 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > John Piper's Response to the Tsunami | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/5/2005 8:28 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by JET
I often skip these discussions because I don’t have the time it takes to carefully think through my ideas and put them into words. But I’m going to throw this out despite the fact that it needs a lot more work.
I hear some people wanting to say its either:
1. God is weak (i.e., God wants to prevent all pain in this world, but can’t)
or
2. God is evil (i.e., God is the cause of at least some gratuitous or unnecessary pain)
Lately, I’ve been thinking about a third option:
3. a. Natural evil results from either: (i) Satan or (ii) a process-type view of Creation becoming; evolving, etc., per God’s sovereign choice (ala Iconoclast?). (I don’t know which one I believe.)
b. God is powerful enough to prevent all pain; but preventing pain in this life is not God’s primary objective.
c. The fact that God has never intended to prevent all pain in this life is consistent with the fact that God is perfect love and has perfect love for creatures.
Am I losing it or what?
On what basis would we believe that perfect love requires preventing all pain?
And if we can't say that perfect love requires preventing ALL pain, then how can we say the perfect love requires preventing any specific instance of pain?
And, finally, haven't we established that ALL theodicies can be reduced to "greater good" at some level? Hasn't Doc conceded this?
JET, we're not talking about "pain". We're talking about total destruction of a mass of people.
In scripture, the only times God destroyed a mass of people He first removed all His people (Noah, Lot, Rahab) before He destroyed the rest. Those He destroyed, He specifically pointed out the total lack of righteousness and total amount of wickedness in them.
God is not a house divided. God does not bring destruction upon a mass of people and have us oppose Him by allieviating the resulting infection, disease and starvation that results. This is suppressing God's body count from the destruction God is bringing.
Their point is that this tsunami was God's tsunami, sent to destroy a mass of people, including God's people.
It's not corrective "pain". It's the kind of arbitrary, wanton, purposeless destruction that only the enemy of God brings.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
 |
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 1/5/2005 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,
“MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD,
NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM;
FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES,
AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES.”
All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.
“These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.”
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/5/2005 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
It’s a serious finitude on God’s part if not being able to stop such events under certain conditions was NOT something God already freely agreed to when he created the world, if nature (or demons manipulating nature) is forcing God into situations the possibility of which God did not freely permit in creating, presenting God with factors and/or issues that he had not already contemplated—more than that, which God had not already contemplated AND allowed. So if God didn’t exercise power to stop this tsunami (which he has the sheer muscle to do), it would seem to me that this absence of exercise of divine power is explainable in terms of conditions and rules God designed and decided he was cool with and whose existence were necessary to God’s ultimate goals in creating.
So, given what we are saying here, the actualization of this tragedy was an ACCEPTABLE RISK to God, given what God wanted to do, right?
---------------------
Tom:
quote:
Now, I pray for protection because I believe such prayer is “a” factor among all the factors that define the entire context (natural, human, angelic, and divine) which ends up determining whether or not my daughter is in a car accident when she drives home. Prayers for protection and not guarantees, agreed. But that doesn’t mean there’s no point in praying for protection. Such prayers are wise, given that they take their place among those factors that influence events—yes, like seat belts. Do we refuse to ever wear seat belts because seat belts are not a 100% guarantee that we won’t get hurt, or die, when wearing one in an accident? No. We wear them because it’s often true that we get hurt, or die, for failure to wear a seat belt. Seat belts are only one factor, but sometimes they’re the deciding factor.
Understood. My concern would be having FAITH in the prayer. Petitionary prayer would be more covering the bases than anything else. Remember the way I said people would pray...if they did so consistently?
Lord, please do X if it's possible for you AND if it's your will.
Just like no one had better tell me that I should have unwavering faith in my seat belt...no one had better tell me I should have unwavering faith in the efficacy of my prayer. I CAN have unwavering faith in God's ultimate dispositions and intentions towards me. But NOT in the efficacy of my petitionary prayer and God's effective aid. I have a certain level of UNBELIEF in my seat belt's ability to save my life. Shouldn't a level of UNBELIEF in God's genuine ability to protect me exist as well? | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/5/2005 8:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika: JET, we're not talking about "pain". We're talking about total destruction of a mass of people.
