Talk:Open theism

Untitled

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)

Capitalization

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)

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)

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)

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)

Book removed from list

• The Sovereignty of God, Pink, Arthur (1919), Baker Books 1984 reprint, ISBN 0801070880

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)

Emergence of Open Theism in 1994?

As an ardent adherent to Open Theism, having researched it for years now, I would argue that Open Theism (albeit by a different name) actually goes back way further than 1994. At least to a guy named L.D. McCabe in the 1800's, and I think you can even find it here and there in some of the writings of the church fathers (ante-nicene particularly).

So I'm wondering what anyone thinks about editing the notion of emergence, and including something about it's historical roots?

To me, as an adherent, it seems a negative bias to claim that it is only as recent as the '90s.

Thoughts? Rmeegan 03:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It might be helpful to add a section on antecedents, but the article is about the named subject, which as far as we know began in 1994. An analogy would be to suggest that Christianity really began with Judaism. Of course that would be correct (see Lev. 19:18 for Jesus's "new" commandment), but we don't usually say that Christianity began with Moses rather than Jesus. --Blainster 05:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I included the history of open theism; to say that the name alone defines the particulars of the system does not seem to justify a failure to mention its historical proponents, as it is traditionally defined not by the name, but rather by the particular claims about the nature of God and the future. Furthermore, open theism is not the only name for the view even in modern writings--it is also referred to as free-will theism, the open view of God, the open view of the future, neo-Molinism, and several others. Again, it thus seems prudent to identify the history of open theism due to its claims rather than merely defining it by a name. --Jared: Feb. 4, 2006

Is it not in essence just a re-packaging of Arminianism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.91.13 (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Calcidius

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)

http://www.opentheism.info/pages/questions/traq/tradition_02.php Similar information can be found in Satan & the Problem of Evil, by Gregory Boyd. Here also are writings by Lorenzo McCabe and Joel Hayes: http://twtministries.com/articles/9_openness/mccabe_I/index.html http://twtministries.com/articles/9_openness/hayes_1890/HAYES001.pdf Wikipedia isn't the end-all of knowledge. A lack of a wiki article on a particular person or subject does not provide adequate grounds for rejecting valid information about a related subject. Case in point: Gregory Boyd does not yet have an article written about him. Does this mean that no reference can be made to him in any other wiki article? This proves particularly true for subjects which are only adequated represented in written form rather than in an electronic state (i.e. the internet). The writings of Calcidius (http://www.brill.nl/m_catalogue_sub6_id2280.htm) and most of the other theologians mentioned are occasionally still available in book form. In reference to whether open theism was a term used by Calcidius, I will again reiterate: "...to say that the name alone defines the particulars of the system does not seem to justify a failure to mention its historical proponents, as it is traditionally defined not by the name, but rather by the particular claims about the nature of God and the future. Furthermore, open theism is not the only name for the view even in modern writings--it is also referred to as free-will theism, the open view of God, the open view of the future, neo-Molinism, and several others." The common factor in Calcidius, the aforementioned theologians of the 19th century and modern open theists is not a name, but rather a particular view of the nature of the future and thus God's knowledge of that future. As such, an history of open theism can and should include mention of those who advocated the same view in the past, regardless of its name. --Jared: April 15, 2006.

Foreknowledge Heavy

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))

Blainster, what you discuss of classical theism is not what open theists take issue with and that's a problem with your edits in the intro. Open theism is formed counter to specific ideas in Classical theism and those ideas for most, if not all, mainstream open theists do not include omnipotence nor omniscience. Open theists have a lot to say about both of those topics but it is not in their opposition to those concepts as presented by classical theists.

From Sanders on omniscience:

"Omniscience may be defined as knowing all there is to know such that God's knowledge is coextensive with reality. Or following Hasker, it may be defined as 'at any time God knows all propositions such that God's knowing them at that time is logically possible.' The advantage of these definitions is that they do not prejudice the debate regarding the content of omniscience toward any particular view... Christian philosophers disagree about the nature of omniscience, not about whether or not God is omniscient."

The God who Risks 1998 p. 194

The definition of omniscience given is one to which any theist, even a classical theist can agree.

