The bottom line is that I disagree with the first part “that Open Theism may be considered “orthodox” in regard to its Arminianism (i.e. its view of election),” but agree with the second part “that it is outside the bounds of orthodoxy with respect to its understanding of divine foreknowledge.” Why? It is clear how various scholars and authors in the professional academic world delicately move away from a biblical understanding of classical theism into a more liberal philosophical approach in this case “open theism.” As a result, the church is being led into heresy, apostasy, error, and unorthodoxy while theological educational departments are being led into liberalism, humanism, secularism, moral relativism, and depravity.
McCormack’s explains how “both classical and open theists appeal to Scripture, Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT), to support their positions.” He also argues that both have in common their positions on OT “conceptions of an exercise in metaphysical thinking.” In addition, that Christology is the foundation in understanding the Doctrine of God (creation, providence, human freedom, etc.). Perhaps,
…show more content…
On the contrary, are simply necessary tenents of theism in order to understand the Doctrine of God. God is absolutely sovereign over His creature and creation. The Bible does not change; God is the author of all things. God has the authority to change the world the way He wants, because His ownership gives Him all the rights. If one disagrees with something God has written or spoken in Scripture, it is not God that needs to “limit himself in relation to creation so that He does not know the future exhaustively and infallibly,” it is His entire creation who needs to submit to God’s perfect will. In simple words, if God does not know the future, then what ever happens would have more authority and power. As a result, God is not
One of the main dangers in the way we chose to interpret God in both testaments, is our tendency to see the Bible as containing two different gods: the God of the
... way Dr. Haber in The Lathe of Heaven does. Dr. Habers use of power misses the most vital point society needs: change. I prefer to go with the Quechua speaking peoples view of not being able to see your future but being able to make glimpses. I like to think of having obstacles come my way so that I in turn can become a better person. I also believe that challenges in life our good because that is when you see how strong your faith is. If there were no obstacles in the world and only what you wish for, the world is a place that I would not like to be found at. So as for now, and with the many obstacles I will have to face in the future, I will let the God that I believe in decide what my future will consist of. As far as Im concerned, I am safer with letting God be in control because I know he ultimately knows what in fact is the best for me and not my own desires.
For thousands of years there have been many transcriptions and changes to the words of God, For example, just in the last thousand years there has been three different transcriptions, The New Testament, Homer, and also Sophocles. For a person not to look for their own interpretation of the lord’s book is
A God who is all loving would not stand by knowing what terrible things are going to happen unless he either did not have the power to stop it from happening, or unless he is not all
Even though humans wrote the text, translating it and passing it down from generations to generations, God’s truth is unchanging. Debates of the inerrancy of the bible cannot usurp God as the King of grace. Instead of focusing on the inerrancy of the Bible, individuals who wish to seek a life of faith should focus on the inspiration God is showing them in his word. These revelations should move them into applicable, daily life changing implications from what they have learned. God shows revelations of himself through the Bible, and his character is revealed time and time again throughout scripture. Any faulty facts or discrepancies in grammar or data, should not take away from the value that scripture holds. When we read scripture we bring new meaning of interpretations of the truths God shows us, since new eras and environmental factors will be influential on how we process information. The bible is not just a fact book, telling humans stories of the past, but instead the bible is inspired instructions for how we can deal with spiritual and ethical encounters we
Hypothetically speaking, if there was a machine in the world that could able project the image of a person choosing to do tomorrow. Wouldn’t that entail tomorrow this person must do what was known in advance? In the end, despite the planning and deliberating, this person must choose exactly as the machine projected. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: “Does free will exist, or it just merely an illusion?” But, no machine with such capability existed in this world, and the only one with such power is God. The argument of God’s omniscient and human free will has gone for thousands of years, the core of this argument is if God was claimed to be all-knowing, hence in possession of infallible foreknowledge of human actions, therefore, humans should not have free will. The concept of God is all-knowing and human have free will is inherently contradictory, therefore, they cannot coexist. This argument implicated predestination and often resonated with the dilemma of determinism, because God was supposed to have given mankind free will.
Chesterton set "Orthodoxy" in the context of a personal statement of faith and as a retort to Mr. G.S. Street's critique of his earlier work "Heretics." Street claimed that "Heretics" did not provide the reader wi...
Wesleyans and Fundamentalist may have different views on different subject matter reguarding the doctrine and the theology because of their presupsitions. Although this book makes comparasionsleyans to between Wesleyans and Fundamentalists , the Authors of this book makes a clear message that although we may have differnt views on scripture tere is no way to be sure which one is correct however, "we recognize that Wesleyans and their sisters and brothers who are fundamentalists share a love for Jesus Christ and his inaugurated kingdom." (8) Meaning that we the readers should not discriminate between the two views because untimently they both love Jesus and it is for the glory of God.
The Bible is read and interpreted by many people all over the world. Regardless, no one knows the absolute truth behind scripture. Walter Brueggemann, professor of Old Testament, wrote “Biblical Authority” to help people understand what he describes as six different parts that make up the foundation to ones understanding of scripture. He defines these six features as being: inherency, interpretation, imagination, ideology, inspiration, and importance. As Brueggemann explains each individual part, it is easy to see that they are all interconnected because no one can practice one facet without involuntarily practicing at least one other part.
