 |
| 
Ochuk
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 6/25/2004 12:06 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Lee: I'm saying that if the OV is correct, then (again this is an implication) we dare not put our hope in God, that he will accomplish his purposes, where those purposes involve human free-will choices.
Tom: And you’re wrong. This is not sound reasoning. We may certainly hope in such cases. I do. If the outcome materializes, thanks be to God. If it doesn’t, the disappointment is rightly placed in others, not God.
Tom, I know I am not going to come off any other way than polemical, but why should we give thanks to God (If you already have addressed this, forgive me)? As you said earlier in the thread, "If the exercise of God’s power is conditioned upon at least some factors outside himself" and if we "always know that in the case of any specific evil God did what God could do" how can we not say the exact same thing about any case of specific good? Why should we consider an evil event (like a murder) outside the providence of God (because they are conditioned by the murder's freedom which God will not violate), but a good event (like a fireman rescuing a child) inside the providence of God (because we would thank God for delivering the child). Is not the same outcome volitionally conditioned?
Or in simpler terms, how do you answer the question, "Why is there so much good in the world?" I don't think you can have it both ways in monotheistic world. Perhaps you can challenge me (like you always do).
Read my blog at ochuk.gizzar.com | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/25/2004 3:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
quote:
Lee: If we put any hope in God, that he will accomplish such a purpose, then we can be disappointed in God.
Tom: The implication is not a valid one. It’s simply wrong to say that if we hope in God to do all he can do to bring about something which is partly conditioned upon the responses of others and those others don’t respond that we may be rightly disappointed in God when the outcome isn’t achieved.
It is a valid implication to say we may not hope in God, lest we be disappointed. We may hope in a good outcome, without this problem, but we may not hope in God, in these instances, if we want to be sure we will not be disappointed in him. That second part is important, you have trimmed what I'm saying here...
quote:
Lee: ... once the jailer believed, then his household would be saved, he was told. But the OV must deny this, and say that the jailer could not dare hope that his family would be saved, lest God fail in his purpose, and he would be disappointed.
Tom: This is so bad, Lee. I’ve never read this narrative in the sense you do. It makes perfect sense to understand the “and your household” not as promising salvation to the jailer’s household as a consequence of HIS faith ...
No, I'm not saying his faith was to be the source of their salvation. I only say God promised their salvation, if he believed. God was the source of their salvation! And it was sure, if he believed.
quote:
... but rather as addressing the same challenge (“believe in the Lord Jesus”) and promise (“and you will be saved”) to the jailer’s household.
The command is singular, though, "you (one person) believe, and you (one person) will be saved, and (then the plural) your household." The command was only to him, here.
quote:
I refuse to argue with you about this, Lee. I know you’re coming back with some argument for why your understanding of this verse is the right one. But you’re misreading the narrative here.
Glad to leave it at that...
quote:
Lee: Similarly with these verses:
EZE 36:29 I will save you from all your uncleanness.
EZE 37:23 They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.
Tom: And here we are right back where we started, with the certainty that God will find some, many even, who will respond to his invitation, a certainty that’s justified because the probabilities are spread out over a wide enough area. I’m not going around this cul-de-sac with you again, Lee.
But God said "all your uncleanness, all their backsliding." This is complete, and not just a probability spread around so much that some will surely be cleansed.
quote:
Ochuk: Why should we consider an evil event (like a murder) outside the providence of God (because they are conditioned by the murder's freedom which God will not violate), but a good event (like a fireman rescuing a child) inside the providence of God...
That's a good point, giving responsibility does work both ways. Why are there no rewards for unbelievers, if they can choose and do good? But even the best the wicked can offer is bad:
PR 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is detestable-- how much more so when brought with evil intent!
And I didn't pick the best verse showing that God's purposes are always accomplished, there are clearer ones:
EPH 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.
Thus if God has a purpose to save people, we may be sure he will accomplish his purpose, and hope in him, and not be disappointed...
