This is a good report. I think the ETS scuffle over open theology has cemented that society's place as an exclusive and narrow institution not representative of evangelicalisms broad theological tradition.

"Vocabularies are quite different too. Can the analytic philosopher and the Wesleyan theologian and the philosopher of science find a lingua franca? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There is no mushniness--disagreements may be quite sharp."

A few thoughs. First, don't most philosophers of science consider themselves analytic philosophers? Second and more importantly, have you found that along with different vocabularies, theologians and philosophers find themselves motivated by different kinds of arguments? In particular have you heard more presentations from theologians which were motivated by Scriptural interpretation (broadly construed) or by certain findings of contemporary scientific research and their apparent theological implications?

James--
The seminar, which stretches over several weeks, will include papers by scientists (biologist Jeff Schloss, biologist Ken Miller, etc.). Those are still to come, and alas I will not be here to take them in. Wendy and I will be leaving for home on Friday. John Sanders' paper, which opened the proceedings, was an overview of the tradition of free-will theism and an account of the open theology movement, including the battles at ETS and other venues. Certainly many of the discussions that have taken place thus far make reference to Scripture in arguing for or against this or that understanding of God and time (for example).

John
I find this disheartening at a number of levels.First, not a single creed or orthodox confession, be it Catholic or Protestant ,supports this deviant theology(and I am excluding documents like the Racovian Catechism for obvious reasons).Second, historically, this position finds no support in the mainstream of the Evangelical Arminian/Wesleyian tradition- it is an alien virus and today's Evangelical Arminians would be better served to follow the lead of men like Tom Oden and not Roger Olson, who in his recent book defending Evangelical Arminiamism expressed personal appreciation for Open theism, declaring it well within the accepted bounds of Evangelicalism.

Although I am a Calvinist, I agree with Olson that one can be thoroughly evangelical but Open Theist. GLW Johnson’s reference to Arminianism reminds me, however, of something that I have frequently posited, namely, that the future of Open Theism within evangelicalism is going to be determined by Arminians. Obviously, Calvinists find Open Theism problematic, but most of our issues are related to synergism and its limitation on God’s sovereign control of the details of history. On the other hand, Arminians who protest against Open Theism because it denies that God foreknows the future acts of libertarianly free creatures are seriously overestimating the usefulness of simple foreknowledge. Here I believe that Open Theists are correct, mere prescience would be virtually useless to God because by the time God knows what is going to happen it is too late for him to do anything about it. Contra Open Theism, I agree with Molinist, W. L. Craig, that God can know the actual future comprehensively, even if creatures are libertarianly free, but I believe that this knowledge is virtually useless to God’s providence. As a result, the actual difference between classic Arminianism and Open Theism, in regard to God’s effective control in the world, is minimal. If evangelical Arminians recognize this, they will make place for Open Theism within their camp. Then evangelical Calvinists could only exclude Open Theists if they also excluded classic Arminians.

On the matter more directly related in this blog item, John, I would love to have heard Flint’s presentation. Once again, I agree with Open Theists that middle knowledge (entailing knowledge of counterfactuals) is impossible if creatures are libertarianly free. Consequently, I have argued that only compatibilists can coherently affirm divine middle knowledge and that they should do so. In the fall issue of Westminster Theological Journal, I will have an article explaining why Calvinists should believe in divine middle knowledge even though they reject Molinism.

Thanks for telling us about the conference. Sounds fascinating.

Terry

Terry
You do not find it problematic that any form of Open theism is altogether absent from the creeds and confession of the Christian tradition? In fact, such a position is explicitly omitted for the simple reason that it was consider pagan to restrict God's omniscience in this fashion. I am a WTS grad. Look forward to reading your piece if for no other reason than to see the responses you will get

The book The Battle for God satisfied all my questions regarding Open Theology. I'd suggest that anyone who interested or confused at all by this topic should read this book.

John Feinberg raises a helpful hermeneutical point in this discussion:

“Since various Scriptures seem to portray God as having less than full control over situations and as not getting exactly what he wants, we are faced with a major question. Are such passages the key ones for understanding God's sovereign control in our world, or are the passages such as Eph 1:11 about God's decree the normative passages?”

“There is a way to break the impasse, and I contend that it depends on a critical point of theological method that is too frequently overlooked or missed altogether in theological discussions....

“If you wanted to formulate the biblical/theological doctrines of justification, inspiration of Scripture, or the second coming of Christ, for example, to which passages would you turn? Which would be the determinative passages for those doctrines? Wouldn't the passages that address those subjects be the key passages? It seems hard to contest this, for if we should not form doctrines using the passages that speak about the doctrine, how can we claim to reflect scriptural teaching on that topic?”

Feinberg, No One Like Him, 689-91.

An example of using illegitimate inferences:

“Three times the Lord expresses shock over Israel’s ungodly behavior by saying that they were doing things ‘which I did not command or decree, nor did it enter my mind” (Jer. 19:5; see also 7:31; 32:35). However we understand the phrase, ‘nor did it enter my mind,’ it would at the very least seem to preclude the possibility that the Israelites’ idolatrous behavior was eternally certain in God’s mind. If the classical view is correct, we have to be willing to accept that God could in one breath say that the Israelites’ behavior ‘did not enter my mind,’ though their behavior ‘was eternally in my mind.’ If this is not a contradiction, what is?” (Boyd, God of the Possible, 62).

But consider a verse in the nearby context of Jer. 7:31 in light of our knowledge of the Pentateuch:

Jeremiah 7:22-23 "For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them: 'Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you'" (ESV).

It seems Boyd is misreading a figure of speech here. Feinberg's point is that careful study of passages that speak directly to such doctrines will help prevent such misreadings.