 |
 | 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/23/2004 3:04 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi jefscott,
I don't recall any specific discussion we've had about this (maybe someone else does) However, I do know that Dr. Boyd has referred to the following well-known Scripture when asked questions like this.
2 Pet. 3:8 Now, dear friends, do not let this one thing escape your notice, that a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day. 3:9 The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward you, because he does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
"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 | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/23/2004 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff, (May I call you Jeff?)
I think I hear what you're saying. What I hear you saying is how could God let these cultures become so corrupt? Why didn't he just wipe them out before they got so bad?
I think the answer lies in the verses I cited; i.e., God is not willing that any should perish, not even these wicked cultures, and holds out hope that they may in fact see the light and repent.
If God were to grant these people free will and then remove that free will as soon as he saw them misusing it, it would actually be no free will at all. Built in to the system, so to speak, is the principle of proportionality--that is, the degree of evil they realized is in direct proportion to the goodness and noblility they could have realized, had they chosen righteousness.
As to the suffering of infants and children, it may be a small consolation, but I see this as a dispensation of mercy, given the age of accountability, prior to which they would not be judged for sin and would presumably go to be with God. They would also avoid the almost certain repeat of their parents' sins if they had had a chance to mature into adulthood.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/24/2004 5:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Didn't God know that the iniquity of the Amorites would be "full" after the 400 years of sojourning?
After 400 years, the sin of the Canaanite was "full". And yet, when the spies went into the land, Rahab, the Canaanite harlot, helped the spies, was grafted into the covenant and is the lineage of Jesus Christ.
Matthew 1:5 "Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab"
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
I think the answer lies in the verses I cited; i.e., God is not willing that any should perish, not even these wicked cultures, and holds out hope that they may in fact see the light and repent.
Like Rahab.
Gen 15:13 "God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. “But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions. “As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. “Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete."
Laika's reference to Rahab is wonderful and gives us hope that God saves a remnant even out of corruption. However, the point the passage in 2 Peter 3:8 "The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward you, because he does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" is not necessarily the same as the passage from Genesis. Peter is speaking of the an event, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."
In Genesis there was a specified time that was planned and executed and it wasn't slow and late. It was known from the time God gave His word. It was timed so well that in Ex 12:37 we find, "Now the time that the sons of Israel lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. And at the end of four hundred and thirty years, to the very day, all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt."
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/24/2004 5:14 AM (GMT -6) | | John & Laika,
I agree with your points, but let me quote Greg Boyd to demonstrate exactly what I'm questioning (Satan & the Problem of Evil, pp. 175-176).
quote:
How much is too much? Still, ..., the amount of evil influence that individuals such as Hitler exercise seems to suggest that God sometimes wagers too much, even after due consideration has been given to the inherent sociological dimension of each individual's achievements.
...The bottom line is that life is to some extent a gamble, even for God. And when a big gamble is lost it always feels, and should always feel, like too much was wagered. When we lose a person we love profoundly, either by death or by rejection, it can at the same time that love was not worth the risk. When parents have children who rebel against them and hurt them profoundly, at the same time it seems as though the risk involved in pouring their lives into their children was not worth it. Indeed, God himself seems to experience something like this sentiment when the beings he created and loved so dearly completely reject him. Hence, at one point He was genuinely "sorry that he had made humankind on earth, and it grieved Him to his heart" (Gen. 6:6). Yet, while there are genuine losses, God knew that the overall risk of love is worth it.
To say that God knew that the "risk" would be worth it begs the question - "Worth it for who?" Love seeks not it's own. And this is why, I think, Tigress was questioning the benevolence of God's Longsuffering in her "Ezekiel" post (correct me if I'm wrong, Tigress). God seems to be sure that the Amorites would be utterly corrupt within 400 years short of a few exceptions like Rahab. God seems to know that "few" enter into the "way of life," but many enter the "way of destruction."
Obviously the continuation of the creation is worth it to God. But it doesn't seem to be worth it for a majority of the human race. The wrath of God is abiding on the sons of disobedience. The same can not be said of the profoundly hurt parents Greg describes. They are hurt, yes, but they don't feel wrath toward their wayward children. Hence, I am arguing that the parent love-risk analogy is being stretched beyond it's validity by Greg and other Open Theists.
