One Way Fundamentalists define Open Theist

[Benjamin Burch]

Good, because my feet hurt enough as it is. BTW, I would have never picked that book you recommended on my own, it has that dependent clause out there by itself again, thats a turn-off for me, even realizing that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. In this case you can read the aforementioned proverb literally

It was something I'd never noticed until I went to get the title and thought of it in light of my response to you.

[Benjamin Burch]

That's the one

Oh. Well it is much more than just on Wiley's "Christian Theology" last I recall.

[Dan Henderson]

Oh. Well it is much more than just on Wiley's "Christian Theology" last I recall.

I need to restate. I am reading Quanstrom's dissertation AND Wiley's "Christian Theology"

[Benjamin Burch]

I need to restate. I am reading Quanstrom's dissertation AND Wiley's "Christian Theology"

That is in fact what you said the first time. I'm sorry. I am finishing my last paper for my last class in this MA. My brain hurts and my eyes hurt from the computer screen right now. 18 pages done, about 7-10 to go, with probably editing 2 out from what has already been written. My reading comprehension probably isn't at its best right now.

And, P.S. You're really reading Wiley's entire Christian Theology? Gross. *puke*

[Dan Henderson]

That is in fact what you said the first time. I'm sorry. I am finishing my last paper for my last class in this MA. My brain hurts and my eyes hurt from the computer screen right now. 18 pages done, about 7-10 to go, with probably editing 2 out from what has already been written. My reading comprehension probably isn't at its best right now.

And, P.S. You're really reading Wiley's entire Christian Theology? Gross. *puke*

I've been there and its painful. I had a ton of papers and I chose the capstone route versus the thesis route (because I was given a choice, why would I write a thesis if I did't have to). I ended up writing the equivalent to a thesis in my capstone so the last laugh was on them.

I'm not reading Wiley all at once, I've read two chapters. I'm not reading Quanstrom all at once either (though I did get through his second book pretty quickly because it wasn't written in dissertation language.

Good luck with your papers. I would not want to be in your shoes again.

[Benjamin Burch]

I've been there and its painful. I had a ton of papers and I chose the capstone route versus the thesis route (because I was given a choice, why would I write a thesis if I did't have to). I ended up writing the equivalent to a thesis in my capstone so the last laugh was on them.

I'm not reading Wiley all at once, I've read two chapters. I'm not reading Quanstrom all at once either (though I did get through his second book pretty quickly because it wasn't written in dissertation language.

Good luck with your papers. I would not want to be in your shoes again.

Haven't read that one. Doubt I will, though. Thesis to write and all. Then, I have too much reading on my plate for my own good between degrees. At which point I'll be reading for another degree, lol. Besides, it's probably too Nazarene for me if I know Dr. Q.

BTW, Q is the man who is responsible for me taking up graduate work. I will be forever grateful to his encouragement, support, and words of validation.

[Hans Deventer]

My specific focus on Nazarenes is for those who call themselves Elders (with or without formal education). My concern is not about what non-Nazarene elders or Nazarene laymen say or publish but what Nazarene Elders say and publish.

Well, that's good news. I'm nothing but a layman. Should ease my paranoia.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

My point isn't to attack the number. I was just thinking that if I focus on that number, I miss the obvious meaning of the story. I'm also keenly aware that many numbers have significance in the scriptures beyond just being numbers. For instance, when you end up with 12 baskets of leftovers, that number has a "loaded" meaning given that there are 12 tribes and that brings even more meaning to the fact that there were that number of leftovers.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Well, that's good news. I'm nothing but a layman. Should ease my paranoia.

And, of course, it's no big deal for pastors who already have plenty of pressure, including the responsibility of being shepherds of the flock and accountable to the Great Shepherd to have self appointed judges who think it's their job to be their critics.

[Craig Laughlin]

Maybe I can by indicating, suggesting that the modern usage of inerrant is as a synonymn to infallible. If not as a true synonymn then as an interchangeable or closely related word. So when I look at word useage, I look at its modern uses as well as its original uses. If the term has been highjacked or co-opted in modern language and there is a better or equal word available, I will use the modern substitute rather than try to reclaim the original meaning of the word. When there are no good words available, then we need to try to reclaim the word.

