 |
| 
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 7/25/2003 11:43 AM (GMT -6) |   | This was in last month's First Things. Timothy George writes an article that does not advocate open theism, but he at least calls for civility from the opposition, which is a step forward.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0306/opinion/george.html
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/25/2003 12:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/25/2003 4:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Interesting article, BJS. Actually, it appeared to me that George is calling for what he terms: "charitable resistance." He seems to advocate resisting and denying open theism but doing so in a charitable way, without acrimony.
Some interesting things he says: "On their own grounds, though, it is hard to see how the seminiscient deity of open theism helps much with the problem of evil. If God has comprehensive knowledge of everything past and present, and if He has the capacity to intervene in the course of human affairs, then why doesn’t He come to the rescue as soon as He sees that things have gotten out of hand? Maybe He couldn’t know for sure back in 1933 that Hitler would freely decide to carry out the Holocaust, but when it was well underway a decade later, why didn’t He use His omnipotent resources to bring it to a halt? Did He “allow” it to go on just to preserve Hitler’s libertarian free will? Such a God has just as much to account for as the old-fashioned deity dismissed by the process model. Open theism grants God too much power to get Him off the theodicy hook, but not enough power to support a plausible doctrine of providence."
Many of us have said this to open theists of late (particularly I recall Reasonable Doubt a.k.a. Gina, saying this very thing almost verbatim) but yet have been told that it is an insignificant problem, more or less.
George also speaks very highly and positively of Calvin (Augustine, et al) which was refreshing considering the animosity towards Calvin I have witnessed from open theists.
George: "No one can read Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, or Wesley with any care without realizing how committed they were to the compassionate, covenantal, dynamic God of the Bible, the God who “spared not His own Son but delivered him up for us all,” as St. Paul put it (Romans 8:32). "
It seems upon my reading of the article that George graciously acknowledges the desire of open theists to make God more real, loving, and personal. More approachable so to say. However, George makes it known that the church fathers, while claiming God to have exhaustive foreknowledge, also claimed him to be this approachable God and in proclaiming Him to be a glorious God "in control" of both present AND future, this did not forsake his approachability.
George claims that open theists "gloss" over certain Scriptures while taking others literally (those Scripture that support the view of such ideas as God repenting). I liked the comment he made in which he says: "Divine sovereignty and significant human freedom are not competitive exclusives. [quoted from another source] We need not bring Him down to size in order to lift up the true humanity of men and women made in His image. God’s goodness is not threatened by His greatness. God’s grace and glory coalesce."
In other words, open theists don't need to deny God's sovereignty in any way, shape, or form in order to make him more approachable. He is approachable and at the same time, He is sovereign over a future that may be "open" to us humans (open to me since I do not know it) but not open to God since He certainly transcends time.
Great article. I'm wondering what open theists here make of it.
Edited by - Fleetwood on 07/25/2003 9:43:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/25/2003 4:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Personal note to ReasonableDoubt: Read this article RD. You'll find he addresses many of your own thoughts and reservations re: open theism.
George: "Openness theism teaches that God cannot know the future (although He can know what He intends to do in the future), for the future has not yet happened. However, Jesus predicted not only the death of Peter, but also the precise mode of his martyrdom (John 21:18-19). Was this just an educated guess, a holy hunch? The consensual wisdom of the Church’s exegetical tradition has been able to account for difficult biblical texts—and let us admit there are some—without breaching the sovereignty of the God who is the Creator of time as well as space, and Lord of the future no less than the past."
What do you think of that? George says open theism teaches that "God cannot know the future." Can't count how many times I've heard open theists say this is not an accurate portrayal of open theism. So is it or is it not?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/25/2003 4:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood,
For someone who supposedly can't make a meaningful contribution, you did quite well. I think you made a truthful assessment of the article and its intent.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/25/2003 5:01 PM (GMT -6) | | I read it - and I love it! You're right, Fleetwood, it's exactly what I've been trying to say on this Board. This is a great quote : "This does not mean that traditional theological construals are always right. They are not. But it does mean that we should learn to read the Scriptures in company with the whole Church, knowing all the while that, as John Robinson said to the Pilgrims, “The Lord hath yet more truth and light to break forth out of His Holy Word.” In the sixteenth century, Luther and Calvin did not set forth the principles of the Reformation as findings they had discovered de novo. Instead, they argued against tradition from tradition, or better put, they argued from a shallower tradition to a profounder one."
