 |
| 
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/10/2002 3:12 PM (GMT -6) |   |
The apparent affirmation of Panentheism raise a brow for me. I had a vague recollection that the view is also not necessarily orthodox, as was claimed. In looking it up in my theolocial dictionary, it says it sees "the world and God mutually dependent for their fulfullment." This, is not Biblical. The God of the Bible is not dependent on any created thing for "fulfillment." Also recent advances in our theology of the trinity suggest that God is not even dependent on any created thing, because he already has perfect relationship within himself, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This, by the way, is why God can be love, because he can love within himself.
That said, the idea that we can obtain a union with God, yet as distinct from God is Biblical (cf. John 17, 1 John 4:16, John 15). In this union, we the finite, can go beyond ourselves through the action of the infinite God. (Again, we come back to Pannenberg.)
It is NOT pantheism, because we are distinct from God.
It is not panentheism, because God is not dependent on us.
YBIC,
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 | | |
 |
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/10/2002 3:43 PM (GMT -6) | | R.J.
Here are some "random" thoughts on God and time, and the OV.
-
While Doc finds things in modern physics that he things help him understand the issue, that is NOT his the basis for embracing the OV. The basis for embracing the OV, or any of its alternatives must be scripture. This is why "God of the Possible" largely focuses on the scriptural motifs.
- When I first encountered the OV, I did some quick scans of what scientists think about time. I quickly concluded that scientists do not all agree. Therefore, I concluded that science had little to definitively offer to the OV debate. However, if someone were to invent a time machine, then that would disprove the OV, because if man can transcend the limitations of time, God certainly can. That said...
- The mathematical concept of time is something God can transcend. I say this because virtually all such discussions of time is relative to space and movement -- e.g., Eienstein's theory of the space traveler traveling at the speed of light not aging.) If God is omnipresent, then time as a spacial construct would meaningless to him. "So what is that to me?"
- The mathematical concept of time is NOT the same as sequence. Doc helped me with this paradigm shift. Sequence is more "historical", and relates to events, not objects moving in space. I think Doc is correct when he suggests that God experiences sequence. For example, God created the world before Jesus died on the cross which is before He will come again. Also, scripture is full of places where God talks about something he will do, but has not yet done. However, this does not prove God cannot transcend sequence into the future so he can know events in the future. It just says that God experiences sequence.
- Anybody that claims to know how God perceives anything is either a fool or a liar. This does not mean we should not try to understand theological concepts like foreknowledge. But we must remember our finitude. Scripture tells us that God's ways and thoughts are far about our ways. In the end, we have to allow for the possibility that at our best, we only "see dimly".
Then Job answered the LORD:
"See, I am of small account; what shall I answer you?
I lay my hand on my mouth.
I have spoken once, and I will not answer;
twice, but will proceed no further."
Job 40:3 through Job 40:5 (NRSVA)
- Doc's two motifs are right on, IMHO. Scripture DOES reveal that somethings are settled, and some things are open. This is an excellent starting place, even if we do not go the whole way and say the future does not yet exist, even to God.
YBIC,
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 | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/10/2002 6:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
The apparent affirmation of Panentheism raise a brow for me. I had a vague recollection that the view is also not necessarily orthodox, as was claimed. In looking it up in my theolocial dictionary, it says it sees "the world and God mutually dependent for their fulfullment." This, is not Biblical. The God of the Bible is not dependent on any created thing for "fulfillment." Also recent advances in our theology of the trinity suggest that God is not even dependent on any created thing, because he already has perfect relationship within himself, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This, by the way, is why God can be love, because he can love within himself.
That said, the idea that we can obtain a union with God, yet as distinct from God is Biblical (cf. John 17, 1 John 4:16, John 15). In this union, we the finite, can go beyond ourselves through the action of the infinite God. (Again, we come back to Pannenberg.)
It is NOT pantheism, because we are distinct from God.
It is not panentheism, because God is not dependent on us.
YBIC,
Winghead
Winghead, thanks for that.
The definition you used for panentheism seems to be the same that Norman L. Geisler used in "NEOTHEISM: The Dangers of Making God in Our Image.?
Who's the modern theologian that the definition from your theolocial dictionary would best fit? Moltman, right?
Still, despite basing your definition on modernist sources, you did a good job of affirming the point that my post quoted. ('cf. John 17, 1 John 4:16, John 15'),
Let me just assure you that the use of the term by at least contemporary Eastern Orthodox theologians is not issolated. And that means that the idea, as we both sketched it without the term represents the ongoing view of the Orthodox Church.
So, to say, "It is not panentheism, because God is not dependent on us." is to use Moltman's view as definition. But to say, "Creatures share in God's Energies by His Grace and Design" as a definition of panentheism is appropriate!
And I believe that to give up that turf to Moltman is to give up something important.
Throw out the modernist definition:
quote:
Teilhard as visionary and futurist ultimately grounded his personal interpretation of evolution in a process philosophy, natural theology and cosmic mysticism that supported panentheism (the belief that God and the World are in a creative relationship of progressive evolution).www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/birx.html
quote:
Calvin Seminary course list:
PHMO 567 - God and the Cosmos in Modern Panentheism A study of recent kinds of panentheism as represented by such theologians as Whitehead and Hartshorne (Process Theology), Teilhard, Tillich, Pannenberg, Moltmann, Ruether, and McFague.
Winghead, FRANKLY by Google search (I'm doing presently) is bringing up mainly modernist uses. But, I do find some non-modernist. Here's one:
quote:
Ukrainian Orthodoxy (Orthodoxie ukrainienne
November 26 (Julian) - December 9 (Gregorian)
St George and the . . . Environment
This day celebrates the anniversary of the Dedication of St George's Church in Kyiv several centuries ago
"Panentheism" (please note the correct spelling,) is the idea that God permeates Nature. Kyivan Christianity is heavily imbued with it. This is not "pantheism" or that Nature is somehow God - a detestable heresy.
Kyivan Christians have a deep respect for Nature as God's creation. Transfigured by the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ, Nature can mediate blessing and grace.
Whenever a Kyivan Christian cut a fresh loaf of bread, he or she cut a Cross into it at the top in memory of Him Who gave us Himself in Holy Communion.
When a piece of bread fell to the ground, we pick it up and reverence it with a kiss to recall the great spiritual vocation that the creature of bread has been called by God to fulfill in our salvation through Christ.
Water is always had with the Sign of the Cross in memory of Baptism. The water that is used in the cleaning of Icons is never thrown out, but is always returned to the river or lake from where it was taken.
The Icon of Okhtyrka (Feast: July 15) is used in this way to bless water which is then taken by the faithful to their homes, the only instance when the order is reversed, an icon blesses the water.
In the frescoes and murals of St Sophia and other churches and cathedrals, Nature scenes mingle with spiritual ones. This is to show that Christ has transfigured all Nature. The Earth has never been the same since Christ was enclosed within it and rose from it on the third day . . .
Our relationship to the Environment should therefore be a serious one. Pollution and environmental destruction is an offense to the gifts of God for our well-being and happiness. In Christ, our attitudes toward the environment and way of life must be transfigured as well.
Let's be creative in how we adopt our ancestral, rural-based traditions in our homes and lives. They contain too much spiritual symbolism for us to be slack in this important effort!www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/calendar/december_9.htm
A Furman Univ. site has this study help:
quote:
TEST ANSWERS #22. Describe in a few sentences the difference between monotheism, Panentheism, and monism. What Christian community holds to a view of panentheism. Include the words transcendent, immanent, and deism in your answer, explaining each. (15 points)
Monotheism is the belief that there is one God who is separate from creation. This God may be very transcendent as in the case of deism, which sees God as a kind of watchmaker. The God may also be immanent enough to answer prayer and become involved in the world, but never completely in the things of the world. Panentheism, on the other hand, says that God can be both transcendent and literally in the things of this world. Eastern Orthodoxy advocates this view.
Here is what a Greek Orthodox site has to say (St. Gregory Palamas is very major!):
quote:
home.goarch.org/goa/departments/religioused/ messages/St._Gregory_Palamas.htm
Sunday Sermon – 2nd Sunday of Lent – Gregory Palamas – 3/26/00 – HT, PDX
By Rev. Demetrios Tsigas
In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen.
On this second Sunday of Great Lent our Church commemorates St. Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonike. Why?
Last Sunday, the first of Great Lent, we commemorated the return of icons to the life of the Church and affirmed our faith as being passed on unchanged from Jesus Christ and His disciples on to us today. St. Gregory Palamas was a fairly late saint. He died on November 14, 1359. So why not use an earlier saint like Basil or Chrysostom?