I think this invalid analogy gives ammo to our opponents and confuses those like Tigress who intuitively sense the akwardness of it. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, Tigress. It's just that I feel what I think you're feeling about this matter.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/24/2004 5:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
I shall use two f's as well!
quote:
Wasn't God's providence instrumental in bringing the Israelites into bondage? Didn't God know that the iniquity of the Amorites would be "full" after the 400 years of sojourning?
Yes and yes. God the Father does actually know the day of Jesus' return, I would insist (Mk. 13:32). So "patient with you" in 2 Pt. 3:9 refers to God's attitude, throughout this time that he has set. It gives the reason for the long time, in other words. I think I'm probably not speaking very clearly here...
quote:
What I see is God allowing societies to become utterly corrupt knowing the consequences that will bring upon the innocent babies/children.
Here I would call a halt, though.
DT 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Even when children die, this is "for their own sin."
RO 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one."
And this includes even the youngest infants, infants in the womb, even.
PS 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
quote:
What I'm questioning is an apparent tendency of open Theists to try to make every decision of God be TOTALLY loving towards ALL men.
I think this can be maintained. Though I'm not an Open Theist.
quote:
These kind of verses (about Egypt, Amorites, etc.) seem to imply to me that God's love for the non-elect is not paramount. God's glory, Christ's glory, God's love for Christ, and/or God's love for the elect seem to cause God to allow situations to occur that he KNOWS will bring about suffering and death for babies and children.
But I think this view implies that God experiences frustration, and even has to compromise, that God has no choice before him which fulfills all of his desires, where he can succeed in all of what he wants.
In this regard, I would refer to Psalm 136, with the constant refrain, "His love endures forever," even in talking about acts of judgment. This may only refer to love for Israel, but I think more may be implied here.
And I think we are allowed to hope that all men may be saved:
JN 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.
That's not the Open View's perspective, though! So I have gone off-topic, and would be glad to give you a forum where you could tackle my view on this if you wish...
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 | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/24/2004 5:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
It is two f's. I just always use the same username my company gave me since I've got a bad memory. Keepin it simple!
As I remember, George MacDonald was a universalist wasn't he. I have a book, called "The Problem of Evil and the Judgement of God," which is written by the universalist A.E. Knoch. Much of his solution to the Problem of Evil rests upon the validity of universalism. Though I disagree with it because I see no compelling scriptural evidence for it, universalism would alleviate (to some extent) the problem of God's longsuffering.
quote:
But I think this view implies that God experiences frustration, and even has to compromise, that God has no choice before him which fulfills all of his desires, where he can succeed in all of what he wants.
There are verses that indicate what God's will is for Christians that Christians routinely violate. So I don't see how we can say God can get EVERYTHING he desires.
But I think the Bible puts way too much emphasis on the "fear of God," and other concepts which are not compatible with Boyd's over-emphasis of the parent-risk model. In that sense, I'm probably less like most other open Theist's, though I'm not sure of that.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/24/2004 7:28 AM (GMT -6) | | I've been thinking about how to re-word my dissent from Greg Boyd's view of God's omnibenevolence. Just as open Theists define omniscience as the knowledge of all things possible to be known, so I would say God's omnibenevolence means that God is benevolent as He can be to all sentient creatures given (in this order) (1) His self-oriented purposes of this creation, (2) His benevolent commitments/purposes for Christ, and (3) His benevolent commitments/purposes for the elect.
It seems that the "fall"-out (pun partially intended) of the history of the creation has modified the mode whereby God's self-oriented purposes and God's purposes for Christ are being actualized. Compare the following:
quote:
17:5 And now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory I had with you before the world was created.
17:24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, so that they can see my glory that you gave me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
But if God's/Christ's purposes have been so affected by the Fall that they cannot be accomplished without Their suffering, it seems conceivable that some suffering of the rest of the sentient world may be necessary also.
