Open and Closed Systems: What's Your Posture?

[Saint Steven]

In a recent forum discussion, I found a way to explain the difference in approach (posture) between myself and another fine poster. The difference was between an open, or closed system.

I wanted to call it an open or closed theological system, but I'm not sure that was really the issue. (although, that may be a driving force) It had less to do with the beliefs of the individual, and more to do with how they viewed, or valued other Christians. I'll explain.

In a closed system, the views of others are seen as something to contend with. Usually couched as "contending for the faith", which means defeating all "enemies". Enemies being defined as anyone that doesn't agree exactly with your religious POV.

An open system being one that is inquisitive about what others believe in a non-condemning way. To accept others where they are at and ask questions that lead to a better understanding rather than seeking to refute, or reject their position, even if you don't agree with, or embrace it.

A current example of this, for me personally, would be the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Eucharist. I don't agree with that doctrine, but have sought to understand those who hold the doctrine, in an open system way, and not reject them by going after them with chapter and verse from a closed system perspective.

And there are problems with an open system as well. Where do you draw the line? At the end of the day you need to believe something. And this means rejecting the opposite, I suppose. At least in a personal way.

I seem to have had good success using this open system approach to have deep and fruitful discussions even with those in closed systems. However, there are some situations where I hold to my guns and give them what for. See the current Sabbath topic. Grr... - lol

So, everyone interested please weigh in on this idea. Thanks.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Coming from an Orthodox perspective, there are open questions, best described with the term theologoumenon, or theological opinion, "did Adam and Eve have navels?" But as you said there are closed questions. For the EO these would be things answered definitively by church councils or other statements, such as "does Christ have a human nature?" Those are the answers that we read about in the martyrdom of the saints.

 

[Saint Steven]

Coming from an Orthodox perspective, there are open questions, best described with the term theologoumenon, or theological opinion, "did Adam and Eve have navels?" But as you said there are closed questions. For the EO these would be things answered definitively by church councils or other statements, such as "does Christ have a human nature?" Those are the answers that we read about in the martyrdom of the saints.

Yes, thank you.

There are open and closed theological questions. And there are open and closed theologies. But I am hoping to address open and closed postures between those with opposing viewpoints. No matter their religious affiliation. Probably unheard of. - lol

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Yes, thank you.

There are open and closed theological questions. And there are open and closed theologies. But I am hoping to address open and closed postures between those with opposing viewpoints. No matter their religious affiliation. Probably unheard of. - lol

I'm guessing the age old question of free will and other positions like that?

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm guessing the age old question of free will and other positions like that?

More the dynamic that happens when fine folks with opposing views on those positions come together to talk/post. Does their discussion take an open or closed posture? To reiterate the OP...

In a closed system, the views of others are seen as something to contend with. Usually couched as "contending for the faith", which means defeating all "enemies". Enemies being defined as anyone that doesn't agree exactly with your religious POV.

An open system being one that is inquisitive about what others believe in a non-condemning way. To accept others where they are at and ask questions that lead to a better understanding rather than seeking to refute, or reject their position, even if you don't agree with, or embrace it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In a recent forum discussion, I found a way to explain the difference in approach (posture) between myself and another fine poster. The difference was between an open, or closed system.

I wanted to call it an open or closed theological system, but I'm not sure that was really the issue. (although, that may be a driving force) It had less to do with the beliefs of the individual, and more to do with how they viewed, or valued other Christians. I'll explain.

In a closed system, the views of others are seen as something to contend with. Usually couched as "contending for the faith", which means defeating all "enemies". Enemies being defined as anyone that doesn't agree exactly with your religious POV.

An open system being one that is inquisitive about what others believe in a non-condemning way. To accept others where they are at and ask questions that lead to a better understanding rather than seeking to refute, or reject their position, even if you don't agree with, or embrace it.

A current example of this, for me personally, would be the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Eucharist. I don't agree with that doctrine, but have sought to understand those who hold the doctrine, in an open system way, and not reject them by going after them with chapter and verse from a closed system perspective.

And there are problems with an open system as well. Where do you draw the line? At the end of the day you need to believe something. And this means rejecting the opposite, I suppose. At least in a personal way.

I seem to have had good success using this open system approach to have deep and fruitful discussions even with those in closed systems. However, there are some situations where I hold to my guns and give them what for. See the current Sabbath topic. Grr... - lol

So, everyone interested please weigh in on this idea. Thanks.

My posture ... unfortunately has been subject to the effects of a bit of scoliosis, which I'll admit I gave to myself, apparently by having allowed myself to be open to reading the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy while lying on one side all summer long, way back when I was in the 8th grade.

