 |
| 
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/25/2002 6:59 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi Seymour,
Thanks for the comments and questions. I have a few for you:
Seymour writes: quote:
... to most who like P it is impossible for someone to really fall away from Christ because once you're saved you're always saved. many who hold to P find this view rather reassuring to their faith. I however can't imagine why you would find this reasuring because it seems to always put your salvation at risk.
Not if you're saved. A saved person has full assurance and confidence in Christ. Those who do not have assurance and confidence are either not saved, or horribly confused (albeit temporarily).
Seymour writes: quote:
According to many who hold to P those who appear to have fallen away were in actuality never really saved in the first place.
That has nothing to do with one's personal assurance and confidence in Christ. Those who fall away manifest what was true about them all along. Those who are truly saved will not fall away. I know I will not fall away because God has secured my salvation by His own blood. The payment has been made, so my behavior has nothing to do with my salvation. By His Spirit, He keeps in line, causes me to grow, gives me the desire to please Him and to learn His word. These are things I could not do on my own, nor would I want it to depend upon me. Thus I have full assurance and unwavering confidence as He perfectly and competely meticulously controls all things without exception.
Seymour writes: quote:
[So how do you or i ever really know that we are saved in teh first place?
Good question. I explained above how I know I am eternally secured (saved) by the blood of Christ. I'm curious to know IF you know whether or not you are saved, and if you claim to know, then what does that salvation depend upon?
Seymour writes: quote:
... what if, even though we do not know it now, we fall away at the age of 97.
It won't happen to me because He has promised to complete the good work He has begun in me.
Seymour writes: quote:
... This [falling away] would have been, of course, preordainded by God from eterity past.
Not for a true believer. For the true believer, He has preordained good works (Eph 2:10). Not only has He preordained the works themselves, but also the fact that I *will* walk in them.
Seymour writes: quote:
Now we know, according to P, that it is impossible to really fall away, only appearntly so.
Not true. There is no "apparent" falling away for the true believer. You don't seem to understand that the "P" really means.
Seymour writes: quote:
... if i held to P it would give me nightmares, my salvation would seem very peirolouis indeed.
Throughout your post you've betrayed a horrible misconception of the "P". For the truly saved, there is no peril; only full confidence in the Lord, unshakable belief that He will bring to pass all that He has promised. The OpenView, on the other hand, appears to depend on one's own efforts, and just like the hapless father in my analogy above, there is no confidence to be found there.
Thanks for your comments. Looking forward to your reply.
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/25/2002 8:11 PM (GMT -6) | | James-
I'm reeeeeeally busy these days. So, when you post that analogy I asked you for I'll jump back into this. Otherwise I can only peek in.
Blessings,
Tom
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/25/2002 10:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
Here's Part II:
James wrote: Before I proceed, I really need you to define "genuine love" and "moral responsibility."
Tom writes:quote:
I obviously don’t define them in compatibilistic terms. Unconditionally predetermined love is, in my view, not genuine love.
That's obvious, and precisely the reason why I need a definition. We can start with "What is love?", then maybe we can get to the "genuine" part later.
Tom writes:quote:
Unconditionally predetermined choices are not morally responsible choices.
Why not? First, Person A makes a choice based on various mitigating factors. Some are environmental; some are internal. Person A decides on a particular route that has moral ramifications. Regardless of what factors influenced that choice, he is held morally responsible. Just because the ultimate mitigating factor is God's decree has no more bearing upon his culpability than if we limited those factors to his personal taste or the influence of the weather. Second, God is the creator. Why can't He do what He wants with His creation?
Tom writes:quote:
If it is the case that God holds us accountable for actions he unconditionally predetermined us to perform, then we’d have to admit at least for now that God’s justice is what WE call injustice.
Not at all. What is unjust about holding a person morally responsible for his decisions/actions? The factors that influenced his decisions/actions are irrelevant. Also, God established due process. He gave commands. He outlined the consequences of disobedience. Even though the choices of the individual were predetermined, the individual still made the choices. God can have mercy on whomever He chooses.
Tom writes:quote:
If it’s meaningful to you now, then do us the favor of providing an analogy from life of how a person may justly be held accountable for actions he was predetermined to make.
I do not require an analogy to find meaning in this description. However, I will happily provide an analogical explanation if you will first provide an analogy from life of someone unconditionally predetermining the choices of another person. If no analogy exists, then I am left with the scriptures and sound logic to instruct me on this question.
Tom writes:quote:
If no analogy exists, then I have no way of deriving meaning from the claim.
Why must there be an analogical parallel or corollary for you to derive meaning from the claim? The meaning is there; I can grasp it; I can explain it. I have no sufficient analogy for the Trinity, but that doesn't mean I can't grasp it or derive meaning from the concept. This is one of my big complaints with the Open View: An aggressive effort toward humanizing, reifying, and denigrating aspects of God existence, nature and attributes.
Tom writes:quote:
You can argue that when we get to heaven we’ll see things differently, but that doesn’t help us much now.
I find that cop-out answer repulsive. I hope you'll agree that if God gave us His inerrant infallible word and commands us to understand and to obey it, then we don't have to wait until heaven to understand what He wrote in it.
Tom writes:quote:
This is what makes your presentation of the gospel to me above uninviting and unacceptable. People are supposed to think on and consider the gospel. I wouldn’t know how to ask them to do it if I was presenting them what you presented to me.