Thus, I would contend that God is totally opposed to the evils that occur in the world but cannot stop them without frustrating his intent for Himself, Christ, or the elect (in that order). If this is still not clear, let me know and I'll try to refine it a bit.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/24/2004 7:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
PS 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
"I was sinful at birth"????
What did David do at his birth that was sinful?
KJV: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."
ASV: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me."
NASV: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."
NKJV: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."
Revised Elberfeld Translation (German): "See, in guilt was I born, and in sin had my mother conceived me."
Zurich Bible (Swiss): "See, in guilt was I born, and in sins had my mother me conceived."
Reina-Valera Version (Spanish): "Behold, in evil I have been formed, And in sin my mother conceived me."
Ecumenical (Czech): "Yes, I was born in iniquity. In sin did my mother conceive me."
Kralicka (Czech): "Yes, I am born in iniquity. In sin did my mother conceive me."
NRV (Italian): "Behold, I have been begotten in (the) iniquity, my mother has conceived me in (the sin)." (the standard, Non-Catholic version in Italy)
IEP and CEI (Italian): "Behold, in (the) fault I have been begotten, in (the) sin has conceived me my mother."
Norwegian Bible: "See, I was born in sin and my mother has conceived me in sin."
"in sin, my mother..."
David's mother was sinning when she conceived him.
http://twtministries.com/articles/11_born_sin/ps51_5.html
David was not around at his conception, how could he have sinned?
Or else you'll have to explain which part of David was sinning at his conception, the sperm part of him or the egg part of him.
The idea that the very act of conception is sinful is some of the pagan greek baggage augustine brought with him.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/24/2004 9:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Laika,
PS 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.
This could mean David's mother sinned when he was conceived. But I think the reference is parallel with the first part of the verse, being born sinful, thus it refers to being sinful from the start.
Surely David isn't saying here that his birth and his conception were both sinful acts, that he wasn't involved in!? No, he's confessing, here, as well as elsewhere in this Psalm, and saying he started out sinful, being sinful inadvertently, as well as sinning later.
quote:
RO 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one."
Lee: And this includes even the youngest infants, infants in the womb, even.
Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
Laika: The Kingdom of heaven belongs to sinners?
Blue is my favorite color... To "such as" these. A little difference. But it's important.
quote:
Lee, how does a child in the womb sin? How about giving me just three ways a child in the womb sins
I shall try...
1. Children can turn to God in the womb, I believe (Ps. 22:10), and they can also turn away from God then, as well (Ps. 58:3).
2. Jacob and Esau were wrestling in their mother's womb. Now that might not have been sinful, but it might have been, too, Rebekah was upset by it. So it wasn't pattycake!
3. People can even rebel at birth (Isa. 48:8). OK, that's not in the womb. I'm doing the best I can...
quote:
thanx
We aims to please...
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 | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/24/2004 9:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Quote from Jeff: quote:
John & Laika,
I agree with your points, but let me quote Greg Boyd to demonstrate exactly what I'm questioning (Satan & the Problem of Evil, pp. 175-176).quote:
Dr. Boyd writes: How much is too much? Still, ..., the amount of evil influence that individuals such as Hitler exercise seems to suggest that God sometimes wagers too much, even after due consideration has been given to the inherent sociological dimension of each individual's achievements.
...The bottom line is that life is to some extent a gamble, even for God. And when a big gamble is lost it always feels, and should always feel, like too much was wagered. When we lose a person we love profoundly, either by death or by rejection, it can at the same time that love was not worth the risk. When parents have children who rebel against them and hurt them profoundly, at the same time it seems as though the risk involved in pouring their lives into their children was not worth it. Indeed, God himself seems to experience something like this sentiment when the beings he created and loved so dearly completely reject him. Hence, at one point He was genuinely "sorry that he had made humankind on earth, and it grieved Him to his heart" (Gen. 6:6). Yet, while there are genuine losses, God knew that the overall risk of love is worth it.
To say that God knew that the "risk" would be worth it begs the question - "Worth it for who?"
