 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > God’s Two Wills in Openness – March 19 debate | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/25/2004 8:47 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
...how can you really say his deity was not at the same moment also struggling?
I wonder whether your phrase here was just generated rhetorically. I wonder whether you have a picture of what you are saying. Personally the "John" that I've been quoting shows a kind of struggle--at least a perparation for what in the end will not be a struggle but a willing suffering (an important distinction!) But what would a "struggling in his diety" be? (Having second thoughts about John 3:16) I don't think you have anything in mind here.
Personal struggle, yes. Enormous struggle, yes. Personally undertaken, yes. God suffered and died, YES. But hesitated in his divine will... (nope) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/25/2004 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Then why does EO insist that Christ had TWO wills and TWO natures? It seems much more accurate and faithful to Scripture and Reason to say that Christ was a unified personality who was steadfastly devoted to the will of God. Yes, he was fully God and fully man, but He willingly gave his life. It only confuses the issue to say that He possessed two wills. This is counterintuitive, illogical, and unfounded on Scripture.
Where in the Bible does it say or imply that Christ had two wills and two natures?
John the Monophysite and Monothelite. 
The traditions of the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox (can share communion; had a big misunderstanding, but not really any differences) are different and yet also the same. Each took its shape by what it had to stand against. But to a common core they both were faithful.
Interesting you say "was a unified personality who was steadfastly devoted to the will of God." I like that. But notice that by saying "unified" you imply something too. I think the Copts, Ethiopians and Armenians spoke more this way. And they probably did so to emphasize the "unified" (Had to, considering the competing heresy); yet the two are also acknowleged.
You also say "Yes, he was fully God and fully man, but He willingly gave his life." "But?" I guess that throws attention back on the weakness of human nature and the strength of His love. Nice.
But you claim: It only confuses the issue to say that He possessed two wills. . . is counterintuitive, illogical, and unfounded on Scripture. I think that is speaking from the present, and from your current location. Time and geography are issues, weren't they? Yes they were. Streamlined logic was not a high virtue. Attempts at workable doctrine either held or crumbled at the challenge of the next heresy to come over the horizon, or pop up later in time. Time and geography. Emphasizing the two wills calls attention especially to aspects of our salvation. ("What is not assumed is not healed.") The Oriental's emphasis honors other aspects.
But as I watch Ethiopians taking communion from a Polish Orthodox priest I see that there was never really any divide.
But probably both would quickly recognize any departure from the truth. What will be the next heretical danger?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/25/2004 9:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
By the way, we've strayed pretty far from the original topic of this thread.
WE SKIRTED IT WHEN WE ARGUED ABOUT WHETHER THE DEVIL WAS CREATED GOOD, AND WHETHER THAT KIND OF GOODNESS REMAINS, DISPITE HIS REBELLION.
quote:
This is the first affirmation: Everything is good. The Greek fathers say, "Don’t you ever dare to say the devil is bad. He is bad by behavior, but he is good by nature." Or else, you go back to the dualism of the extreme "good god/bad god." The devil is the most perfect creation of God. That is why he became so powerful and so bad, ontologically speaking.
www.schmemann.org/byhim/betweenutopiaandescape.html
What we might see there is the CONTINUITY of God's Creation as being good.
Another CONSISTENCY can be seen in God's creating us in his image, with the aspect of Free Will being part of that.
Evdokimov says:
quote:
From: “IN THE WORLD, OP THE CHURCH”, by Paul Evdokimov, SVSP)
Predestination
Eschatology sheds light on the destiny of man, on our participation in being saved or lost. Grace makes us feel the "breath of the Spirit." Grace "provokes attention" and thus, according to the Fathers, protects free will not only in action but also in choice (Acts 16:14). "If anyone listens and opens the door, I enter" (Rev 3:20). Rendered attentive by the Spirit, man is able therefore to decisively formulate his yes or no.
We can define the relations between God and his creature in the categories of causality. In this case, God is the first cause who puts all things in motion, shows the way and returns all to this path. Human freedom is only the secondary instrumental cause drawing its origin from the primary, and determined by it. If the secondary cause sins, it is only because the primary tolerates it. Causal determinism is fatally situated in time, the primary movement finds itself inevitably there. That which establishes the primary cause is the universal pre-cause of all, and the prefix "pre" introduces time into the eternity of God. Humankind does not appear except inevitably, as the object of divine action. In such a causal scheme, the dubious Augustinian idea is led, through the iron logic of Calvin, to its conclusion: predestination to glory, condemnation to hell. The circle is buckled in upon itself without any possible exit: "Therefore according to the end for which humankind is created, we say that it is predestined to death or to life." (Instututions, VIII, p. 62.)