Let’s get some basic information on St. Gregory Palamas. He was born in Constantinople about 1296. He became a monk of the great community at Mount Athos. Here he was one of the foremost supporters and practitioners of a type of contemplation called Hesychasm. The Hesychasts claimed that, by suitable spiritual disciplines, those engaged in contemplative prayer could come to see the "uncreated light" of God. Their opponents objected that this doctrine was inconsistent with the unity and the transcendence of God. At first, Hesychasm was condemned as heretical and Gregory was excommunicated. However, in 1347, thanks chiefly to the unwavering support of the monks of Mount Athos, Gregory was brought back from exile, cleared of heretical charges, and made bishop of Thessalonika. After much controversy, his position was declared orthodox by the church of Constantinople in 1351.
So we see that Gregory was an ascetic who achieved a high degree of sanctification. Great Lent is a time for us to take on the ascetic life, fasting, prayer and good works, in order to draw near to God and His light, to know God intimately. Interestingly, before the big controversy over Hesychasm, Gregory became an abbot at the Esphigmenou Monastery on Mount Athos. He was so strict that the monks rebelled and threw him out. It was from here that he went on to defend Hesychasm and be elected Archbishop of Thessalonike. His life was marked by many of these ups and downs. The same monks who threw him out, later rallied around him in the controversy over hesychasm.
Gregory quotes St. Basil in defending Hesychasm- "We know our God from His energies, but we do not claim that we can draw near to His essence." This concept of God’s essence and His energies was a very important one. It is God’s essence that is beyond comprehension, beyond our grasp both rationally and spiritually. When we encounter God, it is by grace ( a free gift) in His energies. An example from nature that serves as an imperfect analogy is the sun. We don’t have direct contact with the sun itself, with its essence, because that would totally atomize us. We do however feel the energies of the sun, warming our planet, giving life to all plants, providing vitamin D and tanning our bodies, and bringing a smile to our faces.
This is an important concept in Orthodoxy. For those who came to the Pan-Orthodox retreat a week ago Saturday, it is this distinction that differentiates between the heretical concept of pantheism and the Orthodox concept of panentheism. Pantheism states that God is all, and all things are God, that is to say that God’s essence, is in all things and therefore we can and should worship trees, rocks, the sun, the moon, etc. Panentheism, is the belief that God, that is to say God’s energies, is in all things, and that therefore all creation is worthy of respect. This reinforces the biblical understanding that God has called us to be good stewards of all creation. We are called to take care of the world, providing for our own needs without wasting or abusing anything in God’s creation.
Gregory also used this concept of God’s essence and energies to explain how God is mystically present in the Eucharist, in Holy Communion. It is God’s energies that are present there, not His essence. We should receive Holy Communion often in order to fill ourselves with the energies of God.
Bishop Kallistos Ware makes an important observation. In the Orthodox Church, we focus on the Resurrected Jesus Christ and on the Transfiguration of Jesus on Mt. Tabor. Thus an outward sign of sanctity or holiness among Orthodox saints is shining with God’s uncreated light. In the Catholic Church, with its focus on the Crucified Christ, on Jesus as the suffering servant, the outward sign of holiness is often the stigmata, reflecting Christ’s pierced hands, feet and side in one’s own flesh. Of course there are many other manifestations of holiness in both our Churches’ histories and traditions.
As we come out of the starting gate of the fast and complete the first two laps, St. Gregory Palamas is presented to us as a bold example of faith in action. He is a role model in thought, word and deed. I pray that each of us may grow and be richly blessed through the course of the fast. I pray that God’s energies may course through our spiritual veins, transforming us with God’s uncreated light of truth, peace and love.
To God be the glory, now and forever and to the ages of ages, Amen.
The modernist uses are more common on the search engine. But the traditional are important.
Thanks for your responses, Winghead.
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/11/2002 12:23:40 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/10/2002 9:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi guys-
Some of us seem to think that the claim “We cannot completely grasp God” must mean “We can never say what God is or isn’t.” Much of what RJ and PoW are arguing depends upon these two claim being essentially the same thing.
I admit to being unfamiliar with panentheism. Didn’t read that thread, and being overseas I’m a little cut off from a lot of what gets discussed in academic circles.
I liked your post PoW. I understand you to be drawing a parallel between God who is both immaterial and incarnate (which we know is possible because it’s happened, and thank God for that!) and God who is both timeless and temporal. Hmmmm. I’m thinking on it. Greater minds than mine will probably have to tackle that one! Doc?
I very much liked Bill Craig’s book on God/Time. He argued that timelessness and temporality are both contingent attributes of God, that God is absolutely timeless in the absence of creation but abandons this mode of existence in choosing to create (i.e., to assert that both are true of his mode of existence now is logically contradictory). I found his arguments for why both cannot be simultaneously true pretty sound, but I was less convinced by him that God is necessarily timeless in the absence of creation.
Admittedly my interest in this follows from the claim by opponents of the open view that God’s being timeless accounts for how he timelessly accesses what is to us still future. And all open theists have to show is that there are good reasons for supposing this may not be the case. And since there are a people now arguing precisely this from Calvinistic, Arminian, and Openness quarters, it would appear that the incompatibility of simultaneous temporality and timelessness is at least a viable option (and probably more than just viable).
Having said that, I don’t mind agreeing with RJ and saying, “Hey, God’s pretty big. Who really understands exactly how he relates to time?” and leaving it at that. I don’t see that less than perfect knowledge of God’s relationship to time means admitting that we cannot have some knowledge of what God’s relationship to time cannot encompass. I don’t think it works to claim that since God is so great and awesome he might be whatever I can imagine. So, about God’s relationship to time, it’s not so much time that’s the issue, but rather claims about how God relates to us based on particular understandings of time.
RJ, if you admit God may not be both simultaneously timeless and temporal, then how do you know that believing God is not both timeless and temporal amounts to limiting God? How can believing what may possibly be true of God is true of God amount to confining and limiting God? If you feel that God’s being exclusively temporal since creation is necessarily limiting him (in a way inconsistent with his perfection), then you’d have to argue that it’s NOT possible for him to be so. But you don’t seem to be doing this. You keep saying “Who knows? You might be right. You might not be right. I could care less.” Which is it?
I’m still thinking on the material/immaterial analogy PoW.
Blessings,
Tom
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/11/2002 4:18 AM (GMT -6) | | It seems to me that if part of the concept of the OV is that there just isn't anything to know of the future in an exhaustive sense if it hasn't happened yet--baring that which God has determined, then shouldn't the same be true of God's knowledge in eternity?
How can God escape a non-exhaustive position in eternity if it isn't such in time-sequence (creation), according to the OV concept? To say that God transcends time outside of creation--that is, He knows the future exhaustively--must insist the same within creation and vice versa; He doesn't loose one in view of the other, nor does He "limit" Himself, as is so often mistakenly claimed by OV opponents.
Tom, I'm with you on what you said here: Admittedly my interest in this follows from the claim by opponents of the open view that God’s being timeless accounts for how he timelessly accesses what is to us still future. And all open theists have to show is that there are good reasons for supposing this may not be the case. And since there are a people now arguing precisely this from Calvinistic, Arminian, and Openness quarters, it would appear that the incompatibility of simultaneous temporality and timelessness is at least a viable option (and probably more than just viable).
I may not know exactly how God operates in eternity, but I can't diminish God's knowledge to accomodate an open future within time. That doesn't jibe.
Finally, in my opinion, it is not Scripturally supported that God knows the beginning from the end in an exhaustive sense inside or outside of time. The same question is to be proposed in both states, time and non-time: what is there to know if it doesn't exist?
On a personal note, it would seem that often times we are afraid to explain God's attributes in such a way that allows them (the attributes) to make sense. It isn't that God is incomprehensible, period; it is that His VASTNESS in all arenas is incomprehensible. There's quite a lot about God that is comprehensible. I don't have to attribute to God exhaustive knowledge in or outside of time to find His incomprehensibleness. To Confessing Him as not able--no, not willing, but not able--to do things like be God and not be God at the same time (A cannot be non-A), and yet not be able to confess Him as not having exhaustive foreknowledge knowledge, in or out of time (excluding all possibilities), is only to complicate Him beyond His true incomprehensible ways.
Hope this adds to the conversation.
For the uncomplicatedness of it all,
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 05/11/2002 09:22:26 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 5/11/2002 5:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Greetings y'all. Still trying to catch up.
I subtitle this post: Astute Open Theists.
In an earlier post, I wrote to Greg: You've taken it too far, Greg. That isn't the kind of answer I was looking for. I'm looking for something like: "This father would have to be able to ________. He would have to know _________. He would have to be able to control ____________."
Chambes knew exactly what I was getting at, and gave an excellent answer to my question. He wrote: quote:
The father would have to know exactly what the other drivers were thinking and doing, exactly what the weather conditions were, exactly what the state of his car was, and be able to perfectly control his car. He would have to be able to control the other drivers actions, and the weather, and his car completely.
I further queried: Would you then say that the father would have to have meticulous control over all mitigating factors?