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/25/2004 7:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Ochuk: Tom, I know I am not going to come off any other way than polemical, but why should we give thanks to God (If you already have addressed this, forgive me)? As you said earlier in the thread, "If the exercise of God’s power is conditioned upon at least some factors outside himself" and if we "always know that in the case of any specific evil God did what God could do" how can we not say the exact same thing about any case of specific good? Why should we consider an evil event (like a murder) outside the providence of God (because they are conditioned by the murder's freedom which God will not violate), but a good event (like a fireman rescuing a child) inside the providence of God (because we would thank God for delivering the child). Is not the same outcome volitionally conditioned?
Or in simpler terms, how do you answer the question, "Why is there so much good in the world?" I don't think you can have it both ways in monotheistic world. Perhaps you can challenge me (like you always do).
Tom: Great questions Ochuk. To answer I’d say that when a fireman rescues a child we DO thank the fireman (for risking his life, for being brave, for going against his fears). I don’t think it’s wrong to also thank God in such circumstances because in a fallen world like ours blessings like the goodness of a little daughter spared from death happen also because there’s a good God who is involved in the world. Where there is such goodness as that of one person risking her life for another, we can be sure God had something (not everything, but an indispensable part) to do with it. People don't act like that without God having some indispensible part in it. In short, when it comes to something like rescuing a little girl we thank BOTH God and the fireman, for both contributed to her rescue. Both parts were necessary and the absence of one would have spelled death for the girl. But assuming the fireman was the absolute last chance in long line of chances to rescue the girl, and also assuming the fireman decided he didn’t want this high-risk low-paying unappreciated job anymore and chose to let the girl burn instead of risking danger to himself, then we wouldn't blame BOTH God and the fireman (or all those in the chain of chances who were faced with the opportunity to save her but chose not to). We first blame the arson, of course. Then we might blame those who had the opportunity to save her but chose not to. But never God. So in the case of some good, we thank all those whose choices had a part in bringing it about. Likewise in the case of some evil. We blame those who had a part in bringing it about. But that would never be God, since God always does all he can, given the rules of the game, to maximize goodness and minimize evil. He always plays his part.
Not sure that helps.
On to my hard-headed friend, Lee.
Lee: It is a valid implication to say we may not hope in God, lest we be disappointed. We may hope in a good outcome, without this problem, but we may not hope in God, in these instances, if we want to be sure we will not be disappointed in him.
Tom: Your “if we want to be sure we will not be disappointed inhim” begs the very point of debate. If you don’t get it, fine. The implication is invalid because the blame for unfulfilled conditional outcomes God works to bring about is entirely attributable to others, not God. If the blame is theirs, so is the addressing of our disappointment. God always does all God can to maximize good and minimize evil.
Lee: No, I'm not saying his faith was to be the source of their salvation. I only say God promised their salvation, if he believed. God was the source of their salvation! And it was sure, if he believed.
Tom: I knew you’d say this. Knew it. But I didn’t say you were claiming the jailer was the “source” of their salvation. I only said you were claiming their salvation was ‘conditioned’ upon the jailer’s faith. God guarantees with 100% certainty that he’ll save the others IF the jailer repents and believes. But the text doesn’t have to be, indeed shouldn’t be, understood this way.
Lee: The command is singular, though, "you (one person) believe, and you (one person) will be saved, and (then the plural) your household." The command was only to him, here.
Tom: The verbs don’t have to be plural. They can’t include the others by way of argumentation. It’s not that difficult, Lee. For example, my teenage daughter and three of her fiends spend the night at our house. They each trash their bed and leave junk laying all over the place. That next morning they’re standing around talking about what to do on a Saturday. I say to my daughter, “Jessie, if you make your bed and clean up your mess, I’ll pay for you way to the water park, you and your friends.
You can argue that this means I’ll give Jessie and her three fiends a lift to the water park if only Jessie makes her bed and cleans her room. But if only my daughter met the requirements and then said, “Let’s go Dad, and hey, thanks for paying for all our tickets,” I’d reply, “Not so fast. The conditions apply to your three friends as well.” “…you and your friends” means “this goes for you and your friends,” or “this offer (clean up your mess and get a ticket to the water park) goes for you and your friends.” I don’t need to make each “you” a plural if I add “you and your friends” at the end. The “and” here may attribute both condition and reward to her friends>. Same goes for the “and” in Acts of “…and your household.” Both condition and reward are extend to the members of the jailer’s hoursehold here with this “and.” The previous verbs don’t need to be plural. Indeed, were they all plural there would be no need to add “and your household.”
