 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 1/9/2003 7:47 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tonight a very close friend of mine and I were talking and he asked me this question, "Why is it that basically equally intelligent, apparently sincere, equally studious, truly God-loving Christians can differ so radically in their theology?"
I have often pondered this question before. It has always struck me as quite strange that even Greek and Hebrew scholars do not all agree on theology. There are biblical language scholars in most traditions who seem to often use their knowledge of these languages to support their theological point of view (of course, there are those brave but perhaps naive souls who go against the grain, but...) I've known people from a variety of denominational backgrounds who would say, "Well, the Greek says..." in order to support their doctrinal view.
My question is how is it that a man who has a Ph.D in Biblical Greek from a reputable seminary, let's say for example, a Calvinist, differ from another man of equivalent credentials who happens to be an Arminian? I would like to just say they just see things differently, but in all honestly that sort of idea doesn't seem to reflect the true nature of this issue. Both are convinced they are right (Okay, at least the Calvinist is); why don't they agree?
My answer to my friend's question was twofold. As far as I can tell right now, the reasons for most theological differences have to do more with the individuals' presuppositions about (1) time and (2) philosophy.
As far as the nature of time goes, I'll leave that alone for now, but suffice it to say that I find one's definition of time is absolutely essential to know before one can see how it relates to theology. What is time?
As far as philosophical pressuppositions go, it seems self-evident that most generally one's presuppositions determine one's conclusions; any information perceived as not fitting with one's presuppositions tend to be forced to fit into the overall framework of those presuppositions. I am not saying that this is how it should be, but that it seems to be how things are.
What do you think? Am I onto something or am I all wet?
Ahead of time I sincerely thank you for your response(s),
John Earp
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Revival_Theology/
Edited by - John Earp on 01/10/2003 12:56:06 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/9/2003 8:49 PM (GMT -6) | | I hear you, John. There's many times I've wished that theological disputes could be settled just by objectively looking at the evidence, viz. the Bible. Unfortunately, I've discovered that not only is that not how matters stand, but, given our epistemic limitations, things could not be otherwise.
It's not as if there's anything particularly puzzling about theology. In EVERY developed field of study (science, philosophy, ethics, etc.) there are seemingly interminable disputes between different factions, especially when it comes to higher-level questions. The reason for this is primarily, I think, due to the fact that different issues intertwine with each other. For example, if you try to answer the question "what is time?" before long you'll be studying high-level physics and philosophy, which means studying logic, mathematics, metaphysics, and so on. That "simple" question ties into so many other issues and is actually much more complex than it appears. The more we analyze it, the more presuppositions we discover, the more questions get raised--until we reach a point where it is humanly impossible to grasp everything one would need to know to give the "definitive" answer that would lay all disputes to rest. Because any one person can at best grasp part of the overall picture, there will always be informed, well-intention people who disagree on such issues. The same complexity emerges when we try to answer any truly interesting question (indeed, that's why such questions are interesting).
In theology, as in every other field, some things seem very clearly true to most everyone (e.g., that God exists, that the Bible is God's Word, etc.), and some things lack a firm consensus (e.g., transubstantiation, eschatology). In either case, however, when one begins to press into these question, new questions arise, and those questions raise other questions, and so on. Before long we're not just reading our NIV, we're studying Greek and Hebrew, doing textual studies, researching archaeology and Biblical history, reading the Church Fathers and considering the cultural and philosophical influences on their thinking, etc. When you begin to appreciate how these "simple" issues tie in with so many other issues, the real marvel is not that sincere, intelligent, studied people can continue to disagree, but that we can agree on anything at all!
I often wish things were indeed simpler and that we could all easily come to agree on these important and interesting questions. But that wish is hopelessly naive. What we can do is foster a spirit of mutual respect and cameraderie as fellow-inquirers engaged in the quest to better understand. I think that's an important of aspect of coming to love one's neighbor.
Blessings to you, brother.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 1/10/2003 5:49 AM (GMT -6) | | I like the way that this is starting. After reading what Alan wrote, here is another question (though I think you will have already answered it).
Yes, major fields of thought intertwine with each other so that equally intelligent people come to two totally different conclusions in their respective fields. The "simple" question is no longer simple.
Question. Still, cannot one of these equally intelligent people be "wrong"? Now I know that some people will say that I am moving from a psychological hermeneutic. I want to be certain. Therefore, I want some boundaries. Therefore, I may want there to be "right" and "wrong" answers. And I guess, I don't have a problem with that to some degree. After all, we are all like that right? But what I'm asking is not something emerging out of a need for psychological certainty, but honestly asking out of knowing something (reality) as objective. That is, can I know something as objective without the psychological attachment or accusation that I am expressing the subtle need for psychological certainty. I'm not too sure we can ever get totally away from that. Any of us. But I don't like being accused of it by my opponents any more than they would of me--"Oh Brandon, you need to be psychologically certain, while I'm being fair and open-minded."