To which Chambes gave a wonderfully honest reply: quote:
Yes. He would need to have complete control over the other drivers beceause if he didn't, a group of drivers could all choose to drive straight at him from all directions, leaving him powerless. He would need to have complete control over nature, because a storm could kill them.
Apparently Chambes sees clearly what is required for absolute trust and was honest enough to answer the question. Why have others been so evasive and less-than-forthright in answering this? Is it because they know what an indictment it is against the Open View? To speak of having such "solidified" love for God that trusting Him is not in question flies in the face of the scriptures which recognize our shortcomings and shortsightedness, urging us to trust Him completely, to have full assurance and unwavering confidence in the Lord. But as Chambes recognized, such trust, assurance and confidence logically requires meticulous control over all mitigating factors.
Greg had written: quote:
But coudl we not just as easily say that God CANNOT intervene to stop them from choosing evil, because he WILLED to create a world where people have free choice. If he intervened, it would simply not be true that he gave them free choice.
Winghead, recognizing the problems with that claim, responds:quote:
I am not sure this works entirely. There are many instances where God does intervene for people.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if we granted that such a thing as libertarian creaturely free will (LCFW) existed, God's intervention of killing an evil person does not override his LCFW. Is it accurate to say that, on the Open View's premise, God could have easily killed Hitler at any point at which He saw that Hitler was going to be a problem and invoke the killing of millions of people? How about the WTC hijackers/terrorists? Couldn't God have easily foreseen what was about to ensue and brought down those planes, or at least two of them, to prevent thousands of people from being murdered? Couldn't He have caused a little rockslide that would have tied up traffic and prevented the hijackers from even reaching the airport? Surely these are not interventions upon one's LCFW.
Tom writes:quote:
There's a difference between what God cannot do (properly speaking), i.e. sin, and what God cannot do because of previous commitments which now limit his options. Many of God's "cannot's" follow a previous "will not." Had she previously willed differently she could now do differently.
The feminine pronoun has confused me. But that notwithstanding, is among the "will nots" God's chosen "inability" to externally affect His creatures by way of such things as weather, natural events such as a rock or tree falling in a roadway, sinkholes, etc.?
In an earlier exchange, Winghead wrote: quote:
I would like to make an observation. God is the object of our Faith. God tells us to trust him because of what he has done in the past -- his character.
Replied Tom: quote:
Right on. Agree.
It appears you two miss completely what Chambes sees clearly. But I'm not buying it. I think you do see it. You're both way too astute not to.
Hilston wrote: ... belief IS a work.
Doc writes: quote:
Paul CONTRASTS faith with works. This tells me faith is not a work.
This is overly simplistic. Believing is a work. Jesus says so in Jn 6:29. Furthermore, faith, as a non-external work, cannot be separated from external work. Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Tom writes:quote:
Still, I agree with you Hilston that we wouldn't even accept the gift if it were not for the work of the Holy Spirit on our hardened hearts.
Let's consider the hypothetical case of identical twins, raised together, having shared all experiences equally and identically and each having an equally hardened heart. Both are equally resistant to God's law (Ro 8:7). Let's further suppose the Holy Spirit works equally in both hearts. Should we expect both men to have the same reaction (whether acceptance or rejection of the gift)? Why or why not?
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
-- Wm. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part II, Act IV, Scene II
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org
Edited by - Hilston on 05/11/2002 11:05:08 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/11/2002 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | | I REALLY like the way this thread is going! There are a number of things I want to respond to, but I do not have time to do so now. However, I want to make two observations to James.
HIlston:quote:
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if we granted that such a thing as libertarian creaturely free will (LCFW) existed, God's intervention of killing an evil person does not override his LCFW. Is it accurate to say that, on the Open View's premise, God could have easily killed Hitler at any point at which He saw that Hitler was going to be a problem and invoke the killing of millions of people? How about the WTC hijackers/terrorists? Couldn't God have easily foreseen what was about to ensue and brought down those planes, or at least two of them, to prevent thousands of people from being murdered? Couldn't He have caused a little rockslide that would have tied up traffic and prevented the hijackers from even reaching the airport? Surely these are not interventions upon one's LCFW.
James, contratulations! You are engaging the ideas. When we engage an idea, we do not have to agree with it. However, we might say "if LCFW is true, then we should expect...." That is engaging. Merely saying someone else is wrong or "unreasonable" in some way is not engaging. We all benefit from a healthy engagement, like the one above.
Now, with regards to your comments above, I agree. I would like to go a step further to point out that God, himself, also has LCFW, in that He can act into the world if he so chooses. LCFW is such that two individuals can interact in opposing ways, getting results that are not exactly what either intended. This is one of the reasons understanding "WHY" things happend in this world is so complex. Of course, that is a problem for us, not for God.  My point here is that God can choose to intervene in the actions of LCFW if he so chooses. The OV does not say that in some way LCFW prohibits God from doing so. Of course, when God does so chooses, his omniscience and omnipotence makes things go his way. In this way, there are similarities to Calvinism. The difference is that the OV allows for LCFW, and Calvinism does not.
YBIC,
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 5/11/2002 7:56 AM (GMT -6) | | [Hilston responds to my previous posts:
* Your attempt to derail this thread is simply awful.
* Did you intend to heap guilt upon the "less spiritual" with this statement?
* You've exposed a horrible and egregious flaw in your theology...you apparently do not believe there is objective knowledge to be attained from the Word of God.
* You've undermined everyone's trust in God and His Word by making this statement. This is terrible….Your philosophical musings have trumped the role of scripture.
* I urge you to reconsider and retract this blatant assault upon God's holy Word.
* Regardless of your dismissal of the idea as so foreign to the sinless nirvana-state you've attained with God, the rest of us struggle with the mundane pressures and vicissitudes of life, temptations, frustrations, disappointments and failed plans
* Surely, as a pastor, you must know this, even if you yourself know nothing of such unspiritual struggles.
* Unlike you, Greg, John thought it was important to give his readers a basis for trusting the Lord.
Doc Responds: Hilston, is there any possibility I’m not as horrible, terrible, self-righteous, and anti-biblical as you suggest with these words? Is there the slightest opening in your mind that you’ve read some personal animosity into your interpretation of my statements?
I honestly have difficulty empathetically entering into the mindset that read my words these ways. So far as I can see, it seems like you must see me as the devil, or something close to it. I honestly can’t see how else you could come away from my earlier post with the spin you gave them.
I’d really encourage you to seriously take TGB’s advise. He said, "I pass on the following bit of advice which will make life more enjoyable for you and for those you interact with—"Always assume the best." Another word for this is "LOVE."
I love you Hilston, for I know you have unsurpassable worth before God, for Jesus died for you. So I will continue to assume you love me and thus don’t harbor a judgment about me as being as diabolical as your words indicated. I will assume I am misreading your words.
So, I will try to communicate one more time. If the communication fairs no better than it has the last time, I will have to judge it an unwise stewardship of limited time on my part to continue it.
Love assumes the best in another. Try to read this post as coming from a person who, however distorted you think their views are, genuinely loves the Lord and believes the Bible. Try to speak to the issues and not judge my character (as Jesus, after all, commanded).
Hilston: How can I know anything for sure anymore? What if I'm improperly trusting in my interpretation of scripture when it comes to salvation?
Doc: What if you are? See, your assurance can go no deeper than your confidence that your correct in your interpretation of Scripture. You HAVE to be right, while others are wrong.
Hilston: What if I'm improperly trusting in my interpretation that is figurative?
Doc: What if you are, Hilston? Any possibility you’re wrong on any point? Is your assurance of salvation no deeper than the insistent correctness of your interpretation, even on matters of whether statements about God changing his mind are figurative or not?
Hilston: Whence do you derive your understanding of God's character? If you say, "The Bible," then how do you know your understanding is not a distorted and inaccurate caricature based on a false interpretation of scripture?
Doc: Whence do YOU derive your understanding of God’s character? How do YOU know your understanding is NOT distorted? Just like every other human, you are fallible and just call the shots as you see them.
Hilston: Does the psalmist say "So shall I have wherewith to answer him that reproacheth me: for I trust in my interpretation of thy word" (Ps 119:42)? Or "This is my comfort in my affliction: for my interpretation of thy word hath quickened me" (Ps 119:50)? Or "My soul fainteth for thy salvation: but I hope in my interpretation of thy word. (Ps 119:81)?
Doc: Of course. Whatever the Pslamist believes about the Word is obviously his interpretation of the Word. You and I also are relying on OUR INTERPRETATIONS of the Word (though they are not divinely inspired, like the pslamist). And your assurance is that YOUR INTERPRETATION is correct.
On your interpretation, God holds you and you cannot fall away. Fine. But your assurance that you cannot fall away is in your interpretation of verses that (to you) say tyou cannot fall away, not in some uninterpreted FACT that you cannot fall away. If the FACT didn't have to be interpreted, there wouldn't be any disagreement about its interpretation! But there IS. Indeed, at least half, and probably more, of all God fearing Bible believe Jesus loving evangelicals disagree with YOUR interpretation.