So I have to be careful or I'll find myself on the floor with problems that no chiropractor can just wish away ...

Oh, WHOOPS! Wrong forum!

 

[Saint Steven]

My posture ... unfortunately has been subject to the effects of a bit of scoliosis, which I'll admit I gave to myself, apparently by having allowed myself to be open to reading the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy while lying on one side all summer long, way back when I was in the 8th grade.

So I have to be careful or I'll find myself on the floor with problems that no chiropractor can just wish away ...

Oh, WHOOPS! Wrong forum!

Well, the true test of our faith is in adversity, right? Get with the program. - lol

 

[Mark Quayle]

In a recent forum discussion, I found a way to explain the difference in approach (posture) between myself and another fine poster. The difference was between an open, or closed system.

I wanted to call it an open or closed theological system, but I'm not sure that was really the issue. (although, that may be a driving force) It had less to do with the beliefs of the individual, and more to do with how they viewed, or valued other Christians. I'll explain.

In a closed system, the views of others are seen as something to contend with. Usually couched as "contending for the faith", which means defeating all "enemies". Enemies being defined as anyone that doesn't agree exactly with your religious POV.

An open system being one that is inquisitive about what others believe in a non-condemning way. To accept others where they are at and ask questions that lead to a better understanding rather than seeking to refute, or reject their position, even if you don't agree with, or embrace it.

A current example of this, for me personally, would be the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Eucharist. I don't agree with that doctrine, but have sought to understand those who hold the doctrine, in an open system way, and not reject them by going after them with chapter and verse from a closed system perspective.

And there are problems with an open system as well. Where do you draw the line? At the end of the day you need to believe something. And this means rejecting the opposite, I suppose. At least in a personal way.

I seem to have had good success using this open system approach to have deep and fruitful discussions even with those in closed systems. However, there are some situations where I hold to my guns and give them what for. See the current Sabbath topic. Grr... - lol

So, everyone interested please weigh in on this idea. Thanks.

Reformed Theology has open and closed aspects, as it doesn't pretend to be comprehensive nor even self-contained in addressing much of anything.

Calvinism/Reformed Theology DOES have some basic non-negotiable claims that rule/inform all other claims, views and particularities. These basic claims can be stand-alone in their integrity, but are logically necessarily interrelated. None exist without the others in fact, though in principle some can be considered stand-alone; for example: Sovereignty of God is more substantial to Reformed Theology than even Depravity of Man, but neither is negotiable. Sovereignty of God does not depend on Depravity of Man, but Depravity of Man does depend on Sovereignty of God. Reformed Theology falls apart without Absolute Sovereignty of God.

But Reformed Theology/Calvinism goes all sorts of directions. A Calvinist can be Baptist or Presbyterian or Lutheran or Charismatic; he can be Universalist, ECT or Annihilationist; he can be Covenant or (believe it or not) even Dispensationalist; he can be Premil, Postmil, Amil or have no opinion on last days...

So, Calvinism is closed on some matters and open on others. However, A Calvinist may be closed on several matters that Calvinism is not. Yet even on those issues, Sovereignty, at least, is never to be ignored or defeated.

I have to say that, for myself at least, I can be adamant, but can be changed in opinion, or at least in force/direction of opinion. Yet so far, what makes sense to me and seems ultimately Biblical, I have not seen change (unless in focus). I like to think I am open in all of it, but it will take an awful lot for me to see Sovereignty from an Arminian aspect. To me, those are (so far) logically mutually exclusive.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, the true test of our faith is in adversity, right? Get with the program. - lol

But seriously, I empathize with everyone who wrestles with the enigmatic literature of the Bible. It's not easy to read and understand it all at all points of its texts, I know.

In my own life, I've always had to wrestle with the Bible, and I've had to do so in a way that even gets me to a place in my mind where it seemingly becomes something that is reasonable to accept and believe and, thereby, by which to have faith. I, being the naturally inquisitive person that I've always been, don't just take anyone's word for anything; I have to delve into it, if not empirically, then at least rationally. The Bible has been no less subject to my incision of questions than anything else in life.

Hence, all of this is part of the reason why I identify myself as an Existentialist---it's because I, like Pascal and Kiergaard, have to remain open to the fact that no one human being knows everything, not the least of which is anything and everything about the Bible. In my approach and dealings with other individuals who seek after Jesus, I purposely do my best to remain 'open' to their personal positions and testimonies, to the entire Christian experience which we are all doing together, that is, all of us who identify Jesus as worthy of our undivided attention.