For an example, open theists are just as dogmatic about their view of God as are those who hold to a more providential understanding of God, i.e. blueprint world view, God controls everything, etc. As Stackhouse put it, "Open theists think they read the Bible more accurately." Two totally opposite conclusions. Both can't be "right". And I remember Empiress accusing me of this, I believe, on a thread called, "Sex. What's it good for?" or it was on the "Pro-life" thread. As I thought about it, I began to accept that more as an insult and name calling (ad hominem) than as fair argumentation. For I think she can be just as needy of certainty in her views even though she does not hold to boundaries and defined lines as I do. Her standards are different, but they are still there and she feels as comfortable in them as the next guy.
Thoughts please.
Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation
Edited by - BBBCanada on 01/10/2003 10:53:15 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 1/10/2003 9:52 AM (GMT -6) | | We have our baggage coming in and unless God makes it so concrete and plain that it slaps us in the face, that baggage is going to influence what we believe. Thats my take anyway...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
badger
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 1/10/2003 11:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Is it not only really humans amongst creatures that speak with so many different languages which only serve to complicate communication? Is it not therefore possible that the absolute truth is also dissipated amongst humans in such a manner that no one person can find it all?
I wonder, what would that person be like if they really DID know all the truth. Would they still be capable of humility before God? Is it not even God's purpose that we should not become all-knowing?
Is it not worthwhile categorising matters of dissention into degrees of importance? Would we not then be able to see which issues matter and which do not when we consider how much we disagree? Are there not, in fact, many issues that are extremely interesting to discuss but really do not need to be resolved in order for us to be what God wants us to be? And thereby we can feel free to discuss with no obligation to agree?
I wonder sometimes whether the key issue is not so much what our differences are, but in what manner and attitude we approach them and each other. The NT does not give us much by way of rules and ritual detail, or festivals, or anniversaries, or worldly explanations and there must be a reason for that. Is it not so that the key, crucial, matters are written in the heart and not in the book?
Is it not so that whilst Christians may hold widely varying opinions on many issues, that they are simultaneously in unison concerning core matters such as love for God and for one another? Is it not one thing to ponder why we differ, but yet another to ponder on to what extent it matters? Since no one can prove they hold the truth, can we not relax and enjoy exploring the richness of our differences without feeling a guilt or need to justify the situation?
With love
Badger
Edited by - badger on 01/11/2003 04:06:35 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108
| Posted 1/10/2003 11:43 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"Why is it that basically equally intelligent, apparently sincere, equally studious, truly God-loving Christians can differ so radically in their theology?"
This question has puzzled me also, but in a different sense. I realize that we all have presuppositions, and Silva in An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics suggests that (1) it is impossible to eliminate presuppositions and (2) it would not be desireable to do so even if we could. He argues that our presupps provide us with a frame of reference from which we can approach the text. As we encounter new information, we filter it through our conceptual grid. Either it fits, or it doesn't. In the latter case, we can either ignore the new data, manipulate the data to fit our grid, or we can adjust our preconceptions in the light of the new data.
But I got off track. The original question has raised another related question for me, and that is, "What then do we make of the Holy Spirit's role in hermenuetics?" I often hear that if we sincerely seek God and love Him, then we will not be led astray in our search for truth (i.e., knowledge of Him). But clearly, the theologians who disagree cannot both be correct. So did the Holy Spirit lead astray one (or both) of these who sincerely sought God? Does the Holy Spirit in fact guarantee that we will arrive at theological truth, or does the Spirit play a different role in our lives? And, is theological truth arrived at by other means (I'm thinking perhaps of personal humility, honesty, etc.)?
I find these questions and the ones Brandon raised very interesting especially in the light of postmodernism's claims. What are we to make of this so-called "pursuit of truth"?
After having thrown these logs on the fire, I have to get going. I really look forward to this discussion.
El Payaso 
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/12/2003 1:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Honorman:We have our baggage coming in and unless God makes it so concrete and plain that it slaps us in the face, that baggage is going to influence what we believe. Thats my take anyway...
SIM: An interesting observation: The only 2 ministers whose mothers I know about, and who I know embrace the Open View:
Have had very controlling mothers.
A question comes to mind: Do many Open View believers have a controlling primary care-giver in their lives?
John:As far as I can tell right now, the reasons for most theological differences have to do more with the individuals' presuppositions about (1) time and (2) philosophy.
SIM: I definitely believe this.