From Hasker on Omnipotence:

"To say that God is omnipotent means that God can perform any action, the performance of which is logically possible and consistent with God's perfect nature." (p 135)

"According to the open view of God, or 'free will theism,' God is strictly omnipotent as defined earlier in this chapter... It is worth stressing the point that God as so conceived is in no way deficient in power as compared with God as viewed by Calvinism."(pp 150-151)

The Openness of God 1994

The understanding of omnipotence outlined by Hasker is not unique to open theism and is understood by many philosophers and philosophy historians to have been the gist of Thomas Aquinas' understanding of omnipotence as is written in the intro to one of his essays on the topic of omnipotence found in a text book collection of philosophical writings.

"In affirming that God is omnipotent, Aquinas (1224-1274) is careful to explain exactly what it means to say this about God. It should be noted especially that God's omnipotence does not imply that God can do what is "impossible absolutely" because that is to do something that is contradictory (such as making a square circle)."

Philosophy of Religion Michael Peterson, William Hasker, et al, 1996 Oxford University Press p 109.

As for eternality, it is an ambiguous term. Scripture claims that God is eternal. Open theists agree with Scripture and contest the meaning of the Biblical definition of eternal. In technical, philosophical discussions, eternality usually refers to a B theory of time or timelessness in God. Given that there is this ambiguity in the word "eternal," it is more clear to use the term "timelessness." --Rob Rohrs 03:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Scriptural arguments

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)

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)

Was the KJV used intentionally or out of mere convenience? Despite the lyrical beauty of the KJV, there are several more accurate translations of the Bible available these days. Also, why doesn't the last Scripture (Isaiah 38:1-5) have any reference to which translation it uses? Ultimateteddy (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)K Burr

Classical theism.

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)

Historical developement fix and suggestions

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)

Peter Wagner

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)

JONAH, and other Enyart additions

I deleted a coment describing JONAH. I don't know if it was vanalized or if it was as strange as I encountered it. It stressed something about about the nativity, inheretence of sin through the father and so on, much of little immeadiate relevence to the topic. Whatever relevence it had, it was poorly explained. If that comment wasn't vandalized, perhaps it was simply too far removed from it's context. Whatever the case, if Enyart has a hermeneutic called Jonah, it needs a better explanation. Also, lets remember that open theism is not Enyart theism. Sanders and Pinnock have an approach to hermeneutics and to language and Nicholas Wolterstorrf and Greg Boyd have similar ones that are different yet.

There is another enyart comment about a split between open theists which I think does the topic poor justice. There are 4 or 5 different approaches to foreknowledge and the future and Alan Rhoda has described them very well on his blog.

Rob Rohrs

Okay, I altered the section to reflect the greater diversity of open theist positions on the future and foreknowledge. I added a comment about open theists coming from a variety of different theological traditions, but it would be good if someone were to fill that in. I just think though that it is very imbalenced and short sighted to merely list two categories of Bob Enyart and those who disagree with Enyart on dispensationalism. It's worth mentioning, but that one specific detail should be accompanied by other appropriate details. It will take a little research, and perhaps even book research beyond the internet as well as correspondence with Openness scholars.

Rob Rohrs (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have examined in detail all 38 posts of the online moderated debate between Samuel Lamerson vs. Bob Enyart, Openness Theology - Does God Know Your Entire Future?, and I found no mention whatsoever of a presumed "JONAH hermeneutics".

The only reference (relevant to the Open Theism debate) to the acronym JONAH ("Jehovah's obvious nativity attributes hermeneutic") available online, appears on the Blog Soli Deo Gloria (thread Open Theism, logically flawed, anonymous comment of May 3, 2008 12:40 AM)

So, for the moment, I have appended to the acronym JONAH cited in the main article a warning. If no clarification is forthcoming, I will remove the reference to "JONAH hermeneutics" from the main article
Miguel de Servet (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert, apparently I didn't explain this clearly enough in our debate with D. James Kennedy's prof. of New Testament Dr. Samuel Lamerson. You can find what I did wrote in my Post 6 in that 10-round written debate. It's hard to find because it is referenced like this: Jehovah’s Obvious Nativity Attributes Hermeneutic. I don't think that I explicitly used this hermeneutic in my 2014 O.T. debate with Dr. James White at Denver's Brown Palace hotel. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Clasical Theism and Free Will

I take issue with the claim in the first paragraph that "Classical Theists also believed that God fully determines the future". If we take Aquinas and Boethius as being classical theists it is clear that they did not have this view. Rather, Boethius argues in The Consolation of Philosophy that free will and omniscience are compatible because God exists outside of time. As God is timeless, it does not make sense to talk of God as having foreknowlege that predetermines human action. Rather than foreknowlege, God observes all events at all times as occuring simultaneously in one "eternal present".

