Talk:Open theism

message: Why is there a "weasel word" tag on the "opponents" section?  I am not an opponent but I don't see any weasel words at all ... nothing there is any less clear than is any theological discussion.  I had previously removed the tag only for it to be reintroduced.  Can someone make clear exactly what the weasel part is?  I'd very much like for someone to tell us all clearly exactly what the "weasel" part is.  It seems to me that having the tag but not telling anyone what the unclear part is is what is in fact "weasely".  If someone sincerely thinks that there's something unclear then they should just correct it themselves instead of leaving this biased and defamatory tag there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.81.96 (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Should Open Theism, Free will Theism, Neo-orthodoxy, Stoicism, Hellenic Philosophers, Classical OmniGod, Open Theists et al. be all capitalized that way? Rafał Pocztarski 18:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. Some should like "Hellenic" and "Stoicism". As for the double-capitalized, OmniGod -- well, if I was all-knowing/powerful/benelevonent then I'd demand an extra capital. I did a google-search and got: OMNIGOD, omniGod, OmniGod, omnigod, OMNIgod ... but no omniGOD.  WpZurp 23:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have already decapitalized (decapitated?) words like Fatalism, Determinism or Process Theology. As for the rest, well, you certainly make a good point so let’s just say that I prefered to leave it alone just in case the concept of omnibenevolence was exaggerated. Rafał Pocztarski 01:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The rule of thumb here is: the only "isms" that should be capitalized are those which are constructed from a proper name.  Theism is a generic term, not a name of God, so it should not be capitalized (unless of course at the start of a sentence). --Blainster 23:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: * The Sovereignty of God, Pink, Arthur (1919), Baker Books 1984 reprint, 
This book, written in 1919 is a classic defense of the Calvinist position, but as it was published 75 years before open theism was proposed, it does not directly address the topic and so would be misleading to leave it on the list. It is left here for reference by those who may be interested.  --Blainster 22:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Book removed from list

message: There is no Wikipedia article on Calcidius, so if you know something about him you should write an article.  The only thing substantive I found on the Internet is that his only known work was a 4th or 5th century Latin translation and commentatay on Plato's Timaeus and that he was probably a Christian, so perhaps I will stub that much.  Since open theism was not likely a term used by Calcidius, the editor who added this should provide an explanation and reference.  Only one of the names listed as a 19th century writer on open theism Adam Clarke, has a Wiki article, and it does not mention open theism, so again, a reference here is needed.  --Blainster 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calcidius

message: Much of this article focuses on Open theism with regard to foreknowledge.  The considerations of open theism concerning foreknowledge are necessary to open theism and they are the most controversial aspect.  But they don't constitute the whole or the most important aspects of open theism.  I've added some missing elements (regarding timelessness, immutability, etc.) to the previously missing definition of open theism at the top of the article (which needs more fine tuning yet), but these elements need to be worked in to the rest of the article such as in the history and arguement sections.
Robert Rohrs April 21 2006
: Indeed the article seems to be missing a central argument.  Open Theism is essentially motivated by theodicy -why does suffering occur if God is all powerful and all loving?  Therefore it places freedom as central to love.  People must be free to love or not love God.  So God takes risks, limits himself etc.  This linked with an open future where omniscience means knowing what is logically possible (and if it hasn't happened yet then it's not logically possible to know) is what makes open theism rather than a scattering of differences.  It's also IMHO where the weak point is.  Will try and get round to putting some updates in to the article but probably will be the summer now (193.63.62.252 21:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreknowledge Heavy 

