 |
| 
ataraxia
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 67
| Posted 4/20/2004 9:55 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
ataraxia has settled on her revision of history.
I don’t recall discussing history.
quote:
while much is agreeable, several true things that i value she dismisses by disposition. o well.
I don’t want to dismiss what you value, PoW. I just want to encourage you to be you—as you—and not bother with the multiple identities. That’s to be valued. I trust that others will value that too even if they don’t always see eye to eye with you on the issues.
quote:
the last part--while jovial--does invite a question: when the aim is to "kick butt" where is the spirit?...I don't want to see Augustine's "butt kicked."
And you earlier asked ME where my sense of humor was? I only meant “Let’s get back to tackling his deterministic views….”
OK, so I’m a lousy comedian.
Be encouraged.
ataraxia | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Aaron Reynolds
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 4/20/2004 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | From my understanding, Augustine "dabbled" in Manichaeism for around 9 years before converting to Christianity through his studies in Neo-Platonism (with the pinnacle of his conversion being that famous mystical experience recorded in his Confessions). Then, he evidently did what appeared to be a 180 degree turn around, and actually began opposing and fighting against it (though certainly not as fiercely as he did the poor Pelagians and Donatists!). Since it's clear that his theology contains elements of Manichaeism, does anyone know or have any thoughts as to what kinds of arguments he raised against it after his conversion to Christianity, and what his main objections were?
Aaron | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/20/2004 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Aaron Reynolds
From my understanding, Augustine "dabbled" in Manichaeism for around 9 years before converting to Christianity through his studies in Neo-Platonism (with the pinnacle of his conversion being that famous mystical experience recorded in his Confessions). Then, he evidently did what appeared to be a 180 degree turn around, and actually began opposing and fighting against it (though certainly not as fiercely as he did the poor Pelagians and Donatists!). Since it's clear that his theology contains elements of Manichaeism, does anyone know or have any thoughts as to what kinds of arguments he raised against it after his conversion to Christianity, and what his main objections were?
Aaron
I don’t know the details but my understanding is he had problems reconciling certain contradictory Manichaeist doctrines.
Boy that sounds familiar, reconciling certain contradictory doctrines. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/26/2004 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Just FYI, Lee's book (referenced in the original post) is really very compelling and is one of the reasons why my Myth of the Blueprint is taking an eternity to write. I had been looking more at the Platonic and Stoic underpinnings of Augustine's theology until I began to discover scholars who argued, effectively, that Augustine's deterministic theology has more in common with Manicheanism than Neo-Platonism and Stoicism. Lee's book made this case very effectively. As I've explored this more, I'm convinced he's absolutely right.
One could argue that in Augustine's legacy Manicheanism won the day. We have, as in Manicheanism, a group predestined to heaven and a group predestined to eternal hell. Its just that, unlike Manicheanism which employs two combating gods to accomplish this, Augustine made one God do double duty. And whereas in Manichaeism the god who elects people to heaven is good and the god who predestines people to hell is evil, in Augustine the one God who does both is GOOD. Hence, its GOOD that people are predestined to hell. EVERYTHING, including eternal suffering, expresses the goodness of God and contributes to the glory of God.
One final interesting note... after Augustine, almost EVERYBODY the church disagrees with and puts to death -- the heretics -- are accused of being (you guessed it) Manichean.
Interesting, heh?
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 4/26/2004 9:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Psalm 136
1 Give thanks to the LORD, for He is good, For His lovingkindness is everlasting. 2 Give thanks to the God of gods, For His lovingkindness is everlasting. 3 Give thanks to the Lord of lords, For His lovingkindness is everlasting. 4 To Him who alone does great wonders, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; 5 To Him who made the heavens with skill, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; 6 To Him who spread out the earth above the waters, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; 7 To Him who made {the} great lights, For His lovingkindness is everlasting: 8 The sun to rule by day, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 9 The moon and stars to rule by night, For His lovingkindness is everlasting.
10 To Him who smote the Egyptians in their firstborn, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 11 And brought Israel out from their midst, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 12 With a strong R4301 hand and an outstretched arm, For His lovingkindness is everlasting. 13 To Him who divided the Red Sea asunder, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 14 And made Israel pass through the midst of it, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; 15 But He overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea, For His lovingkindness is everlasting. 16 To Him who led His people through the wilderness, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; 17 To Him who smote great kings, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 18 And slew mighty kings, For His lovingkindness is everlasting: 19 Sihon, king of the Amorites, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 20 And Og, king of Bashan, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 21 And gave their land as a heritage, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 22 Even a heritage to Israel His servant, For His lovingkindness is everlasting.
23 Who remembered us in our low estate, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 24 And has rescued us from our adversaries, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; 25 Who gives food to all flesh, For His lovingkindness is everlasting. 26 Give thanks to the God of heaven, For His lovingkindness is everlasting.
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 5/1/2004 10:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
Just FYI, Lee's book (referenced in the original post) is really very compelling and is one of the reasons why my Myth of the Blueprint is taking an eternity to write. I had been looking more at the Platonic and Stoic underpinnings of Augustine's theology until I began to discover scholars who argued, effectively, that Augustine's deterministic theology has more in common with Manicheanism than Neo-Platonism and Stoicism. Lee's book made this case very effectively. As I've explored this more, I'm convinced he's absolutely right.
