 |
| 
yankee
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 8/5/2002 7:50 PM (GMT -6) |   | Dear Greg Boyd and anyone else,
I have come to realize that there are critics of the open view who charge that the open view maintains that God NEVER uses COERCION upon our will to choose. I have always understood the open view as maintaining that God USUALLY uses PERSUASION yet still reserves unto himself the right to override our free will if He chooses to do so. I am trying to find out to what extent this may or may not be a false accusation againt the open view. As for me I believe that God strongly desires to achieve his purposes through our willful cooperation being freely given; however, I do not believe that our sovereign God owes any of us or is under any obligation to give us a libertarian free will. The only way that I can conceive of God as being obligated to refrain from using coercion over our will to choose ( and thereby reduce it to only compatablistic ) is if He is obligated by virtue of his remaining true to his own word or promise. In other words, if God has promised us in his word that He will not use coercion over our will to choose then He becomes obligated by virtue of the fact that He is not a promise breaker. I will say that I know of nowhere in the scriptures where He makes such a promise. As a father I experience greater joy when my sons obey me because they choose to then I do when they obey because I make them obey; however, as their father I reserve unto myself the right to override their will to choose if I see that they are about to make a tragic decision and so I force them to choose another path. I would really like to hear from Dr. Boyd whether or not the critic's charge is a false accusation or not. Perhaps Dr. Boyd could point me to some statements he has made in one of his books that either affirm or contradict the critic's charge. I would really like to know where other well known open theists ( especially Clark Pinnock and John Sanders ) stand on this accusation. Perhaps someone could point me to some of the statements these men make in their books that either affirm or contradict this accusation. I have read books by all these men but it has been a while and my memory is somewhat hazey.
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 8/7/2002 5:26 PM (GMT -6) | | I too have been wondering about this and I am very interested in what Doc and the others think.
In talking about the possibility of divine coercion, what about the distinction between morally significant and morally insignificant actions?
Take Peter's denials, for example. I have no problem assuming Jesus knew Peter so well that Jesus knew Peter would deny Jesus if confronted. I have no problem assuming that God could miraculously cause a rooster to crow at just the right time and place to fulfill the prediction. But was it was possible for Peter to change through the course of the night? Was it possible that Peter would not deny Jesus? Would God coerce Peter to deny Jesus if necessary to fulfill the prediction? I would say no. Divine coercion of such a spiritual/moral/defining action would seem to defeat the purpose of libertarian freedom. Indeed, what would the point of the prediction be if the denials were coerced? Thus, I must assume that Jesus (having perfect knowledge of Peter's present condition) would not have made such a specific prediction if Jesus thought there was any real chance that Peter would change overnight. Fine.
But how could Jesus be sure that Peter would be confronted three times before dawn? Jesus knew all the present details of the plot against him. He probably knew someone would recognize Peter and most likely confront Peter about his relationship to Jesus. But what if only two people actually confronted Peter? Or what if one person confronted Peter two separate times, but no one confronted Peter a third time? Would God coerce an otherwise free creature to simply ask Peter about his relationship to Jesus if necessary in order to fulfill the prophecy?
I suppose God could send an angel to confront Peter the third time. But, nevertheless, it does seem that if one allows for divine coercion of morally insignificant actions, this would be one more tool at God's disposal to carry out his purposes and/or fulfill his prophesies/predictions.
And one more defense against those who claim that the OV entails a God who is incompetent to carry out his purposes and/or fulfill his prophesies.
So allowing for limited divine coercion potentially benefits the OV. Agree?
What are the problems with limited divine coercion? Is it inconsistent with the OV definition of freedom? (No one believes humans have absolute freedom.) Is limited divine coercion inconsistent with the purpose of freedom? Does it too severely undercut OV theodicy?
Thanks,
JET
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/7/2002 5:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Yankee: do you reserve for yourself your right to override your children's decisions when they are adults? And how do they feel about that?
I, for one, do believe God "owes" us lib. freedom because of the nature of who God is. To not allow true choice is to not allow true love. I am sure (granting your analogy) that you would never force your children to love you.
As far as your question, I have believe Pinnock makes the statement in "Most Moved Mover" that God reserves the right to override free will. I don't know about Doc or Sanders.
This question has come up before and some believe that if God does override free will, he would not hold those who he did it to responsible for the actions, but that is another story...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/7/2002 6:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Good question Yankee. There is no consensus among open theologians about whether or not God ever overrides free will, and if he does so, to what extent. That itself shows the inadequancy of any blanket criticism of "the open view" to the effect that we [all?] hold God never overrides free will.
For my part, I think it more useful to say that God limits our free will rather than that he overrides our free will -- as though he first gave and then withdrew it. Our freedom is always limited by factors outside our control. It's limited by our genes, our upbringing, our physical and intellectual capacities, other people, the influence of spirits, etc... So too, it's limited by God's will. He sets parameters around the domain of our freedom.