Do what? Think on and consider? I think my presentation gives them quite a bit to ponder. "Repent and believe" could keep someone up all night. Compare how Bible figures presented the Gospel. People were commanded to repent. They had the death, burial and resurrection of Christ taught to them and His Messiah-ship declared. That sufficed to prick the hearts and to compel the elect.
Tom writes:quote:
Regarding the Samaritan woman and your analogy of chiding a child for saying what you predetermined them to do, I still don’t see the connection. Jesus asks the woman a rhetorical question. ...
How do you know it's rhetorical?
Tom writes:quote:
He knows she’s shacking up and asks her to bring her husband. Why? To get her to face and admit the truth about her situation. To bring her out. No problem.
A rhetorical question does not require or seek an answer. It is intended to make the point merely in the asking. This is not the case in Jn 4. Would you like to modify your response? (I just realized that you admit this below)
Tom writes:quote:
I think this is quite dissimilar to telling my child “I thought you wouldn’t do this” if it was also true that I predetermined the child to do it. ...
Did you read my original comment on this passage? It is a figure, such as we might use to chide our own children. Or perhaps a CEO might say to his partner and CFO who embezzled from the company: "But I thought to myself, surely my own partner, the one with whom I started this company and stuck by me through the difficulties of starting a company from the ground up; Surely he would never do anything to jeopardize that which we've worked with our own hands to build. But you did, didn't you?" So the point is, the condescensio is an expression of disappointment in human terms to get the attention of the Isaelites and to emphasize His special relation to them.
Tom writes:quote:
If you John 4 to provide a parallel for your analogy, then Jesus would need to say something like, “I thought you would marry the guy you’re now shacking up with, but you didn’t.” Different animals altogether.
Try not to be so literal, Tom. Greg's original objection to the figure was that he didn't like the idea of God saying that he "thought" a certain thing that He knew was not true (if Israel's actions were predestined). Here is his original sentence:
Would a parent say this if they knew (or predetermined!) with certainty the child would never do what they "thought"?
So it is quite parallel. God says explicitly, "I thought, Surely they are my people, children who will not deal falsely" in Isa 63. and He implicitly says, "I thought, Surely this astute and inquisitive woman has a godly husband. I want to meet him." But the intentions are similar: They are meant to chide.
Tom writes:quote:
Rhetorical questions assume their answers.
Then, by that definition, Jesus's question of the Samaritan woman was not rhetorical. The casual observer would NOT have known the answer by the wording of the question.
Tom writes:quote:
So, granting for the moment that “I thought you wouldn’t do this” is rhetorical, what answer/truth does it assume if it’s also true that I predetermined my child to do what they did?
It's not rhetorical. It's a stern expression of disapproval. The force of it is: "Of all people, YOU, my own children, dealt with me falsely!" This kind of figure is found throughout the scripture. This kind of semantic is still in use among modern Jews.
Tom writes:quote:
It still achieves its purpose of chiding my child? Sorry. I don’t raise my kids like that. And I have no categories (biblical or otherwise) for admiring a God who does so (or people who do so). The wiring’s simply not there.
Tom, please reconsider what you've written here. It's horribly naive. The Lord uses such stern language throughout the scriptures, especially with stiff-necked Israel. Just because you have no analogical circumstances or "wiring" doesn't make it false.
James wrote: It goes to a seeming arbitrary interpretation. How do you know God's statements in other cases, the so-called "openness verses" aren't rhetorical?
Tom writes:quote:
Because if they were rhetorical (or anthropomorphic in the sense you’re arguing) I’d be at a loss to derive any meaning from them whatsoever (other than that God is sometimes disingenuous).
It sounds like you're just being difficult. I hope that's not the case. Why don't you see this? Have you plucked out an eye or two out by erroneously obeying Mt. 5:29 too literally? Tom, this seems so obvious it should be not even be a controversy. Here are some examples:
Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these thing? Jn 3:10 [Jesus is shaming Nicodemus for being a master/teacher, yet missing the mark in his knowledge]
Deu 32:37 And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted, 38 Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offerings? let them rise up and help you, and be your protection. [Does the Lord REALLY want them to trust the pagan gods? Or is he using a figure to reprimand Israel?]
Judges 10:14 Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your tribulation. [Does God really want them to do this? Or is He using a figure to reprimand Israel?]
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? [Did God not know where Job was when He laid the foundations of the earth? Or is He using a figure to shame Job?].
James wrote: Is it logical to think that Jesus is not an actual door? Of course. So it is with verses that seem to make God more human and finite. We know He is not finite, so any verses that suggest this are found to be figurative, which means there is an emphatic point being made that would otherwise be missed if it were not recognized as a figure.
Tom writes:quote:
I of course agree that God is not finite. But I don’t see that God’s possessing the ability to change his mind makes him finite. Why must this be the case?
I didn't say that. God is free to change His mind, and if/when He does, it is according to His own predetermined decrees. However, most occurrences of repentence being attributed to God are figurative, conveying a very specific disdain for idolatry and the Nephilim. Search and see.
Tom had written: You certainly have no problem taking those passages that depict God as controlling and determining as matter-of-factly literal.
James wrote: Maybe I should take those figuratively. Do you have a suggestion as to what emphatic point such a figurative construction would be making?
Tom writes:quote:
Exactly my point.
