 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Are sins in God's will? Do they cause him frustration? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/17/2006 8:34 AM (GMT -6) |   |
various folks said...
Lee: But I think the Open View must hold this was not inevitable, and then was Peter’s predicted faithfulness to death also inevitable, or even forced on him? How would some inevitable event, or a forced faithfulness under crucifixion bring special glory to God?
Jeff: What about this? The Father may have told Christ that He was going to providentially assure that Peter's weakness would be revealed to himself in that manner to help him learn.
Lee: But then this is not character solidification? So then God is forcing Peter’s hand here, and also in his faithfulness under crucifixion?
Jeff: Maybe character solidification is not the best term to describe it. But if the disciples could not receive into their heart the truth of Christ's prediction of his crucifixion, then it doesn't seem possible that Peter would have acted "faithfully" in a matter concerning which he had no heart belief. He would have acted according to his own character, whether it was solidified or not. In that sense, there was some predictability to what he would do in the circumstances he found himself in.
With respect to the warfare theodicy, I don't hold to it. I was an open theist years before I ever heard of Greg or Sanders. But I don't see how to make sense of the warfare view with respect to the fact that God didn't bind Satan as He did the other fallen angels. Sometimes God acts unilaterally for purposes of His own, and sometimes He doesn't--again, for purposes of His own. The warfare view, per se, doesn't give me insight into how to distinguish between the two. So it just doesn't have a lot of explanatory power for me--except for the struggle of created beings against one another (angels and men).
But, on the other hand, I don't understand universalism as a theodicy. Even if it's true, I don't see how it can serve as a theodicy for the reasons I gave to you years ago when I first started posting to this forum. I don't see how it makes sense that God desires vain sufferings. We could, I suppose, say that Paul is just wrong about vain groaning and travailing. But I'm not prepared to dump that scriptural passage without some pretty strong grounds. Especially since other verses seem to say the same idea.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/17/2006 8:37:09 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/17/2006 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Tom: My point was that they should have AT LEAST read Calvin
Lee: If you want the history of Calvinism! If you want to understand Calvinism, I would recommend other authors.
Tom: Gosh Lee, this isn't difficult. It's amazing how unwilling you are to just admit with me that Calvin himself is necessary read for those wanting to debate the merits of Calvin. Amazing. Now I remember why I decided a long time ago never to read your posts or egage you. Rational intercourse is really difficult for you.
--------------
Tom: As soon as you said, "Well, eh, I've never read the gospels for myself," people will not take you seriously.
Lee: However, Calvin is not canonical, there is an essential difference...
Tom: There's no difference at all when it comes to intellectural virtues and public discourse.
--------------
Lee: ...the system that goes under his name has changed, so again, to understand it, the best sources are elsewhere.
Tom: How would one justifiably know the system has changed, and what those changes are, and how would one respectfully debate the merits of those changes without having read Calvin?
Put it this way, Lee. To the extent you've have not read open theists and cannot articulate the view accurately (which you cannot now do), open theists who care about their time won't waste it talking to you. It doesn't really matter whether you keep responding with silly come-backs again and agian. If there are open theists here who want to spend their time engaging you, more power to 'em.
--------------
Tom: Thank you for proving my point. You said nothing, NOTHING, that is believed in ONLY by open theists.
Lee: Actually, the point I was responding to was the claim I did not understand the Open View theodicy.
Tom: No, you were responding to my challenge to state what is UNIQUE to the open view in terms of theodicy. And since everything you said can be and is believed in by non-open theists, you proved MY point, which is: there is no unique open view theodicy.
--------------
Tom said: Some open theists embrace the warfare worldview. Some don't. Surprise.
Lee: I’m not actually surprised...
Tom: You should be, because elsewhere you claim that open theism and the warfare worldview entail each other.
--------------
Lee: ...I have never found one who rejected it, that I can recall.
Tom: It's been rejected by open theists on this board many times. It is 'generally' believed in by open theists, yes. But 'general' only means 'generally'. It means some will deny it. 'General' doesn't established the 'entailment' you've claimed obtains between the open view and the warfare worldview.
Lee: Thus I concldude it is a distinctive of Open Theism...