Inerrant in its most basic sense means, fixed or not moving.
Infallable in its most basic sense means, not capable of error or unable to fail.

These two words have been combined in modern language to mean much the same thing. In addition, not only have they become interchangable, but their basic meanings have merged. The problem is that these words (both of them) are part of the language of the adademic world of theology. Academic areas have the right to have their terms and to define them to a specific standard. So you have here root meanings, basic meanings, modern, meanings, and professional meanings. This is not unique to religion, it just is more acute because it is religion. So what I have seen is a range (think horizontal analog scale versus digital scale) of ideas of and a lot of people talking, using the same words, but not speaking the same language and no attempt by either side (though there are more than two sides) in attempting to understand what the other speaker is saying.

So back to the word usage. Since these words have taken on a combined meaning of both the individual terms, and me knowing of no other single word that can convey such clear meaning, I have chosen to use inerrant as the representative term. If I had chosen infallable "The Infallable Word of God", that would have taken on just as much debate, just in a different vein. Somewhere along the line, someone would have pointed out that infallable invokes the Pope more than it invokes the Word of God.

At least the term "inerrant" belongs almost exclusively to the Church (popular and academic) and pretty much invokes that you are talking about Scripture when you are using it.

Some other time I may tell you about a conversation I had with a Witch (note the capitalization), as in a Wiccan who refered to herself as a Witch. It is my best example of when it is not a good idea to try to claim or re-claim a word or phrase. As another example, gay, meaning happy or glad is gone forever and we have acceptable substitues.

Thank you Dan.

Unfortunately I still don't understand how exactly you define inerrant. I appreciate that words have localized (communal as well as geographical) connotations but I'm not sure that is helpful. Unless you are arguing that your particular local connotation which blends the two words is the right way to do it? Or maybe you are arguing that we can't know the meaning of words because everyone has their own connotation? You reject the authority of the academy to define words instead opting for understanding via usage which I would normally agree with but when working with nuanced theological points across many different communities that has a tendency to create a great deal of miscommunication. Generally inside a discipline the academy provides (often informally) the definition. If folks don't like it they just coin another word.

You tell us you came to Naznet because we were misrepresenting inerrency. We were/are using the word in the academically accepted manor. So please - without using the word inerrant - define it for me. Please communicate the idea and parameters. I, and most theologians I know, would recognize a very large difference between inerrant and infallible. (Inerrant having to do with the substance of something and Infallible having to do with the purpose of something) This really is confusing to me. I'm open to some new nuance of the word but I need to know what that nuance is which so frustrates you. Just articulate it plainly and clearly. Thanks.

[Dan Henderson]

And, of course, it's no big deal for pastors who already have plenty of pressure, including the responsibility of being shepherds of the flock and accountable to the Great Shepherd to have self appointed judges who think it's their job to be their critics.

We had that same issue in the accounting world. Enron came along and shed light on that type of thinking. Congress responded with Sarbanes-Oxley, reckoning that if the CPAs could not or would not govern themselves then the government would have to do it for them. Self-righteous or not, you can call me any name you chose, either you mind our store or I will do it for you.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

We had that same issue in the accounting world. Enron came along and shed light on that type of thinking. Congress responded with Sarbanes-Oxley, reckoning that if the CPAs could not or would not govern themselves then the government would have to do it for them. Self-righteous or not, you can call me any name you chose, either you mind our store or I will do it for you.

What name would you call people who appoint themselves to be critics of pastors? Are you suggesting that someone appointed you to criticize clergy of our denomination with whom you disagree?

Your vision here of how the church of Jesus Christ is supposed to operate is so distant from the loving, supportive, caring description Jesus gave that it's in another galaxy - and, from my point of view, from another kingdom as well.

[Kevin Rector]

...either you mind our store or I will do it for you.

I wonder if you understand how this sounds to a person who has devoted their life to Christ and His church?