What is your point? If you take the "controlling and determining" passages to be figurative, as you suggest I do, then what meaning do you derive from them?
Tom writes:quote:
Take me to a couple of “open texts” and show me how such exegesis forbids an open view of them.
Php 2:13 "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." [Does God only "figuratively" work within the wills of men so that they will do of His good pleasure?]
Eph 2:10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." [Did God only "figuratively" predetermine good works for us? He uses the purpose clause, hINA with the subjunctive verb mood: "To the intent that we should walk in them." Did the Lord only "figuratively" intend that we should do good works?]
Tom writes:quote:
James, what books have you read by open theists thus far?
I have Sanders's The God Who Risks, and have Boyd's God At War and Satan And The Problem of Evil and I have Bound Only Once by various authors who are critical of OVism.
Tom writes:quote:
I recommend reading all you can get your hands on (pro AND con).
Of course you do. Just as I recommend reading all you can from my website. We're all busy, and this subject, though interesting, cannot be allowed to supplant my other responsibilities (although i admit the temptation is strong). My primary interest is rooted in the fact that there are people I care about who are steeped in OVism. I'm not hiding the fact that I see it as a false doctrine, but in order to cogently state my case, I want to understand as best I can what the OV actually entails. If possible, I want to know it better than those who affirm OVism.
Tom writes:quote:
I came to this site just a month or so after it got started very skeptical of the open view. I took the long view; told myself I’d take at least one full year to research things, interact, etc., and then make my mind up.
You must have been a not-so-tough nut. :)
Tom writes:quote:
You, however, seem to have already concluded that the open view is unbiblical (heretical?) though you admit to being only partially acquainting with it.
I've been dealing with Arminians for years. The weakness of Arminianism was its inconsistency. The OTist view seems to be held by those who have taken certain Arminian premises, modified them to be more internally consistent, then followed those premises to their logical conclusion, regardless of how fantastic those conclusions seem to be (God doesn't have exhaustive foreknowledge?) It's become a case of, "I can't believe he just admitted that he believes that." When I first read Greg Boyd's sentence that "God always does the most that he can to promote love and to prevent evil ..." [SATPE 226], I was floored. So this isn't a matter of deciding whether or not OV is heretical, but rather it's a period of discovery. I want to find out what this theology is made of, how it stands up to tough questions, how it pans out in practical terms, and whether or not it will collapse under its own weight.
Tom writes:quote:
Give yourself at least a year. Set yourself the goal of being able to articulate the open view and its supporting arguments to an open theist (like Doc for example) before deciding on the view. Then at least you’ll know that what you’re rejecting is the open view and not a caricature of it.
Your suggestion sounds inviting, but I'm afraid things just don't work that way. It seems obvious, though I am willing to be shown otherwise, that proponents of the OV do not adequately follow the logic through. And this is what I'm hoping for in these exchanges: Someone who is willing to through on the logical ramifications of the OV. It appears that there is a kind of willful naivete, although I could be wrong. I'm hoping to find someone who will tackle these arguments head-on without equivocating terms or getting upset about my language. You and I seem to be making progress. I hope we can continue.
A reply to your most recent (or penultimate, I should say) post is in the works.
Blessings on your head,
:j
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org
Edited by - Hilston on 04/26/2002 03:15:00 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/26/2002 2:56 AM (GMT -6) | | James-
There is simply too much in each of our posts to adequately give the issues enough time. Our posts will grow in length until, well, even PoW will be embarrassed to try to read ‘em. Why don’t you choose one issue and stick with that for a while? I don’t knkow how useful it will be for us to try to tackle assurance of salvation, anthropomorphic language, the nature of freedom, the definition of love, contingency in God, the nature of time, the ontological status of the future, whether possibilities are real or not, hermeneutics, etc. etc. all in one thread.
I think if you picked a single issue and stuck with it others might be more likely to join in.
By the way, 14 months was enough time for me to feel comfortable with the OV only partly because I’m an easy nut to crack.  The other reason is I gave it an average of 2 hours thought/reading/discussion per day.
Take care,
Tom
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd
Edited by - TGB on 04/26/2002 07:59:08 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/26/2002 3:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
I realize there's a lot there. Frankly, if you were to reply point-for-point as I have, I would be breaking it down and started new threads. Which segues nicely into what I'd like to suggest. What if we each chose one of the myriad topics and started a new thread? My past experience has shown me that this usually doesn't matter; the disputant will drag red herrings and every side topic from Wichita to the West Bank into the discussion at every opportunity. However, I get a different impression of you. It appears, and I hope I'm right, that you are not that sort of person, and that I could expect the topic to stay on course, with minimal logs being thrown in the road.
Does this sound feasible? I will use this current thread as a reference for future topics. Also, if you think any of my questions have been adequately answered in either of Greg's books on the subject (or Sanders's) and can send along a page reference, I'd appreciate that (I'm slowly making my way through those 3 books).
If you're agreed, I will post here the name/URL of my new thread.
Thanks for your willingness to engage this discussion, albeit limited by the constraints of time and priorities.
Yours,
Jas.
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/26/2002 3:44 AM (GMT -6) | | James-
Others are more capable than I, but I'll do the best I can.
Pax,
Tom
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/27/2002 7:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Hilton: If God brings to pass any singular prophesied event with absolute precision and accuracy, such as the crucifixion of Christ, then He logically must have predestined all events leading up to that, without exception, else that particular event may have been defeated with no chance of precise and accurate fulfillment.