This is the point of the thread on "two wills in God and the OV." While the OV may define them differently and call it only ONE will with an allowable void. Or ONE will with an allowed evil, or some such thing. We end up with a belief that solves nothing. We have an all powerful God who could intervene to prevent evil and doesn't or does intervene only selectively - He allows evil to continue to exist. The only difference is the "why?" Why does God allow evil to exist. The OV tells us it is because He values freewill. The Reformed claim that they don't know all the answers, God alone knows and His sovereign plans will be accomplished and His name alone will be glorified.
We have two choices:
1. God, through a self-imposed void in His sovereignty, allows His creation to suffer and be afflicted by the evil of all so that some will choose with freewill. He exchanges the suffering of the lost because He so values the freewill choice of the saved. Their choice is exchaged for Jesus' death and cross.
2. God remains sovereign over His entire creation, even over evil. God allows His creation to suffer and experience the afflictions of an evil world and sin in exchange for a greater good that (while hidden now) will be manifest on that day when God alone will be glorified.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/24/2004 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Spen,
I agree that the two wills approach does not resolve much. And if God's concern for freewill is always paramount, why not go ahead and stop this world and start another, seeings how God is pretty sure ("few" enter into the way of life) this one is going to remain pretty disappointing from that perspective. That was what Tigress asked if I remember correctly.
But I don't think it follows from OV that all answers can be known. That's what I'm contending above, more or less - that God has certain purposes (even independent of those He has for Christ and the elect) that require Him to allow this world to continue a very long time.
Take, for example, the verse that says, "What if God, willing to show his wrath, did forbear with longsuffering those vessels fitted unto wrath?" As I understand it, Reformed Theology would say that God has foreknown these things from eternity, and that God has wished to show his wrath from eternity. As I see the effect of the Fall, God did not wish to show His wrath UNTIL the world became sinful. So NOW, God DOES want to show his wrath, and He's willing to forebear much evil to show it. But, consistent with his benevolent nature, He still leads hardened men to repentance out of the riches of his kindness (Rom. 2:4).
I think, then, that ORIGINALLY God's intent was to get glory in a world without all the evil we know. But because of what Satan did, and thereafter the human race, God now get's glory by demonstrating His power and wisdom to Satan and his minions by showing that no matter how much evil they bring about, His purposes cannot be frustrated. In this view, God does not PREFER the evil of the present age, but gets more glory from it than He would if he just gave up and started over. That's why Christ says God loved him BEFORE the foundation of the world in John - because Christ has to suffer now due to what happened in the Fall. This view also explains why God didn't give Job a nice, pretty Theodicy to console him. There IS no such nice, pretty Theodicy. We are to love God, but more fundamentally we are to FEAR Him and serve Him (the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom), knowing that He wants the sufferings of Christ and the elect to ultimately be "nothing" compared to the glory we will receive.
This approach allows for all the verses to make more sense to me, and it recognizes validity for both of your choices:
quote:
We have two choices:
1. God, through a self-imposed void in His sovereignty, allows His creation to suffer and be afflicted by the evil of all so that some will choose with freewill. He exchanges the suffering of the lost because He so values the freewill choice of the saved. Their choice is exchaged for Jesus' death and cross.
2. God remains sovereign over His entire creation, even over evil. God allows His creation to suffer and experience the afflictions of an evil world and sin in exchange for a greater good that (while hidden now) will be manifest on that day when God alone will be glorified.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/24/2004 2:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
You say,
What I return to is this verse:
quote:
ISA 46:10 I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.
So I'm willing to work in order not to have to say that God experiences frustration. Or that he has to compromise. More available upon request! I think that is sort of on-topic...
First, I do request more. Second, Boyd's explanation of this verse is reasonable to me. Boyd says, "He declares that the future is settled to the extent that He is going to determine it, but nothing in the text requires that we believe that everything that will ever come to pass will do so according to his will and thus is settled ahead of time."
Isaiah 46:11 clarifies this: "Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth My counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." In other words, v. 10 is referring to a specific purpose that WILL be fulfilled - not every desire of purpose that God has ever had or ever will have.
We know that Christians do not always do God's will for them. We know that God's Spirit is "grieved" by our disobedience. We also know that God feels wrath, which is more extreme than frustration. To claim that God fundamentally enjoys/prefers being grieved or being disappointed or being provoked to wrath seems to make God masochistic.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/25/2004 6:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Spen,
Concerning your statement:
quote:
The Reformed claim that they don't know all the answers, God alone knows and His sovereign plans will be accomplished and His name alone will be glorified.