[Benjamin Burch]

We had that same issue in the accounting world. Enron came along and shed light on that type of thinking. Congress responded with Sarbanes-Oxley, reckoning that if the CPAs could not or would not govern themselves then the government would have to do it for them. Self-righteous or not, you can call me any name you chose, either you mind our store or I will do it for you.

But you are not qualified to do it. The Church has something called "ordination" for a reason. Those who are called to serve the Church in such a capacity have a call which is recognized by the church.

[Benjamin Burch]

What name would you call people who appoint themselves to be critics of pastors? Are you suggesting that someone appointed you to criticize clergy of our denomination with whom you disagree?

Your vision here of how the church of Jesus Christ is supposed to operate is so distant from the loving, supportive, caring description Jesus gave that it's in another galaxy - and, from my point of view, from another kingdom as well.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

[Rich Schmidt]

My specific focus on Nazarenes is for those who call themselves Elders (with or without formal education). My concern is not about what non-Nazarene elders or Nazarene laymen say or publish but what Nazarene Elders say and publish. I am especially critical of those who are technically correct but communicate in such a manner as to confuse those they are supposed to be teaching.

As to my qualifications to critique an Elder - When I see sufficient evidence that Elders are sufficiently critiquing each other in the CoTN (Peer Review), at all levels, then I will back down. With no other evidence of checks and balances in place, my credentials will have to do and I am a thorn in your side until I draw my last breath or sufficient evidence of the former is provided.

To follow up on other recent posts: I personally don't mind feedback, constructive criticism, questions, etc. Generally, when I receive such, it's from folks in my church, whether long-time members or new visitors. I ask for feedback, comments, questions.

I'm accountable to those I serve, generally, and that takes on specific focus through my accountability to the church board. They have the help of the District Superintendent, who in turn has the help of the General Superintendents, if something comes up that can't be handled locally.

What I'm unclear on is what elders you're critiquing, Dan. Your pastor? Great, I'm sure he or she appreciates the conversation, especially if it comes from a place of love and respect. Beyond that... well, I guess if I were to receive an email or call from some random Nazarene whom I've never met who has a question about something I said in one of my message podcasts or some comment I made here on NazNet... well, I'd be happy to talk to them, as time permits, so long as they're patient, courteous, etc.

You're talking about being "a thorn in your side until I draw my last breath" until elders start "sufficiently critiquing each other." I'm not sure what you're looking for. Do you want us to be listening to each other's sermons and critiquing them? Why not just let their church boards handle that? I have good relationships with several other pastors on my district, and we talk about all sorts of things, challenging each others' thinking, encouraging each other, etc. But you seem to be looking for something more....?

Maybe you could give us some context for all this...

[Dan Henderson]

I wonder if you understand how this sounds to a person who has devoted their life to Christ and His church?

That type of person won't be threatened one bit by me, only those who have something to hide.

[Dan Henderson]

I'm accountable to those I serve, generally, and that takes on specific focus through my accountability to the church board..

No issue there.

[Dan Henderson]

But you are not qualified to do it. The Church has something called "ordination" for a reason. Those who are called to serve the Church in such a capacity have a call which is recognized by the church.

That is a Theocracy attitude to which I don't subscribe. I understand the the CoTN was formed with a 50/50 construct. If we want a Theocracy, we can form our government similar to the UMC and stop pretending.

[Dan Henderson]

What name would you call people who appoint themselves to be critics of pastors? Are you suggesting that someone appointed you to criticize clergy of our denomination with whom you disagree?

Your vision here of how the church of Jesus Christ is supposed to operate is so distant from the loving, supportive, caring description Jesus gave that it's in another galaxy - and, from my point of view, from another kingdom as well.

Critique would be a more appropriate word. Criticize has been co-opted to almost alway take on negative connotations.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Critique would be a more appropriate word. Criticize has been co-opted to almost alway take on negative connotations.

It was your word, but if you want to change it I'm okay with that.

It's still nothing close to what the church is supposed to look like. The very fact that pastor has a mandate to preach the Word suggests that there are to be people who are listeners to that preaching. If you are "critiquing" the sermon you aren't listening to it as the Lord intended.

