My Critique of Open Theism
I was asked to offer a critique of Open Theism. At one time I embraced it so I'm very familiar with it. But it seems to be an in house argument. Other Christians who are not open theists effectively criticize it. I try not to tell Christians what they should believe. If I spend time critiquing it then I have not debunked Christianity because other Christians would enjoy my critique. I try to offer a more fundamental critique of Christianity and everyone in it, especially conservatives. Conservatives as a whole are my target, not one branch of them.
21 comments:
That's fine with me if you want to take the criticisms you offer here on your blog and in your book for granted that Open Theism solves.
And we could all just conclude the same about many of the problems you raise. Others have criticized the roots of those problems "effectively" (whatever that means). So what me worry?
Clearly, since people do become atheists because they hold one of the alternative views to open theism as in COLE!) demonstrates that this is not strictly an "inhouse" discussion but has very much to do with why people are leaving the house.
I find it odd that one who has expressed the importance of internal consistency now backs away from an issue that is precisely about internal consistency. This only reinforces for me what I have said, that the insiders understanding very well is often superior to the outsider's perspective. You wouldn't know anyone around here who'd suggest things were the other way around would you?
Rob,
I'm not an atheist. I just can't hold to some of what the Bible teaches. I've never studied open theism in depth but from reading John Piper's critique it appears to be unbiblical.
If it solves the problems that John raises with the Bible I would be happy to embrace it.
Cole,
Open theism can make a case if it takes some of the anthropomorphisms in the OT literally. I think that Piper would reject it on broader theological grounds.
But the death knell of open theism will be struck, IMHO, when people realize that it is wedded to a Newtonian view of absolute time. There are better options for wedding God's providence and human freedom, I think.
John,
I think by the evidence of Rob's and Brad's divergent views one can see how parsing theology just leads to a Christian rabbit hole.
It is sane of you to excuse yourself from these kinds of debates.
They are as worthwhile as arguing which cuts better, a blue or red light sabre.
They are as worthwhile as arguing which cuts better, a blue or red light sabre.
Infidel! The red light sabre cuts better!! :-)
Chuck,
I was afraid to even post something because I thought someone would pick up on the disagreement between our views as evidence of obscurantism. I think I could say two things.
1. I would imagine Rob and I would both accept "mere Christianity" as Lewis and Plantinga define it.
2. Theories of time are argued in philosophy apart from Christian theology, so you might have to apply that criticism to any philosopher who publishes on time or, say, abstract objects or the nature of knowledge.
I wouldn't make one's view of God's providence or origins a test of faith, at least, because it is more obscure than the foundational claim that Jesus is the Risen Christ.
Brad,
My point is that when two well meaning thinkers seek clarity in the face of ancient myth they often come to conclusions that contradict the universality of that myth.
It is consistent with Russ' observation that competing Christianities create evidence to the dubious "truth" held by faith.
I would have to say that Open Theism is a valid target. You have attacked Calvinism and Penal Substitution theory in the past, so "in house arguments" don't seem entirely off-limits.
Additionally, I would have to think that Open Theism is an attempt by Christians to avoid a large number of criticisms of their religion, so really, if you want to debunk Christianity, you have to recognize that it evolves and hit some of the big directions that Christians will attempt to go in.
I think JL Mackie attacked Open Theists in his book the Miracle of Theism, (on the matter of the problem of evil) so if you really don't want to go to deep, just quote someone else's argument.
post 1 of 4
Cole,
I'm not an atheist. I just can't hold to some of what the Bible teaches.
Good to hear. But precisely what the bible teaches ought to be a topic of continual learning and scrutiny.
Course what I said on the basis of your journey is still relevent John's goals aren't simply atheism but rather to turn people away from Christianity (even though they may not become atheists).
I've never studied open theism in depth but from reading John Piper's critique it appears to be unbiblical.
I'll tell you what, with an issue like this, it's often better to get it straight from the horses mouth.
If it solves the problems that John raises with the Bible I would be happy to embrace it.