JET: And why do we have a problem with "total destruction of a mass of people"? Because of the pain it causes to the victims and survivors. I think were talking about "pain".
Laika: In scripture, the only times God destroyed a mass of people He first removed all His people (Noah, Lot, Rahab) before He destroyed the rest. Those He destroyed, He specifically pointed out the total lack of righteousness and total amount of wickedness in them.
God is not a house divided. God does not bring destruction upon a mass of people and have us oppose Him by allieviating the resulting infection, disease and starvation that results. This is suppressing God's body count from the destruction God is bringing.
Their point is that this tsunami was God's tsunami, sent to destroy a mass of people, including God's people.
JET: Look at my 3(a), above. I'm not saying that God caused the Tsunami.
Laika: It's not corrective "pain". It's the kind of arbitrary, wanton, purposeless destruction that only the enemy of God brings.
JET: I am open to the possibility that the "pain" is caused by Satan (see my 3,a, above). But, unless you agree that God doesn't necessarily intend to prevent all pain, you must say that God couldn't prevent the Tsunami.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/5/2005 8:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Jet's with it...
quote:
3. a. Natural evil results from either: (i) Satan or (ii) a process-type view of Creation becoming; evolving, etc., per God’s sovereign choice (ala Iconoclast?). (I don’t know which one I believe.)
b. God is powerful enough to prevent all pain; but preventing pain in this life is not God’s primary objective. (Think "soul-making", inter alia)
c. The fact that God has never intended to prevent all pain in this life is consistent with the fact that God is perfect love and has perfect love for creatures.
Am I losing it or what?
You hit on something here. If one is a process theist, there IS no real problem of evil. God's power is ONLY persuasive and NEVER unilateral. The problem comes when one postulates a God who can work and speak unilaterally. This is the problem open view theists have that process theists don't.
-------------------------
Laika:
quote:
God didn't prevent this tsunami. God has prevented other tsunamis.
Keep snappin' those fingers, baby boy. Whatever gets you through this life... | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/5/2005 8:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Just a friendly term, Laika. Least I didn't try to pat you on tha a$$ or somethin'. 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:::pats Laika on the heiney with a grin::: | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/5/2005 8:52 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/5/2005 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | JET:
quote:
And, finally, haven't we established that ALL theodicies can be reduced to "greater good" at some level? Hasn't Doc conceded this?
Indeed, he has! Good to note. | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/5/2005 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
The main difference is that when an open view theist says unqualifiably that God can IN NO WAY been involved in the actualization of any particular evils...AND God always does everything God can to minimize all evil...that a shadow casts over some things. At the very least, it posits an EXTREMELY powerful enemy of God who can suddenly and disastrously disrupt things on an individual and global scale...that God CANNOT always defeat. It also introduces the idea of radically gratuitous evil...such that even God has to get LUCKY to pull certain things off.
I'm behind for sure so if anyone has gone here, sorry. Meph, how do you explain the story of seemingly unanswered prayer in Daniel 10? I think it would help me to know how YOU view the enemy of God as anything BUT extremely powerful. thanks.
-----------------------------------
quote:
About SK. From what I understand, SK believed in the teleological suspension of the ethical. The assumptions of some open view theists (ala Pinnock, Sanders, et. al) would NOT allow for this. Teleological suspension of the ethical would ALLOW for God to use "evil" means for greater good purposes. We've actually be down this road.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I was just suggesting checking out SK's "Fear and Trembling" to examine issues surrounding practical faith...because, for me, it was helpful (and very inspiring!) nothing else. delete comment :)
bless,
s | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/5/2005 8:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
O.K. I've said it before, I'll say it again.
God didn't prevent this tsunami. God has prevented other tsunamis.