THat's one of the flaws I see in some Open Theology proponents - not, actually Boyd, or some of the other apologists, who actually do have knowledge of Church history. But I think many people on this Board have not taken the time to research what tradition says - or , if they have, they too easily dismiss it as irrelevant.
But I also like the article for saying how it is essential to maintain charity in this issue. And I do firmly believe that. For those who are really trying to find the true nature of God, more power to us - whatever "position" we hold.
"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow." - C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/26/2003 8:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
What do you think of that? George says open theism teaches that "God cannot know the future." Can't count how many times I've heard open theists say this is not an accurate portrayal of open theism. So is it or is it not?
A simple understanding of the Open View:
If "God knows the future" is to be defined as God being able to look into the future--like, for example, having seen a movie before it's been made--then no; God does not know the future like this. However, if "God knows the future" means God has determined (foreknown) and not determined (open) certain things to happen in the future, then yes; this is what is meant by the Open Theist's understanding if the future.
This just can't be all that hard to understand, but if one keeps trying to find the non Open View within the Open View, then one will never grasp the Open Vew perspective of the future or God's foreknowledge.
Now anti-Open Theists may not believe in the Open View, but the perspective itself can't be all that hard to grasp. Is it? If one is ever going to understand the Open View, one will need to stop trying to find (or insert) non Open View perspectives within the Open View perspective.
For views and perspectives,
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 07/26/2003 1:44:15 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/26/2003 8:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Two economists were walking down the street one day when they passed by a street where two woman were talking loudly to each other from adjacent buildings. The first economist said to the second, "Those two will never agree with each other!" When asked why, he replied, "Because they're arguing from different premises!"
quote:
What do you think of that? George says open theism teaches that "God cannot know the future." Can't count how many times I've heard open theists say this is not an accurate portrayal of open theism. So is it or is it not?
To put it bluntly, the statement "God cannot know the future" presumes the classical notion of the future. Since OVTheists understand the future differently, it is an inaccurate statement for them, but it is accurate for Classical Theists....
Sorry Starkdude, you said the same thing, I just thought it'd be good to condense it down a little.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/26/2003 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
To put it bluntly, the statement "God cannot know the future" presumes the classical notion of the future. Since OVTheists understand the future differently, it is an inaccurate statement for them, but it is accurate for Classical Theists....
Sorry Starkdude, you said the same thing, I just thought it'd be good to condense it down a little.
Oh, no problem, DLW. Excellent contribution! (I hadn't thought to make the distinguishment about the omniscient presup!)
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/26/2003 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood and RD: it is amazing that you will accept a non-open theists definition and somehow believe you are right in your beliefs about open theism. "Is it or not?" Fleetwood, over and over you have shown to me your unwillingness to deal honestly with the subject. You are either ignorant of open theism or simply a very deceptive person. Which ever, you truly need pray.
I find it laughable that the two of you applaud an opponent of open theism as somehow protraying open theism correctly because it affirms what you believe about it. Shame on you!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/26/2003 10:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Perhaps if the open theist desires to be more understood by the non open theist, the rhetoric of open theism needs to be improved. I would agree Starkman that it can't be that hard to understand, yet, it appears that even the wise and scholarly "mischaracterize" the open view with comments such as God not knowing the future in the open view. Wherein lies the problem? Is it a problem with the non open theist or perhaps is it within the rhetoric of open theism? I would say the same about Calvinism which is similary mischaracterized by open theists in which Calvinsism is described using hyper-Calvinism descriptions.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/26/2003 10:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Honorman, what happened to: "I will try my best not to address anything to the two of you." 