Hilston: Does Paul say to the Thessalonians,… Wherefore comfort one another with your interpretation of these words" (1Th 4:17,18)?
Doc: Do you know of some uninterpreted words we can encourage one another with?
Hilston: Your illustration (of husband and wife) is entirely off-point. Most human relationships don't even come close to the unconditional unilateral love God has for His children. The fact is, without the Lord as the foundation of a marriage, there is little security or assurance that one spouse will not let the other down, or worse.
Doc: Your interpretation of the illustration was "entirely off-point." I'll try again. The point of the illustration, Hilston, was that if you have a loving relationship with your wife, you don’t worry about falling away from her. You live in security. If you worry about falling away, the problem is in YOUR LOVE, so the solution is to be found in growing in LOVE. So it is with our relationship with the Lord.
Hilston: As a pastor, surely you must know this. How many times have you heard, "If you would have asked me about my marriage a year ago, I would have told you that everything was great and that I had no doubt it would last for the rest of our lives. Now I'm divorced. How did this happen?"
Doc: Certainly. And I’ve known a number of former Christians who have said similar things about their previous relationships with God – even Calvinist as sure of themselves as YOU. This doesn't mean that those of us who have loving relationships with our spouses, or with the Lord, our heavenly spouse, should live in worry about divorce.
Hilston: The ONLY relationship that is infallible is God's relationship to His chosen ones. Even when WE are unfaithful, "He abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself" (2Ti 2:13), that is to say, we can count on His faithfulness because anything less would be a denial of His own character.
Doc: Do you think that if a person is "unfaithful" to the point of denying their faith and living like devil till death, God’s faithfulness yet ensures that they are saved? If so, you’ve made your point. If not, you’ve made no point. For having an assurance of God’s character can give YOU no assurance, for you don’t know that it applies to YOU. You of course BELIEVE it does. But this may be a predestined experience, just as it has been for others, which will give way to a predestined fall leading to a predestined hell. In your belief system, you can't KNOW that this isn't the case -- of it has been for others. You of course BELIEVE that your experience of assurance is greater than their's was, but you can't KNOW this. And even if you could, you need to observe that your assurance is based on YOUR EXPERIENCE of assurance and the ASSUMPTION that God can't predestine THIS EXPERIENCE of assurance and not have it turn out to be predestined to be disengenuous.
Hilston: The fact is, except in special cases, you cannot correctly and adequately know the reality of God's love for you apart from those arguments.
Doc: Arguments have a role, for sure. But note, if your assurance is based on your arguments, for your knowledge of God’s love is based on your arguments, you can have no more assurance than the psychological certainty of your arguments. Now, we all can tell that you are VERY sure of your arguments, Hilston. And I can see why. You HAVE to be, because it’s the only assurance you’ve got. I worry, however, of what might happen to you if you at some point discover, as I have many many times, that arguments that I THOUGHT were convincing at one point later turn out to be much LESS convincing.
Hilston: What assurance do you have that you will ever achieve the state you describe (of God’s love flowing in us, abiding in us, and flowing through us)?
Doc: I never claimed that I lived in this state in an unbroken way, Hilston. But I have experienced this, and I’m growing in it. It is why I know Jesus not just through arguments, but personally, experientially. And his perfect love "casts out all fear." It does not occur to me, even when I’m struggling, that God will ever leave me or forsake me. I’m in love. Just like I never worry about my relationship with my wife, even when we are struggling. For we’re in love.
You will undoubtedly call this subjective, but note:
a) it is no less subjective than YOUR experience of election which you just trust is superior than whatever experience of election people who have eventually fallen away have had. You don’t KNOW that your experience of election is better, more genuine, or whatever. You just believe it.
B) My experience isn’t just an experience: its rooted in the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ.
Hilston: (In response to my statement, "The question of trusting God arises only out of disunity with God.") Of course! You might as well say the sky is blue.
Doc: Good. We agree on something. All worries about security are rooted in disunity with God and the sky is blue. But if you agree, Hilston, then why try to fill the vacuum created by our disunity with God with a rational security through arguments? Why not rather SEEK UNITY WITH GOD? THAT, we agree, is the source of the problem. And THAT should therefore be the source of the solution. Relying instead on our particular arguments – on a subject that has divided honest, God fearing, Bible believing Christians throughout the ages -- strikes me as a shallow substitute. The assurance we have can run no deeper than our assurance that those who disagreed with us were either less intelligent or less spiritual than we are.
Hoping your response is … well, not like the previous one.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/11/2002 2:20 PM (GMT -6) | | James-
I’ve been sick for a couple of days. Haven’t been sleeping at night. Been spending a lot of time in the bathroom if you know what I mean. Must've ate something bad.
Since I can’t sleep and it’s 3:30 AM here I thought I’d see if my brain still works.
James: Apparently Chambes sees clearly what is required for absolute trust and was honest enough to answer the question. Why have others been so evasive and less-than-forthright in answering this? Is it because they know what an indictment it is against the Open View?
Tom: I believe I and Doc both agreed that IF the father in your analogy wanted to give his son a guarantee that he’d never get in a wreck that the father would have to control everything that possibly influences his son with respect to automobiles. Chambes isn’t the only one who grants this. The question is does your analogy represent the kind of assurances God want to give us in life? Here we disagree.
We’re not being evasive and less than forthright. We’re just disagreeing. That’s all. With respect to your perseverance you look to God to give you the sort of guarantee that the son in your analogy wants from his father. With respect to my perseverance I don’t look for this kind of guarantee. Nothing evasive about it. Doc and I have also argued that given the apostasy of many who formerly claimed to believe with great conviction, the sort of assurance your analogy presupposes is simply not possible.
James: But as Chambes recognized, such trust, assurance and confidence logically requires meticulous control over all mitigating factors.
Tom: Again, if one is looking for the kind of absolute guarantees your analogy presupposes, then exhaustive and meticulous control is required. Agreed. I’m not looking for that kind of guarantee/assurance. I don’t think the Bible offers it. So I don’t see that the kind of control your sense of security requires is necessary.
James: The feminine pronoun has confused me.
Tom: I throw feminine pronouns in for God once in a while to remind myself that God’s not a guy and that women experience God and reflect his image in ways men do not. Sorry to confuse you!
James: But that notwithstanding, is among the "will nots" God's chosen "inability" to externally affect His creatures by way of such things as weather, natural events such as a rock or tree falling in a roadway, sinkholes, etc.?
Tom: I think that God’s intervention of the sort you describe is determined by a complex of considerations and influences that are divine, angelic, and human. These are not always identical in each occurrence of evil. Sometimes God intervenes miraculously; sometimes God doesn’t. The reasons why are pretty complex. I think Doc’s basic argument is that the mystery/reason behind why God does not intervene to prevent every evil is not to be found in the “will” of God, but rather in the complexity of creation, one which, by God’s design, includes an infinite number of contingent factors. So, it would be virtually impossible to us to determine why God did not create a traffic jam to stop the 9/11 bombers. All I can confidently say is that given my understanding of God as revealed in Scripture, we can rest assured that God didn’t determine 11/11 to happen.
James: Believing is a work. Jesus says so in Jn 6:29.
Tom: I don’t think Jesus intends us to understand here his endorsing trust and belief in God as a form of works-righteousness. Doc’s not over-simplifying it at all. Paul contrasts “works” and “faith.” If this doesn’t mean that faith is not an act of ‘works’ righteousness, then do tell, what does it mean?
In Jn. 6 the crowds are following Jesus because he multiplied the bread, a miraculous work. They continue to look for him to perform such works and want to know what they have to “do” to do the works of God. Jesus’ point, I think, is that one doesn’t “do” anything in the sense the crowd understood, but rather one simply trusts, simply believes. Jesus is saying something analogous to, “Wanna work? Wanna ‘do’ something for God? Believe in me. This is the sort of ‘doing’ God’s interested in. Not the sort of ‘doing’ you desire.” An obvious play on words, given the context. The problem with your view of this verse is that Jesus wants us to “do” faith and trust. He endorses faith and promises that if we “do” faith, we live. Strange words if Jesus’ point was that faith in him amounts to a work of law.
James does indeed insist that genuine faith yields good works. I see James advocating something entirely different than that which Paul argues against. James describes works of faith. Paul talks about works of law. You’re assuming the word “work” is used uniformly in the NT. It’s not.
James: Let's consider the hypothetical case of identical twins, raised together, having shared all experiences equally and identically and each having an equally hardened heart. Both are equally resistant to God's law (Ro 8:7). Let's further suppose the Holy Spirit works equally in both hearts. Should we expect both men to have the same reaction (whether acceptance or rejection of the gift)? Why or why not?