Brandon: Question. Still, cannot one of these equally intelligent people be "wrong"? Now I know that some people will say that I am moving from a psychological hermeneutic. I want to be certain. Therefore, I want some boundaries. Therefore, I may want there to be "right" and "wrong" answers.
SIM: When do feelings have anything to do with objective truth? It is scary that a large percent of supposedly bible-believing Christians do not believe in absolute truth. The fact that someone wants or does not want there to be truth has nothing to do with its existence. Just because a person cannot comprehend all truth does not mean that part truth cannot be comprehended.
Sorry if I'm jumping to wrong conclusions, but this idea hits my hot button. I was recently at a science institute, and a public school teacher announced that there is no such thing as a wrong answer. I was irate, and when I had the chance, announced that there IS such a thing as a right answer!
Brandon: "Open theists think they read the Bible more accurately."
Can I pose a burning question? How can the "discoverer" of the open view believe that he discovered a truth that all the saints in the first centuries after Christ-- many of whom (1)sacrificed family, possessions, home, and their very lives for their beliefs, and (2)wrote the major foundational Christian works --all these Giants of Faith missed in their persevering studies of the scriptures? To me, this should raise some major red flags! Tell me, am I missing something?
Just wondering,
SIM
Edited by - SIM on 01/12/2003 6:12:43 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 1/13/2003 6:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tonight a very close friend of mine and I were talking and he asked me this question, "Why is it that basically equally intelligent, apparently sincere, equally studious, truly God-loving Christians can differ so radically in their theology?"
...
My answer to my friend's question was twofold. As far as I can tell right now, the reasons for most theological differences have to do more with the individuals' presuppositions about (1) time and (2) philosophy.
I make no comment on singling-out those two particular presuppositional areas, but I'd agree that presuppositions in general are, most immediately, the reason for this. But I'd add that their effect on theological theorizing is magnified/catalyzed by the fact that the Bible is simply not a work of systematic theology, laying out doctrine in one-two-three fashion and leaving comparatively little room for interpretation. Its an anthology of literature relating peoples' experience of God, most of it written at a time when the concepts of abstract discourse and propositional logic were not yet in the culture. Naturally this leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation (with presuppositions doing their thing) when we do try to extract exacting, systematic doctrine out of it.
If you ask me, the real question is not "why do such Christians as you describe differ in their theology", but "why do such Christians all too often hate each other over it". Its one thing for honest Christians to decide provisionally that one is wrong and the other is right. Its another thing for one to decide that God wants him to act out against the other, whether its as extreme as a Thirty Years War or as comparatively low-key as moving to strike Clark Pinnock and John Sanders from the Evangelical Theological Society.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/13/2003 5:42 PM (GMT -6) | | GREAT question John. I think there are a multitude of factors that contribute to this situation.
1. Reality is too complex for finite beings like us to ever exhaustively comprehend with certainty. Most of reality has to strike us as ambiguous. Hence, some questions -- perhaps many questions -- do not admit to the kind of answer that finite minds will agree on.
Given this situation, I like what Badger and Craig had to say about attitude. Perhaps God is more interested in HOW we discuss certain issues than WHAT we conclude about those issues. Who ever said we'd be able to agree? I have concluded that Paul's word on the supremacy of love is all important (I Cor. 13:1-4). Even if you "know all things", if you lack love, its WORTHLESS.
2. Along with our presuppositions about "time" and "philosophy," I think a MAJOR factor is our basic intuitions about what "perfection" looks like. I have been absolutely amazed at how different these intuitions can be. What some call "glorious" I find monstrous. What I call "glorious" some find "pathetic." I have no idea how to get beyond this impass. (go back to point #1).
3. We are not simply rational creatures, but have all sorts of other "needs" we seek to meet with our "thinking" and "disputing." We have a need for security (existential, political, social, etc.). We have a need for acceptance. Some have a need for recognition. Others for power. We think out of our needs, and this strongly colors our thinking.
4. People vary in terms of their ability and/or willingness to distinguish their "map" from "the territory." All the factors in #3 play into this.
5. People are at different places spiritually, having been given and/or cultivated different capacities to "see" spiritual truth.
In the light of all this, one can understand the radical post-modern tendency to deny that we can ever really know "objective truth." Yet, the very statement presupposes that we CAN, at least within limits, know objective truth. We are wired to want to know objective truth, even if we find it difficult in our present circumstances (where "objective" means something like, "that upon which reasonable people would agree"). IN this light, it seems to me that the best way forward is to
*** strive to be honest with your own needs that may color your thinking
*** strive to NOT get life from "being right" but (if you're a Christian) from God's love for you, expressed in Jesus Christ.