Tom: Conclude on brother. But you're simply wrong. The warfare worldview is NOT a distinctive of open theism. There are open theists who reject that worldview, who have rejected it on this board, and even Boyd has declared in writing that the warfare worldview is not a distinctive of open theism.
You're very stubborn in your ignorance Lee. You give every evidence of not being at all interested in objective debate and respectful discourse (I'm tempted to say you're not interested in truth at all) and wanting instead to just annoy people.
-----------------
Lee: ...and I also hold it is a logical consequence of the principles of God experiencing disappointment, and sometimes having to change his mind, I do believe OVT implies the warfare worldview.
Tom: 
Lee: It is also John Sander’s distinctive theodicy...
Tom: Do you even know what saying it's "John Sanders' distinctive theodicy" means? It means Sanders is the only person alive who believes in the warfare worldview.
----------------
Lee: You all seem to be arguing for this view, and that directly implies the warfare worldview.
Tom: It does not imply the warfare worldview, a view you don't understand and couldn't articulate if your life depended on it. And in spite of your insisting (based on your very limited and shallow exposure to open theism and the warfare worldview) that the warfare worldview is unique to the open view, there are open theists who don't buy into the warfare worldview.
Nobody on this board would fault somebody who comes on to debate issues without knowing how to publically debate. But we will fault people who show no interest in learning, who willfully and repeatedly disregard the rules of public discourse and who repeatedly ignore helpful comments from others who try to help them improve their thinking and debating skills. Your knowledge and appreciation of the rules of public discourse and meaningful communication are nearly non-existent, Lee, and you just blow off people who try to help you. You refuse to spell out the logical connections between your claims when asked to do so. You make illogical and outlandish claims. And you just ignore people who point out to you the faulty reasoning behind your views. It doesn't look to me like this board is the sort of place you belong in. It's not intended to be a place where people come and show themselves year after year to be willfully inept.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 6/17/2006 11:16:42 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 6/17/2006 4:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee Merrill said... Hi everyone, Ricco said...
"God's Strategy in Human History", by Paul Marston and Roger Forster. Buy it, read it, love it.
A warfare worldview was definitely present in the early church, prior to Augustine. I really insist on some quotes or arguments here, please! I’m not going to go off to read every book someone recommends to me before they can demonstrate its cogency to some extent here.
Sorry, I mistakenly thought my point would be obvious. I wasn't saying that simply to insist you buy a new book; I was saying that Paul Marston and Roger Forster are examples of Arminian authors who adhere to the Warfare Worldview, in that particular book. While there's not a particular quote I could point out (nothing like "we hold to a warfare worldview" ), perhaps the section headings might help indicate this: 1) The Nature of the Conflict. 2) the History of the Conflict [with chapter 7: How War was Declared - Genesis]. 3) Key Concepts in the Conflict.
As far as the Warfare Worldview in the early church, I simply recommend reading the first chapter of "Satan and the Problem of Evil". I will provide a handful of relevant quotes here:
The Apostle John: "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
Justin Martyr: God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law--for these things also He evidently made for man--committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. Whence also the poets and mythologists, not knowing that it was the angels and those demons who had been begotten by them that did these things to men (and women, and cities, and nations, which they related) ascribed them to god himself...
Athenagoras: For this is the office of the angels,--to exercise providence for God over the things created and ordered by Him; so that God may have the universal and general providence of the whole, while the particular parts are provided for by the angels appointed over them. Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honour the good or punish the bad, unless vice and virtue were in their own power; and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them by you, and others faithless), so is it among the angels. Some, free agents, you will observe, such as they were created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which He had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them: namely, this ruler of matter and its various forms, and others of those who were placed about this first firmament (you know that we say nothing without witnesses, but state the things which have been declared by the prophets); these fell into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh, and he became negligent and wicked in the management of the things entrusted to him.
Tatian: The Logos, too, before the creation of men, was the Framer of angels. And each of these two orders of creatures was made free to act as it pleased, not having the nature of good, which again is with God alone, but is brought to perfection in men through their freedom of choice, in order that the bad man may be justly punished, having become depraved through his own fault, but the just man be deservedly praised for his virtuous deeds, since in the exercise of his free choice he refrained from transgressing the will of God. Such is the constitution of things in reference to angels and men.