Tom: Both men would not necessarily have the same reaction. Why? Because we are more than the sum of our past experiences. Our choices are more than just the inevitable result of antecedent influences. So, identical causes don’t always yield the same result. It’s called libertarian free will.
And I wanna agree with Doc too. We obviously disagree on some important stuff, but I want to affirm your worth in Jesus and bless you. You’re one mean intense dude. Like I said, always assume the best about others. It makes for smooth discussing!
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 05/12/2002 01:34:38 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/11/2002 8:14 PM (GMT -6) | | It is easier to trust God when it is "God who is at work in you both to will and work his good pleasure (Phil 2:13)." The OV does not preclude God working in us in this way, and as I have observed elsewhere, as we are one with God as God is one in the trinity, our will and His will move as one. In this way, we avoid the often debated conflict between the LCFW and the soverign will of God. Of course, we remain distinct from God, thus avoiding the error of pantheism.
YBIC,
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)
Edited by - winghead on 05/12/2002 01:19:13 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/11/2002 8:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Winghead-
1:30 AM eh? I know how you feel.
When I think of God working in us to choose and live as he desires I don't imagine this means we do not remain free to choose and live in ways he does not desire. We obviously exercise our wills (as believers) in ways he doesn't "will" us to all the time. So, I think Paul's reassuring his readers that God is the sort of God who is always a work in our lives (given the sort of freedom he's granted us) to grant us grace to choose and live as we ought. This would be something similar to what Paul says when he reassures the Corinthians that no temptation overcomes us but that God has provided a way of escape for us.
Could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
Tom
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd
Edited by - TGB on 05/12/2002 01:42:54 AM
Edited by - TGB on 05/12/2002 01:44:42 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 5/11/2002 8:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
This is in reply to your 05/09 post.
You advised:quote:
... I pass on the following bit of advice which will make life more enjoyable for you and for those you interact with—“Always assume the best.”
Thanks for the advice. Did Jesus "assume the best" when He drove the charlatans out of the Temple compound? Did Paul "assume the best" when he rebuked Peter to his face in public? Words have meaning, Tom. I read the words others write. I assume they write what they intend.
Tom writes:quote:
You might have shared with Doc that he was coming across as saying such-and-such and that this was how you were reading him before launching in.
Greg might have replied that he did not intend to come across as saying such-and-such. But he didn't. He affirmed what I originally understood and feared. It grieves me, Tom.
Tom writes:quote:
It’s always best to confirm your understanding of a person before responding so intensely.
Greg's followup suffices to confirm that I correctly understood what he typed.
Tom writes:quote:
If I’m too concerned about room temperature, so be it.
I share your concern about unnecessary heat; however, among the small number of things that really get me angry, undermining the scriptures is one of them; disingenuousness is another.
Tom writes:quote:
I doubt that Doc is suggesting that the Word of God be tossed out as a source of comfort and assurance for believers.
Of course not. But it is secondary, according to Greg's words. By that standard, I might "assume the best" about some former Mormon friends who said they believed in Jesus and had an deepening intimacy and blossoming relationship with Him. Who cares what the Bible says, as long as we all love Jesus, right? Sure, the Bible has some good stuff in it, but we don't want scriptural data to get in the way of "experiencing the presence of God," do we?
Tom writes:quote:
Of course, I might be misunderstanding him myself, but my guess is that what Doc was getting at was that if there is not a deepening intimacy with God on a relational level, an ongoing experience of God’s presence, then this or that passage from the Bible will not bring us the sort of assurance and trust we long for. On the other hand, where such intimacy exists, the biblical passages often play a confirming and supporting role. Doc can correct me if I’m wrong. That’s my take on what Doc was driving at.
Now you're doing it, Tom. I can't tell you how disappointed I am in both of you. Perhaps it is merely the logical outcome of such a theological construct. I do not gauge my relationship with God according to a feeling of "deepening intimacy" or "experiencing God's presence". No where do I find these as criteria in the scripture. These are humanistic cliches akin to the Mormon "burning in the bosom." My relationship with God is not subject to the warp, woof and whims of my feelings, my mood, my emotional state, etc. It is objectively and securely established by the blood of Christ and the incessant work of His Spirit within me. It is from objective information and the faith that is imparted to me that the emotions derive, and never the other way around. The scriptures bring complete assurance despite my emotional state or my mood.
Tom writes:quote:
The point is, I think, intimacy and trust are relational and experiential and cannot be had with a “book.”
Not just any book, Tom. We're talking about God's expressed love, documented and given for our understanding and for the building of our faith and assurance in Him. I am astonished and appalled by your flippant regard for the inspired Word.
Tom writes:quote:
Whatever the Bible might say to us, it cannot result in personal change until we take it into God’s presence and there encounter him. Make sense?
No. This is eisogesis. There have been times, when I've read the scripture and saw something for the first time, that it changed me immediately. I didn't have to go through some mystical voodoo mojo procedure of "taking it into God's presence." Whence comes this protocol for acquiring intimacy and trust? Please cite for me in the Bible where you get this procedure for intimacy and trust: "Read Bible + take it into God's presence + encounter Him = intimacy and trust"? When are you NOT in God's presence? When are you NOT encountering Him?
Tom writes:quote:
So, James, chill a bit dude. Be intense, but be kind.
Good advice. Here's another bit of advice that I take to heart: Be angry and sin not (Eph 4:26). Jesus did the greatest kindness to those he drove out of the Temple. Paul did Peter the greatest kindness to call him on his evil behavior and to confront him with the truth. I would have hoped that my kindness to Greg would have brought about a reconsideration of his words and his intended meaning. Unfortunately, he sticks by what he said, and it angers me. That anger is accompanied by sadness. The Word of God has been mocked and denigrated as a mere supplement to emotions and arcane procedural devotions.
Tom writes:quote:
Make sure you’ve confirmed your understanding of somebody before launching the attack. Maybe you thought that’s what you were doing. Hey, maybe I’ve misunderstood you!
Well, I did say, "Unless you misspoke ..." I entertained the possibility that Greg was not being careful with his words. But they were too plain, and again, his followup confirms my original understanding.
Tom writes:quote:
Did you ever light up that Cuban as I suggested?
There is an embargo on Cuban grown products here in the U.S. I did enjoy yesterday a Cuban seed home-grown hand-rolled panatella, brought back from New Orleans by a colleague. Very smooth. Thanks for the suggestion. :)
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/12/2002 3:39 AM (GMT -6) | | James-
Wow, everybody is chiming in after midnight! I had a practically sleepless night, but feel a little better today.
James: Thanks for the advice. Did Jesus "assume the best" when He drove the charlatans out of the Temple compound? Did Paul "assume the best" when he rebuked Peter to his face in public? Words have meaning, Tom. I read the words others write. I assume they write what they intend.
Tom: Is it not possible that you're misunderstanding the words? I read Doc and don’t hear what you hear. In fact, it doesn’t seem that anybody else understands Doc as you do. Jesus and Paul aside, I’m more inclined to conclude that you’re the one who’s misunderstanding him. All I can say is, it’s OK to be misunderstand people, James. It's OK to be wrong sometimes.
James: Sure, the Bible has some good stuff in it, but we don't want scriptural data to get in the way of "experiencing the presence of God," do we?
Tom: No, we want Scripture to lead us to an experience of God.
James: The scriptures bring complete assurance despite my emotional state or my mood.
Tom: I call this experiencing God through the Scriptures. What did you think I was talking about? Now, I don't agree that the Scriptures offer us the kind of absolute assurance you mean, but I absolutely agree that whatever they offer us can be embraced by us in spite of our emotional state.
James: Now you're doing it, Tom. I can't tell you how disappointed I am in both of you. Perhaps it is merely the logical outcome of such a theological construct. I do not gauge my relationship with God according to a feeling of "deepening intimacy" or "experiencing God's presence".
Tom: I don’t “gauge my relationship” according to feelings either. That’s not what I’m talking about and it’s not what Doc is talking about. If that’s what you’re hearing, then you’re not hearing us. Now, people who speak or write reserve the right to interpret their own words. Maybe we’re bad communicators. Maybe you’re a lousy listener. Maybe both. But to insist that I mean what you say I mean and not what I say I mean is just bullheaded. Perhaps you need me to mean what you misunderstand me to mean because you are unable justify your dislike for the open view on the basis of the issues themselves.
James: My relationship with God is not subject to the warp, woof and whims of my feelings, my mood, my emotional state, etc. It is objectively and securely established by the blood of Christ and the incessant work of His Spirit within me.
Tom: I haven’t suggested that one’s relationship to God is subject to whims of our emotions.
James: There have been times, when I've read the scripture and saw something for the first time, that it changed me immediately. I didn't have to go through some mystical voodoo mojo procedure of "taking it into God's presence."
