are pawns, I think we are art.
The problem I have with the openness of God is that is 1) Heresy according to Scripture and 2) God belittling (falls short of His glory).
As an example of the Biblical problem I would quote a passage you referenced in a previous post.
Jesus says, "On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back. Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it."
The Father, much less the Son could not speak this with authority if the openness of God is truth, because they could not know what would happen "on that day"- According to this doctrine they cannot know the future because it does not yet exist.
I am saying it is dangerous to embrace doctrines that have no Biblical Authority and belittle God.
It is dangerous to be bound to the Christianity of one's culture and century, and this doctrine is.
I will concede that any systematic theology will have some flaws, as it is man-made, but this doctrine goes to the point of heresy and beyond.
I think we should study it- it is crazy to only know and read what one believes, just as it is crazy to be tossed about by every wind of doctrine.
I think dialogue is good for the body and I appreciate that. I think your question is a fair one and appreciate your response. I hope this answer clarifies what I sought to imply in my earlier, brief post.
Chase
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:35 AM