Lee: Because if God’s absolute purpose was for us to never ever sin right now, why then he would not allow us to be tempted at all. If he can keep us from being tempted more than we are able, surely he could keep us from any and all temptations.

Jeff: I would agree with C.S. Lewis on this one. God requires man to VOLITIONALLY embrace the truth, not just passively absorb it. Thus, the choice in Eden to refrain from the tree was for rendering to Father (and by implication, the Son, since all things are through him and for him) the glory and thanks that was due Him. To eat of that tree would be to choose  autonomy from God's providential care and relationship.

Once the Fall had occurred, however, it was FITTING to the mind of God that the Son should SUFFER and DIE to redeem for himself the people the Father intended him to have (otherwise, His promise of death to the sinner would have been untrue). Consequently, in the mind of God, it is FITTING that we suffer with him so we can reign and inherit with him. This is a clear NT theme. Thus, temptation serves a role--but a role that was never intended to exist apart from the Fall.

Lee: Why then would Jesus not pray for Peter to remain faithful, and not deny him, if that was Jesus’ will?

Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.

Jeff: It looks to me that you quoted a verse that shows that Christ WAS praying for Peter. I'm confused.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/11/2006 6:53:50 AM (GMT-5)

Lee: I don’t believe sufferings are invariably vain, though, again, what would there be to reward, if all we heard was “Well done, good and pampered servant, you have floated to heaven on a pleasant cloud of ease and comfort, now continue to enjoy yourself”?

Jeff: I don't say they're "invariably" vain. But Romans 8 says there are vain groanings and travailings ("subjected to vanity"). I assume this is because of the Fall. Suffering PRE-Fall would not have been characterized this way.

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. In other words, Peter's knowledge and character may have been such that it was "above what he was able" to be faithful in the circumstances he would find himself in. So God used his unfaithfulness by having Christ predict it with great specificty. This way, the subjective guilt may have worked a greater repentance or lesson.

Christ warned the apostles that they would fall into temptation if they did not watch and pray. But they fell asleep. So Peter was in over his head. The difference with Peter, though, was that he apparently worked at finding out about Christ rather than just running scared. So God providentailly worked circumstances to fulfill the prophecy.

I guess the question is, when did Christ tell Peter he would "turn back" to strengthen the brethren? I need to get the sequence down to make sure  I'm being coherent, here. Because, per my explanation, I would think that Peter must have been already in over his head at the time of that saying.

It might go back to the part where it said "these things were hidden from their heart" concerning Christ's death. If they couldn't receive it in their heart at that time, they couldn't act faithfully on it when the time came. Hence, the sheep were scattered, as the prophecy said.

In short, the OV doesn't require that God can't use character solidification for His own good purposes.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 6/13/2006 12:49:02 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (TGB) : 6/14/2006 10:20:10 AM (GMT-5)

Lee: Should I now insist you all have read (say) Piper’s “The Justification of God” before I will take you folks seriously on any point involving Calvinism?

Tom: No, you should insist we have read Calvin.

--------------------

Lee: Right, but there are consistencies, otherwise it would not make sense to talk about the Open View theodicy at all. Unless you are insisting that there is no consensus whatsoever.

Tom: There are consistencies among open theists on their views about theodicy. But these consistencies don't constitute a unique theodicy, an “open view theodicy.” All open theists have thus far is the traditional free will defense (free will theodicy) which the open view is just a version of. And there are some minor variants within the basic free will defense, yeah, but there is no UNIQUE theodicy that is the “open view theodicy.” Just try to articulate it if you think otherwise. Lay it out there and tell us just what this "open view theodicy" is. I'd love to see it. Truth is, the open view adds nothing to the theodicy debate that isn’t already basically present in the free will defense. Do you understand what’s meant by the standard ‘free will defense’?

This is something open theists don’t like to admit. The open view seems to have been marketed in the 90’s as a new theodicy. That was false advertising. The OV is no such thing. If all OVers share some consistencies in terms of theodicy, it’s simply because they all share the same free will defense, and that defense is nothing new to the open view.

----------------

Tom: As soon as you leave the question of God's facing a partly open future per se, you no longer can speak of "AN" open view anything.