*** strive to be honest with your own fallibility
*** strive to trust the sincerity of those who disagree with you, and learn from their perspectives
*** strive to be as rational as possible
*** strive to be as spiritually illuminated as possible
*** call the shots as you see them
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY
***strive to love outrageous all who agree and disagree with you.
Greg
[siz=1]ps. Oh yes, I almost forgot. I should add, "strive to agree with Greg Boyd who has successfully transcendented all the above listed limitations and thus knows all truth.  [/size=1]
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6
Edited by - GregBoyd on 01/13/2003 10:44:36 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 1/13/2003 6:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Thank you all for your very helpful comments. I am sorry if it appeared as if I was ignoring the all-encompassing command to love in the midst of disputes. I have had plenty of experience at being rejected and even hated for my point of view, and so I certainly realize how negative things can become when doctrinal debates come into play. As an almost-pacifist, the last thing I would want to do is engender strife or hatred amongst Christians.
That being said, I do believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth and that it can be found by the earnest, God-loving seeker.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/14/2003 3:52 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM,
You said, Can I pose a burning question? How can the "discoverer" of the open view believe that he discovered a truth that all the saints in the first centuries after Christ-- many of whom (1)sacrificed family, possessions, home, and their very lives for their beliefs, and (2)wrote the major foundational Christian works --all these Giants of Faith missed in their persevering studies of the scriptures? To me, this should raise some major red flags! Tell me, am I missing something?
What would make you think the first-century Christians didn't hold an open view? I mean, if an open view to them was as obvious as the quench of thirst water brings, they certainly would see no need to say the obvious. It was a given. Further, several debates within different subjects took place from the first century on, debates on many subjects. Not everyone agreed with each other anymore than we all don't agree with each other today. But that's not to say there was no concept of the open view back then. It just means, as was such in the OT, that one didn't have to say the obvious.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 1/14/2003 6:03 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM,
I think thou misunderstandest moi. I would obviously agree that objective truth is not determined by feelings. That would be relativism plain and simple. We have discussed on these boards and as Greg mentions above, the relation of feelings and psychological certainty to objective truth. Read, "The Myth of Certainty."
But it's like Greg says, quote:
In the light of all this, one can understand the radical post-modern tendency to deny that we can ever really know "objective truth." Yet, the very statement presupposes that we CAN, at least within limits, know objective truth.
Even the post-modern pluralist position is "vying for the truth (or adherents)," for it is making a truth claim about reality. And this for me is how "love" fits into the scheme of things. I, obviously, believe that the two competing worldviews (modernism/materialism and supernaturalism) cannot both be true at the same time. And so, because one is "right" and one is "wrong," love would dictate not pride and self-righteousness and haughtiness but concern that my fellowman come to see the light and the truth.
quote:
ps. Oh yes, I almost forgot. I should add, "strive to agree with Greg Boyd who has successfully transcendented all the above listed limitations and thus knows all truth.
Daaawg...
Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation | | Back to Top | | |
|
CalvinnHobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 1/15/2003 6:30 PM (GMT -6) | | I really appreciate the question you've brought to the table here, John. It IS pretty incredible that scholars with the same credentials, including proficiency in Biblical languages, can see such different things when they look at the same source of divine revelation. Considering that so many debates have continued for so many centuries without definitive resolution for all, I occasionally feel inclined to scrap whatever I think I've understood about many of these issues and just focus entirely on love, whatever understanding it may cost me. I sometimes wonder if I'll stand before Christ and hear him ask me, "Why did you spend so much time talking about the nature of my infinite mind? Why weren't you feeding the poor like I told you?" I start to ask myself if Mother Teresa should be my teacher instead of the leading scholar. After all, her progress was certainly far more ascertainable. But I agree with Dr. Boyd and those who would say that the manner in which we search out or discuss many of these theological matters is probably most important. If nothing else, the debates are a good rational exercise for the mind, and a sharper intellect is certainly a helpful tool.
I must say I LOVE what Scott has said regarding the relationship between the Scriptures and theology . The Bible isn't a systematic theology treatise. Huge, huge point. Much of it, like most of the writings of the early Church Fathers in the first couple of centuries, was written to respond to specific issues consuming, some threatening, the church (i.e. Paul's addressing the issues of Gentile converts or the problems at Corinth). Nobody intended to answer all possible questions. Jesus himself didn't seem too concerned with clearly outlining the operation of the divine will or, for that matter, the nature of the Godhead or even his own incarnation.
I totally agree that our philosophical presuppositions sway our theologies. I'd also venture to say they play a part not only in dictating how and what we think about the nature of ultimate reality, but also how we suspect what's more or less worth knowing about it. Something has to account for the fact that some of us place an understanding of divine foreknowledge pretty high on that ladder of significance. I imagine some of those pesky psychological motivations probably play some part. The psychological quest for certainty probably permeates our quest for knowledge in any area to some degree or another.