For the Eastern Church, God is never the primary cause, but the Creator. It is creation "in the image" of the Creator which places the "second freedom" outside any causal determinism, and the patristic conception of humankind as autexousia, self authoritative, rightly defines its mysterious capacity to transcend every necessity and the very condition of the creature over against divine freedom: to see oneself as microtheos, as God-in-miniature. One can even say that God, the Lover of humankind, is much more determined himself by his creation and his covenants than the creature by his Creator: "The Lord has sworn and he will not change his mind" (Ps 110:4). The Incarnation appears as God's reply to his own promise: the divinizing of his creature. The fall of man reveals the titanic fullness of our freedom, which in turn, determines our own destiny. Satan did not lie in saying: "You will be as gods." Man has created something which never existed before. We created evil and introduced it into our innocent nature. What is more, our salvation determines the shape of the Incarnation as Love crucified. Divine blood has been shed to safeguard our freedom in grace, for, according to the Fathers' saying, "God is not able to force anyone to
love him."
But all autonomy pushed to the breaking point is against nature, for it encloses man in his lower nature, hardens our "selfhood," destroys our ontology, our very being in the form of God. On the contrary, when man ceases to see himself in his pure subjectivity and rather in relationship to the divine Other, there we discover our "identity by grace," our being "eternally accepted." (These are frequent expressions in the writing ofSt Maximus the Confessor.) Then hell's isolation is destroyed and man is lifted toward the joy of the friend of the Bridegroom, St John the Baptist, and the Servant of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
"I knock at the door," says the Lord, and he knocks at the door of his own image in man, at the image of divine freedom in us. God empties himself. He "waits," determining nothing. God's decrees and even the predictions of the Apocalypse reveal a conditional character (Jer 18:7-10;26:2-3,13). Human freedom has the power to change even these.
The miracles of faith, the absolute newness of holiness, the charism of prophecy, all lead to the marriage-like relation between God and man, where love reigns, love which transforms all submission and subordination into the "complete otherness" of the Kingdom. The mystery of the Deisis or "Supplication" icon of Christ the King, seated between John the Baptist and the Virgin, discloses this. This icon is placed at the very heart of the icon screen which stretches across the front of the sanctuary, before the altar. Its aim is to present the image of judgment and at the same time its own transcendence through the image of the marriage feast of the Lamb.
God persuades, "not by power, nor by might, but by his Spirit."13 Now, "where the Spirit is, there is freedom." The error of ^^destination and of prescience is to introduce into God the Creator the temporal "before." The primary cause placed in time foresees and predestines, determines all. They're- deforms the "eternal" character of God and the capacity of faith to surpass the framework of time. Freedom bears the only interior necessity: to express oneself in choosing. Its fullness contains the most fearful choice; that of a revolt and a determination of oneself against God. Its archetype, the first choice of Lucifer before any concrete existence of evil, reveals that even in the initial state of innocence, freedom is safeguarded intact, and it is God who protects against his own omnipotence.
In non-Orthodox commentaries on Romans 8:29, predestination is conditioned by God's prescience or foreknowledge and the "we" of Ephesians 1:8-12 is taken in the limited and arbitrary sense of only "the elect." Now, according to St Paul, those thus called "elect" are the Christians, the two being synonymous. Despite terminology often confusing and inadequate to his vision, his theology is strongly volun-tarisric. The principal theme of the letter to the Romans is salvation by faith and by the grace-filled life conformed to faith. The Pauline opposition is not at all between faith and works but between the works of faith and the works of the law. Deeper than any doctrinal prejudice, predestination is for St Paul nothing but a conventional form for designating the mystery of God's love, and this love determines or predestines God and not humanity, if one wants to use the concept. It is rather yrnptomatic that in Romans 5:19 "For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous," the Greek terms pa.ra.ko6 (disobedience) and hypakoe, (obedience) are extremely rare even in classical Greek. Their rarity points to a meaning of something most unusual. To the abyss of disobedience corresponds the abyss of obedience. The transgression of limits here is not juridical but ontological. Christ's obedience is that of the Son to his Father, of the life within God. His indescribable fullness and "the image of the Son" leads us towards "another humanity," the mysterious humanity of the age to come according to the phrase ofSt Gregory ofNyssa.14
In Romans i and 9, St Paul speaks of the "historiosophic" mystery of Israel, that is, the action of divine Wisdom in human history and, as in the case of Jacob and Esau, this has mostly to do with the paradoxes of Providence, the historical theme, of the metahistorical meaning of the history of salvation. Even here, the image of the potter only reveals but one of the multiple aspects of divine Wisdom, but does not describe exhaustively the totality of the infinite, the completely inexhaustible range of the relationships between God and humankind. St Paul has a sufficient enough sense of true mystery not to slip toward such a simplification. Certainly it is God who brings to birth and will and action, but there is also the reverse of this: Work out your salvation in fear and trembling.