Beyond the general principle that we are somewhat free within a context of influencing variables, I would only add that our MORAL RESPONSIBILITY attaches to our domain of freedom, not to the variables outside of our control. I have no problem seeing God severely restrict a person's choices when the choice is a working out of a character they have chosen for themselves. I have much greater difficult seeing God severely restrict a person's choices if the choice is against their self-chosen character (viz.steering a good person in an evil direction).
As I've written in God of the Possible and Satan and the Problem of Evil, I think the episode of Peter's denial can be easily handled in light of these principles.
All I have time for right now.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jayme
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 8/25/2002 12:46 PM (GMT -6) | | There might be room here for an observation here about the overall psychology of 'open theology.' I believe we should not be too quick in our attempt to dispense with all apparent contradictions, paradox, and mysteries of our relationship with our Creator. I believe that at our root, we try to understand our world and God as reasonable and understandable. And this is all very well and good; it feels very good to be able to set down a framework in a doctoral thesis of how to act towards God and otherwise understand the world around us. But I have this 'gut' feeling/perception, a 'discernment' if you will, that 'open theology' as a philsophical framework is basically wrong foundationally and will eventually have to admit much of the centuries of historical wisdom and truth that it has scorned. But we shall see.
So a question to be put forth: Can not we have a dynamic relationship with God that involves everything relationships involve... (scorn, anger, joy, fights, love, 'changing our minds', reformed contracts, promises remade and broken, decrees acted upon or witheld etc) without denying that God is all powerful, unchanging, and all knowing and thus has created the future, present, past all with ontological realities certain and yet changeable, reasonable and yet shrouded in mystery and apparent conradictions?
It's all been said before and open theology is nothing new, nor does it have a corner on the truth. While truth is certainly not dialectical, neither has 'open theology' satisfied my intuitional view of what the truth is in this matter.
And why say that the future as an ontological reality does not exist? So what if it did? It doesn't seem to me to have any logical bearing what-so-ever on personal freedom and choice. To say that humankind and God are writing the story as we go along on a linear time-line (in complex relationship) does not contradict or negate the existence of the entire story of our world written, printed, bound, and known from beginning to end by its eternal Author since before there was time. It's time to move on from milk to solid food and realize that our realtionship to God, our view of Him, and our understanding of creation become more complex and rational than any single competing philosophy.
I don't presume to have a corner on the truth... I'm just a skeptic of this debate. I'm waiting to see something more intellectually satisfying. This is not to say that I don't highly praise many, if not most of the conclusions I've read in Greg Boyd's books, for example.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 8/25/2002 5:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Greetings Jayme!
When we ask questions like the ones in this topic, I think we sometimes get so caught up with the details that we forget the larger picture. You ask:
quote:
So a question to be put forth: Can not we have a dynamic relationship with God that involves everything relationships involve... (scorn, anger, joy, fights, love, 'changing our minds', reformed contracts, promises remade and broken, decrees acted upon or withheld etc) without denying that God is all powerful, unchanging, and all knowing and thus has created the future, present, past all with ontological realities certain and yet changeable, reasonable and yet shrouded in mystery and apparent contradictions?
Your question strikes home at a key premise of the open view. Your question suggests that the answer is, "No, we cannot have a dynamic relationship with God." Forgive me if I misunderstand you. While many of the opponents of the open view would likely not want to give this answer without qualifications, their theology demands it. I am reading "The Openness of God" by Clark Pinnock, et al. What strikes me is how non-relational the alternative to the OV is, and to the extent that it is non-relational, unbiblical. The God of the Bible is all about relationship. Even the language of the bible suggests it as we talk about being "reconciled" and "covenant." I am also amazed at the extent people have historically gone to reconcile the dynamic, open, God of the Bible, with so called "traditional" theology.
The Bible shows us that God in fact does act in history, and engages us personally. Sometimes he is trying to woo us back to himself, as He did with Israel, and sometimes he is working to bring about his will, as he did with Jonah. Try to tell Jonah you cannot have a dynamic relationship with God!
Back to the topic. One can offer Jonah as an example of where God overrides, to a point, a person's free will. God said go to Nineveh, and Jonah went the opposite direction. (LCFW) God responds by transporting him to the shores of Nineveh in the belly of a fish. (God's sovereignty, and engagement) And yet, in the midst of this, Jonah and his individual will remain present, experiencing and responding.
The more I study the basic ideas of an Open God, the more I realize the God of the Bible is open, and the more amazed I become that so many people have bought into the ideas of classical theism, in light of the revelation of God in scripture, and in Jesus Christ, in particular. Interestingly, I have recently heard an opponent of the OV attempt to distance himself from "classical theism" in favor of "Biblical theism" (a nice connotation phrase, that tells us nothing, BTW).
In addition, it strikes me that there might be a tiered response to the OV taking place. At the most basic level, there is the realization that God in fact does engage his creation, and that we can have a dynamic relationship with God. At a different level, we grapple with the implications of this paradigm shift in thinking. Does it necessitate that God does not know the future? For me, the jury is still out on that one. Jesus' prediction of Peter's denials strongly suggests foreknowledge (IMHO), though there are a number of ways of answering that challenge, most of which can only be speculation.