Origen: No one, moreover, who has not heard what is related of him who is called "devil," and of his "angels," and what he was before he became a devil, and how he became such, and what was the cause of the simultaneous apostasy of those who are termed his angels, will be able to ascertain the origin of evils. But he who would attain to this knowledge must learn more accurately the nature of demons, and know that they are not the work of God so far as respects their demoniacal nature, but only in so far as they are possessed of reason; and also what their origin was, so that they became beings of such a nature, that while converted into demons, the powers of their mind remain.
Again, this is just a small sampling of what the pre-Nicene Christian writers said which reflects the Warfare Worldview.
Lee Merrill said... Ricco said...
I had read "The God of the Possible", along with numerous articles and essays, and thereby felt that I had gained a sufficient understanding of what open theism entails; but that feeling was shattered once I began to read "Satan and the Problem of Evil". So now you may defend this view! ... What then is it I am misunderstanding? Is it really so esoteric that it is impossible to reply to my questions directly here? I have many books I am intending to read, so this also is a reason I am requiring some proof that I will have some good counters to my questions, I will be much more convinced if such counters can be posted, here.
What, do you want me to just type out entire sections of the book for you?  It is not the view in and of itself which needs defending, but the opposing view's underlying presuppositions which need addressing, and that is exactly why reading such a book is far more helpful than simply debating little points here and there; such debating rarely, if ever, gets to the heart of the matter (exposing presuppositions and challenging them, perhaps even correction them). Taking the time and effort to address a competing theological view's underlying presuppositions is a book-length project, and for my part I already have a full-time job (though I wish my full-time job WAS writing
Lee Merrill said...
Is there real loss at times, even “for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose”? That is the critical question here, IMHO, as they say. Again I mention I have read Greg Boyd’s web pages on this topic.
Ok, the following is my own understanding, and totally open to correction from anyone who understands the Warfare Worldview:
Boyd contrasts the Warfare Worldview against what he calls the Blueprint worldview. In the Blueprint, everything that happens, even the most horrific pain, even the most despicable evil, was specifically ordained by God with a specific purpose in mind, ultimately with a higher purpose, a greater good in the long run. The Warfare Worldview posits that neither such pain nor sin/evil is orchestrated by God in this sense (with some extraordinary exceptions, such as Christ's atonement), and thus sin and suffering occur contrary to His will and without a higher purpose in mind ; BUT [huge BUT here] nonetheless, God is able to (and does) work to subvert both suffering and evil toward His own ultimate purposes and higher good, so that even though sin and suffering may have occurred without purpose, God does not leave it without purpose - He is able to weave it into His overall providential tapestry, so that even the most seemingly meaningless evil is subverted by Him toward His own ends. Whether His subversive activities are manifested in this Age, or in the Age to come, either way nothing escapes His notice and all things will ultimately be accounted for by Him.
But don't mistake this brief explanation for a complete address of the Blueprint view's underlying presuppositions. For that, I would either have to write a book, or type out entire sections of books which have already undertaken this project, such as "Satan and the Problem of Evil".
[For my part, even though I recognize TGB's and Jefscott's insistence that the open-view does not necessarily entail the Warfare Worldview, and vice versa, I personally tend to speak of them as the same thing simply because they are so closely identified in my mind with one another. Sure, someone can be an open-theist and not adhere to the Warfare Worldview; and, as Marston and Forster demonstrate, one can adhere to a Warfare Worldview without being open-theists. For me personally, though, the 2 views compliment each other so well that I sometimes make the mistake of referring to both in the same breath when I say or write "freewill theism", or "open theism", or "the Warfare Worldview"; I'll try to remember to better qualify what I'm referring to, in the future. ] | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/17/2006 8:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Well, it seems I may not have time to post more than a response to Tom...
TGB said...
Tom: Do you even know what saying it's "John Sanders' distinctive theodicy" means? It means Sanders is the only person alive who believes in the warfare worldview.
Well, I meant that it is characteristic of his view, not that no one else has that view.
