|
drcraigvideos
|
|
|
plucas
|
|
Posted 06/02/11
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
"The passion narratives we've looked at today show that the Openness Of God is wrong".
"Jesus knew, and knew in sufficient detail, that it couldn't have been guessed exactly what was going to happen to him in that week in Jerusalem. Openness Of God theology inevitably depreciates the person of Christ. In the story of the triumphal entry, we see disclosed, Jesus' sense of Lordship as he directs events toward their foreseen ends."
His argument is essentially that what Jesus predicted about his death could not have been known unless He knew the free future actions of creatures.
I think Gregory Boyd's response to this is adequate to deny the necessity of the conclusion in the video:
Quote:
"The ministry and death of Jesus are the centerpieces of God’s plan in world history. Therefore, very little surrounding Jesus’ life and death was left to chance. It had been determined from ages past that the Lord himself would have to become a man and die. This is something God was going to do, and thus it was foreknown from whatever time he decided it. Jesus reveals the divine plan to his disciples. But we have no reason to conclude from this that the whole of the future was settled in Jesus’ mind (see Mark 13:32). Indeed, Jesus’ prayer in the Garden suggests that he held an outside hope that even his death could be averted at the last minute (Matt. 26:39). Nor should we conclude that the specific elders, chief priests and scribes who were going to be instrumental in putting Jesus to death were predestined or foreknown from ages past to do so. The verse simply indicates that by the time Jesus was teaching his disciples about his future it was certain that some of these people would act in this fashion."
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Drea
|
|
Posted 07/02/11
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
I'm new here and just stumbled upon this thread. I just figured I'd say I also find Greg Boyd's point to be more well-rounded.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
RobertH
|
|
Posted 11/22/11
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Drea
I'm new here and just stumbled upon this thread. I just figured I'd say I also find Greg Boyd's point to be more well-rounded.
I read this by Greg Boyd. I find his Brief Outline (the link) to be incredibly unpersuasive.
In his responses to common objections there is this:
"6. The open view cannot account for biblical prophecy Response: I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God can and does determine and predict the future whenever it suits his sovereign purposes to do so. But I deny that this logically entails, or that Scripture teaches, that the future is exhaustively determined. God is wise enough to be able to achieve his purposes while allowing his creatures a significant degree of freedom." This is an extremely weak point. If God can determine certain events, removing creaturely freedom, why not all the time and everywhere? A significantly better approach is Molinism which affirms free-will and God's sovereignty in harmony with Scripture.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
AtheisticSeeker
|
|
Posted 05/17/12
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
If this view has already been expressed, I apologize. The link in the OP isn't working for me.
I've been reading up on Open Theism because I was struck with how elegantly it deals with the Problem of Evil. Also, it seems to be a good framework for understanding some of the actions of the Father and Son which seem paradoxical when interpreted through the (Hellenistic?) concepts of omnipotence, omniscience, omni-[etc..]. Pondering Open Theism vs the "traditional view", I am reminded of a quote from Pascal. He had a revelation of sorts, and exclaimed something to the effect of "God is the God of Abraham and Isaac..not the God of the Philosophers!"
Regarding the claim "The open view cannot account for biblical prophecy", I'd like to submit an analogy from modern physics. Quantum mechanics asserts a certain "lack of determinism" Inherent in nature. That is, even the "greatest possible mind" cannot predict the behavior of individual electrons. Now, that doesn't preclude the ability to predict trends. On the contrary, I believe the great prophesy of Isaac Newton is quite accurate in predicting that the earth as a whole will orbit the sun at a certain rate, even if we cannot determine (fundamentally) the behavior of the individual electrons involved.
One may cast doubt on that analogy with the claim that Jesus anticipated Judas' and Peter's behavior. But regarding Judas, AFAIK, Jesus only said "one of you will betray me". If we take this statement at face value, it's technically a statement about the group, not the individual Judas. And while the claim that Peter would deny Jesus three times sounds remarkably precise, Jesus actually framed the statement in a time "interval" form (ie, from now until the rooster crows, rather than listing the individual times for each of the three denials). Following the quantum mechanics analogy, we can liken this precision to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. We can know the position of an electron to arbitrary precision, but the more precisely we know its position, the less precisely we know its momentum. Similarly, Jesus was very precise about the number of times Peter would deny him, but the time interval was comparatively fuzzy.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Drea
|
|
Posted 07/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RobertH
If God can determine certain events, removing creaturely freedom, why not all the time and everywhere? A significantly better approach is Molinism which affirms free-will and God's sovereignty in harmony with Scripture.