Doc: There you go again Hilton. You’re very confident of this position, for you’ve raised it several times. BUT IT JUST ISN’T TRUE. If you’re open to considering its fallacy, check out Satan and the Problem of Evil and read up on contemporary science/ game theory/ complex adaptive systems, emergent property theory etc… One simple illustration: I can know that I’ll check mate you in no more than 14 moves, but not less than 4. The checkmate is determined. Yet you shall decide HOW I’ll do it by how you move.
Reading up on this probably won’t change your views, but at least you won’t weaken your argument by relying heavily on a fallacious premise.
Blessings
Greg
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/27/2002 8:11 PM (GMT -6) | | I appreciate your persistence Hilston. Wish I could jump in more, but I do what I can.
Hilston: This is what concerns me so much about the OV-ists that I care about, namely, that their reactions to God's meticulous providence sounds very similar to the kinds of protests I hear from atheists and sub-/quasi-christian religions.
Doc: What concerns me about Calvinists is that their reactions to God’s openness in Scripture, and their talk about predestination, sound identical to Stoics and Muslims – and fatalists throughout the ages (which the majority of people have been, in one form or another).
Hilston: There is no assurance of confidence in my own belief. My own belief will fail.
Doc: Do you worry that you may stop loving your wife (if you are married – apply it to the future if not)?
Hilston: God, however, will never fail and gives me assurance and confidence because I know He is in perfect and complete meticulous control.
Doc: Unless it turns out your NOT one of the elect… for, of course, some believe they are elect for a time only to fall away, right? You can go years and years and years, but then it turns out it wasn’t genuine. "They went out from among us, because they never were part of us" (I Jn 2). And yet, these disengenuous god-haters really DID believe they were elect, claimed the assurance, and all of that.
And you don’t know for sure that God hasn’t predestined YOU for just such a fate. The "perfect and complete meticulous control" that has, without impunity damned others to hell may just yet damn you to hell. You certainly can’t know its not so.
Sleep well
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/27/2002 10:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, I will be posting the URL to a new thread soon, but I first want to answer Greg's post.
Greg, thanks for your post. Although I'd love it if you were more inclined to join this discussion more regularly, I realize that you're probably spread pretty thin. I'll take what I can get. :)
Greg quoted me:
Hilston: If God brings to pass any singular prophesied event with absolute precision and accuracy, such as the crucifixion of Christ, then He logically must have predestined all events leading up to that, without exception, else that particular event may have been defeated with no chance of precise and accurate fulfillment.
Greg writes:quote:
There you go again Hilton [sic]. You’re very confident of this position, for you’ve raised it several times. BUT IT JUST ISN’T TRUE. If you’re open to considering its fallacy, check out Satan and the Problem of Evil and read up on contemporary science/ game theory/ complex adaptive systems, emergent property theory etc.
These are terms I have some familiarity with in the area of cognitive science. Is there some other area where these have application relevant to this topic that I should investigate? The remarkable thing to me is that CAS, game theory, and emergent properties are terms employed by atheistic scientists and philosophers in their conjectures about "strong" AI, the emergence of consciousness on a God-less worldview, Turing theory, 'humonculus' functionalism, cognitivism, epiphenomenalism, etc. and other atheistic philosophies (i.e. fantasies) of mind. Is there some application here I'm not aware of? Something else I find strange is this: As a screener for papers for the International Conferences on Creationism, I tend to reject papers that seek to undermine QM and relativity theory (on the recommendations of a peer-review process). The scientists who submit these kinds of papers seem to be concerned (unduly, from what I understand) that QM and RT are fundamentally atheistic and do not serve the cause of science. Of course I disagree. You, on the other hand, seem to endorse atheistic philosophies, as it appears in this case, but for entirely the wrong reason ('cuz you can get "chance" and "randomness" out of the atheistic QM model). However, quantum particle behavior, on the Christian worldview, is deterministic.
Greg writes:quote:
One simple illustration: I can know that I’ll check mate you in no more than 14 moves, but not less than 4. The checkmate is determined. Yet you shall decide HOW I’ll do it by how you move.
It seems to me that this is exactly the failure of your thesis: You had to stipulate the case in terms of a statistical range, which lacks both accuracy and precision (see my original sentence above). You couldn't say precisely how many moves it would take, or accurately state much time it would require, which is exactly what the Lord would have had to do regarding the death of His Son. Jesus died at a precise hour, on a precise day, in a precise manner all resulting from the precision of innumerable preceding mitigating factors, including the choice of Judas to allow Satan to enter him and to carry out the deliverance of Jesus to the Jewish authorities. Was God willing to have Jesus die anywhere between the 14th and 28th of Nisan, and then pleasantly surprised to find out that it ended up aligning perfectly with the Passover and Feast of Unleavened bread, and all the attending foreshadows and symbolisms?
Greg writes:quote:
Reading up on this probably won’t change your views, but at least you won’t weaken your argument by relying heavily on a fallacious premise.