Lee: PR 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is detestable-- how much more so when brought with evil intent!
Tom: If it’s offered with evil intent, sure. But if it’s offered in faith and good intent, it’s accepted.
About your “best verse” that proves God’s purposes are always fulfilled, Eph. 1.11 doesn’t come close to proving unconditional particular election to salvation. It’s perfectly consistent with corporate election in Christ.
Besides, Jesus said the Pharisees rejected God’s purposes for themselves. God’s purposes aren’t always fulfilled.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 6/26/2004 12:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Does God make mistakes? Apparently, yes. Knowingly...
quote:
Originally posted by Mayflower
]
----------
**SEE: CRITICAL ISSUES COMMENTARY: May/June 2000,
ISSUE 58 - "The Foreknowledge of God"
http://www.twincityfellowship.com/cic/articles/issue58.htm
By Bob DeWaay
Excerpt:
In this article I shall respond to a recent challenge issued in the book
"God of the Possible," by Gregory A. Boyd.
I just read what Mayflower posted from Dewaay's website on the Seeing is believing (not!) thread. I'd appreciate insights from anyone who agrees with this view. thanx.
DeWaay's argument:
... "Allow me to make an analogy. Suppose a man has a teenage son who is prone to wildness and indiscretion. This son desires a sports car. The father warns him saying, ASon you are only going to get into trouble, you will get tickets, you will probably wreck the car and injure yourself and others. Yet the son persists, and is unrelenting in his demands for the car. Finally the son has nagged his dad for the car for an entire year and has reached the age of 17. The father, against his better judgment yet feeling the son needs to learn his own lessons in life, buys him the car. Sure enough, the young man gets tickets and eventually gets into a bad accident with multiple injuries. The father, visiting him in the hospital says, Son, I regret that I bought you that car.
"In this case, the fathers regret does not indicate a lack of foreknowledge about what would happen. He was quite sure of what would happen, but still had reasons for buying the car for his son. In God's case the difference is that His foreknowledge is absolute, the earthly father's only a very strong assumption based on present knowledge. However, the point of the analogy is that expressions of regret, as human languages are commonly used, do not always imply a lack of foreknowledge. We regret many things that are very much predictable or even inevitable. So why do we assume God cannot regret what He foreknows will happen? Such an assumption not only is contrary to Biblical teaching: And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind(1Samuel 15:29), it is also contrary to the ordinary use of language."
selah:
Well, if anyone thinks this a strong argument please help me see it the way you do. Gee wiz, I don't even understand what he means. Especially: "We regret many things that are very much predictable or even inevitable." I wish he'd provided examples of such things...
This is how it translates for me: "ok, I know X will happen and I'm going to regret it - but how about I do X anyway(!) and then I will just regret it (good plan!)" Since that sounds silly even to us, it would have to be extra silly for God to think that way, no?
~confused
love
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/26/2004 12:49 AM (GMT -6) | | selah: Well, if anyone thinks this a strong argument please help me see it the way you do. Gee wiz, I don't even understand what he means. Especially: "We regret many things that are very much predictable or even inevitable." I wish he'd provided examples of such things...
This is how it translates for me: "ok, I know X will happen and I'm going to regret it - but how about I do X anyway(!) and then I will just regret it (good plan!)" Since that sounds silly even to us, it would have to be extra silly for God to think that way, no?
Tom: You're there selah. In the Father/Son analogy the father can rightly feel regret ONLY because he believed the probability of his son's not screwing his life up was less than 1. In other words, the father believed there was a chance that things would go well. Dewaay is just wrong to argue that we often regret decisions we made knowing the outcome with 100% certainty. He hasn't proved his case at all.