TGB said...
... and you just blow off people who try to help you. You refuse to spell out the logical connections between your claims when asked to do so. You make illogical and outlandish claims.
These would be claims, though, I would like the demonstrations. Where have I blown off anyone? Where have I refused to spell out logical connections? Where have my claims been outlandish?
TGB said...
You don't have to run home every single day and read a new book, no.
Thank you.
TGB said...
But after all the time you've been on this board, it's d-e-p-l-o-r-a-b-l-e for you not to have read the available open viewers who are in print ...
I have, though, and I have described what I have read.
TGB said...
... and to be able to adequately define the open view and distinguish its essential defining positions from non-essential positions.
This also I have done, though, and it seems no one has contested my description.
TGB said...
I hope booting Lee doesn't mean he'll be unable to get on and at least read these comments.
Would you now boot those who dropped the ball over in my latest "The raging debate..." thread? And yet continue to argue for Open Theism, but won't attempt to resolve such questions? This would seem to be a question about, well, merit, intellectual merit, as I believe you put it, Corey.
Blessings, regardless,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 6/18/2006 8:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee, let's just pause to take a step back and reconsider how to proceed in a mutually edifying sort of way. This current tact isn't working. Maybe we could try again after you've at least read God of the Possible or God at Risk, or any of the other books people have suggested to you over the years.
Intellectual virtue basically comes down to treating others how you want to be treated. You wouldn't want people to straw-man your view, but many feel that you persistently straw-man their view.
Let's try again later, Lee. I'm sure eventually we'll all end up on the same page.
Corey | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/18/2006 9:57 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Lee-
I don’t care if you’re booted or not. If you hang around, there may be other newer members who haven’t been with you from the beginning who have the patience to run around in circles with you. But they’ll eventually get worn out and give up as well. I chose to ignore you some time ago because I came to believe you were uninterested in objective debate, incapable of accurately representing the views of others, and not really committed to following arguments where they lead (if you understood where they led and they lead you somewhere you didn't really want to go). For me (and others who complained to me), you seemed generally incompetent when it came to open theism. Trying to discuss theology with you was always (and I mean ‘always’) very frustrating and unproductive. Frustration is okay if the conversations are productive in the end. But frustrating and unproductive becomes a waste of time and eventually bad stewardship.
This is a pretty low view of your “online” person, I know. But that’s how I see it. But be encouraged, my view of you is not as bad as the view some others have of you. Others feel you’re entirely incompetent on and off the court. I just think you’re incompetent on the court.
I’m not trying to hit below the belt or be mean. Just trying to tell it as I see it. I don’t want to belittle you as a human being. You’re a brother in Christ and are infinitely loved and valued by our Father, and I want to affirm that. I have no idea what contributions you’re making to the kingdom. I assume you are a great blessing to those you minister to. And love and serving are vastly greater than being able to debate others and win arguments. But as far as skills required to communicate and debate issues on this board are concerned, you’re as near to completely incompetent as anybody I’ve ever met. And incompetence is OK for a while. I was incompetent when I joined. But I really wanted to learn and grow. I “listened.” You don’t really “listen” to other people. You don’t “get it.” For all the time you’ve been here you’re still arguing the SAME points, points we’ve all addressed, bringing up the SAME old arguments and claiming nobody’s provided you with responses, etc., and you still haven’t read the small list of important works that have been available to you for years. You want to debate the warfare worldview. My goodness, Lee, Greg’s Satan and the Problem of Evil has been in print for some time. If you had ANY sustained interest whatsoever in understanding the warfare worldview you would have read it by now. To not have done so means your requests to engage us on this topic shouldn’t be taken seriously. In my view you SHOULD be ignored on these issues (but told why).
I’m not in a position to comment on why you keep coming back here. Who knows that? But in my view it can’t be an honest hunger for objective debate. I’m just reading off the info your being here has provided over the years as best I’m able. I could be way off, which is why I’ll go back to completely ignoring you. It doesn’t matter to me whether or not you’re booted.
An example of an outlandish sort of refusal to either engage or own up to the valid arguments of others would be your continued insistence that the open view and the warfare worldview entail one another. Really, Lee, if you can’t make this distinction, how competent are you to debate at all?
