Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

msekee
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 30

Posted 4/16/2004 11:00 PM (GMT -6)

I was wondering what your opinions might be about how much of the way we are "wired" is God's perfect design and how much is human nature influenced by the fall? We are obviously very selfish by nature, yet there are a lot of things about us that remain from our creation. (ie: our intellect, our ability to love etc) It seems like people take personality tests etc. and say "well, that's just the way God made me" and never try to change. We know we're supposed to be trying to be more like Christ, but we also each have unique personalities and life experiences that make us who we are. It also seems like I hear a lot of people talking about "natural" things as being the same thing as "what God intended" yet many "natural" things are not at all what God intended.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/17/2004 3:38 AM (GMT -6)

Here's what I think:

Start with the Biblical perspective of Creation, Fall, Redemption. (Were Calvinism to do that a lot of things would be better.) God created and said "Good. Good. Very good." -- the last part about humanity. THAT means that human nature is created good.

Surprise.

But why are all of us surprised by that. Its because we live with the effects of sin. Dr. Myron Augsburger, then both President of Eastern Mennonite College AND the Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities spoke at a college I was teaching at in '92. He ministered in secular and international Washington D.C. And he made the following confident claim: Everyone has FOUR questions. (1) Who am I? (2) What/Where is this? (3) What went wrong? (4) What can be done about it? All of us agree, that, in the word of Alvin Plantinga, things are "Not the Way They are Supposed to Be." (Good book!)

But you asked about "wired." THAT part of your question needs to be 'reset." Let me show you why.

God created us in a unique place in the cosmos. (St. Maximus the Confessor--580 AD--called us "microcosm and mediator.") We are part of the intelligible cosmos--as are the angels. And we are part of the sensible cosmos--as are the plants and animals. But we could not fulfill that role of mediator (those who worship in our offerings of praise and thanksgiving!) without free will to do so.

So "wired" isn't exactly right. Now you see. But lets address the popular expression that we are "obviously very selfish by nature." The Creation part says that by nature we are created for fellowship, communion, gratitude, etc. Our Nature is good. Our nature is not selfish. It is our desperation that is selfish. Sin --> death --> sin --> death --> sin --> death...

Free will isn't replaced--just perverted. Some friends who write Sunday School curriculum for a Reformed denomination illustrate "total depravity" to their high school kids this way: They take a full-sized tracing of one of the kids, and write all the good things the Bible says about our Created nature on it. THEN they crumple it up; and flatten again. No damage is done to the paper, or the writing. The kids look at it. They see that NOTHING of the created nature is replaced. But the readability--the performance of the "created nature" of the tracing is impaired. (That's what total depravity really means--to a Calvin Seminary graduate.) Likewise Eastern Orthodox say that the "image" remains after the fall, but like a metal mirror that is dirtied, the "likeness" is smeared. Neo-Kuyperian Reformed thinkers explain it this way: that the "structure" and task/calling of the good Creation REMAIN, while the "direction" of faithfulness or unfaithfulness are altered. (Important points.)

But you raise some good issues, like "God's perfect design and how much is human nature influenced by the fall?" It certainly is influenced!!! But as you say, "there are a lot of things about us that remain from our creation. (ie: our intellect, our ability to love etc"

And you said: "seems like people take personality tests etc. and say "well, that's just the way God made me" and never try to change." What Paul indicates is true: sin --> death --> sin --> death... We either are moving towards God, or away from God. And we can't do that by ourselves. We need the Spirit and the Body.

You raised another, interesting thing: "We know we're supposed to be trying to be more like Christ, but we also each have unique personalities and life experiences that make us who we are." That raises something that I'd like people to think about more. When Christ made decisions that greatly affected his humanity--like in the Garden of Gethsemani--while the decision was fatal, its nature was natural. Being without sin Jesus "naturally" wanted to serve the Father. Created for communion with God--and Adam created in the image of Christ--Jesus "naturally" wanted to obey God, and to offer his body as a living sacrifice. (And in like manner Paul exhorts us in Romans 12.) Faithfulness is natural to humanity. So...... The POINT is that it is in our Personal will that--when unfettered by sin--we naturally "try to be like Christ." There is no contradiction!

The "great contradiction" is sin. Calvin called it the "great antithesis." Unfaithfulness is "unnatural."

So, in a fallen world, what we THINK is "natural" ISN'T natural! The enslaved, smeared-image leads only to slavery.

So, THAT is why we must look to the "author" (who said "very good") and "finisher" of our faith. In Him we can see what is natural. And NOT BY OURSELVES but by the Spirit we can receive power to walk in his Light.

Fruit is the fruit of the Spirit in us by our cooperation, at His initiation.