Now...it's one thing for a listener to hear something and think they don't believe that's right. That's an entirely different thing than setting yourself up as a "critiqueor of Nazarene pastors." There are many spiritual gifts, but there is no gift of "sermon and teaching critiquer" and there's no such office described in the Church Manual. Again, "accusing the brethren" doesn't come out of the Kingdom of God.

[Benjamin Burch]

That is a Theocracy attitude to which I don't subscribe. I understand the the CoTN was formed with a 50/50 construct. If we want a Theocracy, we can form our government similar to the UMC and stop pretending.

The people get a say in who their Bishops are, yes, but 50/50? No. Not even close.

As I have said to others who talk like this.... why don't you go ahead and start your own seminary where you train Elders if you're so more qualified than

(1) The Elders
(2) Those doing it

You are showing an utter disdain for the office of Elder. It only fits when it suits you, and you (and the people they serve) are above it if they wish to be. This, for the 100th time from me, is why there is a Church which is consistently represented as larger than one person, or one small group and their vigilante interests. The people who are responsible for such an "accountability check" are the whole congregation, who elect representatives, who then elect GS's to act as both representatives of the people, and of Christ in supporting the DSs and overseeing the Church.

To act as though this is only acceptable insofar as the results fit your desired outcome, and then pretend the CotN is actaully set up to support your idea? Absolutely not.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Dan, Dan, Dan don't become a Manny, Joe, or Tim. When you say that you are here to criticize/critique the Elders of the CotN you sound an awful lot like these leaders of the CN group. You need to remember that most of us here have been vehemently attacked by those three (and lamb lady (Bob, what's her name?)) and are therefore sensitive to such statements, to such self-appointments. You may not mean to be setting yourself up as the guardian of the faith, the accuser of Nazarene Elders, but the language you chose to use is exactly that of those satans (accusers) and sowers of division with whom we have dealt before. Now, I don't think I believe that you mean the same as they, nor do I believe that you agree with their tactics. But you do use that language which feels the same to those of us who have experienced them.

[Hans Deventer]

That type of person won't be threatened one bit by me, only those who have something to hide.

You know, Dan, the problem we have with self appointed inquisitioners is that they appear to be above critique themselves.

[Rich Schmidt]

No issue there.

Dan, would you be willing to respond to my questions and provide some context?

What I'm unclear on is what elders you're critiquing, Dan. Your pastor? Great, I'm sure he or she appreciates the conversation, especially if it comes from a place of love and respect. Beyond that... well, I guess if I were to receive an email or call from some random Nazarene whom I've never met who has a question about something I said in one of my message podcasts or some comment I made here on NazNet... well, I'd be happy to talk to them, as time permits, so long as they're patient, courteous, etc.

You're talking about being "a thorn in your side until I draw my last breath" until elders start "sufficiently critiquing each other." I'm not sure what you're looking for. Do you want us to be listening to each other's sermons and critiquing them? Why not just let their church boards handle that? I have good relationships with several other pastors on my district, and we talk about all sorts of things, challenging each others' thinking, encouraging each other, etc. But you seem to be looking for something more....?

Maybe you could give us some context for all this...

[Martijn van Beveren]

Dan, Dan, Dan don't become a Manny, Joe, or Tim. When you say that you are here to criticize/critique the Elders of the CotN you sound an awful lot like these leaders of the CN group. You need to remember that most of us here have been vehemently attacked by those three (and lamb lady (Bob, what's her name?)) and are therefore sensitive to such statements, to such self-appointments. You may not mean to be setting yourself up as the guardian of the faith, the accuser of Nazarene Elders, but the language you chose to use is exactly that of those satans (accusers) and sowers of division with whom we have dealt before. Now, I don't think I believe that you mean the same as they, nor do I believe that you agree with their tactics. But you do use that language which feels the same to those of us who have experienced them.

I agree with Paul here. I've been not very active at Naznet for a while but lately I started picking it up again. And it hurts me to see so many people who are very well educated and have years of experience and take the Message, and the people they serve to heart, being burnt at the stake for not following a concerned view on scripture. The pain that that has caused this is very severe! There is much hurt and sadness in that. And here Dan, you say that you come here to "drive in the thorn" a bit further... Are you serious?