One could argue that in Augustine's legacy Manicheanism won the day. We have, as in Manicheanism, a group predestined to heaven and a group predestined to eternal hell. Its just that, unlike Manicheanism which employs two combating gods to accomplish this, Augustine made one God do double duty. And whereas in Manichaeism the god who elects people to heaven is good and the god who predestines people to hell is evil, in Augustine the one God who does both is GOOD. Hence, its GOOD that people are predestined to hell. EVERYTHING, including eternal suffering, expresses the goodness of God and contributes to the glory of God.
One final interesting note... after Augustine, almost EVERYBODY the church disagrees with and puts to death -- the heretics -- are accused of being (you guessed it) Manichean.
Interesting, heh?
Greg
I find it interesting that there has been much said and taught on this site stating that the roots of Augustine were elsewhere. Now it seems they are "evolving" into Manicheanism. The major difference between Augustine and OV is whether a good and sovereign God allows the evil we experience in order to enjoy "free will decisions" or He allows evil because He does, but His good purposes are accomplished by it.
A loving God that allows evil for a limited time. This is what Augustine believed. This is what OV also claims to believe. The major difference between these views is only "why." This issue is radically different than Manicheanism in which we had two gods in conflict, a good god and a bad one. This concept sounds much more like God at War than Augustine.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Aaron Reynolds
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 5/1/2004 12:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake and Borg,
Augustine's god was definitely not "at war." At least, it was just a superficial war at best. The truth for Augustine - which would later become the truth for Calvin - was that everything that took place was God's predetermined, ordained will, and nothing that happened was outside of this ordained will, including the will of Satan, which was seen as just an extension of God's will. The major link between his theology and Manichaeism was that, while Manichaeism involved an external dualism (2 EQUAL contrary "wills" operating in the world) Augustine simply combined these 2 equal wills into one God (which was the beginning of the secret, hidden will of God), thus forming an internal "dualism" within the mind of God (He wills and desires one thing, such as the repentance and salvation of all men and the death and damnation of no one, but really wills and desires something else completely contrary to this, such is the election to salvation of only a few and the reprobation of everyone else). God now claims to hate sin and evil and be in opposition to Satan, but yet He ordains and determines that they be, and uses Satan (and every other created being) like a puppet. Because Manichaeism had Gnostic elements in it (and vice-versa) I also believe other ideas carried over into Augustine's theology as well, such as the belief of determinism, an "enlighted spiritual elect" minority and an un-spiritual majority who were destined to be eternally enslaved within their inherently carnal bodies.
Because Augustines views were so NOVEL within Christianity (the church fathers before him were not determinists, and believed in libertarian freewill, and no "secret will" of God) it's difficult to pinpoint where exactly he got all of his new ideas from. That's why some will emphaize the Manichaeistic elements, and others the Neo-Platonic, and others something else. The truth is, there's a good bit to choose from, since Augustine was a brilliant and well-read individual, and dabbled in quite a few things before finally "converting" to Christianity.
It's a fact that he spent a great deal of his life studying Greek Philosophy, esp. Neo-Platonism, which actually led to his conversion to Christianity. I believe that even if this alone was all he dabbled in, it would be enough to call his theology into question. Neo-Platonism simply doesn't mesh with the Judeo-Christian concept of God revealed to us in the Bible. Also, it's a well known fact that Augustine was a Manichee for years before his conversion, and much of his theology seems to be more or less a modified "Christianized" version of it. He dropped some elements of this belief system, and kept the rest, blending it with his own concept of God. Augustine's Christianity is nothing like "God at War," because in "God at War" God is totally good and does not will evil, but evil is merely a perversion of the good that He created, and He must fight against it, at least for now. God is not fighting against an equally powerful being, but against a rebellion. Because His desire is to have His creations love and serve Him freely, and because love must be chosen, "freewill" is necessary, which makes evil possible, but not willed by God. In "God at War" (and pre-Augustine/Arminian/Open View theology) evil has its ultimate source in the freewill of a created angelic being who is much less powerful than God, and who will one day lose all of his authority and power when God decides it's time. In Manichaeism, evil has its ultimate source in the will of an eternal, self-existant god. In Augustine and Calvin's theology, evil also has its ultimate source in the will of an eternal, self-existant god, except this god created by Augustine wills both good and evil at the same time. And like the "good god" of Manichaeism, he elects a few for salvation, but like the "evil god" of Manichaeism, he also reprobates most to hell.
In Christ,
Aaron | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 5/1/2004 4:42 PM (GMT -6) | | | SPen: Augustine's god doesn't "allow" anything. I surely wish Calvinist would stop using that term. Your god does not allow events to happen; he predestines everything for his glory. Every little good and evil thing. Stop softening what you believe. | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 5/1/2004 4:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Aaron,
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I appreciated the effort and cogent thought that went into it. I want to look at the following excerpt, quote:
Augustine's Christianity is nothing like "God at War," because in "God at War" God is totally good and does not will evil, but evil is merely a perversion of the good that He created, and He must fight against it, at least for now. God is not fighting against an equally powerful being, but against a rebellion. Because His desire is to have His creations love and serve Him freely, and because love must be chosen, "freewill" is necessary, which makes evil possible, but not willed by God. In "God at War" (and pre-Augustine/Arminian/Open View theology) evil has its ultimate source in the freewill of a created angelic being who is much less powerful than God, and who will one day lose all of his authority and power when God decides it's time.