The other way to reply to Dewaay is to point out the the father's regret is unfounded. He ought not regret getting his son the car if, as Dewaay points out, he knew his son had lessons to learn that could only be learned this way. In this case, the father ought to say, "I don't regret getting you the car in spite of your wrecking it and injuring yourself. You've learned your lesson. Now get on with life." Of course, Dewaay points out the the father goes "against his better judgment," which God never does. So the whole analogy fails I think.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 6/26/2004 1:37 AM (GMT -6) | | | I would like to respond to the thought that "God Failed" for the reason that some people don't respond to his grace. No God never failed but I would say rather that people he seeks a response to fail themselves. If I was a wealthy man and put in say 1000 dollars in a certain bank account for each person on the earth, but they must come to recieve it and make a withdrawal would we say the rich man failed if some don't come to recieve? No, we would say the one who was told and didn't respond failed themsleves. God is always a success for to be success means to be loving individual. The Bible says that LOVE is the bond of perfection. If God forced individuals to receive his grace then that would be the time that God failed because such would go against the principals of love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/26/2004 7:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
quote:
On to my hard-headed friend, Lee.
Like the Tin Man, I guess. Oil...can...oil...can...
quote:
Lee: It is a valid implication to say we may not hope in God, lest we be disappointed. We may hope in a good outcome, without this problem, but we may not hope in God, in these instances, if we want to be sure we will not be disappointed in him.
Tom: Your “if we want to be sure we will not be disappointed in him” begs the very point of debate.
How so, though? I think I made a very plain conclusion from my premises, you need to show me how my premises are incorrect, or how I have incorrectly made my conclusion from them. I didn't just make this statement out of thin air!
quote:
The implication is invalid because the blame for unfulfilled conditional outcomes God works to bring about is entirely attributable to others, not God.
This is one of them there Red Herrings, though. I'm not saying God is to blame, I'm only saying we dare not hope in him, where his purpose concerns human choices, that he will not override (I need to add that now!), according to the OV.
quote:
Lee: No, I'm not saying his faith was to be the source of their salvation. I only say God promised their salvation, if he believed. God was the source of their salvation! And it was sure, if he believed.
Tom: I knew you’d say this. Knew it. But I didn’t say you were claiming the jailer was the “source” of their salvation. I only said you were claiming their salvation was ‘conditioned’ upon the jailer’s faith. God guarantees with 100% certainty that he’ll save the others IF the jailer repents and believes. But the text doesn’t have to be, indeed shouldn’t be, understood this way.
Then how should it be understood? I think the OV has to make this only probable, and thus (my point!) the jailer dare not hope that this will really happen.
quote:
Lee: The command is singular, though, "you (one person) believe, and you (one person) will be saved, and (then the plural) your household." The command was only to him, here.
Tom: The verbs don’t have to be plural. They can’t include the others by way of argumentation. It’s not that difficult, Lee. For example, my teenage daughter and three of her friends spend the night at our house. They each trash their bed and leave junk laying all over the place. That next morning they’re standing around talking about what to do on a Saturday. I say to my daughter, “Jessie, if you make your bed and clean up your mess, I’ll pay for your way to the water park, you and your friends..."
"Would there be need to assure the penitent here, that faith being the way of salvation, it was as open to his house upon their believing as to himself? It does not seem that he would need to be assured of that..." (Eclectic Notes)
quote:
Lee: PR 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is detestable-- how much more so when brought with evil intent!
Tom: If it’s offered with evil intent, sure. But if it’s offered in faith and good intent, it’s accepted.
Actually, it's not! It's detestable, this verse says. There are no rewards for wicked fireman, even, regardless of how many lives they have saved. It's good that they save the lives. But they get no reward for it.
quote:
About your “best verse” that proves God’s purposes are always fulfilled, Eph. 1.11 doesn’t come close to proving unconditional particular election to salvation. It’s perfectly consistent with corporate election in Christ.
That's a different subject! But whatever purpose Eph. 1:11 may refer to, God's purposes will be accomplished, this verse says. Thus if God has a purpose to save someone (let's look elsewhere for such evidence), he will indeed save them.
quote:
Besides, Jesus said the Pharisees rejected God’s purposes for themselves. God’s purposes aren’t always fulfilled.