DLW, you said, "Since OVTheists understand the future differently, it is an inaccurate statement for them, but it is accurate for Classical Theists"
I'd agree with this statement and it brings me again to the question of rhetoric. How do you believe this "problem" might be solved or is there any solution?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/26/2003 10:44 AM (GMT -6) | | (Wow, that was fast! ) I will pray for you Fleetwood and RD. Perhaps prayer will help you to be more honest and diligent in understanding what open theism is truly about, rather than the misconceptions you seem bent on sowing.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/26/2003 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood: I cannot stand by while people sow untruths...
BTW Fleetwood, it isn't hard for anyone to understand if they read the material. I would suggest you and RD read up on the subject you are misrepresenting...
Edited by - honorman on 07/26/2003 3:47:15 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/26/2003 11:13 AM (GMT -6) | | HD,
your comments to Fleety-one and RD are not welcome since you all had already agreed not to interact.
Fleetwood, re:"I'd agree with this statement and it brings me again to the question of rhetoric. How do you believe this "problem" might be solved or is there any solution?"
The conflict or tension here is that both conceptions of the future and time cannot be correct at the same time. One of them must ultimately be not true.
This is why OVTheists spend so much time exegeting the Old Testament statements concerning God's surprise or regrets or what-not. In the OVTView, it is easier to reconcile the literalness of these passages with the corporate view of predestination found in other passages. The alternative is to take the passages on predestination literally(or from an individualistic view) and view the passages describing God reacting to the progress of time as anthropomorphisms. Rhetorically-speaking, how do you decide which interpretation is true? I guess you could show from a historical comparative theological research that Calvin's view of predestination was quite different from the likely theological views of the people of the old testament.
The point being is that if God experiences time sequentially, not being able to transcend time and experience the past, present and future in one glorious instant, then that would supposedly settle the question about whose conception of time is more correct.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/26/2003 11:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"On their own grounds, though, it is hard to see how the seminiscient deity of open theism helps much with the problem of evil. If God has comprehensive knowledge of everything past and present, and if He has the capacity to intervene in the course of human affairs, then why doesn’t He come to the rescue as soon as He sees that things have gotten out of hand? Maybe He couldn’t know for sure back in 1933 that Hitler would freely decide to carry out the Holocaust, but when it was well underway a decade later, why didn’t He use His omnipotent resources to bring it to a halt? Did He “allowEit to go on just to preserve Hitler’s libertarian free will? Such a God has just as much to account for as the old-fashioned deity dismissed by the process model. Open theism grants God too much power to get Him off the theodicy hook, but not enough power to support a plausible doctrine of providence."
God did stop the holocaust. He used the allied armies. Six million Jews and three million slavs died, but how many more could have died? Thank you Jesus, that you're the God who STOPPED the holocaust and NOT the god who CAUSED the holocaust.
To say that there is no difference between God allowing people to have free will and then they create evil and God being the designer and sole cause of evil is moronic. There's a HUGH difference and smart people, whether they're Christians or atheists, notice it. The number one complaint I see atheists make is the God causing evil complaint. Thank you Jesus that you're the God who allows freedom and NOT the god who causes evil.
If God is some celestial santa claus that keeps us from all pain and evil, why even create us? Your god, ENIG, creates evil and good and calls it all good. How whacked is that? Our God creates free moral agents who have the ability to do evil or good. Our ability to do evil is built into our ability to do good. For Him to run up and rescue us everytime we choose to do something bad would make our freedom a sham and we would never become mature.
Raising kids teaches us this. In the parable of the prodigal son, the father (who represents GOD), allows the son to take his inheritance and make BAD decisions. Just like God allows us the freedom to make bad decisions. It's part of the learning process.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/26/2003 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika is right. OVTheism helps with the problem of evil since it does not put the responsibility for the numerous evil in the world on God's shoulders ultimately. Instead, it is identified as resting with Satan and his dominion and ultimately us, humans and the leadership of the Church. I tend to put more responsibility on the latter than the former in post-resurrection times.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
C=untry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
C=untry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/26/2003 11:35 AM (GMT -6) | | So, Laika, let me see if I got this right? You say that George is "moronic," stupid ("smart people notice it"), and "whacked."