We have two choices:
1. God, through a self-imposed void in His sovereignty, allows His creation to suffer and be afflicted by the evil of all so that some will choose with freewill. He exchanges the suffering of the lost because He so values the freewill choice of the saved. Their choice is exchaged for Jesus' death and cross.
2. God remains sovereign over His entire creation, even over evil. God allows His creation to suffer and experience the afflictions of an evil world and sin in exchange for a greater good that (while hidden now) will be manifest on that day when God alone will be glorified.
Galatians 3:4 says, "Have your suffered so many things in vain?" I don't know why Paul would even ask such a question if he was not conceding that there is such a thing as "vain" (i.e., pointless, futile, profitless) suffering. But if that is the case, then there is no "greater good" which will ultimately justify all suffering.
And that would explain why God has wrath towards such evil - it is the horror we intuitively perceive it to be.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/25/2004 12:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
quote:
Lee: What I return to is this verse:
ISA 46:10 I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.
So I'm willing to work in order not to have to say that God experiences frustration. Or that he has to compromise.
Jeff: Boyd's explanation of this verse is reasonable to me. Boyd says, "He declares that the future is settled to the extent that He is going to determine it, but nothing in the text requires that we believe that everything that will ever come to pass will do so according to his will and thus is settled ahead of time."
I disagree with Boyd's conclusion here, but I'm trying to make a different point: that God's desires will all be satisfied. "All I please", here. But "back to the future"! It's true, this verse does not say "the future is totally settled." I think God does know all the future:
JN 16:30 Now we can see that you know all things.
Which I think includes all the future. Now what about some things coming to pass that are not according to God's will?
JOB 42:2 "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted."
PS 33:10-11 The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.
quote:
We know that Christians do not always do God's will for them.
I went looking for a verse that says X did Y and Y was not God's will, and couldn't find one, though. There are verses that speak of "X did God's will," with an implied contrast. But I think the contrasting statement is "X did God's will inadvertently, with a bad motive, unintentionally."
PS 119:91 ... for all things serve you.
quote:
We know that God's Spirit is "grieved" by our disobedience. We also know that God feels wrath, which is more extreme than frustration.
That may be true, but one doesn't imply the other, I would say.
quote:
To claim that God fundamentally enjoys/prefers being grieved or being disappointed or being provoked to wrath seems to make God masochistic.
No, God sees the good result, and is pleased about that:
ISA 53:11 As a result of the anguish of his soul, he will see and be satisfied...
And God's desires were in concert with his will, even in the cross:
ISA 53:10 But the Lord was pleased to crush Him...
Again, because of the result...
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 | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 4/25/2004 1:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey i read the original question and skipped all else in between; so you might be past this point. But you are right, God's glory is vastly more important than man's salvation! Amen.
Why does God carry on this evil world? He carries it on so that the fullness of the elect might be drawn in (2 Peter 3:9). You also have to realize that this isn't a 'long' time in God's eyes, necesarily. For 1000 years is like a day. But the thing I think we should focus on is whether or not God's glory is being revealed in this present "evil" time, and yes it is. I would also further challenge you to define what 'evil' means.
About the two wills, all Christians hold to two views. The Calvinist's idea on the two wills is that He doesn't take pleasure in the death of the wicked, and at the same time He doesn't give grace to accomplish all that He wants. The two wills stem from His will of the law and will of decree. Will of the law is that "all" turn and repent and be saved, and His will of decree doesn't allow that. You get this view in verses like 2 Sam 2:25 where Eli tells his children that God says to repent of their awful sins, and yet it says they would not heed this advice, for the Lord desired to put them to death. The word for desired their, in Hebrew, is the same as the one used in the verse about God not desiring the death of the wicked; how is that explained? It's explained through the two wills. Though God commanded that Eli's sons turn and repent, they could not, because God would not allow them; He witheld His grace from them. Other verses include ones such as John 10:25(?) where we are told that some did not believe because they were not Christ's sheep. they were not Christ's sheep because they didn't believe, but vice versa, they believed not because they weren't Christ's sheep; even though the Lord Himself often commanded that all turn from their wicked ways.