I'm a Caliversalist, remember. Thus I hope that all men may be saved, even these rebellious Pharisees.
ISA 33:22 For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; it is he who will save us.
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 | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/26/2004 7:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Bobber,
quote:
I would like to respond to the thought that "God Failed" for the reason that some people don't respond to his grace. No God never failed but I would say rather that people he seeks a response to fail themselves. If I was a wealthy man and put in say 1000 dollars in a certain bank account for each person on the earth, but they must come to recieve it and make a withdrawal would we say the rich man failed if some don't come to receive?
If he had an intent for them to receive it, then yes, he may be said to have failed. If the intent is there, and the outcome does not happen, then there is failure, not blame, necessarily, but failure nonetheless.
quote:
If God forced individuals to receive his grace then that would be the time that God failed because such would go against the principals of love.
This is using failure in a different sense, though, this is almost using it in a sense of self-contradiction, or blame. I agree that God cannot contradict himself, or sin, he cannot fail in that sense. Failure in the sense I am using it here, though, is when you set out on a course, and you don't get there.
And about principles of love! A parent could have a child fed intravenously, if they were refusing food, that would be an act of love, I think. And if love must be free, how about people in heaven? Can they always have freedom to sin, and thus always be insecure?
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 | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 6/26/2004 8:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Lee Thanks For Your Response
quote:
And about principles of love! A parent could have a child fed intravenously, if they were refusing food, that would be an act of love, I think.
You’re absolutely right if a child/parent comparison can be used to define every single one Bible truths or themes. I would say the way you’re using it above can’t be used for it doesn’t fit the overall doctrine of Gods word. The child parent analogy was used however by God in this way…..the prodigal son….we understand from the parable that the son was of adult age, or if I might call it the time of accountability. He left the Father’s house but the parent didn’t go out there to force him home…..and yet the parable states he was lost. The parent was always willing to receive him back though and he never stated to his other son, “No Ive decided I want that son to die in his sin!” by the way giving this some thought can anyone in their wildest imagination view the Father in the parable as one who didn’t want any of his wayward sons to come home? I truly don’t think one can and such a projection is totally foreign to what Jesus said the heart of the Father was. Don't you think? 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 6/26/2004 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | .Hello, Selah:
I understand your dismay.
*F.Y.I., Attached below is the TCF website, which includes
the entire "Critical Issues Commentary" (ISSUE 58 - "The Foreknowledge of God"), by Bob DeWaay.
It appears that additional sermons/critical commentaries by
Mr. DeWaay articulate a similar mindset..
Peace & blessings,
<><
====================================================
====================================================
*Excerpted from:
CVM Thread: "Seeing is Believing - Experiencing Necromancy" (by Spenlake):
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3371&whichpage=4
quote:
Mayflower wrote:
quote:
Greetings, Spen:
May I ask why you persist on this topic? Is it because you have an axe to grind?
* *.Are you actually here because you and/or those you are
associated with are in disagreement with the Dr. Boyd's writings
on the Open View?
<><
.
----------
* *SEE: CRITICAL ISSUES COMMENTARY: May/June 2000,
ISSUE 58 - "The Foreknowledge of God"
http://www.twincityfellowship.com/cic/articles/issue58.htm
By Bob DeWaay
Excerpt:
In this article I shall respond to a recent challenge issued in the book
"God of the Possible," by Gregory A. Boyd. ....
Conclusion:
.....I do not think Dr. Boyd has given us sufficient Biblical evidence to warrant changing our whole view of God's foreknowledge.
The passages cited are incidental to the issue at hand.
What I mean by this is that they are not specifically addressing God's relationship to time and whether or not God's knowledge is unchanging. There is no clear passage of Scripture that says God does not foreknow, while many state that He does. The passages we have examined, taken in their context, are easily understood without importing the notion of a God who lacks exhaustive foreknowledge. In several instances the Bible predicts what was going to happen in these very examples, showing that God did have foreknowledge. Therefore the "open" view of God should be rejected on purely Biblical grounds.