I have been agreeing with your succinct and wonderful description of the OV since the debate on March 19. I agree with you.
- God is only good
- God allows evil now
- God can intervene and stop evil if and when He chooses
- OV believes that the reason God doesn't intervene now is because he desires our freewill choice to love
I maintain that this does not solve anything. What your explanation gives me is a God that is willing to let a little girl named Zosia's eyes be put out then be killed by cruel men because He valued the freewill choice of someone else. This God will trade the pain and suffering of little girls for the freewill choices of some. He values the freewill chioces of some so much that He will allow the rest of the world to suffer in utter misery and not intervene to stop evil when he has the power and authority to do so.
I agree with all of the points but the last one. I don't believe that God so values our freewill choice that he will let the rest of the world rot in misery and suffering for the freewill choice of a few. This is why I don't believe that the OV solves much when it comes to the problem of evil. I did not accuse Augustine of believing in the God at War theology embraced by the Manichaeans. I accused Dr. Boyd and his book God at War of reflecting the Manichean view more closely than Augustine. But, perhaps that you mean that this part of Manichaean's views were correct?
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Aaron Reynolds
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 5/1/2004 6:20 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
SPen: Augustine's god doesn't "allow" anything. I surely wish Calvinist would stop using that term. Your god does not allow events to happen; he predestines everything for his glory. Every little good and evil thing. Stop softening what you believe.
Thanks, Feelinahole. You are absolutely right. Calvinists frequently have trouble remaining consistent with their theology in how they word things, and must "soften" things up so they don't end up sounding like the monstrous god that they worship. The God Spenlake worships does not merely allow evil. He conceives it, creates it, ordains it, predetermines it, causes it to be, brings it about, etc. etc. He foreknows it because it was conceived in his mind and he predetermined that it be. I don't see how a Calvinist can escape this.
Spenlake,
Thanks for your response. This is my first time really taking part in this kind of discussion, but I'll give it a shot. You said,
quote:
What your explanation gives me is a God that is willing to let a little girl named Zosia's eyes be put out then be killed by cruel men because He valued the freewill choice of someone else. This God will trade the pain and suffering of little girls for the freewill choices of some. He values the freewill choices of some so much that He will allow the rest of the world to suffer in utter misery and not intervene to stop evil when he has the power and authority to do so.
It is true that God allows evil to exist because of the kind of world He has chosen to create. God does not value freewill for the sake of freewill; He values freewill because it is the only thing that can make love possible. Because He desires love and has created a world and agents that can make love possible, evil and hate become possible. The greater the degree of love possible in a world, the greater the degree of evil. Because God values love from His creatures, the choice not to love must be available. I also believe that the Bible teaches that God has chosen to work through others, not as puppets, but as voluntary servants (both angelic and human). I believe that God has limited what He is able to do in the world He created because He desires that His will be carried out through others. Because of this, He has made it possible for agents to temporarily thwart His will, and has given some of these beings great authority (I believe before they chose to resist His will). As long as they possess this authority, God is simply not able to always intervene, except through certain circumstances. Perhaps He has created certain "rules" that we are unaware of, which He is obligated to play by, and these evil agents He has granted temporary authority to take advantage of this freedom they have (as a result of the "rules" God has made) every chance they get, which often results in horrendous acts such as the one you mentioned. As I said, I believe God is simply not able to intervene all of the time, even though I am certain such evil acts grieve His heart.
Yes, Spenlake, I agree that in some form or another, my view all boils down to God's "permissive will," even if all acts of evil were just vague possibilities in the mind of God - thoughts that He could barely entertain without weeping, but chose to go ahead and create a world in which they could be possible just so love could also be possible. I am willing to hold this view, because I believe it most accurately represents the character and purposes of God revealed to us in the Bible. And as I see it, the alternative view makes God into a monster; the most evil being in existence. I would much rather worship a God who must allow evil temporarily than a God who does not merely allow it but conceives it, wills it, decrees it, ordains it, etc. There is nothing glorious about that.
What your explanation gives me is a God that is not just "willing to let a little girl named Zosia's eyes be put out then be killed by cruel men because He valued the freewill choice of someone else." He actually conceived this horrendous act before the creation of the world and brought it to pass by His sovereign decree, all "for His glory." You say that my God trades the pain and suffering of little girls for the freewill choices of some. Well, my friend, your God did not just ALLOW Zosia's eyes to be plucked out, He conceived and planned it all out before it ever took place, detail by detail. He wrote the script in eternity and then watched with delight as it all unfolded according to His undefeated, sovereign will. The very thought of this makes my blood run cold. Your God does not merely allow the world to suffer in utter misery, not intervening to stop evil when he has the power and authority to do so. His very desire and sovereign will IS FOR the world to suffer in utter misery. He planned and ordained it, and now every act of evil that has ever taken place (and will ever take place), from the very first wicked thought in the heart of Satan to the torture of Jews during the Holocaust to the murder or rape of a child that could've happened this very night, has taken place according to God's decretive will. Does this view really give greater comfort to your soul? Is this the kind of God you see revealed to us in the Sciptures, the God you have chosen to rest in? Is this really what you see the Bible as teaching?