God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all (Rom 11:32). To every limiting rationalization Paul responds by the confession of the true mystery: how inscrutable are his ways. It is fitting for us to honor these in silence. The docta ignorantia ("learned ignorance") is opposed to every "asylum of Ignorance." The Savior's plan, that all be saved (i Tim 2:4; Rom 8:32) is infinitely more mysterious and impenetrable than predestination which is so human and so impoverished in its rectilinear logic. The "complex of the elect" is a morbid state, symptomatic of an unhappy conscience, and anxiety about hell.
FINALLY, HERE IS AN ESSAY THAT SHOWS THE SAME LOVE OF GOD AS ALSO ALSO BEING A RIVER OF FIRE. ALSO A CONSISTENCY.
www.philthompson.net/pages/library/riveroffire.html
The River of Fire
A reply to the questions: Is God really good? Did God create hell?
By Dr. Alexander Kalomiros © 1980
FOOD FOR THOUGHT. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/25/2004 9:26 AM (GMT -6) | | POW: what do I say? I say, I don't want to encourage you to post more quotes like the one right in front of this one.
As I use to say to my children when they were small and just learning to talk (when they would get lazy and point for what they want), "use your words. Use YOUR words." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/25/2004 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
...I don't want to encourage you to post more quotes . . . "Use YOUR words."
You are getting old, Harold.
1. I used "my words" a lot in the last few pages. (Duh!) But an apt quote is a good investment! The quote and LINK are on target--for anyone interested in content.
2. I trust anyone else would just notice the underlining and the bold portions, and not read the whole thing like you did. ;-)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/25/2004 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Here is a salient portion of the initial post for this thread:
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
In the debate it became clear that both the Reformers and Dr. Boyd agree on the following points:
1. God is good and not the author of evil.
2. The revealed will of God in Scriptures is only good.
3. Evil exists and we live in and experience an evil world
4. God has a “second will” that allows evil
Hidden Will: Reformers
The second will of the reformers is “hidden.” The reason why God allows evil is hidden and not revealed in Scriptures except that a good God allows evil according to His hidden purposes known to Him (Job 42:2). Within the hidden will, evil and the forces that carry it out are subject to God’s authority that only allows evil and grants it permission according to His own good purposes.
Limited Will: Dr. Boyd
The Open View’s second will is not honest in its explanation of God allowing evil. It attempts to hide the second will of God behind a false barrier, an open area outside of God’s jurisdiction where God allows freewill. Dr. Boyd explains evil experiences as the result of man and Satan, outside of God by God’s own prerogative. According to Dr. Boyd, God retains all his “Omni,” and God simply willed an area outside of God in which He allowed man’s freewill to operate beyond His jurisdiction. In this “Open Area” God wills to allow men and the devil to act in a jurisdiction that isn’t directly under His sovereignty so that He doesn’t or can’t directly intervene. Thus, Dr. Boyd teaches a second will of God that allows evil; describing a limited God who’s functional “Omni” is more limited than the unlimited functional “Omni” of the God of the Reformation. The “Open View” is shown to be a “Limited Will” allowing evil.
After re-reading spenlake's initial post, I posted this...
quote:
WE SKIRTED IT WHEN WE ARGUED ABOUT WHETHER THE DEVIL WAS CREATED GOOD, AND WHETHER THAT KIND OF GOODNESS REMAINS, DISPITE HIS REBELLION.
What we might see there is the CONTINUITY of God's Creation as being good.
Another CONSISTENCY can be seen in God's creating us in his image, with the aspect of Free Will being part of that.
FINALLY, HERE IS AN ESSAY THAT SHOWS THE SAME LOVE OF GOD AS ALSO ALSO BEING A RIVER OF FIRE. ALSO A CONSISTENCY. www.philthompson.net/pages/library/riveroffire.html
The River of Fire A reply to the questions: Is God really good? Did God create hell?, By Dr. Alexander Kalomiros © 1980
My post may offer a different view; or it may overlap with another. I'd like to hear what spenlake thinks. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/25/2004 12:06 PM (GMT -6) | | As are you POW...but you know, propaganda is propaganda...even if it is religious...and I would like to see all your Orthodox musings simply put into your own words...not pages of Orthodox "scripture." But do continue. I have reminding you of your habits...
Of course I am getting old. We all are
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/25/2004 1:52 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
I have reminding you of your habits...
That's called second guessing. (and its annoying)
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
I would like to see all your Orthodox musings simply put into your own...
It is as stupid to think that nothing good happened before 1500 as it is to think that nothing good happened since. Wouldn't you agree that EVERYTHING should stand on its own feet. (Lay aside your prejudices, f-h. I'll quote Finney, Tozer, Calvin, Wesley, Augustine, and Billy Graham all that I want!!!)
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
...not pages of Orthodox "scripture."
I'm too old to remember what we were talking about. Sorry.
What's for supper.