So, I'm essentially "open" in my approach to both the Bible and to Christianity on the whole. For me, my basic presupposition is that the Christian experience and walk will always be one of Exploration while my heart beats on this side of the grave. At the same time, I've been forced realize that there is one Reality, and because it bites me in the derrière from time to time despite what I think it should do, my openness to the comprehensive exploration of life and the Bible doesn't mean I can just go about it however I wish. I've found that there are limits to how far I can appropriate openness, even with the Bible.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

An open system being one that is inquisitive about what others believe in a non-condemning way. To accept others where they are at and ask questions that lead to a better understanding rather than seeking to refute, or reject their position, even if you don't agree with, or embrace it.

For me, it's a mix. As a church tour guide for our Greek festivals, I'm used to responding to questions which are in genuine curiosity, the oddest was AFTER a tour, someone asked if we worship Zeus... yes, the crashing sound you heard worldwide about 15 years ago was my eyes rolling.

About 80% of the questions that I get are curiosity or sometimes someone wanting to know if we worship icons, the answer of course is no. I will explain that they are like a photograph of someone and that we give them a kiss or bow not to the image but as to someone we love or respect. Generally, that's what people are wondering.

Then we get the people who want to argue... Generally it has been from evangelical Protestants and well, bless their hearts, but I do have a bachelors in religious studies, a year of an M.Div, and a love of history and theology. If you want to get into "God said, you shall have no graven images", I'll grab a Bible and ask them to read Ex 20:4, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or likeness of any thing." Then I'll ask them to read Ex 25:8 "And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work you shall make them at the two ends of the mercy seat" Then ask them what Moses constructed to stop the poisonous serpents, a bronze snake. So right there, we've got a contradiction. Then I ask, what if we had a photograph of Christ, wouldnt that be one of the best things ever?

Then of course, we get the "what Bible do you read", and I pull out the chanters copy of the Apostolos, which contains all of the liturgical readings in Koine Greek...

TL;DR If it is a friendly question, you'll get a friendly answer. If you want to challenge me on theology, you'd better sit down

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hence, all of this is part of the reason why I identify myself as an Existentialist---it's because I, like Pascal and Kiergaard, have to remain open to the fact that no one human being knows everything, not the least of which is anything and everything about the Bible. In my approach and dealings with other individuals who seek after Jesus, I purposely do my best to remain 'open' to their personal positions and testimonies, to the entire Christian experience which we are all doing together, that is, all of us who identify Jesus as worthy of our undivided attention.

To my understanding, though, that is not the meaning of Existentialism. The definitions given for Existentialism may sound like that, but they sound to me like cover, not substance, considering such as Kierkegaard, who seemed to think truth is subjective. You may be Existentialist in your approach, but not (I hope) in opinion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To my understanding, though, that is not the meaning of Existentialism. The definitions given for Existentialism may sound like that, but they sound to me like cover, not substance, considering such as Kierkegaard, who seemed to think truth is subjective. You may be Existentialist in your approach, but not (I hope) in opinion.

Nope. I may be Inclusivist (and an Annihilationist) where our Faith is concerned, but that doesn't mean that my openness reaches to the pinnacle of some kind of hyper-Subjectivity like that of, let's say, a Nietzsche. I don't Will to Power my way through life, and neither did Kierkegaard. So, don't worry. I have some overlap with my Reformed brethren on some points; just not at all points.

 

[Saint Steven]

I like to think I am open in all of it, but it will take an awful lot for me to see Sovereignty from an Arminian aspect. To me, those are (so far) logically mutually exclusive.

Wonderful post. Thanks for joining the discussion.
I have a question about the paragraph quoted above.
Could you, in a discussion with an Arminian about Sovereignty, accept them for their opinion, or would you have to not reject them while refuting their position?

 

[Saint Steven]

... So, I'm essentially "open" in my approach to both the Bible and to Christianity on the whole. For me, my basic presupposition is that the Christian experience and walk will always be one of Exploration while my heart beats on this side of the grave. At the same time, I've been forced realize that there is one Reality, and because it bites me in the derrière from time to time despite what I think it should do, my openness to the comprehensive exploration of life and the Bible doesn't mean I can just go about it however I wish. I've found that there are limits to how far I can appropriate openness, even with the Bible.

Thanks for your post.
How does this affect the way you interact with others who may, or may not, share your views?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks for your post.
How does this affect the way you interact with others who may, or may not, share your views?

... it means I at first sympathize with all of the morass of confusion about life and Christianity that we all have to wade through.

 

[Abaxvahl]

In a recent forum discussion, I found a way to explain the difference in approach (posture) between myself and another fine poster. The difference was between an open, or closed system.

I wanted to call it an open or closed theological system, but I'm not sure that was really the issue. (although, that may be a driving force) It had less to do with the beliefs of the individual, and more to do with how they viewed, or valued other Christians. I'll explain.