In Christ,
Aaron | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/1/2004 8:33 PM (GMT -6) | | If my daughter does something that I have expressly told her not to do, I have in no way given my permission to her; she has simply violated my will. That is what sin is, a "transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). All this talk of a mysterious "permissive" will in God presupposes determinism.
I submit that until free will theists realize this point, they will continue to fall prey to the "permissive will" ideology, and thus concede the whole argument to the determinist.
It is simply nonsense to speak of God having "a permissive will." The design of creation was such that moral creatures would in fact have to choose to obey or not obey; this fact does not legitimize disobedience. Disobedience is never presented in Scripture as a legitimate option, any more than breaking the civil laws of our land is legitimate (i.e., according to law).
Gen 4:6 Then the LORD asked Cain, "Why are you angry, and why do you look disappointed?
7 If you do well, won't you be accepted? But if you don't do well, sin is lying outside your door ready to attack. It wants to control you, but you must master it."
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Aaron Reynolds
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 5/2/2004 1:30 AM (GMT -6) | | John
Thanks for what you said. I fully agree with you. All I really meant by "permissive will" was God's creating a kind of world in which evil could be a possibility. But I guess that should be called something else?
Aaron | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 5/2/2004 2:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Aaron Reynolds
quote:
SPen: Augustine's god doesn't "allow" anything. I surely wish Calvinist would stop using that term. Your god does not allow events to happen; he predestines everything for his glory. Every little good and evil thing. Stop softening what you believe.
Thanks, Feelinahole. You are absolutely right. Calvinists frequently have trouble remaining consistent with their theology in how they word things, and must "soften" things up so they don't end up sounding like the monstrous god that they worship. The God Spenlake worships does not merely allow evil. He conceives it, creates it, ordains it, predetermines it, causes it to be, brings it about, etc. etc. He foreknows it because it was conceived in his mind and he predetermined that it be. I don't see how a Calvinist can escape this.
Spenlake,
Thanks for your response. This is my first time really taking part in this kind of discussion, but I'll give it a shot. You said,
quote:
What your explanation gives me is a God that is willing to let a little girl named Zosia's eyes be put out then be killed by cruel men because He valued the freewill choice of someone else. This God will trade the pain and suffering of little girls for the freewill choices of some. He values the freewill choices of some so much that He will allow the rest of the world to suffer in utter misery and not intervene to stop evil when he has the power and authority to do so.
It is true that God allows evil to exist because of the kind of world He has chosen to create. God does not value freewill for the sake of freewill; He values freewill because it is the only thing that can make love possible. Because He desires love and has created a world and agents that can make love possible, evil and hate become possible. The greater the degree of love possible in a world, the greater the degree of evil. Because God values love from His creatures, the choice not to love must be available. I also believe that the Bible teaches that God has chosen to work through others, not as puppets, but as voluntary servants (both angelic and human). I believe that God has limited what He is able to do in the world He created because He desires that His will be carried out through others. Because of this, He has made it possible for agents to temporarily thwart His will, and has given some of these beings great authority (I believe before they chose to resist His will). As long as they possess this authority, God is simply not able to always intervene, except through certain circumstances. Perhaps He has created certain "rules" that we are unaware of, which He is obligated to play by, and these evil agents He has granted temporary authority to take advantage of this freedom they have (as a result of the "rules" God has made) every chance they get, which often results in horrendous acts such as the one you mentioned. As I said, I believe God is simply not able to intervene all of the time, even though I am certain such evil acts grieve His heart.
Yes, Spenlake, I agree that in some form or another, my view all boils down to God's "permissive will," even if all acts of evil were just vague possibilities in the mind of God - thoughts that He could barely entertain without weeping, but chose to go ahead and create a world in which they could be possible just so love could also be possible. I am willing to hold this view, because I believe it most accurately represents the character and purposes of God revealed to us in the Bible. And as I see it, the alternative view makes God into a monster; the most evil being in existence. I would much rather worship a God who must allow evil temporarily than a God who does not merely allow it but conceives it, wills it, decrees it, ordains it, etc. There is nothing glorious about that.
What your explanation gives me is a God that is not just "willing to let a little girl named Zosia's eyes be put out then be killed by cruel men because He valued the freewill choice of someone else." He actually conceived this horrendous act before the creation of the world and brought it to pass by His sovereign decree, all "for His glory." You say that my God trades the pain and suffering of little girls for the freewill choices of some. Well, my friend, your God did not just ALLOW Zosia's eyes to be plucked out, He conceived and planned it all out before it ever took place, detail by detail. He wrote the script in eternity and then watched with delight as it all unfolded according to His undefeated, sovereign will. The very thought of this makes my blood run cold. Your God does not merely allow the world to suffer in utter misery, not intervening to stop evil when he has the power and authority to do so. His very desire and sovereign will IS FOR the world to suffer in utter misery. He planned and ordained it, and now every act of evil that has ever taken place (and will ever take place), from the very first wicked thought in the heart of Satan to the torture of Jews during the Holocaust to the murder or rape of a child that could've happened this very night, has taken place according to God's decretive will. Does this view really give greater comfort to your soul? Is this the kind of God you see revealed to us in the Sciptures, the God you have chosen to rest in? Is this really what you see the Bible as teaching?