-------------
SOURCE:
Twin City Fellowship website
http://www.twincityfellowship.com/main.htm
Critical Issues Commentary -- back issues
http://www.twincityfellowship.com/cic/index.htm
ALSO SEE:
• Critical Issues Commentary: Downloads
http://www.twincityfellowship.com/cic/downloads.php
• Critical Issues Commentary
http://www.twincityfellowship.com/cic/
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 6/27/2004 4:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
selah: Well, if anyone thinks this a strong argument please help me see it the way you do. Gee wiz, I don't even understand what he means. Especially: "We regret many things that are very much predictable or even inevitable." I wish he'd provided examples of such things...
This is how it translates for me: "ok, I know X will happen and I'm going to regret it - but how about I do X anyway(!) and then I will just regret it (good plan!)" Since that sounds silly even to us, it would have to be extra silly for God to think that way, no?
Tom: You're there selah. In the Father/Son analogy the father can rightly feel regret ONLY because he believed the probability of his son's not screwing his life up was less than 1. In other words, the father believed there was a chance that things would go well. Dewaay is just wrong to argue that we often regret decisions we made knowing the outcome with 100% certainty. He hasn't proved his case at all.
The other way to reply to Dewaay is to point out the the father's regret is unfounded. He ought not regret getting his son the car if, as Dewaay points out, he knew his son had lessons to learn that could only be learned this way. In this case, the father ought to say, "I don't regret getting you the car in spite of your wrecking it and injuring yourself. You've learned your lesson. Now get on with life." Of course, Dewaay points out the the father goes "against his better judgment," which God never does. So the whole analogy fails I think.
Tom
Thanks Tom. I'm glad I'm not alone on this. I just wish someone from that camp were available to expand on these beliefs. (What you posted was exactly what I was thinking :) ) I guess what I'll do is try to meet with Dewaay someday...
oh, howabout you come to shipshewana? (just saying that word is half the fun! )
Blessings
and love
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 6/27/2004 6:25 AM (GMT -6) | | .
F.Y.I.:
Splenlake (Keith), posts here. He's very much "from that camp."
Some of his writings are also on the TFC website.
Peace & blessings,
<><
.
Selah wrote: quote:
I just wish someone from that camp were available to expand on these beliefs.
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/27/2004 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Bobber,
quote:
Lee: And about principles of love! A parent could have a child fed intravenously, if they were refusing food, that would be an act of love, I think.
Bobber: ... the prodigal son….we understand from the parable that the son was of adult age, or if I might call it the time of accountability. He left the Father’s house but the parent didn’t go out there to force him home…..and yet the parable states he was lost.
And found, too! Like the lost coin or the lost sheep, none of these found themselves, God had to intervene, and find them. And he will!
LK 15:5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders...
quote:
... can anyone in their wildest imagination view the Father in the parable as one who didn’t want any of his wayward sons to come home? I truly don’t think one can and such a projection is totally foreign to what Jesus said the heart of the Father was.
I agree! God does want to save all the lost, and he has a purpose to save them, too...
EZE 34:16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.
And I believe we are allowed to hope for the sleek and strong sheep, too, that they belong to him, as well.
EZE 34:31 You my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are people, and I am your God, declares the Sovereign Lord.
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 | | |
|
cbost6421
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 65
| Posted 7/4/2004 8:56 AM (GMT -6) | | I will come out and say it...
God does not make mistakes... WE DO!
God does his best to influence us in the right direction,
He gets dissapointed when wego the wrong direction,
because He knows all possible things in the future, He can, and does
have a sort of "back-up plan" in case we choose the thing we shouldn't have.
God didn't make the Mistake, We did (and do), God adjusts His palnns to accomodate for such a mistake.
Also I would like for us to remember that thier is a difference in "mistake" and "sin".
If give a wrong answer on a test, that is not a sin. It's a mistake
But if I partied all night instead of studying for the test, then put a wrong answer, that is a sin (in my opinion)
So if God is "dissapointed" at our actions, how can we trust Him you might ask?