PoW
P.S. Our Christian Reformed Church is FINALLY going to have the Lord's Supper on Easter Sunday -- where it belongs!!!  | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 3/27/2004 6:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Here is a salient portion of the initial post for this thread:
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
In the debate it became clear that both the Reformers and Dr. Boyd agree on the following points:
1. God is good and not the author of evil.
2. The revealed will of God in Scriptures is only good.
3. Evil exists and we live in and experience an evil world
4. God has a “second will” that allows evil
Hidden Will: Reformers
The second will of the reformers is “hidden.” The reason why God allows evil is hidden and not revealed in Scriptures except that a good God allows evil according to His hidden purposes known to Him (Job 42:2). Within the hidden will, evil and the forces that carry it out are subject to God’s authority that only allows evil and grants it permission according to His own good purposes.
Limited Will: Dr. Boyd
The Open View’s second will is not honest in its explanation of God allowing evil. It attempts to hide the second will of God behind a false barrier, an open area outside of God’s jurisdiction where God allows freewill. Dr. Boyd explains evil experiences as the result of man and Satan, outside of God by God’s own prerogative. According to Dr. Boyd, God retains all his “Omni,” and God simply willed an area outside of God in which He allowed man’s freewill to operate beyond His jurisdiction. In this “Open Area” God wills to allow men and the devil to act in a jurisdiction that isn’t directly under His sovereignty so that He doesn’t or can’t directly intervene. Thus, Dr. Boyd teaches a second will of God that allows evil; describing a limited God who’s functional “Omni” is more limited than the unlimited functional “Omni” of the God of the Reformation. The “Open View” is shown to be a “Limited Will” allowing evil.
After re-reading spenlake's initial post, I posted this...
quote:
WE SKIRTED IT WHEN WE ARGUED ABOUT WHETHER THE DEVIL WAS CREATED GOOD, AND WHETHER THAT KIND OF GOODNESS REMAINS, DISPITE HIS REBELLION.
What we might see there is the CONTINUITY of God's Creation as being good.
Another CONSISTENCY can be seen in God's creating us in his image, with the aspect of Free Will being part of that.
FINALLY, HERE IS AN ESSAY THAT SHOWS THE SAME LOVE OF GOD AS ALSO ALSO BEING A RIVER OF FIRE. ALSO A CONSISTENCY. www.philthompson.net/pages/library/riveroffire.html
The River of Fire A reply to the questions: Is God really good? Did God create hell?, By Dr. Alexander Kalomiros © 1980
My post may offer a different view; or it may overlap with another. I'd like to hear what spenlake thinks.
POW,
I think that you are correct in defining the salient part of the thread. In reviewing the discussion, it seems to me that the Open View finds much more comfort in:
(1) Believing in man's will to decide to submit itself to God's revealed will and then make war with this present evil age to establish God's loving kingdom in the tangible world. This is because God's "Omni" has limited its power to intervene directly and carved out a void in which man's will is sovereign and must be exercised outside of God’s direct jurisdiction.
than
(2) Believing that God offers His salvation to all fallen humanity, giving faith to some who believe the message of the gospel and are reconciled with Him. This is because the entire creation was, is, and will be entirely under God’s direct jurisdiction and that He retains and executes the power to intervene at His sole prerogative in this evil world that has corrupted itself.
It seems to me that this dichotomy, man’s jurisdiction vs. God’s jurisdiction, gets back to the core issue of Jeremiah 17. “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, blessed is the one who trusts in God.” We see this happen in Matthew 7:22, 23 in which miracle working men successfully fighting the devil's demons are expelled from the kingdom of heaven. At the judgement both blessing/destruction happen during the same event.
Regarding your last point, I have been intrigued with the concept of a concurrent blessing/destruction feast that seems to be a theme in the Scriptures. If you do a word study on the Hebrew word “mishteh,” there is a fascinating correlation between a single event being BOTH blessing and destruction. This mishteh is a feast or meal. We find it first in Gen 19:3. There is a mishteh with the angels and Lot, Lot is saved and Sodom is destroyed. In Gen 21:8 we see Isaac being weaned. Isaac is blessed and Ishmael is expelled. Later in Genesis 40:20, at the mishteh of Pharaoh, the cupbearer is restored and the baker killed. Nabal has a mishteh in 1 Samuel 25:36 in which he dies and Abigail becomes the wife of David. In 2 Sam 3:20 we have Abner coming to a mishteh with David in which he is killed by Joab and David becomes king. The book Esther uses the word mishteh as many times as the rest of the Bible. It is a theme throughout the book with various feasts and concurrent blessing/destruction. The opening mishteh has Vashti deposed and Esther becoming queen. We see a Mishteh in which Haman dies and Esther lives. Ultimately we see Purim in which the children of Israel are blessed and their enemies destroyed.
This same theme carries on into the New Testament. In John 6 we see the entire progression from the miracle feast of the bread to many disciples leaving Him in verse 66 while the 12 remain for the words of eternal life. In John 13, Judas participates in the Lords Supper, he goes and dies and the 11 disciples go onto salvation. This kind of concurrent blessing/destruction concept is repeated in 1 Corinthians 11:30 in which Paul warns that taking the Lord’s Supper improperly was a reason that some had died. Following this theme in the parable of the wedding feast of Matthew 22:12, one guest who "chose" to attend is thrown into outer darkness while the rest feast in blessing. The penultimate mishteh is in Revelation 19 and the great marriage supper of the Lamb, the bride is blessed and others that are invited experience "being the feast" in verse 17, “Then I saw an angel in heaven standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, ‘Come, assemble for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses, and those who sit on them and the flesh of all men. Both free men and slaves, and small and great.’”
Whether the Lord's return is a blessing/destruction doesn't depend on the event, the event is both. Whether we are blessed or destroyed depends on the condition of our heart and whether we have been given the circumcision of the heart that is done without man's hands or his will.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 3/27/2004 3:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
It's hard to find a thread that hasn't run its course already! In just a few days...
But I had some thoughts, and thought I would respond. First of all, I'm a four point Calvinist, who doesn't believe in limited atonement, who believes we may hope that all men will be saved, and that God only has one will. That being said...
quote:
johnmd: Jesus, of course, possessing full knowledge of the intricacies of God’s will, offers critical instruction to His followers in how to pray and, hence, bring God’s will to earth. Now, does He want God’s will to be done or God’s “hidden” will to be done?
This is quite a dilemma. If God's revealed will is meant, then this will may be frustrated, which is unacceptable to Calvinists. If God's hidden will is meant, then full Calvinists must by implication pray for some to be lost. But Paul didn't do this, he prayed for the lost, even for those God was apparently rejecting (Rom. 9:1ff, Rom. 10:1ff).
quote:
Although evil was “possible” it appears that God even “stacked the deck” in favor of man’s experience of good.
This won't do, though, a possibility, small or large was created by God. So this implies responsibility. But you mentioned A giving a car to B, who then hits C. But A does not get hauled into court. I think this won't do, either, though. There is no guilt, certainly, but there is some responsibility for A. This is borne out by the fact that if B was not ready to have a car (i.e. a 5 year old), then A would be hauled into court. A is responsible for the consequences of his decision to give that power to B. His guilt (or innocence) is another question.
quote:
spenlake: Scriptures describe a God with jurisdiction over evil. In Psalms 78:49 God sends a band of evil angels. In 1 Kings 22:22 God sends a deceiving spirit to entice a man to go and die. In 2 Samuel 24:1 the burning anger of the Lord (called Satan in the parallel text in 1 Chron 21:1) incited David to sin and take a census.
All these verses were skipped over and not addressed, but they need to be addressed. Scripture does teach that God controls even wicked men:
JOB 1:15 and the Sabeans attacked and carried them off.
JOB 1:21 ... and the Lord has taken away.
PS 119:91 ... for all things serve you.
But God is not the author of evil:
JOB 1:22 In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.
quote:
Tom: Assuming God unconditionally determines all evil, and assuming God is all-good, then shouldn’t we conclude that it’s GOOD for God to determine the abuse and murder of one-year olds, and GOOD of God to unconditionally determine the vast majority of human beings to hell, and GOOD of God to unconditionally determine the holocaust. Tell me Spen, if this is God’s goodness, what would God’s actually hating these people look like? If God were to hate the one year olds whose abuse and murder is unconditionally determined, how would he treat them any different? What would his being evil toward them look like?
I would answer with another question: was God good to determine the betrayal and murder of his only Son? What would hating him look like, and how would he treat him differently if he hated him?
Part of the problem here, I think, is viewing God as apart from human pain. But we know from the cross that he participates in it, he bears it, it's even his sufferings that we share in, and not the other way around.
quote:
Tom: there’s nothing “logically contradictory” about one person limiting the exercise of their power to make room for the choices of another person so that love can be freely shared between the two. Not only is this logically coherent, but it is existentially required. It's the ONLY view of freedom and will that make sense out of how we live and relate to others.
1JN 4:19 We love because he first loved us.
God started the ball rolling, our love is due to his. We can't love on our own, I think even OV people agree to this. So how can we love freely, if we can't love at all? The situation is not a man courting a wife, the situation is a man visiting a morgue, and raising the dead, giving them life, giving them love, giving them everything, in fact.
1CO 4:7 What do you have that you did not receive?
RO 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.
After we come to Christ, he sets us free, so God's children are not robots:
JN 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
But the devil's children are:
2TI 2:26 ... and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
quote:
Laika: If God uses evil, as you say, then not only does He command us to fight against Himself, but He fights against Himself as well.
Not at all! If a coach sends a player into the weight room, to fight against the weights, he determines the situation, provides the weights, and directs the exercising. And doesn't fight against himself.
Christ did win the victory, though, the devil is a defeated foe, and not by our hand. That's good news! Not bad news...
JN 16:33 "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."
quote:
Laika: You mean you aren't Supremely Sovereign over your children, micro-managing everything they do? You allow them freedom to become mature adults, able to make correct choices on their own? Why would God give us a model that's so contrary to the way He is?
I believe (as stated above) that God gives freedom to his children (not to unbelievers). And gives them authority commensurate to their ability, we have some freedom now, and more later:
LK 19:17 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'
REV 3:21 To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne.
Responsible parents do control children as appropriate, little babies almost completely, small children less so, etc. And give them responsibility as they are able to handle it. Again, a 5 year old should not have a car...
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 | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/27/2004 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | | An aside for Lee: I've been reading Hunt/White's book Debating Calvinism and according to Mr. James White, 4 point Calvinists really aren't reformed. So heads up... | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/28/2004 1:49 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 3/28/2004 3:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi everyone,
It's hard to find a thread that hasn't run its course already! In just a few days...
But I had some thoughts, and thought I would respond. First of all, I'm a four point Calvinist, who doesn't believe in limited atonement, who believes we may hope that all men will be saved, and that God only has one will. That being said...
quote:
johnmd: Jesus, of course, possessing full knowledge of the intricacies of God’s will, offers critical instruction to His followers in how to pray and, hence, bring God’s will to earth. Now, does He want God’s will to be done or God’s “hidden” will to be done?
This is quite a dilemma. If God's revealed will is meant, then this will may be frustrated, which is unacceptable to Calvinists. If God's hidden will is meant, then full Calvinists must by implication pray for some to be lost. But Paul didn't do this, he prayed for the lost, even for those God was apparently rejecting (Rom. 9:1ff, Rom. 10:1ff).
Thank you, Lee.
I believe that the Lord's Prayer somehow addresses these two wills. God's will in heaven allows no evil, God's will on earth somehow allows/tolerates evil - or He would destroy it now and have it purged from His creation. He told us to pray for the fulfillment of His kingdom on earth and the reign of the righteous King when evil on earth will be judged and purged so that His will on earth will be manifested as it is in heaven. The civil authority that God’s people lost when God sent them into captivity will be manifested in the messiah. Until this time God has handed over the civil authority to men like Nero, Stalin, Hitler, etc. who we are to be in subjection to as commanded by Paul in Romans 13:1, “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God.” In the meantime as we await His coming we preach the gospel, resting in the security that our good God is all powerful and, regardless of this present evil, His plans are being fulfilled as the gospel is preached.
Until the King returns, Satan and his influence exerted in the authorities of this world is God's problem to address, we are to preach the gospel and keep the faith. Spiritual warfare is our keeping our trust in His objective promises while the evil of the world, its authorities and our appetites tempt us to doubt Him and His sovereignty. Satan is His problem to deal with directly. While the LORD rebukes Satan in Zech 3:2, it is almost in the third person. And when we see something similar in Jude 1:9, even Michael the archangel doesn't rebuke Satan himself.
Blessed are those who trust in God.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 3/28/2004 7:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Spenlake,
Maybe we should move this part of the discussion to a Calvinist forum!
quote:
I believe that the Lord's Prayer somehow addresses these two wills. God's will in heaven allows no evil, God's will on earth somehow allows/tolerates evil - or He would destroy it now and have it purged from His creation. He told us to pray for the fulfillment of His kingdom on earth and the reign of the righteous King when evil on earth will be judged and purged so that His will on earth will be manifested as it is in heaven.
I agree with most of what you wrote. I believe God's will is done in heaven willingly, and on earth, both willingly, and unwillingly. But God's will is *always* done, I believe that. When John Piper sets out to explain two wills in God, he actually talks as if God has *desires* that conflict with his *will* (singular). That's different!
MT 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
I think, similarly, this verse means "does God's will willingly," since (r.e. the previously posted verses) all that happens is part of God's plan, people don't frustrate or surprise him, even when they sin.
AC 4:28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.
Blessings,
Lee
P.S. "I've been reading Hunt/White's book Debating Calvinism and according to Mr. James White, 4 point Calvinists really aren't reformed."
So call me a Caliversalist! Into each life a little rain must fall...
==================================================
"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 3/28/2004 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi Spenlake,
Maybe we should move this part of the discussion to a Calvinist forum!
Lee,
The point of this thread and my original posting is that I maintain that, like the reformers, the Open View also constructs two wills in God but attempts to hide an "allowing will" behind a house of cards. The explanations resolve nothing but simply obscure the issue by redefining "Omni" and creating some allowed area beyond God's direct jurisdiction. The Open View gives us:
A truly omnipotent God who can intervene, but by some self-imposed reason He chooses to not intervene and prevent the evil we experience - He allows it. God the creator becomes subject to some part of His creation in which there is evil. This places little girls beyond God's jurisdiction and power so they are somehow just helpless fodder for the evil which desires to prey on them. The only hope offered to those living in the universe of a limited God is their own power to choose good and to join forces with God to combat the evil world. Because they exist in a world beyond God's unlimited power to intervene, the Open View tells us there are casualties, like the Apostle James that Herod killed. These martyrs were simply heroes who found themselves outside of God's power to protect them. Thus we all may be casualties and beyond God's power to protect us. The reason that God doesn't intervene and stop this part of His creation (why He allows it) is that the freewill choices of certain people to love Him are worth the evil that is experienced there. This explanation ultimately gives us a good God that allows evil, albeit for a different reason, which we find in Luther's explanations. (I leave Calvin out of it. His civl/spritual authority beliefs are too costly for me to desire to associate with.)
I maintain that in the debate on March 19, Dr. Boyd described a position with two wills, one that is revealed and good, and one that allowed evil. Thus, his position resolves nothing. All it gives us is a different reason for this allowing will, one that says it is so God can enjoy the good fruits of our freewill at the expense of the bad ones.
Where this leads is of even more concern. In the debate, Dr. Boyd commented that his rules for interpreting the Scriptures to support the Open View are based on the centrality of Jesus. Dr. Boyd’s own pamphlet, “Seeing Jesus” that is available at his church describes a Jesus that is found in each one's imaginations. Dr. Boyd’s table at the debate was promoting and selling his new book called, “Seeing is Believing: Experience Jesus through Imaginative Prayer” which consists of mystical techniques to pursue spiritual experiences. Ten years ago we would have called it New Age but now it is the path to see and experience our Savior. Both these books teach mystical techniques to experience a Jesus that is found in our imaginations, one that we construct. Based upon the writings and endorsements of Dr. Boyd regarding the mystical Jesus within us, I think the Open View and Dr. Boyd begins to lead us away from the very gospel that He preaches. This is of great concern. I pray that Dr. Boyd would continue to preach the gospel and the Jesus revealed in the Scriptures to all - and that the Word of God would lead all He has chosen to Him.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/28/2004 8:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: where have they all gone...nowhere...I just think we (Tom, Johnmd, Laika) answered Spen's question quite well, but as Tom put it (very well I believe) one does not have to buy it. One does not have to continue defending something that has basically been answered. As I stated, God desires that we follow him, love him, serve him. But that is a desire, not a command. Even the commandments of the Old Testament were not forced upon Israel. They didn't have to obey them. I believe Spen's problem is that she/he is feeding it through a determinist worldview and therefore cannot understand how God can have a single will. God's will is that we love him, etc., etc. But it is not a forced upon will. Since Spen has stated that God controls all, since that is Spen's definition of God's soverneity, then of course Doctor Boyd's explanation resolves nothing. Because you are not starting from the same place. This, again, is why open theists and Calvinist have such a hard time dialoging. They are on different planes.
BTW, you needn't move anywhere. Theres space enough in this universe for all kinds...(just don't expect us all at the hoedown) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 3/29/2004 3:00 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I just think we (Tom, Johnmd, Laika) answered Spen's question quite well, but as Tom put it (very well I believe) one does not have to buy it.
Fine, but I did try and address your replies, and was just hoping to hear where my replies may have gone astray. But maybe my replies don't need addressing! That's a possibility, too...
quote:
I believe Spen's problem is that she/he is feeding it through a determinist worldview and therefore cannot understand how God can have a single will. God's will is that we love him, etc., etc. But it is not a forced upon will.
Well, I think OVs have to say that God has desires that are not fulfilled, i.e. that God experiences some measure of frustration. And that implies some measure of frustration forever, desiring that all men be saved, but knowing they are not. And that this is experienced by people in heaven, too. But I don't think that is Biblical:
ISA 46:10 II say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.
Also, I would ask if people in heaven have free-will, or if they lose that there? Can people in heaven freely love God (according to your definition)? i.e. can they always choose *not* to love God?
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 | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/29/2004 3:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: the issue of free-will in heaven is, of course, a seperate one (than God's will). Certainly God's purpose will stand and he can do what he wishes. I would ask what is Gods purpose? What does God want to do? If his will and purpose is to create a world where free-will individuals have a choice of whether or not they love him and that those who love him freely choose him, then how does open theism contradict this verse?
Again, it seems that determinists (as I said before), filter scripture through their view and then wonder why open theism doesn't work.
As far as free will in heaven, Doctor Boyd deals with that issue (I believe) in his book "satan and the problem of evil." Perhaps someone else would be interested in taking up the issue.
Before assuming that a theological construct is wrong, we must figure what the will of God is exactly. Assuming it is a determinist view isn't the right way to go about it.