In Christ,
Aaron
Aaron,
I can give up the term "permissive will" and "two wills" and live with a different one. The concept, however of an all powerful God that allows evil and doesn't immediately intervene still stands. One can parse the "allowing" by attempting to hide it behind a curtain of "possible outcomes" but this just postpones the inevitatble, when ones follows the trail of omnipotent sovereignty behind the curtain, the issue is still there. This concept of indeterminancy solves nothing. If God knew the possiblities and, out of His desire for freewill choices, put all the rest of creation at risk, we have a God that is somehow allowing and tolerating evil when He could have chosen to set up something so that he could intervene.
I do not believe that God is the author of evil in any way, shape or form. God is good. With His death on the cross He also proved that He is merciful and offers salvation to the whole world. As I have said before, I feel this whole discussion quickly boils down to debating the fine points of whether a God who is sovereign over everything and all powerful could create a void in which His sovereignty wasn't directly supreme and enforceable - like creating a rock to big to lift. I don't find the discussion profitable. I have no other answer to give than "mystery." I find that this is part of the transcendent part of God and I will choose to trust that He is good and loving because of the proof He gave on Calvary. I will also trust that He is sovereign because He says so. How the problem of evil works, I have a mystery.
My point is that, while the OV claims to have an answer, a more comforting God, when looked at it is not more comforting at all. I have a God that is willing to exchange the suffering of Zosia for the choice of Dr. Boyd. Small comfort if I am Zosia and in some place you described where "God is simply not able to always intervene, except through certain circumstances." I might find it comforting if I was Dr. Boyd instead. I find more comfort in a good God willing to die for me to save me from my sins and who now, even now, is sovereign. The evil that assails me is filtered through the hand of a loving God, even though I cannot feel it or taste it. It is true because He says it. Truthful witnesses heard these promises and saw Him resurrected from the dead as He predicted as proof that what He said was true.
The discription of the OV below is not very comforting to those of this world who might be Zosia. Read it again and tell me where the comfort is? I think, it is simply the mirror image of a man-centered hyper-calvinism (which I reject) with men determining who is predestined to heaven and hell. It is every bit as wrong. Mystery is more comforting and I believe that it is easier to support with the scriptures.
I believe that God has limited what He is able to do in the world He created because He desires that His will be carried out through others. Because of this, He has made it possible for agents to temporarily thwart His will, and has given some of these beings great authority (I believe before they chose to resist His will). As long as they possess this authority, God is simply not able to always intervene, except through certain circumstances. Perhaps He has created certain "rules" that we are unaware of, which He is obligated to play by, and these evil agents He has granted temporary authority to take advantage of this freedom they have (as a result of the "rules" God has made) every chance they get, which often results in horrendous acts such as the one you mentioned. As I said, I believe God is simply not able to intervene all of the time, even though I am certain such evil acts grieve His heart.
I find comfort in a God that can and does have the power to intervene all the time and is loving. When He chooses not to intervene I can trust a loving and good God and that His purposes for my good will not be thwarted.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/2/2004 6:29 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Aaron Reynolds
John
Thanks for what you said. I fully agree with you. All I really meant by "permissive will" was God's creating a kind of world in which evil could be a possibility. But I guess that should be called something else?
Aaron
Hi Aaron,
I submit that God has only one will, that something is either God's will (righteous) or it is not (sin). When I was an Arminian, I paid lip service to the "permissive will," or the "God allowed (something evil) to happen" way of thinking. However, I never was comfortable with such terminology. I mean really, are we truly going to blame God (even tacitly) for evil by saying He allows or permits it?
From Genesis to Revelation, we find a God who is 100% opposed to evil. The fact that many of the moral agents He created have chosen to go against His will does not then require us to say He allowed it, any more than a dutiful (non-negligent) police officer necessarily "allows" a rape to occur. I am just very uncomfortable with the implication that God has somehow been negligent with his creation, and that is precisely where the allow/permit terminology inevitably leads, as far as I can tell.
I don't have a better term for things that aren't God's will than sin.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Aaron Reynolds
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 5/3/2004 4:05 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
Thanks for your comments and constructive criticism of my arguments. As you know, I come from a strong Calvinist background, so I am still struggling to overcome this reformed inheritance and see things through a "purer" OV perspective, without any of the reformed baggage, or even filtering things through classical Arminianism, which can be tough sometimes. However, I am working on it, and your comments are a big help. I definitely see this as a learning experience for me, and I hope to become a better defender of the OV position as time goes by.  Thanks again.
In Christ,
Aaron
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 5/3/2004 1:17 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron Reynolds
John
Thanks for what you said. I fully agree with you. All I really meant by "permissive will" was God's creating a kind of world in which evil could be a possibility. But I guess that should be called something else?
Aaron
Hi Aaron,
I submit that God has only one will, that something is either God's will (righteous) or it is not (sin). When I was an Arminian, I paid lip service to the "permissive will," or the "God allowed (something evil) to happen" way of thinking. However, I never was comfortable with such terminology. I mean really, are we truly going to blame God (even tacitly) for evil by saying He allows or permits it?
