We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
An Open Orthodoxy
Our friends Tom Belt and Dwayne Polk recently started a blog called An Open Orthodoxy. This is going to be something you’ll want to follow. Really smart guys with something to say. They posted this clarification on the defining claim and core convictions of open theism that hits the nail on the head.
From the blog post:
To summarize, then. God is love, and he creates for benevolent purposes which include creation’s coming to participate in and reflect the love that he is. This glorifies God, and this glory is the end for which all things are created. To fulfill this end, God endowed us with a certain freedom, and this freedom in turn entails certain risks. Open theists reason from these three core convictions — divine love and a free and risky creation — to the conclusion that God knows the open future as a branching of possible ways or paths the world might and might not take. But from the open theist’s point of view, these core convictions are the heart and soul of the view. The conclusion that God doesn’t eternally foreknow in every conceivable detail precisely how the world’s possibilities will unfold (which claim has received all the attention) is — to put it surprisingly but perhaps more accurately — the most uninteresting thing about the view. For us it’s not particularlyabout foreknowledge; it’s about freely becoming what God purposed us to be. It’s abouttheosis. The foreknowledge piece turns out to be just the most consistent way we know to express it.
Amen.
Category: General
Tags: An Open Orthodoxy, Dwayne Polk, Open Theism, Tom Belt
Related Reading
What is the significance of Deuteronomy 9:13–14, 18–20, 25?
The Lord tells Moses “Let me alone that I may destroy them [the Israelites] and blot out their name from under heaven…” (vs. 14). Moses later says to the Israelites, “the Lord intended to destroy you” (vs. 25). Moses interceded for forty days and then tells the Israelites, “the Lord listened to me…” (vs. 19).…
How do you respond to Genesis 16:12?
The Lord describes Ishmael as “…a wild ass of a man, with his hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him.” According to most Old Testament scholars the Lord is describing Ishmael’s descendants as much as he is describing Ishmael himself. The Lord foresaw that the nation which would descend from Ishmael (cf. 21:18) would…
Lord Willing? Part 1
Greg sat down with Jessica Kelley recently to talk with her about her book Lord Willing?. We’re posting their conversation in three parts. Today, in part 1, Jessica shares the story of when her son Henry was diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumor at age 4. You can find part 2 of the interview here, and part…
What is the significance of Jeremiah 18:7–11?
The Lord states that “if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.” But if a nation which he has declared he will bless “does evil in my sight…I will change my mind about the good that…
What God Doesn’t Know (According to W.L.Craig)
Hello bloggers. Here’s Part II of my response to Bill Craig’s podcast critique of the open model of providence. As I see it, the central difference between Craig’s position (Molinism) and my own (open theism) boils down to our different assessments of futurity. As I noted in my previous blog, Craig believes that propositions asserting…
What Does a Perfect God Look Like?
The “classical view of God” refers to the view of God that has dominated Christian theology since the earliest Church fathers. According to this theology, God is completely “immutable.” This means that God’s being and experience never changes in any respect. God is therefore pure actuality (actus purus), having no potentiality whatsoever, for potentiality is…