In a closed system, the views of others are seen as something to contend with. Usually couched as "contending for the faith", which means defeating all "enemies". Enemies being defined as anyone that doesn't agree exactly with your religious POV.

An open system being one that is inquisitive about what others believe in a non-condemning way. To accept others where they are at and ask questions that lead to a better understanding rather than seeking to refute, or reject their position, even if you don't agree with, or embrace it.

A current example of this, for me personally, would be the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Eucharist. I don't agree with that doctrine, but have sought to understand those who hold the doctrine, in an open system way, and not reject them by going after them with chapter and verse from a closed system perspective.

And there are problems with an open system as well. Where do you draw the line? At the end of the day you need to believe something. And this means rejecting the opposite, I suppose. At least in a personal way.

I seem to have had good success using this open system approach to have deep and fruitful discussions even with those in closed systems. However, there are some situations where I hold to my guns and give them what for. See the current Sabbath topic. Grr... - lol

So, everyone interested please weigh in on this idea. Thanks.

I am open with some people and closed with others. For instance I am currently (although I harshly disagree to the fullest extent) listening to a Mormon explain their Social Trinitarianism to me and asking questions while not trying to fight them because they are that kind of person. Other people I either fight or just ignore. I often start with a closed approach and then change when I realize that is unnecessary, it's a bad habit and often I am way too aggressive and polemical.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

In a recent forum discussion, I found a way to explain the difference in approach (posture) between myself and another fine poster. The difference was between an open, or closed system.

I wanted to call it an open or closed theological system, but I'm not sure that was really the issue. (although, that may be a driving force) It had less to do with the beliefs of the individual, and more to do with how they viewed, or valued other Christians. I'll explain.

In a closed system, the views of others are seen as something to contend with. Usually couched as "contending for the faith", which means defeating all "enemies". Enemies being defined as anyone that doesn't agree exactly with your religious POV.

An open system being one that is inquisitive about what others believe in a non-condemning way. To accept others where they are at and ask questions that lead to a better understanding rather than seeking to refute, or reject their position, even if you don't agree with, or embrace it.

A current example of this, for me personally, would be the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Eucharist. I don't agree with that doctrine, but have sought to understand those who hold the doctrine, in an open system way, and not reject them by going after them with chapter and verse from a closed system perspective.

And there are problems with an open system as well. Where do you draw the line? At the end of the day you need to believe something. And this means rejecting the opposite, I suppose. At least in a personal way.

I seem to have had good success using this open system approach to have deep and fruitful discussions even with those in closed systems. However, there are some situations where I hold to my guns and give them what for. See the current Sabbath topic. Grr... - lol

So, everyone interested please weigh in on this idea. Thanks.

Interesting way to describe the many differences Christians of different denominations approach each other. I have come to the conclusion that there is only one truth and that truth is delivered by His Holy Spirit. This truth thrives in both open and closed realms. Blessings.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Wonderful post. Thanks for joining the discussion.
I have a question about the paragraph quoted above.
Could you, in a discussion with an Arminian about Sovereignty, accept them for their opinion, or would you have to not reject them while refuting their position?

Not sure what you mean.

Can I accept them as brothers in Christ? Certainly! One doesn't need to believe as I do to be regenerated. (Haha One can even be a universalist and I can believe they are saved!) If they cannot be of Christ, then most of my relatives, Christians all, are lost, many of them irretrievably, having died in their 'unbelief'!

This is something I find I must continually remind my Reformed brothers, who sometimes get carried away in their zeal. Even we, though our conception of the Gospel is more pure, giving all credit to God and none to man for grace, that we too not only do not apprehend the facts fully enough to cause us to live in full obedience thence forward, but we don't understand the terminology of the gospel —i.e. our doctrines of sin, redemption, regeneration, God etc— well enough to effect anything. Only the Spirit of God in us does, which is why and how and by whom we are saved. That is, in fact, the essence of the Gospel of grace —that God himself is our salvation, based on his work alone.

Nobody has the intellect, information, integrity, force of will, foresight, depth of desire or emotion, wisdom or steadfastness to understand what we are agreeing to and receiving when we submit to Christ, nor to accomplish what he is doing in us.

 

[d taylor]

I am open to basically any Bible discussion, that is as long as the Bible is the source of information to be discussed. But when a person wants to debate The Bible using outside sources, forget it, do not care to entertain that.

Example of this is a person bringing in science, to debate The Bibles creation account. History could also be used in that way.

 

[jacks]

Although we may be open or closed in regards to our own beliefs, isn't "open" vs "closed" in discussions, just another way of saying; Be respectful of others opinions even when you don't agree? i.e. Listen and discuss, don't argue and browbeat.