No, I am not aware of that and neither are the priests who are Open Theists. Apparently, we know something about catholic tradition that you do not.
Its a fact that Augustine allowed his neoplatonism to triumph over what Scripture revealed about God. This is demonstrated in his own writings. All church historians and others very familiar with the church fathers writings recognize that Augustine’s pagan philosophy greatly influenced his interpretation of Scripture. I’ll post the quotes that show Augustine giving authority to his philosophy over what is revealed in Scripture later on.
Let me see if I understand you correctly here. You are claiming that there is a 2,000 year history of dogmatic statements which say “God is timeless” and that “God’s knowledge of the future consists of totally settled realities”? Is that right? If so, then I am sure that you can demonstrate that, but I won’t hold my breath.
Specific papal statements concerning the content of the future that God knows and God’s experience of time does not come to mind. Neither does any ex cathedra teaching. Perhaps you can share a few, since you claim there is a 2,000 year history of dogmatic statements concerning God’s experience of existance/duration/sequence/, i.e. time.
Your attack on Open Theism could just as easily be applied to Molinism (developed by Luis de Molina in the 16th century) or Thomism (developed by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century) or Anselm’s ontological argument (the 11th century) or even against Augustine himself (the 4th century). A person could have used the same argument, saying, “Augustine/Anselm/Aquinas/Molina! Its been a good 300/1000/1200/1500 years since “the orthodox faith” was given and received! You have no need to write anything or try to explain what God is like! As if you could contribute to the teaching and belief of the church in some way with your recently-devised theological novelty, how arrogant!! Our views were all messed up until you came along and set us straight…harumph!”
If that is the case, then why does every philosophical group that has considered the Open View disagreed with you? If what you are saying is true, then the Evangelical Theological Society should have condemned Open Theism. It did not. The Orthodox philosophers would have done the same. But, they did not do so either. I guess they need you to come along and show them and the catholic bishops that the Open View is outside the bounds of “genuine Christian theology”.
That you continue to speak as if you know what you are talking about is a concern. Because you don’t know what you are talking about. There are many who do not hold to the open view, but they are extremely close to holding the view. This includes anyone that is an Arminian or a Free-Will Theist of varying varieties. Even Calvinists today reject “timelessness”.
Open Theism is a development of one of the traditions of the church. There are traditions, not one monolithic tradition that is believed “Everywhere, always, and by all”. You are showing that you are woefully ignorant of historical theology by talking this way.
It defines God’s attributes according to what has been revealed in Scripture primarily. When Scripture says that God will not be in Hell, we believe it. When Scripture says that God repented or changed His mind or will choose to forget past sins, we believe it. When Scripture says that God thought perhaps or said it may be, we believe that He said/thought that. We do not say “we know the passage says that, but we know that cannot be true of God due to reason” as you do. And that is exactly what you say in a roundabout way.
You think so, eh? If that is so, then demonstrate it. Your claiming it is so does not make it so. It is a fact that a core belief of the open view is that God has freely decided to be, for some things, conditioned (affected) by his creatures. God has established things in such a way that some things God desires may not happen. For example, God wants all to experience the divine love but we can refuse it. Hence, we affirm that God does not control every single thing which happens in history. In this, we are in agreement with virtually all the fathers prior to Augustine, the Eastern Orthodox Church, many thinkers of the Middle Ages, Arminians, Wesleyans, the majority of Pentecostals, etc.
.
Being a priest does not automatically qualify one as an expert on the Catholic Church so this does nothing to bolster your claims. Please respond to the authentic Catholic teaching as presented in the Catechism.
This is quite an unsubstantiated claim given that open theism is not in agreement with the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church nor does it seem to pass muster with some very prominent leaders of the “sola scriptura” crowd as evidenced below:
). Since OT departs from that Traditional understanding of God held by Christians throughout Church history, it must to that extent be considered incompatible with Christian orthodoxy.Your statement here assumes that there is unanimous agreement concerning the statements in these references for the past 2000 years. There is not unanimous agreement and still isn’t.
