Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by humblethinker, Nov 16, 2012.
Roger Olson has an interesting blog post here...
There's a "can of worms"............
Personally, I don't consider Open Theism heresy, but neither do I consider it "Arminianism" either.
"Open Theists" need to decide what camp they belong in, or they need to merely create their own "Camp".
"Arminianism"...to my understanding, grants God's Complete and Ultimate Omniscience in every detail.........EVERY DETAIL. Open Theists claim that certain things are, (by definition) un-knowable. Arminianism rejects this.
Arminianism, as I understand it, believes that:
1.) ALL things are truly "knowable" by God
2.) He DOES, in fact, know them
Thus, Arminianism is consistent with complete Omniscience, and Open Theism is not...
Olson is wrong IMO...in that he is so dedicated to preserving God's "character" that he errs on that side.
I like Luke24/7's (quite bold) argumentation that "Free-Will" is not EVEN CRITICAL!!!
I disagree with Luke on that, but frankly, I don't think Olson knows how to counter so bold an argument if he tried. Luke makes some interresting points with his argument, and frankly...I don't think Olson could counter them.
Olson wrote a bad article here IMO.
I think Olson was wrong on two things:
1.) Olson simply has NEVER truly understood "Middle Knowledge" IMO...VERY few people do. "Middle-Knowledge" and "Molinism" are RARELY understood by most people, and that includes Calvinists usually. I have heard some people speak of my "failed Molinism ideas"....and I know un-equivocally that they simply neither understand them, nor what is wrong with them, and couldn't debate them accurately for a second...That doesn't mean that only superior intellects are capable of getting it....it just means that most are yet incapable of reading their ideas without too many pre-suppositions about what it automatically entails. One is required to divorce themselves of a LOT of pre-concieved assumptions to understand "Molinism" or "Middle Knowledge"....and I think most people (even ingenius ones) simply can't do it. I cite IMO.....Aresman, who is
b.) Highly Educated
c.) Someone I personally think the World of....(Theologically Speaking)
d.) Doesn't Actually quite understand "Middle knowledge" or "Molinism" IMO
2.) Open Theism is not consistent with Arminianism....
Olson argues otherwise.
Olson is simply wrong..........
3.) Olson's article IMO bastardizes Arminianism, but it doesn't protect Open Theism
I think he has cheapened Arminianism, and done it an ill-turn. I understand why...
His article wasn't a defense of "Open-Theism" per se.....It was an argument about how::
If "Molinism" is acceptable...then why not "Open Theism"???
This argument stems from his failure to understand Molinism....his failure to comprehend Open Theism...and IMO...his actual failure to understand the THRUST of Arminianism.....
Yes, I am arguing that he doesn't understand "Arminianism" here, and this is why:
I am an "Arminian" (with Molinistic tendencies et al) But not MERELY because I can't reconcile Calvinism with my opinions about God's "character"....and Olson seems to speak so. Granted, I can't reconcile Calvinism with what I deem to be God's character...but Olson seems to think that that is all that is involved...He is wrong. I simply can't resolve Calvinism NOT ONLY with what I think the Bible reveals as God's "Character"....but, I also simply think that Calvinism mis-interprets God's METHOD of dealing with MAN as well.
I have lost a LOT of respect for Olson by reading this article...
He didn't defend "Open-Theism" against "Molinism"
I think he cheapened BOTH.
I think they (OT) should consider their theology separate from Arminianism as far as the aspect that there is no relationship between the OT of view of God being limited in knowledge and Arminianism in the eyes of most Arminians. The OT people might agree with the soteriological view of Arminianism but OT come to their conclusions of how God allows for free will much differently as Arminians generally do not sacrifice the Divine attributes of God’s foreknowledge to get there (maintain creaturely volition). Calvinists/Determinists often like to say that (or accuse) in a strawman argument that Arminians arriving to true creaturely volition is through OT but they don’t give up on divine attributes to get there, period.
Now in the article here we a theologian who is OT basically agreeing with the Determinists that the sacrifice of Divine foreknowledge is needed to arrive to a true view of free will. Thanks Olson, but NO THANKS! You may be in headed in the same direction as Arminians but you are definitely using a different boat to get there!
As the article recognizes, OT give Calvinists critics reason (although disingenuous reason) to lump all Arminians together on that OT can only be the logical end-point to Arminianism. Frankly, my OT friends, you are bad for the reputation of a correct soteriological view that does not need your “cop-out” on Divine attributes to support it. And…Yeah Riiigghtt! Of course “he doesn’t want to get into MK”…he’d rather take the “easy” way! (BTW, after saying such he goes right ahead and does make a feeble attempt to argue MK = OT logically) …he wants the cake and to eat it too.
Nope! And no thanks! I give credit to Calvinist who attempt to stick to Compatibilism to avoid fatalism and heresies which I do not give to Hard Determinists and I hold the same standard on Open Theists. If OT wants to forego Divine attributes they are more in the boats with the Hard Determinists which are making a hard left in the wrong direction rather than on the path Arminianism heads which is out to maintain ALL Divine attributes.
On that note, I would say Calvinist’ Compatibilism and Arminian’ Middle Knowledge views are more amicable together than that of Arminianism and Open Theism.