The validity of the OV, or traditional view, for that matter, should not be decided by mere speculation around one or two verses. If this is all we have, then why waste the time? However, this is not all we have, nor is the case for the traditional view as air-tight as people would have us believe. For many of us who have not yet embraced the OV completely, we have found that it has challenged us to reevaluate what we do believe, in light of scripture.
Yours in Christ,
Winghead
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/25/2002 6:18 PM (GMT -6) | | [Welcome aboard Jayme:
Jayme: A few quick responses: Can not we have a dynamic relationship with God that involves everything relationships involve... (scorn, anger, joy, fights, love, 'changing our minds', reformed contracts, promises remade and broken, decrees acted upon or witheld etc) without denying that God is all powerful, unchanging, and all knowing and thus has created the future, present, past all with ontological realities certain and yet changeable, reasonable and yet shrouded in mystery and apparent conradictions?
Doc": If there is a way of thinking through the relationship God has with us, involving scorn, anger, joy, fights, love, 'changing our minds', reformed contracts, promises remade and broken, decrees acted upon or witheld etc..., without entailing "apparent contradictions," don't you think it should be preferred?
If you simply do not limit God by supposing that he is finite in intelligence -- if you simply grant that God is smart enough to anticipate possibilities as perfectly as he can certainties -- you avoid the "apparent contradictions" while loosing nothing in terms of providential control.
We simply see no justifiable reason to reduce God to finite human capacities. The contradictions result when people limit God in this fashion.
Think about it.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 8/29/2002 9:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello everyone,
Great to hear from all of you. Sorry it's been so long for me to respond. I would like to comment on some things mentioned.
Dear Jet,
I do believe that allowing for limited divine coercion benifits the open view for it helps to render some of the "we classical theists hold to a higher view of God's sovereignty accusations" null and void while still maintaining that God gets greater joy out of our freely chosen obedience and that He usually does grant us libertarian style free will.
I accept that God reserves unto himself the right to use coercion upon our will to choose so that we will choose to do that which is good and right if that is what he chooses to do. I do have a problem with believing that God would use coercion to get us to choose to do that which is wrong.
Dear Writerdad,
When my children are adults I will no longer have the authority to override their decisions. I do recognize the fact that God does not always deal with us in the same manner as a loving earthly father would deal with his children. Often He does not prevent us from making tragic decisions.
It concerns me that you would say that God "owes" us libertarian freedom but I do appreciate the fact that you make this contingent upon God's nature instead of man's deserving and having a right to it. Saying God "owes" us a libertarian free will provides the critics of the open view more reasons to say the open view diminishes God's sovereignty over us and that their theologies are God centered theologies and ours is a man centered theology. I have to wonder what part of God's nature is it that would cause Him to owe us a libertarian free will. It is out of true love for my children that I sometimes override their freedom to choose. I do not believe that God owes me a libertarian free will any more than I believe He owes me one more heartbeat. If I were to take someone else's life I would be taking that which isn't rightfully mine to take. It is God who created life so if He takes it back then He takes that which is rightfully his to take. He smote the son of King David by Bathsheeba with a sickness unto death. God took a life that was rightfully His to take. He created human life yet He reserves unto himself the right to take it back. He also created our free wills. It is difficult for me to deny the creator of our free wills the right to take it back though I do believe that if He did so He would only do it temporarily and only occasionly when He deems it necessary to do so.
I would like to thank you for pointing me in the direction of Clark Pinnock.
Dear Greg Boyd,
You prefer to think of God limiting our free will rather than overriding it. By setting parameters are you saying that God exercizes His sovereign control by limiting the number of choices we have to choose from? It would seem to me that limiting the number of choices a person has available to choose from would constitute a milder form of coercion. Micromanaging the thoughts inside of someone's head to guarantee how they will choose would constitute a much higher lever of coercion. I do have a real problem believing that God would micromanage the thoughts in someone's head in such a way that it would become impossible for that person to choose to do that which is right. Do you affirm that God reserves unto himself the right to guarantee that we will choose rightiously by micromanaging our thoughts occasionly but only when He deems it necessary to do so? On one hand I believe that God sincerly desires our freely given love and obedience and yet on the other hand my belief in God's sovereignty forbids me to deny God the right to reserve unto himself the right to override our free wills perhaps even by micromanaging our thoughts.
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/30/2002 7:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Yankee: again, I would say the analogy falls short. Yes, I override my children's decision when it is bad, but only when they are children. When they are adults I advice them, but if they are going to make a bad decision, there is nothing I can do about it. Nor should I. It is the nature of who we are that we are free to do right or do wrong. I believe it is part of God's nature in love that he allows such things in order that love may truly be love. In that sense he "owes" us, because without it we could not truly love. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 8/30/2002 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Writerdad,
Although I might not draw all the same conclusions as you I must at least have respect for the fact that you tie God's owing us in with His nature and not in with our deserving it or our having some kind of a right to it.
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:37 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 |
|
|