The claim should therefore be changed to the effect that the Open Theist critique of classical theism claims that classical theism is incompatible with free will, as this is not something that classical theists themselves would agree with. Saluton (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Note the explanation in the first paragraph in paranthesis. The term "classical theism" in this debate is not intended to include all positions and ideas that are found within the tradition. There are two related ways in which this notion has been used in this debate. One usage is a label for the results of the synthesis of Christian theism and Greek philosophy which is not something that is flatly opposed as a whole by open theists but it is something as seen both as a boon to Christian thought (This is explained in the first or second footnote to Hasker's essay in "The Openness of God") as well as a source of error. The second sense in which it has been used with regard to some highly interrelated conceptions of God. It's in this sense that determinism is viewed as an essential part of classical theism. In this sense, thinkers such as Boethius would not be considered classical theists in the fullest sense (they are classical theists to a great degree, but not thoroughly).

As for the notion that it wouldn't make sense for a timeless God having foreknowledge that predetermines human action, well, whether he is timeless or not, that wouldn't make sense to open theists either because that isn't their argument. For the open theist, the problem isn't that foreknowledge determines human actions alleged to be free, but rather, it simply isn't logically compatible with libertarian freedom.--Rob Rohrs (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have altered the comment so as not to conflict with other usages of the term "classical theism". I described determinism as a feature of several versions of classical theism. I referenced an article from the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy on process theism which among other things, draws the connection between classical theism and determinism.--Rob Rohrs (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Innaccurate statement and wide misconception removed.

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)

Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses

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)

Diffuse Obtuse Prose

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))

Simplicity

"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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Open theism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Open Theism should NOT be equated with "traditional Arminian theology!" Roger Olson (one of the bigger Arminian voices) in "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities," says this: "Open theists argue that their view is consistent Arminianism. As they see it, they have fixed classical Arminianism's logical inconsistency between divine foreknowledge and human free will. But at what cost? Most Arminians have not jumped on the open-theist bandwagon because they are committed to the doctrine of predestination! Now, there is an irony! Calvinists accuse classical Arminians of not believing in predestination, but MOST CLASSICAL (emphasis mine) Arminians reject open theism precisely because they believe in predestination. If open theism is true, election and reprobation can only be corporate. But classical Arminianism bases a great deal on Romans 8:29, which seems to refer not to classes or groups but to individuals. God does not justify and glorify groups, but individuals. Classical Arminian theology includes corporate election and individual(conditional) election based on God's foreknowledge of future faith (or lack thereof). Open theism has to reduce predestination (election and reprobation) to its indefinite, corporate dimension; predestination of individuals gets lost. Some classical Arminians, such as Jack Cottrell, reject open theism because they believe it undermines God's providential advantage, which is debatable. It remains to be seen whether many Arminians will adopt open theism. Few Arminians are willing to denounce their open theist brothers and sisters as heretics, but most are unwilling at present to give up belief in absolute divine foreknowledge, because the Bible seems to assume it everywhere." His words have much more weight than mine! Calends (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 01:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Article lacks Bible references that support open theism

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)

does it need them? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Then be WP:BOLD and add them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Mislabelled section.

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)

Reformed theology and Calvinism are generally synonymous. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

How would you describe Piper if not a Calvinist? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Deep confusion

I believe that Fayadi (talk · contribs) is confused and may not be reading the lede correctly. There is a sentence that reads, "there are two factors that motivate open theist to embrace open theism". The second reason provided is they are responding "to ideas related to the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology". Boyd makes this clear in https://reknew.org/2019/06/how-people-misunderstand-open-theism/ (starting with "While researching some ancient philosophers who influenced theologians"). No I think the confusion is made clear in this edit as Fayadi asks "May you share link where you get the idea that Open theism is appropriated from early Greek philosophy". That is the exact opposite of what is being said. They are reacting to the syncretism of the God revealed in scripture and Greek thought. And so changing the text to read "The second is synthetic philosophy: the synthesizing of Philosophy and Christian theology." They are reacting to it, not making it happen. And now this edit. Again, they are not attempting to ingratiate Philosophy and Christian theology, they are reacting to that integration. I believe we have the same understanding, it's just that the lede needs to be written to make that clear, and that is not the case now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted to the original logic with a clearer wording. I have just understood that the original message position is that Open Theism is developed to move Christian theology away from Greek philosophy. If that is the intention, I am in agreement with the original logic. The original sentence merely use term 'response' which is vague. I initially thought from the wording, the sentence is trying to say Open theism comes as a result of (positive) response to the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology - which is factually incorrect. So now we are good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayadi (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You may not delete comments left by others. I have restored my comments and correctly added yours.