Just like God didn't prevent the Israelite casulties when Joshua's army fought in Canaan, just like God couldn't get the message to Daniel for 21 days, just like God can't make square circles, just like God can't make married batchelors, just like God can't know the future choices of free moral agents, just like God can't give Sartre his wish to eternally live, yet apart from God.
Cool. So you have no qualms about saying God couldn't prevent this tsunamis. Basically, the Boyd thing. SATPOE. I'm just not sure that I can honestly say I believe that natural evil is caused by the devil, or if it is, that God can't trump the Devil at least when it comes to the natural, physical world. I'm much more inclined to agree that God has to do "spiritual warfare" with the Devil when it comes to the moral decisions of free agents. I.e., because we're free, we are subject to genuine influence from Evil as well as genuine influence from Good. I'm just skeptical about saying the Devil has so much (unilateral) power over the physical Creation (notwithstanding the "god of this world" stuff). | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/5/2005 9:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
quote:
I'm behind for sure so if anyone has gone here, sorry. Meph, how do you explain the story of seemingly unanswered prayer in Daniel 10? I think it would help me to know how YOU view the enemy of God as anything BUT extremely powerful. thanks.
I did a post on this before...but I'll synopsize. Long story short. It's not that the demon was SOOO powerful...more than it was God making answering Daniel's prayer that same day an ACCEPTABLE RISK. God could have given the message to Daniel THAT DAY through a dream or vision...or whatever else. EASILY. But perhaps God decided to delegate this responsibility to an angel and however long it took, that's just how long it took.
In the end, the issue was in God's ALLOWANCE, not in God's straight up INABILITY.
But I don't know if this is something that people would like to say for this tsunami situation. That this was an ACCEPTABLE RISK to God such that God felt he didn't need to take direct action. It wasn't CORE to God's plans such that it would be SETTLED that this calamity wouldn't occur.
-------------------------
Laika,
I'd better go to. Let me just say...
Trust the providence of God...and drive carefully...and lock your doors...and wear your seat belts...and check on your kids...and watch the weather reports...and keep your insurance up...and... | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/5/2005 9:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Jet's with it...
quote:
3. a. Natural evil results from either: (i) Satan or (ii) a process-type view of Creation becoming; evolving, etc., per God’s sovereign choice (ala Iconoclast?). (I don’t know which one I believe.)
b. God is powerful enough to prevent all pain; but preventing pain in this life is not God’s primary objective. (Think "soul-making", inter alia)
c. The fact that God has never intended to prevent all pain in this life is consistent with the fact that God is perfect love and has perfect love for creatures.
Am I losing it or what?
You hit on something here. If one is a process theist, there IS no real problem of evil. God's power is ONLY persuasive and NEVER unilateral. The problem comes when one postulates a God who can work and speak unilaterally. This is the problem open view theists have that process theists don't.
But I'm postulating that God can work unilaterally, . . . but that this doen't entail that God will always prevent all pain.
I'm postulating an omnipotent Creator choosing to create a process-type Creation (for reasons that we can't get into here) . . . sans devil. (3,a, above, second option)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/5/2005 9:06 AM (GMT -6) | | JET:
quote:
I'm just not sure that I can honestly say I believe that natural evil is caused by the devil, or if it is, that God can't trump the Devil at least when it comes to the natural, physical world. I'm much more inclined to agree that God has to do "spiritual warfare" with the Devil when it comes to the moral decisions of free agents. I.e., because we're free, we are subject to genuine influence from Evil as well as genuine influence from Good. I'm just skeptical about saying the Devil has so much (unilateral) power over the physical Creation (notwithstanding the "god of this world" stuff).
I feel ya. I don't think I can buy it anymore. Saying that the Devil and his angels have effectively been in control of all the natural laws and workings of Creation for BILLIONS OF YEARS? (Make no mistake. That IS what one has to say!) Saying that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is essentially from the DEVIL?? That God can't stop a friggin tsunami created from tectonic plate shifting...no matter how badly he wants to...because of demonic influence?
Nah. Can't do it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
vangobel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 1/5/2005 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Originally posted by spenlake
In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,
“MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD,
NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM;
FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES,
AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES.”