Tom: Why are you assuming that when I say the truth of scripture must be experienced by us that I’m talking about mystical voodoo mojo? The sort of change you describe is what I’m talking about. Don’t read “mystical” every time I say “experience.” To experience the truth of Scripture IS to be in God’s presence, whether you swing from the chandelier or not. All I’m saying is that this sort of personal change is what reading the Scripture is about. It doesn’t sound to me like you’re disagreeing.
James: Whence comes this protocol for acquiring intimacy and trust?
Tom: It’s your thread. You brought up trust. Trust is something WE possess and experience. We get trust from Scripture, but not only from Scripture. We also come to trust God when he answers our prayers, heals our bodies, guides us in our choices, etc. It sounds to me like you agree that trust does not amount to “data from the page” in itself, but rather experiencing the truth of Scripture; reading it, understanding it, affirming it, welcoming it, and resting in it, as well as from God’s faithfulness and love for us in life.
James: Please cite for me in the Bible where you get this procedure for intimacy and trust: "Read Bible + take it into God's presence + encounter Him = intimacy and trust"? When are you NOT in God's presence? When are you NOT encountering Him?
Tom: It’s not the Bible + anything if by the “Bible” you include understanding and experiencing the truth of the Bible. If by “Bible” you mean the uninterpreted truth of the Bible (which you appear at times to believe yourself to be the authority on), then I’d simply say that there is no such thing. The Bible has to be interpreted, understood, welcomed, and obeyed before it is what God intended it to be for us.
James: There is an embargo on Cuban grown products here in the U.S. I did enjoy yesterday a Cuban seed home-grown hand-rolled panatella, brought back from New Orleans by a colleague. Very smooth. Thanks for the suggestion.
Tom: Now you’re talking!
James, Doc and I really do love God and his Word. That you at least concede this is more important to me than where we come out on open theism. But you seem very unwilling, though, to entertain the possibility that you may have misunderstood us. If you can’t bring youself to concede this, then we’re just talking past one another. I’m not interested in spending my time doing that, but perhaps others are into that sort of thing and can continue on with you if they wish.
Love in Christ,
Tom
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd
Edited by - TGB on 05/12/2002 08:57:56 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/12/2002 4:38 AM (GMT -6) | | 
.
(Guttenberg's Romans)
(Tyndale's John)
+
Edited by - potonwheel on 05/12/2002 09:43:53 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/12/2002 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | PoW-
I totally agree...I think. 
Tom
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/12/2002 9:02 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
chambes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 5/12/2002 6:25 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm somewhat cautious to jump into this thread again. There are quite a few arrows flying.
But, Hilston, I am curious about one thing. You seem to be saying that the Bible is the only way to learn truth about God. So, where did the authors of the Bible learn about God. Moses obviously experienced God on a completely personal level. He had no book to read. When the Psalmist said he trusted in the Word, what word was he talking about if more than half the Bible hadn't been written yet?
I'm assuming you'll say that they were inspired, but does that mean they were "inspired" every day of their lives when they were walking with God. If so, why is it so incredible that God would "inspire" us a little? Weren't they fallen sinners just like us?
Just curious
chambes
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to get what he cannot lose." ~Jim Elliot | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 5/12/2002 7:19 PM (GMT -6) | | This is in reply to Winghead's 9 May post:
Winghead writes:quote:
Perhaps I can offer a clarification on Doc's comments to you. God has Doc currently immersed in an intense scriptural study of love. This is partially related to his current preaching. In any case, the Lord is similarily speaking to many of us on this topic, and I think we all are seeing how God's love relates to so much of the Christian life, and similarly our theology. We are also connecting, if only dimly, with God's love, which brings great joy.
How do you know what comprises God's love? I have yet to get a clear definition of it. Pouringagape gave me a bunch of verses, to which I will respond soon. But on your view, where do you learn about it? How would you go about distinguishing between true expressions and definitions of God's love and those that are false? For example, on "Survivor" this week, Vecepia won the "Immunity Challenge." The challenge was to use a slingshot to strike a target that would eliminate the other players. When Vecepia won, she shouted more than a few times, "Thank you, Jesus! Thank you, Jesus!" Did Jesus really help her win? Was this victory Jesus's way of telling her that He loved her?
Winghead writes:quote:
In this process, as we realize how much God loves us, we are able to trust him more.
Trust Him more for what precisely?
Winghead quotes: quote:
The NRSV says: So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. 1 John 4:16 (NRSVA)
Precisely how have we known and believe the love that God has for us?
Winghead writes:quote:
We have "known and believe the love that God has for us..." The love of God helps us to trust him.
Precisely how does the love of God help us to trust Him?
Winghead writes:quote:
We trust those we love. Especially, those who have proved trustworthy, and God has proven trustworthy.
I trust my wife, but not absolutely, because I know she is finite and human and has the tendency to fail. Same with me. She knows she cannot trust me absolutely. I fall short often. We would be fools to put absolute trust in fallible humans, for surely we would be disappointed (Ro. 3:4). But God can be trusted absolutely. This is the claim of scripture. Do you, with Tom and Greg, believe that we are not supposed to absolutely trust God?
Winghead writes:quote:
This brings us to a point Doc and I agree with you on. We do trust God because of what he has done, and scripture testifies to us about God, and His faithfulness. This, combined with faith ... What is faith? It is the confident assurance that what we hope for is going to happen. It is the evidence of things we cannot yet see. Heb. 11:1 (NLT)
Are you absolutely confident and assurred that that for which you hope is going to happen? On what is that assurance and confidence based if prophecies have failed?
Winghead writes:quote:
... And knowledge of God's love, brings us to trust Him. The more we grasp this with our whole being, the more our faith, and trust in Him grows.
Once again, whence comes this knowledge of God's love? And how does it logically follow that knowledge of God's love results in a growth in faith and trust? Faith and trust in what precisely?
Winghead writes:quote:
While God has demonstrated his faithfulness to us, and scripture is a major part of this testimony, and Doc never minimalizes scripture, faith is not purely an intellectual exercise.
But Doc has. So has Tom. I know they disagree; but it appears they do not realize the implications of their words -- unless they are being deliberate and disingenuous.
Winghead writes:quote:
... In fact, one of the beautiful things about Christian faith is that one does not need an IQ of a genius to come into its possession.
What is required to come into the possession of faith?
Winghead writes:quote:
Trusting God is not something we can toss into a bucket with our theological and philosophical systems.
Is that how you view your theology? As something tossed into a bucket? Theology is the study of God and His relation to creation. Shouldn't we have a much higher regard for theology? Why shouldn't the topic of trusting God be included in one's theological system? Wouldn't you agree that one's theology will affect one's trust in God?
Winghead writes:quote:
Faith, like God, goes beyond all of those things. Faith knows God is trustworthy, no matter how screwed up our theology might be. Even an Open Theist can trust God!
Can a Muslim properly and truly trust God (as a Muslim)?
Winghead writes:quote:
I think what Greg was getting at is that when you connect with the Love of God, these types of agruements quickly become moot.
The Bible disagrees with you. Paul commends the saints for their love for God and the saints. These same people Paul desires that they trust God and have full assurance in Him (Col 1:4-8 2:2).
While I'm replying to this post, I might as well get your latest one out of the way as well:
Winghead writes:quote:
James, contratulations! You are engaging the ideas. When we engage an idea, we do not have to agree with it. However, we might say "if LCFW is true, then we should expect...." That is engaging. Merely saying someone else is wrong or "unreasonable" in some way is not engaging. We all benefit from a healthy engagement, like the one above.
I will assume that you are trying to be encouraging. Thanks for that. However, either (a) you are not reading my posts very carefully or (b) you have a very bad memory. You congratulate me for what I've been doing since my earliest posts in this forum. Search and see. Please spare me the condescending lesson in rhetoric, discourse, apologetics and debate.
Winghead writes:quote:
Now, with regards to your comments above, I agree. I would like to go a step further to point out that God, himself, also has LCFW, in that He can act into the world if he so chooses.
You're not being very careful, Winghead. God is not a creature. It is incoherent to ascribe LCFW to Him. LCFW only applies to creatures (created beings).
Winghead writes:quote:
My point here is that God can choose to intervene in the actions of LCFW if he so chooses. The OV does not say that in some way LCFW prohibits God from doing so. Of course, when God does so chooses, his omniscience and omnipotence makes things go his way.
Please explain: Did God choose not to intervene in the WTC bombings? Or did He intervene and his omniscience and omnipotence made things go his way?
Domo,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org
Edited by - Hilston on 05/13/2002 12:26:12 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/13/2002 2:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Winghead-
Excuse me while I interrupt your discussion with James. You can have him back in a sec.
James darlin’-
When I earlier said you were a tough nut to crack I had no idea that you’d put it to the test!
James: When Vecepia won, she shouted more than a few times, "Thank you, Jesus! Thank you, Jesus!" Did Jesus really help her win? Was this victory Jesus's way of telling her that He loved her?
Tom: I have not the slightest idea. Might have been. Might not have been. Who cares?
