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 2 Samuel 24:17–25?
“So the Lord answered [David’s] supplication for the land, and the plague was averted from Israel.” The passage suggests that the Lord intended the plague to judge Israel further but David’s supplication persuaded him to change his mind and relent from his punishment. If the future is to some degree open and God is genuinely…
Who Rules Governments? God or Satan? Part 2
In the previous post, I raised the question of how we reconcile the fact that the Bible depicts both God and Satan as the ruler of nations, and I discussed some classical ways this has been understood. In this post I want to offer a cross-centered approach to this classical conundrum that provides us with…
Why You Have Free Will
God’s decision to create a cosmos that was capable of love and that was, therefore, populated with free agents (see previous post) was also a decision to create and govern a world he could not unilaterally control. These are two aspects of the same decision. What it means for God to give agents some degree…
Lord Willing? Part 2
In Part 2 of Greg’s interview of Jessica Kelley about her book Lord Willing?, they discuss the theology that helped Jessica through her son Henry’s illness and death. You can find Part 1 of the interview here, and part 3 here.
What is the significance of Jeremiah 38:17–18, 20–21, 23?
The Lord prophesies to Zedekiah, “If you will only surrender to the officials of the king of Babylon” the city and his family would be spared, but “if you do not surrender” the city and his family would be destroyed. He then reiterates, “But if you are determined not to surrender” even Zedekiah himself would…
What is the significance of Exodus 4:10–16?
Immediately after convincing Moses of his ability to [somehow!] convince the elders of Israel to listen to him, Moses says, “O my Lord, I have never been eloquent…I am slow of speech and slow of tongue” (vs. 10). The Lord reminds him that he is the Creator and is therefore bigger than any speech impediment.…