In your opinion, do the topics of your referral account for the precision and accuracy that the scriptures require? If they do, how then is there such a thing as a "surprise" effect upon God? And if He is privy to such a range of variations, why does He not stop natural disasters before they kill so many people? Even if you hold that such events are the result of demonic freewill agency, why wouldn't God make His "Master Chess Player" maneuver that preempts the disaster? Surely, He had to see the WTC attack as a possibility, if not a probability. If He could out-maneuver the freewills involved in Jesus's crucifixion so that it happened at a precise point in history, why couldn't He do the same thing with the hijackers? Something as simple as a traffic jam would have saved the lives of thousands. Or how about a simple anthrax scare at the WTC towers? The buildings might have been evacuated before the planes even hit. Did it take God by surprise?
Hilston wrote: This is what concerns me so much about the OV-ists that I care about, namely, that their reactions to God's meticulous providence sounds very similar to the kinds of protests I hear from atheists and sub-/quasi-christian religions.
Greg writes:quote:
What concerns me about Calvinists is that their reactions to God’s openness in Scripture, and their talk about predestination, sound identical to Stoics and Muslims – and fatalists throughout the ages (which the majority of people have been, in one form or another).
You betray a false understanding of Calvinist theology (by the way, I claim to be "calvinistic" regarding the atonement, but I avoid calling myself a "calvinist," primarily because of all the concomitant theology that is typically associated with the label). There is no fatalism with Christian determinism, because God is not ONLY transcendent. He is also immanent, which gives us the here-and-now of our daily interactions with the Lord. The universe is not a deistic clock running its course. It is rather the continual outworking of God's meticulous control, from the discrete particles of matter to entire planets orbiting stars; from the secretion of acetyl colene at the axon endplates of one's motor neurons, to the causal roles of particular events in the lives of every human being on the planet. And we are involved in this process in a relationship with the Lord. We pray, we study, we reach out, we judge, we rebuke, we love, we worship and we grow -- and all of that according to God's decrees. This is nature of working out one's own salvation with fear and trembling before God, for it God who is at work in me, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
Hilston: There is no assurance of confidence in my own [ability of] belief. My own belief will fail.
Greg writes:quote:
Do you worry that you may stop loving your wife (if you are married – apply it to the future if not)?
I am married. I don't think anyone ever worries about that, Greg. In a good marriage, the question isn't raised. In a bad marriage, the conclusion is probably foregone. So it's an inadequate analogy. However, people DO worry about their security in salvation -- at the very least they ask the question: What's going to keep me saved? In my view, I had nothing to do with regeneration at all. I didn't initiate it. I cannot maintain it. I myself cannot see it through till the end. It is maintained and secured by God. It is freely given to His elect and cannot be revoked, lost, or abrogated in any way.
Hilston wrote: God, however, will never fail and gives me assurance and confidence because I know He is in perfect and complete meticulous control.
Greg writes:quote:
Unless it turns out your NOT one of the elect …
Not possible. The elect know who they are. How do I know I'm elect? The same way Abraham did according to Ro 4. His faith was the indicator that He had a righteous standing before God. How do I prove it to others absolutey? I can't prove it to you. No one can, because good works can be performed by anyone.
Greg writes:quote:
... of course, some believe they are elect for a time only to fall away, right?
No. They may say they believe they are elect, but they are liars. The carnal mind will not/cannot submit to the law of God. This happens all the time. They are willingly self-deluded rebels who probably didn't have anyone confronting them with their hypocrisy and expose their game.
Greg writes:quote:
You can go years and years and years, but then it turns out it wasn’t genuine.
Not for a true believer. He will bring to completion the good work He has begun.
Greg writes:quote:
"They went out from among us, because they never were part of us" (I Jn 2). And yet, these disengenuous god-haters really DID believe they were elect, claimed the assurance, and all of that.
No, one can't be a disingenuous God-hater and believe one is elect. Nor do they have any sense of assurance, but rather "... a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." (Heb 10:27).
Greg writes:quote:
And you don’t know for sure that God hasn’t predestined YOU for just such a fate. The "perfect and complete meticulous control" that has, without impunity damned others to hell may just yet damn you to hell.
He will not damn the elect to hell. The elect know who they are, and are given full confidence, unwavering assurance, unshakable faith, and irrevocable hope. And all this depends solely upon God. Not one iota of it comes from ourselves.
Greg writes:quote:
You certainly can’t know its not so.
I do know. I know with absolute certainty. Your question strikes me as an OV curiosity. I've asked the following questions to other OVers, but I haven't gotten a straight answer to them yet. I hope you'll indulge me:
(1) How do you know you are saved? Because you followed certain steps?
(2) How do you know you won't lose your salvation? What keeps you saved?
Thanks again for jumping in,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org
Edited by - Hilston on 04/28/2002 03:44:20 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/28/2002 6:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Newcomb,
I almost forgot that I owed you a reply to your last post. Please forgive my oversight. Replies to relevant questions below:
You had written: This stems from his quote: "2 +2 = 5 is unacceptable. A true contradiction is unacceptable. The idea of God being surprised by His creation because He doesn't know what His creatures are going to do is incoherent, and therefore, unacceptable."
Newcomb writes:quote:
OK, did we misunderstand you? Were you just ambiguous here? It is true you did not directly connect them in the text, but what else could this mean? You quoted 2 +2 = 5 but didn't intend for us to tie this to the next statement? How is that? You may have intended to state that irrationalities are axiomatically self-contradictory, but that isn't what was written. Are we to be the mind readers??