You also said, "The number one complaint I see atheists make is the God causing evil complaint."
Whether God is a 100% free-will God or a God of EDF, atheists still don't believe. Their "complaint" about God causing evil is merely only one of many complaints. It is also a complaint stemming from rebelliousness. The rebelliousness that says, "No, I will not bow down to my Maker." A complaint is only a sign of deeper struggles within the heart (struggles to submit).
It is neither fair nor just to blame God's foreknowledge as being the reason for atheistic beliefs.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/26/2003 11:40 AM (GMT -6) | | It is one of the big arguments that have been used by Atheists for their disbelief in God.
Laika is right in that, while clearly there are other arguments.
Civility! peoples,
Civility! peoples,
[sniff]Can't we just all get along![sniff, sniff]
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/26/2003 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Dlw, you said OVTheism "helps with the problem of evil"
The only thing that truly helps with the problem of evil is faith. Evil is evil whether it is foreknown or not. The murder of a person does not cease to be the murder of a person based on whether God forknew it or did not forknow it.
If my mother is murdered, and I believe God foreknew it to happen... I will grieve and express anger toward God.
If my mother is murdered, and I believe God did not foreknow it to happen... I will grieve and express anger towards God.
The point being, either way, evil is evil and neither belief lessens the pain of the evil act. Neither belief justifies the evil. Either way the person will struggle, grieve, and perhaps become angry with God. Either way, a person can also trust God. A person believing God to foreknow it to happen can still trust God. Most people who believe God foreknew it believe this is so because of God's nature being one that transcends time. A person believing God did not foreknow it to happen might also still trust God.
However, if my mother is murdered and God did not know, it will perhaps lessen my faith and trust in God. For if God cannot or does not foreknow some of these events in my life, I am a lone wanderer guided by fate. Do you see how this is a possible repercussion of open theism?
For you, open theism may help solve the dilemna of evil in your life. For me, open theism seems to worsen the dilemna (see above paragraph) and nothing other than pure faith in God and God's sovereignty helps me deal with evil in mine and other's lives. But ultimately, it still stings and that "sting of death" will be with us as long as we are on earth. No doctrine can remove the sting.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/26/2003 11:48 AM (GMT -6) | | DL, the fact remains that it is one of many complaints used by an atheist to justify a lack of submission to God as an authority in their life. Although, you are in essence saying this very thing areen't you? So, yes, Laika is correct that it is an argument. However, it is one of many arguments, or should we say "excuses?"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/26/2003 12:10 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Dlw, you said OVTheism "helps with the problem of evil"
Yes, it explains how reconcile the existence of evil/suffering with a belief in a loving God.
quote:
The only thing that truly helps with the problem of evil is faith. Evil is evil whether it is foreknown or not. The murder of a person does not cease to be the murder of a person based on whether God forknew it or did not forknow it.
Yes, but if God did foreknow it as well as all the other wonderful things that have happened over history then why didn't God do something about it. Unless God doesn't care or is unable to do anything. In the first case God is evil, in the second case God is inept. Otherwise, the evil may not truly be evil, but just for some greater purpose, but that still makes God the viviseccionist working without morphine on us creatures who have such a large capacity for feeling pain.
quote:
If my mother is murdered, and I believe God foreknew it to happen... I will grieve and express anger toward God.
If my mother is murdered, and I believe God did not foreknow it to happen... I will grieve and express anger towards God.
Why? because he didn't usurp the free-will of the murder just prior to when your mother was murdered? Let me tell you something, I would have made a good hate-monger and Greg Boyd would have made a great cult-leader, but we didn't become those things. We chose to use the gifts God gave us otherwise. The same is true for the would-be-murderer of your mom. God gave him gifts that were abused, but the abuse was not from God. God did not know the abuse would happen and then let it happen.