From Genesis to Revelation, we find a God who is 100% opposed to evil. The fact that many of the moral agents He created have chosen to go against His will does not then require us to say He allowed it, any more than a dutiful (non-negligent) police officer necessarily "allows" a rape to occur. I am just very uncomfortable with the implication that God has somehow been negligent with his creation, and that is precisely where the allow/permit terminology inevitably leads, as far as I can tell.
I don't have a better term for things that aren't God's will than sin.
Aaron,
I agree with John that the actions/desires that are not according to God’s written Law are indeed sin. Does God allow sin, yes. Does God hate sin, yes. God also came and died as a sinless substitutionary sacrifice so that He could offer forgiveness in all who believe in what He has done. It seems to impugn God’s omnipotent power and sovereignty to relegate him to a “limited” policeman. If the “criminals” can act beyond God’s power to intervene, it is small comfort to those who are the upcoming “victims.” What comfort do they find in limited mini-god who cannot intervene to help them if He chooses to. This concept of God describes a world that is outside of God’s intervention and the victims are just helpless fodder to feed the cruel machine to obtain the freewill choice of a few.
The God described above either allows sin OR he is a god that can’t intervene to save or prevent evil. I fail to see the allure to believe in a God that is impotent to intervene and prevent evil when He chooses.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/3/2004 2:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Aaron,
I agree with John that the actions/desires that are not according to God’s written Law are indeed sin. Does God allow sin, yes.
Sending people to hell doesn't sound to me like much permission.
quote:
It seems to impugn God’s omnipotent power and sovereignty to relegate him to a “limited” policeman. If the “criminals” can act beyond God’s power to intervene, it is small comfort to those who are the upcoming “victims.”
It was an analogy, all of which lack something. That said, I doubt seriously that you have to control every decision your children make in order to exercise parental authority.
quote:
What comfort do they find in limited mini-god who cannot intervene to help them if He chooses to. This concept of God describes a world that is outside of God’s intervention and the victims are just helpless fodder to feed the cruel machine to obtain the freewill choice of a few.
Once again spen demonstrates his ability to erect a straw man, thus misrepresenting the beliefs of his opponents, to suit his purposes.
quote:
The God described above either allows sin OR he is a god that can’t intervene to save or prevent evil.
Or, He is a God who says to people: You will reap what you sow. If you sow to the flesh, you shall of the flesh reap destruction. If you sow to the Spirit, you shall receive eternal life.
quote:
I fail to see the allure to believe in a God that is impotent to intervene and prevent evil when He chooses.
I fail to see the allure of a God who is so insecure about his omnipotence he has to micromanage each and every detail of his creation in order to preserve his sovereignty. I also fail to see how your view of God "allowing" evil is any better than the Open View.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 5/3/2004 2:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Aaron,
I agree with John that the actions/desires that are not according to God’s written Law are indeed sin. Does God allow sin, yes.
Sending people to hell doesn't sound to me like much permission.
quote:
It seems to impugn God’s omnipotent power and sovereignty to relegate him to a “limited” policeman. If the “criminals” can act beyond God’s power to intervene, it is small comfort to those who are the upcoming “victims.”
It was an analogy, all of which lack something. That said, I doubt seriously that you have to control every decision your children make in order to exercise parental authority.
quote:
What comfort do they find in limited mini-god who cannot intervene to help them if He chooses to. This concept of God describes a world that is outside of God’s intervention and the victims are just helpless fodder to feed the cruel machine to obtain the freewill choice of a few.
Once again spen demonstrates his ability to erect a straw man, thus misrepresenting the beliefs of his opponents, to suit his purposes.
quote:
The God described above either allows sin OR he is a god that can’t intervene to save or prevent evil.
Or, He is a God who says to people: You will reap what you sow. If you sow to the flesh, you shall of the flesh reap destruction. If you sow to the Spirit, you shall receive eternal life.
quote:
I fail to see the allure to believe in a God that is impotent to intervene and prevent evil when He chooses.
I fail to see the allure of a God who is so insecure about his omnipotence he has to micromanage each and every detail of his creation in order to preserve his sovereignty. I also fail to see how your view of God "allowing" evil is any better than the Open View.
John,
You say, "I fail to see the allure of a God who is so insecure about his omnipotence he has to micromanage each and every detail of his creation in order to preserve his sovereignty. I also fail to see how your view of God "allowing" evil is any better than the Open View." I think that this is actually my point. There is no real difference if the OV maintains that God is somehow/somewhere ultimately omnipotent/sovereign. Any "limitation" just attempts to hide this behind a curtain, but it doean't resolve the problem itself. Ultimately the OV believes that God allows evil. The OV may not call it the "permissive will," but that is no too important. The concept is still there. Thus, the only difference is "why." It seems that you agree.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/3/2004 2:56 PM (GMT -6) | | For the umpteenth time...
If my daughter disobeys me, I have only "allowed" her to do so to the extent that I don't control her. If she disobeys, she has simply gone against my will; I have not allowed or permitted her.
So no, I don't agree with your assessment. The very nature of the scenario, as you pose it, presupposes God as a micromanager of every last detail in all of creation.