Lee: I see. No, I don’t see!

Tom: Which is it?

Lee: You mean the phrase is meaningless? Why then do you tell me to read an Open Theist book? I will just be learning about Greg Boyd's view, not Open Theists.

Tom: Slowly now…

There IS something called open theism. The term is meaningful. It’s just that its meaning does not include anything along the lines of a theodicy that’s not already part of the free will defense that all Arminians affirm. So there is no theodicy unique to the open view, no theodicy that open theists and only open theists hold to. All open theists simply share with all non-open theist Arminians the same standard free will theodicy. See now?

Here’s the more important point: Showing that the open view is no improvement upon the free will defense, that it doesn’t add anything new to what Arminians have always basically said about theodicy, is no evidence against the truth of open theism. All it means is that open theism shares the same old theodicy that Arminians have always argued. Calvinist objectors to the open view have always (rightly) complained from the start that the open view isn’t the improvement upon the standard Arminian free will defense that open theists seemed to be claiming it was. Open theists appeared to be confused about the merits of their own view. And to some extant I think objectors were right. The open view isn’t a theodicy, period.

So debate on about evil and providence and all that stuff if you want to. That’s cool. But just stop talking about open theism as a new and improved theodicy. It’s not.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 6/14/2006 10:17:24 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 6/14/2006 10:46:54 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 6/15/2006 8:05:43 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (John N. Darby) : 6/16/2006 12:47:34 PM (GMT-5)

Lee: Should I now insist you all have read (say) Piper’s "The Justification of God" before I will take you folks seriously on any point involving Calvinism?

Tom: No, you should insist we have read Calvin.
Lee: Well, that shows your misunderstanding of Calvinism! For Calvinists nowadays disagree on a key point or two with Calvin. So you should read a good Calvinist book?

Tom: The question, Lee, was what should one INSIST another read in order to debate Calvinism. And I'll stand by my point. One should insist another read Calvin. Sure, those debating Calvinism will have read Calvinists too. My point was that they should have AT LEAST read Calvin. You can miss reading SOME Calvinists and read Calvin and still earn a spot in the debate. But you can't read ALL Calvinists and NOT Calvin and still earn a spot in the debate. That would be like reading a lot of commentaries on the gospels but never reading them yourself and then claiming you're qualified to debate the teachings of Christ. As soon as you said, "Well, eh, I've never read the gospels for myself," people will not take you seriously.

I love the way every comment to you turns into an entirely new thread. Amazing!

--------------------

Tom: There are consistencies among open theists on their views about theodicy. But these consistencies don't constitute a unique theodicy, an "open view theodicy."
Lee: But they have a point of view! I agree, and I set out to discuss it.

Tom: But they're point of view ON THIS (i.e., theodicy) is NOT unique to them, that is open theists. It's the standard free will defense that non-open theist Arminians also embrace. So they have a view, yes. They just don't have a view that's UNIQUE TO THEM. Discuss the free will defense if you want to, but stop pretending that it's THE open theist theodicy, unique to them.

-------------------- 

Tom said: Lay it out there and tell us just what this "open view theodicy" is.

Lee: That evil is to large extent remediable, but that there are casualties, and real losses, that God is not causing evil and sin ultimately, instead, men and fallen angels are the ultimate sources of sin, and sinful actions.

Tom: Thank you for proving my point. You said nothing, NOTHING, that is believed in ONLY by open theists. My point exactly.

-------------------

Tom said: It’s just that its meaning does not include anything along the lines of a theodicy that’s not already part of the free will defense that all Arminians affirm.

Lee: I would disagree, I can’t say I have ever heard an Arminian espouse the Warfare Worldview, it seems this indeed is a distinctive of the Open View.

Tom: That's because you understand neither the open view nor the warfare worldview. Are you aware that there are open theists who disagree with that worldview? It's NOT a distinctive view of open theists and isn't even entailed by open theism. Some open theists embrace the warfare worldview. Some don't. Surprise. And are you aware that Greg admitts in his book that embracing the open view isn't required of the warfare worldview? That they don't entail each other?

Oh I forgot. You haven't read Greg.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 6/17/2006 10:14:52 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 6/16/2006 10:00:41 PM (GMT-5)