I hope not.

[Martijn van Beveren]

But it's better to discuss on topic and if we want continue this conversation maybe we should start another thread about it.

[Dan Henderson]

Dan, would you be willing to respond to my questions and provide some context?

Yes, let me think on it a little. I'm not these other guys, their role was to talk and inform. I am a change agent, and am more prone to action than talk. I have to be careful because my aim does not miss the mark, yet in the past, I have sometimes taken aim at the wrong target. When I take action, things change, good or bad. I have won battles that it was not in the best interest for the organizattion that I win. I am a planner to the nth degree. I know I am not qualified, yet the qualified don't seem to be stepping up. Therefore, if I am one of the few willing to act, then I must do what I can to become qualified. Wiley isnt leisure reading. Nor are any of the other books from your profession that I have felt the need to consume in the past year.

Its because of this, I am making the effort to talk, to understand. I do not fear being in the right and losing a battle, I am way more afraid of being wrong and winning. The latter is much more dangerous. I'm tired of hearing rhetoric from all sides. I'm doing original research on all fronts.

[Dan Henderson]

Benjamin,

I liked your responses on my inital posts. They were understandable and they made sense to me. Not that I cognitavely agreed with you but that my pre-congitive impression was good. I called in my "second" to give me some normalizing perspective on some of your responses. This is what I got:

The statement on inerrancy as it relates to Nazarene belief is pretty good. Be that as it may, it may be debated in some points because it still goes beyond simple Scriptural statements. The Bible says that God inspired and that is all it says. Holy men of God were carried along by the Holy Spirit is the most detail we get. It does not say verbal, plenary, etc. We add those concepts for clarification and often for argument. I am only saying that our explanations must necessarily come under the authority of the Word of God when all is said and done.

The various definitions of open theism, process theology, etc. are just that—definitions of theoretical approaches and not revelational definitions. We have both been through enough “higher” education classes to know how frequently a teacher will beat his or her own drum as if it was irrefutable. Students are a captive audience and are there for only one thing, to pass the course. If you want to understand those concepts in a more objective light, place them under the scrutiny of the Word of God. Otherwise you will be meandering all over the place trying to figure them out. Bottom line is that the terms represent concepts that are foreign to the revelation of Scripture. These descriptions tell how they operate, not what they end up saying. That latter is the issue. Therefore, simply stated):

Open theism says that God does not know the future based on a distorted concept of free will. It says that God has limited knowledge and cannot know the future choices of man or it would not be free will.

Process theology is a shift away from the doctrines of historic (orthodox) Christianity regarding the nature of God and His relationship to the universe, the Person of Jesus Christ, the Trinity and places God in a position of needing mankind for His own essence (more or less). It is akin to universalism. This shift away from orthodox Christianity has occurred mainly because of its adherents’ attitudes toward the Bible. They do not consider the Bible to be the Divine and final authority in matters of faith and practice and they believe there is ongoing, special revelation anytime a person has an encounter with God. In other words, the revelational Bible is irrelevant.

These are part and parcel (along with other stuff) of the emergent theological paradigm and postmodernism in every way it is presented.

[Rich Schmidt]

Open theism says that God does not know the future based on a distorted concept of free will. It says that God has limited knowledge and cannot know the future choices of man or it would not be free will.

Or....

Open theism says that God knows all of the future that is there to be known. Since the future choices of free moral agents (like human beings) haven't been made yet, they are not yet there to be known. To say that God knows those not-yet-made-choices would make as much sense as saying God knows the names of all the purple miniature unicorns -- if they existed, God would know them, but they don't, so he doesn't. It's just the nature of the reality that God created.

Granted, it's just a theory, but it makes sense of some parts of Scripture that didn't make as much sense under other theories of how God relates to time. But then it also creates tensions with certain other parts. No theory fits all of Scripture perfectly. So while we hold to Scripture tightly, we hold our theories lightly.