The "Calvinist/Arminian" debates fall in one way: They try to begin with the Fall. They need to begin with the Creation. God's initiation in us IS after the fall, rescuing us. But that movement of the Spirit is in NO WAY contradictory to the deposit of our nature given us in the Creation.

The portion of Genesis called "The Cultural Mandate" where God tells Adam to develop the world is evidence of our "Task and Calling." The "structure" of that calling remains intact even with the fall. What only matters is our faithfulness of unfaithfulness. There is nothing in all creation that is "secular" -- as Abraham Kuyper said: "There is not one square inch about which Jesus Christ doesn't say 'This is mine.'"

God's intentions are found two places: in the creation--for their structure, and in our hearts but the Spirit and with the Body--for what faithfulness means.

Thanks.

Truth Aficionado
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544

Posted 4/17/2004 4:04 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks Msekee for asking some very good questions.

Thanks POW for your insightful response, like always I enjoy learning from what you have to share.

Blessings to both of you.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/17/2004 5:38 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
msekee: I was wondering what your opinions might be about how much of the way we are "wired" is God's perfect design and how much is human nature influenced by the fall? We are obviously very selfish by nature, yet there are a lot of things about us that remain from our creation. (ie: our intellect, our ability to love etc) It seems like people take personality tests etc. and say "well, that's just the way God made me" and never try to change. We know we're supposed to be trying to be more like Christ, but we also each have unique personalities and life experiences that make us who we are. It also seems like I hear a lot of people talking about "natural" things as being the same thing as "what God intended" yet many "natural" things are not at all what God intended.

Seems to me like you answered a good deal of your own question. You note that much about us is good (our intellect, our ability to love [which is none other than our free will], etc.). Yet you noted that there is much about us that’s not good (our selfishness, and our tendency to blame our personality type and upbringing for what’s wrong with us and for our failure to change). So it looks like what’s good about us is that we are free to become the loving caring persons God created us to be. What’s bad about us is that we fail to choose to become this. Doesn’t it follow that God is behind creating us for loving relationship and for wiring us with the capabilities to achieve this end while he’s not behind the behavior patterns that are unloving and impersonal?

I do think that the phrase “being wired by God” is an excellent metaphor. Don’t give it up. I don’t think it at all takes us in the wrong direction, nor do I think there’s bad thinking behind it. To be “wired” by God is to be designed by God with the capabilities to do and become what God has purposed for us. Much of our “wiring” is self-evident. As you noted, we are reasoning beings. Reason is part of our wiring. We make value judgments of a moral nature. That’s part of our wiring. We’re personal and social beings that can’t survive without others. So relationality is part of our wiring. That is, it’s part of “how” God designed us.

It still seems to me to be true that what one believes God’s “purpose” for us to be in turn determines what sort of “wiring” God placed in us, for he surely created us to be and do what he created us FOR. Purpose reigns!

Personality types are wonderful things and aren’t, in my opinion, a bad thing. I suspect Adam and Eve each had a personality different from the other before sin came along. But sin certainly screws with our wiring. We can use our reasoning powers for evil as well as for good and our “understanding” (Paul says) can be darkened, our “consciences” seared. Certain personality types may appear to be more prone toward a particular evil than toward other evils (as they seem to be more adapted for certain gifts than for others). I don’t think we’re likely to fundamentally alter our personality type, though that can never be an excuse for not changing what’s bad about us. There’s a “good” version of each personality type I suppose. That’s what we ought to be heading for.

Not sure if this is what you were interested in.

Tom

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/17/2004 5:58 AM (GMT -6)

Tom's take on "wired" is a very nice one. So long as it does not produce deterministic overtones it is fine. He did a nice job, with what he well points out you pretty much answered yourself too, msekee.

Peace of the Lord be with you both.

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/17/2004 2:47 PM (GMT -6)

God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply before the Fall. He also pronounced absolutely no curse upon their sex drives after the Fall, though it would have been quite easy and logical for Him to have said so if He had wanted to at that point.

The big problem all stems from the particularly Augustinian notion that sex is in and of itself sinful. (Augustine even believed that married sex was sinful, though "permissible," whatever that means).

As to wired, I think it is safe to say that there are definite limits to our ability to change, though of course, a miracle should not be ruled out. And of course, natural desires can become perverted by sinning. Choices when persisted in form habits, habits form character, and character determines destiny.