Whomever "we" comprises, you might want to see if it isn't just you who is missing the obvious. There's nothing ambiguous here. Each statement relates to the whole list as an incoherency. I am talking about unacceptable incoherencies. Each asyndetic statement is an example of an incoherency. I have no idea why you would equate them. Look at it as a grocery list. You certainly wouldn't equate Cheez-its with cherry pie filling. They're just groceries. Nowhere do I ask you to equate them in the statements.
Newcomb writes:quote:
You have not told us how it is contradictory or what it contradicts.
It is an incoherency. As Greg Boyd states it, "... We are talking about God's ability to perfectly anticipate and plan an ideal response for every decision every free agent might ever make. ..." If I knew a person who had the ability to perfectly anticipate and plan an ideal response to every decision every free agent he could possibly encounter, and if he said to me, "Wow, that person's decision surprised me," logic forces me to conclude either (a) he's lying, (b) he is being figurative, or (c) he does not have the aforementioned ability after all.
Newcomb writes:quote:
God's surprise at our actions is no contradiction to the OV ...
So I'm told. The assertion doesn't prove anything. See above example.
Newcomb writes:quote:
My claim is that it only contradicts your theology.
Please explain.
Hilston wrote: Surely you've read Ro 1:19,20? God has made His character, nature and attributes known to you. You have an innate knowledge of these traits, but you suppress them. Of course I expect you to disagree.
Newcomb writes:quote:
This is a claim anyone can make. It is not a rational argument.
See what I mean. Of course, Nuke. It wasn't intended as an argument. Just stating facts.
Newcomb writes:quote:
Prove that Calvinism is the one spoken of here and not the OV. Of course you cannot. Neither can I prove it is the OV that is spoken of there.
I'm not defending Calvinism. As to whether or the OV is spoken of in Ro 1, I have a question: Is anyone, including infants, excused from accountability to God in light of Ro 1:19,20? The answer is no. That fact affirms a Calvinistic interpretation and excludes an OV interpretation of this passage.
Newcomb writes: quote:
I would argue that your theology is not in compliance with v. 20 which states: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
Please explain.
Newcomb writes: quote:
If you want to argue that verse you will need to argue not from a Bezarian Calvinism, but from nature.
This is a typical fatal error amongst those who quote Ro 1:20 without regard to verse 19. Without verse 19, i.e., God's immediate manifestation of Himself within all men and the concomitant cognitive faculties, verse 20 is meaningless. The cognition required to sufficiently interpret the witness of God in nature is foundationally established in v. 19.
Newcomb writes: quote:
It would be quite a reach to argue a theology developed by pantheists a few hundred years BC is what Paul is speaking of.
What?
Newcomb writes: quote:
Try this next time and explain EXACTLY where the contradiction lies, but no logical fallacies, no begging the question no consensus gentium, no ambiguities. We will examine a good statement, make one.
Who are "we" that you keep referring to?
Newcomb had written: Sorry, but this is erroneous. It is begging the question. Why? Because his theological presupposition of Beza/Augustinian/Platonic foreknowledge is presumed in his word "incoherent."
Hilston replied:How do you know that? Maybe it's merely rooted in "Intro' to Logic 101."
Newcomb writes: quote:
Just for clarification, you respond and explain what you mean when you wrote:
2 +2 = 5 is unacceptable. A true contradiction is unacceptable. The idea of God being surprised by His creation because He doesn't know what His creatures are going to do is incoherent, and therefore, unacceptable.
You explain with a formal argument, major and minor premise, and conclusion how this can make sense. You haven¡?t thus far. You have only states unsubstantiated truth claims.
Why do you need a syllogism to see this?
Major premise: "Surprise" is defined as to come upon or attack unexpectedly; to take unawares. [Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1989]
Minor premise: Greg Boyd states "... God's [has the] ability to perfectly anticipate and plan an ideal response for every decision every free agent might ever make. ..."
Conclusion: God cannot be surprised.
Yet you say He can be surprised. It's irrational.
Or if you prefer a simple conditional:
Antecedent: If God is fully aware and perfectly anticipates every decision every free agent might ever make, ...
Consequent: Then God is never taken unawares (i.e., surprised).
But you say He can be surprised. This is irrational.
Hilston wrote: It logically follows that certainty in the precision and accuracy of one's predictions is directly proportional to one's knowledge and control of all mitigating parameters. The precision and accuracy with which the scriptures prophesied future events required more than just a best guess or some alleged "divine out-maneuvering."
Newcomb writes:quote:
I don¡?t believe this statement supports your theology. Examine it, it almost sounds OV.
I know. I hear this a lot. Like most a priori theological systems, OV is a powerful paradigm. I encounter the same thing with evolutionists. All evidence supports their view, in their minds.
Newcomb writes:quote:
Here you defend the OV view that God is examining the existing parametrics of accessible and current circumstances to predict the future, much as we would do (of course with much less data or control), which is the OV.
Read it again. It's not a defense; it's a critique. Your view is self-refuting. I am merely describing a logical relationship between precision/accuracy of predictions and one's knowledge and control of mitigating parameters. If, on your worldview, you say God can make absolutely precise and accurate predictions, then you logically must conclude that God has absolute knowledge and control of all mitigating factors.
Newcomb writes:quote:
Am I mistaken in thinking you believe either a supra or infralapsarian view? My guess would be supralapsarian.
This isn't relevant. To answer your question, I am neither. God chose the Body of Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). He chose elect Israel from the foundation of the world (Rev 17:8).