[Hans Deventer]

Granted, it's just a theory, but it makes sense of some parts of Scripture that didn't make as much sense under other theories of how God relates to time. But then it also creates tensions with certain other parts. No theory fits all of Scripture perfectly. So while we hold to Scripture tightly, we hold our theories lightly.

Exactly, Rich. I'm not at all impressed with the philosophical part of Open Theism. I am an open theist because it looks like the best fit for most of the Scriptures, understanding that it doesn't perfectly fit ALL of it. But I think the theory does a better job than other theories. So till I find a better one, I'm game. Totally agreeing with your last sentence here! "So while we hold to Scripture tightly, we hold our theories lightly. "

[Steven Martinez]

This is a Host Post

Lets keep this thread on topic if at all possible. I have no desire for any thread on NazNet, especially in this forum to be a debate on who has authority to put elders or leaders in his or her place. The Manual answers that question and since NazNet is a Nazarene friendly site, there is little room allowed here to critique the Manual on this forum. There is a forum about the upcoming GA and possible resolutions. I would suggest one places his or her posts there in regards to changing or debating the Manual. Better yet, one could invest his or her time actually writing a resolution and have the local District recommend it to the GA.

Thank You
Steve Martinez
Post Traditional Theology Host

[Martijn van Beveren]

Yes, let me think on it a little. I'm not these other guys, their role was to talk and inform. I am a change agent, and am more prone to action than talk. I have to be careful because my aim does not miss the mark, yet in the past, I have sometimes taken aim at the wrong target. When I take action, things change, good or bad. I have won battles that it was not in the best interest for the organizattion that I win. I am a planner to the nth degree. I know I am not qualified, yet the qualified don't seem to be stepping up. Therefore, if I am one of the few willing to act, then I must do what I can to become qualified. Wiley isnt leisure reading. Nor are any of the other books from your profession that I have felt the need to consume in the past year.

Its because of this, I am making the effort to talk, to understand. I do not fear being in the right and losing a battle, I am way more afraid of being wrong and winning. The latter is much more dangerous. I'm tired of hearing rhetoric from all sides. I'm doing original research on all fronts.

Dan, I was wondering, you use words like "aim","win","agent","act","battle". My guess is that you use militairy style language. Your profile here on the left says Scott AFB, so can it be that your style and motives are influenced by that? And are those healthy motives that help build a church, the body of Christ?

[Dan Henderson]

Thank you Steve for putting me back on target. The first post contained a chart that describes, in one way, people like me interpret what many of you here say when you talk about Scripture. A few responded directly to that post as intended, but, as Steve pointed out, I got off track.

Follow-up question to the first post. Given that Emergent, Open, Process, and Post-Modern have been grouped together against your will and without consulting you: What is your impression about how your view of Scripture is percieved?

Note: This is a Ceteras-Paribus question, assume all other factors not stated remain the same.

[Benjamin Burch]

Benjamin,

I liked your responses on my inital posts. They were understandable and they made sense to me. Not that I cognitavely agreed with you but that my pre-congitive impression was good. I called in my "second" to give me some normalizing perspective on some of your responses. This is what I got:

The statement on inerrancy as it relates to Nazarene belief is pretty good. Be that as it may, it may be debated in some points because it still goes beyond simple Scriptural statements. The Bible says that God inspired and that is all it says. Holy men of God were carried along by the Holy Spirit is the most detail we get. It does not say verbal, plenary, etc. We add those concepts for clarification and often for argument. I am only saying that our explanations must necessarily come under the authority of the Word of God when all is said and done.

Well, if that's the case, then it would seem to me that anything anyone has said other than "It is inspired and good for training in righteousness" and "it makes wise the simple" is going too far and not "com[ing] under the authority of the Word of God when all is said and done."

I also don't even understand what that means. Comes under whose interpretation of God's Word? How do you know which interpretation is correct? On what grounds do you make that decision?

I submit that the Bible has been interpreted for us by someone and something larger than ourselves.

The various definitions of open theism, process theology, etc. are just that—definitions of theoretical approaches and not revelational definitions.

I don't know what a "revelational definition" is. Do you mean it is divine revelation? No one is saying that.

