 |
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/20/2003 4:20 PM (GMT -6) |   | Where it seems to me the analogy fails is that the original environment God created man in was not a war zone, it was Eden.
Open Theism, as I understand it, comes down to this:
Future Class I: That which is determined = What God says He will do unconditionally; such as, send Christ to redeem mankind, save those who exercise faith in Christ, Who will ultimately rule over all the earth (and so forth--there are many other things that the OV can say are definite with regard to the future).
Future Class II: That which is indeterminate = What God says is conditional upon human choice; such as, "If my people...", "The soul that sins shall die," "the righteous shall live," "whosoever believes," etc. With determinism, there simply can be no "if" with respect to God.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 06/20/2003 10:27:01 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 4:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Hmm., when exactly did God decide to save Christ to save mankind? Before the foundation of the earth as scripture says - or when? He waited a few thousand years and then decided, hey, I've got a plan! I just don't buy it. Sorry. Again I mean this respectuflly - I know, John Earp, that you are making good arguments, and i don't question your sincerity or your christianity at all. I just don't buy these certain arguments, as you don't buy mine. :)
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 4:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Hmm., when exactly did God decide to save Christ to save mankind? Before the foundation of the earth as scripture says - or when? He waited a few thousand years and then decided, hey, I've got a plan! I just don't buy it. Sorry. Again I mean this respectuflly - I know, John Earp, that you are making good arguments, and i don't question your sincerity or your christianity at all. I just don't buy these certain arguments, as you don't buy mine. :)
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 4:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Hmm., when exactly did God decide to save Christ to save mankind? Before the foundation of the earth as scripture says - or when? He waited a few thousand years and then decided, hey, I've got a plan! I just don't buy it. Sorry. Again I mean this respectuflly - I know, John Earp, that you are making good arguments, and i don't question your sincerity or your christianity at all. I just don't buy these certain arguments, as you don't buy mine. :)
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 4:30 PM (GMT -6) | | And - by my flawed analogy, I don't mean that the Garden of Eden was a war zone. I mean that God decided to use his certain "rules of engagement" that would ensure there being a warzone on this earth. Instead of deciding not to create, deciding to create solely fauna and animals, or deciding to create humans with superb genetic capability, etc., he decided for rules that now determine free will (according to the argument) but along with that also ensure that many people will abuse that free will - and thus much suffering will result.
The interesting thing about the story of the Garden of Eden, if taken literally, is that man was created innocent. They did not know right from wrong. The only way they COULD know, was to partake of the forbidden tree of knowledge of good and evil. So before they did that, they did not know how to determine good from evil. God put that tree in there for some reason - I don't know why. If he had not, then presumabl]y Adam and Eve would have gone along on their merry way in paradise. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/20/2003 4:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hmm., when exactly did God decide to save Christ to save mankind? Before the foundation of the earth as scripture says - or when? He waited a few thousand years and then decided, hey, I've got a plan!
I certainly would not agree with your typically gross caricaturization of the Open view; however, the phrase, "before the foundation of the world," is subject to various interpretations. Some OVers view this phrase as meaning God planned to redeem mankind based on the high probability that man would choose to do evil. Others (such as myself) view the phrase as more properly translated as: "because of (or in view of) the fall of mankind."
In either case, the idea that God planned the mission of Christ after waiting "a few thousand years" would not be an accurate representation of the Open view.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 4:36 PM (GMT -6) | | | OK , I just realised that I triple-posted, but I have no idea how to delete it, so sorry. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/20/2003 4:40 PM (GMT -6) | | | Pardon me if I get this wrong, but doesn't the scripture say, that when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his son to be born of a woman? How does the OV explain the timing of God here? I'm curious. You'd think, with flawed human reasoning, that shortly after creation "went wrong" in the Garden of Eden, God would send his son to be propitiation for sins. Instead he waited a couple thousand years. After the flood, after the tower of Babel, after his people had shown repeatedly their propensity for turning away from him. There must be a reason that he decided to send his son at the time that he did. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/20/2003 5:05 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
OK , I just realised that I triple-posted, but I have no idea how to delete it, so sorry.
And here I was, thinking you were just trying to be emphatic! 
But seriously...
There should be a row of little icons along the top of each of your posts, one of which is a trash can. Click on this one to delete any of your posts.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/20/2003 5:24 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Pardon me if I get this wrong, but doesn't the scripture say, that when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his son to be born of a woman? How does the OV explain the timing of God here?
It seems that this question pertains more to the wisdom of God's timing than the Open View itself, and that this is a valid issue for any theological view.
That said, The OV does in fact recognize that God's granting of significant human freedom by definition requires that God does not simply override that freedom as soon as it is abused.
Related to the issue of God's timing it seems is Christ's return--the NT says God's delay is so that more can have the opportunity to repent (1) (talk about Open!), and that Christians can in fact "speed" the coming of the Lord.(2)
(1) 2 Pet 3:9
(2) 2 Pet 3:12
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 06/22/2003 12:16:35 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 6/20/2003 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | | RD, thanks for the compliment.
You said:
RD: Anyway, yes, I do perceive a difference - I'll admit, it makes God the "author" of evil to believe in determinism, which may be hard to swallow. But to me it is even harder to swallow a God who is not in control.
JET: You anticipated a question I was going to ask. I was wondering if our views ultimately result from which scenario makes us more uncomfortable: God not being in complete control or God being the "author" of evil. What is it, do you suppose, that makes people react differently to these alternatives?