When I was single, several times I literally BEGGED God to take away my desire for sex. It never happened. What did happen was he sent me the best most wonderful Christian wife I could ever imagine, in due time.

msekee
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 30

Posted 4/18/2004 4:04 PM (GMT -6)

I'm not sure how the subject of sex drives comes into play - but it does remind me of what led me to some of my original questions, that being the conversation Tigress started under "Am I abnormal?". (The whole line of thinking about men being pigs) If I am to understand the first two responses correctly I would have to infer that men are not pigs by nature, they are pigs by choice - choosing to succomb to the temptations of this fallen world.
Anyway - I really enjoyed reading the responses and they made some things "click" with me. They also brought up new questions. (By the way - I know this would probably be more of a theology board question - but I realized I was on the wrong board after I clicked to post it)

First, I have thought for quite a while that Jesus never used any supernatural means to live His sinless life. He had free will as a human being, but never even considered using it. Therefore, I reasoned, it is technically possible for us to also live a sinless life. I also believe that we will still have free will in Heaven, but we will have no desire to choose anything but the will of God.
That being said, are you stating that it is entirely possible for us to overcome our desire to sin much in the way that Dr. Phil teaches people to overcome their desire for foods that are bad for them?

Some other questions that came to my mind are:
What is Paul talking about when he refers to the "old self"? I never really understood this, having been a Christian since I was five, but I always assumed (and was taught) it refers to our "sin nature".
If it is possible for us to live a sinless life, why did Jesus have to die? To defeat evil and therefore eliminate the desire to sin? To cover the sins we would inevitably commit since though it is possible to be sinless it's highly unlikely?

In a way, it reminds me of when my husband told his youth staff that he tries to be real with the young people, and that occasionally he might be short with someone if he is having a bad day, but he would be quick to apologize. One of the staff said he was planning to sin. He said of course not, but that he knows himself and the likelihood that he might at some point be grumpy is pretty high. So in a way, though we don't "have" to keep on sinning the likelihood is there.

Am I close at all to what you're saying?
By the way, I appreciate the way you answered my questions without making me feel stupid or way off base.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/18/2004 5:18 PM (GMT -6)

Dear msekee,

When you say this below, I think I DO know what you mean.

quote:
Originally posted by msekee

I have thought for quite a while that Jesus never used any supernatural means to live His sinless life. He had free will as a human being, but never even considered using it.

"never even considered using...free will as a human being"

That's a popular way to express it. And I know what is meant, because it fits experience that often my choices aren't good ones. But do those experiences change what my nature was created to be? Do I only use my "will" if I choose something bad? (Nope.)

Another popular idea -- a misconception I hope you will agree -- is that there is no choice, no will, if there is only one option that is desireable. "Tain't so." I will to eat. I will to respond to love. I will to...everything that is so good about my human nature.

Jesus, as human, could express his human will IN CONSORT with God's will WITHOUT either conflicting with God's will OR departing from what is naturally human.

Where I hesitated about the word "wired" before is that not every choice we make, not every expression of our will is simple, or even unapposed by something else that we would like to will. I'll give the last piece of cake to my son; and sure I'd like it too--but the choice is to follow part of what I naturally will and to supress another. You get it.

Jesus willed to say "Not my will but Thine." I think that's the classic instance--the one that I remember, that helps me keep it all straight.

Take care!

msekee
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 30

Posted 4/19/2004 7:41 AM (GMT -6)

I would agree with the statement about Jesus using His will ... poor choice of prasing on my part "He never considered using it" should have been followed by "selfishly" or something. but anyway - I am still wondering about the other questions about the "old self" and our ability to rise above the desire to sin. Any thoughts?

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/19/2004 9:07 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by msekee

but anyway - I am still wondering about the other questions about the "old self" and our ability to rise above the desire to sin. Any thoughts?

TRY THIS, IT WAS A WONDERFUL EXPERIENCE FOR ME!

Really, instead of a discussion board, go to your church and sit on the stage up front, and read the Book of Romans from beginning to finish. Get the whole feel. "What shall I do with...." and "bondage to sin." I think it might be a wonderful experience!

Our problem is sin-->death-->sin... But the baptismal grave and the "food of importality (communion) of Christ's flesh and blood, by the Spirit THOSE are the answer. Brought from death to life, and working out your salvation with fear and trembling. Becoming saved...

msekee
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 30

Posted 4/19/2004 1:17 PM (GMT -6)

Okay, I'm sorry my questions may not be up to the level that you all are used to, but I'm just getting started in this whole open view thing. I HAVE read Romans, but generally I've read it with the preconceived ideas that past teachers have put there, so I will definitely try to read it all at once with a new mindset. I'm sort of thinking out loud (or through the keyboard) with some of these questions. I'm starting out late with even thinking about this stuff. I don't have any theological training and I came to this board originally because I am so frustrated with never having anyone to discuss these kind of questions with. I thought any questions were welcome. Obviously I'm just out of my league here so I'll keep my questions to myself or just between me, God and possibly my husband. Isn't that what we women are supposed to do anyway? Sad

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/19/2004 1:29 PM (GMT -6)

PLEASE, please, please forgive me if I offended you, msekee. I see how my post, beginning "instead of a discussion board, go to your church and sit on the stage up front" might have sounded. I see that I made you feel like your contributions were not "up to the level." Again, I regret offending you. I'll re-craft my post a little.