For centuries now Christians have claimed to possess the special revelation of an omnipotent, loving Deity who is sovereign over all of His creation. This special revelation is in written form and is what has come to be known as The Bible which consists of two books. The first book is the Hebrew Scriptures, written by prophets in a time that was before Christ, and the second book is the New Testament, which was written by Apostles and disciples of the risen Lord after His ascension. It is well documented that Christians in the context of the early first century were used to viewing a set of writings as being not only authoritative, but divinely inspired. The fact that there were certain books out in the public that were written by followers of Jesus and recognized as being just as authoritative as the Hebrew Scriptures was never under debate. The disagreement between some groups of Christians and Gnostics centered on which exact group of books were divinely inspired and which were not. The debate also took place over the way we can know for sure what God would have us include in a book of divinely inspired writings. This ultimately led to the formation of the Biblical canon in the next centuries. Some may ask, “Isn’t Jesus really the only thing that we can and should call God’s Word?” and “Isn’t the Bible just a man made collection of writings all centered on the same thing, Jesus Christ?” This paper summarizes some of the evidences for the Old and New Testament canon’s accuracy in choosing God breathed, authoritative writings and then reflects on the wide ranging
And while, the covers multiple areas of belief, the most simplistic explanation stated by Olson when he says, “They rejected both liberal elevation of human experience to a source and norm of theology and fundamentalist treatment of the Bible as a paper pope.” And while this response was an improvement over the Liberal theology, it was not itself correct in many ways as well. Neo-orthodoxy rejects in many ways rational apologetics, vehemence, and natural theology, believing in a more restricted way of thinking which ties itself to the culture of the time. Other areas which Neo-orthodoxy fails is in its view of faith as irrational as well as disregarding the historical figure of Jesus for merely a spiritual view of
Religion has always been part of a society or a group of people. Religions like Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism have, for the most part, defined what a society would be like. Each of the religion have a certain set of rules and rituals that have to be followed. For some of the religions certain foods can not be eaten or some ideas are considered to be sinful. For example in Islam people are not allowed to eat pork or drink alcoholic beverages. In Judaism people can not eat anything that is not kosher. What this means is that there are certain rules that apply to what foods Jewish people can or cannot eat. For example in Judaism meat and milk can not be mixed. Even in Buddhism the consumption of meats are looked down upon. Christianity, however, do not have as many restrictions on food. What Christianity has are traditions or holidays that have to be worshiped. There are also morals and ideas that have to be held. However in modern times some of the those morals and values have been ignored. Other ideas are contested and highly debated. In Cathedral of Hope: A History of Progressive Christianity, Civil Right, and Gay Social Activism in Dallas, Texas, 1965 -1992 by Dennis Michael Mims, Christianity and the civil law: Secularity, privacy, and the status of objective moral norms by William Joseph Wagner, and Christianity and Bioethics. Seeking Arguments for Stem Cell Research in Genesis by Mircea Leabu they all talk about how Christianity affects American society and the controversies they cause.
The nature of Scripture and the authority of Scripture are two characteristics carefully entwined in such a way that creates an impossibility for them to not affect each other. They directly influence each other. Evangelicalism, Liberalism, and Neo-Orthodoxy all have differing views of the nature and authority of Scripture. Evangelicalism takes up the view that the Bible, Scripture, is infallible (Lane, 2006, p. 255). Scripture is God’s word and is therefore fully truth (Lane, 2006, p. 256). People under Evangelicalism equate Scripture with God’s spoken word, and they believe that though God and humans are both authors, the human author was divinely prepared by God to write out His word (Lane, 2006, p. 257). They believe that “the Bible is the supreme authority for faith and practice” (Bingham, 2002, p. 162). Liberalism takes a different view on the Scripture. In Liberalism, religion is “nothing but feeling and experience” (Lane, 2006, p. 238). This reduces the authority and value of Scripture. Scripture is not seen as God’s word or His revelation but as a written record of the experiences of humans, which takes away from its divinity and authority (Lane, 2006, p. 239). Schleiermacher, the father of Liber...
One thing that philosophers are great at is asking big questions, usually without providing answers. However, Saint Augustine has a more direct approach to his speculation, often offering a solution to the questions he poses. One such topic he broached in The City of God against the pagans. In this text, Augustine addresses the problem of free will and extends his own viewpoint. Stating that humankind can have free will with an omniscient God, he clarifies by defining foreknowledge, free will, and how they can interact successfully together (Augustine, 198). Throughout his argument, he builds a compelling case with minimal leaps of faith, disregarding, of course, that you must believe in God. He first illustrates the problem of free will, that it is an ongoing questions amongst many philosophers, then provides insight into the difference between fate and foreknowledge. Finally, finishing his argument with a thorough walk-through on how God can know everything, and yet not affect your future decisions.
Answering these questions is the purpose of this essay. I begin by arguing that the Bible cannot be adequately understood independent of its historical context. I concede later that historical context alone however is insufficient, for the Bible is a living-breathing document as relevant to us today as it was the day it was scribed. I conclude we need both testimonies of God at work to fully appreciate how the Bible speaks to us.