message: More could be said of the many Scriptures used for and against open theism. This article seems to have a good grasp of some of the philosophical arguments and implications of this theology, but I'm seeing very few Scripture references. As an open theist, while I find my views to be philosophically sound, it is biblical authority which is my primary motivation, and I suspect this would be the case for most open theists as well. If I have time I can try to compile such a list, unless someone else wants to try and tackle it first. Greg's Boyd's "God of the Possible" is a very good source. Thoughts?  [Matt Poppe]
Yeah there should be a substantial amount of scripture though it need not be exhaustive.  I would suggest scriptures not merely on foreknoledge but also on other aspects of open theism such as scriptures cited agains impassibility.  For that matter, there should be a section on biblical interpretation that may discuss the range of approaches taken by open theists such as Boyd and Wolterstorrf who take a literalist approach to Sanders who emphasises that the metaphors have not been truely respected in the tradition.
I've made a note of this in the article: Malachi 3:6 clearly invalidates any claim that the notion of God's immutability is a Hellenic idea ("For I am Jehovah, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob"). -- User:Spock 205.174.162.86 04:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Augustine, God did not say that, for any speaking is a change. That is a made creature proclaiming God's enteral will. That is how Augustine got over the problem of a talking "changeless" God. If you believe God actually said that, you must know he changes in some aspects.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychoelf (talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scriptural arguments 

message: I'm removing the parenthetical addition in the intro and adding a different one to the short description of classical theism.  The usage of classical theism by open theists revolves around those attributes of God including timelessness.  It may be true that some who held to some beliefs according classical theism didn't hold to timelessness.  However, that is where they part with classical theism, i.e. the Greek-Classical synthesis.  Classical theism is not synonomouse with traditional or orthodox theism which is considered much broader.  The usage of "classical" here does not simply mean the ideas that the old church fathers held but refers specifically to the doctrines that come from the greek influence.
--66.250.69.8 Rob Rohrs 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical theism. 

message: Okay, c'mon guys.  I highly doubt open theism could be considered widespread.  It may be gaining in popularity but it's still mostly scholars and their students who hold it.  As an open theist, I would like to think that it could be called widespread, but I don't think a census would show this.  I changed the statement to say that 1994 was when open theism recieved it's full articulation which is true and important.
The history section is a bit messy about this.  I don't have a problem with stating that open theism began in the last fifth of the 20th century, but historical developement should still go back to the early church fathers as thinkers through out the orthodox tradition of disagreed with various parts of classical theism.  Where they open theists?  No, but open theism cites these thinkers in their case against classical theism and as part of the roots of open theism.  Calcidius is an example of a person who should not be cited as an open theist.  Yes, he did believe that God knew the future as open as opposed to completely settled, but we don't know what he thought about other important views that are a part of open theism.  And that leads to another issue. Open theism is not primarily about God and what he knows or doesn't know about the future.  Read the intro to get an idea as to what it is that most open theists hold about open theism.  That God knows the future as open is not the source of most of the ideas behind open as the history currently asserts.  It is one of the results!  It is a conclusion, a necessary conclusion of open theism but not a premise and it is not the most important one.  It is merely the most controversial aspect.
All the other aspects get pushed to the back and hence the history section is missing important references to such persons as Martin Luther who stated contrary to classical theism that God suffers or Tertullian who was hostile to the usage of greek philosophy applied to Christian thought.  The history section doesn't have to be exhaustive but it should be broad.
I may work on it.  I'm tempted to overhaul it.
Rob Rohrs
--66.250.69.8 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical developement fix and suggestions 

message: Please. I'd like to know where C. Peter Wagner adopted the open theism. 201.74.188.25 (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Wagner 

message: This statement may be true of some open theists but it is not true of some of the most important ones:  "Open theists advocate that the Bible be read literally while understanding figures of speech such as metaphors, hyperboles, and synecdoches."
The entire second chapter of John Sander's book argues not that classical theists aren't taking scripture literally enough but rather, they are not taking the metaphors seriously enough.  Sanders argues that the traditional view of metaphors as a second rate means of communication is the problem and instead, we should view them as revealing reality in degrees, so for God,  anthropomorphisms as applied to God generally have a high degree of reality depiction (since God, as a person has much in common with humans), but metaphors such as God as a rock have a low level of reality depiction (since rocks and God have only a little bit in common).
Also, open theists Pinnock, Hasker and Vincent Brummer would not agree with the statement above that I have removed.  Pinnock is close to Sanders, Vincent Brummer has specifically argued for metaphor as the best means of speaking of God, and I don't know about Hasker on this particular topic, but as a theistic evolutionist, you could not accuse him of literalism. --Rob Rohrs (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innaccurate statement and wide misconception removed. 

