we don't need no stinkin' open theism

We have a God who is capable of self-sacrifice for us .... Now, herein is a wonderful thing. Men tell us that God is, by very necessity of His nature, incapable of passion, incapable of being moved by inducement from without; that he dwells in holy calm and unchangeable blessedness, untouched by human sufferings or human sorrows for ever, - haunting

The lucid interspace of world and world,
Where never creeps a cloud, nor moves a wind,
Nor ever falls the least white star of snow,
Nor ever lowest roll of thunder moans,
Nor sound of human sorrow mounts to mar
His sacred, everlasting calm.

Let us bless our God that is not true. God can feel; God does love. We have Scriptural warrant for believing, as it has been perhaps somewhat inadequately but not misleadingly phrased, that moral heroism has a place within the sphere of the divine nature: we have Scriptural warrant for believing that, like the hero of Zurich, God has reached out loving arms and gathered to his own bosom that forest of spears which otherwise had pierced ours.

But is not this gross anthropomorphism? We are careless of names: it is the truth of God. And we decline to yield up the God of the Bible and the God of our hearts to any philosophical abstraction. We have and we must have an ethical God; a God whom we can love, in whom we can trust.
-B.B. Warfield, quoted in John Frame, The Doctrine of God

(What Open Theism is)

October 14, 2003 09:38 AM
3 Comments

Just to clarify: are you pro- or con- Open Theism. It seems con, but I wanted to be clear.

Also, for some reason that I can't discern, Baltiblogs does not remember who I am each time I comment, despite the fact that I always select "Yes" for Remember personal info.

Pondered by Greg at October 23, 2003 11:03 AM

I am con-Open Theism. The intent behind the quote was to show that it is possible to believe in a God that rules completely over all things and is still loving, as opposed to Open Theism's belief that the only way God could be loving is to give up authority.

I don't know whats up with remembering personal info. I'll check into it.

Pondered by maphet at October 23, 2003 08:21 PM

I thought so, but I wasnt sure. I've come across the same idea in Judaism, that wiki link you posted links to Process theology, which is similar, and seems to be more popular with Jewish theologians. I talked about the Jewish version on my blog a few weeks ago, http://presence.baltiblogs.com/archives/000102.html ...not sure if my answer is any good, but the solution offered by process theology/open theism is definetly NOT a traditional view. The scary thing is that when Kushner wrote his book, When Bad Things Happen To Good People, many who had not been exposed to Judaism took it as an authentic exposition of traditional Judaic theology. Which it is most certainly not.

Pondered by Greg at October 24, 2003 01:33 PM