Newcomb wrote: The truth is it contradicts Plato's understanding of the "ultimate being" at the head of the pantheon taught to Augustine by neo-platonic Roman rhetoricians, brought into the church when he was converted, accepted by Beza (not Calvin), then branded on the European church at Dort.
Hilston replied: Um -- so what? Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. This is a red herring non sequitur and a ad hominem fallacy to boot. I base my claims on clear exegesis and sound logic, not fallible claims of errant men (Ro 3:4).
Newcomb writes:quote:
Interesting, exactly where is it a red herring? (Trying to take one off the track with a tempting bait) ...
This is getting bad, Nuke. Perhaps Logic 101 would be of benefit to you.
Red herring fallacy: "A fallacy that occurs when the arguer [Newcomb] diverts attention of the reader/listener [CVM readers] by addressing a number of extraneous issues [Plato's understanding, Augustinian thought, neo-platonic Roman rhetoricians, Beza, the Synod of Dordt] and ends by presuming that some conclusion has been established." [A Concise Introduction to Logic Patrick J. Hurley, 1985, Wadsworth Pub. Belmont, CA].
Newcomb writes:quote:
... this merely points to the etiology of the system of belief, which isn¡?t the Word of God, as it is usually claimed to be. How is it an ad hominem? I didn¡?t attack you, as you have me, I point out the etiology.
Duh. More Intro to Logic 101. There are several kinds of ad hominem fallacies. This one is called ad hominem circumstantial. Look it up.
Newcomb wrote: It is not a logical incoherency nor contradiction to state that God created a world with people having free will and their free will choices sometimes surprise God.
Hilston replied: Not if God has predetermined future events with precision and accuracy, putting His reputation on the line and urging His believers to find comfort and assurance in those predictions. If God, as scriptures say, has precisely and accurately predetermined any single event in advance (redundancy intended), then libertarian free will and a so-called "surprising of the divine" are incoherent.
Newcomb writes:quote:
OK, here we agree absolutely. This is a true statement. The logical hypothetical proposition is well stated. The question is, is that true (that God predetermines . . .)? If it is true, you are correct, and we are wrong; if not, you are wrong and we are correct.
I'm delighted you've conceded this line of reasoning. So now I must ask, do you believe God predetermined any single event in advance? Please don't skip over this if you want me to understand your theology.
Newcomb writes:quote:
Sorry to hear about your sister as well as mine, but was she evil? Mine wasn¡?t.
How is that relevant?
Newcomb writes:quote:
Are you claiming that all evil is punishment?
Of course not.
Ge 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
By the way, the consequence of the raping of my sister was the birth of my niece, a beautiful baby girl, who is now 4 years old.
Newcomb writes:quote:
Then for what? For fulfilling God¡?s plan?
Exactly.
Newcomb writes:quote:
How is it evil to fulfill what God predestined?
Define "evil."
Newcomb writes:quote:
Or it is for his pleasure that these things happen?
Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
Newcomb writes:quote:
If it is his pleasure that these things happened to our sisters, then that kind of God is this?
He is the ONLY God, Who is able cast both body and soul to hell. Let me ask you: If you found out that God had a purpose in predetermining that our sisters would be raped, would you reject Him?
Newcomb writes:quote:
If it isn¡?t for his pleasure that these things happened, why did he create it this way?
That's the question I should be asking you.
Newcomb writes:How can sin (the violation of God¡?s will) happen when everything is designed by God. THAT is a contradiction in fact, a true incoherency.
Hilston replied: That's a convenient definition of sin. It's not biblical. The scriptures define sin as "missing the mark." Further, I recognize that God gives commands that do not always align with His decrees. You seem to recognize this, too, to a degree. On your view, God sits by and watches things continue, which are clearly against His character and commands. Why
didn't God stop Hitler at, say, 3 million murders? Why did He wait until 6 million Jews were killed? Or didn't God have anything to do with Hitler's death?
Newcomb writes:quote:
Hmm, let me clarify a bit: I don¡?t believe God sits by, but I don¡?t believe he continually interferes in man¡?s will either. You are off a bit on your definition of sin, sin is defined by the Bible in !John 3:4 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."
Wrong again. What is the "law"? It is the standard of righteousness. It is the "mark." John 3:4 is perfectly consonant with my definition above.
Newcomb writes:quote:
You refer to the use of the Greek word for sin as missing the mark or falling short, the Biblical definition is succinct. I can¡?t answer for God, he is, of course, sovereign and can interfere or not, I fully agree that man contradicts God¡?s will, how do you deal with this?
Why do you think it should be a problem for me? God has decreed that man will violate His expressed commands.
Newcomb writes:quote:
How can a created animation like a predetermined absolute clock which cannot do anything but exactly what it is designed to do violate it¡?s maker¡?s
wishes?
You equivocate terms here. God expressed commands are one thing. God's decreed plans are another.
Newcomb writes:quote:
This required free will by definition. There stands the contradiction in your theology, it cannot be both ways. Admit is or not, it is irrational (because it breaks the A v non-A law) to hold that all is God¡?s will, and man violated God¡?s will. It cannot be both ways regardless of the theological construct you build to explain why it can be A and Non-A at the same time.
Your error here is rooted in the equivocation I pointed out above. Let me ask this: Did God want Jesus to be murdered at the hands of an unjust tribunal? How about this: Did God want Joseph's brothers to do harm to Joseph and to blatantly lie to Jacob? If you answer "yes" to both, then you yourself must admit that God's plans sometimes run counter to his commands ("Thou shalt not murder").