Olson is right on one thing, I don’t care to have the OT view trying to be sleeping in my tent, we may camp together in some aspects but at the end of the night the OT people have eaten far too many beans. :smilewinkgrin:
How can open theism NOT be heresy?
I believe the Arminianism carried to the extreme can lead to open theism. However, open theism is a heresy; the normal band of Arminianism, while wrong, is not a heresy!
Are you saying that Roger Olson is an Open Theist?
Not addressed to ME, by any means...
But I would rather be a Calvinist...than an Arminian who thinks that "Open Theism" is consistent with "Arminianism".....It isn't....
I classify myself as an Arminian.
I classify myself as "Molinistic"
Open Theism is INCONSISTENT with EITHER
I do NOT call "Open Theism" "heresy"
I do consider "Open Theism" false or wrong or mistaken...it is categorically NOT TRUE.
"Open Theism" has NO place protected by the umbrella of "Arminian" Theology...
Don't expect Arminians to do it for you...
You are categorically WRONG about the fundamental nature of "Omniscience"...Arminianism knows this, Molinism knows this, Calvinism knows this....
Olson was merely STUPID with his contention that Open Theism is appropriately placed as a sub-category of "Arminianism"...His ONLY reason for thinking so, is that he is equally objectionable to "Molinism" and "Molinists" find themselves (often or usually) comfortably embraced by them...Arminians, that is, (as a sub-category).
Olson objects to Molinism MORE than he objects to "Open Theism"...but, that doesn't mean that Open Theism is equally consistent with Arminianism..
It isn't...Olson simply has no clue what "Molinism" or "Middle-Knowledge" really is... Neither do most Calvinists...Fine.
But Molinism is consistent with Arminianism, and Open Theism isn't. This is not a subjective question.
By defining heresy other than simply "wrong"...It is indeed "wrong"...but doesn't classify as "heresy"....The Pentecostals are "wrong" with their views about "speaking in tongues" and what-not...but they aren't "heretics" for it...They MAY be...if they make said issues Salvific, but not merely on it's face.
And.....OR is absolutely correct, other than my belief that "Arminianism" isn't "wrong" as he says...He is absolutely correct.:wavey::godisgood:
Interesting HoS, can you provide evidence that Olson has no clue what Molinism or MK really is?
Do you want me to post a website called: Olson doesn't understand Molinism.com????
I am making a blanket undefended statement....a bald assertion. I also stand BY my bald assertion
1.) HoS Baldly asserts that he has sufficient knowledge of Molinism and Middle Knowledge to differentiate between those who understand it's fundamental tenents and those who don't.
2.) HoS also Baldly asserts that he has sufficient knowledge of Roger Olson's arguments to understand them sufficiently
3.) HoS also Baldly asserts that Olson does NOT understand Molinism or Middle Knowledge sufficiently.
Take it or leave it.
A "closet wannabe" would probably be putting it more accurately.
HoS, I don't quite follow what you are saying here... OldReg is saying that extreme Arminianism can lead to Open Theism. What part of that are you agreeing with? Is the character of God issue in arminianism that leads to Open Theism? Is it that part of Arminianism that has God taking some kind of a risk that leads to Open Theism? Are you saying that Simple Foreknowledge logically leads to Open Theism? What part of Arminianism leads to Open Theism?
I ask that you do more than stand by it... anyone can do that. Make the case for it. You have not done so yet.
Are you saying that 'closet wannabe' more accurately reflects your opinion of Olson or more accurately reflects what is actually the truth of the matter? If it's the latter, can you provide reasons how? (more than just pointing to an entire blog entry).
This is important since Arminians use this issue when defending their belief. Don't you think it is important that they be warned about this more precisely? HoS, can you be more specific about taking the Character of God issue too far? Can you describe where Arminians should stop or feel like they are getting too extreme? At what part of the logical arguement that Arms use should they start to be concerned?
Well both, it wouldn’t be my opinion if I didn’t believe it was the truth.
First clue, he demonstrates a lot of sympathizing and defense for the OT position, as seen in both the blog entries. He has even taken sides against MK in favor for OT, further demonstrating he does not recognize the validity of MK. I don't think he is left with much defense if he can't deal with the Divine foreknowedge issue logically. So...
In agreement with what HOS said:
"I think there are too many who focus on the "Character" argument....who defend it at ALL costs...and they will default to Open Theism in order to avoid Calvinism.”
I think then he may very well be stuck between a rock and a hard to defend his view and ability uphold the Divine attributes against the conclusions of Calvinism in debate and that is the reason for the sympathizing, wanting to include OT as typical Arminians, and ambitious defense of OT, etc. He resorts to OT.
There are also hints of his "closet OT wannabeism" in his words, such as:
So, he publicly denies being an Open Theist and yet you doubt his motives and publicly accuse him of such? That is rather suspicious and unfair.
I'll tell you what - go around making a bunch of arguments for supporting the gay lifestyle and add in some statements like this:
In fact, if I ever become a gay, nothing will change in the way I pray or worship or witness or try to glorify God in all that I do.
I dare you. :laugh: Then publically deny it if you will - See where it gets you. :laugh: Think in unfair if you like.