What I was really doing was giving testimony to what a wonderful thing such an individual session between you and God can be. For me (with the sanctuary lights dimmed--a room for about 300) I read from the RSV in that HUGE Bible on the Altar. I'd been in an insane arguement with someone who held a very narrow view of the Gospel (The Ten Commandments were sinful, and the Beatitudes were for Jews and not Christians...'Arrrgg!'), and reading the whole thing just put everything into perspective. Did'nt give all the answers. I forgot part of what I'd read--its so long. But I did get perspective.

.

Likemindedly, you say "generally I've read it with the preconceived ideas that past teachers have put there, so I will definitely try to read it all at once with a new mindset." I hope it works out for you.

Again, you have my apology.

PotOnWheel

msekee
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 30

Posted 4/19/2004 2:42 PM (GMT -6)

PotonWheel
I would also like to apologize to you for immediately assuming that you meant I didn't belong here. My post was a little (?) over the top defensive and that was unnecessary. I do accept your apology and I really do sincerely mean to read the book of Romans again. Even since reading some of the posts on this board I have gone back and read Boyd's "Is God to Blame?" again and it makes a lot more sense to me in light of what some of you have said. I think we probably all think we've read books of the Bible so many times that we know what they say - forgetting that God will reveal new things to us each time we take the time to really look for His heart in the words. To be honest, as a stay-at-home mom with twin 4 year old girls (and a 2nd grader)- I need to get my words out to anyone who will listen at times without regard to if anyone wants to hear them or not. But if I am really going to try to talk theology with people - I need to know what I'm talking about first. I need to really look at the whole Bible with new eyes - not assuming I already know what it means. Thanks for pointing that out (even if that's not exactly what you meant to do)
msekee

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/19/2004 5:26 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by msekee

Okay, I'm sorry my questions may not be up to the level that you all are used to, but I'm just getting started in this whole open view thing.

You're doing fine. Keep the questions coming and hang in there.

Tom

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/19/2004 9:13 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
First, I have thought for quite a while that Jesus never used any supernatural means to live His sinless life. He had free will as a human being, but never even considered using it.

It seems to me that Jesus did in fact use his power of choice (freewill); however, it also is quite clear to me that as a real human He depended upon the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit:

Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the Devil, for God was with him.

Heb. 9:14 How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!

Pertinent to this is that we find Christ performed no miracles prior to his enduement with the Holy Spirit's power when he was baptized by John in the Jordan.

The view I am advocating differs from the classical Reformed point of view, in that as far as I know, they simply say, "Of course Jesus couldn't sin, He was God." Which, as a statement of fact, I agree with, though I don't think it goes deeply enough to bring together all of the biblical material on the real humanity of Christ. I submit that the reason He couldn't sin was because He wouldn't.

Something can be a metaphysical possibility and still be a moral impossibility, for one whose character is steadfast and solidified. The view I am describing allows for Christ's temptations to be TRULY real temptations, with the real LOGICAL possibility of sinning, but not the moral possibility. Just like you could say of someone whose character you are thoroughly acquainted with, "The simply COULDN'T do such a thing!" What you mean is they WOULD NEVER, and you base this assertion on your knowledge of their CHARACTER.

My 2c

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

joneames
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21

Posted 4/21/2004 4:40 PM (GMT -6)

hi

Totally new here. Right now I am doing (trying to) do some debate at a calvinist forum (message board) and would request someone (anyone's) help here. Right now it's a universal love debate.
I am for God's universal love, and it's me on everyone. I used about 10 references to support it, and without surprise, I am getting the "all doesn't mean all" everyone doesn't mean everyone, "who is the "all men" referring to etc.. Well I cannot find an exegesis of
2 peter 3:9, and I Tim 2:4. Can anyone in here help? I am passinate about his, and although I don't expect my debating it will really change anyone, ya never know, I'll give it a try. What would be better than awesome would be if Greg Boyd could offer me his explanation of 1 tim 2 and 2 pet 3. I know you hold to this Greg, and I know you don't believe it without good reason, I'd just love to know what that is, because I am clueless on exegesis. But anyone's help here would be much apperciated. Thanks a bunch.

God bless , Jon

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:25 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual