 |
| 
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 3/21/2004 1:56 PM (GMT -6) |   | The weaknesses of the claim that the “Open View” has only one will in God became apparent in the debate on predestination held at First Baptist Church in Minneapolis on March 19, 2004. 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.
Dr. Boyd’s solution to the problem of evil and two wills in God solves nothing by attempting to hide the issue "outside." Agreeing with the Reformers, upon analysis the Open View theology gives us:
- a good God with a revealed will that is good
- a second will in God that allows evil.
Difference:
The major difference between the “allowing will” of the Open View and the Reformers is the explanation of the reason a good God is willing to allow evil and its horrific corruption to continue within His creation. The two positions were made clear in the debate.
1. In the “hidden will” described by the Reformers, God always remains sovereign and His goal for both groups and individuals is being accomplished through “God allowed” evil, with nothing able to thwart His purposes (Job 42:2). We acknowledge that an understanding of all God’s purposes may be hidden from us now and not revealed in the Bible – but we believe, in spite of the evil we experience, God is good and desires none should perish. In spite of the evil He allows to exist, He offers eternal life to all freely through the Gospel, having proved it by becoming a sacrifice for our sins and the sins of the whole world.
2. Open View’s “limited will” describes a God who allows an open area where men may freely commit evil because God wants the love created by man’s freewill. Little girls’ eyes being plucked out by Nazis (as recounted in God at War) and all the inexpressible wickedness of the world are simply an acceptable cost willed by God to secure man’s love. God wills this “Open Area” so that He can give man freedom beyond His power to directly intervene. It is up to man to use his freewill and the tools God has given him to battle Satan to see evil conquered in our lives and the world around us. The horrific collateral damage of an evil world is simply the price God is willing to pay to give us freedom to choose Him.
Conclusion:
When Dr. Boyd asks the difficult question, “Is it God’s will that (insert wicked deed) occurred?” We must respond with, “Was God capable of preventing this (insert wicked deed)?” With either the hidden will or the limited open will, if the omnipotent God with power over the wind and waves does not always intervene, He has somehow allowed (insert wicked deed) to occur. We face the decision “Is it under a good God’s control and according to His unthwartable purposes as Job claims?” or “Is (insert wicked deed) the uncontrollable cost and inevitable byproduct of God willing an ‘open area’ for some men to choose Him?” The second option seems unscriptural and less comforting, subjecting me to evil beyond God’s jurisdiction and leaving me to find individual hope by directly fighting Satan and demonic hordes in a world described in “God at War.”
Luther and the reformers preached a “limited evil” subject to God’s authority with the command that the Gospel be offered to the entire world. The “Open View” teaches a limited God allowing an evil-filled Open Area in which man and Satan must war so that God can have a few that freely “choose” Him from the wickedly evil world He allowed.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/21/2004 5:13 PM (GMT -6) | | The open view doesn't claim to two/three/twenty wills of God. Only to articulate what scripture says about the will of God as far as evil and other things are concerned. What it sounds like is you are a Calvinist who cannot defend scripturally the "two" will teaching of your faith so you pull up and redefine a debate so you can feel good about beliefs you cannot find in scripture.
God's will is good. What he wants us to do is good. But he has given a free will which allows us to do evil. Evil is not of his will, so there is not second will in open theism, certainly not some "hidden" will which allows us to write off clear biblical teaching that God wants all to be saved.
I would suggest you read Doctor Boyd's Satan and The Problem of Evil to understand more of what Doctor Boyd teaches before commenting further on what he believes.
As Doctor Boyd says in "Satan and The..." the question is where is the responsibility for evil located...in Calvinism it is in the mystery will of God. In the open theism, it is in the realm of human choices. | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 3/21/2004 10:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake
Welcome aboard.
I believe you are extrapolating the Open view beyond its logical implications.
God created the world because it was a “good” thing to do and in order to express His love. That is His revealed purpose plain and simple. Hence, we have the nature of the case of this world. This world, whether perfect or fallen, is God’s expression and continued venue for expressing His love. I believe Reformers and Open Theists agree to
this point
It is the Reformers who are “not honest” in their claim that God is not the author of evil. For all the saber rattling of “sola scriptura” by the Reformers, James is completely ignored and the God of the Reformers IS ultimately tempted to evil. Theological “hair splitting” and attempts to draw a line between authoring evil and “allowing” evil is a hoodwink and the equivalent of linguistic smoke and mirrors. The Reformers line between God’s authoring and allowing evil is imaginary.
I appreciate your honesty. The Reformers do, in fact, concede that God has two wills. One of those wills “involves” evil to say the least. This immediately calls into question the Reformers belief that “God is light and in Him is no darkness AT ALL.” You have begged the question with your assumptions. The question is not do the Reformers believe that God is not the author of evil. The question is, “Are the beliefs of the Reformers coherent?” The “two-wills” God is schizophrenic. By the way, Job 42:2 says NOTHING of God’s “hidden” will. You must be responsible with the text.
You say, “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”. The direct analogy is that God has Satan on a leash. Remember, evil is ALWAYS personal and not nearly so abstract as the Reformers present. Let’s bring the Reformer’s manmade philosophical construct down to earth…God holds a rabid dog (evil) by a leash and gives the dog “permission” to permanently maul and disfigure your baby girl for His good purpose. Is the “good” God of the Reformers so impotent that He must employ such horrific measures in order to redeem. Indeed with the “two-wills” God, the concept of “good” is rendered nonsensical and without any definition that is not arbitrary. Good is just whatever God says it is without any correlation to man’s intuition and sense of justice (also rendered by God). In a moral universe the two ought to correlate.
If God’s will is “hidden,” how is it that you have come to know that He even has a hidden will? IT IS HIDDEN!!! How do you know what evil God “allows” and that which He does not. Where in the life of Jesus do you see Jesus responding to a particular evil as one not to be confronted because the evil has been “allowed” by God?—Be careful with your exegesis if you site the death of Lazarus here. Interesting that there is no example of the “two-wills” God in Jesus, the FULLY Revealed Icon of the invisible God (John 1). If Jesus IS the icon of God and if there is nothing that is “hidden” about Jesus and there is no appeal on the part of Jesus to a “hidden” will, then how can God have a “hidden” will?
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? What will was Jesus praying to be done on earth as in Heaven. He prayed for God’s will. If there are two, why did He not specify which one for us since we are not privy to the intricacies?
The God of Scripture simply creates a world where His love can be expressed—Indeed a world where evil is unlikely given the circumstances of the Garden. Although evil was “possible” it appears that God even “stacked the deck” in favor of man’s experience of good. There was, after all, only one prohibition among numerous allowances. God went to great length to create a world where sin was unlikely. Did He not? Now if He did create a world where sin was unlikely, how can it be His will to “allow” that which He worked to insure against from the outset? The mystery of the universe is Sin, not some “hidden” agenda in the Godhead.
The God of Scripture is not the “double minded” God of the Reformers. He simply wills to love because that is His nature. To characterize “possibility” as a “will” ultimately renders the whole concept of God’s “will” without definition at all. God has but one will in the moral universe and that one unthwarted will is love…God to man—man to God—man to man. You are confusing the Reformer’s “hidden will” of God with the nature of the case of the world God created. Indeed, Scripture is a testimony of God responding to and redeeming evil. There is a vast difference between the ACTUAL evil that the God of the Reformers allows as a part of His will and the POSSIBLE evil that the God of Scripture encounters in opposition to His will. See the difference? Actual vs. possible…Part of His will vs. opposition to His will… The God of Scripture declares that He hates evil. Now, does He hate evil or doesn’t He? Or does He like evil just enough to work with it? I prefer the clear separation placed between God and evil in Scripture rather than the Reformer’s strange bedfellows of God and evil.
If you as a benevolent father give your responsible 25 year old son (who has a clean record) a car and he hits and kills a child riding a bicycle did you, therefore, “will” or “allow” or “give permission” for the death of THAT child? Certainly, it was a (remote) possibility incumbent in giving a gift of this nature. But even within the context of man’s fallen sense of justice and within our libelous courts, no one would couch your responsibility for the death of that child in the terms you present. Does God, the author of justice, abide by different rules?
The “house of cards” is built by the Reformers in stating that "man's will" even in as much as it is evil is “within jurisdiction of God's will.” Hence, there is ultimately no will but God’s. There is no sin for God to hate…No illness in need of healing…No demonic act which is ultimately evil…For God’s will is good and all differentiation between good and evil is ultimately meaningless. All categories are one and the same.
I hear the God of Scripture stating, “I am not going to allow that.”—The Son steps forward seeing the evil and fallen creation and states, “I am not going to allow that” and offers Himself as atonement for sin. The God of Israel sees evil and rebellion in the wilderness and steps forward and says, “I am not going to allow that.”—And leads His people to the Promise Land. Jesus steps forward encountering the deaf and the blind and the lame and states, “I am not going to allow that”—And heals on the spot without hesitation or thought that He might be casting out that which the Father allowed.
The God of Scripture neither wills nor allows evil. He hates sin, opposes evil, and redeems the fallen world. I am tired of this philosophical stuff. Let’s do some exegesis. Serve some up. Preferably a bite at the time
To God alone be the glory,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/22/2004 12:03 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/22/2004 5:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake: from my view your problem seems to me to be that everything must fall under the realm of God's will. While God is the ultimate cause, God can will free will and therefore have something not be of his will. While his will is for us to have free will, he would also will that we use it in a righteous way, not in an an evil way. And when we do sin, we are not doing his will. Period.
It seems to me that you are imposing a Calvinistic view on an open theology and it doesn't fit. This is also why calvinists and open theists have such a hard time talking about what God's knowledge consists of. They are talking on different plains. | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 3/22/2004 5:12 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote][/DeWaay also refused to answer any of the logical contradictions of his position, constantly referring to the "philosophy of men"!!!! I'm gob-smacked! We're not supposed to use our brains? quote]
I believe that I still have not received a clear answer to the question, “Can our good God intervene and prevent (insert evil deed)?” Is our good God powerful enough to intervene? Does our good God have the jurisdiction to intervene? Does and can our omnipotent and omniscient God intervene and prevent evil now?
I believe that the Scriptures reveal a God who can, and sometimes does, intervene to prevent evil. We see in Acts 12 where God allowed wicked Herod to put James to death and then sent an angel to save Peter. In Luke 4:25-27 Jesus tells us that God fed one widow by His prophet and none others and healed one leper and none others. He never tells us, “Why?” Conversely in Luke 13:3-4, when evil occurred to some, we are told that the victims are no worse than us. “Why” they are victims is not told.
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. In 2 Thess 2:11 God sends a deluding influence on the unreceiving unsaved so that they will believe the false and be judged. In Cor 12;7 God sends an angel of Satan to torment Paul. Satan asks permission of Jesus to sift Peter. While God has jurisdiction over evil, He tempts nobody to do evil. We ourselves bear the responsibility for the acts committed. James 1:12 clearly states that "God cannot be tempted by evil nor does He Himself tempt anyone." Jesus afirms God's jurisdiction over allowing temptation, however, in His direct teaching to His apostles on how they should pray to God, “Lead us not into temptation.” It is silly to ask of God what is not within His jurisdiction.
I believe in a loving good God who died for all and freely offers salvation to the world. He is allowing evil for a season according to His hidden purposes and under His jurisdiction, but He has promised that He will ultimately eradicate and punish evil forever and save all that are His. Until this time, we are commanded to trust in God and wait for the complete fulfillment of what has been promised with those of Hebrews 11:39.
The alternative that you describe, a “loving” omnipotent God who is willing to not intervene and instead trades the atrocities committed on little girls for the choices of Dr. Boyd, resolves nothing. This is the logical contradiction that the Open View hides behind its house of cards. God’s power to intervene is exchanged for the sovereignty of man’s will over some part of His created universe and the evil that occurs there is the obvious and necessary byproduct.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 3/22/2004 7:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake
Again for all the "sola scrpitura" saber rattling of the Reformers there is total ignorance of the predominant motif of spiritual war in described in Scripture. IN WAR PEOPLE GET KILLED. That is the nature of the case. GOD "colabors" with man to fight the war. A war that He did not start, a war that He did not will, but a war that He guarantees He will win. So are we to Paul when he states, “we fight not against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities…”? Are we to believe God Himself when He tells us He contends with Leviathan and Behemoth? If this is metaphorical…define the metaphor. What does the metaphor mean if not genuine war? Is Scripture testifying of a charade? Is the inspired Word describing a war that really does not exist? Are we called to commit to fight in a puppet show?
Your examples from Luke 4 and 13 are illustrations of the arbitrary nature of war. There is no satisfactory answer as to why some are killed and others are spared in war. Our only hope, given the nature of the case of the fallen world is that God guarantees ultimate victory. Nothing done in His name will be in vain. That is the essence of faith.
You asked:
“Can our good God intervene and prevent (insert evil deed)?”
Obviously He can. Your example of Peter is a perfect illustration. Battles are won in war. Battles are also lost in war as the martyrdom of James illustrates. Acts 12 says nothing of God “allowing” Satan to kill James. As I said in a prior post, “You must be careful with the text.” You are responsible for the text and must not add your assumptions to God’s word without notation.
You state:
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. In 2 Thess 2:11 God sends a deluding influence on the unreceiving unsaved so that they will believe the false and be judged. In Cor 12;7 God sends an angel of Satan to torment Paul. Satan asks permission of Jesus to sift Peter. While God has jurisdiction over evil, He tempts nobody to do evil. We ourselves bear the responsibility for the acts committed. James 1:12 clearly states that "God cannot be tempted by evil nor does He Himself tempt anyone." Jesus affirms God's jurisdiction over allowing temptation, however, in His direct teaching to His apostles on how they should pray to God, “Lead us not into temptation.” It is silly to ask of God what is not within His jurisdiction.
Here you are “mixing your metaphors.” You are describing God’s wrath here. That is a different thread. Let’s stay on task here with your original question. We can discuss the motif of God’s judgment later. Again, for responsible dialogue to occur you must be careful with the text. II Cor 12 says nothing of God “sending” anything. The text says “an angel of Satan was sent.” The sender is not specified for us by the inspired writer…AND THEREFORE MUST NOT BE THE POINT OF THE NARRATIVE. My assumption is that Satan sent the messenger because Paul was so elated over the revelation He had received. Satan was trying to slow Paul down.
Let’s play tit for tat with your statement;
“The alternative that you describe, a “loving” omnipotent God who is willing to not intervene and instead ALLOW the atrocities committed on little girls resolves nothing. This is the logical contradiction that the REFORMERS hide behind THEIR house of cards.”
You almost have it with your statement, “God’s power to intervene is exchanged for the sovereignty of man’s will over some part of His created universe—sound like Genesis to me. Does Scripture mean what it says when God stated to Adam, “Take dominion…) and the evil that occurs there is the obvious and necessary by product.” I submit as per my earlier post that Evil was neither obvious nor necessary in the Garden.
Your question, Is God powerful enough to intervene,” is irrelevant and only begs the real question. ALL AGREE that God is Omnipotent not on the basis of any manmade philosophical construct but based on God’s own declaration, “I am the Almighty.” So the question is not, “Is God powerful enough…” Rather the question is, “What has the omnipotent God revealed in Scripture as to how He uses His power in the context of the present world?”
To God alone be the glory,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/22/2004 7:23 PM (GMT -6) | | SpenLake: I believe that I still have not received a clear answer to the question, “Can our good God intervene and prevent (insert evil deed)?” Is our good God powerful enough to intervene? Does our good God have the jurisdiction to intervene? Does and can our omnipotent and omniscient God intervene and prevent evil now?
Tom: Sure, God has the “muscle” to intervene and unilaterally prevent any evil. He does not have the muscle to do this (across the board and unconditionally) while at the same time a) hold us morally accountable for our choices and b) enjoy and be glorified by our love and worship. If God wants (a) and (b), he has to limit the exercise of his power, which is exactly what the world at present suggests to me he has done.
SpenLake: I believe that the Scriptures reveal a God who can, and sometimes does, intervene to prevent evil.
Tom: For sure, yes. But divine intervention is never “unconditioned” by the purposes God has for the world, by the covenants God has made with the world, etc. Purpose is everything. If God created out of love and for love, then the sort of providence (i.e., one involving self-limitation for the sake of others) argued by open theists is required. We posit different understandings of providence by positing different purposes for creation. That's where our difference really lies.
SpenLake: I believe in a loving good God who died for all and freely offers salvation to the world.
Tom: So do open theists. But wouldn’t it be more accurate to say you believe in a God who is good to some, who died for some, and who saves some? 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 if unconditionally determined, how would he treat them any different? What would his being evil toward them look like? For me this is a fundamental flaw in deterministic thinking. There’s really no difference between good and evil, love and hate. Laika’s friend was honest in taking determinism to its logical conclusion: evil is an illusion. I would only add that if this is true, then so is love an illusion.
SpenLake: The alternative that you describe, a “loving” omnipotent God who is willing to not intervene and instead trades the atrocities committed on little girls for the choices of Dr. Boyd, resolves nothing. This is the logical contradiction that the Open View hides behind its house of cards. God’s power to intervene is exchanged for the sovereignty of man’s will over some part of His created universe and the evil that occurs there is the obvious and necessary byproduct.
Tom: If it doesn’t resolve anything for you, then don’t buy it. But it resolves much for others. And 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.
Lastly, there is nothing either “obvious and necessary” about the evil that occurs because God gives human beings such free will. On the contrary, if it was "necessary" that we choose to sin, we wouldn’t be libertarianly free. Our sinning “obviously and necessarily” is what YOU posit in rejecting libertarian free will and in arguing that God unconditionally determines our choices. Now you have us sinning “obviously and necessarily” as a by-product of God’s unconditional determination.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 3/23/2004 1:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: For me this is a fundamental flaw in deterministic thinking. There’s really no difference between good and evil, love and hate.
Spen Lake: Because you will not believe that good God who died to save the whole world has jurisdiction over and allows evil for reasons He has hidden from us in the scriptures, you force the above conclusion. However, your answer is no easier to understand and gives me an all-powerful God who created everything and who is willing to sacrifice some to horrific evil atrocities He knew might happen so that their wills could somehow be beyond His jurisdiction.
John: Obviously He can. Your example of Peter is a perfect illustration. Battles are won in war. Battles are also lost in war as the martyrdom of James illustrates. Acts 12 says nothing of God “allowing” Satan to kill James. As I said in a prior post, “You must be careful with the text.” You are responsible for the text and must not add your assumptions to God’s word without notation.
Spen Lake: If all the world isn’t within the jurisdiction of a good and all powerful God then God doesn’t rule it, which I guess you believe. It is odd that God immediately kills this Herod in Acts 12:23, but it had nothing to do with James. Why didn’t He win the battle before? That you limit God is becoming clearer and more disurbing. I believe that God can and does perform miracles whenever and however He chooses. In addition, when He does intervene God doesn’t necessarily perform miracles in ways that are obvious to us. He only heals one leper and none others. The concept that this miracle is nothing more than a single “winning battle” in the war implies that God loses battles and disturbs me. I believe in a God that has jurisdiction so that none of His purposes will fail – individually and even for me. I believe that He could have chosen to “win” in the battle to free James, but instead He allowed it for His own purpose. Because we believe He is good, we patiently wait for all His promises to be completely fulfilled, knowing that individually we are in the hand of a loving God with the power to intervene in every situation He chooses to demonstrate His power. Thus, we always pray to Him in our trials and tribulations and trust Him to accomplish His purposes – whether He gives us a miracle or not.
John: You almost have it with your statement, “God’s power to intervene is exchanged for the sovereignty of man’s will over some part of His created universe—sound like Genesis to me. Does Scripture mean what it says when God stated to Adam, “Take dominion…) and the evil that occurs there is the obvious and necessary by product.” I submit as per my earlier post that Evil was neither obvious nor necessary in the Garden.
Your question, Is God powerful enough to intervene,” is irrelevant and only begs the real question. ALL AGREE that God is Omnipotent not on the basis of any manmade philosophical construct but based on God’s own declaration, “I am the Almighty.” So the question is not, “Is God powerful enough…” Rather the question is, “What has the omnipotent God revealed in Scripture as to how He uses His power in the context of the present world?”
Spen Lake: In the Genesis example it seems that God demonstrated who ultimately had dominion in kicking Adam out of the garden, decreeing what work he would do to eat, decreeing what would happen in the future regarding the plants/thorns, and decreeing pain in childbirth. He also decreed what would happen to the serpent. It seems to me that God intervened and demonstrated His jurisdiction decisively in allowing Adam to continue at all. Adam, Eve, and the serpent were passive agents of all God’s decrees. God alone uses His power how He wills and loses no battles, not even on the cross. He wins them all, though we don’t know the details and it may not appear that way now. The Open View gives us a limited God losing battles simply because He wants “man to win himself” and choose.
The mystery of God’s will in Ephesians 1 describes “having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.” The mystery that Open View teaches is, “How can we make an Omnipotent God 'limited' for the sake of giving man sovereignty?” God must allow the sacrifice little girls to make room for me to choose Him. This isn’t very comforting if I am a little girl. I prefer an all powerful good that hasn’t lost anything of His power but allows this evil for His purposes and evil isn’t beyond His jurisdiction. From here, in the midst of this evil world I cry out to Him and He enables me to stand waiting the fulfillment of all His promises along with the others who patiently trusted in both His omnipotent goodness and His promises to me, an individual. This God gave us Jesus and provided an eternal escape from the corruption of the world corporately and individually from the corruption of my heart. I await the complete fulfillment as He accomplishes His plans.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 3/23/2004 1:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
I believe that I still have not received a clear answer to the question, “Can our good God intervene and prevent (insert evil deed)?”
Sometimes.
Luke 14:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:
22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
We're to overcome the strong man in prayer.
Interestingly, Luke says earlier in 12:2
For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.
No "hidden purposes" !!!! 
Who rules this world?
Daniel 10:12 Then he said to me, "Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words.
13 "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.
John 12:31 "Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
John 14:30 "I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me;
John 16:8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;
9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;
10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me;
11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
It's a WAR and it's against the ruler of this world.
You need to understand the reality of this world.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 3/23/2004 2:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Spiritual Warfare
Isaiah 54:17 "No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord ..."
Malachi 4:3 "And you shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts."
Luke 10:19 "Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you."
Romans 8:38-39 "For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers ... nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
James 4:7 " ... Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."
1 John 4:4 "You ... have overcome them: because greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world."
1 Peter 5:8-9 "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: whom resist steadfast in the faith ..."
1 John 5:4-5 "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith ..."
---------------------------------------------------------------
What do these verses show? That God's Supreme Sovereignty means He is the cause of evil in the world?
Or do they show
1. Satan is the ruler of this world
2. He has power
3. We are to fight against him and his minions
4. We are to resist him
If God's Supreme Sovereignty means God controls EVERYTHING, then we are commanded by God to fight against God.
Mark 3:22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons."
23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan?
24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
25 "If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
26 "If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!
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
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/23/2004 2:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: For me this is a fundamental flaw in deterministic thinking. There’s really no difference between good and evil, love and hate.
Spen Lake: Because you will not believe that good God who died to save the whole world has jurisdiction over and allows evil for reasons He has hidden from us in the scriptures, you force the above conclusion. However, your answer is no easier to understand and gives me an all-powerful God who created everything and who is willing to sacrifice some to horrific evil atrocities He knew might happen so that their wills could somehow be beyond His jurisdiction.
None of this makes sense, Spenlake. If you’re a determinist (as I gather, but correct me if you’re not), then a) you don’t believe God died to save the “whole world.” You believe Christ died to save only the elect. The majority were NOT elected to salvation and Christ didn’t waste his blood on them. So I’m not sure what you have in mind when you say “God died for the whole world.” And b) you don’t believe God “allows” evil at all. There’s no passive sort of “allowing of evil” where all is unconditionally determined. And how is it the reasons for which God allows evil are hidden from us “in the scriptures”? How are they “hidden IN the scriptures”? How do you know that?
Back to your first sentence: “…you will not believe that a good God who died to save the whole world has jurisdiction over and allows evil for reasons He has hidden from us in the scriptures.” I’d only change one small thing, namely, God’s reasons for allowing the existence of evil at all aren’t “hidden.” I do believe Christ died to save the WHOLE world (as opposed to just a small portion of it) and truly ALLOWS evil (as opposed to determining it unconditionally) for reasons that make perfectly good sense—love and morally responsible behavior require it. They don’t require evil. They require the possibility of evil. By “allows evil” I don’t mean God does not do what God can do to prevent evil given the sort of freedom he’s granted; I mean only that if love and moral responsibility are to exist in the world, what God “can do” on any specific occasion must exclude his having unconditionally determined our choices to love and to act with moral responsibility.
I don’t FORCE this conclusion from the premises. The conclusion quite naturally FOLLOWS from the premises. You can argue that I force the premises (that love and moral responsibility for us require libertarian freedom) if you like, but you can’t successfully deny that the conclusion (God freely limits the exercise of his power with respect to us based upon the conditions he established for creation, namely, the requirements of love and moral responsibility) follows from them. You could try to deny that this conclusion follows from the premises, but no one has succeeded yet.
If my answer is really “no easier to understand” than what you or others believe in, then, like I said, don’t buy this camel. Others however do find it explains a good deal and frees them in significant ways. I don’t understand how your view of human freedom and divine providence are even livable, but I grant that you find them so and so I’m content to leave it at that. But for others who find your view of human freedom and divine providence problematic for one reason or another, I don’t mind informing them of an alternative.
Lastly, you misunderstand me (and open theism) if you think I believe God is “…willing to sacrifice some to horrific evil atrocities He knew might happen so that their wills could somehow be beyond His jurisdiction.” This is nowhere close to representing the truth of open theism. I’ve said it lots of times as have others. It’s not about freedom, Spenlake. It’s about love. God doesn’t allow the existence of EVIL for the sake of FREEDOM (i.e., “so that our wills could be beyond God’s jurisdiction) as you have mistakenly understood. On the contrary, God creates FREEDOM (and so by definition allows for the possibility of EVIL) for the sake of LOVE. This is perfectly coherent and the existential fit explains a lot, as every parent who decides FOR THE SAKE OF LOVE to have children who are FREE to do EVIL understands. We don’t have children whose “wills are beyond our jurisdiction” SO THAT their wills will be beyond our jurisdiction. We have children whose wills are beyond our jurisdiction SO THAT we might mutually love one another.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 3/23/2004 4:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
Thank you for your posting. I appreciated your response. I acknowledge a limited understanding of God's complete purpose and plan and you acknowledge a limitation in God’s jurisdiction to allow “freewill.” In any case, I also believe that it is our faith and trust in God's completed work in Christ, not our mental accent, which God looks upon when He judges all at the end of the age. I heard Dr. Boyd describe his conversion at the debate in a way that could be interpreted according to the Reformers, although Dr. Boyd gives mental ascent to the Open View position. I do not know and cannot judge what is believed in his heart, just his words. I know that even he cannot know his heart because it is deceitfully evil, only God knows and understands it. In as much as Greg believes in the gospel and preaches the gospel, regardless of his mental reasons, I rejoice.
The issue of greatest concern that I find in Dr Boyd’s message is that, while he sees Christ as the central revelation of God, his other writings and the authors that he affirms begin to lead me to a Christ that is based on man through man’s imagination and not the objectively revealed Jesus of the gospel. Somehow it seems to me that this understanding is linked between the limited God of the Open View and the Jesus whom Dr. Boyd encourages us to find in our imaginations. If the growing tendency to mysticism and a “felt” Jesus of our experiences continues, it begins to corrupt the objective gospel when combined with the Open View paradigm.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/23/2004 5:09 AM (GMT -6) | | I'd recommend A.W. Tozer's "The Knowledge of the Holy"
The Knowledge of the Holy
by A. W. Tozer
Publisher: Harper San Francisco
Cover: Trade Paper
Pages: 120
Tozer does a good job of clearly presenting the Trinity, the single will of God, and the two wills in Christ.
Its a classic book!
www.crosslifebooks.com/bookpages/KnowledgeOfTheHoly.htm | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/23/2004 6:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Tozer does a good job of clearly presenting the Trinity, the single will of God, and the two wills in Christ.
John 4:34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.
John 5:30 "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
How can Jesus have two wills when all He's doing is the will of the Father (who only has one)???
Laika could have asked either of two questions. Actually he asked the "other" question. I guessed that he would wonder about the Trinity having one will (since that's the thread). But both of these are matters that those 'speculating' on their own, making up their own 'faith' seem to run a ground on. Two sides of the same leaf Tozer deals with BOTH. Notice first of all those portions in BLUE.
quote:
A.W. Tozer
THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOLY
The Trinity, p.27-28
. . .
The authors of the Athanasian Creed spelled out with great care the relation of the three Persons to each other, filling in the gaps in human thought as far as they were able while staying within the bounds of the inspired Word. "In this Trinity," runs the Creed, "nothing is before or after, nothing is greater or less: but all three Persons coetemal, together and equal."
How do these words harmonize with the saying of Jesus, "My Father is greater than I"? Those old theologians knew, and wrote into the Creed, "Equal to His Father, as touching His Godhead; less than the Father, as touching His manhood,"and this interpretation commends itself to every serious-minded seeker after truth in a region where the light is all but blinding.
To redeem mankind the Eternal Son did not leave the bosom of the Father; while walking among men He referred to Himself as "the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father," and spoke of Himself again as "the Son of man which is in heaven." We grant mystery here, but not confusion. In His incarnation the Son veiled His deity, but He did not void it. The unity of the Godhead made it impossible that He should surrender anything of His deity. When He took upon Him the nature of man, He did not degrade Himself or become even for a time less than He had been before. God can never become less than Himself. For God to become anything that He has not been is unthinkable.
The Persons of the Godhead, being one, have one will. They work always together, and never one smallest act is done by one without the instant acquiescence of the other two. Every act of God is accomplished by the Trinity in Unity. Here, of course, we are being driven by necessity to conceive of God in human terms. We are thinking of God by analogy with man, and the result must fall short of ultimate truth; yet if we are to think of God at all, we must do it by adapting creature-thoughts and creature-words to the Creator. It is a real if understandable error to conceive of the Persons of the Godhead as conferring with one another and reaching agreement by interchange of thought as humans do. It has always seemed to me that Milton introduces an element of weakness into his celebrated Paradise Lost when he presents the Persons of the Godhead conversing with each other about the redemption of the human race.
When the Son of God walked the earth as the Son of Man, He spoke often to the Father and the Father answered Him again; as the Son of Man, He now intercedes with God for His people. The dialogue involving the Father and the Son recorded in the Scriptures is always to be understood as being between the Eternal Father and the Man Christ Jesus. That instant, immediate communion between the Persons of the Godhead which has been from all eternity knows not sound nor effort nor motion.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 3/23/2004 7:29 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/23/2004 7:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
How can Jesus have two wills when all He's doing is the will of the Father (who only has one)???
Tozer answers along with the Creed: "Equal to His Father, as touching His Godhead; less than the Father, as touching His manhood..."
Significantly, Christ's human will FREELY CHOSE to do the will of the Father. That is significant because it shows us that being God-ward is true of the created nature of mankind. (Sin is a perversion; it is not 'natural.') And that is good news for us. In this Christ is not merely an example for us. Dead to sin, WE can ONLY have Life "in Christ." Connected to the True Vine we can, by grace, participate in the eternal life of the Trinity (John 3:16). | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/23/2004 7:33 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Tozer does a good job of clearly presenting the Trinity, the single will of God, and the two wills in Christ.
John 4:34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.
John 5:30 "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
How can Jesus have two wills when all He's doing is the will of the Father (who only has one)???
Laika could have asked either of two questions. Actually he asked the "other" question. I guessed that he would wonder about the Trinity having one will (since that's the thread). But both of these are matters that those 'speculating' on their own, making up their own 'faith' seem to run a ground on. Two sides of the same leaf Tozer deals with BOTH. Notice first of all those portions in BLUE.
quote:
A.W. Tozer
THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOLY
The Trinity, p.27-28
. . .
The authors of the Athanasian Creed spelled out with great care the relation of the three Persons to each other, filling in the gaps in human thought as far as they were able while staying within the bounds of the inspired Word. "In this Trinity," runs the Creed, "nothing is before or after, nothing is greater or less: but all three Persons coetemal, together and equal."
How do these words harmonize with the saying of Jesus, "My Father is greater than I"? Those old theologians knew, and wrote into the Creed, "Equal to His Father, as touching His Godhead; less than the Father, as touching His manhood,"and this interpretation commends itself to every serious-minded seeker after truth in a region where the light is all but blinding.
To redeem mankind the Eternal Son did not leave the bosom of the Father; while walking among men He referred to Himself as "the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father," and spoke of Himself again as "the Son of man which is in heaven." We grant mystery here, but not confusion. In His incarnation the Son veiled His deity, but He did not void it. The unity of the Godhead made it impossible that He should surrender anything of His deity. When He took upon Him the nature of man, He did not degrade Himself or become even for a time less than He had been before. God can never become less than Himself. For God to become anything that He has not been is unthinkable.
The Persons of the Godhead, being one, have one will. They work always together, and never one smallest act is done by one without the instant acquiescence of the other two. Every act of God is accomplished by the Trinity in Unity. Here, of course, we are being driven by necessity to conceive of God in human terms. We are thinking of God by analogy with man, and the result must fall short of ultimate truth; yet if we are to think of God at all, we must do it by adapting creature-thoughts and creature-words to the Creator. It is a real if understandable error to conceive of the Persons of the Godhead as conferring with one another and reaching agreement by interchange of thought as humans do. It has always seemed to me that Milton introduces an element of weakness into his celebrated Paradise Lost when he presents the Persons of the Godhead conversing with each other about the redemption of the human race.
When the Son of God walked the earth as the Son of Man, He spoke often to the Father and the Father answered Him again; as the Son of Man, He now intercedes with God for His people. The dialogue involving the Father and the Son recorded in the Scriptures is always to be understood as being between the Eternal Father and the Man Christ Jesus. That instant, immediate communion between the Persons of the Godhead which has been from all eternity knows not sound nor effort nor motion.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 262 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:05 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 |
|
|