Speaking of frustration: God hates it but predetermines sin? Hmmm, we all must deal with our theological problems. | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 3/30/2004 1:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Feelinahole,
You state above,
quote:
Feelinahole: Certainly God's purpose will stand and he can do what he wishes. I would ask what is Gods purpose? What does God want to do? If his will and purpose is to create a world where free-will individuals have a choice of whether or not they love him and that those who love him freely choose him, then how does open theism contradict this verse?
Thus, you arrive to the place that I state below, you have a God that trades all the evil and horrific acts that are committed in this world, like the mother in Texas that is now on trial for smashing the skills of her three sons, because He values the freewill choice of a man or woman. You describe a God willing to sacrifice the world to evil so He can experience freewill love instead of a God that sacrificed His own son because He loved a world that hated Him. I think you turn the Scriptures on their head.
quote:
Spenlake: A truly omnipotent God who can intervene, but by some self-imposed reason He chooses to not intervene and prevent the evil we experience - He allows it. God the creator becomes subject to some part of His creation in which there is evil. This places little girls beyond God's jurisdiction and power so they are somehow just helpless fodder for the evil which desires to prey on them. The only hope offered to those living in the universe of a limited God is their own power to choose good and to join forces with God to combat the evil world. Because they exist in a world beyond God's unlimited power to intervene, the Open View tells us there are casualties, like the Apostle James that Herod killed. These martyrs were simply heroes who found themselves outside of God's power to protect them. Thus we all may be casualties and beyond God's power to protect us. The reason that God doesn't intervene and stop this part of His creation (why He allows it) is that the freewill choices of certain people to love Him are worth the evil that is experienced there. This explanation ultimately gives us a good God that allows evil, albeit for a different reason, which we find in Luther's explanations. (I leave Calvin out of it. His civl/spritual authority beliefs are too costly for me to desire to associate with.)
I maintain that in the debate on March 19, Dr. Boyd described a position with two wills, one that is revealed and good, and one that allowed evil. Thus, his position resolves nothing. All it gives us is a different reason for this allowing will, one that says it is so God can enjoy the good fruits of our freewill at the expense of the bad ones.
Then there are other Scriptures that seem to fade as I read through the OV explanations on this thread. The loving God that died for the sins of all also wills to condemn all those who don't trust in what Christ has done to an eternal second punishing death in the lake of fire. Those that receive this second death in the lake of fire receive it from the hand of a loving God who died for all (Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8).
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/30/2004 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | A good example of the "father's" one will is the parable of the prodigal son!
I WROTE TO A FRIEND (so it had a context...):
Guilt is both a qualitative thing, and a quantitative thing. Qualitatively it is based on being "off the mark." It is real; it is not an idea in God's head. God is love; but we love ourselves instead of God--and THAT is sin. Being guilty is being "off the mark." The Prodigal Son's older brother experienced the punishment of his own construction when he broke communion with Father and brother. ("Hell is a prison locked from the inside.") The same enveloping, forgiving love of his father was 'heaven' for the prodigal and 'hell' to the older brother. (Reminds one of C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce.") Christ's death and resurrection benefits us each individually in this qualitative way, of restoring -- like the prodigal's being restored. But Christ's death and resurrection benefits us quantitatively too! NOT in the mathematical mechanisms dreamed up in the middle-ages! (Luther's 95-Thesis hammered the notion that there would be certificates to match up with and pay for certain sins/sinners.) Christ's at-one-ing (atoning) salvation restored humanity in-His-flesh to health, freeing it from the curse of sin and death. So, rather, the quantitative issue is not how many sins, but how many sinners. And again, contra to the medieval arguments about the impossible notion that some of Christ's blood would be wasted, Christ died "for the world" and the restoration of "Adam's race." He is the true vine. And all who are burdened (with sin) and heavy-laden (with their's and other's "guilt") can come unto him.
SEE ALSO THIS LINK: www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm ("The River of Fire") | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 3/30/2004 8:35 AM (GMT -6) | |
PotOnWheel,
quote:
Pot says: God is love; but we love ourselves instead of God--and THAT is sin. Being guilty is being "off the mark." The Prodigal Son's older brother experienced the punishment of his own construction when he broke communion with Father and brother. ("Hell is a prison locked from the inside.") The same enveloping, forgiving love of his father was 'heaven' for the prodigal and 'hell' to the older brother.
The parable about the prodigal wasn't about what hell was. The final condition of the older brother isn't even mentioned. We see hell much more clearly in other passages. Hell is the place we see in Matthew 22:13
quote:
“Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
in Revelation 20:13
quote:
they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds...if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
and 2 Thess 2:11
quote:
For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.
Hell isn't someplace where We place ourselves into and We lock the door because We are in control. We are thrown there by a just God because we are disobedient. Luke 13:24 is clear on where the key to the door is and who determines who is where.
quote:
“Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. “Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up to us!’ then He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know where you are from.’ “Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets’; and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.’ “In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
| 262 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:47 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 |
|
|