James: Trust Him more for what precisely?
Tom: Here’s the answer, James: Trust God for absolutely everything you need to be what God wants you to be and in absolutely everything that life brings you. God’s not gonna be upset with you if you wind up trusting him too much. And if while you’re trusting him for salvation you fail to trust him for something else that’s your right to trust him for, you’ll still make it to heaven. And who knows, God being the sort of person he is, you might wind up being blessed in ways you didn’t even trust God for. Either way you win!
What you believe Scripture gives you the right to believe God for, believe God for it, inevitable perseverance, whatever. If what you’re trusting God for doesn’t happen, then deal with it. I’ll do the same. But if we trust God for different things it’s not because I don’t believe the Bible as much as you do. It’s because I understand it differently. We both ultimately are attempting to conform our lives to God’s Word as we understand it. Can we do anything else?
If I disagree with you on the interpretation of God’s Word, it’s not because I diminish the Word. I uphold it as the infallible rule of faith and life. If you wish to change my mind about the Bible, argue your interpretation then get on with it. But know that in the end if I’m not convinced by you it’s because I value the authority of Scripture over you, not because I undermine the Word of God.
James: Precisely how have we known and believe the love that God has for us?
Tom: The Cross, the Cross, the Cross, the Cross, the Cross. Are you hearing me now? Again…the Cross, the Cross, the Cross. Say it with me James: The Cross, the Cross, the Cross.
James: Precisely how does the love of God help us to trust Him?
Tom: You’ve GOT to be kidding.
James: I trust my wife…
Tom: Precisely how did you come to trust her?
James: [I trust my wife] but not absolutely, because I know she is finite and human and has the tendency to fail. Same with me. She knows she cannot trust me absolutely. I fall short often. We would be fools to put absolute trust in fallible humans, for surely we would be disappointed (Ro. 3:4).
Tom: Then I’m a fool, for I actually DO trust my wife absolutely regarding many things. I have that kind of gal! I’m sorry for the rest of you guys!
James: But God can be trusted absolutely. This is the claim of scripture. Do you, with Tom and Greg, believe that we are not supposed to absolutely trust God?
Tom: Earlier I said it may be true both that Doc and I are bad communicators and that you’re a lousy listener. Now I’m sure it’s just true that you’re a lousy listener. You really have a hard time hearing people. You gotta work on this bro.
I’ve never said I don’t trust God “absolutely.” I in fact DO trust God absolutely for a great many things. I trust him absolutely to fulfill every absolute promise he’s given: to justify those who repent and trust Christ, to keep all who have faith in him, to hear those who cry to him, to conform to Christ’s image all who walk with him, to come again for all those who wait for him, to redeem their bodies and welcome them into an eternity of bliss. I have no problem affirming as an absolute impossibility the notion that God might not justify those who repent and trust him, might not keep those who exercise faith in him, or might not come again for those who look faithfully for his return. What do you want James? I believe these because this is what I believe Scripture teaches.
God does make absolute promises and can be trusted absolutely to fulfill them. I haven’t denied this. Where you and I disagree (the point on which I have understood this thread to be focused) regards the nature of our perseverance. It’s simply arrogantly Fundamentalist of you to insist that those who believe genuine believers may forfeit their salvation and perish have less regard for the Word of God than you do. You live in a very small world, James. If I were you I’d enlarge it. But then again, I’m not you.
James: Are you absolutely confident and assured that that for which you hope is going to happen?
Tom: I’m absolutely confident and assured that what God has absolutely promised will come to pass.
James: On what is that assurance and confidence based if prophecies have failed?
Tom: The assurance is based on God’s proven character as evidenced in Scripture and experienced by me in life. However, what you call “failed prophecies” are not instances of unconditional promises failing. If what God said would happen doesn’t happen, or if what God said would not happen does happen, these were obviously conditional statements and have nothing to do with undermining our trust in God.
On your deterministic view, however, all conditional statements made by God are necessarily disingenuous. I suppose I could claim you’re undermining the Word of God for believing God to be disingenuous and insist that whatever you say to the contrary is necessarily false because the way I see it is correct and that’s that. (This is what it’s like talking to you, James.)
James: Once again, whence comes this knowledge of God's love?
Tom: The Cross, the Cross, the Cross.
James: And how does it logically follow that knowledge of God's love results in a growth in faith and trust?
Tom: You’ve GOT to be kidding.
James: Faith and trust in what precisely?
Tom: Faith and trust in God in the midst of all possible circumstances of life for whatever we need to be the people God wants us to be in those circumstances. Personally, I don’t require more than this and I don’t see where the Bible offers us more than this.
James: …Doc has [minimalized Scripture]. So has Tom. I know they disagree; but it appears they do not realize the implications of their words -- unless they are being deliberate and disingenuous.
Tom: Actually, all we’ve minimalized is YOUR interpretation of Scripture. It’s only because you think your understanding of Scripture IS Scripture that you think we’re minimalizing Scripture. Actually, it’s because we have such a high view of Scripture that we feel compelled to reject your interpretation of it. I know this is difficult for you to accept, but we all meet our humanity at some point in time, James. Better sooner than later for you bro.
James: What is required to come into the possession of faith?
Tom: God’s gracious offer and the willingness to believe.
I love you in Jesus, James. Really I do. And I pray that God set you free and make you a blessing.
The thread’s all yours bro!
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 05/13/2002 07:44:02 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 5/13/2002 3:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
Why are you re-answering questions I've already asked you? Give someone else a chance. Unlike the OV attitude toward Calvinists and calvinistic believers, I do not automatically assume all Open Theists believe the same thing or have all the same answers. If I ask Winghead the same questions I asked you, it is because I want to know what Winghead's perception or theory is. Have you ever known me to blithely skip over anything in these discussions? I take them line by line, Tom. I will address your answers in due time. I try to reply to posts in the order they are received, with rare exception (such as this one). In which case I make it clear that it is a rare exception.
I might really resent the fact that, despite the amiable discussions you and I have had, you feel warranted in assuming that I'm being deliberately difficult and knuckleheaded (Why would I do this? To what end? Some morbid self-gratification? Please. I have much better use for my time). Instead I'll just assume you've had a momentarily lapse in judgment. I'm only one person, Tom, trying to absorb lots of information, whilst having to also deal with people who don't type what they mean, or else they do type what they mean, but I have others telling me that they meant something else when they didn't. Why don't we let everyone speak for themselves so I don't have to spend time trying to unravel one person's defense of another, only to find out that one person wasn't accurately representing the other. I'm apparently all alone here, and I don't have people rushing to my defense whenever I'm misconstrued. Frankly I prefer it this way -- I don't want others jumping to defend me, and doing so inaccurately. Sometimes days will pass before I have a chance to defend myself. So chill a bit, dude. It's not the end of the world if a misconception or a failed point lingers out there in the ether for a while.
Can you get Cubans at your location?
'Antio,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/13/2002 6:36 AM (GMT -6) | | I apologize for jumping in there Winghead. Don’t let me stop you. Just wanted to tap you on the shoulder so I could dance one last time with James! Thanks for the cut-in. Won’t happen again.
James, thanks for the interaction.
Take care, rest "assured," and keep enjoying the Cubans!
Tom
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/13/2002 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | A mini-comment for Winghead and Tom, fromwww.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/florov_palamas.htm:
(by Fr. George Florovsky)
. . .the whole teaching of St. Gregory presupposes the action of the Personal God. God moves toward man and embraces him by His own "grace" and action, without leaving that phos aprositon [light unapproachable], in which He eternally abides. The ultimate purpose of St. Gregory's theological teaching was to defend the reality of Christian experience. Salvation is more than forgiveness. It is a genuine renewal of man. And this renewal is effected not by the discharge, or release, of certain natural energies implied in man's own creaturely being, but by the "energies" of God Himself, who thereby encounters and encompasses man, and admits him into communion with Himself. In fact, the teaching of St. Gregory affects the whole system of theology, the whole body of Christian doctrine. It starts with the clear distinction between "nature" and "will" of God. This distinction was also characteristic of the Eastern tradition, at least since St. Athanasius. It may be asked at this point: Is this distinction compatible with the "simplicity" of God? Should we not rather regard all these distinctions as merely logical conjectures, necessary for us, but ultimately without any ontological significance? As a matter of fact, St. Gregory Palamas was attacked by his opponents precisely from that point of view. God's Being is simple, and in Him even all attributes coincide. Already St. Augustine diverged at this point from the Eastern tradition. Under Augustinian presuppositions the teaching of St. Gregory is unacceptable and absurd. St. Gregory himself anticipated the width of implications of his basic distinction. If one does not accept it, he argued, then it would be impossible to discern clearly between the "generation" of the Son and "creation" of the world, both being the acts of essence, and this would lead to utter confusion in the Trinitarian doctrine. St. Gregory was quite formal at that point.