RD: Personal preferences aside, I just believe the scientific evidence points to determinism,
JET: The Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and therefore neither admits nor denies. 
RD: and I believe the Biblical evidence, for the most part, supports it as well.
JET: This is where it gets tricky for me. I agree that there are Biblical texts which seem to teach or imply or assume either (1) extensive divine foreordaining or (2) extensive divine foreknowledge (not necessarily exhaustive, but more extensive than I would expect if the OV is true). But there are other texts that teach or imply or assume an openness that seems incompatible with determinism. Sometimes I fear that the Bible simply contradicts itself in this regard. In order to avoid this conclusion, I tend to "explain away" (as you said) the deterministic-sounding texts in a way that is consistent with openness. One way of doing this is to say, as Greg Boyd often says, that only the OV fully accounts for the Biblical evidence by affirming both motifs--that the future is in fact partly settled, but partly opened. But I'm sure this leads you right back to the fustration you expressed in your original post.
RD: But even though I may respectfully disagree with you, I can definitely appreciate your position.
JET: Likewise.
RD: And, I was thinking of an analogy- I don't usually think analogies are good when talking about God, since anything in the human realm is so inadequate - but here goes -
Say you as a responsible adult are running a daycare center. You have choices about where to set up the daycare center. You can either have it at a church in a safe area in America- or you can have it in the middle of Afghanistan - its entirely up to you. You have the power to decide.
If you decide to build it in Afghanistan- in the midst of war, and then you sit back and let the kids play - what happens? Odds are, some bad things are going to happen. If instead, you built it in a safe welcoming environment, and you had the exact same kids, probably not too much bad is going to happen. The kids retain their free will in both circumstances.
But, can you see that the entire set-up determines a lot of what happens, regardless of free will?
JET: I agree that creational factors determine a lot of what happens, regardless of free will.
Both our views assume that God was justified in setting up the "rules of engagement" (whatever they may be). In the deterministic view, God is justified, for reasons not fully understood, in having determined and ordained even the most appalling states of affairs. In the open view, God is justified, for reasons not fully understood, in having decided to go with an open creation in which these same appalling states of affairs obtain.
So in your analogy, I would be justified (for whatever reason) in building the day-care center in Afghanistan, even though the risk of harm is much greater than building at a church in a safe area in America.
The question is whether or not I control the people who are at war in Afganistan. Does the harm occur because, for reasons unknown, I decide that it is worth the risk to build in the cross-fire? Or does the harm occur because I control the people at war and, for reasons unknown, I want them to harm the innocent children?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/21/2003 7:45 AM (GMT -6) | | RD, quote:
Pardon me if I get this wrong, but doesn't the scripture say, that when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his son to be born of a woman? How does the OV explain the timing of God here? I'm curious. You'd think, with flawed human reasoning, that shortly after creation "went wrong" in the Garden of Eden, God would send his son to be propitiation for sins. Instead he waited a couple thousand years. After the flood, after the tower of Babel, after his people had shown repeatedly their propensity for turning away from him. There must be a reason that he decided to send his son at the time that he did.
What difference does it matter whether one holds to the open, traditional or classical view? In whatever view one holds, God took several thousands of years to bring Christ to earth. (This is one of those "We don't have enough information to know why God did what He did when He did it.")
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
lone ranger
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 6/30/2003 8:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Please excuse me for interupting your thread RD. I am enjoying it very much. I would, however, like to insert a question of my own, which you may or may not be wrestling with. I insert it here, somewhat, in view of Starkman's reply:
quote:
What difference does it matter whether one holds to the open, traditional or classical view? In whatever view one holds, God took several thousands of years to bring Christ to earth. (This is one of those "We don't have enough information to know why God did what He did when He did it.")
Before embracing open view, it mattered NOT to me(at least from a redemption mindset) "when" Jesus showed up on the scene, for all future events, in my mind, were realized by God as though they were past or present events. He could just as easily watch the tape backwards as He could forward. The time in which events occured made no difference. My view of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb then, was that He truly died for my specific sins, even though I had not yet committed them. In other words, "He actually saw my specific sins while He was on the cross". Are we, as OVers, now to look at the blood of Jesus as covering all "possible" sins that we "might" commit in our lives, even though the old testament model (of the sacrificial lamb) doesn't flow this way?
"That's why God gave ya two ears and only one mouth....He spects you to do twice as much listenin' as talkin'!
~Mom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/30/2003 11:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, we--all of us, regardless of our concept of God's foreknowledge--know that Christ came into the world about 2000 years ago. He died and shed His blood for the sins of the world ... the then-known world. We also know that as time went on, the blood was available to cover both the sins of the disciples and the new Christians within their era. Further, the blood is still available to cleanse (us) from sin today. It would seem, then, that the blood will be available tomorrow (howevr long "tomorrow" lasts) for both Christian, and sinner who repents. Same bat time, same bat channel!
Whichever view one holds, it makes no difference; the blood is still covering sins today and will also be doing so tomorrow. Whether one holds that God looks ahead and sees your particular sin and that He has Christ directly in mind upon seeing your sin, or whether one holds the to the OV, it doesn't matter. The blood was available in the then and there, it is available in the here and now, and it will be available in the future. In this we can all rejoice!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
| 39 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:37 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 |
|
|