Open or Classical?

We began quite the discussion tonight deciding to delve into the book God of the Possible by Gregory Boyd.   The Open view of God as opposed to the Classical view is explored in his book.  We decided to read it since last week we were grappling with some of the issues it discusses – issue that keep coming up in conversations about God.

I’m not sure we knew what we were getting into.

I looked up some stuff on the internet to see what was being said about this and came up with this and this.   Lots of interesting discussion.

I think we will  certainly stretch our minds a bit as we discuss this.  We are no theologians but we need to be aware of this and weigh the evidence for both sides as best we can.  I personally find that the open view makes sense to me but I also know that God’s ways are not always going to be understood by me.  I can accept that.  I also know that it is not necessary for me to choose between the viewpoints but to learn from both.


Comments Off on Open or Classical?

Filed under Books and Articles, Dealing with stuff, Devotional Reading

0 responses to “Open or Classical?

  1. Open theism is a fascinating subject matter. Would love to have participated in that discussion. Unfortunately…

    From what I’ve read about it, there’s a lot, as you say, that makes sense in the open view. What does Boyd have to say about it?

    You said something very profound: “I also know that it is not necessary for me to choose between the viewpoints but to learn from both.” I’ll have to remember that.

  2. This is the discussion about predestination from a different angle, from the look of things. I subscribe to both views, with adaptation to both.

    One thing strikes me about both perspectives: they describe mans relationship with God from a purely human perspective, and seem to almost ignore God in their understanding. There is apparently little consideration of how things might work from His perspective. I have observed this tendency in other work that tries to be scientific and analytical in understanding. Rather than attempt to interpret the whole picture, it takes a stance in one corner of the ‘ring’ and then produces a perspective that doesn’t fit comfortably.

    Thanks for making me think a little.

  3. Linea

    Toni and Marc,
    I guess that is why I say that I don’t think it is necessary for me to accept one view or the other. God knows I don’t understand much anyway.

    But I find it helpful to hear different viewpoints; keeps me from becoming dogmatic and lets me hear other people better as they struggle with such issues, especially these days as more and more people seem to blame God for not intervening in atrocities.