quote:

---

What's the name of the book?

---

Book Description
The nature of God's knowledge of the future, sparked by the openness of God debate, is perhaps the most controversial issue in evangelical circles today. It has generated much heated discussion in venues like the Evangelical Theological Society. Does God Have a Future? counters such intense discourse by pairing Christopher Hall, who affirms the historic Christian or classical view, with John Sanders, one of the foremost proponents of the openness view. For over a year, Hall and Sanders engaged in a friendly yet penetrating e-mail exchange responding to one another's questions and concerns about God's providence and foreknowledge. This book is a compilation of those inquiring e- letters, offering equal handling of both the classical and openness views. Motivated by the belief that evangelicals must learn how to disagree without becoming divisive, they display their respect for each other while vigorously disagreeing about important issues. The e-mail format has produced a series of to-the-point exchanges that make this complex topic more accessible and far more instructive and digestible than a pair of pro-con essays would have been. As such, it is the ideal introduction to the contemporary debate. This book is an expanded version of a two-part article that appeared in Christianity Today in 2001. All those interested in a serious, balanced presentation of the openness debate, without unfair caricatures, will appreciate this theologically sophisticated yet accessible book.

Edited by - TGB on 04/17/2003 1:41:13 PM

quote:

---

Israel deserves judgment and the Assyrians are independently intent on pouncing on their neighbors. God uses Assyria to execute his judgment on Israel. I believe it’s in Isaiah where God calls Babylon “my holy servant” in just such a context. The details about when such intervention on God’s part is justified (in God’s eyes) given the “rules of engagement” (we like to call ‘em) is a big issue. But the basic principle seems sound.

---

quote:

---

See, no God taking control of the Bablyonians or others groups needed.
dlw

---

quote:

---

I also wouldn’t call such an action on God’s part “unilateral” since it involves the coming together of a number of conditions that involve free will.

---

quote:

---

"...the Assyrians are independently intent on pouncing on their neighbors.

and

Assyria’s freely acquired resolve to launch out against its neighbors, then it wasn’t divine rape of the will.

---

quote:

---

Brandon, now that was evil...

---

MuaHAHAHA!! Fo sheezy!

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

quote:

---

Tom: OK, I’m not sure if what we’re talking about is the distinction between the multilateral/unilateral question of an event’s occurring at all and the multilateral/unilateral question of God’s performance of his part in an event’s occurring. There doesn’t seem to be any question that God never requires anything outside himself to actually do “his” part. When he acts, actually does it, it’s always unilateral.

---

Not sure exactly what you are asking here. I am saying that there is no distinction between the events occurring and God’s performance involved in the events i.e. bringing the events to pass.

quote:

---

Tom: I’m not sure I see it. John Doe’s being there to help me doesn’t seem to me to be analogous to God’s using Assyria in her hardened state to bring judgment on Israel. Where’s the similarity? And what’s the difference between what you’re saying and what theological compatibilists say? If you’re saying that ALL the choices involved in John Doe’s being there to rescue me are unilaterally brought about by God without overriding our wills, then I’d say this is exactly what compatibilism says.

---

Ok. Here’s where I want to be a little more clearer if I can. I will need to start off with an example.

Say for an example, Tom is going to mail a portfolio for employment to a company in another city. On his way to the post office, he somehow loses his portfolio containing the important documents that his potential employer needs to see. (Sound like you yet Tom? ) Ok. What happened was, Tom went into the local donut shop, put his portfolio on the counter, bought his coffee and Krispy Kreme (now available in Canada, for those who want to know, those Orignals are the best! So come on down!!! ) donut. Tom walks out of the store gets into his car and heads off to the post office. At that point, the Krispy Kreme worker notices the portfolio and throws it into the trash, thinking it was some unnecessary store document. At that point, the garbage man picks up the trash, notices the portfolio and brings it with him in the cab (why he would do this I don’t know, but just work with me here OK?). As the garbage man is headed down the street, the portfolio falls out of the cab of the truck and into a car that is headed to the city where Tom’s prospective employer is. That night the car is ransacked by a bunch of hoodlums and the portfolio falls on to the sidewalk where the next day a jogger who is the daughter of the company president picks it up, gives it to her father, who then reads the application and decides to hire Tom. This is something that Tom had been praying about. It is something that he was praying about even when he lost his portfolio.

Some theologians say that Christians readily recognize that there are levels of divine acts.

A. First there is Providence. Believers give credit to God in a situation in which nothing discernibly supernatural occurred. That is, God worked through natural processes.
B. Direct nonmiraculous intervention. Much like the first one, God acts in answering prayer, even when the answer to prayer followed completely natural unsurprising processes.
C. Direct miraculous intervention. Believers say that a miracle has occurred if an event happened which could be best explained as a direct act of God.

In many cases we don’t have C happening. But rather we have a lot of A and B occurring. A and B type miracles are looked at in terms of what is known as “constellation miracles” or “contingency miracles.” That is, it is the coming together of a number of events that are in themselves physically possible even probable to form a constellation of events that is highly improbable.

This is where I would place the Assyrian example. I would see God using a very natural processes (human beings through their already bent on hell hearts, solidified characters) to accomplish a particular goal much like in the same way the example I provided above where humans are instruments “co-operating with God (passively?)” to do what you were praying for. Could we say that God intervened “unilaterally” in the example above. Yes. I believe we can.

God acted unilaterally in such a way that it involved the freewill (therefore no freewill was overrode) of human agency. That is God acted compatibilistically and in a unilateral fashion.

Anyone? Mr. Sanders? Greg? Meph Man?


Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

Edited by - BBBCanada on 04/23/2003 12:05:27 PM

quote:

---

The difference is in DEGREE, not kind.

---