So if you're going to express anger. Do so at Satan, the World, be like Job curse the day you were born, anything but cursing God who is not at fault.
quote:
The point being, either way, evil is evil and neither belief lessens the pain of the evil act. Neither belief justifies the evil. Either way the person will struggle, grieve, and perhaps become angry with God. Either way, a person can also trust God. A person believing God to foreknow it to happen can still trust God. Most people who believe God foreknew it believe this is so because of God's nature being one that transcends time. A person believing God did not foreknow it to happen might also still trust God.
Yes and the key difference here is how we understand time. Yes, trusting God is possible in either case, but both conceptions of time cannot be true and some disbelief in God has been caused by the Classical view of time/God.
quote:
However, if my mother is murdered and God did not know, it will perhaps lessen my faith and trust in God. For if God cannot or does not foreknow some of these events in my life, I am a lone wanderer guided by fate. Do you see how this is a possible repercussion of open theism?
Yes, the uncertainty of the future and the possibilities that we majorly mess things up can be a source of angst. Ultimately though, my faith in God does not stem from my family and I not being touched by the evil that is so real in our world. I am not alone. God will never let anything happen to me that God and I cannot handle somehow together. That's the leap of faith I have taken.
quote:
For you, open theism may help solve the dilemna of evil in your life. For me, open theism seems to worsen the dilemna (see above paragraph) and nothing other than pure faith in God and God's sovereignty helps me deal with evil in mine and other's lives. But ultimately, it still stings and that "sting of death" will be with us as long as we are on earth. No doctrine can remove the sting.
Yes death still stings, but understanding the Truth regarding how we relate to the sin-plagued world and God will hopefully redirect our anger/outrage in the ways it should be directed and not at God.
quote:
DL, the fact remains that it is one of many complaints used by an atheist to justify a lack of submission to God as an authority in their life. Although, you are in essence saying this very thing areen't you? So, yes, Laika is correct that it is an argument. However, it is one of many arguments, or should we say "excuses?"
Arguments are never excuses, unless you are saying I am trying to rationalize an ontotheological commitment that in some greater sense is a serious deviation from true Christianity.
It is an argument. Most arguments for OVTheism are not conclusive, it is how they hold together that makes it a compelling, biblical Christian Theology.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/26/2003 4:15 PM (GMT -6) | | DL, I'm neither speaking for you nor for me (in last comments) but speaking of humanity as a whole. People do get angry at God. You and I know this should not be because you and I know that Scripturally, we are to trust God. However, people do get angry at God. People who know "better" as well as people who do not know "better." I, even as a Christian, have experienced anger towards God even though I know "better". It is a result of my sinful nature.
God is more than capable of giving us "free will" whilst also foreknowing. His divine nature transends time. I like the article for this very reason. George explains how we can keep both beliefs due to the very nature of God.
I can not explain to you why God did not do something about "it" and I cannot explain that to anyone I counsel. But I can offer comforting words of Scripture that while it happened, God still is in control, He can bring good from it, He can be trusted, He does love. It is not for us to figure out the reasons why or why not. God does not always offer us those reasons but rather says "Trust me."
We must remember that it takes the faith of a child to believe. "Unless you become like little children." Little children cannot explain the logic behind something. They cannot tell you why this or why that; yet, they believe it to be true. This is how our faith is to be. This, in fact, it what faith is. Believing what we cannot see, cannot hear, cannot logically figure out.
God is neither evil nor inept and I think both you and I would agree to that. However, He is certainly not bound by time or human reasoning, and there is sufficient evidence in the Bible of God's foreknowledge as well as man's choices. The two can be compatible although the open theist argues they cannot be.