The Open Theists idea of the two wills is that man's freedom trumps God's will that all should be saved; as they maintain that God desires all to be saved. Christ COULD NOT have died solely to make a means for salvation, that was not His intent; it was to save His people Matt 1:21, Matt 18:14; is that none should perish, but that Christ came to save all. John 6:37ff states that the Lord's will was that He lose NONE that His Father had given Him. (and taking into consideration that OVists idea on 2 Peter 3:9, though it's wrong) God wills that none should perish but that all should come to repentence.
Even in the Open View God has two wills, unless one wants to deny the clear theological teachings within Scripture. So the question that seems to be interesting, is which one makes the most out of God and the LEAST out of humans?
The OVists cannot charge the calvinist with having a psycho God, unless they too want to claim that God is a psycho in their own view. to think that God yeilds to man in such a way, in my opinion is to exalt man above his Soveriegn creator. This, we should be fully aware not to do.
God's glory is vastly more important than anyone's salvation.
Blessings,
borg
"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 | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/25/2004 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg,
I don't see anything in your post that clearly contradicts what I've saying in this thread (maybe I'm misunderstanding you), so I'm not sure what you mean by the statement:
quote:
The OVists cannot charge the calvinist with having a psycho God, unless they too want to claim that God is a psycho in their own view.
Can you be more specific about what your addressing here? Are you addressing that to something I said?
Lee,
Though JN 16:30 does say "Now we can see that you know all things," we are also told that Christ did not know the day or hour of his return. Consequently, JN 16:30 cannot be taken to prove the absolute omniscience of Christ at that time. The word "all" seldom means absolutely all. Think of 1 Cor. 13; "love believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things," etc. Are the "all"s in that passage absolute?
1 Thessalonians 4:3 says, "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication." This is one of many verses whose basic tenor is that God wills that we be perfectly obedient to Him as was His Son. He even says that He will not allow us to be tempted above what we are able. Thus, I can't agree that God gets absolutely EVERYTHING he wants in every sense.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To claim that God fundamentally enjoys/prefers being grieved or being disappointed or being provoked to wrath seems to make God masochistic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, God sees the good result, and is pleased about that:
ISA 53:11 As a result of the anguish of his soul, he will see and be satisfied...
And God's desires were in concert with his will, even in the cross:
ISA 53:10 But the Lord was pleased to crush Him...
Again, because of the result...
I agree with the above argument. I just don't think God gets ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING He wants/desires/wishes.
When God speaks of his forebearance, I don't think He's trying to make us think that He likes forebearing anymore than humans do. And yet we are to BE forebearing also, in imitation of Him. Our longsuffering is SUFFERING, so I see no reason to assume God's longsuffering does NOT imply SUFFERING also. But isn't suffering antithetical to being "pleased?"
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 4/25/2004 3:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Well than I guess I undermistood you, perhaps you weren't clear enough. I was throwing my two cents in for whatever it is worth, if you agree with it, good, if not, than challenge me; and this goes for anyone on this thread.
blessings,
borg
"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 4/25/2004 3:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Spen,
Concerning your statement:
quote:
The Reformed claim that they don't know all the answers, God alone knows and His sovereign plans will be accomplished and His name alone will be glorified.
We have two choices:
1. God, through a self-imposed void in His sovereignty, allows His creation to suffer and be afflicted by the evil of all so that some will choose with freewill. He exchanges the suffering of the lost because He so values the freewill choice of the saved. Their choice is exchaged for Jesus' death and cross.
2. God remains sovereign over His entire creation, even over evil. God allows His creation to suffer and experience the afflictions of an evil world and sin in exchange for a greater good that (while hidden now) will be manifest on that day when God alone will be glorified.
Galatians 3:4 says, "Have your suffered so many things in vain?" I don't know why Paul would even ask such a question if he was not conceding that there is such a thing as "vain" (i.e., pointless, futile, profitless) suffering. But if that is the case, then there is no "greater good" which will ultimately justify all suffering.