All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.
Suffering for righteousness sake , like the presecutions of the gospel by the ROMAN EMPIRE enables the 'fruit of righteousness'
vastly different from dying children and mass drownings of unbelievers by a natural disaster.
Also after Noah God promised never to flood the earth again. I fail to see Jesus in the NT doing anything violent to lost people.
Jesus IS Yahweh of the OT....the fullest picture of who God is (Hebrews...in the last days he spoke to us throught the prophets.....but now He has revealed His Son...dwelt in the flesh and lived among us)
hope this helps your 'bible-study'
Ray
God is good....and that's all right with me! | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/5/2005 9:09 AM (GMT -6) | | JET:
quote:
But I'm postulating that God can work unilaterally, . . . but that this doen't entail that God will always prevent all pain.
I'm postulating an omnipotent Creator choosing to create a process-type Creation (for reasons that we can't get into here) . . . sans devil. (3,a, above, second option)
If this is what you are positing...a process view with NO devil...then your problem of evil (at least with respect to natural evil) is solved! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/5/2005 9:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika: It's "absolutely amazing" to you that some people pray to God and entrust their loved ones to His care?
Tom: Not at all. What seems amazing is that you’d only trust God for eternal life if God actually protected you and your family from all physical harm in this life. That is what I heard you sahying.
Laika: I pray for my family, I trust God will protect them to the best of His ability in this world wracked with spiritual war.
Tom: This is different. I’m cool with this. I trust God to protect me ‘given a wacked out world’. But in this case I would NOT make my trusting God for salvation dependent upon his actually always protecting me and my family from physical harm.
Laika: If something happens to them, it wasn't God who did it. If something happens to them, I knew God did His best to protect them. You guys value freakish control over that of sterling character, imho.
Tom: How so? I complete agree that if something happens to my family it wasn’t God who did it.
Laika: Here's the choice:
a. no bully can touch you, but God will smack you Himself
b. God will NEVER smack you, though a bully may occaisionally
choice a, character issue
choice b, power issue
Tom: I’m with ya. I think God can be trusted to always do all he can, given all the factors HE created and permitted and which were necessary for a world of freely chosen love, to prevent evil, and when that evil isn’t preventable because of those factors, God then does all he can given those factors to minimize the impact and effects of evil. That’s all I’ve ever said. Now, I “think” switching the tracks (which I only think SOMETIMES happens) can FIT into this affirmation. You don’t. But that doesn’t mean I value “freakish control” over that of “character.”
Mephi: So, given what we are saying here, the actualization of this tragedy was an ACCEPTABLE RISK to God, given what God wanted to do, right?
Tom: Across the board, yes. Given a cross-centered approach to God, life, evil, and all, given the multiplicity of factors, etc., that’s where I am. In the end, this makes more sense of the evidence than saying God is caught by his own creation in the predicament of wanting to stop a tsunami but just flat out not have the muscle to do so.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/5/2005 9:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
JET:
quote:
But I'm postulating that God can work unilaterally, . . . but that this doen't entail that God will always prevent all pain.
I'm postulating an omnipotent Creator choosing to create a process-type Creation (for reasons that we can't get into here) . . . sans devil. (3,a, above, second option)
If this is what you are positing...a process view with NO devil...then your problem of evil (at least with respect to natural evil) is solved!
I'm postulating Omnipotence, not Process Theism. POE still "solved". | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/5/2005 9:22 AM (GMT -6) | | MephE,
I'm saying you can posit a omnipotent, omnibenevolent God (either with or without the Devil) and still have pain as long as you don't assume that omnibenevolence entails preventing all pain.
Make sense?
E | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/5/2005 9:27 AM (GMT -6) | | | Think of the other theodicies mentioned in SATPOE--soul-making, kenotic, etc. Doc basically agrees with them. He just thinks they're inadequate without also positing Satan's activity as "god of this world". I'm questioning that. | | Back to Top | | |
| 223 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:03 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|