I'm done here ya'll. Lee, feel free to leave me a personal email anytime. Corey, thanks for hosting this and for putting the time into keeping us in line.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 6/18/2006 10:07:19 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 6/21/2006 12:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, Lee, if you get a chance, take a look at Meph's current topic here: http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=8&m=85600&p=1
Lee Merrill said...All right, guys... I'll be back on Wednesday, but what I would really like is to continue this discussion in the "R.D.C.H." forum, on whether God's word accomplished its purpose in the instances with Moses and others. I have discussed this other topic of sin, and God's will quite a bit, and I rather expect I will not have much new to say on this topic that I haven't said before... Blessings, Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/21/2006 7:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
jefscott said...
Jeff: The Father may have told Christ that He was going to providentially assure that Peter's weakness would be revealed to himself in that manner to help him learn.
Lee: But then this is not character solidification? So then God is forcing Peter’s hand here, and also in his faithfulness under crucifixion?
Jeff: Maybe character solidification is not the best term to describe it. But if the disciples could not receive into their heart the truth of Christ's prediction of his crucifixion, then it doesn't seem possible that Peter would have acted "faithfully" in a matter concerning which he had no heart belief. He would have acted according to his own character, whether it was solidified or not. In that sense, there was some predictability to what he would do in the circumstances he found himself in.
But then it was solidified, though, to the extent that a prediction could come from that, and then again I would be asking if Peter’s predicted faithfulness to death was also inevitable, or even forced on him? How would some inevitable event, or a forced faithfulness under crucifixion bring special glory to God?
Ricco said...
1) The Nature of the Conflict. 2) the History of the Conflict [with chapter 7: How War was Declared - Genesis]. 3) Key Concepts in the Conflict.
Yes, but what I need to know is if they hold that real loss can come even to those who love God, and are called according to his purpose, if all may not in fact work out for good for them.
If indeed we cannot say “I will not be afraid, what can man do to me,” there must be some (however small) degree of fear for real harm that can happen, and not be remedied.
And, does God build his structure of human happiness on the souls of wounded mortals?
Ricco said...
The Apostle John: "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
But this is war, but not necessarily real loss sometimes for God’s people, the point is not proven here of what is distinctive about the warfare worldview, real losses and casualties, as in what I consider to be the required Open View theodicy. And the pre-Nicene writers again spoke of war, but not of real loss for those who love God.
Ricco said...
In the Blueprint, everything that happens, even the most horrific pain, even the most despicable evil, was specifically ordained by God with a specific purpose in mind, ultimately with a higher purpose, a greater good in the long run.
I actually don’t agree with this, either, but I do believe God is in complete control, and yet believers can freely choose, within God's will.
Ricco said...
… and thus sin and suffering occur contrary to His will and without a higher purpose in mind ; BUT [huge BUT here] nonetheless, God is able to (and does) work to subvert both suffering and evil toward His own ultimate purposes and higher good…
Yet then to the casualty, let us say to some rape victim, we must say, “God will triumph, sorry about you”? Losses, casualties…
Ricco said...
… so that even the most seemingly meaningless evil is subverted by Him toward His own ends.
And then such good ultimate outcomes are considered by him in advance, and would be said to be part of his plan?
Ricco said...
… if you get a chance, take a look at Meph's current topic here …
Well, these discussions are so prolonged, I really can’t do two of them, would Meph be interested in some posting here as well? I have discussed this so much, I really would expect I would wind up repeating myself in two threads, rather than repeating my previously stated view, in one…
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 6/22/2006 12:14 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't know, ask Meph. But all I ask - with a "please?" - is that you take a read through the very first post that Meph placed there (at least his first post).
Lee Merrill said...Ricco said...
… if you get a chance, take a look at Meph's current topic here … Well, these discussions are so prolonged, I really can’t do two of them, would Meph be interested in some posting here as well? I have discussed this so much, I really would expect I would wind up repeating myself in two threads, rather than repeating my previously stated view, in one… Blessings, Lee | | Back to Top | | |
| 42 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:49 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 |
|
|