Its not that God permitted what occured. Its that God incorporated the undetermined and free rebellious choices of those in Israel into His plan of salvation. None of those individuals had to do evil, because God does not want anyone to commit evil and be lost (1 Tim 2:3-7; 2 Pet 3:9). And God does not do evil so that good may come, otherwise He would be telling us to be holier than He is which is impossible (Rom 3:8; 1 Pet 1:16). Woe to those who call evil good and good evil (Is 8:20.)
This claim is nowhere supported through Scripture or reason or anything else and is pure conjecture. God did not need to know that He would specificly pick Mary at the time He decided to become incarnate in order to bring about His will. God could just as easily have borught about His will through another woman and done so using present knowledge.
If God has determined that Eve sins and Mary says yes then they have no choice whatsoever but to do waht God has determined they will do. This is not the image of a loving, genuine, I-Thou relationship that God makes clear He desires over and over again in Scripture.
That last part was fine until the last half of the last sentence. My view of God is greater and more worthy of praise because He can bring about His will through any number of routes. He can triumph despite the fact that most men resist His will for them, which is life and peace and love. It is indeed possible to resist God’s will as Luke shows us.
Did God predestine that the Pharisees and lawyers resist His will at that moment? No way! God is not schizophrenic. The view of God presented in that passage of the catholic catechism is.
Also, there are passages that explicitly tell us that God did not plan or ordain what occured . Consider the following.
Here is God explicitly revealing to us that He did not predestine what occured includinhg each person’s response to His grace. He did not predestine it because it never entered His mind that they should do these evil acts. All that enters His mind concerning what He wants for Israel and for the world is good. He imagines and thinks of us doing His will, not burning our children.
its not in agreement with Classical Theism which is the interpreation of the Bible based upon Neoplatonic philosophical assumptions. Because we rightly reject Platonic Rationalism which states that God cannot change in any way (become incarnate, experience emotion, etc.) or respond to us in any way (prayer, praise, etc.) we interpret Scripture a bit differently now that these philosophical shackles are off. When God says that He responds, we can believe it without reservation, instead of responding by saying “No! The Scripture is not describing God as he really is! God does not change because we have come to the conclusion through Platonic Rationalism that a perfect God cannot change in any way or respond to anything or even have a thought.”
I have no respect for any of those guys. If you had experienced how they conducted themselves during the debate over the past 10 years or so and at the Annual Conference of the Evangelical Theological Society in Colorado Springs, CO in 2001, you wouldn’t have any respect left for them either.
The Open View is pretty doggone catholic Donald. It fits very well with catholic teaching, with the only barriers being “timelessness” and “exhaustive definite foreknowledge”. Most people have bought into the idear that time is an “entity”. Its not. They are reifying time. Time is not a thing or entity, its simply how we describe our existence. This occured at this time and then this and the next thing and so forth. Existence is what’s real, not our description of it as “time”. And once its shown that God knowing the future as completely settled in no way helps God to exercise His providential control then exhaustive definite foreknowledge falls quickly along with total immutability (which denies the incarnation) and they arrive with me at the Open View.
If you read the early church fathers more you will realize that they were at least open to the open view to some extent. Had Neoplatonism not had such a big influence on the early church you would have seen a lot of Open Theists.
You abused that Scripture. WE in this passage refers to John and the “children” who are of God.
you go on
And having been said while mangling Scripture in the process.
You have yet to prove this.
You demonstrated that what I said was correct in your last post where you quoted some mediocre evangelicals as significant evidence that some Protestants do not accept the Open View. You truly are talking as if you know what you are talking about even though you don’t. Its typical catholic behavior.
You demonstrated that what I claimed about you was true. Its an ad hominem no longer.
No. I am simply calling a spade a spade. No desperation in that.
I do not desire to employ such a tactic. Thank you for showing that what I said in my earlier post was true