You mentioned the appeal to Biblical languages and how we still have unresolved problems. I can't help but wonder how much the nature of our symbolic medium limits our understanding or perhaps dictates some of these presuppositions we've been referring to. Symbols make up the fabric of our entire thought and communication and they're far more fluid than definitively standardized. We don't see many of our common symbols given set DEFINITIONS in our communication, even in the divine communication of Scripture. We really just see USES or INSTANCES of the symbols in the author's attempt to get the term/idea "across" to the mind of the other person(s). Without set definitions, we all tend to pick the instances of usage which support our own theories and leave the rest. It's a bummer.
As far as SIM's question of how open theism has supposedly found out what the early Christians failed to catch (or at least to comment on). . .It may be important to remind ourselves that the early Christians had more pressing matters to think about than divine eternality or temporality as related to God's knowledge of future contingents. Really, until Constantine hit the scene early in the fourth century and turned the church of the weak and poor into the church of the powerful and wealthy, Christians were busy dying at the hands of one Roman emperor after another.
In addition, in attempts to find some common ground with their Hellenistic persecutors and critics and perhaps reduce some of the hostility, many early Christian writers sought to demonstrate the validity of the Christian worldview with appeals to the best of classical pagan philosophy. Many of the leading Christian thinkers (Justin, Clement, Origin, etc.)were quite inclined towards Platonic philosophy with its emphasis on the eternal, unchanging, and supremely transcendent absolute and its provision for the immortality of the soul. The doctrine of the Logos, which became so incredibly key during this time period, is another Platonic-friendly idea that served to establish a little common ground.
For whatever any of this may be worth--Take the truth and leave the rest.
"The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know." ~President John Adams
Edited by - CalvinnHobbes on 01/15/2003 11:36:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 1/15/2003 7:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Welcome to the board, Shane! Look forward to seeing your contributions.
Blessings,
Paul
P.S. I checked out your profile and, If I am not mistaken, you are in that band called 38th Parallel?
"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught
Edited by - A_Theist on 01/16/2003 02:39:38 AM
Edited by - A_Theist on 01/16/2003 4:15:55 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/16/2003 4:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
P.S. I checked out your profile, and If I am not mistaken, you are in that band called 38th Parallel?
The whole time I'm reading his post I'm thinking he must be some kind of intellectual academic, and turns out he's in a rock & roll band?
Just may have to check this band out.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 1/16/2003 10:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
The whole time I'm reading his post I'm thinking he must be some kind of intellectual academic, and turns out he's in a rock & roll band?
Just may have to check this band out.
If you like, or have ever heard of, the bands Linkin Park, Project 86, East West, Blindside, then you might like this music. And if you have never heard of any of those bands, then I would encourage you to check out this style of music anyways.
Shane, is the song D.O.D. and let go written by 38th Parallel as well? I downloaded them off of Kazaa--I know that is something that a musician doesn't want to have to hear--so I am not quite sure that they are legit. What do you think?
Turn the Tides and Who Am I? are really good song!
Thanks for joing Doc's message board.
Blessings,
Paul
"Hearts far to hard to challenge a sadness that’s draining The soul of a generation Blanketed with tears are faces of nations...Everyone laughs, everyone cries, everyone lives Everyone dies and in between they crawl Through stagnate realities longing to fly"
-38th Parallel: Turn the Tide
It is brilliant lyrics like this that made let me appreciate Project 86.
These guys are beautiful human beings!
"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught
Edited by - A_Theist on 01/17/2003 04:33:09 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
CalvinnHobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 1/17/2003 3:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Shane, is the song D.O.D. and let go written by 38th Parallel as well? I downloaded them off of Kazaa--I know that is something that a musician doesn't want to have to hear--so I am not quite sure that they are legit. What do you think?
Those were two songs from the demo that ended up getting us signed to Squint Entertainment. The third song on the demo, the one which the label liked the most, was an earlier recording of "Three Times Denied" (a version we actually prefer to the one on our current record). We don't sell those songs anyway, so download or burn 'em to your heart's content.
We're all huge Project fans too.  Props out.
Your name rules, by the way!
"The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know." ~President John Adams
Edited by - CalvinnHobbes on 01/17/2003 10:47:35 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
CalvinnHobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 1/17/2003 5:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
As far as philosophical pressuppositions go, it seems self-evident that most generally one's presuppositions determine one's conclusions; any information perceived as not fitting with one's presuppositions tend to be forced to fit into the overall framework of those presuppositions. I am not saying that this is how it should be, but that it seems to be how things are.