And that would explain why God has wrath towards such evil - it is the horror we intuitively perceive it to be.
Jeff,
The passage in Galatians 3 belowquote:
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
is not GREATER GOOD vs. VAINITY but about the hope of the gospel vs. leaving it for a vain hope. The issue at stake is the Galatians have left the sola-gospel for the gospel+. This "+" is fatal and invalidates the entire gospel and so would make their hope in it vain, because they have corrupted it and it no longer IS the gospel. This is how I see it.
This is what I believe that Dr. Boyd has done in the book "Seeing is Believing." In this book he teaches a different gospel that leads to a false comfort (on an eternal basis) because it finds the power to forgive in fictional anti-events instead of the factual blood of Christ. To follow and believe this is "resting in Christ" would be another example of the vanity that Paul is describing.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/25/2004 4:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Borg and Jeff,
quote:
The Calvinist's idea on the two wills is that He doesn't take pleasure in the death of the wicked, and at the same time He doesn't give grace to accomplish all that He wants.
The Open Theists idea of the two wills is that man's freedom trumps God's will that all should be saved.
There is a third view! That God does give grace to accomplish all that he wants, and thus we may hope that all men may be saved. I think the other two views imply frustration on God's part, and even compromise, which I don't want to step up to.
quote:
Though JN 16:30 does say "Now we can see that you know all things," we are also told that Christ did not know the day or hour of his return. Consequently, JN 16:30 cannot be taken to prove the absolute omniscience of Christ at that time. The word "all" seldom means absolutely all.
That's a good point! Some humble pie ala mode for me, please. Though I do think it is an accurate perception of Jesus' divine nature, and thus tells us about the kinds of knowledge God has.
quote:
1 Thessalonians 4:3 says, "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication." This is one of many verses whose basic tenor is that God wills that we be perfectly obedient to Him as was His Son. He even says that He will not allow us to be tempted above what we are able. Thus, I can't agree that God gets absolutely EVERYTHING he wants in every sense.
But sanctification is a process, and Paul here seems to equate it with a command! So I tend to view God's commands here and elsewhere as goals, as destinations, "the law will be fulfilled," Jesus said, as prophecies, even, and not as expressing what God would choose at every moment. He chooses it in the sense of it being a destination, but his will is for the process of sanctification, which even involves sins:
DA 11:35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless...
Again, by speaking of two wills, we are back to assigning frustration, and even compromise, to God, which I want to avoid doing. Do you think God has to compromise, that he has no choice before him where he can satisfy all of his will and desires?
quote:
But isn't suffering antithetical to being "pleased?"
I don't think it is!
AC 5:41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.
RO 5:3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know...
HEB 10:34 You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions.
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 | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/25/2004 4:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg,
Read my post which is about the 10th one in this thread. That one tells you where I'm coming from. To me, the OV does not rule out election or the preeminence of God's/Christ's glory.
But the idea that ALL things/events are FOREORDAINED and INTENDED by God is ruled out by the OV. I would go further and say that that idea is also ruled out by Scripture and common sense.
Spen,
I don't know what's in the "Seeing is Believing" book by Boyd. From the description on Greg's website, it sounds a little "out there" to me. I have no intentions of reading it. I also have problems with some of the extreme use of the parent love/risk analogy of Boyd, as I've argued above.
But concerning Galatians 3, the context is irrelevant for the point I was making. There either IS such a thing as "vain" suffering, or NOT. If there is, and the verse seems to suggest as much, then all suffering will not be justified by some greater good - a least not for all humans. Indeed, I would say the Scriptures indicate that there is no greater good for most humans. Thus, the parent love/risk analogy fails to solve the problem of evil apparently indicated in God's longsuffering.
I'm basically arguing (see post #10?) that the supposed problem of evil that seems to be implied by God's longsuffering is illusory once you understand that God's glory is paramount. I.e., God allows "vain" suffering (not approves of it or desires it), to maximize his own glory. But this is not contradictory to the basic idea of OV - that some things are truly OPEN.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| 82 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:04 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 |
|
|