We have both been through enough “higher” education classes to know how frequently a teacher will beat his or her own drum as if it was irrefutable. Students are a captive audience and are there for only one thing, to pass the course.

I've never been in any such class.

If you want to understand those concepts in a more objective light, place them under the scrutiny of the Word of God.

What does that mean? I know what you mean by it, but the idea doesn't work in real life. You're always placing them under the scrutiny of your subjective interpretation and understanding of the Word of God. Also, that assumes that you actually have a working knowledge, understanding, and memory of the entire Bible.

It's just not a realistic idea. It's wishful thinking.

Otherwise you will be meandering all over the place trying to figure them out. Bottom line is that the terms represent concepts that are foreign to the revelation of Scripture.

Where do we draw this line? The orthodox "omnis" are foreign to Scripture... Again, you're making judgment calls that have more to do with you and with tradition and less to do with the Bible than you would lead us to believe (or may be led to believe yourself).

These descriptions tell how they operate, not what they end up saying. That latter is the issue. Therefore, simply stated):

Open theism says that God does not know the future based on a distorted concept of free will. It says that God has limited knowledge and cannot know the future choices of man or it would not be free will.

I suggest you read John Sanders' various works. He is an Open Theologian who is so because he believes the Bible presents an Open view of God. Check out this paper sometime.

Process theology is a shift away from the doctrines of historic (orthodox) Christianity regarding the nature of God and His relationship to the universe, the Person of Jesus Christ, the Trinity and places God in a position of needing mankind for His own essence (more or less). It is akin to universalism. This shift away from orthodox Christianity has occurred mainly because of its adherents’ attitudes toward the Bible. They do not consider the Bible to be the Divine and final authority in matters of faith and practice and they believe there is ongoing, special revelation anytime a person has an encounter with God. In other words, the revelational Bible is irrelevant.

If you really want to know about Process Theology, talk to Tom Oord, or Michael Lodahl. Even I could be of help, considering that apart from Tom I probably have read more on the subject than anyone else on NazNet. I can assure you that what you've presented here is not accurate for Christian Process Theology as a whole. In fact, I'd say it's very inaccurate. While it may or may not be true in regards to Process Theology's relation to Orthodoxy in general, I highly suggest the very new Trinitarian works of Joseph Bracken.

These are part and parcel (along with other stuff) of the emergent theological paradigm and postmodernism in every way it is presented.

You really just seem to misunderstand Postmodernism. This is our second conversation on the topic and you really seem to have looked at a very few postmodernists, and very few (if any) Postmodern theologians. Your recollection of Postmodernity's treatment of Scripture is entirely incorrect.

I would highly suggest you read any or all of the following:

Søren Kierkegaard. Practice in Christianity
------------------------. Fear and Trembling
------------------------. Philosophical Fragments
Karl Barth. Epistle to the Romans
-------------. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God
Jean-Luc Marion. God Without Being
Brevard Childs. Isaiah


If you really want to get a grasp of Christian Postmodern and Postliberal Theology before you say things like "this is part and parcel... of... postmodernism in every way it is presented."

That is simply an empirically incorrect statement which fundamentally misunderstands the subject in question.

[Dan Henderson]

Dan, I was wondering, you use words like "aim","win","agent","act","battle". My guess is that you use militairy style language. Your profile here on the left says Scott AFB, so can it be that your style and motives are influenced by that? And are those healthy motives that help build a church, the body of Christ?

Last post about me specifically: My MBTI is INTJ, the most unlikely personality type for a successful military carrer.

[Dan Henderson]

Well its quiet at work (which is a good thing), except for some minor statistics gathering and such. I suddenly became aware of the conversation between two of my co-workers concerning the validity of the Bible. I can't engage in the conversation (they are peers, I'm the boss, i need to remain netural or silent) but I am quite entrigued as to the nature of the conversation that is going on, right now, behind me. They are comparing the Bible to the Koran and the Torah. One is asking, "How do you know any of this is true? Humans wrote the Bible and other humans decided what was to be included. Its been translated a bunch of times, how do you know they even got it right?" The other guy is not debating too much, maybe because even though they are peers, the more vocal one supervises the less vocal one. The less vocal one stated that all religion stems from astrology and some other things in a similar vein. Another interesting observation was that only the Bible was called into question. Neither the Koran or the Torah is being challenged. Only mentioned in passing.