To avoid closing the initial discussion, I want to raise some questions related to John's point here. It does seem to be a fact that our presuppositions determine our conclusions. The very nature of an ARGUMENT demands that they do. (Sadly, with most people throwing their assertions around these days as if what they've heard or experienced makes them the arbiter of truth, I have to wonder if the average citizen realizes the difference between an argument and a proposition!  It's nice to see a forum exalting the lost art of rational discussion.) Yet, the presuppositions of one argument are usually the conclusions of another.
Foundationalism basically says we require absolutely certain foundational principles to ground all knowledge, otherwise knowledge can never be inferentially justified. Foundationalists claim that without these unquestionables we would have an infinite regress of argumentation behind any presupposition and, therefore, no real foundation to any claim. Coherentism, on the other hand, says that one's ideas need only cohere consistently with each other and require no ultimate foundation. Coherentists claim that an individual belief receives its justification by virtue of its membership in an appropriately structured system of beliefs.
How might these theories relate to those who proudly embrace circular reasoning in their theology? How might it relate to proponents of "presuppositional apologetics"? The relationship especially between these practices and coherentism sounds like an interesting item to consider.
"The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know." ~President John Adams | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/17/2003 7:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Welcome CalvinnHobbes, (may I call you Calvin for short  oops, better not!)
Anyway, I just want to tell you that your post was like a breath
of fresh air (for me) and that I COMPLETELY agree with the following:
quote:
Considering that so many debates have continued for so many centuries without definitive resolution for all, I occasionally feel inclined to scrap whatever I think I've understood about many of these issues and just focus entirely on love, whatever understanding it may cost me.
and...
quote:
I sometimes wonder if I'll stand before Christ and hear him ask me, "Why did you spend so much time talking about the nature of my infinite mind? Why weren't you feeding the poor like I told you?" I start to ask myself if Mother Teresa should be my teacher instead of the leading scholar. After all, her progress was certainly far more ascertainable.
And then:
quote:
... Nobody intended to answer all possible questions. Jesus himself didn't seem too concerned with clearly outlining the operation of the divine will or, for that matter, the nature of the Godhead or even his own incarnation.
and finally...
quote:
"The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know." ~President John Adams
Please Never Go Away!!
Exceeding Blessings,
Love,
selah
Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Rev. 22:1 | | Back to Top | | |
|
S.B.G.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143
| Posted 1/17/2003 7:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Honorman:We have our baggage coming in and unless God makes it so concrete and plain that it slaps us in the face, that baggage is going to influence what we believe. Thats my take anyway...
SIM: An interesting observation: The only 2 ministers whose mothers I know about, and who I know embrace the Open View:
Have had very controlling mothers.
A question comes to mind: Do many Open View believers have a controlling primary care-giver in their lives?
John:As far as I can tell right now, the reasons for most theological differences have to do more with the individuals' presuppositions about (1) time and (2) philosophy.
SIM: I definitely believe this.
Brandon: Question. Still, cannot one of these equally intelligent people be "wrong"? Now I know that some people will say that I am moving from a psychological hermeneutic. I want to be certain. Therefore, I want some boundaries. Therefore, I may want there to be "right" and "wrong" answers.
SIM: When do feelings have anything to do with objective truth? It is scary that a large percent of supposedly bible-believing Christians do not believe in absolute truth. The fact that someone wants or does not want there to be truth has nothing to do with its existence. Just because a person cannot comprehend all truth does not mean that part truth cannot be comprehended.
Sorry if I'm jumping to wrong conclusions, but this idea hits my hot button. I was recently at a science institute, and a public school teacher announced that there is no such thing as a wrong answer. I was irate, and when I had the chance, announced that there IS such a thing as a right answer!
Brandon: "Open theists think they read the Bible more accurately."
Can I pose a burning question? How can the "discoverer" of the open view believe that he discovered a truth that all the saints in the first centuries after Christ-- many of whom (1)sacrificed family, possessions, home, and their very lives for their beliefs, and (2)wrote the major foundational Christian works --all these Giants of Faith missed in their persevering studies of the scriptures? To me, this should raise some major red flags! Tell me, am I missing something?
Just wondering,
SIM
Edited by - SIM on 01/12/2003 6:12:43 PM
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 1/17/2003 7:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
You mentioned the appeal to Biblical languages and how we still have unresolved problems. I can't help but wonder how much the nature of our symbolic medium limits our understanding or perhaps dictates some of these presuppositions we've been referring to. Symbols make up the fabric of our entire thought and communication and they're far more fluid than definitively standardized. We don't see many of our common symbols given set DEFINITIONS in our communication, even in the divine communication of Scripture. We really just see USES or INSTANCES of the symbols in the author's attempt to get the term/idea "across" to the mind of the other person(s). Without set definitions, we all tend to pick the instances of usage which support our own theories and leave the rest. It's a bummer.