While I haven't yet worked all the details of my thoughts on this out as yet, I am confident that we should rule out the idea that God permits evil on strictly scriptural grounds, not to mention logical grounds. To charge God with sin is the height of blasphemy, and that is precisely what the "God allows/permits evil" idea leads to.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 5/4/2004 1:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
For the umpteenth time...
If my daughter disobeys me, I have only "allowed" her to do so to the extent that I don't control her. If she disobeys, she has simply gone against my will; I have not allowed or permitted her.
So no, I don't agree with your assessment. The very nature of the scenario, as you pose it, presupposes God as a micromanager of every last detail in all of creation.
While I haven't yet worked all the details of my thoughts on this out as yet, I am confident that we should rule out the idea that God permits evil on strictly scriptural grounds, not to mention logical grounds. To charge God with sin is the height of blasphemy, and that is precisely what the "God allows/permits evil" idea leads to.
John,
Your analogy of your daughter is fundamentally flawed in that it presopposes that your human limitations of a parent also apply to God. A better analogy of daughter/parent would be that you were standing in your kitchen and there was a loaded gun on the table, your daughter and her sibling were having a fight and she was furious with rage. You saw her comr to the counter in front of you and take up the gun and aim it at her sibling. If, as a parent, you do not intervene but allow her to ecxercise her "freewill" then you have allowed this action. If, instead, you are tied to a chair in the corner and powerless to intervene, you haven't allowed it, but are powerless to prevent it except to scream, "No." This is the scenario of the OV.
You say on behalf of the OV that God is limited to intervene. Small comfort to the sibling. The trouble is, following your analogy, the parent places the gun on the table in the hope that it will be used well. Knowing the "potential outcopmes" the parent then chhoses to be bound and placed in a corner. If God "voluntarily chooses" to be bound from intervening by self-limitation, knowing the possibilities, it all comes to the same thing. God must be a little dense not to know what would happen (which I don't think the OV believes) or He must value the possiblity of the freewill choice so much that the lives of the siblings are a worthwhile cost to secure it. Small comfort to the siblings. Until you give the parent the attributes of God, your analogy doesn't work and is misleading. I have not charged God with sin, and I agree that it would be blasphemy. I have simply agreed that God allowed His own Son to be put to death by the hands of sinful men, something that He knew would happen and predicted beforehand. He tolerates sin for His own purposes. Those who sin, sin because they want to. They remain responsible moral agents for their actions.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Aaron Reynolds
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 5/4/2004 2:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake,
I'm a little confused. I haven't kept up with everything you've posted on this board, so I confess I'm not sure where you stand on a lot of things; I've just been going by these last responses of yours. But since you're a Calvinist, I guess I'd kind of made the assumption that you believed in the Calvinist form of foreknowledge - that is, God perfectly foreknows everything (every choice anyone would ever make and every little detail about everything that happens in the world) because He foreordained that it would happen. In other words, in eternity past, God conceived and decreed everything and now it's unfolding according to "His perfect, undefeated will," so that there is no "allowing" or "tolerating" because everything that happens is His will. If this is not your view, could you please explain what your view is, or maybe point me to a discussion in which it is explained? That would help me out a lot in understanding where you're coming from.
Also (and this goes along with my last question) could you just give your thoughts on your own opinion of God's knowledge of Satan's fall? I realize this a speculative topic, b/c the Bible doesn't give us a lot of information on it, but I just want your own thoughts on it, because it helps me to simplify things and "get to the bottom" of the issue, if that makes any sense.
In eternity past, before God ever created angelic beings, did God know with absolute certainty (as in, He had perfect knowledge of it) that the angelic being - who would later be known as the adversary - would choose in his "heart" (or in whatever facility angelic beings make their moral choices) to transgress God's law (through pride or whatever sin it was)? Did God know for a fact when this angelic being would sin for the first time (which presumably brought sin into existence) and exactly what his sin would be? Thanks a lot,
Aaron | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/4/2004 8:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
For the umpteenth time...
If my daughter disobeys me, I have only "allowed" her to do so to the extent that I don't control her. If she disobeys, she has simply gone against my will; I have not allowed or permitted her.
So no, I don't agree with your assessment. The very nature of the scenario, as you pose it, presupposes God as a micromanager of every last detail in all of creation.
While I haven't yet worked all the details of my thoughts on this out as yet, I am confident that we should rule out the idea that God permits evil on strictly scriptural grounds, not to mention logical grounds. To charge God with sin is the height of blasphemy, and that is precisely what the "God allows/permits evil" idea leads to.
John,
Your analogy of your daughter is fundamentally flawed in that it presopposes that your human limitations of a parent also apply to God.
I don't see how. The Bible's primary metaphor for God is that of "Father."
quote:
A better analogy of daughter/parent would be that you were standing in your kitchen and there was a loaded gun on the table, your daughter and her sibling were having a fight and she was furious with rage. You saw her comr to the counter in front of you and take up the gun and aim it at her sibling. If, as a parent, you do not intervene but allow her to ecxercise her "freewill" then you have allowed this action. If, instead, you are tied to a chair in the corner and powerless to intervene, you haven't allowed it, but are powerless to prevent it except to scream, "No." This is the scenario of the OV.
Once again you demonstrate your profound ability to construct straw men. 