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org
Edited by - Hilston on 04/29/2002 12:10:32 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bob Hill
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98
| Posted 4/28/2002 8:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Hilston,
You wrote:
quote:
(1) How do you know you are saved? Because you followed certain steps?
I know I am saved because I did what God told me to do, believe. You know the verses. In Philippi Paul and Silas were in prison. After the earthquake, the jailer asked what he had to do to be saved. In Acts 16:31, “they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.’” I believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as my savior, and I am saved.
I find in Rom 4:4-5 the basis for my imputed righteousness: “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness”. I believed on Him.
Understanding that I could not be justified by any works, I believed in Christ Jesus so I could b justified by His faithfulness in going to the cross and paying for my sin. Gal 2:16 “knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”
One more passage emphasizes the lack of any works on my part. I have been saved by God’s laver of regeneration because I believed He died for me. Tit 3:5-6 “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior”.
quote:
Hilston wrote (2) How do you know you won’t lose your salvation? What keeps you saved?”
I know I won’t lose my salvation because, God made our salvation sure by predestination.
Eph 1:4,5 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.
My adoption is absolute. Not only do I stand before Him holy and blameless, but I’ll stand before Him as His adopted son. Predestination has to do with our adoption, not our salvation.
When we were bought as slaves from the slave market of sin, we were redeemed by the blood of Christ. That’s redemption. 1 Co 6:19,20 “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” I praise God for our wonderful redemption.
My adoption has to do with my future standing. Rom 8:23 “Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.” We were made sons with a future and with a future entitlement. According to Ramsay, under Greek law in the ancient world, adoption had to do with inheritance. We now have the spirit of adoption, the Holy Spirit, as the guarantee. But we are waiting for the glorious event itself when we receive our inheritance according to Rom 8:15,23 “For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father.’ 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.”
This adoption is connected with the future “glory which will be revealed” according to Rom 8:18,19 “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.” I believe that is, the “glorious liberty of the sons of God,” when we experience “the redemption of our body.” Rom 8:21,23 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
For us in this dispensation, it will take place at the rapture, the day of redemption, for us. Eph 1:14; 4:30 “who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.” 4:30 “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”
Now, I have the security and grace of His predestination. Eph 1:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.
My predestined inheritance is assured by God’s predestination. This is according to His purpose who works the body of Christ, the all things, according to His will. He did this because I first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works the all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
We have two inheritances. One is predestined. We can’t lose it. The other is conditional. We can lose it. We already have our inheritance in Christ because God predestined it. But our other inheritance depends on our actions here. Col 3:23 And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. 25 But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality.
Once more, I know I am going to heaven because I have God’s guarantee in Eph 1:13,14 “In whom you also, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession.
In Christ,
Bob Hill
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/28/2002 9:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
As we discussed previously, I've started a new thread, titled "Trusting the Lord and the Open View," (same forum) in the hope of pursuing a single topic, rather than trying to tackle the many-headed Hydra of our previous dialogue.
Please feel free to start a topic of your own if you think of a single issue you'd like for me to address regarding my theology.
Efcharisto polu',
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/29/2002 5:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Hilston: If I knew a person who had the ability to perfectly anticipate and plan an ideal response to every decision every free agent he could possibly encounter, and if he said to me, "Wow, that person's decision surprised me," logic forces me to conclude either (a) he's lying, (b) he is being figurative, or (c) he does not have the aforementioned ability after all.
Doc: Heres a fourth possibility to consider: the event, though perfectly anticipated, was improbable.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/29/2002 5:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Greg,
Thanks for your comment. I was wondering if you would define for me what you mean by "improbable." Thanks.
Jim
P.S. Did you see my reply to your previous post? There are a few questions I was hoping you would address.
Gracie'
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/2/2002 3:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry to join this thread late, here are some thoughts on these verses:
Judg. 10:13-17 Yet you have abandoned me and worshiped other gods; therefore I will deliver you no more. Go and cry to the gods whom you have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your distress." And the Israelites said to the Lord, "We have sinned; do to us whatever seems good to you; but deliver us this day!" So they put away the foreign gods from among them and worshiped the Lord; and he could no longer bear to see Israel suffer.
quote:
After telling the Israelites "I will deliver you no more" the Lord changes his mind because "he could no longer bear to see Israel suffer."
The Israelites seemed to understand an implied condition here, "I will deliver you no more in the state that you are in," and they cleaned their house and renewed their request.
-------------
2Sam. 7:10-11 And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies.
quote:
It doesn’t come to pass.
This seems to be for a given period of time, not that they will be forever undisturbed from now on, for in the same prophecy we have:
2SA 7:14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.
-------------
Is. 63:8-10 For he said (or "thought") "Surely they are my people, children who will not deal falsely"; and he became their savior. But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; therefore he became their enemy; he himself fought against them.
This seems to be expressing God's astonishment (if I may put it that way) at evil, in a sense, God is taken aback by evil, as in the following similar verse:
MT 21:37 Last of all, he sent his son to them. "They will respect my son," he said.
Though it was prophesied that Jesus would lay down his life, the evil act of crucifying his son was still in some way astounding to God.
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)
Edited by - Lee Merrill on 05/02/2002 8:36:27 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 40 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:04 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 |
|
|