I realize this post is ancient and I'm terriby late, but I wanted to ask how such freedom is preserved under Molinism? God is still setting up kings and kingdoms and putting them down. He pours out His Spirit, gives wisdom, and reveals truths to those whom He chooses for a purpose. If God is actively setting the stage for His plan through humans, how are they any more free under the Molinist view than they are under the Open view?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
mazzgolf
|
|
Posted 07/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by DreaQuote: Originally Posted by RobertH
If God can determine certain events, removing creaturely freedom, why not all the time and everywhere? A significantly better approach is Molinism which affirms free-will and God's sovereignty in harmony with Scripture.
I realize this post is ancient and I'm terriby late, but I wanted to ask how such freedom is preserved under Molinism? God is still setting up kings and kingdoms and putting them down. He pours out His Spirit, gives wisdom, and reveals truths to those whom He chooses for a purpose. If God is actively setting the stage for His plan through humans, how are they any more free under the Molinist view than they are under the Open view?
Well, actually, I think it would be wrong to say people are "more free" under Molinism compared to Open Theism. Free will exists equally in both, no? In other words, I don't think it is true to say "Molinism shows we are more free than Open Theism".
Drea, I can tell (from past threads on this topic we've engaged in and with others I've seen you participate in) that you really struggle with this question. As I understand it, you are more of an Open Theist but I admire your perserverence to try to figure out how Molinism can be defended in a way that makes sense. Sometimes one particular question about theology or God himself is just an itch you can't scratch :-)
If you haven't read it, one really good book on the subject is "Four Views on Divine Providence" - Greg Boyd takes the Open Theist position, William Lane Craig the Molinist position, and there are two others that take the Calvinist (or Calvinist-like) position (why they were allowed to gang up on WLC and GB I don't know - seems unfair to pit 2 against 1 against 1 :-) But that book is a even-handed discussion - it's basically each person putting their view out and they also have a chapter to rebut the other sides. The book leaves the answer open for you to decide - it doesn't make any conclusion either way.
Whether that book answers all your questions, I dunno. But it might be helpful.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Drea
|
|
Posted 07/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by mazzgolf
Sometimes one particular question about theology or God himself is just an itch you can't scratch :-)
Sometimes, that is indeed the case. As for this itch, it looks to be within reach. But watch! Once I get close to relieving the itch, sure enough, it will be like a real itch that abandons its spot as you're scratching it and finds a new location on the body to drive you crazy. (Please say I'm not the only one that chases an itch like that. lol! )
Quote: Originally Posted by mazzgolfIf you haven't read it, one really good book on the subject is " Four Views on Divine Providence" - Greg Boyd takes the Open Theist position, William Lane Craig the Molinist position, and there are two others that take the Calvinist (or Calvinist-like) position (why they were allowed to gang up on WLC and GB I don't know - seems unfair to pit 2 against 1 against 1 :-) But that book is a even-handed discussion - it's basically each person putting their view out and they also have a chapter to rebut the other sides. The book leaves the answer open for you to decide - it doesn't make any conclusion either way. Whether that book answers all your questions, I dunno. But it might be helpful.
Thanks for the recommendation. It sounds like a very useful book at a very reasonable price. I ran across it a year or so ago and considered it, but just never went through with ordering it. I've since abandoned real interest in the subject to adopt a more 'go-with-the-flow' attitude to just see how faith quietly underpinned by the open view might flourish. It's only been since recently that my interest in Molinism was piqued again, hence my re-entry to the forum a few weeks ago. Point being, my education on the matter is, I'm sure, relatively little. With only a survey of a few of Craig's writings here on the site under my belt, I'm still groping in the dark a bit. I'm still running into a dead end with the 'grouding objection', though. Maybe the book really will help. :-)
|
|
Loading...
|
|