If it were appropriate for me to engage in this conversation, how would I do so? What would I say to them?

[Craig Laughlin]

Thank you Dan.

Unfortunately I still don't understand how exactly you define inerrant. I appreciate that words have localized (communal as well as geographical) connotations but I'm not sure that is helpful. Unless you are arguing that your particular local connotation which blends the two words is the right way to do it? Or maybe you are arguing that we can't know the meaning of words because everyone has their own connotation? You reject the authority of the academy to define words instead opting for understanding via usage which I would normally agree with but when working with nuanced theological points across many different communities that has a tendency to create a great deal of miscommunication. Generally inside a discipline the academy provides (often informally) the definition. If folks don't like it they just coin another word.

You tell us you came to Naznet because we were misrepresenting inerrency. We were/are using the word in the academically accepted manor. So please - without using the word inerrant - define it for me. Please communicate the idea and parameters. I, and most theologians I know, would recognize a very large difference between inerrant and infallible. (Inerrant having to do with the substance of something and Infallible having to do with the purpose of something) This really is confusing to me. I'm open to some new nuance of the word but I need to know what that nuance is which so frustrates you. Just articulate it plainly and clearly. Thanks.

Dan, I wonder if you could take a few minutes and answer this question. Just articulate what you believe specifically. - Thanks,

[Dan Henderson]

Dan, I wonder if you could take a few minutes and answer this question. Just articulate what you believe specifically. - Thanks,

I've already done so. The problem is that the old addage that one should never discuss religion or politics is polite company rings true. I have noted that both generate heated discussions and not much movement. So when I say discussions like this generate hostility, I'm not taking it personally, just stating an observation. I had thought that I was ready to engage and remain cool, but I have lost my cool at least twice and have stated things, true or not, that I should not have stated.

So I have engaged but not yet ready to remain calm at all times. I have no problem remaining calm in matters pertaining to life, limb, or property (emergencies), yet when it comes to discussions, not so much. With discussions, there is nothing to contain, there is no imminent danger.

I have already stated in other words that I am most dangerous to an organization when I am uninformed. If I were fully informed, all my actions would affect the organization correctly. I came here to defend, I'm staying to learn. The only thing I ask is that you understand that you are dealing with a peer. I deal with doctors every day ... you've only been called by God, they they think they ARE god. They don't think I'm qualified to evaluate their performance either, many of them never get over the fact that their medical authority has to be checked (balanced) by a mere bean counter like me.

[David Gerber]

Would someone help me with the diagram from Jason. The division starts at the top with "Does the Bible passage deal with salvation: Yes/No" Then goes to "Reader's Interpretation" and "Scripture."

Don't we all bring out interpretations to Scripture? Then a question comes to mind: If the Scriptures are inerrant, but the reader is not, how does inerrancy of the Scriptures even matter? I am serious about this question. How can we be so sure of ourselves and our interpretations of inerrant Scriptures when we are so fallible (and some would say that we are 'totally depraved')? It would seem that humility and patience would be the rule of the day for our discussions of Scripture.

I am confident that Scripture is able to bring me into a dynamic relationship with God. I am confident that I will see an accurate and life giving picture of Jesus Christ. I am confident that I will find the way to holiness and holy living in Scripture.

That confidence is not placed in the (in)errancy of the Scriptures or my interpretation of the Scriptures. My confidence is in God and God's Holy Spirit to enlighten, enthrall, and enrapture me. The same God that existed before creation and existed before even one word of Scripture was recorded is the one that can and does guide me in holiness and holy living. It is enough for me to be like Jesus. It is enough for me to love my friends and my enemies. It is enough to bear patiently with one another. It is enough for me to trust that God's Holy Spirit is moving, correcting, and guiding those same individuals with whom I disagree and they me.