It seems to be better, but ledes should be a summary of the article and references should not be added to them, but this will do until one of my wikistalkers comes along to "fix" it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is a hot mess

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)

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)

Free will theism

Anon from Jakarta is edit warring to remove sourced content. Just because the term is used by others does not mean it is not used by some in the open theism camp as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not rational to use a self published source from an unknown author to get to define what Open Theism is. To be an Open Theist is not necessarily to affirm in an absolute free-will. The website provided has already expired. You should get to join Open Theist discussion forums and see how many Open Theists define themselves as free-will theists. I am in 3 Open Theist forums, no Open Theists identify themselves that way. Wikipedia's definition of Open Theism must reflect reality.

I gave this source,

https://document.desiringgod.org/beyond-the-bounds-en.pdf?ts=1446646765 You can see 20 instances of the word 'coercion' in this book that talks about open theism

This is a book written by prominent theologians to criticize Open Theism. These prominent theologians are calvinists. I am an Open Theist. I disagree with the theology of these theologians, these theologians use bad exegesis to reject Open Theism, but at least they understand how Open Theism works as we would like to portray how the system works. These theologians correctly understand that some of the more prominent Open Theist theologians take the position that God occasionally uses divine coercion to get what He wants to accomplish His plans. You can find 20 instances of 'coercion' in that book. Open Theists are not free-will theists. 118.137.97.251 (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

One source? The article has one source as well, and if you would like to add a point to WP:BALANCE that claim, feel free, but you should stop edit warring to remove the sourced content. Period. I do not care for your claims of coercion. It reminds me of well-meaning Calvinists who claim that Armenianism is Pelagianism. Stop conflating concepts, espeically from single sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Here are 2 sources from the mouth of prominent Open Theist.

1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQBECHTVCDM&t=4865s 2 minutes explanation by John Sanders a prominent Open Theist theologian - God removes human free-will to actualize what He has declared unconditionally. John Sanders said 'If it involves libertarian freedom and God does not remove the libertarian freedom BECAUSE OPEN THEIST BELIEVES GOD CAN DO THAT AND HAS DONE THAT. But if it involves God leaving the human with their libertarian freedom, then God in my opinion would not make such a prediction unconditionally..... However God can remove human freedom or if God wants to bring it about unilaterally then God can declare it'.

2. You have used Greg Boyd as a source. Here it is straight from his mouth.

[This passage is not a “crystal ball” sort of prediction. It is rather a declaration of what the Lord himself is going to accomplish. He is going to “grasp the hand” of Cyrus and direct him. This doesn’t imply that everything about Cyrus was directed by God or that Cyrus was not a free moral agent outside of God’s declared intentions. And it certainly doesn’t imply that everything about the future is foreknown by God. It only implies that whatever God has already decided he’s going to do in the future is known by him before he does it. He foreknows it by knowing his own intentions in the present.]

https://reknew.org/2008/01/how-do-you-respond-to-isaiah-4428-451/

John Sanders and Greg Boyd take the position that God removes human free-will in the naming of Cyrus.

If prominent Open Theist theologians believe God tinkers with human free-will to actualize what He has declared. It is not correct that Open Theism is Freewill Theism. Believing in Open Theism is about believing that the future is not settled. John Sanders and Greg Boyd believe the future is partially settled.

[Open Theism is the view that God chose to create a world that included free agents, and thus a world where possibilities are real. The future is pre-settled, to whatever degree God wants to pre-settle it and to whatever degree the inevitable consequences of the choices of created agents have pre-settled it. But the future is also open to whatever degree agents are free to resolve possibilities into actualities by their own choices.]

https://reknew.org/2008/01/what-is-open-theism-2/

Here is the middle approach, you can qualify that some Open theists label themselves as freewill theist.