The answer Is for us to trust him so He won't be dissapointed!
stu.westga.edu/~cbost1/openviewtheism.html
"those who pray truly are theologians and those who are theologians pray truly"
-Evagrios The Solidary | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/4/2004 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Chuck,
quote:
God does not make mistakes... WE DO!
I agree!
quote:
So if God is "dissapointed" at our actions, how can we trust Him you might ask?
The answer Is for us to trust him so He won't be dissapointed!
That isn't what I'm asking here, though! I'm asking how can we hope in God, and not be disappointed, if God himself can be disappointed?
Here is the complete question: If God has an intention to bring about an outcome that involves human choices, choices that he will not override, then how can we hope in God (not just in the outcome!), that he will accomplish his purpose, and not possibly be disappointed?
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 | | |
|
cbost6421
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 65
| Posted 7/4/2004 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
That isn't what I'm asking here, though! I'm asking how can we hope in God, and not be disappointed, if God himself can be disappointed?
Here is the complete question: If God has an intention to bring about an outcome that involves human choices, choices that he will not override, then how can we hope in God (not just in the outcome!), that he will accomplish his purpose, and not possibly be disappointed?
Blessings,
Lee
My answer would be simple, God is dissapointed that things did not turn out the way He had hoped. But that does not mean that He is without hope. I personally believe that He always has a sort of "back-up plan" for all the infinite possibilities we could choose until He decides to end time.
Open View Theists see God as knowing the future perfectly. Where the future requires possibilities, God knows the possibilities. If He genuinely hopes that we will do one thing, and we don't, we made the mistake. His knowledge was not incorrect because He knew it as a possibility. Of Course, God has a plan to accomodate that mistake. And He hopes in His accomodated plan with the same love that He hoped in His original one. You see, it would not be Love if He knew we'd violate His plan, it would be empty hope. But God's hope is a true hope, one that springs fowarth from His love.
Am I making any sense? Let me know if this satisfies your question!
May we all have Grace to understand it.
-Chuck
stu.westga.edu/~cbost1/openviewtheism.html
"those who pray truly are theologians and those who are theologians pray truly"
-Evagrios The Solidary | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/5/2004 4:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Chuck,
No, I'm sorry, you're missing what I'm asking here.
quote:
Lee: I'm asking how can we hope in God, and not be disappointed, if God himself can be disappointed?
Here is the complete question: If God has an intention to bring about an outcome that involves human choices, choices that he will not override, then how can we hope in God (not just in the outcome!), that he will accomplish his purpose, and not possibly be disappointed?
quote:
Chuck: God is dissapointed that things did not turn out the way He had hoped. But that does not mean that He is without hope.
No, I'm asking how can we not be disappointed?
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 | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/5/2004 5:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
No, I'm asking how can we not be disappointed?
If God offers salvation to you and you choose to reject it, you will not be disappointed in God. You got what you wanted, no relationship with God.
If God offers salvation to someone else and they reject it, they are getting what they want, no relationship with God.
You, also, will not be disappointed in God UNLESS you want God to FORCE them into a relationship with Him AGAINT THEIR WILL, kind of like MORAL RAPE.
So if you think God should be morally raping people and He doesn't, then, yes, Lee, you will be "disappointed" in God.
Lee, how do your human relationships work? Do you force people into relationships they don't want? Why do you think God would want to do that?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/5/2004 6:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee: I'm asking how can we not be disappointed?
Sahid: We can't be sure of more than God is sure of. God is sure of the final outcome. We can trust that.
I'm not sure (!) what you are saying here, though. What about the prophecies the OV says failed? What outcome was God sure of there? I think the OV holds that God is only sure of the probabilities, and maybe not even that.
quote:
Sahid: If we explain away God's "bad" emotions then we must treat his "good" emotions in the same way. We would have to dispense with the idea of God really loving, showing compassion, or sacrificing emotionally.