The Open View does not require us to think of God as powerless, but rather principled. He can and does intervene when he has good reason to.
quote:
You say on behalf of the OV that God is limited to intervene.
Please show where I have ever said such a thing. I haven't.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 5/4/2004 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
For the umpteenth time...
If my daughter disobeys me, I have only "allowed" her to do so to the extent that I don't control her. If she disobeys, she has simply gone against my will; I have not allowed or permitted her.
So no, I don't agree with your assessment. The very nature of the scenario, as you pose it, presupposes God as a micromanager of every last detail in all of creation.
While I haven't yet worked all the details of my thoughts on this out as yet, I am confident that we should rule out the idea that God permits evil on strictly scriptural grounds, not to mention logical grounds. To charge God with sin is the height of blasphemy, and that is precisely what the "God allows/permits evil" idea leads to.
John,
Your analogy of your daughter is fundamentally flawed in that it presopposes that your human limitations of a parent also apply to God. A better analogy of daughter/parent would be that you were standing in your kitchen and there was a loaded gun on the table, your daughter and her sibling were having a fight and she was furious with rage. You saw her comr to the counter in front of you and take up the gun and aim it at her sibling. If, as a parent, you do not intervene but allow her to ecxercise her "freewill" then you have allowed this action. If, instead, you are tied to a chair in the corner and powerless to intervene, you haven't allowed it, but are powerless to prevent it except to scream, "No." This is the scenario of the OV.
I don't think he's tied to the chair so much as he's committed to letting us choose our own path. I realize earthly fathers don't think in such terms, but I think God does. I think God only interferes in human life when we pray or when God is purposing some specific plan of his.
And, how can we known when God does intervene and stops bad things? Imagine me saying "Tell me all the times in your life you haven't been murdered". You can't really know that. | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 5/4/2004 12:00 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Aaron Reynolds
Spenlake,
I'm a little confused. I haven't kept up with everything you've posted on this board, so I confess I'm not sure where you stand on a lot of things; I've just been going by these last responses of yours. But since you're a Calvinist, I guess I'd kind of made the assumption that you believed in the Calvinist form of foreknowledge - that is, God perfectly foreknows everything (every choice anyone would ever make and every little detail about everything that happens in the world) because He foreordained that it would happen. In other words, in eternity past, God conceived and decreed everything and now it's unfolding according to "His perfect, undefeated will," so that there is no "allowing" or "tolerating" because everything that happens is His will. If this is not your view, could you please explain what your view is, or maybe point me to a discussion in which it is explained? That would help me out a lot in understanding where you're coming from.
Also (and this goes along with my last question) could you just give your thoughts on your own opinion of God's knowledge of Satan's fall? I realize this a speculative topic, b/c the Bible doesn't give us a lot of information on it, but I just want your own thoughts on it, because it helps me to simplify things and "get to the bottom" of the issue, if that makes any sense.
In eternity past, before God ever created angelic beings, did God know with absolute certainty (as in, He had perfect knowledge of it) that the angelic being - who would later be known as the adversary - would choose in his "heart" (or in whatever facility angelic beings make their moral choices) to transgress God's law (through pride or whatever sin it was)? Did God know for a fact when this angelic being would sin for the first time (which presumably brought sin into existence) and exactly what his sin would be? Thanks a lot,
Aaron
Aaron,
I believe that God knows what will happen. The concept of "foreknowledge" and the way you describe it seems too defined for me. Whereas from God's perspective, I believe He knows what will happen, from my perspective, I am sure that I don't know. Whereas I believe that God knows what I will choose, I live in a world of apparent freewill. I do have the power to choose and I choose what I want. God has given me His will in black and white. I know that I am not to steal, committ murder and not to covet. His will is revealed and I am free to obey it or sin. There are other areas where His will isn't black and white and revealed. In these decisions I (and all others) have liberty to choose. This is all happening against a background that is known by a good God that loves me. Perhaps I am stating it simplistically. But I have never been accused of being passive nor fatalistic in my life, yet I believe that God is sovereign and that He does foreknow.
In addition, I would think that I am as against double predestination (that God predestines some to hell) and that He doesn't wish to save and offer salvation to all - as any OVer on this board. I just happen to believe that much of this is shrouded in the transcendence of God and is mystery. I can live with this and be content. Apparently there are others who can't. That is fine. My main point is just that, when you check behind the curtains, OVers ultimately believe in one of 2 options:
1. A sovereign God that somehow allows evil
or
2. A mini-god that isn't really sovereign.
I think, from my discussions here that most OV people would admit to the first option, a sovereign God that somehow allows evil. If this is indeed the case, the OV doesn't solve much. Instead of a God who allows evil within a mystery they propose a God that is willing to sacrifice the world to evil for the freewill choice of a few. It appears that I prefer and am satisfied with mystery and they prefer freewill. In the meantime, we go and preach the gospel to all and some believe it and are reconciled to God and saved. The gospel that God became a man and died for us on a cross, giving us His righteousness. His words and claims were proved true because He was raised from the dead as He predicted. We can trust His words and His work and if we are steadfast in this trust, we will inherit eternal life. If we preach a different gospel, then the issue becomes more serious.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
| 50 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:37 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 |
|
|