While evil may indeed be for a greater purpose, it does not make it any less "evil." For instance, Joni Erikson Tada recently published her memoirs in which she calls her life-changing accicdent a "divine appointment." Yes, indeed, that is how she sees it. In fact, she says that if it had not been for that accident, which left her forever paralyzed, she would not have the relationship with God she now has.
Another missionary, the name escapes me, has recently published a biography. His wife and baby were recently shot and killed while flying with him and his son. He believes that the shooting and death of his family was intended by God. It does not make it any less grievous or "evil," but he actually lists several reasons why he believes that his wife and daugter's death were indeed acts of God. I have this book on hold so I cannot tell you any more than that.
There are many people who have suffered evil who are also the first to say, "God intended it." When I say people, I am thinking of some of the great saints, martyrs, and missionaries.
Obviously, I see no value or good in rape, suicide, or murder. These acts are indeed evil acts and not a part of God's original plan for man. They will not exist in heaven. They are a result of the depravity of man resulting from the Fall. We cannot escape them. But they may indeed be used for a greater purpose and perhaps there are times God does intend them (although I cannot see him intending rape because it is such a heinous violation of a person's soul and psyche). Who are we, really, to know?
One more time, I am certainly not saying that evil is "good" or that God or any person delights in it. It carries with it the sting of death. But God does know what will happen because God is not bound by our logic or by time. Why He allows what He does, I shall never know this side of heaven other than what He has already revealed in Scripture. I do believe though that free will and God's foreknowledge coexist in a way that is simply unexplainable.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/26/2003 4:32 PM (GMT -6) | | I just finished the article. A few general comments.
First off, nothing new. While I have read George and respect his work he suffers from what most traditional theists suffer from. They simply to do not give open theists the respect they deserve for their beliefs. When George makes a statement like how does God know except through a "holy hunch" he has not taken the time to understand fully how open theists view God's brilliant intelligence, mind and great resourcefulness. This is clear throughout the article. It justs seems that George is so full of his own doctrine of God that he cannot step outside it to see why someone would believe something else. If he can not do this, he truly should not be critiquing open theism.
His comment about Hitler shows a true ignorance of how open theists view free will. If God has truly given us free will, must not God take it to its logical conclusion? God can, of course, put restrictions on it, but if he is always going to intevene when we do something he doesn't want us to do, how can it be called free will. We would only be free to do what he wanted us to. Also, if we knew God would always intervene to stop us, why would we try to be good? God would always correct us. John Hick makes this point well in his works.
George makes the assertion that God's sovereignty and free will are not mutually exclusive concepts. He certainly has the right to assert that. I also have the right to assert that it is both dark and light at night. And thinking people also have the right to ask of both of us how this could be so. Doctor Boyd put forward awhile ago something that I thought was pretty significant. He challendged someone to bring forth an analogy on how God could determine our choices and we could also have free will (Not his words but I believe that was the basic premise). If this could be put forward, then these two seemingly opposites could be reconcilled and we would all be a lot closer. That has not happened. George and others have the right to assert that these two concepts are not mutually exclusive. I would suggest that instead of just asserting, he and others who believe as he does get to work on showing how that could be so.
George also asserts that open theists interpret certain passages literally while conveniently ignore others like when God "forgets." Doctor Boyd has made the point here that each passage needs to be taken an individual basis and I think that is a valid point. But beyond that, even if open theists did ignore certain passages that does not relieve traditional theists from dealing with the passages open theists in a better way, nor deal with the questions open theists raise.
Thats some thoughts I had on it. Besides these I give George major props for being kind and loving. That, alone, helps him rise above the major of the other stuff out there and, I am sure, puts a smile on his Father's face. Alas, though, the article does little beyond that but is simply another in a long line that do not deal seriously with the issue is raises.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/26/2003 4:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood
quote:
I do believe though that free will and God's foreknowledge coexist in a way that is simply unexplainable.
Well we can explain why they are incompatible. So if you can't understand why they are, why tell us we're wrong?
Edited by - Laika on 07/26/2003 9:36:51 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 71 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:07 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 |
|
|