But there is a range of meanings for the word "grieved" or "sorry." Thus to choose "grieved" instead of "sorry" is not explaining away, it's choosing one of a proper range of meanings. With "love," again, we must choose within the range of meanings for that word. And that's not explaining away, in either case.
quote:
Sisters: You, also, will not be disappointed in God UNLESS you want God to FORCE them into a relationship with Him AGAINT THEIR WILL, kind of like MORAL RAPE.
Remember the saying, "You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your relatives"? That's not moral rape.
But back to the question! How can Scripture assure us that we can hope in God, and not be disappointed, if this assurance is in an area that involves human choices?
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/5/2004 1:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: That isn't what I'm asking here, though! I'm asking how can we hope in God, and not be disappointed, if God himself can be disappointed?
Tom: We CAN hope in God and be disappointed. But we're not disappointed IN GOD. We are, as God is, disappoined that those who could have chosen to allign themselves with God to achieve his purposes but who chose instead not to do so.
You continue to make the mistake of thinking that if we hope WITH God and even work WITH God toward acheiving his 'conditional' purposes, we must be disappointed IN GOD if those purposes are not acheived. This is not so. It does not follow, is not true. We hope in God to do what he can to achieve the greatest possible good. That hope will never be disappointed. We can also then hope with God that his purposes will win the day. If they don't, we can then rightly be disappointed with God that his purposes were rejected by others.
Is this thread still alive?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
cbost6421
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 65
| Posted 7/5/2004 2:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
You are asking how we cannot be disspointed in God if God can be dissapointed by us and our actions, is this correct?
The answer is simple... We rely on His infinite knowledge of Possibilities and His back up plans for each possibility. God may be surprise or even dissapointed in some stupid sin a human being makes, but we can trust Him that God will work out all of the Possibilities for such a greater good. Are we dissapointed at our human sin, I should certainly hope that we are more than dissapointed at our mistakes! We should be repentful!!!!
But God will never dissapoint us. We can only dissapoint Him!
When I was a Calvinist, I was dissapointed when God didn't let/cause/work-out my high school football team when the state Championship, or that The Girl I wanted to date only wanted to be friends. When I was a calvinist, I was dissapointed in Him, I honestly sought Him and prayed for such things. Now, I am not dissapointed in HIm because I know that He would not violate the freedom of all my team mates who didn't come to wieghtlifting/conditioning, or violate the Girl's freedom to have bad taste .
I can now not be dissapointed in Him, because it is not Him who dissapoints us. If (who knows?) it were truly God's will for my team to when the championship, and for this girl to like me, then His backup plan gives me hope because it is still working thigns out for the greater good. My current girlfriend is so much better than this other girl. My college football experience (yes even at calvinist NWC) was tons better than any state championship could have ever been. God worked these things out for the better, I can hope in Him!
Humans dissapoint us, not God. I think we agree on this much, just not the specific details of how this happens. We shouldn't be dissapointed in God either because we must have faith that despite free-decisions that dissapoint Him, we Know that He is still working things out for the good, and has a plan to do so for every consequence of every free human decision.
did I get the question this time?
Your Brother in Christ,
-Chuck Bost
stu.westga.edu/~cbost1/openviewtheism.html
"those who pray truly are theologians and those who are theologians pray truly"
-Evagrios The Solidary | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/5/2004 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
No, I'm asking how can we not be disappointed?
If God offers salvation to you and you choose to reject it, you will not be disappointed in God. You got what you wanted, no relationship with God.
If God offers salvation to someone else and they reject it, they are getting what they want, no relationship with God.
You, also, will not be disappointed in God UNLESS you want God to FORCE them into a relationship with Him AGAINT THEIR WILL, kind of like MORAL RAPE.
So if you think God should be morally raping people and He doesn't, then, yes, Lee, you will be "disappointed" in God.
Jesus presented the relationship between Himself and His church as that of a marriage relationship.
I'm not disappointed in God, I AM disappointed in people who "neglect so great a salvation":
Hebrews 2:1 "For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.
2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,
3 how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard"
We're admonished to "pay attention", "not drift away", "not neglect so great a salvation", all in the space of three verses. These are the people that would disappoint me, Lee, those who have not paid attention, have drifted away and have neglected their salvation.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 131 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:36 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 |
|
|