An Open Orthodoxy is a conversation in pursuit of the ancient and the new, the traditional and the novel, the orthodox and the open. We are friends, Tom and Dwayne, exploring the relationship between the Open View of the future and Eastern Orthodox theology. We wonder what would come of a conversation between the two. So we aim to clarify the theological values of the open view, define its core claims and convictions, establish its diversities, and situate it relative to the values, experience and vision of the ancient Eastern Fathers. It’s our conviction that both can learn something from the other.
Tom works for a nonprof Bible Society. He received his MTh in theology from the University of Wales and served as a missionary in the Middle East for more than twenty years. He is married with four children. Dwayne received his MDiv from Oral Roberts University and served on the pastoral staff at Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, MN. He is married with four children and lives in Minneapolis, MN.
Feel free to contact Tom at opentheist@hotmail.com
AnOpenOrthodoxy 
Thanks, to both of you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting blog, also for those who disagree sometimes. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would just like to say that I’ve loved what I read of your work so far, and I can’t wait to read more!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a blessing and encouragement to hear, ExTheo. Thank you!
Tom
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not sure my response posted at Fr Al’s
re Despairing into Gehenna: Manis, Kierkegaard, and the Choice Model
where I’d written that I think it’s in the Summa, where Thomas (the Aquinas), situates habitus (virtuous or vicious) …
On Aug 5, 2019, you wrote:
I’d love to see where in Aquinas he lays that out, John. That would be something indeed, since it would contradict the notion that the wicked are fixed in their evil orientation.
My response:
1) re notion of habitus as halfway between a capacity and an action, between pure potentiality and full actuality, Anthony Kenny’s very widely cited
2) re vicious habitus as crippling not destroying our potentialities, I extrapolate that from ST, First Part of the Second Part, Question 85, Article 2
both consistent with y/our rejection of teleological foreclosure?
Of course, those ideas must be coupled with a common sensical theological anthropology grounded in epistemic & axiological distancing, for example, rather than some arcane angelology with its highly speculative metaphysics of the in/corporeal & im/material.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By the way, Tom, I only came across this 2 days ago. Your conversation, Lost in Translation, from a year ago, had caught the attention of The Smithy, Lee Faber.
Whether all your interlocutors provided good answers, he didn’t say. But I did gather that he was of the view that you had provided all the right questions. I think that makes you an honorary Scotist.
http://lyfaber.blogspot.com/2019/02/tales-of-interest.html?m=1
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, my first honorary title!
LikeLike