John raises many problems and open theism answers a few of them. However, open theism contributes to a deeper understanding of God that offers a stronger picture in the face of atheism. Open theism essentially argues that some ideas within classical theism (a term that has been used to refer to some specific ideas and movements within the tradition but does not represent all of orthodoxy) have detracted from the personhood and our relationship with God. N.T. Wright's excellent book "Simply Christian," his explanation of why Christianity makes sense, capitalizes on aspects of our personhood to emphasize that our reality points us towards transcendence and the Judeo Christian picture provides an excellent narrative to make sense of that transcendence. You don't have to be an open theist to appreciate what Wright is doing, but you have a broader basis for it if you are.
If you really are interested, I'd highly recommend John E Sanders' book "The God who Risks". As the most in depth book on the issue, it is very well researched and yet it is very accessible to the layman and I think it will offer you an alternative way of thinking about these things that is biblical, deep, and appealing. This is not a substitute for that book in the slightest, but you could benefit from www.opentheism.info. For a critique of the prooftexting for theological determinism, I explained in the threat about your frustration at scripture that there are many other considerations beyond even open theism.
As for other considerations that would answer criticisms of Christianity including John Loftus' claims, I wrote my thoughts on that here.
post 2 of 4
While, open theism is often not directly relevant (yet important to consider) to the debate on theism, open theist William Hasker has recently come out with a book on the problem of evil that takes an openness perspective and also developes and highlights some new perspectives ripe with considerations from those of Rabbi's responding to the holocaust to N. T. Wrights unique approach to the problem of evil. But I still would strongly recomend reading Sanders first. (for that matter, I don't know if Haskers book is good for the layman though. I wouldn't recomend his book on open theism though to someone who doesn't have at least some formal training in philosophy (or at least maybe even theology) I found it fruitful but it went over my head in several places).
Ultimately though, a systematic theology that answers all your problems is not an end in itself. These things are a means to an end and that end is a loving relationship with God. With that in mind, I could recomend books to you, but the important thing is to go to God in prayer, and I don't mean that you should be meek in this and ask kindly and plead with God to help you out with your issue, but be persistant and aggressive and even ask others to pray for and with you. Israel after all is named for an event, wrestling with God and when I had my crisis of faith, I was occasionally angry with God for my frustrations in these matters.
post 3 of 4
Brad (and others who've followed the points made),
Open theism can make a case if it takes some of the anthropomorphisms in the OT literally.
Actually, some open theists, particularly Clark Pinnock and John Sanders (which is explained in his second chapter) suggest that our typical philosophy of language with regard to metaphor is misguided. The problem isn't that we open theists are taking anthropomorphisms literally. The problem as described by Sanders (referencing the work of Mark Johnson and George Lackoff's work in this matter, particularly "Metaphors We Live By" though they continue to publish more relevant material) is that we aren't taking the truth content of the metaphors seriously enough. Metaphors reveal reality in degrees, so when we read of God as a rock or God having wings, the degree of reality revealed is small compared to God as a father where the degree of reality is large.
But the death knell of open theism will be struck, IMHO, when people realize that it is wedded to a Newtonian view of absolute time.
Our view of time is as we believe the most basic one that is ubiquitous in our life, that we live one moment at a time. (And no less importantly, we also insist that it is more faithful to scripture, such as with the divine practice of the forgiveness of sin) We are experiencing time as it really is where only the present exists, the past has passed and is no more and the future is yet to be. The only advantage of Newtonian physics is that it would allow us to take the nature of time for granted. Discovering time dilation does not determine the metaphysics of time but only suggests that whether it is presentist or eternalist, there is more complexity than meets the eye. And if it's true that relativistic physics really does imply an eternalist conception of time, it's not like relativity isn't part of perfectly coherent picture since relativity is not consistent with quantum mechanics and there is no consensus on how to solve that problem. Furthermore, there are some possible solutions that favor presentism. Philosopher Bradley Monton who is degreed and formally trained in both physics and philosophy points out that there are some theories of quantum gravity which would be more fundamental than relativity that do favor presentism. The science of the issue is one of those areas where we would say that it doesn't determine the metaphysics but underdetermines it.
post 4 of 4
I was afraid to even post something because I thought someone would pick up on the disagreement between our views as evidence of obscurantism.