Jet thought Shane would be some sort of academic, but as it turns out? He's in a rock band!! Hey, I having a hard time believing a rock band comes from...IOWA??? What's out in Iowa? Is there even a place called Iowa? Anyone ever hear of Iowa before?
Anyway, Shane, I'm a little fuzzy on what you are talking 'bout here concerning symbols and definitions...could you shed some further thoughts for MY clarity. Thanks.
Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation | | Back to Top | | |
|
S.B.G.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143
| Posted 1/17/2003 8:07 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM, I am somewhat perplexed by the relevence of "Controlling Mothers" in your comment. What are you implying? You appear to carry a great deal of animosity toward open theists and it's "discoverer". If you are referring to Greg Boyd, I ask you, have you read God of the Possible? In it, Greg references forefathers who have shared this view, and does not take the credit as his own.(Yes, others have embraced it before him.) But it's beside the point, really. Since when does majority mean truth? The majority of the people in Christ's day didn't believe He was the Messiah, should that raise "Red Flags" as to His authenticity? I don't get it,why the anger?
S.B.G.
Honorman:We have our baggage coming in and unless God makes it so concrete and plain that it slaps us in the face, that baggage is going to influence what we believe. Thats my take anyway...
SIM: An interesting observation: The only 2 ministers whose mothers I know about, and who I know embrace the Open View:
Have had very controlling mothers.
A question comes to mind: Do many Open View believers have a controlling primary care-giver in their lives?
John:As far as I can tell right now, the reasons for most theological differences have to do more with the individuals' presuppositions about (1) time and (2) philosophy.
SIM: I definitely believe this.
Brandon: Question. Still, cannot one of these equally intelligent people be "wrong"? Now I know that some people will say that I am moving from a psychological hermeneutic. I want to be certain. Therefore, I want some boundaries. Therefore, I may want there to be "right" and "wrong" answers.
SIM: When do feelings have anything to do with objective truth? It is scary that a large percent of supposedly bible-believing Christians do not believe in absolute truth. The fact that someone wants or does not want there to be truth has nothing to do with its existence. Just because a person cannot comprehend all truth does not mean that part truth cannot be comprehended.
Sorry if I'm jumping to wrong conclusions, but this idea hits my hot button. I was recently at a science institute, and a public school teacher announced that there is no such thing as a wrong answer. I was irate, and when I had the chance, announced that there IS such a thing as a right answer!
Brandon: "Open theists think they read the Bible more accurately."
Can I pose a burning question? How can the "discoverer" of the open view believe that he discovered a truth that all the saints in the first centuries after Christ-- many of whom (1)sacrificed family, possessions, home, and their very lives for their beliefs, and (2)wrote the major foundational Christian works --all these Giants of Faith missed in their persevering studies of the scriptures? To me, this should raise some major red flags! Tell me, am I missing something?
Just wondering,
SIM
Edited by - SIM on 01/12/2003 6:12:43 PM
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 1/17/2003 8:46 AM (GMT -6) | | S.B.G. said: SIM, I am somewhat perplexed by the relevence of "Controlling Mothers" in your comment. What are you implying? You appear to carry a great deal of animosity toward open theists and it's "discoverer". If you are referring to Greg Boyd, I ask you, have you read God of the Possible? In it, Greg references forefathers who have shared this view, and does not take the credit as his own.(Yes, others have embraced it before him.) But it's beside the point, really. Since when does majority mean truth? The majority of the people in Christ's day didn't believe He was the Messiah, should that raise "Red Flags" as to His authenticity? I don't get it,why the anger?
S.B.G., I'm sorry for coming across the way I did. In retrospect, I do sound that way. NOT INTENDED! Actually, in conversation recently with an Open View believer, he actually intimated that my desire for a God who is in control stems from my "controlling" nature, which even my husband doesn't agree with! (And he would certainly know that!) So, in thinking about how personal "dysfunctions" could possibly affect our beliefs, and knowing how very controlling this guy's mother was, it just got me to wondering. Please don't take the comment personally.
My thinking process about the Open View, can be seen in another post I'm lifting from THE RAGING DEBATE Forum, thread entitled "Open Theism Encourages Idolatry". I would love to hear your take on these thoughts:
I said: Some thoughts: If God knows ALL possible contingencies, and Romans is true,
8:27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes on behalf of the saints according to God's will. 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose
then in my understanding of the open view, its belief is that God is orchestrating each of these individual possible events. Each of these are in the Mind of God, so that nothing can happen that is not known by God in advance.