I am curious. Are you an Open Theist? 118.137.97.251 (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop removing validly sourced content. I cannot stress this any more fervently than that. There is no timetable for us to jump to your requests, but vandalism—and removal of sourced content constitutes vandalism—does require immediate action.

Starting with Sanders, I am not watching a YouTube video, but based on the quote your provided, he stated "if".

Neither Boyd blog mentions either alternative name so we should remove them both.

In short, you are trying to apply WP:SYNTH to their selected statements and forcing extrapolations. None of these hold to the written claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

An expired content by an unknown person is not a valid proof of a sourced content. You need to have source from a valid theologian,

<Starting with Sanders, I am not watching a YouTube video, but based on the quote your provided, he stated "if".>

John Sanders has said God HAS REMOVED HUMAN LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM, he said God does it to bring about an unconditional prophecy unilaterally. The 'if' context means 'whenever' in the context of John Sander's statement. John Sanders said if(whenever) there is an unconditional prophecy involving human free-will, God will remove human free-will to bring about the prophecy. John Sanders said God would not make an unconditional prediction if He is not willing to remove human libertarian freedom.

Why are you ignoring this? No extrapolation. Occasional removal of human free-will is an affirmation that at least some Open Theists deny absolute belief in free-will.

There is no transcript of John Sanders vs James White debate. Only the video is available. I already gave you the timing where he said it, you only need to watch the clip for 1-2 minutes. John Sanders also said he and Greg Boyd both affirm God removed human free-will in the naming of Cyrus. Here is what Greg Boyd said [He even predetermines what the name of the king who shall release them shall be, undoubtedly as a sign to the Israelites that he—not the idols they were inclined to chase after—was responsible for setting them free (see 46:9–11; 48:3–5).] You would have read it if you read the link that I gave you.

I gave you 2 sources from the most prominent Open Theists that God occasionally remove human free-will. If it does not constitute a violation of free-will, nothing is.

Perhaps there are some Open Theists who deny God occasionally removes human free-will. Which is why the middle solution is to say: Some Open Theist call themselves as freewill theist.

Greg Boyd does not label himself as a freewill theist. Since he takes the position that God occasionally removes human free-will. To label oneself as a freewill theist with such a position allows an opponent to find inconsistency in his belief. Since he has never affirmed absolute free will in the first place, then he has no inconsistency.

Why are you not investigating my points? Are you not interested in discovering what the reality is? 118.137.97.251 (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

As explained, even if you find one source that clearly states "free will theism" is not a known concept in or not synonymous with open theism, the best you can do is BALANCE (read: check the link above for the portion of the policy that discusses what that means) the statement in the prose. You will not talk your way out of this quagmire you feel you need to create. Occasional removal of free will is not the same thing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop disrupting the article. You are simply mistaken. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Mistaken about what? How many open theists have you interacted with? You only have a limited interaction with open theists in this wiki page. Only some open theists consider themselves as freewill theism. This is a fact. If the rule says we must be balanced. I am being balanced. 118.137.97.251 (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Mistaken in your approach. Your question about how many open theists I have or have not interacted with alone proves you're relying on WP:OR, which is against policy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

You said this:

<As explained, even if you find one source that clearly states "free will theism" is not a known concept in or not synonymous with open theism, the best you can do is BALANCE (read: check the link above for the portion of the policy that discusses what that means) the statement in the prose.>

I did balance in the last edit. Some Open Theists consider Open Theism to be synonymous with Free-Will Theism. This is the wikipedia rule for balance.

[Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.]

If you are fair-minded, can you show an example of a description - to incorporate the viewpoint that open theism is not necessarily regarded as synonymous with free-will thesim?

If you read the link of John Sanders that I gave earlier, you see that John Sanders does not regard Open Theism to be synonymous with Free-Will Theism. Not only John Sanders but Clark Pinnock too here.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/dr-clark-h-pinnock-voice-of-open-theism.html

Both John Sanders and Clark Pinnock regard Open Theism as a branch of Free Will Theism. Not synonymous with Free-Will Theism.

So far only one reputable open theist theologian - David Bassinger, considers open theism to be synonymous with free-will theism. 118.137.97.251 (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

YOU have failed to balance it. All you did is bury it later in the lede. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)