I generally don't criticize the things that other Christians put up here, but I've said these things in defense of the picture that I believe has and has had fruitful considerations in defending Christianity. Rather, I come here to advocate Christian thought against skepticism. But not all variety is bad and these sorts of debates do highlight that there is a healthy intellectual wrestling within the life of the church and that we are still progressing in our understanding even as we hold on to our traditions. And that isn't a wrestling that isn't without it's frustrations, but I have no shame in this and while it can and has caused division, it does not have to.
1. I would imagine Rob and I would both accept "mere Christianity" as Lewis and Plantinga define it.
Well, not exactly as Lewis had defined it all the way in his book by that title (this was where I had my first exposure to the doctrine of timelessness... but then again, Plantinga who is a molinist doesn't hold to timelessness either and his partner in crime, Nicholas Wolterstorff is said to have written the definitive paper against it), but there is no doubt much common ground beyond that. Open theists have no desire and are in no position to say that their doctrine is definitive in Christianity given its minority status throughout church history. And in my views at the relatively conservative evangelical church that I attend, I'm usually a minority of one on this issue, but the people at my church have I love for me and I for them and there is no deChristianization of me on these grounds. Christianity is very rich in many areas where we all have room to continue to learn and scrutinize and improve our understanding. And here on this blog I am grateful for the trained opinion of yourself and Eric in these discussions even though some of them I would not share.
Rob,
Open theism is denounced by those adhering to classical theism and by strict adherents like the Southern Baptist Conference and Evangelical Free Church of America it is considered heresy.
Why do you insist on presenting a church universal when your particular idiosyncratic (and marginalized) theology places you in the same standing as Marcion or Arius by the church's body politic?
How can you sincerely believe you are intellectually honest when you have one set of rules for yourself (the freedom to define God) while decrying those who would enjoy the same freedom (agnostics, atheists, and non-Christian world religions). You've kind of proven here that you are a hypocrite.
Also, you might want to look up the meaning of "Availability Bias" in Leonard Mlodinow's book "The Drunkard's Walk" because you are employing it with your use of a limited data set (your church) in extrapolating future conditions (full acceptance in the eternal Christian communion).
How can you sincerely believe you are intellectually honest
Well, this is a serious problem because everyone who does not see things the way chuck sees them is intellectually dishonest. Since I can't think like you, there is nothing that can be done for me. Since I am so hopeless, I don't see any point in explaining these things to you.
good day.
Rob,
"Well, this is a serious problem because everyone who does not see things the way chuck sees them is intellectually dishonest."
No, I'd say a person with one level of intellectual liberty for himself with a contradictory level for the world is intellectually dishonest.
Check your theology son, you'll see. You'll see.
Good point chuck. I have no idea what that has to do with me.
But I don't think like chuck so clearly I'm intellectually dishonest here.
Here's the entire quote Rob,
"How can you sincerely believe you are intellectually honest when you have one set of rules for yourself (the freedom to define God) while decrying those who would enjoy the same freedom (agnostics, atheists, and non-Christian world religions). You've kind of proven here that you are a hypocrite."
Is Jesus not the only way to God?
Do you revise classical theism to provide your own comfort in that?
Do you allow the same intellectual freedom to others without raising questions to their truth claims?
Seems you offer yourself the liberty to redress agreed upon theology for your own comfort and are comfortable with your absolute conclusions but, fail to offer the same intellectual charity to other perspectives.
Chuck, you ask worthy questions. I'm tempted. But You just don't discuss in a way worthy of discussion. Not all discussions that are worth having are worth having with just anyone. Sorry.
Rob
We have nothing to discuss. The ideas you hold are self-centered, fixed, and lead to an enslaved mind.
Post a Comment