message: I'm removing the stuff in the opening paragraph about these groups, for several reasons. For instance: It's really badly written (mostly on account of being the product of debate between people with opposing views, I think). The term "open theism" is (as the opening sentence says) generally used only within the evangelical and post-evangelical world. Statements like "Mormonism is contrary to these ... essential truths" and "Jehovah's Witnesses ... are defective in their unorthodox denial of [etc.]" are obviously not in the least NPOV.
There's something to be said for having a section later in the article about the relationship between "open theism" and other (mainstream Christian, marginal Christian, not at all Christian) traditions. But no way does it belong in the opening paragraph, especially not as it stands at present.
Here's the material I've removed, in case anyone wants to use it for something. "The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are also open theists and they have rejected classical theism since the church started. Mormons may share some concepts in common with Open Theists, but they are not usually identified with prominent Open Theism. Their doctrine of God is not held by Open Theists (cf. Process Thought has similarities on some points, but should not be confused with Open Theism). Open Theists are generally evangelical and orthodox on trinity, Deity of Christ, monotheism, eternality, etc. whereas Mormonism is contrary to these historical, biblical, orthodox, essential truths (their view is 'plurality of gods'/polytheistic). Likewise, Jehovah's Witnesses have more of an open theistic understanding of omniscience, yet are defective in their unorthodox denial of the Trinity, Deity of Christ, personality of the Spirit. They would not be identified with normative Open Theism and its affirmation of essential, orthodox truth, despite one point of non-essential agreement with Open Theism." There was a reference to a blog entry at the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research in support of the statement about the LDS.
Gareth McCaughan (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses 

message: Can someone present an introductory definition that is cogent?  Right now this article fogs:  "In short, [ROFL!] open theism is the view that since the fact of free choice means the future is partly a realm of possibilities, and God's sovereignty means the future is partly a realm of determined facts, God's omniscience entails knowing the possibilities as possibilities (as well as their respective probabilities) and determined facts as determined facts."  Could this be what you are trying to say:
:"God does not know or determine everything in the future, but only part of it; however, He does know the possibilities and probabilities of the unknown future." (EnochBethany (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Diffuse Obtuse Prose

message: "Simplicity: God has no parts, cannot be differentiated, and possesses no attribute as distinct from His being." 
What do you mean that God has no parts? What do you call the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? While they are 3 distinct Persons, they are nevertheless parts of 1 Divine Substance. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplicity 

message: Substituted at 01:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The article contains four Bible references in opposition to open theism (in the "Criticism" section), but I don't see any Bible references in support of open theism. Mksword (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: does it need them? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it needs them. The Bible does contain verses that support open theism (OT). It's unbalanced for the article to give anti-OT Bible references but not to give pro-OT Bible references. Mksword (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then be WP:BOLD and add them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article lacks Bible references that support open theism 

message: The section labelled, "Comparison of open and Reformed theism", actually compares Open Theism and Calvinism; Reformed Theism isn't mentioned at all.77Mike77 (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Reformed theology and Calvinism are generally synonymous. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The table that has a column labeled "Calvinism" does not contain any quotes from Calvin.  Most of the quotes are from John Piper, a living American Baptist.Parveson (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  How would you describe Piper if not a Calvinist? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mislabelled section. 

message: Reading this article does not seem useful nor accurate. 
Open Theism is united in the idea that God can acquire new propositional knowledge. Other than that, Open Theists have widespread inner fighting. Having an article give definitive positions on things like "perfection" is not useful. Nor is comparing Open Theism to Calvinism. Greg Boyd, in my podcast, stated at one point he was an Open Theist Calvinist (God determines all things, but dynamically). 
I'll try to clean this up, but we need to focus on capturing the wide diversity of thought within the movement. It is a loose confederation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherfisher (talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The primary problem with Wikipedia is subject matter experts don't usually work on articles. Instead, you have opponents of ideas writing and creating straw men so that their positions are more appealing. Also, you'll see a lot of discussion about why the topic is wrong. This article suffers a bit from both. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a hot mess