Starkman: "there simply is no less control on behalf of the Mighty God within the open view than there is within the classical view.
SIM: This certainly seems true,if Starkman is correct in what Open View Theists believe, and therefore my statement above is correct. God's control ENCOMPASSES free will. From the "temporal" viewpoint of God's existence, He cannot know the exact choice "ahead of time", but DOES know the possible choices, which He can then "orchestrate ahead of time" so that whatever happens can work for good.
Tom: Here’s the thing, SIM. Like Vincent Brummer said, “if we refuse to be God’s agents, we become his instruments.” If we refuse to cooperate with God in realizing one plan, “our non-cooperation is instrumental in making a new plan possible.” (Did you look up and read the threads on “infinite intelligence”?) So, assuming God knows a particular person to be irreversibly committed to some evil, God may “direct” that act, though it is evil, in a way that better serves his overall purposes, and the agent is responsible. But this cannot be settled upon eternally by God since it requires the person in question to have freely hardened themselves over time.
SIM: In my understanding, this makes the "practical outcome" of the Open View belief pretty much the same as the outcome of what I believe. My belief is that God knows "ahead of time" (but not temporally, but eternally) what events will take place. But because He is beyond time, in His Eternal perspective, He only sees the events take place AS THEY ARE HAPPENING. And because He knows this ETERNALLY, He can also orchestrate eternally. The Open View believes that God knows ahead of time what will take place because He knows which contingencies are possible, and can therefore prepare for each of them in advance.
Tom:How God may or does “use” evil is controversial to say the least. Even open theists differ when you get down to it. What seems incorrect to me is to say God determines some evil and restricts freedom in the first sense above to bring it about and that he decides upon all this eternally.
And Fyodor:I think it would be off to say that God uses ALL evil for a higher purpose. God's purposes are always higher porposes, but I think to say that God uses evil wouldn't describe God's nature accurately.
SIM: I think there is a mystery in God's "allowance" of evil that we can't humanly understand. Because of Dr. Boyd's recent posts, I reread Job, and was newly amazed at Job's response to suffering in his life, when he didn't have the perspective of the reader as to God's communication with satan. And how God responded to Job's questioning really didn't give him permission at all to question the "Why" of suffering. I know that God the Father loves each of us beyond our ability to comprehend, therefore God knows that knowing His purpose is not to our best interest. Our responsibility is to accept whatever happens and trust Him that everything that happens will EVENTUALLY come to good. That word "eventually" is what's so hard for us in our humanness to grasp. And definitely we must pray for God's covering of protection. I recently went through a personal attack that only ended when I used strategic prayer against the enemy's attack.
(That would be an interesting new thread - our personal accounts of satanic warfare!)
BOTTOM LINE: Except for semantics, I can't see that there's much difference between these two views!
Comments?
SIM
"Looking for God--or Heaven--by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters..."
C. S. Lewis
"Looking for God--or Heaven--by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters..."
C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
CalvinnHobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 1/17/2003 6:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Please Never Go Away!!
Fear not Selah, for lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.
Okay. You made that way too easy.
"The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know." ~President John Adams | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/18/2003 3:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Calvin,
Welcome again to the board. (I love your tag on the end of your posts. So true it is.)
Before I found this site, I had been without any exposure to the thinking end of Christianity (to the thinking end of much of anything, to be exact). It was horribly disconcerting and frightening for me to find this site without having any preperation--some formal education, some exposure to the academic world, etc. It was tough. Both my inability to think and my presuppositions were clearly brought to the forefront: that I couldn't think was bad enough; that I was in desperate need to learn to know the "whats" and "whys" of where I stood rather than rely on my presupps (which I had no idea I was doing) was devistating. "HOW AM I EVER GOING TO GET ANYWHERE CLOSE TO WHERE THESE FOLKS ARE" was my question. (As I told someone from this board I chat with, "This isn't what a melocholy needs to face!)
Well, it's been a year now, and it's been absolutely the most wonderful experience to have had my theologically presupps seen for what they are. I am now able to think through things, not as well as I'd like, but I'm getting there. (I'm just so glad I found out about "thinking"!) I'm also humbled in regard my presupps and in how to approach a theological view (or any view, for that matter) and know now how to consider it from broader angles, different perspectives, people's positions, and, of course, the Word of God. I'm able to round-out, to utilize a fuller hermeneutic, if you will, toward what I believe. Thanks . . . to this board!
So, when in your above post you said, Sadly, with most people throwing their assertions around these days as if what they've heard or experienced makes them the arbiter of truth, I have to wonder if the average citizen realizes the difference between an argument and a proposition!, boy, have I learned something of the difference.
Keith
| | Back to Top | | |
| 38 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:26 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 |
|
|