If according to the delirious opponents and those who agree with them, the Divine energy in no way differs from the Divine essence, then the act of creating, which belongs to the will, will in no way differ from generation (gennan) and procession (ekporeuein), which belong to the essence. If to create is no different from generation and procession, then the creatures will in no way differ from the Begotten (gennematos) and the Projected (problematos). If such is the case according to them, then both the Son of God and the Holy Spirit will be no different from creatures, and the creatures will all be both the begotten (gennemata) and the projected (problemata) of God the Father, and creation will be deified and God will be arrayed with the creatures. For this reason the venerable Cyril, showing the difference between God's essence and energy, says that to generate belongs to the Divine nature, whereas to create belongs to His Divine energy. This he shows clearly saying, "nature and energy are not the same." If the Divine essence in no way differs from the Divine energy, then to beget (gennan) and to project (ekporeuein) will in no way differ from creating (poiein). God the Father creates by the Son and in the Holy Spirit. Thus He also begets and projects by the Son and in the Holy Spirit, according to the opinion of the opponents and those who agree with them. (Capita 96 and 97.)
St. Gregory quotes St. Cyril of Alexandria. But St. Cyril at this point was simply repeating St. Athanasius. St. Athanasius, in his refutation of Arianism, formally stressed the ultimate difference between ousia [essence] or physis [substance], on the one hand, and the boulesis [will], on the other. God exists, and then He also acts. There is a certain "necessity" in the Divine Being, indeed not a necessity of compulsion, and no fatum, but a necessity of being itself. God simply is what He is. But God's will is eminently free. He in no sense is necessitated to do what He does. Thus gennesis [generation] is always kata physin [according to essence], but creation is a bouleseos ergon [energy of the will] (Contra Arianos III. 64-6). These two dimensions, that of being and that of acting, are different, and must be clearly distinguished. Of course, this distinction in no way compromises the "Divine simplicity." Yet, it is a real distinction, and not just a logical device. St. Gregory was fully aware of the crucial importance of this distinction. At this point he was a true successor of the great Athanasius and of the Cappadocian hierarchs.
. . .
This applies well to the debate about Open verses determined.
(Actually, if Opens will accept it, it removes the thorn from the "classic" lion's paw.......and we can all get along!)
- PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
allryledup
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 27
| Posted 5/13/2002 1:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Winghead wrote:quote:
The mathematical concept of time is NOT the same as sequence. Doc helped me with this paradigm shift. Sequence is more "historical", and relates to events, not objects moving in space. I think Doc is correct when he suggests that God experiences sequence. For example, God created the world before Jesus died on the cross which is before He will come again. Also, scripture is full of places where God talks about something he will do, but has not yet done. However, this does not prove God cannot transcend sequence into the future so he can know events in the future. It just says that God experiences sequence
So, God experiences sequence. Our "sequence" in time is but a vapor to our awesome God. Yet we matter so much that He sent his Son to die for each one of us, His elect, those He predestined. That's when I start thinking about these attempts to reason God's time experience as futile, and the fact is, that's what you must do to support the OV. The OV hinges on conceptualizing time and God's experience. Foreknowledge and God's construct for what we experience is something that may be discussed, which I think Scripture is plenty clear about when you read it honestly, but that's a far cry from trying to create a formula for time as God sees it.
Blessings,
R.J
Edited by - allryledup on 05/13/2002 6:03:52 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/13/2002 1:31 PM (GMT -6) | | R.J., I agree. (The forest often gets reduced to simply a bunch of trees.)
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/13/2002 6:15 PM (GMT -6) | | James,
quote:
How do you know what comprises God's love? I have yet to get a clear definition of it. Pouringagape gave me a bunch of verses, to which I will respond soon. But on your view, where do you learn about it?
First, since God is Love, the answer to your question should be obvious. Like God, whose ways are beyond our ways and whose thoughts above our thoughts, His love is hard to fathom. Doc would tell us that we should look to Jesus to know God's love. God's love looks like death on a cross. Or perhaps, we can look at creation, and see all the variety and the little pleasures that God enabled us to enjoy? He did not have to make us with the ability to see and taste, and smell like he did. Of course, we can also look to scripture to learn about His love. And, as you know, He gives us His Holy Spirit to teach on a day by day basis.
Francis Schaeffer observed we cannot exhaustively know God, but we can truly know something about God. The same goes for God's Love. We cannot know it exhaustively, but we can truly know something about it. Besides, every human being knows when they have been loved the way God loves. They may not know why, but they know when it happens. (Here I am thinking of agape love.)
How would you go about distinguishing between true expressions and definitions of God's love and those that are false? For example, on "Survivor" this week, Vecepia won the "Immunity Challenge." The challenge was to use a slingshot to strike a target that would eliminate the other players. When Vecepia won, she shouted more than a few times, "Thank you, Jesus! Thank you, Jesus!" Did Jesus really help her win? Was this victory Jesus's way of telling her that He loved her?
1. Scripture tells us what true love looks like. 1 Cor 13
2. God's love will result in the fruit of the Spirit.
3. God's love will result in worship and glorifying God.
The "Suvivor" show (I don't watch it) example you give may reflect Vecepia's love for God, but this is not a setting I would use to teach on the love of God. Now, if she was willing to give her life for someone on the show, THAT would illustrate God's love. BTW, these "suvivor" shows are so anti-Biblical, as well as anti-humanity, and in some way, anti-common sense. Working together is always better than working against each other. It is like the devil set the rules.
Winghead writes:quote:
In this process, as we realize how much God loves us, we are able to trust him more.
James:quote:
Trust Him more for what precisely?
Just trust him. Why must it always be trusting him "FOR" something. Why cannot we trust him to BE GOD? Why not trust him, as he has asked us to trust him? It is only Satan that questions God's motives. Why are you working so hard to show that we do not trust God, or do not Love God? Perhaps it is because you listening to the accusor of the bretheren?
James, in response to my quote of 1 John 4:16quote:
Precisely how have we known and believe the love that God has for us?
Again, you are working your agenda. You are working to tear down. You sound like a postmodern deconstructionist. Listen to yourself!
quote:
Precisely how does the love of God help us to trust Him?
Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance. 1 Cor. 13:7 (NLT)
Because, it dwells in us. Because it IS the Love of God. Because as we Love God, God lives in us (1 John 4:16).
James:
quote:
I trust my wife, but not absolutely, because I know she is finite and human and has the tendency to fail. Same with me. She knows she cannot trust me absolutely. I fall short often.
Of course, as Paul said, "I put no confidence in the flesh". No matter how trustworthy people might be, they have the potential to fail us. However, God is not like us. YOU KNOW THAT! Don't YOU trust God?
quote:
Do you, with Tom and Greg, believe that we are not supposed to absolutely trust God?
Not at All!!! Where did you get that idea? All we are saying is that God cannot be trusted to be mellodramatic like a Disney movie or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. God is God. God is a consuming fire. It is not a trite being to by toyed with!
It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Heb. 10:31 (NLT)
That said, God tells us to trust him, to have faith, to come to him for guidance, to honor him, to obey him, and, he asks us to love him.
quote:
Are you absolutely confident and assurred that that for which you hope is going to happen? On what is that assurance and confidence based if prophecies have failed?
There are different kinds of revelation that God gives us. Some are conditional. God's dealing with Israel during the time of the Kings was conditional upon their obedience and fidelity. Even when unfaithful, God sought them to repent and turn back to him.
Some prophecies of destruction are given as a warning to turn back, and as such, are conditional.
Others, like the prophecies about the messiah and the new heaven and new earth are eternal, and are a part of God's overall plan for the universe.
The OV does not have problems with recognizing and understanding these distinctions, any more than Calvinism has. It is only in man's vain disputes and speculations that we are forced to response to questions like this.
Winghead writes:quote:
While God has demonstrated his faithfulness to us, and scripture is a major part of this testimony, and Doc never minimalizes scripture, faith is not purely an intellectual exercise.
quote:
But Doc has. So has Tom. I know they disagree; but it appears they do not realize the implications of their words -- unless they are being deliberate and disingenuous.
Not at all! You might accuse them of many things, but this is not one of them. You put words in their mouths. You twist their words. Your remind me of the pharisees who were always trying to trap Jesus.
You talk about Jesus chasing the money changers from the temple, but James, this is not the temple, it is Greg Boyd's web site, and you are a guest!!!
Winghead:quote:
Trusting God is not something we can toss into a bucket with our theological and philosophical systems.
James:quote:
Is that how you view your theology? As something tossed into a bucket? Theology is the study of God and His relation to creation. Shouldn't we have a much higher regard for theology? Why shouldn't the topic of trusting God be included in one's theological system? Wouldn't you agree that one's theology will affect one's trust in God?
Praise God! You are now twisting my words. I must have graduated to the same high disregard as Tom and Greg! You honor me. 
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 | | |
| 235 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:50 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 |
|
|